Unit Question: Norse Swordsmen

[Incomitatus]

I've been playing the Teutonic Campaign as Denmark lately (H/H). It's good fun, and I'm taking it moderately slowly... consolidating the north while laughing as the Empire breaks it's teeth on Hamburg. However, I find myself in a conundrum. Medieval I and RTW (especially the RTR mod) have taught how to find a use for just about any unit, but the Norse Swords are giving me a headache.

Consider the Danes line-up of sword/axe and shield infantry: Viking Raiders, Dismounted Huscarles, Dismounted Feudal Knights, and Norse Swords.

Viking raiders are cheap, have 30 more men than Dismounted Huscarles, and almost perform as well when fully upgraded... and they only cost 5 more in upkeep. Ergo, they are useful for bolstering the garrisons of frontline cities... cost/man they are cheaper than D. Huscarles and they perform quite well enough for siege defense... and the extra 30 men help with public order.

Dismounted Huscarles eat just about anything for lunch - a good attack, good defense, armoured, armour piercing man with a shield: need I say more? These guys are the backbone of my armies.

Dismounted Feudal Knights have their place, though... for one thing they seem to have more stable morale than D. Huscarles, which is important for holding bridges against superior numbers and for any other job that requires staying power under adverse conditions.

But that brings us to Norse Swords... I want to like them... I really do... but I can't find any situation where I'd have a unit of D. Huscarles and think to myself "Gee, if only this was a unit of Norse Swords instead!" And since they cost quite a bit more upkeep than D. Huscarles, there should be such a situation... but I can't think of it.

So... the basic question is this: Is there any reason I should train Norse Swords?

Thanks!

[Nazgûl Killer]

Well, to be honest, I absolutely love the Norse Swordsmen, and not because of their stats, but rather because of experience with them. They tend to fend quite well in a fight and integrate perfectly into my strategies.

Now, I would like to further add and say that I rarely use Viking Raiders, everyone has their own preferred unit with the Danes - And that's what I love about them, the sheer variety of infantry to choose from is mouth watering and allows you the actual luxury of picking your favorite unit.

If you don't like the Norse Swordsmen, as I don't like the Viking Raiders, don't use them. As simple as that. You don't have to do anything you don't want.

I rarely train Mailed Knights as I find them poor in combat and lacking in cost-efficiency, I'd rather wait for the more improved knights, whilst everyone else loves these knights and use them as much as possible.

One thing that I love about M2TW is that there is no "Right or wrong" - What feels right, is right. Simple as that.

So, basically I'm saying: Try them out. Use the luxury of the Danes and pick your favorite unit instead of being forced to use units you dislike, but try and use the Norse Swordsmen every now and then to check if they fit in to your strategies, if not, don't use them.

[Inflatable]

One thing that I love about M2TW is that there is no "Right or wrong" - What feels right, is right. Simple as that.

Exactly.
I use Mailed Knights a lot because they are the first units to have lances. I absolutely love cavalry with lances because they can deliver such devastating blows... I never use cavalry like how I use my heavy infantry. (Fighting, holding the line)

Once, I killed an enemy Rebel general because my mailed knights were charging a unit to their left, and one knight accidentally "sniped" out the enemy general

[Neptune7]

I am going to start a danish campaign, and I will check out the Norse Swordsman....Training them counts towards getting the Swords Smith Guild..Training the Dismounted Huscarles don't....

[Incomitatus]

I am going to start a danish campaign, and I will check out the Norse Swordsman....Training them counts towards getting the Swords Smith Guild..Training the Dismounted Huscarles don't....

Precisely... which is why I have been training them, and why I have a bunch just standing around in Hamburg now going "Hey guys, hear about that battle up in Finland?" "Yeah, heard it was pretty neat." "Yeah, those Huscarles sure get the glory." "Yeah." "Boy, it's boring here..." "Yeah."

I need to put together an amphibious strike force to terrorize the Baltic coast now... I guess I'll dump them into that and see how they perform.


Nazgul Killer - I don't dislike them, I just haven't found a niche for them yet. How do you use them? What role do they serve in your armies and why are they better at that job than D. Huscarles?

Because of their higher attack I can see them being useful against lightly armoured foes, but since I've mostly been fighting the Empire, who seem to account for the global shortage in heavy chainmail, the AP units just seem to outperform them....

[Nazgûl Killer]

Nazgul Killer - I don't dislike them, I just haven't found a niche for them yet. How do you use them? What role do they serve in your armies and why are they better at that job than D. Huscarles?

Oh no, they're not better than the Dismounted Huscarls, they're better than the Viking Raiders however.
I generally use them as infantry cover for my spearmen, and for nothing else. I found them pretty good at holding the line against light infantry and other infantry whilst the spearmen take the damage.

Because of their higher attack I can see them being useful against lightly armoured foes, but since I've mostly been fighting the Empire, who seem to account for the global shortage in heavy chainmail, the AP units just seem to outperform them....

Like I said, it's just a matter of them fitting into your strategy.

[Sitalkes]

I would think that the swordsmen would do better than axemen against spears as that's how the rock-paper-scissors effects work, so perhaps when you are faced by lots of spears or pikemen the swordsmen are the men for the job? I would also expect that the swordsmen would be rather bad at fighting cavalry.

[Mithrane]

It has been a while since I have played with this faction, but, as I remember it, I used the swordsmen to hold the center line and defend walls. They seemed to do better in long and messy melees. This is generally the case with all swords, in my experience. Axes simply do better at killing and will cause morale damage, while swords seem to use stamina at a lower rate and also, b/c of the "stabbing" action, they tend to get more hits against shielded opponents.

Axes I use in spots where I am leading the charge. Swords I use where I need to resist an enemy force. The beauty is that one can use either in the other's role for a short time, which, when coupled with a smart use of flanking attacks, can be all that's needed.

[Neptune7]

My norse vikings are forming a rading party to assault castle inverness..I will use a mixture of troops, and bring along a catapult.. My infantry don't do well climbing ladders..They take too many casualites and sometimes rout...

[PoleCat]

Well I don't know how NazgulKiller uses his Norse Swordsmen but I always used them as flanking troops. They have a high attack and a very good charge bonus (for foot troops anyway). I'd only build a few for each corp and then keep them back and to the side of the main battle. When I needed a quick morale boost I'd throw them in from the side while trying to pincer with cavalry from the rear side. I've had great results using them this way....

And as for Raiders - they are cheap, can be trained at any Castle, upgrade quite well for inexpensive troops and have the Armor Piercing trait. In Danish campaigns I used them heavily. Great expendable troopers...

[Incomitatus]

Mithrane - I haven't fought a siege battle (as a defender) in a long time in this campaign, but I was finding Norse Archers to be the ideal wall holders, decent melee stats and a bow... no having to fiddle around with who is on the wall as the enemy towers or ladders approach. Not to mention that they have a ridiculously rapid availability rate, so replacing losses is no problem.

For field battles... well, my field battles don't last long enough for stamina to be an issue. D. Huscarles have very good stamina anyway, and the frighten infantry trait... combine that with Norse Archers flanking and Huscarles and Norse War Clerics sweeping around the rear and by the time the enemy gets to my lines, the engagement can be timed in seconds.

Of course, the center of my army hasn't engaged in hand-to-hand fighting in over a dozen major engagements now. I seem to have hit upon the perfect anti-HRE deployment (and it even has a use for Norse Swords!). The HRE kept sending armies with few melee infantry, lots of cavalry, siege weapons, and pavise crossbowmen... and they were chewing me up. Say what you will about the AI's failures, its algorithm for when it has a major cavalry superiority is quite effective. And when they attacked me with 6 catapults and 4 trebuchets I about fell off my chair... great balls of flaming death from above!

I was winning, but with 30-40% casualties per battle, I couldn't keep it up... so I revised my tactics. Now I deploy with 3 heavy cav on the far right who race forward at the start of battle to slip around the enemy rear.

In the center I place (from back to front) my general - for morale purposes and as a reserve - three units of D. Huscarles deployed five men deep, two units of upgraded Spear Militia deployed three men deep, and three units of Merc. Crossbows (since they get 12 missile attack, instead of the 9 my native Xbows get) deployed three deep. If I have the good fortune of being on a fairly steep hillside, I'll deploy the spears in front of the X-bows, otherwise they are right behind.

On my left, 4-5 units of Norse Archers, deployed in ranks forward at an oblique angle to the center, with a unit of merc spears protecting their left flanks. Behind them, I place two units of Norse Swords for flanking duty.

Because I have missile units in my front, the AI charges its horse ahead of its foot, but it inevitably moves right into the middle of the crossfire and sits for a second or two before deciding which group of missile to charge... but that second or two spells doom for the enemy cavalry. They'll be down 50% before deciding which way to go, and as soon as they decide they get flank fire from either 3 units of Xbows or 4-5 of archers... most units rout before making contact, any other do so at contact. I've managed to take down up to 5 units of heavy cav this way per engagement... if they deployed more, I might have to engage hand to hand, but not for long, I'm sure.

The enemy foot, needless to say, never make contact.

I'm now taking 10-12% casualties, and probably 95% of that is from artillery fire. My heavy cav shut down their artillery pretty quickly, but not before they get a couple of rounds off. The Trebs I can get after one or two rounds, but the cats (which deploy further forward) can often get off 4-5 shots before I can kill them.

Anyway, the reason I deploy Norse Swords on my missile flank is because it's exposed and need a more robust unit, morale wise, than Raiders... and because the enemy artillery always targets that flank, the extra 30 men in the sword unit helps counterbalance the pounding they get from the artillery (as it inevitably overshoots my archers, which are the targets, and instead hits my rear line... poor Norse Swords)

[Mithrane]

Norse Archers are good enough for early-mid wall defense. However, if you end up defending a well-developed or late-game opponent with very powerful infantry (not shock troops), then the stats, armament, and numbers of the swordsmen do significantly better. The plus is that you can keep your archers on the wall and have them add to the melee up top. However, you don't want to rely on them TOO much once the enemy gets to stronger sword and shield units.

Also, I don't remember, but do you have access to light cavalry? I found that to be much more effective against artillery in these situations.

[Incomitatus]

Once I'm able to afford field armies, I almost never defend sieges. So, by the late game it doesn't matter much. Besides which, with the HRE bringing 6-12 siege weapons per army, I'd be insane to try to defend the walls anyway.

As for light cav... I have scouts, which despite underwhelming stats, do quite well in many situations thanks to the axe they carry for melee. I haven't been using them on artillery, because after I take the artillery out, I've been charging my cavalry into the back of the remaining enemy army, if it hasn't broken yet. Also, the AI occasionally dispatches a unit or two of heavy cavalry to intercept my flanking manoeuvre - Huscarles or War Clerics can deal with that handily, Scouts can't. That said, the last few battles I've had a couple Huscarles and a Scout, and I've sent the Scout far out and around to deal with the Trebs and used the Huscarles in closer to take out the catapults/enemy cavalry trying to flank. So far I'm liking the mix.

I'm looking forward to having access to Svenner soon, courtesy of the Kalmar Union and finally getting the old Norse capital upgraded enough. I don't know that they are better, or worth the cost I'm putting into getting access to them, but money's not an issue at this point and I do know that in my Britannia campaigns as the Scots, I've seen Svenner wipe out my Mailed Knights in the right conditions...

[Incomitatus]

I don't think swords have a bonus against spears. I think spears have a negative modifier against other infantry... which doesn't matter when facing other spears, but does matter when facing swords or axes. Certainly I've never noticed any real difference in using swords or axes against spear-armed troops... unless those troops are well-armoured, in which case the axemen do better due to the AP.

[JusTheory]

Besides which, with the HRE bringing 6-12 siege weapons per army, I'd be insane to try to defend the walls anyway.

In my experience, when the computer sieges me with that many siege weapons I let them hammer my walls and towers. Then I wait for the army to move and crush them in the streets. Send out the loose formation calvary and destroy the catapults, etc. Even though I cannot defend the walls The city stills slows down the artillery and/or blocks them from firing effectively.

[Incomitatus]

JusTheory - Precisely! Which is why the combat ability of units on top of the walls is not important in that case.

[killervomit2]

[QUOTE=Incomitatus;7280701]I've been playing the Teutonic Campaign as Denmark lately (H/H). It's good fun, and I'm taking it moderately slowly... consolidating the north while laughing as the Empire breaks it's teeth on Hamburg. However, I find myself in a conundrum. Medieval I and RTW (especially the RTR mod) have taught how to find a use for just about any unit, but the Norse Swords are giving me a headache.

Consider the Danes line-up of sword/axe and shield infantry: Viking Raiders, Dismounted Huscarles, Dismounted Feudal Knights, and Norse Swords.

Viking raiders are cheap, have 30 more men than Dismounted Huscarles, and almost perform as well when fully upgraded... and they only cost 5 more in upkeep. Ergo, they are useful for bolstering the garrisons of frontline cities... cost/man they are cheaper than D. Huscarles and they perform quite well enough for siege defense... and the extra 30 men help with public order.

Dismounted Huscarles eat just about anything for lunch - a good attack, good defense, armoured, armour piercing man with a shield: need I say more? These guys are the backbone of my armies.

Dismounted Feudal Knights have their place, though... for one thing they seem to have more stable morale than D. Huscarles, which is important for holding bridges against superior numbers and for any other job that requires staying power under adverse conditions.

But that brings us to Norse Swords... I want to like them... I really do... but I can't find any situation where I'd have a unit of D. Huscarles and think to myself "Gee, if only this was a unit of Norse Swords instead!" And since they cost quite a bit more upkeep than D. Huscarles, there should be such a situation... but I can't think of it.

So... the basic question is this: Is there any reason I should train Norse Swords?

Thanks
swordsmen parry better