Which you think are the best armies and soldiers:Heavy like the HRE or light from the east of Europe like the Mongols?
Printable View
Which you think are the best armies and soldiers:Heavy like the HRE or light from the east of Europe like the Mongols?
The game doesn't differ them much.. Like, you can't beat a heavy infantry unit with a light one no matter what you do. Same goes for cavalry. Maybe it differs in HA matter (Where light HA get more arrows + faster movement + greater stamina)..
That's an interesting question. Probably on battlefields on the steppes, Middle East etcetera it will be advantageous to use horse archers against cumbersome enemies. However from the looks of it, once gunpowder weapons become widespread the Western European factions will also start to use less heavily armoured soldiers- e.g. pikemen, reiters, "conquistadors" (I think these are Spanish cavalry wearing a half-armour), hussars, "forlorn hope", sword and buckler men, rodeleros.
there is no "best" different units have different tasks, and you have to match the mission to the asset. pitched static battle inside european castles requires other troops than fleeting engagements on the steppe.
That said, speed and stamina and stamina of light troops may be somewhat more flexible characteristics than heavy armor and light trops may therefore be more useful than the heavies.
Actually, other than being unable to chase down faster opponents, a well balanced heavy army beats a light one, at least it did in MTW1. I remember that if you supported your monster heavy cavalry and infantry with pavise type ranged units, or even arquebuseurs (sp?), you could absolutely wipe the floor with lightly armored fast enemies. Of course I'm talking about single player here, i have no MP experience hehe. However, once I got the right mix of troops for a well balanced and well armored army, no steppe types ever did any significant damage to me.
Unless the AI begins to adapt hit and run tactics with it's lightly armored factions to wear down my heavy armies over the course of a few battles, I would imagine that this will remain the same in MTW2...On the other hand if they got rid of hard to kill ranged foot units, then the heavy armies may be in trouble now. I did hear someone mention that there aren't any pavise using units anymore??
Either way, for SP purposes I think the interesting thing is always being able to put a faction's specific unit mix into an effective force versus other types of unit mixes. A dynamic which looks to be far more interesting in MTW2 (vanilla at least) than it was in MTW1, given the larger amount of unique units :)
The only exception to heavy beating light, was of course in the desert, which also was a great dynamic in MTW1 and I sincerely hope that this shows up in MTW2 as well. No matter how frustrating it was to have my well refined killing machines stopped by a mere thing such as heat, it was always a pleasure to have to change my tactics for a realistic and historical reason ;)
P.S. Apparently this browser hates smilies and won't let me use them...gah!
I prefer lighter soldier for their mobility. If I run into a jiant enemy force, I can run away. If I can take them, I use hit and run tactics.
nah, if you run away, lik ein RTW, the back line will be slaurderd becouse they dont fight and the enemy does fight.
How can there be no Pavises when there are Archers with Stakes?
I would hope to see Pavises much the same as Stakes ie drop once, stays there rest of battle but the unit able to move away.
I think in another thread I might have commented that I haven't seen any pavise units. But there is a screen shot of the Portugese unit selection panel in the custom battle, and you can see a crossbowman with a pavise there.
Troops usually arent "light" cuz they want to be, its cuz they either lived in an area that didnt have the infrastructure to mine/forge iron, or it didnt exist there as a resource, and they couldnt afford to import it. In the medieval era, solid armour and high quality weapons were a huge advantage that any soldier would prefer, except in the rare conditions.
I think you are right but,the light soldiers had an advantage thy could move faster.
The heavier the merrier. I like my armies clanking and jingling when they move. Halberdiers, Lancers, Pavise Arbalester, Gothic Sergeants, Swiss Armoured Pikes, those are my favourite MTW I troops.
Likewise in RTW, I love the Seleucid heavy units (pikes, Cataphracts, legionairs) or the Roman legionary army.
Armour is (almost) everything in MTW. Especially for the poor unarmoured Muslim units that often got a minus to their defence. However, there is a big exception:
Yes, different movements speeds are a biggie in STW, MTW and RTW. Less armoured troops that were no faster than others were just inferior. But where they were faster than default units, they often were very useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)
They were not common, but genuine fast cav were very appreciated: e.g. yari cav, jinettes, Sarmatian auxiliaries etc to catch and kill horse archers, fleeing generals etc Similarly, with infantry, fast troops could be a real pain - I remember seeing my Varagangian guard being cut down by AI slav javelinmen they could not catch - it was agonising.
