Most overall weak faction?

Well, if someone's the strongest someone has to be the weakest.

My temptation is to say the Byzantines. Firstly they're one of the two Orthodox factions, so no Jihads or Crusades and you will pretty much always have to convert everyone to your religion when you conquor a settlement.
Expansion West will annoy the Pope and going East gets you in range of the Invasions. Crusading armies on their way to the holy lands will come trudging through your lands. In the late period they lack any decent cannons, any guns and have no anti-armour ranged fire. No really high quality spears as well.

What do you think?

Ill go with my Current Campaign (Italian Portugal)

Denmark.

They are getting crushed by the HRE.

Coincidently its the first time the HRE hasnt been smashed.
However, on Average, HRE AI is the worst.

Scotland. No particularly brilliant archers, no cavalry worth mentioning. Great pikes and shock troops, but without either cool archers or good cav to back them up...

Oh, and they suck in the gunpowder age too. At least Byzantium can just go all cav...

I only go by unit lineup, strategic position is kind of irrelevant (IMHO).

^^^
Agreed completely.

Yeah, no gunpowder hurts...

My vote would go to scotland.

IMO, Scotland should have been an extremely powerful rebel faction, with time released full stacks of rebel scots that would make occupying the place difficult and require plenty of manpower. Which would have been historically accurate.

I think that Scotland is by far the weakest. The Byzantines get excellent horse archers, which give a competent human player a huge advantage.

Yeah, scotland gets my vote right off the bat. As far as weakest non-christian faction, I'd vote Egypt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cos3

IMO, Scotland should have been an extremely powerful rebel faction, with time released full stacks of rebel scots that would make occupying the place difficult and require plenty of manpower. Which would have been historically accurate.

---

M2TW:Scottish Invasion!

Of course the poor Scottish should get the dubious honor, but Russia should actually get a mention too. Until they get Cossacks, their units are routinely outclassed by their neighbors: their horse archers are weak compared to the Byzantines, their heavy cavalry is even outclassed by the Poles early in the game; Polish nobles are significantly better than either Druzhina or Boyar sons and their infantry is nothing special, which hurts unless you deal with the Danes before they start cranking out Norse swordsmen and whatnot.

Yea well,to be honest,the scots' unit roster is quite weak and uninteresting actually :embarassed: .

I hear what everyone is saying, but I just love Scotland. Won my first grand campaign with them, thoroughly enjoyable!

I love Scotland's voices...Just so awesome.:smash:

On topic: I've only played as Spain and Scotland so far so, can't really say overall.

In light of all the responses about the Scots being the weakest faction I was going to remark that I've had a much easier time with the Scots than I had as Spain.

Then it occurred to me that the Scots are benefitting from the hours and hours spent getting my butt kicked as Spain while I learned the game. Which made me realize that if I had started playing the game with Scotland, the game would have loaded up, and the the 'Faction Destroyed: Scotland.' message would have popped up. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraggenmor

In light of all the responses about the Scots being the weakest faction I was going to remark that I've had a much easier time with the Scots than I had as Spain.

---

I shall also say that my VH/VH Scotland campaign has been rather easy.

But then I tend to get by nicely with FKs and DFKs.

Any faction that puts the emphasis on infantry, or that has a limited selection of cavalry, is weak. Specifically, lack of a good javelin cavalry unit is crippling, and lack of an early horse archer is a negative as well. So Scotland, England, perhaps Denmark. Strategically, this type of weakness isn't usually much of a handicap, since factions that are close to one another geographically tend to fight using similar methods.

Well, if you expand as Scotland, you can still hire mercenaries throughout the lands more afar to fill up those HA spots and stuff. But if you ask me the Scots are pretty bad-ass. If an army selection has a weakness, it can still be exploited and used to its own advantage by the controlling entity, if carefully and thoughtfully done. Then weakness becomes a strength.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diamondback88

Of course the poor Scottish should get the dubious honor, but Russia should actually get a mention too. Until they get Cossacks, their units are routinely outclassed by their neighbors: their horse archers are weak compared to the Byzantines, their heavy cavalry is even outclassed by the Poles early in the game; Polish nobles are significantly better than either Druzhina or Boyar sons and their infantry is nothing special, which hurts unless you deal with the Danes before they start cranking out Norse swordsmen and whatnot.

---

Citing russia as a contender for the weakest faction has to be one of the most disagreeable things I have read all day.

Quote:

---

Citing russia as a contender for the weakest faction has to be one of the most disagreeable things I have read all day.

---

You're right. Gosh, what was I thinking? I suppose I should have just made a heated, shortsighted, subtly-insulting post with no background, evidence or discernable purpose like yourself. I have much to learn. :nice:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by General Zhukov

Any faction that puts the emphasis on infantry, or that has a limited selection of cavalry, is weak. Specifically, lack of a good javelin cavalry unit is crippling, and lack of an early horse archer is a negative as well. So Scotland, England, perhaps Denmark. Strategically, this type of weakness isn't usually much of a handicap, since factions that are close to one another geographically tend to fight using similar methods.

---

hehe we think completely different, I personally think any faction that puts an emphasis on calvary is weak... but thats just me.


As for weakest... hmmmmm its a tie between France and Scotland, france because they always seem to be wiped out the earliest in my games, and scotland which never seems to have an opportunity to expand.

I personally don't think that Russia is very strong either until they get their Cossacks. I do think that Scotalnd is the weakest by far though, even though they are a lot of fun to play as (and they have awesome accents) . If I had to pick a second weakest faction I would probably say.........Egypt, although I haven't played as them. So that may be a shortsighted remark in my opinion.

I vote on what the AI does. Lately the Scotland AI has been beating the English, and the Egyptians control 1/4 of the map.

Ive only got 4 provinces! :laugh4:

I would say Egypt for a Muslim faction. They have mostly similar early to high period units to the Turks and have crap late game units. Their only saving grace is their starting position.

For Orthodox I would go with Byzantines sine they lack late game gunpowder and Russia boast better selection of late game units then them.

For Catholic, from my experience, the HRE always get their asses wiped after about 20 turns. Though they have a cool unit roster, the absurdly amount of enemies means they never get a chance to use them.

How come no one has mentioned the Moors? I haven't played with them yet, but they look pretty weak, and I remember them being weaker as the years go by.

The Moors are actually quite good. Along with the Russians they are very under-rated in my opinion. The Moors have decent low upkeep infantry and good early long-range archers. Later on they get the Tuareg Camels and Camel Gunners. Plus their economic position is superb due to their easily defensible position and proximity to Arguin and Timbuktu.

