Playing Syle

Well due to a suggestion over in the Patch Thread, I decided to make a thread were we could all discuss and give tips about playing style. So...Whats you playing style and how does it work for you?

I am a old infantry commander from way back in the early days of MTW, and that carries over to RTW. In my battles I don't rely on archers or calv to win the day. Its the infantry that carries me, and I must say when it comes to Horse Archers I don't have a clue how to use them. They are my greatest weakness.

I love the infantry battles.

Currently playing as Macedonia. Usually have a pretty balanced stack. 10 phalanx infantry units, 6 cavalry units, 3 archer units, and a general to lead the way.
Phalanx infantry all lined up of course, cavalry on the rear wings, archers behind phalanx. Works like a charm.

I rate myself as a jack of all trades really I suppose im a Infantrymen at heart but im more than capable of controlling armies of cavalry/archers/horse archers etc.

Actually thanks to MTW and playing every faction alot i got the skills necessary. My weakness on MTW was my use of archers and skirmishers id usually forget about them and theyd play a little in the battle, on RTW i can now since archers friendly fire alot less and leave them on attack at will, confident that theyll cause much damage.

Which from the after battle statistics they clearly do making up about 1/5 of all enemy kills on average.

I'm very much also an infantry-heavy player. As far as I'm concerned I use the infantry to do all the actual work and just use the archers and cavalry for softening up/mopping up the enemy.

I like using balanced armies.

But now and then I will set up a force that is totally cav, to be a qwik response to rebels and stray enemy armies.

I find full phalanx forces difficult as most of the AI armies will try to flank them now and I usually end up engaging the enemy with cav on the flanks rather than the inf in the middle.

I adapt to what faction I am playing and who I am fighting. When I fight the scythians I use lots of archers. When I play as the greeks I rely almost solely on infantry. Gauls I just love those Foresters, mixed with noble cavalry to break the enemy after they have been shot to pieces

I guess I like to try something new, it is easy enough to win so I like to experiment with different armies.

Right now I have been exploiting an autocalc "bug" to train my armies so I have been relying on 3 gold chevron Archer auxilias as the Julii with gold weapon upgrade which gives missile attack 21. 6 units of those archers usually wins the day...my legionaries just stand and watch until they run out of ammo because then it is mop up time :duel:

~D playing as barbs i always use the charge :charge: like everyone just CHARGE
try to overwhelm your enemy, as so called civilized factions, you have to use the head a bit more, as simply charging will get you killed
my style would be to send in the skirms, wait & see whats going on, when their spent , i then send ithe hastati, its kinda difficult to get them to throw their pilums all togeather, its a shame it wasnt scripted so that roman units couldnt throw their javs while running, im sure they must have done this in real life, because you still have the momentum of the charge :charge:
as soon as i see wavering in the ranks i pull them back, yeah i know you loose numbers, but its just my way, i then send in the big guys the princs, these guys tend to hold there line more, very reliable, & of course the romans had a saying " right down to the triarii" so these vets if have to be used just destroy all thats left(if used wisely) & the cave mops up
thats my wat, anyway

Back in my MTW days, I had this irrational dislike of knights - so as far as I was concerned, cavalry were only used to chase down routers, and reinforce the main infantry battle line. I also prefer sword armed troops to spearmen - I like my battle line to be hard hitting and manoeuvrable. Archers I regard as a necessary support section.

In Rome, I've swung towards using more cavalry - still to flank, unless hot on the heels of an elephant charge, or into some inferior non-spear unit. More of a combined arms commander now, which isn't a bad thing. Where possible, I do try to demolish the enemy at range - no sense in getting my men killed, is there?

i'm an defensive player. i rely on a mix of mostly infantry and some supportive archers and cavalry. i dont like HA or JC.

I use infantry mixed with cavalry. I never use archers or horse archers.

yes i only use archer with factions that have good archers, so i mostly dont use them.

I'm playing a campaign as Armenia now and have learned to love HA (it took me a while, though). I have fielded armies that consist solely of HA and a general. It's great, the can move fast on the campaign map and on the battle field the only thing that can really hurt them are archers and chariots. The AI has no clue about how to fight HA.

I am a cavalry player. I use manouverability to create and exploit weaknesses in enemy ranks, and then finish them off with a well timed precision charge. I always have some infantry for holding the enemy line or taking the brunt of their charge, but it's the cavalry that does most of the work for me. I also love horse archers, and use at least a few foot missile units in each army. If I can, I get them to use all the ammo before any melee engagement.

My favorite tactic lately with fixed HA is to send two units of them past each enemy flank. Not attacking, just running past them and shooting as they go. This usually splits their line in the middle, where my cavalry can then charge their flanks. It's great fun against the Romans.

