how do i make a good 20 unit 10k army?

i cant figure it out, i know 10k is the standard, but besides taking garbage i cant get 20 units...anybody got a nice 10k army that has 20 units i could use to get an idea plz

i just started playing mtw2 and havnt played any tw for about 6 months so i dont really know the good units etc, i know cav is cheese like in rome but apart from that i am blind

one thing i noticed is halberds/poleaxe get monkey raped by cav didnt think that would be the case, but i'm not suprised given the history... i still regard the "lancer patch" from mtw as doomsday :charge: :rifle:

thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabutai

one thing i noticed is halberds/poleaxe get monkey raped by cav didnt think that would be the case, but i'm not suprised given the history... i still regard the

---

If you mean units like norse axemen and varangian guard, and all other two handed units, then thats a bug. They can't kill cav due to an animation error. Should be fixed in next month's patch.

Oh and 20 units really isn't the way forward mate. Unless you included peasants. This is due to the unfortunate uberness of cavalry. Make sure you get *at least* 4-6 units of cav, at least in high era which is all I play.

i just meant halberd type weapons, i just did a test of a single unit of the good spanish pikes vs a unit of knights templar, think it was normal difficulty, so i, as the pikes, recieve a small advantage to my stats (if old games are any model)

the cav and i both lost a good deal of men on the first charge, we had a melee for a bit, seemingly we both lost an equal amount during this, then they pulled off, where they lost for the first time more men than me, then 2 or 3 times they charged and pulled back. at the end i had 7 pikes left they had 0 cav

i could understand if these were 4 ft spears, but these were pikes! now if you look at the unit cost, if i simply cancel out the cav i won but it just doesnt seem right, although cav do die fast if "pinned" etc and i could understand the argument for either side, it just feels wrong

so like you said, looks like my army will be having at least 5 cavalry which i really dont like using in large amounts as they require so much micro

You don't need to bring 20 units imo, I bring 16 most of the time
4 cav, 4 archers, 8 inf (tho sometimes I fill up with more infantry)

But if you want 20 units with 10k, I should do this:
don't bring a generals unit. He costs too much, you can also bring 1 good cav unit and an archers unit instead of just him
So I'd say first get some cav 4 units that are worth about 750 and 1 that is just a bit better and make him your general. (that's 4 x 750 + 800 = 3800 spend)
Then we have the archers/muskets. In late Muskets are very good, and you should take some, but they are expensive too, so you won't be able to bring 20 units if you take all 4 of them. I'd say bring some Arquibusiers for 600 a unit. Then bring 2 units of good archers as well (for example Pavise Crossbowmen) they are about 600. (that's 3800 + 2400 = 6200 spend)
We now have 3800 left for 11 infantry, which will be tricky.
Get some dismounted knights, 550 a piece, that's 2200, which means you have 1600 left. Get some sergeant spearmen (or similiar), which means 4 x 250 = 1000. And you will have to fill with peasants.


My ideal army is something like this really (Spain):
4 conquistadores, 2 muskets, 2 pavise crossbowmen, 4 dismounted conquistadores, 4 sword and bucklers (with 1 armour upgrade). I believe that fits into 10k very well, and it's a pretty good army.

i regret that the most powerful combination is not a 20-units-army.
i wished 20-units-min was established as a common rule.

i allways get a general and never get peasants.
save some money on the main body and fill up different sorts of archers.

shaka

i would say you need enough cavalry to dominate your flanks.

peasants especially christian peasants are unusually tough in the game and only need some valor to get their morale up.


but if you want quality and still fill 20 slots get your good units and make the rest peasant archers or crossbowmen. they are good filler units that will entice the enemy to come to you.

these arnt my preferred formations right now but i used them a lot when i first started on line.remember cav battles are won by having the last unit in reserve that can make the flanking move to roll up the others cavalry. domination of the flanks is crucial to making it an easier victory

All i can suggest sab is to try and find certain builds that u think can match ure playing type... there is no ONE MAGNIFICENT UBER BUILD, otherwise ppl would use it and find versions to counter it and it would be a hideous cycle :laugh4:
Some factions have more expensive options than others eg timurids compared to russia... important to realise this when deciding.

Ermm Barrett.. He didn't ask for "ONE MAGNIFICENT UBER BUILD". Just a normal build so he gets an idea.. ~;)

theres loads of good 18-20 unit 10k builds out there. The keys to get the right combination of both expensive and cheap units.

