My Mounted Archer Tactics

[Kολοσσός]

Check out this screen from a battle I just completed; not a heroic victory but the enemy who deployed almost 1000 men has inflicted only 43 casualties on me and died almost to the last man (2 survivors).

This is because my stack has 4 units of mounted archers who win battles for this army practically all by themselves. Computer AI is very clumsy reacting to my maneuvering with the archers.

I bind my 4 mounted archer units into a formation, make them into a column and race towards the right or left flank of the enemy line. Shooting at the flanks they inflict so many casualties that by the time the main forces clash the enemy breaks after brief resistance.

Mounted archers are a life-saving weapon; they will protect your infantry from attrition and they create confusion and exhaustion among the enemy ranks. AI infantry usually charges the archers but then turns around and retreats exposing their backs to missile fire. These archers are by far the best fighting units of the game. They're the only units that have managed to collect gold chevrons for experience. The designers of the game knew the mounted archers would own their opponents so strict recruitments limits have been imposed; I have managed to find only 6 such units in my empire.

This infantry force also includes 2 units of Celtic lesser kings who are extremely well armored and fearless. Having those units helps a lot.

https://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k297/monsterzero_jr/archers.jpg

[gurakshun]

Some one really should write a guide on how to slaughter enemy HAs. It's far too easy to play with them, just run around and skirmish, a minimal amount of micromanaging = victory, as the AI is always splitting up its forces and chasing/retreating. It would take far more skill to destroy stacks full of HAs instead of using HAs..

[sanitarium]

I posted in the heroic victory thread showing one of my horse archer army victories, over 4000 kills with only a hair over 200 casualties.

[Senatus Populusque Romanus]

sounds brilliant:2thumbsup:

[roman]

That is why i LOVE Scythian Archers (as posted in over/under rated unit thread). In my Hai campaign i had to learn on the go how to deal with Saurmatians (sp?). They field nightmare armies, full of nothing but elite archers with AP charge bounces. Eventually the only tactic i could come up with was to put a group of 3 FM in loose line formation in front of my own slingers / horse archers. This way i can take the never ending rain of arrows until they run out of ammo, or in case they do charge my front line screen is covered by my range units and can last in hand to hand fight for a while. It is still a close call every time sense most of my FM units are down to a few man at the end of it all, plus if it was not for "free refill" there would be no way for me to maintain any type of long term strategic incursions in to Sarumataes territory.

Roman.

[LorDBulA]

a minimal amount of micromanaging = victory
I guess You never fought Huge battle with HA.
I played one as Haysadan.
1400 HA with small amount of heavy cavalry vs Ptolemy 3500 Heavy Infantry and some Heavy cavalry.
If You have terrain obstacles on the map it makes very little room to manoeuver.
You end up with micromenagment nightmare.
After this battle I stoped using pure cavalry armies.
They served me well for first 25 years and If You are Zen master and dont mind fighting the same battle 5 times (because You and up with no arrows) are quite good tactic.
But as said it requires ridiculous amount of micromenagement.

[Horst Nordfink]

My Horse Archer tactics tend just to involve firing off all my arrows and then cheesing it! I do tend to lose a lot of battles, but I know that it's a victory really.

[marodeur]

Even though I have to admit that I also find horse archers quite enerving (especially because of the above mentioned stupidity of the ai's reaction to them, for example chasing them with a unit of phalangitae and breaking formation) I guess they are realistic in so far as for example the parthians destroyed quite a lot of roman armies by using them, the most well known battle is Carrhae for example, but they also defeated Antony and a lot of other roman armies:skull: . Same thing about the huns and - later on - the mongols. Horse archers are simply a pain in the a...

[Reno Melitensis]

Sorry to say, but I hate to see roman armies deployed this way, there is not one roman unit. Every one likes to win and every body knows how lethal horse archers are, as the AI is dumb. But for the mercy of Jupiter Maximus and Mars, try to play historically accurate armies as possibly, even if fighting away from the Italian peninsula. EB is not only about wining, but for having fun.

