Strategy and Tactics: How to Conduct a Battle

[Foz]

As the name suggests, this thread is intended to be a gathering ground for battlefield strategy and tactics, as they apply to M2TW. To some of you these things undoubtedly come quite easily, but others may not share that military genius. This is your chance to share that knowledge and experience.

I'd like the thread to stay about the game - real life is okay, provided it can be applied successfully to M2TW. With that in mind, some of the useful contributions I can think of include the following:

Military Doctrine - General rules and principles to use whenever commanding a battle.

Formations and Maneuvers - Includes discussion of how best to deploy your troops and maneuver them in the field.

Tactical Concepts - This is the heart of battle: how to utilize your units to efficiently and effectively defeat the enemy. "Hammer & Anvil" is one popular example of such a concept.

Effective Countering - Specific ways to avoid, nullify, or take advantage of a given enemy tactic. One possibility might address how to counter an enemy flanking maneuver.

I'm sure there are more I'm not thinking of, but you get the idea. So, without further ado, let the ideas roll.

[_Tristan_]

Very good idea...:bow:

Discussing different ways of responding to a same situation will be useful...

Moreover, while being a long-time player of the TW series, I know there is still some tricks somebody can teach me :bow:

I hope I'll be able to help on a few matters as well...

Read you soon...

[Random Hero]

I also think it would be a good idea to divide things into defensive and offensive tactics. Conducting an open field battle has a completely different set of unwritten rules/tactics when compared to a siege battle.

As well, it would be a good idea to discuss the fundamentals first, such as unit formation and which units types are best used in certain positions.

My battle-line is quite consistant, when possible I have my units in this formation:

---a--a--a--a---
c--s--s--s--s--c
c--r--r--r--r---c

--c/g-c/g-c/g--

a=archers
c=cav
s=swords/spears
r=reinforcement swords/spears
g=generals unit

I allow my archers to fire off a few volleys and then retreat back to the space alloted behind my reinforcements. From there organized chaos takes over and I slaughter my enemy. I have found this formation to work quite well for me in my english campaigns.

One unit which has proven quite valuable for me aside from the famous swordsmen/longbowmen has been billmen and its variants. Whenever a part of my line is crumbling I send in a unit of billmen and their high attack+charge bonus turn the tide of that battle within a battle in my favour. Bear in mind that this is in the early game as I have just started playing M2 and dont have to funds to support an all swords army. For the cost, I cant complain.

I'd really enjoy hearing some critiques on my formation and unit choice, feel free to chew it apart haha

[vonsch]

I think strategy falls above what happens in specific battles. ~;) Battles are events that carry forward (or try to) a strategy.

But, that said...

Defending is superior to attacking

While it's far better to attack than defend strategically, forcing the enemy to react, the opposite is mostly true tactically. It's usually better to defend on the battlefield. On defense you can more carefully arrange your forces for most efficient application of power. You can have them in their optimal state for dealing with the enemy. When moving you are more vulnerable usually (cavalry being the most notable exception). Another major advantage to defense is that you choose advantageous terrain and deny it to the enemy. Terrain is a major factor in combat success.

But since it's usually better to be attacking on the strategic level, you will often be the "attacker" on the battle field. But that doesn't mean you have to play as an attacker there. You can use the setup phase to pick a terrain feature to hold. Ideally you set up on it, but in some cases it's reachable (even at a run, it's usually worth it) before the enemy could, so you plan to get there first and set up. Then you wait for the enemy to come naturally to you (if the terrain situation encourages that) or you goad the enemy into chasing a unit into contact range.

Your general is a magnet. But using your general as bait can be dangerous, so it's better to use something less important. Skirmishers can work. Missile cavalry is even better as it can't be caught by much, if anything (bullets and arrows being the exceptions!) But that said, the general almost always can tempt the enemy into moving. Decapitation of command is a priority to both sides.

You cannot always goad the enemy into following. But you often can. And it's usually worth the exercise in saved lives on your side.

This was common practice in the Eastern battlegrounds, but the Western battle, where chivalry was seen as virtuous (instead of silly) frowned on it. The feigned retreat was a major tactic employed to pull enemies into more favorable situations (ambushes mostly). Get the enemy chasing a unit and you control where that enemy goes (as long as your unit doesn't rout!)


Disrupting formations

The nature of combat on the battlefield encourages the use of formations. One type of unit is vulnerable to another, rock-scissor-paper fashion, and ensuring the right matchups (or at least not the wrong ones) occur is key. Using formations keeps forces in positions to support each other once the meeting happens. Thus, as battlefield commander, a major aim is to see that the enemy's formation disintigrates before yours does.

Disrupting the enemy's formation creates opportunities to catch the enemy units in less-than-ideal facings and states (moving, versus accepting a charge with spears set, for example, or moving instead of in position to fire bows or crossbows). Flanking moves, at the grand tactical level, can force the enemy to turn his whole formation. This puts those units into movement, making them vulnerable, and can also gradually move the enemy off favorable terrain. You can force a complete withdraw at times simply by maneuvering to higher ground on a flank or in the enemy's rear, or threatening to. (Sun Tzu applied!)

Sending a unit to one or both flanks, ideally a fast unit, often forces a response from the enemy, even if that unit does not attack. If one or more units moves to intercept, the process of disrupting the enemy's formation has begun. If you can lead that unit into the path of other enemy units, you can further disrupt. If you move in the opposite direction with your main force, you can split the pursuing unit from support.

Another traditional method of disrupting formations is to overload one wing of your own formation to quickly crush that side. You need stout line-holders on the weaker side to maintain their postion long enough to allow the strong flank to both crush the other side and swing around into the now collapsed flank. If the left side is overloaded, when it turns in, it is hitting the enemy in their non-shield side. While this is not advantageous with the shield-bug (or the current fixes implemented), it should be with the 1.2 patch once again. In any case, there is a morale advantage to hitting a unit in either flank or rear, and more so if it's already engaged.

Or you can do the same by piercing the center of the line, a case for a powerful charge in the center to smash through and make the center a flanking move in one or both "outward" directions. This is the role of heavy cavalry and its wedge formation. Hit the center hard, don't stop but ride through all the way to the rear, then return with a formed rear charge to destroy the center when the line forces are engaged. It takes significant superiority of cavalry force, or adroit baiting to tempt the enemy's heavy cavalry out of range of counterattack on the charging heavy cavalry. If your heavy cav is engaged behind the line, they are both cut off, and cannot complete the center crushing (unless the initial charge managed that!) with the return charge from behind. A wedge charge may (haven't tested the results numbers) result in fewer kills on impact than a formed charge, but a wedge will penetrate the line better and is easier to drive on through the melee that results from a formed-line charge. What you want is to create a hole in the unit and line that can be exploited to disrupt the formation and create morale effects positive to you. The return charge, if all goes as planned, will be crushing.

