Would you go to war against the Holy Roman Landsknecht?

[fenrus]

Landsknecht is Strength 6, 100% vs. Mounted and Melee.
Maceman is Strength 8, 50% vs. Melee.

So from my math, a Macemen vs. Landsknecht after adjustments is 6 vs 6. So it's about the same odds as a Longbowman in a city.

So is the Landsknecht a UU to fear or not?

 

[mechaerik]

That's what siege is for.


And your math is incorrect. All bonuses (except the Combat promos) are applied to the defender.

 

[madviking]

xbows

6 + 50% v 6

 

[fenrus]

xbows

6 + 50% v 6

Only have Copper...

 

[Absolute Zero]

Landsknecht is a weak unit, IMO. The 100% against melee is insignificant when it's cancelled out by the Mace's own 50% and City Raider promos that the Mace probably has.

Regardless, though, siege is the key. After being weakened enough by siege, any unit can be killed easily.

 

[Silu]

Yeah, Landsknechts totally blow against Trebs. Much worse than LBs or Maces. So just pack enough siege and you won't even notice their presence. With full health they can be rather annoying though.

 

[Boom12389]

Yes.
1. Rifles beat Landpoodles.
2. Go to 1.

 

[Bushface]

And your math is incorrect. All bonuses (except the Combat promos) are applied to the defender.

So Mace attacks LK; Mace str.8, LK 6 +100% -50% from the Mace = str. 6 +50% = 9.
Or LK attacks Mace: LK str.6, Mace 8 + 50% -100% from the LK = str. 8 -50% = 4.
In either case, the LK is stronger than the Mace.

 

[Lyoncet]

So Mace attacks LK; Mace str.8, LK 6 +100% -50% from the Mace = str. 6 +50% = 9.
Or LK attacks Mace: LK str.6, Mace 8 + 50% -100% from the LK = str. 8 -50% = 4.
In either case, the LK is stronger than the Mace.

There's too much wrong with this to really even go about correcting it.

 

[raxid]

There's too much wrong with this to really even go about correcting it.

there's too much wrong with this to go correcting it as well.... well actually the same amount of wrong, which is one statement. so i suppose ill take a stab at it.

So Mace attacks LK; Mace str.8, LK 6 +100% -50% from the Mace = str. 6 +50% = 9.
Or LK attacks Mace: LK str.6, Mace 8 + 50% -100% from the LK = str. 8 -50% = 4.
In either case, the LK is stronger than the Mace.

its true that the landsh is favored in both matchups (on flat land) and also that it is 8 v 9 (mace attacks landsh). however when a landsh attacks a mace the matchup is 6 v 5.33. this is 5.33 is calculated like 8 / (1 + .5) because the total modifier to the defender is negative (-50%).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If you only have copper, the biggest issue is knights which flank your siege.

In stacks, shock maces or longbows are fine vs LK, vs cities, city raider + any kind of collateral owns them hard.

Of course LK's are piss poor just like any other pike vs cuirassers or cavalry, and get absolutely nothing vs gunpowder.

 

[r_rolo1]

Muskets ( that normally come near the same time than the HRE UU ) can deal with them very nicely. Xbows also can pick them with little sweat. But yes, maces are eaten alive especially if you try to fight them while they are fortified with no siege backup...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Attacking longbows w/o siege backup is basically just as suicidal.

LK's basically fight maces like a slightly weaker xbow (50% without promos on either side considered, but w/o the first strike). They are pretty trashy against city raider maces, and lose pretty badly even if cut to like 5.5 or 5 str to equal promo CR maces.

Basically I'd RATHER attack the HRE UU with a unit it's meant to counter than attack his stock, PRO longbows. That says a lot.

 

[bestsss]

The UU sucks. It gets owned horribly by the siege. Compared to CG3 longbows (protective+vassalage) it's a nice change.
Attacking castles full of entrenched CG3 longbows w/o siege doesn't look exciting. (before rifles at least)

The UU is an ok stack defense at best.

 

[Lyoncet]

there's too much wrong with this to go correcting it as well.... well actually the same amount of wrong, which is one statement. so i suppose ill take a stab at it.

Wait, how can a statement be just as wrong as a statement that says it's wrong?

But I guess I should elaborate a bit since no one else has. There are two problems with Bushface's analysis. First, he compares LK and Maces in a vacuum, ignoring the earlier, easier Longbows (which automatically get CG 1 and Drill 1), city defense, City Raider promos, the inevitable siege which LKs are very weak against, and, more importantly, the LK's best era-appropriate counter (crossbows).

Second, the math is somewhat off.

"So Mace attacks LK; Mace str.8, LK 6 +100% -50% from the Mace = str. 6 +50% = 9.
Or LK attacks Mace: LK str.6, Mace 8 + 50% -100% from the LK = str. 8 -50% = 4."

The Maces attacking LKs in a vacuum have an 8:9 ratio, like mentioned above. However, LKs attacking maces have a 6:5.33 ratio, not 6:4. That's a really significant difference. Combat odds are 30.8% and 69.4% respectively for anyone who's counting.

