Not to say that swordsmen are completely redundant - if you know you're fighting an infantry-heavy army (skaven, for instance), they might be worthwhile. Spearmen are generally better at holding, especially against large, so they're generally better. Any damage they actually do is a secondary bonus. The distinction is that for Empire and Dark Elves, their swordsmen are intended to be damage-dealing units - or, rather, a versatile front-line unit that can both take it and dish it out (relative to its price, of course!)įor Tomb Kings, the base skeletons are mostly meat. Interesting that empire and DE are very different in that regard in a good way Thank you for your for the answer you offer a deep insight into tactical and you advise me spearskellies I see I see thank you so for VC and TK you do not advice to do what I did with DE and empire? 1.e taking swordsmen instead of spearmen? The winner can have a lower MA and charge, because MD can more than make up for it after a few minutes when they have more troops left alive to fight than the eventual loser does.Īll spearmen have to do is reduce the width of the rank, limiting the front of engagement and they will then outlast counterpart swordsmen who will get much less benefit from their higher MA and charge.

If you have units in a 1v1 match up with the same number of troops each, the one with the highest overall MA and MD will win. They said 'higher overall MA and MD' and 'their trade-off is charge bonus'. If you are facing infantry, there is no reason to use spears over swords. swords do and, and so to they have bigger weapon strength. Those guys can actually lay down some hurt when properly supported. Now Tomb Guard are a different ball game. Their trade off is charge bonus, which is basically non-existent and pointless anyway. Spears have a higher overall MA and MD before you factor in their anti-large. I'd argue that for skeletons, spears are always better. You can't really win by role-playing in Total War any more, you have to systemise it's abstract and unintuitive rules. I dislike the current design of battles and units, so have had to adapt my preferred playstyle to fit with it. When there is no longer any possibility of a flank, the target is the leadership rather than the troops. I tend to throw shields and spears at the front-line entirely, serving no purpose but to hold that line whilst I counter every flanking attempt. I prefer preserving troops in each unit over killing the enemy quickly I want them to rout and for them to be killed after I have won, not before when they are just as capable of killing my side. If they have a thick column then you want a thick column of high MD holding them in place too, with an AoE spell, missile or monster to do the real damage. If the enemy has a thin line you want virtually no MD in comparison to MA(two-handed, dual-weilding, cavalry) because few units can killer faster than they can be killed if they have many troops. If you use a rank thicker than four columns, you want a higher MD(spears) because they are not killing any non-large fast, so must preserve by defending themselves. This works based on the principle of force-concentration: every aggressive factor pushed into action, preservation of the whole through the fast-reduction of the enemy's ability to hurt you. To me this suggests that it depends on the actual shape you have your units in.Ī thin rank line? You want them to have a higher MA(sword). I've only been slowly grasping how the stats relate to how units work, like how they are on a per-entity basis. 2K A Total War Saga: Thrones of Britannia.846 A Total War Saga: Fall of the Samurai.

Grave guard vs skeleton warriors