View Full Version : Best Unit In Class
choose
knights will have a different section due to poll limits
I find that the Lancers suit my style of play.
ichi
Lancers are the best all round cavalry IMO. Of course Gothics eat them because of armour piercing.
Lancer for sure, especially when Gothics are not here http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif .
It's a little bit unfair for others when they have to compete with Lancer.
Gendarmes is another heavy cav that I recently start to enjoy its usefulness against other heavy cav.
PseRamesses
06-26-2004, 08:37
Voted quite subjectively for Byz.Kats although they are slow but they aremy personal favourite. Lancers might be a better unit but I just love thoose Kat-tanks
Lancers for me, could be a landslide http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
I vote for Armenian heavy Cav as they're easier avialable early in Campaign Mode game. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Lancers are simply the best hvy cav in game
lancers are the best there, but Jedi's come in Katank packages http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
gaijinalways
06-26-2004, 17:07
Yeah, lancers might be great, but when do you get them? The Kats I've been able to get on a regular basis.
i prefer kataphractoi as they mow down the enemy on charge and can withstand a punchup pretty well http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-curtain.gif
Blodrast
06-26-2004, 19:51
definitely lancers. heck, they make Terminator look like Little Red Riding Hood...and just like terminator, you can't really keep 'em down, cause 'they'll be back' ;)
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-26-2004, 23:01
Avar Nobles
Really good in Early (the only time they are available http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif ). Almost as good as Katanks but easier to get (if you own Moldavia http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif ).
AND I can't vote for Lancers. You have to bend over backwards to get them. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ceasarno.gif And they're too popular. Go Avar Nobles
Tricky Lady
06-26-2004, 23:44
Pronoiai Allagion
Probably not the best, but surely my favourite unit.
if there is any, which i am sure there is, post here with the ones i missed.
thanks, dessa
Julius Caesar
06-27-2004, 04:41
Lancers or Kataphracts
ROCKHAMMER
06-30-2004, 16:16
Lancers rule the HC class They are the next best thing to knights and are easier to control. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif
Avar nobles - easy to build, disciplined, available in early, Hugary's answer to the Kats.
mfberg
WorkNeglecter
07-01-2004, 10:22
Quote[/b] (mfberg @ June 30 2004,17:38)]
I'm in on the Avar Nobles. Available to more factions, low build requirements, dismountable...
i missed KHC
which are not as good as Avars except they have much better morale.
thanks, dessa
Seven.the.Hun
07-02-2004, 05:34
hmm,oh so many, havent used them all, just fought against them, Pronoiai Allagion and Kataphracts are cool...boyars are fun...and lancers work if one ever gets around to getting them...and i spose i like the ghulams too
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-juggle.gif
If we exclude Lancers, I go for AHC. They're much more reliable than you'd imagine.
VikingHorde
07-04-2004, 21:22
My vote goes to the Kataphraktoi, I love the byzantines and ther units. It's cool to make +2 valor kats in constantinopel with lots of armour upgrades http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
I despise lancers - a dumb, ahistorical unit. Why do they have Gothic armour in the High, rather than late, period? Why do they have Gothic armour and horse armour but unlike equivalently armoured Gothic knights are they not slow? Why are they Spanish, when Spain had more lightly armoured knights than most other Catholic states? Why do they have knights' stats but are not knights? Why don't other Catholic factions get knights with full plate and lances?
OK, they are clearly the best HC. But like arbalesters in High, Biz infantry, Saracen foot and AUM they are one of the "too good and not true" units that irritate me.
Well the king of Majorca and his Lancers fought at Creçy.
lonewolf371
07-05-2004, 08:30
LANCERS ALL THE WAY
GAH
Acutally Simon Appleton,
The Spainish Lancers are true, just not the way the game has them.
Byzantine Infantry, True there is no nation/empire/people called byzantines in history, but these also existed. They where called legionaires or Hoplites.
Actually from the Roman Empire at Constantinople. And they where considered the best heavy infantry in the (European/Middle Eastern) known world.
Remember these guys are the only professionals in the world also, trained armed and lead by trained leaders.
AUM also existed, and are noted for there prowess, from what i have read. But i don't know much about there history.
Arbalesters also existed, and Saracen spearman existed espeically as merc's.
The Holy German/Roman Emperor also had his own body guard of these.
Richard I also used Saracen troops.
So you see they not only existed, they also in some cases very good.
I go for the Kata's
Mainly because mien have been modded to include the shield and a true lance as historical.
Not to mention a Charge of 10 (highest Knights have is 9 for Order Knights) which represents that they had to tie the lance to the horse to stop the rider coming off.
But then I play Byzantines early with only 2 provinces 2000 Florins, 2 kata's 1 Varagian Guard, 1 Immortals, 1 Byzantine Infantry and 1 Tres Archer. Oh and 1 Dromon ship.
To me this represents the lack of control at the time when Augustus Ceasar Alexis I came to the throne, and had to re-assert imperial power.