I also think uber-armoured troops should also be slow - it was a definite downside to naginata infantry in STW, kats, halberdiers etc. in MTW, but IIRC done away with in RTW. MTW lancers were annoying, partly because they broke that rule.
As in most things, a mix is good. Personally, I prefer to fight with heavy troops (light ones - e.g. a Horse Archer army - take too much micro-management). But I would still like to include some fast light troops - especially fast cav - to fulfill specific functions.
Non of them is really better. As an example take RTW phalanxes, they are slow moving and can't protect themselves. Ideally you need lighter troops to screen them, so they are equally important.
The same goes for the medieval age, when you come on with just knights on foot you can easely be countered by a fast moving army, so you need lighter troops in your army too. No army is really better, most of the times it comes down to the commander in the field.
Tho I must say that it's better imo to have both light and heavy troops in a good mix
This guys are the best:
http://pff.swrebellion.com/index.php?topic=3425.0
Heavy like hell (*Dracula adicadin Romania?)
In the TW series so far, the balancing factor between heavy and light troops has not been speed. The speed differential was not that big, and for infantry at least, could be almost ignored.
The real difference between armour 1-2 (light infantry) and the armour 4 (heavy one) in MTW is fatigue. Heavy armoured troops drop to very tired quite fast in action (there is a famous topic about that for diggers), and almost don't recover.
In a fight Light vs Heavy in MTW, the longest the fight last, the more chance for the Light army, and the more movement, the best for the Light army too. They won't outrun the heavies, but they will outire them...
I don't think it's a good idea to have to large a speed differential between units... Then we end up with weird battles...
Louis,
I like'em heavy as possible.
But I do like to keep some light troops around too.
However, in RTR PE I'm actually using quite a bit of medium troops at the expense of both light and heavy.
It's a case of preference. In MTW I never chose heavy armour even on the odd occasion that I used a western faction
.......Orda
I sadly think in RTW/BI, light armies have no chance against skilled heavy folks.. And, that is bad. I'd admit some balance must be inserted there..
Oh I dont know.
It's quite logical that heavy beats light and that light has mobility and expense advantages.
It's a good and simple way to simulate it. Once again, I'd say mod it for the hardcore.
Well one of the issues is the stacks and the unit limit...
Take two armies of equal value, one heavy and one light which will be larger?
But take two full army stacks one heavy and one light and they will be about the same size, but which is worth more?
Plus you have the finite size of the maps which limits mobility and again favours the heavy units.
Having said that how is most likely to win, one unit of Principes (490) against two units of Greek peltists (total 380)? Well it depends on the circumstances, the terrain and the objectives but in a meeting on open ground it would be easy of the peltists to get in theere, cause some casualties and withdraw without taking any casualties themselves. Repeat a few times for final victory...
But throw an objective in there like "don't let the enemy through this gate" and see which unit does better?
Light and heavy are different tools to be used as the circumstances permit...
As Bob said, they have different roles. On the strategic side Light units don't really have advantages in MTWII.
One example of a strategic advantage would be a stack of Light Troops could move further on the map...if that was the case then you could really use the inherent advantage of light troops which is their mobility.
Tactically they are limited again as the maps are finite but I personally still take them.
Their role in battle is useful as their speed can make them a good rapid response tool.
To me the effects of skimishing are under valued and nearly lost in the medieval period.
Try that with 6 Urban Cohorts against 10 "whatever-light-infantry-you-pick".Quote:
Having said that how is most likely to win, one unit of Principes (490) against two units of Greek peltists (total 380)? Well it depends on the circumstances, the terrain and the objectives but in a meeting on open ground it would be easy of the peltists to get in theere, cause some casualties and withdraw without taking any casualties themselves. Repeat a few times for final victory...
6 units of Urban Cohorts - total 5160...Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
I chose 27 units of Greek Peltists - total 5130
Of course I can't field 27 units all under my control and the map would get a bit crowded, all to your advantage...
