It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Hi Folks,

I was wondering if you have any information about units pro or con. The manual doesn't address different type of units and I couldn't find anything on the web too.

Best wishes,
Bahman.
It's a long time since I played, so I don't remember was there significant difference between first and second game in this regard, what follows is true for Lords of the Realm 2:

Peasants

Very cheap and very useless. Avoid to use for combat. Can do some damage if outnumber opponents at least 4:1 and mange to surround enemy in detail. Can be used to fill in moat.
Best use: split out very small detachments (by exploit of castle garrison you can even split 1 men armies) then use to suicide-scout enemy forces, slow down enemy armies (by blocking roads or their way otherwise), demolish opponent fields and services.

Pikemen

Defensive unit, best hand-to-hand defence. Cheap. Very slow. Low damage.
Use to form defence lines and block choke points in front of your archers. Can be used to fill in moat.
Operating pure Pikemen unit is possible, but hardly the most effective way of deployment.

Archers

Most likely will form core of your army, using all other units to service them. Beat anything in large enough numbers. Long range low damage attack, helpless in hand-to-hand. Avoid deployment of pure archer armies, except, probably as castle garrisons (but having few Pikemen or Swordsman may be advisable in garrisons too).

Maceman

Poor man's cavalry. Cheap, fast, deadly - first hit from movement can score multiple kills, but fragile and vulnerable to ranged fire. Use to target enemy archers, peasants, flank or back. Can operate on their own, especially against peasant/archer armies and/or when outnumber opponents.

Swordsman

Good in anything, excels at nothing. Probably best ranged defence. Expensive, but often worth it. My most "standard" army is formed from equal numbers of Swordsman and Archers. Can operate alone, but not to the best efficiency.

Crossbowman

Short ranged attack, deadly - every hit score a kill, surpassing defence. Expensive. Very weak in hand-to-hand. Can't replace Archers in general ranged role and only make sense as contemporary unit in larger army or garrison, but as such is great addition when used for best effect.

Knights

Very fast, probably best hand-to-hand attack. Ridiculously overpriced.
Best use: catch and kill enemy archers in preparation phase movement, or outflank them after infantry clash; run for castle flag. In theory, can operate alone, but you unlikely will deploy them like that.
It makes sense to produce knight armour to be sold for profit.
Post edited December 01, 2016 by Enneagon
avatar
Enneagon: It's a long time since I played, so I don't remember was there significant difference between first and second game in this regard, what follows is true for Lords of the Realm 2:

Peasants

Very cheap and very useless. Avoid to use for combat. Can do some damage if outnumber opponents at least 4:1 and mange to surround enemy in detail. Can be used to fill in moat.
Best use: split out very small detachments (by exploit of castle garrison you can even split 1 men armies) then use to suicide-scout enemy forces, slow down enemy armies (by blocking roads or their way otherwise), demolish opponent fields and services.

Pikemen

Defensive unit, best hand-to-hand defence. Cheap. Very slow. Low damage.
Use to form defence lines and block choke points in front of your archers. Can be used to fill in moat.
Operating pure Pikemen unit is possible, but hardly the most effective way of deployment.

Archers

Most likely will form core of your army, using all other units to service them. Beat anything in large enough numbers. Long range low damage attack, helpless in hand-to-hand. Avoid deployment of pure archer armies, except, probably as castle garrisons (but having few Pikemen or Swordsman may be advisable in garrisons too).

Maceman

Poor man's cavalry. Cheap, fast, deadly - first hit from movement can score multiple kills, but fragile and vulnerable to ranged fire. Use to target enemy archers, peasants, flank or back. Can operate on their own, especially against peasant/archer armies and/or when outnumber opponents.

Swordsman

Good in anything, excels at nothing. Probably best ranged defence. Expensive, but often worth it. My most "standard" army is formed from equal numbers of Swordsman and Archers. Can operate alone, but not to the best efficiency.

Crossbowman

Short ranged attack, deadly - every hit score a kill, surpassing defence. Expensive. Very weak in hand-to-hand. Can't replace Archers in general ranged role and only make sense as contemporary unit in larger army or garrison, but as such is great addition when used for best effect.

Knights

Very fast, probably best hand-to-hand attack. Ridiculously overpriced.
Best use: catch and kill enemy archers in preparation phase movement, or outflank them after infantry clash; run for castle flag. In theory, can operate alone, but you unlikely will deploy them like that.
It makes sense to produce knight armour to be sold for profit.
Thank you.
Unit - Attack - Defense
Peasant - 1 - 0
Spear - 2 - 2
Archer - 1 - 0
Sword - 3 - 2
Mace - 3 - 1
Crossbow - 1 - 0
Axe - 4 - 1
Knight - 4 - 4

from the battle reference card:

http://www.sierragamers.com/uploads/24082/The_Games/Lords_of_the_Realm_1_Battle_Reference_Card.pdf
I've found that archers tend to kill swordsmen and knights more quickly than they kill pikemen.

I'm pretty sure that crossbowmen kill all units equally quickly, too.
We are mixing games here... The original question was for LOTR but i think he was looking for LOTR2 info. At least he was happy with the response for LOTR2. Where as the posted chart is from LOTR.

At any rate, if you are playing LOTR, stop wasting your time and go to LOTR2. Someone will disagree based on the complexity of the farming system, ignore them. In this case simplicity is the way to go.
avatar
muttly13: We are mixing games here... The original question was for LOTR but i think he was looking for LOTR2 info. At least he was happy with the response for LOTR2. Where as the posted chart is from LOTR.

At any rate, if you are playing LOTR, stop wasting your time and go to LOTR2. Someone will disagree based on the complexity of the farming system, ignore them. In this case simplicity is the way to go.
Good to see you still around. Personally - I like them both, no superior, though #2 is way more addictive for that "one more playthrough"
I recall playing LOTR1 in my dorm room until 3am (this was before I officially became a ladies man...) shuffling crops around and thinking it was the greatest game I would ever play. You are right of course, it is still a quality game.
avatar
muttly13: We are mixing games here... The original question was for LOTR but i think he was looking for LOTR2 info. At least he was happy with the response for LOTR2. Where as the posted chart is from LOTR.

At any rate, if you are playing LOTR, stop wasting your time and go to LOTR2. Someone will disagree based on the complexity of the farming system, ignore them. In this case simplicity is the way to go.
Actually, building and sieging castles is much more involved in LOTR. That alone is a good reason to play the 1st.
The 2nd has better pacing IMO, and is more addictive. It is a shame they dumbed down castle sieges, though.
They also dombed down the battles (no more formations and morale, they play like old school RTS bore fest instead of the pre total war system we had in 1st).

Streamlining the economy was a very good move, though, because it really makes the first tedious.
But I wish the combat was as good in the second.

It is a real shame the intricate castle sieges of LOTR have never been replicated anywhere else.
Post edited August 26, 2017 by Galdred
avatar
Galdred: Streamlining the economy was a very good move, though, because it really makes the first tedious.
But I wish the combat was as good in the second.
Can you go into this a little further? I kind of like the farming system so far in LOTR 1.

What did they do to make the farming system less tediuous in #2?

Also, I like the sheep element, why is removing sheep a good thing?
avatar
mekane84: Also, I like the sheep element, why is removing sheep a good thing?
Ditto. I liked the Sheep in LotR1
avatar
Galdred: Streamlining the economy was a very good move, though, because it really makes the first tedious.
But I wish the combat was as good in the second.
avatar
mekane84: Can you go into this a little further? I kind of like the farming system so far in LOTR 1.

What did they do to make the farming system less tediuous in #2?

Also, I like the sheep element, why is removing sheep a good thing?
Onthe one hand, you don't need to shuffle your farmers every season in the second (unless you selected the option when starting the game). This is a great improvement IMO, even though it is not as realistic. Because it can quickly become tedious. On the other hand, they nerfed cows, which didn't need reshuffling.
Removing sheeps was bad indeed.
avatar
mekane84: Can you go into this a little further? I kind of like the farming system so far in LOTR 1.

What did they do to make the farming system less tediuous in #2?

Also, I like the sheep element, why is removing sheep a good thing?
avatar
Galdred: Onthe one hand, you don't need to shuffle your farmers every season in the second (unless you selected the option when starting the game). This is a great improvement IMO, even though it is not as realistic. Because it can quickly become tedious.
You don't need to shuffle in LotR either. That's explained in the manual. They wanted to introduce actual shuffling but now you just have to leave some fields as empty.
avatar
Galdred: Onthe one hand, you don't need to shuffle your farmers every season in the second (unless you selected the option when starting the game). This is a great improvement IMO, even though it is not as realistic. Because it can quickly become tedious.
avatar
ZFR: You don't need to shuffle in LotR either. That's explained in the manual. They wanted to introduce actual shuffling but now you just have to leave some fields as empty.
I was talking about sending the castle workers and laborers to the grain fields in autumn for the harvest, not shuffling the fields themselves.
avatar
ZFR: You don't need to shuffle in LotR either. That's explained in the manual. They wanted to introduce actual shuffling but now you just have to leave some fields as empty.
avatar
Galdred: I was talking about sending the castle workers and laborers to the grain fields in autumn for the harvest, not shuffling the fields themselves.
Ah, I see what you mean. And they start from 0% when they go back to industry...