Lack of “real” English Infantry Diversity

[Sirroyasis]

First off I’d like to point out that I’m enjoying this game greatly, and that it is a huge improvement (in most ways) on R:TW. Also please take this post in a very “IMHO” way.

I’m still playing my original campaign, which is with the English. Strong archers and strong heavy infantry supposedly define the English faction. I can’t complain about the archers, my only problem is on deciding between the Retinue Longbow men and the Sherwood archers (who have a serious coolness factor!). The problem for me is the infantry. I have read posts here about the lack of spear/anti cavalry infantry; this is being discussed all over the place as far as I can tell. My main problem is with the supposedly superior heavy infantry.

Firstly we have the billmen, a defining English unit, unique and… completely useless! Great attack, effective against armour, but as fragile as peasants. People say to use them to charge the flanks of already engaged enemy infantry, but surely any unit is effective when attacking the rear of an already engaged enemy unit?! The statistically pathetic and primitive levy spearmen can rout enemy units in this way, can survive longer and are much more versatile. I cannot find a reason to recruit billmen at all.


Then we move on to the more advanced heavy infantry. You can choose between 4 types:

Heavy billmen have two things going for them as far as I can tell, their high attack value which is effective against heavy armour, and their price. They have similar survivability to levy spearmen in my experience, but they do dish out punishment, especially when charging.

Dismounted English knights are like a Heavy billmen upgrade. They have slightly higher defense and considerably higher attack. They definitely perform much better than heavy billmen, but they cost a lot more to recruit and maintain. These appear to be your anti heavy infantry “chosen axe men” types.

Dismounted Feudal knights are a very strong, reliable foot soldier that can take on almost any other infantry unit in my experience. They have great survivability and can dish out some serious damage. A number of European factions are able to recruit this unit.

Armoured swordsmen are like Dismounted Feudal knights that put an extra tunic on under their breastplate. The only statistical difference between these two units is that Armoured swordsmen have 1 extra point of defense. They are also much cheaper to maintain.


On paper these sound fine, but they haven’t worked out fine for me in game:

Firstly, I was able to recruit D’ English knights before heavy billmen. I have a massive income as the English on H/H and so I have never had any reason to recruit heavy billmen.

Secondly, Dismounted Feudal knights regularly thwart my D’ English knights. The D’ English knights often cause heavy losses to the enemy through their charge, but then they get picked off due to their rubbish (late game) defense score. This has happened to me countless times in the campaign against the French D’ Feudal knights. As a specialized anti heavy infantry unit D’ English knights are relatively impotent - Chosen axe men these are not. My Armoured swordsmen will more regularly win, and will last longer so reinforcements can arrive if necessary. Armoured swordsmen can also survive attacks from enemy archers and thwart light infantry – both of which D’ English knights cannot.

In terms of effectiveness, the only infantry I use in the mid/late game are Armoured swordsmen (and whatever bow men I choose). And in the end the “superior” English infantry is only superior through a 1 point defensive bonus and a fairly low upkeep. This has really disappointed me.

On a side note - how come the Moors Christian knights are so statistically superior with their chain mail and their piddly little bucklers? It’s annoying to me when an original, defining unit is outclassed by what seems to be a copycat unit. That’s another story I guess. Apologies for the long ramble but summarization was never one of my strong points.

Does anyone disagree with what I have said above?

[Maizel]

I found the billmen to be perfect flankers. They're much like the Falxmen in Rome

[AussieGiant]

My thoughts:

Heavy Bill units are never going to have staying power as they lack shields. Both Heavy Bill units have 7 armour value so this is the most bar two other units in the roster.

They are what they are. My only thoguht to alliveate this would be to get as many armoured upgrades on them as possible. If anyone knows how each upgrade affects the stats that would be great.

In the end they can be front line units but only if you accept high casualty rates. The ting that balanced them in the original was they also had anti cav bonuses which they have lost this time around. If that was changed then I believe they would be far more useful.

In comparison to D English Knights then High upgraded Heavy Billmen would be better value than D' English Knights. But if they also had armour upgrades, then you have a dilemma about cost and performance. The only thing both these units have giong for them is AP. What the exact affect of that has to be determine before comparing their attack values with Armoured Swordsmen and D' Fuedal Knights.

The other two parrings of Armoured Swordsmen and D' Fuedal Knights is much of a muchness. Costswise they even out with lower unit cost but higher upkeep. They are obviously the two best and most well rounded units in the line up.

For me the final analysis has to be made only when moral and other battle characteristics are added. Once that is cleared up then we can really give a final recommendation.

In the end your ideal front line troops have to be Armoured Swordsmen and D' Fuedal Knights with your flankers being Heavy Billmen and D' English Knights.

