weakest faction

[Cheetah]

I guess it is a bit too late to influence VI this way but still http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Which is the weakest MP faction and why? The obvious candidates are the Almohads and the Russians because of the lack of decent heavy cavalry and anti-cav units. Do you agree? If not why?

PS. I left out the Spanish, Byzantines, English and HRE for obvious reasons http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Panther]

I would have to say Russia because they only have boyars which are good but lck othger units and lack good infantry

[youssof_Toda]

What's up with this? Russians obviously are the most fun faction to play with, elmhoheads, well..., the name explains enough http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif .

[Swoosh So]

Id say the weakest faction are the fears Oops thats a clan http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif , Nah seriously id say single player its the russians and multi player one of the muslim cultures id bet although i hate usig byzanties multi player they suck http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Kongamato]

The Egyptians are not that bad.

V1 W3 A2 Abyssinian Guards are actually quite competent shock infantry. Also you can use them in the rain for an advantage over armored infantry. Combine them with some Bedouin Camel Warriors and you have a force that can put up some nice counters to the Catholic civs. Just dont expect to win against the Byz.

Right now I suspect the weakest faction to be the Almohads, but you never really know what kind of stats you can cook up to make a strong army.

[LordTed]

Weakest faction to most is 'faction with no armor so i die quickly' so all the fun ones are out then

[Tera]

Russians and Arab factions on Lush ground are probably the "weakest" altough for example the Russians have the Boyars which are arguebly the best horsearchers. The Eyptians have the MamlukHorseArchers - excellent too. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Ithaskar Fëarindel]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

The Danes I play them so often... I still rubbish with them. I must have played 80% my MP games with The Danes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Problems: No Crusader units. Best Cav = Chiv Knights, but no Teutons/Lancers/Gothic etc. gives disadvantage. Also no Order Foot, so only low morale spears available.

Vikings are ok in Early, but in High/Late they become obsolete with the better troops available like CMAA, Gothic Foot, Hospitaller Foot. Even Byzantine Infantry (GRRRRRR) can do a lotta damage to Vikings.

And if the game is high florin the whole faction becomes obsolete - since other factions can afford to pay for better troops... better Cav and better Infantry.
Plus an average army at the moment fields 5/6 Cavalry which easily fend off the Danish Cav and can beat Vikings in almost all cases.

[Aelwyn]

For me the Russians are the weakest faction. Their lack of infantry units hampers my ability to choose an army that won't get rushed. Mostly in the High period though, since they have a few other units to choose from in the Late period, although there are more heavier cav that are harder for Boyars to deal with.

[LadyAnn]

Hope they won't ban Rush-On army, because I do have a lot of fun playing with it, especially when the opponents think it is a weak faction.

Annie
Defenders of the Weak Russian Faction

ps.: must get out of the Western Army mindset to play Russian. I wish they made more distinction between French, German and Italian armies and made more distinctive Polish, and Danes armies.

[Mithrandir]

Russians without a doubt...

Elmos can still kick Russians...
if the enemy has pavs, the boyars are useles, Byz gets good cav archers as well and ofcourse the mameluks are good too...

[LadyAnn]

Oh yeah? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif

Just gave some Byz a surprise this morning (although I must say the Byz was seriously weaken in Late Era because of lack of Var.G.) Too bad my ally the French dropped or else we could have a win.

Annie

[LadyAnn]

OK I conceed. Russian are weak.

Annie http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[Cheetah]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif who voted for the French? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Kongamato, V3A1 abessynians are cheaper and have the same combat points overall. V1W3A2 has 8:3 att:def, whereas V3A1 has 7:4 att:def points, besides the later has a much better morale. But whoever voted for the egyptians I tend to agree with him. Abessynians just die too fats. It is hard to find a solid army that can survive for long enough.

[ElmarkOFear]

The weakest faction is any faction I am playing with . . . that has to be what it is . . . I know I am good at this game . . if only I could win once in awhile . . . maybe I should take up chess . . . . again. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[youssof_Toda]

I think it also depends on ur style of play. Russians have superiour cav compared to the almohads which in turn have superiour infantery. So if your a cavmonkey russians I'd take russians.

