View Full Version : Danish Campaign
I'm thinking about firing up a Danish campaign once I play around a little more with my initial Italian one. It seems to be a challenging scenario and since I'm still playing on normal level, it might even out the odds a bit.
Some questions. I'm trying to figure out the hierarchy of troops for the Danes since they seem to have many speciality units. Based on the unit guide reading and some posts here and there, I think I figured it out.
Axes: (in order of effectiveness)
Viking
Landsmen
Huscarles
Jons Viking
Sword:
Viking Carl
Beserker (I know this is a speciality unit. How do you build, btw, can't find on tech tree)
What about for spears, should I build the regular chain, i.e. spearmen, fuedal sergeant, Chiv sarge, etc. Or will the axemen handle the job? Same with swords, are the traditional sword builds necessary or just go with Viking Carl?
Seems like they have excellent infantry, but weak cavalry, and regular missiles. I've gotten spoiled with the ILI, so most of my tactics are infantry based anyway, so I think I can do some damage with the Huscarles.
Please correct any of my errors and/or give me advice.
btw, on the landsmen, do you have to build a motte to get them, or can you skip and upgrade to Keep?
Procrustes
02-26-2005, 01:06
I love playing with the Danes. I generally build lots of vikings and few of the other troops - they are quite cheap as the Danes, and although you will experience a lot of casualties they are quite study - they fight until there are few men in a unit left. If you take Norway they come out with a +1 valor bonus. Huscarles are awesome, but also expensive to get. (You can get vikings with only a fort.)
Axe units are pretty good all-round troops - they can take out swords, spears and they are armor-peircing so they are even somewhat effective if you can charge them into some cav. You will take casualties, though - it's just a given. Build the spears, you will need them. The danes don't have any mounted missiles, so you may want to keep an eye out for any mercs.
You never need to build the motes or other add-ons to your fortification to build units - it's only for added defense in case of a seige.
Make sure you take and develop Sweden - it is a real money maker once you get farms and trade going. Also, it has iron so you can build a weapons smith if you want. (I ussually go straight for the economic stuff in Sweden so I don't get as much use out of the iron deposits.)
Adrian II
02-26-2005, 01:18
One other suggestion: don't be stingy when it comes to building those Longboats, you are going to need them from the word Go so start building them in Denmark right away. On land you can make do with Royals and Vikings for a while, that is: until they are outclassed by MAA and Sergeants. But without trade and sea lane protection you will very shortly be one very dead Dane.
Enjoy! :charge:
thanks. Do the Carls make good swordsmen or are you better off going for MAAs?
If I play with danes i'd try to get to Huscarle tech as fast as possible. Maybe even get it in Sweden for the wepon upgrades (even though its trade value is better). Why? I would put them in the same category as Varangian Guard and Janissary Heavy Infantry. Anything they touch tends to die fast ~D . Make sure you get Heavy Cavalry in the flank or rear though ;) .
I think besrekers only appear in a rebellion, like Sherwood foresters.
And I would try and make my armies use the viking units mostly with as few generic units as possible. What the point in playing Danes if you just churn out FMAA and the like. My thoughts anyways. ~:cheers:
Good luck with the crazed axeweiding maniacs :charge: !!!
Make sure you take and develop Sweden - it is a real money maker once you get farms and trade going. Also, it has iron so you can build a weapons smith if you want. (I ussually go straight for the economic stuff in Sweden so I don't get as much use out of the iron deposits.)
Good advice here, sweden should always be priority one with Denmark, economically and for that all important steel that will give you weapon upgrades later.
I like the danes to, but to be honest none of thier units are spectacular or battle winners. The viking units have good morale stats which keeps them in the fight longer but once everyone else starts getting better quality infantry, vikings become rather ordinary, rather fast.
the Baltic is a nice playground to expand in. If your playing with out a mod Lithuania is a good province to focus on. Decent mid cavalry and very good position to expand into the steps or south into the balkans.
As always, great advice guys.
That's a very good point, Bad, about the nationalized units. That's one of the things that is sort of misdesigned in the game, I think. Each faction should have their speciality troops, and other than some common generic troops like low level spears, swords, archers, etc. that's what the army should be based on. That way each faction has a strength and weakness in battle. In the game it seems like you can build x to beat y, and then when you're done with y, you'll build a to beat b. The Danes should have to conquer with Huscarles, the Italians with ILI, the Spanish with Jinetes, etc. Know what I mean? I think each player is allowed too much flexibility in the composition of their army and are able to re-structure it too easily from scenario to scenario.
On a total side note, another thing I'm sort of disappointed in the game with is that it would have been a nice feature to be able to review your king's (and past kings', for that matter) legacy. i.e. year he became king, what provinces he added/lost, battles he won/lost, how much he improved/decreased economy, etc. It would have been a nice touch to review who were your most powerful leaders because by the third or fourth king, I forget who did what.
Still though, awesome game. Best $20 I ever spent.
As always, great advice guys.
That's a very good point, Bad, about the nationalized units. That's one of the things that is sort of misdesigned in the game, I think. Each faction should have their speciality troops, and other than some common generic troops like low level spears, swords, archers, etc. that's what the army should be based on. That way each faction has a strength and weakness in battle. In the game it seems like you can build x to beat y, and then when you're done with y, you'll build a to beat b. The Danes should have to conquer with Huscarles, the Italians with ILI, the Spanish with Jinetes, etc. Know what I mean? I think each player is allowed too much flexibility in the composition of their army and are able to re-structure it too easily from scenario to scenario.
On a total side note, another thing I'm sort of disappointed in the game with is that it would have been a nice feature to be able to review your king's (and past kings', for that matter) legacy. i.e. year he became king, what provinces he added/lost, battles he won/lost, how much he improved/decreased economy, etc. It would have been a nice touch to review who were your most powerful leaders because by the third or fourth king, I forget who did what.
Still though, awesome game. Best $20 I ever spent.
