View Full Version : lib Are 60/40 man infantry units underpowered?
I was doing some custom battle tests and I noticed that at approximately equal florins, several 100 man units could beat Order foot 1 on 1, but only one 60 man unit could do it, and it was really close. For example, at equal florin, Chivalric men at arms barely beat them, and it probably could have gone either way, while Byzantine infantry slaughtered them. Gothic Foot Knights didnt even have a chance.
My tests indicate that the smaller units are at a big disadvantage against 100 man units, even ones who they are supposed to be good against. They just run out of men too quickly to beat the larger unit. Perhaps it was a mistake to make shock troops only 60 men.
My tests are admittedly not that scientific (only did one test with each combo of units), so I'd like to hear what you guys have to say about this.
de la Valette
09-11-2002, 21:41
I had a battle (me attacking) against the turks yesterday as the French (my 800 with a 6 star general Vs their 1300 with a five star general) in which i mostly used Chivalric men at arms against a very mixed turkish army (mostly 100 men spear units the names of which escape me).
Anyway i won the battle (loses of 400 against 885 killed and 200 POWS), but noticed that my Chivalric men at arms took a pounding against troops they should have been best against ie spear units. I like using men at arms but they appear under powered at their job when facing spear infantry head on 1 Vs 1.
Hmmm...
Disturbing news I must say as I rely a lot on shocktroops.
Did you try Chivalric MAA against the Byzantine Infantry? Maybe it was better.
Byzantine Infantry should win against Order Foot Soldiers, their stats are 2 better in attack. Morale I'm unsure but I think Order troops have that better, but it is of little use when the Byzantines kill that much faster (also the Order troops are in Hold which is -2 to attack, all in all 4 less in attack).
------------------
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Not only do equal florin Byz inf beat Chiv men at arms but
valor zero Byz inf(Cost 175) beat valor zero Chiv men at arms (cost 275).
So a unit of the same class, 100 florins cheaper wins due to numbers.
[This message has been edited by Action (edited 09-11-2002).]
yes byzantine infantry are very good, and yes 100 men units are very effective. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
a slight imbalance might indeed be the case here.
Gaahhh...
At least the Chiv. MAA are Elite while the Byz. inf. are only Disciplined. So I think in general battles where each unit is not entirely dependant on its own Morale as much as the others, the Chiv. MAA are better because of better Morale (they have better Morale don't they?) and status.
------------------
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
IMO it depends on the situation and how the unit gets used. 1 vs 1, most cavalry do poorly against spearmen or the more advanced versions of spearmen, at equal cost. Same with ranged units, w/o a melee unit to act as a screen, most end up as dog-food vs melee units (the exception is horse-archers). If I have to pick one unit to face any one non-ranged enemy unit, I'd pick a spearman-type every time.
In my experience, sending most of the 60-man type units head-on into spearmen-type units is generally a bad idea. I haven't tried using Wedge formation vs the 60-man units, but normal rectangular-style attacks definitely favor the spearmen. Think of it this way: You have a wall of spears. Your unit has fewer men and shorter-ranged weapons (like swords). You are going to take heavy casualties closing the range to sword range, especially if the spearmen-type unit charge. Say you take 10 casualties just closing the range. Now you're outnumbered 2:1 (50 vs 100). If their formation holds, they have the formation advantage (which your unit type doesn't get). This will probably reduce any close-in fighting advantage you get. So now you're 2:1 agains, fighting a formation that's holding, getting prodded at by 2-3 rows of spears. Waddaya think is going to happen? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Better to use those 60-man units in a situation better suited to their strengths. Attack from the side or rear, or against units otherwise engaged. This will enable the 60-man unit to wade into the middle of a melee, into their element. Most of the short-range non-spear types will clean up in this situation.
IMO, the 60/40 men units are best part of a combined-arms army. Use your spearmen type units to stop the enemy and hold him. Use the melee-type 60/40 units to wade in afterwards and become your offensice punch. Unless the enemy has 60/40 man units to counter you, or really outnumbers you (or is fighting downhill), you'll usually win these fights, mostly because of the presence of the 60/40 man units. Plus, these groups *can* engage spearmen types head-on and hold their own (for a while), something that calvalry can't.
