Shooting Commanders

[The Darkhorn]

I'd like to see how everybody feels about this. Surely you are all familiar with the fine defensive formation, on a hill, back to the edge of the board, no exposed flanks. The AI mainly mills around as it's missile units try to outduel you (which is folly). You know the drill...shoot their pants off then charge with the cavalry and rout them. Now, not that I look a gift horse in the mouth, but (especially once you have arbs) it is just so easy to shoot down a general. He just waits and dies (maybe changing position a bit). I mean, sometimes, he'll lead an attack. Most of the time you just have all your arbs shoot at him for a bit and poof--he's crowmeat. Why won't he get back out of range when his unit shot to pieces? Sometimes I feel like he doesn't have a sporting chance. Am I a murderer?

[gaijinalways]

What level are you playing on? Generally on expert, the AI will move his general out of range, sometimes more quickly than I will!:oops:

As to missile duels, not always, though the AI will try to sweep up the hill you're on if they can.

[Ciaran]

I love those defensive hill battles, especially with gunpowder, since that´s one situation in which gunpowder units are of real use (bridge battles are the other), the height advantage gives the the necessary reach and their morale penalty sends the enemy to run. The good thing is, they´ll retreat, rally, charge again, lose a couple of men, rout, rally... an ideal situation if your goal isn´t to rout the enemy but to decimate his army.

[Alexios]

This kind of battle is the one I enjoy fighting the most. Whether I'm the attacker or the defender, I love it when the enemy comes to me and I have a fairly large hill to perch my spearwall and missile units on. In one such fight, I had my archers and arbs firing in such unison that there was a constant rain of arrows falling in on the enemy. Man, what a beautiful sight that was! :2thumbsup:

Anyway, to answer your question, I think you will find the Difficult and Expert levels of play completely different then that of Normal and the lower levels. I am currently playing on "Normal," and yeh, I've noticed the AI does some pretty stupid things with its general, like prancing him aimlessly back in forth while my arbs use him for target practice--or worse yet, leading him in a full-frontal charge into my spearmen right at the onset of battle. I don't recall seeing the AI do anything stupid like that while playing on the "Difficult" setting (which I've done only once, by the way).

[gaijinalways]

Kind of figured that, though sometimes even on expert the AI will do some pretty inane things. The general's unit tends to hang back, though with it sometimes being a jedi type, you might feel fortunate that it does!

I still like to take potshots at the general if I can, especially swarming him, though sometimes I can't spare the units and have to protect my own general:help: !

[Vladimir]

There is no cheese on Expert and no, the enemy general doesn't withdraw from missile range. Rarely does the General even withdraw from gunpowder range. Even if he does, he usually is so close that I can cause him to attack (usually into my spears). But yea, that's how I win my battles. If I see that the enemy general is down to one unit and attacking, I start to sweat :sweatdrop: , because I know he is going to withdraw before I can kill him.

Again, harping on about gunpowder: Gunpowder is best on offense. Just line 5 arbequsers in front of 5 spears/pikes, and walk in formation towards the enemy. Since he's defending, he'll usually stay put, the rest is simple. If he's on supperior terrain, send your army to his flank to get him to move to less favorable land. That and bring a few cannons along for terrain denial. I don't kill as many generals when attacking with guns but I get some really decent kills and can sometimes get him to rout.

[Ironside]

I stopped primarly targeting of the enemy's general in most cases (plays on expert). He usually dies anyway though.
I do an exception in a major battle were he got an 8-star though, especially if I got a weaker general.

[gaijinalways]

It varies, the being able to kill the general. Sometimes he is shy and doesn't come out to play until later in the battle. Also often I might get him to run away, but the AI troops will not give up and the general will come back later, sometimes as an ambush unit. Great fun though.