I have found the best mix, for me, at 10k is around 17 or 18 units total. It is very odd, but if you go with less florins 5k to 8k, you will find yourself using more units than at 10k. The reason being is that at those lower levels, the cheap to mid-level units come into their own. You can actually get some use out of the cheaper spear units, since you can get more of them to counteract anyone who still gets the knight cav and musket units. Volume, becomes a more important factor.

musket units roflmao... dont tell me you do late era?:laugh4:

I guess if you worry about losing, you wouldn't enjoy playing ALL or LATE era games. Since I have never had to worry about winning I can relax and enjoy the variety those eras offer. :laugh4:

I find it quite fun, in those eras, trying to devise ways of beating those supposed overpowered armies and units. I don't find much variety in the types of units available in the high and early era. You tend to see the same armies over and over again. To myself, that bores me to tears.

Using less florins DOES make things more interesting in LATE/ALL era games since you are never quite sure what the enemy will bring to the battlefield. I enjoy being surprised by players using unusual armies and by using unusual armies myself. It shows imagination and actual skill in being able to make them work in team play. Otherwise, you see a lot of clone armies and not teams consisting of armies tailored for a specific role in a team game.

Though I have noticed a lot of teams, apparently worried about giving even a slight advantage to their opponents, becoming mired in High era, Grassy plains, games. The same thing was found in STW and MTW, until those brave enough to take a few losses started playing other maps, eras, and money levels. They soon found that in, those maps, eras, and money levels it was possible to win regularly with good teamwork and a little practice. The best teams in STW/MTW could give their opponents every advantage: the best defensive positions, the best factions and units in the game, and then proceed to win handily. I haven't seen that ability, or even the willingness, of teams to play those kind of games yet, in M2TW.

The game is still new, which may explain it, but everyone appears to be terrified of losing, by refusing to play with anyone but their regular teammates or other known veterans, and always using Grassy Plains, High era to help increase the chance they will not lose.

What happened to those fearless players from before, that would take up the biggest challenges available because they found them the most rewarding and exciting?

Quote:

---

What happened to those fearless players from before, that would take up the biggest challenges available because they found them the most rewarding and exciting?

---

I did that yesterday, tried Russia under NF rules (obviously Manslaughter went for High Era, instead of All). So I had the choice Horse Archers, or Cav and Archers ... and I got pwned

hehe Stig.

BTW: What are the NF rules?

Memories always sound drastically better than present. That is, good memories, ElmarkOFear. But, rarely are in reality.

Quote:

---

BTW: What are the NF rules?

---

They are based on the Original Forumite rules I once posted at their forums:
max 4 every kind
max 4 cav
max 4 archers
no fire art
Those are the Forumite rules, and they added this to it:
no eles
no art
HA count as both cav as archers

Interesting. I didn't know about the No Fire (arrows?) rule. Guess I have been a bad boy when I got my English Longbows then. I must remember to turn them off of Fire the next time I play. Though nobody hollered at me. :)

Quote:

---

I didn't know about the No Fire (arrows?) rule

---

No that's a rule we use at The Forumites, no fire art, fire archers are allowed

If you want some complex rules look here:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/FORUMITE...?showtopic=387

Quote:

---

What happened to those fearless players from before, that would take up the biggest challenges available because they found them the most rewarding and exciting?

---

Probably they are waiting for the second patch. When I practise I mostly host flat map which happens to be grassy flat. Answer for this is simple. Not that I would like grassy flat map that much or that I would be affraid to lose it is just that flat map brings majority of players. If they see hilly map they get a bit tensed.

thanks for the replies guys, so far i am trying to get an army of 4 heavy inf 4 spears 4 pavxbows 2 hand gunners and 4 cav +general

i am figuring to have 2 units of spears on either side of my heavies and my handgunners in front of the spears, as my spears seem to die fast to cav i am hoping a couple volleyes from guns may soften them up plus they can fight ok if i can get them safe before any charge hits home, and for the high period they seem to pack a nasty punch, but i am still experimenting :smash:

what about upgrades is it still better to go with just armor and weapons and no experience? not that i can afford them anyway

The upgrade system is different than STW/MTW.

You have 3 upgrades to experience per Chevron. There are 3 Chevrons possible for a total of 9 upgrades to experience. The 1st upgrade for each Chevron gives you +1 to weapons and +1 to armor (I am also assuming the +2 to morale is included, or it could be +1, nobody from CA has stated exactly which), the 2nd upgrade per Chevron is cheaper and doesn't give you any increase to weapons or armor. The 3rd is the same way. When you upgrade the 4th time (which is the 1st of the next Chevron) you once again will receive the +1 Weapon and +1 armor upgrades. Same goes for the 1st upgrade of the 3rd Chevron.

Now armor upgrades and wep upgrades only upgrade +1 for each upgrade to these. There is a different upper limit set depending on what unit it is. Some allow only 1 upgrade to armor or wep, while other allow more. Also, some do not allow you to upgrade one or the other at all. You just sort of have to play with it until you learn which units upgrade what.

I have found the first upgrade you make should be to Experience. This gives you the morale boost and the +1 to wep and +1 to armor. After that, unless you just want to upgrade your morale, you would want to either upgrade wep and/or arm by 1 level. I have found that I do better with a wep upgrade than an armor upgrade for some reason. The upgrade to armor doesn't seem to help much in defense, whereas the upgrade to wep really helps your unit when engaged.

So the most probable upgrade for you to do is the 1 Exp upgrade. After you have upgraded the experience for the number of units you want to, if you have any money left over, then upgrade wep. This seems to be the most cost-effective for my armies.

I hope this helps some. I bet you were expecting a simple: "It's jjust like MTW" or "+2Morale,+1Wep,+1Arm It's not so simple anymore. hehe :)

As Elmo said:
Experience: Melee Attack +1, Defence +1, Morale +
Weapon: Melee Attack +1
Armour: Defence +1

But the Weapon is quite cheap, the Armour upgrade more expensive, and Experience costs quite alot.
See it like this:
If an Experience upgrade is 100 gold, an Armour upgrade will be 75 and a Weapon upgrade about 10.

I give different Upgrades to different units. Since the Weapon upgrade no longer ups the Ranged attack I no longer give them to archers (as I did do in RTW). I give Weapon upgrades to Knights and bashing units, like Zweihanders and such, units that need to do the first charge, inflicting heavy casualties with that. A weapon upgrade is usefull for them. I give Armour upgrades to my main core army, things as Dismounted Knights or sometimes to Pikemen, as it will help alot against a cav charge. I give the Experience at first to my General, and I give it too Knights, as they will benefit alot from it, since the cav battle is most important, who wins that can win the battle easely if he makes the right moves (which I most of the time don't do).

it would be nice if competitions were based on different maps and less rules.

but one that is obviously not needed is 4 of a kind. this isnt rome where you could get any number of troops of one kind that you wanted without getting penalized. now like in vi if you want more than 4 you have to pay for it. no art or ele plus limited horse archers is plenty of rules to me. i know all the competitions require rules of recruiting units but in my own opinion i dont agree with it.

I'm with you Mad Cat. The simpler the better. My old brain can't handle too many rules. :)

in general i think, upgrades arent worth the money.

the strenght of a unit is only raised by about 1/20 of its basic strenght while its price increases about 1/10 of its basic price.

i never use upgrades. if i have 50 or 100 bucks left i buy armour for xbows and archers tho.

this aint rtw, rite but it aint mtw1 neither wich wasnt perfect but still much better balanced.

the clan war belt in mtw/vi used the 2-max-of-a-kind-rule. mite sound like a limmitation but in fact it intruduced a tactical variety wich i liked better than the regular 4 max.
there are some good 2 max armies in mtw2 too, alltho they mite be weaker than some 12-heavy-cav-armies. thats the weakness of the game itself, not that of a certain army.

shaka

i prefer a heavy rule set, but unfortunatly when i play there is alot of pick up groups and pot luck allies, hard enuff to get a game with a decent player as an ally when no other clan members on, let alone using a rule set

2 unit limit adds a deep element of strategy and in my opinion realism to the game, as i'm sure the spanish didnt fight with 5 units of "knights of santiago" but rather a mix of better and lesser armed cavalry, same as infantry, but as i said its hard to get pick up players to be willing to digest much more than no ele/art

i think mtw was the most balanced game of the series, before the lancer patch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear

I guess if you worry about losing, you wouldn't enjoy playing ALL or LATE era games. Since I have never had to worry about winning I can relax and enjoy the variety those eras offer. :laugh4:

I find it quite fun, in those eras, trying to devise ways of beating those supposed overpowered armies and units. I don't find much variety in the types of units available in the high and early era. You tend to see the same armies over and over again. To myself, that bores me to tears.

