Swords vs Axes

[Gilrandir]

Frankly, I don't like swords. Yes, I know what they are for (to kill spears) and what they are not for (to be pitted against cavalry). But, IMHO, against cavalry swords are pathetic, in other cases they are ineffective: you cannot kill a spear unit with one sword unit because of the disadvantage in numbers (the Byz infantry is an exception), you cannot hold/force a bridge/wallbreach (unless against spears with the Byz infantry). What sums it up for me is: avoid swords as much as possible. In my current Danish campaign I don't even bother to build anything that can produce swordsmen. I totally rely on vikings, landsmenn and huscarles. When playing the Byz the Varangians make my day (ironically enough, the faction has the best IMHO sword unit, despite their low morale). When I go catholic, I use town militia and militia sergeants (or are they polearms?) until halberdiers arrive.
When we speak about axes, I adore them. The worst of them IMHO are Ghazis (vikings?) and I would equal them to FMAA or CMAA. The Danish throng (oh, those Joms!!) and the Varangians have been already commended, Abyssinians I hardly used never having played as Egyptians (are they worth as mercenaries?). Druzhina? I'm not sure whether they are dismounted into axemen (the picture of them mounted shows them wielding axes). Well, I use them mounted since they are so numerous for a cavalry unit. If they do dismount into axes, I would give them a try.
Any voice in favor of swordsmen? Think Swabians?

[cogre]

i am not big on the numbers game, hence my questions to the modders who specialize on it. as a personal prefrence i prefer axes to anything else. there is just something terrifing about a unit of madmen wielding axes charging at you.

[gollum]

The main purpose of swords is to fight enemy swords - ie heavy infantry, main melee line troops.

landsmen and huscarles (and to a lesser extent karls) are (very) overpowered and where late additions (with the VI campaign) in the game. Vikings, are not so much overpowered stat wise as through being way too easy to train (fort) while they are essentially a keep level unit (with morale 4(!) very high for such a unit, and ap bonus high attack - 4 iirc...) that costs way too little and its, as mentioned, too easy to get.

Militia seargents are among the most handy units in the game as they are cheap, easily available and hence easy to upgrade with armor/weapon and morale bonuses. MSs tread on the slightly overpowered due to these attributes, as they are ssentially ap swords (nearly same attack yet ap and decent defence and armour).

Halberdiers are fodder units that do not really justify their high tech availability unless you build them in provinces that can heavily upgrade their morale and if possible their attack (only +1, believe it or not). They are statisticaly speaking an assault unit that has the morale of peasants and so not fit for the role - in their base status they will run off before they even reach their target often. With MTW maps being huge, and them being slow and heavily armoured (and of low morale), fatigue can really tell on them too (fatigue affects morale so tehy run even easier than before). Better build them in provinces with at least a church and a monastery and preferably a reliquary (or cathedral) and a weaponsmith in or have them under the command of multistar generals (say 6 and above), otherwise you may regret bringing them in battle.

Varangians are essentially a unit that has late era armor, attack and defence and great morale but is available in early. Simply overpowered.

Ghazis have incredibly high morale (8, like knights), and very high charge and (ap) attack for an infantry unit. They also though have a very low defence, so they will die in droves with decent heavy infantry that can stand up to them (CMAAs and to a lesser extent FMAAs) or heavy cavalry unless you use them for flanking.

Swabians are akin to huscarles/landsmen/varangians ie high/late era stats units that appear in early hence overpowered.

Abbyssinians suffer from both their low armour and defence and are not in par with other units of their class and type. However, if properly upgraded with armor (iirc every armor upgrade point gives +1 amrour and +1defence) they can become better and that can couple with their good availability (keep level from swordsmith from high era on) and their relatively low price. They can be pretty good too in the desert that fatigue can be a bigger factor than othrwise.

Druzhina dismount to Feudal Foot Knights that are a very strong, although slow, heavy infantry unit, that in early (if you buy them as mercs) are unstoppable and hence an(other) overpowered unit.

The greatest objective of swords in battle is to fight enemy heavy infantry whether they are swords or axes. If they are not doing that, you may find yourself in trouble.

