Chivalric men at arms and feudal men at arms.

[Patron]

The stats say that chivalric men at arms are simply a +1 attack upgrade from men at arms, but the information says they are heavily armoured, compared to men at arm's simple armoured. They have the same armour, so why does it say this?

Are there different classes of armour? Does an armour/defense level for chainmail have different properties for the same armour/defense level for plate armour?

[m52nickerson]

Feudal men at arms.
Charge 3 Attack 3 Defence 2 Armour 3 Speed 6, 10, 11 Morale 2

Chivalric men at arms.
Charge 3 Attack 4 Defence 3 Armour 4 Speed 6, 10, 11 Morale 4

Chivs have +1 in attack, defence, and armor. They would be considered heavily armored because they have 4 armor, so not good in desert.

[CBR]

They both have armour 5 but that is armour+shield. The FMAA has armour 3 and a large shield if +2 while the CMAA has armour 4 and a large shield(but with multiplier of 0.5) of +1

The name CA uses for the CMAA armour is half-plate while the FMAA has chainmail.

So overall same effective armour (from the front) but CMAA will get fewer losses from missile fire if hit from the rear as it has 4 while the FMAA has 3.


CBR

[antisocialmunky]

It's not really a big difference unless you can't deal with arrows. Always keep those valoured up FMAA from early and remember to dedicate a backwater province to replace them. Valoured up FMAA's better than stock CMAA... You don't have to change over anything either.

[econ21]

The "problem" is that CA decided a shield should contribute less to defence when someone is more armoured. The shield factor is multiplied by 0.5 for units with "transitional armour" and IIRC by zero for those with Gothic armour. This makes some sense - some in Gothic armour stopped using shields altogether. But because armour increases only in fairly large increments, the adjustments have the paradoxical effect of making better armour not translate into better defence (when factoring in the shield). Giving the Chivalric MAA and knights a +1 attack was a fudge factor to make the upgrade worthwhile.

So the bottomline is that for gameplay look at the stats, but the unit information is historically accurate.

[EatYerGreens]

Note the difference in morale, too.

It strikes me that the CMAA would really come into their own in defending a gateway against a siege assault, where they will accept higher losses before breaking and likely inflict more casualties in the process. Assuming, that is, that the AI doesn't simply try and starve them out.
(Note: I haven't had the chance to try Halbardiers yet, I'm sure some would recommend these even higher, for the castle defence role, where movement speed hardly enters into the equation).

In the field, where some losses to missiles are to be expected, I'd probably favour FMAA, since they're cheaper and less prone to fatigue. As a.s.m. said, once valoured up, they'll be as good as the CMAAs anyway. Valour boosts attack, defence AND morale, the latter by two points per step.

[antisocialmunky]

Well... after alot of fighting. I was wondering what's the most cost effective sword infantry-type in melee and came up with a formula:

a= armour - 3 if armour > 3

(Atk + Def + 1/2 Morale - a) * men at default / cost

It adds up all the pros, subtracts the cons, and multiplies by the amount of men and divided by cost.

It only factors in attack armour, and defense because charge doesn't matter after impact. The reason that I subtract armour is that it causes fatigue and increases the attack of AP units.

I'll list them with armour factored in and out so you can match up for AP and non AP.



Byzantine infantry
Charge 3 Attack 2 Defence 2 Armour 3 Speed 6, 10, 11 Morale 0 Cost 200

(2 + 2 + 0 - 0) * 100 / 200 = 2
(2 + 2 + 0) * 100 / 200 = 2


Feudal men at arms.
Charge 3 Attack 3 Defence 2 Armour 3 Speed 6, 10, 11 Morale 2 Cost 175

(3 + 2 + 1 - 0) * 60 / 175 = 2.057
(3 + 2 + 1) * 60 / 175 = 2.057


Chivalric men at arms.
Charge 3 Attack 4 Defence 3 Armour 4 Speed 6, 10, 11 Morale 4 Cost 250

(4 + 3 + 2 - 1) * 60 / 250 = 1.92
(4 + 3 + 2) * 60 / 250 = 2.16


Feudal foot knights.
Charge 3 Attack 5 Defence 2 Armour 3 Speed 6, 10, 11 Morale 8 Cost 275

(5 + 2 + 4 - 0) * 40 / 275 = 1.6
(5 + 2 + 4) * 40 / 275 = 1.6


Gothic foot knights*
Charge 4 Attack 5 Defence 6 Armour 6 Speed 4, 8, 9 Morale 8 Cost 475

(5 + 6 + 4 - 3) * 40 / 475 = 1.011
(5 + 6 + 4) * 40 / 475 = 1.263


Hospitaller foot knights.
Charge 3 Attack 5 Defence 5 Armour 6 Speed 4, 8, 9 Morale 8 Cost 400

(5 + 5 + 4 - 3) * 40 / 400 = 1.1
(5 + 5 + 4) * 40 / 400 = 1.4


*Does not factor in AP effect


I think it's pretty fair, using my formula, it seems that FMAA, CMAA, and BI are roughly equal. Dismounted knights are about as equal to each other as well.

