what type of commander are you?

[Hellenic_Hoplite]

personally im more of an infantry commander mainly archers, its easier to destroy half your enemy before they can evan reach you :laugh4:

I don't care much for cavelry, but I do try to include at least one cavelry unit in my armies so I can run down routers.

[Csargo]

I usually have a good mix of all three.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Depends. In the early game I like to spam cheap infantry and crush what little opposition I have by sheer weight of numbers. 10,000 peasants and town militia can crush 1000 knights. The key is to surround them completely and charge like you're indestructible. Confidence when you are carrying a rusty pitchfork means having 9,999 other peasants frothing like mad dogs next to you as you bum rush 'well equipped' excuses for armies.

Make sure you have a decent general though, and for God's sake, dont get him near the actual fighting. That's peasant work. That armor is no good around a dead general.

In the middle game, I like to spam crusaders or jihadists. Nothing says "I love you" like a raging horde of bloodthirsty zealots. Make sure you adopt plenty of generals by rushing wandering rebel armies with town milita on fairly even odds and winning battles. Your family tree will start to look odd, but that's ok.

Show those peasants they have a reason to fight... they might become part of the Royal family for their trouble, or become a national hero!

In the end game, It doesn't matter what kind of troops you have. You have so many to choose from. And you are smart to keep 2 or 3 stacks within 1 square of each other... there's strength in numbers.

Armor and good weapons are for cowards.
Yes, it's cheap, but it works.

...OK fine... you don't want to fight like a horde? Very well, 'civilized' man, all you have to do is work on cavalry. Lots of heavy cavalry paired with lots of infantry spearpoints. It might be ancient Greek strategy, but it works.

Archers are a waste of time unless you're on a hill.

[Xehh II]

I use mainly Infantry and Archers I hardly ever use Cavalry.

[WhiskeyGhost]

Im a general kind of man myself. I like to use my generals as a "Hero" unit among my semi-balanced stacks of units (usually around 3 spears, 3 hvy cav, rest a mix of archers and hvy inf)

[Sheogorath]

Im a footslogger myself. I certainly USE cavalry, but never as the main composition of my army.
Typically I'll wait for the enemy to come to me, using my archers to shoot them up along the way, then pin with spears/high defence infantry while my shock troops/cavy flank. I generally have some light cavalry around to mop up as well.
The only exception is my all cavy-archer armies, typically for use with the Muslim factions or Russia.

[sapi]

Depends on my faction.

If pressed, I can go 100% cavalry with no problems at all, using merc infantry to take settlements.

I'll win a lot of battles that way (usually at least a 10:1 kills:losses ratio) but it's just not as 'fun' as playing with a balanced army, imo ~:)

[Furious Mental]

Infantry and archers, generally tactically defensive. Strategically ruthless.

[Mithradates]

I like to be elitest. Using a well rounded but genrealy much smaller army trying to take as few casualties as possible whilst inflicting the most damage usualy achieved with a hammer of heavy cav with and anvil of strong infantry.

[Monsieur Alphonse]

I usually play like a woman. I like to throw things. So lots of archers, mounted or dismounted supported with heavy infantry or heavy cavalry. Depends on the faction I play. Although nothing beats a real heavy cavalry charge (except stakes:laugh4: )

[Joshwa]

lots of Guard Archers, lots of Vardaroitai, and a bunch of useless Byzantine Infantry to make up the numbers and make the sandwiches

[Thurak]

So much depends on the faction and time period you are playing in... I usually try to adjust my style to the faction I play. Most times those unique units are quiet useful so I try to compose my army around them.
For example:
As England: Mainly swordsmen and longbows, 2 spear units for the flanks and a few (light) cavalary units to play the hammer
As Byzanz: ~6 useless spearmen and ~6 useful archers, 4-8 HA. Later throw in the much better heavy infantry units and only keep 2 spears for the flanks. They are cheap so they love to be charged by enemy cavalary units :laugh4:
As Portugal: 6 Crossbow, 4 Aventuros, 4 DFK, 4 Cav [earlier on those almurghaven (sp ?) are great, but crossbowmen are even better]
As Egypt: 9 archers, 4 HA, 6 Saracene Infantry

Of course all those armies can be upgraded, but usually I like to think a little bit about the upkeep. And about versatility.

