Printable View
Yeah, I know they are all that and more in Early, but in Late their gratest accomplishments consist of initiating chain routs. 0 Morale + Disciplined status == them running like chickens followed by the rest of my troops. I've seen these guys run away from Armored Spearmen(!!!).
These days, instead of building BI for fodder (in Late), I use Handgunners. Cheap, available, and durable, they won't turn tail at the first sign of danger.
Are you playing vanilla MTW/VI, rvg? If so, I recommend downloading the XL Mod. Among other things, it greatly improves the morale for certain units, including Byzantine Infantry. (It's also just an excellent little mod in its own right; I'm admittedly a bit biased, however. ~;) )
Short of that, however, building their "Master" structure (Swordsmith, I think?) will bestow them with a +1 valour bonus, which helps their staying power in battle. (A +1 valour bonus gives a unit +1 to attack/defense, and +2 to morale.)
Never have any such problems with them myself. Any unit that takes a severe beating will eventually rout. It also depends greatly on their valour. Sending 0 valour Byzantine Infantry in against, say 1 or 2 valour, Armoured Spearmen is not a good idea. Also don't expect a certain type of unit to simply wipe the floor with another whatever the conditions. MTW doesn't work like that.
To improve unit's morale follow Martok's advice and also don't neglect the church, monastry, reliquary etc for your morale bonuses. Also sending them in under a good general, not some 1 star, unhinged glutton with the "doubtful courage" vice, helps alot. ~;)
LOL. :laugh4: Very true. Also a good point about constructing the various religious buildings; it actually helps quite a bit in boosting the morale of units trained there. And since morale is BI's biggest weakness anyway, a Byzantine player has every reason to make sure their provinces are the holiest around. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I did not think that the valour given by the generals stars gave the morale bonus. That is why I have used generals with a few less stars but give bonuses to morale.
You're right in that the temporary valor added by a General's command stars doesn't add any morale to the fighting men - it's proximity to the General that determines that. Within "50 meters" (whatever that is in battlefield terms) it's one extra morale point for every command star, beyond 50 meters it's one morale point for every two command stars.Quote:
Originally Posted by m52nickerson
Extra command stars are always helpful in battle because the valor boost helps your troops kill the enemy faster and makes them harder to kill in turn, but V&V's that boost morale will only keep them in the fight longer (not make them fight more effectively). Of course, if you don't have the high-ranking General to begin with, you use what's available, right? :juggle2:
Morale should be the first thing you upgrade for these guys, and it's pretty cheap and easy to do so.
For myself, I would never forsake all use of the Byz Infantry, even in Late, as they are extremely useful for wrapping around flanks at full capacity. They cover a lot of frontage and can tie up a fair amount of the enemy's spear wall while one's truly elite troops manoeuvre around and start chewing into flanks, rear, and the General.
The Byz infantry isn´t so bad, at least it doesn´t seem to be when fighting against me. I had those buggers chop units of Feudal Knights to pieces (medium difficulty, mind you, it was one of my first games and, as you can expect, a nasty surprise after reading Froggy´s guide, which states that Cavalry beats swords as a rule - well, that was the exception from the rule), and they (the Byzes) are a sword unit, for crying out loud. Their large number makes up for a lot.
That's right, with Byz Inf it's the numbers that make the unit shine. Stat-wise, they're unimpressive sword infantry, way worse than basic FMAA. But being a hundred guys strong, they can kill CMAA in a one-on-one matchup, even without upgrades, if conditions are a bit favorable. Granted, you'll lose a lot of them, especially in late. And their low morale is a big downside. But hey! I like to use lots of Halberdiers, too, Their morale isn't better. Just build that church/monastery/reliquary plus master swordsmith (hard to obtain, but still...) and Cathedral, and they'll never run. Armor them up a little, too, so you don't have to replace so many warm bodies after every encounter.
OADN: I noticed the downside to the "Disciplined" status, too. Nubian Spearmen count as Disciplined. Egyptian armies often have quite a lot of these. And Nubian Spearmen are not especially difficult to rout, either. Many are the times I could induce a chain rout in Egyptian armies pushing at one unit of Nubians hard enough...
EDIT: Same goes for Ghulam Cavalry and Faris being Elite. Those guys break at the first sign of trouble!
As one who's played the Eggies quite a bit, I say I learned the hard way that "Disciplined" doesn't count for as much as I'd like. Nubian Spearmen are indeed all too easy to route against even mediocre units. For that reason, I tech up to Saracen Infantry as quickly as possible! (In fact, I would imagine that most Egyptian players do the same.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Empirate
I guess I've had better luck with both those units, as I haven't major problems with them. That said, I would never count on my Faris to the tide of battle in my favor. (Not that they *haven't* done so; it's just that I rarely rely on Faris to achieve victory.) With the exception of Boyars and Sipahi of the Porte, I don't trust any mounted missile unit to do terribly well in heavy melee combat--not even my beloved Jinnettes! Not that Faris aren't a decent unit; I just don't make them a pivotal part of my battle plans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Empirate
Nubian spearmen aren't harder to rout because they're disciplined; they just won't get any penalties from seeing non-disciplined units rout (or the death of the general). If you manage to rout one disciplined unit then the other disciplined unit will get a penalty to morale as well. I think Nubian spear are quite good as a low-end unit, but Saracans ar way better of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
None of which I'm disputing. I'm just saying that when I first started playing the Egyptians, that the Nubian Spearmen just didn't perform as well as I'd thought/hoped they would. At the time, I thought that Disciplined actually bestowed units with a morale bonus, making them harder to route. I now know better, of course. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggus Diccus
Yeah, Nubians are decent compared to other vanilla spear units; I don't disagree with that. I did find out the hard way, however, that one shouldn't take them head-on against Katanks--especially when they're led by one of the Byzantines' many Jedi generals! ~:doh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggus Diccus
Ditto what Martok said RE Faris and Ghulam Cav.
These guys are both solid units, but they are by no means the best in their class. They need a bit of care and opportunity to really shine.
Because of their semi-decent melee stats (well, for missile cavalry anyway), Faris are great in pairs for harassing semi-powerful infantry units with arrows before the main battle is joined, and then charging in simultaneously (front and rear) to break them. Basically, picking apart the enemy before they reach your formation when you're defending.
The problem with XL is that it's insanely biased towards eastern factions, as I've learned the easy way. ~;p
My opinion on BI is that you really can't use them as beatsticks if you're starting in Late. Just throw them at the evil and hope nothing bad happens before you can throw Pronoiai at the problem's rear. I've been able to beat evenly upgraded CMAA on really steep hills and with minimal disturbance but it's not at all convenient. On the other hand, they're still vital because they give you mass, and being available with only a swordsmith, they're easy to subcontract out to mid-sized provinces.
And yes, upgrade them like mad, especially the morale. You really do need them on the field for as long as you can manage. That's forty bonus men you have causing damage (however little) and once you fix morale, BI can last surprisingly long against even high end infantry.
On the other hand, I swear by my newbie spears. :laugh4: Those guys have just so rarely ever failed me for some reason. The Disciplined status is useful early when you have to press all sorts of garbage into action and they'll very handily beat spearmen if you're facing them also. They're also available with a mere spearmaker, making them highly available and their low upkeep makes them highly affordable as garrisons. Which means basically the moment trouble strikes, you can pull feudal sarges from everywhere rather than peasants. In fact, Saracens are the infantry I always have trouble keeping on the field for some reason, but that might be because I abuse them too much. :p
As for Faris and Ghulams, I've found that despite their advertisments, Faris really get minced in melee. They're nice if you have them out and about really early (ie from mercenaries) but they run out of use fast. Ghulams though I've found use for even late in the game if I don't happen to have an Armenia.
