We all know the most sincere factions of Portugal and Spain, no? Basically, what I see on the forums, is that people often regard Portugal as the inferior 'light' version of Spain. I don't agree with that statement, and neither do I agree with the statement that Spain is far weaker than Portugal. They both rely on a same sort of backbone, a flexible and fast backbone, that functions as the corpse, or torso of the entire army. You can supplement that with heavy arms, or agile and fast legs, or multifunctional tentacles, perhaps?
Similarities:
Great Javelin infantry, something which other Catholic factions seriously lack.
Jinetes: The cream of the Iberian armies, even in the late and high eras. They have acceptable to good
melee stats, so they can handle fine in close fights, and their main weapons: the javelins, trash your fancy Dismounted Feudal Knights by miles
MUSKETS!!!!!!! Trouble fighting armoured, long ranged archers? Here is your solution, the musketeers are effective against hightly armoured foes and have a longer range than longbow archers.
The good all-round European stuff that gives more muscle behind the punch. Dismounted F. Knights, Pavise crossbowmen are the basic Catholic stuff and are a great deal at sieges.
Great navies.
Differences:
Spain
Good, cheap Professional armies, yet not capable to outfight the top-notch Portuguese Castle armies
Normal Arquebusiers
Defensive troops, like the Dismounted Chivalric Knights
Portugal
Tip-of-the-sword Pikemen and Arquebusiers, Aventuros trash cavalry and form an excellent component in
main battle lines. Expensive, though.
Portuguese Arquebusiers are the Commandos of the Renaissance, a few volleys with their arms, which are deadlier than ordinary Arquebuses, and a heavily armoured unit of Dismounted Chivalric Gothic GendarmeBruders will be demoralizes, weakened and decimated. Then charge in with your swords (and the cool upgraded armour) and turn their rout into a permanent one.
Offensive units, like the deadly Dismounted Portuguese Knights.
That's a good review. But I think most people here think (myself included) that Portugal and Spain are the same, just like the Venetians and Milanese.
That guy just clearly stated the differences between the two factions and yet you say that they are the same? Really, makes no sence.
Anyway, you forget to mention that Spain has an ugly colour and that they dont support the Knights carrying a huge Polearm, Dismounted Portugeese Knights in Portugals case.
However I think the main difference between Spain and Portugal comes in the later part of the game. Spain unlocks cool units like Sword and Buckler Men and Chivalric Knights (both mounted and dismounted). Portugal unlocks some cool units aswell however these units, Portugeese Knights (mounted and dismounted) and Aventuros are by far less destructive then the ones Spain unlock.
If compared I'd say Spain has a slightly more powerfull unit roster however Portugal's is way more badass. It really doesnt matter which one you pick aslong as your tactics are good.
/Hupsel
Btw, I believe that Portugal cant create this building, which Spain can create, called Jousting Lists which makes knights even stronger. Not sure on this one tho.
That guy just clearly stated the differences between the two factions and yet you say that they are the same? Really, makes no sence.
What I meant is that not many people think one is better than the other, but on contrary, most people think they are about the same (not a 100%, but you get it ).
Adventuros are nice, but they are pricey. Tericos are barley, if even half as strong, but are still superior to many of the other pikemen in Europe, also pretty cheap.
A good Portuguese player can make a great advantage out of their Arquebusiers before anyone has a chance to get a hold of Muskets in the campaign
Spain also gets to make Heavily armored horsemen without a castle, which Portugal does not, this factors in a stronger Spanish economy.
Overall I'd say a tag team up, Spain being the main army, while Portugal being the special forces.
Last edited by Thracius; April 12, 2010 at 01:28 PM.
The only field in which Spanish is better than Portugal is in cavalry.
But Portuguese pikemen will easily beat that cavalry.
Portugal is better than Spain. End of story.
Youre wrong actually, it depends on the mod you play wether dismounted Portugeese Knights are stronger then dismounted Chivalric Knights or not, cause in vanilla theyre not.
