Printable View
I dont know if im placing this in the correct area, I want it to cover all 3 games so I placed it here. Please move it if I have placed it wrong.
So anyway what kind of general are you in battle?
I would say that I am a cavalry general :charge:
After that archer general
I MTW for instance my favo army combination was some foot soldier quite alot of cavalry and some archers (Especially longbowmen)
Well I like my armies to have LOTS of archers (well I am Welsh) and a good swathe of heavy cavalry.
I like my infantry to be well armoured and disciplined.
As a playing style I like to try to decimate the enemy with archers from a good position then rout them with several cavalry charges from both flanks. I tend to only commit my infantry when it comes to the final crunch and to mop up afterwards.
When playing MTW, I always kill all my prisoners and with RTW I always exterminate town populations.
Bloodthirsty, moi ?? :skull:
I'm your typical blundering idiot; all my kings have the Often Drunk vice whether it says it on the info parchment or not.
I'm not concerned with setting records as a player, I never brag about prowess, and I can't stand threads that do the old RTS "Do this, this, and this, and this will be the result."
Most of you would be stunned into catatonia if all the things I don't know about this game were suddenly dropped into your psyche. ~:)
I have to say, the Total War community is the best. Bar none.
I tend to go for infantry. All types of infantry. Heavy in the centre and light (fast) on the flanks, plus some cavalry and archers for support.
I try to envelope my enemy. First I soften them up with missile troops, then the heavies go in to pin them, then my light infantry and cavalry envelope them.
ive always been an infantry general, in MTW i would field heavy infantry in strong enough numbers to engage all the enemy troops, a few cav would be used to flank and rout the enemy. in rome i tend to use the greek phalanx to great effect, meaning i will own anyone in an infantry on infantry battle, as the roman factions my i use the same tactic as in MTW, mass infantry with archers and cav there to deliver the final blow
Oh i also have a extreme liking for killing an enemy general. Im always quite dissapointed when i fail to kill the general regardles if it was me superior or a close call. (Read my little story in "Your favorite battle" in MTW section)
Encirclement is also a favorite tactic :duel:
I like being on the defensive, when I'm attacking I try to draw the enemy in . In Rome I play low-cav, out of fairness to the AI :furious3:
Well decorated but not much 'upstairs'
http://www.tridentmilitary.com/New-Photos6/sovnigen.jpg
Actually I believe in the combined forced approach, a solid infantry core with missile support and cav as flankers/flank protectors.
ichi :bow:
im an infantryman myself, line up my phalanx, laugh heartily as my opponent breaks on it then mop him up with a lil bit of cav. btw, Spartan117300 do you play halo at all?
I'm balanced and vary my army by objective. I haven't had the pleasure of Multiplayer yet.
Typically I lean towards infantry. My army of choice against almost all armies on hard/hard is three generals, two heavy horse, two light horse, two onagers, one archer, four elite infantry, and the rest standard heavy infantry (legion).
I always attack, even in the defense.
I like my infantry and cavalry to be of the highest quality. I want my infantry to be able to sustain a very heavy charge and hold. I want them to be able to exploit weaknesses that come about during a battle. I use my cavalry to route the enemy cavalry and then run amok in the enemies rear destroying any unit that is behind the infantry line and then routing the infantry line. I use long range missile units to hinder enemy missile attacks and as the Greeks I use peltasts as fast response troops and missile support. They often take the role of the cavalry as chasers and flankers, but never as anti-cav.
Grunts. Lots of grunts. Grunts here, grunts there, grunts everywhere.
OK, on some terrain I actually use ranged & cav too, so that I don't so early see: Kukri routs. And, in RL I'd utilize the highest tech available to its max.
But on this make-believe computer screen, I want to see 'average Joe', and all his like, kicking the butt of the 133t horsies of the rich guys, and the well-fed REMF never-met-the-enemy-in-person pointy stick launchers.
