Why Men at Arms over Feudal Knights?

[dandus]

I hardly see any use for Met At Arms over Feudal Knights at all. They are slightly less expensive to recruit, but cost the same to mantain, have less attack and less defence, have less morale... yet they're available later and harder to replenish.

(Roughly) the same goes when they are dismounted.

So why bother recruiting them (unleast you don't have any FK to recruit left and you need some troops immediatly)?

[Leaf-Fan-Forever]

I believe they have access to higher armour upgrades.

[ChivalrousKiller]

That depends, I guess. In my experience, the Men at Arms are better to have for the Italian factions, and as Leaf-Fan says, they have access to higher upgrades. But it takes time before they're available, and in the mean-time, people tend to stick to the Feudal Knights.

[mesor]

I tend to use them as soon as i can get my hands on them.

If you wait till you have the upgrades uve got a stronger unit certainly but enemy knights have got higher ranks so it negates your advantage where as if you use them fast as i do i have them at normally 2-3 silver chevrons before i can do the upgrades so there already more then a match for enemy knights and the upgrades are just the topping on your overpowered cake.

[Silverheart]

I always like using the Men-at-arms as part of my RP:ing - I simply think of it as how I destroy the feudal society, rid my empire of the feuding nobles and replace them with these (since Men-at-arms are recruited mostly from wealthy commoners)
Sure, they don´t have the quality of knights (in fact, Feudal Knights or Chivalric Knights are theoretically superior in every way - if only marginally) even with the armour upgrades, but the Men-at-arms look cool, and they symbolize the decline of noble power in the late Medieval age as more and more commoners grew wealthy and powerful enough to equip and train themselves. I like using the Merchant Cavalry Militia for the same reason.

Basically, from a gaming point-of-view: they look cooler than knights, they have ALMOST the same quality and they fit better into the late game than knights historically.

[Shasqua]

I think they're cheaper and they're definitely better-armored.

[PrestigeX]

The feudal knights are superior. By far.

I am confused about these apparent Armor Upgrades... FK can upgrade their armor too , besides, even an upgraded Men At Arms (his armor I mean) is still substandard compared to the basic Feudal Knight.

IT was probably just a mistake or something that Feudal Knights and Men-At-Arms were both available in Campaign.

for me, I just took the FK and DFK's out of the building files for the two factions in Question -- Milan and Venice , (perhaps Papal States too) this way they are forced to use Men-At-Amrs / Broken Lances

[The Mouth]

Eh I stick to Feudals but IMO they can be an extremely valuable Mercenary unit when your armies have taken heavy losses.

[Nazgûl Killer]

This is actually interesting and it is a question I've not been able to answer before myself.

I just really dislike how the Feudal Knights look like and love how the Men at Arms look like, so I tend to pick the Men at Arms quite often. However, Chivalric Knights and Feudal Knights are superior, not by far, but are indeed superior.

[Ender Wiggin]

I think Men At Arms should be better than feudal knights.

For the love of all that is good and holy, they get REALLY AWESOME plate armor. Milanese plate armor was impenetrable to all but guns, military picks, and military grade blunt weapons (Well, even then it was impenetrable, but the blunt force kills you anyway)

[The Mouth]

Don't Sicilian (Norman) Knights have better armor though? Once fully upgraded of course. I can't remember I've been playing stainless steel for so long, At least in that mod there the best foot knights in the game.

[Ender Wiggin]

I wonder why that is?

Normans were not renowned for their infantry, but for their cavalry. You'd think Varangian Guard would be the best.

[Silverheart]

The Men-at-arms inferiority to Knights is logical - unlike knights, they were not trained from birth, and so had slightly less skill. I think they explain this in the description in the game...
Heavy plate armour is also useless to a man whose body hasn´t been prepared for carrying it since his first steps, since you wouldn´t be able to move effectively.
Still, Advanced Plate should provide a better advantage than it does, since 1) there are so few units than can get it, and 2) those that CAN get the upgrade doesn´t become superior in any way to the alternatives, making the 15 000 florins Armour Factory an enourmous waste... I think Advanced Plate should have provided +3 armour and +1 hitpoints.

Why Norman Knights are so overpowered that they remain dominant over all other knights and most of the late-game heavy cavalry even after the high medieval period, I don´t know. From a historical point-of-view, they should be at the same level as Feudal or Chivalric knights, and become obsolete compared to Men-at-arms and other late-game heavy cavalry later on.
Maybe CA thought Sicily had too little "special" or "elite" units, and added some extra power to the Norman Knights to balance it out.
As if the Muslim Archers, Pavise Crossbowmen, Armoured Sergeants, Men-at-arms and italian militia units weren´t enough...

[Kelvinator]

Men at arms have a higher charge bonus than feudal knights. I supposed that means they kill more upon first charging in than the other knights? I prefer Broken Lances though.

[kevindrosario]

Fully upgraded Men At Arms have 2 higher armor and 2 lower defense skill than fully upgraded feudal knights. So they're definitely harder to kill. That said, they also have all the drawbacks previously mentioned like lower attack, morale, and stamina.

Men at arms have a higher charge bonus than feudal knights. I supposed that means they kill more upon first charging in than the other knights? I prefer Broken Lances though.

Feudal Knights have 10,6 and Men At Arms have 8,7. That means that FKs do 16 damage with their lance when charging and MAA do 15.

[Kelvinator]

Feudal Knights have 10,6 and Men At Arms have 8,7. That means that FKs do 16 damage with their lance when charging and MAA do 15.

Oh ok. I didn't know that's how it works. Thanks for clearing it up.

[TheFoolOnTheHill]

The cooler one will be the best chose

[Ender Wiggin]

The Men-at-arms inferiority to Knights is logical - unlike knights, they were not trained from birth, and so had slightly less skill. I think they explain this in the description in the game...Knights weren't either. Do you think they put a toddler in armor?

They started wearing plate armor at the very very end of their pubescent life, when they were done growing, and that was only if they could afford it.

Men-at-arms, on the other hand, had tons of battlefield experience. That was how they earned their bread, not from rents from their tenants like knights. If a man-at-arms sucked at his job, he was killed in battle or he became a serf.

[Silverheart]

The Men-at-arms inferiority to Knights is logical - unlike knights, they were not trained from birth, and so had slightly less skill. I think they explain this in the description in the game...

Knights weren't either. Do you think they put a toddler in armor?

They started wearing plate armor at the very very end of their pubescent life, when they were done growing, and that was only if they could afford it.

Men-at-arms, on the other hand, had tons of battlefield experience. That was how they earned their bread, not from rents from their tenants like knights. If a man-at-arms sucked at his job, he was killed in battle or he became a serf.

Knights were born into their social class, a class that dedicated itself to warfare, so they were indeed trained from birth. They underwent training troughout their growing up, and began with weapons training even in early childhood, as soon as they could handle them.
Just because they didn´t wear armour or swing swords from the first day doesn´t negate my statement - there are many kinds of training, mind you.
And you also forget that the average knights had equal or more battle experience, since they were what a regional lord would first call upon when facing a crisis of a military nature. If a knight couldn´t fight well, he´d die too. He couldn´t just say "screw this! I suck at fighting!" and then retire to his country mansion in peace...
The Men-at-arms on the other hand were more usually wealthy commoners who consequently didn´t begin training until after they reached adulthood or, at the most, during their early teens.

Also, it is a lot harder to move around in a full-plate armour than in an armour made up of chainmail and/or partial plate - Believe me, I know from personal experience.
While better protected, a fully equipped Man-at-arms would be slower than a knight in chainmail and only partial plate covering.
It´s a fine line, I know, but on average the knights did train for a longer time.

As such, it´s logical that the knights are superior, and only slightly superior, to the Men-at-arms.