Also stronger heavy cavalary has a way bigger impact on the game then (slightly) better javelinmen. You should also take into account that even tho Tercio Pikemen are weaker then their Portugeese counterparts they both do their job as cavalary killers just as good, it is in combat vs other infantry units where the Portugeese Aventuros excel, what Im trying to say is: the area Portugeese Aventuros excel in (killing infantry) is not the area they were initially designed for (fending off cavalary charges).
The only field in which Spanish is better than Portugal is in cavalry.
But Portuguese pikemen will easily beat that cavalry.
Portugal is better than Spain. End of story.
Haha it's not that simple, you don't factor everything, your evidence is too loosely based on damage.
Adventuros are obviously better yes, however they are expensive, while the Tericos are cheap and can be massed more effectively, also make it possible for a an actual 10k battle with Late Spain, depending on the variation of troops ofcourse.
Musketeers have longer range than the Portuguese Arquebusiers, and that range will count for victory as they will pick off many before the Portuguese can get off a first round.
Gendarmes will defeat Portuguese Knights, but you can't say that the Pikemen will beat them, that's a no brainer, that's practically what the long spears were designed for.
I'm not sure which would be better Sword and Buckler men, or Dismounted Portuguese Knights, but you should be comparing them instead of Dismounted Chivalrous knights, as they are more likely not to be employed.
So? That's great, they are so good they actually defeat both infantry AND cavalry
And yes, the Portuguese Dismounted Knights ARE better one on one. They take a lot of casualties is true, but they are not there to be the anvil, they are there to be the hammer. While chivalric knights (and other knights of that kind with shield) are there with lots of defense and moderate attack, to hold the enemy and kill them. The Dismounted Knights such as English or Portuguese with polearms are there to charge and quickly kill lots of enemies making them rout. That's why they have big attack and low defense
What you said is all very nice, but what I was merely talking about was comparatively, not the way you play them, which in the end is what influences the outcome of the victory (and where all the fun is )
As I've said it is the way they are played that decides if heavy cavarly has or not a big impact. Personally I don't like Heavy Cavalry, because they're "zomg full plated horsey and guy with l33t weaponz" only gives them a GREAT advantage over.. unarmored archers with knives. Otherwise against most other units they will make lots of kills, but they will also suffer lots of casualties, which for their cost and building upgrading, isn't just worthy. I'd rather have a bunch of light cavalry that can do as much morale damage by charging, and then actually being fast enough to catch fleeing enemies easily, or even fleeing heavy cavalry easily, while at the same time pepper them with high damage projectiles (know what unit I'm talking about? )
And anyway, as I've also said before Spain may have all that heavy cavarly and stuff, but no cavarly can possibly compete with Aventuros, which obviously nulifies Spain's advantage, their high end units like Gendarmes appearing at the same time as Aventuros. (also, dismounted polearm Knights are also very good against mounted Knights in case you don't know, making them good against Chivalric Knights before Aventuros appear )
Last edited by Sulfurion Blackfyre; April 10, 2010 at 12:31 PM.
Unit comparisions may be useful for multiplayer battles, but the campaign is a differant matter. Comparing the capabilities of units that are only available long after your opposing faction has been eliminated does not really matter.
Grandson of Silver Guard, son of Maverick, and father to Mr MM|Rebel6666|Beer Money |bastard stepfather to Ferrets54 The Scriptorium is looking for great articles. Don't be bashful, we can help with the formatting and punctuation. I am only a pm away to you becoming a published author within the best archive of articles around. Post a challenge and start a debate Garb's Fight Club - the Challenge thread
.
Originally Posted by Simon Cashmere
Weighing into threads with the steel capped boots on just because you disagree with my viewpoints, is just embarrassing.
Originally Posted by Hagar_the_Horrible
As you journey through life take a minute every now and then to give a thought for the other fellow. He could be plotting something.
Dude, I was talking about the rosters themselves, NOT how you actually play them. That's.. obviously open for everyone to do as they wish I was merely comparing the facts between the rosters, stop being so.. close-minded.
So you decide which is better merely on the carded stats, then actual performance in gameplay? Sounds like you are the one who is close-minded
By the way I did some tests on the grassy plain head to head units.
