Most overrated unit

[Ironsword]

Controversial, but I'd say Halberdiers, good, but not that good.

[Drunk-Monk]

Feudal knights, hard to build very easy to kill...

[Kamakazi]

Feudal knights, hard to build very easy to kill...

lol agsin i agree with you monk...we seem to think a lot alike

[seireikhaan]

Gendarmes. The requirements to train them are absolutely insane, even harder to get than Chivalric Knights, and Gendarmes aren't even as good, not even close because they lack a real good charge and have no armor piercing bonus.

[bondovic]

I don't have a clue, since I don't know how people rate the units - but one I don't like given the requirements is Lithuanian cavalry.

[Heidrek]

Chivalric Knights and Gothic Knights. Just plain not worth it. You want your cavalry to break the enemy with their charge, not stand and fight it out and take losses. They're noice to have, but most of the time is just not necessary. you Royal Knights come freely with each new heir and are just as good or better despite their small unit size.

I actually prefer Feudal Knights simply because they are easier to build and pack a similar punch on the charge.

[Martok]

Pikemen. They're of course very good against cavalry and most infantry, but are ridiculously vulnerable to flanking attacks and missile fire. (Naturally, SAP are the exception to this rule, but of course they can only be trained in Switzerland.)

Also, I find that most gunpowder field units (excepting cannons & bombards) are of questionable worth, particularly given their cost and build requirements.

[macsen rufus]

In the vanilla game, then pikemen do seem to be one of the biggest wastes of space/effort. When I want to play with pikes I'll do it properly and fire up PMTW :2thumbsup:

I also recall being a bit underwhelmed by Gendarmes, the one and only time I've ever tried them. So far I've never had any of the Gothic units - probably finishing the game before finishing the tech requirements, and playing the wrong factions ~D

But I do find that every unit needs to be used in the right way to get the best out of it. Halbs are a good case in point - heavy armour, anti-cav, AP attack, but total scaredy cats :laugh4: And THAT's where your gunpowder units come in - they scare the living daylights out of halberdiers... but what bugs me with gunpowder units is that as soon as you start fielding them the weather turns to complete :daisy: and it rains for the rest of the campaign :yes:

[caravel]

Chivalric Knights and Gothic Knights. Just plain not worth it. You want your cavalry to break the enemy with their charge, not stand and fight it out and take losses. They're noice to have, but most of the time is just not necessary. you Royal Knights come freely with each new heir and are just as good or better despite their small unit size.
Gothic Knights I agree, it takes so long to tech up to them that you've usually finished the campaign before they become available anyway.

On Chivalric Knights though I disagree. Chivalric Knights on the other hand do take quite some teching up but are worth it, have a good charge and more importantly can be dismounted to Chivalric Foot Knights at any time - and when you have CFKs you don't need halbardiers.


I actually prefer Feudal Knights simply because they are easier to build and pack a similar punch on the charge.
Feudal Knights actually take far too much to tech up to. As a turtling player I usually find that when I can finally train feudal knights it's the high era and they're obsolete anyway.

[m52nickerson]

On Chivalric Knights though I disagree. Chivalric Knights on the other hand do take quite some teching up but are worth it, have a good charge and more importantly can be dismounted to Chivalric Foot Knights at any time - and when you have CFKs you don't need halbardiers.


I think Chivalric Knights are over rated. The best use for them is as foot knights. Even then they are only really needed in castle or bridge battles.

Halberdiers work fine in the open field if backed up right. it also helps if they are trained in a province with a cathedral. Plus they are much cheaper.

[Roark]

Lancers are the only cavalry that are actually better than Chivalric Knights... and you guys are saying that they're... overrated?

What more do you want?


You want your cavalry to break the enemy with their charge, not stand and fight it out and take losses.

Chivs have a charge of 8, which is the maximum for cavalry, bro.

:dizzy2:

[Roark]

Oh, it's about the build reqs.

Maybe I'll actually read the thread next time. Duh.

[m52nickerson]

Chivalric Knights are very good, but there are other cheaper calvary that can charge the flanks and break a line.

Polish retainers, Mounted sergeants - also have a charge of 8, plus much better stamina so they can be used more.

You can go through a campaign without them, and after a few battles will not miss them.

[Roark]

Stamina, dude?

[Jxrc]

Hate to say this but CMA would have to be my choice.
Unit looks cool and all but that the one I can easily do without.

[caravel]

Chivalric Knights are very good, but there are other cheaper calvary that can charge the flanks and break a line.

Polish retainers, Mounted sergeants - also have a charge of 8, plus much better stamina so they can be used more.

You can go through a campaign without them, and after a few battles will not miss them.

CFK are statistically superior to the above and there is no "stamina" stat in MTW. Mounted Sergeants are certainly not any substitute for CFK either and polish retainers are starting to look average alongside CFK:

CFK:

Elite
Charge 8
Melee 5
Defense 5
Armour 7
Honour 8


PR:

Elite
Charge 8
Melee 3
Defense 5
Armour 5
Honour 6


MoS:

Non-elite
Charge 8
Melee 2
Defense 2
Armour 3
Honour 2

Mounted Sergeants are ok for mopping up routers or charging weaker units in the flank. Polish retainers are great if you're the Poles, but CFK still have my vote, apart from when in the desert.

