Sarranid Mamlukes or Swadian Knights

[Will'sWitheredWildebeestWill's]

I thought the Knights were better but whenever i play a custom battle with the two (and watch rather than get involved), the Mamlukes always win.

[Tuidjy]

The two units are basically clones, the only differences canceling each other out (a bit better armor, slightly higher riding speed, weapons a bit more suitable against armor, etc..) In single player (not sure about custom battles) there's a roll that modifies stats by a small random amount. When the rolls go in opposite extremes, one becomes clearly superior, but usually it is a wash.

As a faction, though, Swadians are more versatile, with better synergy.

-------------

If you play at lower difficulty, with reduced damage, the Swadians' armor advantage is somewhat magnified. Not enough to matter, in my opinion, but your mileage may vary.

By the way, your test results are atypical. Most people who try to test that find for the Swadians, which you can see in a quite a few earlier threads. As far as I am concerned, the two units are so alike that it comes to personal affinity for their origins.

[mrjoker]

Swadian is the strongest faction. Allthough nords are IMO best for taking fiefs. (Best army is rhodok crossbowman with swadian knights and nord infantry.

[SapienChavez]

Mamluke is more fun to say, so they are better.

[OldMemes.biz]

Originally posted by MrJoker:

Swadian is the strongest faction. Allthough nords are IMO best for taking fiefs. (Best army is rhodok crossbowman with swadian knights and nord infantry.

Why, because Lezalit told you so?

:P

[White Knight]

The Mamlukes are excellent but they are more difficult to train and maintain, I find. It might come down to play style and preferences, but I've always found it easier to keep up Swadian Knights. I consider Sarranid Mamlukes to be a welcome novelty, more than a reliable force. I probably don't spend enough time in the deserts to make it feasible?

[PeteSkTemplar]

I wonder nobody says anything how Mammelukes though having less armor to Swadian knights have more AP weapons on average aginst better armored knights they counter with those maces. Now aint sure if it just my feeling for it is first idea I got when reading the thread.

[Tuidjy]

Originally posted by Tuidjy:

The two units are basically clones, the only differences canceling each other out (a bit better armor *snip* weapons a bit more suitable against armor)

Originally posted by PeteSKTemplar:

I wonder nobody says anything how Mammelukes though having less armor to Swadian knights have more AP weapons on average

You don't say.

[PeteSkTemplar]

I did not understand that that way while reading first time it could be more specific:)

[Will'sWitheredWildebeestWill's]

Which would be better in hills / mountains, VS Rhodoks?

[OldMemes.biz]

Originally posted by What's the point in names?:

Which would be better in hills / mountains, VS Rhodoks?

Mama Lukes. Their horses handle better.

[~ Fabulous ~]

mamluk give you money, swadia knight probably wont

[OldMemes.biz]

Originally posted by ~ Fabulous ~:

mamluk give you money, swadia knight probably wont

Are you referring to Mama Lukes using blunt weapons more so than Swaddies?

[~ Fabulous ~]

Originally posted by SPACE MARINE!:

Originally posted by ~ Fabulous ~:

mamluk give you money, swadia knight probably wont

Are you referring to Mama Lukes using blunt weapons more so than Swaddies?

yes.

[4and4squared]

Mamalukes aren't garunteed to spawn with armored horses. So keep that in mind.

[ZZZZZ]

mamelukes lack of good weapon sometimes :/