Bang per buck: Melee cavalry

[Doug-Thompson]

Take a unit’s maintenance cost from R'as al Ghul's unit guide. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=76702) Divide that by the combat value given in YAS’ TOOLS (http://www.totalwar.co.kr/). That yields a number: The lower the number, the more combat value per florin per turn — very generally speaking.

This very crude calculation shows a very rough picture of what’s a bargain and what’s not. Buyer beware: A unit that routs in front of a better, more expensive unit is no bargain at all. Also, the combat value for charging with the primary weapon was used in the calculation. Some units are much better in sustained melee.

Anyway, here’s the results from best to worse:

Best in Category: 2.5 florins per combat point.
Mercenary Elephants

The “4s” (4.2 to 4.6)
All bodyguard units

The 5s (5.4 to 5.8)
Italian Cavalry Militia
Polish Retainers
Hussars

The 6s (6.3 to 6.8)
Huscarls
Chivalric Knights
Polish Knights
Quapukulu
Druzhina
Mamluks
Sipahi Lancers
Royal Mamluks
Teutonic Knights
Khan's Guard
Christian Guard
Conquistadores
Eastern Chivalric Knights
Knights Hospitaller
Knights of Santiago
Knights Templar
Norman Knights
Arab Cavalry
Mounted Sergeants
Border Horse
Serbian Hussars

The 7s
Armored Clergy
Scouts
EE Cavalry Militia
Demi Lancers
Portuguese Knights
English Knights
Imperial Knights
Feudal Knights
Stradiots
Albanian Cavalry
Greek Militia Cavalry
Latinkon
Kataphractoi
Crusader Knights
Serbian Knights
Tsars Guard
Granadine Lancers
Mailed Knights

The 8s
Bedouin Cavalry
Alan Light Cavalry
Byzantine Lancers
Noble Knights
Polish Guard
Lancers
Royal Banderium
Gothic Knights
Italian MAA
Famiglia Ducale
Hobilars

The 9s
Armenian Cavalry
Mercenary Frankish Knights
Merchant Cavalry Militia
Gendarmes
Kwarizmian Cavalry

The 10s
Mercenary German Knights
Broken Lances
Mercenary Knights
Tuareg Camel Spearmen

And in a category all their own:
Condottieri — 13.8

[Foz]

This means very little without an attached in-depth explanation of how exactly YAS's "combat value" is arrived at and what it means. If I may be so bold, it'd be nice if someone would add one :smile:

[Doug-Thompson]

Attack + Defense + (Charge +Armor+Morale)/2

Whether it means anything is in the eye of the beholder.

[Shahed]

Good work ! It is useful as an indicator of bang per buck.
Is it entirely complete ? Khan's Guard is not there, for example. Just mentioning it.

The calculation is from MTW/VI. We don't know exactly what the calculation is in M2. I emailed Yas about this and posted his reply in the "Total War Korea" (keyword = korea) thread.

[Doug-Thompson]

Is it entirely complete ? Khan's Guard is not there, for example. Just mentioning it.

You are correct, sir. I don't know what else is missing, but Khan's Guard's "score" is 6.5, right in Teutonic Knight range.

Do you have a link to that reply from Yas?

[Shahed]

Yeap I just bumped it here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=84001&highlight=korea). You might get his attention if you post queries there, or otherwise you can email him, he'll surely respond.

[Doug-Thompson]

Much thanks. Here's the relevant section, with some copyediting:

"The calculation for combat rating is very simple. (just same as it in MTW1)

: (attack + defence * HP + armour + shield)+(morale+charge)/2

I know it's not perfect. There are many factors that the ratings can't cover. The combat logic of M2TW is so complicated (it's difficult) to cover (in) the whole factor. If you have any idea about that, please advise me."

[Miracle]

Yeah there's a lot more things to consider when computing value:

- Likelihood of weapon/armor upgrades and guild/building exp bonuses
- AP weapons
- Speed
- Mass
- Stamina
- Terrain bonuses and penalties

Recruitment cost is almost as important as upkeep cost as well. Melee cavalry gain exp fairly quickly, but will always take casualties in the process. Retraining becomes essential if you want to preserve an experienced cavalry force.

Also, in the late game value doesn't matter as much as other factors because you're usually swimming in cash. Bang-for-the-buck estimates really matter only for early and mid-game cavalry (castle or fortress-level).

[Shahed]

Having played MTW/VI and used Yas's tools in the past years I can clearly understand what these figures represent.

These figures are clearly intended as ballpark figures, not precise algorithms. The establishment of which is, impossible, on a broad level.

[Doug-Thompson]

If somebody has a better calculation than Yas' has, let's hear it.

Allow me to repeat a few key phrases from my first post:

"very generally speaking" ... "This very crude calculation shows a very rough picture" ... "Buyer beware"

If anybody want to explain why his favorite cavalry unit is so much better than these numbers reflect, that would be fruitful.

[Miracle]

If somebody has a better calculation than Yas' has, let's hear it.
Alright lemme give it a try:

Value =

TotalCharge*SecondaryAttack*TotalDefense*Speed*(Morale^0.75)*(Mass^0.6)
0.25*RecruitmentCost + UpkeepCost

If... Secondary weapon is AP: Add 3 to SecondaryAttack
Unit is not Hardy or Very Hardy: Multiply by 0.9
Unit is untrained: Multiply by 0.9
Unit capable of padded armor upgrade: Add 3.75 to TotalDefense
Unit capable of light mail armor upgrade: Add 0.6 to TotalDefense
Unit capable of heavy mail armor upgrade: Add 0.75 to TotalDefense
Unit has combat bonus in desert: Subtract 0.2 from TotalCharge, SecondaryAttack, and TotalDefense
Unit does not have combat bonus in desert: Subtract 0.1 from TotalCharge, SecondaryAttack, and TotalDefense
Faction is Muslim, Spain, Portugal, or Denmark: Add 0.5 to TotalCharge, SecondaryAttack, and TotalDefense
Faction can build jousting lists: Add 0.5 to TotalCharge, SecondaryAttack, and TotalDefense (knight units only)
Faction can build fortress-level swordsmen: Add 0.75 to TotalCharge and SecondaryAttackNote: General's Bodyguards and Citadel/Huge City-level cavalry should not be used with this formula, since value isn't a very important factor for them.

Speed values:

slow = 415 metres/minute
normal = 525 metres/minute
fast = 600 metres/minute
(measured by CBR)
Mass values:

camel 1
eastern armoured horse 2
armoured horse 2
barded horse 2
mailed horse 2
pony 1.25
fast pony 1.25
heavy horse 1.75
elephants 40

[IrishArmenian]

What if the faction can build a horse-breeders guild?

[Whacker]

Doug, since this is the SP forum, one thing I would also offer is that it might be worthwhile considering where these units show up in terms of availability based on the tech tree. A high "value" unit on that list may not be as worthwhile if it only shows up at tier 5 in a city.

[Miracle]

What if the faction can build a horse-breeders guild?
This is taken into account:

Faction is Muslim, Spain, Portugal, or Denmark: Add 0.5 to TotalCharge, Attack, and TotalDefense
These are the only factions that can get HB's guilds early on.


it might be worthwhile considering considering where these units show up in terms of availability based on the tech tree. A high "value" unit on that list may not be as worthwhile if it only shows up at tier 5 in a city.
This thread is mostly about performance/price which is independent of availability.

Discussion about the "best" units belongs in another thread.

[Whacker]

This thread is mostly about performance/price which is independent of availability.

Discussion about the "best" units belongs in another thread.

He didn't say that it was exclusive of availability. You can have a wonderful melee cav unit that you can't get until you have a citadel or a huge city cranking them out, which can take a very long time and most likely you'll be so far in the lead it'd be pointless. Discounting availability is not a good thing to do. I'll leave that up to Doug, this is his thread.

[Miracle]

you'll be so far in the lead it'd be pointless.
Which is why value only really matters in the early/mid game. This also happens to be the period where there are low building requirements for every unit and therefore high availability.