If your force has significant numbers of mounted missile troops, disruption is much easier. Move them into positions in loose formation around the enemy flanks and in front, but out of missile range (behind too, if feasible in the time you have). Leave them on skirmish. Then set them all to run to a point opposite themselves on the other side of the enemy's center of gravity and send them in at a run. Sit back and watch the fun, or start moving your own line into charge range, depending on your force composition.

The mounted missile units (horse archers are best for this, more ammo an better range, but javcav works too) will run into skirmish range, skirmish back, and repeat. Meanwhile the enemy will be trying to face or pursue them, the enemy missile units and skirmishers will be skirmishing back into the center (and causing problems with other unit formations), and the enemy's cav will be pulled out to chase the mounted missile units leaving the line vulnerable to a real charge.

Before you charge, clear a path for your charging units, pull those mounted missile units out of the line of charge, or they will disrupt your charges. Also keep an eye on the HA/JC to ensure they don't run out of ammo. But the latter is no issue if you don't give them new commands that might result in switching off skirmish mode and forcing a charge while they are in loose formation. (Bad shock, think you're telling a unit to charge AT an enemy while shooting in loose formation, and instead, since it's out of ammo, have it charge piecemeal into a unit with superior melee or charge-taking abilities! Buhbye unit!)

All of the above disruption tactics work best against enemy units that are impetuous, of course. The truly less disciplined units will react less. But they too can often be disrupted.

[Quickening]

Excellent idea Foz. I have nothing but the most obvious tactics to contribute unfortunately however. I do wonder what difference it makes what formations you have your men in.

[Odin]

Military Doctrine - General rules and principles to use whenever commanding a battle.

Generally the most imprtant concept of the doctrine is to understand the capabilities of your force structure. If your fielding peasants and horse archers a frontal assault isnt the best idea.

Doctrine is determined by your forces, even taking into consideration shortcomings of the AI there are some things you just cant do and win. In addition to forces doctrine in the field is also determined by the contours of the land. A defended bridge is a death trap for footsoldiers.

So as a General Rule:

1. Understand what your units can do and what they cant, Longbows make poor melee troops. Its nice when you can get a lot of milage out of units Byzantine Infantry for instance, does a lot they melee well and have missle capabilities but you dont use them to chase routers. So understand what your units can do and do well, and make sure they are in a position to do it.

2. Understand the land: Dont send heavy horse units into the forest to fight swordsmen, and dont charge spearmen of pikes. Is that obvious? Sure but there are exceptions to a lot of rules. A unit charging down hill is more effective then one charging up hill. An archer on a hill has more range then one in a valley.

3. Sacrafice is part of war: This principle is somewhat simplistic but you must remember that walking off the field with no casualties is highly unlikely. Unless you have overwhelmed the enemy and have superior ranged units you will have to engage the enemy at some point. the principle here is what unit can you afford to loose now? and which can you not afford to loose? While you will most likely win the battle due to your tactics against the AI, be prepared for the worst and consider that when committing men.

4. Routing: If one unit routes most likely a unit near it will be close to routing, this has a potential domino effect on lower end militias if you are not careful. If your line is being assaulted and you see a unit is wavering thats where you send your reenforcements (if you have them). Routing units can kill a line and expose the units you were protecting with that line.

5. Generals unit feint: This is the most poweful unit on the field, dont be afraid to use him, in MTW2 its rare that these guys go down to lower level troops. If you see a stray archer unit away from its line charge it with the general unit. This not only removes this archer unit but will cause a reaction to the AIs troops. They will refocus on the general, and this is a very good way to feint in and out and draw melee units out into the range of your archers.


Well thats my contribution.

[pike master]

this is good advice from a famous general

"use a well thought out and circumspect defense followed by an audacious attack"

of course most basic medieval formations have a skirmishing screen, center mass of infantry and cavalry on the flanks.

a wise general will develop some concept of reserves as well.

of course this strategy is perfect for a game like medieval/viking invasion but is somewhat contradictory in some battles in medieval 2 in which you might find yourself.

[Razor1952]

"Formations and Maneuvers - Includes discussion of how best to deploy your troops and maneuver them in the field."

Some good posts. My comment relates to dealing with a computer opponent.

In short use grouping and guard mode to maintain battle lines.

One of the big advantages the AI has over the human is being able to manage every unit at the same time, so when things get ugly and messed up most players find it hard to micromanage 20 units at a time.

Keeping your battle lines intact is a fundamental of warfare, but even more so when facing a computer opponent(AI). When things are going to be close, guard mode keeps your troops from chasing and leaving their fellows flanks unguarded.

[HoreTore]

Since nobody else have stated the obvious, I will! :laugh4:

The hammer and the anvil:

This is the most basic military tactic of all time, and to my knowledge has been used for all time. It will probably the first you learn if you join the army. While it is very basic, it can be expanded and fitted to almost any situation. If you have seen the Band of Brothers series, a very good example of the tactic comes in the 3. or 4. episode(the attack on the mortars).

The basic idea is to pin the enemy in place(anvil), allowing you to outmaneuver them and hit them from another direction(hammer). The easiest way to do this in MTW, is to charge the enemy with infantry, and then smack them from the flank/back with cavalry. But it can be done in a lot of ways, with most army compositions. If you have an infantry army, you can for example put all your killer infantry on one side. They will kill their targets, and then they are free to charge the enemies tied up with your weaker infanry.

The important thing with this tactic, is that you first have to take away their mobility. Archers come in handy here. They can kill your enemies mobile units, which will allow you to outmanouver them easily.

The refused flank:

This is a variation of the tactic above, really. What you do, is put all your good units on one flank, while leaving the dirt units on the other. This will allow the good flank to kill the enemies on their side, and swing back to kill the ones tied up with your dirt units. It has limited use in the late game however, as your forces are usually all-elite. But it's useful in the early game, when you have to make do with what you've got.

