weakest faction

[Kalle]

Well Cheetah - I totally agree with you - it is most often not wise to bring egyptians to lush or temperate climates - but the climates im talking of (and I think Crand and Tempiic to) and in which their cav indeed will defeat for instance lancers is in arid or of course desert.

And for the catholics being able to play many different styles of combat that is true for egypt to. They can handle pavise shootinggames - they can handle cavskirmish (this is what you would want when fielding egyptians)- and so on.

Their only weekness is one that i think we all agree upon - their infantry that die so fast in melee. (thier infantry has strenght to but against good players its very hard to use it)

It could be argued of course that factions that cant be used in all climates are week but i dont think that is good argumenting and if so well then - lets say Spain - is not a good faction since they cant handle desert well.

Also i think i should make clear that im talking of 15000 florins games or just above. This kind of money does not allow for any overpowered knights while your own egyptian cav are boosted with weapons and valour for the same price as the western knights.

If you have lets say 90000 florins to buy troops for well then its possible to upgrade lets say lancers so much that they cannot be beaten headon even by camels.

I once ( yes one time is probably the same as no time at all but i wanna tell anyway) tried it out in Arid. One unit of lancers against one unit of camels both fully upgraded. The camels lost but they killed about half of the lancers. Needless to say the lancers cost were several times higher then the camels.

Kalle

[Crandaeolon]

Heh, I think there was some miscommunication involved. I sort of automatically assume that the "big picture" of armies is taken into account when I talk about unit comparisons. Scrutinizing individual units against other individual units without any kind of strategy planning as the goal is, of course, mostly pointless. However, it's funny how some peeps here contradict themselves by saying "don't compare individual units" and right after that they make a whole bunch of comparisons...

About the Turks: They do get "discounted" upgrades for the various skirmisher-type units, but the benefit is not that impressive. If we spend about 1.2k florins for each melee unit, the Turkish Janissary Inf still lose to a fresh CMAA unit - meaning those CMAA's must be softened first. That's what the bow is for, of course.

Overall it doesn't matter _that_ much what units are picked. The difference is about 10-15% IIRC, excluding some units like Byz Inf and Lancers that are more heavily out of balance. Yuuki could probably tell us frighteningly exact numbers...

[Kongamato]

Can someone please tell me about the combat bonuses surrounding Lush and Temperate climates as well as the rain? If rain soaks armor and affixes penalties to armored units, then the Egyptians could use their unarmored infantry to good effect in Lush and Temperate climates, as it seems to rain so much over there. However, do the Egyptians suffer from penalties in Lush and Temperate, or is that just their camels? If so forget it.

[Tempiic]

As far as i know the only specific unit bonusses/penalties based on climates i know off are camels.... bonus for sandy desert, penalty for lush/temperate....

The rest just comes down to the amount of armour the unit is wearing.

[lonewolf371]

Bows don't work as well in rain, around which almost all Moslem strategies are centered. On desert Moslems move faster and easier, in addition to the fact that camels perform better in the desert, of which the Almohads have the best.

[Mithrandir]

My vote :

this URL deleted at Mithrandir's request. < replay file

[Mithrandir]

Quote[/b] (lonewolf371 @ April 11 2003,20:54)]Bows don&#39;t work as well in rain, around which almost all Moslem strategies are centered. On desert Moslems move faster and easier, in addition to the fact that camels perform better in the desert, of which the Almohads have the best.

Almos dont have the best. Egyptians have. Better camels&better horse archers.

[Stormer]

its france or poland

[Mithrandir]

Quote[/b] (Stormer @ April 16 2003,06:25)]its france or poland

lol no, French get horse archers and all the usual catholic units. French may be one of the weaker cath factions, but not nearly the weakest of all. Danes come before French imo. Polish arent weak either. There special unit may not be much, but it offers an alternative cav nnetheless, and they have other basic units which are strong too, like the French.

I&#39;ve seen many battles and only one thing is for sure, the best general will usually win (except against Byz).

[ShadesPanther]

Quote[/b] (Mithrandir @ April 16 2003,10:45)]My vote :

this URL deleted at Mithrandir's request. < replay file

hmm , posted today, russians vs byz and spanish, hmm sounds familar.
Oi
I demand a rematch

[Mithrandir]

Quote[/b] (ShadesPanther @ April 16 2003,07:42)]

Quote[/b] (Mithrandir @ April 16 2003,10:45)]My vote :

this URL deleted at Mithrandir's request. < replay file

#hmm , posted today, russians vs byz and spanish, hmm sounds familar.
Oi #
I demand a rematch #

any time . At least my ally now knows to buy more than 2 valour for his Byz inf ,so it should be better still now .

Was quite a suprise that match ,and very fun .

[ShadesPanther]

it was very fun. he main problem was having 8 pavs versus 2 pav arbs and 2 pav xbows. We should have charged way befre we did.
his VG saved him and definatly saved you at the end. If my men hadnt been pounded for about 20 minutes they probably could have beaten his VG

[Stormer]

Quote[/b] ]lol no, French get horse archers and all the usual catholic units. French may be one of the weaker cath factions, but not nearly the weakest of all. Danes come before French imo. Polish arent weak either. There special unit may not be much, but it offers an alternative cav nnetheless, and they have other basic units which are strong too, like the French.

