View Full Version : Creative Assembly v0 cmaa vs v0 chiv sgt
I did some tests online with CBR for v0 cmaa (250 florins, 60 men) vs v0 chiv sgt (300 florins, 100 men). We used steppe map, arid with both units charging. Chiv sgt were in hold 25x4, and cmaa were in engage 20x3 (3 runs) and 30x2 (3 runs).
unit cost charge/attack/defend/morale
cmaa 250 3/4/4/4 (+ 1 att bonus vs spear) = 3/5/4/4
chiv sgt 300 5/-1/5/0 (+ 1/2 att/def rank bonus) = 5/0/7/0
cmaa 30x2 71 kills 19 losses won
cmaa 30x2 74 kills 22 looses won
cmaa 30x2 83 kills 44 looses won
cmaa 20x3 61 kills 47 losses lost
cmaa 20x3 43 kills 57 losses lost
cmaa 20x3 67 kills 18 losses won
I guess you could view this as the RPS not working for the cmaa 20x3 formation, but the chiv sgt is 20% more expensive. Taking cost into consideration you could say the RPS is basically working here. Also, the lower morale of the chiv sgt is a significant disadvantage when using the units at v0, and you have to use the spear in such a way that the rank bonus is maintained for best results. I don't have the impression from playing at 5k that the spear is so strong that you don't need the sword, but I haven't actually tried taking no swords either. The cmaa 30x2 has a slight advantage at the corners of the chiv sgt 25x4 which probably accounts for the better results for those runs.
If you translate both of these units to v3 as might happen in a 15k game, they would have the same relative relationship in combat strength with the chiv sgt loosing some of its morale disadvantage. In theory, the chiv sgt should be better at 15k than at 5k vs the cmaa, and the only reason I can think of for it's dissapearence is that you don't need it at 15k since the swords work well vs cav. Spears are for the most part defensive units, whereas swords provide more offensive/defensive flexibility.
in truth, there were always spears in MTW being used, that was until the emergence of a more powerful alternative, not in the swords though, but in the militia sergeant. THIS was the unit that led to the demise of spears, and now swords have led to the demise of Militia sergeants. So what does all this mean??? it means swords are a better alternative for militia sergeants, but are less effective vs spears as opposed to militia sergeants. The best anti-spear unit is militia sergeants, which is also great against cav. Swords can hold against cav, but arent as effective vs cav as MS. however swords kill MS.
its just the evolution of the game. As people use certain units, others dissapear, only to re-emerge again when the units that led to the demise of a certain unit has all but vanished off the field.
Quote[/b] (Alrowan @ Oct. 20 2003,04:03)]but are less effective vs spears as opposed to militia sergeants
How can Militia sgts be better against spears?
A V4 MS has same combat stats (with armour piercing) as v3 CMAA but against heavy cavalry like Chiv Knigts MS has one more combat point. But against heavy spears they are the same. And a v3 CMAA cost 1228 while the v4 MS cost 1252.
After the 1.1 patch we have seen a +2 morale increase in VI and now the swipe is gone in the VI patch, nothing has changed the relative balance between these units. Only that all non-spear units are now even better versus frontal cavalry attacks with swipe gone and the higher morale meant less chance of routing against cavalry charges.
CBR
But the militia sgt at v4 is good because it
1. is only 30 florin more, and kill cav better than cmaa@v3
2. is non-elite
3. is on par with cmaa@v3
3. has low armour, thus is good vs axemen like van.guard, although they die fast from missiles.
I remember moving to four v4 mil sgt in mtw v1.1 as a front line to combat swords, and they worked well vs the more heavily armored cav since they are armor piercing. I still used spears or sometimes halbs on the flanks. The mil sgts had to be kept together and given flank support since they had a tendency to rout. All I was looking for was a unit that could hold for a reasonable amount of time vs the swords while I looked for a break in the line or flanking opportunity around the end. My old front line of four order foot had to be discarded by mid Jan 2002 as sword attacks were on the increase and the order foot couldn't hold for very long. I'm probably thinking of facing Byz inf here which was very common in mtw v1.1 when I say the order foot didn't hold for very long. The mil sgt was one of the better units vs Byz inf although it still lost, and was also good vs lancers which were used a lot. Both the Byz inf and lancer got toned down with price increases in vi.
