Strongest Faction II

**ichi** · 07-19-2003, 06:11

I prefer the Spanish in Late. Why?

Lancers and Jinetes, plus most of the good infantry

Who has the best units, and why?

ichi

**tootee** · 07-20-2003, 16:24

The Spanish are still one of the most cost effective army in late. It has my vote.

**CBR** · 07-20-2003, 19:45

Mmmm just tried the Lancers yesterday, v2 ones

They still work. Maybe I should play Late era a bit more

CBR

**Tempiic** · 07-29-2003, 17:59

I do not play late that much... and the factions I pick are not the strongest late mp factions... so

**Vanya** · 07-29-2003, 18:41

GAH

"The ability to die swiftly is a gift shared by all peoples equally."
-- Vanya

GAH

**Balamir** · 08-26-2003, 17:55

I do not agree with the idea spanish lancers being the ultimate power in late era. Because you can easily deal with lancers v2 if you spend the same money to the billmen.If you play at 15k v2 lancers are a dream if you want a balanced army which makes them easy meat for anti cav including the well upgraded cheap militia sergeants. I vote for england because they still have the variety to cope with all other kinds of troops on the field. Of course on a 33k army lancers are like tanks but you can still counter them with your well upgraded billmen. Sorry for not giving the exact amounts of the v2 lancer and the billmen you can take for that amount because I dont have the game with me at the moment.

edit: typos

**Puzz3D** · 08-26-2003, 19:35

v0 lancer = 850 (att/def = 5/7)
v0 billman = 300 (2/4 + 3/1 + 4 ap = 9/5)

So this matchup is basically equal in melee at equal valor, but the cav has it's charge and mobility. With a double valor upgrade to v2 the billman becomes 300 * 1.7 * 1.7 = 867 florins and 11/7 (att/def) vs the lancer. That would be 4 combat points better in melee which is 1.2**4 = 2. So at roughly equal cost the billmen are 2x better than the lancer in melee. If the v2 billmen loose 8 to 10 men to a lancer charge and don't run, they should win in the melee. The billmen can probably still win at v1 (510 florins). I think you would want anti-cav inf costing x florins to beat cav costing 2x florins.

**Cheetah** · 08-27-2003, 15:36

The problem is the mobility and morale. A half-sized billmen unit is close to useless, whereas a half-sized lancer is still a decent force, especially in the later stages of the battle.

**tootee** · 08-27-2003, 15:58

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Balamir @ Aug. 26 2003,19:55)]I do not agree with the idea spanish lancers being the ultimate power in late era. Because you can easily deal with lancers v2 if you spend the same money to the billmen.If you play at 15k v2 lancers are a dream if you want a balanced army which makes them easy meat for anti cav including the well upgraded cheap militia sergeants. I vote for england because they still have the variety to cope with all other kinds of troops on the field. Of course on a 33k army lancers are like tanks but you can still counter them with your well upgraded billmen. Sorry for not giving the exact amounts of the v2 lancer and the billmen you can take for that amount because I dont have the game with me at the moment.

edit: typos

but the problem is.. how do u get billmen to catch the lancers? In most situation, the cav dictates whether ya anti-cav unit will meet up with it, not the other way round. Typically the lancers will be fighting other cavs. In such instant at same florins, lancers will be the better cav. On the other hand, if both are at same combat points, lancer will be cheaper, and the florin saved can be used on to improve the foot, so the foot will win for ya the war if they meet up with opponent foot. Of course this is just a statistical comparison looking at unit matching up one by one.

Thus my reason that spanish has the more cost-effectivearmy. Lancers dont rule the field, but using them save u money for other units improvement. It doesnt translate to victory directly. The english is good with their longbow, but in late u have the arbalaster which can shoot as far but slower.