View Full Version : Army the First - England - pevergreen
pevergreen
02-04-2007, 11:29
For simplicity in case i make future armies, i will number them by faction! Yey! Fileing!
Money Needed: Ummm...Not Sure.
Units Needed:
Optimal Units:
General's Cav
4 English Knights
6 Retinue Longbowmen
5 Armoured Sworsdman
4 Dismounted English Knights
Of course the tactic is simple
High Ground. Stakes in front. Archers stay put. The Cav (2 each side) flank and rear charge. Armoured Swordsmen make row 2 behind archers, then the English (dsimounted) knights for the enemy heavy infantry.
Untested in MP (mine doesnt work) but is fun to play in SP with the best army you can get at the time.
Around 1100 my army in SP consisted of:
General's Cav
4 Mailed Knights
4 Longbowmen
2 Yeoman Archers
5 Billmen
4 Dismounted Fuedal Knights
Any thoughts on how this would work?
It wouldnt work at all in MP.
You have 5 billmen, im afraid the 4+ unit price cap comes slightly into play here. You only have 1 good cav and 4 very bad cav. Your infantry is weak and anyone with 6+ cav is going to have cav spare which they can use to run over your inf.
Anyone with 6+ cav is spoiling the game for everyone else imo
pike master
02-04-2007, 15:18
rules need changing then.
billmen and english foot knights should rock after patch. til then use maxed out peasants at 400 a piece.but dismounted feudals should do ok for now.remember that shield bug is only noticed when modding defence values.
peasants upgraded will sometimes be the last to rout from the battlefield he he. and they would be good for counterattack a cav unit that has penetrated your defensive line.
well spearmen are good on counterattack too so they also would be a better choice for now until patch.
in order for stakes to work you will still need to have some kind of 8 units of cav preferably light to attempt to gain cav superiority or at least weaken them.
It assumes that the enemy will come to you and fight you from the direction your stakes are in. Might work against the computer, but then so does fudge packing all your units into the computer, but i don't see how it could work against other players when mobility is such a massive factor. Also hill camping is boring.
YellowMelon
02-04-2007, 18:00
If anyone brings longbowmen, retinue's especially, I will just rush them, since you have 6 on your tactic list, thats a third of your budget spent on something that will rout on impact in melee. For a 1v1 tactic it is pretty weak, but I think that if I saw this format in a team game I would try to isolate that army and wipe it out, then proceed to your enemies :P You have to budget archers as minimal as possible atm, since they really dont play an important role, especially if you get rushed and lose the florins spent on them.
pike master
02-04-2007, 19:06
which boils down to the fact that they should act as a base of maneuvre for an 8 horse unit force.just dont let your horses get overwhelmed which is where the skill part comes in.
pevergreen
02-05-2007, 09:55
Bah! On horses!
Bows will take them out!
You cant out manureve an unmoving army camping in the corner. Its how i play my RTW as well :laugh4:
pike master
02-05-2007, 12:53
corner camping is usually frowned upon but on your part it does work
RtkBedivere
02-06-2007, 06:05
Anyone with 6+ cav is spoiling the game for everyone else imo
How can you make a statement like that. Well may as well just throw timurds, mongols, russia, poland, moors and egypt out the window...
YellowMelon
02-06-2007, 08:47
The thing that people have to remember about MP, is that this is a game, and it is not real life. In the game's universe, things act differently than irl, which means you have to adapt to play the game, which means cavalry plays a critical role due to its relative cheapness vs rl.
pevergreen
02-06-2007, 08:54
Yeah...
That army has many counters, but its quite fun to play.
How can you make a statement like that. Well may as well just throw timurds, mongols, russia, poland, moors and egypt out the window...
What do you prefer, a nice and good balanced battle that takes 15 minutes
Or
An opponent that goes cav only and charges you
pevergreen
02-06-2007, 09:39
What do you prefer, a nice and good balanced battle that takes 15 minutes
Or
An opponent that goes cav only and charges you
QFAT
:yes:
:bow:
RtkBedivere
02-06-2007, 15:53
What do you prefer, a nice and good balanced battle that takes 15 minutes
Or
An opponent that goes cav only and charges you
Im all for a cav limit. But 6? Wow thats just saying i cant play against cav dont take them in my game.
Id rather play a game with players who can play balenced builds and know how deal builds that may exploit the game. I have an idea lets use,
max 6 cav
no art (of course crosses and standards count as art)
no ele
max 2 ha
no horse archer circle
no gun powder
no naptha
max 2 xbows
no jav cav
max 4 peasants
Btw i prefer a fun game that isnt run by stalin.
