Companion build questions

[ripple]

(which seems to be of no use for those playing native, since companions apparently don't switch weapons properly without the lancer script).

This is my first attempt at a Quote, bear with me pls.
Is this still true for the Current Native?
My normal load for FIrentis and a few others is, top to bottom.
Lance, H. Huscarl Shield, Bastard Sword and Bardiche.
Speed over Dmg, as far as "+" to wpns, ie. Balanced > heavy.

I think that's a quote from my post? Yes, it's true, without a lancer script, which either comes with one of the overhaul mods that has it or that you add yourself, companions will not switch between one-handed weapons and lance weapons properly.

After a month of playing, I've actually answered some of my own questions through sheer experimentation.

The answers for my own questions:

1) there is virtually no difference between the number of kills from companions with just one-handers + shields and those that also specialize in polearms + shields. None. This is with a mod running Hatonastick's lancer script and a mod without. Companions with lances do perform -slightly- better against cavalry than those without, but in the overall scheme of things--given that the AI is so bad that even cavalry end up in face-hug orgies after the initial charge--it doesn't really matter.  I haven't tried Caba' Drin's lancer script though. Might yield a different result.

2) the AI for mounted range combat is stupid, so it also makes no difference whether companions specialize in one-handers or one-handers + throwing weapons. Mounted throwers will occasionally switch to using their throwing weapons as melee weapons, rather than switch to their backup one-handed weapons--very stupid if they already have a balanced or tempered one-hander as a backup weapon. This means that throwers using jarids or throwing spears will unintentionally gain skill in polearms, and in one-handed proficiency if they have throwing axes. They also do not accumulate more kills than the other companions I have who specialize in just one-handers (in fact, often less). Mounted archer AI is also stupid. If they have two-handed melee weapons that inflicts more damage than their bows (which is the majority of two-handed weapons), sometimes they will switch to that shortly after the battle begins. Mounted archer companions also do not generate more kills than one-handed meleers. I think Caba' Drin has a script that allows you to command your troops to wield a particular weapon type (beyond simply "any" and "blunt"). I haven't test it, maybe someone should and post their results.

3) bows or crossbows for support NPCs? Verdict: it doesn't matter. Since these companions are valued primarily because of their skills in trainer, healing, trade, looting, etc., I put them at the bottom of the party order. Unless you are playing with bigger than default game battle size, these companions virtually never show up in battle (except during sieges)--meaning that their chance of being alive at the end of a battle is increased (and their support skills usable). Since the best thing for them is to never show up in battle, it doesn't really matter what weapons they use. I usually just boost their strengths to 10 so they can wear some good armour, wield a siege crossbow, then hand them a two-hander.

In fact, I've come to realize that companions are useful really only in support roles--as healers, trainers (very important), looters, traders. Any number of elite tier troops can be combat tanks for your party, and a level 40 Alayne with 300+ proficiency in one-handed weapons won't really turn the tide of a battle any more than an extra Swadian knight (and for the price of one companion, you can probably field two elite tier units). The only good reason to not turn companions into lords once you start your own kingdom, is that you do benefit immensely from having a team of trainers.

One last thing: due to the penalty associated with using bastard swords with one-hand, companions with a good one-handers (eg. balanced or tempered long aiming sword/elite scimitar) -vastly- outperform those with good bastard swords (eg. tempered or balanced heavy bastard sword). I know some people suggest giving these companions crappy shields so they can switch to wielding the bastard sword with two-hands when their shields break during sieges. Two caveats: first, unless you have archery damage toned down in your game, I would not recommend giving any companions crappy shields. It doesn't matter how good they are as meleers if they die to Rhodock sharpshooters every time they climb the ladder. Second, unless these companions also specialize in wielding two-handers, they will never out-perform those companions that devote all their weapon proficiency points to one-handers--and if these companions specialize in two-handers, you might as well just give them a real two-hander (like a great sword or a war sword). They will do much better than using a bastard sword.

 

[Skurge]

Thank You Ripple, for the quote and the help. You answered all my questions.

the bad news is I have to re-arm them now.  oh Wait, thats the good news.
The BAD news is. I built most of my companions to be their own Lords. 22+ lvl, high scores 5-6.
Lord Artimer seems to be a (BIG) mistake. I have the charts but, I have short term memory loss B )

 

[placenik]

2) the AI for mounted range combat is stupid, so it also makes no difference whether companions specialize in one-handers or one-handers + throwing weapons. Mounted throwers will occasionally switch to using their throwing weapons as melee weapons, rather than switch to their backup one-handed weapons--very stupid if they already have a balanced or tempered one-hander as a backup weapon. This means that throwers using jarids or throwing spears will unintentionally gain skill in polearms, and in one-handed proficiency if they have throwing axes. They also do not accumulate more kills than the other companions I have who specialize in just one-handers (in fact, often less). Mounted archer AI is also stupid. If they have two-handed melee weapons that inflicts more damage than their bows (which is the majority of two-handed weapons), sometimes they will switch to that shortly after the battle begins. Mounted archer companions also do not generate more kills than one-handed meleers.