But that's just me. Your mileage may vary. ~D
if im attacking i will usualy not use any musketeers and chose a heavy rain day to attck.
but i like my heavy cavalry and musketeers.
archers run out of ammo to fast but i use some cavalry archers for sneak attacks.
warrior monks feature hevily in any Pinser like moovemnts.
and i always keep some "pike men" (i forget what there called) or thos nagenata blokes
right behind my musketeers so they can pull back behind them and stop shooting,
im not to good with kenzai they just seem to make the opponent run a bit =)
so
guess im a bad general :bow:
oh and i play shogun, :duel:
i play with lots of missile cav.. lots..
i use these to weaken the enemy while i move my whole line forward..
then i use cavalry to charge any units that get too close to my line.. and thats it.. wait for them to rout or die out to missile fire!
i have a few units of infantry just in case the battle swings that way but i only use infantry as a distraction while a cavalry sneaks round the back and charges units from behind..
thats just how i play it - im a real cavalry commander me... (just like Craterus - Alexander's cavalry commander)
My armies are pretty much the same on MTW and RTW. 8 units of heavy infantry, 4 units of elite heavy infantry, 4 units of medium cavalry, 2 units of archers and 2 seige weapons. The tactics i use are that if i'm attacking, i will send in some archers, to pick as many off as possible, then draw them back behind my infantry, and send the elite infantry into start the fight. Once they get going, i send in my normal infantry to help surround them. Then, last but not least, i will send my cavalry around the back of the enemy, and smash into them.
I kind of like an engineering approach to a battle. I'll bring some heavy infantry, maybe some cavalry and archers, but give me some heavy duty artillery, and I'm happy. I do enjoy a good siege too, sweeping the enemy off the walls, then crushing them in the streets...
i barely ever use artillery but i have a few onager units for sieges!
Combined arms.
And I don't leave home without a few spearmen.
heavy cavalry and infantry are my best friends.
Ob stuermt oder sneit, obs die sonne uns lacht!
Specialist Infantry Commander (IIRC that's the term in RTW). If you looked at my Roman formation in my guide, that's exactly how I use my formations in RTW (playing as a Roman).
It varies a bit in Shogun and MTW because the balancing was different. ~:)
:charge:
A Total Loser, Cheater, and Weakling.
I am proud to be a general.
I like to think I apply the Nelson touch (ie, in the absence of anything better to do, get your units alongside the enemy and start killing things.) Consequently I favour heavy infantry...
I can just about spell enfilade, and I'm quite willing to allow a few posh guys on horses to nob about somewhere on the battlefield pretending to be important, but IMHO the decisive moment is the clash of the hairy loonies.
I'm definitely a cavalry commander/general..
If you shout the title of this thread, you'll get some idea..... lol. ~D
Infantry General.
Just send em charging in! :duel:
Im a good general
A Shout, A Charge and a glorious death is my favourite battleplan - up the hill, into the arrow storm, onto the spear points and forwards to victory is my favourite stlye of play, although recently I have been experimenting with swinging my infantry round pike blocks and messing about with an Armenian army heavy on the archery side of things, but this cant compare (in my opinion) with watching the weedy foe run away because a big scary german shouted at them.
Also, numbers count. Whatever I pick I like it in bulk and this tends to discourage me from using elite units unless I'm playing in a high denaii game.
Watching the enemy disappear under the human wave is quite satisfying.
True indeed but enter a battle highly outnumbered and win is great fun :charge:
recently in rome i have been using more and more artillery in battle. So my standard rome battle would be. bomb the enemy and destroy all his pathetic flankings with cavalry. Then I decimate all attacks the enemy attempt to do with ranged units before they reach my lines. If im attacker i move my entire line foreward and just charge right in (including flankings)
I am a Roman, get the heavy inf and everything else is support
Just swarming the enemy with heavy infantry tends to be the best policy. And while the enemy are getting swarmed by your infantry, molest the people at the back with your cavalry. Or, if your playing a fraction like armenia, just put your horse archers on skirmish, sit back, and watch as the enemy keep trying to approach your men, only to get picked off by the arrows.
