How to effectively pierce armour with turks and their strength?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ars Moriendi

A couple of times ain't enough. There's a lot of randomness, and general's death is unpredictable. I ran 10 tests, and got 5 losses / 5 wins (wide/close formation, grassy plain, medium)

---

As i stated in my second post when i installed 1,2 i did 10 tests against DFK won every time with more than 50% of men remaining. Did about 10 against Venetian
Heavy Inf. with the same results, and a couple against various other troops. Won every time and almost always killed enemy general short time after i start winning (DFK has that "defeat is certain" when you hover mouse over them).
All test on that grass field map, with no hills or any obstacles. I just set the formation to loose and charge instantly set speed to 6 and wait results.
And DFK usually rout when they were down do 20-35 men.

A little of topic but how to get hashishin guild? And also Swordsmits guild.
And Knight order, playing Sicily i always get Hospitalers even i don`t go on a crusade, but with other catholics i have much more problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apostrophe

As i stated in my second post ...

---

Sorry, I missed that one :shame:
Strange though that your results differ so much from mine. I'll do some more tests and try to figure out what's wrong here.

About the guilds , see the FAQ, section 2.5, it has a lot of info and some links to excellent guides, everything you need to know should be there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DVX BELLORVM

I think that, contrary to RTW, defense bonus for left and right side are the same (-50% of the shield value). Please correct me if I'm wrong.

---

That would be news to me. I'll defer to anyone who's tested this.

(Double post)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson

That would be news to me. I'll defer to anyone who's tested this.

---

I haven't tested this myself, I can only refer to the FUSIL and FAUST guides. There is also some discussion on this subject on the FUSIL and FAUST thread (posts #12 -#17).

Just to clarify, I'm talking about vanilla 1.2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DVX BELLORVM

I haven't tested this myself, I can only refer to the FUSIL and FAUST guides. There is also some discussion on this subject on the FUSIL and FAUST thread (posts #12 -#17).

Just to clarify, I'm talking about vanilla 1.2.

---

This would be easy to test. I'll do it tonight.

Put two HA units far apart, and have them both fire on a shielded infantry unit. Then see which HA unit gets more kills.

Well, that was weird.

I put two Mamluk archers wide on each side, with the commander's unit in the middle to draw the enemy forward. The single unit of English armored sergeants were decimated by the archers with the ones on the "shieldless" side killing 24 to the "shield side" Mamluks 13, almost two to one.

Then I did the same thing with foot archers. The ones facing the armored sergeant's shield side, in several tries, got just as many kills at the others if not more..

Now, before anybody starts the "bug" chorus, this was a hasty set of tries on during my lunch break. I'm going to look into this more carefully tonight.

Also, the foot archers stopped firing when their line of sight was blocked, even slightly, by a friendly unit. You could override them and order them to fire, but only a few of them would. The HA blazed away, no problem.

One side note I'd like to point out when discussing medieval historical accounts (such as the 700 Knights vs 12,000 Muslims battle described by Bohemond) is that Europeans usually point out only the number of actual Knights in a battle and not mentioning the personal retinues of each of those knights, which could range from a dozen or fewer men-at-arms to hundreds of mounted and dismounted troops.

So while Bohemond may have had 700 knights at Antioch, he must have had several thousand troops below the rank of knight along with him as well. Actual knights may have been better trained than the levies that formed the majority of Islamic armies, but the I think idea that European troops on the whole were of a vastly superior quality compared to their muslim counterparts is mostly propaganda.

OK lets go back to the turks and all muslim factions you go play multiplayer with egyptians and especially the turks against a good player and see if u can win, 10k 8 cav no ele/art standard stuff.

Come back with a saved game I dare you!

This is the wrong forum to discuss MP tactics and expliots.

i agree the anology of the Janissaries were wrong to make. thank you for pointing that out.

"Non sequitur. The fact that there had been plenty of battles in the region before 1097 is irrelevant when discussing a war fought 90 years later. I'd hazard a guess that due to culture and necessity, the average crusader would have more experience than the average Ayyubid mercenary of the 1180s."

i'm no history expert but from what little tests i have read of first crusade only a small percentage of the total hoard that arrived in the middle east were professional soldiers, and a large portion of the rest were men who had never fought in their life before. if this is correct then the avarage crusader would not have been better trained than a mecenery from the middle east.

i dont question the ability or a frankish knight but it was not purely fighting ability that won them the holy lands. nor was it sheer numbers of the muslims that made them lose it either. that was the point i was trying to make.