View Full Version : Unusually weak and strong units
1. JHI (12/10 or so) have very weak stats, but do very well in melee against other inf. They get crushed by cav 1on1, but then so too do most other units.
2. Vargangian Guard (20/15) have ridicluously good stats, but lose to almost everything.
Something else must be going on here. JHI and VG both have armor piercing, so that can't explain the difference. I was thinking perhaps JHI have better range, so more of their troops can engage, but it's hard to tell.
Has anyone else identified unusually weak or strong units (given the stats)? It seems to me that the best way of predicting how powerful a unit is, is basically the price. It also seems that the stats on the printed charts seem more accurate than the stats in game. For example, the lancer seems to consistently beat other cav that have the same stats. On the printed chart, the lancer is superior (don't hav eit in front of me, so don't rmemeber how much).
This game seems quite rushed.
My Mercenary Free Company Men at Arms seem to terribly suck at all levels. They can't even hold their own against zero experience pavise crossbows or handgunners. Whereas my Free Company Longbow men can hold walls against any foe. I keep wondering why their stats look pretty good, but they get their arse handed to them by anyone.
Amon_Zeth
11-20-2006, 05:06
Venetian Heavy Infantry are awesome, I've yet to see them lose 1 on 1 with another infantry unit. I can't wait to get them, musketeers, some crusader knights and artillery so I can rule the battlefields.
Crusader knights aren't that great (they are a crusade merc unit). Order knights (Hospitallers, Templars, Teutons) I haven't taken afeild yet.
Based on what Orda Khan found in his comparisons, what seems to make the Janissary Heavy Infantry (and the Danish one, whose name I can't remember) so effective is their reach. They lose a lot of men on impact, but once they kill everyone who can reach them, they pretty much wipe up everyone else because they can't be touched anymore.
With the Varangian Guard, what I've noticed is that they attack vvvveerrrrryyyyy sllllooooowwwwwlllllyyyyyyyyy. They work pretty well as flankers, though. I've switched over to dismounted Byzantine lancers and dismounted latinkon for heavy infantry in my Byzantine game.
The Byzantine top end horse archer, the Vardariotai, is extremely good. They wear armor, by default I think their melee is 11 and missile is 9, fast moving, good morale and good stamina.
Thanks Quillan.
Very interesting, but also very annoying. How are we supposed to figure out which unit is superior, if not by unit stats? Or at least some qualitiative description of a unit's abilities?
I don't remember the ratings of JHI and VG on the printed chart -- does the chart do better in approximating unit combat value? Or do we simply look at unit cost as a proxy of combat value?
Very annoying.
Varangian Guard, by default, are attack 20, armor 6, 3 shield, and 6 defense skill. They cost 530 to recruit and 150 or 175 to maintain, IIRC. Their attack is armor piercing, too. I think the Janissary heavy infantry is attack 12 or so.
Like you, I'm finding the stats aren't a good guideline of how effective the unit is. Byzantine cavalry, for example, is melee 7 and missile 6, if I'm not misremembering the stats. However, they absolutely decimate even chivalric knights when used as skirmishers. The knights (and any well armored and shielded unit, for that matter) stand up pretty well from the front, but the moment the cav gets around the unshielded side, or the knights turn their backs to move back to their lines, they start dropping quickly.
I guess, part of the story is also, where a unit's defense comes from. If it mostly comes from the shield, the units is likely to lose easily if flanked or attacked from the rear.
wraithdt
11-20-2006, 22:37
I find this intriguing that the stats of most units if not all in M2TW doesn't really reflect how powerfully or weak a unit is anymore.
Either the stats are wrong or there something else thats working under the hood that we're not seeing. In both cases I can't really rely on the unit stat's to tell me whats good and whats not; I'll have to field test each unit from now on.
Kobal2fr
11-20-2006, 23:41
Oddly enough, I've lost one and a half units of militia spearmen to a single peasant unit. That may be because spears have been toned down significantly, but they were still 5/7 soldiers being wiped out by 4/3/low morale idiots :/
Granted, the peasants did get the charge bonus into their shield wall, but I expected them to get slaughtered as the fight dragged on... only they didn't. Weird.
Marquis of Roland
11-20-2006, 23:48
I've noticed missile troops don't go down as easily as they used to. Attacking a rebel town, 1 unit of 0 chevron crossbowmen defeated 1 of my 1 chevron spear militia, who charged the crossbowmen. They did pretty well against mailed knights too.
