rhodok sergeants

hi guys im thinking about starting a new campaign and i was wondering wether they are any good.
thanks

I've personally had good luck with them as an auxiliary force to compliment Nord Huscarls as they have large pavise shields that can absorb a lot of attacks.  Also, thanks to said shields, they're pretty good at defending castles as well.  However, they're terrible at attacking castles as they don't have the tearing power of Nord Huscarls.

What I mean is are they good on their own in battles and do they cope well against other infantry

It depends on the terrain of the battlefield.  If out in the open, order them to stand ground and stand close on any slight hill that you can find while you and your mounted companions charge to take out any enemy cavalry.  In very hilly or rough terrain, Sargents are a terror on defense.

As said by Michaelvillena, they're a terror on hills and such as they can basically make short work of anyone outside of maybe Huscarls (besides, who can hold against Huscarls well on foot?).  As I kind of said earlier, their biggest asset is their ability to defend positions as they can absorb a lot so that other troops can help make short work of them (not that they can't fight; they're pretty good at it).

A Rhodok Sergeant can take down any infantry unit in the game, and they are particularly effective when the close around horsemen and trap them. They have arguably the best shield a ground troop can have, and they have very lethal weapons such as the military cleaver and the glaive.

Like others said before, they offer a great compliment to Huscarls or Vaegir/Sarranid guards.

I strongly suggest aquiring their archer counter parts, the Rhodok Sharpshooters as well.

My experience has been that Rhodoks are much better than Nords overall.  I know this may fly in the face of conventional wisdom, but that's just been my observation after playing as both.  Now, I haven't played Nords all the way to the end, so that may be a big factor here.  It takes a very long time to train Nord Huscarls.  Others may be basing their opinions on an army full of Huscarls. 

An army of about 40% Rhodok Sergeants and 60% Rhodok Sharpshooters will annihilate anything, and they train up much, much faster than Huscarls and cost less. 

NeverUseCavalry said:

My experience has been that Rhodoks are much better than Nords overall.  I know this may fly in the face of conventional wisdom, but that's just been my observation after playing as both.  Now, I haven't played Nords all the way to the end, so that may be a big factor here.  It takes a very long time to train Nord Huscarls.  Others may be basing their opinions on an army full of Huscarls. 

An army of about 40% Rhodok Sergeants and 60% Rhodok Sharpshooters will annihilate anything, and they train up much, much faster than Huscarls and cost less.

Click to expand...

Well....yeah, maybe for defensive field combat and siege defense as Sergeants are defensively better thanks to their shields (and if your positioning is right, Sharpshooters should be doing most of the work).  However, as I said earlier, their ability to siege positions is pretty bad.  Offensively, Nords are usually better due to their sheer killing power and their ability to bust through shields (assuming they have an axe to do just that) both in field combat and in offensive siege work.  Defending against a siege is a bit of a toss up.  On one hand, they have the raw hp to be able to handle it better than some like Vaegir Guards or Swadian Sergeants.  On the other hand, like most infantry, they need proper support fire to be able to do anything against a siege.  It's also why I don't like just using one kingdom's troops as it just limits your abilities (it's also why I prefer to use Sergeants as an auxiliary unit with Huscarls as well as having Sharpshooters and Marksmen giving support/suppressing fire while Swadian Knights, Vaegir Knights, Khergit Vet Horse Archers, and Sword Sisters charge into an opponent's flank).  ....by the way, don't ask why I'm having Khergits charge an opponent...I'm just dumb like that...and their AI will do it anyways.

Also, going in a Nord vs Rhodok style fight, there's too many variables to account for on who would do better:  Who's charging, who's holding ground, what are the ratios of troops (huscarls/archers vs sergeants/sharpshooters), how are they being positioned, who has the terrain advantage (a la high ground/rivers/etc), and several other factors can account for who has the advantage over the other.  If it's pure shooting contest, Sharpshooters would easily win against archers.  Ground offensive where Huscarls and Sergeants just face charge each other, Huscarls should win in theory (especially considering some can open up with throwing axes to people's faces/shields).  Mixed ratios, it all depends on who has a better advantage and with what kind of ratios (say, 50/50 for both sides, it "might" edge to Rhodoks).

Yeah, I probably shouldn't comment without more experience with Nords.  My experience with Rhodoks is extensive, but I've only been playing Nords for a little while.  Nords just feel weaker though.  In particular, the first time I came up against cavalry with Nords, I was shocked at the casualties.  The Rhodok Sergeant/Sharpshooter combo really eats cavalry alive.  I figured that even though Nords aren't geared specifically towards fighting cavalry, they would do just as well by the sheer power of their infantry.  It didn't really work out that way.

Rhodoks are so balanced.  Second best infantry in the game, arguably the best ranged.  The infantry all carry the best anti-cavalry weapons.  The ranged are competent in melee.

