Anyone a fan of Woodsmen?

[Seasoned Alcoholic]

My apologies if this topic has been discussed to death in the past, but I'm a recent newcomer to Medieval: Total War & the Viking Invasion expansion. I'll give you a brief history of my TW experiences (in chronological order):

Rome: Total War
Barbarian Invasion
Shogun Total War: Warlords Edition
Battle Collection - Medieval: Total War & Viking Invasion

As you can see, its a bit unorthodox, but at last I've found my way into MTW. :2thumbsup:

Back on topic, is anyone a fan of Woodsmen? I'm currently into my first MTW campaign, playing Poland on Expert difficulty (fancied a challenge ~D). The main thing that struck me about this unit is its low recruitment cost (150 florins), low upkeep cost (about 30 florins per turn?), its combat bonus vs armoured units, the unit itself is lightly armoured (?), cheap to retrain.

The description for these units is accurate though - these unit types are still peasantry (and therefore run like peasantry), but are instead armed with hefty axes. However, for their cost-effective recruitment & upkeep costs alone, I find these units more preferrably than an alternate unit, say Urban Militia for example. Urban Militia cost more to recruit & upkeep than Woodsmen, so this is my main reason for recruiting plenty of Woodsmen units in the provinces where they are available (dense woodland).

On the battlefield, Woodsmen seem able to inflict casualties easily enough on rival units such as Spearmen, Urban Militia, Peasants and so on. Their only real drawbacks are that they usually take heavy casualties, especially versus archers and cavalry, and they can also waver quite frequently when fighting isolated battles.

What's the opinion on Woodsmen to their equivalents?

[caravel]

Woodsmen are better as flankers while UM can melee a bit better. Militia Sergeants outclass woodsmen in everything except charge, this probably still makes them a better flanking unit than Militia Sergeants.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Woodsmen are one of those units that when they are in the hands of a tricky rebel army they can be devastating if used properly. A real handful of a unit. I think the Northumbrians had them as an exclusive unit in the Viking campaign and they were very handy indeed in the melee

[Craterus]

I played Poland first too, and loved the guys. Had plenty in each army and they were pretty effective.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I love woodsmen, but I have never really had an opportunity to use them in the campaign that much. I love setting up ambushes with them in trees/on slopes against heavier infantry in custom battles though.

[naut]

Yes woodsmen are useful, especially for a faction like the Polish. But once you can get Men-at-arms, they become useless except as garrison troops.

[Roark]

I dig Woodsmen. As someone has already said: they are almost essential for the Polish when trying to build a solid empire.

I try and maximise the use of their awesome charge rating. Like, bringing them in as the final flankers to persuade enemy units to rout.

They really do die like peasants though... :skull:

[Asmodai]

Yes woodsmen are useful, especially for a faction like the Polish. But once you can get Men-at-arms, they become useless except as garrison troops.


Disagree.

Woodsmen unit is wholy different in use than any swordsman type unit.

Woodsmens are cheap and expendable, while men at arme are elite(first thing to come in my mind when comparing this two units), arent cheap and expendable.

Woodsmens are best used in flanks or...for frontal, suicidal charge to disorganize enemy ranks, preparing the field for cavalry charge.

Men at arms is best used directly, for slowly advancement with other supportive units.They kill ratio is slow, but they stay on the battlefield much longer.
In my Polish games i rarely use men at arms(in early, fmaa are more often garrisoned, rather fight on the main army) and prefere using woodsmen.
If we playing Polish on Expert, there will be not to much gold to upkeep costly units, so woodsmen are ideal solution.

[Vlad The Impala]

My Ottoman Infantry and Turcoman Footsoldiers always love to see Woodsmen in the opposing army! ;)

[Ciaran]

Apart from the fact that they´re more easily available I´d consider them inferior to Urban Militia - the latter get an anti-cavalry bonus in addition to their armour-piercing capacity. For their price, however, they can wreak considerable havoc among armoured foot troops, they´re pretty good for countering Feudal/Chivalric Sergeants or Halberdiers (heavily armoured, rather poor morale and fairly low attacking stats), but then, Urban Militia can do the same and then some more.

[caravel]

Apart from the fact that they´re more easily available I´d consider them inferior to Urban Militia - the latter get an anti-cavalry bonus in addition to their armour-piercing capacity. For their price, however, they can wreak considerable havoc among armoured foot troops, they´re pretty good for countering Feudal/Chivalric Sergeants or Halberdiers (heavily armoured, rather poor morale and fairly low attacking stats), but then, Urban Militia can do the same and then some more.

UM have inferior stats in every respect and don't have get any bonus for attacking cavalry at all IIRC.

[Ludens]

Neither Urban Militia nor Militia Sergeants get a bonus against cavalry. They care poleaxes, as opposed to polearms, and only the latter give an anti-cavalry bonus (oddly, the unit description of Chivalric Footknights also mentions poleaxes, but they do get an anti-cav bonus).