Both FMAA and CMAA are designated as elite units ie they won't be much affected by the general's death or the routing of non-elites. They have decent morale and good attack/defence stat balance as well as shields. They are a bread-and-butter staple unit for the catholics. CMAAs in particular as simply too good with huge morale for their class and impressive attack as well as very good armour and shield for quite an affordable price and relatively easy availability (swordsmith workshop from castle level). Few units are better than them for the money and availability. Imo CMAAs are overpowered - they were one of those units that was always used in MTW mp for the same reason.

One of the best "axe" actually polearm, unit in the game is Chivalric Foot Knights that can be gotten by dismounting in battle Chivalric Knights. They are slow and few in numbers, but they are simply too good to miss.

The other excellent polearm unit is of course teh Janissary Heavy Infantry - perhaps the best infantry unit in the game. At least they have proper build requirements (need a military academy!) that fit their great stats.

While not the best stat wise, Billmen are also incredibly good units, because they are decent halberdiers that do not suffer of low morale or low attack or being slow and are far more easily available than halbs (from castle and spearmaker guild) for the English faction (from high onwards). Too good to be true.

The difference between polearms and axes is that polearms get an additional +3/+1(att/def) to their stats when fighting cavalry. AFAIK the attack part of this bonus is also ap.

[gollum]

I forgot to mention the Swiss halbs. If you can get Swiitzerland, its the best of the swiss units to get. Great morale, attack and defence and low armour that is perfect for a halberdier type of unit as it gives it the initiative and flanking capability it needs to wreck havoc in bogged down heavy cavalry and knights. Also too good to be true.

[Gilrandir]

Halberdiers are fodder units that do not really justify their high tech availability unless you build them in provinces that can heavily upgrade their morale and if possible their attack (only +1, believe it or not). They are statisticaly speaking an assault unit that has the morale of peasants and so not fit for the role - in their base status they will run off before they even reach their target often. With MTW maps being huge, and them being slow and heavily armoured (and of low morale), fatigue can really tell on them too (fatigue affects morale so tehy run even easier than before). Better build them in provinces with at least a church and a monastery and preferably a reliquary (or cathedral) and a weaponsmith in or have them under the command of multistar generals (say 6 and above), otherwise you may regret bringing them in battle.

I do agree on the snail speed of halbs and foot knights, but I NEVER use them while attacking but rather defending when expecting to meet a lot of horses.

[drone]

Vikings are probably my favorite unit to recruit, they are just too flexible and dependable to switch them with swords until late game. I don't bother with landsmenn or huscarles anymore, even though I love them in battle they are too much of a pain logistically. In early as a catholic, if I have a choice the only swords I go for are the specials, Swabians, Gallowglasses (great flankers), and Clansmen (love the speed).

Halberdiers I just don't have the patience for. Too slow, and questionable morale. The best thing they do is soak up arrows, so they have some use when the Horde comes to town. Swiss Halberdiers, on the other hand, are excellent, especially with some armour upgrades. And Billmen are worth it as well.

But when the grind of the later game comes around, CMAA are just too solid to pass up, and eventually phase out the axes as my main attacking unit.

[gaijinalways]

I actually find the CMAA rout too easily sometimes. Another factor is which faction you're using. The clansmen are a lot of fun if they get a chance to close, and in some cases with numbers to spare they were even taking down heavily armored foes and giving chase to cav units in my last campaign.

The Chiv foot knights can be awesome, but I see them rarely enough that I don't plan on using them.

I concur with the Halbs often being too slow to be of much use, with them getting bogged down even on defense and taking too long to get to the action unless they're starting bridge battles.

[gollum]

CMAA have 4 morale and elite status iirc - so they can be very steady. Occasions on whitch they may consider leaving is if dispersed too much during melee and exposed either to counter charges or worse heavy cav charges. They also have heavy armor that makes them somewhat slow and hence easy to fatigue.

To counter this you can put them in hold formation and move them on march speed and as less as possible. They will kill slower the enemy unit, but they will also not disperse whicth will make them and the whole battle line more stabe and manageable if you are going for flanking with cavalry (asuming you have the advantage with cavalry or the extra units). Try to keep them supported (flanks covered and not too outnumbered) and fresh.