With a multigame me and my housemate had (taking a kings reign each), we wrote down what each other did, important things like provinces take, huge battles crusades launched etc. etc. Made a gameplan for each king before we started based on vices and virtues they had. Then left a will as well for the next king. was up to the heir though wether to actually try to accomplish the will. . . Was a great campaign though with a written history to go with it. ~D
_Aetius_
02-26-2005, 12:25
If you dont get trade going with the danes pretty sharpish youll be bankrupt, I always try and grab Livonia before Novgorod can claim it, and also pomerania and prussia, usually i wait for the inevitable civil war in the holy roman empire and pick off some territory, which is usually followed by a danish civil war for some reason that always happens to me once ive conquered abit of territory with the danes.
Then the usual raids on britain and northern france, ive ended up with an empire with the danes which was all of northern europe, all the steppes, much of central europe which was only rivalled by the papacy which owned about 60% of the map :dizzy2: which was a shock. The danes are simple on glorious achievements to, there the only faction ive ended the game with maximum points with.
bretwalda
02-26-2005, 12:46
(...) which was only rivalled by the papacy which owned about 60% of the map :dizzy2: which was a shock. The danes are simple on glorious achievements to, there the only faction ive ended the game with maximum points with.
Sorry for being OFF. It never happened to me that one faction managed to grow real big (except me). How does it influence the AI? The overgrown AI is getting ganged upon? Can one still be at peace with the behemoth?
Procrustes
02-27-2005, 05:48
thanks. Do the Carls make good swordsmen or are you better off going for MAAs?
Carls are almost as good as feudal maa - one point lower defense. But they are a lot cheaper to build and support.
BTW - huscarles go away after 1205. The Danish become more of a generic Catholic army later in the game. I still have a blast w/ them, though.
_Aetius_
02-27-2005, 14:24
Sorry for being OFF. It never happened to me that one faction managed to grow real big (except me). How does it influence the AI? The overgrown AI is getting ganged upon? Can one still be at peace with the behemoth?
Ive no idea how the papacy got to this level, i remember they fighting in the balkans and then suddenly every other faction fell to pieces and the pope nailed them lol. We were at war with each other alot but the game was right near the end so they couldnt hurt me alot.
ajaxfetish
02-28-2005, 03:31
That's a very good point, Bad, about the nationalized units. That's one of the things that is sort of misdesigned in the game, I think. Each faction should have their speciality troops, and other than some common generic troops like low level spears, swords, archers, etc. that's what the army should be based on. That way each faction has a strength and weakness in battle. In the game it seems like you can build x to beat y, and then when you're done with y, you'll build a to beat b. The Danes should have to conquer with Huscarles, the Italians with ILI, the Spanish with Jinetes, etc. Know what I mean? I think each player is allowed too much flexibility in the composition of their army and are able to re-structure it too easily from scenario to scenario.
I think the main reason for this is historical accuracy, which is a really big deal in this game and which is one of the biggest reasons I like it. They figure, if this nation used these kinds of troops we'd better make them available to them, even if lots of others used them, too. Some factions get unique units and some get a lot (i.e. Turks), but a lot of troops didn't vary too much from place to place.
Well if I remember correctly, I've seen a few posts were people were trying to use only the nationalized units .. it can be a fun wat to play the game, and you'll have to be creative with some factions
*just adding my 2 cents*
Joms vikings and berserkers are only available in the Vikings campaign, not the Midieval campaign. Thralls, carls, landsmenn, and huscarles can only be trained in Early and only in Scandinavia. Normal vikings trained in Norway have a valor bonus and the Danes get a discount when training them. I would train vikings, thralls, and huscarles. Vikings and huscarles tear through everything. Thralls are good for garrison duty and are much better than peasants in a fight. Their morale, however, is horrible and so shouldn't be used to replace spears.
Yes, you can directly upgrade to a keep to build landsmenn. They are weaker than the valor 1 vikings that you can train in Norway and thus, IMO, shouldn't be trained unless you're playing the Viking campaign. Valor 1 vikings are also stronger than FMAA.
Early on, you don't need spears or archers unless you're bordering a bunch of high valor royals, in which case train some spears and archers.
If you're a risk taker, you can try taking Sweden with only your king. Attacking with a larger force will often prompt the rebels to flee to Norway and thus make taking that province even harder. Beware of the valor 1 viking rebels holding Norway. Valor 1 vikings are tough SOBs in the early going.
---
BTW, the smilies on this forum are sweet. :bow:
I'm modding the game so that there is a stronger focus on national units plus a lot of other gameplay adjustments.
Let me know if you are interested.
BTW, there is an excellent point in favour of Carls and Landsmenn VS vanilla vikings:
They won't drop like flies under arrow fire as they're armoured.
If you can't get reinforcements quickly after a battle you'll start to really appreciate every extra point of defence you can afford, especially earlier with the Danish
ajaxfetish
02-28-2005, 20:47
Joms vikings and berserkers are only available in the Vikings campaign, not the Midieval campaign.
According to the VI manual, berserkers can appear in the medieval campaign, but only for rebels. So if you want 'em you've got to get a rebellion with them and then bribe the rebels. :deal: Not easy or efficient, but still possible.
Nah, all three units have large shields. Vanilla vikings don't drop like flies under missile fire unless shot in the back. My first campaign was with the Danes I remember how much my archers sucked against the rebel vikings. I thought it was because of the archers as I didn't realize how effective large shields are against missiles. It would've helped if the animation showed this, but it doesn't so you just have to imagine it.
There's no reason to build carls in the Midieval campaign. The landsmenn's advantage is that they are noble (can be trained with command stars), but so are huscarles. I would only train landsmenn if I wanted to put my early expansion into overdrive, otherwise I would wait for huscarles.
Kommodus
03-01-2005, 17:12
I'm thinking about firing up a Danish campaign once I play around a little more with my initial Italian one. It seems to be a challenging scenario and since I'm still playing on normal level, it might even out the odds a bit.
Others have offered plenty of advice on how to play as the Danes, so let me just add this - play on Hard difficulty. Trust me, after playing one campaign, you can handle it, and the game won't be quite such a pushover. Don't be fooled by the difficult-looking scenario; starting out with a tiny kingdom is really not much of a handicap.
Hey, if you're feeling really ambitious, you might even try expert. However, I've found my own expert campaigns to be kind of annoying, since the AI gets a big morale bonus that keeps their units from running away until they're almost completely destroyed. This sometimes takes the fun out of executing good battlefield maneuvers.