Think il try that my self :) :furious3: :charge: :fainting:Quote:
Originally Posted by RabidGibbon
~:cheers: Thanx for the new strategy
I hate the way the AI charge but retreat as they come under horse archer fire, they often continue to do this until their army is exhausted and not many of their men remain...
But still, if they choose to do this and waste their men - i can't influence their decision..
I think a lot (probably too much) about force composition. I prefer to match enemy spears with my swords/axes, enemy cav with my spears, enemy ax/swords and archers with my cav. On defense, of course, I set up a spear wall with archers ahead (retreating behind the wall when the enemy gets close) and cutters (sword/ax) a few steps back on the wings, cav flankers and (if possible) missile cav out harassing the enemy. On offense, I position my force in loose groupings designed to deal with a particular type of threat -- spear and a cutter for most infantry and knights, one high-grade or two average cutters to kill spears, fast cav flanked forward for killing archers, heavier cav on high ground or flanked to assist units in trouble.
When badly outnumbered or outgunned, I take to the trees if available (except for horses, spears and archers). If not, I go for the highest ground I can reach (and if it has trees, so much the better). If neither is possible, I'll try to isolate one or more enemy units and kill them with my marginal troops. If it works, I'll repeat and follow up with the better units if it looks like I can win. If it doesn't, I'll set up a screen with whatever junk I have left and get the valuable units out of harm's way ("He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day").
In siege attacks (I've never yet had to defend a castle), I've started using as much artillery as I can. I buy mercenary mangonels whenever I can, and use them to breach interior walls first, then take out towers and other sources of defensive fire. I build my own catapults when I can, and use them for breaching outside walls (plus anything they can reach when the walls are down). Catapults are also really useful for river crossings - I set them up with some bows where they can cover bridge approaches.
Most mercenaries I regard as primary expendables. I'm paying them to fight and die, after all. So when its going to be a big battle, I'll buy a bunch of mercs to throw on the fire and weaken the enemy for my homeboys. This is especially true of sieges, which are always a fight to the death.
I'm a defensive general. While I am capable at offense I really shine on the defensive. I can take a rather small army and completely lay waste to almost anything out there, except elephants. I have a bit of trouble with those behemoths, but usually I can take em down and out of the equation. I really like to use Hoplites/Phalanx now that the shift right bug is fixed in 1.2. They are the best for defending and taking cities.
I made a small picture of A basic defence that I often use,
I optimized it so its only 22.1 KB but you can still read the writing,
So if you care here it is
http://dflw.2ya.com/Basic_D.JPG
I didnt put the picture straight on page, Cos it ould slow down page opening times
Oh this is in shogun Btw
At the start of the game I usually have 50% Inf 25% cav 25% archers which will beat anything the AI can do. But then once the empire starts to grow I get really bored planning armies so I end up with random bunches of troops all the time, it makes the game a bit more interesting for having different types of army in every battle but can be a nightmare because I end up assaulting citys and then realising I only have one unit of infantry :embarassed:
Once you've played for a bit against the AI you know you can beat them with a balanced army so why not make some crazy armies in campaigns and see what happens?
This is the best description of my general.. uh.. General style, bar none (I think it's telling that the drunks use the word "bar" in their responses ~;)).Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurelius
Obsessive compulsive. I build up my provinces as much as possible, and rarely go to war. When I do choose to war, it is with overwhelming armies, all carefully selected and similar. I like to field a solid wall of spears, two or four units (three would not be even), with an equal amount of men at arms. I prefer axes over swords, and love halberds. I find that my armies almost always have low valour (too much peace), so I don't like swordsmen, as they tend to lose against enemy units. Instead, I take axes, and use them to chop up enemy heavy cav like lumber. Just today I got a good chuckle as the French king charged my vikings, who were in the woods! Forest penalty to cav, plus axe bonus against armour meant that the french king was fleeing with the grace of an old nag in less than a minute. How cliche! (I'm kidding, I love the French as much as anyone, just not as AI oponents ~;)). I use at least two units of cavalry, or two of each type (light, heavy, missle)
In battle I take no prisoners.