The pincer movement, or double envelopment:

This is another good, well-known tactic. The basic is to lure the enemy forward, then manouvering your (preferably fast) troops around their flanks while retreating your center. Then you smack them on both flanks simultaneously, and turn the center around to charge. You may want to keep a unit or two on the flanks in reserve, to counter any reinforcements. Your flankers will probably be a lot smaller than the enemy, so they are vulnerable to enemy reinforcements until your center has returned to the fight. Archers, mounted or otherwise, will be good here, as they can shoot down anyone attempting to do that.

The blitzkrieg:

This one is best in the late game, after gunpowder. The basic is to fire a huge volley into the enemy, then IMMEDIATELY attack. You'll want moralekillers(like musketeers and ribaults) as the shooters, and heavy cavalry as the hitters. Deploy your missile troops in the first line, cavalry in the second, and any infantry in the third. Advance so close to the enemy that your charge wont take a lot of time, but so far away that the enemy wont attack. Fire a couple of volleys, and then send in the cavalry. The cavalry should run through your missile troops just as they finished their volley. The enemy morale will be very weakened, and will rout quickly. Send in any infantry right after the cavalry to basically mop up.

The human wave:

The name explains almost everything. I use it when I'm faced with overwhelming missiles troops coupled with heavy infantry, while having little cavalry myself. Arrange your forces into waves, 3 or 4 usually. Then, charge! Cavalry should of course go in the first wave. The first wave will test the enemy, the second will create gaps, the third and fourth will exploit those gaps.

The penetration:

No, you filthy minded people, this is a tactic. It is most useful when you have a small, but elite army facing overwhelming force. Deploy your army with a short battle line. Find a weak spot in the enemy army(or create one with archers), and attack it. Don't get bogged down, continue moving through the enemy line. Once you are through, turn and attack again, this time in the backs of the enemy, or into a disorganized line. Rinse, repeat. The key is to attack them when they are disorganized.

[pike master]

[The penetration:

No, you filthy minded people, this is a tactic. It is most useful when you have a small, but elite army facing overwhelming force. Deploy your army with a short battle line. Find a weak spot in the enemy army(or create one with archers), and attack it. Don't get bogged down, continue moving through the enemy line. Once you are through, turn and attack again, this time in the backs of the enemy, or into a disorganized line. Rinse, repeat. The key is to attack them when they are disorganized]

additionally when pushing through a gap in the line one can use two good defensive units to hold the breach open while you funnel through rapid attack forces. you then take most of those exploitation units and take out one side of the devided army then bring all to bear against the remanining half.

this is also called devide and conquer. a common tactic used by napoleon.

[Katana]

The refused flank:

This is a variation of the tactic above, really. What you do, is put all your good units on one flank, while leaving the dirt units on the other. This will allow the good flank to kill the enemies on their side, and swing back to kill the ones tied up with your dirt units. It has limited use in the late game however, as your forces are usually all-elite. But it's useful in the early game, when you have to make do with what you've got.


pardon me, but i believe you are incorrect. at least, if you are if you are referring to a tactic i usually call "denying a flank," so apologies if you are not. i usually think of what you described above as overloading a flank or using an unbalance line, but terminology is somewhat superficial.

anyways, denying a flank. denying a flank is usually employed when you are outnumbered, or when you are concerned that the enemy will attack a particular side of your battle line. the basic idea is that you form your normal line, only at the end of whatever side you are concerned about, you turn the last unit (or more, if you want, but that can be risky) 90° to the rest of your line, so they are effectively already oriented to recieve a attack on the flank. of course, you can do this on both ends and make a horseshoe-shaped line if you wish, but keep in mind your line will cover less space.

the most commonly used units to deny flanks are those which are able to fight cavalry well, since cav is most commonly used to attack flanks.

i find that it's useful to deny a flank (or both flanks) to create a pocket out of which my archers can fire safely. this is a bit like offensive linemen in american football. i also use it when my battle line is heavily outnumbered, and troop quality considerations will not allow me to streach my line out to at least match the length of my enemy's.

denying a flank was enormously useful when commanding a outnumbered battle line of phalanx spearmen, which sometimes happened in rtw. though i haven't played m2tw, i imagine it would be useful with a line of spearmen pikemen, or any line with either on the flank. of course, it can get a little hairy if you don't have spears or pikes, but swords may be able to effectively deny a flank, though their ability to do so depends heavily upon the makeup of the flanking force.

denying a flank will not protect from attacks that come from the rear, of course. if the enemy manages to manouvre around to the rear of your line, you may be forced to use...

double envelopment

double envelopment (at least as i understand it; feel free to correct me if i'm wrong) is a somewhat risky strategy to employ. the basic concept is to invite the enemy to flank your battle line (which is in this case used as bait), and then hit his engaged flanking units with your reserves. this seems counter intuitive, and it almost always results in heavy casualties for the flanked force. if you are willing to accept this however, double envelopment can be a useful tool, especially if the enemy uses valuable troops for the initial flanking.

deciding troop deployment with double envelopment is tricky. if the battle line / bait is pressured from two directions, it will likely rout - unless you commit fairly valuable infantry to that role. even then, they are likely to take heavy casualties. the general idea, as with most risky roles in battle, is to use the lowest value troops who can get the job done. in any case, if double envelopment is to be effective, your bait must be able to hold long enough for the outflankers / double envelopers (aka your reinforcements, aka the good guys) to slaugter or rout the flankers, who will likely be among the best troops the enemy commands.

double envelopment is always a gamble, since you are effectively wagering that your bait is worth less than the troops the enemy will use to flank your bait, or that you can afford to have your bait flanked from the rear. this is important to remember when considering whether to try to use it.


i'm not exactley a total war guru, so if anyone has anything to add (or any constructive critisism to make!) i am entirely open to that.

cheers!

[pike master]

refusing a flank is usually a defensive term. while attacking with economy of force in the oblique order is a whole different thing.

refusing the flank is a tactic used to keep an enemy from making his way around your flanks without weakening his middle to a center thrust. it could also be called denying the flank.

the attack in oblique order economizes your best troops into the combined arms spearhead of which its left or right flank is held and advanced in echelon so as to delay its engagement until the battle with your strongest forces is well underway and hopefully succeeding.

examples of the oblique order are the battle of leuctra, isis, guagemela

[kawligia]

Hello all. I am just coming back to the game now that I hear the overdue patch is coming out soon...

Anyway, I remember having some trouble executing some of the manuevers mentioned here.

Double envelopment was very difficult because there is no option to "fall back". All you can do is turn around and try to run the other way for a while. Also if you deploy in a "u" shape to start, the AI likes to scatter its units like a bunch of coackroaches and turns the battle into a total clusterf***. If you deploy in an "n" shape or just a plain "-" line, the AI will keep its forces together, but by the time you bring the other ones around, one side's units are already dead/routing.