On, and one final thing to try: Set up the 60/40 man unit formation in rectangle formation, significantly wider than the spearmen formation. This should cause the formation to "wrap around" the spearmen, allowing some of your men to hack away at the flanks. This will cause the flanks to turn and engage, eliminating the multi-rank advantage at the extremes of the front and at the flanks. This might be a good way to defeat a spear-unit with a 60/40 man unit, especially since it lets more of your men fight without significantly increasing the number of spearmen fighting at any one time.
ElmarkOFear
09-11-2002, 22:59
Anyone who has faced my ElmoHead army knows the power of the 60-man units. My foot troops are all 60-man (about 8 of them) and the rest are missile troops, either arrow, arbalestor or mirabitin. I have faced many large 100 man armies with these guys and was able to rout them. The key is in knowing the best way to apply valour, wep, and arm upgrades to get the most for your money against the larger units. By looking at the Almohad army it looks very weak against the other factions and most people don't play them because of this, but I looked upon this as a challenge and was able to find a good combination of units and formations of attack. Good luck with your army.
One way of finding the good troops takes time, but is the only way to find the right combo of upgrades etc. . . using the custom battle the way you do is correct, but adjust the honor up for the 100 man foot unit to valour 4, no upgrades, then find a cheaper 60-man unit and play with the valour, wep, arm upgrades until you find the successful combination. I think spearman units are almost all the same in cost and value between the armies so what will work against your 100-man spearmen unit will most likely work against any other faction's spearmen. Hope this helps.
Azmogeddon
09-11-2002, 23:53
I do find that the 60-man units take far more casualties than their cost would suggest when fighting even lower tech spearman troops head-on, but 100 spearman plus a couple of 60-man feudal men-at-arms will totally decimate basically any infantry unit, with very very few casualties.
My favorite tactic (against AI, doubtful it would work against humans.. haven't tried MP yet) is a 'reactionary' line, alternating spearmen and men-at-arms. Any enemy unit that approaches too close I charge with the spearmen and quickly wrap around with men-at-arms, frequently the unit is routed before any others can come to its assistance - immediately the unit routs I pull back to the line, with light cavalry ready to charge around to chase the routing unit if possible.
------------------
Azmo
[long-time lurker]
hoof, you might be right in the real world, but in MTW and STW there is no range, besides real ranged units. So a swordsman engages spearmen at the same time as they engage him. So it is not that.
I just believe it has something to do with the double rank fighting, as well as the supporting rank. If you put spears in four ranks, you will get two ranks fighting and two supporting (can't get more). The two supporting ranks give +1 to attack and +2 to defence, that is on top on what we see in the F1 screen.
So actually spears are quite powerful.
------------------
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
LittleRaven
09-12-2002, 00:22
Quote Originally posted by Azmogeddon:
I do find that the 60-man units take far more casualties than their cost would suggest when fighting even lower tech spearman troops head-on, but 100 spearman plus a couple of 60-man feudal men-at-arms will totally decimate basically any infantry unit, with very very few casualties.
[/QUOTE]
My experience exactly. Head-on, nothing beats spearmen. (well, maybe heavy foot knights, but boy, they're expensive.) This is probably as it should be: A wall of spears is just about the worst thing in the world to take head-on. On the other hand, spearmen are VERY dependant on their formation for protection. If sword units can get around the flanks of the spears, the spears are in big, big trouble. Of course, any unit is vulnerable from the flanks, but spearmen particularly so.
Remember, once they lose their charge bonus, most spearmen don’t kill very well at all. What they do is last. (particularly against frontal attackers) They have great defense, but they won’t actually be killing that many enemies. So flanking with spearmen isn’t ideal, because if they don’t route the enemy on the initial charge, the enemy unit is still going to last long enough for help to arrive. (unless you’re flanking cavalry) Flank with swordsmen, though, and watch the enemy drop like flies!
I think the description of feudal men-at-arms is misleading. They are not quite “the mainstay” of an army. Spearmen should (IMO, at this point) be “the mainstay.” You should initially engage with spearmen whenever possible, then bring the swordsmen into play while the enemy is trying to cut down the spearmen.