Having said that, I'm really not sure what could stand up to 10 units of those combined evenly and 4 to 5 Long bow units sitting behind it all. I do believe you can blame historical accuracy for all this :beam:

[econ21]

I agree the English infantry lack diversity, although to be honest I would look for historical units rather than seek artificial diversity. By the late period, English heavy infantry probably should just be knights and heavy billmen, so M2TW is not far off.

Dismounted feudal knights are armoured swordsmen, to all intents and purposes, but just over-priced ones. So I agree they are redundant.

Heavy billmen are clearly inferior to English knights and redundant, agree. In a historical realism mod, I would look for a much bigger cost difference - or tighter caps on better infantry - to induce the player to take them.

I am not sure yet that English knights are redundant. As has been said, they are ideal flankers, where their high attack will allow you to roll up the enemy and the lack of defense would be less important. They would be particularly tasty against mounted late knights and generals that get caught up in your lines[1]. I would rather have a couple on the flanks - and perhaps one as a general killer reserve - than just purely rely on armoured swordsmen.


[1]I vividly remember one MTW PBM where a lone katank uber-general was in a protracted stalemate with my armoured spears. A unit of axe armed town militia charging into his rear took him down.

[Sir Robin]

I have noticed issues like this with a number of factions.

Honestly we will probably have to wait for mods like MA and MTR to clean it up.

[Sirroyasis]

Thanks for the replies guys, I have to confess that my knowledge of anything medieval is very thin and tainted largely by D&D and other fantasy worlds.

I am a bit of a stat cruncher, I love analyzing the stats of various units, but I think there is an awful lot happening in this game, which seems to be at odds with the stats. In R:TW for example, you see a unit with great stats and they perform how you would expect! A 20 defense unit will barely ever lose a man to peasants. As everyone seems to be figuring out, you can’t rely on the stats anymore – highly trained elite knights will take losses to anything.

In a very interesting thread “Top infantry units”, osb0t points out that Obudshaer consistently beat units who appear more powerful. From what I can tell, from my experience of the discrepancies between the performance of the D’ English knights and Armoured Swordsmen – the defense score has a much greater effect in a fight than the attack score.

Looking at all the evidence this may be a bug, the power seems to be skewed between different units in ways that you wouldn’t guess from looking at the stats involved. This is the problem that seems to be leading my armies into the very dull (but effective) armoured swordsmen and archers combo.

[econ21]

In R:TW for example, you see a unit with great stats and they perform how you would expect! A 20 defense unit will barely ever lose a man to peasants. As everyone seems to be figuring out, you can’t rely on the stats anymore – highly trained elite knights will take losses to anything.

Yes, I get the strong feeling that the "to kill" formula has changed. M2TW has extreme differences in unit stats, but these don't seem to lead to the extreme differences in unit performance I'd expect from other titles.


This is the problem that seems to be leading my armies into the very dull (but effective) armoured swordsmen and archers combo.

Missiles are almost unsporting against the AI - passive AI bug aside, they always were in TW games, IMO. Of course, I still used them alot but in STW and MTW I was typically fighting very much against the odds. (And I still use them a lot in M2TW...)

However, surely you find a role for cavalry? Pinning the enemy line and sending cavalry into their rear must surely be the best tactic for beating the AI, short of shooting them to death.

[Sirroyasis]

True, cavalry and siege equipment still have their uses, and can be found in my army stacks consistently. My main issue is with the heavy infantry - billmen and D’ English knights are so interesting, but inefficient, and in the end – not worth the time or money!

[chunkynut]

I find cavalry as more of a reserve for the English maybe, plugging holes in the line and reacting to enemy cavalry formations and hitting wavering or shaken units. But where in RTW a unit would maybe route shortly after a flank charge even a peasant unit will hold a cavalry unit on its flank in M2TW!

However a unit of any type hitting the rear seems to have a major affect on attrition of an attacked unit but maybe not have much effect on speeding up routing.

I'm surprised at how much i like losing men tho, it requires a lot of adaption to your campaign (retraining/recruiting).

[Lord of the Isles]

I agree with most of the observations in this thread but come to a different conclusion than most. Fixing the odd redundant unit is fine or possibly swapping the order in which they appear as barracks are upgraded is fine but wholesale changes .... I like the way the English faction plays so differently from others.

In another thread about bad English spear units, someone suggested a generic armoured spear unit for all Catholic factions. Terrible idea: it would make them all more similar and the replayability of the game goes down.

[Ciaran]

To counter that, MTW I had loads of generic units, practically everything with "feudal" and "chivalric" in the name, plus the missiles, and, in my opionion at least, the different Favtions play very differently, definitely on the campaign, if not in the battles.