I find this intriguing that the stats of most units if not all in M2TW doesn't really reflect how powerfully or weak a unit is anymore.
Either the stats are wrong or there something else thats working under the hood that we're not seeing. In both cases I can't really rely on the unit stat's to tell me whats good and whats not; I'll have to field test each unit from now on.
This happened in RTW also. The reach of the unit and the density of the formation have alot more effect then most think. Puting a units spacing down to the smallest factor can make a horrible unit nearly impregnable when in guard mode and facing frontal attacks. Also the reach of the less shielded units is very important, without a shield most attacks against them will suceed so they must outreach their foe's. Something I've noticed with the varangian guard is that they are weak once they close in tight with the enemy. They have good reach but that's meaningless up close. Also they are excellent chargers, 1 guy on a charge can cleave 2-3 enemies in a swoop with that axe.
There might be more at work also, but that will be impossible to know until there's an unpacker.:yes:
~edit: Also you may try keeping the Varangian guard and other long reach opponents in guard mode. A disciplined formation is very effective when you can outreach the opponent.
Basileus
11-21-2006, 00:08
One unit that has impressed me is the Norman knight both mounted and dismounted, realy tough and you can get it realy early aswell.
Just to be clear, by "printed chart" i was referring to the actual paper chart of units in the box. It seems to me that the attack and defense ratings on that chart do a much better job of approxmating unit combat value than the in-game stats. (They diverge signficantly from the in-game stats.)
Brighdaasa
11-21-2006, 00:34
I think the defense stats fail to reflect the weapon reach advantage units with polearms or pikes have. For example: the French Vougle unit has crappy defense stats, yet only 1 unit of them can block a town/castle gate for a really long time (even the militia version which has about 25% weaker stats iirc), as opposed to the spearmen which actually have better stats.
I imagine it's the same with Varangian/JHI, and even makes dismounted noble knights a lot better than dismounted feudal knights, at least that's my experience in my french campaign.
This seems a side effect of the updated engine and battle mechanics: pike/polearm units will be very good at holding enemies off while in formation, but once soldiers get up close and personal they suffer from their weaker stats, as well as being vulnerable to missile fire. CA probably needs a new defence stat besides armour/shield/skill, or add the reach value to the skill stat to update the actual effectiveness of these units.
My little theory after noticing the values don't always reflect the actual combat effectiveness of units.
KhaderKhan
11-21-2006, 14:25
1. JHI (12/10 or so) have very weak stats, but do very well in melee against other inf. They get crushed by cav 1on1, but then so too do most other units.
2. Vargangian Guard (20/15) have ridicluously good stats, but lose to almost everything.
Something else must be going on here. JHI and VG both have armor piercing, so that can't explain the difference. I was thinking perhaps JHI have better range, so more of their troops can engage, but it's hard to tell.
Has anyone else identified unusually weak or strong units (given the stats)? It seems to me that the best way of predicting how powerful a unit is, is basically the price. It also seems that the stats on the printed charts seem more accurate than the stats in game. For example, the lancer seems to consistently beat other cav that have the same stats. On the printed chart, the lancer is superior (don't hav eit in front of me, so don't rmemeber how much).
This game seems quite rushed.
You're right, for example in my game early handgunners have a higher defence skill (8) to JHI even though JHI's are an elite unit. The same also applies to the Quprologu (sp?) who have the same defence skill as medium HA like the Sipahis.
Am in a middle of campaign but can someone tell how good the Jannisary Musketeers are? I have a suspcion they might have better defence stats then most heavy infantry units...
gardibolt
11-21-2006, 16:14
Just to be clear, by "printed chart" i was referring to the actual paper chart of units in the box. It seems to me that the attack and defense ratings on that chart do a much better job of approxmating unit combat value than the in-game stats. (They diverge signficantly from the in-game stats.)
Which is kind of weird, because the ReadMe says that the printed chart is wrong and the ingame numbers are right.
I didn't even read the read-me. But, for example, lancers have in-game stats very similar to many other knights (templar, hospitaler, etc) but beat them all 1on1.
In the printed chart, on the other hand, lancers have a superior defense rating.
This game feels very rushed, and not at all the same quality as previous tw versions.
