[2.53] Analysis: Best troops of each faction in each of 6 classes

[Raygereio]

It means that, all things being equal, the attackers have the advantage. 20 defending archers vs 20 attacking archers is actually 5v20 at any given moment.

The defenders still have the advantage of standing behind battlements and only having a portion of their hitbox exposed, while the attackers are generally standing out in the open and can be hit anywhere.

Maybe it's nonsense, maybe I just suck, but I generally have a way easier time hitting people as a defending archer, then I do as an attacking one.

[DaElf]

Eh, didn't you draw Ambar of Kotu from the Belgariad/Mallorean? Kheldar/Silk is the "real" character behind that role, right?

Ah, of course.. forgive me; I was half asleep when writing my previous post xD

I'd be interested in hearing your actual character's backstory, though

I'll believe it when I hear it!

(Actually, it was the way you said it that made me laugh.)

I should probably say right now that I didn't use my normal voice for it.. you might get a bit of a scare, otherwise xD (If you're interested: http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,201906.msg5219802.html#msg5219802)

Yea, the build notes even quite explicitly state that the SCs were given bows in 2.53.

Hm... if they have bows, could you then steamroller everyone straight ahead while shooting at people to the sides? 

Remember that they only have 50 proficiency in Archery.. I really don't see why a Slaver unit would have a bow, to be honest. :s

As I said a few paragraphs up, don't defensive troops spawn more or less in order of appearance on the garrison list? Or am I actually really, really high right now or something? 

Aye, they do, but I meant more along the lines of where they actually spawn on the walls (Archers in the towers, Infantry at the ladders, etc.).

So get on over there, you! *cracks whip*

Good suggestion, by the way.

(Wait, didn't I just see something like this in Windy's Dev Workshop thread?)

Kinky. I might do tomorrow.. perhaps.. along with writing that guide that I didn't seem to get round to today. Oh well, I'll do it eventually

I've not actually read that thread, but quite possibly

[eastpaw]

But again, the main difference is that the attacking archers have line of sight and can fire away while the defenders can't.  Think of it this way, if you go up to a gap and can see 4 archers, all 4 can hit you.

That's inconsistent. First you say the that if you could see the attacker to shoot him, he could shoot you back, then you say that even when the attacker could hit you, you wouldn't be able to return the favour. So which is it?

He meant that the defending archers are standing back, not participating in the shootout. Only 1 out of every 4 archers on the defending side can actually shoot, while the rest are stuck out of Line of Sight. However, the archers on the ground are all able to shoot, non-stop. It means that, all things being equal, the attackers have the advantage. 20 defending archers vs 20 attacking archers is actually 5v20 at any given moment.

(My figure of 1 out of 4 was totally made up, for the sake of clarification)

Thanks, that makes sense. But that's only if you have a large band of archers standing out of firing position. Probably happens a lot with computer opponents but the player has options, some of which have been laid out in various places in this thread.

The defenders still have the advantage of standing behind battlements and only having a portion of their hitbox exposed, while the attackers are generally standing out in the open and can be hit anywhere.

Maybe it's nonsense, maybe I just suck, but I generally have a way easier time hitting people as a defending archer, then I do as an attacking one.

Same here, so maybe I suck too.

As several people have pointed out though, the AI has little trouble with headshots, so the parapet doesn't protect as much as it would appear to. Some protection is better than none, however, and not all attacking archers are guaranteed to be sharpshooters. Additionally, merlons do limit attacker opportunity, which some posters seem to have missed. Also, if you have shields in front of your archers, those shields will eat up a lot of incoming arrows. The bottomline is that in most situations battlements should help the defenders more than they help the attackers - but some players seem to have observed the opposite. Dunno.

Ah, of course.. forgive me; I was half asleep when writing my previous post xD

I'd be interested in hearing your actual character's backstory, though

*in my most annoyingly grandiloquent voice* You are forgiven, my son.

Well, I've a bunch. PMs, you think?

I should probably say right now that I didn't use my normal voice for it.. you might get a bit of a scare, otherwise xD (If you're interested: http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,201906.msg5219802.html#msg5219802)

Invalid or Deleted File.