The v4 mil sgt, v3 cmaa and v4 fmaa are very similar units except the mil sgt has the lowest morale of the three. You had more of a chance of routing a v4 mil sgt, v3 cmaa or v4 fmaa in mtw than you do in vi. The +2 morale of vi changed the 15k game from what it was in mtw. I can discard the spears and halbs I used in mtw and put swords or mil sgts in their place in vi.
I don't think it's simply the evolution of the game from mtw to vi because things were changed in vi v2.0 and again in vi v2.01. However, the emergence of v4 mil sgt in v1.1 was an evolution and did constitute a movement away from spears. I remember Knight_Yellow being the first to post about this unit in the forum and being publically laughed at.
I didnt say MS were bad
Yes they kill Chivalric knights better as they has +1 attack compared to CMAA. But against Feudal knights they have same stats and against mounted sgts they have 1 less attack.
They have armour 3 (CMAA has 4) and both give any armour piercing unit +1 attack so no difference there.
CBR
some stats
MS v4 1252 florins
charge 4
attack 6*
defence 7
armour 3
morale 8
CMAA v3 1228 florins
charge 3
attack 7
defence 6 (shield +1)
armour 4 (shield +1)
morale 10 (elite)
on a head to head basis, the CMAA would have armour of just 2.5 (armour piercing) and if the militia sergeants charged, they would probably win.
now vs the standard order foot v2 of the day
order foot v2 1155 florins
charge 5
attack 2 (3)
defence 5 (9) (large shield +2)
armour 3 (large shield +2)
morale 6
so militia sergeants hea to head with order foot, order foot only get a 2.5 armour bonus vs MS, and 2 attack. compared to the militia sergeants attack 6, defence 7 armour 3 (dont forget charge +4)
vs CMAA order foot have 5 armour and 2 attack, against attack 7, defence 7 armour 5 and charge +3
once again militia sergeants come out on top.
*note*
Armour peircing does not increase the attack stats, rather it HALVES the opposing units armour value.
Mithrandir
10-20-2003, 09:15
Quote[/b] (Alrowan @ Oct. 19 2003,21:03)]however swords kill MS.
I dont know if this has changed, but in 1.1 this was the other way around in a head on attack...
Quote[/b] (Alrowan @ Oct. 20 2003,10:43)]*note*
Armour peircing does not increase the attack stats, rather it HALVES the opposing units armour value.
Hi Alrowan.
What do you mean by that?
Alrowan:
Thats not how armour piercing works. It gives the unit an increase in attack depending on how much armour the other unit has, and that is base armour..armour from shield is not added.
Against infantry it would be:
+1 against armour 3 and 4
+2 against armour 5 and 6
Against cavalry its:
+1 against armour 4 and 5
+2 against armour 6 and 7
+3 against armour 8 and 9
I can find the thread(s) if interested.
MS, FMAA and Orderfoot has armour 3 while CMAA has armour 4 but the effect(+1 attack) is the same.
Armour piercing was not as good in 1.0 as there was a bug that caused it to work only at armour 5 and up IIRC.
CBR
id be keen to see the stats, i was always under the understanding that AP was halving the armour value. would be good to see some CA authority on this
Link 1 (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=20;t=5877;hl=armour+and+piercing)
Link 2 (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=18;t=5465;hl=armour+and+piercing)
CBR
Quote[/b] ] Longjohn: don't quite understand what you find counter intuitive about the armour piercing bonus. The target still gets the full defensive value of his armour, so the bonus just reduces the effect a little bit. You're always better off with more armour, even against units with ap weapons.
The way to think of it is, is that armour only counts as half effect against armour piercing weapons.
Alrowan,
I have the v0 Order Foot as 5/0/3 (charge/att/def). To that would be added the +2 def for the shield making it 5/0/5. The rank bonus for 2 supporting ranks (2/1/2) would bring it up to 7/1/7, and at v2 that would be 7/3/9 for 1155 florins.