I blame sega, personally. :o
I didn't even read the read-me. But, for example, lancers have in-game stats very similar to many other knights (templar, hospitaler, etc) but beat them all 1on1.
In the printed chart, on the other hand, lancers have a superior defense rating.
I wonder, do you think this could be anything to do with horse armour? I have not looked at the stats systematically, but may be there is a horse armour stat that is hidden on the unit card but factored into the printed chart's stats.
Would you mind posting the stats of lancers and templars from the chart so those of us without it can take a gander?
This game feels very rushed, and not at all the same quality as previous tw versions.
I have the feeling the combat formula has changed, which causes some disorientation.
But generally, the game feels as polished as any past TW game, IMO. Don't forget MTW changed a lot during the patches - especially in cavalry vs spear interactions - and has remained notably short of chrome (it still has armies that shout a Japanese "Hi!" when you detach some units from them). M2TW is far more polished than the recent BI and ATW, although its greater ambition - almost a new engine - also means that more work still needs to be done on it.
Yoko Kono
11-21-2006, 19:18
Just to be clear, by "printed chart" i was referring to the actual paper chart of units in the box. It seems to me that the attack and defense ratings on that chart do a much better job of approxmating unit combat value than the in-game stats. (They diverge signficantly from the in-game stats.)
Is this the collectors edition?
i bought vanilla m2tw and had just 2dvds and a manual inside the plastic case
i would really love to have a full unit roster list
econ:
Lancers have 11 armor 5 defense skill. Templars and hospitalers have 6 armor, 5 shield, and 5 defense. That surely explains part of the difference. But I ran, maybe, 5 tests, and lancers were winning by rather large margins, often with 20+ men left (out of 40) when the battle was over. In the printed charts, lancers have 7 atk, 10 def, while templars and hospitalers both have 7 atk, 7 def, iirc. That would more adequately exlpain, imo, their dominance, especially since these are 1on1 battles where the shield bonus will generally be implicated.
I did some other tests with dismounted knight units (don't recall which ones), and again it seemed that the printed charts were predicting combat performance better than the in-game stats. I didn't do many tests, due to lack of time, either of the dk, or in general, however, so one shouldn't draw any firm conclusions -- simply hypotheses.
Yoko:
First, I'm in the us, so there might be us/uk differences.
Second, I believe (though I'm not sure, as I'm at work) that my copy said something along the lines of "limited edition." However, the only extras indicated on the box were the soundtrack, and printed map of the mtw world. The unit chart was not mentioned, so I assumed it was in the default package.
Taliferno
11-21-2006, 21:45
The difference between the stats of a unit and their actual effect on the battle field seems to me to be all down to the combat animations. Gallowglass, Varangians and other 2H axe men have very slow animations-most of the casualties they cause will be on the charge.
In contrast, Highland nobles have faster animations, and do much better that their stats would suggest (A14 D10 or 9 if I remember correctly).
I think I might be on to something here... Maybe the shield rating is taken into account mostly against ranged attacks, and becomes less significant in melee combat. I'll do some tests and see if this passes the final inspection.
I wonder, do you think this could be anything to do with horse armour? I have not looked at the stats systematically, but may be there is a horse armour stat that is hidden on the unit card but factored into the printed chart's stats.
Would you mind posting the stats of lancers and templars from the chart so those of us without it can take a gander?
I have the feeling the combat formula has changed, which causes some disorientation.
But generally, the game feels as polished as any past TW game, IMO. Don't forget MTW changed a lot during the patches - especially in cavalry vs spear interactions - and has remained notably short of chrome (it still has armies that shout a Japanese "Hi!" when you detach some units from them). M2TW is far more polished than the recent BI and ATW, although its greater ambition - almost a new engine - also means that more work still needs to be done on it.
After doing a bit more research in custom battles horse armor seems to be a bit more important this go round. Gothic knights are by far stat inferior to chivalric and the order knights. But put them into a head on fight versus any of those and you'll see the gothic knights slaughter them. Also this explains all the strange abilities of the lancers in relation to other knights. The cavalry unit die's if either the horse or the rider die's, so having more armor on the horse would make quite a bit of difference in this engine.
Also another strange thing I've been noticing. Weapon speed is vastly more important. The varangian Guard are monsters but if they stop their slow speed will spell their doom. Although sadly there's no way to have the danish axe armed infantry continuelly swing their axes in long arcs like they really did. This might explain alot of the strange inadequacies of the billmen. Their powerfull but their slow. Too slow it seems to overcome the statistically weaker infantry they tend to face.
