My Thoughts After 780 Hours of Playtime

Users who are viewing this thread

3ap3ap

Recruit
Infantry is completely worthless dead weight in the current single player game. You can make use of them with effort, but if you're ever choosing an upgrade path just making a ranged unit, even a bad one, is more useful. They just take too long to re-position and are to vulnerable to damage both when moving and when attacking. They trade down to often. Until they alter damage/armor there's no reason to make them.
Coming form a known HA spammer who runs Khuzait cheese strategy every game i cant take your words seriously. Some of us want to put effort in the game/battles . True they are probably the least optimal unit in the army in tearms of how easy you want battles to be but if the AI had some brain on how to use its soldiers a well balanced army of inf archers cav would crush any fian champion/HA spam army.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
Coming form a known HA spammer who runs Khuzait cheese strategy every game i cant take your words seriously. Some of us want to put effort in the game/battles . True they are probably the least optimal unit in the army in tearms of how easy you want battles to be but if the AI had some brain on how to use its soldiers a well balanced army of inf archers cav would crush any fian champion/HA spam army.
Ananda knows his stuff, he probably plays more than all of us combined.
Khan's Guard is the best infantry unit in the game. Combine it with Fian Champions and maybe a small number of shield troops and there is literally no better army. At least, prior to 1.8.0 there wasn't. Post 1.8, maybe cavalry knockdown will make them more useful.
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Grandmaster Knight
Some of us want to put effort in the game/battles
How are you putting in more effort with infantry? The main problem with them (for the AI too) is they take too long to move and to re-position. You get 1 good shot to position them so you're mostly just letting them bulldoze each other. If you have time to re-position them again for an advantage it means you've already won and are just goofing around. If they let let you surround them with 2-4 infantry groups for a big brain attack.... you've already got them, you're just goofing around and they would already be defeated if you did that with ranged units.

Every time some body runs their mouth about their great hardcore balanced battles, I look at them play and they just ram troops into each other with no tactics, no skill, lose a bunch of them for nothing and declare "boy what a challenging battle". It's just garbage. They made worse decisions in building their forces, they make worse decisions in engagement and in tactics and have a worse result. They don't use even 1/10 the thought or effort I do.
 

Maximum997

Squire
It is true. Infantry can only be useful as arrow sponges and bait for enemy cav.

Infantry is crap against archers becouse they cant catch them
Infantry is crap against cav, becouse they cant stop it or do significant damage
Infantry is crap against horse archers becouse 1+2
Infantry is crap becouse of reinforcement system
 

JunKeteer

Regular
Coming form a known HA spammer who runs Khuzait cheese strategy every game i cant take your words seriously. Some of us want to put effort in the game/battles . True they are probably the least optimal unit in the army in tearms of how easy you want battles to be but if the AI had some brain on how to use its soldiers a well balanced army of inf archers cav would crush any fian champion/HA spam army.
A lot of players resolve to the meta/min-max which is pretty much Fians and HA in most situations.
With infantry, you have to have a much higher # of troops due to scaling (and current collision models) in comparison to cavalry (bar their current AI efficiency).
Add the fact that having a substantially higher ratio of infantry isn't 'cheaper' in wages given that cavalry are also cheap plus the slower map movement (and lack of ambush/other 'chasing' map mechanics), it's just a massive handicap; and not in a 'fun' way.
And the fact there's no friendly-fire for HA/archers.
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Grandmaster Knight
BTW is it still the case that cavalry army moves faster then infantry army on horses?
Yes. The only downside is supplying mounts, but after early game this becomes a non-issue. Plus if you use forced recruitment you can get mounted troops free. There's just no reward or reason to raise up infantry. Any advantage in the armor/shield even is lost do to moving so slow make use of it.

I am sure spamming Horse archers or Archers is a very hard and thought consuming strategy.
It requires some strategy and patience for sure but it's something I can teach you to do. You will need to manage an early excess of money to buy war horses, say 40 to start and you must also get the HA units. I prefer to force recruit them to save on money, even if it means going to war alone at rank 0-1. Defeating the militia also is a good early income for renown and loot as you build up. Once you have 40 at t4 you can begin haunting lords and really you must or it's too expensive and unneeded for anything else. You must position them and format them to be able to fire without receiving damage and be ready to move them before they are in harms way. There's no point in making these units if you're not going to protect them. It helps to think of them simply as fast archers. As such, I give priority to moving normal archers first as it takes them longer to get in place. My goal is to eliminate all enemy HA, then ranged and cavalry, leaving the SW for last. By putting ranged on both side of the SW you can destroy it. It's good to put whatever group the SW faces on hold fire and only let them fire when the SW back is too them. I suggests saving 100K before promoting to t6 units because they have a high daily wage. AT t6 the Khan's guard unit can destroy cavalry and other HA with it's glaive as well as at range with low chance of KO compared to earlier ranks. This can be done by placing with the purple flag roughly over the enemy formation, or by hold fire and charge when near them, but beware of trickster going after something else and putting themselves in harms way.
 
