Different tactics for the English

[Sensei Warrior]

The Spanish have a tendancy to backdoor you when you're at war with another faction. Such is the AI...

Too true, although with my last campaign with the English they tried it while I was fighting off HRE. Little did they know I had a very effective army stationed in Anjou to trip them up. It was an attacking army to boot, which had a fair amount of Cav to mop up routers.

The general of that army made sure to send a message to the Spanish by not ransoming any of them back. It broke the Spanish. The Almos saved me the trouble of risking Excomm by picking up the pieces themselves.

Once I settled up with the HRE, I crusaded my way to Egypt with a Horde of Clansmen, Gallowglasses, and Hobbies. Although in the Almos defence it was a little tough getting to Morocco. I've never seen the Almos tech up so fast.

[caravel]

The general of that army made sure to send a message to the Spanish by not ransoming any of them back. It broke the Spanish. The Almos saved me the trouble of risking Excomm by picking up the pieces themselves.

I never execute prisoners on the field. The only thing you can gain from this is dread, and I never see my generals needing or lacking, this attribute. Dread is of no use on the battlefield it affects provincial loyalty and only applies to the faction leader and governors. The most important things to consider are that if you capture, e.g, 1000 men there are 2 possible scenarios:

1) The AI accepts the ransome and pays, this means:

a) You get paid, alot if nobiles or royalty are among those ransomed, you deprive him of funds.
b) He gets alot of battered demoralised troops to support and use again, with lower loyalty. He may have difficulty training new troops as he's just paid a big ransom and has to support this demoralised rabble and their general.
c) He gets back the, possibly, "good runner", and diminished loyalty general. As it used to say in Shogun "let this continue".
d) The rest of his forces aren't going to be happy with the defeat, add the low loyalty ransomed back force to this and you could have the recipe for a good old guerra civil.

2) If the The AI refuses to pay, he loses those men who may well not have gained any vices, and whose loyalty may not have been hit too badly, and it affects loyalty among his generals and could trigger a civil war.

If you had executed on the field the general would gain one of the "butcher" type vices ("scant mercy" etc) which are not all good as some of them affect morale.

[gaijinalways]

The AI has been refusing most of the ransoms this game, so I have executed a lot of the prisoners so I don't have to fight them again. It is true that their morale is generally reduced, though with a new general they may not be such soldiers. As to getting the butcher status, doesn't that also raise opposing armies' dread (with them more likely to flee before fighting)?

[Geezer57]

As to getting the butcher status, doesn't that also raise opposing armies' dread (with them more likely to flee before fighting)?

No, the increased dread has no effect on the battlefield - it only potentially has effects on the strategic map. The "Butcher" line of vices, as you keep repeatedly killing prisoners on the battlefield, culminates in a vice (can't recall the exact name at the moment) that causes your own men's morale to drop when led by that General.

[Ludens]

c) He gets back the, possibly, "good runner", and diminished loyalty general. As it used to say in Shogun "let this continue".

True, but he also gets a "captured"-vice which lowers command but increases morale, especially at higher levels.

[Sensei Warrior]

Wow, I must have really churned up the thread. I will explain the no prisoner idea as there was a method to my madness, which wasn't actually conveyed in the post.

After I finished off the French, I was rebuilding my armies when HRE (who was Excommed by the way) decided they wanted my very lucrative, formerly French provences. Well, I was not in good shape unit-wise when the Spanish backdoor-ed me. The large standing army in Anjou was keeping an equally large HRE army on their side of the border. I was going to use this army to eventually take Burgundy, which is why it was an attacking army. I simply didn't have the men to fight a 2 front war, but I couldn't afford to lose Aquitaine as it was a unit producing provence.

I could also see the Spanish holdings. The Spanish were at war with the Almos, had Leon, Castile, Navarre, and Aragon. Short of some garrisons, the majority of their forces were deployed to attack in Aquitaine. The Almos I could see, seemed to have appreciative numbers.

So I moved the army guarding Anjou to Aquitaine to repel the Spanish, but this army by no means could afford to stay there for long. The troops I had sitting in Aquitaine bordering my allies was small, and most likely couldn't repel a force like that for long. I was in a pinch, and needed to take decisive action.