For armor piercing:
Attack bonus = (target armor - 1)/2
The contribution of a shield and the contribution of a horse to armor is removed before making the AP calculation. For order foot the target armor is 3, so the AP bonus for mil sgt would be (3-1)/2 = 1 to their attack making a v4 mil sgt 4/7/7 (charge/att/def) for that matchup.
The v3 cmaa is 3/7/6 with +1 def from the shield making it 3/7/7, but it gets a hidden sword vs spear bonus of +1 to att making it 3/8/7. This would say that the cmaa is the better unit to use against an order foot with a 3 combat point advantage as opposed to the mil sgt's 2 combat point advantage. A 2 combat point (44%) advantage for a 60 man unit vs a 100 man unit is the same margin that the v0 cmaa has over the v0 chiv sgt in that first test I posted.
For v4 mil sgt 4/6/7 vs v3 cmaa 3/7/6 (charge/att/def):
mil sgt armor pierce att bonus = (4-1)/2 = 1 att
cmaa shield is large but gets a 0.5 modifier so is +1 def
So the matchup is v4 mil sgt (1252 florins) 4/7/7 vs v3 cmaa (1228 florins) 3/7/7 with the cmaa having 2 points higher morale. The 1 point disadvantage in charge is practically insignificant. The mil sgt will pick up additional combat points when matched against more heavily armored units but the cmaa will not.
hehe, CBR is correct http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif but I know from where has Alrowan got his idea:
Quote[/b] ]I don't quite understand what you find counter intuitive about the armour piercing bonus. The target still gets the full defensive value of his armour, so the bonus just reduces the effect a little bit. You're always better off with more armour, even against units with ap weapons.
The way to think of it is, is that armour only counts as half effect against armour piercing weapons.
You can find it near the end of the second thread http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Oct. 20 2003,16:02)]..but it gets a hidden sword vs spear bonus of +1 to att..
Actually I think all non-spear units get +1 versus spears. IIRC from some post LongJohn made long ago.
CBR
Mithrandir
10-20-2003, 16:51
Except cav/archers
longjohn2
Posted: Sep. 28 2002,18:55
"Try using the shock units in wedge. Using wedge changes the way that enemy soldiers are pushed back (away from the attacker, instead of straight back ) and this tends to disrupt the spear units, and prevent them getting rank formation bonues.
I've increased the costs of spear units, and improved sword armed unit's performance against them in the patch."
link (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=20;t=5927)
Dionysus9
10-20-2003, 21:19
Something that bothers/confuses me about the longjohn quote.
He says that armor still has value against an Armor piercing unit--just half effect. What sense does that make? Armor is only a defense to missiles, it doesnt help in hand to hand.
So armor IS a negative factor when facing an Armor Piercing hand-2-hand unit. Right?
Is LJ smoking crack or is it me?
Mithrandir
10-20-2003, 22:04
AFAIK you're right, at least, thats always the way I thought it worked too...
longjohn2
10-20-2003, 22:17
Armour would be a negative factor against ap if you just messed around with the stats and arbitarily gave a unit high armour and low defence. However, the armour stat represents something in the real world, so all units in MTW that have high armour values, have high defence values. In fact the defence value of a unit is just its armour value modified by factors for the unit's fighting skill, behaviour and weaponry. Any time I increase a unit's armour by 1, its defence value increase by 1 too.
Regarding the sword vs spear bonus, the swords get +1 against spear units that have at least one supporting rank, when neither is charging. End result the bonus is worth a little less than +1 factor.
Mithrandir
10-20-2003, 22:19
Ahh LJ, I thought you where just talking about armour, not the armour upgrade http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.
Thanks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.
-Glorfindel
What longjohn means is that when armor is put on a unit the defend combat value is also increased to reflect the improvement that the armor adds to h2h ability. Then when an armor piercing weapon strikes at that unit, the portion of the defend combat value contributed by the armor is roughly cut in half by the (armor - 1)/2 formula. This armor piercing bonus has undergone some adjustments since it was originally (armor - 3)/2 pre-release, then (armor - 5)/2 in mtw v1.0 and finally changed to (armor - 1)/2 in mtw v1.1.
