Possible use for peasants?

[Kommodus]

I've thought of a possible use for peasants, and while I've never tried it before, I wonder if anyone here has. Some use them as cannon fodder and many (including me) use them only for garrison duty, but one additional possibility might be to use them as battle-winners.

Now before you declare me insane, hear me out: I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed that when AI armies autoresolve battles against each other, the number of troops involved on each side seems to be one of the main factors. This explains why some provinces can remain rebellious for a long time, guarded only by thousands of peasants, while the AI factions fruitlessly send smaller armies of much better troops to get pitchfork-whacked by the undisciplined mobs. Now, you and I both know that a few elite battalions would send the backwater yokels into a chain rout - but the autoresolver doesn't know that!

So, seeing as peasants have such small training and upkeep costs, might it be possible to train vast hordes of them, then steamroll over Europe, autoresolving every battle along the way? You probably wouldn't even need to hook them up with a decent general; just keep their numbers up.

Like I said, I haven't tried it, and probably won't, since the battles are (to me) the game's real attraction, and this tactic wouldn't allow any to be fought - all the action would happen on the strategic map. I'm just curious whether or not anyone has tried it, and if so, what the results were.

[EatYerGreens]

Regarding the autoresolve business:- you read it here first.

The referenced post is a long one but the relevant para is just after the second quote. EDIT#2: Actually, it's after the third quote.

Personally, I'd like to see a discussion about how the autocalc algorithm actually works and is it fair compared to the 16 vs 16 (with or w/o reinforcements) battles the player has to do but I don't want to side-track your thread and may post a fresh one about this, another time. Could potential respondents please stick to the discussion at hand?

EDIT: yet more clumsy typos

[PittBull260]

i use peasants to keep a province's loyalty up

[yesdachi]

Unique idea, a peasant army might work with a good general unit, I’m not sure but a good general seems to factor into the autocalc.

Unless cornered, the AI seems to run or jump into a castle whenever they are significantly outnumbered. I could see an enemy faction being pushed all the way to their boarders (by a bunch of peasants with pitchforks throwing rotting food) and then a huge battle.

Side note on EYG’s link: it is interesting to see how others play. I sooo would never take out a paper and pencil to figure out the $ of province vs. another with different governors etc. but if it works for you that’s what counts! I think it is great that so many different people can play so many different styles on just one game. It would be fun to hear others sound off on ways they play that other people might think alien . But perhaps that is a topic for a new thread.

Back on topic: Go peasant army, GO! Actual horse in peasant army but replace sword and goofy look with pitchfork and goofy look.

[VikingHorde]

I find peasants useless, thats why I removed them from my mod (rebel only). They are fun as cannon fodder, but I prefer fighting real soldiers.

[Budwise]

Why don't you just have a good 16 unit army and try the peasant spam like you suggested, that way if you are attacked, you have a chance.

[EatYerGreens]

Side note on EYG’s link: it is interesting to see how others play. I sooo would never take out a paper and pencil to figure out the $ of province vs. another with different governors etc. but if it works for you that’s what counts!

Typical Scorpio trait, alledgedly - you have to extract maximum value from these things. Or put it another way - I'm a tightwad.

Actually, in spite of such efforts, I'm nearly always skint in the game because there's always stuff needing to be built and I've yet to progress a campaign far enough to see trade bulk up the bank balance much into the 5-figure range. Whenever I see a screenshot with millions in the bank I mutter to myself about cheat codes or it's because the person has monstered 7/10ths of the map, has fortresses left right and centre, so they've piles coming in but nothing left to spend it on... If I don't lose the hard drive again, or revert to my main obsession (flight-sims), one of these days I may get to finish a campaign...

Don't let my lack of game experience put you off though - I see all sorts of possibilities and tend to talk about them whether or not I've actually attempted half the stuff I suggest others to try. Sort of 'thinking out loud'. If it keeps the conversation moving along or elicits some kind of corrective response from a more experienced player, then all the better for everyone who reads the thread.

[antisocialmunky]

I'm just curious, has anyone gotten bored enough to try and win a game in early with just Royal Cavalry, first tier units, and the peasant family of units? I bet that'd make a facinating game.

"Sir, we are being stormed by England's crack peasant army!"

I mean, if you think about it. England can already take out the French is 2 turns, and Germany will fall apart after two defeats. Italy is too small...