Yes I would agree with Olmsted, the moors are quite good. Chritian Guard, both mounted and dismounted, provide a very good staple of infantry and cavalry. Along with the cheap peasant crossbows that actually have long range. The moors also have desert cavalry and grenadine jinetes which are both excellent skirmish cav. Also, don't count out their variety of cheap spearmen, dismounted Arab and Tourag.
My vote for the weakest faction would have to go to Scotland. They lack any long range missle units and overpowering cavalry. They were easily cut down by long bows in my English campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diamondback88

Of course the poor Scottish should get the dubious honor, but Russia should actually get a mention too. Until they get Cossacks, their units are routinely outclassed by their neighbors: their horse archers are weak compared to the Byzantines, their heavy cavalry is even outclassed by the Poles early in the game; Polish nobles are significantly better than either Druzhina or Boyar sons and their infantry is nothing special, which hurts unless you deal with the Danes before they start cranking out Norse swordsmen and whatnot.

---

Dude, you're smoking something. The Russian horse archers are better than Byzantium's. The Dvor Cavalry are THE best horse archers in the game, bar none. Boyar Son's mean you have jav-cav, and Druzhina are MUCH stronger than their stats would indicate. Seriously, try them out in custom battle testing before you dismiss them, they rock, and crush most Polish cavalry in melee, and you get them almost from turn 1. Khazaks are just average, but they still provide you with horse archers at the game start.

Even in the late period, Tsar's Guard are actually very credible heavy cav. To say that Russia has a cavalry weakness is just plain ignorance, and I can only assume you've never actually tried to play as Russia.

Infantry wise they certainly have a spear weakness, but they have brilliant heavy infantry in the form of Berdiche Axemen, at least if you apply one of the 2H animation fixes (And you really should).

Dismounted Dvor in the high/late period and crossbow militia in the early period mean you never have a glaring missile weakness either.

All in all, Russia is a candidate for strongest faction. Easily on par with the overrated France and HRE.

Its true that with the byzantines, religion matters, but not as serious as the effect of the mongol invasion, i have had a very bad experience playing as the byzatines during my previous campaign when i had mongols invading every every eastern settlement, mongols have very experienced units and they are quite dangorous, that is the main concern of every eastern faction i suppose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PureFodder

Well, if someone's the strongest someone has to be the weakest.

My temptation is to say the Byzantines. Firstly they're one of the two Orthodox factions, so no Jihads or Crusades and you will pretty much always have to convert everyone to your religion when you conquor a settlement.
Expansion West will annoy the Pope and going East gets you in range of the Invasions. Crusading armies on their way to the holy lands will come trudging through your lands. In the late period they lack any decent cannons, any guns and have no anti-armour ranged fire. No really high quality spears as well.

What do you think?

---

I dunno, Musashi...those Vardariotai, while having one less attack (ranged and melee) point than the dvor, have both the disciplined and highly trained traits as opposed to the dvor's normal and trained traits. The Dvor morale is 9 compared to the Vard 11.The Vards also have one more point of armor, which I think is a little crazy. Neither they nor their horses are even wearing armor! :dizzy2: Even with the Dvor's ability to formed charge and their armor piercing melee, I think it's a pretty close match.

It's true that as far as late game options are concerned, Byzantium gets the short, pointy end of the stick. Not only do they lack any "new" technology like gunpowder, but their biggest nearby rivals, the Turks and Venetians, get very powerful units in the late period. Also the whole worst of both worlds thing (Crusades and Western armies plus Timurids and Mongols) makes life difficult. I suppose it was CA's intention to make the game more difficult later for the Byz, since they were supposed to die out.

Dah! Long live the Tsar! Russia's my favorite faction. -_-

But of course this all a matter of opinion. And we are all entitled to one. This isn't Russia after all! I mean.. pre 1990 he he. -_-

But for weakest definately the Scots. Though thosse barbarians are a pain in the side when you're fighting France to as England -_-. Honestly even though England has bad cavalry to it still has better cavalry. The Scotish don't get any counter cav units either till the point where a good English player's already eradiacted them. Although.. if they can hang on the English will have to get on foot and fight them. Then they might need 2 English for every 1 Scot. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rurik the Chieftain

I dunno, Musashi...those Vardariotai, while having one less attack (ranged and melee) point than the dvor, have both the disciplined and highly trained traits as opposed to the dvor's normal and trained traits. The Dvor morale is 9 compared to the Vard 11.The Vards also have one more point of armor, which I think is a little crazy. Neither they nor their horses are even wearing armor! :dizzy2: Even with the Dvor's ability to formed charge and their armor piercing melee, I think it's a pretty close match.

---

It's not as close as it seems. Give them a try in custom battle. 1 more attack + armor piercing >>>> more armor.

It's basically a rule of thumb with this game that attack strength is much more important than defense, and armor piercing is a bizarrely huge advantage.

Hmm ... seems like the consensus is that Scotland has the worst unit roster. Sounds like you folks just picked my next campaign! :idea2:

I'd like to disagree on Scotland being weak. they can seem that way but you need to fix the shield issue with Noble Highland Archers, Noble Swordsmen, and all the other factions Spear Units before you can make a genuine assessment.

First lets deal with the archers issue. The first thing people need top understand is that the Scots DON'T have ANY dedicated missile units. What they DO have is some excellent axe and shield CC units with a SECONDERY ability to fire arrows. What confuses people is that they happen to be built from the same building as most other factions missile units.

I just ran some tests with these guys, and without upgrades they beat DGK who cost an extra 210 Florins. With the appropriates armour, weapon, and valour upgrades, (to bring the price to about the right value for comparative purposes), they can give JHI a stiff challenge. hey can also give Heavy Billmen and DEK stiff challenges too, (with fixed animations but no adjustments to the stats of either unit), considering these units are at this point on par or above JHI, (and thus worth 2-3 times their actual price), they aren’t doing bad. They've also seen off Swiss Guard, DIK, Terrico Pikemen, and Sword and Shield Militia. They are easily worth their price, what you have to realise is that they have an AP attack and a defence of 12 basic, making them a fairly decent CC unit, (better than both Yeoman and Retinue Longbowmen as they have better defence than Yeomen, and Retinue ones lack the AP), that can weaken it's enemies as they close. This allows them to beat or challenge units far above them in terms of basic stats. Noble Highland Archers are also available in fairly decent numbers too at that.

I would also point out that both Noble Swordsmen and Noble Pikemen also have decent defence values making them pretty hard to hurt with missile fire when compared to the Halberd and 2-handers they compete with.

The claim of poor cav IS true, especially once you fix the messed up shields of the other factions spear units. But in reality the Scots don't NEED good cav very much. Their infantry can eliminate almost all enemy infantry you may face, so the only time you need it is in close fights. It dosen't take very powerful cav to tip the balance here.

Thus the main purpose of cav for the Scots is chasing enemy Archers and tipping close fight. Cheap expendable cav are easily enough for these purposes. You can also hire Mercenary Crossbows nearly anywhere you need to, so it's not like you don't have a long range AP missile unit if you need it.

That doesn’t mean it's all plain sailing though. The English are probably one of the few armies that will give your real headaches. Their archers will outshoot your NHA, and the stakes will make it nearly impossible to kill them with cav. Your Swordsmen will also be beaten by the English Bill units, (once they are fixed), and the English have better cav. Worst of all your excellent Noble Pikemen, (which could nullify the English Bill and Cav units), will really have trouble against the fast firing AP missile of the Longbowmen.