Oh I see LJ answered while I was typing.
Quote[/b] (Mithrandir @ Oct. 20 2003,16:19)]Ahh LJ, I thought you where just talking about armour, not the armour upgrade http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.
Thanks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.
-Glorfindel
LongJohn is actually talking about making the unit stats when using the CA Excel worksheets.
The armor value you see is just armor and indeed only helps vs missiles. But a unit that has armor was also given high defense. Remove some armor and the sheet will also lower the defense.
So the statement that armor helps in hth is wrong but it's also true (depends on whether you talk about the plain armor value or about the 'implications' of having armor).
What you say about purchased armor upgrades is also true: it adds protection against missiles and adds 1 defense.
Edit: Yuuki already replied while I was typing http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Dionysus9
10-20-2003, 23:01
Ok cool I see what you mean LJ. Thanks for clarifying (all).
Wait wait wait... Slow down please... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Yuuki, IMO you are one of the best knowledgable people in this community about stats and the logic of this game. I have learned a lot from your posts in which you explained the calculations and the logic of the game but I think you sometimes reach conclusions too quickly and IMO in this case the conclusion seems to be closer to what you'd prefer.
I think I can express myself better to you by numbering what I will write and asking questions, answering with my opinion and expecting yours:
1. I have written in RIP Swipe thread that I have seen 50% of the time that v0 chiv searg. beat v0 cmaa, you disagreed with this made tests and saw spears has a good chance but you also made the tests with different ranks for cmaa, but what about the chiv seargants? They were default ranks right? I assume they are as you did not specify anything the rank of spears. So why not reducing the ranks of spears too so that they do not get surrounded at the corners?
2. From what I have learned in one of your posts in which you describe the calculations, spears get +1 def per rank and +1 att when not charging per 2 ranks (up to +2 att +2 def) . So because it is max 2 def and 2 att, we can say that 2 ranks get all the att + def benefits except for another + 1 att when not charging right? I'm assuming this is right looking at your post.
3. But deploying them such widely would give 3 disadvantages: 1. because they are too wide and at hold formation they will not surround and many of spears close to flanks will not fight and just wait instead. 2. less ranks mean breaking formation and losing easier for spears right? 3. Other than att + def benefits ranks also give push or more resistance to getting pushed back benefit therefore deploying in few ranks will cause them to get pushed backed easier. All these 3 are correct as far as I know, right?
4. But all these disadvantages will disappear if the enemy formation is wide too right? (1. All spears fight 2. BEcause the enemy has few ranks breaking will not be easy 3. Because the enemy has few ranks too they will not have a push advantage.) Also not getting surrounded will give benefits to spear unit right, I mean I think it surely is better than losing just an extra +1 att because of not being in 4 ranks? In such a situation when enemy unit deploys wide all these are also true?
5. So why not instead of just leaving spears in default ranks adjust their width according to the enemy formation and test it that way? I have done similiar tests and found out that the result will be similiar as if both units were at default ranks.
6. I wrote these based on my knowledge that I learned most from you, but even if I'm wrong about some of them because I misunderstood the logic you might disagree. But what about a spear wall of 4 or even more deployed tightly closed against enemy swordsmen in a 5k game? Will all the spear units get surrounded in the corners? My opinion is no and therefore I believe that the situation breaked RPS much more than 15k.
Quote[/b] ]If you translate both of these units to v3 as might happen in a 15k game, they would have the same relative relationship in combat strength with the chiv sgt loosing some of its morale disadvantage. In theory, the chiv sgt should be better at 15k than at 5k vs the cmaa, and the only reason I can think of for it's dissapearence is that you don't need it at 15k since the swords work well vs cav. Spears are for the most part defensive units, whereas swords provide more offensive/defensive flexibility.