Edit: whoops let out no generals sry.
Im all for a cav limit. But 6? Wow thats just saying i cant play against cav dont take them in my game.
I always limit to max 4 cav, so that the game isn't spoiled by cav. Inf battles are far more fun and need far more tactics
YellowMelon
02-06-2007, 16:27
Some of the most tactical games Ive played have 10-12 cav. The trick is knowing where your infantry is needed and how to harass your enemy with javcav and ha.
Could be, but when I think of an army it's something like this:
4 archers, 4 cav, 12 inf
Inf imo should always be more important then cav. Simply because cav is more expensive and therefore historically less used, atleast that's how I look at it.
RTKBarrett
02-06-2007, 17:00
Could be, but when I think of an army it's something like this:
4 archers, 4 cav, 12 inf
Inf imo should always be more important then cav. Simply because cav is more expensive and therefore historically less used, atleast that's how I look at it.
Read mels post about this being a game bud... like he said its not rl... gd players are gd not because they are military geniuses, it is because they can exploit and use such knowlege to their advantage in a given situation.
I know m8, I know the game isn't historically correct, but I just don't like battles that are dominated by cav.
imo loads of cav just spoils the game. Why can I choose from 3 types of cav and 8 types of inf, when all I choose is cav anyway?
Have you ever seen a good a mongol army with your 4 cav limit :dizzy2:
There are 21 factions, why do I need to be Mongols, don't even like them ... but you can make an army with them yes
RTKBarrett
02-06-2007, 17:33
Have you ever seen a good a mongol army with your 4 cav limit :dizzy2:
If it was max 4 cav ud see myself and others bringing 7 naffatuns... :dizzy2:
RtkBedivere
02-06-2007, 17:33
but I just don't like battles that are dominated by cav.
I dont like mounted xbows but i dont limit them cause i dont like it. If i would limit them it would be because you find htem unbalenced. If you said i limit cav because they are unbalenced i would accept it but saying "I dont like them so i limit them" isnt an excuse.
Well I do like cav, but 12 cav is just too strong, sure I can beat 12 cav with an infantry army, but only when my opponent just throws them in. If he's going to be tactical with them I have no change. That's why I don't like them, unbalanced is a big word, I wouldn't call them unbalanced, just a bit too strong.
pike master
02-06-2007, 19:02
ive made some good mongol and timurid foot armies. they have excellent spearmen and foot archers plus they have rocket launchers.
Dionysus9
02-06-2007, 21:22
Personally, I think anyone who wears red shoes is a sissy. I don't care if its your favorite color, sissy.
Come on fellas its all relative. We all have different styles and preferences--no need to take all this stuff so personal.
:sweatdrop:
Where do you guys get the energy?
t1master
02-06-2007, 22:23
but you wear red booties dio!!!! :OP
Dionysus9
02-07-2007, 00:30
Thats right, it takes a real man to wear red booties--let alone to look good in them.
*shows off shiny red booties*
You like?
Tsar Simeon
02-07-2007, 13:49
I always limit to max 4 cav, so that the game isn't spoiled by cav. Inf battles are far more fun and need far more tactics
The problem with that is that max 4 cav basically makes factions such as the turks unplayable.
The problem with that is that max 4 cav basically makes factions such as the turks unplayable.
Tried it? Turks have pretty good inf too
RTKBarrett
02-07-2007, 17:16
Tried it? Turks have pretty good inf too
Their hybrid inf are horrible and other examples cost 750+
Its asking for a naffatun/saracen militia spam basically :inquisitive:
I learned the hard way that I never rely on my cav, especially when I am England. I mainly play to their advantage of inf and archers. As an interesting experiment, I used no cav and used it to buy 4 yeoman archers, 4 swordmen, 4 dismounted inf and a general (alright so I used one cav :beam:) then upgraded randomly with whatever is left. When they did charge with cav at the flanks, my dismounted inf held surperbly. Surprisingly, this army did very good everytime I used them. In multi it would be good to throw off a offensive general.
What? Medieval and without cavs? :) How could that be concieved?
Annie
pike master
11-10-2007, 19:22
wow looking at this thread and taking in the latest 1.3 patch flip flops the whole thing as now spearmen can stop cavalry when left stationary.
hopefully a new patch will come out with kingdoms balancing.
this will make missiles more effective and infantry stronger versus cavalry.
pevergreen
11-11-2007, 05:22
No more patches :no:
This army would do better now than before?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.