Unit Hall of Fame

[Shizzle]

I figured it would be cool if we had a place to show off the units under our command. It's not just about the amount of soldiers in your unit though, also about the number of CS per man. I'm hoping to gain some insight on the relevance of weapons/armour/training/cohesion/unit size/...

I guess I'll start off, with a modest unit:

Newlings
Captain Valdric (+2)
Type:    Infantry
Strength:    19 men
Training:    80 %
Weapons/Armour:    50% / 65%
Damage:   9 %
Morale:   100 %
Cohesion:   100 %
Combat Strength:   382

CS per man = 20.11


In general, would you rather prefer fewer strong men, or a big group of weaker? (for an equal total CS)

[Bedwyr]

In general, would you rather prefer fewer strong men, or a big group of weaker? (for an equal total CS)

Depends on what you want to do.  If you're going to charge walls with some siege engines, fewer stronger men by far.  Most of the time, for fighting in general, fewer stronger men.  If you want to tear down walls, RC's, take or hold regions, you need more weaker troops.

[Foundation]

I figured it would be cool if we had a place to show off the units under our command. It's not just about the amount of soldiers in your unit though, also about the number of CS per man. I'm hoping to gain some insight on the relevance of weapons/armour/training/cohesion/unit size/...

I guess I'll start off, with a modest unit:

Newlings
Captain Valdric (+2)
Type:    Infantry
Strength:    19 men
Training:    80 %
Weapons/Armour:    50% / 65%
Damage:   9 %
Morale:   100 %
Cohesion:   100 %
Combat Strength:   382

CS per man = 20.11


In general, would you rather prefer fewer strong men, or a big group of weaker? (for an equal total CS)

CS per man is not exactly fair, since CS calculation does not scale linearly with the number of men, so a smaller unit with same stats will have higher CS per man, it's designed that way.

[De-Legro]

With fewer stronger men I can have more healers per soldier, which appears to increase the chance of men being wounded rather then killed. Having a 30 man unit that remains close to full strength after several turns of battle, is very useful.

[Jeckyl]

I figured it would be cool if we had a place to show off the units under our command. It's not just about the amount of soldiers in your unit though, also about the number of CS per man. I'm hoping to gain some insight on the relevance of weapons/armour/training/cohesion/unit size/...

I guess I'll start off, with a modest unit:

Newlings
Captain Valdric (+2)
Type:    Infantry
Strength:    19 men
Training:    80 %
Weapons/Armour:    50% / 65%
Damage:   9 %
Morale:   100 %
Cohesion:   100 %
Combat Strength:   382

CS per man = 20.11


In general, would you rather prefer fewer strong men, or a big group of weaker? (for an equal total CS)

I lose men so often, this isn't really in good context:

Grey Wardens
Captain Josef (+7)
Type:    Cavalry
Strength:    21 men
Training:    77 %
Weapons/Armour:    66% / 66%
Damage:   4 %
Morale:   100 %
Cohesion:   86 %
Combat Strength:   507

CS per man: 24.14

[^ban^]

What does it say of me that I consider this modest?

Code: [Select]

Tuatha De Danann
Captain Heinrich (+9)
Type:                       Infantry
Strength:                 42 men
Training:                  86 %
Weapons/Armour: 70% / 75%
Damage:                  16 %
Morale:                    100 %
Cohesion:               100 %
Combat Strength:   688

[Foundation]

What does it say of me that I consider this modest?

Code: [Select]

Tuatha De Danann
Captain Heinrich (+9)
Type:                       Infantry
Strength:                 42 men
Training:                  86 %
Weapons/Armour: 70% / 75%
Damage:                  16 %
Morale:                    100 %
Cohesion:               100 %
Combat Strength:   688

That's pretty mediocre, Joe.

Auroran Knights
Captain Heinrich (+2)
Type:   Special Forces
Strength:   54 (+2 wounded)
Training:   59 %
Weapons/Armour:   100% / 70%
Damage:    9 %
Morale:    100 %
Cohesion:    70 %
Combat Strength:    1103

This, this is truly modest. 

[^ban^]

That's pretty mediocre, Joe.

Auroran Knights
Captain Heinrich (+2)
Type:   Special Forces
Strength:   54 (+2 wounded)
Training:   59 %
Weapons/Armour:   100% / 70%
Damage:    9 %
Morale:    100 %
Cohesion:    70 %
Combat Strength:    1103

This, this is truly modest. 

You must not be familiar with the Barony's Behexed Artillery...

[Zakilevo]

Sirion has SF with 100/95. I wonder if there is SF with 100-5/100. 

[Bael]

Sirion has SF with 100/95. I wonder if there is SF with 100-5/100. 

I know a good SF center in Carelia was recently destroyed. I forget the exact stats though.

[Indirik]

Sirion has SF with 100/95.

Darka has 100/95-4.

I wonder if there is SF with 100-5/100.

Icegate on AT has 99/99/99 R5. The infamous Behexed Artillery.

[Foundation]

Darka has 100/95-4.

Icegate on AT has 99/99/99 R5. The infamous Behexed Artillery.

Are you serious?  What can stop an army made of those Behexed Arrtillery?  Why have they not rolled AT yet?

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Ask what their cost is. Compare it to the income BoM gets. As well, ask the size of the RC, and how many recruits it gets a day.

[^ban^]

Ask what their cost is. Compare it to the income BoM gets. As well, ask the size of the RC, and how many recruits it gets a day.

145 per 10, with SF weekly costs and high repair costs from the equipment, and I believe the center is up to size 3 now. Those in BoM that want them are generally able to afford them, but only just.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

So my guess at the reason BoM hasn't taken over AT yet is because the cost of losing even one of those would often offset the loss of about ten moderate standard units. Considering the cost, the smaller numbers that can be fielded by most nobles, as well as the rate of recruit replacement, BoM would probably need at least two such RCs to make an army that might make a huge impact everywhere they go.