During the battle, I managed to rout the army early. This did not help. It is not a good idea to rout an army in a war of attrition. My Cav. Heavy army managed to catch a large amount of prisioners, large meaning more than half of the Spanish army.

Here is the idea I was going with. The majority of the Spanish forces were commited to an attack on me, and I am now holding more than half of them hostage. If I ransom them then they will go back to Spain, most likely to attack me again. The next time they attack, I won't have my large army there because it is going to have to go back to Anjou. My commander does not have any of the butcher traits yet.

Here is how the butcher traits work. Each time one of your armies kills prisioners on the field of battle the general of the army gets a butcher trait. This is not to be confused with executing rebels, which is the rough justice traits which are given to your king. The first one is 'Scant Mercy'. It gives +1 Dread, with no ill side effects. The second one is called 'Butcher' which gives another plus to dread, but also starts giving ill effects. I believe it drops the morale of the troops the general commands. I don't know the ones after that, but they are really bad. In my mind that means every general has 1 free pass at killing prisioners, but only one. OK back to the story.

I decide to kill the prisioners. My general gets Scant Mercy, and his dread goes up by 1. The next turn, I move my army back up to Anjou as HRE is moving their army into Anjou. I win that battle. The turn after that, the Almos attack the Spanish in Castile. In the subsequent turns the Almos and the Spanish war with the Almos being victorious.

You are right, I could have ransomed back the Spanish prisioners and gave them a general with the Good Runner vice, and probably a number of their generals would have gotten the Captured vice, which Ludens pointed out is not always a good idea. In turn, I might have been dragged into a long battle of attrition with either Spain (not likely), or with HRE because of having to devote extra men to a devensive war with Spain.

In another campaign, I fought a war of attrition. I won every battle (but the last one) and had tons of cash from ransoming back every single prisioner. The other faction was heaped upon with runner vices. Good Runner, Cowardly etc. In the end I lost the Campaign. Why? Because the other guy could outproduce me in replacing his losses, eventually he shipped in a large army that I couldn't hold back, and after that battle, I was never able to dig myself out of it.

Instead, for one very minor vice, I precipitated a war that resulted in the death of one faction, and the disabling of another (Almos). I did this all without losing a man, agent, or florin. Some would say that maybe the Almos would have attacked anyways, and maybe they would have, but I think I encouraged them to do so.

In another post not to long ago I saw someone post that tactics were the things you use to win battles, stategies are what you use to win the game. I would also add that tactics and stategies can be one in the same. This tactic, to kill the prisoners on the field, was part of an overall stategy to seriously undermine my foe at little cost to me.

[gaijinalways]

I'll have to check as my general is a 8 star and the men under him are very loyal (of course, that pointy sword he has helps too), so up to now, I have no complaints (from the dead prisoners either, as dead men don't tell tales, except to CSI ).

[gaijinalways]

Also too, even captured and ransomed troops will have more fighting experience than absolute newbie replacements, who are still studying how to kill .

[gaijinalways]

Ah, I am a blood lover, oh well (my 8 star general that is, he is also a skillful attacker, defender too). I have progressed further, kind of funny GA Game. I took Constanople, and because the BYZ in previous battles when sons were captured never paid, the BYZ suddenly went rebel ! I have only one problem now, I wanted to link with Constinople (already took Nivea and Treibizoid, but I couldn't get into Serbia before the Italians took it back (rebeled probably, but I do have Croatia). As they have the only other decent navy, at the moment I'll hold off attacking them.　But otherwise, quite good, my navy is expanding (I'm building 2 more shipyards) longbowmen are being pumped out as well as alabasters, billmen, and jinettes. I am cranking up farming everywhere, and plan to go for a crusade soon as well (soon as I build the necessary building in Constanople, did make a mistake , should have built that first and the merchant buildings, but I originally was thinking of defense, and then the Byz fell the next turn). I am considering taking Greece at some point, then I would have the Italians on either side.