[Alexios]

Just line 5 arbequsers in front of 5 spears/pikes, and walk in formation towards the enemy. Since he's defending, he'll usually stay put... Depending on the size of the attacking force, I have found this to be NOT the case in the majority of my battles. Usually when I approach the AI to achieve a better terrain advantage, what inevitably ensues is an endless cat-and-mouse game of my army chasing his army all over the battlefield. This can be very frustrating, as it wastes away valuable time on the clock (which is needed in order for a ranged attack to succeed) and severely wears down my units (especially if they're marching around in the desert!). :wall:

Sometimes, if I have enough spear units and ranged units, I will split my army into two groups, and then approach the AI on BOTH flanks. But this can sometimes have dire consequences as well, as the AI seems to "choose" the weaker group, then attack it once the arrows/bullets start flying. I lost a huge battle like this once while fighting the Egyptians in a desert province.


That and bring a few cannons along for terrain denial. What exactly do you mean? Do you use them to prevent this kind of cat-and-mouse scenario? How do you keep the AI from overrunning your cannon positions without having to commit units to protect them?

[gaijinalways]

I find this to be common on expert, this cat and mouse running around. The AI wll try to tire you out, especially if you eventually have to run up hill, but also to not let you gain an ideal set up as the AI keeps shifting hills. Though the AI doesn't just run blindly, it rather tries to avoid the player being able to just bombard the AI, especially if the AI has few missile troops.

Also, using two groups, be careful that they are not too far apart, as the AI will often attack the weaker group as already noted. To avoid this, I find I use three groups sometimes, and I may use a smaller group as bait while flanking the AI group that attacks my tasty morsel:idea2: !

[Ciaran]

And that is precisely why the MTW AI is considered superior to the RTW AI - rightfully so. MTW is all about maneuvering the other side into an inferior position, I´ve seen battles with thousands of soldiers on both sides, resolved with only a few losses, entirely due to maneuvering.

[gaijinalways]

That's a pity if Rome has better graphics but if the engine doesn't allow for complex maneuvering, it's a pity.

I just returned from my European 'research' trip (my conclusion, expensive) and played some battles. One battel aganist the BYZ had me fielding some 600 plus men aganist about 1500 plus. My general was a 9, but I was still wondering if I was going to get my hat handed to me. I figured I'd give it a go as I didn't know thecomposition of his troops (figured it might be peasant stuffing) and I was hoping I had more missile troops. Started off he had some seige engines, which I find useless sometimes in a battle, and I used my cav to cut them down and take out some archers. Of course, for some reason he kept his general back with the seige equipment. I had 4 cav units down there, so the archers were dead meat.

The AI didn't rout everybody, though the general being captured did rout his other troops fighting me. I followed and they regrouped with some new troops coming on, another battle. Finally I decide to push him off, though of course I risk tiring my men as they have come all the way across the battle screen. Manage to have my cav save the day again, taking down countless units, even let my general cav unit in to go at some xbows that were annoying me.

Final count me- 347 dead, AI - 1300 plus. Not bad for a battle I was thinking of chickening out on, but since they were mercs, I thought, what the hell.

[Vladimir]

I like to bring 3 of my longest range artillery units to try to force the enemy to move off their defensive position. Terrain denial is where you force the opposing army to move to a (hopefully) less favorable position. I build my armies in such a way that the three units missing are not sorely missed on the attack. Then there are the times where the AI just sits there and takes the pounding, which is just fine with me.

I’ve never had a problem with the enemy running around and tiring my troops out. In less there is a steep incline I usually just march my army right up in front of them and fire away. I also don’t have the timer turned on because I like using missile troops and prefer to finesse my troops on the battlefield. Guns also tend to be much more effective against the Jinette menace.

[Ciaran]

Gaijin: Taking out the siege engines was something I´ve done initially a lot, too, they´re easy prey and mean a couple of units routed easily. However, in case of trebuchets, Mangronels and other not-rotateable siege engines I found it is better to leave them alone. Move out of their way and it means a liability for your opponent, since they can´t do anything and take up slots for units which could cause more damage to your troops. The engine crews will rout eventually anyways. Of course, it´s making use of the AI´s inability to field balanced armies (that´s something RTW, in my opinion at least, is better at, though it lacks in the use of those armies of the field).

