Comprehensive Retinue Comparisons for Horse Lords 2.4.x

[Korashy]

@Secret Master I might suggest they are only bad because you don't know how to use them.

I just marched 9k HA into a 15k Abbassid stack, sure I lost 4k men in the battle, but I won and then counter attacked and took Persia off them. Lets not even discuss the bonuses you get from nomad holdings.

They are as capable as any other retinue.

50% loses against levies is not a good performance for a retinue if it's not at least outnumbered 3-4 to 1

also there is no using them properly. You attach the right commanders, and if you hit melee retreat and re-engage, like with any other skirmish focused retinue.

 

[Eslin]

@Secret Master I might suggest they are only bad because you don't know how to use them.

I just marched 9k HA into a 15k Abbassid stack, sure I lost 4k men in the battle, but I won and then counter attacked and took Persia off them. Lets not even discuss the bonuses you get from nomad holdings.

They are as capable as any other retinue.

No, you just demonstrated that they aren't. A set of camel cavalry wouldn't have lost half that number, and in heavy cavalry the losses would be in the hundreds at worst.

 

[Dracko81]

If you are being that conservative with troops, then you might want to consider getting more.

Nomads have stupidly reinforcement ability and have enough cash capabilities to do whatever they want. 4k troops replenish plenty fast enough and I have reinforcement set to half, has been since I started.

Although they are running around with 1.2k Elephants and 4.8k light cav, so 40% of any damage doesn't even hit them now and losses are minimal.

You're talking about horse archers, how exactly are they supposed to be able to compete with heavy cav? Think about seriously, they aren't supposed to be able to compete 1:1 with heavy cav.

 

[Korashy]

If you are being that conservative with troops, then you might want to consider getting more.

Nomads have stupidly reinforcement ability and have enough cash capabilities to do whatever they want. 4k troops replenish plenty fast enough and I have reinforcement set to half, has been since I started.

Although they are running around with 1.2k Elephants and 4.8k light cav, so 40% of any damage doesn't even hit them now and losses are minimal.

You're talking about horse archers, how exactly are they supposed to be able to compete with heavy cav? Think about seriously, they aren't supposed to be able to compete 1:1 with heavy cav.

Well this thread focuses on min/maxing. Basically which combination of culture, units, tactics, and traits causes the most damage with the lowest loses. Of course you can beat the AI with HA in single player (pretty much any retinue works really). But I have shown examples were I fought off around 50k abbassid levies with 10k HI and another were I easily beat 18k umayyad with 10k HI while only taking 3% losses (300 men).

 

[Dracko81]

Well this thread focuses on min/maxing. Basically which combination of culture, units, tactics, and traits causes the most damage with the lowest loses. Of course you can beat the AI with HA in single player (pretty much any retinue works really). But I have shown examples were I fought off around 50k abbassid levies with 10k HI and another were I easily beat 18k umayyad with 10k HI while only taking 3% losses (300 men).

I really don't understand how it came to pass that in an expansion called Horse Lords, the horse archers were made a lousy retinue.

I was responding to this, horse archers are not lousy. Yes you can min max something better, but they are not exactly useless. Especially when you back them up with something like HC or Elephants.

 

[Eslin]

I was responding to this, horse archers are not lousy. Yes you can min max something better, but they are not exactly useless. Especially when you back them up with something like HC or Elephants.

They get worse if you mix them with things like elephants, and HC should be kept pure. I'm not trying to insult you, but please look up the combat stats of each unit and learn how combat tactics work before posting stuff like this.

 

[Carsomyr Khan]

My impression (and it's only that) is that players said that Cataphracts are awesome, and then they got nerfed. Then players said that Archers are awesome, and then they got nerfed. If this is a pattern, I would guess that Pikemen are next on the chopping block.

My miscalculation may actually have saved camel cavalry from being nerfed for a while.

(That's my way of saying that camel cavalry are a lot better than the original spreadsheet gave them credit for... still working on it...)

IIRC, Horse Arches used to only have 2 maintenance, they definitely had better melee stats, and had a standard power skirmish tactic(+300%, not the +100% it is now). That combined with the higher retinue caps made cataphracts insane because they couldn't roll crappy tactics(harass), like the mongol retinues do.

 

[Secret Master]

@Secret Master I might suggest they are only bad because you don't know how to use them.

I'm discussing it in the context of this thread.

Kirby and others have made some very cogent arguments as to why horse archers are just not that great of a unit anymore. And while I did defeat the Byzantines two weeks ago using horse archer oriented forces, I have to admit that the arguments presented in this thread explain why I am so much more successful after moving my capital to Constantinople and using pure heavy cavalry nomad forces (with some prestige pure light cavalry forces to eat up all that prestige I have). And this is without using leaders that get cultural tactics with heavy cavalry.