I also go for the Otto Von Bismarck approach of trying to fight only one opponent at a time, and setting long term goals that take years to come into full effect.
In short, I love the campaign aspect of the game, being a long time Civ 2/3 fan. The battles are just an awesome icing to the cake, a wonderful feature that I see as a bonus, rather than the core of the game.
I am not going to say anything negative about it, but I no longer play RTW. When I did, this was the unstoppable formation I used that the AI could not beat: https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...xformation.jpg
MTW...
Depends on the faction. If I'm Turkish for example I spam the hell out of Ottomon Infantry and whore the archery or spam Ghazi infantry and make suicide attacks without regard to casualties.
If I'm Catholic I'll not use archers really at all. Just lots of spears and flanking knights.
I´m a cautios guy and I´ll try to minimize losses. Most comfortably with a spear/ hoplite - archer - and flanking cav - kinda army. I´m piss-poor with a highly manouverable army and didn´t play the Mongols good in STW or MTW either. In STW I played the eastern No-dachi clan most (can´t remember name), in MTW mostly the English and in RTW the Greeks, Egyptians and Romans.
When defending I defend with possible ambushes. On the offensive I outmanouvre. I never head direct for an anemy.
I'm not much of a general at all,
I just form a line, send it forward and hope for the best.
It varies depending on what faction I am, but for the most part I favor a solid line of inf (~6 units) to protect my 3-5 missile units (including 1-2 arty if available). I use 2-4 cav to exploit weaknesses or to flank but sometimes they're only used to delay the enemy cav while my inf and missiles deal with the enemy masses.
I'm another infantry general. I adopt the unorthadox approach of putting my best killing infantry on the flanks and my heavily armoured slow infantry in the centre. I always make sure to build up my provinces to give me armouries and armoured troops. Just before engagement I rush forward on the flanks with my killing infantry and hammer the enemy here. The flanks tend to be thicker than the centre because my killers have a nasty habbit of getting killed too so they need replacing. The brilliance of this system is you can have the centre fall back and the enemy centre exposes his flanks to you so you can crush them in the centre with your flankers.
As for cavalry, if the opponent fields heavy cavalry then I'll try my best to avoid a conflict if I have none of my own. If I do, I try to set my heavy cavalry to work against his to distract them to let my infantry do their job. I always go to war with plenty of light cavalry to quickly get behind the enemy to circle around the back to kill any cowards who try and retreat rather than face an honourable death. They're also very handy at getting rid of pesky archers, although my system normally means they're inflicting as many casaulties on their own men as my own.
My own archers aim at the enemy infantry furthest from my own centre. If things look desperate I will let them fire at nearer troops, because the heavily armoured centre can normally take a few arrows better than the enemy can. As a last resort, I throw the archers into the melee too if the centre looks like it might break.
My battles tend to have very high casualties for the opposition and large numbers of my flankers tend to die, but crazy men who kill and die quick are normally easy to find. My centre tends to survive for ages and become solid as spartans.
I play STW and MTW/VI. I've only played STW online.
As far as unit type for a general goes, I prefer a cavalry unit for it's mobility. The little moral bonus that a general provides when he's nearby is useful, and having my general mobile allows me to use that bonus more effectively. In STW MP I have often used a souped up Yari Samurai (spear) unit as a general with good results. There are a lot of MP players that handle cavalry well, and they often like to try and flank you and try to kill your gen. It's much harder (but not impossible) to do this if your gen is a spear unit in STW. I usually use a ysam in battles where my army is likely to stayed grouped relatively tight, and where high mobility and sustained movement is not likely to be an issue (defense for example). An except is where I use the "4444" army, which I describe below.