Spanish Musketeers beat the Portuguese Arquebusiers, I tried this twice on both sides and had the same result, I guess the range of fire does make them superior.
Spanish Sword and Buckler beat Portuguese dismounted knights, I was a bit surprised about this but it wasn't even a close battle those Sword and Bucklers are tough.
Chivalric Knights vs Portuguese dismounted knights, the Chivalric Knights won but it was practically a tie, results may very for this match up.
Gendarmes vs Portuguese Knights, it was a surprising tie, both sides sustained maximum casualties, I was wrong about this match up and give the Portuguese they're props.
I didn't bother with a Terico vs Adventuro match up because it's pretty obvious who the victor would be, those Adventuro's are no joke.
Maybe you'll have different results, but these were the ones I received.
Yeah the results I posted there were tested by me, both in campaign battle and custom battle. In Very Hard also.
Portuguese Arquebusiers always beat Musketeers, altough with some notable casualties obviously, but they rout the enemy first, and if talking about "how you use them" is all that important, then portuguese arquebusiers do good both in ranged and melee, meaning that if they charge the spanish musketeers, it's obvious who will win.
In my game Portuguese Knights were always completely overpowered by spanish heavy cavalry, of course that being bugged knights (the way they fight is bugged) of course that it goes unbalanced and both sides taking larger than needed casualties, but the spanish cavarly, especially gendarmes, usually end up with enough units to take another unit of portuguese knights and still do serious damage.
I guess the one that gave the most different results to us then was the dismounted Portuguese Knights, because while it was obvious who would win in a fight between portuguese feudal knights, spear militia and javelins, it was obvious spanish infantry with it's dismounted chivalric knights would overpower dismounted feudal and portuguese knights, while sword and buckler would overpower anything else including swordsmen militia. I tought that way for a long time, but after using a lot of times D.P.K, I discovered they are not as bad as they seem and 2handed weapons are not half as bad as people say they are. The only unit in that category I found useless were billmen and halberdiers, because otherwise units like dismounted gothic knights, woodsmen and dismounted polearm-using knights are highly effective in doing a LOT of damage in a short time, while also taking lots of casualties. Anyway the thing in my tests is Dismounted Portuguese Knights always won one on one against dismounted chivalric knights, in the charge they killed between 30 or 40 of enemy units out of 120, while themselves loosing some 15 because of the enemie's charge. Doesn't make sense as their charge level is not that high. Then in the ensuing combat they remained with about 40 or 50 guys while the Chivalrics were reduced to less than 10 before retreating. In a lower unit like a militia or non-knight, this would not happen as they would not endure such casualties before fleeing. But yeah against sword and buckler men it was even worse, the dismounted portuguese made short work of them with about 80 surviving and the sword and bucklers remaining at some 30 fleeing.
I also tested several times Aventuros against Noble Pikemen, Tercio, and other regular pikes and even against feudal knights and other infantry, and they always always win, some more casualties against this or that type of unit, but they are invincible, the only way to stop them is with ranged attack, preferrably crossbows or gunpowder. But even then, if you take them out of phalanx formation and attack directly with swords, they will overpower everyone, except a sudden charge of cavalry at that exact moment but even then they're high damage and almost unbeatable morale will allow them to endure far more punishment than most units. It's even a bit unfair I guess. The only times Aventuros failed me were in big battles were individually they of course were like lawnmowers, but in the bigger picture they of course were eventually overpowered as the rest of the army failed and fled. I guess in the end it is all that matters, but I say again, you throw against me an army of Spanish, and I'll throw against you an army of Portuguese, and then we'll see
I once also tested Lusitanian Javelinmen against Almughavars, and the result surprised me because, while expectedly the Almughavars made more casualties and suffered less during javelin exchange, they almost lost in a melee fight with Lusitanian Javelins. They won of course, but took more than enough casualties to reach the shaken point in morale and remaining with very few units, far from what I expected to be an easy victory.
