Units that out/underperform their stats?

[Crazy Larry]

So we all know that the stats the game shows us aren't the only factor in deciding a unit's combat effectiveness, a commonly cited example being JHI. But, aside from them, what other units are there that don't perform as well as their stats indicate, for better or worse?

[Foz]

2-handed units are a good example of an underperformer. Their animations are deceptively long compared to most one-hand units, and as a result their attacks are easy to interrupt. Of course it also means they perform considerably under what you'd expect for a unit with their stats, since they are attacking much less frequently.

[Gaiseric]

Im having underperformence issues with Hungary's "Croat Axemen". I have 4 of them that I need to take out 52 peasent archers, 52, trebizoiod archers, and 42 peasents atop a byzantine fortress. I can get them atop the walls with minimul causualties, but once their up there they have a hard time.

I dont know how much of this is due to the "fighting on walls bonus" that the defender gets, but I think it might be a 2h "issue".

I can sometimes get the 2 units of archers to rout, but the peasents kick my 2h units butts.


Has anyone else had underperformance with 2h units in 1.2?

[Daveybaby]

I find that Russian/Polish woodsmen are seriously undervalued by the AI when calculating odds of success. Their insane 13 armour piercing attack + 4 charge means they can be devastating for such a cheap (75 maintenance - 75!!! theyre the cheapest unit in the entire game!!!) and easy to obtain unit when used correctly. Okay, they will get cut to pieces by archers and dont last long is the melee drags on a bit (though frankly it rarely does since most early units rout pretty quickly)

I also find that Kazaks, while their stats are really, really low, and are as cheap as its possible for cavalry to get, perform really well on the battlefield. Fast, mobile horse archers that are also ideal for chasing down routing units. They wont last long in a duel against longbows, but they can devastate light infantry without taking any losses at all. Love 'em.

[Crazy Larry]

Gaiseric, that's likely largely due to the defense bonus defenders get on walls, especially if you're using ladders to scale them. Ladders, and to an extent siege towers, really are only useful as a way of diverting enemy units away from your real point of attack, which should be to breach the walls in some way.

I've also heard it posited that 2h units generally underperform because they were balanced back when the shield bug was still in play, and now that that has been fixed shield units have gotten a huge boost in defense but the attack of 2h units haven't changed.

Daveybaby, I find that ap units in general seem to underperform, at least compared to my expectations. Playing a campaign as Denmark, I imagined their forces to revolve around infantry that would rip through all other infantry and even cavalry in a melee, but would wilt under fire or against a concerted cavalry charge. I've found that generally not to be the case though, with most heavy defensive infantry beating them through sheer attrition. Maybe this is a case similar to the 2h theory above though.

[Gaiseric]

Crazy Larry Gaiseric, that's likely largely due to the defense bonus defenders get on walls, especially if you're using ladders to scale them. Ladders, and to an extent siege towers, really are only useful as a way of diverting enemy units away from your real point of attack, which should be to breach the walls in some way.

Yeah, its got to be the defense bonus. If you look at the units stats my Croat Axemen should be able to make short work of peasents and archers.
I'll try the my 2h units in a ground battle and see if they do better.

With spy difficulty increased in v1.2 i'm having trouble taking settlements early in the game without bigger armies or much higher causulties. Is their a good early period unit to assult the walls with, or should I just plan on starving out more enemy garrisons?