livingdeath62
Banned
Mounted tag? What?
Pros and Cons of all factions
- Thread starter livingdeath62
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
joshtong1234
Squire
Muslims for the win! lol (sarannids)
livingdeath62
Banned
And I got "watched" for some reason... Is that good?
Swadians look like there winning, they kinda sucks.
Swadians look like there winning, they kinda sucks.
Ilevus
Sergeant at Arms
Assassinator1097 said:
I've seen tightly packed groups of Nord Warriors and Vets get absolutely slaughtered by Swadian Knight charges. Huscarls tend to even things up a bit, but there's rarely enough of them, given how hard they are to aquire. Standing on a hill helps heaps of course.
And Vaegir Knights aren't as bad as most make them out to be. They're no Swadian Knights or Sarrinid Mamlukes, but they stil do a lot of damage to anyone caught out in the open and even most infantry in close ranks.
Knight of will
Squire
vaeger knights are better dismounted then dismounted mamlukes or swad knights in my opinion.
They are kinda a jack of all trades master of none unit.
They are kinda a jack of all trades master of none unit.
KillerDudeMan
I got another con for the Sarranids:
Go to war in pajamas. Wth is up with that?
Go to war in pajamas. Wth is up with that?
XT_Billy
Sergeant
About the Rhodoks...
Let's not forget the exceptional function of the Rhodok sharpshooters at melee.
They can absorb a lot of damage with the huge shield they're ALL carrying, making them at least, able to hold their own against infantry. This also helps a lot at sieges.
If they had cavalry, they would be a killing faction to deal with.
Their infantry line can stop cavalry when tightly packed together, while the crossbowmen pound them mercilessly.
Let's not forget the exceptional function of the Rhodok sharpshooters at melee.
They can absorb a lot of damage with the huge shield they're ALL carrying, making them at least, able to hold their own against infantry. This also helps a lot at sieges.
If they had cavalry, they would be a killing faction to deal with.
Their infantry line can stop cavalry when tightly packed together, while the crossbowmen pound them mercilessly.
An interesting advantage of the Rhodoks is the geographical location : mountainous .
These are perfect zones to make a stand against those Swadia Knights and Sarranid Mameluks that are unable to use their big charge advantage in those mountains.
Geographically, Swadia has the worst end of the stick : they have a common frontier with every kingdoms, meaning they're bound to be at war with everyone at any time and defending such a large kingdom will become impossible when they are attacked from multiple front.
Other kingdoms usually can hope to stay at peace with the realms with wich they share no frontier, but Swadia is not going to have it easy, definitively the Kingdom of choice to get a challenge.
These are perfect zones to make a stand against those Swadia Knights and Sarranid Mameluks that are unable to use their big charge advantage in those mountains.
Geographically, Swadia has the worst end of the stick : they have a common frontier with every kingdoms, meaning they're bound to be at war with everyone at any time and defending such a large kingdom will become impossible when they are attacked from multiple front.
Other kingdoms usually can hope to stay at peace with the realms with wich they share no frontier, but Swadia is not going to have it easy, definitively the Kingdom of choice to get a challenge.
livingdeath62
Banned
Everyone's apparently voting for the fatfaction.... :O
duracell
Grandmaster Knight
You can see Swadia as challenging because its in the middle but this works in the other way too, you always have a war (loot, prisoners, ransoms) you are in the center so you dont need to walk through the whole map to get reinforcements etc.
If you play aggressive Swadia is the best faction.
If you play aggressive Swadia is the best faction.
Bulzeeb
Regular
This is misleading. Units start out with a base level in their stats, and gain a set number of additional stats, but the placement of these stats is random. Swadian Knights have a base stat of 6 in both Iron Flesh and Power Strike, whereas Mamlukes only have a 5 in both. It's just that in your particular game, Mamlukes were randomly given more points in Iron Flesh than the Knights.livingdeath62 said:
Azrooh said:
Yes it does actually. A troop's total stats are equal to their level + 20. So Swadian knights have 48 stat points, whereas Mamlukes have 47. It's one reason for the poor performance of Nord Veteran Archers - they have 5 fewer stat points than Marksmen and Sharpsshooters.
Strenght, agility, intelligence and charisma are random: sometimes you can have a charismatic knight with the same hp of an archer. But ironflesh and powerstrike are fixed from what I remember. By the way I agree that swadian knight have better stats than mamluke. Mamluke advantage is the fast sabre.
Bulzeeb
Regular
No, they do not have the same stats! As I said, the stats of a troop depends on their level. The difference is not huge in the case of Mamlukes vs Knights, yes, but it's present.
And their skills have a base level that can be exceeded but not lowered. For Mamlukes it's 5 and 5 for Iron Flesh and Power Strike, and for the Swadian Knights its 6 and 6. That doesn't mean that Swadian Knights will necessarily end up with more because a few extra skills are added on in random areas.
Try looking at your unit's stats, and see. You can access them by talking to the unit in the Party menu.
And their skills have a base level that can be exceeded but not lowered. For Mamlukes it's 5 and 5 for Iron Flesh and Power Strike, and for the Swadian Knights its 6 and 6. That doesn't mean that Swadian Knights will necessarily end up with more because a few extra skills are added on in random areas.
Try looking at your unit's stats, and see. You can access them by talking to the unit in the Party menu.