Discounting availability is not a good thing to do.
If you're talking about the "best" units, of course that's true. But Doug was talking about "bang per buck," "bargain," and "maintenance."

I'll leave that up to Doug, this is his thread.
It's pretty clear what this thread is about.

[IrishArmenian]

Ah, but the Russians (Militia Cavalry recruitable from Tier 4 Barracks, I believe), too, may get a Horse Breeders guild. I've gotten one with the French too, but that was after I built a Military Academy and trained Gendarmes.

[Miracle]

Yeah the Italians can build Militia Cavalry too but only from Large Cities. To get a HB master's guild in the early/mid game you need to be able to build cavalry from Minor Cities.

[Doug-Thompson]

Alright lemme give it a try:

Value =

TotalCharge*SecondaryAttack*TotalDefense*Speed*(Morale^0.75)*(Mass^0.6)
0.25*RecruitmentCost + UpkeepCost

Excellent. :beam:

Not being that keen on math, however, let me make sure I read this correctly:

1. "Total Charge" is primary attack plus the charge bonus
2. "Total Defense" is armor, shield and defensive skill combined.
3. "Speed" confuses me. If we multiply by meters per minute, for instance, that's going to make quite a difference in points between units. I agree totally that speed is wonderful, but that wonderful?
4. I'm stuck at the <> stage here. What does ^ mean, as in Morale ^ 0.75, and where did 0.75 come from.
5. Ditto on mass.
6. 25 percent on recruitment cost, added to one turn of upkeep cost. That reflects a pretty high rate of attrition. I was thinking more along the lines of [Recruit + (9 * upkeep)]/10. While cavalry has to be retrained often, it also gains experience, making it a better unit.

As for adding three to an AP secondary weapon, doesn't AP halve a target unit's armor? Perhaps there should be a separate, lessened figure giving the target's defensive value against AP attack. Ditto on reducing or increasing values for deserts, etc.

[Miracle]

Thanks for the reply Doug.

1. TotalCharge is the spear/lance's attack value + charge bonus. This may sound weird but the spear attack and the secondary attack are sometimes different. For example, Mailed Knights are listed with 10 attack and 6 charge but their sword attack actually has 11 attack.

2. TotalDefense is correct.

3. Speed is VERY important for melee cavalry. It determines:

- how many volleys of arrows/bolts you receive before charging
- how effectively you can chase archers/routers
- how quickly you can retreat, reform, and recharge

To give you an idea of how important it is, compare Mailed Knights with Feudal Knights. With MK you can successfully give chase to bodyguards and therefore have a chance of catching a high-ransom family member. With FK's it's impossible to catch up to them, losing a prisoner potentially worth thousands of florins.

4. ^ means "to the power of". Morale^0.75 means, "5 to the power of 0.75" if the unit in question has 5 morale. The 0.75 part is to de-emphasize morale a bit since it isn't as important as the other factors. Note that if the exponent went to zero it would have no effect on the formula.

5. Mass partly determines how powerful your charges will be. But since it isn't as important as TotalCharge I have de-emphasized it using ^0.6.

6. I admit I didn't give enough attention to the denominator. I will give serious consideration to your method.

7. The +3 attack was derived from a theoretical (largely untested) formula I used:

Chance to Hit = (Attack^2)/(Attack^2 + TargetDefense^2)

If a soldier's attack is 11 and the target's defense is 10, his chance to hit is 55%. Let's say the target is wearing light mail with no shield. With an AP weapon his CtH is now 68%. To get the same CtH with a non-AP weapon, the soldier would need +5 extra attack. Since some units have shields which de-emphasize AP weapons a bit, I have lowered the bonus to +3 as an average.

Obviously this won't be completely precise, especially since this formula is pure speculation. But it's a pretty good educated guesstimate that should approximate the real, CA-written formula.

Actually now that I think about it, here's a better formula:

CtH_1 = (Attack^2)/(Attack^2 + (TargetDefenseSkill + TargetShield)^2)

This computes a soldier's chance to get past his opponent's weapon parrying and shield blocking. If CtH_1 is successful, CtH_2 is commenced. If not, the soldier attacks again.

CtH_2 = (Attack^2)/(Attack^2 + TargetArmour^2)

This computes the soldier's weapon's chance to penetrate the opponent's armour. If CtH_2 is successful, the opponent dies. If not, he is covered in blood and the soldier attacks again.

CtH_true = CtH_1 * CtH_2

This is the true and final chance the soldier has to kill his opponent. To utilize the 11-10 example from last time, the soldier's CtH is now 69%. If his weapon was AP, the CtH is 79%. That is equivalent to +3 attack. If I used this formula the AP bonus will probably be +2.

But since I can't prove any of these formulas I'm open to suggestion.

8. The bonuses/penalties due to buildings, desert, etc. were carefully chosen based on a number of factors:

- While a unit can be upgraded, it can't always
- It costs something to get those upgrades, devaluing them a bit
- Weapons upgrades tend to give more than the +1 bonus indicated
- Desert units will encounter snow at some point
- Non-desert units will encounter desert at some point
- Frontiers for desert units tend to be non-desert
- Desert units have large penalties in snow
- Snow only appears every other turn
- Snow covers more traversable non-coastal land area than desert
- Some units are neutral to desert and snow (don't know exactly which ones)
- There are no melee cavalry units with bonuses in snow which means all cavalry units have low or no penalties in desert
- All cavalry should avoid fighting in wooded areas

As you can see, in the overall scheme of things terrain bonuses don't matter much for melee cavalry. In fact there are only two desert melee cavalry units: Tuareg Camel Spearmen and Bedouin Cavalry, both of which aren't used much if at all.

I may not be able to respond to future posts due to commitments so if you have any questions please ask them later. ~:thumb:

[ninjahboy]

a very good ROUGH indication of price v performance ratios

[Caliburn]

I believe that ranged horse units have the most bang per buck, more than any of the formulas seen on this thread. After all, HA can empty their quivers before charging, causing morale penalties and huge casualties, thus their overall damage potential is greatly increased.

Does anybody have any ideas how to factor in the missile attack? On another note, could this be utilized in creating a more balanced unit training for the AI? I have no idea how the AI prioritizes its unit training.

[Kobal2fr]

Miracle, you forgot one hugely important factor in your calculation : stamina. As in "bodyguards can charge around all day because they have good stamina" :P

[Doug-Thompson]

@Miracle

It would take somebody better at math than me to fully critique your formula, but at least the variables show real reasoning behind them and are all out in the open.

Time permitting, I'll calculate some values with your formula and we'll see what we get.

@ninjahboy

Thanks.

@Caliburn
Hey, I'm a big HA fan too (click my signature pix for the link, if you haven't seen it already). However, I don't plan to get to them for a while.

Of course, if somebody want to beat me to it ... (wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more.)

[Shahed]

That's a good attempt, miracle.
If you can do this for all units and make a website out of it, hats off.

It's time to get Yas in here.

Personally I think you can never arrive at the perfect and complete formula, specially given the criteria in the initial suggestion (terrain etc).

[Doug-Thompson]

It's time to get Yas in here.

No argument there.


Personally I think you can never arrive at the perfect and complete formula, specially given the criteria in the initial suggestion (terrain etc).

We're going to wind up with more than one number here, I'm betting:

Charge value, melee value, melee value against a unit with armor-piercing attack, resistance to missiles, and so forth.

[Doug-Thompson]

For now, I'm going to use the normal cavalry speed calculated by CBR of 525 meters a minute as 1. that would make the multiplier for a fast cavalry unit 1.14 and a slow one 0.79.

[Edited P.S.: I've come around to Miracle's way of thinking about speed. I greatly affects attrition rates in a campaign and is a serious tactical consideration in battles. All other things being equal, a slow unit is going to lose more when defeated and not capture or kill as many when victorious. The opposite is true for fast ones. Even against another fast unit, time of exposure while running for the map edge is reduced.]