[QUOTE=Kommodus]Others have offered plenty of advice on how to play as the Danes, so let me just add this - play on Hard difficulty. Trust me, after playing one campaign, you can handle it, and the game won't be quite such a pushover. Don't be fooled by the difficult-looking scenario; starting out with a tiny kingdom is really not much of a handicap.
QUOTE]
Kommodus,
I wish I would have seen this before I started my campaign. Let me paint the picture thus far:
Year: 1210
Provinces Controlled (pretty much in order taken): Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Lithuania, Saxony, Smolensk, Cherigov, Muscovy, Ryazan, Volga-Bulgaria, Novgorod, Livonia, Finland, Brandenburg, Genoa (weird, yes I know), Kiev, and Pereyaslavl.
Treasury: $375k Florins
History:
Took Sweden on first turn, rebels retreated to Norway. Had a very nice fight for Norway with King, Prince, 2 vikings, and 1 archer. Kept out flanking them until they ended up on the downslope. Ireland was ripe to be taken. Quickly expanded into the Steppes until Novgorod got antsy and attacked. Bad move. They were wiped out in 2 turns. Saxony and Brandenburg became rebel, so I took them to buffer Denmark.
Then there was about 30 years of peace, at least with my nation. Everyone was at war with the Germans, however. In those 30 years, many longboats were built, and my profit went from 200 Florins, to about 13500 a turn. Scary! Each province had something building, always.
I slowly built up the army and didn't go too big until about 1190 or so. Luckily I was left in peace. Then I started building units as well, in almost every turn. Lots of Gallowglasses from Ireland, and armored up Huscarles.
To stir things up, Genoa went rebel, so I landed an amphib attack using troops from Ireland, Saxony, and Lithuania. I think this rubbed many countries the wrong away because all of a sudden I was in the southern side of the map. The very next turn (1204) Byz started sinking my ships. So I countered by hitting Kiev and Pereya. 3 turns later, English start sinking my ships as well. They must want Ireland. And lastly, Hungary decides to invade Brandenburg (bad move, 1200 casualities to 200, even though outnumbered 7 to 5).
The future:
I'm building caravels like there's no tomorrow. Army can last at least 10 years of heavy fighting before wil start to wear out, so focus is on regaining the sea. I think I'm done fighting against Byz because I want them to linger a little longer to take the brunt of the Horde. So I will focus on the Hungarians and try to connect Scan with Baltics by swooping Pomer, Pruss, Pol, and Volyhynia.
Not sure what to do about English right now. They're probably second strongest in the game controlling most of modern day France. I might ignore their aggression until I can settle the Hungarians. Saxony will most likely be the sight of a large battle.
Amazingly, even though my trade routes are completely cut, I'm operating at only a -1k loss. With my treasury, I can operate like this for centuries, even with building cues.
Anyway, a super long post to say that I'm having a lot of fun with the Danes, but it seems like the game (overall) is a little too easy. Although my battles are a little more balanced with the Danes. Lets face it, Italians with ILI is almost like cheating. Other than maybe a disaster with the Horde if I misplay that, or some internal breakdown, I'm unstoppable. In the next 40-50 years, the map will probably broken done the middle with me owning the east side, and English and Spanish owning the west side, minus Ireland and Genoa. In both my campaigns, muslim factions get wiped out pretty much by start of high period. Is that typical?
Kommodus
03-01-2005, 22:48
Kommodus,
I wish I would have seen this before I started my campaign.
...
Anyway, a super long post to say that I'm having a lot of fun with the Danes, but it seems like the game (overall) is a little too easy.
Yeah, I bet you do. :) Even on hard you'll probably find the game a little too easy, and once you get big (as you have done), you'll be truly unstoppable. Not even a disaster against the Horde will put much of a dent in your kingdom now. The only thing that could do that would be a big civil war or mass rebellions.
From what I've heard, one way to add significant challenge to the game would be to use a mod, in particular WesW's MedMod. I can't speak from experience, however, since I haven't tried that myself. (I don't have VI, so I don't think I can.)
In both my campaigns, muslim factions get wiped out pretty much by start of high period. Is that typical?
Not necessarily. I think a lot of it depends on what era you start in. If you start in early (which it seems you usually do), the Byzantines will probably beat the Turks and be on their way to becoming a significant power. If you start in high, however, the Turks tend to be victorious in this struggle. It's true that Spain usually defeats the Almohads (and can then go on to conquer much of the Middle East), but I've seen the Almohads defeat Spain and then push deep into Southern Europe. For some reason I've never seen Egypt do much, but I'm sure other people have. If anything, they seem to get into fights with the Turks or Almohads - until you come along and sweep them away!
t's true that Spain usually defeats the Almohads (and can then go on to conquer much of the Middle East), but I've seen the Almohads defeat Spain and then push deep into Southern Europe. For some reason I've never seen Egypt do much, but I'm sure other people have. If anything, they seem to get into fights with the Turks or Almohads - until you come along and sweep them away!