One person mentioned punching a hole in the line and pushing through it. I was never able to do this because when one man in a unit gets in combat, the whole unit gets stupified. Very hard to get them to move past enemies unless there is a LOT of space which there usually isn't.

Flanking itself is somewhat tough because you have to move your forces in such a wide arc to avoid the stupification, that by the time they are in position, one side is already dead/routing.

The Denying a Flank thing never really seems necessary. The AI doesn't flank that much unless you are REALLY outnumbered and they just can't fit all their men into the melee "blob". Also, unless you are sporting pikes, the formed cavalry charge will annihilate your front anyway.

Really the only one I can get to work is to put a lot of strength on one side and make that side rout quickly. When your unit is chasing a routing unit, they don't go stupid when they get close to another enemy unit. That means you can let them push themselves (by chasing routers) past the line and then call them back to attack from the rear....but again, by the time the first unit routs, the rest are only seconds away anyway..especially since all my infantry is usually of near equal quality.

So usually what I wind up doing is just amassing huge numbers of good infantry and then its "Release the BLOB!" LOL I wish I had some of those RTW berzerkers so I could just line them up and press the "freak out" button :P GO GET 'EM! LOL

I know that realisticly these strategies are quite sound...I just can't seem to get my dudes to cooperate. If anyone has any tips on convincing the units to actually do what I want them to do, it would be worth your weight in Florins. :)

[sapi]

Good idea Foz :yes:

[Didz]

My basic battlefield strategy is as follows:

Missile troops are there to inflict the casualties and make up close to a third of my army. Mercenary Crossbowmen are the mainstay of this force unless and until I can get something better to replace them.

The rest of my army are there to protect these missile troops or expliot their success.

Spearmen/Heavy Infantry make up the largest part of my army, usually around 50%. There role is to stand in a two deep battleline and act as a mobile castle wall behind which my missile troops can withdraw if the enemy attacks. They always fight on 'Hold Formation' and only advance once my missile units have fired all their missiles. Then they simply walk over the opposition I literally just move the battleline forward to a position on the other side of the surviving enemy.

Heavy Cavarly/Generals Bodyguard. These stay at the rear of my army out of the way. They occassionally counter-charge if it looks like enemy cavalry might breach my batteline and sometimes attack the flanks of the enemy engaged with my infantry to help finish a battle early. However, their main job is to ride down and massacre the enemy infantry after they have been broken and are running for the line.

This approach seems to work against most armies and where it doesn't, such as in the case of the Mongol Horde then I use sally battles to wear them down until it does.

Use of Terrain
Again pretty simple, grab the highest ground you can find and hold it. If the enemy gets to it first then work your army round until you can either get above them or tempt them down off it. If you can't do that then approach them up the shallowest part of the slope and keep your missile units as far forward as possible. One advantage of an enemy deployed on a forward slope is that their ranks are steeped towards you, that seems to result in a much higher hit percentage for overshot missiles, when firing down a slope remember to try and have your missile in the front of the formation for as long as possible as overhead fire is even less effective than usual against an enemy on ground that slopes away from you as the troops in front tend to mask those behind.

[HoreTore]

Well... Seems like different things have the same name. Anyway, the "refused flank" tactic I was thinking of, is the one I described. Haven't seen the other variations before, to be honest. And it is offensive, not defensive, like all the others I wrote about.

[econ21]

A few obvious points on the use of missiles:

Target selection with your missiles is an important issue, particularly when you are the attacker (when defending, I find the AI rushes me so my missiles have only limited time to do their job).

When I have superior firepower, I would prioritise enemy missiles[1], aiming to break them and leave me free to kill off the AI at range without loss. However, you may hit diminishing returns, as the AI goes into loose formation and loses men. I often alternate targets to try to overcome that.

[1]Except siege engines - they seem very bad targets for missile fire: it is very hard to kill off the crew and they seem able to fire with extremely depleted numbers.

Beyond that, I will target the main enemy threats. In the early game, that is either elite foot (e.g. dismounted knights) or mounted knights. Often judicious use of missiles can declaw an enemy army in the field.

Flaming arrows seem quite effective in dealing with pavisse crossbowmen and perhaps armoured troops. The morale effect is particularly useful when the purpose of your volleys is to soften up the defence. The main downside seems to be slower rate of fire, so I would tend to use them against melee troops rather than missiles.

When attacking in a siege, it is rather hard to use archers - intervening walls or streets usually make firing a waste of time. They may be useful against enemies hunkering down in the town square, especially if you can get them to turn their backs to you.

[Wodeson]

If you have Cavalry Superiority then the Linear Formation is appropriate:

.Cv.Cv.Cv. .Ms.Ms. .Inf.Inf.Inf.Inf. .Ms.Ms. .Cv.Cv.Cv.

Cv = Cavalry
Inf = Infantry
Ms = Missile Troops

In this scenario your Cavalry charge forward immediately to rout their opposite numbers, while your Infantry slowly advances to pin the enemy centre. Missile Troops are then free to move to your enemy's flanks and open fire, while your Cavalry moves to your enemy's rear surrounding them.

When facing Enemy Cavalry Superiority a Refused Flank Formation can work:

.Cv.Cv.Cv.
. . .Ms. . . . . .Inf.Inf.Inf.Inf.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .MsC.MsC.MsC.

MsC = Missile Troops in Cover (such as in Woods, behind Stakes, or on top of cliffs.)

This Scenario plays out as before except that you attack on only one flank rather than both, and delay the enemy on the opposite flank.

[Theodoret]

double envelopment (at least as i understand it; feel free to correct me if i'm wrong) is a somewhat risky strategy to employ. the basic concept is to invite the enemy to flank your battle line (which is in this case used as bait), and then hit his engaged flanking units with your reserves. this seems counter intuitive, and it almost always results in heavy casualties for the flanked force. if you are willing to accept this however, double envelopment can be a useful tool, especially if the enemy uses valuable troops for the initial flanking.

Somewhat different to the double envelopment tactic that Hannibal is said to have used (and which I find rather effective).

To perform the Hannibal double-envelopment manouvre, you set up a convex line of holding troops in your centre (Spearmen are best), and place some elites on either flank.

Place plenty of cavalry behind and to the sides of your main line - you want the enemy to ignore these if possible.