OK, you messed with my favorite companion build, so I have to reply. Mounted archer companions on armored horses are quite a force on battlefield. First, as in basic M&B, giving them support weapon is a big NO DO, because every time they get to close quarters, they try to switch (Mounted archer AI is stupid). Having no support weapon forces them to try to break from enemy, as HA should do by default (and kills them when they get dismounted, but it won't happen often).
PS: Until you can give them war bows their main purpose is to make enemy disperse and chase them, so you have a pleasure of hitting exposed backs of your enemies

 

[ripple]

Mounted archer companions on armored horses are quite a force on battlefield. First, as in basic M&B, giving them support weapon is a big NO DO, because every time they get to close quarters, they try to switch (Mounted archer AI is stupid). Having no support weapon forces them to try to break from enemy, as HA should do by default (and kills them when they get dismounted, but it won't happen often).
PS: Until you can give them war bows their main purpose is to make enemy disperse and chase them, so you have a pleasure of hitting exposed backs of your enemies

Fair enough, you raise a good point there in terms of their roles as distraction and the fact that they should be stacked with additional arrows/bolts rather than a melee weapon. I do still have to disagree with their "effectiveness" in battle. I played OSP, which has Rubik's companion kill count script from Custom Commander that helps me to keep a constant track of companion battle performance, and the mounted archer companions consistently under-performs in comparison to mounted melee companions in their kill counts, often by 2:1. Until someone writes a good mounted archer skirmisher AI script, it's just not worth it.

 

[StinkyMcGirk]

TL;DR :  Stay away from pole arms in general with your companions.

A few rules of thumb for me turn my companions into the core of whatever army I am leading... and I use 10 companions with a 12 str. 12 agil. build with 3 (4 after books) leadership, and the rest into intelligence.

1)  Siege Crossbows + Large bag of steel bolts is the first thing every companion needs.  These are great because when companions are mounted, they can't use them, but when dismounted or fighting in sieges, they become elite archers.
2)  Heavy Chargers / Steppe Chargers / Sarranid Warhorse is the second thing every companion needs.
3)  Use weapons with NO THRUSTING ATTACK on your companions.  So for 2h weapons, go w/ balanced 2h sabre, heavy iron mace, or the great bardiche - depending on if you want speed, crush through, or shield breaking capability.
4)  Keep all companions similar in equipment, pre-set points be damned.  I don't care if some companions start with power draw or power throw.  If you use an Xbow, and most of your companions use Xbows, have those companions with pre set points bite the bullet and use Xbows as well - that way, when you group them with your other archers, they'll be used tactically in the same way and to the best benefit.  Also, you'll be able to collect any good projectiles from their corpses when they die in sieges.
5)  1h + shield is best with a masterwork elite scimitar.  Morning stars are better under 5 powerstrike, but if you follow my other advice, your companions will have over 5 in no time.  Seek out masterwork elite scimitars to make these guys truly brutal.  1h + Shield requires only 2-3 points in the shield ability
6)  If your companions are dedicated to fighting on the ground, definitely focus them on 2h over 1h + shield.  As long as you keep them out of projectile fire, 2h infantry companions are potentially the most destructive units in the game - even more than heavy cavalry so long as they can be brought into melee range with the enemy before being peppered by arrows.  The A.I. performs best with 2h weapons in melee range - though the A.I. also performs rather well with 2h slashing only weapons mounted as well.

So, there's a good decision to be made whether you want to have your companions use 2h weapons or 1h + shield, and also whether you want them mounted or on the ground.  Of the four possibilities implied, there are good reasons to go with each.

 

[MayPeX]

Depending on the build your after just trust yourself. But if you want to be a serious bad ass ruler and have good companion lords, you'll need to atleast level them to 20+ and invest in:

Leadership (most important!)
Pathfinding
Tatics
Spotting

And some others that may help but cannot vertify:

Trainer
Weapons Master

Then if you got spares just spend em on personal skills to make them better as a individual

 

[ripple]

6)  If your companions are dedicated to fighting on the ground, definitely focus them on 2h over 1h + shield.  As long as you keep them out of projectile fire, 2h infantry companions are potentially the most destructive units in the game - even more than heavy cavalry so long as they can be brought into melee range with the enemy before being peppered by arrows.  The A.I. performs best with 2h weapons in melee range - though the A.I. also performs rather well with 2h slashing only weapons mounted as well.

So, there's a good decision to be made whether you want to have your companions use 2h weapons or 1h + shield, and also whether you want them mounted or on the ground.  Of the four possibilities implied, there are good reasons to go with each.

Some good suggestions here, but in my experimentation, all 'combat companions' (those dedicated to combat skills) should be mounted, regardless of what weapon they use. I played a 300+ days game with Matheld specializing in 2-handed weapons and she consistently outpaced every other NPC in the number of kills riding a warhorse and using a good quality two-handed sword, usually by a ratio of 2:1.  The only time her kill count is outpaced by other one-hander companions is during sieges, where half the time she is killed before making it to the wall breach. But when she does make it, she's a killing machine. If the companion is not mounted they are more exposed to enemy missiles (Nord throwing axes and jarids being the most dangerous) as it takes them longer to close the distance in field battles.