Well weird things do happen sometimes ... never underestimate the enemy : as an old sergeant once said "Never assume! Because if you do, punk, you'll make an A** of U and ME!!! " :furious3:
I have a campaign running, as the Danes, where the Almohads were indeed defeated by Spain, but Constantinople is no more, and a great pyramid is being built in its place. Then, a couple of failed crusades later, the Spanish faction ceased to exist. Now you have an Egyptian Empire from Southern France to the Black Sea, and nobody is doing anything (no crusade, no raids, nothing). ~:eek:
I'll probably have to be creative on that one ... :book:
el_slapper
03-02-2005, 11:39
Danes rock. I think that assuming you do unite Scandinavia early, they are the most powerful nation of the game. For one single reason : noone seems to attack them. Have 2-3 ships in every seazone, conquer rebels, & you'll rule without a threat. :charge:
King Clas
03-02-2005, 11:51
Well weird things do happen sometimes ... never underestimate the enemy : as an old sergeant once said "Never assume! Because if you do, punk, you'll make an A** of U and ME!!! " :furious3:
I have a campaign running, as the Danes, where the Almohads were indeed defeated by Spain, but Constantinople is no more, and a great pyramid is being built in its place. Then, a couple of failed crusades later, the Spanish faction ceased to exist. Now you have an Egyptian Empire from Southern France to the Black Sea, and nobody is doing anything (no crusade, no raids, nothing). ~:eek:
I'll probably have to be creative on that one ... :book:
hehehe reminded me as a Almohad campaign of mine where I was running mayhem into France and my ally Egypt was trampling down Bynzantine, then the Egyptians decide to invade the italian peninsula and soon they defeat the papacy and a message comes upp that a puppet pope has been but into place :P. Go figure a muslim pope. ~:handball:
nick_maxell
03-02-2005, 21:25
Danes rock. I think that assuming you do unite Scandinavia early, they are the most powerful nation of the game. For one single reason : noone seems to attack them. Have 2-3 ships in every seazone, conquer rebels, & you'll rule without a threat. :charge:
I usually get attacked by the HRE as soon as the French or Italians start nibbeling them but its a good excuse to grab Saxony ~D - thats assuming the HRE are still not in total rebellion (about half of the time I play the Danes) - they will attack for sure in GA games if you own the baltic coast (their GA goal) - even in non GA games it seems to me the AI is playing along the same strategy for most of the fractions (ie the French ALWAYS crusade for Syria and the English for Palestine first) maybe just my imagination.
As for the Danes - the only annoying thing is that it takes some time to get the cash rolling - but for Sweden the Scandinavian provinces have no good farming income so it usually takes me about 50 yrs to be able to build what I want (when the first good trade routes come online) - raiding early into the baltics and steppes helps to get some money but its hard to hold onto these lands so I usually just move on until the army gets beaten.
One thing I haven t seen mentioned in the thread is the importance to grab some land in the western and eastern Med - it cuts fleet upkeep by half if you can get an island in each and it helps later to build ships locally rather than moving them all the way from the Baltic.
One post mentiones huge AI empires - in my experience they only last for about 20 - 40 years before the break apart again - in my current game as the Danes the Spanish range from southern France to Constantinople but lately have to fight rebellions/reemergences every turn in a couple of provinces so I give them until their current king dies before civil war or the Horde if they come earlier than that (its about 1215)
anyway - gotta run - have a "date" with the French in Flanders ~:)
:duel:
nick
After some failures I finally am having a decent Danish campaign. It did require some patience though. Money was a big problem till I got trade going (pointless it seems to build anything but shipyards and economics the first 50 years or so).
I didn't build much of a traderoute though. In my game the French got real big real fast. They conquered nearly entire western Europe and north Africa except for Italy.
So I had to react. I had 2 Longboats per tile up to Spain which would prove vital for my succes. My fleet was concentrated in the English channal.
Around 1170 I was able to start building some good stuff. I had conquered Scandinavia, Lithuania, Ireland and Saxony before that date. So I was pretty small.
I could've gone the cheap route and pumped out nothing but Vikings in Norway. But I decided to pump out Landsmenn and Huscarls as well (what's the point of playing the Danish if you don't go for the good stuff?).
Didn't bother with archers and I had only a handfull of Mounted Seargants. Did have quite a few RKs though.
Of course it did mean I was running a huge debt so I had to attack quick.
Round 1180 I decided to attack. I did have a large army filled with axe-weilding guys but my army was definitely much smaller then the French in the region.
I went for the Low countries and Nothern France first. The French just kept retreating as soon as they saw me and never put up a fight. It was at sea however that my victory was insured.
Large empire need to stay connected with the King or rebellions will break out. If enemy ships disrupt that connection...well it did and 3 (!) factions the French had previously destroyed reappeared. It was game over for the Frenchies. It also didn't help they kept retreating which put a serious dent on their King's influence.
My tiny Denmark saved the world near 1190. She beat an enemy 5 times her size or something.
I lost a few ships but my fleet is still in tact in the nothern seas. The few battles I did in Nothern France were decided in my favour (no brilliant tactics, just running up the slopes with Landsmenn and Huscarls and flanking with cavalry).
Downside is though I only have a few years left to crank out Vikings. I think I'll just stop then and enjoy what Denmark had accomplished before 1205...:)
Procrustes
03-03-2005, 18:00
Cool. BTW, you'll still be able to crank out Vikings after 1205, but not Huscarles. Try to make sure you are teched up enough to make some of the new units that become available after 1205 - like halbs, arbs, CK, CS, and CMAA. (Especially halbs & arbs, imo - you'll need them if you take on the GH.)
_Aetius_
03-03-2005, 18:43
The danish army I think anyway, isnt suited to large armies, I think small, flexible task forces are far better than your standard western army.
Even in the 14th and 15th century when the game was in a highly advanced stage, I was launching invasions with only 1200 men tops, preferring to defeat armies and withdraw rather than conquer and rule.
Even when more advanced units are available I prefer fast moving lighter armies with vikings always present, I leave heavier troops on garrison duty and send my hordes of viking raider cavalry, vikings, huscarles and landsmen/carls with archer support to terrorise the surrounding rivals to my kingdom
Also mercenaries play a larger part in danish armies than most other factions I use, when the Mongols turned up and threatened my large possessions in the steppes I hired hundreds of English Byzantine and Italian mercenaries which added what was needed to my Danish armies which frankly dont stand a chance against the Horde.
The Danes are once youve built them up one of the more interesting factions to go and offer a different experience to most other catholic factions.
Wherever there's a bridge you can vanquish the horde with simple spears and a bit of cavalry.
I vanquished the horde using a mix of steppe cav + heavies, alans, szekely and avar nobles (i was playing with the hungarians), dismounting the light cav into spears and using the heavies to hunt down the mongol warriors while the ranged troops came to take care of horse archers and naphta.
With such teams i managed to inflict 2:1 to 3:1 loss ratio and armies ranging between 1000 and 2000 units.
Beware, outside bridge defences such a tactic is suicidal as without chockepoints dismounted spears cannot cover the front and are easily overwhelmed when stretched.
