Is the Sacrificial Altar any good?

[krikav]

Landsknekt is equal to a maceman without promotions.

When promotions start to play a role, the maceman favors more.

w/o promotions vs melee.
Landsknekt = 6 + 100% bonus = 6 * 2 = 12
Maceman = 8 + 50% bonus = 8 * 1.5 = 12

Add a combat 1, (10% more bonus)

Landsknekt = 6 + 110% bonus = 6 * 2.1 = 12,6
Maceman = 8 + 60% bonus = 8 * 1.6 = 12.8

The maceman is now in the lead, since he has a higher base strength.
Add more promotions (city raider etc) and the maceman totaly dominates the landsknekt.

The landsknekt is still a pikeman, usefull for stack defense, and for impaling all sorts of mounted foes. But when it comes to attacking melee units, he is just a added bonus, nothing to be excited about.

 

[coanda]

Landsknekt is equal to a maceman without promotions.

When promotions start to play a role, the maceman favors more.

w/o promotions vs melee.
Landsknekt = 6 + 100% bonus = 6 * 2 = 12
Maceman = 8 + 50% bonus = 8 * 1.5 = 12

Add a combat 1, (10% more bonus)

Landsknekt = 6 + 110% bonus = 6 * 2.1 = 12,6
Maceman = 8 + 60% bonus = 8 * 1.6 = 12.8

The maceman is now in the lead, since he has a higher base strength.
Add more promotions (city raider etc) and the maceman totaly dominates the landsknekt.

The landsknekt is still a pikeman, usefull for stack defense, and for impaling all sorts of mounted foes. But when it comes to attacking melee units, he is just a added bonus, nothing to be excited about.

Actually, it's not quite that simple. Combat is a little more complicated - I recommend reviewing the war academy's "Combat Explained" article, but basically you take the attacker's base strength times his base strength bonuses (from the Combat promos), and compare it to the defenders strength modified by the difference between attacker and defender bonuses.

Generally speaking, the Landsknecht's 100% bonus will help more in tough battles, while the mace's 50% higher base strength will help against very weak units or Combat III or higher... but it depends on the exact circumstances. I'll note that a Combat-I Landsknecht is favored vs. a Combat-I maceman on open terrain, regardless of which is the attacker and which the defender.

Generally speaking, a Landsknecht is a very slight upgrade compared to a mace against melee, clearly better against mounted units, clearly worse against archery units, and slightly cheaper. Whether this is a better unit in your situation is going to depend on the game.

 

[krikav]

Actually, it's not quite that simple. Combat is a little more complicated - I recommend reviewing the war academy's "Combat Explained" article, but basically you take the attacker's base strength times his base strength bonuses (from the Combat promos), and compare it to the defenders strength modified by the difference between attacker and defender bonuses.

Generally speaking, the Landsknecht's 100% bonus will help more in tough battles, while the mace's 50% higher base strength will help against very weak units or Combat III or higher... but it depends on the exact circumstances. I'll note that a Combat-I Landsknecht is favored vs. a Combat-I maceman on open terrain, regardless of which is the attacker and which the defender.

Generally speaking, a Landsknecht is a very slight upgrade compared to a mace against melee, clearly better against mounted units, clearly worse against archery units, and slightly cheaper. Whether this is a better unit in your situation is going to depend on the game.

The explanation you give feels counter-intuitive to me, and I am skeptical.
I do thank you for your input and I will review the article you mention.

Who could have known that the landsknekt would be the catalyst that would make me learn the combat system in more depth?

 

[Lewarks]

If I remember well, Chariot vs Axe is not 8.00 vs 5.00 but 4.0 vs 2.5. Therefore we can see that the 100% bonus is applied to the enemy unit and not to yours.

 

[Higher Game]

Out of sheer curiosity (I never use burger king), does the landsknecht find itself fighting a maceman ahead of a crossbowman? Then, this opens up the stack to knight rape?

That stupid UU might just be worse than a pike.

 

[Mylene]

You guys are just not looking at this from a rush standpoint (which is the point of getting engineering yourself)

For Maces you won't have CS. For Trebs you want mainly mounted protection.
Unlikely that the AI has many x-bows.