[Ironside]

Well it does work to make the comp retreat, but I'm not sure how good the autocalc is. I sent 4000 peasants and UM (both of good quality) on a suecide mission, but everyone retreated, except finally some 400 rebels, consisting mostly of steppe cav.

3000 dead on my side and a loss later, I've came to the conclution that peasants and UM don't work well vs cav charges.

But the comp does attack huge peasant stacks, while being heavily outnumbered.

[edyzmedieval]

Peasants suck.

I always try to avoid peasants while I am in campaigns, because they are useless. Try not to put them in garrisons, or when somebody attacks you,(especially when HRE) and you lose the province, they have access to your other provinces, which typically, you have them teched-up so you can train quality troops. You have to come with reinforcements so you can close this gap, before they conquer other provinces. And you come with peasants. Obviously, you lose.

That's why I prefer not to use them. I prefer to use Urban Militia or better, Spearmen.

[VikingHorde]

I always use FMAA, Vikings or byz. Inf. as my garrison. I play MTW with huge unit size, so the garrison is 120-200 men strong.

[Del Arroyo]

The Auto-Calc DOES realize that peasants suck hard, but not the full magnitude of the suckiness. So an all peasant army in auto-calc would take horrendous casualties but might win. I've auto-calced and won battles that, when I fought them out personally, no matter how many times I tried, were unwinnable.

One example of this was 2 UM, 1 Peas, 1 Archers and a depleted unit (like seven-eight men) of Jinetes, attacking vs. King's Royal Knights. Playing it out it was pretty hard to get my units from running, but I won the auto-calc.

Another example was 2 Spears, 1 CS, 2 Xbows, and 1 Jinetes, defending against 2 Royal Knights, 1 Feudal Knights, and a depleted mix of UM, FMAA, and Peasants. I must have played this battle about 20 times and each time the 3 units of cavalry were too much to handle. At least one of them would find a local advantage and flank one of my spears, and this would end it, no matter what I did. Even if I fought in the woods. But on auto-calc-- Victory!

Since discovering this, I have tried not to abuse it.

DA

[Patron]

Peasants are cannon fodder and work especially with elite units that won't flee when the peasants do.

They can be used to stop a cavalry charge, so your men at arms don't have to suffer the direct charge.

Stopping any charge. Peasants have a strong charge which is better than many units and can give these units a better advantage.

Expendable flankers, flanking is often dangerous, especially in large battles where your flankers could end up surrounded. Peasants are a worthy subtitute and their numbersm ena you can easily surround an enemy unit and break it.

Helping small elite units. Small elite units tend to be surrounded by several units drastically reducing their effectiveness. Peasants can keep them at bay allowing your elite units to focus more on killing instead of self preservation.

Chase off archers. AI archers usually flee from peasants and if they do engage they will be caught up for a while and won't be able to fire.

Preventing rebellion after you've conquerred a province, so more expensive units don't have to suffer. Spies are cheaper in the long run though.


Spearmen are much better than peasants at everything apart from there needing to be a spearmaker, which is only 4 turns up from a fort and their slightly higher upkeep.

[Budwise]

Peasants are cannon fodder and work especially with elite units that won't flee when the peasants do.

They can be used to stop a cavalry charge, so your men at arms don't have to suffer the direct charge.

Stopping any charge. Peasants have a strong charge which is better than many units and can give these units a better advantage.

Expendable flankers, flanking is often dangerous, especially in large battles where your flankers could end up surrounded. Peasants are a worthy subtitute and their numbersm ena you can easily surround an enemy unit and break it.

Helping small elite units. Small elite units tend to be surrounded by several units drastically reducing their effectiveness. Peasants can keep them at bay allowing your elite units to focus more on killing instead of self preservation.

Chase off archers. AI archers usually flee from peasants and if they do engage they will be caught up for a while and won't be able to fire.

Preventing rebellion after you've conquerred a province, so more expensive units don't have to suffer. Spies are cheaper in the long run though.


Spearmen are much better than peasants at everything apart from there needing to be a spearmaker, which is only 4 turns up from a fort and their slightly higher upkeep.

True, True - But them routing right off the bat and destroying the moral of your whole army isn't really worth the little good they can do. Its better just to pee on them.

[Mount Suribachi]

I use UMs as garrisons. IIRC, they give your province an extra boost to loyalty over other garrison units. And, if push comes to shove, UMs are better in a fight than Peasants.