OK. Let's try this for Arab Cavalry, step by step. The only purpose of this exercise is to see if I have the steps right:

1. Total Charge = 9+4 = 13
2. Secondary attack, which I presume does not include the charge bonus, is 9
3. Total Defense is 13
4. Speed multiplier is 1
5. Morale is 5, so applying the factoring makes the multiplier 3.34
6. Mass is heavy horse, giving a multiplier of 1.75
7. No AP bonus, so no multiplier
8. Not hardy, making the multiplier 0.9
9. Trained -- no penalty
10. Upgradable armor -- can go all the way to Heavy Mail. Add 5.1 to Total Defense.

I may dispute this one. I think separate values should be given for each armor upgrade, but we'll go with it for now.

11. No Desert bonus -- This one I am going to leave out. I think a separate number for desert combat should be included, especially since the heat penalty should be accounted for within that.

12. The unit is Muslim. Therefore, add 0.5 to Total Charge, Secondary Attack and Total Defense. (Explanation, please?)

13. Jousting list (Explanation, please) No modifier.
14. Fortress-level Swordsman (Explanation, please, although I remember this being debated earlier in the thread and may look it up myself.)

The modified value for Total Charge is 13.5
The modified value for Secondary attack is 9.5
The modified value for Total Defense is 13.5

I'm going to use my figure for cost, but with the understanding that the topic is wide open to debate: [Recruitment cost +(9*upkeep cost)]/10. In this case, that's [510+(9*175)]/10 = 208.5

[Edited P.S.: This is basically a reflection of attrition rates, and could vary widely from player to player and situation to situation. Players who don't have a lot of finesse in their tactics or anybody caught in a series of tough situations would be better off with an expensive, hard-to-kill unit than a good value one.]

======

13.5 * 9.5 * 13.5 *3.34 * 1.75 / 208.5 = 48.53

Now, if I have the mechanics right, I can put that formula into a spreadsheet (Bless you, R'as al Guhl, for using Excel). Then we can see if there are any absurd aberrations.

[Shahed]

Good work ! Would be interesting to see how this turns out.

[Doug-Thompson]

Man, this is a bigger bear to wrestle than I thought. However, progress is being made.

I came around again to Miracle's way of thinking when I tried to leave out the anti-armor bonus. Then I ran across the Danish Armored Clergy, for example. Not only do they have an anti-armor bonus for their secondary attack, but they have the same bonus for their primary attack because the only weapon they carry is a mace.

This unit isn't the fastest peasant-killer out there, but if you leave out the anti-armor capability you skew the deadliness of that unit very badly, and that's just the most extreme example.

So I'm adding anti-armor bonuses in, adding three points to attacks that have it. Notice that means the Armored Clergy get a lot of points added, but I still think its more accurate than just leaving it out.

[Agent Smith]

If somebody has a better calculation than Yas' has, let's hear it.

Allow me to repeat a few key phrases from my first post:

"very generally speaking" ... "This very crude calculation shows a very rough picture" ... "Buyer beware"

If anybody want to explain why his favorite cavalry unit is so much better than these numbers reflect, that would be fruitful.

Actually, couldn't you simply just do two categories: attack + charge per florin and defense per florin? Those are the two main numbers you are looking for. You want to simply find which has the most attack compared to its cost, and likewise defense for its cost. You can even simply add the numbers together and combine it by florins. Adding any other numbers, especially morale, makes it more and more subjective and less concrete, because morale is completely subjectively based depending on the situation the unit is in. In optimum conditions (large army, flanks protected, etc.) morale isn't even entirely an issue, whether it is 3 or 10. Likewise, armor piercing is completely subjective depending on the defender's armor. If they aren't wearing any, then the armor piercing value is meaningless.

Also, like someone mentioned, you could also come up with a raw number by adding up the total number of florins, barring any other improvements, required to make the unit available. So, if you need just a castle, it would have the value of just the wooden castle + castle upgrade. If it requires a Knight's Stable, which can only be built at a castle, then it would be wooden castle + castle + stables + knight's stables, etc. Then you can come up with a "total cost for availability number" and further compare that to the attack + defense per florin number.

[andrewt]

Isn't mass and speed inversely related, though? I don't have the time right now to check the formula but they could cancel each other out.

[Doug-Thompson]

Well, that was loads of fun. :dizzy2:

The numbers below use Miracle's formula, with lapses:

1. Armored upgrade potential was left out, for now.
2. Desert Bonus too.
3. The added factors for being Muslim, Spainish, Portugeuse or Danish are not in there yet.
4. Jousting and swordsmen are left out for now.

Also, there are no Mongol/Timurid melee cavalry on this list. I'm working on it.

=========

Keep in mind several things here. This is not a "best to worst" list. This is a fighting value per unit of money estimate.

Adding in an armor-piercing secondary weapon made big differences in the final outcomes.

While valid points have been raised about morale being somewhat subjective, it is also very important. A formula that includes some indicator of that value is more accurate than one that leaves it completely out.

Speed and mass may have an inverse realtionship, but at worst including them both will do no harm while leaving them out might make some difference.


Unit name, "Bang per Buck"

Elephants, 643.01
Quapukulu, 188.62
Christian Guard, 186.84
ME Late Bodyguard, 182.63
Royal Mamluks, 180.84
EE Late Bodyguard, 175.80
Greek Bodyguard, 170.09
NE Late Bodyguard, 168.17
SE Late Bodyguard, 168.17
Conquistadores, 167.98
Norman Knights, 167.98
EE Bodyguard, 163.72
NE Bodyguard, 160.85
SE Bodyguard, 160.85
Hussars, 159.75
ME Bodyguard, 159.57
Teutonic Knights, 158.73
Knights Hospitaller, 157.77
Knights of Santiago, 157.77
Knights Templar, 157.77
Polish Knights, 154.36
Chivalric Knights, 149.99
E Chivalric Knights, 143.42
Tsars Guard, 142.62
Polish Guard, 141.04
Serbian Knights, 138.89
Serbian Hussars, 136.93
Royal Banderium, 134.55
Crusader Knights, 133.52
Huscarls, 127.90
Demi Lancers, 126.41
Noble Knights, 125.19
Gothic Knights, 123.97
Lancers, 117.83
Mamluks, 115.16
Famiglia Ducale, 114.92
Druzhina, 106.58
Armored Clergy, 103.42
Imperial Knights, 102.46
Polish Retainers, 101.96
Kataphractoi, 98.86
English Knights, 95.79
Sipahi Lancers, 90.93
Latinkon, 90.63
Portuguese Knights, 79.35
Feudal Knights, 77.58
Mailed Knights, 76.47
Granadine Lancers, 74.69
Mercenary Frankish Knights, 74.65
Armenian Cavalry, 73.16
Gendarmes, 66.80
Albanian Cavalry, 61.61
Stradiots, 61.61
Broken Lances, 58.35
Kwarizmian Cavalry, 54.45
Alan Light Cavalry, 49.50
Italian Cavalry Militia, 48.90
Mercenary Knights, 43.49
Mercenary German Knights, 41.39
Byzantine Lancers, 40.96
Mounted Sergeants, 39.17
Arab Cavalry, 38.42
Italian MAA, 34.02
Condottieri, 31.64
Bedouin Cavalry, 29.76
Border Horse, 25.95
Tuareg Camel Spearmen, 21.67
EE Cavalry Militia, 14.64
Greek Militia Cavalry, 13.54
Scouts, 10.10
Merchant Cavalry Militia, 9.61
Hobilars, 6.94

[Shahed]

GREAT work !
How do you feel this compares to your orginal list and how is it superior ?
BTW Royal Banderium are Hungarian Nobles I assume ? Just noticed Quapakulu are top of the list.. wow.

[Phog]

Wow.....that was a tough read.:dizzy2:

Thanks guys for doing all the math and figuring for the rest of us that absolutely suck at math. Doug-Thompson and Miracle, well done! My brain would have been pudding after all that. Great work guys and quite a handy list. There are many Cav units listed that I haven't had a chance to try at all, mostly bacause I play strictly SP and don't really mess around with the custom battles.