The plan is that the enemy will engage and attempt to break through your comparatively weak centre. As they engage the weak centre it is pushed back (hence the convex line deployment). You send your elites, which you have positioned on the extreme flanks, to wrap around and flank the enemy (the first envelopment). As this is happening you sweep your cavalry around the flanks and engage the enemy line from the rear (the second envelopment).

The enemy is now surrounded, will probably rout, and their escape route is closed.

This is not a low risk tactic. Hasdrubal tried to double envelop Scipio during the Iberian campaign, and Scipio managed to smash right through his centre and defeat his army. Nevertheless, it allows an army with weak infantry to engage an army with strong infantry and win big.

[adembroski]

Both refusing the flank theories are wrong... the misconception is tied to the common descriptions of the Battle of Leuctra, in which Epaminondas both overloaded his left flank and refused his right flank...

Refusing the flank is curving your line by marching one flank ahead of the other so that your opponant must break their own line if they want to reach your back flank.

I use this tactic a lot in RTW when I use the Greek Cities, but lining with my Spartans to the left, 2-3 units deep, while using a thin 1-unit line the rest of the way down, and refusing my right flank, permitting my spartans to cut the opposing right flank to ribbons, since no army can match elites with mine when I have Sparta.


Top is traditional hoplite tactics, bottom is an illustration of Epaminondas' tactics at the battle of Leuctra... note the overloaded right flank and the refused right flank. Highlighted in red are either side's elite troops.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Leuctra.png

At any rate, in M2TW, Hammer and Anvil is by far my most common tactic.

I place my elite infantry at the center to create a bow... I want them to curve in on me, giving my cavalry easy targets from outside the flanks. Prior to first contact, I pepper the center of my opponents line with archers to weaken those units.

Often my interior troops will collapse the center and split the line, creating a two front battle... this in-essence rotates the battle lines outward, exposing the rear of my opponent to my heavy cavalry.

I go into most battles with relatively equal numbers of infantry, missile, and cavalry... though generally speaking, less cavalry will do, I use much of my cavalry as cavalry controllers... in the diagram below the further forward cavalry are in a position to screen opposing cavalry in order to allow rear cavalry to hit the enemy line from behind.

If I am unable to collapse the middle of the line, I will simply bow my flanks by retreating... this is risky, as retreating units take heavy casualties and have a nasty tenency to run, but either way, this exposes the opponents flanks to my cavalry... if I break the line, I win the battle.


* * * * *

S S E S S
C A A A A A C
C G C

* * *
* S E S *
C S A A A S C
A A
C G C

*
C-->* E *<----C
C->* S S *<-- C
S A A A S
A G A



*- enemy line
S- spears
E- Elite infantry
A- archer
C- cavalry
G- General

[pike master]

sorry but there was more involved to the battle of leuctra than what is described in the above diagram. also if they fought exactly as you show then the thebans would have been wrapped by the opposing spartan elite.

the composition of the entire spartan army is somewhat in question as it is known that the spartan elite never number more than 5000 at its highest number.but at leuctra the spartan army numbered 11,000 with a weak cavalry contingent. so we must assume that the right contained the elite units while further left you went you would have encountered the helot and slave hoplites.

now the thebans numbered only 6,000 but they had superior cavalry a factor i will describe later. also included was the 300 strong sacred band [a tactically flexible force that could move rapidly much like the foot companions of alexander]

now the spartan elite positioned on the right were the finest hoplites in all of greece and they were opposed by the more numerous elite hoplites of the thebans, however the theban hoplites by themselves even in a deeper phalanx were no match for the spartans. there deeper formation would by time against the spartans.the sacred band were positioned to the left of the theban hoplite column while the thinner hoplite formations were postioned to the right facing the weaker helot hoplites of the spartan center and left.

the battle opens up and the thebans advance in oblique order as stated above. firstly a cav melee ensues on the theban right in which the spartans are bested and their horse driven from the field. the strongest hoplite formations clash and are deadlocked in battle.

now the sacred band rushes up the left side of the theban hoplite column and hooks the spartan hoplites in flank and sometime close to this the theban cavalry slams into the rear of the elite spartan formation causing the breakdown of the spartan phalanx. which is said to have routed.

now the weaker spartan formations observing the destruction of their elite spartan hoplites paniced and were more easily routed from the field.

by itself i would tend to believe the deeper theban column was only used to hold from breaking against the spartans and buy time for the sacred band and theban cavalry to hit the spartans in flank and rear.

[Doug-Thompson]

The primary target is not enemy units. It's enemy morale. Once you've got them panicked, killing them all is easy.

[HoreTore]

Both refusing the flank theories are wrong... the misconception is tied to the common descriptions of the Battle of Leuctra, in which Epaminondas both overloaded his left flank and refused his right flank...

Uhm.....As I wasn't referring to any actual tactic, but describing a tactic I use in this game, how on earth can I be "wrong"...?

Only possibility I can see for being wrong, would be if the tactic didn't work....which it does. Remember, this thread is about M2TW tactics, not historical tactics and battles.

[adembroski]

Uhm.....As I wasn't referring to any actual tactic, but describing a tactic I use in this game, how on earth can I be "wrong"...?

Only possibility I can see for being wrong, would be if the tactic didn't work....which it does. Remember, this thread is about M2TW tactics, not historical tactics and battles.

Okay, fine, the person who responded to you was the primary target of my post... that said, why would you publicly use a term for a specific tactic under a different name? Seems like you are likely to confuse people that way, or at least give them misconceptions when they're watching the History Channel:P

[Wodeson]

Defensive English Longbow deployment:

.BmCvIT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BmCvIT.
. . . . . .LbS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .LbS.
. . . . . . . . .LbS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .LbS.
. . . . . . . . . . . .LbS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .LbS.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .LbS. . . . . . . . . . . . .LbS.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .DsK.DsK.DsK.DsK.

BmCvIT = Billmen in Woods/Cavalry in Open, or Impassable Terrain.
LbS = Longbows behind Stakes.
DsK = Dismounted Knights.

One tactic that works well in M2TW is 'enfilading' or flanking fire. Essentially all missile troops do much more damage to the enemy by firing along their line than by firing from directly infront of them. This is especially true when firing into an enemy's unshielded side.

By sweeping the Longbows forward into a shallow V-shape, enemies advancing against you are exposed to lots of flanking crossfire regardless of whether they target your centre or wings. (With some exceptions playing on Huge Unit Scales, where the Longbows lack the range to cover each other completely.)

