pavise crossbow vs. genoese crossbow

[Spark]

Genoese crossbow militia are slightly better than standard pavise crossbowmen, sporting the same attack (melee 6; missle 12), better defense (genoese: 15; standard pavise: 14) and better stamina (which is a decent bonus, crossbowmen get quite tired after expending all of their ammunition).

Genoese crossbowmen (the castle version) are significantly better than all of the above, with a stronger attack (melee 8; missle 14), better defense (16) and stronger charge (2).

In practice, the extra defense and melee attack really helps holding the walls during sieges. Which is pretty good considering the screwed up walls that often force archers to fire in a very high arc that doesn't kill anything. Anybody else getting this? No matter how well I position my archers on top of walls, over half of them always end up firing up in the air, making it very hard to use arrows before the enemy closes in. I'd much sooner sally out with my archers and trade fire on the open field, since castle sieges usually mean meleeing archers :\

[Reapz]

Genoese crossbowmen fire about 20% faster than militia pavise. They kill better as a result

If you check out my test data in this thread you will see a comparison of those two types of crossbowmen against the same type of longbowmen. I found that against basic longbowmen pavise militia lose 7/10 times but the Genoese win 7/10 times.

[Spark]

I'm assuming in that thread you linked to, that you were controlling the longbowmen and the AI was controlling the crossbowmen? Either way, from most tests I've done so far, against VH AI, it seems the unit the person is controlling always performs significantly better than the unit the AI is controlling. AI tends to mess about with unneeded movement, reforming, etc. which takes precious time.

I think you'd get the most reliable data if you controlled both units, in turn, and fired on the same enemies, comparing them like that instead of pitting them 1v1 with you controlling one side. Of course AI longbowmen tend to be stupid, often switching to burning arrows :\

[Reapz]

Spark

I tested the phenomenon you are bringing up and the answer is both yes and no depending on the type of unit.

If you take basic archers - peasants or basic longbows against the same unit type handled by the AI then the AI doesn't do any better or worse than you do. There is no technique edge to a human.

However in specific scenarios if you take non-identical units sometimes the results vary between human and AI control because the AI will use different tactics. Handling Pavise Crossbow Militia the AI and human are the same. With Genoese Crossbowmen the AI doesn't always do as well as a human. The reason is that the AI will not sit back at long range but actually advances the Genoese one to three times against longbows, or weaker crossbows, and whilst in motion they don't fire and get more casualties than a human keeping them firing constantly from a distance would get.

All that said however consider the following. If you are testing these units for campaign usage then the AI is going to be your opponent in every battle so human results are irrelevant (except they show that the AI might do a little better sometimes with different tactics). If you are testing multiplayer, not campaign, then trying units in human hands makes sense. I personally only play campaign so all my tests are against AI. I would be cautious in extrapolating to MP for the above reasons. The OP was clearly talking about campaign so I think my results are valid for his question.

[myz]

Wow, thanks so much for the thorough explanation and discussion. Playing as Milan seems to confer a lot of advantages: two rich starting cities with the decent genoese militia. Direct route to the holy land, and no neighbor to the south. Good xbowmen too.