CherryDanish
03-03-2005, 19:09
Also mercenaries play a larger part in danish armies than most other factions I use, when the Mongols turned up and threatened my large possessions in the steppes I hired hundreds of English Byzantine and Italian mercenaries which added what was needed to my Danish armies which frankly dont stand a chance against the Horde.
Definately mercenaries are good for adding variety to the Danish army such as adding decent missle troops, missle cav, heavy cav, decent light cav (notice a trend here), and adding decent light troops for desert warefare. :charge:
The Danes excel at putting heavy AP units in the line, but it's hard to trap a mobile army if you're on offense. That said, the most success I have ever had with any units against the horde have been the Huscarles and the VGs (OK, VGs are not viking, but are similar to the huscarles and historically based on viking mercenaries). On defense, park huscarles in a wooded treeline and wait for the mongols to charge. If you can manouver another unit to flank the devastation is complete and total. The horde doesn't possess a single unit that can fight effectively in a large wooded area, thier strength lies in the open plains. I've easily built 4-6 valour per huscarle unit in a single fight against the horde during some of my campaigns. My favourite tactic is when the horde withdraws troops I move single units of huscarles into different woods along the withdraw vector the horde uses. Withdrawing horde units get turned into ground beef when they enter the woods I control. The horde will always send in their top general or king into the meat grinder and once he's dead, combined with the horrible one sided casualties they suffer, they route as soon as you look at them funny. ~:eek:
I'm about to take on the Horde myself. It's going to be interesting how it all plays out. Let me paint the picture:
It's 1220. I (Danes) am at war with Byz, Hungary, and English. The latter have a very strong presence in western France. We are faced off at Saxony/Brandenbrug (me) and Franconia (them). They've tried a couple of times to seize the lands mentioned, but were bloodily repulsed. I tried to take Franconia this last turn, and although putting up a very good fight (outnumbered 3500 to 900, they sent in lots of reinforcements after I hit end turn), my men tired out and I had to withdraw. So, we will probably have a rematch on the next turn.
None of the 3 wish to accept ceasefires, as I'm trying to keep my list of enemies down in anticipation of the Horde.
I am squared off against Byz at Khazar (they own) and I own the 5 surrounding provinces from Kiev to Volga-Bulgaria. Basically, if the Horde appear in Khazar, I'm sure the Byz will withdraw to Crimea or Georgia, thus leaving me to take the full force of invasion. Unless I can make a very quick alliance when they first appear. I'm stacking troops best I can in the 5 provinces, but most of my high tech units are going to fight the English, so mostly Fuedal MAA and Sarges are manning the borders. I'm just starting to move over some Chiv MAA & Sarges and Arbs, heavy steppe Cav, etc. But this will be minimal because I have to spread over 5 borders.
Here are my choices, the way I see it. Let me know if there are others:
1) If Byz stay and fight at Khazar (highly unlikely), either make alliance with Horde or hope that Byz can weaken the first brunt of attack enough for me to compete. It will depend on which way Horde turns to expand, north towards me or south towards Byz and Turks.
2) Scorch Earth Volga, Ryazan, and Pereya and concentrate in Kiev, Chernigov, and Muscovy. Basically cutting border defense from 5 to 3. This will allow me to shorten resupply lines and provide a good foot hold to counter attack from. If I put up enough of a good defensive line, Horde might shift focus to middle east and leave me alone.
3) Leave it on the line, pump out as many units as I can over the next 10 turns, dig in, and fight it out. I like this idea! ~:eek:
_Aetius_
03-03-2005, 22:04
Ive been in the same situation as you weegee I used a scorched earth policy in the surrounding provinces of were the horde arrive Khazar, and sometimes Volga Bulgaria left mercenaries behind to slow them down and cause some casualties and especially Kiev were bridge battles are common, I held the horde back 3 year sin a row in Kiev because of the bridge.
The horde will not accept alliances or ceasefires early on they will attack you before you have a chance to offer alliance, retreat peacefully or they will simply take the land from you by force, retreat to the more eaisly defendale northern steppes and dig in there in force. Try and get some provinces you own to rebel and then retreat form them itll slow the horde down and just wait for the horde to inevitably lose its momentum then strike them down, they are prone to civil war.
CherryDanish
03-03-2005, 22:05
I am squared off against Byz at Khazar (they own) and I own the 5 surrounding provinces from Kiev to Volga-Bulgaria. Basically, if the Horde appear in Khazar, I'm sure the Byz will withdraw to Crimea or Georgia, thus leaving me to take the full force of invasion. Unless I can make a very quick alliance when they first appear. I'm stacking troops best I can in the 5 provinces, but most of my high tech units are going to fight the English, so mostly Fuedal MAA and Sarges are manning the borders. I'm just starting to move over some Chiv MAA & Sarges and Arbs, heavy steppe Cav, etc. But this will be minimal because I have to spread over 5 borders.
Here are my choices, the way I see it. Let me know if there are others:
1) If Byz stay and fight at Khazar (highly unlikely), either make alliance with Horde or hope that Byz can weaken the first brunt of attack enough for me to compete. It will depend on which way Horde turns to expand, north towards me or south towards Byz and Turks.
2) Scorch Earth Volga, Ryazan, and Pereya and concentrate in Kiev, Chernigov, and Muscovy. Basically cutting border defense from 5 to 3. This will allow me to shorten resupply lines and provide a good foot hold to counter attack from. If I put up enough of a good defensive line, Horde might shift focus to middle east and leave me alone.
3) Leave it on the line, pump out as many units as I can over the next 10 turns, dig in, and fight it out. I like this idea! ~:eek:
Listen, hate to be the voice of doom and all, but you are looking down the barrel of a long and potentially dangerous fight.
a) the more troops you stack along the borders of khazar, the more horde you will eventually face. There are two ways of digesting this. First you drop your troop levels there, putting in your best smaller units, this will paint you as a target to your neighbors who will attack and you'll likely earn even more enemies. Second, you load up the provinces with every single crap unit you can find so that when the horde invades the Byz held khazar they will do so in numbers so excessive anyone who engages them is looking at a 5-6 hour fight. If this is the case, hopefully your numbers and some quick action with an emissary will persuade the horde to unload on the Byz. This can easily backfire depending on how many provinces the GH invades on their appearance.
b) you are in a squeeze, because your enemy is holding a single country and you are holding an entire front. Easier for them to pick and choose a target, harder for you to defend.
c) Anyone invading Khazar will likely be attacking over a bridge. While I personally love both attacking and defending a bridge, many find these battles too bloody and costly. If you invade after the horde appears, you're going to be attacking a superior enemy accross a bottleneck. Good luck.
d) The horde is not necessarly limited to appearing only in khazar, so you or the byz might end up in a gunfight anyway.
e) unless the horde comes out fighting they will likely play a passive role and since they can't make more troops, it's better to maintain long cold wars.