So you build Landsknechts and a few x-bows as stack protector/city guards.
Both don't cost as much as a Mace, which is important as you will notice when whipping Trebs.
CR on Lands is good enough vs. Longbows, you have Trebs to weaken those and kill the rest easily.

They are decent attackers for mixed stacks in cities after the Trebs did their job, x-bows are just not good for that cos they can still struggle vs. Jumbos and later Knights, and don't have CR.
They also cannot attack the odd roaming around units as soon as mounted are involved.

 

[krikav]

You guys are just not looking at this from a rush standpoint (which is the point of getting engineering yourself)

This is true, from a rush standpoint they can be good. They are available earlier than maceman.
But if we are thinking from a rush perspective...
If I am rushing toward trebuchets, I generally want my army more or less built before I get engineering, so that I can focus all production on getting the trebuchets out, to complete the entire army.

A army of swords/axes/crossbowman or perhaps elephants can be built, while teching engineering.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You guys are just not looking at this from a rush standpoint (which is the point of getting engineering yourself)

For Maces you won't have CS. For Trebs you want mainly mounted protection.
Unlikely that the AI has many x-bows.

So you build Landsknechts and a few x-bows as stack protector/city guards.
Both don't cost as much as a Mace, which is important as you will notice when whipping Trebs.
CR on Lands is good enough vs. Longbows, you have Trebs to weaken those and kill the rest easily.

They are decent attackers for mixed stacks in cities after the Trebs did their job, x-bows are just not good for that cos they can still struggle vs. Jumbos and later Knights, and don't have CR.
They also cannot attack the odd roaming around units as soon as mounted are involved.

Small garrisons are almost identical between landcraps and xbows, because xbows can field city garrison.

If you take CR on landcraps, they lose to knights with shock (and anybody with a stable can get knights with shock). And why would you need CR troops with trebs anyway? Even with CR landcrap is worse against archery and roughly even vs maces/axes.

You're basically telling me that landcraps are good because they help cover trebs, but anybody can have the same success with a comparable hammer investment in the majority of cases...

Not to mention the entirety of this utility is predicated on a very specific bulb path that isn't even consistently viable. If you take the more traditional tech path and backtrade machinery/engineering, the door for this crummy UU is already shut for the most part.

Face it, the value-over-base for this UU is marginal, when it factors at all. Does that make it better than the panzer? Well yes, because that's easily the worst UU in the game and has even worse usage rate/value-over-base. Does that make it beat out any earlier UU aside from the ballista elephant? Nope. Even units like samurai, janissary, musketeer, and the camel archer offer higher average rate of utility.

I'm not trying to argue that the landcrap isn't potentially useful. I'm accurately pointing out that the vast majority of alternative UU outperform it (IE give a higher benefit on a more consistent basis). What irks me most is when people list this thing as a TOP UU. What kind of joke is that? Lancrap > fast workers, war chariots, etc? Really?

 

[Mylene]

^^ Iam just telling you what i experienced in my games where i tried this, on Deity.
I wouldn't have wanted to replace my Lands with anything, now you can believe it or not

And comparing to fast workers etc? Getting a bit silly now, think we should close this case as peoples are not arguing reasonably.

 

[krikav]

I have read the combat explained article now, and did a quick calculation of Landsknekt vs Maceman, unpromoted on a open field.

LK attacks Mace:
6 vs 8 * (1+0.5 -1) =
6 vs 4 =
95 - 98% chance of winning.

Mace vs LK:
8 vs 6 * (1+1 -0.5) =
8 vs 9 =
25 - 38% chance of winning.

Conclusion from this, is that the landsknekt absolutely SHREDS melee units, if it has the oppertunity to attack.
It holds it's own defense-wise as well.

Now, a striktly melee vs landsknekt is only theorycrafting, and I don't say anything about the practical viability of it's usage in games.

I would however feel very cozy if I was Charlemange, facing one of the cesars.

 

[Bostock]

If I understand correctly the idea here is: your attack stack contains siege and 1-move nonsiege, whose only roles are to defend the stack and waltz into weakened cities. Not break in, waltz in. So if xbows and classical pikes are adequate stack defense, then there you go. If archers are adequate stack defense, then there you go for that matter (to reference a controversial proposal in another thread). Landsknechts aren't a much better deal for anti-melee defense over xbows, which you need in your stack anyway. They might be a bit better for defending-by-attacking when approached by a melee/mounted/siege stack, I guess.

