Scots Guard vs Aventurier

**ishootfriendlies** · January 12, 2013, 07:43 PM

Fairly new to the MTW2 experience, working through my first campaign. Considering whether to build lots of Scots Guard or Aventurier. The Scots guard will be cheaper and easier to build, because I could skip the whole range option in the castle, and because I only have a couple castles. Mostly cities, many with the ability to build (and repair!) the Scots Guard.

Looking at the stats for both, it is almost a wash. Aventurier has the better missile, but Scots has the better melee and defense. Also, Scots seem (?) to have better discipline and stamina (11 vs 9 on morale). They both have a range of 160, and a delay time of 25 on missile and melee. Both have AP missile attack and carry 30 rounds.

Do they have the same accuracy? What about stamina; is my impression correct that Scots are better?

I kinda am digging the idea of the dumping the Adventuriers, except that 14 missile attack makes me warm in my French pantaloons. What do you think?

On another theme, these units seem to not get a lot of love in the forums. From a stats POV, they are both rockstars. 1 on 1 custom they can hand it to almost any other unit. What gives?

**Aeratus** · January 12, 2013, 08:28 PM

Scots guard almost always does more ranged damage in terms of damage per second. The reason is that longbows have a faster rate of fire than crossbows. Note that the "delay time" has nothing to do with the rate of fire of a particular weapon. "Delay time" is only time in between attack animations; it has no relevance to the length of the attack animation itself (where a shorter attack animation means a quicker rate of attack). Here, longbows have a quicker attack animation.

Meanwhile, Scots Guard is superior in melee combat. So the answer to your question, in my opinion, is Scots Guard.

The only situation where Adventurier is better is in some siege battles where you are heavily outnumbered. In this situation, the Adventurier's slower rate of fire and higher damage per arrow helps in efficiently conserving ammo.

**ishootfriendlies** · January 12, 2013, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by Aeratus

Note that the "delay time" has nothing to do with the rate of fire of a particular weapon. "Delay time" is only time in between attack animations; it has no relevance to the length of the attack animation itself (where a shorter attack animation means a quicker rate of attack). Here, longbows have a quicker attack animation.

I did not know that. How can you compare real attack speed then? I was looking at this.

**Aeratus** · January 12, 2013, 10:14 PM

You can't easily tell the difference. That Warlore site takes its stats from the descr_unit file, but this file doesn't have any information about the animation. In fact, the descr_unit merely defines the soldier type for a particular unit, and the animation of a soldier type is listed in a separate file.

The speed of the animation is not listed in any file. This is because the animation is hard coded and cannot be adjusted (without modification of the animation movements). All of the values listed in descr_unit are adjustable parameters, but the animation speed is not an adjustable parameter. For ranged units, you can test the speed in custom battle. With melee units, it is very difficult to test animation speed because some animations have special "kill" sequences.

Also, I just did two simple test runs (conditions: 1 unit vs. 1 HRE imperial knight controlled by AI, disable skrimish mode at start (which is the only command I issue), grassy flatland, medium difficulty).

The Scots Guard was able to get in 4.75 volleys before the knights closed in. Only 37 knights were alive when they reached the Scots Guard.
The Adventurier was only able to get in about 2.5 volleys before the knights closed in. 46 knights were alive when their charge reached the Adventurier.

So the Adventurier does more damage per volley, but overall does less damage per second due to much slower firing speed.

**TheFedExPope** · January 13, 2013, 01:16 AM

I've heard longbow units get tired even while just sitting and shooting. Not sure if Aventuriers use longbows, perhaps a big difference is their usefulness immediately after firing all their ammunition. Whereas the Scots Guard would be tired and wouldn't fight effectively.

**Aeratus** · January 13, 2013, 01:20 AM

Whether it's longbow or crossbow doesn't make a difference in terms of the fatigue rate in the game, even though in real life you'd get tired with the longbow more quickly.

Fatigue rate is based on the hardiness trait. Scots Guard is "very hardy," while Adventurier is only "hardy." This means that Adventurier will fatigue more quickly.

**Vissewalde rex de Gerzika** · January 13, 2013, 08:35 AM

On another theme, these units seem to not get a lot of love in the forums. From a stats POV, they are both rockstars. 1 on 1 custom they can hand it to almost any other unit. What gives?

They dont get mcuch love because they both are not quite historically accurate, so in mods they are ussualy removed.

**ishootfriendlies** · January 13, 2013, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Baltic Warrior

They dont get mcuch love because they both are not quite historically accurate, so in mods they are ussualy removed.

If you bumped them out, France would have a much more limited infantry. Between the Noble Knight bug (Does that still happen?) and the lack of heavy missiles, I am guessing you would be sucking wind by the late game.

**Earl of_Duke** · January 13, 2013, 09:14 AM

If I'm playing a faction that has access to both high-end bows & crossbows (like France), I employ both.

Why limit yourself? They each have advantages in different situations.

Often, they work well together.