Unit strategy difference: Zombies vs Skeleton warriors

[ihKu47]

I'm about to launch another Vampire Counts campaign but I remember from the last time I didn't really understand what is the difference in roles that two unit types play, even after watching tactics videos on the faction. Both are used as tarpits, and while the zombies are way slower than the skeletons and they can take more of a pounding. They're so cheap that you can use them to soak up enemy missile and artillery fire, but the shields on skeletons suggest they'd be pretty competent in surviving the normal missile fire as well.

So when and why would I prefer zombies over the skeletons? When the enemy has artillery as well as missiles? When I want to save money? When I need the front line to tarpit longer? When DO I want them to tarpit for longer?

I'll try out sending a front line of zombies and reinforcing them with a smaller secondary line of skeletons when I get started, but advice on the best use of both units will be appreciated!

[Brave and Fearless Sir Shiba]

How I view it anyway zombies are there to soak up damage/ charges protecting your more valuable units from them I tend to think of them kinda like a unroutable Skaven slaves. Whereas skelliemans sword and board probably your basic frontline killer of sorts till you can get grave guard/ ghouls and whatever undead monster that tickles your fancy. But that's my view of them and how I personally would use them

[Chameon]

This stuff is my opinion, but I played a bit of VC, so these are the opinions that generated.

Zombies last longer in pure melees, skeletons can survive ranged for a bit longer and can do some modest damage vs large when given spears. Generally zombies are better if you need some chaff to fill your army that will just stay there, and skeletons are better if you want something more akin to swordsmen added to your army. If you're raising dead to maintain the majority of your army, GENERALLY, zombies should be the last unit you raise but you should still raise them if you have an open slot.

[..]

Campaign-wise zombies are generally better due to costs. I know they have more HP than skeletons overall but i don't remember if they also have more HP per model; if zombies do have more HP/model, then they're better at tanking AoE effects* as well. With a higher HP pool, i believe you can also heal them for more HP, as hp replenishment is capped on % of the unit's hp at the start of the battle.

*armor-piercing ones anyway. Slightly worse against lower-tier aoe(their formation helps a bit)

I think the reason to go skeleton warriors is just to add a bit of damage and melee stats(similar to getting swordsmen for empire). The shields help, and to get a better idea of how much they help, divide 100% by (100%-%chance to block), and then multiply the result to their total HP; just know that hp value is an average value and applies if they only receive missile damage.

Generally, you want to aim for skeletal spearmen over warriors not only due to better melee defense(in exchange for attack), but for their anti-large bonus while being relatively cheap.

tl;dr generally get zombies and a few spearmen early on. Get warriors if you need damage but can't afford the better units.

[ihKu47]

Thanks guys, getting new ideas from these comments already!

EDIT: But keep them coming! :)

[Prisoner 76561197992841073]

dont know dont use them they're trash

[Decomposed]

I think the difference is that Zombies have way worse stats. but they have larger unit spacings, so they can surround enemy regiments easier.

[ihKu47]

Originally posted by Decomposed:

I think the difference is that Zombies have way worse stats. but they have larger unit spacings, so they can surround enemy regiments easier.

I should experiment, this does sound like a very useful trait. I understand it will at least tarpit the unit more effectively but it could also mean that more fear is caused as more models are directly next to the zombies. I haven't taken an indepth study of the fear mechanic though, so maybe it does not.

[barfbag69fartmachine]

You can usually raise a lot more zombies than you can skeletons
Also they are just everywhere

They hold the enemy line down so you can land your spells or your flankers

Skeletons are less common

[Wyvern]

Ill be blunt. Zombies are just ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ skeletons. End of story. There is basically 0 reason to use zombies except as filler troops in early game(because you cant raise more skeletons). Their upkeep is exorbitant for a unit that does nothing but soak up charges and damage(similar to how peasant upkeep is obscene for brettonia) and they do nothing better than skeletons except tank artillery fire and maybe snare cav due to looser formation.

They cant tank projectiles as well, they dont fight anywhere near as well(and thats saying something, skeletons are really ♥♥♥♥♥♥ to begin with). Also, fear bonus only applies once, flanking bonus applies when you flank, given how horribly slow zombies are, theyre even worse for flanking than skeletons. Obviously, if youre using raise dead you can get the benefit of rear-charge penalty, but that's a different situation, and with overcast you get skeleton warriors that will actually do some damage, so that can be good for shutting down archers(they can also chase archers better than slow af zombies)

Ultimately, in campaign you'll want to start with skeletons and go to grave guard as fast as possible. GG will trash most infantry in their cost bracket and below with contemptible ease and tanks far better than skeletons and zombies. The way upkeep was changed on VH and Legendary makes cheap chaff nigh worthless, especially for a faction that can raise it for free.

In MP zombies are cheaper, and skeletons are garbage vs most opposition(and GG is just sooooo good) so there's a serious argument for zombies because their actual effectiveness wont be much worse, and you cant actually field maxed out stacks.

[ihKu47]

Originally posted by Wyvern:

Ill be blunt. Zombies are just ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ skeletons. End of story. There is basically 0 reason to use zombies except as filler troops in early game(because you cant raise more skeletons). Their upkeep is exorbitant for a unit that does nothing but soak up charges and damage(similar to how peasant upkeep is obscene for brettonia) and they do nothing better than skeletons except tank artillery fire and maybe snare cav due to looser formation.

They cant tank projectiles as well, they dont fight anywhere near as well(and thats saying something, skeletons are really ♥♥♥♥♥♥ to begin with). Also, fear bonus only applies once, flanking bonus applies when you flank, given how horribly slow zombies are, theyre even worse for flanking than skeletons. Obviously, if youre using raise dead you can get the benefit of rear-charge penalty, but that's a different situation, and with overcast you get skeleton warriors that will actually do some damage, so that can be good for shutting down archers(they can also chase archers better than slow af zombies)

Ultimately, in campaign you'll want to start with skeletons and go to grave guard as fast as possible. GG will trash most infantry in their cost bracket and below with contemptible ease and tanks far better than skeletons and zombies. The way upkeep was changed on VH and Legendary makes cheap chaff nigh worthless, especially for a faction that can raise it for free.

In MP zombies are cheaper, and skeletons are garbage vs most opposition(and GG is just sooooo good) so there's a serious argument for zombies because their actual effectiveness wont be much worse, and you cant actually field maxed out stacks.

This was the feeling I got so I was wondering, since even low tier units seem to have something they usually do better than some other unit, if zombies have something going for them as well. But in a way I'm glad to replace them in the campaign, I tend to prefer skeletons over zombies in most settings.