Last edited:

3ap3ap

Recruit
Every time some body runs their mouth about their great hardcore balanced battles, I look at them play and they just ram troops into each other with no tactics, no skill, lose a bunch of them for nothing and declare "boy what a challenging battle". It's just garbage. They made worse decisions in building their forces, they make worse decisions in engagement and in tactics and have a worse result. They don't use even 1/10 the thought or effort I do.
When did you watch me play or know how i run my games ?
Or is it your need to always insult others by assuming as to prove a point ?

On the other hand i`ve seen your YT and gameplay. Boy let me break it to you on a very polite tearms ok: You aint the new Genghis Khan.

1) I did the HA stuff way back and i never got back to it cuz it just felt boring for me and why would i repeat the same thing.
Like you said some people dont use that much effort and imo rollin HA and depending on them for every new game yeah it doesnt sound like you put more effort than most people.

2) The game is very beatable with several army comps.
The guy asked for advice on how to run inf in his army and your go to answer is "Nope dont do it , just use HA man its obvious" .
If someone wants to play as foot warrior and have inf as his base comp in the army give them advice on how to optimize their use not straight up telling them its not viable and they play the game wrong. Its a singleplayer Sandbox dude.
I dont need to use the most min/max save scumming or retreat abusing technics in the game to beatdown TW AI to then proceed on pounding my chest cuz im super proud of the Strategoi i`ve become. Nah man some of us dont feel the need to conquer the map in a day to prove we are better than the AI. These thing are there for players who may strugle with some parts of the game and they want to ease up.
If you think its ok to use every trick in the book fine go ahead but that doesnt make it the only way or the right way to play the game.

3) Just in case you call me any names for not using your way and me just being "a dumb person" that would aply to the others who make guides and post their campaigns via YT/Twitch cuz clearly most dont use it either and it removes big part of the gameplay.
I took the time to respond to your post and not the others above.
Its because theirs had info and facts and i also stated inf oriented armies isnt optimal and what they typed is valid and doesnt include any bad vibes like yours did.
 

LyonExodus

Regular
I can teach you to do.
Let me translate my words for you:

Translating: I am sure spamming Horse archers or Archers is a very hard and thought consuming strategy.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------TRANSLATING NOISES----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Result: Sarcasm...

I am the first who loves to experiment and learn from others. most of your tricks are something i did in my first maybe 200 hours then stop. I didn't enjoy it as it was too easy.

Instead i used my time to test and figure out ways to use "inefficient" units to maximize their potential, because as i see it there is no joy in winning when you are expected too. the real glory stands in being the underdog and beating the odds.

I often cut myself off some extremely good features that ease the game and i customize my save files to make them as hard as they can be. Try running clan leader and Faction leaders with 300s in all stats and tell me if it's easy. Spoiler it ain't. no matter how good, knowledgeable you are.

I stand with the @3ap3ap on this one. You got to chill, it's not the first time you act that way. A little humility goes a long way.

As someone who conquered Calradia with all factions and troops the only one i stay away is cavalry as i yet haven't found a way to make them very effective on realistic.
You can have fun and win with all kinds of troops.

