Just a quick question

[HicRic]

Chivalric Knights are clearly better than Feudal Knights. I can tell this. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Also, CMAA are clearly better than FMAA. But I'm confused with sergants. Feudal don't seem bad, but Chivalric description says about them having good armour and things, but then says "poor morale". Feudal Sergants don't have this in their description. I'm put off using CS over FS because although CS are better in close combat, they have poor morale? I'd rather have a unit that fought a little worse and didn't run away, thanks

So why is it a unit which is "noble-er" and has better armour and so on is more easily frightened? I know if I had a better suit of armour on me and was better at fighting I'd be less likely to run away, not more likely

So basically my questions are:
Do CS really have lower morale than FS?
Do you recommend I use CS over FS?

[mfberg]

CS - 0 morale
FS - 2 morale

But the armor and defense increase makes them worthwhile, just make sure to produce them in areas with churches and monastaries.

mfberg

[HicRic]

Alright, thanks. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

Is there any particular historical reason for that, or just something they decided to chuck in there? It seems a little counter-intuitive, is all.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Quote[/b] ]Alright, thanks.

Is there any particular historical reason for that, or just something they decided to chuck in there? It seems a little counter-intuitive, is all.

Yeah, I've always wondered about that. I kind of prefer Fuedal Sarges anyway, but I guess it sort of balances it all out. By the time you're building chiv sarges, you should have at least churches, if not churches and monastaries in the provinces training up the chiv sarges, at least in my opinion. So I guess they are all in all better.

[Blodrast]

HicRic, may I point you to Frogbeastegg's excellent guides in the Guides section of the forum ?
Also, check out Yas' unit tool, it gives you all vital stats for every unit; you can find it here (http://shogun.cafe24.com/medieval/)

[Imperial Buffoon]

Quote[/b] (HicRic @ July 01 2004,14:48)]Is there any particular historical reason for that, or just something they decided to chuck in there? It seems a little counter-intuitive, is all.
I always assumed it was to balance the game. Otherwise CS become very powerful defenders in the later game.
I tend to put CS or Halbs in the middle of my spear wall (when I have one) flanked by elite troops or at least FS, then they get +2 for flanks being covered and they're home dry

[econ21]

Imperial Buffoon is right - CS were made "low quality" to make the upgrade from FS to CS less steep. It's a fudge factor, not historical. But they are definitely still worth it - the difference between no armour and mail is a big one in the game. It raises your defence by 4, while low quality lowers attack by 1. I am not sure -2 morale is a big deal. While each defence or attack point alters kill chances by around 20%, I think small changes in morale are not such a big deal. Hopefully you'll have a high command general and be doing well enough in the battle anyway.

[gaijinalways]

The morale factor makes a big difference for me. I rarely use CMA and love attacking them because (in my experience) they often rout.

Foot order soldiers on the other hand kick ass though they tend to be a bit expensive. Halbs I also use, but with mixed results. Sometimes I set them up as bait to be shot at. With their armor rating, they usually take a while to be shot up bad and the AI wastes ammo and I can concentrate on killing other units without being interfered with by the engaging missile units that are barraging my halbs. Or of course halbs can take the AI cav (even higher order knight) charges without routing (usually).

[econ21]

Of course morale is (almost) everything in the game - you win by breaking the enemy's morale. But I am not convinced a morale of 2 rather than 0 is that big a deal. I am not that up on the numbers, but vaguely recall that these numbers modify a basic morale number of around 10 (you run if it reaches 0?). There are lots of modifiers to this basic morale, some rather large (e.g. -8 on the instance of general's death?). You get +2 morale for every extra level of valour.

The computer will often rout and so may be smart to target its lower morale troops (although I go for the killy ones, like knights). But my men don't usually rout unless I am seriously outclassed (eg surprise AI attack on a weak army with a 0 command leader). I suspect my men would rout in those circumstances whether their base morale was 0 or 2.

BTW: I guess you meant CS, not CMA as the latter have good morale. Halberdiers have the same morale as CS, but tend to fare better in their kill ratio and this sustains them (whether the unit is "winning" affects morale).

Think of it this way, who would you rather fight - Nubians or Saracens? Stats wise it's pretty much the same choice with Feudals vs Chiv Sergeants. It's a no-brainer to me.

[Blodrast]

i'm afraid that i've also always had morale problems with CS.
First of all, them being spear troops, it's not that easy to increase their valour by making a lot of kills or prisoners.
As we know, the general's stars have a rather small contribution to morale. Assuming you have an 8-star general, most likely your CS will get +4 morale most of the time (unless they stick to the general's ass all throughout the battle ;) ).
You can maybe get them one more point of valour from master buildings...but that's pretty much it.
As much as I've always guarded their flanks and what not, if you put a unit of CS under missile fire and even threaten to flank/rear them, most of the time they will rout.
FS are much better in that respect, as long as you can beef up their defence, ofc. If I am not mistaken, you can get one extra valour point for them because you can build 2 levels above the spearmaker's workshop, instead of just one as is the case for CS.

Anyway, I personally found that FS are much less likely to rout than CS, just statistically throughout my games. Both mine and the AI's.

[HicRic]

Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the unit matchup program and Frogbeast's unit guide. Very useful. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

I've started including CS in my armies now, just to see how they performed. I've found that their extra "staying power" in the face of the enemy makes them invaluable for pinning units, and then I just run sword/cavalry round the back and destroy whatever was trying to hurt them. Good armour + shields means they don't take too many casulties, and, so long as I look out for them, the won't have morale troubles. They need a little more "looking after" than FS, perhaps, but overall I'm fine with them. It's probably true that with honour + morale bonus from buildings FS would actually end up working out better and cheaper-so I'm using a mix of both

[katank]

by honor you mean valor? both only get valor with masters so the feudals don't get valor advantage over chivs.

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ July 02 2004,14:05)]Imperial Buffoon is right - CS were made "low quality" to make the upgrade from FS to CS less steep. It's a fudge factor, not historical. But they are definitely still worth it - the difference between no armour and mail is a big one in the game. It raises your defence by 4, while low quality lowers attack by 1. I am not sure -2 morale is a big deal. While each defence or attack point alters kill chances by around 20%, I think small changes in morale are not such a big deal. Hopefully you'll have a high command general and be doing well enough in the battle anyway.
Indeed. With a 2 star general you don't feel the difference.

[HicRic]

Quote[/b] (katank @ July 03 2004,02:51)]by honor you mean valor? both only get valor with masters so the feudals don't get valor advantage over chivs.
Sorry, I had my Shogun head on. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif