Is swadia really the best?

[Pititan]

Is swadia really the best.... Sure swadian knights are fecking Gods...but is the factions really that good?...in my game, we've been in war after war after war after war (most of our parties are under 100 men and most of our villages are always looted so we can't even recruit dudes), and every time our terf gets smaller...as of now...we're in a war with 3 factions..the rhodoks, nords, and veigers and not even kinghts can defend our land.... We've lost alot of Lord's and as of my last session....we lost our feast-central Praven to the nords as well the uxkhal to the rhodoks...even the veagirs are getting fond of dhrim, I've been voted to be marchal twice now and I really don't want to because my controversy would go up almost immediately (that's another thing, we can't seem to keep a marshal for more than 3 in-game days, so while most of our ♥♥♥♥ is under siege we in a feast at Praven voting on the next marshal LMFAO)...at this rate, I might defect over to the rhodoks (they're doing fine(took halmar from me, and are currently ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ over the sarranaids))...what should I do...

[Tuidjy]

Swadian knights are very good. They are only slightly better than Sarranid mamlukes, though.

Strategically, Swadia is in a very precarious position. It is a miracle when they do well without the player's assistance. Even when a player supports them, it is hard to help them to victory, because the ebb and flow of war ruins Harlaus's relationship with his vassals.

[samuricex]

Depends. I think Swadians are the best on the field. Swadian Knights are just ridiculous. Build only Swadian Knights, charge, win every time with few losses. But then I'm not a huge fan of Swadians when it comes to sieging or fighting Khergits. They are not great at siege battles and take forever to chase down all those Khergits. The problem with the AI is that battles seem to be mostly determined by numbers, so if you don't take part in the battle yourself, Swadian Knights lose a lot of their power.

[Esce]

You should leave Swadia.

Swadia normaly has no chance in the game. Yes, the knights are the best heavy cav in the game, their infantry and crossbowmen are decent, but they are in a constant war against Nords, Khergits, Vaegirs and Rhodoks.
Nords and Rhodoks only have two rival factions one of them is Swadia. Both Nord and Rhodok troops outmatch Swadian troops in sieges. They take towns and castles while the swadian lords are busy fighting Khergits and Veagirs.
Swadia does not get some peace time to recover. Even if they would win three battles for every lose their kingdom would crumble. They have a good chance when Nords/Rhodoks got defeated, or if they have a border so they are in war more often. But as it is in the game Swadia is the first faction to fall.
What you can do is joining a kingdom that is at war with Swadia to get a nice town, start the claiment quest to destabilize Swadia even more or you start your own kingdom in the ruins of former Swadian fiefs.
Or you choose to be a loyal vassal and fight for a heroic victory. If you succeed King Harlus will give you everything you can ask for.

[OreGano]

Swadia is the best faction in the game with the worst geography in the game.
Their awful placement means that they neighbours with every other faction and almost always at war and them being the best faction doesnt make up for that

[Fenrir]

Knights are awesome, but quality of troops matters very little in ai vs ai matches. Unless you have some sort of mod installed that uses terrain advantage in ai battles. But even then it's very weird how much of swadian land has lots of trees and hills. Also, they would do just fine if the war dec priority was a bit different and they would go for better targets. But the existing mechanics in native makes it impossible for them to do well without player help.

[Danny]

They have the best heavy cavalry
But because they are surounded from all sides, they are pretty much boned even with the best heavy cavalry.

A good player can make the difference though, especially as the butterlord loves his feasts in the middle of war. XD

[Pititan]

Originally posted by Danny:

They have the best heavy cavalry
But because they are surounded from all sides, they are pretty much boned even with the best heavy cavalry.

A good player can make the difference though, especially as the butterlord loves his feasts in the middle of war. XD

Well, I haven't made that difference lmao, we're down with only suno and dhrim left, and dhrim was under siege by the nords (these dudes can master an army in seconds, every one of their crusades has been made up of 10+ Lord's, each with ~100 men) until I managed to compale the attack on flat ground by my self as most of the other Lord's have less than 60 troops....our cities are poor and the most of our Lord's are captured, left, or injured....

[Space Commander Nemo]

If you have an army of 200+ Rhodok sharpshooters, you are basically invincible.

[Pititan]

Originally posted by Space Commander Nemo:

If you have an army of 200+ Rhodok sharpshooters, you are basically invincible.

I feel like that would be alot of effort as oppose to the f1, f3 tactics that I am accustom too with my knights....

[Tuidjy]

Knights are good on an empty field. If you play on full difficulty, you will be powerful, but you will always have some losses... which makes the knights less cost effective than ranged troops.

Sharpshooters (best crossbowmen) are simpler to control than marksmen (best archers)

But if you are willing to micromanage things to the hilt, nothing beats 80-90% of marksmen screened by some heavy cavalry (companions, knights or mamlukes)

[Pititan]

Originally posted by Tuidjy:

Knights are good on an empty field. If you play on full difficulty, you will be powerful, but you will always have some losses... which makes the knights less cost effective than ranged troops.

Sharpshooters (best crossbowmen) are simpler to control than marksmen (best archers)

But if you are willing to micromanage things to the hilt, nothing beats 80-90% of marksmen screened by some heavy cavalry (companions, knights or mamlukes)

Yeah...I do lose knights from time to time, but while those don't hurt me that much...I am utterly useless in confined areas. While defending villages agaisnt nords or rhodoks,my knights suffer heavy casualties, and let's not even mention sieges....

[Space Commander Nemo]

Well, you should probably stay away from viking conquest, then. Or go for it, an all infantry army does work fine. (Pict axemen, Norse huskarls, and Norse spearmen are about all you need)

In native, I ran around with mostly rhodok sharpshooters and mamlukes. IIRC, mamlukes get better armor and weapons than huskarls. They dont make as good of a shield wall, but they're maybe a bit better at sieges. For open fields, cavalry is your best bet.

[Esce]

Originally posted by Space Commander Nemo:

Well, you should probably stay away from viking conquest, then. Or go for it, an all infantry army does work fine. (Pict axemen, Norse huskarls, and Norse spearmen are about all you need)

In native, I ran around with mostly rhodok sharpshooters and mamlukes. IIRC, mamlukes get better armor and weapons than huskarls. They dont make as good of a shield wall, but they're maybe a bit better at sieges. For open fields, cavalry is your best bet.

Mamlukes get shoot into pieces by range troops. They are fine, but Huscarls are a much better choice for sieges.

[Pititan]

Originally posted by Esce:

Originally posted by Space Commander Nemo:

Well, you should probably stay away from viking conquest, then. Or go for it, an all infantry army does work fine. (Pict axemen, Norse huskarls, and Norse spearmen are about all you need)

In native, I ran around with mostly rhodok sharpshooters and mamlukes. IIRC, mamlukes get better armor and weapons than huskarls. They dont make as good of a shield wall, but they're maybe a bit better at sieges. For open fields, cavalry is your best bet.

Mamlukes get shoot into pieces by range troops. They are fine, but Huscarls are a much better choice for sieges.

Well, what about rhodok sargents....I was in a siege, sieging a rhodok castle....had destroyed most of their defence at that point...lot of dead sharpshooters, than, outta no where, ~10 rhodok sargents appeared and destroyed alot of my troops....most were only knocked out, but damn....10 rhodoks took on about 30 swadian knights and inf....

[Tuidjy]

Originally posted by Esce:

Originally posted by Space Commander Nemo:

In native, I ran around with mostly rhodok sharpshooters and mamlukes. IIRC, mamlukes get better armor and weapons than huskarls. They dont make as good of a shield wall, but they're maybe a bit better at sieges. For open fields, cavalry is your best bet.

Mamlukes get shoot into pieces by range troops.

Yes, they do, just like Swadian knights. Their shields are almost the same. If anything, the Sarranid's elite cavalry shield offers slightly better coverage than the Swadians' knightly heater shield.

They are fine, but Huscarls are a much better choice for sieges.

When the job involves keeping the enemy ranged units wasting their arrows on shields, no one matches the huscarls, man for man. But for cost efficiency, it's not that clear. If you have the renown to lead 200-250 men, you may be better off with lower tier shield infantry, which take less time to train, and cost a lot less than huscarls.