Specific units questions

[cambovenzi]

i was wondering if there was a place where there is info about specific units for MTW(vanilla).
i did a search, and a link to atomic games was outdated(no longer there).

i was just thinking about unit stats, and specifically if i should use woodsmen or UM?

[Martok]

i was wondering if there was a place where there is info about specific units for MTW(vanilla).
i did a search, and a link to atomic games was outdated(no longer there).

Yeah, unfortunately that link has apparently been out of commission for a while now. However, if you check out Frogbeastegg's Unit Guide, she does include the specific stats for just about every unit, along with the best way(s) to utilize them.

i was just thinking about unit stats, and specifically if i should use woodsmen or UM?

Generally speaking, Woodsmen are a better value for your money.

Woodsmen: Charge 8 Attack 1 Defence -1 Armour 2 Speed 6, 10, 11 Morale –2 Cost 75 Support cost 22

Urban Militia: Charge 4 Attack 2 Defence -1 Armour 1 Speed 6, 10, 11 Morale 0 Cost 100 Support cost 30


As you can see, Woodsmen have lower Attack and Morale, but better Armour and a much higher Charge. Both units have the same Defense rating, and both have armour-piercing weapons. Woodsmen have cheaper recruitment and support costs, however, which generally tips the balance in their favor.

Of course, both units are still best used as flankers. Indeed, that's about the *only* thing they should be used for, unless they're fortunate enough to be facing peasants or vanilla spearmen (and even then caution is often advised).

[caravel]

IMHO UM are all round useless stopgap units whereas Woodsmen make very good AP flankers (like Ghazi). Just don't throw them into melee.

[Fagar]

All the stats say Woodsmen are better and they certainly should be.
I don't know why but I have always found that in the style I play UM serve me much better.

I use both types to charge into flanks because neither are meant for frontal melee but then when they get tied up the UM hang around longer taking more losses before routing and therefore give my other troops time to come to assistance or to finish off the job they started the UM were supporting.

[cambovenzi]

thanks for the responses and the link.

yeah woodsmen are better flankers, and the charge is nice.
but if i need troops to hold there, UM is the way to go.(better morale)
i guess i already had a good idea, w/o remembering the exact stats.
it will be useful to have the stats tho for future reference.

[drone]

https://forums.totalwar.org/wiki/index.php/MTW_VI_Units

Overall, the MTW wiki is still a work in progress, but the units are finished.

[Martok]

Outstanding, drone.

[seireikhaan]

Indeed, a worthy guide.

Also, as to the OP- UM are useless. Granted, they hold slightly better than woodsmen, but both are so terrible at doing so that almost anything would be better. Woodsmen are far superior for recruiting purposes because they at least serve one purpose- flanking. UM do almost nothing with any degree of quality.

[cambovenzi]

Indeed, a worthy guide.

Also, as to the OP- UM are useless. Granted, they hold slightly better than woodsmen, but both are so terrible at doing so that almost anything would be better. Woodsmen are far superior for recruiting purposes because they at least serve one purpose- flanking. UM do almost nothing with any degree of quality.

well, in early game there isnt much of a choice.
UM or peasants.
and in certain areas woodsmen.

[oz_wwjd]

Actually that guide is slightly outdated,when it comes to some of the newer mods such as Tyberius Add-on,bit I don't see it being updated anytime soon.

[caravel]

Actually that guide is slightly outdated,when it comes to some of the newer mods such as Tyberius Add-on,bit I don't see it being updated anytime soon.

Guides usually only cover the Vanilla game unless stated otherwise.

[Fagar]

Indeed, a worthy guide.

Also, as to the OP- UM are useless. Granted, they hold slightly better than woodsmen, but both are so terrible at doing so that almost anything would be better. Woodsmen are far superior for recruiting purposes because they at least serve one purpose- flanking. UM do almost nothing with any degree of quality.

UM are by no means hardened troops but also are far from useless.
Early in the game when battles tend to be between armies consisting of 4-5 units and there are no teched up units the UM will more than hold their own and in fact their polearms are pretty devastating to lightly armoured troops.
They are versatile enough to have a unit or two kept in larger more advanced armies as fodder or bait while positioning the rest of your troops to full advantage against your opposition.
In this situation if they do get caught out they will generally hold a little better until the support arrives or your other troops get the job done as well.
The other advantage of this is that retraining is almost always availiable immediately because of the low tech level and in an experienced battle hardened army my UM units normally build up some pretty respectable valour this way.

[Roark]

Yeah, Urban Militia with 3-4 points of valour can be a very nasty surprise, and they are devastating against (pinned) Early cavalry. Cheap and cheerful, too.

[I of the Storm]

Hmm, as long as there are some trees for them to deploy in, they can hold out quite good and can be lifesavers for early HRE campaigns for example.

[seireikhaan]

I suppose I should mention that I'm quite used to playing the XL mod, where there's a lot more early infrastructure, not to mention that peasants were removed from the game.

So, end result is that UM not only are basically the bottom rung of the military, but are obsoleted extremely quickly.

[Fagar]

You are absolutely right UM are outdated extremely quickly in the XL mod, and realistically they are outdated quickly in vanilla.
But for what they are, a cheaply raised and maintained garrison force they can be reasonably handy.

[caravel]

A unit that is useful in desperation is still not a good unit. Peasants can save your skin if used correctly and at the right time. I would prefer a unit of Vanilla Spearmen to UM any day of the week. At least the latter can hold off cavalry for a little while. Militia Sergeants are much more worthwhile and I tend to skip UM and only train if absolutely necessary. UM are only dangerous if they're well upgraded and are under a good general, by that time you might as well train a better unit to replace the UM.

The only factions that find UM even remotely useful in early would be the HRE, Italians or French. The English have Fyrdmen (and Clansmen, Kerns and Gallowglasses!), The Danes - Vikings, the Spanish and Aragonese - Javelinmen, Jinetes, etc and the eastern factions have either Slav Javelins, Slav Warriors, Jobbagy, Vikings etc. The Turks and Byzantine don't need them - for obvious reasons, the Almohads certainly don't need them nor the Egyptians.

Of those factions that just might need UM, namely the French, HRE and Italians, I would still rather train Vanilla Spearmen. Also as the French have Hobilars to use as flankers early on that really leaves the UM somewhat redundant as the AP advantage is small considering that there won't be that many armoured units to deal with right at the start of the early era. This really leaves only the HRE and Italians with a possible need for UM at the beginning of the early era.

[Martok]

A unit that is useful in desperation is still not a good unit.

QFT

While Urban Militia can be useful under the right conditions, they become redundant and/or obsolete so quickly that it's hardly ever worth training them. I stopped using them in any real numbers after little more than a year of playing MTW, and not at all in the last couple years. With the possible aforementioned exception(s) of the HRE & Italians, pretty much every other faction has at least one or more units -- which are also available early on -- that perform better than UM do. What's more, these other units are usually a better value for your money as well.