But the idea of using peasants for cheap flankers isn't bad. Being flanked gives any unit a morale hit, regardless of the quality of flankers.

[antisocialmunky]

True, True - But them routing right off the bat and destroying the moral of your whole army isn't really worth the little good they can do. Its better just to pee on them.

I think you totally underestimate peasants. They can soil themselves thank you very much, or come presoiled if that is to your liking.

[Roark]

I found a use for Peasants that is working great for me at the moment: morale killers.

When I have a high-command general leading an attack, I'll often follow-up with a bum run of Peasants, just flooding the battlefield and getting into all the cracks (behind the enemy, on their flanks, everywhere). If the Peasants are at 3-4 "trickledown valour", I find that their decent charge puts those enemy units one step closer to routing. I like to inflict as many morale penalties as possible.

I never used to use them for anything except garrison duty, but this recent discovery has changed my mind. Cheap as chips.

(I am playing on Hard, btw, not Expert)

[Martok]

I think you totally underestimate peasants. They can soil themselves thank you very much, or come presoiled if that is to your liking.

LOL!! Good one, antisocialmonkey.


I don't go for peasants, simply because they weren't really involved in medieval warfare that much. If I need cannon fodder or cheap flankers, well then that's what spearmen and urban militia are for (or clansmen if you got 'em). Of course it's a moot point in my case, as I play Medieval with the XL mod.....

[Procrustes]

I use UMs as garrisons. IIRC, they give your province an extra boost to loyalty over other garrison units. And, if push comes to shove, UMs are better in a fight than Peasants.

If I'm not mistaken, it's the buildings that make UM's and MS's that give the province a loyatly boost - 60 UM's will not give more loyalty to a province than 60 men of another type of unit.

[Procrustes]

.... Whenever I see a screenshot with millions in the bank I mutter to myself about cheat codes or it's because the person has monstered 7/10ths of the map, has fortresses left right and centre, so they've piles coming in but nothing left to spend it on... ....

It's actually not that hard if you set up a trade network. Play a game as the Danes, early. Take Scandinavia and slowly work your way around the Baltic. Don't get into wars with your neighbors, pick on rebles where you can. And start building long boats, ports, and trade posts. Upgrade your trade buildings as you go, stay at peace with everyone, build lots of ships and connect yourself to as many ports as you can. You'll be rolling in dough before 1150.

[dgfred]

It's actually not that hard if you set up a trade network. Play a game as the Danes, early. Take Scandinavia and slowly work your way around the Baltic. Don't get into wars with your neighbors, pick on rebles where you can. And start building long boats, ports, and trade posts. Upgrade your trade buildings as you go, stay at peace with everyone, build lots of ships and connect yourself to as many ports as you can. You'll be rolling in dough before 1150.

I prefer to play this way , without being the world
'steamroller'. Of course with the occaisional war .

[el_slapper]

I've always said the Danes were the easier faction - and above tactics explain why. You just have not to forget to put several ships in zones where others have fleets - so that noone dares to challenge your sea supremacy. And you roll over anyone opposed to you

That being said, you're short on money with the Danes in the beginning, and the upkeep cost of the peasant is a no-go for me. They might cost nothing to build up, but damn, they're expensive to maintain. That's the reason why I always go for quality in my armies - even for garrisons.

[Roark]

Expensive? Aren't Peasants just 37 florins in upkeep?

Like, as opposed to 50 for spears and 105 for Royals?

[el_slapper]

Expensive? Aren't Peasants just 37 florins in upkeep?

Like, as opposed to 50 for spears and 105 for Royals?

37 is very much for their delivery. damn, compare it to the 50 of spears, who are SO MUCH better!

37 is 3/4 of their buying price(50). It means that they cost 3/4 of their price EACH YEAR!!!!!

As you need numbers of them, I really prefer having 3 spears than 4 peasants. The upkeep cost is the relevant thing, in a campaign. Buying 10 units of peasants costs 500. Their maintenance during building is : (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10)*37=55*37=2037. So, just for the set-up of your army, maintenance cost is 80/100 of the total cost. Buying cost is not really relevant - unless you use up your armies each year, which makes you too much vulnerable & prevents them from gaining worthy experience.

Plus you have to see their usefulness : 1 unit of royals WILL win versus 3 units of peasants - provided it's not plagued by vices. So where is your money best used? I've sent 1 unit of royals led by a heir I wished to get rid of versus 16 stacks of peons - and he won . If you want to overwhelm the map with Peasants, you'll have to take your time building the army - and pay huge maintenance fees during this building. You'll be stalled.