[LittleGrizzly]

what fools picked russians and egyptians fools i lovee these 2 factions more than turkey neway (the faction i can just never do well with)

[Stormer]

the french

[Tera]

Why French?

They have Knights Templar / Chivalric Knights which can be a better mix than Feudal Knights / Knights xxCrusader of other factions. They got Order Foot, Turcopoles (decent horsearchers)...

I find France to be one of the strongest Catholic factions along with England (Billmen, Longbows etc) and Germany (Swiss halbs, gothic knights etc)

Tera.

[Goedfroy]

Quote[/b] (ElmarkOFear @ Mar. 19 2003,02:47)]The weakest faction is any faction I am playing with . . . that has to be what it is . . . I know I am good at this game . . if only I could win once in awhile . . . maybe I should take up chess . . . . again. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
lol http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I almost had a moment of pity for you Elmo, then i remember our last game hehehehe


I voted for russia btw http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[ShadesWolf]

I think is depends on what you mean by weak...

Are we talking SP or MP.

In any case, for me its France....

In SP they are surrounded by many other nations, all waiting to taker land off them....

In MP they are fairly easily beat by most other nations.....

[Panther]

Now i havent played with many of the factions i tend to specialise but neway most cant be classified as weak as they all have their own strengths. for example the turks have powerful skirmishers who pepper the approaching enemy with arrows then charge them while they have low morale.
The byzantines use the Byz inf numbers to their advantage and at v4 they are klass http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif . The Trebezond archers are good and fight well. Yesterday a guy tried to flank me and i had Treb archers quite far out and he decided to charge them with Turcomen horse. He lost about half in the charge and had to pull them back. Their Byz cav are good Medium Cav with bows which aslo do well paired up with PA

Conclusion: There really are no weak faction its just finding a faction which uses a tactic you can use well.

Tho tbh danes and poles suffer from lack of crusader units hurt them. but You can get around it

[LadyAnn]

Quote[/b] ]
I think is depends on what you mean by weak...

Are we talking SP or MP.


Last time I check, this is "Jousting Field" forum ...

Annie

[7Bear7Polar]

Well in any case its not the factions that are weak, its the generals controlling them, to clear that up

My favorites are the russians and almohad, i personally think the english are the weakest. Anybody whose faced my russians can tell you there not weak http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif. The almo have great inf and there inf units are anti-cav.

[starkhorn]

No one likes the Russians then ? They are certainly my favourite faction and not weak at all. I've lost count the number of times knights have charged my Boyars (under the assumption that Boyars are just cav archers and that western knights will sweep them from the field).....just for my Boyars to destroy them.

I've beaten nearly all western knights in a head-on fight with boyars...(honest...only lancers were a problem). Although with boyars you don't need to charge head-on. Run away a little (cause boyars are faster than western knights) and hit them in the flank...works everytime.

The only problem is choosing the infantry...but with enough valour upgrades, this can also be countered....for alot less cost than some of the western infantry.

As Polar said, it's the general's that are weak....not the factions. Each faction has the resources to win....it's just trying to find the best combination is the problem. Hence why I voted Gah.....

[ShadesWolf]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif Ups I should have seen that one coming

And what makes it worse, this is the forum I mod http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Tempiic]

Hmmm think i have to pick italians... since i solely play with all the other listed ones all the time, eventhough i rate italian as good as germans in overall play.

So of all these listed factions, italians would be the weakest in my hands.

[Crandaeolon]

Boyars are not, to the best of my knowledge, any faster than knights. Both Boyars and knights have a march speed of 9, run speed of 20 and charge speed of 22. They also have the same turn rates. (This taken from the game file crusaders_unit_prod11.txt, boyars compared to chivalric knights)

Boyars are also weaker in melee than knights. Not by much, so a difference in upgrades could make the difference between winning and losing, but florin-for-florin the Boyars are behind the knights. And, the charge value of Boyars is much smaller than the lance-equipped knight types.

So, this leaves the bow as an advantage for the Boyars. Horse archers are the weakest archers in the game, their accuracy is only 2/3 of foot archers and of course their numbers are smaller. This unfortunately makes them an annoyance at best. Don't understand me wrong here, as a good annoyance in the right place can make the impatient general to make mistakes, but damage from horse archers is usually only minimal against players who keep their cool.