The question is (also considering RPS) why would anyone take spears in the 1st place. Should it be succesful against cav or against both cav or inf? It should only be succesful against cav and hold for sometime against swords but lose. At 15k v2 chiv searg. is enough for this. V3 is too expensive anyway and while spending so much more than cmaa v3 you can't be sure it will win anyway.
What I'd like to also learn is why ap bonus vs 4 armor makes 1 (4-1)/2=1.5 . I haven't read anywhere that 0.5 is ignored and it is rounded up to the smaller number. Are you sure about this? While a unit can have a .5 in their armor (7.5 for chivalric knights) why not for ap too?
Also Yuuki you said that shiled and horse additions to armor is removed. How can we tell horse additions to armor? Is it a constant value of 0.5?
Edit: Sorry I have seen Yuuki's post about ap bonus has to be intervals. But are you sure about this. I feel like Militia v4 most of the time beat CMAA v3 (if it has +1 ap then it shouldn't, if it has +1.5 it should because it will have a 0.5 att + def advantage). What is the source of this info and is there a chance that this info might be wrong?
my 5 cents
1. spear is best at 5 ranks at holding sword, and used with its flank protected, i.e. align with similiar spear or good melee units. In just a single h2h, rank of 5 gives a good width with an extra rank to add defend bonus, as Kanuni said, so it maximises the defend bonus as well as men engaged in melee.
2. having sword in as wide as possible allows the maximise number to utilise the charge bonus.. but too wide has it own problems.
3. in comparing the performance of a unit vs unit, its better to use unit in formation that most use.. i normally see sword in row of 3 or 4, and spear of 4 (i use rank 5 usually when facing sword).. so that it will be the normal outcome of the h2h in actual battle.
personally i still dont like spear at any florin level for many reasons.
Ok, because the Sergeants deserve a littke change as well to test at I did it. I first changed the preferred number of rows for both CS and CMAA to 3 and 2 respectively.
CMAA in 2 rows:
kills losses result
70 23 victory
72 23 victory
35 5 victory
63 26 victory
CMAA in 3 rows:
51 12 victory
70 23 victory
75 27 victory
56 11 victory
So obviously it doesn't help to spread the CS out to meet the swords. But it seems it helps to concentrate the assault if you can't envelop the spears.
Oddly enough the CS happened to stop their charge just before impact quite a few times. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Dionysus9
10-21-2003, 21:06
Krax, did you test on Lan/Mp? Or just in "Custom battle"
Custom battle tests dont work because you get different results based on the difficulty setting.
longjohn2
10-21-2003, 21:07
Wedge is the way to go for beating spears. Attacking in wedge changes the way that push backs are handled which disrupts the spear formation and reduces the rank bonuses they get
Kanuni,
The chiv sgt were in their default 25x4 in my test. That would keep their rank bonus at full until they got down to less than 75 men. You could go deeper with the spear to retain the rank bonus longer, but then the cmaa has more opportunity to wrap around the sides, and we can see it is bad for the spear to be attacked on the sides. As you and Kraxis point out, it's not going to help the spear to deploy in fewer ranks since they will loose the rank bonus sooner. So, I think 25x4 is a reasonable way to test the spear unit. In battle, I'll go wider if I expect to be facing cav with the spear, but I use 4 ranks or 5 ranks if I expect to face swords. LongJohn has pointed out that wedge would be the preferable formation for a sword to use when attacking a spear unit head on, and the offline tests I've done confirm that with v0 cmaa killing v0 chiv sgt at a rate of 4 to 1 in casualties and winning easily because the wedge causes angled pushbacks which disrupts the chiv sgt's rank bonus. I haven't checked this online.