Cheers.

[Conradus]

If having fun means winning to the threadstarter, who are we to complain?

[Pharnakes]

Yeah, if he was to try and pull that army in mp I would not be pleased, but in SP the whole point is just to have fun, so obviously you do whatever you find to be fun.

[Intranetusa]

Recreate the Mongol invasions of Poland :D

Full stack of hold chevroned horse archer lancers vs full stack of heavily cavalry + heavy infantry.

[Hooahguy]

well, i will be facing the yehuzi(sp?) invasion in 90 (game)years or so...... that will be interesting.......
any ideas how to fight purely HA armies? im thinking many heavy HA.....

[Intranetusa]

well, i will be facing the yehuzi(sp?) invasion in 90 (game)years or so...... that will be interesting.......
any ideas how to fight purely HA armies? im thinking many heavy HA.....


The only people ever to defeat the Mongol HAs in battle (w/o getting wiped out the next year) were the Mameluks of Egypt...and because they adopted Mongol tactics.

My suggestion is hire as many horse archers as possible yourself and brace foe the invasion - fight fire with fire.

[Watchman]

The only people ever to defeat the Mongol HAs in battle (w/o getting wiped out the next year) were the Mameluks of Egypt...and because they adopted Mongol tactics.Er... not exactly, actually. And as anyone who's played EB should know horse-archery had firm roots in the Middle East already by the Antiquity. (And the Mamluks themselves were of Turkic nomad stock - slave-soldiers specifically; their horse-archery techniques in turn were those of settled cavalry rather than steppe nomads.)

[Hooahguy]

well, theres plenty of those where i am now!

[Intranetusa]

Er... not exactly, actually. And as anyone who's played EB should know horse-archery had firm roots in the Middle East already by the Antiquity. (And the Mamluks themselves were of Turkic nomad stock - slave-soldiers specifically; their horse-archery techniques in turn were those of settled cavalry rather than steppe nomads.)

Mongol tactics
Feint and retreat + finish off downed cavalry with heavy lancers?

Well, by the time of the Mongol invasions, the Ottomans and Arab Caliphate were the dominant military force in the Middle East/Central Asia...and horse archers weren't used much...

But I'm pretty sure the nomadic composite bows of EB's era can't compete with a composite Mongol recurve/reflex bow that can hit a target from 500 meters away.

[Watchman]

Mongol tactics
Feint and retreat + finish off downed cavalry with heavy lancers?That's more or less the industry-standard steppe tactic since the nomads first came up with the idea of shock cavalry, you know. Nothing particularly "Mongol" about it.

Well, by the time of the Mongol invasions, the Ottomans and Arab Caliphate were the dominant military force in the Middle East/Central Asia...and horse archers weren't used much...The Caliphate had functionally kicked the bucket by 10th century or so, and Osman first started building his Little Empire That Could sometime after the Mongol invasion (and after the splinter khanates had started bickering - which didn't take very long). And rest assured archery both mounted and foot was quite alive and well in the regions concerned, both because there'd never been any reason to drop it and further due to the fact the Turkic nomads had made themselves a permanent presence in the area by 11th century.

Archery was pretty much the defining skill of Middle Eastern regular cavalry around the Crusades, for example, and very much the staple of the tribal warriors of the Turkic nomads. (Turkic light horse was in fact found to be excellent for harssing the "Franks".)

But I'm pretty sure the nomadic composite bows of EB's era can't compete with a composite Mongol recurve/reflex bow that can hit a target from 500 meters away.True enough that the composite bow underwent further developement after the EB timeframe (que the early form of the heavy asymmetrical Hunnic/Sassanid design appearing in the hands of the Far Eastern nomads in EB), but AFAIK the Turks already had a more or less fully mature form. Alterations thereafter were more adjusting to given preferences and techniques rather than real technological improvements (although the top craftsmen of the Ottoman Empire could apparently push the envelope a bit through sheer refinement).