[Stazi]

you cannot kill a spear unit with one sword unit because of the disadvantage in numbers (the Byz infantry is an exception)

It's absolutely not true. It all depends how you use them. For example: 100 spearman unit - optimally in 4 rows > 25 man in the first line. 60 swordsman - optimally 2 rows - 30 man in first line. Spearman unit is outnumbered (!) 30 to 25 at the worst (when both units are perfectly centered). 5 man can attack flanks of the spearman, killing them easily and disrupting the formation. If you attack the spearman slightly to the left or right some swordsman can even attack them from the back. If that happens spearman drop like flies. They can't do anything because they need to keep the formation to get bonuses. IIRC soldiers get +5 attack bonus for flanking and +7 for attack from the back. Additionally, there is a +1 attack bonus for sword armed units when they fight spear armed units. Spearman shine only when used against cavalry or when have their flanks protected.
Spearman are useful but you need to use them as phalanx. I use 3-4 spearman units per army. They keep the forward-center of the the formation and are supposed to stand and die by the enemy missiles. They very rarely attack anything.

[gollum]

Spearman are useful but you need to use them as phalanx. I use 3-4 spearman units per army. They keep the forward-center of the the formation and are supposed to stand and die by the enemy missiles.

Those are their main functions, yes.

They very rarely attack anything.

Because of their high charge and light armor, and so good speed and stamina, they make good flankers, particularly against cavalry. Set them in engage at will though to rear charge them. The effects can be significant to devastating even against heavy cavs/knights.

[Stazi]

Because of their high charge and light armor, and so good speed and stamina, they make good flankers, particularly against cavalry. Set them in engage at will though to rear charge them. The effects can be significant to devastating even against heavy cavs/knights.

Yes, spearman are always good against cavalry because their +1/+4 bonus doesn't depend on a formation or anything else. My armies are missile heavy so cavalry is usually not an issue.

Back to the topic: I'm playing Almohad campaign (Caravel mod) and at the start I was very skeptic about Ghazi Infantry. But not any more. High attack bonus combined with godly morale make them "fire and forget" unit. They always fight to the last men so even few of them can occupy an enemy unit for a time needed to flank by others. I really like them but Almohad Urban Militia will surely take their place.

[gollum]

Yes ghazis (that in the Caravel Mod are excatly identical to vanilla) are always a good unit for muslim armies. While they are not so much a line unit due to taking too many casulalties (like the AUMs for example) they have a place at all times in an army as they can be both a line unit in emergencies or lacking others for the part or act as flankers when there are other units better suited to main melee line roles.

[caravel]

Polearms axes and swords are all the same, the real difference is in the AP bonus and vs cavalry attack bonus which is applied to the unit type itself not the actual weapon. The STW/MTW game engine does not have melee weapon stats applied to the actual weapon - only projectile stats for ranged weapons.

Gallowglasses are another such greatsword wielding (claymore) unit, besides the Swabians that does AP damage.

Though the blurb describes them as "polearms", UM and MS are in fact axe units, as they do not have the vs cavalry attack bonus of e.g JHI, CFK or Halbs.

So yes, it's not really as simple as "swords vs axes" and much more advisable to take note of actual stats as opposed to the cosmetic weapon type.

[Prince Cobra]

Girlandir, thank you for the wonderful topic.

Byzantine infantry is a strange beast. In early, it may seem perfect, in late you simply wonder what to do with it. Eventually, in Late you start to use it very carefully, only in desert with little or no armour upgrades or in Europe in limited numbers with at least bronze upgrade, though silver is probably better for the purpose. Churches/monasteries or other religious buildings are a must. In battles you have to be careful what Byz inf. attack. Plain spears? Peasants? Urban militia? That's Ok. Feudal sergeants can be attacked, though better don't leave the Byz infantry unsupported. But chivalric sergeants, chivalric men at arms, (maybe halberdiers), you will have a problem there. Of course, sometimes, you simply don't have a choice and the bigger number of the infantry is its only plus. No, you can't win but with the hold position button and fighting downhill, if possible, you can hope to hold the unit until you can break the enemy somewhere else.

For me, when playing non-Catholic (which is actually when playing the Byz), there are two killer units my missiles must kill. Billmen are probably my worst nightmate, until I get Switzerland. The other are the Chivalric men at arms. I simply don't have good enough unit to destroy them. The best cavalry unit, which the Byz get, the Pronoiai Allagion, even when built in Nicaea have problems with the Chivalric men at arms and it's not uncommon to see the Chivalric men at arms slaughtering my (heavy!) cavalry. Knights, of course are deadly, though the plain spearmen + some missile support can deal with them well.

