Specific units questions

[Fagar]

All the stats say Woodsmen are better and they certainly should be.
I don't know why but I have always found that in the style I play UM serve me much better.

I use both types to charge into flanks because neither are meant for frontal melee but then when they get tied up the UM hang around longer taking more losses before routing and therefore give my other troops time to come to assistance or to finish off the job they started the UM were supporting.

[cambovenzi]

thanks for the responses and the link.

yeah woodsmen are better flankers, and the charge is nice.
but if i need troops to hold there, UM is the way to go.(better morale)
i guess i already had a good idea, w/o remembering the exact stats.
it will be useful to have the stats tho for future reference.

[drone]

https://forums.totalwar.org/wiki/index.php/MTW_VI_Units

Overall, the MTW wiki is still a work in progress, but the units are finished.

[Martok]

Outstanding, drone.

[seireikhaan]

Indeed, a worthy guide.

Also, as to the OP- UM are useless. Granted, they hold slightly better than woodsmen, but both are so terrible at doing so that almost anything would be better. Woodsmen are far superior for recruiting purposes because they at least serve one purpose- flanking. UM do almost nothing with any degree of quality.

[cambovenzi]

Indeed, a worthy guide.

Also, as to the OP- UM are useless. Granted, they hold slightly better than woodsmen, but both are so terrible at doing so that almost anything would be better. Woodsmen are far superior for recruiting purposes because they at least serve one purpose- flanking. UM do almost nothing with any degree of quality.

well, in early game there isnt much of a choice.
UM or peasants.
and in certain areas woodsmen.

[oz_wwjd]

Actually that guide is slightly outdated,when it comes to some of the newer mods such as Tyberius Add-on,bit I don't see it being updated anytime soon.

[Fagar]

Indeed, a worthy guide.

Also, as to the OP- UM are useless. Granted, they hold slightly better than woodsmen, but both are so terrible at doing so that almost anything would be better. Woodsmen are far superior for recruiting purposes because they at least serve one purpose- flanking. UM do almost nothing with any degree of quality.

UM are by no means hardened troops but also are far from useless.
Early in the game when battles tend to be between armies consisting of 4-5 units and there are no teched up units the UM will more than hold their own and in fact their polearms are pretty devastating to lightly armoured troops.
They are versatile enough to have a unit or two kept in larger more advanced armies as fodder or bait while positioning the rest of your troops to full advantage against your opposition.
In this situation if they do get caught out they will generally hold a little better until the support arrives or your other troops get the job done as well.
The other advantage of this is that retraining is almost always availiable immediately because of the low tech level and in an experienced battle hardened army my UM units normally build up some pretty respectable valour this way.

[Roark]

Yeah, Urban Militia with 3-4 points of valour can be a very nasty surprise, and they are devastating against (pinned) Early cavalry. Cheap and cheerful, too.