My fastest speedrun conquest ( exploitless and glitchless ) of this game was 15 years. As far as i know that's the fastest to be done and i mainly used anything i could find in that one. started in Vlandian and built Shaprshooters up like crazy and a few Sergeants since i didn't want to spam OP units like Fians and Khans i recruited and upgraded anything i found as i conquered.
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Grandmaster Knight
The guy asked for advice on how to run inf in his army and your go to answer is "Nope dont do it , just use HA man its obvious" .
-why does the Sturgian infantry still suck?
Read^ Nobody asked for advice. It's a feedback thread.
But did you even read the message you're latching onto?
Infantry is completely worthless dead weight in the current single player game. You can make use of them with effort, but if you're ever choosing an upgrade path just making a ranged unit, even a bad one, is more useful. They just take too long to re-position and are too vulnerable to damage both when moving and when attacking. They trade down to often. Until they alter damage/armor there's no reason to make them.
Those highlights are 100% legit reasons the infantry is not very good in the current game. For anyone wanting to know if mostly infantry party is "good" this informs them. If a person making a party reads this they can make their own choice. Believe me, nothing I say will make people not do what they want. Also just to say in 1.8 they don't trade down as often but are still too vulnerable to ranged damage and slow. Lets keep this post in mind while we respond to other comments shared with us. Also I don't mean @LyonExodus and @3ap3ap per say, but rather YOU out there searching this for information!
You can have fun and win with all kinds of troops.
True. You can make use of them with effort
As someone who conquered Calradia with all factions and troops the only one i stay away is cavalry as i yet haven't found a way to make them very effective on realistic.
Agreed. I use them when I have them but never make them. They can be used to create an opening and to distract but they will die too often.
My fastest speedrun conquest ( exploitless and glitchless ) of this game was 15 years. As far as i know that's the fastest to be done and i mainly used anything i could find in that one. started in Vlandian and built Shaprshooters up like crazy and a few Sergeants since i didn't want to spam OP units like Fians and Khans i recruited and upgraded anything i found as i conquered.
I also use everything I find with the exception of what I call the rank 1 party, where you get that 1st big jump in size and have a choice of how to build onto your existing force. With a limited party size it matters what I use my resources to for now. I need to get a big pay out for my investment or I get stuck in a loop. By making horse archers I get a unit that I can protect and preserve my investment and it's mobility complements my starting batch (usually Empire Xbows).
I stand with the @3ap3ap on this one. You got to chill, it's not the first time you act that way.
If you could make people shut up on the internet, you could rule the world.
A little humility goes a long way.
I'm going to say the truth everytime, even if it's unpopular.

But what's this @LyonExodus and @3ap3ap ? You guys have not shared a single bit of information about why infantry is GOOD or how to use it for an
advantage!
All you have to say is "I use it blah blah I do this brag brag brag" Putting yourself on self imposed restrictions and enjoying it doesn't have anything to do with how effective a unit is!

Can you lay out counterpoints to why Infantry IS EFFECTIVE and DOES provide benefit over other troops types?
They're good to stuff into garrison or donate to vassals, I give em that! For AI on AI battles, they're fine!
 

LyonExodus

Regular
You guys have not shared a single bit of information about why infantry is GOOD or how to use it for an
advantage!

you mean this?


or this?


the thing is that you make little sense, you don't care about using anything that isn't in your comfort zone and tell people they are stupid for using infantry.
There is no problem in playing in your comfort zone and admitting you simply don't care but calling people names and insulting their lack of effort is not the right approach.
And then you get mad for people showing where you made a mistake and quite rightfully getting insulted by your lack of care in the way you expose yourself.

You reap what you sow

I assume you are not a 13 year old kid and such a behavior shouldn't be "normal" in a social environment

Maybe not insulting people who actually care about putting in some effort with tests and actual strategy is one way you can grow as a player and a person too.

Obviously we can't shut you up but if you think you approached this post with the right mindset you are off. Learn from your mistakes don't repeat them.

As you can see from my posts, guides and my works you can see i put the effort and , excuse me, if I and players like me got a little insulted by what you said, especially coming from a Veteran like you. You should lead and help out new and struggling players. Not mocking them for wanting to do something that is "inefficient".

The wisdom is in simply saying " I don't know " if you truly don't know. Someone who does will eventually answer the question.
Give your opinions about what you feel about infantry but try to not insult others who play differently.

The thing i most like about this Franchise is that you can play the way you want, efficient or inefficient that may be. There is a lot of fun for many in doing different things each campaign.

So yeah. like i stated before a little Humility goes a long way and believe me i know that first hand. i can be extremely impulsive at times and i hate when that happens.
 

LyonExodus

Regular
Also not to be a bearer of bad news but enemy infantry is much smarter in 1.8. and with the arrows indirectly nerfed infantry is more relevant than it ever was.

