No, it wouldn't be better with camels or saharans. Mounted archers are (as the game is balanced out) designed to 'pull' on enemy units by shooting at them. They will either then break formation, by dispatching missile units to fend you off or by retreating the targeted unit to safety, or the unit in question will try and chase you down. Regular cavalry (and Bedouin Camels) can provoke charges, sure. But you'll either end up fighting or get shot at, a lot, before you can provoke said charge. And when that happens, there's always the risk that your unit routs. Especially the unit types you mention.
And, of course, there seems to be some confusion on your part concerning the armor modifiers. Cavalry units get an extra point of armor from the very horse. This is why cavalry penalties for desert fighting doesn't kick in at '3' as is the case for infantry. Rather it kicks in at '4'. The Faris' are not afflicted by the fatigue penalty since they're not considered 'armored' by the game.
You could use regular HAs, sure. If you're playing as the Turks, that is. The factions that have access to Faris' don't have access to HAs. And the Turks don't have access to Faris, so the point is moot. Regarding Mamluk HAs; they're clearly preferable. They're also not available in 'Early'. So there is still some room for Faris in an Egg campaign in 'Early'. Not to mention that they are the only option for the Elmos if they want a tolerably speediful mounted archer - Berber Camels are agonizingly lumbering for the task. And, basically, if they fight Mounted Sergeants, for example, they might win but will quickly become kind of useless. HAs are supposed to make life difficult for the enemy over quite some time. Berber Camels are flank protectors. Faris' are 'pullers', even if not as effective as THA. Which if they were, by the way, would make the Elmos kind of unstoppable with most every weapon system available to them.
![]()
Bookmarks