Time to delve it that a bit.


- Phog

[Phog]

Can't edit my posts yet *grumble* *grumble*:furious3:

Never shoud have let my old username lapse....oh well.

Anyway! Question, in your research which Cav units stand up better than most in sustained meele? And did better meele stats affect their charge attack rating at all?

And you don't have to do any math for this one I am just looking for opinions.


- Phog

[Doug-Thompson]

How do you feel this compares to your orginal list and how is it superior?

It simply takes so many more factors into account. Whether it takes them into account correctly is what the debate should be all about. However, there is a rational basis for each of the estimates in Miracle's formula, at least.

I think the first, simple list overstated the value of cheap cavalry. Cheap cavalry make very good router chasers, but don't have the all-round value of the knight units. The second formula looks much closer to being right in my highly subjective judgement. For instance, notice how much lower Arab Cavalry is on this list. I love Arab Cavalry, but realize that it is successful largely because it ususally attacks units already softened up by Mamluk archers, at least in my campaigns in my campaign.

Having a mace may be overvalued in this formula. Or not.

The formula should include a discipline modifier. Also, I'm tempted to make "highly trained" a 1.1 modifier along with "very hardy," but need to hear from Miracle first.


BTW Royal Banderium are Hungarian Nobles I assume?

They are Hungarian, but a knight unit available in the Late era.


Just noticed Quapakulu are top of the list.. wow.

That's mainly because of their mace, and many other fine qualities.

=======

@Phog

I'll get back to your questions ASAP, but have to make some concessions to real life now.

[Shahed]

Fantastic. I think we may eventually have a new combat rating for all units ! But this is a great start.
I'm happy if we have it for cavalry only (lol).

[Foz]

Personally I think you can never arrive at the perfect and complete formula, specially given the criteria in the initial suggestion (terrain etc).

I definitely agree. One big problem with the concept is that the value of a unit is dependent on what you are using it for. Not only can most units perform in various roles (and not all players will utilize all possibilities for any given unit), but tactics comes into play as well. For instance if one favors HA tactics and the associated micro management, it could certainly be said that for him HAs likely have the best bang for buck. However if one is not inclined to use them, does not use them particularly well, or has stronger gameplay in other facets, then immediately the "bang per buck" of a HA unit is diminished. A good rating system across units with different possible roles is simply not going to happen because there is no common ground to base the "bang" part on, as each player's "bang" from each unit varies with their play skill and style.

As a further illustration of the role difference of units, consider two heavy cavalry examples. On the one hand there is the Mailed Knight - the other, the Norse War Cleric (listed as Armored Clergy). They both fall in the 7s category by the first method (OP), however most of the time I'd say Norse War Clerics are considerably better to have. They trade in the formed charge mechanic to instead get an AP melee attack, and 5 points more defense. That pretty much makes them a premier cav unit for survivability. That in turn means they are ideal as mobile flankers, and also for city fighting since they have stats that benefit them most in protracted melee. Mailed Knights on the other hand would be more of a hit and run type unit, as protracted melee gets very dangerous to them. Similarly they are at their worst in city streets, where crowding and tight corners usually break up any charge attempts. How can a rating system overcome such role differences? I don't believe it really can, since the matter is so subjective. I would instead recommend that a fair equation be determined for each tactical unit class - something like Light Cav, Heavy Cav, Light Ranged, Heavy Ranged. Instead of being by weight for ranged cav, I really intend the difference to be whether or not they are good for melee combat as well as ranged, since that is really where the tactical difference lies - Heavy should be understood to be melee-usable and include that as part of the rating, where Light Ranged would only include ranged combat related stats. I really do think an apples-to-apples comparison is the only way to get good information out of this idea, as the apples-to-oranges comparisons I was discussing earlier will always be tainted by which of the two each player likes more in the first place.

As an extension of that, then we won't have simply developed some kind of ranking of cavalry in general - we'll have ranked the cavalry from most to least bang for buck in each different tactical category, which could then actually help players decide on new factions to play based on what tactics are best suited to their style or preference.

[IrishArmenian]

Yeah the Italians can build Militia Cavalry too but only from Large Cities. To get a HB master's guild in the early/mid game you need to be able to build cavalry from Minor Cities.
No, you can get a small guild in a large city.

[Doug-Thompson]

Can't edit my posts yet *grumble* *grumble*:furious3:

Never shoud have let my old username lapse....oh well.

Anyway! Question, in your research which Cav units stand up better than most in sustained meele? And did better meele stats affect their charge attack rating at all?

And you don't have to do any math for this one I am just looking for opinions.


- Phog

Foz is right. All these numbers will result in a cavalry guide that discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each unit with the benefit of comments based on gameplayers' experiences with them. For now, I'd refer you to Foz' comments on Norse War Clerics, a unit for Denmark.

I thought about dividing units between categories — router pursuers, hit and run, hit and stay — but there are too many types. It would be better to look closely at the characteristics of each. If some categories become apparent after that, fine.

I'm not abandoning Miracle's formula, however. I think it provides a very valuable basis of comparison between similar units.

[Doug-Thompson]

One obvious thing was left out of the formula: Hitpoints. Bodyguard units and elephants have more than one hitpoint. This should double the score for bodyguards, for instance.

======

Phog:

You asked what the best cavalry was for sustained melee. One good indicator is: What units can survive it?

Here's the cavalry ranked by best overall defense stats, best to worse and excluding bodyguard units. Note the high rank of the Norse War Clerics.


Tsars_Guard
Norse War Clerics
Quapukulu
Royal_Mamluks
Conquistadores
Norman_Knights
Polish_Knights
Chivalric_Knights
Polish_Guard
Crusader_Knights
Noble_Knights
Christian_Guard
Teutonic_Knights
Knights_Hospitaller
Knights_of_Santiago
Knights_Templar
E_Chivalric_Knights
Serbian_Knights
Royal_Banderium
Huscarls
Lancers
Imperial_Knights
Kataphractoi
English_Knights
Portuguese_Knights
Feudal_Knights
Mercenary_Frankish_Knights
Armenian_Cavalry
Mercenary_German_Knights
Hussars
Serbian_Hussars
Gothic_Knights
Mamluks
Druzhina
Sipahi_Lancers
Latinkon
Gendarmes
Italian_Cavalry_Militia
Mercenary_Knights
Italian_MAA
Condottieri
Famiglia_Ducale
Polish_Retainers
Mailed_Knights
Granadine_Lancers
Merchant_Cavalry_Militia
Broken_Lances
Kwarizmian_Cavalry
Alan_Light_Cavalry
Byzantine_Lancers
Mounted_Sergeants
Arab_Cavalry
Elephants
Demi_Lancers
EE_Cavalry_Militia
Scouts
Albanian_Cavalry
Stradiots
Tuareg_Camel_Spearmen
Greek_Militia_Cavalry
Bedouin_Cavalry
Border_Horse
Hobilars

[Doug-Thompson]

Re: Missile resistance

One thing that's always interested me, the HA nut, is how well a unit survives missile attack.

