Is "x is good for flanking/charging, not sustained front-line combat" just an excuse?

[Maklodes]

I sometimes see arguments along the lines of "billmen/zwei hander/Croat axemen/whatever aren't great if you use them as main line battle troops, but they're good for bringing them in as flankers against already engaged troops" and such. I'm wondering -- is there something to that argument, or is it just an excuse for weak units?

The thing is, it's always better to attack from the flanks than head on. Dismounted feudal knights and other ordinary heavy infantry types will also do better if you use them against the flanks.

Now, if a 230 florin unit of billmen isn't as good generally as a 610 florin unit of armored swordsmen, then all is right with the world and no one should expect it to be, but for a 680 florin unit of zwei hander or 700 florin unit of norse axemen to be good because of the whole "they're good for charging or flanking, not as a main battle line!" thing, they don't just need to better when charging or flanking than they are as a main battle line -- they need to be better at charging or flanking than armored swordsmen are at charging, flanking, etc, and by enough to make up for their reduced flexibility.

Maybe these units are so awesome in flanking situations and the like that these units just put "standard" DFK-like infantry to shame in comparable situations, and maybe they are worth it, but I just think we need to acknowledge that, hey, DFKs will do better if they charge an already-engaged in the flanks too.

So, are billmen and their ilk really actually good enough in these situations that they're worthwhile?

[Adamat]

The thing is that double-handers aren't that good at holding the line because they lack much defense. Their charge, however, is higher than the usual infantry charge, and i think they also hit the enemies' morale heavier than sword and shield units. So they can be used to charge and rout units, rather than letting them die in the main battlelines.

In short, it's all because of their setup: charging is what they were made for.

[Dude with the Food]

Although, I would still use Norse Axemen on the battle line. And Highland Nobles, they are just too epic to not have fighting all the time. Even something like peasants can be a morale hit flanking and also cause a few casualties. Overall, they are better for attacking than defending (so charging is better) but you still can get a head on charge and then use lighter, faster troops to flank for equally good results.

[Aeratus]

Flanking and charging are two separate things. For sure, 2handers are very poor at flanking. They have a slow move speed, and it is very difficult to get them in the right position where they can both flank and charge. Basically, it isn't worth it to use 2handers as flankers.

However, 2handers are good at the following:

1. Charging, since 2handers have high charge bonus. Therefore, 2handers are best as the main line, so long as the main line is charging. If you have the hill advantage, where charge is magnified, 2handers are better than 1handers as the main line.

2. Prolonged melee combat, if the 2hander is an elite unit and you're playing a mod like Kingdoms where 2handers are balanced. For example, in the Teutonic campaign, the Giltine's chosen has a defense of 24, whereas the Dismounted Ritterbruder only has a defense of 20. Elite 2handers like Giltine's Chosen, Canons and Forlorn Hope (in Kingdoms) can hold the line better than any 1h unit in their respective campaigns, even Hashashim.

3. Stylish combat, especially their "low swing" animation which sends the opponent spinning. lol

4. In the Crusades campaign, the Canon of the Holy Sepulchre are almost immune to naffatun projectiles. That's pretty badass.

[Highlander of Scotland]

also i find them brutal against spread out enemies where they can get a swing in, for example they can turn situations into 2 on ones and kill rapidly because it is one hit kills hence they are good at loose combat on their foes flanks as they can distract a man and then their comrade smash him or vice versa, it works if done right

[Aeratus]

In real life, two-handed swordsmen were good in loose fighting. I don't know how often you'll see that in the game. One situation that is applicable is defending on the wall against ladder climbers.

[Vissewalde rex de Gerzika]

I use loose formations when i must absorb a cav charge with infantry, when infantry is not so pushed u against each other the cav just cant get as many of them in their path.

[Doge Domenico]

Double ganders suck once they get stuck in. They're shock troopers. Meant to charge and rout, not get stuck in.

[SusaVile]

If the strategy works, you can use it. If you can hold the line with "bad" troops, do so. For instance, I use Billmen as line infantry because they are inexpensive and easy to recruit. I prefer to have easily replenishable troops than too many elite troops. of course, I would rather have armoured swordsmen or chivalric knights, but, i usually give the finishing blow with cavalry, so the infantry doesn't need to hold the line for long. It depends on the situation, if I am loaded with money, I will recruit (of course) the best troops. Initially, the AI's units are not upgraded or elite, so you can use them well. Using a bad unit for a bad situation and still winning, that always makes me giggle