Overall, the Boyars are a unit of medium-to-heavy cavalry with weak missile ability. That does make them versatile, but by no means an über-unit.

And, Russian infantry is simply Catholic infantry without some key units like men-at-arms, the better spear units and most foot knights. They do have woodsmen, but that's hardly enough compensation. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

[Nowake]

Methinks Poland has the weakest troops ... I mean, the Russian have acces to halebardiers, which are quite good ... And the boyars can make out-standing battles if well-used ...

[Cheetah]

Recently (err .. a week ago http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif ) I have played a lot with the Russians and IMHO a pretty decent army can be made up from boyars, alans, mil.sergeants, FFK and arbs. Altough the boyars as horse archers are indeed just an annoyance as Crand said, but my personal experince is that even good, experinced players cannot stand this kind of annoyance http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Of course, you need room to use them properly, so boyars may not be the best choice for a crowded 4v4, or hill battle but with them the russians are far from being the weakest.

My vote for the weakest goes to the Egyptians. Tough they have a decent cavalry their infantry department is terrible. Abessynians and ghazi die fast, saracens run fast, muwahids cannot kill, what is left ? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif There are only a few possible armies, either a cav heavy army, but even their cavalry is inferior to chrisatian knights on florin per florin comparison; or use a saracen/abessynian combo but the later version is pretty boring and unflexible.

[Tempiic]

To play succesfully with all the factions listed here (excluding the french and the polish and danes for most parts), one need first to stop thinking as a catholic player for own army setup and own performance. One of the worst things you can do in this case imo is to select units solely based on individual unit florin to florin comparisons.

[Mithrandir]

Cheetah, Egyptians are great http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.

Esp when facing yet another lancer-addict, Camels beat _any_ other cav unit http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.

Abedisians are reasonable,futtuwas are decent,muwhahid have their uses and they get pavs/naptah.

Boyars may be an annoyance, they're cannonc fodder if you're facing someone with 3 or more pavs...

[Kongamato]

Theoretical Strategy:

Play as Russians. Take Woodsmen instead of arbs. Charge Woodsmen in thin lines at enemy. Have Boyars follow them. Have Boyars retreat when the Woodsmen rout. Send in regular army to melee.

Please read and describe to me why it wont work. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[shingenmitch2]

I voted GAH, but I thought that represented the always weak Krast Faction http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Cheetah]

Quote[/b] (Mithrandir @ April 07 2003,09:46)]Cheetah, Egyptians are great http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.

Esp when facing yet another lancer-addict, Camels beat _any_ other cav unit http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.
yup, Egyptians are great in desert or arid climate. When I said that they are weak, I was thinking about temperate battles.

[Aelwyn]

Quote[/b] (Mithrandir @ April 07 2003,09:46)]Abedisians are reasonable,futtuwas are decent,muwhahid have their uses and they get pavs/naptah.
Wait, in which stats to the Egyptians have Futuwwas? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Kongamato]

I think that a great equalizer for the Egyptians is the rain. Rain penalizes armored units, doesnt it? The "decent" Abyssinian Guards just might become superior in the rain.

[LadyAnn]

I love this thread Until I play tourney matches which either doesn't allow Russian through strange rules (such as 2-max or 3-max) or team strategy wouldn't allow using Russian.

That's because I had so much fun with Russian army that in the end, I forgot how to play correctly Western Factions.

I beg to differ with Cheetah (while already at odd with the majority who voted Russian as weakest faction). Cheetah said:
1. Russian are not got in a 4x4 because of crouded condition;
2. Russian are not good in woods;
3. Russian are not good in hilly map.

I found these are the three conditions where Russian can excel

Again, one must remove oneself from the normal Western Army mind set. It is true that if you play Russian as if you play another cav army (say Spain), Steppe would be the prefered map. But precisely because Steppe is great for Cav such as Spain, Russian would be quickly showing its weaknesses:

1. Russian doesn't have good anti-cav infantry. It has the halberdiers, but rarely Russian army can affort to buy more than 2 val3 halberdiers, let alone val4 halberdiers. In open steppe, Halberdiers would be quickly out foxed or quickly tired, both means quickly rout. Russian can't affort to use cav against cav, boyars are good horse archers, not heavy tanks. Meanwhile, with woods and hills to lessen opponents' cav impact, Russian could play hide and seek.

