Units that box their Weight?

[Henry707]

Morning All,

I'd be really interested to know others opinions on which units really perform against their stats & visa versa those that seem to be a real waste of florins.
I know there is usually a reason but sometimes some units just seem to 'do the job'!.

My biggest waste of money unit would be the conditerri mercenary guys from Italy - massive upkeep to keep them in pasta.

As any Egypt fan will tell you, the Afghan Javelin men are one of the best value units - they can do anything from chucking pointy sticks, defending walls to frying a mean scrambled egg.

So, which units relally do it, even if their stats aren't great & which should be avoid like the plague?

Henri

[Ramses II CP]

Danish Swordstaff militia out-perform their stats as line troops. They'll hold the line against even the best enemy cavalry and heavy infantry while your own cav/HI flank and envelope, and unlike with pikes you don't have to do any guard on/off tricks. They're free upkeep at cities too.

Mounted Crusader Knights underperform their stats and cost to the extent that I actively try to use them up during a crusade, and disband them afterward. They're essentially 'charge only' cavalry, so they need constant management to prevent them bogging down in a company of town militia and evaporating.

[Ferret]

DFK-there's nothing they can't do (apart from chase down those pesky HAs)

[Fisherking]

So much depends on style of play as well as the faction you are playing.

I would have said that DFKs, Swordstaff, & Knights of any type are over rated. I use Horse Archers when ever I can get them. I would say at least in vanilla that the Polish Stzlcy were much better than their stats. Archers especially those with armor piercing make hash out of those very units. So there is no easy answer to this question.

[Slug For A Butt]

Give me Retinue Longbowmen every day of the week, low upkeep, good against armour, decent melee and stakes make them a great unit that is recruitable fairly early.
The downside is that my England campaigns tend to be pretty boring because you only really need one strategy with them. RL in the middle behind stakes (or not when needed) and infantry on the flanks with heavy cavalry to charge the rear and mop up.

[Henry707]

I agree Slug on the Retinue Longbowmen, they are mean, keen & fire many pointy things at people. Their fighting stats are good & the stakes don't just deter vampires!

I always thought the game should limit the number of these elite troops or you just end up with a stack of these uber-dudes.

Henri

[econ21]

Mounted crossbowmen look feeble on paper, but seem to do well. Their speed keeps them out of trouble and their crossbows seem to do a lot of damage (assisted by the fact that they are able to get behind a unit and so avoid the shield defence).

DFKs and pavise crossbowmen are worth their weight in gold: good at killing, but hard to kill.

Most spears underperform, unless used very carefully, when they can be a life saver. (e.g. killing massed heavy cavalry in a siege).

Mounted Crusader Knights underperform their stats and cost to the extent that I actively try to use them up during a crusade, and disband them afterward. They're essentially 'charge only' cavalry, so they need constant management to prevent them bogging down in a company of town militia and evaporating.

Yes, that's my impression too. But why is it? On paper, they look like they belong on the top tier of heavy cavalry. Or maybe most heavy cavalry is essentially "charge only" too? Kwazariman's seem to suffer the same fate, although they admittedly are less good on paper. Perhaps the 2HP regenerating general's bodyguards mask the vulnerability of knights in M2TW.

[Ramses II CP]

Yes, that's my impression too. But why is it? On paper, they look like they belong on the top tier of heavy cavalry. Or maybe most heavy cavalry is essentially "charge only" too? Kwazariman's seem to suffer the same fate, although they admittedly are less good on paper. Perhaps the 2HP regenerating general's bodyguards mask the vulnerability of knights in M2TW.

Well, one obvious flaw is the lack of upgrades in armor, but even with base armor they simply don't perform as well as, for example, Huscarls. I think it has to do with the way they attack; after a charge it takes them awhile to pull out their swords (Unless you 'sweep' with them) and due to the nature of cavalry even if they charged from a perfect two deep line formation that still means that probably half of them aren't fighting right off the bat. Of the half who are attempting to fight the overwhelming majority of them will be surrounded and struggling to position their mount to take a swing at one spearman while 3-5 others stab them. General's bodyguards can take it, and so can mounted Chivalric Knights I think, maybe a few other types of heavy cavalry, but most of them just bog down and die.

The worst disappointment for me in my first campaign was the Order Knights. I expected the Hospitallers to sweep the infidels off the field, but they died like flies. Eventually I just figured I was using them wrong.

As to why Huscarls, IMHO, out perform most mounted knights... maybe the axe has a longer reach? Maybe the fact that their primary weapon is already out during a charge means they hit faster in the melee? That would work for War Clerics as well, although I usually preferred Huscarls to them.