Dismounted Chivalric knights are also an excellent unit. Don't overlook them.

[gollum]

Byzantine Infantry derive their strengths from the extra men in the unit, the disciplined status and their good availability and relatively cheapness of price. Their achille's heels are their low morale (0) and their low stats (+2/+2 att./def.).

Byzantine infantry in erarly are King because a) its quite a few turns until any faction can make a unit that can stand up to them from Keep level (FMAA or caths and Ghazis/Saracen Infantry/MSs for Muslims) and b)because of the multistar Byzzie generals that turn the average BYz infantry to super units.

This is because every 2 general stars give +1 valor and every valor point adds +1/+1 (att/def) to a unit. Also every general's staradds +1 morale in the vicinity of the general and 1/2morale further away from him. This means that a 4 star general will have Byzz infantry fighting at 2 valor and 4 morale. That's +2/+2 (att/def) and 4 morale ie essentially teh unit has turned into CMAA more or less.

One of the keypoints for the use of Byzz infantry is to use them in a square, thick formation at hold formation. This makes them very robust as battle line units, even if they are losing and will hold the line for a long long time.

Byzantines in vanilla late are starved of both Varangian Guards (ironically as the unit is actually most suited in late) and the cheap, fast and easy to get Byz lancers. Pron cavs are slower than feudal knights to which they are otherwise identical because of the extra point of armour they have (5 while F Knights have 4). This means they tire easier (affecting their morale) and being unable to mount as much a momentum on the charge as knightly unit can and also they have less charges in them in longer battles. They also have a charge of 6 instead of 8 hich means their impact on the charge is lower. Yet all this would be ok if tehy costed reasonably to maintain, but infact they are one of the costlier units in the game to do so, and this is another minus - you can't use them in numbers and with disregard while they are youronly heavy charger cav of normal speed (Kataphraktoi are made sitting ducks in late due to their speed and teh many ap/anicav units in late and Byz lancers are unavailable).

Underpowering the Byzantine roster in vanilla late coupled with overpowered units in the catholic roster (like Billmen and CMAA) can turn late BYzz battles to a nightmare, as essentially you don't have equivalent units to stand up to your foes. The best you can do is to upgrade as heavily as possible the Byzzie infantry with armor and morale upgrades, using them in thick fighting blocks and in hold formation for the most part and use the best generals you can field as well as make use of you mounted missiles coupled with arbs. Pron cavs should be used cautiously and held in reserve to be unleashed at a key moment to turn the tide of the battle (a flank charge etc).

[gaijinalways]

I have always loved using the Byz infantry and find that with the 100 you normally get great results. Gollum is right though, that if you don't have a better general (and battle skills), they may rout, extra men and all.

As to the CMAA, I don't know why, I often find these guys a liability. And yes, their speed is part of the problem, but I find they often rout too easily if the battle is a little tougher than expected whereas FMAA often hang in there and might even save the day. Go figure, the cheaper unit proves to be more valuable in this case for me.

[gollum]

Go figure, the cheaper unit proves to be more valuable in this case for me.

heh, yes go figure indeed :) Battlefield experiences and circumstances can create pretty varied perceptions of units.

[Gilrandir]

It's absolutely not true. It all depends how you use them. For example: 100 spearman unit - optimally in 4 rows > 25 man in the first line. 60 swordsman - optimally 2 rows - 30 man in first line. Spearman unit is outnumbered (!) 30 to 25 at the worst (when both units are perfectly centered). 5 man can attack flanks of the spearman, killing them easily and disrupting the formation. If you attack the spearman slightly to the left or right some swordsman can even attack them from the back. If that happens spearman drop like flies. They can't do anything because they need to keep the formation to get bonuses.

First of all, I changed the settings, so I have 80 swordsmen and 133 spearmen in a unit.
Second of all, that is all true when you counter one spear unit with one sword unit in an open field. But battles are not like that. Units usually don't get so separated from the bulk of the army to let you encompass their front line of flank them with your one sword unit. It is usually a hell of a crowd which doesn't have plain front lines or flanks, it is rather an untidy mess of fighters. Moreover, on expert it happens so fast, that you find it hard to be that reasonable. Map is not territory, if you know what I mean. Considering all said above, I do brand swords as ineffective (in comparison with axes).