However for this formation to work ideally both your flanks must be anchored. Farmhouses, City Walls, Rivers or Cliffs can be used to this effect for a strong anchor. Failing that, rough terrain troops such as Billmen can provide a similar effect inside woods. Failing that Cavalry can be used to defend the flank as best they can in good going.

Failing that, you must rely on the M2TW AI to ignore your flanks and charge your centre. (Which it may do.)

[Odin]

The Clog: This is a strategy I have employed in other TW games. The primary requirement is ample florins as you will need to be able to purchase, maintain and retrain units. The Clog uses the theory that there are in fact expendable troops in the total war environment. From peasants to militias, every faction has a low end melee unit which can be produce with minimal investment in buildings and florins.

The Clog is a variation of the Hammer and Anvil in one crucial sense, the primary goal of the clog is to whittle down enemy troops before the hammer drops. To do this you need a secondary unit and that is a HA unit. Most factions have some form of Horse Archer and some are very cheap to produce. Their mobility is key in the clog strategy solely because you must be able to pursue, surround and hunt down routers.

A simple formation for the Clog is as follows: Wave 1 (X= low level infantry, V HA unit)


------------------------ V---X X X X---V------------------------------

----------------------V-------------------V---------------------------


Wave 2:

-------------------------V---X X X X---V-------------------------------

-----------------------V------------------V-----------------------------


Wave 3: the hammer (H= elite melee unit available, HC= Heavy Cavalry, GU= Generals unit)


---------------------------H H H H-------------------------------------
-----------------------HC-----------HC
-----------------------------GU----------------------------------------


Wave 1-2 are simple the low level melee unit attacks an advanced archer or section of the infantry line with weaker infantry units and "Clogs" that section. The HA unit in 2-4 groups moves to available positions around the clogged units and opens fire targeting 1 enemy unit. The theory is that the clogged low level infantry with immense fire power will cause major losses on the clogged section of the enemy line, rinse repeat down the line.

Eventually your low level infantry will break and rout, and 9 times out of 10 the enemy will chase allowing more damage from HA units. In addition to this, wave 2 has the opportunity to now engage as their friendly units rout past them, and reclog the unit that is chasing. Subsequently wave 2 melee units break and the same effect occurs, with the noted exception that now Wave 3 invokes the hammer and anvil tactic.

Wave 3 engages an enemy unit that has been riddled with arrows, suffered losses from melee, and has some degree of exhaustion, wave 3 execution is much easier and the enemy unit will rout faster due to the reasons listed above. This is when the HA units immediately chase down routers from the enemy unit.

While this isn’t pretty it’s an effective tactic when you have a faction whose strength lies in horse units (Hungary, Turks, Egypt and to a lesser degree Russia due to their superb dvor unit). This strategy requires florins as you will loose a lot of low level infantry and need to replace them. It requires a capable commander as well, so the initial waves don’t instantly break.

On the positive side this strategy keeps your best units away from combat until the end of the cycle where the enemy has already engaged thus increasing your chances for faster routing of the enemy and minimizing losses to your elite troops. This strategy worked well for me in MTW and I have had some degree of success with it in MTW2 (LTC mod).

I’d love to have a discussion on the merits of this strategy and ways it can be improved or tweaked within the confines of the tactics. I understand it’s not for everyone and is counter intuitive to cost effective armies and wasting troops, but it’s worked for me in the past when I have had the florins to pull it off. This is a strategy I use soely for TW, it isn’t a military strategy I read in history and is simply based on my preferred style of play with horse archers and an effort to minimize losses to blue chip units.

[HoreTore]

Okay, fine, the person who responded to you was the primary target of my post... that said, why would you publicly use a term for a specific tactic under a different name? Seems like you are likely to confuse people that way, or at least give them misconceptions when they're watching the History Channel:P

Well, basically because that was the name given for a tactic for another game I read, and I've used it in this game.

And I'm no good at naming things...

[Rhyfelwyr]

This was a guide I made under my old name here, Woad Warrior (still known as that to the MA team). Its for RTW, but same basic idea:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=63532

[pike master]

[History Channel:P]

if you want to be confused about military tactics all you have to do is watch this channel for a while. its guaranteed!

[Didz]

[History Channel:P]

if you want to be confused about military tactics all you have to do is watch this channel for a while. its guaranteed!
Yep! especially if the presenter or the historians doing the narrating have American accents.

[_Tristan_]

Forget the History Channel...

To get acquainted with military tactics, one useful read is the Osprey line of books...

While being beautifully illustrated (Angus McBride for most of them, enough is said), those books give insight on troop types and army evolution, battle reports, description of castles and citadels...

Look here :

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/


And some free articles about the period :

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/content4.php/cid=65

[pike master]

buh! but!

americans are more intelligent than other people. we can see things from outside the box looking in. we arent embroiled in the old european rivalries.

all we have to mislead anyone about is the american indian wars. 8(

[Foz]

Yep! especially if the presenter or the historians doing the narrating have American accents.


buh! but!

americans are more intelligent than other people. we can see things from outside the box looking in. we arent embroiled in the old european rivalries.

all we have to mislead anyone about is the american indian wars. 8(

Keep it on topic please. Due to how historically involved this topic is, it's always close to degenerating into historical debate and off-topic commentary... and I really don't want to see that happen. The history channel, American presenters, and The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything can be discussed in other threads.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Answer_to_Life.png/180px-Answer_to_Life.png

[Foz]

A lot of discussion has gone into the hammer and anvil tactic and how it can be used to pin troops down to receive cavalry charges from the flank. This tactic doesn't have to be limited to cavalry, though. In fact it works more similarly than one would think with archers taking the place of cavalry. You needn't charge the archers into the enemy flank - just trot them out until they're even with the enemy flank unit(s), and watch the enfilade fire tear the enemy to shreds. It's very effective, even if not quite so much as a cavalry charge. Once the enemy is routing, you can of course turn the flank just like you would if you had charged the end unit with cavalry. I find it's always helpful to have some archers at the outside of the formation for this reason - though make sure they're not the only unit forming the end of your line, you'll want a cav stopper (usually spears) too to protect the archers from getting bowled over if the enemy flanks you.

I also note there has been very little discussion of assault tactics. One that I've found particularly useful is to equip some archers with ladders. When the battle starts, you run them (yes, units with ladders can run, unlike other siege equipment) off to the far sides of the wall you're attacking. I often put them around the corner even. The point of the tactic is that no matter what the enemy decides to do, you gain an edge. If the enemy chases the archers, he is compromising the defense of the primary assault area. If he doesn't, your archers will end up on the wall in great position to rain arrows down on the enemy units as they wait for the walls/gate to be breached. In fact I'd say this is the only good use for ladders - they're decidedly not good for use in a frontal assault, as too few men can get onto the battlements at once. Use siege towers for that, even if you must spend an extra turn to build them. I guess as far as tactics go, this is largely equivalent to flanking the enemy battle line, and brings the same benefits.

