troop composition in general

[Thorgil]

after our terrifying battle test tonight (we tried fighting different types of troops against each other) i have some facts/questions, because my feeling from previous battles was absolutely confirmed:

- british cavalry was announced to be superior. in fact even jute cavalry is way better (40 vs 40, 50% of jutes survived - and no one mentioned before!).
- Idibil will change this, but still its only light cavalry.
- british infantry is absolutely chanceless vs jute or angle infantry (brits have only medium infantry; about 30 brits vs 15 jutes: all brits dead, 10 jutes survived  ).
- british archers (even if "better" than jute or angle archers, hard to measure anyway) are useless vs heavy infantry, not one infantry dies before archers get hacked.
-------

- why do britons have such a disadvantage in troops that they have to rely/build on "special" tactics, terrain conditions, superior number, ... luck?! and invaders can just recruit heavy infantry and overrun everything?
- why cant brits just have heavy infantry also? (Idibil, i know, i´m annoying you with this since the beginning of the campaign, but i still dont get the point). i mean the brits surely had some mean bloody muthaf..kin veteran celtic warriors in chainmail also, not just the tribes from the mainland.
- guys from anglia, mercia and juteland, i´m not complaining for no reason, make the test ... equal number of troops - and play as britons. then you know what i mean.
-------

solution suggestion: let brits just have uchlwyr (or any other heavy infantry) instead of cantaber iuventus!
i was really shocked tonight as we had time to test the balance of troop types...

 

[Lord Arius]

I think the stats must be based on numbers, not on a test, in which there is always element of chance (charge position, terrain, simply luck, ...).

So, if the stats or price of some units are unbalanced should be corrected, of course. But then all troop trees should be revised.

 

[Eafa]

- why do britons have such a disadvantage in troops that they have to rely/build on "special" tactics, terrain conditions, superior number, ... luck?! and invaders can just recruit heavy infantry and overrun everything?

Because Invaders are better 


No, just Joking, you are right there is a big problem, wich have to be solved, I would say give the Britons a better cavalry unit and some kind of heavy Infantry, delete or debug the cantaber luventus, because its silly that they are archers.

But with one point I dont agree:

- british archers (even if "better" than jute or angle archers, hard to measure anyway) are useless vs heavy infantry, not one infantry dies before archers get hacked.

all Archers in Brytenwalda are useless against heavy Infantry, they are just a cheap support unit, alone they are not better than recruits.

 

[eragoen]

I'm sure we all agree that all archers are useless, but the point Thorgil is making is that british archers (which are meant to be better than others) don't matter anyway - so we get a bonus in something that doesn't have a big impact on a battle.

 

[Thorgil]

I'm sure we all agree that all archers are useless, but the point Thorgil is making is that british archers (which are meant to be better than others) don't matter anyway - so we get a bonus in something that doesn't have a big impact on a battle.

precisely, thanx.

 

[Idibil]

Well, you should try a thing 
If somebody want join, I am in campaign chat for testing.

 

[Thorgil]

unfortunately i have no time now...
but plz make a test: 40 light brits cavalry vs 40 angle heavy infantry.
i would bet the infantry wins. significantly. murtagh or ballista, can you try this?
cheers and have a nice evening guys.

Well, you should try a thing 
If somebody want join, I am in campaign chat for testing.