Here's melee cavalry units, excluding bodyguards, ranked by Armor + Shield, best to worst. Note the really lousy showing for Kwarizmian Cavalry, which has lots of armor but no shield:


Mercenary_German_Knights
Quapukulu
Polish_Knights
Chivalric_Knights
Portuguese_Knights
Italian_MAA
Condottieri
Tsars_Guard
Armored_Clergy
Polish_Guard
Noble_Knights
Imperial_Knights
English_Knights
Mercenary_Knights
Greek_Bodyguard
Christian_Guard
NE_Bodyguard
Knights_of_Santiago
Knights_Templar
Lancers
Feudal_Knights
Latinkon
Merchant_Cavalry_Militia
Conquistadores
Norman_Knights
Crusader_Knights
Teutonic_Knights
Knights_Hospitaller
E_Chivalric_Knights
Serbian_Knights
Royal_Banderium
Kataphractoi
Mercenary_Frankish_Knights
Armenian_Cavalry
Gendarmes
Italian_Cavalry_Militia
Royal_Mamluks
Gothic_Knights
Polish_Retainers
Huscarls
Hussars
Serbian_Hussars
Sipahi_Lancers
Granadine_Lancers
Byzantine_Lancers
Mamluks
Druzhina
Famiglia_Ducale
Mailed_Knights
Broken_Lances
Mounted_Sergeants
EE_Cavalry_Militia
Scouts
Kwarizmian_Cavalry
Arab_Cavalry
Alan_Light_Cavalry
Demi_Lancers
Greek_Militia_Cavalry
Elephants
Border_Horse
Hobilars
Albanian_Cavalry
Stradiots
Tuareg_Camel_Spearmen
Bedouin_Cavalry

[Doug-Thompson]

Melee cavalry with an anti-armor bonus:

Albanian Cavalry
Armored Clergy
Druzhina
English Knights
Gothic Knights
Huscarls
Imperial Knights
Kataphractoi
Mamluks
ME Late Bodyguard
Mercenary German Knights
Quapukulu
Royal Mamluks
Stradiots
Teutonic Knights

CORRECTION: This post originally included Mercenary Knights. Mercenary German Knights have the bonus, but Mercenary Knights don't.

[Doug-Thompson]

Most devastating charge:

Lots of knight units have a devastating charge. Only two, however, have a top-flight charge and the most powerful mace with anti-armor bonus that's available for their secondary, melee attack. These are Gothic Knights and Teutonic Knights, and only the Teutonic knights have a defense value high enough to really get the value out of staying in the fight.

The maces for these two units also have a high enough base attack value to make them very worthwhile for killing non-armored units.

ME Late Bodyguard, Quapukulu, and Royal Mamluks have a slightly less powerful charge and an equally powerful mace for melee.

English Knights, Huscarls and Imperial Knights are the next ones down on the list in this particular category.

The result should be a powerful charge followed by serious rapid killing of what's left. If the charge doesn't break the opponent, the mace should.

Charge and charge again

"Pumping" by charging, withdrawing and charging again is a common tactic. For some units, it might be the best way to survive combat.

English Demi-Lancers are apparently the ultimate example of this. They have an excellent charge bonus and what is, by knight standards, poor defense because of their lack of a shield. Broken Lances are a little better.

Frustratingly, Gothic Knights are also less-than-great in the defense category. They need to stay in melee to get the benefit from having a mace, but don't have the defense for it.

And I still don't have figures for Mongols and Timurids.

[Shahed]

Great stuff !

[Guru]

Excellent! :applause:

-- Guru

[Phog]

Thanks for the info Doug.


- Phog

[Doug-Thompson]

[Edited consumer warning: Scrap this theory. Didn't work. See post #60.]


Alt-Charge

Miracle's formula gives a bonus of 3 to a unit with a secondary melee weapon that has an anti-armor bonus. That figure's pretty conservative when attacking the best units. If I understand correctly, having the bonus means that the opponent's armor is effectively halved. Armored swordsmen, for instance, have a base armor figure of 8, making the anti-armor bonus worth 4.

Even with that conservative figure of 3, there are still eight melee cavalry units that apparently should charge with their secondary weapon instead of their main spear when first attacking a well-armored unit. Here they are, in order of how much difference it should make:

Russian Druzhina
Mercenary Albanian Cavalry
Italian Stradiots
Byzantine Kataphractoi
Egyptian Mamluks
Turkish Quapukulu
Muslim factions' Late Bodyguard
Egyptian Royal Mamluks

Note that Norse War Clergy and Huscarls are honorary members of this category, since they don't have secondary weapons.

The margin with the conservative figure of "3" is so close on Gothic Knights, English Knights, German Imperial Knights, Mercenary German Knights and Teutonic Knights that Alt-Charging should get serious consideration against well-armored targets, at least until somebody with experience about this comments otherwise.

[Shahed]

Have'nt got M2 installed at the moment, or I would test it. You'd have to run a test e.g Armored Swordsmen vs Druzhina, just walk them in and see what happens. This would have to be performed against S&S, pikes, 2Hs and spears.

[Doug-Thompson]

You can't just walk them, though. You need a charge because the secondary weapon gets a charge bonus too.

[Shahed]

Sorry, I always say walk in when I mean don't lance charge.

[andrewt]

Just curious, what pushed Christian Guard to the top of the list. I've yet to get these in my Moors campaign but I've always thought of them as same price but a bit inferior to the order knights. I don't have the stats with me atm, though, so my recollection could be wrong.

That list just made me sadder that I got Qapaluku and Janissary musketeers too late in my Turkish campaign. I pretty much owned Egypt and Byzantine with Sipahis and crap. I finished Byzantines off with Janissary heavy infantry and Hashishim. I was mostly cleaning up when I got the Qapakulu and Janissary muskets and I only got to field a few of them in battle.

[Doug-Thompson]

Just curious, what pushed Christian Guard to the top of the list. I've yet to get these in my Moors campaign but I've always thought of them as same price but a bit inferior to the order knights.

Speed. Miracle's formula puts a big emphasis on speed. Christian Guard isn't fast, but the Order Knights are a bit slower.

[Doug-Thompson]

Hit and runners

Some units can charge in, kill a bunch of archers and then get away from pursuing knights. Here they are:



Truly fast melee cavalry

Albanian Cavalry
Stradiots
Alan Light Cavalry
Border Horse

Faster than Feudal Knights, body guards and Order knights

Christian Guard
Conquistadores
Norman Knights
Hussars
Serbian Knights
Serbian Hussars
Crusader Knights
Huscarls
Demi Lancers
Mamluks
Druzhina
Polish Retainers
Sipahi Lancers
Latinkon
Mailed Knights
Granadine Lancers
Mercenary Frankish Knights
Armenian Cavalry
Broken Lances
Italian Cavalry Militia
Byzantine Lancers
Mounted Sergeants
Arab Cavalry
Condottieri
Bedouin Cavalry
East European Cavalry Militia
Greek Militia Cavalry
Scouts
Merchant Cavalry Militia
Hobilars

[Foz]

Thank you Doug-Thompson that is exactly the kind of role-based ranking that I had in mind. It's really useful to have lists that tell you which units are best suited to what tasks. Perhaps you would want to go one step further and put the charts into a unit-by-unit format? Like, list a unit, and then give its rank overall in each of the role categories. From there you could assign colors to go with the ranks... like green for the best 1/3 of the units, yellow for the middle 1/3, red for the lower 1/3. So, basically the idea would be a unit guide, but instead of listing stats, you list different battlefield uses the unit might have, and list the unit's suitability to each task. Granted there will be a bit of subjective analysis, but you are likely very qualified to give it after compiling such detailed rankings of the various facets of the cav units. The green/yellow/red rank would then serve as a quick guide as to whether a unit is great at a given job, average, or poor, and IMO that format would be amazingly helpful to the most players. Perhaps it could be organized by faction, or eventually planned to be sortable by any category imaginable... but we can think about that after you decide if you'd like to pursue the Cavalry Tactical Use Field Manual in the first place. The name could be changed, but that one sounded good when it just came to me, so I had to blurt it out lol :2thumbsup:

[Doug-Thompson]

Thank you, Foz.

I'm probably going to write another unit guide and go by faction. It seems most players choose a faction rather than what unit they want to use. And even the ones who base their decisions on a unit they like are not going to be swayed by somebody else's "grade" for that unit.

[Doug-Thompson]

How much does mass matter? Are speed and mass truly offsetting, as has been suggested?

There are serveral units with a powerful charge and normal speed, but they all have a mass of 1.75 rather than the "heavy horse" mass of 2.

