army composition

[jedi121212]

I am playing as the Egyptians and was wondering what would be a good army composition for early. I am bringing in the cash and I wanna make at least three stacks.

[Vantek]

Depends on whom you're fighting :P

In standard terms, Saracen infantry are a good backbone unit, with Abyssinians or Ghazi infantry as flankers. Personally, I LOVE Ghazi infantry. Cheap, fast and fanatical! Abyssinians piss me off with their outrageous support cost. I take it the crossbow haven't been researched yet, so Desert Archers is really your only choice for a foot ranged unit. So something like 6 Saracen infantry 6 Desert archers 2 Ghazi/Abyssinians 2 cavalry (including your general) would be an extremely simple combo with no obvious flaw.

However, Egyptians' main strength is cavalry, and when you are fighting relatively lightly armoured and mobile Turks and Almohads, mobility of your own is valuable, and on the other hand Byzantines are too strong to take head on, so you'll have to use a lot of harassment tactics instead. Plus, cavalry is fun for a change after the typical Halb+Arb nonsense. So I would actually use a pretty cavalry heavy combo. Churn out Mamluk cavalry from Egypt, Mamluk horse archers from Sinai, and cheap Bedouine camels from other sources. Use something like, 2 Saracen inf 2 Dessert Archer, 4 Mamluk cav 6 Mamluk HA 2 camels.

Horse Archer heavy armies win against: 1) lightly armoured armies with none or few foot archers 2) cavalry, even armoured (Katatanks die vs fast horse archers). They suck against heavily armoured armies with many foot archers, in that case you need to use Saracen infantry + Desert archer heavy combo of your own.

Somewhat paradoxically I would prefer to use mobile armies on defense and slow sturdy armies on attack. If the enemy turtles on high ground, you can't approach his position with horse archers without getting torn apart by missile fire. However, if it's the enemy that has to approach YOU, you can make life very difficult for him with guerilla tactics. If HE is the attacker, just retreat until he leaves himself vulnerable chasing you, then make a quick surgical strike and retreat before he can reinforce. A lot of fun.

But again, it depends entirely on whom you're facing. If the enemy has zero foot archers, you don't need a single foot unit of your own. Kill horse archers with cavalry and cavalry with horse archers (and camels!) :P Of course infantry without archer support are just sitting ducks and get completely ripped apart by horse archers.

Just my thoughts ^^

[jedi121212]

Thanks. I was going to compose one of my armies with five armenian heavy calvalry, desert archers, and Saracen Infantry. I will try those Ideas.

[Empirate]

I'm writing all this from memory, haven't actually played the game in a while. Forgive any errors, please.


Most of the time, Sahara Cavalry trained in Cyrenaica with a Master Horsebreeder is the most cost-effective cavalry you can get. Quite hard-hitting, cheap, fast, and expendable. Great stuff. Once you've conquered the deserts, add Master Armorer in Cyrenaica to make them more durable in non-desert conditions.

Also - Mithrandir would approve - don't underestimate the lowly Bedouin Camel Warrior. Obtainable from only a fort in several provinces and dirt cheap, those are very easy to spam early. It's a hard unit to counter in masses, as it kills all cavalry the enemy sends against it, and can run away from all infantry. Beware masses of well-protected archers, though. Even in my high and later armies, Bedouin Camel Warriors occasionally find a place, if only as a cheap specialized counter to knights.

Nubian Spearmen are easy to get in numbers, too, and not bad (much better than the Catholic regular Spearmen, and Disciplined to boot). Saracen Infantry is equal to Chivalric Sergeants in most regards, but available earlier. If you're not fighting in the desert, SI is the massive spear backbone you want. In the deserts, Nubians are still better.

Ghazis are another fantastic cheap unit. Use as flankers from a solid Saracen Infantry base, or as a second wave. This way not quite so many of them will die, and they will often deliver the shock which routs the enemy.

Desert Archers are simply better than normal archers (fast, loose formation, and slightly better in melee). Quite good for a long time, don't underestimate these guys. In a missile duel, they fare much better than you might be inclined to think.

Mamluk Archers are my favorite unit in the Egyptian lineup except for Nizaris. Trained in Sinai, they're better than Faris, and can be employed in a number of roles: missile support, bait, medium attack cavalry... Best of all, they can switch between roles at a moment's notice. Not quite as good as Steppe Heavy Cavalry, but very good all the same.

Mamluk Cavalry is a bit too mediocre for my taste. At the time they arrive, even the armor-piercing bonus doesn't put them on the same footing as "true" heavy cavalry. They have their niche as medium cavalry, I suppose - but you've got their more flexible Archer brothers for that. OK unit if you need a heavier kind of cavalry now.

Mamluk Gunners are crap. Wouldn't touch them with a standard-issue 10' pole. The saving grace of regular (Catholic) Gunners is their ability to hold out in melee for a long time. Mamluk Gunners, being the cheap version, are stripped of armor...

Ghulam Cavalry is called heavy cavalry, but in actuality it's nothing more than glorified light cavalry. They're worse than both types of Mamluk cavalry, and have higher prereqs. Even with a valor bonus, they're not worth it, unless you're really strapped for cavalry. I'd take Cyrenaican Saharans over these any day of the week: much, much more cost-effective.

Faris are very good, if not as good as the Russian or Hungarian heavy horse archer types. Slightly better attackers than Mamluk Archers, a bit less durable, but Elite instead of Disciplined. Good all around. Mamluk Archers are a bit better when trained in Sinai though, whereas Faris have no "home ground". Still, get Faris instead of or on top of Mamluk Archers all you like - the difference in game is minimal.

Abyssinian Guards just don't cut it in my book. They're not at all like Ghazis, although that's what you read a lot: They're not fast, not quite as fanatical (although they do have high morale), don't have that high a charge bonus, and have much higher defense - though they're still far from durable. In practice this means they lack a role. They're not flankers (not fast, mediocre charge), they're not line infantry (they still die much too fast for that at base defense 0). Combined with their comparatively high cost and building requirements, Abyssinians have no place in my armies. The only times I tried them out they disappointed.

Nizaris are the cream of the cream. I once trained a full stack of silver-armored Nizaris with a Master Swordsmith in Syria and sent them on a pillaging run into France. This stack could handily defeat well-balanced Catholic armies (lots of CMAA, Royal Knights, Arbalests...). Very much worth the wait. A pity you don't get a real hybrid unit earlier. Oh, and they're actually very good as part of regular armies, too. Nizaris are deadly archers, and the ultimate flanking unit. They're fast, and no unit in the game has a higher charge bonus except for Gallowglasses and Knights! A bit like Ghazis plus bows.

[Vantek]

armenian heavy calvalry
Ooh, I forgot about them/didn't know you've advanced so far already. Yes, they're excellent.


Mamluk Cavalry is a bit too mediocre for my taste. At the time they arrive, even the armor-piercing bonus doesn't put them on the same footing as "true" heavy cavalry. They have their niche as medium cavalry, I suppose - but you've got their more flexible Archer brothers for that. OK unit if you need a heavier kind of cavalry now.
Hmm... I think you might be right.

Mamluk horse archers
Charge 2 Attack 3 Defence 1 Armour 3 Speed 9, 20, 22 Morale 4 Cost 375 Support cost 70 Elite and have a small shield.

Mamluk cavalry
Charge 4 Attack 2 Defence 3 Armour 4 Speed 9, 20, 22 Morale 4 Cost 275 Support cost 70 Elite and armour piercing, also have a small shield.

Then again, if you consider they will get +1 Valour from Egypt, and are 25% cheaper, and if you face armoured opposition at all, they just might be worth it. The thing is, for a certain time, there aren't really any options to replace them with. I would not build them from any place other than Egypt though.

Wait a second, isn't there something like Khwarazmian cavalry in the Egyptian roster? They're too heavy for the desert, but once you leave the desert they might be worth a consideration.

[jedi121212]

Thanks for the tips. I have three stacks guarding chokepoints and am in the process of making 3 more. The year is 1214. I own all of africa, and asia minor.

[Vantek]

Well in that case you've won anyway :P GG ^^

[jedi121212]

lol. I am waiting for the golden horde to appear. The Bynt. have got alot of land north and hopefully they will be attacked. My target is Iberia.