And I'm not counting the garrison duty. Garrisoning shall be done by spies - whose maintenance cost is zero. Add just the unit of the province duke, & you're quiet. if You are the English & hold 6 or 7 provinces - just the british isles - having spies instead of 2 units of peasants makes you earn around 37*2*6 = 444 florins a year spared on maintenance. Really handy when trade blockaded by those pesky sicilians.....

[mfberg]

Units with a lower cost of upkeep per man are

Celtic Warriors (swordsmith, Ireland or Wales) (cost 25/100 men)

Other units with the same upkeep per man are
Arbalester
Arquebusier
Crossbow
Gallowglass
Golden Horde Warriors
Highland Clansmen
Jobbagy
Kerns
Nubian Spearmen
Pavise Arbalester
Pavise Crossbow
Slav Javelins
Slav Warriors
Viking Thralls
Woodsmen

Celtic Warriors, Nubian Spearmen, Slav Warriors and Viking thralls all have the 100 man unit size.
Any of these units should be built instead of peasants. The only reason I can see to build peasants would be to fill a crusade or jihad as a roleplay excercise, or for fun (with +1V in Provence with gold armour, gold weapons they should be a little meaner than standard Chivalric Men at Arms)

mfberg

[Ironside]

(with +1V in Provence with gold armour, gold weapons they should be a little meaner than standard Chivalric Men at Arms)

Acually uber-peasants (the ones you described) got 3 attack 1 defense and 0 morale, compared to CMMA:s 4 attack, 3 defense (plus 1 for shield, total 4) and 4 morale. They really suck that badly.

Uber-UM from Tuscany got 8 attack, 5 defense and 4 morale by compairation. And elite UM got "only" 7,4,2 stats. And they got AP.

The weakest unit that I can still consider using is thralls and that's only because they can take a cav charge without routing after 1-2 sec, thanks to the spears.

[Mujalumbo]

I'm just curious, has anyone gotten bored enough to try and win a game in early with just Royal Cavalry, first tier units, and the peasant family of units? I bet that'd make a facinating game.

"Sir, we are being stormed by England's crack peasant army!"

:D
Actually, there was a thread a while back about suggestions for making the game interesting again. One of them was, as the Catholics, fighting with the feudal lineup of troops only; feudal sarges, feudal men-at-arms, feudal knights, archers... I haven't tried it yet, but I imagine as the campaign progressed, valour-gained and upgrades would allow them to remain relatively competitive throughout the ages.

For instance, one of the last games I played as France, I held onto the Holy Land with Urban Militia and Feudal Men-at-arms after all my spears had been worn away. After chopping up wave after wave of camels and Nubian spearmen, I had a pile of V2-4 UM's and FMAA's.

You know, I could actually put RTR 6.0 on the backburner and try this out instead...

[Roark]

@ El Slapper: Thanks for the heads-up. If you use a spy with, say... 40 troops in garrison, is there any risk at all of a rebellion due to the garrison being less than 100?

Economically a great idea, but I would probably stop paying attention after a while, and then find that someone had snuck an army in my province via a sneaky sea route. At least with 100 peasants in the castle, they have to siege the place before they can take the province, by which time I would have a real army there.

[Ironside]

@ El Slapper: Thanks for the heads-up. If you use a spy with, say... 40 troops in garrison, is there any risk at all of a rebellion due to the garrison being less than 100?

Economically a great idea, but I would probably stop paying attention after a while, and then find that someone had snuck an army in my province via a sneaky sea route. At least with 100 peasants in the castle, they have to siege the place before they can take the province, by which time I would have a real army there.

Nope, the less than 100 men comment (bandit rebellion) is a type of rebellion, not something that occurs even when the loalty is high.
My usual garrison is the govenor, and if he got stars it's possible that the province is completly ungarrisoned. I try to avoid though as you said, emty provinces fall immidiatly, although the common reason is rebellions due to disrupted shiplines, not the enemy.
I love one man garrisons though

[dgfred]

I plan on trying the minimum garrison idea as soon as I can get my spies
built up . I dislike having 2 or 3 units just sitting around .
So far in my current game as HRE it is about 1147 and if I only put a couple
of garrison units in the provinces, loyalty goes way down . This
can not be tolerated, so I have a couple of peasant units and a govenor in
every province.