In this "fast for a knight" category, we have:

Moorish Christian Guard, mercenary Serbian Knights and English Demi-Lancers. All have the most powerful attack-with-charge available, but have less mass than the other "13 attack plus 8 charge bonus" cavalry.

Spanish and Portugese Conquistadores, Sicilian Norman Knights, Hungarian and Polish Hussars, mercenary Serbian Hussars along with Crusader Knights have very respectable "13+6" charge attacks and normal speed and, again, 1.75 mass.

Next come the "10+8" bunch: Polish Retainers, Latinkon and Broken Lances. Huscarls get mentioned here too because their 11+4 charge gets an anti-armor bonus. (That unit gets mentioned a lot. It's starting to intrigue me.)

Then there are three truly fast units: Albanian Cavalry, Stradiots and Alan Light Cavalry. They have even less mass — 1.25 — but greater speed and a primary attack + charge score of 16.

It's all downhill from there.

=======

I realize that this thread appears far afield from the original question of "combat value per florin," but a vital part of calculating price is knowing what you're paying for. For example, if a charge is faster, then there is less chance to avoid or disrupt it. That makes this particular question relevant. Also, assuming that basic physics are applied in this game, you get far more force out of increased velocity.

[Shahed]

Good work Doug. The way you've gone right into this is very admirable.

Well I can just tell you what I think, and it's not based on anything but playing.
I'm not sure velocity is greater than mass in this game. In fact I'm reasonably convinced it isn't.

[andrewt]

Well, I meant speed as in be able to manuever faster, charge faster then get out faster. I don't think speed gets a bonus to charge potency like mass does. When I meant offsetting, I meant the easiest units to flank and charge with also have the weakest mass bonus to their charge.

[Doug-Thompson]

Re: Alt-charge and speed

Ran some Russian Durzhina into some feudal knights again and again. Tried it with regular charge, then alt-charge. Alt-charge number were grim: Few survivors left in all but one case where the enemy captain was killed early. Grassy fields, normal-normal, etc.

There might be something to alt-charge against very heavily armored infantry, but for now consider it an unproven theory.

==========

As for speed, andrewt, I understand the distinction you're making: Giving the enemy less time to react, etc. I was just wondering about the other "physics-based" possibility.

[Miracle]

Hi folks, I thought I should just drop by to add some comments.

Let me emphasize that my equation is for computing the value of conventional early/mid game melee cavalry only.

That means no bodyguards, elephants, Christian Guard, etc.

I don't think value is important for later cavalry units because their cost/upkeep relative to your treasury/income is minuscule. The more important factors to consider for their period are aesthetics/fun factor, raw performance, availability and replenishment rates.

Muslim, Spanish, Portuguese and Danish units get an experience bonus because their factions can build cavalry at the Minor City level without any other guilds. This allows them to obtain a Horsebreeder's Master's Guild early enough for it to be considered in the value equation. Other factions get it too late for it to affect value when it matters most.

Factions with jousting lists available get an experience bonus for knight units. This is halved because you don't get the lists until you get fortresses, and not every fortress will have a list. Thus, this bonus is intended as an average.

Factions with fortress-level swordsmen can build Swordsmith's guilds early enough to be considered in the value equation. Weapons upgrades give more than the +1 offensive bonus indicated, but since you can't always get the upgrade, the bonus is reduced to 0.75.

For cavalry, the marginal differences between hardy/very hardy and trained/highly trained are too small to warrant any separate multiplier. Not having these traits makes a noticeable difference though, but not much. That's why there's only a 10% penalty for not having them.

Discipline doesn't matter much for human-controlled cavalry. Most of the time you are actively controlling them thus preventing any unruly behavior. It matters much more to slow infantry and AI-controlled units. For a great example of this, try the Battle of Tannenberg historical battle, and see how the AI knights unwisely charge your faster HA.

Speed and mass are not exactly inversely proportional. A simple multiplication shows this:

Fast: 600*1.25 = 750
Normal: 525*1.75 = 919
Slow: 415*2.00 = 830

In addition, there are two 525-type cavalry with ponies, namely scouts and hobilars. They have a speed-mass of 656, which is pretty bad. But camels, with an approx. speed-mass of 400, are the worse.

These are the regular speed-mass^0.6 values according to my formula:

Fast: 600*1.25^0.6 = 686
Normal: 525*1.75^0.6 = 734
Slow: 415*2.00^0.6 = 629

Notice how fast movers are better in this calculation, but medium horses are still be best.

Assigning ratings for each unit based on role sounds pretty good. You could modify the equation for each role to emphasize certain variables like speed, charge or cost.

Examples:

Bargain Bin Cavalry for Extremely Tight Budgets:

TotalCharge*SecondaryAttack*TotalDefense*Speed*(Morale^0.75)*(Mass^0.6)
0.25*RecruitmentCost^4 + UpkeepCost^3

This is likely to put Hobilars in a whole new light.

Standing Melee Monsters

(TotalCharge^0.5)*(SecondaryAttack^1.5)*(TotalDefense^1.5)*(Speed^0.5)*(Morale^1.5)*(Mass^0.25)
0.25*RecruitmentCost + UpkeepCost

Norse War Clerics and Huscarls will be propelled to the top by this one.

Cheap supplementary router chasers

(TotalCharge^0.5)*(SecondaryAttack^1.25)*(TotalDefense^0.5)*(Speed^1.5)*(Morale^0.5)*(Mass^0.3)
0.25*RecruitmentCost^2 + UpkeepCost^1.5

Obviously Border Horsemen are going to like this one.

If you notice, the difference is entirely on emphasis. You can modify the exponents for any variable based on your particular needs. Want an awesome charge and don't care about speed? Crank up TotalCharge and Mass. Need something that won't rout every time a Mongolian sneezes? Focus on morale. Need a good, all-around unit? Well, you should probably use the original formula or something close to it. https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon6.gif

[Shahed]

Very good !

[Doug-Thompson]

Outstanding. The explanations on the factors make sense — especially since I'm having withdrawl pain on race tracks while playing the trackless Hungarians. At least Hussars are militia cavalry. They also must be the best militia cavalry one can get.

[Doug-Thompson]

Got rid of elephants, bodyguards and the Monastic Knight Orders because they have more than one hit point and/or are obtained in strange and/or expensive ways.

I cut the AP bonus from 3 to 2. I thought the bonus of 3 was too low until I tried alt+charge.

Kept my cost formula.

Haven’t added in the sword or stable bonuses in yet.

Took out the “1.1” bonus for “Highly Trained” and “Very Hardy,” which made a bigger difference than I would have thought. In fact, it gave us a new champ:

Unit name ... "Bang per Buck"

Hussars ... 159.75
Christian Guard ... 154.42
Polish Knights ... 154.36
Conquistadores ... 152.71
Norman Knights ... 152.71

Chivalric Knights ... 149.99
Quapukulu ... 146.14
E Chivalric Knights ... 143.42
Royal Mamluks ... 140.11

Serbian Knights ... 138.89
Serbian Hussars ... 136.93
Crusader Knights ... 133.52
Tsars Guard ... 129.66
Polish Guard ... 128.22
Demi Lancers ... 126.41
Noble Knights ... 125.19
Royal Banderium ... 122.32

Lancers ... 117.83
Gothic Knights ... 116.22
Huscarls ... 112.16
Famiglia Ducale ... 104.47
Polish Retainers ... 101.96

Druzhina ... 98.97
Mamluks ... 96.64
Imperial Knights ... 94.58
Sipahi Lancers ... 90.93
Latinkon ... 90.63

Armored Clergy ... 89.85
English Knights ... 88.95
Kataphractoi ... 82.96
Portuguese Knights ... 79.35
Feudal Knights ... 77.58
Mailed Knights ... 76.47
Granadine Lancers ... 74.69
Mercenary Frankish Knights ... 74.65
Armenian Cavalry ... 73.16

Gendarmes ... 66.80
Broken Lances ... 58.35
Albanian Cavalry ... 56.87
Stradiots ... 56.87
Kwarizmian Cavalry ... 54.45

Alan Light Cavalry ... 49.50
Italian Cavalry Militia ... 48.90
Mounted Sergeants ... 39.17
Arab Cavalry ... 38.42
Mercenary German Knights ... 37.62
Byzantine Lancers ... 37.24
Italian MAA ... 34.02
Mercenary Knights ... 32.62

Condottieri ... 28.76
Bedouin Cavalry ... 27.05
Border Horse ... 25.95
Tuareg Camel Spearmen ... 19.70
EE Cavalry Militia ... 14.64
Greek Militia Cavalry ... 13.54
Scouts ... 10.10
Merchant Cavalry Militia ... 9.61
Hobilars ... 6.94

[Doug-Thompson]

Hit it and quit it

Any cavalry unit that can “pump” — charge, break free and charge again — should do so, as a rule of thumb. However, this is more important — and possible — for some units than others.