Alot of interesting things to experiment this time around.:yes:
~edit: I've also noticed with units like the Forlorn Hope and the Zweihanders that their as slow as the Varangian Guard, but are very effective even in prolonged melee's. While checking out zoomed in how they fight I've noticed that they will not only fully parry attacks but they will combine this with a quick riposte. Maybe there could be a couple other hidden stats and attacks in the file then were in RTW. The patch with the unpacker will certainly help.
Kommodus
11-21-2006, 23:20
I think I like the fact that unit stats don't tell the whole story. I prefer games that require the use of one's intuition, as they have a more authentic feel. Reality has a lot more arbitrary variables than the human mind can easily calculate.
Imagine this post-battle discussion at Agincourt in 1415:
French commanders: WTH, man! Our knights have a 20 charge, 15 attack, and 13 armour! They should've pwned your lousy longbowmen with their measly 8 attack and 6 defense!
King Henry: Tough.
The ability to easily crunch numbers to determine the outcome of an action is just another "gamey" element (like health bars). Such stopgap measures won't be around forever; as technology and design advances, they'll disappear.
I think I like the fact that unit stats don't tell the whole story. I prefer games that require the use of one's intuition, as they have a more authentic feel. Reality has a lot more arbitrary variables than the human mind can easily calculate.
Imagine this post-battle discussion at Agincourt in 1415:
French commanders: WTH, man! Our knights have a 20 charge, 15 attack, and 13 armour! They should've pwned your lousy longbowmen with their measly 8 attack and 6 defense!
King Henry: Tough.
The ability to easily crunch numbers to determine the outcome of an action is just another "gamey" element (like health bars). Such stopgap measures won't be around forever; as technology and design advances, they'll disappear.
All video games must use algarythims to run. Any total war engines will be forced to have numerical stats set in near stone somewere, however well hidden. It will always be possible to sit there and crunch the numbers and tell prior to any engagement who will win. This was far easier to do in MTW also, but it was still a great game. You could stand back look at a kataphratzio look at the opposition, add up the numbers, the amount of time to reach charge and decide who would win, even before clicking. One of my more favorite things in all TW games, being able to crunch the numbers to decide the victor.
I think I like the fact that unit stats don't tell the whole story. I prefer games that require the use of one's intuition, as they have a more authentic feel. Reality has a lot more arbitrary variables than the human mind can easily calculate.
Imagine this post-battle discussion at Agincourt in 1415:
French commanders: WTH, man! Our knights have a 20 charge, 15 attack, and 13 armour! They should've pwned your lousy longbowmen with their measly 8 attack and 6 defense!
King Henry: Tough.
The ability to easily crunch numbers to determine the outcome of an action is just another "gamey" element (like health bars). Such stopgap measures won't be around forever; as technology and design advances, they'll disappear.
Why have stats at all if they're all wrong?
You can play the game without numbers by ignoring them. Nothing we can do about wrong numbers. Well, I suppose that we could test every unit in the game and come up with alternative numbers that better reflect unit value, but that would be work -- not play.
Kommodus
11-22-2006, 03:01
Don't misunderstand me - there's nothing wrong with having stats, or about using them to calculate probable outcomes. The real, physical world is governed by mathematical formulas too. It's just that in most applications, the formulas are too complex and contain too many variables to accurately compute outcomes.
If you were a real Medieval commander, thinking about whether your regiment of spearmen could defeat an enemy force, you wouldn't use imaginary "stats" to work it out. You'd use intuitive factors - how well your men are armed, armoured, and trained, and whether or not they are equipped to deal with the enemy force in question.
So basically, yes, there will always be algorithms to compute game outcomes. However, those algorithms are currently very simple abstractions of reality. As games become more advanced and realistic, their complexity will grow to reach a point where it is no longer feasible for players to use them. We'll simply have other ways of playing the game.
IPoseTheQuestionYouReturnTheAnswer
11-22-2006, 03:24
how well your men are armed, armoured, and trained, and whether or not they are equipped to deal with the enemy force in question
Yes exactly, that's what defense ratings, attack ratings, and command ratings all determine.
