Saranid Cav really powerful, isn't it?

[Helmut_AUT]

Ran some practice exercises in Custom Battles, trying to defend with a smaller group (65) against larger group (85).

Classic "archers on a hill, infantry protects archers, cavalry takes care of enemy cav" scenario.

With Swadians vs. Vaegirs, it is possible if each side has an even mix of unit types (33% for each).

Swadians vs. Saranids - forget it. Their mameluks kill my knights so easily that most of them can then slaughter my foot soldiers. I wasn't expecting this fight to be easy, but it is downright impossible.

Of course, 65 troops with cavalry vs. 85 without is easy again. So the difference in Saranid skills really lies in their very strong (stronger than Vaegir) cavalry.

 

[BadabombadaBang]

Ran some practice exercises in Custom Battles, trying to defend with a smaller group (65) against larger group (85).

Classic "archers on a hill, infantry protects archers, cavalry takes care of enemy cav" scenario.

With Swadians vs. Vaegirs, it is possible if each side has an even mix of unit types (33% for each).

Swadians vs. Saranids - forget it. Their mameluks kill my knights so easily that most of them can then slaughter my foot soldiers. I wasn't expecting this fight to be easy, but it is downright impossible.

Of course, 65 troops with cavalry vs. 85 without is easy again. So the difference in Saranid skills really lies in their very strong (stronger than Vaegir) cavalry.

Ctrl + F4 = Problem Solved.

Nah just kidding that's cheating, but yes they are overpowered to be honest. But I still love being them. 

 

[xelzun]

You must have sissies for Knights because I roll with Swadian Knights all the time and they beat the Mamelukes on foot AND mount all the time.

 

[Helmut_AUT]

There's definitly something wrong.

100 Foot soldiers in defense formation (33 Archers, 66 Infantry).

Vs. 50 Saranid Cav.

results in about 10 Saranids killed, 100 Foot Soldiers dead.

If they are like that in the SP Campaign, I can't see how that is supposed to be realistic

**EDIT**

Same the other way round. I can kill 100 Vaegir Infantry with 50 Swadian Knights, losing 10 men in the process.

They seriously changed the balance in Warband. M&B, using Custom Battles mod, one knight was always worth about two infantry. Meaning 50 knights vs. 100 foot soldiers would even out quite well.

Now it seems they are worth four infantry soldiers in direct battle, at least. The Cav is doing a better job of not getting slowed down when breaching the ranks, that might have something to do with it.

 

[OndGud]

Imo it's the damn warhorses and friendly troops blocking swings that let knight level cavalry dominate like this. Personally I'm destroying as many allied shields as enemy skulls on a regular basis

 

[iRIA]

Yay Mamelukes! 

I think OndGud would be right in that the infantry swings tend to hit each other instead of the knight. However, I've also noticed that when you have heavy armor and a warhorse, even if you're surrounded by infantry, you don't take a lot of damage when compared to the original M&B. It could be because knight/mameluke armor is too powerful compared to infantry weapons?

Example: Heraldic Mail + Iron Greaves + Gauntlets + Warhorse. *wades into the middle of enemy infantry* A flood of 1-3 damage hits.

 

[Yoshi Murasaki]

It's more complicated than that. All missile troops become useless once their allies engage in combat with the enemy. In original game my xbowmen would shoot at enemies near me, in Warband all missile troops stand still if anyone is 5 meter near their ally. That, and spearmen being useless against cavalry, what else is there to stop it. I once observed Sarranid infantry with bamboo spear fighting 1 cavalry. Do you think these guys took their bamboo spear out? Nah, they kept chasing the cavalry with swords.

 

[OndGud]

Upside of things I guess is more time to read forums while playing. Most my reading is while my companions and cavalry is running rampant

 

[LittleJP]

I wonder if 500 archers vs 40 calv.....

 

[xelzun]

To be honest, I think it's fair. You have a dismounted knight, he's usually worth 2-3 highly trained foot soldiers. If you have a knight but apply that mount to him and give him an incredible speed bonus plus height advantage, he's easily worth 5-6 men. Knights were the tanks of the Middle Ages, they are worth more than one man alone because they simply have higher level of education and training.

I mean, if a Knight could only take out 2-3 men on mount, why bother wasting years of training to die easily like that?

Go ahead and flame/correct me here if I am wrong.

 

[IntelHydralisk]

Ranged units are useless outside of sieges once the enemy closes distance (and that's pretty trivial to do).

Cavalry's inherent advantage lies in the majority of blows landing on the horse instead of the actual person.

Swadian Knights should be statistically better IIRC. Check 100 swadian knights vs. 100 mamlukes. Mamluke armor should be slightly worse than the armor that Swadian Knights spawn with... you can see that easily since you can buy them and see the stats.

EDIT: These are the stats for Swadian knight vs. Mamluke. It looks like the Swadian knight has 1 more hp and a little more agility while the mamluke has 1 more powerstrike. But I'm still sure that on average the swadian knight will spawn with better armor. Also, I'm pretty sure the Vaegir knight is worse than either one in terms of stats.