I&#39;ve seen many battles and only one thing is for sure, the best general will usually win (except against Byz).

erm danes are not weaker then frech they get vikings *slaps Mith with a wet fish*
also what factions weaker then france. Almodhads ? nope they get camel archers and the mighty inf.
russians get good boyars.

[Cheetah]

Quote[/b] (Stormer @ April 16 2003,10:58)]also what factions weaker then france ?

The Egyptians

[ShadesPanther]

not nescesarily , It all depends on the skill of the general and tactics used. For example Tyhe Turks in early use mobile tactics because you cannot stand toe to toe with factions like HRE and France, The tactic is to use Turkomen horse archers and AHC and use futuwwas and ghazis and maybe muguwaid.
In SP it is easy to say who is weak because it depends on generals, position and tresery potential but in MP it is quite hard to say who is weak. A good general can beat you with danes or egyptians or turks in early or other factions.

And the Byzantines do require skill because Byzantine Infantry brek quite easily and VG are not available in Late and their cav is good but they all have big weaknesses
eg Byz cav - Horse archer hybrid but lacks speed and fights ok but not great
Kats - VERY Heavy cav that is Very slow but has a very good charge...when it gets there
PA - Probably the best Heavy cav but is more bordering on medium cav (more a light heavy cav or heavy medium cav if you will) can&#39;t really stand up to Western cav that well.

So really it is all relative to the general&#39;s skill

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I can lose with pretty much all factions. And I have been defeated by all factions.

So I second Panther.

Louis,

[Cheetah]

Well, I am not saying that it is not possible to win with the Egyptians, because obviously it is possible. But I know that I have lost battles with the Egyptians that I would have won with a decent christian army. (and keep in mind: temperate or lush&#33

[ElmarkOFear]

Play egyptian army on arid, late period, setting and neither christian or muslim armies receive any penalties. Now to explain why I have pointed this out: In late period Egyptian army has handgunners, bedouin camel warriors, pavise arbs and arquebusiers. If anyone doubts the power of these 4 units, then I can send you a replay to show this same army leading the charge uphill in a 4v4 game against very good players, a couple of them extremely good at camping. This army consisted of the 6 overpowered handgunner units (val 4 armor 2), 4 arbs (2 at val 1, 2 at val 0), 5 bedouin camel warrriors (val 4 with one of them being my general) and lastly 1 arquebusier (val 4 arm3). This was a 20K florin game and hillyinland 29 was the map. This army had to charge around 8 pavs & arques, uphill, and once it engaged the enemy armies it was charged by byz inf, byz cav, kataphraktoi, gothic knights, chiv men at arms and gothic sergeants. My army was able to hold until the rest of the team arrived to flank and take some of the pressure off my army. The thing I like about this game is even against the odds if you spot a weakness in the enemy forces you can force them to react to save themselves, thus opening up a good line of attack for your partners. I would have definitely lost if my partners had not arrived as quickly as they did once I engaged the enemy, but this army held against a lot of missile, gunpowder, horse and byz infantry units. Try it and see for yourselves, but be forewarned: It take awhile to become proficient at using it.

[Cheetah]

Thx Elmo the tip. I have no doubt about the strength of your handgunner army Usually I dont play late period but I will give it a try.

[ElmarkOFear]

There is one big weakness with my egyptian army, but I am not telling everyone. Some know already from having dispensed with my army in battle. But head to head, no double or triple team, this army can take care of itself.

[Aelwyn]

In the late period I definitely like the Egyptians. They get to use gunpowder units which I like having (both arqs and handgunners). They have Camels in late, which can beat any kind of cavs, especially on v4, in arid or desert. The problem with Egypt comes in the high period. They have Camels, they&#39;ve got Nizaris and Arbs, but they lack not only a good spear unit, but also a good sword unit. Abyssinians can be modified with armour to be better, but don&#39;t have the balance that christian sword units have. An Abyssinian unit either almost always wins by a lot or looses by a lot.

The only faction with a worse disadvantage IMO in Multiplayer are the Turks. Of course this doesn&#39;t apply as much in 1v1, but 2v2 and up they&#39;ve got problems to deal with.

[Mithrandir]

Quote[/b] (Aelwyn @ April 19 2003,01:43)]In the late period I definitely like the Egyptians. They get to use gunpowder units which I like having (both arqs and handgunners). They have Camels in late, which can beat any kind of cavs, especially on v4, in arid or desert. The problem with Egypt comes in the high period. They have Camels, they&#39;ve got Nizaris and Arbs, but they lack not only a good spear unit, but also a good sword unit. Abyssinians can be modified with armour to be better, but don&#39;t have the balance that christian sword units have. An Abyssinian unit either almost always wins by a lot or looses by a lot.

The only faction with a worse disadvantage IMO in Multiplayer are the Turks. Of course this doesn&#39;t apply as much in 1v1, but 2v2 and up they&#39;ve got problems to deal with.

Egyptians arent weak, not at all.

No spear units ? Who needs spear units hen you can buy camels ?

Who said you need ab guards at the same strength as christian infantry ? Tis an error in thought a huge amount of players make...

The way I play egyptians ,there;s little need for strong infantry...well...in MTW that is

Egyptians are nowhere near the weaknes of Russians, almohads are even better than egyptians, and french...they&#39;re just Italians with slightly weaker cav but with horse archers...

[tgi01]

Maybe close this thread and restart it with the VI factions


Mith what is it with you and camels ????




TGI