Considering the fact that all computer programming is based on math, I doubt it will deviate from that any time soon. You'd have to revolutionize the entire electronic computer platform before you did so. What else are you going to use, anyway? Assorted combinations of Lucky Charms marshmellows? Yeah, my Red Balloon+Pot of Gold Janissaries will always beat your Blue Half-Moon+Rainbow Men at Arms...
Math works just fine, as long as I'm not the one doing the coding.
PwnageBot2000
11-22-2006, 03:54
I think I might be on to something here... Maybe the shield rating is taken into account mostly against ranged attacks, and becomes less significant in melee combat. I'll do some tests and see if this passes the final inspection.
PaulTa, I think you are right, this was the case in the first MTW. Shields were more to resist piercing damage than crushing blows of melee weapons and horses. Perhaps this is why the Varangian Guard is easily killed in melee combat. I remembered this from frogbeastegg's unit guide on MTW I. In fact, according to him, some of the shields were only for eye candy, and not benefiting the unit at all.
I have the same feeling: unit stats don't give the true abilities of units. I think that the total defensive value is crap, it's not taken into account in full, in most of the situations.
Probably armour has seriously reduced effectiveness against even low level armour piercing weapons, defence skill against long weapons and ranged attack, shield doesn't even count against attacks from the unprotected sides.
All in all, before you use them you have no idea what is going to happen. The only thing that I can guess is if the unit is strong or not but not their exact ability in battle. Now, I can still play with that but since the stats are part of the game I would like the game explained to me by the people that made the changes. I don't get it why we have to see the unpacked files ourselves and no official source actually explains their new game mechanics and their changes.:inquisitive:
Everything could be easily explained, I guess, by someone that knows. It's a pity they don't, I think the game is potentially much better and challenging than RTW, if they fix the obvious problems with the day_0 patch (now that I write this, I realise that even the stats for the patch don't add up: 0 (zero!), come on, I'm playing the game more than a week now, anybody with a need of help with numbers in CA or Sega can apply in the forums for tutoring :helloo: )
I had a fight tonight in a city assault, Varangian Guards against Swiss Guards. When my VG charged the Swiss, I caused a lot of casualties on impact, but Ordas observations held true. The Swiss halberdiers cleared out all my troops within reach, then the tide turned. However, when I saw that happening, I ordered the Varangians to run (doubleclicked) on a point right behind the Swiss unit. That moved them all into close combat again, where I then told them to engage the Swiss. About a dozen Swiss Guards went down in a matter of seconds then. As long as I kept manually moving the Varangians closer, they outfought the Swiss Guards. If I didn't micromanage, I'd have lost that fight.
troymclure
11-22-2006, 12:14
I believe there are definately some stats we don't have access too, though perhaps they are weapon and and/or animation related. I'm pretty sure i can explain one of the descrepincies (sp_meh) in the combat stats not reflecting performance.
Both lancers and german gothic knights appear to be the top of the line mounted troops. I tested them briefly (only 3 or 4 runs each) versus chivalric knights, christian knights (moorish), Russian Tzars, Stradiots and conquistadores. There was the odd time (always due to a charge gone terribly right/wrong) when some of these, notably the stradiots and tzars actually won but besides the odd victory pretty much everything lost to lancers/gothic knights. The stats for both lancers and gothic knights aren't that flash in the game though, i do notice however that neither of them have shields.
All the other mounted units have shields which take up a part of their armour stat. You can see it in game but not in custom battle. So i'm deducing that perhaps the stats are right but it's the improved armour that makes them perform better. I'm guessing because shields only help in certain situations, a lancer or gothic knight would be better in broken melee (surrounded, shield would only help vs one side) or when under attack on the flanks.
This might explain some of the other weird behaviour. It seems like a unit with comparable stats but without a shield will perform better then one with. It makes sense in a close melee, the lines break up a bit and as a result your soldiers can be attacked from more then one direction and however much armour they had from the shield is suddenly not applicable to the large scottish gentleman with the large sword and a surly disposition who's standing behind them.
Kommodus
11-22-2006, 16:28
Considering the fact that all computer programming is based on math, I doubt it will deviate from that any time soon.
Correct. That's what I said - after all, I am a computer programmer. My point was that the math will become increasingly complex as it tries to approximate reality more and more closely. After a certain point, outcomes will be prohibitively difficult for players to calculate, and ratings such as "attack", "defense", and "armour" will become more or less meaningless. People will still think about how strong units are on attack and defense, and how effective their armour is, but they won't think about such things in such simplistic terms as simple integer numbers.
