Printable View
There is one thing that I never really got in Medieval - why do the peasants have spears? Surely every single stereotype of a peasant is that of a tramp with a PITCHFORK. They are absolutely useless on the battlefield, so they might as well be useless with a pitchfork, right?
Don't forget torches. Very effective against Frankensteins. *nods*
They are useful as a front wave. I just send them as screeners for my light infrantry which are screeners for my medium infrantry, etc. They're only useful in large numbers. There kinda like fanatics, but fanatcis are twice as good though.
Actually peasants are the only unit which actually makes your army worse by their inclusion. They always end up breaking, and panicking the rest of your army.
I think the unit picture when you right click on them on the overmap is holding a pitchfork, not sure why they have sticks/spears in the game, though.
Exactly, I've seen them break without taking a single casualty, or without anyone else routing, they were "worried about flanks", well, that makes it alright then.Quote:
Originally Posted by DisruptorX
Actually having Peasants in your army is very important for the role playing aspect of the game, to quote the Simpsons:
" There is no Justice like angry mob justice "
It is quite possible that the leaders of your army 'encouraged' those peasants to join on the basis that they could deal out some retribution on those who actually stole all of the decent Pitchforks and Hoes. Or it could be that down at the local DIY store they had a special offer
" Trade in your pitchfork and get a Dodgy Spear that you don't know how to use Half Price "
Could all just be a lazy artist doing the drawings though, but I doubt it, a conspiracy is definately more likely.
I dont think they are spears to be honest, on closer inspection some time ago, i concluded thta were holding brooms, to sweep away the dead bodies ~D
I agree, they are a pretty useless unit, but i suppose they are there if you wan to have like 6 Major valour units, and them as fodder. Because, they have such bad stats, that if they sneezed too hard they woul die, or if they bumped into each other, let alone engaging the enemy. They cant hold any half decent enemy unit for a sufficent time to flank either.
Well, their graphic in the description parchment has the fellow holding a pitchfork. Just because it has two tines instead of three doesn't make it a spear. But to be truthful, why wouldn't they have spears, spears are dirt cheap to make. Of course they'd have modified farm equipment as well. Good old schythes and butcher knives on sticks...
I gave up on peasants when a unit failed to attack. They just stood there, quivering.Quote:
Originally Posted by eadeater
The only reason to make peasants is for garrison troops. That's the one thing they excel at.
Sometimes, I have a few peasants with the army for garrison purposes, then get attacked. I deploy the troops and then order the peasants to withdraw.
God I hate Peasants, I remember the very first time I played the game, I played as the Mercians in VI and built peasants because they were cheap. ~:doh: My armies were utterly and completely crushed. I have never used them since.
Anyone up for a 4k florin game. I'll use em and show you they can be useful on the battlefield. Now if the A.I. actually knew how to use a 1000 peasant mob along with 600 professional troops early on in the game there might actually be a challenge. The trick with using them early in the game is make 1 massive line with the professional soldiers in the middle and engage the A.I. and once the regular soldiers have them pinned bring the peasants around and engulf them. When peasants(or anyother unit for that matter) hit a unit that is already engaged they get a morale boost this allows them to stay and fight for a while but it still wo'nt stop them from dropping like flies.
Another good use for them is to tire elite cavalry. As you are marching towards there army, threaten the A.I. with a major flanking maneuver with peasants. This will usually draw out there cavalry and get them chasing them down. All the while they have been lured out of battle and been tired some. Oops did my peasants kill 2 of your kataphracts oh well I guess I will have to take the rest of my army and smash them to bits since they routed the rest of your army.
Of course they misnamed the unit, I think there unit name should be castle gate siege engineers.
the peasants have their use
like oaty metnion, they are great for breaking down gates and atracting the enemy out of the castle.
they are the best way to bring the enemy to you, send in two units of peasents towards the enemy. the second the enemy moves towards them the peasents will start running away. the enemy will move forward a bit. by this time you can convince the peasents to go back. repeat until the enemy gets close to your army.
they are also good agains missle strong armies. well not to fight them, but to use up their ammo and energy.
Everything mentioned here can be done better by other units.
If the AI knew how to fight a peasant mob, they'd all die miserably.
Peasants have two advantages: they're cheap and have low tech requirements.
But how cheap are they, really?
Suppose you had one unit of peasants that you make for 100 florins (huge unit size.) After ten years of warfare, you've spent the original 100 florins to get the unit and another 750 florins in upkeep -- if you suffered no casualties.
That's absurd. Of course any peasant unit that does any fighting at all will suffer casualties. I'd argue that at least some members of a peasant unit will die of fright whenever they're on a battlefield, whether they get involved in any combat or not.
Let's say that a peasant unit losses 10 percent of the men every turn, which I consider extremely conservative. Over the course of those 10 years, the actual cost of that (huge size) peasant unit is 100 florins to produce it, 675 florins in upkeep at an average of 90 percent strength, and another 100 florins to build replacements. That's 875 florins.
That's a rock-bottom estimate. I'd argue that it would easily cost 1,000 florins or more to keep a fighting peasant unit at full strength over the course of 10 years. Others can argue that peasant units can be merged as casualties are suffered. It doesn't matter. Whether the cost is in fewer units or florins, a cost is being paid.
There are other, far better low-cost options for most factions. Ones that require only a fort include: Slav Warriors, Vikings (Danes get a big price discount), camels (Egyptians get a big discount), woodsmen (Russians get a discount) and Scottish highlanders. Other factions start the game with the extra buildings needed to produce better units.
Highlanders in particular are an outstanding value. They're relatively cheap to make and their maintenance cost is minimal.