It can also be useful to have multiple rams and attack the enemy settlement on multiple fronts. Usually you'll break through on one side before the other, and can rush troops through to attack the other entrance from the defenders' rear. This can be especially effective if you take a smaller force for the 2nd ram, generally a few cav and maybe 1 or 2 others. The enemy often will defend better against the primary force, allowing you easier access with the cav of your secondary force, who can then flank the primary assault site and often quickly end the battle.

[_Tristan_]

It can also be useful to have multiple rams and attack the enemy settlement on multiple fronts. Usually you'll break through on one side before the other, and can rush troops through to attack the other entrance from the defenders' rear. This can be especially effective if you take a smaller force for the 2nd ram, generally a few cav and maybe 1 or 2 others. The enemy often will defend better against the primary force, allowing you easier access with the cav of your secondary force, who can then flank the primary assault site and often quickly end the battle.


The same result can be obtained with a spy (or spies dependent on the quality of those) sent in the settlement prior to the attack...

Not only do you gain an element of surprise (the enemy won't know he's been betrayed until his units have been deployed) but it achieves the same result as multiple rams in less time (avoiding the reinforcement of the besieged faction) and with less casualties (if under enemy fire, units can run to the gates whereas ram-maning units must walk...)

If such a result is obtained, the main thing is to lead the enemy in believing you've will make a frontal assault. Thus, place all your units facing the main gate but deploy the flanking units on the sides of your lines...

The flanking units may lose a little time getting to the side gates, but having deployed away from those guarantees less opposition when going in...

It's become my main sieging option (not too chivalrous but who cares...)

[GodWillsIt]

My tactic has been basically covered here but i will share anyway.

My first line is a single line made up of Cav. the weakest Cav I have in the middle of the line and the strongest at the flank. My 2nd line consists of firepower in a double line consisting of , Hand gunners, Naffatun, Crossbow or Bowmen, ideally Naffatun, or gunpowder. My 3rd line is the best i've got Heavy Cav or Elite Inf in a column formation. 4th line if needed is aux. cav to keep me from getting totally flanked. The Gen Unit is also used in the aux. Cav


-----GC GC GC GC WC WC WC GC GC GC GC
-------------------FP FP FP FP
-------------------FP FP FP FP
---------------------BU BU
---------------------BU BU
---------------------BU BU
---------------------BU BU
------Cav Cav Cav------------------Cav Cav Cav

GC=Good Cav
WC= Weak Cav
FP= Fire Power
BU= Best Units (cav. or inf)


My basic concept is to have my 1st line WC retreat, route, retire while my Good Cav flanks amd makes a sort of tunnel to the center of the enemy. If that excecutes my FP line discharges and either retires or tries to flank depending on melee ability. As soon as the FP line discharges my BU line is right there in the center to wreak havoc on the confused or pursuing enemy center. The key is to have precise waves of attack one after another. You really have to pay attention to what is going on in the middle.

[Bijo]

What a great thread :bow: and I've read some nice things.

I agree with the one who said you must know your army's capability to decide how to use it. Terrain is very important to use to your advantage, and of course weather too, and time of the battle.

I also agree strategically - in the bigger picture - you must mainly attack (or defend as necessary), and in tactics you must defend for you would have greater control and inflict much damage with missiles before the main battle.

But strategy and tactics have in movement the same principle, it's just that strategy is on the larger overall scale. I enjoy strategically luring an enemy towards your weak army as bait, but you'd have another force hidden nearby in the flank next to the position you calculated the battle would take place.

For example look at the Battle of Lake Trasimene. Hannibal lured the enemy's forces along the line of the lake eastwards. To the north you had hills and forest terrain where he hid other forces. As they were in pursuit towards his nice target eastwards, his hidden forces flanked them from the north downwards with more impact, whereafter their rear was totally destroyed, meaning those all-the-way-left units could close them in by continuing to the rear, as they'd be surrounded by Hannibal's army and the lake to their south. Hard pushing and it was done.

Other strategy-level things to think of are for example economy. Block as many enemy ports as you can with your navies or ground forces, and when strategically attacking stay on their land to cause devastation an wait for them to attack you so you can again tactically defend.

Make sure you wage war on their ground and not yours.

If the goal is to defeat the enemy, strategical options like spies and assasins are great ones(!), because they serve the purpose. Not only will they give knowledge about the areas, armies' strengths and varieties, etc., use those assassins to kill their royalty and any other target you can oppurtunistically take care of to weaken them.


Depending on the faction of course, I usually think the following is the most effective basic setup for battle (with spears on the side, and in center both spears and/or swords, and cavalry maybe more to the flank):

---s s s s s s s---
s-m m m m m m-s
-cv--cv--cv--cv-
----art--art----

s : spears / swords
m : missile infantry
cv : cavalry
art : artillery
You could use this in a defensive setup as well as an offensive one, though with the offensive one you could maybe put your archers in front to skirmish, as could be the case in a defensive stance.


The following is nice too, if you can pull it off:

--------s-------
----s s---s s----
--s----------s--
--m ---------m
----m m m m----
cv-----cv-----cv

With that you hope to lure their main force to yours, then you pull back the center and you will have the following:

---s-----------s
-----s-------s--
-------s-s-s----
---m-m-m-m-m-m
--cv----cv------cv

The enemy infantry is frontally attacked as well as sideways, but you'd need sufficient troops... and perhaps luck? :P


If there's enough thick forest around, before the battle starts you can deploy some cavalry in them on the sides to hide. Then you start the thing and you can maybe slowly walk your cavalry deeper into the forest to then turn around and hit them in the back.

If there's forest around that you have to go through and you are the attacker, the enemy will probably always have some units hidden on the sides. I'd make the line as broad as possible and keep cavalry all the way out on the flanks behind.

When openly defending in the field, just pepper the enemy as much as you can using archers and artillery so their force is weakened when they arrive.


Well, that's all I have to say, really :sweatdrop:

[pike master]

it would be nice to use terrain maps that are balanced instead of the grassy flatlland so people can take advantage of terrain, cover and concealment.

