England vs Denmark : Which faction has better unit roster ?

[Knight of Judgment]

I play as Portugal , im in 1700 A.C and the alive factions are : Mongols ( Ejypt and Africa and Arabia ) , Timurids ( middle East ) , Denmark ( Central and East Europe ) , Byzantium ( Asia Minor and Balkans and modern day Romania ) and England ( Western Europe and now started to expand to the East , i have defend my capital many times ) .


I have seen that these two factions are the strongest . But which are the best by your opinion ?

[Old_Scratch]

I'd say Denmark. They have great infantry and cavalry right from the get go. They also have a better selection of artillery in that they can use serpentines. They're drawback is they don't really have any good foot missile option. They do get regular crossbowmen and arquebuses, so they're not as bad as say, Scotland, but you'll be relying on your cavalry and infantry a lot. One thing to know, Denmark's unique cavalry aren't good chargers. Just something to keep in mind, it's more about using their AP weapon, and in the case of Norse war clerics, their high armor to advantage. They can be quite devastating. They also get mounted crossbowmen, which is a big plus.

[Sodbuster]

By 1700 AD, I'd say Denmark would have the better roster. They shouldn't stand a chance against Portugal though, since you get Basilisks, musketeers, very good pikes, and conquistadores (if you head to America anyways).

[Sorkenlol]

I like Denmark the best, I'm scandinavian and I like fighting around the baltic. Their unit roster is great aswell, a good mix of everything. You get great professional armies with both, I like denmarks better though. Sword Staff Militia from towns and War Clerics from abbeys/cathedrals. And then you get the Norse Axemen and all that. The norse archers kind of sucks though, what is it, 7 attack? You can just boost them a bit I guess, that's what I did.

[Lysimachus]

Norse Archers are good multi-purpose units. Like Dismounted Dvor. Though they lack the armour-piercing axes.

[Silent Assassin]

Russia are better

[RusticDeaTH]

Denmark is better until England gets the famed longbowmen which is where the tide turns.

[Gwyn ap Nud]

In the hands of a Player, I would say England is better, because of their archers. The AI doesn't use the Longbowmen intelligently though, nor realistically: For one, they have way to little of them. Historically, as much as 2 thirds of an English army could be longbowmen!

[Mikiez]

If you are not fighting Genoa or England I would fight as Denmark, if you are fighting HRE I would always go for England also.

[platinumkiller]

well really i would say for what ? they are both good for different reason like the English have good archers. but i would call them about the same good. its proabably more relies on u feel like doing and what factions you want to vrs

[Viking Prince Olaf]

Depends people if you like to keep your distance than englands better
because of longbowmen,and their aquabusiers,......,denmark is better for early period conquering,.....because huscarls make heavy infantry even
in the late period look like peasents with no armour along with war clerics.
but keep in mind huscarls are only good for conquering the west's infantry
but when it comes to russia,....moors,..turks,...and so on's missle cavelry
demolish danish infantry,proving that the longbowmen come in handy
along with their english nights wich with enough upgrading and bonuses
can demolish clerics so englands better for late period,....denmarks better
for infantry and western europe because aztecs will demolish ANY melee
units it comes in counter with,wether its england or denmark so i would say ofcourse Englands better with their longbowmen,heavy infantry,....
knights,...and place on the british isles,...it is almost irrelivant to even
try to conquer england unless ai,cuz the ai is dumb as hell,...........

[Silent Assassin]

Depends people if you like to keep your distance than englands better
because of longbowmen,and their aquabusiers,......,denmark is better for early period conquering,.....because huscarls make heavy infantry even
in the late period look like peasents with no armour along with war clerics.
but keep in mind huscarls are only good for conquering the west's infantry
but when it comes to russia,....moors,..turks,...and so on's missle cavelry
demolish danish infantry,proving that the longbowmen come in handy
along with their english nights wich with enough upgrading and bonuses
can demolish clerics so englands better for late period,....denmarks better
for infantry and western europe because aztecs will demolish ANY melee
units it comes in counter with,wether its england or denmark so i would say ofcourse Englands better with their longbowmen,heavy infantry,....
knights,...and place on the british isles,...it is almost irrelivant to even
try to conquer england unless ai,cuz the ai is dumb as hell,...........

Would it be possible for you to make some paragraph's and write a bit better your posts are some time confusing because of thoses thing mentioned and sometime causes bad delibarations between you andoyher memebers.

This is just an advice from me to help you out.

Rebel

[Lysimachus]

If you're going to question the way people type then at least be sure to proof-read your own post.

[Shazbot]

If you're going to question the way people type then at least be sure to proof-read your own post.

I think he's asking for a change in the physical sentence structure, not for a grammar or punctuaion change.

And I like the Danes more. Thier AP axes put most knight units to shame.

[Taroc]

He's just making a suggestion on some things he could do differently to make it easier on the reader.

[France]

England has kick ass archers (Longbowmen FTW) while Danish have really good infantry but not really good archers, would just depend on if u want to keep your distance or not.