2. In a 1x1, Russian would not be a match to any good general. The point of dispute is that Russian aren't have full utility in a 4x4. The same argument as above stands here: Since the map is divided in smaller sectors for each army, the Russian army can avoid the impact of cav raids. It's halberdiers are not required to defend a wide front. It's boyars are not required to step to the front and engage enemies' cav.

3. Russian are quite good in hilly map. The boyars and horse archers could hide in ravines and harash the enemies even more, while in flatter map, they needs to avoid pavarb fire.

The fact that we could still argue on how some factions are not really good means that there are still a lot of fun left in this game. If we all agree that just a set of "optimum" units, a single "good" army, then I don't think I would have as much fun.

Now, Cheetah, let's talk about Egypt http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

But I'll leave Egypt to others to defend.

Annie

[DoggFood]

Egyptians are by far the worst. All their cavalry has a low charge value.(6) Camels may be able to stick up to knights but they have low moral and a slow speed 9/14/16. European swordsmen can kill off any axe unit, and for their 100 man spearmen units scarcens have low moral while nubians base defense is 0 terrible for a spear unit. The only unit of their that shines is mamluk horse archer that has to be upgraded alot so it can play a dual role as a skirmisher and a traditional cavalry unit.

[Crandaeolon]

I don't understand this "different mindset" and "don't compare units individually to other units" talk... as far as I'm concerned, there's only one mindset: know what your units can and can't do, and formulate a strategy based on that. It should go without saying that different factions and different army compositions need different strategies to be successful, after all that's the _point_ of having different factions in the game. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

The fact that some factions need specific strategies or battlefield situations to compensate for their "weaknesses" (i.e. differences) does not change the fact that they are weaker. As I said in the previous post, Russians are merely stripped Catholics with Boyars as the specialty unit. Which brings us to the point of "individual unit comparisons"...

IMHO it's not at all bad to know how some units can fare against others in face-to-face combat. I can take a look at the enemy infantry line and think: "hmm... there are a lot of v2 Orderfoot and some v3 FMAA against my v3 CMAA and v4 Mil Sarges... good Now unless he has spent large amounts of money on weapon and armour upgrades, I should win the infantry fight without too much problems. Well now, those knights seem to be v2, so that's where the money is..."

Knowing that the Boyars without support will most likely lose against knights enables me to think ahead. I know I'll need to sucker those knights into a Cavalry Sandwich ™ or Halberdier Happy Meal Topped with Steppe Cav ™. So, I'll play with that in mind. Simple logic, mr. Spock. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Now, back to the topic. Weakest faction? Russians and Egyptians both seem to be close to the bottom. For the overall weakest, I'd still vote for the Russians. Russians are weak in Lush, Temperate and Arid... and they're _really_ weak in the Desert. Egyptians are very weak in Lush & Temperate, weak in Arid but actually viable in Desert (in long fights perhaps the best Muslim faction. Go ahead, flame me... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif), so Egyptians have their little niche. EDIT: ah yes, in the supposedly neutral Arid climate I believe the Egyptians are a bit weaker than the Russians.

The other battle conditions are debatable, I always feel restricted and claustrophobic when playing with Russians in a 4v4... but then again, I tend to take 4 Boyars, 4 HA, 4 Alans and 4 Steppe cav. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif I gotta agree with the hills bit, hills in plural are good for an army with fast archers... but attacking a big, well-defended hill with Russians would be a catastrophe

Enough for now. Cran out. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

[Kalle]

Hi all http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I would like to talk a bit of egypt as many think they are so week. During the last couple of weeks i have had some spectacular successes using them. (some losses to of course - but its not fun to talk of them http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif )

In desert they excel and in arid they are very good. What makes them good? Its their cavalryunits that make them good. Camels, mamluk horsearchers and mamluk cavalry (armour piercing) will beat (at least when handled correctly) all other factions cav in desert and arid if the florins are set at 15000 or similar sum (that doesnt allow for much upgrades on lancers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ).

