The worst faction?
- Thread starter Dayve
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Ambrois LeGaillard
Squire
Falkner92 said:Nords have no cavalry.
That's all you need to know.
I agree totally. Nords are strong, but they haven't cavalry and also their archers quaking in their pants before a good line of Rhodok crossbowmen, or Vaegir archers.
kittehs
Sergeant
Falkner92 said:Nords have no cavalry.
That's all you need to know.
In custom battle try pitting 1 Swadian man at arm against 2 or 3 Nord warriors.
Usually two warriors is sufficient to beat one MAA in field battle.
Despite no cavalry the Nords do surprising damage to cavalry in field.
Ambrois LeGaillard
Squire
Usually i target first Nords huscarls and warriors with my heavy crossbow, then if they aren't to Old Nick again, I finish them with some good swing of my weapon.
The usual end of any stupid warrior that confy only in his muscular strenght and never in his brain.
The usual end of any stupid warrior that confy only in his muscular strenght and never in his brain.
Lord Silvabane
Sergeant
Khergits.
They get squashed by every other faction.
They get squashed by every other faction.
krakpot
Recruit
The rhodoks are by far the worst faction- ai wise. They have great potential to be anti everything gods, with their huge shields, spears and great crosscowmen, I'll admit that, but the ai in game has no idea whatsoever how to effectively use this advantage. I spam Swadian knights. I have all my heroes with the trainer skill and I go around recruiting everyone from under the swadian's noses. (I'm with the sultanate as a faction currently. They have cavalry good enough to handle most things and they don't hold many feasts(or they do, but none of the lords atend.)) Never the less I spam SW knights. They take towns held by many hundreds of Nordsmen and they do it alone. They take 2 dead and wipe out the garrison. GG for me that day. And the next day, the next siege. Repeat till king. 
Pathfinder331
Recruit
Worst World Map Faction would be the Swadians. In a matter of weeks they already lose 2 cities.
Worst in-battle faction would be the khergits. They don't use their units properly. Only threat would be the occasional couched lance.
Wost faction to fight against would be the rhodoks. Their sharpies really do hurt.
Worst faction unit pool....I can't really say. Sarranids mamlukes and master archers keeps the Sultanate somewhat relevant. Vaigers sacrifice defensive capabilities for pure offense with their two handed guards. The Swadians have ridiculously powerful cavalry and reliable crossbowmen and infantry. Rhodok infantry and crossbowman excel at large scale warfare. The Nords have the best Infantry overall, but lack cavalry and good archers. Khergits can just zip around your enemies slowly wearing them down and finishing them off with your easily replaceable lancers.
Worst in-battle faction would be the khergits. They don't use their units properly. Only threat would be the occasional couched lance.
Wost faction to fight against would be the rhodoks. Their sharpies really do hurt.
Worst faction unit pool....I can't really say. Sarranids mamlukes and master archers keeps the Sultanate somewhat relevant. Vaigers sacrifice defensive capabilities for pure offense with their two handed guards. The Swadians have ridiculously powerful cavalry and reliable crossbowmen and infantry. Rhodok infantry and crossbowman excel at large scale warfare. The Nords have the best Infantry overall, but lack cavalry and good archers. Khergits can just zip around your enemies slowly wearing them down and finishing them off with your easily replaceable lancers.
pye266
Recruit
Khergits have made allot of ground on mine, But are weak in battle, Build large armies that are easy taken out. Just make your Infantry stand closer and hold and you will block them up as most are on horses.... 
And then stand ground and watch them fall. Make your archers fall back and spread out....
Vaegirs are also poor.
Kingdom of Swadia - ok (but as Pathfinder331 said, the loose cities very quick)
Nords are strong and give a good battle
Rhodoks and Sarranid Sultanateare in-between.
And then stand ground and watch them fall. Make your archers fall back and spread out.... Vaegirs are also poor.
Kingdom of Swadia - ok (but as Pathfinder331 said, the loose cities very quick)
Nords are strong and give a good battle
Rhodoks and Sarranid Sultanateare in-between.
Nords don't have cavalry,but their warriors are great in siege.
Vaegirs have.... ok to me they are worst faction.
Khergit have nice horse archers.