That's why I say unit stats are a game element destined to die out, like health bars. Think about a boxing match - as they fight, they tire out and receive damage from the blows of their opponent. Health bars are a way to approximate that phenomenon in fighting games, but they are a simple abstraction of it. In the same way, unit stats are a simple abstraction of the fighting abilities of different types of soldiers.
Don't worry, such advances are quite a ways away yet. You stats junkies will have plenty of time to work your arcane magics. :2thumbsup:
TheFluff
11-22-2006, 19:02
I been keeping up with this thread and wanted to throw some of my own test results into the mix. I tested egyptan units that are generally classified as light units, and come in the early era's mostly. I tested the mamluk's in 3 and 4 deep formations also, but i personally found 4 deep to be much better in actual campagin combat, and 1v1 in my testing it actually does better in most cases then a 3 or two wide formation, but this isent conclusive and i wasent testing this as much.
All tests were done vrs Levy spear men that were set on attack,but i allways 1clicked the enemy with the mellee option. the AI acted differenly against each unit over all though. All units are stock and on Medium difficulty.
Halberd milita- 7Att/8D (5armor-3def-0sheild) / 3 charge. They are avalible in large citys with approprate upgrade to the barracks. This unit was able to beat levy spears 3 times with no less then 10 losses, 10 kills in the charage, and winning with the enemy routeing with around 30ish men left. I was very shocked, and very impressed. Note that the AI ALLWAYS braced for the attack, and never chaarged
Dismounted arab cav- 7att /13D (4-3-6) / 3 charge. buildable early on at castles with upgrades if i recall, they are basically 1 defence weaker then the Scaracen milita. of three battles, these guys won 3 battles with an avrage of 20-30 losses before enemy spearmen routed. I was very unimpressed considering what there defence stats were looking like on paper ingame. Oddly, the AI allways charged them, as if knowing it had a chance of winning
Mamluk cav archers- 8att/15D (5-7-3) / 4 - This unit is buildable at your castle and costs 900 florins. I had them walk to the enemy wi th a single click and then they charged. Before and during the attack, about 5-10 spearmen were killed to arrow fire, takeing more damage as they mamluk's got closer. During the charage, they had no spears, but mananged to kill roughly 10 in the innital impact during all tests. During all 5 tests, they won, the worst losses in one test was 27, least was 10. The AI also allways used the circle spear formation (dont rember the name). I was somewhat impressed at there kills in the charge even with out spears and being light cav, but this was only to be expexted from such an expensive unit.
Mamluk cav. 11/ 15 (6-6-3) - 3 . These guys arent the same as above. They are avalible in the High era, and are your typical Cavalry unit. Let me say the results i recived with this unit were very random. The first test they lost flat out. Although killing about 15 or so men on the innital charge (again the ai was in the circle formation), they were hacked up and routed and only killed 50 enemy. The other two tests, they won with 26 men left beforee the enemy routed (they killed 73 spears) and during another test, only 5 Mamluk's were killed (about 20 enemy killed in charge) and the enemy routed when they had sustained 61 casulties.
Over all, Mamluk archers seem pretty good, but i need to compare to saphi's before i have a good comparison. Also on Cavalry, it seemed that if a few units sprung ahead of the innital charge they tended to die fairly easy and over all the results at the end had me with more casulties then when the formation charaged in more unison. Unfortently i couldent c ontrol this (i allways 1 clicked anyway) so its just luck. Also 2 handed units seem strong i agree, but the halberd mi lita were attacking somewhat fast and the 2nd row seemed to be able to hit the enemy sometimes, thus i think adding to there overall effectiveness. However, i must admit that i found it really odd they took so few casulties compared to everyone else with much higher defence rateings and sheilds, noteably the dismounted cav.
On a side note, i tested the halbarders against dismounted fudal knights. The verdect was 3 wins, 3 losses. Very shocking, considering the knights have 22 defence. As long as the halberders keep a formation even after the charge they seemed to win with alot of back and forth fighting (fudalknights had to charge twice). I will say that all battles favored fudal knights but the fact that it was 50/50 all the time was very intresting. It seemed that after the first few seconds after the charge once it was pure fighting, the halberders have a chance of going from "defeat is a distinct possibily" to "the balnce of forces is even" or what have you.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.