Chilvaric MAA

[malkuth]

I have been playing my first game so far with new patch. (Put MTW away for a little bit) And so far the patch has changed pretty much everything. I would like to know what you guys think about the debate with CMAA And MAA? Do you still believe the MAA are better then CMAA or has this changed now?

The battles have seemed to change totally. My old strategies with holding a line of Spear Type men in Hold formation does not seem to do as well as Pre Patch days. Also I have had to change my attacks totally from Tricking AI in to an Offensive attack on me. To a total Offensive MAA attack by me into the enemy ranks.

So far I like the new battles.

[Michael the Great]

Oh,but,how do u use CMAA? on the flanks or in front?

[deutschlanduberalles]

What's MAA?

And in my games CMAA are always the backbone of my armies. They're great http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[A.Saturnus]

Where ever you need infantry, use cmaa. They are simple tough swordsmen, no more, no less.

[Alrowan]

CMAA are good, but when it comes to desert regions, avoid them at all costs.. thier armour slows them right down, and against muslims they arent as cost effective

[Kraxis]

The same problem is still there, the FMAA and CMAA have the same stats as before, but the CMAA are cheaper and the FMAA are more expensive so in effect the disparity has been lessened.

CMAA are well worth it now because of the costs.

Spears are much weaker than before, cav can push them back in melee and good cav will win no matter what against weaker spears, though perhaps at a great cost.
So now spears are there to soak up cav and hold them rather than defeating them.

Also I have heard that swords get +1 attack against spears, though this is not confirmed yet.

[LadyAnn]

While we are touching the Feudal Man At Arm (FMAA), let's compare it with another sword unit, the Byzantine Infantry (Byz.Inf.) They are vitually identical, except in two areas. They are both having shield of 1, cost 175, medium speed (march 6, run 10, charge 11), 3 charge, 2 defense, armor 3, not good against cav and no bonus against armour.

The FMAA has better Melee (3 vs 2) and better morale, (2 vs. 0) and few men (60 vs 100).

A stat that is not shown by totalwarassembly.com comparison chart is the rate of fatigue. I heard Byz.Inf. tired faster than his counterpartb FMAA, but this is to be confirmed.

The current opinion based on the number of people chosing Byzantium in a multi is that the extra 40 men worth the somewhat inferior stats.

Annie

[LadyAnn]

I am not strong in Math, but I am trying here.

0.019 * 1.2 ^(2-2) = 0.019 is the chance that a Byz. Inf. can kill a FMAA.

0.019 * 1.2 ^(3-2) = 0.0228 is the chance that a FMAA can kill a Byz. Inf.

But the Byz.Inf. out number the FMAA by margin of 5/3, making the Byz.Inf. easier to do envelop attack (larger width with Engage-at-will) and win the war of attrition.

Annie

[LadyAnn]

Oops, the threat is on Chivalric MAA. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

Annie

[A.Saturnus]

I`ll test it today.

Byz inf are disciplined while FMAA aren`t, am I right? So the morale is not so much of a penalty.

[Swoosh So]

Bah choose gallowglass over maa anytime and spend the points more wisely http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Leet Eriksson]

this thread got me interested so i tried a byz infantry against a FMAA,the results are the byz wonthe byz suffered 33 casualties while the FMAA lost 43(10 more),maybe becuase the byz are disciplined or maybe they outnumbered the FMAA?

btw i used agincourt for its flat terrain,and both of them charged each other.

[Kraxis]

Yes, the Byz Inf are Disciplined but the FMAA are Elite and thus a better status. But Disciplined also mean that they are less rowdy. But I would go for Elite any time over Disciplined.