Nobles

[Master_Pain]

What exactly is the point of using nobles? Most of the top tier commoners are better stat-wise, in my opinion.

 

[Argeus the Paladin]

You need to train your commoners with extreme rigor in order to have them come out as anything other than Scarred Bandit fodder. On the other hand, with a noble army you don't have to coddle them as much as even the recruits pull their own weights.

Also, the usefulness of nobles compared to commoners vary between kingdoms. If you play Khergit, massing tarkhans is going to be faster than any semi-palatable commoner. If you play Swadia, 50 cavaliers > most castles - enough said. On the other hand, Nord huscarls and Champion Huscarls pull their weight better than Thegns.

 

[Master_Pain]

ah, ok, so it's basically the low tier is much better noble wise. It always boggled my mind, I have looked at most of the noble's stats, and they never added up to the top tier commoner lol

 

[pyrosorc]

Some factions will also find that they require nobles to get cavalry, whether the Swadians whose commoners just won't be mounted or the Sarranids whose commoner cavalry is just a joke.

 

[Argeus the Paladin]

Sarranids in general is a joke period.

However, this kingdom is special in that a man castrated automatically gain a hundred levels in badass compared to men with their balls intact. EFFING EUNUCHES AND THEIR SABERS.

 

[Lord Samuel]

Sarranids in general is a joke period.

However, this kingdom is special in that a man castrated automatically gain a hundred levels in badass compared to men with their balls intact. EFFING EUNUCHES AND THEIR SABERS.

 

[Argeus the Paladin]

Compensating for something much? 

 

[CrymsonChaos]

Yes, the ball-less men are DEADLY compared to their balled counterparts.

Compensating indeed.