That means your in for a stiff challenge. Fortunately, the Scots are a pretty defensive army in any case so deploy well back and force those longbowmen out from behind those stakes. Once you do that and wipe them out it's all over bar the shouting as your pikemen and NHA in combination will wipe the floor with the English foot and mounted sections.

What tends to propagate the myth of English superiority over the Scots, (in M2TW at least), is the messed up shield. This means that Longbowmen are beat a lot of spear & shield and Sword & Shield units that with the fixed shields they can’t beat. AP arrows and CC attacks don’t mean a lot against units with shields as they rarely have much of their defence concentrated in their armour. This is where the NHA have the advantage you see, their superior defence value give them the ability to actually go toe to toe with units the Longbowmen would get beaten by.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diamondback88

You're right. Gosh, what was I thinking? I suppose I should have just made a heated, shortsighted, subtly-insulting post with no background, evidence or discernable purpose like yourself. I have much to learn. :nice:

---

At least you're the bastion of maturity that you apparently want to pretend to be. I guess this learning process is a two way street. :laugh4:

I "could" have gone the route of Musashi and asked you what you were smoking and how much, but I actually re-wrote what I said in the hopes offense wouldn't be taken. I guess that one can find anything they want to before hand in what someone says.

nevermind. I'm getting old and forgetful and forgot that I did reply with what I just replied with again.

/jedi wave - this is not the post you're looking for.

This is not the place for in-fighting. Try the Backroom.

@Carl:

The thing is, that while the scots' missile units make credible heavy infantry, they suck as missile troops. Which feeds into the Scots' basic problem: They are a one trick pony. They have probably the best heavy infantry lineup in the game. No one is debating that. But it doesn't matter. Heavy infantry alone cannot win you a war against a competent enemy. Mixed forces will beat you every time.

Without dedicated, long range, armor piercing missile troops, or credible cavalry forces, your heavy infantry are just expensive sitting ducks without support.

I don't have enough experience with the various factions to really say which is the weakest, however I do think the Russians are far from it. However, the real thing is what exactly is the question? If you're asking which faction is the hardest to play well, then Russia may well be up near the top of the list. However they certainly have the units and the potential to be incredibly powerful. I started off playing the Byzantines as my first campaign, and for all their weaknesses they're extremely potent. You just have to play to the strengths of your own faction and units.

I'd have to put Russia in the weaker bracket, personally. The OP was 'overall weakest' which I am taking to mean more than unit roster alone. Call me crazy like that :dizzy2: The Russians start with one territory, most of the easiest to reach territories to pick are very spread out making it harder to have territories that mutually reinforce and defend each other and their starting roster is in fact fairly weak. I do better as the Byz battle-wise straight out of the gate and through the game's intial phases. The best thing about Russia is that by being thinly spread, not exactly wealthy, and not having early game stud-units I actually lose some battles and have to use forts and watchtowers and such much more, opening up some facets of the game I dont get much of playing a juggernaut faction like England or Spain/Portugal. On the plus side for the Rus is corner-faction status, which the other weak sister mentioned most often on this thread also shares, that being Scotland. I found playing Scotland a lot easier not because of unit roster (again the OP was overall weakest) but because the nearby pickings were fairly rich, all had ports, and as a whole the isles are the most easily defensible semi-large group of territories in the game. Since we all play against a fairly weak AI even on VH/VH, this strategic issue is huge if we are looking at 'overall weakest' faction. As an additional note, all-cav armies are fantastic fun in open steppe battles, they really are! but they wont open any city gates for you which means dragging artillery around (wrecking your Cav army strategic speed on Campaign map) or hiring merc artillery every time you want to smash down some gates. No free massive troop boosters from Jihads/Crusades either for the Rus, the Rus have to work for everything. Now all that being said, they do get a lot tougher with the arrival of Cossacks, one of the funner units in the game. But it usually is not long after that that the Mongols arrive in force. In my two Rus campaigns, they came my way pretty quickly in fact taking the north route both times. None of this means playing Russia is not fun, and no one said you can't win with them. I had/am having a ton of fun both in my completed short, and ongoing long campaigns. The fact that they are loads of fun to play doesn't mean they are not one of the weaker factions, overall, in the lineup, however.

I left the Byz out of the previous comments mainly because their wealth, starting position, and early availability of Vards means that the crucual early years are pretty easy as the Byz. By the time those late game weaknesses kick in, I think most would find themselves in the same position I did which was a few territories away from victory and enough money to hire all-merc armies on a moments notice wherever I wanted. Their unit roster is as weak as it gets late-game but at least in my case it didn't matter one bit....-overall.

As a caveat, I will add I haven't played any Muslim factions yet other than a few turns as Egypt.

If one grants the premise that a campaign's outcome is usually decided in the early turns, say 1-100, then it might be more productive to compare a faction's strength in relation to the strength of its early competitors. After all, the premise states that while Turkey may outshine Scotland on the open field, by the time the two are in a postion to engage in serious warfare the overall outcome will have been decided. The premise also implies that gunpowder will be a peripheral issue.

So, I'd like to see some discussion about the relative strengths of factions in given geographic areas, using the typical unit selections of the first 100 turns or so. How does early Eqypt stack up against Turkey and Byzantium? What is the strongest faction in Northwest Europe? Who is most likely to come out on top among the Italian powers?

@Musashi:

I'm not an expirianced TW player so I’m probably missing something important, however I’m going to give my point of view on your statements in a moment. If I have missed something could you please explain what I’ve missed?


My Point of View:

The Scots have the best CC infantry available to a non-papal States player, as a result they can deal with ANY infantry attack anyone cares to throw at them without serious issue.

The Scots lack real archers and normally these archers won't get many shots of at things they aren’t going to be fighting themselves. The question is: Does this really matter, is the rest of the infantry so weak it actually needs the enemy weakening. The answer is a pretty solid NO. The rest of the Scottish infantry simply doesn’t need serious missile support by and large. (Although as always their will be exception to the rule).

This leaves the question of the Scots getting shot to death at a distance. This is both a real threat and a paper tiger at the same time. A Paper Tiger because unless they get quite close to your infantry they won't cause a lot of losses per volley, (doubly true in the case of Scottish infantry which is better armoured than most). A real threat because they can still inflict significant losses.

This is where Your Border Horse comes in. They are fast ,moving and fairly powerful against archers, and if you play defensively they can't hide behind stakes either as they have to move a long way in front of them to get close enough to fire on you. They could defend with spearmen, but then they are taking up unit slots that could be used for more archers/cav to do so. Thus weakening themselves. Those spearmen would also be beaten by most of the Scottish Infantry too. On top of that very few Archer units appear to be good melee units as well in any case, so even though you have worse archers, you get archers and general melee together, so you effectively get extra free archer units there as it where. (i.e. you get additional archers without taking up extra unit slots. To match your numbers of archers the enemy either has to sacrifice infantry, or cav. Either is dangerous. Thus, you might even be able to outshoot him on shear numbers.