And atleast sort of provides me with a challenge.
fenir
lancer63
07-05-2004, 19:49
I don't think this is a fair poll. I voted lancers before I noticed that all three medieval periods are mixed. Comparing Gothics and Lancers to Avars and HAC's is like asking who's better, an M1A2 tank or a WWII Sherman tank.
All three periods have great horse power and Avars are the best of their age, even better than Kaths because they're cheaper to train and don't have to wait that long for them to be available. Yet they still pack a powerful punch.
But if Avars face later HC chances are they'll be kaput before long....but they're still the best HC of their period.
Fenir - to be more explicit:
Spanish lancers - yes, I am sure Spain did have some "lancers" of some sort but I know of no historical basis for them to get full plate with full horse armour in the high period. I suspect they should be mainly half-plate with barded or unarmoured horses in the late period. I believe Spanish knights were generally less well-armoured than those in othe Catholic states.
For the Byzantine infantry to have swords, not long spears, also is ahistorical in this time period. It seems to hark back to a legionnaire type unit, when in reality Byzantinium moved more towards equipping their heavy infantry with long spears to hold off cavarly. (Kataphracts also probably should not be in the game in their current form - I do not believe they were a significant force on the battlefielf after Manzikert (sp?)).
On the AUM, I have found no source that suggests Almohads had infantry with half-plate in the early period. Yes, they had decent infantry but why the armour value is so high (higher than the Catholic MAA) is a mystery to me.
On the arbalesters - I believe metal crossbows should not be in the high period, but the late period for both gameplay and historical reasons.
On the Saracen infantry - as far as I know, Saracen armies (such as fought Richard I) depended mainly on cavalry. They had some infantry, but I suspect most was not mailed. It just seems curious that in the game, Egyptian players will naturally incline towards massed ranks of mailed spearmen whereas the Catholics are unarmoured in the early period - if anything, the weight of armour should be the other way.
If I am wrong on any of these points, I'd be interested in any cites or references. But I researched this stuff a fair bit when the game came out and no one here has ever provided evidence to alter my findings.
Simon, I think much of this was for gameplay balance. catholics get stronger over time and the others decline with the exception of Eggy and Turks.
giving noncatholics heavy units early is probably just to give them a chance at domination before the massed tanks roll over them
Medieval Assassin
07-06-2004, 15:56
Lacers by far, +4 armour, +4 weapon, Church...etc...etc...
= One true killing machine
Hello Simon,
Actually byzantine/ rome infantry, did in fact use swords more than anything else.
When Augustus Ceasar Alexis I fought against the Normans from Naples, he noted that they preferred to fight with mainly Spears. Which was different to their own infantry.
This does not mean that Alexis' own men are without spears/sarrisas'.
It simply means they were not overly dominated by the use of that weapon.
There were also some formed units that are sarrisa armed.
Also Byzan/ Roma units did still carry a pila like spear/throwing spear. As per the old days.
And yes the Kataphractoi where an important battlefield unit. It was the Nobles unit. Like the Knights of Europe.
Saying the Kat Is not important is like sending the Knights to the did not happen pile.
examples, Alexis' younger days in battle. In the anatolia highlands and asia minor. and also the battles of his son and grandson. Both of whom where Augustus Ceasar's.
They also where involved in battles in the mid to late 1300's.
Crossbows where around along time before the start date of MTW too.
The pope tried to ban them some time in the mid 1000's AD(1054 AD, I think, but don't qoute me).
OF Course, no one took any notice :-)
And yes they where made of metal. But did not come about in huge numbers till much later when there popularity increased. Still very popular in the German and northern Italian territories.
eg: faster and easier to train a crossbowman than a bowman.
But because a crossbow was not very fast, rate of fire. It remained a little behind the bow in terms of personal usage. EG: a bowman was like a tradesman. and some bowman where paid very well.
whereas any peasant can pickup a crossbow and learn in a week.
Saracen infantry, no most Saracen armies did not have huge numbers of horses. They had no where to support these huge numbers.
Most Saracen forces as we call them, where very Infantry heavy.
And through out history Egypt has always been a huge Infantry army. Where horses because of the cost and scarity of them made them an elite unit for nobles or rich people.
Simply put, the middle east did not have the grassland to support a large horse army.
Passing armies of horses/mounted units could cope. as they raped the land and moved on.
An actual occupier could not do that.
Even in Europe, where they have lots of grassland and arable land for planting, horses where at the higher end of costs, because horses required a lot of care, and food, and espeically water, lots of water.
the middle east had alot of camels, but certianly not horses.
Camels require little effort to survive, they are very robust animals.
Armour in the middle east.
Yes the game does seem a little basis against the "latins" in respect of armour.
But this is not to out do the middle east where armour is worn underneath a tunic, to stop the sun cooking you.
see David Nicolle, arms and armour. he is the formost authority on it.
the rest? I don't know enough about to comment, sorry.
fenir
Hi, Fenir. Interesting info about the Byzantines - it contradicts what I have read but I need to find out more to substantiate my position. I had understood that the long spear had already surplanted the sword as the primary weapon of Byzantine heavy infantry from the very early Byzantine period whereas Frankish mercenaries replaced kataphractoi as the main Byzantine heavy cavalry from Manzikert onwards.