Dionysus9
09-12-2002, 00:27
There is NO DOUBT that being outnumbered is a disadvantage. Being outnumbered 6 to 10 is a pretty steep disadvantage, regardless of how many ranks of the enemy can attack at once. If the 100-Spears are in 5 twenty man ranks, even if you take out the first 20, you still have 80 more to go.
Lets say for the sake of argument, the 100-man unit can take 10 of yours in the time it takes you to kill 20 of his.
So, after awhile its 50/80. 40/60. 30/40. 20/20. 10/0, with Men at Arms winning by a hair.
Now that is assuming that a 60 man unit is able to DOUBLE the number of kills of the 100 man unit(which is wider, and is probably fighting several ranks deep), even while outnumbered almost 2-1. How realistic is that assumption when it is based on only a +2 melee factor? Probably not very realistic.
So it seems like the men at arms have to be VERY buff to stand up to a 100 man unit 1v1, just by applying the above logic. Elmo's advice seems right on point. Mess around with upgrades until you find something that works for a similar price.
Up them to 70. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Did a quick study of the 60/100 situation. I sicked a unit of Chivalric Men-at-Arms at a unit of Sacaren Infantry. The Men-at-arms cost 275, the Sacaren infantry cost 250. Normal unit size was used.
The first thing I tried was to put the Men-at-arms in a 2-deep row, wider than the Sacaren group (which was controlled by the AI, 5 deep I think). When they hit the Sacarens, they were wider by about 2-3 men on each side, which wrapped around the flanks a bit. The Men-at-arms won, taking 30 casualties and inflicting about 70 (it was a long battle, neither side would've been that effective afterwards), for a 2:1 kill/loss ratio.
Tried again, this time with Wedge formation hitting the middle of the formation. I hit the square formation button after the Wedge had hit home (to get the most men into the fight). This time the Men-at-arms lost, each side losing about 50 men.
The lesson learned was that if you want to take on Spearmen type units head-on with equal value non-spear footmen, you have to spread out to get as many fighters into the battle as possible (preferrably with some wrapping around the flanks). This could be a problem with several spearmen in tight formations. However, you should do ok if you make sure that you use a formation that gets at least 50% of your men in front when the fighting starts (so some men aren't in the back twiddling their thumbs). Wedge formation on a head-on attack vs spearmen type doesn't seem to be too effective in this situation. Gotta do some more research...
Nightweb
09-13-2002, 22:02
I noticed that most large units can do well against most any other troop type, if you spread them out they get the flanking bonus too because they wrap around the unit they are attacking.
Peasants are actually worth something when they come in units ot 200 vs almost any 20-60 unit sized troop, they can wrap all the way around.. flanking and rear attack.. =p
Dionysus9
09-13-2002, 22:05
Quote Originally posted by hoof:
Wedge formation on a head-on attack vs spearmen type doesn't seem to be too effective in this situation. Gotta do some more research...[/QUOTE]
2 tests isnt enough....random factors can give you misleading results. Try each test 10 times and average the results...
realistic?
u use farmer or peasants to fight good units!
what u expect?
every unit has his advances so go and search for it.
btw, tests vs the AI reflect wrong information! it dont show u how it real is in battles online.
u guys use so much florin that this useless anyway, coz with 20k each its already unbalanced!
more cash means- more use of better units!
quite easy...
i personal use 100 men unit to hold of a weak side or face some cav, sometimes to boost moral of fighting units....
koc
DarknScaly
09-13-2002, 22:53
Just buy 16 units of gallowglass and hit "CHARGE!"
Even if ya don't win its a giggle.
No, they arent underpowered.
Quote Originally posted by LittleRaven:
My experience exactly. Head-on, nothing beats spearmen. [/QUOTE]
Then you lack experience because men-at-arms will rape spearmen if they clash head-on charging at each other.
LittleRaven
09-14-2002, 00:26
Quote Originally posted by JRock:
Then you lack experience because men-at-arms will rape spearmen if they clash head-on charging at each other.[/QUOTE]
Spearmen, or the men-at-arms equivilant, Feudal Sergeants?