Also, if you are going to play at 5k and take several v0 chiv sgts, you can also take several v1 fmaa at 297 florins (1 combat point better than v0 cmaa at the same morale). You have enough money to do that with 312 florins on average, and could even substitute a couple of v1 cmaa at 425 for the v1 fmaa. I would say the relationship of the spears to the swords at 5k is similar to what it is at 15k. However, several of the 60 man sword units defeat cav at 15k, and they don't at 5k. I think that's more the issue with 15k than the cmaa vs chiv matchup. It appears to me that v2 cmaa is the point that cav starts having trouble with them. I'm roughly estimating that 10k (625 average/unit) is the florin level that v2 cmaa and v3 fmaa would start to appear. So, it seems to me that there is some room above 5k and below 15k to play the game where the RPS works better than 15k, morale is higher than 5k and ranged units get some benefit from upgrade discounts. With the swipe gone, hopefully cav is brought down enough to play in this range. If you are going to play on flat, open maps like steppe, then cav is going to be at it's best in that situation. However, even in mtw v1.1 at 12k it was possible to survive against an all cav army fielded by a good player with an inf army that included 8 anti-cav inf units along with some ranged, cav and sword. Certainly, cav is nowhere near as strong in vi v2.01 as it was in mtw v1.1.
Last night I played two 8k 4v4 games with good players who know how to attack quickly. In the first one, single attackers routed on separate sides of the map when they got too close to 2 enemy armies, and the second game demonstrated the effectiveness of a 2 on 1 situation which became a 3 on 2 where the two outnumbered defending vets on one side got blown away with one of them getting only 50 kills. In all cases, the routed armies generated less than 300 kills each iirc. All of these routs happened quickly, and there really wasn't time for an ally to come to assist. I would expect that in the 5k to 8k range that a quick hitting doubleteam would be so effective that it pratically guarantees victory in team games. If someone wants that type of gameplay in team games, then there it is. Personally, I don't really like it, and that's my big reservation about 5k games.
The rank bonus for spears and pikes is:
+1 charge for each supporting rank
+1 attack for each 2 supporting ranks
+1 defend for each supporting rank
spears can have up to 2 supporting ranks
pikes can have up to 4 supporting ranks
I'm sure that in we/mi the attack and defend values are integers from LAN tests where I put 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 in the stat file and they were treated like 1 because the game didn't go out-of-sync when played against a stat that had 1 in the same parameter. IIRC, I also used this method to verify that armor is a real variable rather than an integer. Truncating would be the behavior of a program if a decimal number was read into an integer variable. Unlike the armor value, the attack and defend values appear in the exponent of the probability to kill function. There is a subtantial saving in cpu cycles with an integer exponent as opposed to a real (decimal) number. I haven't actually tested this in mtw/vi, but I doubt it has changed.
I don't remember what the horse contribution to armor is.
Well I have never tested wedge so it can be the sollution, I don't know.
But against close formation of swords I can say v0 cs will do ok against v0 swords if used right. It is no question that more ranks mean better for spears, but if they face thin swords then they can be wide enough not to get surrounded and perform similiarly eventhough they lose some bonuses.
Maybe you have noticed too but spear vs sword fight is somewhat strange, and the result may vary greatly in multiple tests. Swords can win with only small losses or spears win close to 50% of the unit killed. Maybe wedge will make sure swords will win but I'm unsure about that because I never tested.
Quote[/b] (Dionysus9 @ Oct. 21 2003,15:06)]Krax, did you test on Lan/Mp? Or just in "Custom battle"
Custom battle tests dont work because you get different results based on the difficulty setting.
Yes, but at Normal there is no bonus to either side... Besides one side being human naturally. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
And this longjohn confirmed back when I claimed that I liked Hard better for testing, because I felt ther was less of a difference. But that was not so. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Battlefield upgrades are still in effect in custom battle but not in multiplayer which can make a difference.
Dionysus9
10-23-2003, 00:16
ok thanks yuuki and Krax
Krax, I'm with you-- I used to test at Hard too because it seemed to come closer to MP results.
Brutal DLX
10-23-2003, 10:11
I'd be curious to see results of a wedged CMAA vs spears. Also different spear types, not only CS. Unfortunately I don't have time to play much MP these days, but I'd be willing to participate, if time allows.
We have done a few tests and wedge is very powerful against spears, compared to just using a standard line formation.
