Quote:
archaeolept said:
yes I definitely buy armies such as you put forth boron. those black knights hold a lot of conventional punch. smiths for magma/blade. small force of sappers to pepper the opponent and provide a frightening degree of siegery.
however, I don't ever start w/ knights because of the outrageous resource costs for hvy Cav in this game, and I don't go production, or little. After a few castles, though, this immediately becomes plausible.
otherwise the guardians to flank ;P and a mixture of BP inf heading straight up. flails are better against lightly armored opponents. Axes against hvy armor w/out shields. Morningstars against hvy armor w/ shields.
|
hm it is 2 black steel plate infanteries or 1 knight resourcewise .
or 3 normal ulm infanteries vs 1 knight resourcewise .
the problem is the light ulmish infantry you get probably more losses due to your arlabests then to enemy fire then.
the heavy ulmish infantry though has so high encumberance and is so slow that when it goes to battle a few round it is so fatigued that it almost doesn't hit an opponent after the first few rounds .
morale is quite low too .
so spearmen are already quite evil for ulmish infantry because of repel .
against marignon / arco or man e.g. ulmish infantry should suck bigtime .
many indies are infantry with spear too .
so at high indep settings in my practice games with ulm for me really the sapper + knights only combo worked better than e.g. arlabests + ulmish infantry .
it will take for the ulmish infantry about 2-4 turns to meet the opponent .
so 6-12 fatigue .
then each combat round for the heavy ulmish infantry +8-10 fatigue , for the light ulmish infantry 6-8 fatigue .
at 20 -1 att , at 40 -2 etc.
all ulmish inf have 10 base attack .
so soon they fight with 9 or 8 attack .
this makes it almost impossible for them to hit highdef troops like vans .