[gaijinalways]

This is true, if the siege machine is not covering an area that I need to go through to attack the AI:help: . I usually find it's easier to take these guys down and stop them from playing havoc with my forces from a distance::wall: .

[Alexios]

However, in case of trebuchets, Mangronels and other not-rotateable siege engines I found it is better to leave them alone. Move out of their way and it means a liability for your opponent, since they can´t do anything and take up slots for units which could cause more damage to your troops... This is an absolutely brilliant observation! I have never considered this before! Usually when I am (or expecting to be) in a situation where the fighting will take place within range of the AI seige engines, I will almost always try to take them out first regardless of what type they are. Perhaps I should rethink this strategy? Thanks for the elightment, Ciaran. :bow:

[gaijinalways]

This last battle I actually followed your advice, but it was easy as the seige weapons were far from the main place of battle (I was defending). I had a nice kill rate of about 5 to 1, but unfortunately I had to autoresolve the next one (wife waiting to go to dinner), and then the pc crashed (ugh:furious3: ).

Oh well, don't you just love pcs:laugh4: !?

[gaijinalways]

Actually too, in that same battle, I targeted the general for a short while, but I needed the missile support to attack other units. Later I ended up surrounding the AI general (Ums at that) when they came into the fray. Sometimes I find these assaults just as effective, whether you earlier target the general or not.

[Alexios]

However, in case of trebuchets, Mangronels and other not-rotateable siege engines I found it is better to leave them alone. Move out of their way and it means a liability for your opponent, since they can´t do anything and take up slots for units which could cause more damage to your troops... I wish I would have used this strategy once in a battle I had against the Italians... or was it against the Papacy? Anyway, they brought 5 trebouchets with them into battle (yes, 5!). Fortunately, the battlefront quickly progressed to the point where my army overran their postions, which I then quickly destroyed their weapons and crewmen.

In hindsight, I probably should have left them there, as the front continued to progress on in behind them, and the AI had way more reinforcements to bring onto the field than I had. I ended up winning the battle, but it wasn't until I used the old trick of blocking their reinforcements at their entry-point by lining up a wall of spearmen and feudal sargeants (which I think some here at The Guild refer to as cheating ~D).

[gaijinalways]

I've tried that, blocking the entry point, but I have found the AI finds other spots to enter, and then tries to swamp my units that are too close to the 'borderline'!:dizzy2:

[Alexios]

I've tried that, blocking the entry point, but I have found the AI finds other spots to enter, and then tries to swamp my units that are too close to the 'borderline'!:dizzy2: Hmmm... interesting. What level of difficulty are you playing on? I had one situation where the AI reinforcements overwhelmed my blockade (which basically happened because my units were physically depleted from earlier fighting). But I don't think I have ever seen the AI reinforcements come in from a different position before.

[Geezer57]

Hmmm... interesting. What level of difficulty are you playing on? But I don't think I have ever seen the AI reinforcements come in from a different position before.
I almost always play on Expert level of difficulty, and I've often had the A.I. reinforcements enter at different points when their original entry area was blocked. I get the impression that, when one wave is stymied at some point by your army, a later wave of reinforcements will often appear elsewhere.

If you only play on lower difficulties, you can expect a more predictable A.I.

[Alexios]

I almost always play on Expert level of difficulty, and I've often had the A.I. reinforcements enter at different points when their original entry area was blocked. I get the impression that, when one wave is stymied at some point by your army, a later wave of reinforcements will often appear elsewhere.

If you only play on lower difficulties, you can expect a more predictable A.I. I've played on 'Normal' and on 'Hard' and the AI seems to always use the same entry-point. I have never played on 'Expert' and probably never will either, based on the way my 'Hard' campaigns have turned out.

[Geezer57]

At least that appears to explain the different behaviors seen in the game.

