Fighting two enemies on the battlefield

[Kommodus]

I've fought several battles in which two enemies (allied with each other) attacked me at the same time. It's clear to me that these battles are much more difficult than the normal one-on-one fights. Since each enemy army can field up to 16 units, you are potentially outnumbered by 2-1 on the initial battlefield, even if you have as many men as both your enemies combined. It's even worse when each individual enemy army is a match for your troops. Add to that the fact that one army may hit you from the side while you're dealing with the other, and you have a very challenging battle on your hands.

Does anyone have any advice that helps them win in these difficult situations? (By the way, I'm referring to defensive battles; when I'm on the attack, it's usually easy to defeat one enemy at a time.)

[TomPaine]

I'm not sure that I have any particular tactical advice -- I'm also not sure that I've ever had to fight a battle like that in MTW. But I wonder if, even if it's a "defensive" battle, you ought to treat it like an offensive engagement? If you sit tight, they'll swarm you -- so be tactically aggressive, and defeat the enemies in detail, before they can unite.

I suppose that if they start right next to each other, I'd still want to seize the initiative. If you sit on the the hill, they'll turn your flanks and swarm you. I think aggressive maneuvering might be your only advantage; your army is smaller, and thus hopefully more flexible and mobile than your 32-unit opposition. So, anyway, you say you can win it if it's an offensive battle -- so there's your answer.

Although, if you're sitting with another of your armies in "reinforcements," then I think that you're just being defeated by a limitation in the game engine. *That* would infuriate me.

[Sir Chauncy]

Actually I disagree with that last bit of advice: Defensive battles are astonishingly easy in Medievil, you can Just sit tight somewhere on a hill or where the terain gives a natural advantage: in a valley say or next to some trees.

This way, you can take bucket loads of missile troops, (usually about 2/3s of your army and some very good defenives ones and let the enemy do all the work. By walking all the way across the battle field towards you they will tire more easily and tired troops route quicker. Let you archers do all the damage as bunched up troops are easier to hit and when they do actually get close enough target individually, have a very good archery unit (Arablests or Longbows) target the general specifically. This way one will break and run and both armies will actually get in each others way.

That is one way of doing it anyway. However, yes it is tricky, but then again: that is why we thought that generals thoughout history that could beat opponents twice their size were good....

[Cebrus]

One thing that always happened to me when fighting a 2-1 was that one army reached me a bit faster than the second one. That gave me the chance to destroy two (mostly) smaller armies one by one.

[TomPaine]

That's certainly good advice. ~:wave: Frankly, I always feel a little guilty (not enough to stop me from making the mouse-click, but still) when I target the approaching general with my elite archer units; I suppose playing a hardball game of morale degradation might be the only way to win the defensive battle. But what happens if they take their sweet time in coming to you, and hit you in a full, 32-unit pincer action? Are you able to deploy enough archers to significantly weaken both armies, or just one? Just asking, since I'm not sure I've ever fought this battle. Though, of course, I have done the "sit on the hill with your viking king and one joms, and wait for the 18000000000 peasants and spearmen".

[CherryDanish]

I think there are 2 possible stratagies that might produce some results. If you're dealing with an AI opponent than it's a great idea to go on the offensive. Choose mobile units and hunt down one of the enemies, go for a quick rout by turning the flanks and cavalry charges to the rear. Usually the second opponent will not chase you down while you're engaged with it's allied force and it will hunker down in a corner and wait for you to finish up (AI might change if you get in trouble, can't say). Tougher to control, but these are more fun to play.

Another tactic, find a map edge with the highest elevation, put your back up against it and bury as many archers as you can behind a semi circular shield wall (with the map edge to your back you can't be flanked). I like having 2 high valour catapaults as well as I target the general's unit and sometimes get a lucky shot off. For a little finesse, keep 2 units of sword/polearm/axe infantry and a loose unit of cav (missle or melee). Use missle cav to peel and target a juicey unit like militia or even archers if you have an elevation advantage. This usually forces the AI to peel off 1-3 units to chase your highly mobile missle units and these are forces that your main strong point doesn't have to face, AND sometimes, IF you get close enough to the main force (suffering less than 20% caualties or YOU might rout), the AI registers that their flank is threatened and their morale dips, they rout. Melee cav should feign charges into the rear of enemies pinned on your shield wall or if the enemy leaves their missle troops unprotected, butcher them, THEN charge the enemies rear. Having no vulnerable flank means your shiled wall SHOULD hold if it's deep enough. Leaving gaps in the shield wall for your sword/polearm/axe units to slip through helps as depending on the enemy unit type in that spot, if they eat through it fast enough, you will effectively flank them.

Hope it's usefull.

[Kommodus]

As a matter of fact, Tom, the idea did occur to me that I should seize the initiative and defeat one enemy before they could join up. However, the opportunity doesn't always present itself to do so. I'll describe my most recent such battle as an example.

As the Italians, I sent a crusade to Tripoli and conquered it, driving back a fierce Egyptian counterattack and killing their best general. The Turks immediately began to mobilize a huge army in Syria, while the large but under-quality Egyptian army remained in Palestine. I sent a second crusade to Antioch and captured it as well. Immediately, the Turks and Egyptians simultaneously sent armies into Tripoli. I had about 1100 men there, while they had over 2200.

I chose not to deploy at the back of the map, since the terrain there offered no advantage. Instead, I deployed on a large hill near the middle of the map, about 4 units of archers/Genoese sailors standing behind a wall of spearmen and urban militia. For cavalry, all I had were three units of mounted crossbowmen. I hoped that the armies would be far enough apart that I could attack one while holding the other off.

Instead, both armies appeared near one another not far from the foot of the hill - the Egyptians to my left, and the Turks to my right. The Egyptians had a lot of camels and peasants, while the Turks had some spearmen and a lot of horse archers, plus a unit of Armenian heavy cavalry.

The Egyptians moved most of their forces to their left, behind the Turkish army. The Turks approached aggressively on my right flank. I turned some spearmen and militia to deal with the threat, while my bowmen inflicted heavy casualties on the enemy horse archers. Initially, we had some success, destroying the Armenians and even killing the Turkish general. I thought that this would neutralize the Turkish threat, but they kept coming and threatened to turn my flank, forcing me to reinforce it and even commit my own general. However, at the worst possible time (for me), the Egyptian army arrived on the same flank. A unit of camels drove through a gap in my line and killed my general, causing the rest of my army to rout. I lost about 600 men and killed about 500.

So, even though I fought with the Turks throughout most of the battle, the Egyptians still arrived in time to deliver the final blow. I'm not sure if it was winnable, but it would've been tough.