Their weekness is their fragile infantry that die so easily. But they will fight till they die and it takes a long time to kill saracens though nubians prolly is the choice in 15000 florin games as saracens are a bit expensive. So if your egypt infantry just holds the enemy long enough your cavalry should soon be able to fall on the enemies back.

Camels are slow though so how do i catch enemy cavalry with them. Well lock enemy cav into combat with your faster cavalry that is quite capable of inflicting heavy casulties on knights in their own right then watch them run as your camels come and eat their horses blood - yes my camels are meeteaters

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Well more could be said - for instance in late egypt gets handgunners as a good meleeunit. But ill say no more now cause i will probably get a big bunch of comments as it is http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Kalle (FF)

[Kalle]

Hm, a little addition to my last writings.

I even used egypt in one of ff:s recent cwc- battles against the mighty rtk:s. We (FF) won that battle and though i was eventually routed from the field me egyptians before i was routed sure helped to ensure the victory.

PS.
In the long run RTK was to strong for us and we lost 3 battles out of 5. But its an improvement from our last tournament fight against the setis in cwb http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
DS.

Kalle

[Crandaeolon]

Ah yeah, Mamluk cavalry http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Yer absolutely right Kalle, they're actually very good, their Armour Piercing ability makes them one of the best cavalry units in the game IMO. They can defeat most other cavalry, including knights. Their weakness is a rather low charge value, sometimes they take heavy casualties against lance-equipped cavalry in the first few seconds of combat.

Some light and medium cavalry can give the Mamluks trouble, but such cav is quite rare in MP these days.

Mamluk HA are good too, if only the Egyptians had another HA unit I'd be very happy indeed... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Kongamato]

Perhaps Egypt needs a Naptha Thrower "Steamroller" type army.

No deliberate flanking attempts, just power up the Abyssinian Guards, throw them at the front line, and throw Naptha at the enemy. Cover your flanks with some cheap camels to hold off enemy cav flanking attempts.

[Cheetah]

Quote[/b] (Kalle @ April 08 2003,09:28)]In the long run RTK was to strong for us and we lost 3 battles out of 5. But its an improvement from our last tournament fight against the setis in cwb http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
DS.

Kalle
Well done FF http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif and of course well done RTK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

and I could not be there .... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[Cheetah]

Lots of replys http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Lets see the Russian first. The main point is that they are not good in a head-on fight , that is why I mentioned 4v4 or hill battles. This is when you are most likely to be forced into accepting a head-on battle. Boyars need room. If you are attacking a big hill with all 4 defenders on it, or there is a wall of arbs stretching across of the map from one edge to the other, then boyars are just a strong medium cavalry nothing more. And when I say hill I mean big hill http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif So, for example flatinland maps with those little forests are perfect for boyars.

Egyptians: they really shine in the desert there is no doubt about it. I even dare to say that they have the best desert army http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif On arid they are OK, but on temperate or lush they are terrible. Both mameluk cav and mameluk cav archers have several drawbacks. First, they have to be heavily upgraded to have a chance vs christian knights (at least v2 or v2 w1), even in this case the mam.cav.arch is weaker than knights. That is, they are costlier but still weaker. Second, they have small charge values, thus as Crand said, they are likely to suffer high casulties after the collision, which might put them in a permanent disadvantage. All in all, my mam.cavs never lived up to the expectations, they are costlier than knights, cannot trust them to defeat knights, and more importnatly they are much worse when it comes chasing down routed units (which is one of the main functions of cavalry units). Knights really shine in this, it is not rare to collect 100+, or even 150+ kills with knights. In contrast it is very difficult, even under perfect conditions (i.e. lots of routed arbs http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif) to get over 100 kills either with mam.cavs or mam.cav archers. I had some good opportunities, but all of my mam.cav.arch collected only some 70-80 kills. I am sure that cheaper alans under the same conditions would have easily collected 150+ kills. And this is not just a show of numbers, because it is always essental to finish off with the routed troops, and mam.cavs/archers are no good for this either.
And of course, then there is the problem of fragile infantry. Even if you win there is nothing left from the abessynians, thus you cannot help your allies, you cannot deal with surviving enemy armies, etc.
All in all, IMHO they are the worst on temperate or lush climate.

[LadyAnn]

Cran:
What I meant by "mindset" is the narrower definition of it. Perhaps I should say "doctrines". Each faction has their own set of doctrines.