And suddenly everybody wants to be my friend, I disbanded my mercs. Had one strange battle in Antaloia, it rebelled, beat down the rebellion, it rebelled again with more troops, so I just gave it up (of course I razed it first), let the Egyptians deal with it.

I was surprised the way things have worked out, I am sittting pretty now with a pretty big empire. Must concentrate on getting those crusades going, though the Egyptians are currently my friends !

[caravel]

True, but he also gets a "captured"-vice which lowers command but increases morale, especially at higher levels.

Forgot about the captured vice, though this is not a rule. I've had armies generals ransomed back in the past and only one or two units got the vice, and not always the general. There is also the tortured vice which seems to be much less common.

[Ludens]

Forgot about the captured vice, though this is not a rule. I've had armies generals ransomed back in the past and only one or two units got the vice, and not always the general. There is also the tortured vice which seems to be much less common.

Interesting. I recall that my generals always get this vice when I ransom them back. Perhaps I should have a better look. BTW, Captured and tortured are part of the same line of vices. It starts with captured (IIRC -1C +3 morale), goes on to tortured (-2C +6 morale) and ends with traumatized (-3C +9 morale). Someone once told that he tried to get all his top-enerals traumatized. With +9 morale their armies becomes virtually unroutable, making up for the loss in command.

[Deus ret.]

Interesting. I recall that my generals always get this vice when I ransom them back.

I made the same observation, it's a 100% chance in each of my games. But only the captured general gets it; none of his surviving captains do. Also I'm not too sure about the drop in loyalty allegedly caused by being captured, at least I've never seen it and if it occurs it's rather due to the loss of territory (and the subsequent drop in the king's influence).

I think slaughtering captured prisoners, while being completely ahistorical, is really worth a go, at least once (e.g. with very high numbers of prisoners). +1 dread tends to be useful most of the times since my generals are also my governors more often than not. And as has already been mentioned, one more dead man is usually one man less to fight in the next battle. It would be a different issue if the captured units would receive a penalty when fighting against the faction which inflicted this traumatical loss and subsequent captivity on them; but this is not the case, so there's no real reason other than urgent lack of funds to keep experienced soldiers for ransom.

edit: AFAIK the 'good runner' trait can only be obtained when actually running off the field, i.e. leaving the battlefield in full flight - this usually doesn't result in being captured unless the army was trapped.

[gaijinalways]

Hmm interesting, where getting your general captured could be beneficial.

Speaking of 'training' your generals, do you guys also raise up rebels to fight and have your assasins work on? I haven't used the rebels so much for that purpose, but as stated in another thread I use them as buffer zones sometimes, as I find rebels don't usually attack (thus requiring less border holding troops).

My campaign is still ongoing, I now bribed Greece as well, so only the Italians in Serbia are between my Venice and my line of coast to Constanople and beyond. Ah, one bad thing, the BYZ are back , though of course weaker than before, but they have taken over 8-9 provinces already!

[Ludens]

edit: AFAIK the 'good runner' trait can only be obtained when actually running off the field, i.e. leaving the battlefield in full flight - this usually doesn't result in being captured unless the army was trapped.

I think routing for a certain amount of time (30 seconds? 2 minutes?) also gives this vice, even if the general rallied afterwards.

[caravel]

Interesting. I recall that my generals always get this vice when I ransom them back. Perhaps I should have a better look. BTW, Captured and tortured are part of the same line of vices. It starts with captured (IIRC -1C +3 morale), goes on to tortured (-2C +6 morale) and ends with traumatized (-3C +9 morale). Someone once told that he tried to get all his top-enerals traumatized. With +9 morale their armies becomes virtually unroutable, making up for the loss in command.

I definitely don't see it every time. An example in my last campaign as the Almohads. I sent a 3 star general and a small force to invade Provence. Due to major blunder on my part they got a severe beating and the that generla was captured. He didn't get the captured vice as a result, just good runner. Another 2 star general in the same force did get the captured vice. I don't find this vice to be a rule as such, but there is a god chance your general will get it. I tend to see it 90% of the time in such cases anyway.