[Didz]

it would be nice to use terrain maps that are balanced instead of the grassy flatlland so people can take advantage of terrain, cover and concealment.
I assume your referring to the multiplayer game maps here, as in the game itself maps reflect the area where the battle is being fought and so don't need to be balanced and are rarely flat.

One idea which might work was the approach adopted by tabletop wargmainers for competition games. Here both players get to allocated equal elements of terrain and are allowed to place them where ever they like on the tabletop or discard them completely. Once all elements are in place, or discarded, the players roll dice to determine which table edge their troops deploy along.

[pike master]

yeh your right it was a multiplayer suggestion and was a little off topic.

[Bob the Insane]

Reserves - From a purely gameplay perspective I have found the traditional concept of reserves does not work particularly well in MTW2... It is next to impossible to withdraw depleted units from the line while replacing them with fresh ones and trying to plug a heavily depleted and wavering front line with piecemeal insertions of fresh units is a receipe for a mass route...

I have found two effective uses for reserves that are basically similar in concept.

The first is more defensive and is the second line, often of more professional (read higher morale/elite) units. Once the first line starts to waver in places you can attempt to withdraw it behind the second line. The second line bolstered by your general should hold and once the withdrawing units are clear they can be stopped (and the general can attempt to rally any routing units). Once the units are reformed, the more intact ones can be returned to the line on the flanks of the existing units.

The second is the counter-attack (or second wave if you are attacking). In this case your second line will ideally consist of sword or axe units and once the line battle has matured you can charge in the units of the second line. either in mass or in targeted locations to either reinforce a suffering unit or to take advantage of gaps appearing in the enemy line.

In effect once you have your second line in place it can be used in either of the two ways above as required, it can also be called on to assist in defending the flanks.

I guess overall what i am saying is that the is little point in holding one or two units at the back and calling them reserves. What you can achieve with them is extremely limited. This second line should be at least three units of quality infantry that ideally will do little fighting if your other tactical and strategic gambits succeed. If you played MTW think Triari, but more dynamic...

This deals only with the line of battle, in MTW2...

[Sheogorath]

A method I use with the Scotts (and other pike-wielding factions) is a pinning formation of Pikes, with Noble (Highland, Swordsmen, pikes, whatever) flankers. The cheap (or not so cheap, depending on what you use) pikemen take the brunt of the force, and their higher defence values let them soak up more damage.
Then a wave of guys with great big swords hits the back of the enemy formation (or the sides, if you arent that patient :P). If done correctly, this generally produces a route against the AI's militia armies. Professionals obviously are less likely to take the bait, and human opponents are harder to encircle since they can concieve of tactics other than the human wave.


In defence of towns I prefer to leave a few units on the walls, then (if the enemy is attempting to go through, rather than over, my walls, stack some schiltroned spearmen on the streets.
Spearmen, even the basic militia units, are suprisingly effective. With three units of militia spears I once routed the better part of an Imperial Army which included a significant cavalry element. Sticking them just inside your gate is ideal, since the AI usually wont charge through a gate, thus removing the AI charge bonus and giving your spears a big advantage.
Another good method is to put a unit just behind a corner on a street leading to the square, this protects them from artillery and archer shots to a degree, and makes them harder to charge.
And, of course, if you find yourself in the midst of the town center with 50 of your previous five hundred defenders left, its probobly best just to order a charge against the nearest enemy than to wait. You'll do more damage that way.

A good overall strategy is to get Timbuktu as soon as possible. Early on load up a ship with a modest army and sail/march to Timbuktu. Dont worry too much about offending the Moors, since youre most likely either already far away from them or (if youre Spain or Portugal) at war with them.
Build a fort on one of those gold mines (or the ivory, I cant remember which is more valuable) and start pumping out Merchants. That extra few thousand florins per turn come in handy.

[Bijo]

Another strategical thing to remember is a simple one but very important as it will also help you tactically: superior numbers. It's no use to divide up a whole army into (several) pieces to allow more agile strategical movement, 'cause you take the risk a separate small army might be overrun by a superior force, meaning if it happens you lose something and not gaining anything.

Though, even if you lose a battle you haven't lost the war. Losing a battle might mean something to gain after all in the strategical picture. It can be an art to take the loss and still turn it into something useful in your strategy.

For instance, maybe you a piece of an army being swept away to nothing and the enemy pushes through towards your settlement that looks very much undefended now. They lay it under siege thinking it an easy target, but lo... With the main army (which was the whole of which we detached some units before, so now it's a bit smaller) we can push through, for we have distracted the enemy force into attacking our inferior smaller force. He must now choose whether to take your settlement or lose one of his own.
You have no problem because you know - assuming you have the resources - you can just send an army at your captured settlement from your empire's heart. That way his army will be closed in by the fresh army approaching and advancing, and the main army idle or strategically "retreating" to catch the enemy as he's being pushed by the advancing army.
With such superior numbers and strategical military maneuvers "to some extent" you will crush yon foemen... like a fish being slapped onto a sandwich, then pressing hard on it :laugh4:


Surprise: to attack or defend from the enemy in a way he doesn't expect. I also like boldness.


Ah, what the hell. I have enough of this thread :P

[dumas]

I go with the basic hammer/anvil with slight differences: Archers on the sides with wider but thinner line. Most battles seem to be over fast once engaged, and I found that having a lot of support troops in the 2nd or 3rd line to be a waste. A thinner line (3 column spear/pike line) with little support is normally sufficient for me to hold the enemy until the hammer strikes.

Archers firing a couple of volleys in the center then retreating behind the line where they're rather ineffective seem to be a bad strategy. I place them at the ends of the line where they're more effective. If the enemy decide to hit the center of the line, the archers are firing from the side flanks of the enemy, uninterrupted, and with a natural crossfire. If they hit one side of the line, the archers on that side retreats back behind the line leaving the archers on the other side of the line firing from the flank.

------------------E--E--E--E--E--E----------------
------------------E--E--E--E--E--E----------------
---------------E--E--E--E--E--E--E--E-------------


A--A-----------------------------------------A--A
C--C---S---S---S---S---S---S---S---S---S---C--C
------------HI----------G----------HI-------------

E=Enemy
A=Archer
C=Cavalry
S=Spear/Pike
HI=Heavy Infantry
G=General

The basic strategy is your spear line forming around your enemy wherever it strikes. Again, this relies on the battle being over fast and your line at the point of attack holding with little support until your flank attacks begin. However, once the flank attacks begin, you're likely to come out with a victory even if your main line breaks.