Army Structure & Recruitment

How is it that you ensure your planned armies are created in the shortest possible amount of time?

One of the worst peacetime setbacks I have suffered has been due to poor management or order of buildings, with the result that only certain provinces are truly useful for recruiting, and in the worst case, a few scattered at different ends of the kingdom.

How have you each seperately avoided this?

When you play your mod in your favourite era, what is the structure of a common field army for you, and how is it recruited?

In my largest campaign, I had a Scottish empire which controlled all of France, Denmark, Scandinavia, Aragon, Northern Italy and half of Germania.
But other than for reinforcements or reserves, common FMAA and other such units were hardly used from the continent, and Britain became my major troop producer.
Special Scottish Infantry were trained in Northumbria, Mercia and Scotland; Longbowmen in Wales; Royal Cavalry in Ireland, Wessex, and Sweden; and the artillery train was trained in Denmark-Scania.

A full army of 1800 men took two turns to recruit, and on the third it would be formed in Friesland for service.

This artful organization is part of the enjoyment for me, and I am interested to hear what others have done to make their empires efficient..

Hello Mr Glenn,

it depends on the mod you are playing - presumably you talk about XL here i guess, right?

Any Modification you like Sirrah, only be sure to explain the differences from vanilla well, if you see it necessary.
I hope you answer again. With detail!

I can only describe my armies as... a mess. I tend to recruit what I can afford and make the best of it. I have a strange magnetism to spear units. I usually click to rectuit say FMAA, then picture my kindgom falling apart around me with the FMAA being ridden down by the enemy cavalry...

From my (extremely limited SP) perspective - I know that MP players see it very differently with good reason - I've never seen much value in swords. As flankers they're ok but on the whole, in that role, I prefer suicidal axe wielding loons. Spear are a solid backbone though and are good at sitting there dying slowly while you bring your other units onto the enemy's rear and flanks. Yes I'd have prefer it if spears in MTW had been more like YS in STW but there it is. Also artillery don't feature in my armies, neither do mercenaries. Apart from that there's no system to speak of.

heh - alright then.

It depends upon;

1. Currently holding territories and income they yield
and
2. How easily defensible they are (amount of bottlenecking ie how many stacks you need to defend decently your area)
and
3. Where your next rivals are (nextdoor or in another continent?)
and
4. The ratio of trade income over agricultural income and how these relate to the maintenance costs currently (essentially profits with trade and agriculture Vs profits with trade only and Vs profits with agriculture only)
and
5. Campaign stage (early establishing phase? mid-game of preparing to take out the main competition somewhere in the map? or late game preparing to conquer the world?)

All these interact between them - but i ll comment on all through the two most important ones.

No 5 - Campaign stage and No 1 Currently Holding territories and income they yield. These are probably the most important two factors in how to set out your future strategy and infrastructure plans.

At the early stages - obviously you need to guard religiously whatever infrastructure you start with - if it is pillaged its a huge set-back or game over. Little more is needed to take out the local opponent (another fort with basic bowyer/spearmaker/town militia and if recruitable from there horse farmer is more than enough). However its always best to make that Fort with the future in mind ie calculating how the situation will be after you take out whoever you are fighting.

Say in vanilla if you play the Turks and decide to rush the Eggyptians - its good to wait to get your hands in Tripoli and start building up that Province. This is because Tripoli will not immediately border the Byzantines (your next opponent) and there is scope in building it all the way to Fortress level to take advantage the many trade goods there. Also in the future its coastal region also will provide quick transport to wherever your wars are.

By comparison - investing early in say Syria isnt as streaamlined, since Syria cannot trade by sea and your troops will need to reach the coast from it to travel by sea to where your wars are. However just because of that (no sea access) on the other hand - Syria is safer from a sea invasion that in a moment of carelessness or weakness could cost you a lot of florins and turns of investment in Tripoli.

The income of the area you begin with also dictates your war and infrastructure strategy plans. If say you play in vanilla Novgorod (the precursors of Russians) in early - then you might want to build one Keep in Novgorod with the buildings that become available with it and a Fort with bowyer/spearmaker/town militia/horse farmer in say Muscovy and in the rest of the provinces just Forts and Border watchtowers and farming upgrades and nothing else.

Thats because your lands are poor and in addition there is no time to expand anywhere alse before the Horde hits. You need to use the florins available to you to build an army to fight the Mongols and cant afford building up your provinces - otherwise you ll be wiped out. Since your provinces are poor you are also forced to build the farming upgrades in order to be able to sustain more units against the Horde - but this of course loses you time and pins you down in the area. But its the only way to go while in that position if you dont want to be wiped out or give too much land to the Horde that can make it a chronic problem.

By the middle stages you have vital space in the region of origin and are safe locally - it is time to prepare to meet powerful nations close or far away to you that are threats. Optimally in this stage your intial (and by now most developed province) becomes your technological spearhead in one area - military/espionage/religious/naval-trade. Along with it you should be preparing 2 to 3 other provinces in various degrees and in those branches of the building tree that are necessary to complement each other. The most crucial thing is to keep up with the pace of the happenings in the campaign and develop according to plan AND according to the dynamics of the particular position and campaign. Do not get overstretched or wait too long to build church/monastery/reliquiary AND cathedral in a province before you start making troops for them to get the morale bonus. Church and monastery are more than enough.

Also usually in this stage is that trade income can help your cause. Trade income is large but cannot be gotten in the middle game after you go to war against whoever you chose to - because they might be spread in the seas or there might even be no trade partner. Hence the preparation/peace stage of the middle game is the best time to set up trade and enjoy the benefit of the extra cash in order to build up your provinces to the point that you can build a stack with all the goodies you have available until the Castle level within 4-5 turns.

At the late stage you should be the main undisputable power (or otherwise still struggling with your middle stage opponent(s) that means the middle stage aint over). By now you should have 5-6 well developed provinces of your own amongs which 2 should be Citadels for a while already. In addition you should have whatever highly developed provinces you captured from your rivals. use these to maximise their yield if they are backwards militarily or to boost your production capavility if they do have significant military infrastructure. Spend some time to bring all of them you intend to at the level you think they need to be - and after that start churning out stacks for the final campaigns.

In regards to the army structure it depends really the faction i play, the mood i am in and the era.

:bow:

I try to stick with the old tried and trusted methodology of "one province for spears, one for projectiles, one for cavalry....etc".....but it does not always work out that so neatly, especially once things get rolling.

If I wind up with an "iron" province, I tend to aim at building on whatever is already most advanced - so if there are already all of the makings for spear units, that is the first direction that I take it in.

Artillery is brought to seige battle and seige battles alone (unless of course, I get caught short on troops by an aggressive AI!:embarassed: ), but as I have said previously, that may change after being inspired by Roark's "metal storm" tales!

I am not a big fan of swords either, but often still recruit them just for appearance sake.

Strange the moderator team is a sword no-no. I find Byzantine infantry and FMAA and AUM true killers - CMAA i always nerf in attack and morale as they are way too overpowered - they work more realistically with morale 2 and attack 3 that makes them a clone of AUM IIRC.

Its useful to state for those that might not know it that swords get a hidden plus one attack against spear units - so the 4 attack of CMAA becomes 5 against spears and with 4 morale and all that armor (4 IIRC) they are true and restless slaughter machines. Simply overpowered.

I also raise the morale of halberdiers to 2 as otherwise they are more useless than peasants i find - they suffer from fatigue (due to their low speed/high armor ratio that means less stamina practically) that makes them run before they engage when the AI is using them.

:bow:

I just build camels. Thats it.

/KotR

There was a time when I used swordsmen for flanking.

Now, when I play XL, swordsmen make my battleline - or preferably axemen in early - if I have a faction like the Scots.
Such offensive units can tear through an enemy with lower morale, valour and who has been recently bombarded with missiles.
Until High I always have a backbone of 4 spears, but these are only to serve as a miniscule base of operations as it were - a great human pavise to move about and hide behind.

As for you Gollum, I really appreciate your reply - which I must read after posting chapter 6 of my AAR.

King of the Rosses, unlike many, I have no affection for camels. They have massacred more good men of Christendom than I could praise in a lifetime - for Camels I have only a loaded arbalest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

I find Byzantine infantry and FMAA and AUM true killer

---

Those are more so the exception than the rule. I make use of Byzantine Infantry in Vanilla MTW due to the large unit size and that faction's lack of spears. They're a very nasty unit. In fact any sword unit that you up to 100 men from 60 becomes very dangerous - I found that out with Arab Infantry. AUM are another exception. They are almost like "Almohad Legionaries" and make good line infantry. The alternative is the 60 men Muwahid Foot and they are only useful as flankers and gap pluggers due to their smaller size and good charge.

Playing as the Turks I use what are technically swords all the time, in the form of Futuwwa and Turcoman Foot, but they are always backed up by a backbone of the dependable Saracens.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
Those are more so the exception than the rule. I make use of Byzantine Infantry in Vanilla MTW due to the large unit size and that faction's lack of spears. They're a very nasty unit. In fact any sword unit that you up to 100 men from 60 becomes very dangerous - I found that out with Arab Infantry. AUM are another exception. They are almost like "Almohad Legionaries" and make good line infantry. The alternative is the 60 men Muwahid Foot and they are only useful as flankers and gap pluggers due to their smaller size and good charge.

Playing as the Turks I use what are technically swords all the time, in the form of Futuwwa and Turcoman Foot, but they are always backed up by a backbone of the dependable Saracens.

---

And yet BI are quite balanced for their class, especially in terms of thinking that they are the only foot swords the Byz get throughout the campaign. Their low stats (2 att, 2def) and morale (0) have to be made up by their numbers. When they are led by the jedi Byz imperial family - they are horrors indeed especially in early. But when not - they are quite average and need caution in how and where to engage them because they flee all too easily when things get a bit hot. Their size and low morale also prevent their use as flankers (as they might flee before completing the rear charge or get charged by enemy heavy cavalry that covers the enemy rear, and are too cumbersome to maneuver).

Your Arab swords had higher morale and higher attack IIRC - hence they were really dangerous regardless of general leading.

I personally think that the FMAA are far more steadfast and reliable than the BI. They have better stats (3 att, 2def IIRC) and more importantly better morale (2) that makes them very good line infantry. If combined with HC like knights or other - they are unstopable - have only to match the HC to enemy swords and your swords to enemy spears - you can rout the enemy army in record time (almost on contact) when having such an army composition and do the match up.

Agreed fully about the AUM and Muwahid - actually i make Mywahid to 100 men speaer units and exclusive to the Almohads in my *vanilla mod*.

Your tactics with the Turks is the one i also use too - simply because the Turks have no other unit than the Saracens that can stop enemy assault units like HC and Knights and offensively their swords are weak in defence and armor. Need to shoot them, tire them in fight against the SI while shooting them some more, and finally flank them with Armenian Heavies, Futuwas, Ghazis, Ottoman Inf, Turcoman Foot or even Desert Archers before unleashing the Turcoman horse and Ghulam BGs in their tails :smash:... ah! the galloping, the slaughter, the cries, the... endless poetry... Actually, talking about this, i just remembered i had something in the oven - gotta get going... see you later :creep:

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

And yet BI are quite balanced for their class, especially in terms of thinking that they are the only foot swords the Byz get throughout the campaign. Their low stats (2 att, 2def) and morale (0) have to be made up by their numbers. When they are led by the jedi Byz imperial family - they are horrors indeed especially in early. But when not - they are quite average and need caution in how and where to engage them because they flee all too easily when things get a bit hot. Their size and low morale also prevent their use as flankers (as they might flee before completing the rear charge or get charged by enemy heavy cavalry that covers the enemy rear, and are too cumbersome to maneuver).

---

Exactly. What makes BI dangerous is the large unit size and the Byzantine jedi princes leading them. Apart from that they're nothing special.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Your Arab swords had higher morale and higher attack IIRC - hence they were really dangerous regardless of general leading.

---

The Arab swords had two morale and I think I exchanged a point of attack with a point of defence to actually give them lower attack and higher defence. This combined with the larger unit size gave them much more staying power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

I personally think that the FMAA are far more steadfast and reliable than the BI. They have better stats (3 att, 2def IIRC) and more importantly better morale (2) that makes them very good line infantry. If combined with HC like knights or other - they are unstopable - have only to match the HC to enemy swords and your swords to enemy spears - you can rout the enemy army in record time (almost on contact) when having such an army composition and do the match up.

---

IIRC FMAA are elite and with a better morale. So they won't rout along with the UM, spearmen and archers. The reason I use so few of them is because I tend to focus on spears/missiles/cavalry when playing as catholics. I'm also a very defensive player, so I'll often attack with a force that is more suited to defence by moving it into a position where missiles can hit the enemy and they are forced to attack me When the enemy rout it's a case of sending the light and medium cavalry after them. This is how I play as the Turks and that probably affects how I play catholics. I should probably try different tactics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Agreed fully about the AUM and Muwahid - actually i make Mywahid to 100 men speaer units and exclusive to the Almohads in my *vanilla mod*.

---

That's how they are in the PocketMod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Your tactics with the Turks is the one i also use too - simply because the Turks have no other unit than the Saracens that can stop enemy assault units like HC and Knights and offensively their swords are weak in defence and armor. Need to shoot them, tire them in fight against the SI while shooting them some more, and finally flank them with Armenian Heavies, Futuwas, Ghazis, Ottoman Inf, Turcoman Foot or even Desert Archers before unleashing the Turcoman horse and Ghulam BGs in their tails :smash:... ah! the galloping, the slaughter, the cries, the... endless poetry... Actually, talking about this, i just remembered i had something in the oven - gotta get going... see you later :creep:

:bow:

---

IIRC Saracens are equal in stats to Chivalric Sergeants. Pretty decent for a unit that is available in early (I think Italian Infantry are similar if not the same).

Let us hope that your lunch has not become a burnt offering.

:bow:

Right, back with me burned roast chicken :chef:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
The reason I use so few of them is because I tend to focus on spears/missiles/cavalry when playing as catholics. I'm also a very defensive player, so I'll often attack with a force that is more suited to defence by moving it into a position where missiles can hit the enemy and they are forced to attack me When the enemy rout it's a case of sending the light and medium cavalry after them. This is how I play as the Turks and that probably affects how I play catholics. I should probably try different tactics.

---

I know what you mean and now i kinda understand why in 1.0.8 beta of the PoM the FMAA were recruitable through the Citadel Barracks and so were lacking from the battles mostly.

Playing defensively is the norm for TW SP, no matter how many years you play that. Used to do the same thing until i went online. There, if you leave too much of the initiative to the opponent you get creamed - and at the beginning you dont really understand why that is. Eventually you start being proactive too rather than just being only reactive to the point that when you go back to play against the AI you see how much he leaves the initiative and you now... cream him :beam:

This is one of the reasons why MP enthusiasts dont come back to SP - after the pop there is no stop. The pop of course is to have the time and will to go online and weather the crazy hours, long waits, insulting people and clan rivalries. However, if one invests the time and effort he is rewarded with good times like no other imho in playing TW as well as very good online friends.

Offensive tactics were never coming naturally to me - but through online play i eventually got into them and when i did, i realised that they are the dark side of the moon of sorts - a whole new world within the world i was in. They are really the Ying to the defensive Yang of war tactics. Seeing replays of online play from good players for the first time i was left with the mouth open - it was more like a dance than war. While the attacker was expanding - the defender was contracting just enough to find the weak overextended spot and gather the momentum to counterattack it. The attacker then would bypass the counterattack and start in turn contracting to stabilise and gather momentum. It was like watching waves on a beach - so natural and beautiful - there was no notion of a deadly struggle there.

I am fully aware that defense is what is most natural to people - thats why online play is good in that sense - because it forces you to try things that you wouldnt otherwise, extending your skills in the process.

But i digress.

:bow:

Very early on I try to get FMAA as fast as I can, and they form an important part of my army. If the enemy is mostly spearmen I also dismount some of my knights to get even more spear-killers. My main line is usually a mix of spears and polearms (militia units and halbardiers). Then I have gaps in the line for the small bodies of dismounted knights or men at arms to charge through in wedges. Good swordsmen eat up enormous amounts of enemy spears and militia.

Mr Garnier if you dont mind me asking are you the same Garnier moderator in the TWC?

Yeah I am.

Hi Gollum! I have read many interesting posts of yours while reading on these forums, and I feel it's time to respond for a change :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Playing defensively is the norm for TW SP, no matter how many years you play that. Used to do the same thing until i went online. There, if you leave too much of the initiative to the opponent you get creamed - and at the beginning you dont really understand why that is. Eventually you start being proactive too rather than just being only reactive to the point that when you go back to play against the AI you see how much he leaves the initiative and you now... cream him :beam:

---

I think you're right about how playing cautiously is the natural way for most single players. After all, maybe the very mechanics of the game actually attract people who like to take their time, and plan out their approach. Meticulously setting up formations and fields of fire is part of the appeal of the battle engine, at least for me. It's a welcome change from let's say Age of Empires, where even when playing against the AI you would have to harass, scout and disrupt the enemy all the time.

This actually applies somewhat to all of our real lives, to a degree. Action rules the day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

This is one of the reasons why MP enthusiasts dont come back to SP - after the pop there is no stop. The pop of course is to have the time and will to go online and weather the crazy hours, long waits, insulting people and clan rivalries. However, if one invests the time and effort he is rewarded with good times like no other imho in playing TW as well as very good online friends.

---

True. There is, however, a danger for SP enthusiasts who wish to participate in MP. When you become sufficiently skilled, the AI can no longer challenge you at all when it comes to the campaign battles, thereby potentially diminishing the fun and challenge of single player games on the whole. If you can beat the AI blindfolded, a large part of the campaign is rendered pointless.

That is the reason I'll never play MP in any past or present Total War game. The campaign enjoyment would suffer too much, and besides, I don't think that a battle is very interesting anyway when there are no benefits and consequences to it. Just putting together an army and fighting for fighting's sake is IMHO not very satisfying.

With guys like in the Main Hall, however, I'm sometimes tempted to maybe try it a little.... :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Offensive tactics were never coming naturally to me - but through online play i eventually got into them and when i did, i realised that they are the dark side of the moon of sorts - a whole new world within the world i was in. They are really the Ying to the defensive Yang of war tactics. Seeing replays of online play from good players for the first time i was left with the mouth open - it was more like a dance than war. While the attacker was expanding - the defender was contracting just enough to find the weak overextended spot and gather the momentum to counterattack it. The attacker then would bypass the counterattack and start in turn contracting to stabilise and gather momentum. It was like watching waves on a beach - so natural and beautiful - there was no notion of a deadly struggle there.

---

How long would you say an average battle like this lasts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

I am fully aware that defense is what is most natural to people - thats why online play is good in that sense - because it forces you to try things that you wouldnt otherwise, extending your skills in the process.

But i digress.

:bow:

---

I personally have a taste that's somewhere inbetween defensive and offensive. While units such as spearmen die slowly and consist of a lot of men, they feel somewhat clumsy and vulnerable due to their static nature. My absolute favourite unit class would be that of the "raving shirtless madman" that can just go in and kill the enemy, without fuss. You need units with plain good killing power. When my axe is bigger then my enemy's, I feel good. Interpret that as you wish... :clown:

(But I might add that I'm playing MedMod with all weapon/armour/morale and valour upgrades removed. If a unit wants valour, it's gonna have to wrench it from the cold dead hands of the enemy)

/Durango

Hey Durango! :beam:

hope you are doing fine. Been seeing your signatures everywhere and they re great!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Durango
I think you're right about how playing cautiously is the natural way for most single players. After all, maybe the very mechanics of the game actually attract people who like to take their time, and plan out their approach. Meticulously setting up formations and fields of fire is part of the appeal of the battle engine, at least for me. It's a welcome change from let's say Age of Empires, where even when playing against the AI you would have to harass, scout and disrupt the enemy all the time.

This actually applies somewhat to all of our real lives, to a degree. Action rules the day.

---

Indeed you are right - TW SP in particular is a change of pace with its realistic parameters, like moral, terrain and the weather from teh standard RTS - and people who hated SC because micromanaging skill and Actions Per Minute were paramount there, found their way in TW.

However - at least as far as STW/MTW MP are concerned believe it or not, speed and actions per minute arent that important even when you play offensively and the battle is very dynamic and full of action. The greatest factor is learning to filter the information coming from the game through the interface. Good players in those games werent only the speedy ones - but those that were good strategists (that matters in large team games) and tacticians (during the actual engagement).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Durango
True. There is, however, a danger for SP enthusiasts who wish to participate in MP. When you become sufficiently skilled, the AI can no longer challenge you at all when it comes to the campaign battles, thereby potentially diminishing the fun and challenge of single player games on the whole. If you can beat the AI blindfolded, a large part of the campaign is rendered pointless.

That is the reason I'll never play MP in any past or present Total War game. The campaign enjoyment would suffer too much, and besides, I don't think that a battle is very interesting anyway when there are no benefits and consequences to it. Just putting together an army and fighting for fighting's sake is IMHO not very satisfying.

With guys like in the Main Hall, however, I'm sometimes tempted to maybe try it a little....

---

This is of course the Main Hall and what we discuss is off topic - but i would advise anyone to get online if he has the time. Its true that there are plenty of people that are insulting - but the ones that are decent are great usually as players and guys too. In the end its worth it - at least for me. The danger you mention isnt that the SP game becomes boring - the real danger is what you have to go through until you can *stand at your own feet* sort to speak, that is until you have learned the game online at a decent level. This is indeed a tough stage - and its best to try and find people you trust and like that can show you the ins and outs of the game (and there are many).

If you are thinking to do so about ETW - ill be happy to share my experiences with you - just pm.

As for beating the AI too easily - i can personally testify that the MTW AI is more than decent when he has an equal army selection as the player - i have never felt that the game became boring. In campaigns you also fight outnumbered or outclassed - and in such cases anyone may lose no matter how good. Unfortunately RTW and M2TW were boring in the battlefield for me - as there were uber units, the mounted missiles were unstoppable and the action was faster even than the AoE type RTSs. However, even so you can see many battles fought with skill and strategic/tactical vision in those games too, by good players.

Say for example have a look at these videos with the very good commentary by Clunny the Scourge;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNEv...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHSl...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqhT...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-DK...eature=related

They give an idea of what is like. Veteran players and clans have piles of Replay battles that also are worth seeing. Some of them are available for download.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Durango
How long would you say an average battle like this lasts?

---

It depends first and foremost by the number of players, and the length of the skirmish phase - say in MTW/VI with the long skirmish phase of the pavise arbalasters battles would be on average between 45 minutes and more than an hour - depending on how much people were ready to commit there forces, the terrain etc. In STW - battles were faster, with an average time of 25 to 35 minutes - because the teppos that were used as skirmishing units reloaded much faster than the arbs.

1v1 is the shortest game, and 2v2 is noticeably longer. 3v3 and 4v4 counterintuitively however can be either very long or very short. This is because in a 3v3 or 4v4 double teaming is much more significant while in 2v2 allied armies are seldom isolated - in fact they mesh. In 3v3 and above though you cant mesh with all your allies as it becomes too cramped and you risk to be subject to surrounding morale penalties and backkills from the arbs/teppos.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Durango
I personally have a taste that's somewhere inbetween defensive and offensive. While units such as spearmen die slowly and consist of a lot of men, they feel somewhat clumsy and vulnerable due to their static nature. My absolute favourite unit class would be that of the "raving shirtless madman" that can just go in and kill the enemy, without fuss. You need units with plain good killing power. When my axe is bigger then my enemy's, I feel good. Interpret that as you wish...

---

I interpret it as lots of fun :beam: Which is the most important thing however one wishes to play the game.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Durango
(But I might add that I'm playing MedMod with all weapon/armour/morale and valour upgrades removed. If a unit wants valour, it's gonna have to wrench it from the cold dead hands of the enemy)

---

Thats a good way to play the MedMod - the upgrades make up for too much jedaism otherwise, because Wes gave all units decent base stats.

:bow:

I remember playing Rome: Total War multiplayer.. which was terrible due to the unit rosters.

In a 2v2 game, often times three players would pick the roman families and fill the screen with Urban Cohorts and Praetorians, and the fourth player would simply form a group of Spartans in a hedgehog.
Boo!

But Europa Barbarorum made things more interesting - and I lost very badly most times in that - without knowing why.

Until I realised that I was thinking about my strategy too much - it wasn't an actual battlefield - just a simple movement!
Skirmish, push the lines together, and make like crazy to get as many units around into the enemy flanks as possible.

But that spoiled the multiplayer for me, because 1v1 games were all similar.

So everynow and then I would play a 4v4 game... Ah, now they were epic! 10,000 units lined along a plain and the impossible difficulty of allies trying to co-ordinate their attacks.

I have never played MTW online though, however I find the AI often easy to destroy anyway.
When I lose, or suffer badly, (Except in NTW) it is because I played fairly and honourably - without disrupting the enemy line - or using secret weapons, but historically marching my men to a good clean fight.

Didnt know you were into mp Mr Glenn - nice one.

Early campaign I always specialize. You get the best you can build in every class much quicker and it makes the "next tech" for each period easy to reach.

By mid-campaign I usually have a forward recruitment core as well. If I haven't achieved total domination of the sea, I will work towards that end. I try to avoid the "OMG!!! I need an army NOW!!!"
problem by always having a reserve army ready to go in a coastal province.

PS: I never played MP but one the best resources for learning SP: the MP forums. Tactics, "bang for buck", kill ratios...etc. The information was endless and valuable. Orda's replays made my jaw drop; so that's how HA's work!~:lightbulb:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HopAlongBunny
I try to avoid the "OMG!!! I need an army NOW!!!"
problem by always having a reserve army ready to go in a coastal province.

---

Indeed - the need to have a reserve army is paramount. Its actually best not to cover borders completely with strong border armies everywhere - but instead, have one or two of them at critical locations along a border (depending on the border length) and in the rest have small garissons ready to retreat in the castle of the province they dwell if invaded. In addition have a central reserve army that lies in te core/most developed territories and moves from there to punish any invader. In this way florins are released from upkeep to aid the cash flow rather than cover every border with capable and strong armies.

The later approach other than the financial burden has the disadvantage of becoming inept to function if you actually lose a border battle. I learned that the hard way by playing France many times. France is surrounded by many armies and its central position is actually a constant problem until the English OR the Spanish OR the Italians are taken over. Also while the land is relatively rich it aint that rich to support very good armies at all border provinces without bringing the cash flow into a halt. You have to actually leave gaps and use your armies in a *LATE ROMAN EMPIRE DEFENCE SYSTEM* style rather than and *EARLY ROMAN EMPIRE DEFENCE SYSTEM*.

There is also something to be said about the unit size setting one is playing. If you play in NORMAL - then the cash available in the map by agriculture (that is constant ie you always get it) are enough to support many stacks and thus covering all your borders with strong armies is more or less feasible, especially in places with bottleneck borders like say Spain or the Levant/Anatolia. If you play in LARGE or HUGE, stacks cost more to support (as they have more men) - this is actually much more sratategic as you cannot swamp by numbers your way through the campaign. In LARGE/HUGE while you build up your provinces and economy/trade - you need to take a certain risk as cash are not enough to produce stacks that wil cover all your borders in all cases.

Actually the need to design the game for all unit size setting is why for the NORMAL setting there are too much cash from agriculture around - the incomes set are meant to cover all settings but they give a less strategic (and also tactical as battles are less forgiving in the higher settings) game in SMALL/NORMAL because too many stacks can be supported on average (that is excluding trade that comes and goes). In general it seems that CA designs their games with HUGE primarily in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HopAlongBunny
I never played MP but one the best resources for learning SP: the MP forums. Tactics, "bang for buck", kill ratios...etc. The information was endless and valuable. Orda's replays made my jaw drop; so that's how HA's work!

---

Indeed - this is very true and for the particular unit type all the more. As a new SP player i was frustrated with the Samurai cavalry archers and then with all the various mounted hybrids, like mameluk horse archers, byzantine cavalry, boyars as well as the vanilla horse archers, turcomans etc. Eventually with practice and especially after having went online i realised their awsome strengths that can win a fight in general and all the more so in flat/desert environments. They work like birds of pray really, and are very dangerous when combined together with light chargers - the Hobilar/Turcopole combo in the desert can beat almost anything! They can also be used en masse - as a fast mobile platform that assembles in weak spots (like flanks and rear or an unguarded by enemy missiles part of their line) to release mass volleys before retreating if challenged by diverted crossbows/foot archers - while still after having empty their quivers they work as fast/light cavalry - say to show the way out to routing units saving the energy to your heavier horse and troops for charges and melee. There is nothing best than to rout a strong melee unit in a fight like say varangians and then set a HA in their tail all the way to the exit. Also their presence even if they are forced to stay beyond range, diverts the attention and the forces of the enemy that can make for weak spots in their main melee line or even give you a local superiority if the disparity of placement becomes so large that their forces practically divide and so you have a chance to rush them piece meal. In an online match once i even saw them being used as a charging screen! my ally used a unit of CAs to charge a teppo line - but the CA was simply a pin cushion for the Yari cavalry that was following right behind them. The teppo routed the CA with a volley but then received the Yari cavalry in... the face :2thumbsup: - it was awsome!

Slower and stronger HA type units, like the mameluk HAs, the byzantine cavalry, faris are best used as a jack of all trades/stapple/support unit close to the main melee line. This is because they get too tired if used as the Turcomans say and their melee virtues are useless then. Just have them guard the flank of your main melee line and guard their rear while the foot units fight while at the same time your hybrids shoot some valuable enemy heavy cavalry say that guard the enemy flank/rear. They can also plug gaps if your melee line is having problems, or even do the occasional flank wrapping/rear charge if the enemy has no more reserve units to guard their back, giving the coup-de-grace.
If your engaged melee line is charged by enemy Heavies in the rear then have the hybrids counter charge them in their flank (timely though otherwise their charge will partially hit - this might be dangerous if they are knights say). In this way they deal good damage to the enemy assaulters and they can keep them busy until help arrives (say a Mameluk cavalry unit to flank them or your generals BGs or a foot unit that has beaten its melee opponent).
They can also be used for the occasional ambush due to their charge/attack and staying power - say charge with a HC an enemy HC and have then your Strong Mounted Hybrid charge them in the back (or the other way around). Dont set them loose to chase the enemy out at the first attacking *wave* - keep their stamina for the following waves - unless no other cavalry is available.
If the enemy consists of missiles/swords mostly they can even be used in a heavy cavalry role, to charge frontally the enemy line (avoiding spears that should be dealt with by the players swords) or also help with a missile duel if necessary (in loose formation or from higher ground or a flank/rear advantageous position). Flexibility is their middle name.

This is one more area that RTW/M2TW was worse imho - the mounted missiles didnt need any skill and good judgement to play with really - since they were shooting on the run/march. In doing so, while SP enthusiasts were happy since that was perceived as *more realism*, gameplay wise HA were in those too games simply devastating (since they couldnt be caught and by virtue of their mobility they could surround an enemy army and fire from all directions ensuring that shields were no protection to their victims) while requiring almost no skill to control.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

This is one more area that RTW/M2TW was worse - the mounted missiles didnt need any skill and good judgement to play with really - since they were shooting on the run/march. In doing so, while SP enthusiasts were happy since that was perceived as *more realism*, gameplay wise HA were in those too games simply devastating (since they couldnt be caught and by virtue of their mobility they could surround and enemy army and fire from all directions ensuring that shields were no protection to their victims) while requiring almost no skill to control.

:bow:

---

I liken them to (very) "mobile arrow towers" that move like a flock of birds/shoal of fish. There is no skill whatsoever in using horse archers in RTW. In fact when I first played RTW I went straight for the Parthian faction. Very disappointing all round. Silly and weak Cataphracts on mini horses and eastern infantry and hillmen spam that AI loves(called hillmen because they are famous for shouting "run to the hills" as they rout off the field). The only decent units are the HAs and using them to fight every battle is very boring.

Anyway HA usage in MTW is quite an art. I don't proclaim to be the expert, far from it, but I've had a lot of success in SP battles by turning off skirmish and effectively micromanaging the HAs. It's all about positioning and you should almost never actually order the unit to attack. It's best to let them find their own targets or place them in a position where you know they'll target the unit(s) that you want them too. Occasionally you do have to give them targets them but in general this should be the exception. I also make a lot of use of "fire at will" by toggling this on and off you can get your HAs to unleash volleys when required and it also helps to conserve ammo.

I find that with any missile unit there is no point in shooting to kill. The biggest advantages missile units give you is obviously range and in the "under fire" morale penalty that the attacked unit comes under. Also once the unit is under strength their morale drops lower. This is why on the occasions where I will target the enemy specifically (though this mainly applies to foot archers) I tend to target a unit until it's somewhat damaged and then switch to another unit, I never waste ammo shooting a unit to destruction as once a unit gets smaller you get more wasted arrows. I will also try to hit the lowest calibre unit first to rout it and then quickly switch to another. If you can have your HA's take up positions on the flanks the damages is greater. Also the morale penalty for an enemy unit being on the flanks is added to the equation.

HA's such as Turcoman Horse are good, because they have a decent attack. I like to bring my HAs suddenly swarming in for the kill on a weakened and isolated unit, or a unit that has exposed a flank and has switched to loose formation - indeed using HAs in this fashion can often change the course of a battle.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
(called hillmen because they are famous for shouting "run to the hills" as they rout off the field)

---

But with a goat (or two) for trophy nonetheless :laugh4:

I often do building of troops more hodge podge. It really does depend on which provinces you're holding and how strong and where your enemies are. Also, when I take provinces over, it might depend on what buildings the AI has built.

Like in my last Dane campaign, another factor is where your trade provinces are. These provinces will often be built up for trade, but at the same time you need to defend them, so their location may necessitate building troops there on the spot (or very nearby).

But certainly you may have more than one spot for spear, sword, cavalry, etc.. Partly depends on how quickly you need to build units, as well the armor and attack bonuses you may have from certain provinces. I alo found in this last campaign that retraining worked well as I had a lot of troops, and rather than disbanding and building all new units, it took less time to retrain many of them (and was less risky as well, from a defensive point of view). a bit of juggling:juggle2: to get them retrained in the right provinces for certain units, but definately a money saver in the latter part of the game. Could also be managed earlier if you see units falling behind, but many of mine were busy dying:pirate2: to save the empire to bother with it.

Mercs are also a good unit to fill in for those quick surges, especially when you can get speciality troops.

Indeed "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy". I find that in most decisive battles, you never have the ideal lineup. This is perhaps where MP differs greatly from SP. MP players can pretty much choose (buy) the units that suit them, whereas in SP battles you're often stuck with what is in the province at the time - and these may be remnants from a previous battle. There is a lot of improvisation and making do with what you've got, units having to adapt to different roles etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa

I like to bring my HAs suddenly swarming in for the kill on a weakened and isolated unit, or a unit that has exposed a flank and has switched to loose formation - indeed using HAs in this fashion can often change the course of a battle.

:bow:

---

They, horsearchers, are like vicious Piranhas or Hyenas that circle their prey. Seeking out the vulnerable in the enemy flock. Weeding out the weak and fragile and striking when they are low in spirits.... *evil laugh*

Isn't it about time for a new HA thread?

:bow:

On topic: Does anyone else have a slight problem of cheapness when building and planning your tech-tree? I do. It's like a strong unwillingness to not spend money on the better kinds of infrastructure. I always build the cheaper stuff first, but whenever a particular building costs more than about 600 or so and takes longer than 4 turns to build... I hesitate even though I know that it's necessary in order to get the better units.

"So, I need this big Baronial court to get the Knights of XXX..... I have the money.... but the Church and the mines are so cheap! Oh so cheap. Well, looks like my spearmen won't get support for at least another 10 turns...."

And when recruiting, this mindset gets even more troublesome. My armies are almost always crammed full of vanilla archers and crossbowmen (actually useful in MedMod mind you) just because they are cheap with low upkeep. When I look at the recruitment scroll, I just think "Hmm.... how about one more archer unit just in case.... they cost so little".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
Indeed This is perhaps where MP differs greatly from SP. MP players can pretty much choose (buy) the units that suit them, whereas in SP battles you're often stuck with what is in the province at the time - and these may be remnants from a previous battle. There is a lot of improvisation and making do with what you've got, units having to adapt to different roles etc.

---

Unless of course your opponent does bring the correct counterarmy to what you brought :beam:

In SP actually you can make more informed decisions and suit more your army structure to the opponent due to the border forts and the agent intelligence. In MP there is always risk and a rock/paper/scissors game in the army selection too. You can have a slow but strong army or a weak but missile heavy and fast army or a cavalry heavy (very mobile) army or an infantry heavy (quite static) army or many many varieties of *balanced armies* that lie somewhere in between.

The terrain influences the decision - say obviously in a very wooded map - you want more infantry, while in a barren and flat map cavalry might be more helpful. The weather too - in a rainy battlefield - a teppo say heavy army is doomed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Durango
Does anyone else have a slight problem of cheapness when building and planning your tech-tree? I do. It's like a strong unwillingness to not spend money on the better kinds of infrastructure. I always build the cheaper stuff first, but whenever a particular building costs more than about 600 or so and takes longer than 4 turns to build... I hesitate even though I know that it's necessary in order to get the better units.

"So, I need this big Baronial court to get the Knights of XXX..... I have the money.... but the Church and the mines are so cheap! Oh so cheap. Well, looks like my spearmen won't get support for at least another 10 turns...."

And when recruiting, this mindset gets even more troublesome. My armies are almost always crammed full of vanilla archers and crossbowmen (actually useful in MedMod mind you) just because they are cheap with low upkeep. When I look at the recruitment scroll, I just think "Hmm.... how about one more archer unit just in case.... they cost so little".

---

I certainly did - although the more i play the less i do. As a newby i wanted to build everything everywhere and later on i was hesitating to build higher tech buildings. Now a careful balance is what i do - in one province i go all the way for teching fully a single aspect (whether be knights, or high priests or agents or ships or agents). In 2-4 provinces i have decent military facilities and in provinces with many/high yield goods i aim first and foremost for the higher merchants. I try to just combine and use according to needs and the dynamics of the game and the cash flow/ cash available - without trying to impose my will too much.

While i was playing the MedMod i was very happy with it - however one of its weaknesses comparing to vanilla is the lack of variety (to justify the large tech tree). Its rosters are too linear. This is good on the battlefield but it fails to make the campaign tech aspect of the game shine. Nowdays for SP i prefer home moded vanilla.

However dont get me wrong - the Medmod is one of the best mods and i hold it in very high esteem.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

I certainly did - although the more i play the less i do. As a newby i wanted to build everything everywhere and later on i was hesitating to build higher tech buildings. Now a careful balance is what i do - in one province i go all the way for teching fully a single aspect (whether be knights, or high priests or agents or ships or agents).

---

Me too, generally. Province specialization is the natural way to go once you come to grips with the campaign gameplay. Also, you can vary the amount of "production centers" according to the unit roster of the faction in question (that you're playing with). I might for example get two dedicated provinces for swordsmen if those are of particular quality, and maybe no religious agents at all if I feel I have no real use for them. Being able to adapt is key.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

In 2-4 provinces i have decent military facilities and in provinces with many/high yield goods i aim first and foremost for the higher merchants. I try to just combine and use according to needs and the dynamics of the game and the cash flow/ cash available - without trying to impose my will too much.

---

Again, pretty much what I do :yes:

Another thing regarding expensive buildings. You can seek to take over provinces with good infrastructure instead of building them yourself, with the use of spies to cause rebellion, bribing weak commanders, or attacking with the intent of seizing the castle with as little pillaging as possible. Why
get the good stuff yourself when the enemy can get it for you? This is one of the many highly enjoyable aspects of MTW that I love.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

While i was playing the MedMod i was very happy with it - however one of its weaknesses comparing to vanilla is the lack of variety (to justify the large tech tree). Its rosters are too linear. This is good on the battlefield but it fails to make the campaign tech aspect of the game shine. Nowdays for SP i prefer home moded vanilla.

However dont get me wrong - the Medmod is one of the best mods and i hold it in very high esteem.

:bow:

---

Check your inbox :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Unless of course your opponent does bring the correct counterarmy to what you brought :beam:

In SP actually you can make more informed decisions and suit more your army structure to the opponent due to the border forts and the agent intelligence. In MP there is always risk and a rock/paper/scissors game in the army selection too. You can have a slow but strong army or a weak but missile heavy and fast army or a cavalry heavy (very mobile) army or an infantry heavy (quite static) army or many many varieties of *balanced armies* that lie somewhere in between.

The terrain influences the decision - say obviously in a very wooded map - you want more infantry, while in a barren and flat map cavalry might be more helpful. The weather too - in a rainy battlefield - a teppo say heavy army is doomed.

---

True, but if you don't have those units there at the time, or if your army is attacked two years in a row then you will have to try and win the battle based on what you have available, or go under siege. I find the SP battles are very unique and random. That's what I was alluding to.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
True, but if you don't have those units there at the time, or if your army is attacked two years in a row then you will have to try and win the battle based on what you have available, or go under siege. I find the SP battles are very unique and random. That's what I was alluding to.

---

Indeed - especially in times of warring stages of expansion/defence that armies explode and static borders become fluid and army compositions unpredictable. I guess this is why they hardcoded the AI to often retreat to the castle and come back to take the province - to give him the ability to be unpredictable in army composition and create favorable army match ups in quality and numbers. Sometimes it works in his disadvantage but its actually good overall i find - and this is an extra plus for the *risk style map* imho.

:bow:

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa

Quote:

---

True, but if you don't have those units there at the time, or if your army is attacked two years in a row then you will have to try and win the battle based on what you have available, or go under siege. I find the SP battles are very unique and random. That's what I was alluding to.

---

Hmm, I still find MTW to have that element as well, as often I may have other troops available, but when the seas turn 'rough', those extra needed troops may not be available for quite a few turns.

That and sometimes you are defending several turns in a row and don't have men to spare as you risk being attacked in the other provinces. The inns are supposed to provide mercs, but sometimes they don't do so until after you need them (though you may decide to use them for revenge raids later:idea2:).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaijinalways

Hmm, I still find MTW to have that element as well, as often I may have other troops available, but when the seas turn 'rough', those extra needed troops may not be available for quite a few turns.

That and sometimes you are defending several turns in a row and don't have men to spare as you risk being attacked in the other provinces.

---

I think the charm of single player battles is the character development. You know that it's e.g. Lord Fitzgilbert commanding the army and you know that he will benefit from it. You will see those results on the campaign map in the form of command stars and vices/virtues. Also you tend to acquire heroic or elite units as time goes on. It might be an "old guard" of FMAA or a unit of Futuwwa that you've been nurturing for years. The magic of MTW is that the campaign map game strings the series of battles together into something meaningful. In later TW games, the campaign map is the game and the battles are there for effect.

When you lose one of your best generals or units in battle, you feel it - and when one of your best units comes to the rescue to turn the tide of the battle it can be quite moving/exhilarating. As time goes on you find yourself fielding certain veteran armies of "old campaigners" who have survived many engagements. You get to know these units well and you when playing a campaign you think of Amir Ghazi's Syrian army, Hasan ibn Sabah's Egyptian regiment or Prince Orhan's army on the western frontier in Bulgaria. It all adds to the immersion factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaijinalways

The inns are supposed to provide mercs, but sometimes they don't do so until after you need them (though you may decide to use them for revenge raids later:idea2:).

---

I find that the game is more enjoyable without using mercenary units. The problem with these units is that the AI cannot use them, so for me it feels like a bit of an exploit - but each to their own.

:bow:

I love how the titles and leadership works in MTW. In future total war games you have family members or generals who are a bodyguard unit, and the rest of the units don't command, which is really dull.

I love the feeling of granting lands to the men who distinguish themselves, and the sadness when my good governors fall in battle and need to be replaced. MTW practically forces immersion and interest upon you by this system. You get to know the guys in your army and you can remember what they've done in the past.

I do wish you could see the leader's name of each unit in battle though, that would be wonderful.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Garnier
I do wish you could see the leader's name of each unit in battle though, that would be wonderful.

---

For Role-playing and AARing purposes you can do so by the table of battle results provided at the end - usually you can tell who is who unless the battle is between too many stacks - then only the surviving (up to the end of the battle) units/Unit leaders are listed there.

:bow:

I think I made my game too hard... the French are attacking me with Feudal knights and armies of spearmen and militia, while I can barely stay out of debt. This is wonderful! It gives me a chance for my victories to not feel cheap.

heh - just make your lands poor and the enemies quite rich of you want that sort of challenge. Playing the HRE in early in the MedMod IV was a tough proposition of that sort - everyone was rich and ready to snatch lands away from you - the Poles, the Huns, the Italians - and either the English or French whoever took France over first. And in addition the only swords you were given were those Herbaans with their pitiful defence that were runing away all the time.

Flimpsy herbaans against those Italian spear tanks - gah! Talk about Imperial status...

That's basically what I did, hehe. The AI is out-teching me finally!

Edit; Oh no! The French were putting up a real fight when suddenly their king dies and they have no heir... There goes my challenge, hehe.

Anyway, I got really beat up trying to kill this one unit of dismounted feudal knights they had in Ireland. Those guys are amazing, I can't wait to get some for myself. After three successive attacks on Ireland I had worn that unit down to 20 men, in the next attack they charged my spear line head on and killed nearly two hundreds before they were overwhelmed by my king's bodyguard.

At the beginning of a campaign I will generally take some time to plan where I am going to build my troops from.

Building troop types in provinces that are famous for them and making sure my most used troops, sword and horse are built in coastal provinces.
I will designate one province for swords, one for spears, one for bow... horse... agents etc and try to stick with these as my core army provinces and concentrate my expansion on being able to maintain troop supply from these core provinces.

I don't tend to tech up too much in provinces that I conquer, concentrating there instead on taking provinces that are already well developed and buildin farm and trade here instead.
In this way I find I normally have a relatively stable empire and one that has a firm basis for expansion.

Asai Nagamasa posted

Quote:

---

I find that the game is more enjoyable without using mercenary units. The problem with these units is that the AI cannot use them, so for me it feels like a bit of an exploit - but each to their own.

---

But of course the AI can also build some buildings quicker and control his armies without thinking. I don't feel it's an exploit, the game makers put it in the game.:book:

But as you said, to each his own.

That's what I love about this game, there are so many ways to play it:beam:.

I notice a lot of players seem to overlook what starting buildings you may have when you take a province. It makes a difference if you can get certain units right away versus years down the road. I always think about that before building certain buildings, as some units are nice to have, but you may be waiting a while to get them.

Adding mercs is one way to get around that as the mercs may include certain troops that you're years away from building.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Garnier
Anyway, I got really beat up trying to kill this one unit of dismounted feudal knights they had in Ireland. Those guys are amazing, I can't wait to get some for myself. After three successive attacks on Ireland I had worn that unit down to 20 men, in the next attack they charged my spear line head on and killed nearly two hundreds before they were overwhelmed by my king's bodyguard.

---

Just put the spears in hold position/hold formation and :hmg: shoot the FFK from front (as they apparoach) and back (after they engage) with crossbows and/or arbalests.

Because the unit is small has amazing stats and is slow - they tend to melee a lot and accumulate valor much faster than other units. Bolts and bullets are your friend - they dont care about valor (or armor). Javelins may do too (although their killing rate is slower and the FFK might have time to chew your line if too many).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaijinalways

Asai Nagamasa posted

Adding mercs is one way to get around that as the mercs may include certain troops that you're years away from building.

---

I only buy units that I can not build. I like the flavor they add to my unit rosters. I use them the way Rome did. Mercs get nasty frontal assault jobs that would chew up my regulars. The high upkeep limits the number that I keep on hand at any time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jadast

I only buy units that I can not build. I like the flavor they add to my unit rosters. I use them the way Rome did. Mercs get nasty frontal assault jobs that would chew up my regulars. The high upkeep limits the number that I keep on hand at any time.

---

I generally do not use mercs, just do not like the feel of them in my carefully planned armies.
However as far as motivations for employing them go Jadast you raise a very good point.

jadast posted

Quote:

---

I only buy units that I can not build. I like the flavor they add to my unit rosters. I use them the way Rome did. Mercs get nasty frontal assault jobs that would chew up my regulars. The high upkeep limits the number that I keep on hand at any time.

---

I agree with jadast to a point, as the upkeep is high if you keep mercs as regular troops. Sometiems I keep tem if their　numbers are not too depleted. For example, I hired long bowmen and billmen in my last campaign and kept some of them for years as they did a commendable job complementing and protecting my Danish missile troops.