Also I'm not too sure about the drop in loyalty allegedly caused by being captured, at least I've never seen it and if it occurs it's rather due to the loss of territory (and the subsequent drop in the king's influence).

Well, I've had men ransomed back at 1 loyalty whom of which before had about 5 or 6. The defeat and loss of the province affects the loyalty of your generals, but for those ransomed back I've always noticed the effect to be much worse? It may not be the actual capture and ransoming, only the being part of the defeated army that causes this.

I think slaughtering captured prisoners, while being completely ahistorical, is really worth a go, at least once (e.g. with very high numbers of prisoners). +1 dread tends to be useful most of the times since my generals are also my governors more often than not. And as has already been mentioned, one more dead man is usually one man less to fight in the next battle. It would be a different issue if the captured units would receive a penalty when fighting against the faction which inflicted this traumatical loss and subsequent captivity on them; but this is not the case, so there's no real reason other than urgent lack of funds to keep experienced soldiers for ransom.

Routers are not likely to be experienced soldiers. As I had explained before, ransoming back routers has many benefits. The beaten low morale force will be back in the control of the enemy, they will be restricted from training new troops because they have to support these men. Yes their loyalty is affected, and after a few more repetitions of this they'll have a civil war on their hands.

edit: AFAIK the 'good runner' trait can only be obtained when actually running off the field, i.e. leaving the battlefield in full flight - this usually doesn't result in being captured unless the army was trapped.

It occurs if your general routs for a certain period of time. There is a similar "eager to withraw" vice if your general withraws. This doen't always occur but it's a very real possibility.

[Sensei Warrior]

Lots of stuff to comment on.

The entire Captured vice line pulled from the file, and slightly edited to remove the extraneous stuff:

Captured
He did not enjoy the process of being captured and ransomed, and instills a fear of being captured in all his men. This makes them less likely to rout, but makes them harder to command. +3 morale, -1 command.

Tortured
Having been captured and tortured, he is obsessed with avoiding capture. This makes his army harder to break, but seriously affects his judgement on the battlefield. +6 morale, -2 command.

Traumatised
His experiences as a prisoner have left this man traumatised. He will kill anyone who even considers surrender, and he avoids danger in battle. Paradoxically this makes his capture more likely. +9 morale, -3 command.

Regarding the Captured vice. I have had captured prisioners get this random amounts of times. Sometimes only 1 will recieve the vice sometimes all of them.

About the Good Runner vice. I have gotten this vice for my generals running, but not fleeing the field. He routed, but I was later able to rally him. This is got to be the most annoying aspect of this vice. I had a battle once where I won it in a landslide, but well I wasn't paying attention my general was surrounded. He routed and later his troops helped out and I was able to rally him. He got Skilled Attacker and Good Runner from that one battle. Weird. All the times these generals did rout wasn't for that long either, it would seem to me the time is closer to 30secs than 2mins.

gaijinalways: I don't groom rebellions to train generals. I will create a couple of units of Peasants to do the same thing. To me the Peasants seem easier than inciting rebellions. It sounds like your campaign is doing well.

About the whole killing captured prisioners, thing. I certainly don't do it as often as Luden's friend, but I won't hesitate to do it when it works in my favor. Caravel notes a number of good reasons not to do it. The Good Runner Vice, ransoms and loss of loyalty being the main reasons. Ludens and I have noted a number of reasons to do it, like Captured vice, Wars of attrition, and in the rare case of breaking the defensive capabilities of small countries.

I treat killing prisioners or not as a consideration of what I think will be the most beneficial. To seed a General or 2 with the Good Runner vice might serve me best then that's what I will do. If killing those prisioners will garner me the most, break the opponents defenses or the such then thats what I'll do. I would definately encourage every player to consider it on a case by case basis.

Phew, and it tie it all back in. In the Early parts of a English campaign I have the tendancy to kill Prisioners all the time to reduce the amount of men an opponent can field the next time. I start to slow this down when I have a handle on my army sizes, unit producing provences, and typically because by this point the majority of my generals have the Scant Mercy vice.

