Question about grenadiers

[Handel]

1. The grenadiers info says: +50% attack vs riflemen
Is that mean the grenadier get this bonus only when attacking, but not when defending vs riflemen?

2. The mounted units get no defensive bonuses, but does the attacking units get the negative penalties? For example if swordsman attacks a chariot accros a river do the swordsmen suffer 25% penalty?

I ask those question because with mouseover you can check the battle odds when attacking, but I see no way to check the battle odds when defending.

[baboon]

1. I think always, because that's how it works with pikemen. You'd expect them to be only good at defending, but they kick the horse archers ass when attacking as well.

2. Hmm crap, probably not, that's why there so bad at not being killed. Never thought about that.

[SpencerH]

Well trained pikemen should kick cavalry to hell whether defending or attacking unless flanked.

[teaster]

Historically the advantage of a pikeman comes from the unit formation as much as the pointy sticks they wield. In defense the required movement would be limited to changing the facing of the pikes allowing them to maintain their formation. In attack even a well trained unit of pikemen would be unable to maintain their close formation at the speed required to attack thus losing their advantage against mobile cavalry.

[Jaybe]

Handel, check your combat log (Ctrl-Tab) to see about your defensive combats.

[Simon Appleton]

[EDIT: Oops, wrong thread]

[BigBadButch]

Re: Edited: Questions about grenadiers and mounted units

Originally posted by Handel
1. The grenadiers info says: +50% attack vs riflemen
Is that mean the grenadier get this bonus only when attacking, but not when defending vs riflemen?

As far as I know, bonuses against a certain unit or unit type are applied to all combats, regardless of whether you're attacking or defending.

2. The mounted units get no defensive bonuses, but does the attacking units get the negative penalties? For example if swordsman attacks a chariot accros a river do the swordsmen suffer 25% penalty?

I think the Swordsmen still get the penalty, as it's not a 'defensive' bonus to the Chariots, but an 'offensive penalty' to the Swordsmen.

Oh, and as someone else mentioned, the combat log makes for very interesting reading.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by teaster
Historically the advantage of a pikeman comes from the unit formation as much as the pointy sticks they wield. In defense the required movement would be limited to changing the facing of the pikes allowing them to maintain their formation. In attack even a well trained unit of pikemen would be unable to maintain their close formation at the speed required to attack thus losing their advantage against mobile cavalry.

The Swiss example suggests that this opinion is incorrect. In the middle ages, 2 weapons (and their proper employment) ended the 'reign' of the knight; the British longbow and the Swiss pike.

[Quillan]

I'm almost certain enough to lay money on the second example. The swordsman will take the penalty for attacking across the river. That penalty would be cancelled if the swordsman had the amphibious promotion.

[MattPilot]

1. The grenadiers info says: +50% attack vs riflemen
Is that mean the grenadier get this bonus only when attacking, but not when defending vs riflemen?

This applies ONLY when its attacking - afterall, thats what it says, no? If it were to apply to attacking and defending, it would say simply "+50% vs riflemen".

There's 2 ways you can check this - either in the game check the combat odds (setup a test scenario in the world builder for quick results), or you open up the XML files and you will notice there are 3 combat mods. 1 for attacking, one for defending, and one for both.

2. The mounted units get no defensive bonuses, but does the attacking units get the negative penalties? For example if swordsman attacks a chariot accros a river do the swordsmen suffer 25% penalty?

Yes, attacking unit gets negative penalties. The river crossing "penalty" is not a defensive bonus for the defender (This doesn't apply to the "no defensive bonus' " ), but instead it is a penalty for the attacker!

The penalty is removed with a amphib promotion.

[teaster]

Actually the Swiss example is the one I was using. The Swiss Pikes ruled on defense vs cavalry but they were not an offensive unit. A formation of pikes can not move at the speed required to mount an attack on cavalry who can simple move out of the way.

BTW - It was the ease of use of the crossbow and muskets which supplanted the knight. With them a new recruit with a few hours of training could kill a mounted knight with years of training. You could field a large army of them quickly and cheaply compared to knights. English longbowmen and Swiss Pikeman required a significant amount of training making then more difficult to amass in numbers. That would be the reason they are nation specific, not everyone could reach the level of training they did.

edit: There were also political reasons for the demise of the noble knight but politics isn't nearly as interesting a debate as strategy

[Quillan]

This game doesn't have combat fight the way it really happened in history. You didn't have a unit of pikes attack a unit of knights. Instead, an army consisting of many units of pikes, some crossbowmen, halbardiers, knights and artillery pieces took the field and fought a battle. As to the longbow/crossbow debate, the longbow had a much greater battlefield impact than the crossbow did. The reason was rate of fire. A heavy crossbow took a long time to reload. A well trained archer could fire, nock a new arrow and fire, nock a third arrow and fire it, all before the first arrow hit its target. I'm going to stop here, because we're getting WAY off the subject.

[Drachasor]

The Pikemen should have no bonus against horse archers either. Horse Archers are never going to get close enough for the Pikemen to attack (unless the Pikemen are very sneaky/clever). HA's should slaughter Pikemen. However, HA's similarly should have almost no ability to attack a walled city.

The game isn't realistic in several ways...you just have to live with it.

-Drachasor

[teaster]

I agree, the longbow was a much better weapon than the crossbow but a longbow required years of training as opposed to hours required for a crossbow which was why only the English used longbows in numbers. Law in England required that every able bodied male practice with their longbow every Sunday, a serious commitment not required for crossbows.

Drachasor makes the important point though, the historical basis for the units is cool but game balance and gameplay are what's important. How does an historical unit equate to game terms, it doesn't it's just a game.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by teaster
Actually the Swiss example is the one I was using. The Swiss Pikes ruled on defense vs cavalry but they were not an offensive unit. A formation of pikes can not move at the speed required to mount an attack on cavalry who can simple move out of the way.

I agree that its hard (if not impossible) to imagine a battalion of Swiss pikes chasing down a squadron of knights (who werent to stupid or arrogant to move out of the way). However, the Swiss pikemen were an extremely offensive-minded 'lot' who did butcher cavalry as well as most other units they did actually contact (wheras most people think of pikemen as a defensive-minded unit). Given that I'm supposed to make allowances for helicopter gunships losing to knights (for example), I dont have a problem with pikemen attacking knights (and winning)

BTW - It was the ease of use of the crossbow and muskets which supplanted the knight. With them a new recruit with a few hours of training could kill a mounted knight with years of training. You could field a large army of them quickly and cheaply compared to knights. English longbowmen and Swiss Pikeman required a significant amount of training making then more difficult to amass in numbers. That would be the reason they are nation specific, not everyone could reach the level of training they did.

edit: There were also political reasons for the demise of the noble knight but politics isn't nearly as interesting a debate as strategy

That's true in the greater sense of history but I didnt say that the British longbow and Swiss pike supplanted the knight I said they ended the 'reign' of the knight (as the overwhelmingly dominant military unit of that era).