Unsure how relevant but more relevant for sure.
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Grandmaster Knight
You guys have not shared a single bit of information about why infantry is GOOD or how to use it for an
advantage!
So are you ESL? I'm not trying to be mean but what you've posted is not what was asked and this is the second time you've done this, so I wonder if it's a language issue. "what infantry is better then other infantry" is not why infantry is GOOD or how to use it for an advantage! "my custom battle testing results" is not why infantry is GOOD or how to use it for an advantage! For example: horse archers are easy to re-position in battle because they move fast. Horse archers give you more map speed. Do infantry have similar special utility? Is there as reason I should use them instead? I can think of a few niche considerations... but can you?
Infantry is completely worthless dead weight in the current single player game. You can make use of them with effort, but if you're ever choosing an upgrade path just making a ranged unit, even a bad one, is more useful. They just take too long to re-position and are too vulnerable to damage both when moving and when attacking. They trade down too often. Until they alter damage/armor there's no reason to make them.
^this is the statement you were both challenging. You must contradict it or your argument is just hot air. It doesn't matter what other information or opinions you unload, you must shoot these down.
the thing is that you make little sense, you don't care about using anything that isn't in your comfort zone and tell people they are stupid for using infantry.
Who me? I don't call people stupid, that a TOS violation. Also, I typically use an infantry formation too, I just won't lie and say that it "good" or that other troops aren't more useful, or advise people who ask for help to make them over ranged units or to make mostly infantry and what not.
but calling people names and insulting their lack of effort is not the right approach.
I don't call people names and the "effort" argument was started by you guys. But to be clear, a game is just putting in inputs to control something. If I'm putting in dozens more inputs every battle with my party then you are, I am using more effort, I am playing at a higher caliber then you, I am thinking more then you. If that's insulting to you, that I appraise your playing as not as intensive or energy consuming as my own, I don't know what to say.
And then you get mad
I laugh at the most.
people showing where you made a mistake
Who? You've never done it.

And then @LyonExodus gives a long soccer mom blog that I won't even read. WTF?

i still need my medicine XP and a juicy trap for enemy infantry.
BTW this is a good point, having infantry and cavalry formations will help you keep gaining medicine without loosing better troops. This is more of a consideration for when you have a second clan party though. Early on it's better to make every troop count and protect it AMAP.

Oh I must call you out here though in this second link of yours you are doing the exact behavior you are trying to scold me for: When informed of how powerful Khan's Guard are in a siege offense and of @mortache use of shock infantry you argue against it and when asked to try it yourself you resort to
man i do sieges every day and dozens of people see them too, i know what i am talking about. thanks.
So wtf is with your soccer mom blog above?
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Knight at Arms
Also not to be a bearer of bad news but enemy infantry is much smarter in 1.8. and with the arrows indirectly nerfed infantry is more relevant than it ever was.

Unsure how relevant but more relevant for sure.
Arrow damage to armour (pierce) barely changed at all, at most an increase of 1htk above T4 and 2htk at T6.

Blunt melee damage to armour reduced significantly and infantry also are more intelligent at blocking.

So infantry will take longer to kill other infantry, but archers still take almost the same time. Cav are slightly stronger now due to knockdown.

What this means cumulatively is that archers are actually slightly more powerful than before, not weaker.

I just did a series of tests on battle_terrain_z, where I used 50 men in different compositions, against an enemy force of 25% T5 infantry, 25% T5 archers, 25% T5 cavaly and 25% T5 horse archers. I turned delegate command on and didn't participate in the fight. Here are the results for different army compositions.

* 25% T5 inf, 25% T5 arch, 25% T5 cav and 25% T5 HA. Result: Defeat, inflicting 19 losses.
* 100% T5 infantry. Result: Defeat, inflicting 25 losses.
* 50% T5 infantry, 50% T5 cavalry. Result: Defeat, inflicting 30 losses.
* 100% T5 cavalry. Result: Defeat, inflicting 36 losses.
* 100% T5 horse archers. Result: Victory, inflicting 42 losses (remainder routed).
* 100% T5 Fian archers. Result: Victory, inflicting 42 losses (remainder routed).
* 100% T5 Kheshig horse archers. Result: Victory, inflicting 43 losses (remainder routed) with just 7 casualties!!


Feel free to test yourself. What I have found is that infantry are the least useful unit type, only being useful in small quantities to serve as a distraction that drops the enemy's shields for your archers to freely shoot at them. And that you can completely ignore archers, infantry and cavalry and ONLY use horse archers and do VERY well.
 
Last edited:

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Grandmaster Knight
What I have found is that infantry are the least useful unit type, only being useful in small quantities to serve as a distraction that drops the enemy's shields for your archers to freely shoot at them.
Yeah I agree, moving a small group to one side of the enemy SW to make them turn is useful and in 1.8 they don't trade down as often which helps a lot for actually having some infantry left for the next fight.
. And that you can completely ignore archers, infantry and cavalry and ONLY use horse archers and do VERY well.
Yes. They still can do everything the others can and often better (for KG at least). And of course if the main use of infantry is to deal with the enemy SW, two HA groups can easily obliterate it by getting on both sides. The armor is certainly a step in the right direction for Infantry and Cav though. Cav really needs better aim though.
 