If I were in your shoes, I'd likely move as quickly through modern day turkey as I could via khazar and georgia, leaving as few garrison troops as possible in all other countries and station a huge garrison somewhere in amphibious assault range. It's a risky plan as you will lose territory if the byz make any ships to block you when the GH appears.
bretwalda
03-04-2005, 00:44
I suggest: raze the steppes and get a defensive stand in Kiev or anywhere behind a river. It is not only good because you lose less troops but also it is easier to play a long battle if it is a bridge battle because you can speed up time while you butcher the enemy. It needs less attention which is good if you have to play a 3 hour battle.
Raze the steppes, because you can get it rebel, and the Horde cannot build new troops until it builds up but - and by that time it will be out of money.
CherryDanish
03-04-2005, 15:21
Raze the steppes, because you can get it rebel, and the Horde cannot build new troops until it builds up but - and by that time it will be out of money.
The horde never builds troops regardless of what is built in any province and has an insane amount of starting cash. That said razing is good from the standpoint that you make some of the cash back before the horde takes it.
I have seen them build troops. but they still tend to stick to troops what they would normally have or choose to pick. IE horse Archers types, light and medium Cavalry and foot archers. :charge:
bretwalda
03-05-2005, 00:12
The horde never builds troops regardless of what is built in any province and has an insane amount of starting cash. That said razing is good from the standpoint that you make some of the cash back before the horde takes it.
The Horde builds troops just like everyone else as long as there are facilities and has not run out of money. I see this when I let AI to "handle" the GH. In this case the Horde carves out a big kingdom and I see them coming with all kinds of troops.
If you start in early it is easy to bankrupt the horde: make sure they arrive in empty provinces, beat them and ransom troops for thousands and soon they will be bankrupt and soon dead.
_Aetius_
03-05-2005, 15:18
The horde most certainly train troops, ive seen them even retrain Mongol Heavy Cavalry and Mongol Warriors, thankfully though the horde usually becomes intergrated into the local tribes, instead of training Mongol type troops they usually train local steppe cavalry, slavs, steppe heavy cavalry and woodsmen, they start playing a larger part in Mongol armies and there armies end up a cross of mongols, steppe tribes and polish/russian.
When playing in a campaign when do you start getting into the battle as I have been pushing the year end button not enough funds?Thanks.
It depends on what and how much you built, plus if you've conquered enough land to support your army.
Just to keep you guys updated to the state of my world in 1246. Wow! What an incredible half dozen turns or so.
I decided to play it super aggressive and maintained my long border, except that I gave up Pereyaslavl because income was minimal and it required diversion of some much needed troops. Horde came in and pushed Byz out of Khazar. I had two - three stacks of troops on each of Volga, Ryazan, Chernigov, Kiev, Lithuania, and Volhynia.
Horde came after Kiev with about 6 stacks. I put up a good fight and then ended up being seiged. They tried breaking in twice, and succeeded on the second, with great cost. They then stormed into Volyhynia, which I gave up without a fight in order to reset defenses along the border.
So now, on the surface, things are looking bad for me. I'm in a back and forth fight with the English for Franconia. They harass me from time to time in Genoa and Denmark. Even the Papacy tries to backdoor me from Tuscany into Genoa. And to rub salt in the wound, Spain starts sinking my ships. Yikes :furious3:
I took about 15 minutes to look at the map and realized that slowly but surely I was going to start losing my armies by playing this back and forth game. Problem is that no one else was at war with each other, but pretty much everyone was at war with me. IOW, I was making no money and had gone into red, meanwhile the others could continue to pump out units. So, it was either a massive campaign to try and shorten some of the border lines and cause havoc, or pull back and concentrate.
I went with the first option. In one turn, I struck 1) Poland from Pomerania and Prussia (2 stacks vs 1.5 stacks for them), 2) Volhynia (Horde) from Lithuania (3 stacks vs 3 stacks), 3) Khazar from Volga and Ryazan (3 stacks vs 2), and 4) Pereyaslavl (Rebel) from Chernigov (3 stacks vs. .5 stack).
1) Poland withdrew without a fight to their castle. Pussies!!!
2) Horde withdrew completely to Kiev
3) Huge fight with the Horde on a bridge. Loses were about even, miraculously, 950 me, 850 them, but my troops kept routing. I had more success using swords against thier cavalry, then spears, believe it or not. Maybe the better attack rating. I finally broke through after about 1.5 hours. Then they retreated to castle. Believe it or not, they guarded both bridges.
4) Crushed rebels and set up a good base.
So, on the next turn I consolidated the gains and played out the seiges. Poland tried to sally and send in reinforcements. I got the warning from the Papacy, but good thing is that I killed Polish king in battle and his other 2 provinces turned rebel. Good news here is that I cut border from 2 zones to 1, and eliminated a long time enemy.
Horde from Kiev tried to come to aide of Khazar. Wow, what a battle. This time bridge battle for me. Surprisingly again, the casualties were very even, about 1200 them and 950 me, except their King was killed. So guess what. Rebel factions pop up in their 2 or 3 remaining provinces and no more Horde.
The best news is that England tried one last attempt to take Franconia and were soundly beaten. 1200 casulaties to about 250. I've killed about 3 or 4 English kings over 6 years in the fight for this land. Well, this last one must have brought on much discouragement, because about 4 or 5 of the English 10 provinces turned into Rebel lands. ~D
England, Papacy, and Byz sent either ceasefire or alliance emissaries right away. So, in summary, 2 enemies are now withered to rebels. 1 enemy has been seriously weakened. My income has been improved by rich lands of Khazar and Poland. I will take Kiev in the next turn or two to further shrink my border lines. And then I can focus on Spain and kill them :charge:
Problem is going to be making money and getting out of red. The heavy hitters are me about 20% of map, Spain 20%, Hungary 15%, English 10%, Byz 10%, Italy and Sicily 10%, and the rest rebel. Very good and balanced game so far.