As far as MP army composition goes, I tend to go with 2/3s of my army balanced, but with slightly more cavalry than is usual. I am aggressive even in defense, and use cav to bait and harrass my opponent's flanks while pressing the center with my main army. This is a common tactic, but having more cav allows me to worry those who bring more "normal" numbers of cav--two attack and two cav archer units being common.
A highly successful 10K army that I used for a while, and that for a brief period was copied by quite a few players on STW last year, was what I ended up calling the "4444" army, which consisted of a ysam gen and 3 additional ysams (h7w1 or h7a1), 4 Cav archers (h0), 4 musketeers (h2), and either 4 Nag Cav (2-h4 and 2-h3 if my ysams were h7a1), or 2 Nag Cav (h4) and 2 Heavy Cav (h3) if my ysams were h7w1. Despite the low number of infantry units, if the cav were used to good effect the army really kicked butt. Some purists complained that using ysams with such high honor and upgrades was exploiting the stat imbalance, as they could beat the typical MP no dachi and and monks unless they were significantly outnumbered and flanked (which they often were if my cav didn't do their jobs effectively). My argument was that their high cost forced me to sacrifice with the rest of my army, and I pretty much had to use my Cav Archers (very flighty at h0) to good effect and keep on the flanks and rear of enemy units, or I'd get wiped pretty quick.
When playing campaigns in MTW I use balanced armies. I don't use a lot of cav in MTW, usually 4 units max. If I'm playing the Egyptians or Turks I use a couple more, as they have good cav archers (the Egyptian Mamluks in particular). The Spanish are also an exception, as I love Jinettes and use them to great effect. I've only played the Hungarians once or twice, but their Skelezy are great so I use a few more cav with them also.
STW campaigns depend on the faction, but I do love a LOT of cav. Playing Takeda is hella fun, though I find it to be really easy against the AI, even on Expert difficulty. Surrounding the enemy to get the Yari units chasing my cav, pulling them away from their archers, and then sending in reserve cav to decimate the ranged units while the Yari are away is a favorite tactic and usually results in a rout. Then I can mow them down as they flee, with casualty ratios usually being 8:1 in my favor or better. Cav archers in STW campaigns are very cool. In campaigns they have higher honor that you can normally afford in MP without having to make cost-ineffective sacrifices, so you can use them to melee attack flanks and rear of ranged units and enemy cav archers without them routing (if you time it right and pull them out as the charge effect lessens). If your timing is good you can often cause a mass rout doing this in several places at once.
So in summary, Cav general usually, highly mobile and aggressive style, bait, draw, attack ranged with cav when the opportunity presents itself, pepper infantry with highly mobile cav archers until everyone's running, then mow the lawn. But being unpredictable doth a good general make, so I don't always play like this--just more often than not.
I am a maneuver general. I think army maneuvers in battle are the most important skill a general should have, to know when time time attacks and flanking maneuvers, or when to pull units back so that your armies stay cohesive.
I tend to use combined arms armies. They are the most versatile, with each branch covering for the others, can deal with most other combinations of units. Only thing I see a combined arms army cannot face are 20 armored elephant units making a frontal charge! I tried that in custom battle, it was extremely entertaining. The Romans became the first-ever airborne infantry....
Anyhow, combined arms work well because you don't always know what you're facing, and having all 3 arms make adapting that much easier. Always flank the AI off the favorable ground before attacking. If they won't move compel them to do so by drawing them off with your skirmishers (or even your heavy cav; make it more believable).
On defense, always be fluid. Since computer hardly ever attacks me without overwhelming odds in its favor, always place your army in-between the enemy armies. You prevent them from joining forces while isolating one army and destroying it before you turn to face the new threat.
Speed is better than armor. Speed is both your offense and defense, and lets you dictate the battlefield.