From the strat guide:
Feudal Sergeants (cost 175)
Charge 5
Attack 0 (+1 cav)
Defense 1 (+ 4 vs. cav)
Morale 2
Armor (none)
Feudal Men at arms (cost 150)
Charge 3
Attack 3
Defense 4
Morale 2
Armor (mail) 5
Keep in mind that Feudal Sergeants have 40 more guys than the Men-At-Arms.
Now, from this data, when the two meet in the charge, the Seargeants will have attack 5, the Men at Arms only attack 3. Remember also that if they are fighting in formation, the front two ranks of Spearmen get to attack, which is not the case for the Men-At-Arms. Now, once the charge wears off, the Sergeants only have attack 0, so the Men-At-Arms will begin slaughtering them, but by that point the Men-At-Arms will be severly outnumbered. They may win, but it's hardly decisive. And the Sergeants can deal with cavalry, which the Men-At-Arms cannot.
Now, there is a huge number of other factors that can come into play...terrain, fatigue, formation facing...ect. Is it a sure thing that the Sergeants will win? No, of course not. But charging your men-at-arms head-on into the front of a mass of spearmen is a poor investment. They may win but they will take horrendous losses. Much, much better to use them from the flank. Use another spear unit to absorb the charge.
You're all overlooking the 'supporting ranks' bonus. Spearmen (all types) get to count up to TWO extra 'points' (it adds to the attack factor) if charging or defending (double this for pikemen!). One if attacking. This applies to any combat with a unit in front of them, when they hold formation.
Now your Feudal Sergeants charge at 7, attack at 1 (2 vs. cav), defend at 3 (6 vs. cav).
[This message has been edited by dancho (edited 09-13-2002).]
LittleRaven
09-14-2002, 00:55
Quote Originally posted by dancho:
[B]You're all overlooking the 'supporting ranks' bonus. Spearmen (all types) get to count up to TWO extra 'points' (it adds to the attack factor) if charging or defending (double this for pikemen!). One if attacking. This applies to any combat with a unit in front of them, when they hold formation.[B][/QUOTE]
Thanks, dancho. I was thinking that my number didn't quite add up to my experiance. This helps explain why.
Quote Originally posted by ElmarkOFear:
Anyone who has faced my ElmoHead army knows the power of the 60-man units. My foot troops are all 60-man (about 8 of them) and the rest are missile troops, either arrow, arbalestor or mirabitin. I have faced many large 100 man armies with these guys and was able to rout them. The key is in knowing the best way to apply valour, wep, and arm upgrades to get the most for your money against the larger units. By looking at the Almohad army it looks very weak against the other factions and most people don't play them because of this, but I looked upon this as a challenge and was able to find a good combination of units and formations of attack. Good luck with your army.
One way of finding the good troops takes time, but is the only way to find the right combo of upgrades etc. . . using the custom battle the way you do is correct, but adjust the honor up for the 100 man foot unit to valour 4, no upgrades, then find a cheaper 60-man unit and play with the valour, wep, arm upgrades until you find the successful combination. I think spearman units are almost all the same in cost and value between the armies so what will work against your 100-man spearmen unit will most likely work against any other faction's spearmen. Hope this helps. [/QUOTE]
He is right http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif I also find the 60-man units a better balance between 40-man heavy knights and 100-man peasantry and medium infantry. Most 100-man units are overall weak with low morale and they rout quite easily. I reckon the Order Foot Soldiers are good warriors though - but low morale and defense. Otherwise units like the Vikings, Halbardiers, Janissaries rock...
Tera.
------------------
Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka)
evil is within us... http://www.totalwar.org/site/emomalta.gif
TexRoadkill
09-14-2002, 03:17
Isn't it foolish to attack with even numbers and even more so with fewer numbers even if the minority troops are superior?
It seems like the whole point in manuevering is to attack with at least a 2-1 advantage. Even if your smaller groups can kill the larger one they will usually be too tired and worried about casualties to be very effective after that. In the end you neutralize both groups at a greater cost to you if you are using high quality troops.