The reason for Expert-only is that I was a miniatures/board wargame player for years before starting with computer games, so many common concepts were already learned when I began playing M-TW. At first, I focused almost exclusively on the battlefield, playing many, many, historical and custom battles - soon graduating to Expert difficulty. But I'd never played a campaign until after discovering the two main forums dedicated to this game (this one and the .com), and I wondered about all the discussion and enthusiasm for the strategic aspects of the game. So I tried my first campaign on Hard, found the battles not challenging, and restarted at Expert - and I've been hooked ever since! :laugh4:

The computer's A.I. is far from what an experienced human opponent could offer, but is so much better that what's been available in the past. There's just no comparison! But I can readily see why, once you feel you've fully explored the single-player game, that multi-player offers an almost addictive step up in challenge. Too bad it's tactical battlefield play only - the thought of a multi-player campaign almost boggles the mind! :2thumbsup:

[gaijinalways]

Expert as well, I 'graduated' from the lower levels some time ago. I'd like to play on line, but my wife complains about my pc time enough as it is.

[macsen rufus]

I always play on expert now (first try was on easy, 2nd normal, then straight up to expert...) and find that I can usually get a good shot at the enemy general - he very often stands still just inside arrow/arbalest range, or charges my polearms in the woods - and also that the AI will change its reinforcement entry point if I block it off. I have had cases where my exhausted troops blocking off the enemy reinforcements get overwhelmed by the fresh enemy, especially where heavy armour or bad weather is involved. The problem is once you get to the far side of the map, it's hard to find a good time to withdraw the exhausted units and bring on your own reinforcements in good time.

[Geezer57]

I remember one battle, playing some Catholic (but not English) faction, where I'd defeated the A.I.'s initial forces and advanced my starting forces to the A.I. reinforcement map edge. After defeating several waves of reinforcements, my troops were all exhausted, heavily attrited, and in danger of being overwhelmed. Since it was taking forever for my own reinforcements to arrive, and my General's bodyguard was almost completely depleted, I opted to retreat to better terrain closer to my reinforcement edge.

Some of my troops, fortunately none of the "elite" I was trying to save, wouldn't disengage from the enemy, so I left them to their fate. Most of the remainder, especially my General, were able to head for friendlier ground, but enemy cavalry was quick to threaten vulnerable unit rears. So I sacrificed the remnant of a Halberdier unit, turning them around to halt the enemy cavalry, if even for only a few moments. They actually held for quite a while facing four enemy cav, allowing my other units to set up a nice defense at the top of a hill, accompanied by fresh missle reinforcements. When the Halbs finally broke and routed, they came back near to my new position, whereupon the salvos of my fresh missle troops decimated the enemy cav and caused them to abandon their pursuit. The Halb remnant even rallied, and came back to rest in my reserve.

When the A.I. infantry finally showed up, they met with rested troops in a strong position, supported by cavalry reinforcements and ample missle troops. The enemy army then broke quickly, and was chased off the map for a victory.

But it was a memorable lesson to me: against large armies with many reinforcements, don't overextend your troops by moving to the reinforcement edge, unless you've first destroyed most of the enemy by fighting in a superior position.

[The Darkhorn]

Good post Geezer. It also reminded me of something else I wanted to ask. On the matter of reinforcements...why do I always have to take my cavalry first? Yes, I understand they're on horseback and get there quicker, but as far as reality goes, why would a general only deploy 16 units anyway (that's a computer issue of course)? So, can't at least get my fresh archers now? That's silly. My archers run out of ammo, then I have to bring myriads of cavalry to get to my fresh archers. I have to either fight with the cavalry or withdraw them immediately to cycle to the units I need.......THEN I DON'T HAVE ALL THE CAVALRY TO RUN DOWN ROUTERS. I don't seem to remember cavalry automatically being the first reinforcements in vanilla.