[spirit_of_rob]

Im very defensive always have been since shogun atm i have amy scottish campaign and i have a kingdom in turkey which is feeling the brunt of the mongol hordes adana i think its called has been assaulted now less than 10 times since they hordes arrived and they are still coming from their eastern provinces. I just hide in my fortresses they have too much cavalry of high quality to meet on the open field.

[Silvershade]

I usually end up playing with a lot of ranged units, mounted or unmounted. It seems like that is the way to win by the ratios required if you are going to fight the multiple stacks the ai seems to manage to throw at you over a number of turns. Retraining is a killer if you arent careful to avoid heavy casualty rates. What infantry i use is really just there as protection for archers or as a fallback should the ammo run out against a massive infantry army.

The exception would be in defending settlements, there i rely heavily on infantry with maybe only a third of my forces being ranged.

My favourite factions are Byzantium, Russia and the Turks. All lend themselves quite well to the style of play i prefer.

[sapi]

Oh yeah - I forgot to mention - I never retrain.

If I take casualties, I merge and move on :grin2:

[Didz]

Hmm! I had trouble answering this question as every time I'd thought I got it sussed I thought of an exception.

I suppose the only common trend I have is a love of missile units, particularly though not exclusively crossbowmen. I prefer to kill from a distance as far as possible, but recognise that a solid battle line is needed to fend off enemy assaults and so not everyone can be an archer. I use cavalry sparingly as I find it fragile and unreliable, but at the same time its value in outflanking and pursuit cannot be ignored.

I try to win through morale rather than brute force, so once battle is joined I work around flanks rather than relying on superior weaponry, armour and unit stats to win through.

Generally, I have trouble being Chivalrous. My natural instinct is to exterminate my enemies, those who fight and are allowed to run away merely come back to fight another day. So, most of my generals have very high dread, and I tend to keep a clear distinction between family members who govern and family members who kill and keep them seperate.

[Caliburn]

Horse Archer armies are especially fun at the beginning, though they're a bit too strong vs. the AI and give a great strategic advantage as they suffer few losses. Later when I can build good balanced armies I like to use them as well, usually mixing up elites and weaker units to make playing more fun. Archers/crossbows/gunpowder units get quite a few of the kills. I let infantry slug it out and use cavalry mainly for cavalry vs. cavalry and hunting missiles.

I don't use artillery too much, cannons I use when they appear, but in field battles mainly Serpentines, and I usually autoresolve settlement assaults anyway.

[Matt_Lane]

I like a small core of heavy infantry and large wings of heavy cavalry. I've little patients to wait for the enemy to come to me so all too often I charge in with the cavalry. This can be very wasteful but the visuals of horse and lance hitting home at full tilt is (almost) worth it.

I'm currently playing England but I'm finding it hard to adapt to missile troops as in previous campaigns they were just something to charge at.

[magnum]

Tend to use a few infantry as a wall (defensive) backed by a lot of archers which decimate the enemy as they move forward. Then have a few cav to flank, take out enemy archers/siege engines and of course run down routers. A full stack is roughly 6 infantry, 4 cavalry, and 10 archers.

[Betito]

Generally, i will have 4 to 6 HA units, of which at least 2 should be melee capable ones (like mameluk, mongol heavies or sipahis). One or two other medium cav, something in the spirit of sipahi lancers, my general, and one or two heavy cav, such as qapukulu . About 3 or 4 foot missiles, if they are melee capable, like ottomans, or can deploy stakes, like yeomans or janissaries, much better. Then 3 or 4 spear infantry and 2 or 3 other infantry. Depending on the faction, it can be halberds or swords. One or two artillery units complete the roster.

The HAs go first, harrassing, shooting, retreating, and repeating; i have yet to try the combat group Doug suggests in multiplayer, sounds good to me. I try to focus on the troublesome units, such as knights, artillery or really good infantry.

The rest of the battle depends on the specific situation, but generally it's me seeking high ground, sending the foot missiles a bit forward, using the artillery with fire/explosives, sometimes with fire at will. Spear units on guard mode, i try not to move them too much, they are for containing purpouses mainly. The HAs double as flankers when needed, or when they run out of ammo (this is why i need some melee capable ones). If i need some more staying power, my missiles can usually handle it (this is why i choose janissaries/ottomans). A farily versatile formation, IMO, can attack and defend nicely

[andrewt]

I'm a missile cav fan. I love horse archers, javelin cav and gun cav. I send them at the start to shoot from the flanks and generally harrass. Then I send my heavy infantry and heavy cav. Depending on faction, I'll have infantry missile troops with the heavy infantry and cav as well. I typically like the hybrid ones like dismounted Dvor where you can sometimes turn off skirmish and watch them own anything that gets close.