CBR
Tested with Sko:
Steppe, arid, frontal attack, cmaa charging in wedge, spears in hold but not charging:
v0 cmaa (wedge) vs v0 chiv sgt (25x4)
cmaa won 64 kills 27 losses
cmaa won 73 kills 25 losses
v0 cmaa (wedge) vs v0 order foot (25x4)
cmaa won 78 kills 30 losses
Tested with CBR:
Steppe, arid, frontal attack, cmaa charging in wedge, spears in hold but not charging:
4 v0 cmaa (wedge) vs 4 v0 order foot (10x10) spear wall
cmaa won 84 kills 42 losses
cmaa won 95 kills 19 losses
cmaa won 89 kills 35 losses
cmaa won 79 kills 39 losses
15 v0 cmaa (wedge) vs 15 v0 order foot (10x10) wall in hold
The cmaa routed the order foot wall
cmaa 1164 total kills 558 total losses
15 v0 cmaa (wedge) vs 15 v0 halberdiers (15x4) wall in hold
The cmaa routed the halberdier wall
cmaa 666 total kills vs 366 total losses
15 v0 halberdiers (wedge) vs 15 v0 cmaa (15x4) wall in hold
The cmaa in hold and not charging routed the halb charge
cmaa 710 total kills vs 493 total losses
id be interested now in cav wedge vs spears as opposed to flat, as well as militia sergeants into spears, and halbs into spears.
then the final test would be cav into swords.
Wow
Wedge certainly made an impact It is far better at killing spears than Close. Those kills look like what happens when the spears are spread to thin.
Maybe that will result in a change for the better of formations. But I doubt it will help cavalry against spears.
but we have to remember that by using wedge vs a on-hold unit, the net gain in combat point difference between the two unit is +1 to the one in wedge. This is because
Wedge: +3 attack, -3 defend
Hold: -2 attack, +2 defend
and unit on hold doesnt attack i believe? or is it when unit is on hold-ground? can't remember.. say.. is the spear also on hold-ground?
Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Oct. 23 2003,19:08)]Maybe that will result in a change for the better of formations. But I doubt it will help cavalry against spears.
no no no.. cav should avoid spear and lose to them unless catching them in disarray http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Brutal DLX
10-24-2003, 10:20
Thanks for putting your results on display
No big surprise though. The whole question is resolved then because in MP (at 15K) you'll likely see V3 CMAA vs V2 spears. They'd have no chance no matter how you look at it.
At equal valour there might be a slight chance, but generally if you have to throw spears at CMAA you must be in dire straits already. Only way would be as part of some double up maneuver, in which case the spears should hold long enough. Also the CMAA unit seems to lose a significant amount of men, so they are reduced in their combat ability after that fight vs. spears.
Oh and
tootee, longjohn said the wedge also disrupts rank bonus of spears, you have to take that into consideration too.
And lastly, about the whole sword army debate... you still can pick your armies yourself, if you don't like V3 swords beating cav, strengthen the cav, because the rockscissorpaper principle which you seem to strive for works best at equal valour, I believe. Another option would then be to reduce the valour given to swords, because honestly, valour 3 on swords is a big improvement, if you see v0 as the standard, which I do, being an SP player too.
And if in SP you have CMAA v3 at your disposal, it's likely that you also have ChivKnights at v3, and when those two face off, the cav has the edge for sure.
So basically it is my suggestion to find a florin amount which enables you to get everybody's army of choice to about the same valour level on all units used, while also ensuring a sensible amount of unit morale, ie. 6 or 8 at least. I'm sure you will find the balance you seek then.
To achieve this, it maybe also be worth to rely more on weapon/armour upgrades rather than valour for some units...
With that, unfair advantages would be eliminated by and large, and commading skill would play a more prominent role.
However, since I believe most of us like to get an edge over the opponent by simply selecting a better army makeup, the unbalanced units problem will remain with us.
Perhaps it is possible to use "balanced" valour armies for ladder or clan games in a general agreement between the clans and listed ladder players. But I doubt it's enforcable in the open lobby, and I believe this is a good thing.
Quote[/b] (tootee @ Oct. 24 2003,07:45)]but we have to remember that by using wedge vs a on-hold unit, the net gain in combat point difference between the two unit is +1 to the one in wedge. This is because
Wedge: +3 attack, -3 defend
Hold: -2 attack, +2 defend
As you just show in your example there is no gain in combat points because of the 2 formations. The overall difference in combat points remain the same.