Enemy cav threats. Ok this is the serious one TBH. The answer is to have a couple of units of spearmen behind your Archers along with 1 Bodyguard Cav and at least 1 unit of knights and 1 unit of spears out on each flank too. The idea is that you tie him down with your cav/archers then charge your Spears in. With the shield fix, Spear Militia will beat GOTHIC KNIGHTS utterly with about 60% losses if the GK don't get a formed charge off, (i.e. you pin them with something, like your own cav). It's not a perfect solution by any means, but it is workable. It's also worth noting that Noble Swordsmen make EXCELLENT tar-pits for units you can't take on with your Pikemen ATM, but can't bat with anything else, they will hold just about anything in place for a protracted period of time.

Now don't get me wrong, I’m not saying it would be easy or that the Scots couldn't do with a few improvements here.

Just that it's my opinion that the Scots don't NEED the supporting units you mentioned as their infantry is more than capable of making up for it when used in combination with the archers and cav they do have. (Well most of the time, their will always be some situations…). You just need to be a good general who can keep a clear head.

Of course I suspect in my inexperience I’ve missed something, if I have could you please point it out?

Snoil the Mighty brings up some excellent points. He's absolutely right about thosse steppes being hard to defend. Russia's vast borders open you to very interesting problems. Currently I'm at war with the Poles and the Turks who have *gulp* moved into Sarkel. The Huns are very likely to attack me as they're lossing so much ground to the Byz and the Venitians...

However I love hiding captains of recycled Kazaks in the forest for invaders to be ambushed, setting up towers to watch my mighty realm, and building forts to have situation response centers. All the daily work of the benevolent Tsar. -_-

But on a similar note Scotland can easily take Iverness and Dublin. Likely York as well. But If I remember corectly.. even with out expanding thosse brits get more money from France and London then you could hope for. And since I played as england.. thosse highlands and mountains on your border help him more than you. Set longbowmen up on a hill and you get super long range fire. Put Higland Nobles up there.. yeah.. not so much. But still.. I never thought of the Noble Highlander Archers as a prototype archer.. it can't be all bad. I gotta try them as that.

Quote:

---

But still.. I never thought of the Noble Highlander Archers as a prototype archer.. it can't be all bad. I gotta try them as that.

---

What do you man by prototype archer? You mean as a melee unit that has archer ability, (theirs a rus unit that’s similar isn't their?).

If you did they are VERY good at it. Let me throw a battle I had on the campaign map the other day at you to explain.

My force was 2 units of Highland Archers, (not Noble ones BTW), one at half strength. 1 unit of Highlanders, 1 unit of spear militia, 1 unit of Border Horse and 1 Bodyguard Cav with a fairly good general in it.

The enemy force was 3 units of Noble Swordsmen, 1 Unit of Spear Militia and 1 unit of Mailed Knights. (This was a first turn rebel army I was facing~;p).

I deployed well back on a hill with my archers and Spearmen forming 3 blocky units on the hilltop and the Highlanders set a bit back on one flank so they didn't charge in early, and the 2 cav units really far out on that same flank.

The enemy advanced in formation on my archers who shot them up a bit once they got in range. My Highlanders where on the wrong flank and had to run across to the other and barely made it. On Swordsmen unit tried to go around my Archers/Spearmen the rest slammed into them with the Knights doing a perfect formed charge into one unit of archers 3 seconds before. My attempted intercept with my spearmen went badly as they miss timed and got formed charged as well instead of slamming into the enemies sides. My cav where moving round the enemy rear where they charged in, pulled out charged in again and then pulled out again. only the Bodyguard charged in a third time as the losses to the border horse had them down to 1 man. My spearmen kept fighting along with my Archers and Highlanders but lost a lot of men.

Finial survivors for me, (the enemy got about 10 swordsmen away I think), where 7 bodyguard cav, 25 Archers, 1 Militia Spearmen, and 1 Border Horse.

I’ve got screenshots of the post battle results if I can find a suitable program. Will have to look up one in the FAQ. Let me know if you want them.

Those archers held brilliantly against far superior units and inflicted heavy losses on the enemy, in spite of the enemy being far superior to my units, (Armoured Swordsmen for those that don't know have the same stats as Dismounted Christian Guard). On the other hand, the fixed shields resulted in heavy losses for my cav too.

Hope that example gives you a few ideas of what can be achieved by the Scottish unique archers, you just need to fix their shields first.

Whenever i play as a Central European faction it gets tough after 40-50 turns as i normally get attacked by HRE. France is normally wiped out quite early for some reason. Saying Scotland is weak yes perhaps but aslong as you deafeat or ally with England it's easy.

Scotland's weakness depends entirely on their first three turns. They need to get York and Dublin early, possibly Wales, too. If England gets them both, they won't have any economy early on. Their only choices will be to try to bash their way into England, who can afford the losses and come back for more, or attack the rebels in the north of France, thus dividing their forces, and possibly losing a good deal of them to the English Navy.

@carl: A horse archer army will crush a Scottish army. Particularly a heavy horse archer army like Byzantium or Russia. An Iberian jav-cav army will also be devastating.

What you're missing is that a spear/missile army can actually defeat you, even though your infantry can crush theirs... GOOD missile units (Armor piercing long range archers like longbows, good crossbow troops, etc) will do more damage than you think to your beloved heavy armored lobster men. All the spearmen have to do is hold them for more than a few seconds and they'll likely be routed or destroyed.

A ruthless commander will keep firing on you even after your infantry is engaged, because generally speaking they'll kill 10 men from your troops for every 1 friendly fire casualty.

Against a faction that can field credible heavy infantry (Venice, HRE, plus Russia and Byzantium after 2h fixes) or Portugal with their Aventuros, you won't have a prayer of success because they have infantry that can actually stand against yours in head on shock combat, and uber armor piercing missile troops that can shred your troops before and during the engagement.

To join in on the Scotland discussion: I like the scots a lot. Their infantry is outstanding, as has been said before, and not only do they fight well, they also look bloody amazing, too (i.e. Highland Nobles with upped armour). :yes:

Their initial cavalry may be weak, and not being able to train anything better than FKs in most castles does suck a bit, but this can be (partially) remedied by the Order Knights. They may be quite hard to train in sufficient numbers but if you can manage to get a guild house in a castle close to the front (wherever that may be), there shouldn't be that much of a problem anymore. Retraining them may be difficult, but in that case, I just keep some units in reserve to cycle through while the depleted unit returns the next suitable castle.

And the fact is, almost any army can/will probably be defeated by an all-Horse-Archer army, that problem isn't exclusive to the Scots!