I remember fielding armies of dismounted Dvor, Dvor and Cossack Cav with Russia. The Dvors pack the punch while the Cossack are really good chasers and can chase most cav. I usually kill/capture 95%+ of the enemy after a fight. Sometimes, I sacrifice troops by making cav mop up before rejoining the battle.

[Rozanov]

In terms of army composition:

a nice mixture please (you never know what you're going to be facing in the field.)

So (if available): 2/4 units spears or pike; 2 archers; 2 x-bows or musket; 2 light cavalry; 2 missile cavalry; 2/4 heavy cavalry; 4/8 heavy infantry; general's unit; a couple of artillery pieces and whatever specialist units I take a fancy to.

always merge damaged units and send the remnants back to be retrained; rarely use mercs except if attacking a settlement or castle and then I demob them once the garrison doesn't need them.

On the battlefield, once I have every one lined up I assigned units to attack the enemy units (unless I'm adopting a purely defensive posture.) I let them finish the job, reform and then send them off to their next target.

[Skott]

I guess I'm a combined arms type commander with a leaning more towards infantry.

[Sir Robin the Brave]

Im a terrible commander! :laugh4:

Really I tend to have mainly infantry, with archers or skirmishers and light cavalry

[Plebian#10]

I am a combined arms commander who likes small well trained and heavily experienced troopers. There is nothing like having a little bit of everything to take your enemies apart. In addition small armies cost less and gain experience faster. I rarely use mercenaries because when you sack a city you get significantly less money.

[Mordon]

I've always been a fan of combined arms, especially if I can do combined arms with hybrid units.

I have a Milanese campaign going now, and I find that my armies consist of the general, 2-3 Italian Calvary Militia, 1-3 Caroccio(sp) Standards, 3 Italian Spear militia, and the rest as many Genoese Crossbow Militia as I can get.

The Standards supplement the spears if the enemy is cavalry heavy, and keep morale high.The Cavalry Militia help with routers and charging the enemy from the rear once they engage my battleline, and simply look cool.

I use the General to support weak points in the infantry line.

The spears are mainly there to hold up cavalry so they can be gunned down readily.

For everything else, its the crossbows. What they don't gun down at range, they can chop up in melee, they do *very well* as swordsmen. I find that with the archers in a checkered two-line formation(so everyone has clear LOS, but still two lines of units), the rear can usually swing around to slightly flank the engaged line, and enfilade fire the enemy to death.

I take some losses to friendly fire, but I find overall I can defeat equal or greater numbers with ~5-12% casualties. And there's nothing like watching a full unit of DFK's take a few hundred crossbow bolts in a single volley and wind up with like 15-20 guys left instantly.

The only time this hasn't worked for me was when the blasted Sicilians sent two almost-all-cavalry stacks against mine. That wasn't pretty...

[gingergenius]

Ideal army: 6 Retinue Longbowmen, 3 Armoured Swordsmen, 3 Levy Spearmen, 7 Knights Hospitaller, 1 General.

I'd like all cavalry armies, but things don't work that way...

[Rebellious Waffle]

I'm cool with any army as long as it's fast, surprising and deadly. Horse archers are great, and I adored the forester warbands the Gauls used to have back in the day. There's a twisted sense of satisfaction in getting five guys to lead a hundred angry spearmen around by the nose while a horde of heavy sluggers are trashing the opposite side of the line. As for enemy generals... spies find targets, assassins deliver the bomb. Any faction leader who doesn't have the Spymaster and Master of Assassins trait isn't trying hard enough -- start shaking hands with doorknobs!

[Stonezal]

It always depends on the factional strenght, but I tend to prefer ranged power.

For example as the English, I have 3-4 longbowmen, to attack the enemy backed up by spears, and later armoured swordsman, and use calvery to harrass the enemies archers. Later as seige and gunpowder come along, I add a few seige units to project power further.

This forces the enemy to attack you or lets your archers to wipe them out. Generally I play defensively, I let the enemy attack me by seiging their castles, or holding bridges.

The key to my armies is to minimise casualties, so generally my main casualties are in calvery which are easier to rush up to replace. As the English I can get away with smaller armies, knowing that I will suffer few casualties.