I think if you're going to be cracking not-significantly-weakened units with the stack defenders, you might as well be using macemen, though of course in that case you're not rushing.

To be honest, I actually don't yet build my stacks around their defense strength instead of their attack strength, but I probably will start as I painfully move up to Emperor.

 

[Bostock]

^^ Iam just telling you what i experienced in my games where i tried this, on Deity.
I wouldn't have wanted to replace my Lands with anything, now you can believe it or not

And comparing to fast workers etc? Getting a bit silly now, think we should close this case as peoples are not arguing reasonably.

...I hope you're not saying fast workers are weak.

 

[Mylene]

...I hope you're not saying fast workers are weak.

as i said, it's getting silly.

 

[Higher Game]

Face it, the value-over-base for this UU is marginal, when it factors at all. Does that make it better than the panzer? Well yes, because that's easily the worst UU in the game and has even worse usage rate/value-over-base. Does that make it beat out any earlier UU aside from the ballista elephant? Nope. Even units like samurai, janissary, musketeer, and the camel archer offer higher average rate of utility.

The panzer is still better than the original in any case, so it's hard to call it the worst. AI tanks aren't common, but they exist, and much earlier than the gunships.

And, the janissary is very much better than those other guys. If you lack iron, it's a substitute pike against knights. Or, a substitute knight (you might lack horses too) against crossbows, better than the vanilla musket. Or, a substitute crossbow against maces. Or, a superior choice to the longbow in city defense, in some cases. You can draft them. Finally, it can be picked from liberalism because of the education path. It might be the most well rounded and flexible unit in the game apart from the prat, very consistently adding value in all situations. Maybe even more flexible, because prats need iron working and that tech is lousy outside of jungle starts.

The samurai requires iron, the musketeer usually just means a couple extra faster turns getting reinforcements in, the camel archer needs archery and thus hunting, and the ballista elephant is almost never better. NONE of these jokers are on the same level as the janissary, a solidly upper middle class UU.

 

[krikav]

If you take CR on landcraps, they lose to knights with shock (and anybody with a stable can get knights with shock).

If a Landsknekt with CR1 + CR2 attacks a knight in a city promoted with C1 and Shock, I think the calculation goes like this:

6 vs 10 / ( 1 - (0.1 + 0.25 - 0.2 - 0.25 - 1) =
6 vs 4.76 =
75 - 80% chance of winning.

If the knight attacks the landsknekt it should be:

10 * 1.1 vs 6 * (1 - 0.25 + 1) =
11 vs 10.5 =
62 - 75 % chance of winning.

A landsknekt (or a pike for that matter) trying to defend against a knight does lose in a majority of the cases if it is promoted with CR.

 

[Keilah]

I have read the combat explained article now, and did a quick calculation of Landsknekt vs Maceman, unpromoted on a open field.

LK attacks Mace:
6 vs 8 * (1+0.5 -1) =
6 vs 4 =
95 - 98% chance of winning.

Mace vs LK:
8 vs 6 * (1+1 -0.5) =
8 vs 9 =
25 - 38% chance of winning.

Conclusion from this, is that the landsknekt absolutely SHREDS melee units, if it has the oppertunity to attack.
It holds it's own defense-wise as well.

Now, a striktly melee vs landsknekt is only theorycrafting, and I don't say anything about the practical viability of it's usage in games.

I would however feel very cozy if I was Charlemange, facing one of the cesars.

Curiously enough, if you go into worldbuilder and give yourself a landsknecht, and give an enemy a mace, both on open ground with no promotions, it ends up being
6.00 vs 5.33, a 69.4% win for the landsknecht. WTH?!?!??!?!

Mace attacking landsknecht is 8.00 vs 9.00 for 30.8% which makes sense.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

LK attacks Mace:
6 vs 8 * (1+0.5 -1) =
6 vs 4 =
95 - 98% chance of winning.

Defense code does not work this way...LK would have nowhere near those odds.

And comparing to fast workers etc? Getting a bit silly now, think we should close this case as peoples are not arguing reasonably.