You see what I mean?
Plus trying to control them all could would drive me nuts...
I remember trying something along the line of 20 heavy pelstats against armoured phalanx or cohort.
The damage from the pelstat was underwhelming. I am not even sure that 20 pelstat can win even versus 1 urban cohort!
Louis,
I always felt that in the original MTW that this was rather unfair as a comparison. Heavy usually won out in all of my games. There was the occasional romp into the desert with Kats and they would ware out really quicky b/c of the temp, but heavy always seemed to be better. If you took some Chilvaric Knights against an equal number of Mongol heavy calvary, you would always come out on top. This is assuming equal numbers though, which was not historically correct. What is historically correct as one of the above posters said is that if you have money you're going to want to have more armor. I know of no nobles that would willingly go without good armor if they didn't have to, so in light of this I would say that heavy is better than light.
The thing in the original MTW was that you could recruit limitless amounts of heavy knights if finances allowed. So obviuosly armies of Gothic, Chilvaric, and Royal knights will kill nearly anything. The more realistic recruitment of MTW2 won't allow that, so its very possible that armies of lightly armed troop types of the east may fare much better.
There are instances where light units beat heavy ones.
For example, flank a fast moving unit of Gallowglasses into the sides or back of some heavily armored halberders or foot knights and watch them open up that plate like a can of tuna.
There are instances that light will beat heavy, but if you can have a whole army made up of heavy knights those gallowglasses will be turned into haggis.
The mere fact that light cavalry (i.e. armed with javelins or bows) can skirmish properly should make those units more effective.
Heavy knights cost 3x as much as Gallowglasses though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Nihilus
Sure if you're in single player with a broken economy such as MTW where you can have basically infinite heavy units and still be making money, of course get all the super heavy units you can.
But if you are playing in a limited florin MP or Custom, or hopefully in a single player campaign that limits outrageous profits in MTW2, then Gallowglasses can be a much better value, as long as you have a main line defensive unit so that GGs can flank.
To save you the trouble, you won't win. You won't even succeed in routing 1 Urban.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob the Insane
I say heavy armour and arms for the killers while the cannon-fodder can be lighter (and cheaper).
Although fast cavallery are of course wonderful when the enemy is broken.
While it is obvious that in most cases Heavy Infantry (HI) will defeat light infantry (LI), you must remember that you do not have to fight. If an army consisting of HI and HH (heavy horse) comes at you, run away and lure the opponents army into an ambush. Of course this tactic will work in certain terrain (forest rather than plains for example) only and only if you have enough space to maneuver. You must also consider the cost of the troops. As a rule heavy troops cost more than the light ones, and sometimes it takes 2 turns to produce them (urban cohort or praetorian cohort for example). In sum i would rather use heavy units while assaulting or defending a city, and light units for exploring and luring enemy into traps. Saves lots of money that way.
Infinite money sinews of war...
I just tested a couple of things on RTW 1.6
20 peltast units vs. 1 Urban Cohort (about 4:1 in price). Victory with about 70 losses for the peltasts.
The peltasts surround the Romans, cause 30 odd casualties. Romans form testudo. 1 peltast unit charges and breaks up testudo, Romans are broken by a few more javelin volleys.
5 peltast units vs. 1 Urban Cohort (roughly equal in price). Victory with about 200 losses for the peltasts. The peltasts cause a few casualties to start with. The Romans form testudo. Peltasts charge testudo but it doesn't stop testudoing. UC is surrounded in melee, then breaks up testudo. Peltasts fall back, get off a few more volleys while it's vulnerable and charge again.
5 peltast units with armour piercing vs. 1 Urban Cohort. Victory with about 15 losses for the peltasts. One peltast unit receives a volley of pila, while the others throw their darts at the back of the Roman cohort. It is minced before it can form a testudo.
Just tried another:
1/2 peltast unit with armour piercing and body piercing vs. 1 Urban Cohort. The UC was annhilated completely without causing a single casualty.
Just one thought, don't test against the AI. ~;)
And basically, we are talking about infantry lines.. 5 Peltasts cost at least 900.
