Printable View
What kind of tactics suits you? And which is the best faction for you style?
Is this the horse archer archer, soak with arrows? Or the swordmen rush? Maybe heavy cavalry? Play on lots of low tech units? Or do it with hardcore troops? Let's see the styles... :wink:
My style oddly seem to be my "national" style :wink: I am Hungarian and my favourite tactics is relying heavily on horse archers and other missile troops. These are versatile especially at the beginning of the game (early) and can cause losses without taking any themselves. They remain useful later as well, as battle starters: they shoot their arrows and withdraw: the damage is done :)
Apparently, I'm a little too up the gut for my own good. I think everyone has heard of Stonewall Jackson, a Confederate American general, famous for feints, bluffs, and elaborate flanking maneuvers. There was another general in the confederate army, by the name of John Bell Hood. Jackson said of Hood "He can perform any maneuver you could ask for, so long as you only ask for a head on charge". :charge:
That was why I started this Turk campaign to begin with, to learn some of the finer points of tactics. Old habits die hard I guess, trying to use my Turcoman as heavy cavalry, in the woods no less! (I did know better than that, I just couldn't think of a way to get them out). :dizzy2:
There are cases, where the head on charge is the best idea :) E.g. if the enemy is archer heavy and is on a hill, but no heavy cavalry, the best thing you can do is an infantry charge...
Infantry charge is a cool initial setup. Balanced & efficient. Of course, against special enemies as horse archers, it is not that efficient. But I stick to it, keeping cav only for last times of a battle. I've lost too much cav by charging too early.Quote:
Originally Posted by bretwalda
I would not rely on one type of tactics: there is an efficient counter - force for every army setup. As you pointed out horse archers would do well against a swordmen and slow cavalry army... But would be useless against e.g. steppe cavalry or against spearmen + archer (on a hill)
My favorite tactic, which I find most enjoyable, would have to be the Turkish cavalry-heavy approach, relying on the mobility of horse archers and other cavalry to get the job done. Of course, the army needs a core of infantry, including some good hybrid archers and solid spearmen, but the real punch comes from horse archers, which harass and isolate enemy units, and heavy cavalry, which delivers decisive blows to the flanks and rear. The Turkish army is my favorite one in the game.
However, I recently found a very nice tactic for Catholic armies, which has proven very effective and fun to use. The core of the army is polearm troops, particularly halberdiers and their variations. This core is augmented by the best cavalry available and enough arbalesters to win a missile duel. After maneuvering for position, the attack commences with an infantry advance, with cavalry to flank and take out enemy missile troops. Halberdiers have low morale, but as long as you keep them from being isolated or flanked, they can beat just about anything in a head-on fight and take very few casualties in the process, including elite heavy cavalry, which would otherwise be a problem. The only weakness this type of army has is fighting in the desert. Other than that, it can take on any army you throw at it, even the pesky Mongols.
My usual tactic is the classical shoot them up with arraws, frontal clash with flanking while using hardcore troops, but I do like the cav only armies with some heavy horse archers (if I got them), a well-preformed attack here is devastating, hitting the enemy from the back and both flanks and then attack from the new back made by the enemy to counter the flanking charges.
Total destruction. :charge:
Weak horse archers are annoying for me though, I don't like hitting the half-strength enemy's back twice and lose. And I can't resist it. :charge:
I enjoy playing with an HA army. The micro-management can get tedious but the results are usually well worth it. Early Turkish armies tend to be all cav for me; not much in the opening bits of a campaign that can't be handled.
PoN has a great cav roster as well. Druzhina, HA's and Boyers are a very nice mix ~:) Once you add some Heavy Steppe I think they are just overwhelming.
I used to spend heavy cav like it was monopoly money. As a catholic faction it's easy to do because later in the game you simply outclass your opponents. Now I try a combination of tactics based entirely off of the strengths of the available troops of the faction I am playing. For instance, when playing the Byz, head on is the way to go. Kataphractoi are murderous head on and their only real weakness is against mobile missile troops. VGs can shred any force, but if you can't catch em, you can't kill em.
With the Turks, until you get JHI, you need to dance around your opponents and you don't charge until your foe is about to break or is actually fleeing. As for Futuwa, keep em in the treelines and reign death on your opponents. If they have horse or spear and send them after you, withdraw into the woods and make your stand there. If they send sword or axe infantry, skirmish with bows. I use some interesting indirect tactics when playing lighter forces like the Turks.
I like the English though. As a faction, you get one of the most lethal combinations of troops in the same year, still fairly early in the game. It is the only faction I have played so far that I can field an entire force without any cavalry and still win consistantly. That said, combining them with steepe light cav is a lethal combo as the fast cav is fantastic for chasing down withdrawing/routing enemies. Enemies can't stand off and kill your troops with missile fire as your longbowmen simply outclass any other missile troops and if the enemy closes, they will suffer from missile fire before they reach your formidable billmen wall. When they run, you chase em off with the light cav. Hobilars and Mounted Sergants are OK, but not as fast as the boys from the steepes.
Each faction is best suited for a style - like Cherry says use the Byz as a giant hammer - keep them together and roll over the enemy - but with the Turks you should use those Janis and Futs and Ottomans and Turcos to shoot and shoot and shoot.
My pref has always been to use FMAA and CMAA as infantry (or VG as the Byz), a few heavy cav, and cav archers (I prefer Szekely but Faris, Boyars, Byz Cav and Steppe Heavies do fine too).
Use the fast cav to disrupt the enemy missile units, then close in and shoot with my archers, pavs, cav archers. When the enemy gets tired of that and tries to react send in the men-at-arms en masse, flank with the cav, and away we go.