It would seem to me that proper formations and maneuvering to obtain that advantage are much more important than troop quality.
Quote Originally posted by LittleRaven:
But charging your men-at-arms head-on into the front of a mass of spearmen is a poor investment. They may win but they will take horrendous losses. Much, much better to use them from the flank. Use another spear unit to absorb the charge.[/QUOTE]
That is a decent tactic except you're using two units against one. The way to use a shock unit to defeat a spear unit is to thin the shock unit out into a line two-deep and let it Engage at Will so it will wrap around the enemy spear unit and then it will be attacking the flanks as well as the front.
anymapkoku
09-15-2002, 00:30
Whoever said that feudal sergeants can beat feudal men should take their game back, because they have no chance to amount to anything in multiplayer, ever.
From my custom-battle test, I set 5 units of Heavy Janissaries against 5 units of Swiss Armoured Pikemen. HJs are 60-man and SAPs, to my surprise, were 100-man units. To my even-bigger surprise, the Janissaries bored in (on flat terrain, head-on clash) and, taking heavy casualties (about 15-25 apiece), managed to rout the Pikemen in about 2 minutes of heavy fighting. The SAPs took about 60-70 casualties apiece before breaking.
DDDDSEKOTD
09-16-2002, 07:22
I am new to the game. Where did you all get the detatils of the unit capabilities?
------------------
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Ben Franklin
ok for started, melee units are best on the flank of an army, while u use your tough defensive troops in the middle. When the enemy engages, try to use your melee unites at their flanks/rear, the inital charge and their facing the wrong direction should cause a lot of casualyies
BomilkarDate
09-18-2002, 23:55
Don't forget the small units are more mobile, more versatile. A small group of tough warriors, while the big blocks are just bad fighters or normal guys. That means small ones can flank better and if they do, they are really dangerous. Then the big ones have no advantage for being so many (as most of them can't fight) and they get morale penalties. If you flank 100 swiss pikemen with 60 janissaries, the cheese guys will really look like cheese (means they are pale and have holes all over their bodies after a while they might even smell alike) within seconds.
According to the strategy guide the swordsmen are supposed to beat the spears. If that's true, then you would have a rock, paper, scissors system of sword beats spear, spear beats cav and cav beats sword. At the same time, swords frontally assaulting spears is not the best way to go about it due to the rank bonuses the spear unit get. If you play online, what you ultimately will have to deal with is the swordsman rush just as you had to deal with the monk rush in STW.
Quote Originally posted by Puzz3D:
If you play online, what you ultimately will have to deal with is the swordsman rush just as you had to deal with the monk rush in STW.[/QUOTE]
So keep a couple units of V2 Alan Cav handy for those occasions to flank and decimate the swordsmen. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
Tachikaze
09-19-2002, 01:45
Since I don't play the strategy portion of this game (due to lack of free time, not lack of interest), I sift through this forum looking for just this kind of thread. Battlefield tactics.
What struck me, though, when I read this thread was the contrast to the thread I read yesterday saying that men-at-arms were the best bang-for-the-buck. Interesting how opinions can be so wide when a game is still new.
I was also stuck in a little irony, because I had been constantly losing when I took the offensive in the tactical game, even vs. the AI. I remedied the problem by changing my tactics drastically. The center of my force is a group of four foot knights (vikings if I play Danes), arrayed in a checkerboard pattern. I break all the rules in this thread: I put them in squares, not wide lines and I charge right into neat lines of spearmen. However, I do keep them in block formation, not wedge. I've never had luck with wedges.
Their support is two or three spear units (order foot, if I can afford them) and two units of mounted feudal knights (so far I'm staying in the Early period) all on the wings. The rear reserve, or second wave, has one of the spears, plus two units of whatever leftover melee I can afford (these are the flankers you have been discussing).
I know this discussion has been centered more on cheaper melee units, but the 60-man size applies to the foot knights as well. I tend to learn by experience, rather than bean-counting (stat charts, comparing numbers, etc.). What I'm learning is: the more I rely on melee as my core, it seems, the better results I get.
Just a reaction and observation.