I wold say Im more of an infantry type, but I do rely heavily on cavalry. I usually take relatively few, 4-5 in each stack, usually 1-2 light and the rest heavy. I never use HAs (well, there are obviously exceptions, but as a general rule). I do have a heavy infantry line for the occasions when things get ugly, and i also take a t least 3-4 foot archers, and a couple of skirmishers.... In most cases, if the enemy army is only 1 stack, my heavy inf never even gets to engage, if it is not egyptians Im facing of course...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hrvojej

I am a cavalry player. I use manouverability to create and exploit weaknesses in enemy ranks, and then finish them off with a well timed precision charge. I always have some infantry for holding the enemy line or taking the brunt of their charge, but it's the cavalry that does most of the work for me. I also love horse archers, and use at least a few foot missile units in each army. If I can, I get them to use all the ammo before any melee engagement.

My favorite tactic lately with fixed HA is to send two units of them past each enemy flank. Not attacking, just running past them and shooting as they go. This usually splits their line in the middle, where my cavalry can then charge their flanks. It's great fun against the Romans.

---

How do u fix the horse archers?

I rely on archers as long as the faction has any availible. I usually have 8-10 Infantry, 5-7 archers and the rest cav of various styles to wipe up the remnants. I let the archers just fire away as long as possible, concentrating on enemy cav or elephants (if they have them) and then the center of their line. After I have exhausted my arrows, or the enemy gets to close, I charge the infantry forward to engage the enemy line. I usually keep my most experienced infantry to the rear to react as needed to holes or weaknesses in my line. Once the enemy breaks, I send the cav out to clean up everything.

I like to build my armies 'realistically, with lots of the 'basic' unit of a faction. As the Romans I very rarely use any infantry other than legionary cohorts or auxilia, as the Seleucids I use lots of Phalanx Pikemen, as the Britons lots of Swordsmen and so on. This tends to restrict the cavalry I can include in my armies and so pushes me towards more infantry based armies.

I'm an infantry player too, but i do use quite a lot of cavalry.

my favourite tactic is marching up to the enemy with my hastati/principes on fire at will.

line them up so that they.re in range and then let them fire at the enemy, then charge. cavalry mop up

works great against most enemies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeanne d'arc

How do u fix the horse archers?

---

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...0&page=3&pp=30

A post #66 by QwertyMIDX.

Back on MTW i was a big heavy cavalry fan, the only time i didnt use lots of cavalry was when i went the byzantines who are my fave faction to go, id have plenty of byzantine infantry varangian guards, Katanks and Allagions/lancers where usually there to protect the wings or incase my infantry couldnt win on there own.

When i went western nations, chivalric knights the knights of the various orders and lancers etc where the key troops in my army, its the knights that make a western army great the massive armour and attack and defence stats plus the insanely powerful charges they had meant they could pile through lines of infantry with ease.

Cavalry on RTW doesnt rule the field as much as on MTW i think, most infantry if they pin cavalry into fighting infantry style battles can cut them to pieces where on MTW even if you got Chivalric knights to fight infantry style battles basically stopping them from charging around the field causing mayhem the cavalry would probably still rout the infantry unless they were halbs or something.

Aint an army on RTW that i feel more comfortable with than my old Byzantine armies backon MTW.

Fortunately the AI in both MTW and RTW are unable to counter the same tactics over and over again, so I stick to the same scenario:

12-15 Heavy Infantry forming the center line, with one company placed in reserve behind both flanks.

4-6 Cavalry, half on either flank behind and slightly to the to the right and left of the infantry column

2-3 Archers, behind the Infantry, preferably on a hill.

If attacking, my tactics are simple: Close with the enemy using the Infantry, then flank with the Cavalry. When the enemy routs he'll find his retreat cut off by the Cavalry.

Note: I only play civilized factions, so these tactics may not work overly well when playing Barbarians (but they work beautifully when against them.

good old fasioned phalanx player here, i just like to get stuck in and stick my spears in peoples faces :)

going all the way back to STW, i play a definite defensive war, almost to the point getting myself destroyed due to my non-agressive stance. I base my armies around archer units on the high ground, protecting them as my main plan. This sucks the enemy armies into my heavy infantry in front of them and allows what little cav i have to flank them.

Cavalry reign supreme on the battlefield, and make up the bulk of my armies. Play it defensive with a ´thin´single line of infantry (4-5 units), 2-3 units of archers (preferly Aux. or Creatian), then mass the rest as medium/heavy cavalry (~11 units) on ONE flank a bit off (group into two lines).

Your enemy will advance towards your battleline under fire from your archers, causing some to break, they will clash with your infantry and get stuck there for a while. Once the enemy is heavly engaged with your infantry, let your massed cavalry swing around from the flank (and some distance) and start smashing into the enemys rear formations from the side, then turn towards charging towards your own line of infantry. This generally result in huge casualties for the enemy, lots of routing units that can be cut down, a reasonable intact infantry.

Playing STW my armies used to look more or less as follows:

4-6 archers (preferably with honour/weapon upgrades);

4 buddhist monks as assault troops;

6-8 (cheap) spears to hold the line and counter possible enemy cav charges;

2 spear cav to clean up the routers.

My technique was to concentrate all the archer fire at once on an elite enemy unit till it was thoroughly depleted, then move onto the next. Alternatively, just concentrate fire on the closest attacking enemy.

Once the enemy had been sufficiently worn down in numbers and morale, would then charge with my spearmen and monks, usually causing the enemy to quickly rout and then putting my cav to the chase.