[Vantek]

Damned Golden Horde... I guess you'll need to go heavy on infantry after all. But wait a second, that's not Early anymore, that's High. Isn't the Crossbow available and even the Arbalest likewise? You'll need these against the Horde, Desert Archers will fall way flat. Also means that Mamluk cav can have its use given the armoured mongol heavy cavalry and warriors. Do camels get their bonus in the provinces where the Golden Horde likes to appear? If yes, they could be worth spamming.


Also - Mithrandir would approve - don't underestimate the lowly Bedouin Camel Warrior.
God, I was reminded of that almost the hard way today as the danged camels nearly cost me a battle that I thought was in the basket. They are such a pain in the butt if you have a lot of cavalry. And what were you saying about the Mamluk cavalry Empirate, they routed my General's unit of Feudal Knights like it was nobody's business.

[Roark]

Empirate is on the money. If cash is no object whatsoever, these are some killer armies, IMHO:

OFFENCE (Horde / Desert)

1 Ghulam Bodyguard (General). Preferably a Bedouin General with some stars, but they are rare.
3 Armenian Heavies (Armenian + Master Horse Breeder). No extra armour.
4 Bedouins
2 Saracen Infantry. +1 armour.
2 Nizaris

DEFENCE (Horde / Desert)

1 Ghulam Bodyguard (General). Preferably a Bedouin General with some stars, but they are rare.
1 Bedouin
4 Saracens. +1 armour.
4 Nizaris (yeah, it's a stretch, I know), and as many reserve archers as you can muster.
2 Fast Cavalry. Just for collecting routers, and temporarily diverting Mongol Heavies)

Apart from Saracens and archers/archer hybrids, most other infantry will be nearly useless against the Horde... (my opinion only).

[Vantek]

You're listing only 12 units? What about the remaining 4?

Ghazis can be pretty good against mongol heavy cavalry and hybrid infantry. After all, Saracens don't kill heavy cavalry, they defend against them.

[caravel]

Ghazis can be pretty good against mongol heavy cavalry and hybrid infantry. After all, Saracens don't kill heavy cavalry, they defend against them.
Ghazis are only good as flankers. You need to use them in conjunction with the Saracen. Once the MHC turn and attack them, they are done for. Saracens do kill cavalry, but they take a long time to do it. Once JHI are available the best strategy is to deploy a combination of them and Saracens. The Saracens pin the cavalry down and the JHI destroy them from the flank and rear.

In general as the Turks, I used to favour the following units:

Futtawa: (Think of them as 'Lesser Nizari') Better than Turcoman Foot, vanilla or desert archers and very good flankers against unarmoured units. These units have saved my hide several times in the past with a well timed charge on the enemies flank.

Ghazi Infantry: I only take about 2 units of these into battle. The only time I will use them is when I can hide them in a wood as a nasty surprise. They have a habit of dying very quickly and easily when they are actually attacked.

Turcoman Foot: Armoured Archers. Excellent archers to take on the Mongols with as they can survive well in archery duels with the MHA.

Saracen: The backbone defensive troops. If you take on the Mongols without Saracens you won't last long. They take the brunt of the casualties and protect your missiles. With a proper deployment the enemy will be forced to attack the screen. Never actually direct them to attack unless you specifically want, e.g., a downhill charge, simply deploy them using drag selection.

Turcoman Horse: Send out to harass the enemy and draw off part of their force. I use these to divide and demoralise rather than kill and occasionally mop up routers.

Armenian Heavy Cavalry: Better than the Kwarazmians. Just train in Armenia with the Master Horse Breeder and morale boosting buildings and upgrade armour +1. I use these in small numbers. The main advantage of cavalry is mobility so they are good at getting other units out of a tight spot. I tend to hold them in reserve though I often use them to for a rout of MHC.

Camels.

Janissary Infantry: Replacement for all other skirmisher units (i.e. the Futtuwa) once they become available.

Ottoman Infantry: I tend to replace the Turcoman Foot with these when available (well upgraded).

Janissary Heavy Infantry: Absolute killers. I tend to use these as flankers, though I rarely deploy them against the Mongols as by the time I've teched up to them, the Mongols are long gone.


The units I tend to avoid are:

Janissary Archers: Why??