With Nords the tendency is to build only infantry because the archers suck (accordingly to conventional wisdom).  Of course the infantry are powerful, but they have no anti-cav weapons and having no or very little ranged support really hurts.  Huscarls are an extra tier above anyone else so it's hard (or time consuming) to build up a lot of them, and the lower tier guys aren't enough to overcome the lack of anti-cav weps and no ranged support.

NeverUseCavalry said:

Yeah, I probably shouldn't comment without more experience with Nords.  My experience with Rhodoks is extensive, but I've only been playing Nords for a little while.  Nords just feel weaker though.  In particular, the first time I came up against cavalry with Nords, I was shocked at the casualties.  The Rhodok Sergeant/Sharpshooter combo really eats cavalry alive.  I figured that even though Nords aren't geared specifically towards fighting cavalry, they would do just as well by the sheer power of their infantry.  It didn't really work out that way.

Rhodoks are so balanced.  Second best infantry in the game, arguably the best ranged.  The infantry all carry the best anti-cavalry weapons.  The ranged are competent in melee.

With Nords the tendency is to build only infantry because the archers suck (accordingly to conventional wisdom).  Of course the infantry are powerful, but they have no anti-cav weapons and having no or very little ranged support really hurts.  Huscarls are an extra tier above anyone else so it's hard (or time consuming) to build up a lot of them, and the lower tier guys aren't enough to overcome the lack of anti-cav weps and no ranged support.

Click to expand...

And this is where I agree in that Huscarls are not very good at absorbing cavalry charges, whereas Rhodok Sergeants are thanks to their larger shields being able to absorb couch lance damage.  They also have some kind of pole weapon whether it's a glaive or a pike to provide the ability to, if used correctly, stop a horse from plowing through (though sometimes to most of the time they fail to do that because lol AI).  Again, Huscarls are mainly built to be berserker-like and charging lines/siege lines instead of being on the defensive.

And, yes, Rhodok Sharpshooters are arguably the best archers in the game due to their sustainability and versatility.  However, Vaegir Marksmen shouldn't be counted out as, from the various times I've gone against them, their suppression fire is....well....exhausting as I've been filled with arrows because of them.  I'm not counting out Sharpshooters at all; far from it.  They're quite amazing at what they can do as they, again, have the versatility to be able to switch from backline accurate fire to semi-decent frontline head-bashing as they can take a few more hits than Vaegir Marksmen can (as they are horrible as auxiliary frontline troops) while also having fairly good shields.  Despite having a slower rate of fire, it also feels more accurate every time I'm against them (even while strafing them from a decent distance on horseback, mind you, though this could be me imagining things).  Crossbows also have the bonus of being able to pierce shields.  The damage is really small (something like 2-4 damage from my experience), but it's usually enough to basically make someone flinch to drop their shields and leave them wide open for more bolts to fill them up if they're fired close enough together.

Just to give an idea, I'm playing on an easier difficulty because 'lol I suck" and I just, for the most part, don't care as much.  However, I think I usually have more trouble with Rhodok Sharpshooters in the early game than I do with Vaegir Marksmen due to them being able to hit you accurately from farther away whenever I get into a quasi-archery duel with them (save for Deserters because deserters knows no tactics).  Marksmen are only annoying on the ground as you need good shields to absorb their rate of fire (or just shock them with cavalry) while Sharpshooters can still be a threat if they have a good line in front of them to stop whatever is needed to be stopped.

Then again, what am I saying?  I'm the stupid one as is (being one who mods his game) 

Rhodok Sergeants are one of the reasons I hate sieging the Rhodoks. Their short range and fast weapons allow them to just nuzzle into troops and smash them down. They sort of remind me of riot police putting down roudy troublemakers.

Nord infantry have anti-shield throwing weapons and 1h/2h axes which enable them to hack through enemy shields in siege offense. Even if they fail to defeat the enemy the next nord will smack their defenseless opponent in the face with a throwing javelin and finish the job. To be honest every faction except khergits are very good at holding castles with their top tier units. Nord Huscarls, Vaegir knight/guard, khergit lancers, Swadian Knights/Infantry, Rhodok Sergeants and Sarranid Mamelukes all have roughly the same armour and decent close range weapons. Sarranid guards are just awful, but Mamelukes make up for it with their stompy 2H maces which just drop anything instantly. I actually think that the hardest factions to siege are the players are ones with units that have throwing weapons. I found it not all that hard to siege Swadian/Rhodok forts because all you need to do is take the time to strip the walls of shooters and then you can just tell your men to hold their fire, get up on the ladders and pick off the infantry yourself one by one with head shots and get mental amounts of exp. Just make damn sure you run repeated assaults first to eliminate all the ranged units