I prefer FMAA to them in alot of situations, but CMAA are better when not fighting AP or in the desert as long as all factors are equal.

[EatYerGreens]

I take it the Units are "Factor.men per florin", to coin an expression? ~;) (or, even better, "man.factors per florin").

More is better, too?

The foot knights initially seem inferior but I gather you don't actually train them as units of 'foot knights' per se, they come out as horsemen and it's down to the player to dismount them before battle, when that's best for the circumstances (eg castle assault/siege defence where the horses are just too easy to shoot).

[antisocialmunky]

Well, dismounted knights, as I mentioned, are compared to each other since they're really a different class of troops. And it is also based on cost efficiency in battle as in quality of man per florin. Routing isn't really factored in majorly so the dismounts and the regulars shouldn't be compared to anything outside their class.

[CBR]

Units with AP bonus will get a +1 attack against FMAA and CMAA as armour 3-4 is the same for AP.


CBR

[econ21]

Units with AP bonus will get a +1 attack against FMAA and CMAA as armour 3-4 is the same for AP.

Yes, I don't think you should subtract armour-3 from the combat effectiveness equation.

IIRC the AP bonus is (armour-1)/2 rounding down. And of course you need an AP weapon for it to come in. So what you subtract from your combat effectiveness measure should be some (armour-1)/2 weighted by the probability of an attacker having an AP weapon. In most SP games, I suspect that probability would be rather small.

[antisocialmunky]

I thought AP only applied to AP values 4 and over.

[econ21]

Yes, that was my memory too but I vaguely recall CA messed around with it a bit. I would defer to CBR and the source for my last post (Kraxis in Froggbeastegg's unit guide).

[CBR]

For infantry:

armour/AP bonus
1-2/+0
3-4/+1
5-6/+2

Cavalry

2-3/+0
4-5/+1
6-7/+2
8-9/+3

In MTW 1.0 the AP bonus started at armour 4 as IIRC Activision had thought the original system was too powerful, but CA changed it back to what we have now in 1.1


CBR

[antisocialmunky]

Still, armour does count towards fatigue.

[Mithrandir]

Still, armour does count towards fatigue.

And to shiney-ness.

(that was my weekly useless remark).

[Arkell]

While Patron asking about the difference in armor between FMAA and CMAA, I would be glad if someone can explain bout their defence stats. From the Armybuilder and also if I use the F1 button, their stats shown as

FMAA 3 4 5 2

CMAA 4 4 5 4

in the order of att def armor and morale

while in some guides its shown as

FMAA 3 2 3 2

CMAA 4 3 4 4

I know the first set of stats includes their shields, but can someone explain the difference between these 2 units relative to their defense performance? I mean, should I just continue thinking these 2 have the exact same defence against my any enemy units? Or there is a slight difference when each of them meleeing and defending?

[CBR]

Basically a CMAA is an improved FMAA and has +1 attack and +2 morale compared to the FMAA. You shouldnt think too much about the difference in their shields as shields cover the front 180 degrees. So yes consider them as having same defense.


CBR

[Ironside]

Can anyone run some testing with CMMA vs FMMA with 1 weapon upgrade? I ran that test for long while ago and I think the CMMA still won, but I'm not 100% certain and I don't have time to test it myself for a while.

[EatYerGreens]

I would suggest running that as v1 FMAA with no weapon upgrade, so they have +1 attack thanks to valour, as well as +2 morale, so they'd match the CMAA for morale. Trouble is, it would up their defence stat too, making them just about identical.

I used to think that the attack/defence scored related to what the unit is doing at any given time ie is it charging at an emeny unit, or is it waiting for an attacker to come to it and merely holding its ground (holdpos etc).

I have since learned that combats are calculated in 'cycles'. Unit A's man swings the weapon (attack score), unit B's man parries (defence score) and the relative scores set the probability of a 'hit'. If unit B's man is still alive, another cycle starts, in which he strikes and the other guy parries.

Randomness factors can cause some deviation from expectations in each cycle, so surprising things can happen in repeat trials of one type versus another. There's then a 'causality cascade' of sorts whereby once a unit starts to lose men - even against stat expectations - it will have to face increasing amounts of 2 men vs 1 local combats where holes have appeared in its formation and things get steadily worse for it from then on.

CMAA existed, historically, because they happened to be wealthy enough to afford the fancy armour and liked to show off. Whether they were better fighters than their less-well-off compatriots is anyone's guess.

The stuff about AP bonus, or not, had me wondering about the relative merits of mail armour (FMAA) versus plate (CMAA). A polearm hitting a solid piece of metal can punch through it because the surrounding metal is stiff enough to retain its shape. I think mail would flex enough that it stopped the blade from cutting through it. The wearer would obviously be severely bruised and maybe have broken bones but they wouldn't be bleeding from a gaping wound. Plate armour was, for a time, able to stop arrow points in a way which mail could not but AP arrows weren't long in coming.

Hence armour level confers resistance against all excpet AP missiles but, at the same time requires the AP bonus to negate some of its protection when facing AP meleé weapons (polearms, halberds, lances etc).