Ghulam Cavalry: Pointless when you have AHC.

Ottoman Sipahi: Another 'waste of time and money' unit

Vanilla Horse Archers: Pointless when you have Turcomans

Vanilla Archers: The Turks don't need these.

Vanilla Spearmen: I avoid these and instead concentrate on teching up to Saracens. You cannot rely on them against the Mongols anyway.


-Edit: Guess who thought the thread was about the Turks...?

[Vantek]

Ghazis are only good as flankers. You need to use them in conjunction with the Saracen. Once the MHC turn and attack them, they are done for.
Granted, granted. I also typically bring 2 units of them to battle - one for each flank :D

I also once tried to hide a unit in the forest for an ambush against the Golden Horde lol. I don't remember the details but it went very bad - they were charged head-on by a full unit of MHC and lost half of their men + routed in a few seconds...

For Turks, Futuwwa + Saracen Infantry = win until you get Janissaries. However, for Egyptians, I did not even know Nizaris existed lol. Do they require some high tech buildings? I have played Eggy but I never remembered Nizaris...

What's the difference between Turcoman and vanilla HA? I as if remember HA were better about something (was it morale?)

[jedi121212]

Thanks for all the info. It has been really helpful.

[bondovic]

If you want an army for the EARLY era, then scratch any thoughts of a cavalry based army. You could go for Cyrenacian master SC's (+2 valour) along with lots of camels. The real trick is conquering the non-sand desert provinces with this composition. Syria is contestable along these lines, but the turks have TH and camels of their own, so it's not a bank move.

Instead I'd go for a more balance army, especially since your best bet is attacking the Turks - you don't want to stretch yourself by going into north africa and comitting to fleet upkeep right away. A balanced army for the eggs is made up of:

4 SI
4 DA
2 GI
2 SC
3 BC
1 GC (General)

Massing infantry against the Turks is a gamble, since your roster is slightly weaker than theirs (TF + Futtuwa). Going cavalry heavy is also making things harder than they should be - the Turks simly outmatch you by having camels of their own along with AHC and TH. Even by going balanced you're at a disadvantage, of course. But you'll at least have options on the battlefield.

For the HIGH era, I'd do plenty of MamlukHA, a few MC and pump arbs. SI infantry is always your backbone. Spice up your life with a Nizari on each flank and tear into it. Can't stress the importance of MamlukHAs enough, really. Serious bad boys. With +2 valour from Sinai with master breeder they make a HUGE (!) difference in battle. 5 atk 3 def is extremely solid for a horse archer unit. Granted, they're not "fast", and that bugs the hell out of me, but they still mince infantry to man kebab in a jiffy. *Stressing point* Arbs are very nice support for an army with a strong HA unit like the MamlukHA. That's like your biggest advantage going into HIGH - combining weapon systems like that is a war winner.

[oz_wwjd]

Actually I would advise NOT usung Nubian spearmen,as they seem to distingrate quickly when the AI uses them against me. Saracen Inf on the other hand are a pain in the ass to deal with. Also I would advise using camels sparingly as the AI seems to like throwing them at my line of archers,backed up by heavy infantry,which leads to a massacre of camels.

[Vantek]

I also see no reason to use Nubians when you have Saracens. That's like using Feudal Sergeants when you have Chivalric Sergeants. They do have +2 morale, but that just doesn't outweigh being so vulnerable to even vanilla archers and generally just less durable. Lasting long is spearmen's job.

[caravel]

Granted, granted. I also typically bring 2 units of them to battle - one for each flank :D

I also once tried to hide a unit in the forest for an ambush against the Golden Horde lol. I don't remember the details but it went very bad - they were charged head-on by a full unit of MHC and lost half of their men + routed in a few seconds...

For Turks, Futuwwa + Saracen Infantry = win until you get Janissaries. However, for Egyptians, I did not even know Nizaris existed lol. Do they require some high tech buildings? I have played Eggy but I never remembered Nizaris...

What's the difference between Turcoman and vanilla HA? I as if remember HA were better about something (was it morale?)

No, I thought the thread was about the Turks, so not much of what I posted applies to the Egyptians.

:wall:

Nizari are Egypt only unit that require the Grand Mosque and Bowyers Workshop. Valour bonus in Syria.

[Vantek]

Grand Mosque as a requirement is a bit of a killer...

[bondovic]

I really don't get the nubians. They're slightly better than vanilla spears, but not exactly comparable - better morale and attack with worse defence (due to their "small" shield). This basically means that their only task to be imagined is anti cavalry. They simply cannot stand against infantry. This fact makes them quite useless, as there's no reason to not bring Muwahids instead of Nubians if you're looking for a flank cover unit.

If, on the other hand, they would have had a "large" shield, they'd essentially been "disciplined" FSs. That would have made a lot of sense. The Eggs would then have had a little bit of tactical flexibility for desert fighting that their arch nemesis - the Turks - lack. Basically, that flexibility would be the only thing resembling an advantage for the Early era vs. the Turks. Much needed, indeed, but inexplicably overlooked.

As it stands, the Nubians are utterly redundant as either main body or flank cover due to the more streamlined Muwahids and SIs. Therefore I take it upon myself to edit their shield to "large", which just gives them a function as opposed to none whatsoever.

[jadast]

I use the Nubians for variety. The same with all the other types of troops available. I get bored using stacks of the same troops. I have found that I gather troops in a province until I need them. Then I send them forth regardless of unit makeup. Sometimes this does cost me but I do enjoy the look of the battle field when I have two units of camel warriors on my left flank and 2 units of Armenian heavy on my right flank backed up by 2 units of Saharan cavalry as a reserve. The cav protecting a mixed line of 3 Saracens, 1 Nubian spearmen, and 1 Muwahids. These supported by both 1 Abyssinian Guards and 2 Ghazis. 1 desert archer and 1 general unit.

I do not like to bring archers on the attack. I have found that desert archers can work around the battle line and send arrows into the back of my enemies general.

This approach has worked for me so far although the numbers of each unit may vary from battle to battle.

[Knight of the Rose]

I feel I kind of need to throw in a little defence of the Nubians here


I really don't get the nubians. They're slightly better than vanilla spears, but not exactly comparable - better morale and attack with worse defence (due to their "small" shield). This basically means that their only task to be imagined is anti cavalry. They simply cannot stand against infantry. This fact makes them quite useless, as there's no reason to not bring Muwahids instead of Nubians if you're looking for a flank cover unit.

Nubians are meant for the desert, and you use them in the desert. In the desert you can't have armor. Thats why they beat Saracens in that setting. Why use them instead of Muwahids. Well, they're a higher unit size (100 vs. 60 on normal settings). The key concept of the spearman is to resist and hold units for others to destroy. High morale simply keeps the unit holding longer. And when your urban millitia routs they'll hang on for your camel warriors flanking maneuvre. SI just runs along when that happens.
And better attack helps against armored cav. that is tired out, and Nubians can destroy these on their own.


As it stands, the Nubians are utterly redundant as either main body or flank cover due to the more streamlined Muwahids and SIs. Therefore I take it upon myself to edit their shield to "large", which just gives them a function as opposed to none whatsoever.

I completely agree a large shield enhances the Nubians fighting ability. But in my view these brave desert warriors do have a limited role in the desert. Not to be relied on comepletely, but nice as anvil for the camel hammer.

:bow:

/KotR

[bondovic]

I've said before that Nubians are for desert offense. But that was when I believed they had a large shield. Maybe we have different styles of combat, but, for me, they're just too vulnerable to do main body. Granted, the Turks don't have any proper heavy infantry, but even UM can cause problems for Nubians. Regarding fatigue, I'd say SI can do the job on defense. They have sufficient defence even with low stamina - especially since the stronger cavalry are armored and the Turks lack heavy infantry.

As flank cover I simply don't see a place for them. Again, maybe it's styles, but for flank cover I want anti-cavalry infantrymen and medium cavs. I have no intention whatsoever to intercept inf. with inf. As such, the Nubians could do the trick (I realize that they're not useless in an absolute sense) but Muwahids simply do it better.

Perhaps I should go back on the 'no use'. Perhaps they still provide some benefits in desert attack. They won't be tired, at least, when they reach the enemy line.

