Armour nothing too important? Infantry underpowered?

**Anarion** · November 22, 2006, 11:19 AM

Am I alone with the feeling that Knights in "Advanced Plate" should not route in a 4 vs1 situation vs. peasants, should not get killed easily by archers? The armour levels need a tiny buff to make the superiority of armour much more noticable. A unit of early "Mailed Knights" shouldn't be able to kill 70% of a full unit of "Norman Knights" during a full charge.

Two-Handed units don't really offer any advantage, in fact, I don't think you need them at all. Their lack of defense makes them an easier target, especially (which is very sad) against advanced archer units and their daggers. Most of the times they are soon dead when duelling inferior units on city defenses/walls.

Units like the "Zweihander" either need an area effect (for slicing through the army

) or a buff in damage numbers. Right now it just doesn't feel right or justified to invest a lot into armour upgrades.

**General Dissaray** · November 22, 2006, 11:29 AM

The 2 handed wepon men do ample amounts of killing if you ask me. As for city walls, it is not just the 2 handed wepon men that have a hard go of it on the walls but all of them. I have sent 2 units of dismounted knights on the same secion of walls only to be routed by 1 unit of archers and a single unit of spear malisha. I think the wall difence battles are a little skewed or buged or what ever you want to call it. As for you being out numberd 4 to 1 and geting killed off by pesants, well what did you expect? I don't cair how well armord you are, if you can move you can be killed thru the armor and if there are 4 people trying to kill you chancse are they are going to get the job done. The armor stats could be better but they don't need to be much better if you ask me.

**ProudNerd** · November 22, 2006, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Anarion

Am I alone with the feeling that Knights in "Advanced Plate" should not route in a 4 vs1 situation vs. peasants, should not get killed easily by archers? The armour levels need a tiny buff to make the superiority of armour much more noticable. A unit of early "Mailed Knights" shouldn't be able to kill 70% of a full unit of "Norman Knights" during a full charge.

Two-Handed units don't really offer any advantage, in fact, I don't think you need them at all. Their lack of defense makes them an easier target, especially (which is very sad) against advanced archer units and their daggers. Most of the times they are soon dead when duelling inferior units on city defenses/walls.

Units like the "Zweihander" either need an area effect (for slicing through the army

) or a buff in damage numbers. Right now it just doesn't feel right or justified to invest a lot into armour upgrades.

Well for the two handes its because they are assult infantry with slow weapons. Flank with them and youll get results.

**Lee1026** · November 22, 2006, 02:52 PM

Did billmen historically have this problem?
If the answer is NO, then it is a bug.

**Wolfcp11** · November 22, 2006, 03:46 PM

Troll removed. following that logic, 90% of the game is a big bug

**savage_rabbit** · November 22, 2006, 05:01 PM

A lot more than 90%, but I understand his point.

However there is a thread on the billmen issue and it is indeed a bug. A very major bug.

**shadyrome** · November 22, 2006, 05:56 PM

I notice it aswell, armour doesnt offer much defense.. kinda useless building armoury.

**ZiRo** · November 22, 2006, 05:59 PM

Don't worry, I'm planning a mini- mod that will rebalance the units in the game.

**Mad_Cat** · November 23, 2006, 12:48 PM

This peasant thing has never happend to me. But I would just like to state that if knights arent that effective then CA has done a good job, considering that Knights altough in theory very good, in practice they had limited vision, their armour greatly reduced their manouvrability, I mean the famous Holy Roman Emperor drowned because he fell in a river due to the weight of his armour, not to mention those knights who suffocated to death in the holy lands. They were eventually abandoned by the late 15th cenutry. As for arrows being able to pierce their armour, I have to historical examples one is Agincourt where the English Archers moed down almost an entire army of French knights, two when the Mongols defeated the hungarians and polish knights using mostly horse archers. So I have no qualms with knights being powerful but in some cases in-effective.

**Ambrosius** · November 23, 2006, 01:18 PM

its not that hard to defend walls against scaling attackers. IMO the way it is is fine, a group of militia crossbowmen should have a fair chance to defend a wall againt a group of knights scaling ladders. there are many people *****ing that their dismounted knights are beaten by crossbowmen on the walls, but i dont find this unrealistic at all. historically speaking, even peasants and women could defend castle walls pretty effectively.

as for peasants vs knights... 4 groups of peasants, depending on the situation, should be able to take out a group of dismounted knights. keep in mind there are 90 knights and 480 peasants. thats over 5 on 1. a knight might be able to hack up one peasant, perhaps turn to face the other, but by then the other 3 will be on him. plate armor can protect you from swords, and deflect arrows, but in a grappling match it is a disadvantage.

defending a gate against 4 groups of peasants, however, the knights should not even lose a single man. ok, perhaps 1-2, if they trip and fall or something