Any cavalry unit can batter infantry in this fashion. Doing the same thing against opposing cavalry is more problematic.

This is a ranking of units whose primary attack plus its charge is more than 1.5 times as powerful as their melee attack value, even after any anti-armor bonus for the melee attack is applied. Note is also made of their speed. Bodyguard and Monastic Order knights are not included:

Condottieri — normal
Italian MAA — slow
Mercenary Knights — slow
Polish Retainers — normal
Latinkon — normal
Broken Lances — normal
Portuguese Knights — slow
Gendarmes — slow
Alan Light Cavalry — fast

Next comes units whose charge is 1.5 times as powerful as their melee, and which have normal speed:

Christian Guard
Serbian Knights
English Demi Lancers

1.5 charge, slow speed:

Mercenary German Knights
Imperial Knights
Polish Knights
Chivalric Knights
Eastern Chivalric Knights
Polish Guard
Noble Knights
Royal Banderium
Lancers
Famiglia Ducale

Stay and Play

At the opposite end of the spectrum, we have units that should “pump” against infantry but should never allow enemy cavalry to break away and charge again. They should get a grip on their cavalry enemies and never let go. They have a “pump rate” of 1.33 or less:

Albanian Cavalry — fast
Stradiots — fast
Mamluks
Merchant Cavalry Militia
Kataphractoi — slow
Armored Clergy — slow
Huscarls
Quapukulu — slow
Royal Mamluks — slow
Druzhina

Here’s some more that should consider just slugging it out as an option, with a “pumping” rate of 1.4 or less. All have normal speed unless indicated otherwise:

Gothic Knights — slow
English Knights — slow
Hussars
Conquistadores
Norman Knights
Serbian Hussars
Crusader Knights
Tsars Guard — slow

What's left?

Here are the units that have no clear-cut option in this particular category, ranked in order of the superiority of their charge over their melee factor. Speed other than normal is noted:

Mailed Knights
Granadine Lancers
Mercenary Frankish Knights
Armenian Cavalry
Sipahi Lancers
Feudal Knights — slow
Kwarizmian Cavalry — slow
Tuareg Camel Spearmen — very slow
Border Horse — fast
Italian Cavalry Militia
Byzantine Lancers
Mounted Sergeants
Arab Cavalry
Bedouin Cavalry
EE Cavalry Militia
Greek Militia Cavalry
Scouts
Hobilars

[Shahed]

Nice work. Do you intend to do a missile cav classification ?

[Doug-Thompson]

Do you intend to do a missile cav classification ?

Yes, but I don't know when.

[Shahed]

Cool, no problem. Was just asking so I know if that's somewhere in the future, should be interesting too.

[Doug-Thompson]

OK. Used most of Miracle's formula again to calculate the charge and melee estimates for missile cavalry. Note that this estimate include sno aspect of missile attack. This is a pure melee value, with charge added in for primary weapon.

Once again, the Mongols and Timurids are left out.


Dvor Cavalry, 118.98
Reiters, 116.12
Polish Nobles, 111.55
Mamluk Archers, 77.57
Vardariotai, 75.07
French Mounted Archers, 69.23
Hungarian Nobles, 65.29
Boyar Sons, 59.84
Cossack Cavalry, 49.44
Sipahis, 41.41
Jinetes, 39.30
Lithuanian Cavalry, 36.55
Granadine CB Cav, 30.97
Granadine Jinetes, 26.89
Strzelcy, 22.16
Desert Cavalry, 21.96
Byzantine Cavalry, 13.97
Mounted Crossbowmen, 12.61
Camel Gunners, 10.80
Turkomans, 8.91
Bedouin Camel Riders, 8.20
Turkomans Mercs, 7.78
Magyar Cavalry, 7.67
Turkopoles, 6.96
Kazaks, 6.49
Turkish Horse Archers, 6.34
Skythikon, 5.74
Akinjis, 5.71
Cuman Horse Archers, 5.05

=======

Note how Mamluk Archer and Vardariotai have as high a value in this formula as Feudal Knights, despite the lack of a powerful lance charge and higher cost. The biggest surprise for me, though, was the relatively low standing of the Turkish Sipahis. In the formula, this was caused by the lower morale compared to Mams and Vards, and lack of the "hardy" trait.

The rest of it jives with my experiences in the game. As a rule, nothing below a Camel Gunner on this list needs to get in a melee, and the Camel Gunner's included only because it has the camel anti-horse bonus.

[Doug-Thompson]

@ Miracle

Can this formula, or some varient of it, be applied to melee infantry?

[Miracle]

Can this formula, or some varient of it, be applied to melee infantry?
It would have to be heavily modified for each infantry class (spearmen, S&S infantry, etc.).

For example, the formula for S&S infantry would emphasize stamina and speed a lot more than the one for spearmen.

However, the infantry running speeds (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1523268&postcount=1) need to be precisely quantified before anyone can compose any formulas.

[Doug-Thompson]

Re: Lack of running speed data.

Amazing what we're not told, isn't it?

[andrewt]

Would be interesting if you could make another list, this time not taking into account the cost. I'm interested to know which to build for bang per buck but also which to build if I have tons of cash and just wanna own something.

Also, "hardy" is high stamina?

[Doug-Thompson]

Yes, hardy is high stamina.

Here's the "Bang" index, with the combat value divided by 1,000 instead of by each unit's cost:


Christian Guard 49.72
Serbian Knights 49.72
Quapukulu 48.96
Tsars Guard 48.23
Conquistadores 47.80
Norman Knights 47.80
Crusader Knights 47.80
Polish Knights 47.70
Chivalric Knights 47.70
Polish Guard 47.70
Noble Knights 47.70
Royal Mamluks 46.24
Gothic Knights 45.09
E Chivalric Knights 44.89
Royal Banderium 44.89
Lancers 44.89
Hussars 42.18
Serbian Hussars 42.18
Famiglia Ducale 39.28
Demi Lancers 37.29

Huscarls 28.94
Imperial Knights 28.37
English Knights 27.66
Latinkon 27.01
Armored Clergy 26.95
Mamluks 26.19
Mercenary Frankish Knights 25.61
Armenian Cavalry 25.61
Druzhina 25.53
Kataphractoi 25.22
Gendarmes 24.38
Sipahi Lancers 24.01
Portuguese Knights 23.41
Feudal Knights 23.12
Polish Retainers 22.69
Mailed Knights 22.41
Granadine Lancers 22.41
Broken Lances 21.07

Kwarizmian Cavalry 18.78
Albanian Cavalry 14.22
Stradiots 14.22
Alan Light Cavalry 13.86
Mercenary German Knights 12.68
Condottieri 11.85
Mercenary Knights 10.70
Italian MAA 9.63
Italian Cavalry Militia 9.24
Byzantine Lancers 8.90
Mounted Sergeants 8.01
Arab Cavalry 8.01

Tuareg Camel Spearmen 6.50
Bedouin Cavalry 5.55
Border Horse 4.52
EE Cavalry Militia 2.49
Greek Militia Cavalry 2.26
Merchant Cavalry Militia 2.17
Scouts 1.78
Hobilars 1.13

[Miracle]

What about Teutonic Knights? I expected them to at least make the top five.