 

[Flavius Silvanus]

If I recall after the 1st Crusade the Saracens made changes to their armor and weapons that gave them an advantage over the heavily armored knights whose armaments didnt' change at all intervening years.  Does anyone know if this is correct, or is my memory a little foggy?

 

[EmirSuhaym]

Now it seems they are worth four infantry soldiers in direct battle, at least. The Cav is doing a better job of not getting slowed down when breaching the ranks, that might have something to do with it.

Well, that is probably more realistic. A good cavalry officer should be able to take down 4 or 5 infantrymen if they use raider tactics, and that's what the mameluks are for. That's what the whole Sarranid faction is about, hit and run tactics. The fact that the only infantry that really stick together in a formation is the Nord Huscarls doesn't help things either.

I play for the sarranids, and what I've always found is that when 10 - 15 of my mameluks drive into 40 - 50 rhodok or swadian infantry, they spread out like crazy and it allows my men to basically turn them into barbeque. If they had more discipline and were able to hold a formation better, they would be better at taking down the mameluks.

 

[LittleJP]

Would be quite useful if the Spear brace and the formations mod was ported.

 

[Articulo34]

Their cav is powerfull because the rest of them (perhaps with the exception of the master archer, but they are nothing special either) sucks.

 

[Sahran]

Is there a reason why the Swadian Knight should just be better? I haven't really heard any legitimate argument about that, or any argument for that matter - just a general statement. If the Swadians want to have the best knight bar none, then they need to get the same treatment the best infantry bar none (Huscarls) have - be put at tier 6, making them take another tier longer to reach. Likewise, a very easy solution for the Sarranids is to give them the Huscarl treatment, but also to give them a compensation because as Articulo34 says - everything else sucks.

What I would do is further the credentials of the Sarranids as the second biggest cavalry faction (Behind the Khergits) by adding 2 new cavalrymen and putting the Mamelukes up at tier 6:  Scrappy Bedouin Horsemen with javelins and thrusting spears at tier 3 - sarranid horsemen at tier 4 - an unarmored horse and lamellar/mail clad heavy cavalrymen at tier 5 - and the Mamelukes at tier 6.

Lastly, I think everyone is ignoring the reason why the Mamelukes are so nasty - the two handed morningstars. We all fear 2 handed weapons and ap weapons in Multiplayer, and it stands to reason that we would fear it in singleplayer. So an easy option is to remove the morningstar and give them a long one handed mace instead.

If I recall after the 1st Crusade the Saracens made changes to their armor and weapons that gave them an advantage over the heavily armored knights whose armaments didnt' change at all intervening years.  Does anyone know if this is correct, or is my memory a little foggy?

I can't say you are correct or incorrect, but I kind of disagree with what you're saying...I know that makes no sense, but it's that I think you're coming from a strange approach:

1) The big armor change which went about for the Muslims came around I would say independent of the Crusaders (More a result of the Mongols), and took off around the 14th-15th century. It involved shifting to mail and plate armor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plated_mail ) or something else - I suppose it would be lamellar hauberks on top of mail. I wouldn't argue that it made them heavier.

2) Saracen Cavalry at the time of the 1st Crusades would have run the range on the amount of armor they possessed, but the heavy cavalry amongst them (and the more general cavalry of the Fatimids) would have either matched or exceeded the Crusaders in armor:


http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gesta-cde.html#antioch4

The Agulani were three thousand in number and feared neither lances, arrows, nor any kind of arms, because they and all their horses were fitted with iron all around, and they refused to carry any arms except swords into battle. All of these came to the siege of Antioch to disperse the gathering of Franks.

- The Agulani are likely Ghulams or Slave-warriors of the Seljuk Turks in Azerbaijan and North-West Iran.

http://i42.tinypic.com/357j440.jpg - Likely to be a rendition of what we'd consider Ghulams or Mamelukes.

The reason why Muslim cavalry sometimes got a reputation for being light was because of the dominance of the mail lined dress, which was practical (mail was hidden from prying eyes as well as from the heat of the sunshine) and fashionable (Humility in dress was not a practice that would be known to Saracen Horsemen - some have argued the adoption of tabards, surcoats, and other colorful tassels and bits of cloth by Knights was in emulation of the saracen's turbans and wraps). To the eyes of Westerners it would have appeared as though a number of men who were armored were in fact unarmored. You can get a good xray idea of how the mail lined dress works here: http://i40.tinypic.com/5mb7z8.jpg

I cannot find the template images I had compiled which detail the amount of armor found on Muslim cavalry, but I do remember that the basic kit of an Arab (not bedouin, but settled Arab cavalrymen) horsemen would include a mail hauberk, lance/sword/mace/javelins, and if they were wealthy enough a lamellar hauberk.