[m52nickerson]

Maybe it is just me but it seems that Retainers can run around the field for a longer time then CFK.

My point was all the units have the same charge rating. So if you are mainly using your calvary mainly to sweep around the flanks and charge the rear, the cheaper units will do nearly as good of job.

Now if you plan on having your calvary hack it out with other units CFK will do a better job.

[Vider]

These threads seem to be focusing attacking strength vs. build requirements, but I would tend to answer from a more personal perspective.

I usually do overrate Chivalric Knights. By that I mean I think they can do too much and end up losing a large number of knights when better tactics would have shifted those losses to cheaper units like spearmen.

Also, I tend to overrate Jinetes when the AI has control. Used properly (player controlled) they can be a great unit, but I've always hated facing the Spanish. But more recently I've handled AI Jinetes surprisingly easily.

Both things reflect more my growth as a player than inherent characteristics of a unit, but really the value of a unit is mostly in how you use it.

[Brandy Blue]

In my opinion the most overrated units are the uber units (gothic knights, lancers, Janissaries, Hashasin,etc). I have the usual complaint. By the time I'm teched up to them, victory is already inevitable. XL seems to help with that problem if you start in the late period. As the Hospitaliers I used my Hosp knights a reasonable amount. But there are many factions I have not played on late XL so I don't know if it always helps.

[Heidrek]

Chivalric FOOT Knights I love. Perfect anti cavalry unit abut double as a tough general unfantry unit as well.

Here's the thing about Chivalric Knights, while they are a strong unit - no doubt, I mainly use cavalry to break pinned units and start a rout or chase down skirmishers. CK's do this extremely well, but most of the time, if a CK charge would break a unit, a Feudal Knight or even Mounted Sergeant charge would do the same thing.

CK's are better at standing and fighting once the charge has stopped, but thats NOT what I want my cavalry to do. Once they get into a Melee, they start taking losses and lose their mobility.

A charge of Mounted Sergeants in Wedge formation has an attack value of 13 (8 charge, 2 attack, +3 attack and -3 defense thanks to Wedge). A Charge of CK's in normal close formation has the same strength, 13. Chivalric Knights cost about 4 time as much to build and upkeep, require a great deal more investment in infrastructure and time, and can usually only be trained in a couple of your provinces at best.

Also, you can't get Valour +1 versions by building a Master Horse Breeder, whereas even a Keep level province can build you Val +1 Mounted Sergeants. MS are available right from the start, cheap to build, and with an armour and/or weapons upgrade or two and +1 valour they can not only charge well, but stand and fight as well.

CK's can run down an infantry unit in the field head on, sure and they'll probably break it fairy quickly unless it's a Spear unit, but it will take losses doing so, and more than likely, while your knights are fighting it out, other enemy units will join the fight and hammer your knights. You might even lose them because of this. If you wait until the battle is joined, then use them to break an engaged unit, thats fine, but you could probably get the same result from a cheaper more easily produced Cavalry unit.

If I want heavy cavalry, I'll most likely use Feudal Knights, simply because the have the same charge and only 1 less attack. their Defense and Armour are good as well, but they are much easier to produce - available at castle level.

Better yet, I'll find an Iron province, and start producing Weapon and Armour upgraded MS with +1 valour. Consider what a Val +1, weapon +1 armour +2 MS Looks like:

Charge 8
Attack:4
Defense: 3
Armour: 5
Morale: 6

Thats pretty tight for a unit that only costs 175. Given that I'll need to get to Castle level to build the weaponsmith though I may as well tech up to Feudal Knights and build one or two of those as well.

CK's are fierce, but most of the time I could achieve the same result much cheaper and with less effort. And I love sending a Mounted Crossbows unit to Engage CK's. The CK's never catch them and the xbows just sit there picking them off or lead them back to your line where your missile troops shred that armour and nail them to the ground

[Caliburn]

Gendarmes, Gothic Knights and Lancers are redundant in my opinion, and they have very steep requirements. Gothic Sergeants are pretty redundant too, I've never managed to use them in a campaign.

I'd use Chivalric Knights only as infantry. Cavalry tactics can be perilous, and it's more expensive to lose Chivalric Knights to a horde of camels than a unit of Steppe Cavalry for example. Even Mounted Sergeants are good enough for the basic uses of cavalry. If I want super heavy cavalry, I'll use High Royal Knights... The same stats, but a lot more tactical flexibility (smaller unit size).

Feudal Knights seem even worse, as you can't dismount them in regular battles, they're somewhat expensive, and their upkeep is quite steep (steeper then Chivalric Knights if I recall correctly...). Of course, in Early, they're a strong anti-cavalry unit, as anti-cavalry infantry is weaker than in High, so they actually serve a purpose.