Hehe good idea going for the offensive way out (reduces your pay slips ^^). And anyway that makes your borders smaller is a good option. Just be wary because if the Polish and/or Mongols had any heirs that were below 16 years of age when you slaughtered their ruler they may re-emerge when they get to 16. And they will re-emerge with alot of troops. Just one thing to keep in mind ~;) .
PS - Yas slaughter the Spanish :charge: . . . oh how I dislike them. -_-
CherryDanish
03-08-2005, 15:34
I have seen them build troops. but they still tend to stick to troops what they would normally have or choose to pick. IE horse Archers types, light and medium Cavalry and foot archers. :charge:
Wow, I have NEVER seen the GH build troops, even when they desperately needed them. I vaguely recall someone saying the same thing on these boards. Then again I always raze provinces before I surrender them (a lesson I learned from history) and I'm always ready for the horde. If I'm wrong about the GH not building troops, I appologise.
_Aetius_
03-08-2005, 17:52
What state is your military in Weegee?
Sound strategy you chose BTW seems to have worked a treat, my only concern with that kind of tactic is that often, campaigning armies suffer massive disorganisation when fighting long drawn out campaigns.
I mean everybody hates armies that have about 75% unit capacity because of annoying little battles that reduce units and force them to require retraining which because of economic and facility problems isnt always available.
Ive suffered to many times from this I gain great victories and success against my enemies, leaving my army disorganised, no fault of my own just war tends to kill people ~;) so then the next arch rival comes along and starts pushing me out of my recent and usually sacked conquests because my army hasnt recovered enough to withstand them.
Most annoying ~:cheers:
What state is your military in Weegee?
Sound strategy you chose BTW seems to have worked a treat, my only concern with that kind of tactic is that often, campaigning armies suffer massive disorganisation when fighting long drawn out campaigns.
Most annoying ~:cheers:
Aetius,
I'll be first to admit that I did not expect the Polish and GH to turn into rebel factions because of their king's death. It was a wonderful surprise as I suspect the rebels will leave me alone long enough to get my finances in order. They will also provide a nice buffer to the Hungarians who are coming on strong in central europe. The English I kind of suspected they were on the brink of some rebel uprisings based on some loyalty reports from their various provinces, and as I mentioned, the fact that I had killed about 4 kings in 6 years, plus handed them 3 or 4 severe losses. Still, it looks like the dice rolled my way that turn.
I'll break my army into two parts, western and eastern:
The western group is a much more advanced group because of access to higher tech buildings in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. I'd say the mix is about 35% spears (mostly Chiv), 25% swords (mostly chiv and Gallowglasses), 20% missiles (mostly arbs and some vanilla archers), 10% cav (mostly mounted sergeants and RKs), and 10% misc (mostly Huscarles). I'd say about 9 (appx. 10k men) total stacks covering Norway to Poland.
The eastern group is based more on fuedal troops, however I had access to heavy Steppe cav, arbs, and was just getting chiv level troops in Lithuania just as I was starting to run out of money. So it is a very hodge podge group, a little bit less techie. Pretty much same mix as above, except a higher percentage of cav and misc. troops, mostly Huscarles. I'd say about 10 stacks (appx. 11k men) covering Volyhynia to Khazar.
In addition, I probably have about 20 or so units of vikings acting on garrison duty behind the front. Most of these are needed however to keep highly volatile provinces (i.e. Livonia and Lith) happy. I also have an isolated colony in Genoa, which has two full stacks of mostly fuedal sarges and maa, and several units of genoese sailors.
I'm fortunate to have good generals. Most provinces have a 5-7 star command leader in it. Added with some valor bonuses from several engagements, and the army is very formidable. My decision to go on this massive offensive came when I got the "You have the largest military" notice. I figured I was at my peak since I could not afford to build anymore, while the other would have time to catch up. So it was a case of move now or slowly be chipped away at.
The key for me right now is to consolidate all the troop movements. I will probably take Kiev from the rebels because that will cut 3 provinces from my border defense. After that I will sit and wait until I can have peace with the Spanish. The good news is that we have no connecting borders, just common ship lanes. The bad news is that it seems they have a crusade headed for Serbia that will pass through Genoa. Considering it has 99% zeal, I cannot afford to lose any troops since they will not be able to be replaced. Therefore I will refuse passage, if they come my way, and of course that will spark some more bad blood with the Spanish. The excommunication might hurt me as well with loyalty, etc.
The next five years for me will be very trying. If I can clear spanish ships from the English seas, at least I can start trade again with the English. That should eliminate my annual defecit. But, without Mediterranean trading, I'll never get out of the red. I need peace with Spain in order for that to happen since they have a strong presence on the western side. I have a few longboats left over in the region, so I will try to get those to Khazar.
I was at war with the English for about 40 years. At least 25 battles were fought mostly in Franconia, Saxony, and Brandenburg, with a few in Denmark. Good thing they self destructed before I did.
Togakure
03-20-2005, 19:35
In past Danish campaigns, I'd played it very quietly and carefully, taking Sweden, then Norway, developing fleets and trade, and then just waiting for opportunities to present themselves for expansion, through bribery or assaults on rebellious provinces or excommunicated factions. Effective, but not particularly exciting, and the campaigns tended to be very long and drawn out.
In my current Expert difficulty Danish campaign, I took a different opening approach, one that was probably more in line with how the developers intended the Danes to be played: quick militaristic expansion capitalizing on the Dane's speciality unit, the Viking.
