Missille Forces and AI Armies Revisited
In the past I complained that the AI ties one arm behind its back by building mainly missile units which are quite easy to defeat. Well, I read an interesting article in "Military Heritage" which stated that Medieval armies WERE mainly archers of some sort often close to 80% longbowmen in English armies. It stated that during the War of the Roses, very few battles were fought with mounted knights because the longbow was so accurate and fast firing that few knights reached the line before their horses were killed. It also stated that when on a static defense, archers were very affective at stopping mounted troops even if they did reach them because archer units carried pointed posts that were stuck into the ground. Moving archers was thus risky as they would have to unplant the posts and carry them forward then replant them prior to firing. Some other tidbits that at least I didn't know: crossbows were loaded lying on the ground on one's back - the loops at the end were for the feet until later models had a mechanical pulley pull that could be loaded standing up. All but the French basically discarded them except for castle defense because they proved too slow firing to be effective in field armies. Also, most crossbow companies were mercenaries the most sought after companies came from a place that doesn't get a bonus for them in the game - Genoa.
So, now I'm wondering, did the producers try to do a historical thing with the builds or is it merely as prior stated just due to the AI fighting AI to AI battles without firing missiles at all (seems counter-intuitive to me). Maybe archers are NOT overly affective vs armor as I stated prior.
Also, in a past thread about redundant units, I said I rarely made militia sergeants. Well, I've found them to be wonderful men at arms killers so now I usually include one in every army and favor them as garrison troops.
One other note, in the "high" era (here I go again - I NEVER can get high and late straight but the one in the middle) I've found the Byzantines quite interesting to play. The Turks attack early and it was a real challenge at the beginning. Not having advanced spearmen was once again a shock to me forcing to make much more heavy cavalry then I usually do. OK, Byzantine cavalry or steppe heavy cavalry? Bulgarian brigands or Trebinsond archers? Katatanks or PE cavalry (I am no way going to try to spell that by memory :) ?
Re: Missille Forces and AI Armies Revisited
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LordK9
In the past I complained that the AI ties one arm behind its back by building mainly missile units which are quite easy to defeat. Well, I read an interesting article in "Military Heritage" which stated that Medieval armies WERE mainly archers of some sort often close to 80% longbowmen in English armies. It stated that during the War of the Roses, very few battles were fought with mounted knights because the longbow was so accurate and fast firing that few knights reached the line before their horses were killed. It also stated that when on a static defense, archers were very affective at stopping mounted troops even if they did reach them because archer units carried pointed posts that were stuck into the ground. Moving archers was thus risky as they would have to unplant the posts and carry them forward then replant them prior to firing. Some other tidbits that at least I didn't know: crossbows were loaded lying on the ground on one's back - the loops at the end were for the feet until later models had a mechanical pulley pull that could be loaded standing up. All but the French basically discarded them except for castle defense because they proved too slow firing to be effective in field armies. Also, most crossbow companies were mercenaries the most sought after companies came from a place that doesn't get a bonus for them in the game - Genoa.
So, now I'm wondering, did the producers try to do a historical thing with the builds or is it merely as prior stated just due to the AI fighting AI to AI battles without firing missiles at all (seems counter-intuitive to me). Maybe archers are NOT overly affective vs armor as I stated prior.
If you are up to more reading concerning the composition of medieval armies I would refer you to the thread called "Favorite medieval book" and the book mentioned there - "The Hundred Years War" by Jonathan Sumption. In volume three called "Divided Houses" there is chapter "Men-at-arms" disclosing peculiarities of medieval warfare in Western Europe. Basically, the author argues that in historic sources the armies are reported to consist of two types of units - archers and men-at-arms - which could be employed for two types of warfare (ranged and melee). More details you can find out yourself if you don't mind reading thick books.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LordK9
Also, in a past thread about redundant units, I said I rarely made militia sergeants. Well, I've found them to be wonderful men at arms killers so now I usually include one in every army and favor them as garrison troops.
They are axemen and in the thread "Swords vs Axes" I strongly advocated my preference for axemen against other melee units. They are good if you don't have other axe units on your faction roster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LordK9
One other note, in the "high" era (here I go again - I NEVER can get high and late straight but the one in the middle) I've found the Byzantines quite interesting to play. The Turks attack early and it was a real challenge at the beginning. Not having advanced spearmen was once again a shock to me forcing to make much more heavy cavalry then I usually do. OK, Byzantine cavalry or steppe heavy cavalry? Bulgarian brigands or Trebinsond archers? Katatanks or PE cavalry (I am no way going to try to spell that by memory :) ?
The Byz in high are one of the most challenging factions since you have to win back Const, weather the Turks and have an eye on the Horde (when it pops up) if it has a mind to move south with a sizeable force.
Re: Missille Forces and AI Armies Revisited
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gilrandir
If you are up to more reading concerning the composition of medieval armies I would refer you to the thread called "Favorite medieval book" and the book mentioned there - "The Hundred Years War" by Jonathan Sumption. In volume three called "Divided Houses" there is chapter "Men-at-arms" disclosing peculiarities of medieval warfare in Western Europe. Basically, the author argues that in historic sources the armies are reported to consist of two types of units - archers and men-at-arms - which could be employed for two types of warfare (ranged and melee). More details you can find out yourself if you don't mind reading thick books.
The two types unit types are what the article mentioned too although i don't believe it is the same as the men of war in the game. Seemed more like foot knights and archers in the article interspersed.