To detemine the "winner" of the "Most overall weak faction Award 2007" :laugh4: , I would include the survivability of the faction to the equation: Scotland, while their unit roster may be 'weaker' (more limited) than others', has an amazingly secure starting position - even with increased naval invasions. Once you push the English of the Isles, you have a secure base of operations. The HRE, on the other hand, may have a great unit roster, but their starting position is extremely disadvantagious. Beset from all sides, by a multitude of enemies, it is very hard to secure a base of operations. This, IMO makes them "weak". In all my campaigns (except when I was the HRE, of course), the HRE loses big time, despite all their amazing units. In none, except for my English campaign, were the Scots ever wiped out. ~;)

And, lets face it, would anyone play this game if all the factions played the same? I know I wouldn't... :no:

Some good points their although I’d like to raise a few points:

First Border Cav are the second best light cav I’ve been able to find for a western European faction in the files or game to date (although I haven’t had much experience with many of them). If Scotland are weak against Horse archers then so is every other Western European faction. So either the game is viciously imbalanced or in fact it's balanced and Scotland will do as well as everyone else, (i.e., they have an even chance). Based on some of what I’ve heard and my own experiences with Jinites it's probably a case of IMBA.

The point about archers is a good one, but you have to remember that long range volleys WON'T kill very many, yes I’m sure 1 unit of mine at that range, but they aren’t going to have 1 unit of archers for every unit of infantry I have and still have an infantry force capable of finishing the remnants off. If they come in close they either have to bring supporting units with them (which my infantry battle line can chase off), or suffer a cav charge with no support. To close to that range they will also have to sustain archer fire from my own NHA, they aren’t great archers and they won't get more than a single point blank volley in before the enemy starts shooting back, but they will do a fair bit of damage themselves.

To summarise the archer point:

The enemy has 3 choices.

1. He can sit at long range with his archers protected by his infantry. I probably can't charge him with my cav, but he also is going to struggle to kill large portions of my army like this without having most of his army as archers.

2. He can send his archers up close to me without supporting infantry. they're easy meat for my Border Horse at this point.

3. He can send his archers up close with infantry support at which point I can engage his Infantry with my infantry and send my border horse into the archers then.

None of these solutions are perfect. Do it well and react well and you'll beat them senseless. Get anything wrong or don't react just right and you'll be beaten senseless instead..

The claim on infantry superiority is totally false once you fix Pikemen and the shield Bugs. Noble Pikemen will even beat DEK with an animation fix and no doctored stats with about 50% losses to the Pikemen. In addition, DEK have beaten every other non-pike infantry I’ve thrown at them with only Vargarian Guard and some fixed Sword & Shield units giving any stiff challenge.

I haven’t done more extensive playing with Noble Pikemen, (haven't got them in the campaign yet), but I intend to, just to see if I can find anything that can beat them head on. As I honestly don't believe anything can beat them, (elephants and better Pikemen aside anyway).

I'm not trying to say Scotland are easy to win with, but a mostly melee based infantry heavy force is not at a disadvantage IMHO, IF the infantry is good enough. NHA, Noble Swordsmen and Noble Pikemen really are that good IMO. Most 2-Handers, (even the fixed one), are pretty poor against fixed Pike and fixed Sword & Shield units, it's worth remembering that as fixing them shifts the whole dynamic around.

Pikes can decimate other infantry now, Swordsmen can beat 2-Handers, Cav Hate Spears, and JHI/Fixed Bills are no longer so OTT.

Don't get me wrong, I’m not saying Scotland are easy to play as, they require a distinctly different style of play to use compared to other armies. Just because of their defensive nature and lack or really strong cav and missile units. I'm not going to disagree with Russia giving them a hard time, the combination of HA, and combined Missile Melee unit will really challenge Scotland as it's effectively the Scots own army with the Pike component replaced with better Cav/HA.

I'm also not saying they are not below average in terms of power. But saying they are useless and stand littlie chance against anyone else is just wrong IMO. They also don't deserve the weakest faction title IMO, their isn't really a faction that does, (that I’ve played as anyway), as all of them have strong points and weak points. Some are a bit more powerful, and some a bit weaker, but you can't really say either way who’s best as it depends who’s fighting who and the army compositions as to where the advantage lies.

Quote:

---

And the fact is, almost any army can/will probably be defeated by an all-Horse-Archer army, that problem isn't exclusive to the Scots!

---

Looks like my educated geuss early on in this post was right...

I think there shoud be a poll in this thread? :help:

A quick note on using all-calvary army: Always use spy to open gate for you. 3 good spy in a city can net about 90% chance to open gate.

Overall weakest faction: There is none, I supposed. I think the game did quite well with the location/troop balancing. Unit rooster is not the only consideration in this game. I would even say it's not the most important consideration. I think playing style is an even more important deciding factor. For e.g. players not used to using HA will probably find the muslim faction weak, and players who are too used to all-cav army will think Scotts are too slow. On the whole, I think there is only faction that fit your play style the best, rather strong/weak.

With the proper rush to grab rebel lands and use the most efficient units for your faction, none of the factions are that weak. On the whole, I think M2TW is very well balanced, especially compared with games like RTW or AOE3. But that's a whole different topic.

When I said prototype archer I mean't prototype infantry I believe... Anyways yes. Archer mellee soldiers.

They must be good. And yes Russia has the all mighty Dvor archer. Well armoured and armed with a armour peirceing axe. Of course Russia goes straight from peaseant and militia archers to Dvor.

Scotland's clearly gonna be better for thosse used to fighting mostly infantry just as Russia's more cavalry orienated. For me I would agree that the weakest faction will all depend on your limitations. For me personally.. Scotland! Infantry move to slow. And getting in close to fight? Not my thing. Speed and agility are good for my tactics. Projectiles and cavalry, all I need.

I have to disagree with the posts that say good heavy infantry are never enough.

Don't forget the vast majority of your campaign battles are seige battles. Foot and horse archers aren't good for much when in confined spaces.

On open fields, Horse archers will be a problem but with cheap and fast Border Cav, you should be able to get them. Now, if their armies are all or mostly HAs....well....you should consider training a diplomat. Fortunately the heavy HA factions are far away from Scotland so you don't have to fight them and if you DO get that far, you have the money and infrastructure to enact "Human Wave Attack Protocol". ROFL

P.S. My vote goes to Russia.

Russia? The Weakest? Bah! Lol. No please. Why so? Geography? Units? Religion?

I'd like to hear why you think they qualify for weakest. My guess is you're not a cavalry guy. Or... perhaps just not a Russian cavalry guy.

I've come to the conclusion that no faction's truely weak. All of them have an edge in something others don't. So it really all depends on the human player. A good horse archer player will beat a bad horse archer player using horse archers. Now when it gets interesting is when ya get a good cav player vs a good infantry player. I wanna do that now.... He he.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Czar Alexsandr

Russia? The Weakest? Bah! Lol. No please. Why so? Geography? Units? Religion?

I'd like to hear why you think they qualify for weakest. My guess is you're not a cavalry guy. Or... perhaps just not a Russian cavalry guy.

I've come to the conclusion that no faction's truely weak. All of them have an edge in something others don't. So it really all depends on the human player. A good horse archer player will beat a bad horse archer player using horse archers. Now when it gets interesting is when ya get a good cav player vs a good infantry player. I wanna do that now.... He he.