I don't know, if those are your results then it's weird. I guess it's just pure luck then. That's why there are cases when a peasant unit defeats an unit of armored sergeants or some other atrocity like that
Last edited by Sulfurion Blackfyre; April 12, 2010 at 06:23 PM.
The problem with unit v unit is the actual conditions are not taken into account. Cost and maint are integral to how useful a unit is within the campaign. Also -- units do not simply fight one on one. Some are affected more than others by flanking attacks as well as the terrain (desert v. grassy plain v. forrest). So where you station units does indeed affect the ranking as well. Not to mention the relative size of each unit where small numbers within the unit may require a 2:1 attack to be successful but when 1:1 the unfair comparision flips the other way around.
In short, unit cards are may be a useful starting point for discussion, but the discussion should not stop there. Also -- are you comparing campaigns? Multiplayer battles? Again the differences matter.
Grandson of Silver Guard, son of Maverick, and father to Mr MM|Rebel6666|Beer Money |bastard stepfather to Ferrets54 The Scriptorium is looking for great articles. Don't be bashful, we can help with the formatting and punctuation. I am only a pm away to you becoming a published author within the best archive of articles around. Post a challenge and start a debate Garb's Fight Club - the Challenge thread
.
Originally Posted by Simon Cashmere
Weighing into threads with the steel capped boots on just because you disagree with my viewpoints, is just embarrassing.
Originally Posted by Hagar_the_Horrible
As you journey through life take a minute every now and then to give a thought for the other fellow. He could be plotting something.
The problem with unit v unit is the actual conditions are not taken into account. Cost and maint are integral to how useful a unit is within the campaign. Also -- units do not simply fight one on one. Some are affected more than others by flanking attacks as well as the terrain (desert v. grassy plain v. forrest). So where you station units does indeed affect the ranking as well. Not to mention the relative size of each unit where small numbers within the unit may require a 2:1 attack to be successful but when 1:1 the unfair comparision flips the other way around.
In short, unit cards are may be a useful starting point for discussion, but the discussion should not stop there. Also -- are you comparing campaigns? Multiplayer battles? Again the differences matter.
Well I did compare a little bit of campaign where as Spain doesn't need access to Castles to mount a professional army, thus allowing it better economic stability when fueling it's war machines.
Both start off in good positions, Spains slightly better because it's not divided.
Portugal also has the tendency to take overseas claims, preferably France and Ireland especially in my campaigns, although if it survives to the late era, the economy in its possessions in Iberia can generate powerful armies that could match and surpass Spains. While Spain likes to build an Iberian Empire, and then go south into Africa. I like playing Spain alot as Iberia is an economic powerhouse, and an ideal position for crusades, taking the new world, expanding into Africa, and choke pointing invaders from the mountains in the Northern Spain, and the straight of Gibraltar
Sulphuristical How are you using your Pikemen in big battles? Are you disabling guard mode when not defending against an enemy cavalry charge? I have a tactics video from youtube if you'd like me to post it for you, it's quite informative. I've had problems with large battles as well, as it becomes difficult to maneuver the phalanx line effectively especially when you are overlapping, or stacking pikemen.
Last edited by Thracius; April 13, 2010 at 01:24 AM.
The trick with pikes is move your army at the same speed as your pikes when in phalanx formation. At least that works for me. In late Portuguese armies I go with Arquebusiers in front, Aventuros back, and whatever other infantry I have behind Aventuros. Arquebusiers go and sometimes just have time to fire their first round as enemy cavalry will always charge. I tell them to retreat, and aventuros come in, cavarly crashes against aventuros and gets slaughtered with minor aventuros casualties. Then the enemy infantry comes crashing against aventuros again, which always hold. the rest of the infantry I use as reserves, and then send my waiting Jinetes and whatever cavarly I have to attack the enemy archers or pursue enemies. The thing is I loose some more Aventuros than I would like, and that's precisely why I keep my infantry in reserve, so I can use them in sieges, where I usually loose more people and most of my other infantry is expendable.