Nubians RULE, especially in the desert. Saracens' 3 Armor *is* too much for the desert climate, so Nubians eat them alive in the desert. Any unit described as *armored* (Byz Inf, Militia Sarges, etc.) will die to Nubians under those conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maloncanth
As Froggie's unit guide states, Nubians are equal to Feudal Sarges statwise, plus they're disciplined. That they're recruitable from just a spearmaker makes them one of the most powerful tools in the early Egyptian arsenal. No one doubts this. Furthermore, Saracens, while being much tougher in the attack/defense department, actually have two points less morale than Nubians. This combined with their too-heavy armor makes them worse in deserts, I fully agree.
But we were talking about units that are awesome early on but give you trouble in the late game, and Nubians definitely qualify: Their stats are not up to par anymore, they get beaten easily and exhaustively by modern sword units, and once they run, their Disciplined status has detrimental effects on the rest of your army: "What, aren't our Nubian friends supposed to be Disciplined? If they see a reason to go, it has to be something serious! I'd better go too, lowly archer that I am!"
So while Saracens can be upgraded to have tougher morale, and will anyway not lose many men if used judiciously because of their high defense, Nubians just aren't worth all the upgrades it takes to bring them up to par again.
Byzantine Infantry is a bit of a different case, though: You just don't have that many options as a Byzantine general in late. So you better take what you can get and upgrade it like crazy. You can still expect to lose a lot of them, but if you know this beforehand, you can plan accordingly. Byzantine Empire in late just isn't easy, but this makes it just that much more interesting.
Concerning Faris: I've found them to be useful missile cav, but there are many types of missile cav I'll take over them any day of the week, and the Egyptians have ready access to them: Mamluk being one, Heavy Steppe the other. So they don't need any Faris to make them happy. The Almohads, on the other hand, don't have any alternative if they want light horse that can shoot. So they just have to get Faris and put as much armor on them as possible.
Every faction that can get Ghulam Cavalry can get something better, at less cost, without as much building up. Almohads can get Katank's beloved v2 Saharan Cavalry; Egyptians get Mamluks and Armenian Heavy Cavalry; Turks get Armenian Heavy Cavalry (and, more doubtfully, Ottoman Sipahi and Khwarazmians). The only reason to build Ghulam Cavalry is if you have Edessa (was that where they got a bonus?), but neither Cyrenaica nor Egypt/Sinai nor Armenia. Ghulam Cavalry is an OK medium cav, of course, but there's just better units around!
I don't see Ottoman Sipahi in the running against Ghulams. Both can get up to +2v bonus, which still leaves the Ottoman Siphais -2 charge, -1 def, -2 morale (can't remember about armour) deficient against the Ghulams Cavs. The Khwarazmians need a Master Horse Breeder and have no regional bonus, which makes then weaker than Ghulams Cav at +2v. The armour *may* be useful when under missile fire but they they tire faster, especially in the desert.Quote:
Originally Posted by Empirate
I think Ghulams Cavalry get a bonus in Lesser Armenia.
Of course, there are a few proponents of Ghulam Bodyguards, especially former princely retinues.
Personally, the only melee cavalry I use as a muslim faction are:
Ghulam BGs (all round)
AHC (Turks and Eggies)
Ghulam Cavalry (especially when I can weapon upgrades for them as the Elmos)
They do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeda Toshiie
I have to agree, and I don't rate Khwarazmian Cavalry nor Ottoman Sipahi, nor Sipahis of the porte, very highly. Ghulam Cavalry are just AHC with -2 to the AHC's charge, but they're still better than those others.
When playing as the Turks I mostly stick with Turcoman Horse, Steppe Cavalry, Ghulam Bodyguards and Armenian Heavy Cavalry.
Ditto to what Caravel said - that's my feeling also.
I'm not sure why Khwarazmian cavalry are even in the game. The (Ghaznavid) Ghulams should have been souped up to be the equals of Ghulam bodyguards and AHC made available to all eastern factions, though not necessarily the Turks. The Ottoman Sipahi should have bows, and have been essentially a better version of Turcoman Horse. With the Sipahi of the (Sublime) Porte being roughly equal to Cataphracts though armed with bows of course.
