Slitherine

Is it possible to have ghulam cavalry split into 66 point superior/armored types and some 52 point "substandard" above average/armored types? At the battle of Arbaq (957 AD), elite household ghulams of Muizz al Dawla used up all their arrows against rebel Dalami, so he ordered other ghulams to hand over their arrows. This would go a long way to fix the issue of ghulam cavalry dragging down every list they are in because of how overpriced they are.

I have to disagree here, ghilman are actually an excellent versatile unit and just sooo much better then the 52-point horse archers (those are pretty bad, tbf).

Nosy_Rat wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 7:44 pm I have to disagree here, ghilman are actually an excellent versatile unit and just sooo much better then the 52-point horse archers (those are pretty bad, tbf).

With ghilam you are paying a premium for chrome plated spinners when the most important metric for horse archers is the amount of arrows sent downrange. Then add to that you have to factor in that the most common way for ghilam to enter close combat is getting rear charged by lancers after a bad evade. Put 10 ghilmans against 15 plain old horse-archers of the 44 pt type, and the ghilmans will lose more often than not due to the cheaper horse archers having 50% more firepower and many more units to threaten flank charges. Now the 52 point horse archers aren't ideal, but they do help a little bit.

That's completely wrong, actually.

pompeytheflatulent wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 7:57 pm With ghilam you are paying a premium for chrome plated spinners when the most important metric for horse archers is the amount of arrows sent downrange

Being superior does actually give them a shooting bonus, that allow you to bring more arrows on target while using up the same space.

pompeytheflatulent wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 7:57 pm Then add to that you have to factor in that the most common way for ghilam to enter close combat is getting rear charged by lancers after a bad evade.

Well, that's a matter of how you use them. Ghilmans can effectively charge and melee any non-superior cavalry, medium foot, disrupted heavy foot and disrupted or weakened superior lancers (well, with some luck, but the chances of surviving impact are pretty ok).

pompeytheflatulent wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 7:57 pm Put 10 ghilmans against 15 plain old horse-archers of the 44 pt type, and the ghilmans will lose more often than not due to the cheaper horse archers having 50% more firepower and many more units to threaten flank charges.

Have you actually tried this match up?
Ghilmans would decimate nomad horse archers both in shoot out and in melee - mostly due to ability to actually pass cohesion checks and not double-drop at the first sight of danger like the non-superior cav does.

Seriously, ghilmans are among the most powerful units in game if used correctly and with right support, while 52-point horse archers are at best average at what they do.

Just checked, 16% increase in the number of shots from superior. Nowhere near enough to offset being outnumbered 3:2. I'm willing to create a match to test this out. What's the best way? Avar vs Bulgars and stash extra units like lancers in a corner?

Increased rate of fire from veterancy isn't the only benefit for Ghilman. The armour reduces incoming missile damage and the veterancy further increases their chances of passing CT. All those factors have a strong synergy that makes Ghilman surprisingly durable in any missile exchange.

Superior Armoured Horse Archers (SAHA) are also as good in melee as any superior armoured cavalry. They can be even better flankers than Lancers or Light-Spear since they can help soften up the victim even when they are setting up the flank charge for next turn.

Frontal impact against Lancers (and to lesser degree, Light Spear horse) of similar armour and experience is the only situation where SAHA struggle a lot. In most other situations the POA difference between Impact cavalry and SAHA doesn't really change things that much: You wouldn't frontally charge a heavy infantry formation with either, both can flank great, both can charge light infantry just fine etc.

If all you need is mounted firepower then Average Protected/Unprotected Horse Archers are more cost effective but they aren't as flexible or durable as Superior Armoured Horse Archers

MVP7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:13 pm If all you need is mounted firepower then Average Protected/Unprotected Horse Archers are more cost effective but they aren't as flexible or durable as Superior Armoured Horse Archers

Agreed on the rest, but unarmored horse archers perform absolutely awful if enemy has at least some shooting capability (ie skirmishers). I wouldn't recommend using those at all, unless you really know what you are doing.

pompeytheflatulent wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:34 pm Just checked, 16% increase in the number of shots from superior. Nowhere near enough to offset being outnumbered 3:2. I'm willing to create a match to test this out. What's the best way? Avar vs Bulgars and stash extra units like lancers in a corner?

That increase matters a lot, as it means that stationary ghilman unit would likely disrupt a nomad horse archer with a single shot, while vice versa it usually takes two shots for a cohesion check (that ghilman has a much higher chance to pass).
Sure, those two would do as good as any other, I guess.

Alright, making a test game. Password: pissingcontest

Nosy_Rat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 7:49 am

MVP7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:13 pm If all you need is mounted firepower then Average Protected/Unprotected Horse Archers are more cost effective but they aren't as flexible or durable as Superior Armoured Horse Archers

Agreed on the rest, but unarmored horse archers perform absolutely awful if enemy has at least some shooting capability (ie skirmishers). I wouldn't recommend using those at all, unless you really know what you are doing.

