A no-mounts army.

Users who are viewing this thread

ianfreddie07

Regular
So have you guys played no-mount armies? I plan to make one too. And I'd like to see if this is effective:

40% Rhodok Sharpshooters
40% Rhodok Sergeants
20% Nord Huscarls
 

Bobsama

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWB
ianfreddie07 said:
So have you guys played no-mount armies? I plan to make one too. And I'd like to see if this is effective:

40% Rhodok Sharpshooters
40% Rhodok Sergeants
20% Nord Huscarls
My personal favorite combinations...

1) Field Battles & Siege Defenses
70% Nord Huscarls
30% Vaegir Marksmen or Nord Vet. Archers

2) Siege Offenses & Bandit Massacres
15% Nord Huscarls
85% Vaegir Marksmen or Nord Vet. Archers

I've found that I prefer the speed of regular archers to the power of Rhodock Sharpshooters.
 

ianfreddie07

Regular
Bobsama said:
I've found that I prefer the speed of regular archers to the power of Rhodock Sharpshooters.

Interesting. It's like an offensive speed build. Not as fast as Sarranids but not as fragile as them either. But do you think my combo will do fine regardless of it's slowness?  :grin:
 

artifex

Knight
WB
ianfreddie07 said:
So have you guys played no-mount armies? I plan to make one too. And I'd like to see if this is effective:

40% Rhodok Sharpshooters
40% Rhodok Sergeants
20% Nord Huscarls

Any army composed of top tier troops (besides Khergit) is going to be an "effective" army.
 

Jude

Sergeant
100% Huscarl.

Tried it, easiest thing ever.

100% Sharpshooter also works, just not *quite* as well.
 

Yoshi Murasaki

Knight at Arms
ianfreddie07 said:
But do you think my combo will do fine regardless of it's slowness?  :grin:

Define "fine".

If you mean "will I be able to win a battle" the answer is yes.

You'll do worse than everyone else though, so if you define "fine" comparatively, no, it's not fine, it's horrible.


For example, why would you use 40% Sergeants if you're using mixed troops anyway? And since you never played as Rhodok let me tell you this: you'll never have 40% Sergeants, not unless you spend every 2nd week in a town while your companions with high Trainer skill train troops into Sergeants. If you're just going to do battles, I'd be surprised you end up with 10% Sergeants.
 

A_Dane

Knight at Arms
Jude said:
100% Huscarl.

Tried it, easiest thing ever.

100% Sharpshooter also works, just not *quite* as well.

I've never been succesful with a 100% sharpshooter army in the field. I had some 50-60 sharpshooters in a recent game, with 6 companions on mounts, my enemy consisted of roughly 70-80 where only 10 of those were mounted. while the rest were your typical rabble of militias or footmen + some crossbows.
Now i stoped 7 of the 10 mounted from getting close, but the last 3 rammed into my xbows. wouldn't have been a big deal, if they haddn't all focused on them, giving the rest of the army time to get close...
I won but lost some 30 sharpshooters... not very effective compared to a few sarranid mamlukes and a bunch of nord huscarls in my opinion :/
 
Jude said:
100% Huscarl.

Tried it, easiest thing ever.

100% Sharpshooter also works, just not *quite* as well.

I stopped using Nords all together for a good long while just because of this. The game becomes pointless when your kill to death ratio is 20:1...
 

Bobsama

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWB
A_Dane said:
Jude said:
100% Huscarl.

Tried it, easiest thing ever.

100% Sharpshooter also works, just not *quite* as well.

I've never been succesful with a 100% sharpshooter army in the field. I had some 50-60 sharpshooters in a recent game, with 6 companions on mounts, my enemy consisted of roughly 70-80 where only 10 of those were mounted. while the rest were your typical rabble of militias or footmen + some crossbows.
Now i stoped 7 of the 10 mounted from getting close, but the last 3 rammed into my xbows. wouldn't have been a big deal, if they haddn't all focused on them, giving the rest of the army time to get close...
I won but lost some 30 sharpshooters... not very effective compared to a few sarranid mamlukes and a bunch of nord huscarls in my opinion :/
Interesting. I've actually had some great successes when using an army of Sharpshooters against Khergits. Even on open ground, the sharpshooters didn't give up THAT much. I ended with a dozen or two casualties to kill an army twice my size. Just putting them on a hillside (even if it's not very steep) is effective in giving rear ranks the ability to shoot over the heads of the front ranks.
 

Hidziro

Recruit
Im playing now with nords and making army with no cav. im planing to have army only of nord infantry and vaegirs archers. Non cavalry armies is beter in sieges while cavalry in plains. Between i always playing only with full of cav army or full infantry i dont like to mix things with horses and footmans.
 

ianfreddie07

Regular
Yoshi Murasaki said:
ianfreddie07 said:
But do you think my combo will do fine regardless of it's slowness?  :grin:
For example, why would you use 40% Sergeants if you're using mixed troops anyway? And since you never played as Rhodok let me tell you this: you'll never have 40% Sergeants, not unless you spend every 2nd week in a town while your companions with high Trainer skill train troops into Sergeants. If you're just going to do battles, I'd be surprised you end up with 10% Sergeants.

I never literally meant to have 40% sergeants. It's just a proposed combo.  :oops:
 

Bobsama

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWB
ianfreddie07 said:
Yoshi Murasaki said:
ianfreddie07 said:
But do you think my combo will do fine regardless of it's slowness?  :grin:
For example, why would you use 40% Sergeants if you're using mixed troops anyway? And since you never played as Rhodok let me tell you this: you'll never have 40% Sergeants, not unless you spend every 2nd week in a town while your companions with high Trainer skill train troops into Sergeants. If you're just going to do battles, I'd be surprised you end up with 10% Sergeants.

I never literally meant to have 40% sergeants. It's just a proposed combo.  :oops:
Or you could do what I do (since I have high trainer): toss elites into garrisons while fighting the rest.
 

Captain_Octavius

Sergeant Knight
WB
Getting a full army of the best units in the game isn't much fun. My first rule is to stick to only one faction's troops, the second is to never have more than 33% cavalry, and the third rule is to not wait till all of your troops are top tiered before you go to a battle.

It's far more realistic and far more fun.
 

unknown3056

Sergeant at Arms
WBNWWF&SM&B
Captain_Octavius said:
Getting a full army of the best units in the game isn't much fun. My first rule is to stick to only one faction's troops, the second is to never have more than 33% cavalry, and the third rule is to not wait till all of your troops are top tiered before you go to a battle.

It's far more realistic and far more fun.

This is what I like doing
 

EdwardWellcraft

Sergeant Knight
I like having a small army of highly-trained troops, especially at the start. I don't go for all top tier but I'll go with top and second tier pretty much. I never have recruits in my army, the first thing I do when I get new recruits, if  I don't have a high enough trainer skill, is go to the training field and start training the peasant bastards up to second tier.

My only cav is usually companions, if that, and I usually play as Nords with a mix of 70% Infantry and 30% archers.
 
if you do an army of pure non-mounted troops, than the obvious choice is Huscarls and Sharpshooters. probably 60% sharpshooters and 40% huscarls would be good. Sergeants take lots of training and Huscarls will beat them any day.
 
Top Bottom