If playing an Italian faction, my armies are based on pavise crossbowmen and Italian Spear Miltia backed up by Calvery Miltia. This leaves me fairly weak against heavily armoured units, but due to the incredibly cheap to maintain armies I can have more armies and more units readily availible to meet any threat. So I will suffer slightly more casualties but they are cheap and very easy to replace. Italian armies are all about economy, plus with the key cities so close its very easy to reinforce.

Stonewall

[Doug-Thompson]

Whole lot of ranged attack in these posts — cavalry and infantry.

Anyway, to answer the question: Clearly I'm a missile cavalry nut. I love all cavalry armies. However, what army I use depends on terrain and "city density."

If I'm campaigning in Germany or France, for instance, where there are a lot of towns close together, I like an infantry-heavy army with a siege train, going from one city to the next.

I don't think infantry are second-rate, although that's the clear implication made with the argument that going all-cavalry against the AI is too easy.

Cavalry is great, but send in the infantry when things are tough.

[Ars Moriendi]

My usual army tends to be composed of roughly equal numbers of archers, spears and heavy infantry, deployed on three lines in that order, with 4-6 cav units on the flanks (2-3 each side, BG included).
Depending on the stack's purpose, there might be variations : more heavy inf if assaulting, more cav if field offensive, more spears + missile if defense, but these are exceptions as I don't usually keep dedicated stacks but rather general purpose. Exceptions like the occasional all-heavy-cav army the AI sends to attack - if this happens, I just leave the archers behind and summon more spears from the nearby garrisons.

For example, playing Venice :
5 pav xbows, 5 italian spears, 4 dism. broken lances, 5 militia cav or broken lances,1 BG. That's what I used for the first half of the game, not having any castles. Later on, because of boredom rather than need, I got some castles and replaced the broken lances (foot & horse) with feudal knights and heavy venetian. Castle defense : venetian archers.

Things I don't care much for :
- gunpowder units (they come too late, campaign already ended by victory or boredom)
- artillery (slow; keep them in aux stacks trailing the main and use only on fast sieges)
- specialty units (carrocio ? why ?)
- light cav (too frail; heavies just as good at chasing routed infantry ; enemy cav doesn't outrun bolts)

Horse archer factions : I still keep armies all purpose and balanced, but include more cavalry eg. as Byzantium a normal stack would be 1 BG, 4 vards, 4 byz cav, 2 heavy chargers, 5 spears, 2 byz guard, 3 byz inf and more variations for dedicated stacks as HAs are no good in assaults so replace with arty and heavy inf.

[[R]icK]

Dno if this is weird but i deploy armies depending on terrain or who my General is.

E.g. Otto Von Kessel (Hope thats right) for the HRE starts in Innsbruck castle and i use him for raids and such through the alps and nearly always have 100% heavy horse to sack any army's around the area.

If the AI actually had a clue about sending invasion forces bigger than 3 units i think id go for the more balanced armies

[RoadKill]

I just like peasents.
I send full stacks after full stacks of peasents at my enemies. :whip:

[unknown_user]

Being a huge fan of the danes, my armies are largely composed of axemen, swordsmen, and norse archers. Preferred cavalry backup are the War Clerics, because nothing is cooler than watching a cavalry charge with maces.

[Boyar Son]

Ussualy, I ransom my enemies, knowing they will die cuz they general wont pay, but if they do more mone for me.


Dread Lord

[Bijo]

what type of commander are you?

One who prefers an effective mix of different units. To be both capable of effective offence and defense.

Swords and spears; long-range archers; some heavy and light cavalry; and some long-range artillery. Strategical offense and then tactical defense as the foe approaches me instead of me approaching him. Attack and defense are hardly different in nature, but the advantage of (tactical) defense is that you act with greater power whereafter -- if you successfully defend -- you will more easily advance to attack and provide the necessary fatal blow (-- utter destruction of the foe or enforcing his rout).

[rvg]

Back in the shield bug days when infantry was weak as kittens I went all cav all the way (60% missile 40% melee). It was an absolutely deadly combo as well as totally boring. The AI stood no chance against these kinds of armies. Now that the spears are actually capable of doing their job, I am leaning much more heavily towards infantry/archer/xbow/artillery combo with a pinch of cavalry. Much more fun playing it this way. Far more challenging both tactically and strategically.