My first goal was to take Saxony and establish control of a "star" pattern of provinces around it: Pomerania, Brandenburg, Franconia, and Friesland (Denmark obviously already under my control). As soon as my first heir matured and I had 6 or so viking units, I attacked each of these provinces in turn, from east to west. I'd move on to the next as soon as I had enough vikings to garrison each one effectively to prevent rebellion. As I took these provinces, I alternated between first improving farmland (in the ones with a high yield) and building forts (to increase the rate at which I could produce vikings). Soon my very tight cash flow was much more comfortable, and I had a decent military force (yet not too expensive to maintain). The Germans didn't even put up a fight until I got to Friesland, and though outnumbered 2-1, my viking army crushed them. My "star" pattern complete, I withdrew the bulk of my army to Saxony, leaving small garrisons in the outlying provinces, and proceeded to work on my political affiliations and trade network. I also took Sweden and Norway quite easily after this. By 1120 or so I had a very nice starter empire, easily defensible, with a nice income. This was a much better position than my previous campaigns where I "played it safe" and just focused on Sweden and Norway first.
As I expected, somebody assumed that, because I had small armies in my outlying provinces, I was weak. The Polish, coveting Brandenburg and Pomerania, attacked both and were repelled easily. As is usually my policy, I immediately retaliated in force, sacking Poland and withdrawing (not wanting to overextend myself so early), and taking and keeping Silesia (outside of my star pattern, but still defensible given my now steady cash flow and army size). The pope got on my case right quick as I expected, so I left it at that. I'd crippled them badly.
After sacking the Polish capital, I realized that this was a way to keep my vikings effective longer and maintain a nice treasury--hamstring my enemy's ability to produce better units by regular raiding and destroying their infrastructure--with no intention of keeping the territory. Not only was this fun, it seemed in keeping with "viking nature." Just had to be careful not to piss off his popeliness.
The French soon pushed the Germans back, occupying Lorraine and Swabia, threatening my holdings in Franconia and Friesland. Then they did what always pisses me off to the max--they built a crusade, in Lorraine. I could just see them sucking off on my now large viking/royal armies, so rather than just let them, I attacked, smashing into Swabia and Lorraine simultaneously. The French, apparently very surprised at my sheer audacity, abandoned both (the large army in Swabia cut off by my attack of Lorraine, and thus lost in its entirety). I razed both provinces to the ground, destroying the Chapterhouse in Lorraine, and thus, the annoying crusade as well. The French were by far the strongest at that point, so I decided it wasn't enough to stop there, as they'd rebuild quickly and come after me with a vengeance. So I continued on, razing Champagne, and finally, sacking Paris. Once the most technologically advanced faction, the French empire was now crippled, and the English (my ally and their mortal enemy) had taken Flanders. I withdrew my raider army back to Saxony and Franconia, and left a garrison in Lorraine in order to develop it strictly as an agricultural buffer zone between my empire and the remains of the French.
Amazingly, even though the French were allied with the pope, I wasn't warned to cease and desist. I did lose my alliance with the Pope, but was allowed to continue my assault against them. The Byzantines were pushing up successfully against the Hungarians, and had advanced all the way to Venice, bordering papal lands, so perhaps that distracted his holiness ... who knows.
As it stands now, the Germans were eliminated and have reemerged in strength with good units, holding Swabia, Burgundy, Tyrolia, and Switzerland. The French are weak and willy nilly in Brittany, Anjou, Aquitaine, and Aragon. The British hold the isles excepting Ireland, Flanders and Normandy. The Sicilians and Italians have been eliminated, with the Papal States occupying the entire Italian peninsula (the Sicilians rememerged, but their huge armies are stuck, isolated on Malta). The Byzantines have pushed the Hungarians into Bavaria and Bohemia, while themselves beings pushed up into Hungary and Austria by the Egyptians.
Given this situation, I will avoid the East for now and focus my next extended offensive against the English. They have four barques in the water however, and though my longboats outnumber them, they are stretched to Spain facilitating trade, so I'll need to beef up my Navy first. I'll likely employ a 1-2 punch, hitting the fleet one turn, and then following up with a simultaneous over sea attack against Northumbria, Mercia, and Wessex the following year (all lightly garrisoned as most English forces are in Flanders, the choke point). My troops in Friesland can launch a diversionary attack on Flanders which should guarantee success in Wessex.
I anticipate that Scotland will revolt after my attack and will be easy to bribe (there are only a couple of units there anyway). This approach will allow me to pincer the remaining British forces between my invasion force and my main force on the mainland. As I now have Huscarles, Mounted Sergeants, and Feudal Sergeants to complement my Vikings, Archers and Royal Kniggits it should be easy to clobber the English and their Kniggits, Hobilars, Spearmen, Urban Militia, and Archers. Just have to cross my fingers and hope that my naval attack is successful. I'll also look for a way to get the British to break their alliance with me first, so as not to lose Influence.
Excommunications have no relation with an alliance with the Pope.
I've been excommunicated plenty of times when I myself was allied with the Pope.
Togakure
03-20-2005, 20:09
Yes me too, but I was surprised because the Pope was allied with the French, and I was pounding them turn after turn. When I first attacked, the Pope broke off his alliance with me and maintained his alliance with the French (who were very strong and whose king had a higher influence rating at the time). But he never gave me a warning to cease and desist within two years, etc. I thought for sure he'd nip my offensive in the bud after my initial attack because he was buddy buddy with the Frenchies.
The pope sends cease/desist only if you're bigger than the power you are attacking or if it has already given another warning for a previous attack.
bretwalda
03-20-2005, 20:18
Yes me too, but I was surprised because the Pope was allied with the French, and I was pounding them turn after turn. When I first attacked, the Pope broke off his alliance with me and maintained his alliance with the French (who were very strong and whose king had a higher influence rating at the time). But he never gave me a warning to cease and desist within two years, etc. I thought for sure he'd nip my offensive in the bud after my initial attack because he was buddy buddy with the Frenchies.
Isn't this because you already got your warning against the Polish? The Pope/the AI/the game cannot keep track more than one warning of excommunication...
Togakure
03-20-2005, 20:28
Oh really? Lol ... didn't know that. I'm a Shogun fanatic who plays MTW as a change of pace, so unlike with Shogun, I haven't discovered the little details of MTW yet. Now that I'm beginning to read in here and post a bit, I'm sure I learn a lot from y'all. Thanks for cluing me in. That little tidbit will definitely affect my campaign decisions.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.