I suspect Khwarazmians were added: a) for "flavor"; and b) to give the Eggies a heavier cav unit that wasn't "Ghulam". Which would be fine by me--while I prefer historical accuracy, I'm not exremely anal about it--but as we've all said before, they're just not powerful enough to justify their cost and high building requirements. I admit I usually recruit a couple units of them for variety's sake, but they've never formed the bulk of my cavalry corps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Hmm...
I personally love Kwarazmiams, and I've used them to good effect. If yer economy isn't solid by the time you can build them, and you need to be concerned about their cost, well yeah... you've definitely got other things to worry about.
I've just found it really useful to have something THAT heavily armoured which can move faster than both Goths and Katanks.
Plus, by the time I've teched up to Kwazarmiams, I've usually expanded my empire to the point where fighting in the desert isn't even a consideration.
Each to their own, I guess.
Possibly, though the Fatimids/Ayyubids/Mamluks didn't make use of them historically. Though I'm pretty sure the Turks and Mongols did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Very valid points in the defense of Khwarazmian Cavalry. I find that, with Khwarazmians I expect them to be able to take on similarly heavy cavalry, such as Chivalric Knights, Mongol Heavy and Kataphraktoi if needed. But they just aren't a match for those. When flanking I will use the fastest cavalry with the strongest charge, that I can easily pull out quickly to charge again (AHC in most cases). I just don't see a gap in my typical unit lineup for Khwarazmians. The only time I've seen them remotely useful is as reserve cavalry in extremely defensive situations under fire from the mongol horse archers. It's useful to be well armoured in such situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roark
My annoyance is, that with the abundance of Turkish cavalry available historically, why the Khwarazmians and Armenians? And why are the Sipahi so pathetic?
Khwarazmians are actually a lot better than Ghulam Cavalry: they have +2 defense and +3 armor in comparison, all other stats being equal. That makes them much more powerful, the closest thing Muslims have to full-fledged knights. Their morale is not up to facing knights head-on, but that's about all. Flanking knights should be giving good results. Same goes for Katanks.
I always wondered why Ottoman Sipahi have no bows - it robs the unit of much-needed versatility. I probably shouldn't have mentioned them, as they're weaker than Ghulam Cavalry in offensive power and morale while having equal defense and armor. I only now checked their stats. They just performed memorably for me in a late Turkish campaign once, but that may have been a lot of circumstance and much less of substance...
Sipahi of the Porte are (or would be) very very good, like Armenian Cataphract Archers in R:TW - bows, maneuverability and the heaviest armor available for Muslims (same as Khwarazmians). If only they had forty men instead of twenty, I'd love them and use them all I could. They'd be a lot like Boyars, then, only even heavier armored. The way things stand, with twenty men they don't perform too outstandingly. Still, they're better than plain Ghulam Bodyguards in that the general can rack up some kills without having to expose himself to melee.
Summary: Khwarazmians are way better than Ghulam Cavalry. The latter get a bonus in Lesser Armenia, so the difference between the two is mitigated (GC having a higher attack and morale but lower defense and armor than Khw). If it weren't for that bonus, I'd dismiss Ghulam Cavalry out of hand. Still, Armenians are better than both in that they're similar to Ghulams, have a bonus province, and have a higher charge. AHC are the best melee cav option for Muslims.
Sipahi of the Porte are one of my favourites. IMHO, they would massively overpower the Turkish roster if they were a 40-man unit.
I never use Kwarazmiams deliberately against knights. I'd rather send them against elite non armour-piercing infantry who would otherwise trouble my infantry. Wicked defence and armour means they will often win with few losses.
Variety is key in my battles. I can always find a job for Kwarazmiams, although I can understand why people would opt for a devastating charge instead. I just dig high defence and low attrition rates, I guess.