Rhodok have great spearmans,good on mountains fights.
Sarranid swords/sabres give too hurt.
Swadians to me,have a great cavalry(with polearms).
Vaegirs have.... ok to me they are worst faction.
Khergit have nice horse archers.
Rhodok have great spearmans,good on mountains fights.
Sarranid swords/sabres give too hurt.
Swadians to me,have a great cavalry(with polearms).
TheProPlayerTur
Recruit
Actually, it half depends on the Lords. If they work together, then that faction cannot be stopped. In one of my past games, I was playing as a Rhodok when the WHOLE Sarranid faction evaded us. Everyone was nearly 250 troops in there. We had nothing to do but flee. Now, in my current game, I started it in the cities of the Nords. I always help them and I have seen that their marshall's army is made up of 18 soldiers.....
Rhodoks. Without a doubt, Rhodoks.
It really depends on what you're doing with them. Many factions excel at one thing and suck at another, making this a hard rating to settle on.
Additionally, it's not really hard to make up for a weakness of a faction... in other words, playing as nord, you can get cavalry and archers elsewhere etc, while primarily recruiting your own infantry. You can avoid field battles in terrain that suits cavalry. Make bee-lines for castles and take them with shields and axes. Etc.
Based on that thought, I would consider Rhodoks and Sarranid the worst. Neither of them excel in any one field. (Though they come close enough, and are situated in terrain favorable enough, that I think even that is up to debate.)
In terms of grand strategy, though, Swadians have a really poor starting position, so they're a contender for another reason.
Lastly you could divide the game into arenas: field battles and siege battles. The worst at siege are probably Khergits... but they excel in the field for reasons of speed on the strategic map as well as cavalry use. The worst in the field? This really depends on the use of terrain and troop composition. Nords and Rhodoks have the disadvantage of the slower movement of infantry, which makes it much harder to choose your terrain and battles, but they make up for it by being real beefy in general (and Rhodoks in particular tend to be situated in infantry-friendly terrain) so that's debatable.
Well, Vaegirs have the strength of having (hands down) the best archers... however, foot archers require the most tricks in the field to use effectively, so I can see how you would think that. It is a disadvantage in a way, because they're balanced by not having more easily manageable advantages. (See: Swadian cav, etc.) Once you've put in many hours in WB, I think your opinion of them will change some, though. Mix in some nord infantry with vaegir archers, and always stick the archers on a hill or just behind a river, with the infantry and a bit of cav blocking access/flanking just before the moment of contact.
Additionally, it's not really hard to make up for a weakness of a faction... in other words, playing as nord, you can get cavalry and archers elsewhere etc, while primarily recruiting your own infantry. You can avoid field battles in terrain that suits cavalry. Make bee-lines for castles and take them with shields and axes. Etc.
Based on that thought, I would consider Rhodoks and Sarranid the worst. Neither of them excel in any one field. (Though they come close enough, and are situated in terrain favorable enough, that I think even that is up to debate.)
In terms of grand strategy, though, Swadians have a really poor starting position, so they're a contender for another reason.
Lastly you could divide the game into arenas: field battles and siege battles. The worst at siege are probably Khergits... but they excel in the field for reasons of speed on the strategic map as well as cavalry use. The worst in the field? This really depends on the use of terrain and troop composition. Nords and Rhodoks have the disadvantage of the slower movement of infantry, which makes it much harder to choose your terrain and battles, but they make up for it by being real beefy in general (and Rhodoks in particular tend to be situated in infantry-friendly terrain) so that's debatable.
pittguy55 said:
Well, Vaegirs have the strength of having (hands down) the best archers... however, foot archers require the most tricks in the field to use effectively, so I can see how you would think that. It is a disadvantage in a way, because they're balanced by not having more easily manageable advantages. (See: Swadian cav, etc.) Once you've put in many hours in WB, I think your opinion of them will change some, though. Mix in some nord infantry with vaegir archers, and always stick the archers on a hill or just behind a river, with the infantry and a bit of cav blocking access/flanking just before the moment of contact.
I like cavalry but without a decent infantry you can't hold your ground. Although I am a fan of khergits, I would say khergits is the worst faction. Furthermore, for myself I couldn't find a way using their special units which is horse archers effectively.