MostBlunted

Sergeant Knight at Arms
I avoid horse archers because I think they´re too strong. I always try to have a core of T6 infantry (like 100-150 in a 250 warband). But they really die like in every big battle, not all of them but like 30% while the rest of my warband has like no loses. It´s annoying to always replace them, still I play this way because I love infantry fights.

So in my opinion infantry really isn´t worth much compared to the other troop types. But it´s a non competetive SP game, if you´re not going for a min/max strategy just do the **** whatever you like. It´s not like you won´t dominate every battle no matter what troops you take.

It´s not only the imbalance of troop types but the AI is also very dumb (circle of death still in the game...RBM disables the formation because it´s just a deathtrap for the AI...)

Overall there are only two AI approaches:

They have the bigger (stronger) force = they´ll attack
You have the bigger (stronger) force = they´ll turtle, you close in and wait for your archers to kill like 20 troops and then the AI engages...every battle is the ****ing same, don´t tell me there is a lot of strategy involved in SP.
 

LyonExodus

Regular
I turned delegate command on
Sorry man but that's all i need to hear.
A player typically doesn't delegate command making the test lackluster also what you prove. on i guess 1 map, is that the strongest units are still the strongest. That's not a surprise.

The speed argument you guys speak about is not a viable one. 0.1 speed in an army makes little to no difference

The talking about the way some users insults others in the way they expose themselves are the following:
you've already won and are just goofing around
Every time some body runs their mouth about their great hardcore balanced battles, I look at them play and they just ram troops into each other with no tactics, no skill,
It's just garbage.
They made worse decisions in building their forces, they make worse decisions in engagement and in tactics and have a worse result. They don't use even 1/10 the thought or effort I do.
You can make use of them with effort
here you contradict yourself because you realized you exposed yourself in a bad way by saying this
They don't use even 1/10 the thought or effort I do.
All you have to say is "I use it blah blah I do this brag brag brag"
I can't see why people got mad maybe you can help.

Instead you keep doubling down on stating that you don't expose yourself in a bad way and insulted nobody
You clearly did

Let me translate all of what you say here and how that affects a new or struggling player that doesn't want to be forced into using the EASY button.

Translation
Anything other than OP units in this game is just a waste of resources any other unit is worse.

It's the same statement as saying that the best possible battery is better than the not best possible battery.

It's obvious that some troops are just busted. Khan's and Fians for example but saying anything else is just useless is on an all new level.

Now there are many times and reasons on why Infantry is at times leagues above archers or Horse Archers or why each unit needs each others in order to really be optimal without cheesing the game, one of them are sieges. Long weapons tend to get stuck, Khans happens to have Glaives. on small or short maps Horses happen to take too much space. the busted khans help you there since for some stupid reason they are the best shock troop in the game even without an horse. Infantry units can annihilate low tiers in seconds and thus letting your archers dealing with the real problems later in the fight. Too many archers or Horse archers can't all fire all at ones, and if they do many shots will hit the same target and be wasted. A loose formation of archers can fire 3-4 ranks deep. any other rank is there just in case someone dies. there is no reason to have too much firepower if that's the case. The only way to use all archers at the same time are either inefficient shooting formation or multiple lines that can only be used effectively on certain maps.

The thing is that by your logic anyone who doesn't want to play Khuzait is goofing around and someones to be made fun off cause they make bad decisions and put:
1/10 the thought or effort I do.

Again i can't see why people find the way you expose yourself insulting.
 

JunKeteer

Regular
The problem is that archers can easily do the same and have overall more value :/ .
Yep; for players that tend to min/max as priority, infantry are pretty much next to useless. There are some of us that like the challenge/RP/handicap in using infantry and work out ways to make them more viable but that is still acknowledging there is some imbalance between them and HA/archers in general.

It's easy to test in a vacuum (custom battles) 100v100 but that doesn't take into account the other economical or world map dis/advantages with infantry.
What is the ratio (cost/upkeep) differential between HA and infantry for fairer comparison? I don't have the numbers in memory but if T5 infantry is 20denar and T5 HA is 30denar; should be testing 100 infantry vs 67 HA and see that result. Or T3 infantry @ 10denar; 100 of them v 33 HA; or any other troop composition. As well as scaling to 500 v 500, etc...as honestly, in small parties HA should win but in larger battles, infantry should (which I think they do).
If it is still convincingly only one-sided victories for one team, maybe just make 'OP' units cost more to line up with it.
 
Top Bottom