------------------
http://members.cox.net/ramen/icon09.gif
Knowing the Tao saves you thousands of dollars in psychiatric bills and credit card debt.
Quote Originally posted by LittleRaven:
Now, from this data, when the two meet in the charge, the Seargeants will have attack 5, the Men at Arms only attack 3. [/QUOTE]
Not entirely true, you have to add the Charge value to the attack to get the impact, so actually the MAA has a charge of 6, not 3.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
done some testing myself regarding this...
faced a spearmen unit with urban militia and later faced a feudal spearmen unit with men at arms and after that militia sergeants (i was fighting uphill mind you)..
generally if you try a head on clash you usually win but lose about 2/3 of your troops and kill half of thiers
if you charge em whilst only 2 ranks deep to allow for lapping around then you tend to lose 1/3 of your unit whilst killing 2/3 of the spearmen unit
each combat was fought 10 times each and these the average results
most of the damage the spears do is when they charge (bout half your casualties taken when the spears charge hits home)
bottom line is, infantry vs spears means make your infantry 2 ranks deep (one rank doesnt work and 3 ranks doesnt spread enough)
course being able to move into postion when strung out like that in the larger battles is another matter (though wedge formation can help as long as you remember to change formation before charging)
dont use wedges head on against spears, the results are very painful for your unit ...
Quote Originally posted by BomilkarDate:
Don't forget the small units are more mobile, more versatile. A small group of tough warriors, while the big blocks are just bad fighters or normal guys. That means small ones can flank better and if they do, they are really dangerous. Then the big ones have no advantage for being so many (as most of them can't fight) and they get morale penalties. If you flank 100 swiss pikemen with 60 janissaries, the cheese guys will really look like cheese (means they are pale and have holes all over their bodies after a while they might even smell alike) within seconds.[/QUOTE]
With this argument you basicaly admit that swordsmen are weaker than spearmen. What it says (a) that you cannot attack spearmens head-on with swords, and (b) that you have to be the better player in order to win a swordsmen vs spearmen battle. This runs contrary to the supposed rock-paper-scissors relation between unit types. Swordsmen are supposed to beat spears even head-on. This should not be a question of individual skill.
[This message has been edited by Cheetah (edited 09-19-2002).]
I found this to be pretty much true. I tried to win against large spearmen armies with the more elite smaller units but soon learned that the core to a good army, is spearmen. Using 4 spearmen as my armies base, then stacking archers behind them, and using infantry behind and between the spear units, and calvary on the edges, seems to be unbeatable. I was cleaning up large armies 900+ men with very minimal loses. I think they are slightly overpowered, haven't had the game long but they seem essential.
Cronopio
09-19-2002, 21:12
Quote Originally posted by Malius:
I found this to be pretty much true. I tried to win against large spearmen armies with the more elite smaller units but soon learned that the core to a good army, is spearmen. Using 4 spearmen as my armies base, then stacking archers behind them, and using infantry behind and between the spear units, and calvary on the edges, seems to be unbeatable. I was cleaning up large armies 900+ men with very minimal loses. I think they are slightly overpowered, haven't had the game long but they seem essential. [/QUOTE]
Agreed. I think specifically they are overpowered against swordsmen. I have no problem with their advantages against cavalry
When considering 60 man vs 100 man units you have to remember that for the SP campaign a 60 man unit will level up quicker than a 100 man unit.
And like Elmo said morale is all important in larger battles. The stats don't mean squat if your unit turns and runs!
Quote Originally posted by DrNo:
And like Elmo said morale is all important in larger battles. The stats don't mean squat if your unit turns and runs![/QUOTE]
Actually spearmen are cheaper thus it is easier to buy them valour (in MP).
Malius,
What you describe, spears, sword, archers and cav, is a balanced army. If the units are well balanced, the balanced army will be the best to take. If the balance is off, then the better army becomes the all of one type or all of two types. The monks of STW were out of balance by not more than 15%, and it was very hard to handle a rush by 16 of them. Also, the 8 monk + 8 gun army in STW pretty much put the balanced army out of business. If you play WE/MI v103, you'll find that there is no single unit 16 of which will defeat a balanced army. The thing that helps there, in addition to unit balancing, is that the rock, paper, scissors is very strong.