Remember that they only have 50 proficiency in Archery.. I really don't see why a Slaver unit would have a bow, to be honest. :s

That probably should be bumped up a little, yea. Suggestion time?

Anyway, I think elephant-mounted archers are historically accurate. Pretty hard to hit anything with a melee weapon from way up there, right?

Although... hmm... that would make the SC the only unit in the Manhunter tree that can end up killing rather than knocking unconscious a target!

Aye, they do, but I meant more along the lines of where they actually spawn on the walls (Archers in the towers, Infantry at the ladders, etc.).

If I'm not mistaken, the first troops to spawn will spawn closest to the wall. In any case, I don't remember ever having any trouble getting the shields to the front and the bows to the rear. Hmm....

[Commodore_Axephante]

Remember that they only have 50 proficiency in Archery.. I really don't see why a Slaver unit would have a bow, to be honest. :s

That probably should be bumped up a little, yea. Suggestion time?

Anyway, I think elephant-mounted archers are historically accurate. Pretty hard to hit anything with a melee weapon from way up there, right?

Although... hmm... that would make the SC the only unit in the Manhunter tree that can end up killing rather than knocking unconscious a target!

You know what would rectify all this? If the Surgery skill applied to your downed opponents, in addition to your own men. I mean, think about it from the slaver's perspective. The fools are routed, running for the hills. Why ride them down when you can just put some arrows through their knees and have the surgeon clean them up before sale? They're headed for the galleys anyway - won't matter if they can't walk so pretty.

[eastpaw]

You know what would rectify all this? If the Surgery skill applied to your downed opponents, in addition to your own men. I mean, think about it from the slaver's perspective. The fools are routed, running for the hills. Why ride them down when you can just put some arrows through their knees and have the surgeon clean them up before sale? They're headed for the galleys anyway - won't matter if they can't walk so pretty.

That's really a very good idea, Commodore! Please do put this in the Suggestions thread.

[DaElf]

I'd originally posted a guide to my cavalry strategy here that eastpaw had suggested, but it ended up at nearly 5000 words so I've created a thread of its own so as to not detract from the discussion of eastpaw's great Analysis here, since it's rather a tangent.

It can now be found here: http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,236262.0.html

[DaElf]

*in my most annoyingly grandiloquent voice* You are forgiven, my son.

Well, I've a bunch. PMs, you think?

I'm honoured

Yes, please

Invalid or Deleted File.

Eep.. I'll reupload them and PM you a new link, if you'd like?

That probably should be bumped up a little, yea. Suggestion time?

Anyway, I think elephant-mounted archers are historically accurate. Pretty hard to hit anything with a melee weapon from way up there, right?

Although... hmm... that would make the SC the only unit in the Manhunter tree that can end up killing rather than knocking unconscious a target!

Mmh, I'd rather that the Slaver units only have the means to knock enemies unconscious, rather than killing them. Why kill someone who you could sell, after all? If it's going to stay, though, then yes, it seems pointless to have just 50 WP in it.

You're absolutely right about it being difficult for them to hit anything from up on the elephant!

If I'm not mistaken, the first troops to spawn will spawn closest to the wall. In any case, I don't remember ever having any trouble getting the shields to the front and the bows to the rear. Hmm....

I wasn't aware of that (I order the troops in my garrison in terms of what importance I put on them taking part in the siege). I'd still like to be able to make the Archers spawn over in the Towers, though.

You know what would rectify all this? If the Surgery skill applied to your downed opponents, in addition to your own men. I mean, think about it from the slaver's perspective. The fools are routed, running for the hills. Why ride them down when you can just put some arrows through their knees and have the surgeon clean them up before sale? They're headed for the galleys anyway - won't matter if they can't walk so pretty.

That's a nice idea, but it would lessen the usefulness of Blunt weapons, somewhat. Perhaps it should only be to a limited extent (1%/level rather than 4%/level). Of course, it would need to only proc. if you win the battle, too.


eastpaw, I was wondering whether you'd rather I just post a link to my guide here rather than have it both here and in its own thread; I wouldn't want to detract from any discussion of your own great work that this thread is about, and it might be more confusing regarding feedback if people are seeing it in more than one place. I'll remove it for now (and replace it with a link to my thread), but can always Copy+Paste it back in if you'd like.