In Portuguese early armies (except of course in the few first turns) I usually use a mix of Almughavars, Lusitanian Javelinmen and Jinetes. Almughavars are the strongest and therefore I can rely on them to take on almost every kind of infantry, even dismounted feudal knights or even cavalry (I notice they do a lot better than Javelinmen, don't know if it's because of their high attack or the fact they use javelin-like spears instead of swords) Their javelins are just wonderful, making so many casualties in the enemy which together with their melee skills makes them one of the best early units, and a great auxiliary unit later. Lusitanian Javelinmen are essentially downgraded versions, so in sieges I use them to man the equipment and approach the walls first, while in field battle I usually have them pepper javelins as almughavars fight in melee. Jinetes of course we all know their infinite possibilities. They can take Mailed Knights and win. They can go and do some serious damage to a Bodyguard. They can do serious damage to almost any type of unit as long as they stay out of range and have javelins. When their ammo runs out, I just use them to charge the back of the enemy, since they are so fast they can reposition quickly enough, and sometimes are life saviors, just when my units are starting to shake or waver, they go there quickly enough charge the enemy and everyone is eager again while the enemy gets "ZOMG WTF"
My way of playing in campaign map is not a "go around fighting every army I encounter". When I'm at war with someone I go straight for their settlements, 3 or more at a time, ignoring whatever army I can. After I capture the cities the enemy looses all it's influence there, and the remaining armies in the countryside usually come and siege them. Well fine with me since I usually use full stacks for capturing the cities, and with a full stack of mixed units I can defend anything the AI throws at me even if it's 3 or 4 full stacks at the same time. I almost never lost a siege. Then a few turns after I do the same, capturing a bunch of settlements at the same time. This can kill any faction quickly, especially if you know what settlements to target and where, sometimes contributing so that other faction kills them off.
With Portugal I conquer Spain immediately (the faction). I actually find the fact of Portugal being divided as a great advantage, despite not being realistic (portugal never had any hold there, it was Navarra). I put all my initial resources in building a moderate stack on each settlement and then attack the spanish directly to their settlements, which by the time usually don't have almost any garrison at all. Then next turn, adios espaņa. End of a rival. At the same time I cut off gibraltar's landbridge, so that the moors can't reinforce the Iberian Peninsula. After that is just a matter of time before the whole Iberian Peninsula is mine, and with IB under control, the game is one of the easiest you can have, just expand wherever you want, and you will be invincible with your base territories in IB.
You will find that many mods do not have a divided Portugal. I think it was a play balance decision -- remember Spain is playable out of the box while Portugal needs to be unlocked.
Grandson of Silver Guard, son of Maverick, and father to Mr MM|Rebel6666|Beer Money |bastard stepfather to Ferrets54 The Scriptorium is looking for great articles. Don't be bashful, we can help with the formatting and punctuation. I am only a pm away to you becoming a published author within the best archive of articles around. Post a challenge and start a debate Garb's Fight Club - the Challenge thread
.
Originally Posted by Simon Cashmere
Weighing into threads with the steel capped boots on just because you disagree with my viewpoints, is just embarrassing.
Originally Posted by Hagar_the_Horrible
As you journey through life take a minute every now and then to give a thought for the other fellow. He could be plotting something.
I know, and that's how it should be, only with Portugal itself. But many of those mods also have a Porto province or in case of SS a third Algarve province. In that case it's the same, aim for their settlements.
Portugal has better troops, but it costs them. So in balance, I'd have to say that it evens out. But, because as Spain in a late game I can recruit an army capable of crushing all before it entirely from a city, I can convert citadels to minor cities and rake the cash in. This cash means my troops are effectively, even more cost effective.
Spain vs Portugal?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by thursgun
).
but even then they're high damage and almost unbeatable morale will allow them to endure far more punishment than most units. It's even a bit unfair I guess. The only times Aventuros failed me were in big battles were individually they of course were like lawnmowers, but in the bigger picture they of course were eventually overpowered as the rest of the army failed and fled. I guess in the end it is all that matters, but I say again, you throw against me an army of Spanish, and I'll throw against you an army of Portuguese, and then we'll see 
