Pavise.. or no pavise?

[Deamoclese]

How much slower do the pavise Arbs fire than normal arbs? I can build either, but am not sure which to go with... is the protection the pavise provides worth the offset in firing speed that normal arbalests have? It just seems to me that my arbs without pavise hold out pretty decent already (lose maybe 30 per fight to enemy fire only).

What are your preferences between the 2? (no longbow comments please or any other ranged unit.. not interested).

[Protoman]

All I know is that pavises are only good against missle against, specifically other archers.

So if you don't get in the path of enemy archers much then you probably don't need to waste the money on pavises.

[Swoosh So]

The paviese also gives a defence bonus i think

[This message has been edited by Swoosh So (edited 10-11-2002).]

[Inferno]

Yeah, but no defence bonus will save them if they get into a fight with any h2h unit, including peasants.

------------------
It's getting warm in here...that must be one hell of an INFERNO!

[Deamoclese]

But which would you use.. in Single player.. not MP.. not concerned over cost since its so little in campaign.. i'm jsut wondering if the shield bonus is worth the slower rate of fire vs plain Arbs (do pavise arbs in fact shoot slower than normal arbs? Both units description just say slow rate of fire)

[Inferno]

In MP I would take the Pavise, as most people are using Arbs online.

In SP I would take the non Pavise.

------------------
It's getting warm in here...that must be one hell of an INFERNO!

[longjohn2]

The pavise and non pavise units fire at the same rate. The penalty for the pavise units is that they move slowly.

[AgentBif]

Quote Originally posted by Swoosh So:
The paviese also gives a defence bonus i think
[/QUOTE]

One of the unit tables in the downloads section indicates that the pavise is in fact usable in melee (the list named "print friendly").

I find that my pavise guys are reasonably durable vs even powerful enemy melee units and can last long enough for a friendly to come to the rescue. Archers OTH are easily decimated in melee.

bif

[ltj]

Quote Originally posted by longjohn2:
The pavise and non pavise units fire at the same rate. The penalty for the pavise units is that they move slowly.[/QUOTE]

really? for some reason, my pavise units seem to suck compared to regular arbalesters. i had two missile units on a river map, one arb one pavise arb, and the non-pavise unit got 15-or-so more kills. yea, other factors apply, but it seemed as if my pavise fired less often and with less damage.

i stick to arbalesters at any rate.

[Alrowan]

i take both with me

[insolent1]

the pasive arbalests get tired quicker as they have to carry that shield around. I use pasive arbalests if i'm defending & normal arbalests if i'm attacking. The funniest is bringing teh pasive's on the attack your whole army has to wait for them to catch up

[MajorFreak]

100% worth it though. Darned things are evil and anyone using them should be excommunicated! (works for me, i'm byz)

[AgentBif]

Quote Originally posted by insolent1:
the pasive arbalests get tired quicker as they have to carry that shield around. I use pasive arbalests if i'm defending & normal arbalests if i'm attacking. The funniest is bringing teh pasive's on the attack your whole army has to wait for them to catch up[/QUOTE]

Yeah, so I guess if you're doing desert fighting (which I'm just about to start in my campaign), you should consider dropping the pavise...

bif

[hrvojej]

Since tired missile unis have less men firing per volley, and fatigue is relative to armour, you can easily get worse kill counts with pavise versions. I always go with the regular ones.

[Toledo's Maverick]

Use pavise against mongols and russians, regular against infantry heavy armies, and stay away from heavy cav, its simple