Nubian's V Berbers

Just have a query regarding my current campaign as the Moors.

The Nubian Spearmen,which are supposed to be an upgrade from the first castle built unit,which are the Berber Spearmen have exactly the same stats and the same max armour potential.The also have the same build cost and upkeep.

Garrison Quarters(1200 florins) - Berber Spearmen.
Attack 7/Charge 3/Total defence 10

Drill Square(2400 florins) - Nubian Spearmen.
Attack 7/Charge 3/Total Defence 10.

I also noticed under the 'Abilities at a glance' section,the Berbers have (Bonus is deserts/Good Stamina/Can do Schiltron),where as the Nubians have nothing written there at all.

Does anyone have an opinion on this? I assume the Nubians should have something written there as they must be an upgrade of some sort,be it stats or abilities.

What do you lads reckon?

Nope, you're right, the Nubians are totally useless as of now. I intend to give them fast moving + good endurance + bonus in desert (but no bonus against cav) to make them as usefull as berbers only not in the same role, more like flankers/skirmishers.

I'm just wondering Kobal2Fr if they have a bonus against cavalry or something like that added to their abilities even though the stats are the same.Maybe a bonus of some sort is there and working but it's just not showing in the abilities section?

*shrug* perhaps. We won't know for sure until we are able to pick the unit file apart with the unpacker. I've been using them sparingly when I had recruited every berber available, haven't noticed any glaring difference... higher morale, maybe, and then again that's iffy.

Its not just Nubians really, quite a few units don't seem to make sense in terms of the order in which they appear, for example men-at-arms for the italian factions which in the mounted state are much worse than feudal knights which you get earlier. Or the heavy cav you can recruit in huge cities with developed barracks/town hall costs a lot more to maintain and hire and has terrible stats in comparison to castle hired ones.
Looks like a lot of balancing will have to be done to make an actual transition between building tiers.

The men-at-arms have worse stats than feudal knights BUT they have armored horses. And yes, that makes a world of difference.

Well, in their abilities section it doesn't mention armored horses or give them any extra boni, so how does it really impact anything? Are there like hidden stats?

It's not mentionned for any of the armored horses, but it is shown on the picture, and yes it does have a "hidden" impact - armored horses are much more resilient to missile and melee. What is shown on the unit card is the rider's armour, but there's a "mount type" variable in the unit file as well.

Looking at the total defense seems to be wrong, many units have a lower or equal total defense but with higher armour. Armour simply protects them always and from every direction whereas shields and defense don't.
And concerning attack, it usually states the lance attack for knights I think, the sword/mace attack should have different stats and maces should give armour piercing bonus. That's how it was in RTW at least but I'm pretty sure it hasn't been changed much.

I listed Total defence to make it a shorter post.

The stats that make up the total defence value are identical in every way for both units,same armour etc.

So there is actually a separate armour value for mounts? Where can this be found?

There isnt one as far as i know.Maybe it's factored into the units armour rating but as for a specific rating there isn't one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

So there is actually a separate armour value for mounts? Where can this be found?

---

There is indeed a seperate stat for mounts. It's not shown on the card, but its located in your export_descr_unit.txt file, but thats currently packed away. nipinghan1984 did manage to brilliantly get the unit.txt file partially unpacked, and it appears there are 4 levels of armoring, Heavy(unarmored), Barded (fuedal and related knights), Mail (self explanatory), and Armoured (big plated lancers and related cavalry). Will be able to delve more when we get the full unpacker.

This is important becuase the horse and man are counted as one by the combat system. If either one die's then they both die. The horse is a much bigger target and is general what is hit, so armouring the horse is very important for latter cavalry. It's why you'll notice gothic and lancer's are both inferrior statistically to most High period cavalry but will simply decimate them in any battle.

:focus:

It would appear as though the Nubian and Berber infantry are switched around in their order. As I recall in MTW the nubian infantry was nearly a militia/peasant unit.

Agreed, the armor on the horses is a major thing. The annoying part of it is that it does not mention it on the unit description, making it difficult to evaluate the units. Same goes for some other details.

Also, I absolutely hate it when I see some 5/1 stats (att/def) on pikemen/halberdiers/whatever and it seems that they are still effective on the field. Why have unit stats shown on the unit card if comparing them yields no result over their usefulness? Why not just go back to M:TW1 style where it says "good attack" or "Very good defense" instead of numbers that make no difference.

I suppose that the issue with the building order has to do with the italian heavy cav units. The Broken Lances for Venice are indeed heavy cav that you get later from cities than feudal knights from castles, but that is just the point. The BL's you get from just teching up city walls, so they need to have high upkeep to be balanced. So far, as Venice, I have used the Broken Lances as heavy cav along with Cavalry militia simply because they are available in Italy and I have no castles in Italy. There is no balance problem there.