---

You are correct. I am not a HA guy. Mostly b/c I haven't played much with them in any TW game yet. They have always required so much babysitting, it frustrated me and I quit playing with them. If they ever got them right to where they can take care of themselves, I would probablyu start using them. You are correct though that it makes a HUGE difference depending on who is playing and what. There may be imbalances (not counting bugged units >.<) but none are so handicapped by their unit roster or position that they are unwinnable.

My vote goes to Russia for a bunch of reasons namely:

- One, yes, is that I am not big on HAs

- Horse archers and cavalry suffer in confined spaces and most battles are seige battles. They also cant use built seige equipment and bringing some with you slows you down on the map and its hard to kite units with horse archers and stay in range of them on the open fields.

- Also they are Orthodox and do not get the benefits of crusades or jihads, yet are subject to both of them. Most lands are not orthodox which means you will constantly be fighting for conversion.

- They do seem to have a weak unit roster from what I have gathered here and seem in game (haven't played around with them much though).

- They take the full brunt of the Mongol invasion.

- They have a lot of land to travel to get places and not much access to the sea. Bad for trade and getting units to the front.

My vote for second weakest is Byzantium. This game makes it tough for Orthodox factions and no gunpowder really sucks. :(

Wow! I've had some great games with the Scottish. The key has been to get the English off the island fast (M/VH) and then take the Danes quickly. As for the Turks, I've had all kinds of trouble maintaining a game with the likes of the Byz, Egyptians, and the horde......at my doorstep.:wall:

I'm not sure why everyone fights so many siege battles. I usually just send a huge force to starve them out. If they sally or get reinforcements, I can fight them in the field, probably after lobbing a few ballista bolts through them, as they push through the gate.

If not, I win with no losses.

The only time I fight siege battles is when I have vastly superior infantry, when my position is not secure, or if I need to get those forces somewhere else, fast. Aside from that, it's just not cost-effective to waste your valuable units assaulting walls.

Well like I said the effectiveness of a faction lies in who's using them.

So even things like religion and geography can be exploited by the player. For example. The Orthodox faith allows you to attack any faction without having to worry about his Holiness Pope (U.N.) And his armies of oportunistic Knights!

The vast terrain is mostly bare of trees so Cav archers are perfect here. And despite the fact that there's a lot of land to defend there's also a lot to march through which gives you early warning.

If you play the diplomacy game with the Mongols you can watch them kill Turks while you prepare for any act of treachery in Sarkel. And of course there's always the chance that the Mongols will just sit in Yerevan for 20 + yrs......

So there are some strengths for Russia. But anyways, come to think of it.. I think this thread should be re-named what faction are you worst with? -_-.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TopHatJones

They have always required so much babysitting, it frustrated me and I quit playing with them.

---

That's called micromanagement and it's use to differentiate bad good players from L33t players. LOL.

But actually with Skirmish mode one, I actually find that I pay equal attention to my normal calvary and my missile Calvary. Calvary's biggest advantage is its mobility, which means you should be constantly moving them. Even when you are already engage in a fight, sometimes it's good to draw them back (1) to lure enemy to a favourable position (2) prepare for another charge. Most Calvary has (very) good stamina, so running around shouldn't be too much a problem.

Juz my two cents please don't take offense. :)

Quote:

---

Don't forget the vast majority of your campaign battles are seige battles. Foot and horse archers aren't good for much when in confined spaces.

---

This is not true at all. On the defense, you should only ever fight a siege battle if you choose to. It's easy to intercept enemy armies if you're a decent strategist. And even if you do find yourself besieged, you can easily strike the besieging army from outside with a good cavalry army.

On the offense all you have to do is besiege their city and starve them out. If they try to sally forth they have to fight you in the open, on your terms.

There's nothing a horse archer army can't do.

@Musahsi: No offence intended here, so please take this in the spirit it’s given, (i.e. me thinking WTF).

But if your starving them out you HAVE to have the 0.5 timescale on AND more than one army running around as even with 5 armies running round it will still take you all game to take just the minimum 45 provinces on standard timescales. In reality you'll probably want more.

Likewise you really SHOULD fight siege battles as the defender, infantry on the walls will at least match, and maybe outperform HA. I had one battle (A Bridge battle, but breaches can do the same thing), where my Pikemen had a 40-1 kill rate against high quality dismounted knights. HA will struggle to match that as they haven’t a hope of formed charging spearmen away if you fix their shields, and don't have enough arrows to pull it off.

On the flip side I WOULD recommend you play with 0.5 turns per year, in which case you CAN get away with always starving them out.

Also stop and think about the power of HA compared to everything else. Most people seem to be admitting that they are pretty OTT on the field of battle, (I don’t have enough experience to be decisive about this). That’s already a pretty big IMBA to my eye and if they actually got nerfed so infantry armies COULD beat them, I doubt very much you'd be as fond of them. As that’s the impression I’m getting, you believe, (rightly), from testing that a pure HA army will beat anything else and thus any army that can't do a pure HA army is underpowered. That understandable and perhaps correct ATM. However, in reality if the game was balanced, a pure HA army vs. a pure Infantry Army would actually be an even match up.

It's worth noting that when I look at things like "whos the weakest/strongest faction" I do it asssuming all matchups are balanced vs. one-another, even if in reality they arn't.

There's no reason Infantry armies should be able to beat horse archers. Historically horse archers really were that effective.

Even if an infantry army has archers, the horse archers are more mobile, allowing them to flank the enemy easily. Enfilade missile fire is more effective than any kill rate that melee units could ever achieve, which is as it should be.

That said, I'm not saying that any force that can't field horse archers is underpowered, I'm saying if you don't have high end cavalry or high end foot archers, you're pretty much the bottom of the barrel.

Quote:

---

There's no reason Infantry armies should be able to beat horse archers. Historically horse archers really were that effective.

---

That’s the problem here though, this is a GAME, it has to be BALANCED. If that hold true then HA armies SHOULD be beatable by infantry armies.

Quote:

---

I'm saying if you don't have high end cavalry or high end foot archers, you're pretty much the bottom of the barrel.

---

This is something else I don't agree with. I don't know if you've tried the Shield fix and pike fix yourself, but in case you haven’t let me reiterate something:

Spear and Pike units will now MASSACARE cav unit. Cav can no longer formed charge everyone to death all the time anymore.

Also, based on my own tests, many shield units aren’t getting full benefit from their shield against arrow fire. If they where I’d bet High End Arrow units wouldn't be half as deadly to spear units and Sword & Shield units. You also only need low end fast cav to beat high End Archers in any case, (low end heavy cav can do it too but it's harder a they are slower).

It's my experience that with the fixes in place their is nothing high end cav, can do that High end Infantry can't do just as well. Likewise, to date High End archers have never won me a battle and have never lost me a battle. If they close up enough to be effective they are asking to be charged, if they stay back the enemy needs a disproportionate number of archer units to do serious damage, leaving them with littlie to actually finish off the remnants.

Maybe your experience HAS been different, and I’m not trying to dismiss you, but the idea that an army HA’s to have either HA, High end Missile, or High end Cav to be effective sounds totally out of whack since it isn't even balanced, and thus isn't what should be happening. I'm also pretty sure I could give such armies a challenge, (although probably not against an experienced TW human player ATM~;p).