[caravel]

Nubians are better in the desert - no doubt due to lack of armour, but Saracens are better holding troops and better all round. The important thing to remember is that, though armoured troops will tire in the desert anyway, spear units should not really be doing much running about.

Don't put too much stock in the large shield - it helps to make up for the lack of armour but is no substitute. The large shield gives a +2 attack bonus to units attacking the large shield bearer from the rear. The shield modifier is also a big factor.

You may find the famous numerology thread at the .com good reading: http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic/1701/t/Medieval-TotalWar-Numerology.html?page=1

:bow:

[Knight of the Rose]

Don't get me wrong, Nubians are close to worthless. They only hold limited value in early and in the desert. I still believe higher numbers and higher morale give them some staying power. But UM in their flank will take them down, so they are to be used carefully.

As to different playing styles: I use spearmen either in the middle of formations to recieve the AI's (never playing MP) cavalry charge, or inf. charge. Then I use other units to engage the troops the spears have pinned through not breaking.

On the flanks, the AI usually likes to place some cav. Like you, I prefer to engage these either with cav of my own, or to lure them to my spears with HA. Therefore my spears don't run around, or engage other inf. in the battles where I can control the relative setup.

Where it gets funny is offcause the battles where you either have a substandard army, or is outnumbered, or is placed at the bottom of a slope. In these cases the Nubians lack the versatility of cav and regular inf. When used as 'flank cover' as you put it, they can very easily be either surrounded or engaged in an akward position.

So I think we agree, they're not useless, just close to :clown:

:bow:

/KotR

[bondovic]

So I think we agree, they're not useless, just close to :clown:
/KotR

What you said. But do you further agree that a 'large' shield makes sense? :inquisitive:

[Knight of the Rose]

Large shield would make sense as it would keep the 'desert warrior' touch and give a small defence bonus. It would also make them a little less flexible, but being charged from the rear spells death for almost any unit. Go for it :2thumbsup:

/KotR

[caravel]

What you said. But do you further agree that a 'large' shield makes sense? :inquisitive:

The large shield gives 2 points of armour and 2 points of defence. Nubian Spearmen are actually Feudal Sergeants with one point less charge and one point less defence and armour (due to the small shield). But they are also disciplined. Adding the large shield is probably a good idea - though cosmetically the shield will remain the same size. I once modded them into spear/javelin hybrids and that worked quite well.

[PershsNhpios]

I haven't vast experience with the Mamluk armies (I don't envy their position and I don't like seeing my knights flounder before them in the Hejaz), but I will note my love for one of their units in particular:

The Saharan Cavalry!

Though not worth recruiting in Navarre for 600 florins on the mercenary market, apart from Andalucian Cavalry (Which aren't vanilla anyway), I have never used cavalry to such wonderful effect outside the Turkic horse!
They are fast as horse archers and seemingly more powerful on the offensive than Hobilars and such, especially when they are in the desert element. Their lack of weight may easily be compensated for by their disposable nature.
Whenever I have the chance I will have great wings of these cavalrymen on either side of a manipular-sized body of heavy infantry, and I will conquer in any climate with them.

[HopAlongBunny]

Saharan Cav are indeed underrated and too often overlooked :yes:

Fast and annoying; can valour up to become absolute killers; disengage from fatigued foot (or cav) and set up a beautiful 1-2 with the slower camels. I learned to respect them as a Catholic and appreciate them as the Egyptians.

Despite their lack of missile weapons they can be used as a "proximity lure".

[Empirate]

I absolutely love fast cavalry, and as such, Saharans never disappoint. Easily spammable, highly useful, very cheap, and a valor +1 province (Cyrenaica, a province absolutely worthless in most other regards): what's not to love?
Recruited from Cyrenaica with a Master Horsebreeder, Saharans can give you a very powerful fast response force. They're the ultimate opportunists: hang around the flanks, charge where an enemy is engaged, withdraw, charge again, chase some routers, return to wreak more havoc. Even only two of these are worth having in your army. Six to eight are terrifying. More are probably too much of a drain on your staying power, though.

That said, in their standard issue form, I like Steppe Cavalry even more. They're slightly more durable with 1 more point of defense and armor, and they have a more powerful charge (6 as opposed to 4). This allows them to bring to bear more of an immediate impact, and can sometimes be useful against semi-heavy units, as well. The price difference is negligible (both units are dirt cheap, basically).
But Steppe Cavalry doesn't have a valor +1 province, so all in all, Cyrenaican Saharans make it to the top.