[eastpaw]

Well, I've a bunch. PMs, you think?

Yes, please

Let me try to get them into some sort of intelligible order and then send them to you.

Eep.. I'll reupload them and PM you a new link, if you'd like?

Yes, please. I'm curious!

I wasn't aware of that (I order the troops in my garrison in terms of what importance I put on them taking part in the siege). I'd still like to be able to make the Archers spawn over in the Towers, though.

I guess what we need is for Caba`drin to make PBOD work for defensive sieges.

That's a nice idea, but it would lessen the usefulness of Blunt weapons, somewhat. Perhaps it should only be to a limited extent (1%/level rather than 4%/level). Of course, it would need to only proc. if you win the battle, too.

Yes, definitely only if you win the battle! And, yea, lower chance than for your own troops would be good.

eastpaw, I was wondering whether you'd rather I just post a link to my guide here rather than have it both here and in its own thread; I wouldn't want to detract from any discussion of your own great work that this thread is about, and it might be more confusing regarding feedback if people are seeing it in more than one place. I'll remove it for now (and replace it with a link to my thread), but can always Copy+Paste it back in if you'd like.

I think it's good that you have it in another thread and have a link here. Makes it easier to comment on your guide!

-----

Edit: Commodore Axephante quoted Caba`drin on something in another thread that affects the feasibility of stuffing a castle with low-tier troops:

Note that, on a whole, AI battles between one another are determined by the relative size of the parties and the levels of the troops involved.

Emphasis mine. So, this confirms that the only definite benefits to putting T1 hordes into forts are (a) to discourage the AI from attacking you and (b) to help your reinforcement ratio in a scene battle.

If we could find out what the auto-battles calculations really look like, we could probably easily find out which units give the most bang for your buck when you're not around. That would be rather metagamy though, so perhaps it's just as well that we don't have these formulae.

[winrehs007]

the only definite benefits to putting T1 hordes into forts are (a) to discourage the AI from attacking you and (b) to help your reinforcement ratio in a scene battle.

Save money? 

[eastpaw]

the only definite benefits to putting T1 hordes into forts are (a) to discourage the AI from attacking you and (b) to help your reinforcement ratio in a scene battle.

Save money? 

Lol!

Strategy A: "Longbow Abuse"
The longbow archer line is one of the fastest and most effective in the game. Use them like the English used them IRL: set them up where they can reach the enemy line and let them darken the sky with arrows. You need to position them well, and hide them behind shielded units. Swadian cavalry all have shields. Even the light ones. You may want to use them as a shield wall, positioning them in front of your longbowmen. Their horses can also absorb some enemy arrows, so your own archers can survive longer. Note that when fighting Swadian armies they might also use this tactic. I noticed this a lot when I was helping Lady Isolla reclaim the Swadian throne.

If you're really going to use this strategy, you're going to need your army to be comprised of at least 40% archers. I actually went 50-60%, with the rest being mostly cavalry for shields and for finishing off the remainder of their line.

Hmm... that's given me some ideas. I'd always baulked at the notion of using our expensive cav this way: though they would stand up well to arrows, many would lose their horses in the process, and some of your men are likely to take an arrow in the kn-- wrong place no matter how tough and well-shielded they are.

Solutions:

1) Dismount and move a distance away from your horses before taking up defensive positions. Problems are twofold: firstly, some horses may wander away; secondly, you are not ready to meet a cavalry charge with one of your own. This also does not take away the pain of losing the occasional expensive and hard to come by C6/C7. All in all not a great solution; probably better to leave them mounted and let their horses (which magically respawn after battle) take some of the brunt of the enemy's attack.

2) Instead of letting a small number of heavy cav take on this tanking role, put in a larger number of light cav. These are cheaper (time- and money-wise) so you can field more of them and also wouldn't feel so sad at losing a few. At the same time, being light cav, they are manoeuvrable and can easily split to flank an enemy that has charged too near while your nimble archers run back. Also, they are better than heavy cav at running down routers and stragglers.