[Doug-Thompson]

The spreadsheet I used didn't have the Monastic Orders in them.

I'll post again tonight. Real life is interfering.

[andrewt]

Thanks. I'm playing the Moors right now. Between good initial economy, Christian Guard, dismounted Christian Guard (which I assume would be up there as well on both bang per buck and just plain bang on infantry) and Camel Gunners, the campaign is a lot of fun. I'm about finished, though.

[Doug-Thompson]

An early spreadsheet without all the details.

Notice that speed makes a big difference in the formula, making the Order Knights a little lower than one could expect.

Quapukulu 63.19
Christian Guard 60.16
Royal Mamluks 59.68
Tsars Guard 53.06
Conquistadores 52.58
Norman Knights 52.58
Polish Guard 52.47
Teutonic Knights 50.79
Serbian Knights 49.72
Knights Hospitaller 49.38
Knights of Santiago 49.38
Knights Templar 49.38
Royal Banderium 49.38
Gothic Knights 48.10
Crusader Knights 47.80
Polish Knights 47.70
Noble Knights 47.70
Chivalric Knights 47.70
Lancers 44.89
E Chivalric Knights 44.89
Famiglia Ducale 43.21
Hussars 42.18
Serbian Hussars 42.18
Demi Lancers 37.29
Huscarls 33.00
Mamluks 31.21
Armored Clergy 31.03
Imperial Knights 30.74
Kataphractoi 30.05
English Knights 29.79
Druzhina 27.50
Latinkon 27.01
Mercenary Frankish Knights 25.61
Armenian Cavalry 25.61
Gendarmes 24.38
Sipahi Lancers 24.01
Portuguese Knights 23.41
Feudal Knights 23.12
Polish Retainers 22.69
Mailed Knights 22.41
Granadine Lancers 22.41
Broken Lances 21.07
Kwarizmian Cavalry 18.78
Albanian Cavalry 15.40
Stradiots 15.40
Mercenary German Knights 13.95
Alan Light Cavalry 13.86
Condottieri 13.03
Mercenary Knights 10.70
Byzantine Lancers 9.79
Italian MAA 9.63
Italian Cavalry Militia 9.24
Mounted Sergeants 8.01
Arab Cavalry 8.01
Tuareg Camel Spearmen 7.15
Bedouin Cavalry 6.10
Border Horse 4.52
EE Cavalry Militia 2.49
Greek Militia Cavalry 2.26
Merchant Cavalry Militia 2.17
Scouts 1.78
Hobilars 1.13

[andrewt]

What's that last list? It seems similar from plain bang but some units jumped up.

[Doug-Thompson]

What's that last list? It seems similar from plain bang but some units jumped up.


The first list has several more factors built in and is more refined. For instance, the second list includes Monastic Order knights but gives a bonus for anti-armor secondary weapons that was too high, IMO.


I'll redit this post after making some more adjustments.

[edited P.S.]

Well now, that was interesting.

Before giving these rankings, a couple of disclaimers:

1. Speed mattered. Seven of the top 10 had normal speed, which is faster than most knights.

2. The difference between the top of this "best of" list and the bottom is very close. Every one of these is a tough unit. Also, look at how many of these are scores are tied.

3. One point of armor between Chivalric Knights and Order Knights made the difference.

So, here it is: Christian Guard 49.72
Serbian Knights 49.72
Quapukulu 48.96
Tsars Guard 48.23
Conquistadores 47.80
Norman Knights 47.80
Crusader Knights 47.80
Polish Knights 47.70
Chivalric Knights 47.70
Polish Guard 47.70
Noble Knights 47.70
Royal Mamluks 46.24
Gothic Knights 45.09
E Chivalric Knights 44.89
Royal Banderium 44.89
Lancers 44.89
Knights Hospitaller 44.89
Knights of Santiago 44.89
Knights Templar 44.89
Teutonic Knights 43.29

[andrewt]

2 more questions if you don't mind:

1. How is the sand/snow/etc. bonus/penalty computed in?
2. What is trained? Does that just affect morale or is it something else?

[Doug-Thompson]

1. How is the sand/snow/etc. bonus/penalty computed in?

It's not — yet. It's hard to work in that variable because, for instance, I have some Knight Templars in my current game who have not and will not leave Europe.


2. What is trained? Does that just affect morale or is it something else?

Doesn't rout if they see untrained units routing, IIRC.

Now, a big list with everybody on it, including melee values for missile cavalry units:

Christian Guard 49.72
Serbian Knights 49.72
Quapukulu 48.96
Tsars Guard 48.23
Conquistadores 47.80
Norman Knights 47.80
Crusader Knights 47.80
Polish Knights 47.70
Chivalric Knights 47.70
Polish Guard 47.70
Noble Knights 47.70
Royal Mamluks 46.24
Gothic Knights 45.09
E Chivalric Knights 44.89
Royal Banderium 44.89
Lancers 44.89
Knights Hospitaller 44.89
Knights of Santiago 44.89
Knights Templar 44.89
Teutonic Knights 43.29
Hussars 42.18
Serbian Hussars 42.18
Famiglia Ducale 39.28
Demi Lancers 37.29
Reiters 36.81
Dvor_Cavalry 36.29
Polish_Nobles 30.01
Huscarls 28.94
Imperial Knights 28.37
English Knights 27.66
Latinkon 27.01
Armored Clergy 26.95
Mamluks 26.19
Mercenary Frankish Knights 25.61
Armenian Cavalry 25.61
Druzhina 25.53
Kataphractoi 25.22
Gendarmes 24.38
Sipahi Lancers 24.01
Portuguese Knights 23.41
Feudal Knights 23.12
Vardariotai 22.90
Polish Retainers 22.69
Mailed Knights 22.41
Granadine Lancers 22.41
Mongol_Heavy_Archers 21.64
Mamluk_Archers 21.64
Broken Lances 21.07
French_Mounted_Archers 20.21
Kwarizmian Cavalry 18.78
Hungarian_Nobles 17.24
Boyar_Sons 15.32
Albanian Cavalry 14.22
Stradiots 14.22
Alan Light Cavalry 13.86
Mercenary German Knights 12.68
Condottieri 11.85
Mercenary Knights 10.70
Cossack_Cavalry 10.14
Sipahis 9.67
Italian MAA 9.63
Italian Cavalry Militia 9.24
Byzantine Lancers 8.90
Mongol_Horse_Archers 8.53
Jinetes 8.23
Mounted Sergeants 8.01
Arab Cavalry 8.01
Lithuanian_Cavalry 7.58
Granadine_CB_Cav 6.67
Tuareg Camel Spearmen 6.50
Granadine_Jinetes 6.04
Bedouin Cavalry 5.55
Polish_Shooters 4.62
Border Horse 4.52
Camel_Gunners 4.19
Desert_Cavalry 4.15
Byzantine_Cavalry 2.94
Bedouin_Camel_Riders 2.73
Mounted_Crossbowmen 2.58
EE Cavalry Militia 2.49
Greek Militia Cavalry 2.26
Merchant Cavalry Militia 2.17
Scouts 1.78
Turkopoles 1.68
Turkomans 1.66
Turkomans_Mercs 1.66
Magyar_Cavalry 1.52
Hobilars 1.13
Kazaks 1.12
Turkish_Horse_Archers 1.12
Skythikon 1.12
Akinjis 1.01
Cuman_Horse_Archers 1.01

[andrewt]

It's not — yet. It's hard to work in that variable because, for instance, I have some Knight Templars in my current game who have not and will not leave Europe.



I meant how is it computed by the game. If something gets a -2 to sand, do they get -2 to attack, defense skill or both?

[Doug-Thompson]

I meant how is it computed by the game. If something gets a -2 to sand, do they get -2 to attack, defense skill or both?


Wow. I don't know.

I'll post a thread on the topic.