Units that out/underperform their stats?

[Crazy Larry]

So we all know that the stats the game shows us aren't the only factor in deciding a unit's combat effectiveness, a commonly cited example being JHI. But, aside from them, what other units are there that don't perform as well as their stats indicate, for better or worse?

[Foz]

2-handed units are a good example of an underperformer. Their animations are deceptively long compared to most one-hand units, and as a result their attacks are easy to interrupt. Of course it also means they perform considerably under what you'd expect for a unit with their stats, since they are attacking much less frequently.

[Gaiseric]

Im having underperformence issues with Hungary's "Croat Axemen". I have 4 of them that I need to take out 52 peasent archers, 52, trebizoiod archers, and 42 peasents atop a byzantine fortress. I can get them atop the walls with minimul causualties, but once their up there they have a hard time.:whip:

I dont know how much of this is due to the "fighting on walls bonus" that the defender gets, but I think it might be a 2h "issue".:thumbsdown:

I can sometimes get the 2 units of archers to rout, but the peasents kick my 2h units butts. :wall:


Has anyone else had underperformance with 2h units in 1.2?

[Daveybaby]

I find that Russian/Polish woodsmen are seriously undervalued by the AI when calculating odds of success. Their insane 13 armour piercing attack + 4 charge means they can be devastating for such a cheap (75 maintenance - 75!!! theyre the cheapest unit in the entire game!!!) and easy to obtain unit when used correctly. Okay, they will get cut to pieces by archers and dont last long is the melee drags on a bit (though frankly it rarely does since most early units rout pretty quickly)

I also find that Kazaks, while their stats are really, really low, and are as cheap as its possible for cavalry to get, perform really well on the battlefield. Fast, mobile horse archers that are also ideal for chasing down routing units. They wont last long in a duel against longbows, but they can devastate light infantry without taking any losses at all. Love 'em.

[Crazy Larry]

Gaiseric, that's likely largely due to the defense bonus defenders get on walls, especially if you're using ladders to scale them. Ladders, and to an extent siege towers, really are only useful as a way of diverting enemy units away from your real point of attack, which should be to breach the walls in some way.

I've also heard it posited that 2h units generally underperform because they were balanced back when the shield bug was still in play, and now that that has been fixed shield units have gotten a huge boost in defense but the attack of 2h units haven't changed.

Daveybaby, I find that ap units in general seem to underperform, at least compared to my expectations. Playing a campaign as Denmark, I imagined their forces to revolve around infantry that would rip through all other infantry and even cavalry in a melee, but would wilt under fire or against a concerted cavalry charge. I've found that generally not to be the case though, with most heavy defensive infantry beating them through sheer attrition. Maybe this is a case similar to the 2h theory above though.

[Gaiseric]

Crazy Larry Gaiseric, that's likely largely due to the defense bonus defenders get on walls, especially if you're using ladders to scale them. Ladders, and to an extent siege towers, really are only useful as a way of diverting enemy units away from your real point of attack, which should be to breach the walls in some way.

Yeah, its got to be the defense bonus. If you look at the units stats my Croat Axemen should be able to make short work of peasents and archers.
I'll try the my 2h units in a ground battle and see if they do better.

With spy difficulty increased in v1.2 i'm having trouble taking settlements early in the game without bigger armies or much higher causulties. Is their a good early period unit to assult the walls with, or should I just plan on starving out more enemy garrisons?:surrender:

[Foz]

Im having underperformence issues with Hungary's "Croat Axemen". I have 4 of them that I need to take out 52 peasent archers, 52, trebizoiod archers, and 42 peasents atop a byzantine fortress. I can get them atop the walls with minimul causualties, but once their up there they have a hard time.:whip:

I dont know how much of this is due to the "fighting on walls bonus" that the defender gets, but I think it might be a 2h "issue".:thumbsdown:

I can sometimes get the 2 units of archers to rout, but the peasents kick my 2h units butts. :wall:


Has anyone else had underperformance with 2h units in 1.2?


Yeah, its got to be the defense bonus. If you look at the units stats my Croat Axemen should be able to make short work of peasents and archers.
I'll try the my 2h units in a ground battle and see if they do better.

With spy difficulty increased in v1.2 i'm having trouble taking settlements early in the game without bigger armies or much higher causulties. Is their a good early period unit to assult the walls with, or should I just plan on starving out more enemy garrisons?:surrender:

Actually, I was thinking more about the horrible missile fire they'll be taking while up on the wall. Considering that they have 4 defense against missiles, it's almost certain that the tower walls are absolutely destroying them during the melee.

Another important factor is that your men stand a much better chance if you can establish a decent presence on the enemy wall. Getting established like that is a function of defense, since the men first coming off the ladder must survive long enough for more to join them, which the hail of tower arrows and immediate attacks of the waiting defenders do not allow if the attackers have insufficient defense. If accomplished, your men will protect each other's flanks. If not, they will be slaughtered wholesale.

So, my experience has been that high defense units make better wall-takers since they can survive jumping onto the wall and remaining there for a while. Even spears, that you'd think should be inferior to 2h troops like billmen and axemen, generally do a better job in this roll. Certainly the defender bonus hurts any attacking unit's prospects, but I think the poor defensive prospects of your axemen are the real trouble with them trying to take walls. They should perform substantially better for you on the ground, especially if applied as a flanking hammer with other more defensive units serving as their anvil.

As to running an early period assault, my best luck has come battering down some portion of the gate/walls and using tactics to keep missile fire off of my ram(s). As mentioned the walls give the defender a big advantage, so we're trying to break in and avoid being on the walls as much as possible. Much better to force a quick retreat to the square: still confined, but at least your men aren't inherently disadvantaged (that I know of). Also in the square you can employ your cav. One main obstacle to this strategy is that you must get a ram to a gate (or wall) which can be difficult if there are enemy archers. Typically enemy archer units will toast most rams coming at the settlement unless you do something about them. They're far nastier than the towers in that respect. For me, that something is dropping a unit or 2 of spearmen on top of them. Just give 'em ladders, run (yes, ladders are the only siege equip you can run with) them at that spot in the wall, and tie the archers down so they can't shoot the ram. Be sure to build as many ladders as there are enemy missile units: you want to lock down each and every one to make safe passage for your ram. Then bring it in to do its work, and prepare to rush through the gate. If the gate approach looks nasty (note many castles especially fit this bill with 4+ towers right on top of the gate area) then it pays to select a different area of less-defended wall to batter down.

If you can afford it, giving a second ram to a flanking force can be absolute murder on the enemy. They have to focus on the primary assault, but if the second force breaks in, it's often quite easy to send cav from there to cut the legs out from under the enemy units as they try to flee for the square. If sneaky you may also be able to beat the enemy to its own square with your secondary force, and hold it against the onslaught until your 3:00 timer is spent and you own the place. This often results in the enemy being enveloped as your main force makes for the square, and can get extremely nasty (for the enemy, that is).

[HoreTore]

(off topic) As for assaulting walls with towers and ladders, you have to make sure that you have 2-3 towers/ladders per wall section. If you have towers, you only need the unit pushing it. If you have ladders, you should have a unit behind, and send them up with the first unit. Also run your ram through the gate, and send a couple of units through there and up on the walls from behind. I haven't used either spies or siege equipment for a very long time, except against citadels.

(on topic) I think the Vards and polish nobles outperform their stats. Yes, they have incredibly nice stats, but does the vards have so good stats that they should beat back 4 units of turkomans? Not that I'm complaining, I like jedi's.... Also, do the dismounted chivalric knights outperform DFK?