I dunno. Would solution 2 be feasible?

[Hanakoganei]

Personally, as an int/cha character with already level 10 in Surgery (int skills are very easy to get to level 10 lol), it isn't really an issue for me. Even if I suffer casualties in combat I generally only have a few fatalities. That's why it's easy for me to suggest such a strategy.

However, I've also noticed that I get more fatalities in my infantry that charges after the cavalry than the cavalry itself. The cavalry have shields and, if you order them to use the shields, will keep them up and usually save their own lives. Their horses might die to enemy archers though. If too many horses die, instead of ordering a charge I order them and the infantry to advance slowly in formation, to make use of the shields. This slow advance is very effective at saving your men's lives. If you have a secondary cavalry unit for flanking (highly recommended), now is the time to use them. Charge them in from the flank then pull them out immediately. This will break the enemy formations. When their formation breaks, and your own main cavalry + infantry assault is close enough, order the charge. You need to do this if you suspect they have too many spearmen in the front line, otherwise all your horsemen will die.

Since PBOD and Floris, I've spent way more time learning tactics and doing this stuff than learning to shoot an arrow or swing a sword. My main interest is keeping my troop casualties to a minimum. If possible, no deaths at all even during heavy siege. This way I can go on extended campaigns, often taking multiple targets before I need to go home to rest my troops up.

The way Floris Expanded troops are set up, there's enough diversity yet enough balance that you can play with all kinds of strategies. I try to stick to the tried-and-tested military strategies that you read about in books or even see in movies.

[eastpaw]

Personally, as an int/cha character with already level 10 in Surgery (int skills are very easy to get to level 10 lol), it isn't really an issue for me. Even if I suffer casualties in combat I generally only have a few fatalities. That's why it's easy for me to suggest such a strategy.

Right. It's easy to forget that non-combat skills can actually influence (in this case quite strongly) what strategies are viable on the field. Nice one.

The way Floris Expanded troops are set up, there's enough diversity yet enough balance that you can play with all kinds of strategies. I try to stick to the tried-and-tested military strategies that you read about in books or even see in movies.

That's cool. Having come from the Total War series, I tend to try and see the battle from above and employ whole-field tactics too. However, I must say it is a lot easier to do that when you really are above the scene than when you are in the midst of things, especially if you get greedy and want to be in the thick of the action yourself. It also doesn't help that I suck at using Floris battle commands - issuing orders primarily with mouse clicks from a bird's eye vantage point is a far sight more convenient.

One can only imagine how much more difficult leading a real-life battle would be.

[Caba`drin]

I wasn't aware of that (I order the troops in my garrison in terms of what importance I put on them taking part in the siege). I'd still like to be able to make the Archers spawn over in the Towers, though.

I guess what we need is for Caba`drin to make PBOD work for defensive sieges.

Which part is needed?

[eastpaw]

Hi, Caba. From what I've read, the pre-battle deployment part of PBOD doesn't work in sieges yet.

DaElf was talking about getting the right troops to spawn in the right places in a defensive siege; specifically, he wanted his archers to already be in the towers at the beginning of a battle. Also, some players have found to their frustration that when the siege starts, all their men are in the wrong places and cannot get to their stations in time to repel the invaders.

PBOD could potentially fix all that, correct?

[Caba`drin]

Hi, Caba. From what I've read, the pre-battle deployment part of PBOD doesn't work in sieges yet.

DaElf was talking about getting the right troops to spawn in the right places in a defensive siege; specifically, he wanted his archers to already be in the towers at the beginning of a battle. Also, some players have found to their frustration that when the siege starts, all their men are in the wrong places and cannot get to their stations in time to repel the invaders.

PBOD could potentially fix all that, correct?

Eh...some/much of that is entry point placement in the non-Native siege scenes. I could throw in code to have the archers spawn to the archer destination points at battle-start (wouldn't make sense to do so at reinforcement, of course) and perhaps work on an order to be able to tell reinforcements to hold the tower positions (as there isn't such an order now and giving orders to the archer group would mess up their ability to try and hold those positions).

Other than that, Pre-Battle Orders/Deployment options are active in siege defenses, but there aren't siege-specific features.