Halberdiers seem to work OK, but I'd use them with Chivalric Sergeants. They kill horses and spearmen, so I'll put them in the middle of the formation, sometimes at the flanks too. Chivalric Foot Knights are a heavy infantry reserve that can plug the gaps and kill the strongest enemies when need be.

I agree with Pikemen - too weak for such heavy requirements. If they were spammable (i.e. available from low tech provinces), they would work better. They'd be a decent defensive/garrison unit providing cavalry cover for the high kill-rate units, i.e. missile troops, with a decent kill potential and high casualty rate. I'd rather kill Pikemen than Slav Warriors and Spanish Javelinmen on Late...


Note: I've removed Armour and Weapon upgrades from the game, so the dynamics might be a bit different.

Edit: Sorry for repeating what others, esp. Heidrek just said.

[bondovic]

Regarding the debate on CKs and other high tech cavalry.

One thing I like doing is to reduce speed by 1 point per 1 point of armour above 2 for infantry and above 3 for cavalry. Along with this I bump the charge in the same manner but while I give 1 point per armour for infantry I give 2 points for cavalry.

Some cavalry units, like Gendarmes, are simply not intended to be chargers. I can respect this, on the condition that I allow myself to lower the requirements. These cavalry units I give some arbitrary increase to the charge to reflect their heavy armour and compensate for their lack of mobility.

[jsberry]

I vote for "Futile Knights." I would rather use Mounted Seargents, which are easier to build, cheaper to buy and maintain, and equal in the charge.

Generally, IMO, the more advanced a unit is, the more over-rated it is. Give me Spearmen, Archers, and Mounted Seargents any day, even in the Late period. Generalship, Valor, and iron/armor upgrades are all that's needed to even the playing field.

[caravel]

The thing is that it's not the game that overrates the units. They cost a lot and do give you the edge which is what counts. There is nothing worse than "uber" units that once they become available render many other units obsolete. I think that with such units it's often the case that the player assumes that they will be "tanks" and simply hurls them at the enemy with somehwhat violent abandon. I've found that the more potent units are almost always best used as flankers. It is far better to have a cheaper spear unit pinning the enemy down and your expensive units charging the rear or flanks, than to simply let them "duke it out", taking many losses in the process.

[bamff]

The thing is that it's not the game that overrates the units. They cost a lot and do give you the edge which is what counts. There is nothing worse than "uber" units that once they become available render many other units obsolete. I think that with such units it's often the case that the player assumes that they will be "tanks" and simply hurls them at the enemy with somehwhat violent abandon. I've found that the more potent units are almost always best used as flankers. It is far better to have a cheaper spear unit pinning the enemy down and your expensive units charging the rear or flanks, than to simply let them "duke it out", taking many losses in the process.

Well said Cynwulf! A very valid point indeed. A case in point for me was Jinettes. For ages I regarded them as absolutely useless - they lacked the range of horse archer types, and the toughness of other mounted units.....and then I learned how to use them properly.....

[Martok]

Well said Cynwulf! A very valid point indeed. A case in point for me was Jinettes. For ages I regarded them as absolutely useless - they lacked the range of horse archer types, and the toughness of other mounted units.....and then I learned how to use them properly.....

["Hah! They'll learn. Oh yes, they'll all learn...." Martok giggles madly]

[Vider]

I vote for "Futile Knights." I would rather use Mounted Seargents, which are easier to build, cheaper to buy and maintain, and equal in the charge.

Generally, IMO, the more advanced a unit is, the more over-rated it is. Give me Spearmen, Archers, and Mounted Seargents any day, even in the Late period. Generalship, Valor, and iron/armor upgrades are all that's needed to even the playing field.

I follow you on MS, but do you really prefer archers to arbalasters? I suppose if you're facing a horde of lightly armored units but by late I would think for the tough battles the AP would be critical.

[jsberry]

You might be right, I forgot the training cost and upkeep are really not that different between archers and abmolesters. But continuing with the thread, I think missle troops in general are over-rated (unless the Horde is coming). I'd rather charge in and fight hand-to-hand any day. Missile troops will make a few kills and then run away.

[Caliburn]

In my opinion, armour and weapon upgrades break the balance of the game, just as well as valour bonuses from generals... This makes bow units less useful afer the mid-point of Early era. Having removed Armour and Weapon upgrades, archers remain a potent and a useful force. No more +3 armour Peasants or Fanatics with 20 man losses from huge masses of salvos ("then we'll fight in the shade!"). They never lose their usefulness as HA killers anyway, although Arbs usually work much better.

Arbalests, on the other hand, are never useless in my battles. They cause a lot of casualties, outrange almost everything, and force the enemy to make a move unless they want to get shot to death. A few units of arbalests work well even with cheap early units like spearmen and javelins supported with Mounted Sergeants, such stacks are perfect for ambushing and baiting even decent enemy armies.

One thing about the armour upgrades, though. They make Constantinople a much sweeter prize, don't they? +3 defence to Ghazi infantry is already a heart-warming idea...