You think? But over on that general discussions thread, someone actually listed the LK as a top tier UU, clearly stating it to be better than the fast worker. Another person also rated FW as "worst". Seriously. I know YOU are more reasonable and don't rate LK top tier, but I'd hate to see this ludicrous over-value of the LK get even worse...this reminds me of how people want to put the dike as uncontested #1 UB...

The samurai requires iron, the musketeer usually just means a couple extra faster turns getting reinforcements in, the camel archer needs archery and thus hunting, and the ballista elephant is almost never better. NONE of these jokers are on the same level as the janissary, a solidly upper middle class UU.

Samurai with its first strikes and built in drill hits really really really hard. Yes, it needs iron, but it is devastating.

Musketeer is weakish in single player, but you don't want to face them in MP; draft units that have 2 moves and defensive bonuses can swiftly and soundly fork cities and start burning things. Even so, the SP move utility is better than you suggest! Kill units then back into the stack for safety. Cover those cuirassers, then defend captured cities with CG while keeping up. Ignore walls/castles and pick off lightly defended cities w/o waiting for the stack. It's solidly middle-of-the-pack.

Camel archer i argue is better than LK, but I don't argue it's good. Ballista elephant is another candidate for bottom tier. Both of these things provide comparably minimal benefits to that of the panzer though, and they do it sooner.

If a Landsknekt with CR1 + CR2 attacks a knight in a city promoted with C1 and Shock, I think the calculation goes like this:

It doesn't. When units attack each other in the field and neither gets any special offensive or defensive modifiers, the odds are the same regardless of who attacks. For example, a knight attacking or defending against a pike on flatlands will have the same odds whether he attacks or defends. Odds will change if someone is on a hill, or someone is fortified, or you have specialized bonuses like those of chariot vs axe or grenadier vs rifle.

And a CR pike or LK will almost never see a full-hp knight in a city. You're going to draw a longbow or xbow first even if they are damaged. Knights shouldn't be defending cities! They should be attacking units threatening them after minimal collateral support. Granted, the AI doesn't do that, but when you are attacking cities you're still leading with trebs, not landcraps.

 

[Mylene]

You think? But over on that general discussions thread, someone actually listed the LK as a top tier UU, clearly stating it to be better than the fast worker. Another person also rated FW as "worst". Seriously. I know YOU are more reasonable and don't rate LK top tier, but I'd hate to see this ludicrous over-value of the LK get even worse...this reminds me of how people want to put the dike as uncontested #1 UB...

You are getting bit worked up over this
It started when peoples said it is worthless, not "awesome and top tier".

In the end it is about getting a bit fun out of Charly, instead of starting a new game when you get him on random. You can make some use of prot. with the x-bows and castles, use the Knechts, and the Rathaus will be nice too to recover the economy afterwards.

Peoples (esp. in the general forum) have lots of funny opinions, and they don't all have to be wrong cos you don't know on what diff. they play.
Arguing over this doesn't make a lot of sense, everyone is free to think/play what he wants to

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You are getting bit worked up over this
It started when peoples said it is worthless, not "awesome and top tier".

Worked up language on a forum does not = actually worked up . You should see how I abuse townies in the internet version of the party game "mafia", it's ridiculous...

In the end it is about getting a bit fun out of Charly, instead of starting a new game when you get him on random. You can make some use of prot. with the x-bows and castles, use the Knechts, and the Rathaus will be nice too to recover the economy afterwards.

Cherry tapping is fun! So is watching an AI w/o enough siege spend 10-15 turns bombarding 1 city and then simply accepting a peace deal...and so is abusing its stupidity and getting it to suicide dozens of units into a few protective longbows.

Peoples (esp. in the general forum) have lots of funny opinions, and they don't all have to be wrong cos you don't know on what diff. they play.

I think it's hard to make a case for LK based on difficulty . Once you start getting below emperor, you start getting situations where maps can easily be won with only horse archers. UU ratings start getting trivialized in the face of tile improvements and basic tech choices .

Though playing those difficulties sometimes can be fun.

Arguing over this doesn't make a lot of sense, everyone is free to think/play what he wants to

But arguing is fun! Especially on internetz forumz!

 

[Mylene]

But arguing is fun! Especially on internetz forumz!

But..but...it stops me from getting some work done