I agree balance is a nice thing to have but I think the current balance isn't where it should be, I think the concern is that the rock-paper-scissor aspect has been lost.
Spearman beat Cavalry
Calvary beat Swordsman
Spearman beat Swordsman usually.
All things being equal I'll take a spearman unit over any other without knowing what I'm facing. I like having a few units of infantry around for side rushes, flankings, but currently the core to any good army seems to be having spearman and a good amount of them http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif Swordsman probably need a small boost to offense to bring them in line..or make spearman more expensive.
ElmarkOFear
09-19-2002, 23:58
Yes Cheetah, but their base morale is set at 0, while many of the elite units are set at 3 or 4 base. So if you up their valour by 2 then you are even with most elite units morale. You will find the cost is now more than it would be to buy the Valour 0 elite unit in most cases. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Yes, Elmo http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif but those elite units are only 40 men strong. After receiving a decent charge they are down to 30 men, take out ten men from the spear units you still have 90 men.
I, too, would love a rock-papers-scissors behaviour, but I prefer whatever Real Life was like. Does anyone have any real facts on this (as opposed to "I've heard xxxx beat yyyy every time)? I, personally, don't know what the "real life" behavior was like (such as did a real group of 60 swordsmen regularly beat 100 well-formed spearmen head-on)?
Back when I used to do ww2 online games, we always had historical documents from the timeperiod to fall back to (these docs had actual vehicle performance data that was hard to argue against). Is there anything like this for the Medieval period?
Well, since most battle reports from this period revolve around the concept of "And then, Gallant Sir Rodgersson cleaved many men in twain with his mighty axe, and no man ever could withstand his righteous fury !", I'd be inclined to answer "no" http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
All is fair in love and war.
Well, maybe not in love.
ElmarkOFear
09-20-2002, 08:37
Cheetah, I have yet to see a charge from spearmen take out 10 of my Urban militia. If you do the custom battle, you will see that the urban militia ultimately win at comparable florin levels. Even though they are 60, they hang around a lot longer than you might expect. You also have to remember that spearmen will rout at about 25 to 30 men left if it is a 1 on 1 situation. BTW very few foot troop units are at 40 men. Most are at 60.
[This message has been edited by ElmarkOFear (edited 09-20-2002).]
ElmarkOFear
09-20-2002, 08:43
I noticed in another thread, Activision made the developers lower the armor piercing bonus of many units. So the armor piercing bonus as it now stands does not kick in unless the unit has around a 5 armor value. It was kicking in for 3 armor until the change. I believe that they are going to revise this to the original 3 armor for the patch. If so then this may have an impact on the effectiveness of units with the armor piercing bonus.
Hi Hoof
> Quote Originally posted by hoof:
>I, too, would love a rock-papers->scissors behaviour, but I prefer whatever >Real Life was like. Does anyone have any >real facts on this (as opposed to "I've >heard xxxx beat yyyy every time)? I, >personally, don't know what the "real life" >behavior was like (such as did a real group >of 60 swordsmen regularly beat 100 well->formed spearmen head-on)?
As the strategy guide says "swordsmen may be pressed back initially by a charge of pikemen or quality spearmen. However, if they have the morale to survive the initial onslaught, the nimbler swordsmen will gain the upper hand as the melee causes the pikemen's formation to break down". This is good theory. We have several examples from the roman-macedonian wars, whose principles are the same.
When fighting against a Macedoanian Phalanx (very close order pikemen) the roman legion (swordsmen) of the republic usually saw the first line (Hastatii) be swept from the field or at least waver with heavy losses (e.g. Pydna). Such was the power of the Phalanx charge. Then it was time for the roman second line (Principes) to advance and exploit the gaps opened in the Phalanx either by terrain obstacles or the uneven advance across the battlefront. Being able to approach the pikemen from the flank in those gaps, the legionaries were able to cut them to pieces at close quarters.
Another example comes from the late XVth century wars. The spanish used sword and buckler soldiers ahead of their pikemen squadrons in order to cut through the enemy pikemen once the pikemen match came to a stalemate. The Germans used two-handed swords instead.
