Chivalric units

[Noctoz_AV]

I have seen some very different opinions about Chivalric Men-at-arms, sergants and knights.
Are they better then the feudal ones?

Also. Are the royal knights of their age supperior to chivalric or feudal knights?

[Longasc]

Chivalric Men-At-Arms are far better than Feudal MAA.
Feudal Sergeants are a bit different... they have the following stats:

FSergeants: Cost 200, Fast, Very Strong Charge 5, Weak Attack 0, Weak Defence 1, Armor 3, Good Morale 2
ChivSergeants: Cost 300, NOT Fast, Very Strong Charge 5, Weak Attack -1, Good Defence 5, Armor 5, Poor Morale 0

While CMenAtArms are in each class somewhat better then FMAAarms, the Sergeants are too different to be compared. I prefer the ChivSergeants, because while having less good attack ratings and lower Morale they have better Defence and Armor.

Late Royal Knights are a little bit better armored than Chivalric Knights. But they are only 20, compared to 40...

So I would say the Chiv Knights are somewhat equal, but according to numbers preferable and better.

You can compare stats easily here:

http://shogun.cafe24.com/

[Hoplite]

I'd just like to point out that both Feudal Sergeants and Chivalric Sergeants have the same movement values: walk 6, Run 10 and charge 11. Feudal Sergeants aren't fast.

[econ21]

Yes, chivalric units are superior to feudal ones. The main thing at work is armour improvements. The sergeants, in particular, go from being unarmoured to being mailed and in this game, that is a really big deal (raises defence and armour a lot). It is so big, in fact, that they lowered the quality of chivalric sergeants to try to make less of a jump.

With the already armoured men-at-arms and knights (incl. royal knights), the armour upgrade is not so great: from mail to transitional armour (ie includes some plate), plus the horses get barding. This is less of a big deal partly because the jump in defence values is less and partly because the shield starts to contribute less to protection as the armour improves. IIRC, to fudge this and make the upgrade worthwhile, CA raised the quality of chivalric knights (and maybe CMAA). There is also a wierd thing with CK having lower support costs than FK.

Bottomline: upgrading is always worth it - even a one point improvement in stats is a 20% change in kill probabilities. The only possible advantage of FS is maybe in the desert, where being unarmoued they tire less, but to be honest, I'd preferred Chiv Sergeants so you can match the Saracen infantry.

[Shahed]

It depends FMAA have armor piercing weapons, so against heavily armored targets they should outperform CMAA at equal valor.

I would take some FMAA even if I had the possibility to take only CMAA.

For a Turk comparison, the Janissary Infantry have better stats than the Ottoman Infantry. BUT against heavily armored targets OI will outperform JI at equal valor.

[Longasc]

Sinan, but where do you get the impression that Feudal Men-At-Arms have armor piercing weapons in MTW 1.1/ 2.0?

I was corrected, and I think that he is right, that Feudal Sergeants do not walk faster than Chivalric Sergeants.

Perhaps is your Info that FMAA have armor piercing abilities also a typing mistake???

[A.Saturnus]

FMAA have swords -> no ap but they have big shields. That and the lower cost make them not much inferior to CMAA.
Chiv-sgts are definitely better than feu-sgts, due to their armour. Chiv knights are in every way better than feu knights (they cost even less). Late royal knights are comparable to lancers (only fewer and more expansive).

[Brutal DLX]

True for SP, in MP you might have other considerations.. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[The_Emperor]

Given that Armour is the main difference between Feudal and Chivalric, when the time comes to upgrade my troops I simply collect my feudals and normal Spearmen and Archers and send them down to fight in the Desert heat.

Feudals may be inferior in Europe but they can survive a bit longer in the Desert.

[Longasc]

How, Emperor?

According to what we know they should suffer less problems in the desert because they do not have to carry so much armor and so on.

But the game is only about stats and statistics, and I see no reason why FMAA or FSarges should do better in the Desert.

OK, probably I misunderstood you: If you mean that they can do well against the more lighlty armored arab forces there, you might have a point.

[Brutal DLX]

Well, if you are attacking in desert regions, you'll have to walk all the time across the map, and unless you rest up shortly before meeting the enemy, your troops will have lost much more stamina than lightly armoured Muslim forces. Also, when engaged in battle, your units will tire more quickly, tired units receive negative combat modifiers, which might swing the battle in your opponents way.
On defense, just standing there will drain your troops.
Considering all that, Emperor made a good point.

[Shahed]

oops Sorry I think that is a blooper there. The CMAA do NOT have armor piercing weapons.

I have been playing Turks too long http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

The basic point for the OI & JI holds true.

[Kanuni]

Sinan m8, the FMAA don't have ap. You probably thought of Militia Seargent instead http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Kanuni]

ooops, didn't c your last post http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Shahed]

Hmm don't Militia Sargents have grenades ?

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif just kidding yes u are right FMAA do NOT have AP.
I have no idea which unit I was thinking of.
My apologies.

[Shahed]

LOL simultaneous post.

[t1master]

don't the fuedal srgts get a morale boost? sometimes that's more important than their armor. my chiv srgts tend to break faster than my fuedals, especially in the mp arena.

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ June 06 2003,08:22)]Well, if you are attacking in desert regions, you'll have to walk all the time across the map, and unless you rest up shortly before meeting the enemy, your troops will have lost much more stamina than lightly armoured Muslim forces. Also, when engaged in battle, your units will tire more quickly, tired units receive negative combat modifiers, which might swing the battle in your opponents way.
On defense, just standing there will drain your troops.
Exactly my point, heavy armour in the desert roasts its wearer and as such, drains fatigue, even if your troops are just standing still.

By having more lightly armored troops your guys can be fighting fit for a bit longer, and that helps even the odds against the Muslims.

But Feudal Units still DO wear armour in battle (even if they have less of it than Chivalric Units that still gives them a slight edge in the desert aginst Muslim forces)