Your comparison of Russian Army as a "stripped down" version of Western Catholic is correct. You did allow an exception, and it is an important one: the boyars. You can't duplicate a Russian army with the Western army by replacing boyars with knights. Steppe Cav is a bit low on morale to use with success all the time, but is another unit Russian could use. There, the question of doctrines and mindset come in.

All:
Back to the big hills question: I don't care which faction you get, facing campers on top of a big hill is a challenge.
Of course, the mildly hilly like flatinland is the one I am talking about. And when I talk about woods, I am not talking about dense woods that cover more than 1/2 of the map. I am talking about having some woods for protection and anchor against cav rush to your flank.

Russian has access to Pav. Arb., so there is no reason to bring boyars up front when Pav.Arb. duel is still raging. Boyars stay behind the line, and only come out to harass later.

Russian army should avoid early engagement as much as possible. Since it is perceived as weak, the trick of fainting fear and meakly retreat works more than I expected. (Now I hope people will read this and will not pursue retreating Russians http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif) Often it draws an opponent out and with help of an ally, Russian could even defeat that army.

Well, thanks everyone for the discussion. It may explain why Annie losts many matches. Perhaps I am too concerned of making the case for the Russian and forgot to win http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif)

Annie

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] (LadyAnn @ April 08 2003,14:36)]Often it draws an opponent out and with help of an ally, Russian could even defeat that army.

Annie
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif

You mean that russians can win if a non russian comes and helps them doing the actual work?
Doesn't that mean they are hum... kind of weak?

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Louis,

[Crandaeolon]

Cheetah, I did mean upgraded Mamluk cav of course. Comparing things should always be done with roughly equal florin amounts, upgrade money preferably spent on valour. I also try to use "real-life" upgrades for units when comparing them. Unless my memory is acting up again, there weren't many cav units Mamluk cav couldn't beat... some lance-equipped light and medium cav were the hardest. For instance, v2 w1 Mamluk cav could beat v1 Chiv knights and v0 w1 Lancers IIRC. (Please don't kill me, Nath http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif)

And Edit... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif: Mamluk cav is good specifically against other cavalry, against infantry they're mediocre mostly because of that low charge.

[Cheetah]

Quote[/b] (Crandaeolon @ April 08 2003,15:00)]And Edit... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif: Mamluk cav is good specifically against other cavalry, against infantry they're mediocre mostly because of that low charge.
Well, that is exactly, they are less versatile than knights, cost more (IIRC a v2 w1 mam.cav costs more than a v1 chiv knight), and not even that good as an "anti-cav" cavalry.

[LadyAnn]

Louis:

Yeah Yeah, Russian are weak,so pursue me, I am glad there are suitors http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif)

Annie

[ErikJansen]

You dare to suggest Egyptians are a better muslim faction than the Turks? Infidels http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Crandaeolon]

In the desert, Erik. In the desert. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

And Cheetah, v2w1 Mamluk cav costs 1056 florins compared to the 1105 florins of v1 Chiv knight. The Chivs should lose in combat.

[Tempiic]

Quote[/b] (Aelwyn @ April 07 2003,21:37)]
Quote[/b] (Mithrandir @ April 07 2003,09:46)]Abedisians are reasonable,futtuwas are decent,muwhahid have their uses and they get pavs/naptah.
Wait, in which stats to the Egyptians have Futuwwas? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Guess he means nizarim

Now i see this thread got lots of replys since last time i saw it... so i kinda limit myself to replying to what is adressed to me.


I don't understand this "different mindset" and "don't compare units individually to other units" talk... as far as I'm concerned, there's only one mindset: know what your units can and can't do, and formulate a strategy based on that. It should go without saying that different factions and different army compositions need different strategies to be successful, after all that's the _point_ of having different factions in the game.

Hmmm... you misquoted me a bit... don't compare units individually to other units... based on florin costs. Needs to be part of it... I think i should have detailed this out much more than i did.

You are very right, you should know what your units do and cannot do and it is very important to know how some units fare in close combat against certain others. However staring yourself blindly on florin comparisions alone wont do you much good.