Yeah, speed is great. I just played a campaign against the Dacians as the Julii. I only won because of my cavalry. I messed up my production and logistics and ended up with a ton of cavalry in my attacking armies and only a few infantry. Post reforms this would be ok, but my infantry and cavalry were outclassed by the barbarians. This forced me to use my huge cavalry masses to flank the enemy armies in as many ways possible all at once and hope they didn't fight to the death. In one battle I had to charge three sides of each spear wielding warband to defeat it because my infantry had fled. Many cavalrymen died in the frontal assaults, but the enemy would usually flee soon after they were struck on the flanks. Speed and manuever are key.
Yeah, the Roman cavalry bites big butt. If you're going to play Romans, you might as well use their strength which of course is heavy infantry, best in the game by far. Roman cavalry is only there to keep casualties to a minimum among the infantry by flanking and protecting your flanks, they never really "decide" the battle for you, since most of the time your infantry will punch through anyway. I've been playing on hard/hard since I got the game, and I was told that the enemy troops get morale bonus on hard, and yet my cohorts have never failed to break the enemy line. I mean, just unloading the pilas already severely disrupts the enemy formation to the point that when you charge, it is only a matter of time when the enemy breaks (even other Roman factions, though you'll suffer more casualties as they're doing the same to you!).
I had no trouble with enemy infantry in the pre-reform era, but being Julii's I was fighting weak gauls, spanish, and brits. I don't know how well they'll hold up against the scared band but they did pretty well against armored hoplites (provided you don't attack them in formation - thats just plain dumb).
Well the warbands are superior to Hastati on H/H, so that is where my trouble was coming from. My Hastati would not win decisively and the enemy cavalry would often defeat mine. It has been a campaign of glorious victories and pitiful defeats.
I'm pretty much you're straightforward infantry general, with some cavalry to do the old "pin down and strike from behind" move. I like seeing enemy generals getting killed. However, I never really find a use for my archers when attacking, since I'm a cautious general who prefers not to expose his troops to danger to much. But archers do come into their own when defending and on a hill. Once, playing the Julii, I completely annihilated a Brutii army by keeping my archers firing at them until the got to close, letting my infantry defend and swinging my cavalry round and attacking the rear. They're were 15 Brutii survivors.
I use mounted missiles and cavalry the most efficiently, followed by archers and slingers, then infantry. I love to use archers and slingers though because they get so many easy kills and you don't tend to lose them unless they forget skirmish mode.
Uesugi, how are you using your hastati to attack warbands, because due to the size of the warbands they can "wrap around" the hastati flanks one on one. If you keep a solid battle line (no gaps) and use ALL your pilas before your charge, you should be able to hold and defeat them.
Draw the enemy cavalry away with your light cavalry (preferably cavalry auxilia) and they won't bother you for the rest of the battle. maintain infantry superiority on one flank, allowing the larger warbands to semi-flank from the other side. When this happens charge the weak flank with your general from the side, this should cause their flank on your weak side to break. Continue breaking off your general and charging the next unit down the line and you should be able to roll up their entire flank. The key is to hold the "strong side" and lock all their troops there for your cav to hit them at will unopposed from any direction.
Other than a rubbish one lol im NOT rubbish, any way i love to haras and haras some more! then when there lines seperate get there broken units one at a time ! then haras ! This is the funest with phalanxes when they split i just hack them down. In other words im the annoying commander that when you come out of the battle you feel like comiting sucide. ~D
This is the tatic i favour best. (woops did i go off topic a bit?)
Napoleonic general
Organised warfare all the way.
Morale and training count, so do strategies.
A good, tactful commander can win victories, but he can't inspire his men like a good, personable commander can.
Poor. I get better results auto-resolving. :dizzy2:
Surely not. Maybe knock your difficulty level down a knotch. If not, keep trying, we'll make a great commander out of you yet!!
I realized the kind of general I am last night while watching my brother. My stomach was in knots when I saw his hell-mell display of tactics he used. It wasn't without victory, but he basically just advanced the infantry and then charged with the cavalry again and again. The infantry barely saw any action and the Cavalry ended up halved in numbers and the infantry losing maybe a half dozen among their hundreds.