[gollum]

It is usually a hell of a crowd which doesn't have plain front lines or flanks, it is rather an untidy mess of fighters. Moreover, on expert it happens so fast, that you find it hard to be that reasonable.

Hello Girlandir,
there are ways to improve your army control without having to improve your reflexes or issuing command speed. One such way is to use the very handy grouping feature that is AFAIK unique to the STW/MTW engine.

The feature basically allows you to set up groups of units by:
1. Select the units you want to group (using control to select them all)
2. Designate group by pressing control+Shift+number
3. Recall by control+number

The system is incredibly flexible and useful as it allows you to have subgroups of groups and also groups that span groups. It is/was widely used in multiplayer because precisely it allowed players to control the bulk of their army in components (one group was the melee line, one the missiles, and the cavalry units could be given to one or more groups) that make controlling armies better and more efective and hence possible to pull off more sophisticated maneuvers and have a better degree of response to enemy movements and to the changing conditions of the battlefield.

MTW battles are not that fast paced - but they may understandably appear as such to newer players. As you familiarise yourself more and more with the game and the units' capabilities you will become better and the "mass/blob of fighters" will be discernable to you including the fronts and flanks.

Also remember to move your melee line at once all together as for the units to fight with covering each other's flanks. That is a very important point.

Considering all said above, I do brand swords as ineffective (in comparison with axes).

It much depends on your experiences too. Swords get a hidden hardcoded +1 attack against spear units. This is a considerable bonus, that cannot be underestimated. Give them time and they might prove better than what you currently make of them

[Gilrandir]

I have tried grouping, but somehow found it redundant as when the conditions on the battlefield change, you have to micromanage each unit separately. The only case when I use it is uniting a spear unit with a naptha behind it. But you know, I don't go for battles that much now, I grew more interested in campaigning. That is probably what hampers my improvement as a general.

[Gilrandir]

Hello Girlandir,
MTW battles are not that fast paced - but they may understandably appear as such to newer players.

Sometimes they are not, but sometimes the enemy just throws the whole mass at you in a split second which leaves you with reflexes.

[gollum]

I have tried grouping, but somehow found it redundant as when the conditions on the battlefield change, you have to micromanage each unit separately.

This is not the grouping of teh unit cards i am talking about. try the one i reccomend consistently and you will eventually come to see its usefulness if you will. It was very much used in mp.

The grouping feature control is meant to be coupled with on-screen micro management once you are too close to the opponent. Its not a case of one or the other - but a case of combining the two to achieve good controls at all battle stages; ie in action where tactical dexterity matters and during regroupings and maneuvers where strategic vision and appreciation matter.

Sometimes they are not, but sometimes the enemy just throws the whole mass at you in a split second which leaves you with reflexes.

Practice and even those will be eventually manageable and will then look slow to you like the Matrix bullets :)

[Gilrandir]

Most of frequenters of the forum sound very sophisticated. Do not consider my asking rude (no strings attached): gollum, do you with your current skills lose battles now? If not, does it make the game uninteresting?

[gollum]

Every battle is like a unique puzzle that gets assembled and solved in real time. My skills aren't that great. They got a huge boost after a tried multiplayer basically. Before i had this experience there were a lot of things about TW battles that i couldn't understand. After having the experience there are much fewer. When i happen to lose now (and it does happen) i know exactly what i did wrong and what i could have done better :)

I feel that many people who play exclusively SP face the same issues i had prior to trying multiplayer. So its not a matter of being better or sophisticated - its just a matter of going through certain things and learning them in a certain way.

I know multiplayers that are really really good and i can't say that i am one of them - i stopped mp as i had started to get better.

[Gilrandir]

Well, I do envy you having enough time and desire for improvement, but the key word here is desire. I can't muster either (or both), as when I spend a longish time playing (either battles or campaigns), I'm getting bored. So I play in fits after quite long intervals, that is why my excelling is much questionable.

[Prince Cobra]

Underpowering the Byzantine roster in vanilla late coupled with overpowered units in the catholic roster (like Billmen and CMAA) can turn late BYzz battles to a nightmare, as essentially you don't have equivalent units to stand up to your foes. The best you can do is to upgrade as heavily as possible the Byzzie infantry with armor and morale upgrades, using them in thick fighting blocks and in hold formation for the most part and use the best generals you can field as well as make use of you mounted missiles coupled with arbs. Pron cavs should be used cautiously and held in reserve to be unleashed at a key moment to turn the tide of the battle (a flank charge etc).

GAH! It must be what makes me play them in Late! A week ago I finished a campaign conquering 60 of the map with this outdated army. And the year was 1410... Wow!

Just a note: I am not that good, just use the pause button well and sometimes tend to pluck out luck. The most remarkable case of my luck in the aforementioned campaign was French crusade against Constantinople around 1335 (Late campaign/Expert). The problem was that I have just wiped out the Turks but my army was still unprepared for a major battle with the Catholics. I was lucky because the AI's 2 units of Order foot soldiers were dawdling behind the lines while I was slaughtering first his knights, then some spears and finally routed these two untis when they came.I believe the AI tends to make such mistakes when outclasses/outnumbers his enemy too much. Again, this is too much off-topic. I think I still keep the replay...

P.S. In the same campaign but at later stage, I had very serious problems in fighting the Spanish. When fighting the Catholics in the desert at that era and you are outclassed and defend, situate your troops as far as possible. Don't do like me. Most of my army was Proniai and I was so sure that I can outmaneuver the Spanish infantry and hit them in the flank. My Proniai had no armour... I wanted to finish this battle quickly so that go for dinner. And, in a way, I finished it quickly. This unfortunate battle costed me Cirenaica, Egypt and death of three good generals , as one of them died in the Citadel in Egypt to the Spanish after an assault. Of course, later I prevailed (the Spanish army lost most of its infantry in the process)and took back Cyrenaica and Egypt almost as quickly as I lost them. This reminds me the civil war in Lybia a bit.

[gollum]

And, in a way, I finished it quickly.

One of those battles yes... i had quite a few over the years too...

[gollum]

you having enough time and desire for improvement

Well, time is something that you make for - always its a matter of priorities, and something else has to be sacrificed as a trade-off :)

It wasn't so much desire to improve that motivated me - at least in my case - as a love for the TW game and the feeling that it had a deep gameplay that i wanted to explore. I was certainly not dissapointed. Also i made in the process many online friends that were/are amazing people, and knowing them is something i value.

[Stazi]

Most of frequenters of the forum sound very sophisticated. Do not consider my asking rude (no strings attached): gollum, do you with your current skills lose battles now? If not, does it make the game uninteresting?

This question wasn't for me but I'd like to say something - I simply love killing people (especially in MTW) ;). That juicy sound of bolts hitting armor/bodies, all those screaming people, dying horses, grenades exploding inside a tight pikeman formation, piles of bodies lying all around the battlefield. I never have enough of this.
I haven't lost a battle for a long time but it's mostly an effect of strategic decisions. But if someone has hard time wining a battle I suggest to try some kind of horse archers (with good morale - upgraded or innate). I keep 2 of them in every army. I wouldn't change them for Chivalric Knights or any other heavy cavalry unit even in early. People tend to underestimate them but those 2 generally weak units can make miracles when you are outnumbered and enemy has higher quality army and general. There is no better unit to disrupt enemy formation and to force AI to make a mistake.

[gollum]

That juicy sound of bolts hitting armor/bodies, all those screaming people, dying horses, grenades exploding inside a tight pikeman formation, piles of bodies lying all around the battlefield.

No doubt the feeling the engine brings that you "are there" and the good pace of teh battles as well as the great environments (flora and fauna as well as the weather and eth landscape, the house models etc) make it all amazing.

But if someone has hard time wining a battle I suggest to try some kind of horse archers (with good morale - upgraded or innate). I keep 2 of them in every army. I wouldn't change them for Chivalric Knights or any other heavy cavalry unit even in early. People tend to underestimate them but those 2 generally weak units can make miracles when you are outnumbered and enemy has higher quality army and general. There is no better unit to disrupt enemy formation and to force AI to make a mistake.

Missile cavalry - whether light and fast or slower and more melee oriented, are indeed units that can prove invaluable. They are not as straightforward to use though and they take more patience and work to understand and learn how to use them which is why people tend to sidetrack them.
Heavy knightly cavalry have a fascination all of their own and play a whole different game.

For me its the most satisfying aspect of the game; to use the different units and unit types in combination relative to the terrain, the numbers, the weather, the valor and the opponent and what he does, to achieve victory.