 

[SunofVich]

Mamelukes, just like in real life history, totally own their enemies. (Funny thing is that they themselves were in fact owned by an Emir, Bey, or Sheik)

 

[Aeon221]

The Swads definitely need a multiplayer rework, as do the Rhodocks. It's a huge disconnect having one faction with powerful weapons and strong armor on the cheap, and another that literally wears rags and uses cleavers, paying twice as much for half the performance. Longer faster spears please!

In single player, I had no trouble beating 4 or 5 to one odds with an army of 50 Mamelukes with the highest difficulty settings. That's pretty normal for most of the cav-heavy factions, unfortunately, but such is M&B. The bigger issue is indeed that their infantry is mostly sub-par. The Guard Archers aren't too bad, but they aren't all that memorable either. And, again, they come at the end of a long tree of unit development.

The best solution for both SP and MP for all the heavy cav units would be a serious drop in the armor of the warhorses they ride. It's a little strange when you see someone riding around on a horse with twenty or thirty crossbow bolts sticking out of it. 

 

[Crax]

To be honest, I think it's fair. You have a dismounted knight, he's usually worth 2-3 highly trained foot soldiers. If you have a knight but apply that mount to him and give him an incredible speed bonus plus height advantage, he's easily worth 5-6 men. Knights were the tanks of the Middle Ages, they are worth more than one man alone because they simply have higher level of education and training.

I mean, if a Knight could only take out 2-3 men on mount, why bother wasting years of training to die easily like that?

Go ahead and flame/correct me here if I am wrong.

thats kind of right, and the fact that ,maintaining an army of MAMLUKE is very expensive.. so it limits the amount you can keep or make it very difficult to keep them all.

 

[ragamer]

The issue on why Cavalry is dominating their enemies better in WB are multiple:

a) Horses now STOP hits applied on them, meaning that the riders receive far less damage from infantry and can keep attacking for longer as they are harder to interrupt.

b) Armor has been tweaked and corrected... INCLUDING the Armored Horses which are hard to kill now for regular troops.

c) The new AI flee logic is boosting Cavalry. Now the infantry hit usually pulls back and the Rider, instead of stupidly staying surrounded by the infantry mob, tries to pursue the fleeing guy, drastically reducing the number of infantry troops hitting him. Not only that, but now, after the initial clash you see the "rider trains" were the 1st Rider is pursuing the 1st fleeing Infantryman while a lot of enemy infantry goes behind him AND a lot of friendly Riders are attacking those on the back and pick them 1 by 1.

d) Archers now DO NOT shoot elevated targets so often as before. I find this tweak adecuate, previously was hilarious seeing the milimetric shots performed by the AI were the bolts/arrows LITERALLY passed milimeters away from friendlies.


You can improve your chances as infantry commander if you now order your Infantry Pack to stand together AND hold ground... If you order your infantry to charge with Horseman alive c) change will increase the casualties you suffer a LOT. And remember that a hurt Horseman now will ALWAYS escape from your Infantrymen, making them loose a lot of time pursuing the routed enemywhile they ignore the other horsemen that are charging against them.


In any case some Infantry AI logic should be tweaked by the Devs, IMHO:

- If a target is faster than them, they should swap to a closer and slower target (The ones capable of ranged attacks, adequatly, STILL swap to a ranged weapon if they are not able to reach their target soon... The problem ONLY affect the melee-only troops).

- An infantryman STILL tries to get as close as possible to a Rider, which was ok pre-WB because Riders got problems to hit fast and hard with targets very close to them. But with the new animations is the opossite, Infantry should ALWAYS stay at max possible range to not block other friendlies from reaching their intended target and to try to keep themselves Out of Rider's weapon reach. Multiple times I have seen spear wielding troops hugging the Rider while the other friends cannot reach the target and are there just wasting their time.

- Also Infantry should decide if the target to engage is the Rider himself or the horse, because trying to take down a Rider with a short weapon will invariabily force the Infantry to get too close to the Rider and at the end will just be hitting the horse itself.


Strictly speaking about Sarranids Faction Cavalry... If you are using just Mamlukes to charge, it may be nice for a short test... But on the Real game you are loosing money and killing speed, thanks to the new squad definition customization, Mamlukes are GREAT for charging, but the Sarranid regular Horseman are a beast to inflict casualties on a broken formation (For a fraction of the Upkeep).

The reason on why this particular combination is so nice? The combined gear repertory:

- Mamluke: Morning Star, Spear or Scimitar/Sabre. Specially the Morning Star gives them the upper hand against the vast mayority of other heavy cavalry that uses slashing weapons that are worst against an armored oponent (and his armored horse).

- Sarranid Horseman: Mounted on a Fast and Resilient Hunter and armed with a Spear, Scimitar and Mace. Fast and deadly, and a luxury to have on your army to boost your earnings by capturing lots of enemies.

So is not a particular unit the secret... It's that in the Sarranid Faction, ALL units are usefull, not like some of the Old Factions were most units were just "placeholders" lacking real utility beyond the, obviously, cheap cost.

The weak spot, OFC, is the lack of mounted archers to preserve mobility... That's why in my game I carry Khergit Mounted Archers to complement my Mamlukes and Sarranid Horsemen  .