Field of Glory 2: Medieval. The Top Ten Worst Units of Late Middle Ages!

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 13

  • @l.s.9095
    @l.s.9095 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Very interesting list, I think I would have arranged it differently, but these are just minor details! Also great points about Longbowmen being too costly atm., I'm pretty certain too, that we will see some kind a price reduction/ buff after the tournament.
    A few units which I might have edited to this list are "Raw Billmen", Handgunners and "Lithuanian Cavalry (late)".
    The former suffers from a lack of armour (to protect itself against the many missile units in this age) and quality and they are also more expensive then " Raw Spearmen" but have no advantage in melee.
    Handgunners just seem awful for 36 pts., when you also could get light cannons for much cheaper (Muslim Handgunners for 30 pts. might be an interesting choice though).
    And the Lithuanian Cavalry is just really hard to use. There are so many armoured units now, that it can be really hard to find a suitable target to use the 50% bows effectively and score disruptions. Otherwise a very pricey cavalry unit for what it can realistically hope to achieve in a battle.

    • @simonlancaster1815
      @simonlancaster1815  2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I was looking at Lithuanian Cav. They do seem quite expensive at 45. 50% bow but they are above average quality so that kept them off the list. They can probably hold off and even beat a lot of cav in melee. Plus their quality will give them an adv v average quality armoured units on impact. Handgunners and Raw Billmen are fair shouts and I will check them out.

    • @simonlancaster1815
      @simonlancaster1815  2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Raw Billmen are evens on impact and in melee v Raw Def Spear. Yes, 3 pts more but they can charge without a penalty like Off Spear which Raw Def Spear can't. Spear may be a little better v cav. Overall, a decent unit at the price. Handgunners I still need to check.

    • @l.s.9095
      @l.s.9095 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@simonlancaster1815 I think you're right in a way, I have only played them against their "historical" opponents so far and they really don't have an edge there. 39 pts. "normal" cavalry from the Teutons or 36/42 pts. nomad horse archers usally are on equal level.
      The main problem I have with the raw billmen is, that they suffer more against Knights/ MaA, which are a featured in many armies in their timeperiod, they also can't "hide" in rough ground like Baltic/ Irregular/ Foot or Irish Kern can.

    • @simonlancaster1815
      @simonlancaster1815  2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@l.s.9095 Good point about Raw Billmen. But, there are two things to consider. 1. Both Raw Billmen and Raw Spear are down a lot on impact v Men at Arms (175 v 125 respectively). Both are very likely to disrupt and they do in my tests. 2. The Billmen have an advantage v armoured units, and especially heavily armoured units as HW halves the adv. Thus, Raw Billmen in melee are 125 down and Raw Spear are 175 down v Men at Arms. Against units like Dismountable Men at Arms, Raw Billmen are 100 down in melee and Raw Spear are 150 down (Raw Bill 150 down v Raw Spear 100 down on impact).

    • @l.s.9095
      @l.s.9095 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@simonlancaster1815 This is not entirely true. Raw Spearmen half the Swordsmen ability of the Men at Arms, which means that they are "only" down 75 in melee. If you then add the Combat Strenght modifier, they are kind of evens with Men at Arms (in contrast to Raw Billmen, which are slightly down (125 pts. not 100). This of cause only comes to play when the Men at Arms stick for the melee, which - against the Raw Spearmen - should only happen, when they are disrupted, which would then mean that they loose this advantage. So maybe its not that huge of point. But the Raw Spearmen is still more able to survive impact, which makes them more in this regard I think.
      Against dismounted Men at Arms both units suck, Raw Spearmen more then Raw Billmen (185 pts down to 135pts). But against other less expensive units - prominently featured in this era - (like Longbowmen, Crossbowmen, Brigans, Irish Kerns, etc.) Raw Spearmen often do better, because they half the enemies Swordsmen ability in melee. Then there is maybe also an argument about the fallback triggering of heavy weapons, which makes them harder to use in my opinion, since they often loose contact with the enemy and have to recharge and it also makes it sometimes harder to set up good flank attacks, which is arguably what you want to do with some armies, that can use these units (for example the Anglo-Irish).
      Overall I beliefe in the "superiority" of the Raw Spearmen, but maybe its also a bit unjustified to call the Raw Billmen one of the worst units in the game. On the other hand...I don't think that any unit is useless, some are just harder to work with. The Raw Billmen is for example at least heavy infantry which the Anglo-Irish lack otherwise (and they don't have acess to Raw Spearmen), so maybe its a good idea to bring them to the field.

  • @scottmiller6958
    @scottmiller6958 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    I like the light longbowmen IF you have a map with a lot of woods squares and you want to cover the flanks from the forest. You get a good number of kills and no disorder from the terrain. They are also useful for delaying enemy medium troops through the forest to threaten your flanks or against the AI who tends to shoot up his ammo supply against low yield light targets before the main battle lines get close. Whether the price justifies it versus another light unit depends on whether there are cheaper light units available.