An Urban battle line would consist of 6 Urbans. 5*6 = 30 units to counter a 6 Urbans battleline, and I can assure you it won't work in MP. All the Roman guy needs to do is put a cav unit in your back..
you added body piercing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Orb
That basically turns peltasts into walking ballistas, of course the Urbans were annihilated, anything would be.
That was more for personal amusement than anything else. Seriously, you should see what happens if you give bp to Egyptian archers. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by the_mango55
5 peltasts = 900, 1 Urban = 860. 40 Denarii difference. 4 peltasts = 720 and so would have a 140 denarii difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by X-danger
The AI can handle one heavy infantry unit well enough. I'm not certain a human would do much better with it.
Bigger numbers make it harder, primarily because of the map size constraints, and also that if the Roman goes into 6 Testudos, the peltasts can't touch him.
Also, if you're doing a campaign or a budget battle, you can produce peltasts much more easily than heavy infantry. I prefer combined arms, with some lights and some heavies. With Romans, it's kind of pointless just because your heavies can do virtually anything but with other forces, it's worthwhile.
On the cavalry, yes, that's valid, although presumeably a good general would actually use his own cavalry to counter-act it. Since I'm unable to do MP (internet tends to play up just after battle starts), I'm uncertain whether this is possible, and with the imbalance and speed problems of RTW, it might not be.
Well I tried it...
First a battle with me as the Greeks and the AI as the roman, 2 Urban Cohort vs 9 Peltats unit...
I won essentially using the skirmishing ability of the light troops, I decimated and routed one Urban unit with just missiles but ran out of missles on the other and had to charge the peltats in... I lost around 250 men to finish of the second urban unit... But I did have a few spare... :laugh4: Have said that if one of my units had routed that might have caused a chain rout and lost me the battle...
Secondly I played as the romans with 6 Urban cohorts against 2 greek armies of 14 peltats units each...
Interestingly I put the urbans in testudo and the skirmishers did not try attacking, they simply stayed at a safe distance. On leaving testudo they attacked. For the result, well I won primarily down to morale. One volley of javelins seemed to be enough to break a unit of peltats. My victory was down to a lack of space for the peltats to manuvour around and getting in each others way which allowed my Urbans to charge into close combat and overwhelm the light units. The fact that the peltats did not try to disengage once in combat and the other skirmisher would stop firing at that point helped too... I took at fair few casualties but did not loss a whole unit...
I think that this reinforces my orginal points that light units can be effective if used correctly (as can heavies) and that the game design is biased towards heavy units with the way armies are based on the 20 units and the limited sizes of maps...
I will have to try it again using normal unit sizes rather than huge to see if that makes a difference (in freeing up space on the map)...
Well, IIRC, missiles are much, much more effective on larger scales. They tend to hit more often and thus cause more damage.
Basically, RTW was designed for Large scale. Large scale somehow balances eveyrthing a lot more than normal scale. For instance, if an onager hits you in large, you wouldn't be as decimated as in normal.
To the point:
A battle is not a 1 on 1 infantry match up (Even though still I think on a normal 1 on 1, heavies would win), it is a combination of cavalry, infantry and cavalry. If someone starts a battle against me having 4 peltasts, wouldn't those 4 peltasts be a waste of money? They can lose fast to archers/infantry/cavalry.
In my parthian campaigns i normally use armys made purely of Horse Archers, the enemy have no hope of catching them up, if they do you just retreat from the map. I rarley used cataphracts and i only ever used infintry to garrison and seige. So I prefer lighter troops to heavy ones as the heavy ones dont have much hope of cathcing the lighter ones.
In a siege the heavy ones are better.
Javelin units in RTW are easier to use but lack the throwing power of their MTW counterparts. Personally I like it more that way although a slight increase in lethality wouldn't be to harmful...
I hope we will see bigger battlefields in MTW 2 to give fast and light troops more chances against heavy ones.
I'm mostly for a mixture of light and heavy troops. If I'm playing a 50,000 denarii battle, with full sets of units on either side, I won't take lights, but on the other hand if it's a 5,000 denarii or early campaign battle, a few peltasts or skirmishers are incredibly helpful.