We saw a lot of pushback of the spears and that must be that special thing that means swords in wedge are very good versus spears. They can also disrupt the formation meaning less support from the ranks.
Units on hold still attack but the men are no longer seeking a fight but stays in formation and waits for an enemy to engage.
CBR
Quote[/b] (CBR @ Oct. 24 2003,14:58)]
Quote[/b] (tootee @ Oct. 24 2003,07:45)]but we have to remember that by using wedge vs a on-hold unit, the net gain in combat point difference between the two unit is +1 to the one in wedge. This is because
Wedge: +3 attack, -3 defend
Hold: -2 attack, +2 defend
As you just show in your example there is no gain in combat points because of the 2 formations. The overall difference in combat points remain the same.
We saw a lot of pushback of the spears and that must be that special thing that means swords in wedge are very good versus spears. They can also disrupt the formation meaning less support from the ranks.
Units on hold still attack but the men are no longer seeking a fight but stays in formation and waits for an enemy to engage.
CBR
I have thought that unit on hold-ground doesn't attack... they just defend, so my +1 pt comes from there. But then its wrong because the attacking unit still lose men, so my point is wrong.
stupid me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/redface.gif
Quote[/b] (tootee @ Oct. 24 2003,00:46)]no no no.. cav should avoid spear and lose to them unless catching them in disarray http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I just realized that it looked like I was hoping Wedge would help cav... That is not the case, I just thought somebody mentioned 'how will cav in wedge vs spears do'... but apparently nobody said so... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
But CBR, wedge hold several advantages for swords vs spears. A more powerful charge that will most likely disrupt the formation and kill several on impact, a concentration of forces so that the swords will be in local superiority of numbers (spears can't get help from flanks) and finally a speeding up of a conflict that is already going in favour of the swords, that means much.
As I said, hopefully this will make people use Wedge a little more.
In the wedge tests, the 250 florin cmaa defeats the 400 florin order foot. I think there are 5 factors that help the cmaa in wedge vs spears as opposed to cmaa in close vs spears:
1) some breakdown of the spear's rank bonus
2) more pushbacks against the spearmen
3) less fatigue for the cmaa
4) slightly more charge kills (maybe)
5) local superiority (maybe)
Of these five, the pushbacks might be the biggest factor. We compared cmaa in wedge vs chiv sgt (10x10) and cmaa in close vs chiv sgt (10x10). The wedge achieved considerably more pushbacks on the spears as could be seen by the distribution of the dead. A pushback gives +6 attack on the next combat cycle. We can also see from the cmaa vs halb test that wedge helps even against non-spear units. Local superiority might also be a significant factor, and maybe this contributes to pushbacks.
We don't know what determines the probablility of a pushback. The magnitude of the df (df = attack - defend) might be one factor. For a hypothetical 3/3 unit striking at a 2/2 unit, the df = 3 - 2 = 1 if both are in engage at will. Switch the 3/3 unit to wedge and it becomes 6/0. Switch the 2/2 unit to hold and it becomes 0/4. Now the df = 6 - 4 = 2 on it's strike. If you look at the 2/2 unit striking at the 3/3, df = 2 - 3 = -1 when both are in engage at will, but with the switching to wedge of the 3/3 and hold of the 2/2 df = 0 - 0 = 0. The difference in the probablility to kill is still 2 points, but the magnitude of that probability is higher which certainly means faster killing, but might also mean more pushbacks. When CBR and I did the cmaa vs halb test, the cmaa in wedge got significant pushbacks on the halbs in hold which forced the whole halb line back. However, the halb in wedge vs the cmaa in hold was not able to push back the cmaa line and the lines remained approximately stationary for the duration of the fighting, although, the halbs did achieve a better kill ratio than the first time when they were in hold which might have been due to local superiority.
I remember doing tests back in STW which showed that hold formation did not provide a kill ratio as high as engage at will. Hold formation buys time at the expense of less killing efficiency.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.