How well do firearms work against Horse Archer armies?

Overall(grand campaign wise, vh/vh) - I'd say either HRE(4 fronts, meh... worst planted then those it's hard - they have undoubtedly a good roster, but you're right in the middle of the road for everyone) if you don't manage to trash 2 things fast(probably danes and venice) or russia(another decent roster, I personally quite like it, but the economy is horrid for a long time and probably you'll get a mongol invasion before you're prepared for it - leaving aside it might actually come in your lands, instead of bagdad or alikes).

Scotland definitelly does ok, as you can trash england's english provinces in 5 turns(or was it 6?) which opens up for a good econ. in north sea(given the fact the ai never does landings), Byzantium... Vardariotai(that unit is just gross(7 cata, 1 crummy general, rest Vardariotai - ~7-10% loss against a full stack of mongols) plus the fact you can trash the turks in under 7 turns(their family will be in the western 2 provinces, and, with abit of care you can kill all of them in 1 combat).

Roster wise(single player mostly)... dunno, I'd say Scotland; or anything with poor cav./archery.
The point in this game is not to win the battle(that you do anyway), but to win it with the fewest losses possible in order to conquer fast. If you play with a hard faction - orthodox or islam(playing catholic is just too easy... gimme a break, that pope has perfect relations with you if you give him ~800/turn... it's just ridiculous, you ignore his asking to stop - he won't excomunicate you since your relations are perfect, you give him another 2-3k, and bam, you're again back to perfect relations...) you'll notice that from turn 100 to 150, everything is timed so that you really need to be careful with your losses. Mongols come, when you're done with them, plague comes and kills your income just when you needed most, that is before the timurid invasion. Ended with byzantium in under 150 turns a grand campaign, but the last 50 turns were abit tough(vh/vh).
That's where the ha shines - you win, you redo your units, send 3-4 units back to retrain(those that you used to fill the numbers of the other units in your stack), and you're good to go again. Leaving aside that, lack of good HA is a huge drawback because, even against human opponents, and it's still tough to catch a fast moving HA. Against computer, which acts instantly... The ai might be poor strategically, but definitelly has a better reaction time than any human and doesn't need to rely on skirmish. Leaving aside that catching them with your already badly shot at light cavalry would result only in losing to them in melee. Your border horsies might catch the Vardariotai after I've shot them 3-4 times, but then what? You have ~25 men left, and you'll just lose in melee(and don't tell me the uber infantry managed to keep after the horsies, in order to take advantage of the pinning:p)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

That’s the problem here though, this is a GAME, it has to be BALANCED. If that hold true then HA armies SHOULD be beatable by infantry armies.



This is something else I don't agree with. I don't know if you've tried the Shield fix and pike fix yourself, but in case you haven’t let me reiterate something:

Spear and Pike units will now MASSACARE cav unit. Cav can no longer formed charge everyone to death all the time anymore.

Also, based on my own tests, many shield units aren’t getting full benefit from their shield against arrow fire. If they where I’d bet High End Arrow units wouldn't be half as deadly to spear units and Sword & Shield units. You also only need low end fast cav to beat high End Archers in any case, (low end heavy cav can do it too but it's harder a they are slower).

It's my experience that with the fixes in place their is nothing high end cav, can do that High end Infantry can't do just as well. Likewise, to date High End archers have never won me a battle and have never lost me a battle. If they close up enough to be effective they are asking to be charged, if they stay back the enemy needs a disproportionate number of archer units to do serious damage, leaving them with littlie to actually finish off the remnants.

Maybe your experience HAS been different, and I’m not trying to dismiss you, but the idea that an army HA’s to have either HA, High end Missile, or High end Cav to be effective sounds totally out of whack since it isn't even balanced, and thus isn't what should be happening. I'm also pretty sure I could give such armies a challenge, (although probably not against an experienced TW human player ATM~;p).

---

You're still not understanding me. I'm saying that of the set: "Good Horse Archers, Excellent Cavalry, Excellent Shock Infantry, Excellent Missile Troops" you need any TWO or more to have a solid army (Except Horse Archers, they can be their own army). Having only one leaves you with far too few options on the battlefield.

A heavy infantry army without any of the other elements lacks flexibility. You have one option and one option only: Attack directly and hope you win. Your enemies have a multitude of tactical options, flanking, encirclement, bombardment, etc.

No matter what fixes you make to the units, cavalry charges into the flanks or rear will always crush any unit. And without credible cavalry support you have no way of defending your flanks. Infantry is SLOW, they can't outflank a decent commander, and certainly can never outflank cavalry.

The main advantage of a heavy infantry army is that it requires little or no micromanagement... But if you face a cavalry commander who can handle micromanagement he's going to eat you for lunch.

Horse archers make an awesome besieging force early in the game. You just lay siege to a rebel settlement with a few horse archers, then starve them until they sally. Then you withdraw as far away as possible and micromanage them to death.

Yeah, I meant to mention that. If you have cav armies you don't have to fight siege battles even on the normal timescale, because you only need a few units to take every castle. Micromanaged well you can easily take on much greater numbers with cav. Divide and conquer.

This is something that is especially true with horse archers. Because they are so underpowered on autocalc, the computer often sallies on the first turn. Then you can totally destroy them on the battlefield, even with much lower numbers, and take the city very quickly.

:beam: :whip: i was playing on turkish mod as byzantiam and tore the sicilians to peices within 15 turns i nominate sicily

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malkut

How well do firearms work against Horse Archer armies?

---

Depends which firearms but some of them work very very well. Longer range muskets, Reiters, Camel handgunners, etc

Just about any foot archers tear horse archers up, but especially the ones with longer range.

In all 5 campaigns I've played so far, the HRE is crushed quite early. So my vote goes to the HRE.
Russia, Hungary and Milan do most of the time very well, as does Egypt after the Mongols show up.
The Mongols have *never* gone after Russia, they've always gone after the Turks and Byz, moving into Europe.

I think the Mongols just come to the player faction at the shortes possible route.
I'll have to start another game as the Russians, I think...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olmsted

Just about any foot archers tear horse archers up, but especially the ones with longer range.

---

Not really true, because horse archers have mobility and therefore control the flow of battle. Horse archers bracketing foot archers to create a crossfire will utterly pwn the foot archers.

It's even less true when you're talking about heavy armored horse archers.

And of course, horse archers > foot archers in melee (Yes, certain hybrid shock/missile troops will beat the weakest horse archers, but the strongest horse archers will beat any foot archer you care to name in melee).

Musketeers are worthless against horse archers by the way. The standard musketeer units were made deliberately weak against ranged fire, they drop like flies in an enfilade action by the horse archers. Not to mention that they absolutely suck in melee (Seriously, possibly the single worst melee troop in the game) and are therefore meat for the horse archers in melee.

Janissary and Cossack Musketeers are a different story of course, but they'll still lose to Vardariotai or Dvor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musashi

Not really true, because horse archers have mobility and therefore control the flow of battle. Horse archers bracketing foot archers to create a crossfire will utterly pwn the foot archers.