I'm supremely anxious to send any cavalry charges in - especially against spearmen. He lost a full half of a General's bodygaurd by attacking a hoplite unit from the rear. Once they were milling around in the hoplite's rear he went and did some other things elsewhere on the battlefield only to come back and see that the hoplites had turned and were now easily holding the cavalry at bay. Naturally, I would assume that he would tell them to back off as quick as possible. What does he do? He tells them to run straight through the hoplite ranks to charge the rear of another unit which is 100 ft away! Needless to say, that unit routed pretty quickly. He said "What the hell is that guy running from?" :dizzy2:
I usually have the infantry engage the enemy only after all javs and arrows are used up, once pinning the enemy I'll send flanking units around the sides. Pretty standard, really - but I hate losing units, especially members of my royal family.
Rome: Cavalry armies using basic Mongol tactics, hit and run.
Medieval: Combined armies, cav used as flankers with infantry in the front and archers and skirmishers running forward then retreating behind my battle line.
Scythia:
100% Cavalry, with the odd axeman thrown in for fun.
What other option is there, with Scythia?
Anyway, that's all I need, in most situations. The only problems I really face are lots of heavy cavalry, chariots, especially scythed, and very long ranged enemies.
Ninja peasants and generals?
My tactics would probably look disorderly and muddled to some, but they work out well with a fairly even distribution of casualties, except my generals they drop like flies. I use them to shore up any weak point and hold off enemy troops so my men can finish a unit before dealing with reinforcements.
its been a while since i posted here or played the game :hide:
but im mostly a combined arms general;
using a few artillery pieces and archers/slingshots to thin down priority enemy units before engaging them with infantry and enveloping them from the rear with a few cavalry. :charge:
artillery/archers/slingers 30%, infantry 50%, cavalry 20%
I`m definately a cavalry commander.
I like artillery, but missile troops is mostly thrown in for fun.
Also I love elephants! ~D
A good one. ~D
I always enjoy waves of crappy troops. Although most of them will die, who cares?
Where possible, I do prefer to engage from beyond the striking range of the enemy... no sense losing my men. So, long range artillery, long range archers, horse archers... even javelin throwers... the less I have to touch them, the better.
Though, there is a certain amount of pleasure in seeing some heavily armoured soldiers crunch into the enemy's rear.
Well it depends on the faction i play. With Gauls i use foresters of exp3 + 3missile from abnoba, totals 21 missile. But generally i try to exp my troops up, thus i use archers, some inf to pin them and then charge their backs with 2 to 4 cavs n they rout.
I just fought my first battle with an all-armored elephant army (plus one general). That is (on huge unit size) 456 elephants charging full speed at about 3000-4000 Brutii legionaries.
It was quite an entertaining experience......when the first line of elephants hit their front line, hundreds of Brutii soldiers literally took to the air. It was an explosion of human bodies hahahahahaha. The rest were trampled. Not a single casualty on my side. Good times ~:cheers:
Combined arms by way of Montgomery.
While very sensitive to terrain, I like to bring my lunch, generally in the form of a siege train with cav when possible. No advance w/o support is my motto.
Otherwise: Lots and Lots of hvy inf with missle sorts as backup and just enough cav to pay respect to the Patton option.
Probable more of some great general's staff colonel than a general, lol!
Logistics-is-US..........
I prefer to trap the enemy with infantry then run them down with cavalry. Spearmen engage while heavy cavalry loop around and attack from the rear or flank, or in some conditions open the attack. Light cavalry are the clean up crews who run down the fleeing units or bait some into getting flanked.
So basically I like to try to pin them down and wipe em out. Typical agressive
Worked well in Medieval. And alot easier to execute in Rome.
When attacking...I sit astirde my steed behind my main battle line (spears gurarding flanks and center, infantry guarding spears and missle troops). I like to present a big fat target to keep entrenched enemies focused on me. While I use my flanks (cavalry and fast infantry) to slip behind an enemy without being seen. I am very patient. Playing against the computer this almost always works, does not work as well on human opponents. Against humans I try to decieve by showing them only part of my force and try to get them to become overconfident and attack me. It is very costly to attack an entrenched enemy with equal forces - you must be sneaky.