On the other side with the Byz, Egypts, or the Spanish I tend to ransom lots of prisioners because I'm not in the same tenuous situation.

[gaijinalways]

Yes, killing prisoners is a decision, sometimes taken too lightly on my part (I like the sound of the prisoners being beheaded ). It's true the morale of defeated prisoners is something to think about, but also the type. Unforunately in vanila MTW, there is no way to know what kind of prisoners you have captured, thus determining their value to the enemy (and you).

Yes sensei, my campaign is going fine and I am slowly armoring and teching up my troops, even lowly spearmen. I will have to wait and see if mecrs can be helpful again. Making decent change as well as fielding a good sized army. Waiting for the crusade period to come (I may be in 1189) in 1195 to 1205. Since my marker will start in Constanople, it won't have far to go. I may build another one farther away as well for when the HRE or the Hungarians get excommed again (the last excom didn't last so long). That will give me a chance to help my new ally the Pope.

[Sensei Warrior]

I am confused, what year is it gaijinalways? Most GA games I've played the Crusading Period starts early and ends in 1205 or so. In the past while playing the English as soon as I had the ability to Crusade and a line of ships to Outremer I was already well in the Crusading Period.

If you wait to 1195 to start it will only give you 10 years to achieve the 4 Crusading Objectives. You can only send 1 Crusade at a time, which only gives you 2 years to start the crusade, get to the provence, attack it, seige it, and conquer it.

That's not going to be enough time is it?

[gaijinalways]

Oh well, I might not be able to do all 4, but that's the goal periods they have listed in my current campaign. Of course, I can start building that first crusade earlier. I will try to build a second chapter house as well to help out with that matter .

Currently I lead in GA points, so I'm not too worried about the crusade points portion. I can always expand a little more !

[Deus ret.]

gaijinalways, you know that crusades are either fuelled or destroyed by the zeal of the provinces they're passing through, do you? under 50% is generally a bad thing for a crusade, and since Constantinople as well as all provinces on the way to the holy land sport low zeal rates at best it might be a good idea to stuff your crusade with regular troops you assembled in Constantinople for exactly this purpose and to immediately send it by sea for a quick strike. of course the Eggy's navy needs to be down by then.
once you start a crusade it's quite important to bring it to a successful end because a failure will result in a considerable loss of influence on your king's part. You likely won't have to worry if your king has 9 or so influence, but take my bad example as a warning: I once had a promising English campaign utterly ruined because of one failed crusade which triggered a chain of civil wars.

[Sensei Warrior]

I agree with deus ret. I firmly believe in the quick strike theroy. Less of a chance of something going wrong. I had the same experience playing I believe HRE and a failed Crusade. A series of civil wars utterly ruined that Campaign for me.

Although you did say you were in Constantinople? If that's the case it would take 2-3 years to get to the first objective. If you pack the Crusade chock full of troops and walk it there I think the losses would be minimal. Remember a Crusade can have 3 stacks of troops. That would be 48 units, and I would use every single slot for the first.

Once the first achieves its goal, you can use the extra units to suppliment following Crusades. You don't even have to put them in the Crusade, just move the troops you want to help out into the Provence the year the Crusade arrives there.

This is a standard strategy for me. Considering I almost solely use Naval Crusades I pack the first Provence I take with troops, and then other Crusades just have the Crusade generated units, and I will move my own troops in as the Crusade arrives.

[gaijinalways]

Yes, I saw this mentioned in an earlier thread related to crusades concerning;

1) increasing the success by ensuring the arrival, usually by naval means

2) seeding it with better troops of your own

3) repercussions on one's empire when the crusade fails (either loses in the destination province or dies enroute).

I may have some difficulties then for this next period as Constanople is not so built up and with the BYZ back in town, I can't afford to keep it too weak (I don't know if they remember that I am the guy who put them into oblivion for a while, they're neutral to me at the moment). In addition, I have partial control of the seas into the straits there near Constanople but not near the other side of the crusading areas (Tripoli, Edessa, and another province whose name escapes me, but it is in the same neighborhood as the other two). Let's wait and see what happens.

