Hungary has very strong units rosters

[napoleonic]

peasants : slav levies, croat axemen (effective against armor), transilvanian peasant (effective against armor)

spears : pavise spearmen, pavise spear militia, spear militia

halbreds : halbred militia (effective against armor), halbred men at arms (effective against armor)

foot men at arms, light men at arms

pikes and late pikes

battlefield assassins (exceptional quality)

pavise crossbow militia, crossbowmen

bosnian archers

arquebus and muskeet including late version

missile cavalries : hungarian nobles (long range mounted archers that is not so bad in engaging melee), magyar cavalry (6 missile attack point), pistoliers, mounted arquebus

cavalries : men at arms and hussars (elite quality, decent defense, good attack)

knights : feudal knights and feudal foot knights

dismounted banderium knights that equal or slightly better than chivalric knights
banderium knights that has almost the same cost as polish retainers but far better (higher attack and defense, higher quality (elite))
royal banderium ----> seriously, this knight pawn most if not all other knights and cavalries, it has 7 attack points and 29 total defense points; the uber killing fact is that it is exceptional in quality!

hungary only lacking in javelins, advanced artillery, advanced pike and advanced crossbow (arbalest?), other than that, these are scary lineups that could take both western and eastern warfare style

also the surrounding regions have interesting and strong mercenaries to hire

so what do you think? I think hungary is the best faction for army selection wise

[Maltacus]

Hungary also lack advanced two handed axes/poleaxes and strong foot archers.

I agree that Hungary has a very strong roster and can play with many kinds of armies. One of the strongest. I think France has the best later roster, seemingly lacking nothing except horse archery. In early games I don't know. All horse archer armies do very well in the field due to the general lack of armour. Norse infantry cut bloody swathes in confined battles like sieges.

[Gogolometro]

You miss a point there, hungarians will meet on battlefield siphonatores, the varagians guards, the bizantine generals, mourtadoi, janisaries, pesante archers and infantry and last but no easy are the mighty light cavalry of venice.
So when look at them, keep in mind, if they not ally with poles, poles are almost same, or even better army, and HRE, no need to tell how strong are HRE. Yes they are mighty, are strong, are unussual powerfull, but their enemies are even stronger. Try a 1450 campaign with them, when the sultan think the Buda pashalac need to be reinstated. Look at your neighboor HRE, Venice and Kiev. Start worry.

[meese]

Hungary definitely has a good roster but it's not outstanding. Their knights are great, but those disappear after a while, and they're not that much better than the standard chivalric knights. Plus, knights need other units to complement them and you said yourself they don't really have great crossbow units. Bosnian archers aren't really great either. They're somewhat like the Rus' except with heavier feudal troops. Otherwise, the two basically have a good mix of most things, but I think the rus edge out hungary in terms of diversity (they have a great javelin throwing cavalry unit, pretty heavy spearmen and two-handed axemen).

Oh and Gogolometro makes a good point. You're up against strong opposition. Polish cavalry beat yours. In the early stages, you're no match for the Byzantines. Venice will likely beat you in the late era. And of course the HRE is there too. If you put a mediocre roster in there *cough* scotland *cough* it would probably become one of the hardest campaigns.

[Gogolometro]

Hungary have an option there, they can recruit outstanding bulgarian brigands to use not that useless bosnian archers. Like HRE I constant send my leader from Vienna to recruit behind border these nice guys.
The strong point of hungary is use HA against HRE and Venice at early, ally traditional with poles and let greeks and turks fight a lot and atack in nice desants behind enemy greek line. If Hungary control Balkans they will became powerfull, almost super power, because their close enemy is cumans, who need a bit force there. Hungary expansion there was stoped by bulgarians, cumans, serbians and wallachians. They never cross and conquer that area named Wallachia and Moldavia. For the sake of gaming of course is a good thing to have a nice rooster, but they are a powerfull kingdom there for a while, but never the superpower how tend a lot of time.
If we want acurate historical, Poland is the superpower in the region. But I can say I am a historical acurate conservative. So lets have fun.
Many times i liked them like rooster because transilvanian peasents, the early halebards, but now all factions get nice peasents too.

[napoleonic]

you guys are forgetting the sneaky battlefield assassins, if used cleverly, these guys could single handedly streamrolling hungary's surrounding armies; they're incredibly cheap for the quality.

polish cavalry beat hungary's? hungarian cavalry archers outguns polish. they're more than a match for them.

[Point Blank]

Note that early on, Hungary is 'strong' in HA and mobile warfare, as historically (ie 50% better replacement rate for those units). Later, they become a more conventional European military power.

[meese]

you guys are forgetting the sneaky battlefield assassins, if used cleverly, these guys could single handedly streamrolling hungary's surrounding armies; they're incredibly cheap for the quality.

polish cavalry beat hungary's? hungarian cavalry archers outguns polish. they're more than a match for them.

I guess I should rephrase myself. Polish melee cavalry are more numerous and of higher quality than the Hungarians. As PB said, the Hungarians early on have fine horse archers but this doesn't instantly give them the best roster. And there are better horse archers too.