I've found in RTW I've had to modify my strategy, due to the Romans' lack of either a decent spear or missile unit.

So my Roman RTW armies look like this:

Maybe 2-3 units of cretan archers or rhodian slingers at the front;

6 equites/generals cav units, evenly divided on the flanks;

The rest made up of Roman infantry, mercenary hoplites or merc inf.

Cav has now become the decisive arm, basically I try and use it either to ride down the enemy cav, or else to ride down the enemy missile units. By that time my infantry is usually engaged and the cav in position to deliver the decisive blow in the enemy's rear.

I rely on Archers, preferably Cretan Archers.

I form up infantry front and center, flank with skirmishers/peltasts/Illiryan Mercs/slingers to extend the line to either side with this wing having a 2nd unit (javilin-type) behind the first. Behind the infantry is where I line up the archers. Cav is split to either flank.

I try to march up my forces to max archery range and stop. Let the cretans start shooting. As the enemy responds by approaching, slingers start in. As they close, the javilin types open up. With a Roman army, the Pila troops are all shooting too. I dont build much triarii.

These tactics do a great job of weaking a army so it breaks easily.

I do notice that AI archers are far better than player-controlled archers.

I almost exclusively play as barbarian factions. In the early game, my armies are based on economics more than anything. The General and his heavy cav. are the backbone and centerpiece. I get rid of as many warbands as i can (exception: Germania needs at least 2 spear warbands in each main army). I rely on mobility. Combining 2 Generals with 1 or 2 barbarian cavalry in a mass and going for the enemy leadership is 90% effective for me. I use mercenaries to augment where i need to, especially Illyrian mercenaries, who are one of the most multi-purpose, effective units in the early game. I place mine on guard mode and use them for infantry as well as the traditional skirmisher/ambusher. I limit myself to one war dog unit, but in 1.2, the enemy uses them so i do too.

In the late middle game, i transition to chosen swords and chosen archers, but still mass my cav. to take out the opposing general as quick as i can.

In the barbarian regions, Heavy Chariots (Brittania) and Spear Warbands (Germania) are the greatest challenges. Mobility and wise use of terrain (especially forests) are the key to fighting with smaller forces for me.

I am no tactics player. It's not that I have troubles winning battles; its more that I'm afraid to take risks where that can be avoided. I appreciate the fact that winning decisive victories will give you great rewards, but if I can avoid the possibility of losing potential power (being a fort, a bridge, a city, etc.) I will do that, even if that'll cost me a lot on the short term. If there is a battle to be fought, I will be defending, or I am outnumbering my enemy in such a way that the battle has been fought already. I can crush anything the AI throws at me on the defence, so I maneuver on the campaign map until they are forced to attack _me_.

If I am actually on the battlefield, I will use the hammer and anvil tactic as much as possible. Using defensive troops in a long line, a few fast cavalry (speed is key, I don't care about power) and skirmishers to deal with enemy cavalry. Point is to break the enemy, not to kill him. Therefore I commit as much of my troops as possible on one or a few points, force a rout, continue on to the next units, force a rout, etc. To limit losses, I won't use cavalry in great amounts. They are great tactically, but they are expensive and fragile. Using them as a main arm of my legions would cost me too much; I rather use them to hit the rear and flanks, while the infantry soaks up casualties.

The way I play the strategy game has a big impact on tactics.

One of the reasons I like HA-heavy all-cavalry armies so much is that they can range all over the map and destroy the poor old AI piecemeal. I tend to fight a lot of battles against badly outnumbered phalanx infantry.

I try to match my strategy to who I use. When I use the romans, I use the checkerboard pattern for those lovely little infantry. With my Seleucids (my favorite faction), or Macedonians, I have one long line of pikes, some good quality archers and medium infantry (like the Thracians or basternae) to back up the middle of my force.

For cav, I use what I can get. I really like the Light Lancers, speed kills, but I have one hammer wing (usually right) that has the bulk of my cavalry. I like the skirmisher cav on the opposite wing to keep the baddies at bay. When we close I send my hammer wing out wide and then crush them against my pikes. But mind, I don't usually do this with the Romans. I don't include enough cav to do so!

Azi

well, i find at home playing with my favourite Greeks, with infantry heavy units... especially spartan hoplites with cretan archers support plus some merc cavalry added in the mix :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lichgod

I do notice that AI archers are far better than player-controlled archers.

---

I'll say - on VH at least.

When AI cretan archers fire on a unit of mine, they can lose close to a quarter of the unit to a volley. Seven or eight volleys is all it seems to take before the unit is effectively extinct.

By contrast, I've been really disappointed at the performance of my own cretans. They seem to have to shoot half their arrows off to decimate a single unit - even one with little armour. They appear to be even less effective than vanilla archers in Shogun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorgTzu

I use mercenaries to augment where i need to, especially Illyrian mercenaries, who are one of the most multi-purpose, effective units in the early game.

---

Yes, they are a handy little multi-purpose unit, aren't they? I've accumulated quite a lot of them in my current game.