Looking at turks for example. Their cav are weaker than chiv knights at same florins costs. However, since some of their infantry can be upgraded much cheaper than western ones, which can result in a -in comparision- equally effective infantry force for lower costs, so it is easier to upgrade your cav units more, making them more expensive than chiv knights, but capable of meeting them head on. Thats why i think you should not stare blindly on individual unit florin to floring comparisions.

An example for western mindset in reference to cavalry... One is used to chiv knights. As cheetah said it perfectly, he expects his chiv knights to have an equal chance against similiar chiv knights (same upgrades, formation and hitting each otehr at same time), as well as being good against infantry and great routers... and are able to get over 100 kills. And thus gets upset when mameluk cavalry does not give him the same results at a higher cost, simply cos he treats them as chiv knights. Now yes, my mameluk cavalry does not reach 100 kills... 80 is much for them... But i know that almost all their kills are all western knights, excluding the few infantry units the unit attacked in the rear.

With chiv knights you can do lots of different things... with mameluk cav for example, you can do less... but what they do for me they excell at it. Yes when someone who thinks that mameluk cavalry performs same as chiv knights but poorer... and try to use them that way, that person will indeed get convinced that egyptians are one of the weakest factions around, simply because he tried to play them as a western faction. I am afraid i cant explain this part very well, but for me the point remains that I have had better overall results with egyptians, turks and russians than with italians, germans and spanish in terms of wins/losses ratio's.

Oh... and yes egyptians are the best desert army around... and do even quite well in snow (if you didnt bring camels)

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] (LadyAnn @ April 08 2003,18:18)]Louis:

Yeah Yeah, Russian are weak,so pursue me, I am glad there are suitors http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif)

Annie
Actually, I have faced a few Russian armies and I have been defeated quite often... But I am not sure it has to do with the Russian quality, more with the general overall skill. Russian generals tends to be good players.

Still, I will try to prove you wrong on the field

Louis

[Kalle]

Ah, feels good that some of you agree with me on the egyptians and in particular on their cav. It was tempiic that first made me try them since i allways also used to think that they were no good but now i know better http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif


Kalle

Well now im off to playing i think http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Cheetah]

Quote[/b] (Crandaeolon @ April 09 2003,06:17)]And Cheetah, v2w1 Mamluk cav costs 1056 florins compared to the 1105 florins of v1 Chiv knight. The Chivs should lose in combat.
Ooops, my bad, but I would still pick the v1 chiv.knight on any day (except in the desert). http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Cheetah]

Quote[/b] (Tempiic @ April 09 2003,09:01)]

Looking at turks for example. Their cav are weaker than chiv knights at same florins costs. However, since some of their infantry can be upgraded much cheaper than western ones, which can result in a -in comparision- equally effective infantry force for lower costs, so it is easier to upgrade your cav units more, making them more expensive than chiv knights, but capable of meeting them head on. Thats why i think you should not stare blindly on individual unit florin to floring comparisions.

Part of the reason why the turksish faction is playable is exactly the fact that they have units which come out better in a unit per unit comparison than their christian counterparts. For example JHI is much better anti-cav unit than any christian unit (chiv.foot.knights or billmen or halberds). That is why you can buy a strong infantry and still have some money to upgrade your weaker cavalry. The problem with the egyptians that they do not have a single unit which could stand a comparison with its christian counterpart. (keep in mind I am talking about temperate or lush climate) Axemen are weaker than swordsmen, spearmen are weak overall, most of the cavalry is weaker than western cavalry, mameluk cavarcher is weaker than boyars. The best egytpian special unit is indeed the mameluk.cav but imho even this unit is inferior to the western knights. All in all, there is not a sinlge unit which you can trust, on which you can spare money. Thus you have to spend both on your infantry and on your cavalry to compensate for their weaknesses. Since you cannot spend on both, thus either you have a weak cavalry and an infantry which might stand a chance, or have a weak infantry and a cavalry which might stand a chance. Eitherway you have a weaker army than your christian opponent.