Then, you have to factor in promos. Assuming the defending LK has the same number of promos as the attacking Mace (unlikely), and assuming the attacker was competent enough to reduce city defenses to 0% either via spy or siege, you'd get this:

Level 0: Mace : LK = 8 : 9 (30.8%)
Level 1: CR I Mace : C I LK = 8 : 8.4 (34.8%)
Level 2: CR II Mace : C I Shock LK = 8 : 8.4 (34.8%)
Level 3: CR III Mace : C II Shock LK = 8 : 7.2 (68.7%)
Level 4: CR III C I Mace : C III Shock LK = 8.8 : 7.8 (69.7%)
Level 5: CR III C I Shock Mace : C IV Shock LK = 8.8 : 6.9 (76.1%)
Level 6: CR III C II Shock Mace : C V Shock LK = 9.6 : 7.5 (76.3%)
Level 7: CR III C III Shock Mace : C VI Shock LK = 10.4 : 9 (71.0 %)

The difference is much less pronounced for LKs attacking the stack (which we will assume has a Shock/Combat Mace for defense)

Level 0: LK : Mace = 6 : 5.33 (69.4%)
Level 4: Shock C III LK : Shock C III Mace = 7.8 : 6.66 (71.7%)
Level 6: Shock C V LK : Shock C V Mace = 9 : 8 (69.4%)
Level 7: Shock C VI LK : Shock C VI Mace = 10.5 : 10 (65.5%)

On top of that, this assumes parity between the mace and LK's level, which, in my experience, is unlikely given that defenders don't tend to last long compared to attackers. This also assumes no crossbows, which, if you have iron, is sheer incompetence if going up against LKs. If you bring them, the situation would be as follows:

Level 0: XB : LK = 6 : 4 (92.7%)
Level 1: C I XB : C I LK = 6.6 : 4.28 (93.4%)
Level 2: C I Shock XB : C I Cover LK = 6.6 : 4.28 (93.4%)
Level 3: C II Shock XB : C II Cover LK = 7.2 : 4.61 (93.7%)
etc.

Of course, if there are both LKs and Longbows in the stack, the crossbows are pretty certain to attack the latter. But which would the maces attack? To answer that, let's look at that same maceman attack assuming the HRE was defending with Longbows, not LKs.

Level 0: Mace : CG I Drill I LB (due to protective) = 8 : 8.7 (24.3%) Longbow > LK
Level 1: CR I Mace : CG II Drill I LB = 8 : 9 (22.5%) Longbow > LK
Level 2: CR II Mace : CG III Drill I LB = 8 : 9.9 (18.0%) Longbow > LK
Level 3: CR III Mace : CG III Drill I Shock LB = 8 : 9.6 (19.4%) Longbow > LK
Level 4: CR III C I Mace : CG III Drill II Shock LB = 8.8 : 9.6 (19.0%) (notice the first strike chances skew the relationship between power ratio and %chance) Longbow > LK
Level 5: CR III C I Cover Mace : CG III Drill II C I Shock LB = 9.6 : 10.2 (20.1%) Longbow > LK
Level 6: CR III C II Cover Mace : CG III Drill II C II Shock LB = 10.4 : 10.8 (21.2%) Longbow > LK
Level 7: CR III C III Cover Mace : CG III Drill II C III Shock LB = 11.2 : 11.4 (22.3%) Longbow > LK

This advantage is exacerbated even further if the town is on a hill, since the LBs get 2 25% bonuses in that case and the LKs only get 1 25% bonus. This also doesn't even take into account that LKs require 20% more hammers to build.

Of course, if the stack were out in the open, the Longbow would lose a huge chunk of its potency, as would the Maces. In that case, you would attack with Crossbows instead and save the maces for city raiding. Level 0 Crossbows attacking a stack consisting of both Level 0 LKs and LBs in the open would have a 92.7% chance against the LKs and a 46.6% chance against the LBs, even taking into account the Drill I level 0 HRE LBs start with. A level 0 Mace attacking the same stack would have a 30.8% chance against the LK and a 70.8% chance against the LB, so even though a mixed stack of both LKs and LBs has some decent punch, it's nothing spectacular if the player has 1) iron and 2) competence.

So based on this, we can pretty much say that the LK is a poor performer. For city defense, Longbows beat LKs against everything but cavalry (which is the case with normal pikes, too) and Maces (which, if the opposing army is competent, they won't leave exposed). I guess against really horsehockey players, or if you suck at math, LKs could seem good. But to answer the topic question of "Would you go to war against the Holy Roman Landsknecht?" I can safely say that since an army heavy on LKs will be worse than one without them, yes, I would.

 

[Silu]

Now this

there's too much wrong with this to go correcting it

became this:

there's too much of this to go correcting it

Nice math summary

 

[Lyoncet]

^ Thanks!

 

[K.K.]

I want a Pike to defend against mounted and nothing else. Extra strength or extra bonus against mounted (e.g. a free Formation promo) would have been better.

 

[bestsss]

This advantage is exacerbated even further if the town is on a hill, since the LBs get 2 25% bonuses in that case and the LKs only get 1 25% bonus. This also doesn't even take into account that LKs require 20% more hammers to build.

Longbow has 3 x 25% bonuses (hill [for anything that receives defenses bonuses]), 25% extra on hill (inherent)+25% city(inherent), i.e. longbow on a hill has extra 50% compared to pikes.
A vanilla longbow defending a hilly city is better than the weird UU if the attacking unit is a mace due to the extra 1st strike... and protective longbows are just way better.

 

[Lyoncet]

I want a Pike to defend against mounted and nothing else. Extra strength or extra bonus against mounted (e.g. a free Formation promo) would have been better.

Right, I forgot to mention that part (thanks for reminding me).

For the reason stated here, Landsknechts can actually be worse than vanilla Pikemen because it deprives the HRE of a dedicated anti-mounted unit in an era where horsies can be immensely powerful (as anyone who has steamrolled one or more AI with just Cuirassiers can tell you). Sure +100% against melee sounds like a bonus, but if I rough up the Longbows with a few siege, the Landsknechts will probably end up defending against my Macemen, which will leave the city/stack vulnerable to knights/cuirassiers (or heaven forbid cavalry) – units that have a huge base strength for their era at the cost of having one serious weakness (which just died to macemen thanks to its "bonus"). All things considered, I'd rather have my pikes at full strength when it comes to that, especially if I have my own siege sitting in the city.