Chivalric men at arms and feudal men at arms.

[Patron]

The stats say that chivalric men at arms are simply a +1 attack upgrade from men at arms, but the information says they are heavily armoured, compared to men at arm's simple armoured. They have the same armour, so why does it say this?

Are there different classes of armour? Does an armour/defense level for chainmail have different properties for the same armour/defense level for plate armour?

[m52nickerson]

Feudal men at arms.
Charge 3 Attack 3 Defence 2 Armour 3 Speed 6, 10, 11 Morale 2

Chivalric men at arms.
Charge 3 Attack 4 Defence 3 Armour 4 Speed 6, 10, 11 Morale 4

Chivs have +1 in attack, defence, and armor. They would be considered heavily armored because they have 4 armor, so not good in desert.

[CBR]

They both have armour 5 but that is armour+shield. The FMAA has armour 3 and a large shield if +2 while the CMAA has armour 4 and a large shield(but with multiplier of 0.5) of +1

The name CA uses for the CMAA armour is half-plate while the FMAA has chainmail.

So overall same effective armour (from the front) but CMAA will get fewer losses from missile fire if hit from the rear as it has 4 while the FMAA has 3.


CBR

[antisocialmunky]

It's not really a big difference unless you can't deal with arrows. Always keep those valoured up FMAA from early and remember to dedicate a backwater province to replace them. Valoured up FMAA's better than stock CMAA... You don't have to change over anything either.

[econ21]

The "problem" is that CA decided a shield should contribute less to defence when someone is more armoured. The shield factor is multiplied by 0.5 for units with "transitional armour" and IIRC by zero for those with Gothic armour. This makes some sense - some in Gothic armour stopped using shields altogether. But because armour increases only in fairly large increments, the adjustments have the paradoxical effect of making better armour not translate into better defence (when factoring in the shield). Giving the Chivalric MAA and knights a +1 attack was a fudge factor to make the upgrade worthwhile.

So the bottomline is that for gameplay look at the stats, but the unit information is historically accurate.

[EatYerGreens]

Note the difference in morale, too.

It strikes me that the CMAA would really come into their own in defending a gateway against a siege assault, where they will accept higher losses before breaking and likely inflict more casualties in the process. Assuming, that is, that the AI doesn't simply try and starve them out.
(Note: I haven't had the chance to try Halbardiers yet, I'm sure some would recommend these even higher, for the castle defence role, where movement speed hardly enters into the equation).

In the field, where some losses to missiles are to be expected, I'd probably favour FMAA, since they're cheaper and less prone to fatigue. As a.s.m. said, once valoured up, they'll be as good as the CMAAs anyway. Valour boosts attack, defence AND morale, the latter by two points per step.

[antisocialmunky]

Well... after alot of fighting. I was wondering what's the most cost effective sword infantry-type in melee and came up with a formula:

a= armour - 3 if armour > 3

(Atk + Def + 1/2 Morale - a) * men at default / cost

It adds up all the pros, subtracts the cons, and multiplies by the amount of men and divided by cost.

It only factors in attack armour, and defense because charge doesn't matter after impact. The reason that I subtract armour is that it causes fatigue and increases the attack of AP units.

I'll list them with armour factored in and out so you can match up for AP and non AP.



Byzantine infantry
Charge 3 Attack 2 Defence 2 Armour 3 Speed 6, 10, 11 Morale 0 Cost 200

(2 + 2 + 0 - 0) * 100 / 200 = 2
(2 + 2 + 0) * 100 / 200 = 2


Feudal men at arms.
Charge 3 Attack 3 Defence 2 Armour 3 Speed 6, 10, 11 Morale 2 Cost 175

(3 + 2 + 1 - 0) * 60 / 175 = 2.057
(3 + 2 + 1) * 60 / 175 = 2.057


Chivalric men at arms.
Charge 3 Attack 4 Defence 3 Armour 4 Speed 6, 10, 11 Morale 4 Cost 250

(4 + 3 + 2 - 1) * 60 / 250 = 1.92
(4 + 3 + 2) * 60 / 250 = 2.16


Feudal foot knights.
Charge 3 Attack 5 Defence 2 Armour 3 Speed 6, 10, 11 Morale 8 Cost 275

(5 + 2 + 4 - 0) * 40 / 275 = 1.6
(5 + 2 + 4) * 40 / 275 = 1.6


Gothic foot knights*
Charge 4 Attack 5 Defence 6 Armour 6 Speed 4, 8, 9 Morale 8 Cost 475

(5 + 6 + 4 - 3) * 40 / 475 = 1.011
(5 + 6 + 4) * 40 / 475 = 1.263


Hospitaller foot knights.
Charge 3 Attack 5 Defence 5 Armour 6 Speed 4, 8, 9 Morale 8 Cost 400

(5 + 5 + 4 - 3) * 40 / 400 = 1.1
(5 + 5 + 4) * 40 / 400 = 1.4


*Does not factor in AP effect


I think it's pretty fair, using my formula, it seems that FMAA, CMAA, and BI are roughly equal. Dismounted knights are about as equal to each other as well.

I prefer FMAA to them in alot of situations, but CMAA are better when not fighting AP or in the desert as long as all factors are equal.