Woodsmen: ...... Charge 8 Attack 1 Defence -1 Armour 2 Speed 6, 10, 11 Morale –2 Cost 75 Support cost 22
Urban Militia: ..... Charge 4 Attack 2 Defence -1 Armour 1 Speed 6, 10, 11 Morale 0 Cost 100 Support cost 30
Militia Sergeants: Charge 4 Attack 2 Defence 3 Armour 3 Speed 6, 10, 11 Morale 0 Cost 150 Support cost 30
(From frogbeastegg's unit guide)

Urban militia have a higher attack and morale, but Woodsmen have better charge and suprisingly also better armour. They don't match up against MS however. In my experience, Woodsmen make decent flankers against armoured troops, and at a bargain price. Especially against the Vikings (playing as the Northumbrians) they can create a carnage, provided you build them in the province that gives them +1 valour. But watch their morale, and don't let them get caught by archers or on multiple flanks! Use carefully, and in moderation.

[antisocialmunky]

While we're on the subject of that area, there's always competition from the slav warriors. Those guys are pretty good and have some morale which is a godsend in early.

[mfberg]

Charging woodsmen into the flank of engaged Royal Cav is a great way to kill off enemy Kings and Princes. I set mine in ambush in the woods on the Polish hillsides and put a unit of Slav warriors slightly separated from the rest of my army as bait. Let the cav hit the slav warriors, and then charge the woodsmen in and you have the peasants chasing the Knights in a rout.

mfberg

[Odin]

Yes I am a fan of woodsmen, however I use them as set up troops. The setup is I take a few of them into battles and either hide them on ambush or charge them into a high value unit and then use archers to hit that high target as unit.

In short they are expendable troops in my MTW tactics, thats not to say that they arent more valuable then the use I have for them. In the XL mod, (maybe in vanilla) woodsmen trained in Lithuania get a valor bouns, add to that the morale they get, they are probably the better of the low end units (peasants, UM, Slav warriors and the like).

[naut]

I stand corrected, maybe I should play as the polish more often:2thumbsup:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Luv' the guys!

I use them as cheap garrison units. Because, unlike using peasants, they can put up a fight if push comes to shove.

[Seasoned Alcoholic]

Some interesting feedback :medievalcheers:

I've managed to forge a decent empire in the Polish campaign, stretching roughly from Lithuania in the north, Pomerania in the west, Kiev & Crimea in the south, and most recently Kazar in the east.

The latest battle was against the Golden Horde and their cav spam ~D Even though I'm in control of quite a few provinces (most are @ Very High tax rates), cash flow is a serious problem, so I have to make do with cheap, throw-away, expendable troops.

Woodsmen do this job nicely as I've found out. As mentioned above, they're good at pinning-down heavy cavalry (especially generals) while you bring up your own royal knights, horsemen, retainers (or whatever) and pick them off. This is what I did in the latest battle vs the Golden Horde - routed the heavy steppe cavalry first, and then the horse archers, steppe cavalry and bits and pieces of light infantry soon followed suit. Most woodsmen units took around 50% casualties, but since they're so cheap to retrain / recruit its really not that important tbh.

[Shawn_MacDonald]

I love woodsmen. I use them for my scottish expeditions (I use Super mod) into eastern Europe and and the Norse countries to fill in the ranks of my lost highland clansmen. They do a pretty decent job using moral boosting buildings and stuff to help them out. They are easily replaced and only require a forester to build in BKB's Super mod. So they do their job and they do it well only I wish they were recruitable in western europe as well (westen europe had some dense forests in france I am sure of).

[Papewaio]

Love them, they are like mini-me Vikings.

They are cheap so they are good to fill out an army on Expert. They have low morale... simple solution build morale upgrades and have a leader the increase morale. They then will fight longer.

Have a line of Spearmen and use the Woodsmen as counter-assualt and flanking units. Makes for a cheap anti-cav force.

On a per man basis the Cav will win, on a per florin basis you will be up by about 10:1.

[naut]

The Black Forest of Germany (Shwarz Wald) is extremely dense, so maybe places like Bavaria should get Woodsmen.

[Zain]

I perfer Vikings over Woodsmen.

[Diehard_TH]

SA,

I'm playing Polish Early Hard Vanilla VI and yes i love woodsmen. Recruiting them from Lithuania for the +1 Valour is especially good. They are cheap, can fight and are great to just keep churning out.

I tend to use them in actual battles, to hide in woods flanking my defensive position ready to charge the enemys flanks, again in woods to attack cavalry (the GH usually) and when on the offensive as troops to lure off horse archers and to flush out enemy troops in forests.

Coupled with a decent general they are extraordinary value for money.