Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I was wondering how people feel about the number of peasents to knights. Some people use all knights, while others love their peasents and then there are many different ratios. I was also wondering about taking peasent just for the sake of taking peasents. I like to take some PB to watch the flanks, but i don't feel bad for leaving them out. Some people treat like there is a +3 on peasents.
As long as there are knights nearby peasants can hold their own quite well as besides the WS 2, with a knights leadership they are a pretty acceptable close combat unit. Its all taste i guess.
The army im working on is more historic. You can still link all knight armies to history as back around the 9th century or so armies were almost completely Cavalry. As time went on though footsoldiers became more common usually 4 foot soldiers for every knight, maybe more.
My army is based around early 14th century England. At this time the english made extensive use of longbowman and their armies were almost completely foot based in contrast to the heavy mounted knight french armies. So as you would guess it will have alot of bowman and men-at-arms. Im not sure how it will fair but it should be fun to play.
Deathguard1337 is indeed right, on my first game my 1 unit of 16 peasents killed 2 screamers and 3 furies and lost only 3 of there guys and were only able to sucessfully pass there 2 fear tests thanks to the errant knights near bye(but i did roll a 3 for my first test ).
Now i tend to try for 50/50 in my army, i enjoy having them there if you just keep marching them up while the knights are fighting then they can get the knights out of a long messy combat if they are in it.
Originally Posted by Morden
i agree, by taking more peasants your brettonian army are less one dimensional tactically than an all knight army, by timing the charges properly you can use the peasants to protect your lances vulnerable flanks, and men at arms are not to be sniffed at as reliable cheap infantry.
PLAN CLAN MAN!!
He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man- S. Johnson
men at arms and the relaque are so weak that they cannot use their numbers to do anything. bowmen are a cheap core choice, trebuchet rarely makes its points back.
My only restriction on peasents is whether or not the battlefield will become so congested with them that they panic each other. Make full advantage of the knights pressence by sandwiching them with M@A or the like (its espically common for me to do this with yeomen). Peasent bowmen are fine but I try not to overdo it with them because they're best utilized when remaining stationary. This is when it is good to have some pegasus knights around to patrol the backfield where your trebuchets and possibly casters might be when you fear an abrupt charge from the opponent. Remember guarding trebuchet with peasents alone can be somewhat risky so have a few knights in reserve and your solid. (at least until most of your force gets in CC you can still fire safely). Basically the point to all this is always reserve some knights to escort the peasentry and make sure you stay out of panic range and within knight range, if you dont have enough add more! Finally dont underestimate PKs for this role, a medium sized unit has the widest range of influence of any knights so its very easy to effect a big area, plus they can easily catch up to the others knights when you feel the risk of leaving the peasents behind is minimal.
Last edited by Domstrae; January 30th, 2006 at 15:50.
I do not often use peasents in my battles, but i admit they can be very useful for holding up enemy units, so knights can smash through their flanks