As for battlefield assassins, I've never actually seen them used. Without experience with them, I find their numbers too low to be a frontline unit. In any battle with infantry you need some kind of foot soldier and battlefield assassins can't do that particularly well. So no they can't single handedly steamroll surrounding armies. They'll be useful every now and then, perhaps even battle-winning units - those which turn the tide for you, like cavalry - but not lone killing machines.

[Maltacus]

I am very surprised that no one has mentioned this Istvan fellow yet....

All this talk about what rosters beat what seem a little strange really, we all play differently and one faction will be deadly in the hands of one player and mediocre in the hands of another. Hungary will be deadly like few others in the hands of a player who likes cavalry.

Oh and Gogolometro makes a good point. You're up against strong opposition. Polish cavalry beat yours. In the early stages, you're no match for the Byzantines. Venice will likely beat you in the late era. And of course the HRE is there too. If you put a mediocre roster in there *cough* scotland *cough* it would probably become one of the hardest campaigns.

Polish cavalry is stronger than yours but it will NOT beat yours, you will be a match for the Romans and Venice will not beat you in the late era. After all, the opposing factions are commanded by the ai, not a human player. But the Hungarian campaign will likely be challenging and fun.

[meese]

My bad, replace beat you/beat yours with have a equal or generally better with all things taken into consideration. And I guess it's somewhat true that with Hungarian Nobles the byzantines won't be a match for you so replace that again with your roster is no match for...

The talk of what roster is better than another is about diversity and which individual unit is better than another. I think it's fair to say that French Lancers are better than Chivalric Knights, and it's fair to say that the French have better cavalry than Sicily. I also think it's safe to say France has a generally better roster than Denmark who lack elite cavalry and missile troops. A player who plays well with axes would be fine with France who have their dismounted noble knights, though you do miss out on vikings who are great but I don't think you can be 'good' with vikings but not French Feudal knights.

My point is it's strange in the sense that there needn't be this discussion at all but not strange because there's no true better roster. There is. Just like there's a best starting position or an easier-of-the-two-factions between England and the Byzantines in the 1450 campaign. At any rate, I just post in these because it's interesting to see what other people think and fun to argue because I'm really freakin' bored right now

[Notees]

I've wanted to play hungary, but I've not been willing to suffer through their starting position, which I find to be pretty crappy. Terribly landlocked, with large territories (well maybe not compared to more eastern european countries, but still pretty annoying to run across with armies).

[Maltacus]

Consider beginning with migration to Ragusa and Venice. Their militia will have a hard time against hungarian cavalry.

A player who plays well with axes would be fine with France who have their dismounted noble knights, though you do miss out on vikings who are great but I don't think you can be 'good' with vikings but not French Feudal knights.

It would be unusual at least since most people learn to play the game with easier factions which are generally strong in cavalry. But not impossible. Suppose someone devotes himself to the underdog infantry completely, using cavalry only to chase archers and catch prisoners. You need some practise with knights to be good with them, although the French feudal ones are of course so strong that they will of course do well even in the hands of an inexperienced player.

[meese]

Yeah, the French Feudals are just...eeuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrggggggggh in the early stages of the campaign. There's almost no way you can possibly lose with them. You could probably win if you selected all and walked into enemies. Alright, exaggeration, but you get my meaning. No matter what, you're likely going to be able to use them more effectively/efficiently than viking raiders and the dismounted huscarls.

[napoleonic]

btw, when will battlefield assassins come on early campaign?

[Maltacus]

Yeah, the French Feudals are just...eeuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrggggggggh in the early stages of the campaign. There's almost no way you can possibly lose with them. You could probably win if you selected all and walked into enemies. Alright, exaggeration, but you get my meaning. No matter what, you're likely going to be able to use them more effectively/efficiently than viking raiders and the dismounted huscarls.

Spearmen protected by siege equipment (preferably not catapults - too small) with two handed axemen behind is a good cavalry counter. That will shut the feudal fellows up.

[napoleonic]

that's cheating and some might not want to do that

[Notees]

How is that cheating? 0.o

[napoleonic]

because you are using equipment for something that not supposed to, siege engines to stop enemy cavalry charges? o.O

back to topic, I'm currently enjoying hungarian campaign, surrounded by different types of enemies on varied lands is fun compared to more western factions, and yes cavalry archers can do wonders

[Ichon]

More of an exploit than cheating I'd say because AI would never do something like that except accidentally occasionally. Though you can do almost the same thing with other battlefield features or units.

[Ichon]

because you are using equipment for something that not supposed to, siege engines to stop enemy cavalry charges? o.O

back to topic, I'm currently enjoying hungarian campaign, surrounded by different types of enemies on varied lands is fun compared to more western factions, and yes cavalry archers can do wonders

Yeah the cavalry archers and easy access to Venice and Byzantium makes Hungary too easy in my opinion. Only in 1450 campaign is it worthwhile when you get to fight strong Turks.