It's even less true when you're talking about heavy armored horse archers.

And of course, horse archers > foot archers in melee (Yes, certain hybrid shock/missile troops will beat the weakest horse archers, but the strongest horse archers will beat any foot archer you care to name in melee).

Musketeers are worthless against horse archers by the way. The standard musketeer units were made deliberately weak against ranged fire, they drop like flies in an enfilade action by the horse archers. Not to mention that they absolutely suck in melee (Seriously, possibly the single worst melee troop in the game) and are therefore meat for the horse archers in melee.

Janissary and Cossack Musketeers are a different story of course, but they'll still lose to Vardariotai or Dvor.

---

The above would accurately describe battle results I have had when I have the horse archers and the AI is muskets, but as I was crusading the middle east as Spain my musketmen absolutely slaughtered HA's from ERE, Russia, Egypt and the Mongols. In terms of %'s and raw numbers, my musketmen were far more efficient in dispatching the enemy than when it was the other way around. I can only report on what I see. Though I have to say, playing a well-mixed all-cav army is an absolute blast on the steppes!

Quote:

---

The above would accurately describe battle results I have had when I have the horse archers and the AI is muskets, but as I was crusading the middle east as Spain my musketmen absolutely slaughtered HA's from ERE, Russia, Egypt and the Mongols.

---

Well, when you start to move your ha's to flank and encircle them, the ai starts reforming his lines(with marching, not running), so it wastes valuable time reforming and reforming his infantry/foot archers till half are dead... While no sensible person would do this, instead sitting there and shooting:p

And I have to change my oppinion abit... ok, the moors are utterly horrendous(and don't give me the camel gunner, when you reach that one you should already have half the map). The position is ok, you can take iberian peninsula without much fuss and develop fine from that, but... man, that rooster is... Sigh, their best unit early period is the mercenary crossbowman!

I admit, I'm always caught with the jav. cav. in melee despite being fast moving and on skirmish, but meh... that's hardly my fault... They should just keep that dang formation or give javs abit more range... at least keep running if one guy was caught in melee...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnowlyWhite

And I have to change my oppinion abit... ok, the moors are utterly horrendous(and don't give me the camel gunner, when you reach that one you should already have half the map). The position is ok, you can take iberian peninsula without much fuss and develop fine from that, but... man, that rooster is... Sigh, their best unit early period is the mercenary crossbowman!

I admit, I'm always caught with the jav. cav. in melee despite being fast moving and on skirmish, but meh... that's hardly my fault... They should just keep that dang formation or give javs abit more range... at least keep running if one guy was caught in melee...

---

Funny, I was playing as Moors (H/H) and I don't have any problem with those lovely jav. cav. Because of the very good stamina, I can always run, and that means I can get a pincher attack pretty easily. I can usually win with less than 15% loss if the autocalc shows about equal strength (even against spear). In fact, my staple army up til I have the whole of Iberia and half of western europe remain the jav. cav. (Slowly mixing in with christian guard). In any case, Moors is hardly the weakest faction. In fact, I find it so much easier than playing any of the catholic faction because of the pope factor (or the lack thereof). And because Moors has so many more high piety priest (you have to, because of the location), I can call jihad with impunity. Furthermore, it's the faction closest to timbuktu, and farthest away from the mongols. In that sense, it's superior to the Egyptian and Turks (as far as muslim factions goes). Admittedly, the Navy is a bit too weak, especially late game, but the difference is only noticeable when you about own the whole map.

I'd like to add one thing about horse archers and sieges. Though it is not very realistic, horse archers have the unique ability to march into the middle of a town and shoot down everything that comes at them. Foot archers, once bunched up in a giant glob, become inefective. They stop firing, except for the outer ring of said blob. However, with a blob of horse archers, ALL of the horse archers will fire, in all directions, at everything, with stunning accuracy. You can have maybe a handfull of HC blocking 3-4 hundred infantry that are to stupid to charge past in a roadway. All packed together, they die like flies under the fire of the horse archer blob not 10 feet away from them. As the infantry get closer, the blob moves away. Most infantry just rout and go back to the city center.

I would also like to add my vote to Scotland as the weakest faction, even though it breaks my heart. I would say the mongols make a close second. They don't even start with a province, and their horse archers are -just- ok. They arn't Byzantine/Russia/Turk standard. If it wasn't for all their powerups and numbers when they arrive..we'd probably just sort of snicker when the "dreaded mongol horde" arrives.

I'd say their best unit is actually their dismounted heavy archer. HE has the stats that the mounted heavy archer should have...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zuraffo

Funny, I was playing as Moors (H/H) and I don't have any problem with those lovely jav. cav. Because of the very good stamina, I can always run, and that means I can get a pincher attack pretty easily. I can usually win with less than 15% loss if the autocalc shows about equal strength (even against spear). In fact, my staple army up til I have the whole of Iberia and half of western europe remain the jav. cav. (Slowly mixing in with christian guard). In any case, Moors is hardly the weakest faction. In fact, I find it so much easier than playing any of the catholic faction because of the pope factor (or the lack thereof). And because Moors has so many more high piety priest (you have to, because of the location), I can call jihad with impunity. Furthermore, it's the faction closest to timbuktu, and farthest away from the mongols. In that sense, it's superior to the Egyptian and Turks (as far as muslim factions goes). Admittedly, the Navy is a bit too weak, especially late game, but the difference is only noticeable when you about own the whole map.

---

I would say that in light of these new discoveries of shield bugginess, the Moors would probably be a strong contender for the top three weakest factions. Almost all of their foot units are completely unarmored, and rely on defense skill and shield. Since only one plays a partial role in ranged defense, and the other plays a negative role in melee defense, the Moor infantry are pretty second rate until later on.

I think the greatness of the horse archer is being exaggerated. Sure, HA armies never have to fight a siege. IF time is not an issue. Realistically speaking, it's going to take you a hell of a long time compared to a heavy infantry+cavalry army with artillery that can take a city on each turn.

Sure, HA armies dominate infantry armies. IF you fight them in the vast open fields. Similarly, infantry armies dominate HA armies in close quarters/chokepoints. Tough luck for the HA's that infantry armies can set up fort at the end of each turn, and they can siege & assault a city, storm the gates and force close combat. HA's can't really force anything other than a sally after many turns under siege, where you can put your archers up on the walls and deny them missle superiority.

On the plain battlefield, I agree, HA's win it. This game's limited unit numbers make the "battles" more like skirmishes where large-scale strategies don't quite work too well and the HA's individual performance is strong. Although, with proper usage of heavy cavalry to guard the flanks, and armored foot archers & line infantry, you stand a good chance of fending off enemy HA armies.

So strategically speaking, I'd favor factions with strong infantry and heavy cavalry over factions with strong HA cavalry and crap infantry. The English in particular have excellent heavy infantry, excellent archers with excellent capabilities, and very respectable cavalry that can do its job. If I were to play an online battle on flat plains, however, I'd lean more towards HA's.