[Martok]

Darkhorn, I thought you had VI (which allows you to organize your reinforcements). Was I incorrect in thinking this? :inquisitive:

[Geezer57]

On the matter of reinforcements...why do I always have to take my cavalry first?
<STUFF DELETED>
So, can't at least get my fresh archers now?
Thanks for the kudos, Darkhorn. F.Y.I., if you're playing M-TW+VI v2.00 or v2.01 (doesn't work in vanilla M-TW v1.00 or v1.1), you should be able to click on the "Reinforcements" button on the pre-battle screen. This will show your starting 16 units in the top box, and your first 16 reinforcements in the lower box. Scrolling the lower reinforcement box is possible by using the up/down arrows, if there are more units than will fit in the box given. You can then "pick up" units (with your mouse) from any of the starting 16 slots and drop them anywhere into the reinforcements slots - the first reinforcement (upper LH slot) will jump into the bottom RH slot of the starting 16. Alternatively, you can pickup a reinforcement from any slot, drop it down into the starting 16, which will cause the unit in that slot to pop up for placement in the reinforcement pool. I know this all sounds cumbersome - maybe I'm just not describing it well - but fiddle with it and it will become clear quickly.

[Ironside]

Darkhorn there's also a bug in 2.0 that causes cav to come first. Get 2.1 or start using heavy steppe cav (I used that ~D) to fix your problem.

[Alexios]

Thanks for the kudos, Darkhorn. F.Y.I., if you're playing M-TW+VI v2.00 or v2.01 (doesn't work in vanilla M-TW v1.00 or v1.1), you should be able to click on the "Reinforcements" button on the pre-battle screen. This will show your starting 16 units in the top box, and your first 16 reinforcements in the lower box. Scrolling the lower reinforcement box is possible by using the up/down arrows, if there are more units than will fit in the box given. You can then "pick up" units (with your mouse) from any of the starting 16 slots and drop them anywhere into the reinforcements slots - the first reinforcement (upper LH slot) will jump into the bottom RH slot of the starting 16. Alternatively, you can pickup a reinforcement from any slot, drop it down into the starting 16, which will cause the unit in that slot to pop up for placement in the reinforcement pool... Hey Geezer. But what happens if I change my mind about the order AFTER the battle has already begun? Am I pretty much stuck with it at that point? There have been situations where based on the events of the battle, I decided I didn’t want the next reinforcement unit in my pre-arranged order, but wanted to bring in one further down the stack. The only way I can think to do that is to keep pressing the reinforcement button followed by the withdraw command until I get to the one I want. In doing so, however, the withdrawn unit is no longer available to fight in the battle. Is there a better way to do this?

[Vladimir]

Hey Geezer. But what happens if I change my mind about the order AFTER the battle has already begun? Am I pretty much stuck with it at that point? There have been situations where based on the events of the battle, I decided I didn’t want the next reinforcement unit in my pre-arranged order, but wanted to bring in one further down the stack. The only way I can think to do that is to keep pressing the reinforcement button followed by the withdraw command until I get to the one I want. In doing so, however, the withdrawn unit is no longer available to fight in the battle. Is there a better way to do this?

In less you're a woman, then you have no excuse (just remember "yes dear" as women are always right ~:) ). Just play smart. Mix up your reinforcements. Generally missile troops first as they'll use up all their ammo, then cav as they'll get tired/atritted, then maybe some melee troops if it's a reeeeeealy long battle. Just play it smart and make sure you kill the general.

[Martok]

Hey Geezer. But what happens if I change my mind about the order AFTER the battle has already begun? Am I pretty much stuck with it at that point?
Yes, correct. Once you go the actual battle map, you can't go back and alter the order of your reinforcement units. So you still want have a general idea of which units you're most likely to need in any particular battle.

In defensive battles, for example, you often want your reserve missile units at the top of the reinforcement list to minimize the time between swapping in fresh archers for your tired ones that have run out of ammo. It's not a perfect system, but it's still makes life a lot easier when sending multiple stacks into battle!