The idea is to never simply use the units like they are expendable. I try to treat those little electric images like they real - they are my people and I don't want to ever just throw their lives away needlessly. By killing from a distance before engaging I get good morale upgrades and lose fewer men.
:bow:
ichi
tee hee hee muwahh ahhhahhahah. TACTICS
ah-hem sorry about that, I lost control for a bit.
I vary my tactics to suit who I am playing, as what was mostly stated above. Along with Ichi's response of trying to use them as if they are real not just a bunch of pixelated bits.
I like feignts and draws. Flanking and jockeying for position. My armies even if made up of just infantry and spears is very mobile. Wedging and isolation tactics are fun too. I like trying new stuff. The crazy stuff is usually what gives the stunning blow.
I like using province and national specific units like Swabian Swords, Billmen, and Genoese Sailors. If I can I'll field an army with lots of irregulars just to mix it up. I like the High-Period and Late-Period units the most. With the exception of the above I find the Early units tedious and boring, though they have there purpose.
I remember Crusading across N. Africa using armies made up of mostly Gallowglasses, Welsh Longbowmen, Clansmen, Hobilars, and a smattering of Viking units. That was some of the best battles I ever had.
Oh I almost forgot. Be careful about the crazy stuff it either really works or bombs terribly. ~:eek:
Flexibility and Potency are my keywords for battletactics.
At the moment i have about 8 full Byzantine armies with a few reinforcements on 3 frontiers. Each one (as is the Roman way) is standardised:
50% Varangian Guard. (From Constantinople, Greece, Rum, Crete, Nicea...)
30% Light, Medium, Heavy Cavilry. (From Constantinople or Greece).
20% Missile soldiers. (From Bulgaria or Trebizond).
I fight precise, calculated battles.
*************************
The Varangian Guardsmen can kill spear, sword and horse with no problems. Some people say they cost alot. I can support them no problem because i emphasise strongly on economic growth.
Cavilry i have equal amounts of Cataphracts (Heavy), Pronoiai Allagion (Medium), and Byzantine Lancers (Light). The lighter the cavilry, the more flanking it does. The heavier the caviltry, the more it fights.
Missile soldiers. I accept only the best. Usually 1 unit of Pavise Arbalestiers and 1 unit of Trebizond archers in the early game or 1 unit of Bulgarian Brigands later.
*************************
Pick a front, deploy the armies, push through all at once. Hold, reinforce, build. Push again...
*************************
Deal with desert provinces by hiring muslim mercenaries. Deal with the mongols with Pavise missile troops.
There, thats my Byzantine tactic.
Once im in later part of game and have lots of surplus money I dont know what to do with, I like to hire mercs. Since they're not my countrymen I dont feel bad about sending them to their deaths. Ill usually hire a merc army, tac on a 3 star general(who will withdraw, i dont send my own men to bloddy deaths) and send them in to attack the enmy. I dont use any tactics, just tell evey unit to attack something. Hopefully, even if i suffer heavy losses, i also inflicted them. Then the next turn ill send in my real army. In this battle ill actually play.
oh and does anyone know of a good use, for abyssinian guards. They seem like ghazi, but cruddier and less useful, and more expensive. I have a hard time using hashishan, has anyone ever actually killed a genereal with these guys.
I meddle not with the muslim scumbags.
When thinking about tactics copy the best tactitions alexander the greats tactic of using infantry to keep the enemy infantry in place whilst using heavy cavalry to flank and hit from the side or behind.
Its simple and effective.
In the early era I pump out mostly militia sargeants for frontal assaults, with any fast cavalry available, to chase down the archers and attack rear. I have mostly given up on spear types.
Once the high era comes, halberds+arbs are the shit. I place the halberds in a line close behind the arbs. It works this way: if they don't want to engage halberds, they get shot up by arbs. If they attack the arbs, the halberds charge and I have never seen them lose a frontal engagement with any reasonable commander.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kommodus
If there is a use for them it has escaped me as well; ghazi seem a better option for all circumstances. Hasishan require micro-management I think. If you want them to hide turn "fire-at-will" off. Can't say I've ever killed a general with one, but they can make a mess of a royal knight unit ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen_Warrior
Hasishin are a remarkably amazing unit. I use them sparingly, but starting in an open field and hiding with fire at will OFF, they can snipe out key units, then duck into a grove of woods and take on the chasers. I do not build these guys in volume, but used in flanking and striking the rear of units, suprise sniping hig value units, used sparingly they are effective. I sent a unit of Huscarles to frontal engage 2 units of MHC and then a unit of hasishin in the mongol rear in melee, all inside the woods and the destruction was supreme. 21 of 80 mongols escaped and I lost 1 Hasishin and maybe 3 Huscarles.
That said, in open fields, all alone, they are going to get mulched by just about anyone. One more item, they are a 12 man unit with an insane attack value, so they will build valour very fast. For me, getting 3 valour for one of these units in a single fight isn't terribly uncommon. I have never seen one of them rout.
I guess if was hopped up on brownies i wouldnt care if i died either and probably wouldnt run. Except they probbaly smoked hashish back then, instead of baking it.
I agree. Halberdiers may have low charge and attack ratings, but their armor and defense ratings are so high that they will take very few losses while they methodically chew through whatever they're fighting. Their armor-piercing bonus also means that they will actually inflict significant losses quite quickly on most of their enemies, since they usually end up facing armored troops. Their low morale is not really that much of a problem, since as already stated, they easily win most fights without taking many losses, so the only serious blow to their morale will be if they are flanked, isolated, or surrounded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris of Bohemia
Of course, they would have trouble against a mostly-elite army (for example, an army made up of mostly VG or JHI). Those elite troops could surely destroy halberdiers, with their ultra-high combat stats and indomitable morale. But any army would have trouble against such a foe, and you never face armies like that against the AI. Halberdiers are also inexpensive and not that hard to come by, making them an excellent core for an army in a single-player campaign.
As for Catholic variations on the halberd theme, Swiss halberdiers and billmen are, of course, fantastic units. However, it seems to me that Swiss halberdiers take more casualties in most fights. They kill a little bit quicker, and can fight better in difficult conditions, but they seem to be a little worse for wear at the end of most battles. The armor and defense of ordinary halberdiers help them receive charges better and survive better in the ensuing melee. As for billmen, I loved them when I played my English campaign. They were real battle-winners multiple times.
Curiously, I've never had great success with swordsmen as army cores. They lack the armor-piercing bonus of polearm troops, and are terribly weak against cavalry. Their greatest strength seems to be killing enemy spearmen and lesser-quality troops; however, this limits their usefulness, and they tend to take quite a few losses in most fights. That's why I've come to prefer polearms to both swords and spears - they are the best all-around troops, and they are truly weak against nothing. They are the only troops that break out of the rock-paper-scissors mold.
The swordsmen are for killing spears. If the enemy puts his spear wall up in front with flanking cav and bows behind I send out a cav unit to draw spears forward, and then pull it back. The spears will face my cav unit (usually HA) and I will walk my swords right up to the flank of the spears and carve my way through. In engaments where the enemy is moving all his units up at once my swords are right behind my archers, ready to reinforce any spear unit in trouble or rout an enemy that looks weak.
My current favorite Hungarian army is a front of spear/armoured spear, a line of archers, and a line of mtd crossbows with 2 HA/Szekely on the flanks and HA/Szek as my reinforcements. I will use avar nobles, but like to keep them for the killing blow against the Byz Kat units.
mfberg
Yeah halberdiers are pretty good but the poor morale stat is just to much, theproblem is they lack staying power and often run if a strong charge hits them, whereas some units wont run if say 15 out of the 60 men die from a charge halberdiers will quickly give up and flee.
Swiss halb's havent got great defence but theyll cut through cavalry even faster and the charge is davastating, not sure if they are better than billmen its hard to say both the same but slightly different ways to use them well. Also maybe not as important but still swiss halbs are faster than regular ones sometimes regular halbs are painfully slow.
I use swordsmen as the centre depending on the enemy and what kind of swordsmen i can train, swabian swordsmen are brilliant but if the enemy has cavalry heavy armies i use swordsmen on the wings and spearmen in the centre.
The army I use for the byzantines is 6 byzantine infantry, 2 units of varangians, 2 units of allagions, 2 units of kataphraktoi, 2 units of pikemen, 2 units of trebizond archers.
Its four byzantine infantry in a line in the centre, the 2 units of trebizonds behind them in the centre, one unit of varnagians on either side of the archers, the 1 pikemen unit on either side of the byzantine infantry, 2 units of byz infantry on the deep flanks as reserves and the kataphraktoi and allagions on the wings.
Thatll beat most enemy armies, it may not be very anti cavalry heavy but the amount of heavy cavalry in that army is more than enough to defeat enemy heavy cavalry.
~:confused: Always mystified by this kind of comment. I countercharge all the time with halberds, straight into Mongol heavies and high royals, I just love it when cavalry charges my halberds. Makes my day.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Aetius_
Yes they hack up mounted troop easily. But they do have low(ish) moral. So in the instance of being victim to a flank or something, they will waver.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris of Bohemia
As they have done in a few instances with me.
Halberds are in fact militia kinda-guys, except the swiss. Billmen, don't know, but I think it's in fact still peasant class, though (as many other English unit types were) probably very well trained and led. Not that it matters really, but in the game it is represented by morale stats. The Halberd bearing units (except the swiss) bear, IIRC, low morale stats. Of course, Halberds and pikemen became (even more than crossbowmen, longbowmen and firearms) the scourge of Knights, being lower class and low trained, so plentifull in supply.
However, as much as you blow the horn of praise about them halberds here, as much as I believe that is the most independent and versatile unit in the field, I believe a well executed attack at these troops by high quality swordsmen, combined if possible with heavy cav and preluded by firearms fire (or other armour piercing things) will break them in any way. CMAA, VG, CFK or even heavy Carls will make short work of them, preferrably in wedge, because when the attack is executed probably, the low morale of the defender will be their doom.
But if you hadn't noticed, my favorite tactic involves anything with swords and axes, accompanied with Heavy or Medium Cav. I Like all aspects and units of this game, especially the mix, but any decend attack has heavy cav and swords, else no fun!
There are lots of units that can charge into mongol heavies and cause damage but only a few have as poor a morale stat as halberdiers, billmen have decent morale and wont waver as easily if flanked there lack of armour is made up for by there speed and morale.Quote:
Always mystified by this kind of comment. I countercharge all the time with halberds, straight into Mongol heavies and high royals, I just love it when cavalry charges my halberds. Makes my day.
Besides i think halberdiers are better used on infantry its to dangerous sending them against cavalry alot of the time, id rather have them hacking into feudal men at arms and lower class troops than them doing the job of chivalric sergeants or feudal sergeants etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Aetius_
Funny, my thoughts were completely the opposite - but everyone has their own style and I’m playing on ‘feel’ rather than by the numbers. I find that halbs are deadly to any kind of cav, and do a good job on infantry, too - very versatile. They are well enough armored so that they take fewer casualties than most other troops and they can chew through anything else that is armored or mounted. Yup, the moral is lower, but that can be surmpounted a bit with by decent general and some upgrades like churches. Besides, you can make just about anything route when it's flanked. I've always thought that head-on halbs do a better job on cav than spears, and a far, far better job on infantry than spears, and you don't have to keep them in formation. I'll generally mix some spears behind or next to my halbs so that they can hold the line if the halbs start to waver. The biggest drawback to me is that halbs are slow (but so are spears.)
Yup, billmen are better - but they are basically buff halbs and are only available to the English.
As far as tactics, it's not always the best way to win but I enjoy using axes and polearms. Even cheap militia sgts and urban militia are fun for me - though you really have to watch for routes. I love Vikings when I can get them - best part about playing as the Danes. Versatile - good against infantry or cav, good armor piercing. Very cheap - which is a good thing since they often take fearsome casualties. I love how sturdy they are - they'll wade into the fight and won't route until there are just a few men left. Even then they almost always rally and you can send them back.
Best,
P.
In theory, the low morale of halberdiers should be a problem. It's true that if they lost 15 men to a heavy cavalry charge, they would most likely rout, whereas other polearm units would hold firm. However, due to their incredibly high armor and defense ratings, they're more likely to take no more than two or three casualties when charged by cavalry, and their morale will therefore hold firm. They will also take very few casualties in the ensuing melee and easily win the fight, even though it'll take them a while to do it. This is what makes them so effective against cavalry.
It's true that they will lose to a combined-arms approach involving elite armor-piercing infantry, morale-reducing gunpowder weapons, and cavalry that successfully flanks them. But what homogeneous force wouldn't lose when up against such a foe? As has been pointed out, anything will rout when flanked. Remember that a halberdier-based army also relies on a combined-arms approach, and should include some good heavy cavalry and missile weapons of its own. The trick is to get the matchups you want - that is, the halberdiers take out enemy cavalry, while your own cavalry smashes the enemy swordsmen and axemen.
Between billmen and Swiss halberdiers, it seems to me that billmen generally have slightly better combat stats, but Swiss halberdiers have better morale. My preference is for the billmen. If anyone is worried about low morale for billmen or halberdiers, the solution is simple - don't get flanked. The same goes for any unit. No unit is designed to stand on its own, and infantry does much better when it has adequate cavalry support on its flanks.
The reason I've come to like polearm units is that their all-around performance in head-on fights is the best I've ever seen. The only units that out-perform them are true elites, like VG, JHI, CFK, etc - and those can out-perform anything. Every other unit (swords, spears, axes) has a serious weakness that can be exploited in a head-on engagement. As long as I give my polearms a head-on fight (which I can), they'll stick it out to the end, and they'll win.
I concede, dear Kommodus, yes indeed, Halberds are indeed the most versatile and dependable unit in the sense that they can take on anything to a certain extent. It's probably the best one can buy for it's money, for their cost is low, and in turn you get a highly armoured, very versatile (though a bit slow) unit.
In fact, in my army of choice, there would be a few of them, since they can fill the role of spear/polearm-men for defence against cav ánd defend against all kind of infantry, except the most elite of them. Still, I have an unexplained preference for Sword and axeman as shock troops, so where someone would bring Halberds, I would bring a mix of Halberds, sword/axemen and perhaps a few spear-bearing infantry or pikemen. For do not forget halberds are slow dudes, if the enemy has a lot of missile troops and some HA, it will be a drag to get to them in one piece. Because of their slow speed they are a bit difficult to use on the attack. My preference for sword/cav armies will probably be because I like to attack, and like it to be able to attack with speed.
Nevertheless, If you can take only a few troops, Halberds will be among them, mostcertainly on the defence and even on the attack I would rather not miss them. Superb troop type!
How very strange. The halberd is a weapon devised specially to knock knights of their precious horses. And they do so excellently.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Aetius_
Billmen are awesome for the English. If you train them in Mercia and with a good command general, they should like get V4-5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kommodus
That's enough to make minced meat out of most units the AI throws at you.
And they're good against infantry as well. They're good against anything as long as they're not overwhelmed. Only way to stop them (for the AI) is to use annoying horse archers.
For some reason Billmen are outstanding when storming a fortified position. They should get morale penalties for getting overwhelmed (only a small hole in the wall to go through) but I've seen them hack up units in no time.
My conclusion is massed Billmen can take out most things in sieges, although I rely mostly on spears, swords, longbowmen and cavalry on the battlefield for some reason.
They may have been used for that in the real world cutting down cavalry and there pretty good at it on the game but like mentioned they are more prone to routing than most other units.Quote:
How very strange. The halberd is a weapon devised specially to knock knights of their precious horses. And they do so excellently.
They are great against cavalry but cavalry flank very very quickly and halberdiers flee very easily, hence why you might aswell send them to fight feudal men at arms and those kind of troops, besides like ive said why send halberdiers who can cut though medium and light infantry with ease to do the job of spearmen class troops or braver troops when you dont have to?
In my experience, halberdiers dont have to lose very many men before they run, whereas im confident that if billmen are surrounded that they will either cut there way out or give as much damage as they take id expect halberdiers to lose heart and run for it. I am never confident using halberdiers, i always find myself keeping an eye on them. Whereas billmen i know theyll do there job and will only run if i make a mistake sending them against better troops etc.
I know halberdiers are peasant/militia class troops according to the game but what i dont understand though is WHY is their morale set so low? i know one thing if i was armed with a halberd in the medieval era id be more confident than some guy whos been given second rate swords and out of date armour, yet for some reason halberdiers lose heart faster.
It is a matter of style and tactics and stuff though, ive never doubted halberdiers advantages i just think the morale is to big a deal to overlook when i can have men who have better morale to do the same job, may not have the killing power of halberdiers but any heavy cavalry will have a hard time getting through italian infantry or rus spearmen etc. Freeing up my halberdiers to cut there infantry to pieces.
I cant believe i forgot about CFK never seen 40 men cause so much carnage, beautiful!
I understand completely. There are some great axe units out there; I'm always extremely fond of VG when I play as the Byzantines. I don't own VI, but from what I've heard, there are some wonderful axe units there too, including huscarls and even more powerful variations. Some units of swordsmen really do make excellent shock weapons. Every unit has its merits, and just about every unit shines in its own moment. Thus, a balanced army such as the one you describe would be very effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hold Steady
I also like to attack, but I admit my attacks are usually a bit more slow and methodical. Of course, there's those moments when the enemy reveals a weakness that must be exploited quickly, but since that usually means he's left some missile troops or artillery exposed, I'll usually make those quick attacks with cavalry.
I used to use a lot of spearmen and swordsmen. At the moment, spear/pike units are out of favor. They fall awfully quickly when flanked, and casualties start to mount pretty rapidly when they lose formation, which can happen even in a head-on engagement. Even though they move faster than halberdiers, their dependence on maintaining formation means that they actually turn more slowly, and thus seem more cumbersome and unwieldy. In my last campaign, I tried pikemen out for the first time, and found them uncomfortably vulnerable to missile weapons - even Swiss armoured pikemen. They can stop cavalry more effectively than anything, but they kill so slowly that they are sure to take casualties in the melee, even if their formation holds. Therefore, at this point I wouldn't use spearmen for much besides holding a narrow choke point. Of course, some factions rely on spearmen for their infantry core (such as the Turks, Gazis notwithstanding), and this changes things. Besides, some spear units, such as Saracen and Italian infantry, are really not that bad, and will perform well on most battlefields, despite the inherent weaknesses of spear units that I've mentioned.
As for swordsmen, I do like to have some of them around; as I said, they are good shock weapons and are very useful at times. I just have memories of sending large numbers of FMAA into large infantry clashes against infantry I considered inferior, and though my FMAA were usually victorious, they'd lose a whole lot of men before winning through. They showed great morale by sticking it out through mounting losses, but I'm just not comfortable losing half my men just to win a victory. I look for decisive wins. I've also had big groups of Byzantine infantry cut up by just a few elite heavy cavalry, or torn to shreds by enemy halberdiers.
But in the end, every unit has its purpose, and a balanced army will be very effective. We all have valid reasons for picking our favorite unit.
I have the upmost respect for the Varangian Guard. They are elite and very effective against all troop types, even cavilry.
Until they meet militia Sergs Bwhaha
Yes, I did a few tests last night involving VG, and was surprised by some of the units they were able to beat. They handily defeated both Spanish lancers and JHI. I wanted to test them against Gothic knights but couldn't, since VG are not available to the Byzantines in the high period. As the Byzantines, I always use VG as my primary anti-cavalry unit, and they always do very well.Quote:
Originally Posted by derF
A tactic that I find particularly efficient in the early/high is to split my army into 2 groups. The bulk of the army will be formed by spears in the front to protect missiles units behind them and swords/axes ready to charge the enemy units pinned by the spearmen. The other group will be made of the same kind of units but it will be half of the size. The two groups will maneuver in such a way to stay perpendicularly each other and one facing the front of the enemy line and the other that will be on the flank of the enemy line. The cavalry will have a role that can change a lot depending on the nature of the battlefield. Sometimes it goes with the small group to enhance the flanking power. Other times act like a third fast group that have the goal to cut the enemy escape way.
Often the enemy will try to change his formation in order to face one of the two groups. This will trigger a long series of coordinate movements (this is a serious drawback in the desert!). The AI can’t decide whether to attack the main army or the small one: if his army will face the big group the small will cut his way through the flank, if it will face the small one…we will have some good time!
I can often drive the enemy army where I want and, there, I can start the slaughter. Sometimes a unit particularly eager to fight, leave the enemy army line and charge one of the two groups. In this case the missiles units will “soften” the target and then the cavalry (or swords) will finish the job. Once, fighting as the Spanish, against the Almohads I routed the all army after a single skirmish with a archers unit…but I think their general wasn’t that good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kommodus
I think you will like my tactic, although it is a little time consuming. the name??? Neo-Byzantine
The real strength in this tactic is your main core. I only use this tactic when I have very balanced and big army. What I do is the set my main core in this formation from front to back Naphta, TA, VGs and BInf., then the katanks. I would move main core about 40 yds. away from the enemy. Then I use my ByzClrv, and PAllagion to attack my enemy. After 45 seconds of fighting i withdraw them and while i am withdrawing i send my main core to the enemy and let loose my naptha and TAs. After the napthas are out I call for a full infantry charge as a buffer for my katanks. :charge: Remember the PAs and ByzClrv, I use to attack the flanks. With the enemy in the crucible, :duel: its only a matter of time before they collapse and rout. I like to use against the Turks, give them a taste of their own medicine.
If a man has not discovered something he will die for, then he is not fit to live.
Rock, paper, scissors - I guess everyone has their own style! And some people would no doubt flunk with someone else's army.
Someone asked what's the point of Abyssinian Guards - when I played Egypt, I rarely had Ghazis, but went for the Abs instead. Can't remember now whether they're elite or disciplined, but it is handy status. Because they don't vaporize on contact with the enemy like Ghazis do, I found I could do a lot more damage with them. Especially good at clearing the cowering foil-wrapped infidel from out of the trees, that's for sure.
I'm now doing Late Turks just to play with Janisseries. So far have my JHI flying out of Constantinople, and my Master Archer is ready next year. My current balance is 3 Saras, 1 JHI, 2 Otto, 2 Turk foot, 2 Turk horse, 2 Armenian heavies, 1 Turk Sipahi, 1 SoP (pref general), and the last 2 usually extra armour piercing, Slav Javs, extra Ottos, etc, depending on the balance of the enemy. Turkoman Horse are great for the desert.
For a bit of fun, I'm thinking about trying a solely 'spear'-based army, though may have to call JHI "spears" to make it work, lol. And I have no Jinetes yet.... Gotta get my emissaries to Spain with a big wad.
But what I hope to try is a 4 x Sara wall with 1 JHI either flank, backed up by 4 Slav Javs, 2 Jinetes, 2 Armenian heavies, 2 light steppe. Apart from the JHI, all spears, and 470 men on small units. Or maybe one of the Javs could be replaced by Muwahids....
Tactics have to vary with terrain, weather, enemy forces etc. There is a simple word for generals who always use the exact same (or predictable) tactics: vanquished!
Since getting addicted to this game, I've starting reading history again, and I'm amazed just how many crap generals there were then! It was more often that a battle was spectacularly lost than actually won by the other side. And mostly impetuousness, poor morale, or pride was at fault.
Don't forget, generals didn't have the advantage you have as a game. You look from above your troops. You can rotate the camera. Your orders are followed out almost immediately. And you can pause the game to issue some more orders.Quote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus
Generals in those days didn't have that kind of luxery, and often once the battle commenced it was pure chaos. Communication remained (and remains ) a problem on the battlefield.
Plus, the nobility were general the most well-trained forces on the battlefield, and they were battlewinning. However, they weren't exactly the types to listen to orders from their generals. Nobility comes with ego. This is reflected quite nicely with the impetious stat.
At Agincourt French knights got turned into pincushions after they decided they could charge up a hill straight through their own troops. Well brave they were, but no one is accusing them for being smart...:)
That's odd, because my Ghazis kept going even while they were getting slaughtered (and this wasn't with a seven-star general either). Abyssianian Guards have one huge drawback: they are bloody expensive. Their upkeep is way too high for unit that is basically a buffed-up Ghazi. And despite their better defence, they still get killed very quickly. I treat both Ghazis and Guards as fire-and-forget missiles, and for that purpose the Ghazis are better suited because they are faster, have a better morale and, most importantly, don't have a ridiculously high upkeep. If you try to be tactical, the more sturdy and more disciplined Abyssinian guards might help, but for enveloping and flanking cavalry works better.Quote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus
BTW Ghazis actually have a higher morale than Abyssinian guards. The guards are elite, but that only helps when your troops start routing.
Re Abs: The upkeep cost didn't really figure, I had trade cranked up so high it was impossible to spend everything even with every province building and training permanently. I also use them differently to Ghazis, in that they tend to protect my line rather than go charging into the enemy. I don't really like suicide troops, they're my people, digital or not, and it's such a waste ~:grouphug:
Maybe because I don't see them as buffed up ghazis is why I like em more?
Re crap generals: yeah, the game does give us certain advantages, and so does a few thousand years recorded history.... we know stuff some greats had to discover for themselves. I was thinking particularly abt one of the Scottish Kings (maybe David) who invaded England and decided his best tactic was to charge his highlanders straight uphill into English bows and knights, doh! If he'd had VI to practice with history may well be different.
Exactly how do you use them? As pinning troops or as flankers? Because I don't see how they could function as pinning troops with their low defence stat and for flanking a unit of Ghazi will suffice as well. Or do you upgrade them?Quote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus
Ghazis are good at dead-or-glory charges and at flanking, but not at pinning. As far as I can see, Abyssinian Guards can do dead-or-glory charges (but it is rather a waste of money) and can flank. However, they will kill slower than Ghazis, and killing power is the main requisite for flankers (for me at least).
Since Ghazis are religious fanatics, I have no compuction of sending them to their deaths. If someone is willing to die and their sacrifice will safe the lives of other people, then I think it worth the price. Sometimes, you have to be cruel in order to be kind.
Ludens: I think that what macsen rufus is saying is that he uses Abyssinian Guards similar to the way most of us use swordsmen - as front-line melee troops, whose purpose is to stand and engage in a head-on battle and kill effectively without running away or being destroyed too quickly.
How would they perform at this task? I'm really not sure, since I've never tried them. Their stats indicate a high attack and high morale, coupled with poor defense and armor. Thus, I'm sure they die quicker than you'd probably want. However, in my experience, sometimes a strength in one area can make up for a weakness in another. For example, halberdiers have such a low attack rating that you wouldn't expect them to do much damage. However, their armor and defense are so high that they will have plenty of time to rack up kills while their opponent tries unsuccessfully to penetrate their armor. It could be that in many situations, Abyssinian Guards will slaughter and rout their opponents so quickly that the Guards don't lose many men. Of course, this is all hypothetical, and it is certain that armor, weapon, and valour upgrades would significantly add to the Guards' survival ability.
So how would Guards differ from Ghazis in their usage and usefulness? Well, while Guards have a low defense rating, Ghazis have a MUCH lower defense rating, so even with plenty of upgrades, they will die very quickly in a head-on fight. They are also faster on their feet, which makes them a better flanker. As for holding a portion of a battle line, Guards will clearly be far better - both because of their better defense and because they are not the impetuous loose cannons that Ghazis are. Ghazis should be kept on the wings of an army, where they will be in a better position to flank, and be less tempted to go charging off on their own. Guards can stand and fight anywhere in a battle line, although as I've said, their low defense means they will not be the best for this task. Clearly, neither unit would be effective at pinning an enemy.
In the end, Guards are probably only worth having if you've got plenty of money. If you do, however, they would make a good addition to an army, since they can do things that Ghazis can't. If I were building a large, powerful Egyptian army, I would rather have a few Abyssinians in my "A" lineup to augment the Saracens, archers, and cavalry than only Ghazis. They would be better at surviving the initial battle and still being around when enemy reinforcements start marching onto the field.
The problem with using abyssinians as front line troops is that front line troops are often the victim of cavalry charges and abyssians completely suck at receiving cavalry charges. Troops like abyssinian guards and ghazi's are most usefull as flankers and should be used as such. there are much better units for holding the line and you should be able to build those by the time you can build abyssinians.
As for my own tactics, i like battles in wich the melee lasts very short, or better yet, where the battle is solved without a melee. horse archers are great for such a tactic so they are my favourite kind of unit. Foot archers are also nice because they can also defeat units without getting into contact with them, but unlike the horse archers they need some support to survive.
Altough they can be effective, i'm not a big fan of the catholic heavy slugging army's. They work but they lack subtlety. A good general doesn't need heavy troops to win his battles.
Nice analysis, Kommodus, similar thinking to my own. I found the big drawback to Egyptians is the lack of swords (except when you get to proper handgunners). I mostly used the abs as flankers, cover for missile troops, or occasionally poised behind/between Saras to open the latest delivery of Canned Crusader stuck on the end of their spears.... I also love them for taking apart pinned cavalry, but in nearly all uses they have to be the hammer of a hammer and anvil tactic.
And as I pointed out before, they also excell in woods for some reason, and can operate alone there. Personally, I find the -1 attack a good bargain for the +3 defence.
Now with the Turks, I use ghazis occasionally, but I see them more as weak Otto's who've forgotten their bows, really ;)
Militia sergs fall easily against good cavalry, but harbs dosent and I see them as mainly defensive units or attacking whit 6star general.
Problem is that they are really slow and they will get good deal archer fire before attacker can got his archers in range.....soon enough you can make them flee of battle arena and others will fallow.
... and now I'm going to disagree with myself after the last battle I had (castle assault), because unexpected results forced me to F1 in utter dismay :lol: and I saw just how much more attack capacity the ghazis had than the ottos (V2 ghazi 6* att, v3 ottos 3* attack) Even so, I did have more ottos left after the melee... but I was not happy to have to send in my heir apparent (still mounted) into the castle to finish off what my infantry couldn't. As a rule, I usually don't let my general within missile range of a castle, due to that unexpected accuracy thing on your general's unit.....Quote:
Now with the Turks, I use ghazis occasionally, but I see them more as weak Otto's who've forgotten their bows, really ;)
Ho hum, well, it was a complacent assault, but I'm not replaying it now!
Not at valour 3 and above...Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpent
Ghazi all the way. Varangian does everything ghazi does, but worse, excpet for holding a front line. But egypt has Saracen, who are much better ta that then varangian. Besides if you want to worry about holding the line, be a Christian and get some halberds. That hole, hold the line thing is obsolete for the Egyptian way of fighting.
If your an egyptian army you shouldnt be worrying about good front line troops. The best front line troop you get as Eggies is one of the first units you get. Saracen is what you need, use your brain to think of more important things, like whether or not to use lots of HA, or Hashishan. Hashishan rule, just dont make 16 untis of them.
Heya!
Well, since I ALWAYS play as the Romans (The Eastern ones, I hate saying Byzantines ) Her's my game plan.
I have found that since you never have enough forces to go on an actual offensive, that defense is a great way to go. This allows you to use your Byzantine Cavalry to it's greatest advantage, as lures for your infantry trap.
I only use Kataphraktoi for a counter flanking tool, as they get tired too quickly to engage in the melee right off, and you can't march them around to the right position.
I never bulk up armies, as well. I usually use my heirs, equip them with a guard force basically, and send them to attack or defend. Of course this only works in the earlier part of the game.
VG's are essential, but they build slowly, so I sometimes, if I have the money grab a semi large Mercenary force, and just rampage around until they are spent, and advance to where I want to. It's expensive, but it works.
I alter my tactics to fit my faction but I think my favorite way to play is with axe-men. Ie Vikings or Varangians. I like to take my Vikings and groom them for valor from the start. I also constantly upgrade them. Obsolete! yeah right, seems in F1 my guys have better stats than the Ghulum Bodygards and Royal Knights they chew up. I like to have atleast two lines of them and alternate the lines to give the guys a rest. I do add in some heavy Cav for any cav needs but this is a foot army. My deffense are really mini-offensive actions. And there is nothing more satisfying to me than marching up a hill and slaughtering deffenders with my beffed up heavy hitters. While this may sound like the Catholic meat grinder it is not. There is very little pinning and flanking going on. Mostly it is straight up smash and eleminate.
I see, thanks for the explanation. When playing the Egyptians, I favour a more fluid style of battle, with lots of skirmishing and archery, preferably from horseback. I don't really need a special hammer unit, my royal Ghulams, aided by Mameluk horse archers and Faris, can take care of pinned enemy units. If necessary, Muwahids can do a very good job at flanking: they are fast, good morale, powerful charge and due to the rank bonus a good defence. You do need to have them at engage-at-will or else you will waste the charge, but they are very good light spearmen.Quote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus
Ghazis and other hard hitters do not feature much in this kind of battle: when I engage the enemy should already be on the brink of routing.
It's easy to critisise the Abyssinian units. They are expensive and difficult to justify. That said the unit is superb for dealing with almost any units once you get out of the desert and into the woods. Also they are excellent for taking on spearmen, halbs, and militia sergs in open field combat. That said, it's a lot of cost to take on relatively low cost units.
As stated elsewhere, I'm partial to specialised HA units like Faris, Boyers, SHC, Turkomen Horse, and Byz Cav, but for heaven's sakes, don't put them up against Western Catholic cav. I'm waiting on JHI to deal with the heavy western Cav units I'm facing in my Turkish campaign as I'm down to the final 4 right now and attacking in open field combat against heavy cav is rough. I try to engage my ghazi's on their cav in the woods, or use spear, missle and light cav to try and get them to charge my spear positions (with Turk infantry and Fatuwa behind the spears). It's a lot of work.
My egyptian armies are cavalry heavy lots of mamluk HA units, ghulam cavalry mamluk cavalry etc, for infantry i tend to have saracens, muwahids and abyssinians i also tend to have significant numbers of italian and english mercenaries in my ranks to make up for some of egypts shortcomings and ive had alot of success this way.
Ive had little respect for horse archers especially light ones, but in my recent turkish campaign ive found that turcomans are spectacular HA's. No fewer than 4 victories against crusader armies are thanks to the turcomans, i stripped dozens of troops from the best of the crusader armies, not to mention the small units that all crusades have were swept up in melee charges and really the templar knights once the bane of my existance are now reduced by showers of arrows.
Ive now mastered horse archery and rarely lose more than a few HA's in a battle and once their finished i find swift charges from ghazis break up whatever infantry is left in the army and my hordes of cavalry can chase them down.
There was a close call once though when a german crusade and a spanish one arrived in Rum and would possibly have defeated me even after my HA's had caused there damage, but foolishing the german and spanish crusades fought each other and my army merely destroyed what survived.
I make a lot of use of Turk Horse - v2s from tripoli/master, re-equipped with upgraded weapons, but no armour. Usually 6 out of my sixteen units, possibly with some steppe heavies thrown in too, if there are no SoP handy (I took Russia first for a change ...)
They are good for wearing the knights out before melee, and with the upgraded weapons they are still useful and dangerous light cav for taking out foot missiles and routers. They are even useful in sieges dismounted. The problem is I like so much I can't stop training them, they're everywhere now :charge:
When I attack, I just send skimishers and archers to draw them out first, then attack head on with heavy infantry with ranged support. Then, I attack the flanks of the enemy with calvalry, and, when they break off, I halt my infantry and archers and send "fast" units to kill the routers.
When you attack the rear of an enemy, it's very likely that they'll rout and get killed from the behind. That's enough to draw them into a circle and destroy them.
If there are reinforcements that I know of, then, I'll just regroup and not follow the enemy so that I can await the next attack.
I mostly rely on infantry, archers, and heavy calvalry. That's where the Byzantines come in.
Ha it has been some time since the last post here in the Main Hall, a shame for the great game MTW still is;
Here is a great discussion about the use of missile units in MTW in general, with creative use of the underused.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...6&page=3&pp=30
By the way: Szekely all the way ~;)
OA
Oh my God! How can you people talk about "my armies are comprised of this and that and I usem in this and that way"?? There is no proper way to create an army! There is no proper formation or proper usage! Hell, I'll charge to a frontal melee uphill with horse archers against billmen if I can benefit from it!
Got carried away a bit, sorry 'bout that... :)
What I mean to say is that 90% of victory is in terrain, enemies army and the way he uses it. Only 10% is in abilities of your units. Adaptation to the current situation on the battlefield is what brings victory not Katatanks or Szekely or Longbowmen...
Read Sun Tzu! He derailed my thoughts from "ow these Swiss Pikemen are sooo nice..."
And didn't Sun Tzu spend a lot of time discussing the construction of a balanced army to achieve tactical flexibility, the proper equipping of troops, and the benefits of morale and discipline? Did he not rave about his halberdiers?? (Okay, not Swiss ones, but he did :bow: )
Well "Ping Fa" (Art of War) is, as I see it, all about Tao (the Way). And following Tao is to conquer without a fight, being honorable to your enemy, being fair to your troops. It doesn't say anything about "spear beats cavalry", because he is all about deception. Sun Tzu tells us to keep our units in state of orderly disorder so that the enemy cannot see the obvious (hmm, why does he have fast cavalry far out on his flanks I wonder... - that kind of obvious). Most of the book is about lay of the land, morale of troops and winning without combat in the first place. And the BIG point of that book is to being able to use your main force as a manouvering force and vice versa.
But hey, it's just me... The book was written about 2000 years ago, what do I know what he actually said? Reading Sun Tzu is just like reading Aristotel for example. It's language is archaic and poetic and it doesn't reaveal some long lost recipe for instant victory or instant understanding to the meaning of life.
If the opponent deploys very close to me I preffer to do a head on charge. I try to envelop the enemy so I tend to have a mixed center and cavalry hammering at the flanks. Horse archers are a lot of fun too, espescially when you have an all-out cavalry army. Isolating infantry units and hitting them from all sides, then retreating and repeat.
Tactics tend to work best when tailored to the enemy, and the nice thing about the pre-battle screen in VI is it lets you do that.
One of my favorite battles was as the English desperately defending Flanders from the yearly French assaults. One year I noticed that their initial troops on the field were almost all archers or crossbows, with just a couple of spear units. I put all my cavalry out first, and while deploying my army put them as close to the attacker position as possible, along with a few swordsmen to keep the spears busy, keeping the rest of my troops way back where reinforcements could reach them quickly. When the battle started I was right next to them, and my Hobilars and Royal Knights quickly overran their whole army before they could cause any real damage. They routed en masse and I started marching back to my other forces. His cavalry caught up with my rearguard as I was pulling back, though, but they were so demoralized after the first action that they immediately routed and his whole army withdrew.
Usually, though, I play pretty conservatively with a mixed infantry battle line (mostly spears) supported by archers, with cavalry guarding the flanks. Most factions have enough unit selection to get some variation of that and it's flexible enough to pull through in most situations.