BTW: If only Alan Mercenary Cavalry were regularly recruitable!

[William the Silent]

Ye, give me Steppe Cavalry. Good fighters and with there 120 strong they can sweep two missile units at once and kill them quick before enemy sends foot or heavy cav. Exellent unit.

[Knight of the Rose]

There are a few units that always take all my attention on the battlefield, and Saharan Cav. is absolutely one of them. Just like hobilars before 1100 always make for a tough challange whether you're french or english. Other units are just rubbish and shouldn't be in the game (peasants: I'm pointing my finger at you!)

Mamluk cav, I'm a bit undecided. They're armor piercing, but lack the charge of Gulam Cav. wich I think is their natural competitor. Faris even add to my confusion on what to train, as they are good all-rounders, but maybe just a little inferior in most respects? Mamluk HA are nice, but not game-breakers.

/KotR

[bondovic]

Mamluk HAs are to be recruited from Sinai with MHB. Then they need to be combined with arbs to be fully effective. "Fast" cavalry can't do nothing with them - they're too strong, and as long as you pin the enemy arbs with your own the Mamluk HAs are free to do their thing. It's the combination of weapon systems that is the real gain - arbs + HA.

Faris are supposed to be a defensive unit in desert battles, if you ask me. Get invaded by armored catholics and run them tired with the Faris. I wouldn't use them otherwise, I think, since there are other options for the medium cavalry role.

[Empirate]

Wouldn't it be better to run them tired with camels or Saharans? Faris do have some armor (armor rating 3, same as Militia Sergeants), and they will tire (if not as fast as the tin cans). If you like to use horse archers to separate the enemy, just take run-of-the-mill ones (no armor), or Mamluk Horse Archers from Sinai with MHB (better than Faris in most respects, same armor).

[bondovic]

No, it wouldn't be better with camels or saharans. Mounted archers are (as the game is balanced out) designed to 'pull' on enemy units by shooting at them. They will either then break formation, by dispatching missile units to fend you off or by retreating the targeted unit to safety, or the unit in question will try and chase you down. Regular cavalry (and Bedouin Camels) can provoke charges, sure. But you'll either end up fighting or get shot at, a lot, before you can provoke said charge. And when that happens, there's always the risk that your unit routs. Especially the unit types you mention.

And, of course, there seems to be some confusion on your part concerning the armor modifiers. Cavalry units get an extra point of armor from the very horse. This is why cavalry penalties for desert fighting doesn't kick in at '3' as is the case for infantry. Rather it kicks in at '4'. The Faris' are not afflicted by the fatigue penalty since they're not considered 'armored' by the game.

You could use regular HAs, sure. If you're playing as the Turks, that is. The factions that have access to Faris' don't have access to HAs. And the Turks don't have access to Faris, so the point is moot. Regarding Mamluk HAs; they're clearly preferable. They're also not available in 'Early'. So there is still some room for Faris in an Egg campaign in 'Early'. Not to mention that they are the only option for the Elmos if they want a tolerably speediful mounted archer - Berber Camels are agonizingly lumbering for the task. And, basically, if they fight Mounted Sergeants, for example, they might win but will quickly become kind of useless. HAs are supposed to make life difficult for the enemy over quite some time. Berber Camels are flank protectors. Faris' are 'pullers', even if not as effective as THA. Which if they were, by the way, would make the Elmos kind of unstoppable with most every weapon system available to them.

:balloon2:

[Jxrc]

Regarding Mamluk HAs; they're clearly preferable. They're also not available in 'Early'. So there is still some room for Faris in an Egg campaign in 'Early'.

Sorry but I am 99% positive that Mamluk HA's are availble in Early.

IIRC that is Mamluk Cavalry which is unavailable in Early.

[gollum]

What Jxrc says is true. The bow mamelukes are in in early. Its the ap Mam. medium cavalry that appears in high indeed.

[bondovic]

Oh. Cancel the Egg talk, then, and apply simply to Elmos... Faris in a nutshell, still.