Well, that's why I said average (un)protected horse archers are more cost effective mounted shooters when durability and flexibility aren't considered or required.

The average horse archers are decent when mixed with Impact cavalry that can shield them from threats and they still have the option to flank charge units tied down by the impact cavalry. The same role sans flanking can often be better fulfilled by light infantry or even massed archers though.

Ideally any non-light horse archers, whether superior armored or average protected, should charge rather than exchange shots with skirmishers or massed archers and save the ammo for disrupting heavy infantry or cavalry.

MVP7 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:02 pm

Nosy_Rat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 7:49 am

MVP7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:13 pm If all you need is mounted firepower then Average Protected/Unprotected Horse Archers are more cost effective but they aren't as flexible or durable as Superior Armoured Horse Archers

Agreed on the rest, but unarmored horse archers perform absolutely awful if enemy has at least some shooting capability (ie skirmishers). I wouldn't recommend using those at all, unless you really know what you are doing.

Well, that's why I said average (un)protected horse archers are more cost effective mounted shooters when durability and flexibility aren't considered or required.

The average horse archers are decent when mixed with Impact cavalry that can shield them from threats and they still have the option to flank charge units tied down by the impact cavalry. The same role sans flanking can often be better fulfilled by light infantry or even massed archers though.

Ideally any non-light horse archers, whether superior armored or average protected, should charge rather than exchange shots with skirmishers or massed archers and save the ammo for disrupting heavy infantry or cavalry.

Unarmored horse archers have a suicidal tendency to break off from melees with mass archers. I've seen average protected horse archers do that occasionally too when they are low on numbers.

Here's the relevant data from the test game.

At the end of the match:
Expert armored horse archers - 6/10 units routed, 4 steady.
Nomad horse archers - 5/15 units routed, of the remainder 2 disrupted, 1 fragmented, 7 steady.

Shooting:
Expert armored horse archers enjoyed a +16% shooting effectiveness from being superior.

Armor protection:
Expert armored horse archers at 28% damage reduction from shooting (armored).
Nomad horse archers at 16% damage reduction from shooting (protected).

Melee:
Expert armored horse archers had a ~25% win chance on impact and ~30% win chance in melee. <--- I think this was the biggest factor in the outcome of the fight. A 30% win chance is pretty safe in an infantry slog. But in a chaotic cavalry fight where you can be flank charged at any time, plus being outnumbered 3 to 2, is just a dangerous position to be in for the Expert armored horse archers.

do armies also get some kind of holistic army balance though? what do Ghilman heavy armies like the later Abbasid armies have on the whole compared with more average nomad horse archer armies like Turks?

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 10:34 pm do armies also get some kind of holistic army balance though? what do Ghilman heavy armies like the later Abbasid armies have on the whole compared with more average nomad horse archer armies like Turks?

Look at it this way, if you have 110 points left to spend on cavalry, would you rather have:

A) a superior armored lancer (64) + a nomad horse archer (44)
or
B) a ghilman (66) + a mediocre armored lancer (44)
?

Oh yeah, stockwellpete said he's gonna recommend Andalusians as a good choice for new players to pick next season, just to get it out of the hands of the more experienced players. Since you're probably not getting Andalusians again next season, you might as well pick Abbasid 874-946. For the experience, and for science! I promise you they are not as bad as Kushans.

pompeytheflatulent wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 2:37 am

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 10:34 pm do armies also get some kind of holistic army balance though? what do Ghilman heavy armies like the later Abbasid armies have on the whole compared with more average nomad horse archer armies like Turks?

Look at it this way, if you have 110 points left to spend on cavalry, would you rather have:

A) a superior armored lancer (64) + a nomad horse archer (44)
or
B) a ghilman (66) + a mediocre armored lancer (44)
?

Oh yeah, stockwellpete said he's gonna recommend Andalusians as a good choice for new players to pick next season, just to get it out of the hands of the more experienced players. Since you're probably not getting Andalusians again next season, you might as well pick Abbasid 874-946. For the experience, and for science! I promise you they are not as bad as Kushans.

haha nothing is as bad as Kushan. I actually played as Abbasid 874 in my first season, season 6 lol. It was good enough for Division D anyway...

I would rather have the superior armored lancer and nomad horse archer against other cav armies, but the ghilman and the mediocre lancers against like a northern euro shieldwall army, so depends I guess.

I did a similar test game against myself using the hotseat option using similar points worth of ghilman vs turkish horse and the ghilman (ghilmen plural?) won, but it was close, also sort of anecdotal. They're probably not as competitive in the FOGDL though because of how important having more units seems to typically be.

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 3:05 am ghilman (ghilmen plural?)

I think ghilman is already the plural of ghulam .

MVP7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:09 pm

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 3:05 am ghilman (ghilmen plural?)

I think ghilman is already the plural of ghulam .

lol, learn something new every day!