I can try to bring some in by water later, but of course if the harbor gets destroyed in a place I take in an earlier crusade or if I am blockaded , it might be difficult.

As to my king's influence, no, it is low, so I might have to 'keep an ear out' for my shifty generals

Of course, should be fun to rip out some BYZ troops on my way to the promised eggy land!

[caravel]

On the rare occasions when I play as a catholic faction, usually the Spanish, I tend to start a crusade, add a readily trained army to that crusade, usually including the heir to the throne (if there are a few spares), and send it directly to it's target by sea. I never let it walk it's way over land, because it will lose alot of it's best troops en route and pick up alot of UM's, peasants and slav warriors...

[gaijinalways]

Why do your crusades lose some of the better troops? How long are they taking to reach the destination?

[caravel]

Why do your crusades lose some of the better troops? How long are they taking to reach the destination?

A crusade will lose some of it's original troops as it goes along, particularly if it's taking a long rout. These are "deserters". The crusade will pick up new troops in mainly christian provinces. But those initial troops will keep sapping away. This is why I drop my crusades directly in by sea.

The 3 main reasons I build a crusade:

1) To raise my faction leader's influnence
2) To take a province and increase my kings piety
3) To increase my faction leader's piety
4) To gain some of the unique units that the crusade provides, intact

None of these aims can be easily achieved by walking a battered rag tag of a force through eastern europe and asia to a remote province. Unless you can send relief forces into the target province, it will eventually be overwhelmed.

[gaijinalways]

Well, I had the good and the bad. Successfully already created 4 markers, with one crusade going on with plety of merc guys coming. Taking the Byz down again too, they were still annoyed with me, long memory of their last crushing defeat.

But, ugh, twice the battle crashed near the end. I took out some files, but for some reason it is always a crusader file (templar knights) that fails. Well, maybe have to wait until I come back from vacation.

Both times a fairly good crush, with the first being the best as I had a nice high hill and none of my missile types took any damage, they just got tired as hell. The second time my guys were too spread out and I lost many of my abs when the cav kept rushing me, yet I still slaughtered a lot of their troops cavs and foot soldiers.

The crusdaes are not taking long to get there, just from Constanople or Trebizoid, which is not far from Tripoli, Edessa, Palestine, and Anitoch (the first I decided to hit). I hope I can launch all 3 others, though I forgot you can only do one crusade at a time ( ), but that's the breaks. Yeah, I maybe waited too long, as the period was 1095 to 1205 for the GA points, but I should be able to get 2 to 3 crusades in if eggy will colapse in , as well as taking some other Byz provinces along the way to my destination .

[caravel]

Well, I had the good and the bad. Successfully already created 4 markers, with one crusade going on with plety of merc guys coming.

I'd advise against stocking up on markers, if you lose that province you'll have a civil war on your hands.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Do that then demolish the chapter house. this is one of the best ways for starting a civil war if required.

[Sensei Warrior]

I won't say I told you so but *cough post 48 cough*

The Crash thing is a killer too.

Well you said you were ahead in GA points so as long as you can follow through on winning the Crusades you send out you'll do all right.

Edit: I forgot. I hope you have fun on your vacation.

[gaijinalways]

Thanks, I can even catch up on some medieval history if I want in France, England, Scotland, and Italy. Now if I can only lt my wife to give me some more time while she packs.... of course, medieval research!

I think that file was corrupted, but I am going back to the earliest save I have after the Byz disappeared. Start building my chapter houses earlier and hit the eggys early. Tried this afternoon with a combo of regular troops and mercs (noncrusade opening the path) and I took a loss as my general got his ass spanked. I was outnumbered but was hoping that because eggy had quite a few peasants beefing up his troop numbers, it would be okay, but those peasants tied up enough of my people to save the day for him.

Time for a reload! But seems like it should be okay, just depends on what number of troops the Byz bring when they respawn.

[Sensei Warrior]

Ahh yes the dreaded Egyptian tactic of Spamming Peasants and Camels. I always just love to lose against a bunch of Peasants and Mounted Peasants (they're the Camels).