The dismounted men-at-arms is a bug IMO, as they really have no advantage over dismounted feudal knights. The Mounted MAA may be better than Mounted FK because of the barding on the horses though - have not really tested this one out.

I suppose that just having two nearly identical unit types with building improvements has one upside, and that is to have a bigger pool of units, but since you only have 3 recruitment slots this is not really likely to be of any help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

It would appear as though the Nubian and Berber infantry are switched around in their order. As I recall in MTW the nubian infantry was nearly a militia/peasant unit.

---

I would have to agree... Backthen they were a step between regular Spearmen and the Feudal Sergeants. They had nice morale and good enough stats but weak armour and a small shield. So they were a sort of funny but good unit because of their availability.

What does the Eastern style horse armour count as?

Are we of the opinion then that something is amiss here?

2400 florins of my hard earned moolah to recruit basically the same unit.I think theres been a little cockup here whereby nothing is showing in their abilities section.Whether they still work in game or not i'll have to see if i notice any difference when i use them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainSolo

Are we of the opinion then that something is amiss here?

2400 florins of my hard earned moolah to recruit basically the same unit.I think theres been a little cockup here whereby nothing is showing in their abilities section.Whether they still work in game or not i'll have to see if i notice any difference when i use them.

---

No the stats shown on the card were the "abilities at a glance" section is determined by the export_descr_unit file. If they arent shown on the card, they don't have them.

More then likely it's just a mix up. Would be kinda of nice though to have killer top end nubian's to destroy all of christendom with though.:whip:

Nubian's in MTW were a favroite unit of mine. They were indeed jack of all trades so to speak and came out early. Im not sure why they arent so great anymore, but i defently think they should get improved apon.

And indeed i think there is actually ALOT of redundency in the unit selections for many factions. I have noticed that in auto calculateing battles, the AI gives the advantage to higher end units. So if you had an army of 5 dismounted fudal knights vrs 5 dismounted english knights, even though the fudal knights would win in the actual battle the AI (if you auto cal) will let the english win simply because there stats to the game seem "higher" even though they arent as good. And the men at arms thing doesnt make alot of sence to me either, but nor does some other units like some of the 2h'd ones, some cavalry units like the higher end ones being so expensive compared to fudual knights that do the same job and such (IE, kataphrats vrs lancers vrs lankton).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

No the stats shown on the card were the "abilities at a glance" section is determined by the export_descr_unit file. If they arent shown on the card, they don't have them.

---

Ok thanks for clearing that up BigTex.

I must admit then that i'am totally at a loss as to what the use of this unit is.I suppose i was hoping there was a mistake somewhere and it was something that could be rectified.
If what you say is true,and i've no reason to doubt you,then this is a huge waste of a building upgrade in the short term,especially as the unit that comes before it is better.......definately confused now.

Thanks for the continued replies lads.

GAH!

The distinction between these two units is actually quite noticeable.

While at first glance they may seem the same to youz, bear in mind that the Berber spearmen, with their "desert" thingie, will blow chunks when fighting north of the Alps.

The nubians, on the other hand, not impaired with the "desert" nonsense, will do well in the frozen tundra of Lambeau Field. They will spook their enemies with their foreign-ness. "Shaka, and the walls fell" can easily ring true in Helsinki with the right commander at the helm!

Unless, of course, the nubian juggernaut runs into the wet gunny wedgie army of doom!

GAH!

Um no... Having a bonus in deserts doesn't give you penalties out of the desert.

GAH!

Vanya sez... Having a "dessert" bonus does not mean the unit is sweet.

:no:

GAH!

I've noticed the same thing with dismounted boyar sons and druzhina for the Russians.

For the Turks, it's the same thing. Azabs are practically worthless and aren't an upgrade over javmen. This essentially makes getting higher barracks unnecessary except for Nappatun (which is sooo worth it).

Then again, stats aren't everything. In 1 on 1 custom battles, catholic peasants can take out every militia unit/spear. 2 peasants can rout just about any infantry unit. Also, JHI's stats aren't that great but they do very nicely against any infantry.

Ok time for some tests.While the results are not always accurately replicated in a battle situation you can get a rough idea of a units quality.

Tried this on 3 maps with the difficulty on Very Hard.

Arsuf - 3 Battles.

Berbers V Nubians
79 47 Rout
62 68 Rout
93 72 Rout
------------------------------------
Grassy Plain - 3 battles.

Berbers V Nubians
82 65 Rout
92 71 Rout
90 63
------------------------------------
Sahara Sands - 3 battles

Berbers V Nubians.
128 102 Rout
73 42 Rout
101 80 Rout.
------------------------------------

I found it difficult to trial against cavalry as the AI wouldnt always charge and would sometimes just sit there for long periods so i havent done any against that type of unit.

Just as i thought the Berbers look a much better unit to me even out of the Desert.

If you want to trial them against cavalry, give the AI the spearmen and yourself cavalry, and charge away.