[Arkell]

i am intrigue by CBR numbers on ap up there, which stated..

1-2/+0
3-4/+1
5-6/+2 (for infantry)

(again shield bonus confusing me) so, if i have a v0 militia sergeant and charge it against my enemy's v0 fmaa, would my militia sergeant got +1 or +2 ap bonus? does this 'enemy armor' just the base points or plus the shields? because if base, then fmaa has 3 armor which makes my militias only got +1 but plus shield fmaa has armor 5 hence giving my militias +2.

[econ21]

I think it's just +1. AP does not help against the shield bonus, just the armour.

[CBR]

Yes it would just be +1. When you check stats during a battle (F1) you will notice that FMAA has armor 5$ and $ means its with shield value included to give overall armor value. There is unfortunately no way of checking the base armor stats for units ingame, so you have to check the base stats in the unitstat txt file.


CBR

[Arkell]

Ahhhhh... then you guys have cleared this issue for me, thanks very much.

Shield bonus will adds to the defense stat for melee and also adds armor against missiles, but this 'added shield armor' doesnt contributes to enemy's armor piercing.

Also if these FMAA and CMAA have a 1 on 1 fight, is it right if i make the following statement..

"CMAA have an edge and wins at equal valor, but FMAA will prevail at equal florin"

:book:

[EatYerGreens]

It would be interesting to know if the contribution of shield against missiles has 'sidedness' to it.

In other words, the unit has shields on their left arm and
1) are inherently better protected against arrows coming at them from their left (your right if you're doing the shooting); (see EDIT)
2) have a 'probability score' for reacting in time to arrows coming at them head-on (i.e. the shield has to be physically moved to the right place to catch the arrow) and
3) are inherently less well protected against missiles coming at them from their right, because they can't move the shield to that side of themselves without swivelling around on the spot.

This will be quite hard to test since you'd need to be the side controlling the archers, to determine the firing angles and assess the casualty rates but the AI isn't going to obligingly sit still and let you shoot it's men down... it'll come chasing after you!

Actually, Multiplayer seems like the ideal unit testing environment, whereby both players can cooperate to make the test go the way it was intended. The only difficulty being the urge to just play a normal MP battle, rather than spend the time doing this sort of thing. ~D


EDIT: I need to rephrase this, for clarity. Their left is the right side of the unit as you look at it, when firing. So, if the unit is to the left of your archers, they are better protected. If it's to the right, they're less well protected.

In several recent SP battles, where I wait for the enemy to come at my defensive position, I notice how they initially march to their right, so their left side faces me as they approach and my archers begin firing, then they turn left, to come in on my left flank on a diagonal.

[CBR]

IIRC shields protect the front 180 degrees of a soldier.


CBR

[Patron]

I'm going to try CMAA +1 armour vs FMAA +1 valour

FMAA 4554
CMAA 4564

Armour doesn't count in melee, so the CMAA should only be a little more fatigued than usual. So the CMAA will defend and I will walk my FMAA over.

The AI sometimes decides to about face 90 degrees before I'm about to charge so I probably won't get a 1000% fair fight and I lost my Cd code so I can't play on multiplayer and get someone to control CMAA for me.

[Patron]

mathematically perfect 4 ranks charge engage at will autumn lush completely flat treeless steppes, slightly brisk but sunny dry day

The CMAA won twice with a kill ratio of around 5/3. At the start the kill rates were about equal, but as the line thinned out and there were more instances of soldiers getting attacked from the side the CMAA began to pwn. It might have something to do with their defense bonus when being attacked from behind.

[econ21]

It would be interesting to know if the contribution of shield against missiles has 'sidedness' to it.

Some posters playing Rome Total Realism 6.1 (where missle attack is low - BI may be another case) certainly work on that assumption. Of course they could be wrong or what is true of RTW may not be true of MTW, but it would be useful to have this confirmed one way or the other.

[EatYerGreens]

IIRC shields protect the front 180 degrees of a soldier.

Thanks. Slightly simplistic, IMHO, but sometimes simple is best. Personally, I would have gone for 120-140 degress but assymetric, L90° to R50°, say.

I've edited my previous post, for the sake of clarification.

[Matty]

Jeepers, you boys really take this stuff seriously!

So, after all that, can we conclude that you're better off with CMAA than FMAA, assuming money is not a factor and you're not in the desert?

[Budwise]

Jeepers, you boys really take this stuff seriously!

So, after all that, can we conclude that you're better off with CMAA than FMAA, assuming money is not a factor and you're not in the desert?

I'm with you. Even knowing that I am more than a casual player, I don't know all the stats by heart or I don't 1 on 1 every unit to know what wins over what. I just play because I enjoy it. But yes, I agree with your final conclusion.

[Patron]

When you start playing in the high and late eras, you're probably better off with men at arms as when they are in formation they are just as good as chivalric men at arms, but with merely 1 less attack. For multiplayer you should only use CMAA for critical roles where they are likely to be attacked on the flanks.