The difference in performance is staggering, to be quite honest. And it's not terrain or leaders, either. In fact, I would venture that the pure heavy cavalry nomad retinue is a bit overpowered. Even their cost becomes only a minor irritant when I lose 65 men in a battle with 10k on my side and 25k on the other side (the losers lost everything). In a province with mountains. And I'm attacking. And my leaders have mediocre traits and martial scores of 12 and such.

But part of why it is surprising to me is that I would have thought that horse archers would come into their own a bit with nomad capital upgrades. After all, the nomad capital has no upgrades that pertain to heavy cavalry, unlike light cavalry and horse archers. Yet, even with tier 8 buildings, there's really no contest between them all.

 

[Gorgonkain]

I am presently playing my first game in India and have a quick question about Elephants synergy with Generic Defense retinues. I have hit 12k men in my retinue (all generic defense) and am just short of another level in MO.
As you stated earlier, Grey Wall dominates the skirmish phase most often, with a weight of 5, giving bonuses to all of these retinue types. Compared to volley, the Pikemen Defensive +240% during grey wall seems very attractive, with a loss of 70% Archer attack, and +60% Defense Gain.

Any opinions of this type of mixed retinue?

 

[Peter Kirby]

That's a good question, Gorgonkain. My comments in this thread were actually about the nomadic Light Cavalry / Elephants unit, so they'll be applicable to that.

I will admit something: I basically assumed that the Steel Bow Infantry (Archers / Elephants) were inferior enough that nobody would really want to use them or care! I also didn't take any look at the Ethiopian Skirmisher, Somali Skirmisher, Free Warrior, or Pictish Warrior on more than a superficial level. Part of this is just that I originally planned to do so (using them as archer-focused units), but then I saw both (a) how weak the best of the archer-focused units were and (b) how very complex and time-consuming it was to work out the blended archer compositions. The archers alone, even when I only covered the three types that I did (Nubian, Welsh/English, and Generic), took longer than anything else.

Now, what I hadn't considered is that someone might want to blend the Steel Bow Infantry with the Generic Defense retinue. That's interesting! Thanks for making the suggestion. When I have the time, I will take a look at that. (One of the problems with a Steel Bow Infantry archer-focused composition is how difficult it would be to get a Welsh/English commander, which is what you need even to get the sub-par results... but Defense retinues by themselves shine well enough. It's possible that a small blend of Steel Bow Infantry could enhance that. I'd have to check to be sure!)

So I'm saying I will have to get back to you on that. Thanks again for the suggestion.

Another unit type that I'll be looking at (which was not in the OP) is a Defence / Light Skirmish blend (as an alternative "lazy" blend to the 5 Defence / 3 Shock). And of course the Hussars (which were just an oversight). I might also look at the four mentioned Light Infantry retinues (Ethiopian, Somali, Free Warrior, Pictish) if there is any demand for it and/or any ideas on how to make them work (like this one about mixing generic defence with steel bow infantry).

 

[Peter Kirby]

After all, the nomad capital has no upgrades that pertain to heavy cavalry, unlike light cavalry and horse archers. Yet, even with tier 8 buildings, there's really no contest between them all.

Nomad heavy cavalry are buffed in the capital too.

Lamellar Armor Crafter

+5% / +10% / +16% / +23% / +31% / +40% / +50% / +60% Defensive (all units)

Horse Breeder

+3% / +6% / +10% / +15% / +20% / +25% / +30% / +35% Heavy Cavalry Defensive
+3% / +6% / +10% / +15% / +20% / +25% / +30% / +35% Light Cavalry Defensive
+3% / +6% / +10% / +15% / +20% / +25% / +30% / +35% Horse Archers Defensive

Riding Contests

+4% / +8% / +12% / +17% / +22% / +27% / +33% / +39% Heavy Cavalry Offensive
+4% / +8% / +12% / +17% / +22% / +27% / +33% / +39% Light Cavalry Offensive
+2% / +4% / +7% / +10% / +14% / +19% / +24% / +30% Global Movement Speed

It comes out to 95% Heavy Cavalry Defensive and 39% Heavy Cavalry Offensive.

(The bonuses are listed a little bit upthread. Horse Archers get two specific buildings, and Light Cavalry basically get the same as Heavy Cavalry, building-wise.)

 

[Secret Master]

I guess I read the tooltips wrong. The bonuses are substantial. (although I knew global movement applied)

 

[Eslin]

Another unit type that I'll be looking at (which was not in the OP) is a Defence / Light Skirmish blend (as an alternative "lazy" blend to the 5 Defence / 3 Shock). And of course the Hussars (which were just an oversight). I might also look at the four mentioned Light Infantry retinues (Ethiopian, Somali, Free Warrior, Pictish) if there is any demand for it and/or any ideas on how to make them work (like this one about mixing generic defence with steel bow infantry).

They don't work, their stats are atrocious now and they don't have a monotype tactic.

Back when their stats were actually decent but tactics terrible they could be made to work by mixing them with 20% camel cavalry to give them raid, now there is no point at all.

 

[Dracko81]

OMG HA are so weak, I will just conquer the Byzantine Empire and move my capital there to get the better retinue. I will conquer them with...HA.

They aren't shit, they are far from it. Yes if you move your capital later in the game HC will be a better choice. But at that point it doesn't even matter. You could run LC retinues and still conquer the world.

Talking about a retinue styled unit which is not available without work is a waste of time. If you are playing nomads, you will run HA and combine them with LC units for absorbing losses in the Skirmish phase, and still be capable to win the skirmish phase.

HC nomad retinues simply put are pointless.

 

[camppa]

If you are playing nomads, you will run HA and combine them with LC units for absorbing losses in the Skirmish phase, and still be capable to win the skirmish phase.

Unless you want to make the most efficient use of your manpower, in which case you will drop the HA and run pure LC hordes, or a 90% LC - 10% HC split at the beginning of the game. Nobody is saying that HA are shit, just that you always have better options, whether early in the game, or later when you have access to camels or pure HC hordes. Yes, you can beat the AI Byzantine's numerically superior levies, which are actually shit, with HA. It's just that you could have done it with fewer losses with a better army.

 

[Dracko81]

I doubt you are going to have a better time with LC since the harass tactic has been changed.

 

[Eslin]

OMG HA are so weak, I will just conquer the Byzantine Empire and move my capital there to get the better retinue. I will conquer them with...HA.

They're not weak - nothing the nomads get is, nomads are overpowered as hell, they're just weaker than every other choice the nomads get.

They aren't shit, they are far from it. Yes if you move your capital later in the game HC will be a better choice. But at that point it doesn't even matter. You could run LC retinues and still conquer the world.

They're not shit, they're just the worst choice available to nomads. And it's not you could run LC retinues, it's you should run LC retinues - they're cheaper and better than horse archers.

Talking about a retinue styled unit which is not available without work is a waste of time. If you are playing nomads, you will run HA and combine them with LC units for absorbing losses in the Skirmish phase, and still be capable to win the skirmish phase.

No, I won't. That's not how combat works, just taking pure LC is better than that. And if you don't want to put in the work for HC, just put your capital on a patch of desert and get camel cavalry instead, which are easily enough to destroy anything you face.

HC nomad retinues simply put are pointless.

So are horse archers. HC>camels>LC>HA.

I doubt you are going to have a better time with LC since the harass tactic has been changed.

The harass tactic is quadruple damage for camel cavalry and light cavalry, same as it ever was. You realise the harass tactic also deals double damage (multiplied separately, so for a total benefit of 8x damage) against swarm tactics, right? Horse archers are straight up the worst choice for a nomad, their stats are inferior and you take double damage against every other nomad army.

 

[Secret Master]

They're not weak - nothing the nomads get is, nomads are overpowered as hell, they're just weaker than every other choice the nomads get.

This is kind of where I am.

I suppose I could amend my earlier statement:

"Against levies and crappy rebels, horse archers are fine. But they are one of the worst, if not the absolute worst, nomad hordes available, given tactics, cost, and manpower."

See, I could kind of understand it if they were expensive in terms of cash but had great tactics and were manpower efficient. And I could understand it if the wrong ratio of horse archers screwed your army. And I certainly could understand it if horse archers performed spectacularly against certain types of non-nomad retinues/mercs, but were more easily beaten by nomad armies that rely on light cavalry. But it seems very weird to me that the best choice for a nomad in nearly all situations is not horse archers.

Am I missing a tactic/terrain/leader situation where horse archers are much more efficient than light cavalry or heavy cavalry?

 

[Eslin]

A very specific one - they're better against a pure retinue of pikemen or heavy infantry, since they can return to skirmish again and again.

 

[Secret Master]

A very specific one - they're better against a pure retinue of pikemen or heavy infantry, since they can return to skirmish again and again.

Even if the heavy infantry roll shield wall all the time?

I guess you are right, but against heavy infantry I'd rather run heavy cavalry. (Not against pikes though)