I give 'support companions' (those who specialize in healing, tactics, siege, looting, etc.) siege crossbows, and hope they never appear in battle. If that's you, then obviously they should not be mounted (in case they do appear in battle because you don't have enough troops). Put some additional points into athletics so they don't slow the party down during map travel.

Depending on the build your after just trust yourself. But if you want to be a serious bad ass ruler and have good companion lords, you'll need to atleast level them to 20+ and invest in:

Leadership (most important!)
Pathfinding
Tatics
Spotting

I have mixed views about whether companions should specialize leadership. Definitely if you plan on turning them into lords. If not, then there is no point. I prefer keeping them as trainers. All my companions are level 20+ and I can turn an army of recruits into an army of top (or near) tier troops in the span of just a few days. It's hard to give that up....

With respect to the other 'support skills' you mentioned, like pathfinding, tactics, spotting...remember that no more than one NPC in the party should specialize in each. These skills do not 'stack' like the trainer skill. Only your character and the companion with the highest point in those skills will ever contribute to the overall effectiveness of those skills.

 

[a_ver_est]

This means that throwers using jarids or throwing spears will unintentionally gain skill in polearms, and in one-handed proficiency if they have throwing axes. They also do not accumulate more kills than the other companions I have who specialize in just one-handers (in fact, often less).

So if I understood correctly, there is no point to give throwing weapons to your mounted companions, even it may be worse. isn't it?

Some good suggestions here, but in my experimentation, all 'combat companions' (those dedicated to combat skills) should be mounted, regardless of what weapon they use.

Never though that a Companion could be a valuable fighter, their party skills potential look like far more important than adding another warrior to the party. Usually I give them a fast horse and skills/armor enough to just survive. If he/she kills someone great !! but it isn't his goal. Looks like even more important having, for example, a "medic" backup than another knight.

 

[ripple]

So if I understood correctly, there is no point to give throwing weapons to your mounted companions, even it may be worse. isn't it?

It depends on how you intend to use these companions. In general, the answer to your question is 'yes.' Given the current state of the AI in game, the best combat template for a mounted companion is to specialize in one-hander + shield or two-hander. In my siege strategy, I deploy troops with shields to draw and soak up enemy missile fire while my missile troops decimate the first few enemy waves before I engage in melee assault. In this instance, those with throwing weapons + shields excel when placed closely to the wall. But really it hardly seems worth it.

Never though that a Companion could be a valuable fighter, their party skills potential look like far more important than adding another warrior to the party. Usually I give them a fast horse and skills/armor enough to just survive. If he/she kills someone great !! but it isn't his goal. Looks like even more important having, for example, a "medic" backup than another knight.

They can be good fighters at high level and with good equipments, even better than Swadian Knights or Saranid Mamluks. But it comes down to cost. For the wage of one high level companion, you can field at least two+ Swadian Knights or Saranid Mamluks--two units attacking in battle instead of one...the only time I can see where it's more 'economical' to field a high level companion is for missions where you are only allowed a handful of troops (eg. clear bandit nests).

I haven't found much need to have 'backup medics.' I had Jeremus and Ymira specialize in healing skills until I made Jeremus minister, but never really had either of them wounded after a battle as long as they were at the bottom of the party order and I was traveling with at least 100 troops. If you've adjusted the max unit size using the Battle Size Adjuster, then support NPCs with duplicate specializations might be useful.

Of course, for some people (like me), building companions may be more of an issue of 'vanity', and in fact a 'mini-game' in and of itself. It does look great when you have a cohort of personal bodyguards decked out in the best weapons/armour you can buy, with mod added warhorses, whose kill counts are displayed at the end of the battle (when using mods that tabulate companion kill counts, like Custom Commander). It does give you a reason to continue shopping from blacksmiths when you already own a full suit of Lordly stuff for yourself, and a gold sink for the late game when you have too much gold but not many places to spend it other than paying troop wages.

 

[Fry]

I've often had 4 companions cover primarily party skills while the 4 others are primarily fighters (but still back up skills like training)

It's nice to keep them flexible no matter what style of army you're leading, and unlike mere mortal mamlukes the companions will never die permanently.

 

[Dark Elf]

almost same with StinkyMcGirk
My companion get all str, 12 agi (for horse). Except for Jeremus and Deshavi, all int 9 str

Equipment
1. Masterwork Military cleaver, highest damage 40!
2. Thick Huscarl Shield, reinforce is overkill, my companion never broke their thick shield.
3. Masterwork Siege Crossbow for siege of course
4. Steel Bolt
5. Charger, heavy charger overkill better to use the money for armor/weapon, cheaper to buy lame charger and wait them to healed, only cost 1k for each horse

Give thrusting capable weapon  to your companion is bad idea, it's useless in siege or crowded mele .
Also the longer the weapon, the harder for your companion Ai to use it effectively, every weapon has their 'sweet spot' damage.
Using companion as mounted archer is a waste of their str, your companion fight better as standar cavalry or footsoldier.

 

[pickled_heretic]

I focus most of my companions on polearms and give them the hafted blade as one of their weapons.  It's the only polearm that uses a swing animation on horseback and I like the way it looks.