So... given the options of an Iberian ruler and taking out the chance of changing culture to obtain Knights or whathaveyou; what would be better? Caballero Retinue, Cavalry Retinue, mixed retinue...?
Iberian Retinues vs. Other Options
- Thread starter Kaiser Ludwig
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
If you don't mind I'd like to borrow your thread and ask the same thing about the Polish hussars.
It seems to be generally accepted that the heavy cavalry cultural retinues are the best. However if you plan on not switching cultures then it's generally best to get your cultural retinue because they come with their stats boosted (to the highest possible unique cultural building even if you haven't built them). So if as Iberia you build Cavalry Retinue you get 400 light/100 heavy and it's upgraded at whatever you currently have by buildings, if you choose Caballero it's 500 light and they get a 60% bonus to offense. So while the 100 heavy cavalry makes the Cavalry Retinue seem more attractive this is generally not the case due to the cultural retinue bonus.
Last edited:
In theory, the Iberian and Polish light cavalry retinues ought to be serviceable so long as you don't combine them with any other unit. That way, they take advantage of some pretty good combat tactics and turn mediocre to bad units into decent to good ones. There is an old thread hanging around extensively debating this. I suggest you track it down and see what you think.
I have never gotten around to actually trying this, so you may find them weaker than they appear on paper. Or perhaps better.
If you're not convinced about the cultural light cav, you might want to also build some heavy infantry retinues to supplement. You don't get the cultural bonus, but heavy infantry is a pretty good all around unit. If you go this route, build 3/4 shock retinues and then 1/4 caballero (because heavy infantry is terrible in pursue). For pure siege armies, half heavy infantry and half archer is always a good mix.
See which works better for you.
I have never gotten around to actually trying this, so you may find them weaker than they appear on paper. Or perhaps better.
If you're not convinced about the cultural light cav, you might want to also build some heavy infantry retinues to supplement. You don't get the cultural bonus, but heavy infantry is a pretty good all around unit. If you go this route, build 3/4 shock retinues and then 1/4 caballero (because heavy infantry is terrible in pursue). For pure siege armies, half heavy infantry and half archer is always a good mix.
See which works better for you.
do you still get cultural bonuses if you change culture? what if you started out Norwegian and built heavy infantry retinues and then shifted to iberian...would you get 2 cultural retinues each having the cultural bonus?
I have a question also. Is it better to have a pure army of cultural retinues (ex. all free warriors, all camel riders) or a mix of them (ex. free warriors and shock retinue)?
Usually, it's best to have pure cultural retinues, because they simply get such a huge boost. (This also makes your generals more likely to pick a tactic that works well with this troop type.) If you have a very large retinue, though, you can consider balancing it out a bit by adding other troop types. This also depends on what exactly your cultural retinue is; some cultures have poor cultural retinues that are not as worth stacking.
What about Irish Heavy Infantry retinues? Are they worth it? I've been focusing purely on shock retinues because of the heavy cav, but should I change that up now?
Heavy infantry is great in battle, and the shieldwall tactic will get them through skirmishes unscathed. You might want to invest in some cavalry so you do more damage in the pursue phase, but by-and-large you should stick with the Gallowglass infantry.
The Gallowglasses right? They should be worth it, esp since it's heavy inf, but I'm not sure.
btw here's some lists of retinues.
http://ckiiwiki.com/Retinues
EDIT: I just got Emu'd. If that's how you say it.
Those "Polish hussars" in 1066 are a joke. Hussars only really go back to 14th century, at which point they were hardly Polish. Hungary is more or less appropriate but Pomerania!!!!!111one having them is not even silly, it's stupid. Bohemia not much smarter.
This said, light cavalry retinues would perhaps tentatively make some sense under a different name but being well familiar with mediaeval Polish history I can't find much reason to emphasise the supposed importance of light cavalry to mediaeval Poles.
As for hussars, I'm not sure, but the level of ahistoricity of that name is distressing. Would France or England get that type of treatment? Speaking of which, archers as the sole retinue of English nobles are a joke too. Retinues have been made into whatever troop type seemed appropriate but this isn't always in touch with their actual function of being bodyguard/household troops.
If you change cultures, you will keep the cultural retinues you already built but will only be able to build new cultural retinues of your current culture. If you built any cultural buildings you will lose them all.
Which in turn means that you lose some of the advantages of your former culture's retinue. Yeah, I've seen that thread a while back but Google rules apply; if it's after page 5, it's too deep in the matrix. 
Yeah, wasn't terribly sure on it, but I guess I'll make one of the bodies of the army pure light cavalry in the long term (once I have >1200 retinue cap)
Yeah, wasn't terribly sure on it, but I guess I'll make one of the bodies of the army pure light cavalry in the long term (once I have >1200 retinue cap)
They got the Russian Druzhina wrong too. By the time CK2 starts the most of Rus (and definitely Kievan Rus) has mostly abandoned the Viking-style heavy infantry and shieldwall tactics in favor of a very cavalry-centric force. A Prince's Druzhina would typically be comprised of a combination of 'elder druzhina' which were very heavily armed and armored cavalry very similar to the the Byzantine Cataphracts combined with a 'younger' dhruzhina mounted and armed with bows.
While they never really embraced the couched lance charge of Western Europe they were armed with spear, shield and sword and heavily armored (typically bakhterets (similar to lamellar) or kolontar (plates linked by rings) over a pantsir of mail, steel greaves and vambraces over mail, mail gloves and conical helms or skullcaps with mail veils/aventails or litchina (metal masks) ). Definitely too heavily armed and armored to be considered "light" cavalry.
The Russian Druzhina should probably be the same as Cataphracts, or maybe 200 HC 300 HA. They definitely should NOT be Heavy Infantry.
EDIT: Of course from time to time the Druzhina would fight dismounted. But so would Western Knights (who often fought dismounted, particularly in sieges and assaults on fixed positions) and CK doesn't really reflect that flexibility either.