Using less florins DOES make things more interesting in LATE/ALL era games since you are never quite sure what the enemy will bring to the battlefield. I enjoy being surprised by players using unusual armies and by using unusual armies myself. It shows imagination and actual skill in being able to make them work in team play. Otherwise, you see a lot of clone armies and not teams consisting of armies tailored for a specific role in a team game.

Though I have noticed a lot of teams, apparently worried about giving even a slight advantage to their opponents, becoming mired in High era, Grassy plains, games. The same thing was found in STW and MTW, until those brave enough to take a few losses started playing other maps, eras, and money levels. They soon found that in, those maps, eras, and money levels it was possible to win regularly with good teamwork and a little practice. The best teams in STW/MTW could give their opponents every advantage: the best defensive positions, the best factions and units in the game, and then proceed to win handily. I haven't seen that ability, or even the willingness, of teams to play those kind of games yet, in M2TW.

The game is still new, which may explain it, but everyone appears to be terrified of losing, by refusing to play with anyone but their regular teammates or other known veterans, and always using Grassy Plains, High era to help increase the chance they will not lose.

What happened to those fearless players from before, that would take up the biggest challenges available because they found them the most rewarding and exciting?

---

Elmo you have to remember many clans participate in tournaments so for practice people just play the tournament's rule set.

Personally I find unbalanced games boring, I mean if somebody whips my ass with great skill and movement I just go dizzy and really enjoy the game because the guys so dam good (I remember playing a guy from hussars a few weeks back that barely gave me a chance to look up after finishing my drink before he had my archers run down, it was really awesome), likewise I enjoy epic games where the two teams are so close. However I dislike games where people beat me because of uber units, it just frustrates me and I don't enjoy it.

When m2 first came out I played quite a few different maps and tried the scenerios and the eras, on the maps most people just sat on hills, strategic deployment I know and on ntw2 it was all good when you did so but ntw2 also had artillery (balanced, artillery) which meant hill camping wasn't a sure win. The scenerios were fun lol but boring after you play them once, with eras early has too few units, its worse than high. Late, my favourite era due to all the variety...but its just too unbalanced for my liking.

Again, I just want to reinforce if games can be properly played on interesting maps then I'll play. If CA release NTW2 as their next game with a few more factions and a few more bells and whistles then it'll be my favourite game ever. But until then I'll try to make do and have the best battles I can on m2 :clown:

Quote:

---

Elmo you have to remember many clans participate in tournaments so for practice people just play the tournament's rule set.

---

I just signed up for a tourney but it's not like I'm going to practise for it, my first (and mostlikely last) battle in that tourney will be the first time I'll be playing with those rules I think ... I don't care about losing, bad luck in that case, maybe I win next time.

i really dont understand why people are so tore up about limiting horse archers. in mtw2 they are pretty much a waste of money becuase there arrows are not doing enough damage and they run out of ammo quicker than in other tw games.

i dont use horse archers but i have beat people using them by just ignoring them.

i played a battle where i had two turkoman horse versus a saracen infantry and town militia so i concentrate all my fire on the saracens they started out with 75 when all my ammo was gone there was still 50 left.

all you are doing by limiting units is making some factions pretty much worthless who specialize in horse archer warfare.or some factions are strong in certian areas but very weak in others if you limit the units they are strong in then you leave that unit unbalanced compared to factions that have good units across the board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

I just signed up for a tourney but it's not like I'm going to practise for it, my first (and mostlikely last) battle in that tourney will be the first time I'll be playing with those rules I think ... I don't care about losing, bad luck in that case, maybe I win next time.

---

But, as I said, some people do.

Personally I don't "practice" I just play games for fun and whatever I learn whilst doing it is a bonus. It always has kinda annoyed me when people go on about practice and training, for a game :shame:

But ye, many people do care aloot about tourney results so I just saying they practice with these rules.

About rules, ClanCommunityShield.net of which I am an admin is/was probably the first big tournament to get going. IMO you can't really find our ruleset too limiting.

No artillery (this excluded rocket artillery and ballista. They are not band because they are totally different and not as imba as bombards etc)
Max 12 horse archers per team (this is a 3v3, if somebody wants a horse archer faction they can have 12 ha, you can easily play any faction without being limited with 12 ha. This rule is in place just so people don't byz/turk/hungary wtfbbq spam ha.)

Oh and at mad cat, you shouldn't be using HAs vs inf. Target cavalry. But ye mounted crossbowmen are waaaay better than normal mounted archers. just fyi.