The 9* general makes all the units in his army 4x stronger in melee, and that's why those spears are so strong. The general's rank does not improve resistance to missiles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heidrek
Printable View
The 9* general makes all the units in his army 4x stronger in melee, and that's why those spears are so strong. The general's rank does not improve resistance to missiles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heidrek
By the same token my own 8* General should have boosted my Swiss Halb's and Billmen by the same amount, bringing the difference back to nil. also, the Generals * rating does give a morale bonus doesnt it? Both to units nearby and to the army as a whole?
Wasn't that 1 valour point for every 2 command stars?
Yes, but the Valor given by Command doesn't increase unit morale, only their attack and defense. There is a static Moale improvement based on the general's Command rating as well as a bonus increase for being near the General.
From Predaturds useful info thread:
+1 Morale for being within 50 meters of your General (for every command point the General has)
+1 Morale if further than 50 meters from your General (for every TWO command points the General has)
So a 6* general would give +3 morale to all his troops, and another +6 Morale to any troops within 50m.
omg im being acknowledged for something on the internet for once :)
the morale bonuses dont stack though so its only +6 in 50m range the way you put it makes it sound like its an extra +6 to the +3
and are you sure the valour bonuses from generals commands dont effect morale?
That's what I've read in other threads, but I could be wrong. I'd really like to know for sure but don't know how I could find out.
Your thread's really helpful, great to know how big the morale advantage is for being uphill, or the penalty for being flanked etc.
yeah thought id share it even though i got most of that in 2 hours browsing all the total war forums
really helps me plan my conquests when im trying to build my economy up on trade :)
also i had my computer cleared out of junk and needed a place to store it :)
i find it funny how not having to tell units what to attack gives them more morale
if you wanna continue this take it to the thread itself i hate going off topic
remember to make spearmen in provinces with churches and monastrys it tends to makle them resist cavalry for another 10 seconds or so if they have another 4 morale and make them quite good for stalling for long periods of time against other infantry
oph and you can check morale mid battle with F1 do the same battle with the same unit using quickload before the battle with and without a general :)
Yes the MTW Strategy Guide does say that command stars give a morale boost. I forgot about that, and I've edited my post. However, I've never actually measured that effect, and there is no evidence of it in the F1 display. In the F1 display, units get +2 morale for every valor point that is intrinsic to the unit itself, and valor points added to units by the command stars of a general do not increase the morale of those units. Possibly this effect is present on the battlefield. I've never tried to measure it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heidrek
That's right. I checked the stats of Saracen infantry, billmen and swiss halbs. With their rank bonus, the spears are equal in melee with billmen or swiss halbs. The armor piecing quality of the billmen and swiss halbs would give them +1 which I've included in the rating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heidrek
Combat points (attack + defense + armor piercing):
billmen 7
swiss halbs 7
saracen infantry 7
Without the rank bonus (no men backing the man who is fighting) the scaracens loose 3 points, and with only one man backing the first man 2 points are lost.
Thats really interesting, I though the Armour Piercing bonus was a flat Armour of target - 1 / 2 (so you'd get a +1 atk bonus against a 3 armour target). I didn't realise that they needed to have at least 5 armour before it comes into play. Good to know.
Also, does the units Shield bonus count towards their armour? The Saracens have a large shield which gives them another 2 armour which would bring them up to 5.
I had the formula incorrect.
Armor Piercing Bonus = (target armor - 1)/2 rounded down to the nearest integer.
The contribution of the shield and horse to armor are removed for this calculation.
I found a post by longjohn2 from Oct-06-2002 in which he states how armor upgrades work:
--------------
"It's been discussed quite a bit already, and is explained in the strat guide.
Armour = defense against missiles
Defense factor = defense in melee.
The defense factor already includes the effect of armour, troop training, weapon type, and mode of fighting. When you get an armour upgrade, this would obviously contribute to both defense in melee and against shooting, so it increases both stats.
To answer you questions.
1) When you press F1 the effects of any armour upgrades are included in both the defense and armour stats.
2) Yes. In this case the armour factor serves as a handy indicator of how much of a unit's defense factor is due to armour, and thus how much bonus the armour piercing weapon would get.
3)This is not so. If a unit had less armour, it would have less defense. Units always benefit from having more armour, even against armour piercing weapons. It's just that against ap weapons extra armour gives less benefit.
4)A defense factor of 0 or less does not mean a unit has no inherent defense. The absolute value of the numbers are of no importance, only the difference between the attacker's attack, and the defender's defence."
---------------
I confess I myself had quite forgotten that bit -- I'd always wondered what exactly the difference was between a unit's armour and actual defense stat. Many thanks for finding and digging that up for us, Puzz. :bow:Quote:
Armour = defense against missiles
Defense factor = defense in melee.
Here is the definitive post by longjohn2 on armor piercing. Apparently, MTW was originally designed by longjohn with AP = (armor - 2)/2 which is the formula in the Official MTW Strategy Guide. However, he changed it to AP = (armor - 3)/2 for the MTW v1.0 release, but later re-evaluated the playbalance of armor piercing units and changed it to AP = (armor - 1)/2 in the MTW v1.1 patch. Also, the armor contributed by the horse was included in the calculation in the v1.0 release, but later removed in the v1.1 patch.
-----------------------
Longjohn2 Sep-19-2002
"Puzz is correct, theoretically units should get a bonus of +1 against units of foot of 4 armour, and against horse units of 5 armour. Sadly I found a bug today, so that you will only start getting bonuses against foot units of 5 armour.
For calculating armour piercing bonuses, shields don't count, but horse armour does (as it isn't counted separately ).
I've changed this for the patch, so that bonuses will start against foot with 3 armour ( chainmail ) or cavalry with 4 armour ( some of cavalry's armour factor is due to the horse which is soft and squishy).
I reduced the effectiveness of the armour piercing bonus late in the project, as I noticed that all the units Activision complained about as being too powerful had axes or halbards, but in retrospect that was a bad move.
Armour piercing works differently with missiles. Each missile type has an armour penetration rating. The target's armour is multiplied by this, before deciding whether a kill is scored.
The factor for bows is 1, and for longbows it's 0.5, so when hit by a longbow, units count half as much armour as they actually have ( can't remember if this includes shields too ). These stats will be in separate file in the patch."
-------------------------
Reviving the thread.
Contrary to what most have written here, I find spearmen to be completely worthless. Sure, Feudal Sergeants and Armoured Spearmen have their use in the Early era, when the archers can fire above their heads even on flat ground, and your FMAA or other sword-wielding infantry covers the flanks, but in the end, it's those few sword units who does all the killing. The spearmen just stand there and hardly inflict any casualties - even when defending a bridge spear units perform ok at best.
Spearmen are simply cloggers for the Early era, IMO. The can take cavalry charges and charges from other spear units, but not very much else. For this reason, spearmen are completely worthless for attacking, which always causes me to play more defensively in the Early era unless I have Mounted Crossbowmen or HA-units.
Thus I find Chivalric Sergeants to be an excellent way to waste your money, and sometimes even disband the CS units you start with in some High and Late games. There's nothing they can do that polerarm units, and Halberdiers especially, can't do 5x better. Polearms can countercharge when the enemy is only a few steps away, are better against cavalry, have better stats in general and are awesome for pretty much anything. If you are fighting on flat ground (and aren't playing as the English or some Muslim faction with good archers) you can just places your Crossbows or Arbalesters up front and rely on the polearm-units behind them to charge forth and deal with just about anything that the enemy is stupid enough to charge away at your Arbs.
An ideal army to me is 100% spearmen-free, and contains a minimum of four polearm units backed up with an equal amount of Arbalesters, and then a few units to cover the flanks (preferably more polearms, ideally Chivalric Foot Knights). 2 Chivalric Knights, 2 Chivalric Foot Knights, 6 Halberdiers and 6 Arbalesters is basically a perfect army for any western European country that can't field mounted ranged units, Longbowmen, Gothic Knights or another form of polearm units.
I think you've over-extended your argument here :bow: They (spears etc) will stand their ground in the face of firearms - unlike halberdiers, who will wet themselves if anyone so much as invites them to a fireworks party :laugh4:Quote:
There's nothing they can do that polerarm units, and Halberdiers especially, can't do 5x better.
As far as your "ideal army" goes, I can't disagree too much, except I wouldn't have six units of vanilla halberdiers, but make every effort to take Switzerland ASAP and get the Swiss variety instead (assuming I'm not playing England, which is of course bills and longbows FTW :2thumbsup: ) I much prefer Swiss halberdiers - for a start they have guts, they are fast - which is the other side of the lightly-armoured coin, and they can do all the damage that regular halberdiers can do.
i generally agree with innocentius except when as a catholic you are fighting in the desert. taking halberds or dismount CN is tantamount to insanity. left with nothing but spearmen.
The best thing about spears is the larger unit size. IncludingSpears over Halb's in your main army allows you to have a wider solid line on either defense or attack, and therefore makes it easier to get your swords into a flanking position.
There is a side benefit to the larger size of Spear units as well: There is a global morale bonus for outnumbering your opponent. Boosting your numbers by including spears means that you pack more men, and therefore get the bonus.
From Predaturd's thread: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=96346
+4 Morale for outnumbering enemy troops
+4 Morale to nearby units if there is a 3:1 advantage in local superiority
You will only get the local superiority bonus at the edge where your forces will outneumber the enemy, but morale always helps.
In a reversal of my earlier feelings I have found some value in spearmen, though I do agree that in general Halbardiers are better troops. I really only use them on defense, but with weapon upgrades they can be Serviceable troops.
I'm playing as Scotland on Expert at the moment and I find the Scottish Spearmen to be a useful addition, providing a screen behind which my flanking tropps can hide. They have base stats of 1 Atk, 2 Def, 3 Arm, 3 Morale and a large shield I think. This means that when in formation they end up as 3 ATK, 4 Def + armour bounsues, which puts them on terms with FMAA, but with an anti cavalry edge.
Best used for defending a ridge or other high ground, though useful other times as well.
That said, I still don't rate Spears up with Halbardiers in general. Halb's fight better in general, slaughter cavalry, function well in forests, resist missiles better and are easier to manouver.
The scots don't get Halbs though, so I have to make do with the Spears.