Quote[/b] (Tempiic @ April 09 2003,09:01)]
An example for western mindset in reference to cavalry... One is used to chiv knights. As cheetah said it perfectly, he expects his chiv knights to have an equal chance against similiar chiv knights (same upgrades, formation and hitting each otehr at same time), as well as being good against infantry and great routers... and are able to get over 100 kills. And thus gets upset when mameluk cavalry does not give him the same results at a higher cost, simply cos he treats them as chiv knights. Now yes, my mameluk cavalry does not reach 100 kills... 80 is much for them... But i know that almost all their kills are all western knights, excluding the few infantry units the unit attacked in the rear.

Well, I understand that you are supposed to play a different style with the egyptians, the big question is whether your opponent lets you to play that style or not. To put it the other way round, with a western army you can play many styles. With the Egyptian you can play only a few. Moreover a good western general can force you to play his style. IMHO http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif (I still have temperate or lush climate in mind)


Quote[/b] (Tempiic @ April 09 2003,09:01)]With chiv knights you can do lots of different things... with mameluk cav for example, you can do less... but what they do for me they excell at it. Yes when someone who thinks that mameluk cavalry performs same as chiv knights but poorer... and try to use them that way, that person will indeed get convinced that egyptians are one of the weakest factions around, simply because he tried to play them as a western faction. I am afraid i cant explain this part very well, but for me the point remains that I have had better overall results with egyptians, turks and russians than with italians, germans and spanish in terms of wins/losses ratio's.

I am not doubting you, but I am really curious how can you have better kill/loss ratio with the Egyptians than, lets say, with a byzantine or spanish power army. Needles to say that I have the worst kill/loss ratio with the egyptians http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

BTW, I am not saying that it is impossible to win with the egyptians, but imho it very much depends on your allies (in a 3v3 or 4v4 game). Good allies can compensate for the weakness of your troops http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif


Quote[/b] (Tempiic @ April 09 2003,09:01)]Oh... and yes egyptians are the best desert army around... and do even quite well in snow (if you didnt bring camels)

It is true in general that if a faction is good in the desert then it is good in the snow as well. Not suprising since it is all about the armour. Perhaps bit more surprising imho that one of the best desert/winter factions is the English. The other is the Egyptians. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] (Tempiic @ April 09 2003,09:01)]Looking at turks for example. Their cav are weaker than chiv knights at same florins costs. However, since some of their infantry can be upgraded much cheaper than western ones, which can result in a -in comparision- equally effective infantry force for lower costs, so it is easier to upgrade your cav units more, making them more expensive than chiv knights, but capable of meeting them head on. Thats why i think you should not stare blindly on individual unit florin to floring comparisions.
I kind of agree that fl for fl Turks have a better use of their inf than cath faction and a rather worse use of it for their cav (also depends on what you expect from cav), but, from this assumption I end up with a completly different conclusion.

Instead of having a cheaper inf equivalent to the cath inf and use the spare fl to boost a weaker turk cav, I keep pouring money into inf, more than in an usual cath set up and use very little money and upgrade for cav. Playing on the strenght, not trying to fix the weakness. I increase the inbalance (if usual cath set up is balanced). IMO, despite diminishing return on additional upgrade, I still end up with a great great inf army, more than a match for cath inf.
My cav is not matching cath cav... And is not even trying. Head on it's dead. At some point it's cav vs inf, and I just have to pray JHI can handle it.

Louis,

I also agree with the mindset question; individual units cost comparison doesn't make for comparison of faction.

[Tempiic]

Just a short reply.... donthave much time...

Yes, i agree, maxing out your infantery to maximise your strenghts might be a better idea for turks. However i just used my example to show that it is possible to field a comparable army even whenindividual units are not. I am not saying I use that method nor am i denying it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[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 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[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... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

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... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[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 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[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 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif hmm , posted today, russians vs byz and spanish, hmm sounds familar.
Oi http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
I demand a rematch http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flirt.gif

[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 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif #hmm , posted today, russians vs byz and spanish, hmm sounds familar.
Oi #http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
I demand a rematch #http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flirt.gif
any time http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif. At least my ally now knows to buy more than 2 valour for his Byz inf ,so it should be better still now http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.

Was quite a suprise that match ,and very fun http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.

[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 ?

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif The Egyptians http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif

[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&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[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. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Cheetah]

Thx Elmo the tip. I have no doubt about the strength of your handgunner army http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif 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. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif 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. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[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.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif 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 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

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 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif


Mith what is it with you and camels ???? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif




TGI