Nothing accounts for the fragility of the Crusader Knights though. They die much, much more easily than their dismounted counterparts.

[TheLastPrivate]

With the shield bug fix in 1.2, almost all cavalry without shields are extremely lacking now. Even with advanced plate they seem no more resilient than plate&shield knights and other heavy cavalry.

Although unusable in the mission the heavy cavalry that tops it all is the Khan's guard although on paper they look unimpressive at best considering their tech requirements. They outfight any heavy cavalry thrown at them and outlast prolonged melee amazingly well.

[TheLastPrivate]

Following up with the shieldless cavalry, 2-handed infantry WITHOUT armor-piercing is just as useless in terms of efficiency. Zwei handers look cool but in vanilla they are useless. I would rather use a light cavalry to do the flanking. Dismounted english/noble knights and such are useful due to AP (and JHI is the most profound example of outperforming their stats), but no AP, no shield, and crappy attack animation can just go back to the drawing board any day.

[Cheetah]

The question being which unit over or underperform their stats I would not list elite units here. So while I agree that vards, hungarian nobles, LBs are all excellent units but they are supposed to be the elites which is reflected both in their stats and their price.

So, if the question is which units overperform their stats (cost) then I would say almost all militia units upto tier 3 (after tier 3 some units makes little sense like militia halberds). Of course, there are elites here as well, like Italian spear militia, saracens, genoese crossbow militia, but I would say that even the lowly spear militia is a very useful unit.
Also almost all cheap shooters should be mentioned here as they have the potential to kill. Again, the stronger the better, militia pavise xbows are obviously better than archer militia but even peasant archers have the potential to kill many times their numbers.

On the other hand the most notorius underperforming units must be those cavs without shields. So, crusader knights, kwarizmians, demi-lancer, gendarmes .. They are just too vulnerable both in melee and to archers. Their only strength is the charge.
Also high tier halberds must be the other category of underperforming units. For example, I just could not figure out how to use militia halberds with the hungarians. Tried them in all roles but they could not hurt a fly.

[TinCow]

I will nominate the Venetian and Milanese Carroccio Standards as well as the Great Cross. All three have the same recruitment cost (750) and upkeep cost (85). While the recruitment cost is high, that upkeep is dirt cheap; even a unit of Peasants costs more! (90) In addition, having a second morale booster in your army is incredibly valuable. Stick your general on one flank and the Standard/Cross on the other and your whole line will be steady. Add on the fact that the crew of the Standard/Cross itself are very decent fighters (12 attack, 4 charge, 16 defense) and you've got a fabulous unit all around. I've had the crews rush in to plug critical spots in battle several times and have been saved from defeat exclusively by their engagement at least twice. I buy these things whenever I can, which unfortunately isn't very often.

[econ21]

On the other hand the most notorius underperforming units must be those cavs without shields. So, crusader knights...

Crusader knights have shields. Until I hear a reason or read some test results, I'm not convinced crusader knights are weak compared to most other knights. Maybe what you said is true of most of such units:

Their only strength is the charge.

It's a battle winning strength to be sure, but they are so vulnerable, they often don't survive the battle in any numbers.

[Kobal2fr]

As for units that look nice, but end up sucking, I'd like to mention Almughavars. On paper they are close to the ultimate unit - high attack, high defence, very good stamina, bonus vs cav and AP missiles.
Yeah, right.
I have to admit, the javelins are nice, but then again, they are the same as jinetes or javelinmen ones. As for the stats... Well, I found Almughavars wholly lacking in the hand to hand department (as opposed to, say, Norse Archers). This might be because they have both the spear animation (slow and crummy) and the light spear attribute (penalty vs. infantry, light bonus vs. cav), but either way they certainly don't pull their weight. They can't stop a cav charge, can't fight even spear militia, and the javelins + lack of skirmish mode mean they need a lot of micromanagement.
Not worth the price. Buy Jinetes and Spear Militias instead.

[WhiskeyGhost]

Almughvars are nice imo, i use them in the same way i use archers, with the slanted inward line (instead of a flat line) and have them behind my lines throwing over the line holders into the backs of the enemy engaged on the opposite side. Works really well against those nasty hvy infantry units like DFK's when your holding line is made up of light infantry

[Kobal2fr]

Almughvars are nice imo, i use them in the same way i use archers, with the slanted inward line (instead of a flat line) and have them behind my lines throwing over the line holders into the backs of the enemy engaged on the opposite side. Works really well against those nasty hvy infantry units like DFK's when your holding line is made up of light infantry

Agreed, but then again for such purpose you could use Javelinmen just as well. Judging by their stats Almughavars should be able to be that holding line, only they can't :)