[Doug-Thompson]

Back in the shield bug days when infantry was weak as kittens I went all cav all the way (60% missile 40% melee). It was an absolutely deadly combo as well as totally boring. The AI stood no chance against these kinds of armies. Now that the spears are actually capable of doing their job, I am leaning much more heavily towards infantry/archer/xbow/artillery combo with a pinch of cavalry. Much more fun playing it this way. Far more challenging both tactically and strategically.


To each his own. To me, wiping out the AI's hordes of spear units with armored shield-and-sword infantry is just as certain, more boring, takes longer and causes more casualties on your side.

I'm not satisfied with just winning. Most of us win against the AI despite all odds. The "challenge," for me, is to wipe out the enemy without losing a man.

[andrewt]

To each his own. To me, wiping out the AI's hordes of spear units with armored shield-and-sword infantry is just as certain, more boring, takes longer and causes more casualties on your side.

I'm not satisfied with just winning. Most of us win against the AI despite all odds. The "challenge," for me, is to wipe out the enemy without losing a man.

That means flanking them with camel gunners with some cavalry support. Those gunners are only a little bit more deadly against most units compared to horse archers, but do they drop morale quickly. I've had professional armies rout against them after only a few casualties.

[rvg]

I'm not satisfied with just winning. Most of us win against the AI despite all odds. The "challenge," for me, is to wipe out the enemy without losing a man.

I see. That is indeed a goal tailor made for horse archers and pretty much nobody else. I don't have the problem with losing men though, if they die, there's more where they came from. Besides, they are just Armored Sarges (the backbone of my armies throughout the ages), so it's no big loss.

[Ciaran]

Basically, I still adhere to Frogbeasteggs army blueprint for MTW from the Beginner´s Guide. It serves its purpose,

[Azi Tohak]

Ever since the days of STW I like my combined arms forces. ~4 archers is the standard, then I build everything else up around that. I tend to rely on strong infantry and lighter cav to run down the routers. I try to play defense as much as possible (much easier in RTW and M2TW than MTW and STW) and with that, I have a line of archers, then my infantry (usually with strongest on the wings), with heavy cav behind and HA on the wings.

BUT, when I was able to play M2TW (can't right now) I had a great time with my Byzantine Vardar HA. Crushed army after army with those boys. But my standard is a heavy combined arms force.

Never have liked units like peasants, highlanders, woodsman etc. I like my infantry to be able to stand and fight.

Azi

[Kobal2fr]

I'm a footslogger myself. I don't know why, but I can never use cavalry, no matter which type, without incurring horrible losses in the process. So I use lots, lots and then some more spears, and a bunch of shock units kept some ways back to quickly charge in where either my line gets weak, or the enemy lines do and need only a gentle armorclad pinch to collapse.

The rest of my combined arms are composed of some archers (mostly to counter enemy archers and HAs, meaning most usually a mere 2-3 pavise Xbows and maybe 1 unit of bowmen to pour fire arrows at the point of the battleline where I need a quick morale break, in conjunction with the shock troops) and token cav to chase down routers and keep the heaviest of enemy cav away from my beloved footmen, buying them time. Most usually the general and his lunatic, drinking, gambling, pedophile half-brother are enough. (I always keep two gens in one stack if I can - hate to have a full stack go rebel because I got unlucky in battle and my star pupil caught an arrow in the gizzard...)

I love arty though. Nothing like lobbing great balls of fire through a broken wall right in the middle of a deep, braced pike unit. If strategically feasible (that is to say, in areas where cities are close to each other, like say Italy, Spain or the Levant) I try to include at least two units of arty in all my armies, more if I expect at least moderately defended castles. Because I utterly suck at siege assaults :sweatdrop:

[Budwise]

personally im more of an infantry commander mainly archers, its easier to destroy half your enemy before they can evan reach you :laugh4:

I don't care much for cavelry, but I do try to include at least one cavelry unit in my armies so I can run down routers.

I am the exact same way. I usually only have a horse unit or two and I usually never run down routers, but as a whole its mostly longbowmen with stakes placed and other heavy infantry for backup.

[Hellenic_Hoplite]

I am the exact same way. I usually only have a horse unit or two and I usually never run down routers, but as a whole its mostly longbowmen with stakes placed and other heavy infantry for backup.
same here, when you have stakes cav cant charge into your archers without getting destroyed and the archers act as great light infantry if the enemy make it past your arrow shower.

I was playing against this guy today that said archers are useless, lets just say I proved him wrong :laugh4: