Their hilltop fortresses have born witness to countless wars fought to resist outside invaders: first the Empire's legions, and more recently the rising Sturgian and Vlandian kingdoms. The misty hills of north-western Calradia are dominated by the Battanian clans, the original inhabitants of much of the continent. 'Such unruly cattle as my people require a strong herdsman's hand to steer them from the ravine and protect them from the wolf,' said one recent high king, just before he was betrayed by a jealous cousin and taken in chains to the nearest imperial outpost. Ask any Battanian chieftain, however, whose 'kingdom' he lives in, and he will look around at his hall and in his fields and his pastures, his flock and his retainers, and answer 'Mine, of course.' Only lately, following the example of the Empire, have the High Kings made any effort to exert their authority. Their troop style will most likely be similar to the Nords or be of a completely new style as they are not the ancestors of any faction in Warband.ДЇrom time immemorial there has been a High King of Battania, crowned with great ceremony on the sacred hill of Dunthanach. Their position in comparison toВ WarbandВ is in and around Reyvadin, Knudarr, and Radoghir Castles. And I now know which infantry I should mix together for an effective, varied army.The BattaniaВ is aВ factionВ in Mount & Blade II: BannerlordВ that excels at exploiting their native woodlands in northwestВ CalradiaВ to ambush their enemies with their specialized forest warfare and longbow men. Really great in depth comment there and after reading it I realised that my question was a little vague. It seems to me Ranged attacks have advantage though, with good archers you can melee mounted as needed. The Vaegirs have unfocused infantries that can't decide if they are light cavalry or skirmishers, the Khergit have not infantry, and the Swadians' and Saranids' are decent but nothing special. The infantry of the other kingdoms range from poor to decent. I personally find that nord vets have a much easier time winning a siege than almost every other faction, except maybe the Rhodoks, with their amazing shield walls and bolts. Also they are the same level as the Nord Veterans, and have less hit point than the Nord Veterans, with only a marginally better armor to boot.

Vaegir guards have a higher tendancy of wielding two-handed weapons, and have no access to thrown weapons (unlike the Sarranid Guards and the Housecarls), making them easy targets to be picked off during siege. You completly left out the vaegir guards, which is defenitly not poor quality if i get about 20 to 30 of them mixed with skirms you can take most castles It basically comes down to what purpose of an Infantry you want them to full-fill. Originally posted by Sigmar's Faithful:Hah, that depends on what 'best' stands for. But a line of Rhodok spearmen is a deadly trap against any frontal cavalry charge. IMO they are slow, and are not meant for beserker-type assault the Nords are good at doing. The Rhodoks have the best anti-cavalry unit and are pretty decent in close combat. But the Nords absolutely sucks at anti-cavalry role due to short reach (they never have pole-arms, and throwing axes rarely hit their target). Also low level nord infantrymen have pretty big shields that can save their hides. Nord Veteran and Housecarls can face any infantry one-on-one and almost always come out on top (one-handed+shield and thick armor, etc.) Their strength lies in their ability to charge head-long into mobs and win. The nords have the most straight-forward infantry. Hah, that depends on what 'best' stands for.

Mount and blade warband unit tree