Possible use for peasants?

**Procrustes** · 08-01-2005, 21:25

Originally Posted by EatYerGreens

.... 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** · 08-01-2005, 21:43

Originally Posted by Procrustes

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** · 08-02-2005, 08:14

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** · 08-03-2005, 07:13

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

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

**el_slapper** · 08-03-2005, 11:06

Originally Posted by Roark

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** · 08-03-2005, 15:23

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** · 08-03-2005, 19:43

(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.