And not only fright, but falling over and breaking their neck and stabbing their mates with their spears. Choking on leftovers. Getting killed for fun by their superiors. Dying of acute stupidity and uselessness syndrome etc.. ~:joker:Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson
I'd say, let the peasants do what they do best (farm, have kids, pay taxes, take care of the cows every day) and let the nobility do what they do best (tell the farmers off, avoid kids, collect taxes, go on vacations to get away from it all). Then everyone's happy, eh?
I should clarify: my point is not that people who use peasants in battle are making a mistake. Some factions don't have a lot of options in the opening moves, particularly the popular west European factions of France and England. It's often better to attack with peasants right now than attack with urban militia four or five turns hence.
My point is that other, better options are often available and that this frequently gets overlooked.
I've found that peasants have only one duty that they can do adequately and that's garrisoning a province. Take 'em in to battle and it's a waste of a space as there are far better units available within a short space of time.
The Almohad normally keep their peasants until the last as reinforcements and thats when you can tell they're tiring and the battle almost won.
I'm currently playing as the Danes and had two rebellions to put down. My army of circa 300 against an army made up of 6 archer units, 2 spear units and 15 or more units of peasants. The poor dumb schmuks kept on trying to engage, with my archers just holding formation and my cavalry occasionally flanking. Against my Vikings they didnt stand a chance; it always reminds me of Arfeh (Time Commanders) saying about the Roman legions as a meat grinder. I think I lost about 50 men to their 2,000.
Of course the challenge is to play Late, Peasants, (possibly cannon) and royalty only.
mfberg
I have to admit Ive only played from Early; I like building an empire from the foundation up :jumping:
Peasants are mostly useless. I use them as many others for garrision troops at times when I'm not using outdated troops. That said, they were remarkably usefull while playing the English in Early. I took a whole province with 3 peasant and an archer unit because I wanted to be more agressive and that's all I had at the time. That said, the French responded with almost 2.5 stacks (over 80% of them were peasants) when fighting for Britany against my less than one whole stack and I cut through them like a Ginsu knife through a pop can. The AI doesn't know how to play peasants, or most other units for that matter. It uses them as fodder. Peasants can make or break a battle if they are all you have and can be better than nothing. I personally like putting them in a treeline and have then suddenly show up on an enemy's rear.
I like using a few peasants just for the challenge of it. It can be fun trying to keep them on the battlefield as well as have them do something useful. They are a great distraction to the AI when you run them around a bit or hide them in the woods, and I'm pretty ruthless with them during castle assaults. (Besides, a medieval army without any peasants just doesn't sound right.)
One faction where I've never used peasants, even for garrison duty, is the Poles. They get woodsmen from the beginning.
Granted, woodsmen aren't exactly a world-class unit. However, they have a powerful charge for a bunch of press-ganged civilians. They're cheap, and their maintenance cost per unit is very cheap. It's the same per-man maintenance cost as peasants, with a smaller unit.
A huge-unit sized 120-man woodsman unit makes a nice, low-cost garrison. They have an anti-armor bonus, too.
=======
Another thought on cost: Is there any other unit besides peasants where the maintenance cost amounts to 75 percent of the cost to create a new unit at of the same type? I doubt it.
I still use peasants extensively to discourage the AI to attack as they are often scared off by neighbors.
also, in the very early stages of the game, they can be useful. they can be used as an extra unit to feign charges, getting an AI unit to turn, exposing a flank or rear for me to charge another unit into.
also, they are unrivaled as cannon fodder. spread em in 1 line and loose and soak up the arrows to make subsequent assaults more easily.
having them hack down a castle wall is also much better than risking good troops.
I've used 2 units of peasants to in a RK unit (the french king) and got my 6 archers to shoot down the RKs without the peasants routing. using hold formation and hold position calms them down greatly and they were slaughtered to 30men a piece without routing with the French king finally falling to an arrow.
for garrisoning, slav warriors and nubian spearmen among other units are identical cost 100 men units while celtic warriors are 100 men and available for 22 florins support and are capable melee troops, thus an absolute steal for garrisons.
It's true that the AI is scared of sheer numbers, but I'd still rather use half-way decent troops to bulk up the numbers, such as Nubians or Slavs. Even fanatics are better.Quote:
Originally Posted by katank
As for putting them in hold formation, that's not a bad tactic. I've often put skittish units into wedge, for example, just to calm them down.
As for castle assaults, I'd rather check the inns every turn for decent siege weapons. Most mercenaries will break the bank, but mercenary siege engines are a bargain until you can build your own. After the walls are down, you don't need peasants to break the gate.
I play England and I must say the Welsh LongBow Peasants, Scot Highland Peasants, Irish Kerns and Gallowglass Peasants do pretty well ;)
Seriously peasants have crap items... what they should be allowed to do is morph (over ten years those peasants should be allowed to be upgraded to some other better troop)... they should be able to loot the dead and gather better equipment from their foes... hmm sorry too much DiabloII ~:joker:
There is one thing about peasants - THEY OWN [IMG]src="https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v318/ge0z0r/own3d.gif"[/IMG]
~:joker: Like it!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael the Brave
I do like the idea of using peasants as diversionary troops to draw away the AI from the real focus of attack - almost cheating really, but hey, as has been said - it wouldnt be a medieval army without some yockels and carrot crunchers
I agree about the support cost being too high, I have reduced the cost of peasants by 67% just so they are viable.
Oh but I thought their support costs were cheap enough....Quote:
Originally Posted by CaoCao
same support as a 60 man unit of AUM who can cut them into very small pieces indeeed.