So, what is the conclusion relative to MTW? In my opinion MTW is more or less realistic in this respect, though in practice maybe some fine tunning is needed to stress this behaviour. Anyway you must admit that it is difficult to model a battle field inch by inch, man by man, so maybe the developers have found a compromise solution. For examplem the developers can argue that swordsmen can win when in extended formation by attacking the flanks of the spear or pike formation, which can be an approach to reality (i.e. to exploit gaps is in fact to find an unprotected "flank" in the enemy formation). On the other hand, it would also not be a bad idea to increase the melee bonus of swordsmen when fighting spearmen and pikemen, after the charge of the latter (when it took place) has stopped.
Cheers,
Antonio
This is perfect theory, but is it what MTW shows in practice? In my opinion spearmen and specially pikemen should have the big charge bonus and kill a lot of swordsmen. But then, after momentum is vanished, swordsmen should be able to cut
Back when I used to do ww2 online games, we always had historical documents from the timeperiod to fall back to (these docs had actual vehicle performance data that was hard to argue against). Is there anything like this for the Medieval period?[/QUOTE]
Rosacrux
09-20-2002, 18:47
Real life experience regarding who beats whom?
Interesting, but there is no "fixed" solution, usually more than one factors apply. When we are talking about medieval armies (which the game is about) well, the rule is "cavalry owns the field".
Heavy armoured cavalry, actually.
On the broader aspect (that is, before gunpowder gave the edge to plain infantry): Strategists of all ages agree on these principals:
- Shock cavalry can easily disrupt and possibly put in disarray and thus massacre, shock infantry. That was demonstrated by alexander the great and his heavy shock cavalry (hetairoi and thessaloi)in a great way.
- Light cavalry is used for reconaissance, skirmish and occasionaly for flanking. Since usually any army has some shooters of some kind, it's suicidal to send unarmoured cavalry heads-up to the fray of battle, for they usually get boutchered. We have seen that hundreds of time throughout the ages.
- No cavalry has even been able to break a solid formation of basically trained and disciplined (and adequatly led) spearmen/pikemen. There is no way a rider can convince his horse to march into a wall of lances, no bleeding way.
Of course if the infantry is not disciplined they shall start breaking the moment they see the cavalry charging... that was the case in most medieval battlefields, but not always: Remember Bannokburn?
- In addition to the above, no spear infantry formation has survived a heavy cavalry charge if not in a solid formation. Any break in the formation is fatal, because the cavalry shall jump in and wreak havoc. Also, if the flanks of the infantry formation are not coverd, they are also doomed.
- No shock infantry without support from shooters (javelin, archers) or flanking cavalry, can take spearmen head-to-head. Horses ain't the only who fear the sight of a spear-wall, and even armor doesn't do much against those.
- The best way for beating a large solid formation of disciplined infantry is to raign some missiles on them, created some gaps and throw in the gaps shock infantry, while the cavalry should try to get to the flanks or - even better - the rear of the spear formation.
- Those measures can be countered though, if the spearmen are armoured (minimal losses from missiles) and they have themselves some sort of missile troops among their ranks.
Quote Originally posted by ElmarkOFear:
Cheetah, I have yet to see a charge from spearmen take out 10 of my Urban militia. BTW very few foot troop units are at 40 men. Most are at 60.
[/QUOTE]
Elmo, I am not talking about your Urban Militia http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif Obviously, Elmo-head urban militia and Feudal MAA are good units. What I had in mind is Feudal Foot Knights and Chivalric Foot Knights, IMHO these are the "elit swordsman" units (hm, actually CFK have halberds but never mind http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif. Both has only 40 men and thus, IMHO they are basicaly useless. For the same florin FMAA can beat both FFK and CFK.
[/B][/QUOTE]
ElmarkOFear
09-20-2002, 22:52
Ooops, Elmo does not know anything of the feudal knight 40-man units, so Elmo will go back into his shack and work on the next bunch o' shine! Hmmmm, where did I leave my clay jug at . . .anyone seen it? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.