On the crossbows, the metal bit I referred to was to the strings - CA says they had metal strings so are not affected by weather. That is not accurate in the period. If anything, the longbow was less subject to the weather - I recall one battle in which the English had protected their strings from the rain whereas the French crossbows were impaired. The arbalest/crossbow distinction in the game is vague if arbalests do not mean metal stringed. But more powerful crossbows should really be in the late period. Coming in the high period, they make crossbows (and arguably longbows) redundant. Yes, crossbows should be in early - I would make them require a bowyer's guild to avoid archers being redundnant immediately.
I am pretty sure Saladin's army as it fought Richard I was mainly cavalry. Certainly the Mameluks were heavy on cavalry. Neither could be said to be reliant on heavy infantry. I don't think you have disputed the oddity of unarmoured Latin infantry fighting mailed Saracen foot in the early period.
RollingWave
07-12-2004, 08:26
From a campaign point of view.... AHC is by far the best.... they are avalible far eariler than anything else espically if you play the turks... and you can easily upgrade them to Chivaric knight lvl of stats within the first 30-40 rounds... while they only cost 300 gold which is dirt cheap for a heavy cav .... so for most of early the turks are runnin around with half priced chivalric knights.... gg......
While things like lancers obviously rule... if you start a early campign by the time you acturally get them you probably dominating the map already....
Avar nobels are more expensive and less powerful on the attack espically after u get the v2 AHC from armenia that have better defensive value AND less armor... that's so good it's not even funny....
Kats are slow adn cost more though they can be aquired relatively fast too if you tech strait for them (kinda hard though... consider that byz have seriously thin lines at the start of the game without abusing mercs) v2 kats are insane too (same charge attack value as v2 ahc... with moer defense and armor) but byz have a really hard time getting anymore than 1 province producing it for a long while... while turks can pump ahc in 4 turns and pump from 2 in less than 10......
AHC are the most OP cav ever and avar nobles aren't far behind since it's available to all.
Quote[/b] (katank @ July 12 2004,21:12)]AHC are the most OP cav ever and avar nobles aren't far behind since it's available to all.
I always find that my AHC get mauled in close combat, even with armour upgrades. Am I doing something wrong or are those Romans OP too?
you need v2 AHC (armenia, master horse) to hit the chiv knight level.
they are OP not because of super super stats (although pretty good) but due to the fact that they are like chiv knights with 1 extra defense at v2 while costing less than half as much and available in early).
they shouldn't be slugfest. they are like knights, charge and recharge them on flanks or rears for best effect.
when stuck in melee, cav can't beat swords cost effectively.
but pinning the sword and keep charging the cav into their rear would spell close to instant rout and extreme gratification.
RollingWave
07-13-2004, 15:06
Quote[/b] ]I always find that my AHC get mauled in close combat, even with armour upgrades. Am I doing something wrong or are those Romans OP too?
Well AHC is op because if you tech strait for a master horse breeder in armenia you could acquire v2 AHC within 30 rounds, v2 AHC is on par with Chivaric knights charge/attack/defense wise while having less armor (less prone to ap... tire slower) while costing less than half of CK.........
Obviously they will still lose out in any situation where CK would lose out though..... which are many if ur dumb with them or if ur oppenent have good moves.
Against the byz they really should only have trouble with Jedi kats.... Kats cost more than AHC have the same charge/attack and more defense but less speed.... (but that's not incrediablly relvent when we're talking about jedis :P)
Avar nobel is sort of OP but at least you can only get them in one early from one province and it's in a rather odd position province hard for most people to get to without risking exposed borders.... while armenia's only draw back is that it is a likely target of the GH's invasion.
Acturally katank... AUM and vikings are pretty op in the campaign too :P least it's not on a horse....
in early campaign though... a combo of v2 turcoman/ahc from the turks can be aquired fast and is basically the same as the a golden hoards XD... tell you a bit about the "balance"
AUM and viks are OP too but are they half the cost of a comparable high era unit?
RollingWave
07-13-2004, 15:48
Quote[/b] ]AUM and viks are OP too but are they half the cost of a comparable high era unit? true :P at least AUM isn't... Vikings for the Danes could be though (and it's better than maa in general anyway due to AP) but still at least it's not on a horse and even at half price the difference is around 100 gold and not 300+ XD not to meantion you can't get v2 vikings iirc.
how? only v1 from norway.
they require fort and fortresses don't give valor bonus and you can't get to fortress and siege cannon towers in early anyhow.
Quote[/b] (katank @ July 13 2004,14:28)]how? only v1 from norway.
they require fort and fortresses don't give valor bonus and you can't get to fortress and siege cannon towers in early anyhow.
sorry i'm a moron. i should know, a mod i'm using puts them with the town watch as a prerequisite, sorry can't remeber which one http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
oh, I see. stilld would take just about forever to get to county militia and I doubt that it's doable in early unless the mod also removes the era restriction for vikings.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.