There have been situations where based on the events of the battle, I decided I didn’t want the next reinforcement unit in my pre-arranged order, but wanted to bring in one further down the stack. The only way I can think to do that is to keep pressing the reinforcement button followed by the withdraw command until I get to the one I want. In doing so, however, the withdrawn unit is no longer available to fight in the battle. Is there a better way to do this?
Not really. Like I said in the above paragraph, you just have to learn which reinforcements you're most likely to bring in first, depending on the situation. Intelligent anticipation is as much a part of good generalship as anything else. ~:)

[Geezer57]

Martok and Vladimir have pretty much answered your question, Alexios. When I setup my reinforcements before battle, I like to try to forecast roughtly how the battle will go - but I still pretty much mix unit types, a couple of missle units, an infantry, a cav, then repeat the pattern again until I run out of "good" troops. The junk can wait until last, as most often, they never even appear in battle.

[Alexios]

Thanks for the answers guys. I kinda thought so.

I had a huge battle just the other night when I wished I could have changed the order midway through. I was defending Palestine against a huge Egyptian invasion that consisted mostly of heavy cav., Saracen Inf., and Bedouin Camels. Fortunately, I had a fairly large army myself, comprising mostly of Feudal Sergeants (FS), Spearmen, Arbs., Longbows (LB), and X-bows, with a few RKs and light cavs thrown in. I also had a very nice hill on my side of the battle map in which to position them on. This made it a perfect situation for being the defender! I figured the AI would hit my spearwall pretty aggressively early on, so I sequenced my reinforcements so that two spear units came on for every missile unit (ex: FS, FS, Arb / FS, FS, X-bow / etc., etc.)

What ended up happening was the AI didn’t really attack my spearwall all that much in the beginning - I was able to chase off most of their approaching units with heavy missile fire. So I found myself using up my ammo quite rapidly, and cycling out my Arbs, LBs and X-bows to bring on more as reinforcements. In order to do this, however, I had to turn away the FS and Spearmen.

But as luck would have it, the AI started hammering my spearwall halfway through the battle. I was sweating it out a bit, because I knew I hadn’t many FS or Spearmen left in reserve at that point. I ended up winning the battle after successfully nailing enough of the general’s Ghulam Bodyguards that they finally routed off the field with the rest of their army following shortly thereafter. Talk about close ones! :sweatdrop: But I guess this is part of what makes the game so much fun.

[macsen rufus]

The art of reinforcements lies very much in planning the battle from before you get there. I always find spears hold out quite well, and used to often end up with too many spears coming on from the reserve pool, so now I tend to either have 1 spear per 2 or 3 missile units, or prepare a completely new block of four spears together and change them all at once. The top row of reinforcements I prefer to have mounted missiles, as they get up to the front quickly, then after that I use a plan like Geezer - mix of troops to maintain tactical flexibility throughout.

Also you need to decide how the battle will be structured - is it possible to win with just your opening 16 units? Will the reinforcements just feed in extras to the opening army, or are you going to withdraw the first wave, and then replace it with a whole new 16 units? Checking the enemy reinforcements should help with this decision. If the enemy has less than three stacks, you should be able to win with your opening 16 alone. More than that and you will have to consider melee troop exhaustion as well as missiles running out of ammo. Four stacks per side - or more - tends to be a case where the battle should proceed by "waves" and you should set up each group of 16 units in the reinforcements as a balanced army in itself.

[gaijinalways]

The use of reinforcements can be an art in equally matched battles,　battles where you are attacking/defending aganist a larger number, or battles where you have some troops rout and then regroup.

That being said, I often am able to inflict a lot of damage with my original 16, but I still may have a few units rout, and if I am close enough to the reinforcing point, may send out some depleted/exhausted units. Using missile units is always useful, but so is getting some reinforcements that can reach your main group of troops. Sometimes I have had reinforcements get rocked and overwhelmed (too isolated) or manage to come in at an extremely opportune time (like my cav units taking over for exhausted mounted seargants who had chased HA all over).

[The Darkhorn]

I played vanilla first though. As to the last post, all that is true, but it still sends the cavalry in first although in the order that I arrange them.