When defending...I sit astride my steed in the center, again presenting a big fat target hoping that an enemy will come straight at me. What an enemy SEES will hopefully fill them with overconfidence and by the time they figure out the trap the majority of their forces are taking dirt naps.
All in all I like to think it through after seeing what I am presented with. I use a starting formation that is compact with a strong front to resist a rushing cavalry charge.
Gaining victory with zero or few casualities states the ultimate policy don´t you think? Therfore, as I posted earlier, I tend to go with artillery/ misssile oriented combos. This is my record as the Macedonians against Romans:
727-0, 572-0, 190-0, 1405-0, 307-0, 945-0, 446-0, 339-0, 2045-0, 950-0, 464-0 = 8390-0, 11 consecutive defensive battles (which helped ;)).
My combo was 4 onagers, 6 archers, 4 heavy cav and mearly 6 phalanx pikemen spread thin in 5 men rows.
i am definately a defensive general .
i tend to attempt to encircle the enemy.
assembling my army in a slight semicircle in one line with those infantry on the flanks further foward then those in the middle.
and a few heavy infantry units in reserve behind this line accompanied with 2 archer units and 1 ballista unit . with 1 heavy cavalry unit on each flank
i await the enemy to approach with my first line on guard mode and take the bait and put my ballistas and archers on fire at will mode.
then put them back behind the lines leaving the archers on fire at will
the enemy infantry usually engage with my light infantry(early legionary cohort) on the flanks first which i have more a concentration of .
as these engage the enemy, i put my heavy infantry(preatorian or legionary cohort) in the centre on fire at will mode tempting the rest to come to the centre.
whilst this happens the cavalry engage the opposing cavalry . or if a lack of cavalry in the enemy they slip round the back. of the enemy .therefore i encircle the enemy and close in. i found this usually works agianst enemies with alot of infantry
I prefer medium, or heavy infantry as the core, which attack head on. Missiles behind for supporting fire. no more than 1 fifth of the army is cavalry, which I use either as a primary attack, with heavy infantry support, or on the flanks, out-flanking them. When in combat, units at the rear of my attacking force are moved round to flank the enemy, cutting them off.
50% infantry, 25% cav, 25% missile. Bread 'n' butter.
40% cav / 20% missile / 20% inf / 20% spearmen.... generally
I bring infantry and spearmen so I can say I se balanced armies, even though I rarely get down to using the inf in the fight.
well is this about mtw or rtw? In mtw, I usually have 4 divisions of missile units(foot) and lots of lots of heavy infantries with a little support from cavalry on the flanks. I make them attack me by sending vollies of arrows and then sending the infantries division by division one by one.
This is just in general. If it was about a specific game it would be in a game specific sub-forum.
The type of units depends upon the civ or types available. I do not like having to fight the same army over again, so usually go for annihilation. That requires some lancers, light cav, or the like.
I do like balance though. Every unit, is supposed to anyways, have good points going for it. We all know this is not true, some are downright useless. Units that can perform multiple functions are better. They can get you out of tight pinches.
The Original Barbarian_King
I'm a defensive general.I like armies to attack,so i can blitz them with my onergas (sorry can't remember how it's spelt) with fire of course ~:) ,whilst my spearmen form a Phalanx holding their ground.Harassing (and normally killing their general) with my heavy cavalry. I killed over 20 thousand romans (bruti's)this way with one army.Find high ground allow them to come on while hitting them with fire balls,then hit them from both side as they close in on your infantry with heavy cavalry keeping your general at the rear and safe. if they have archers send a single cavalry and take them out. ~;)
hello I am new here.
Nice to meet u guys.
I like TW games a lot.
I'd say I am a more conventional commander who follow the rule tightly.
I dont like to take chances, but that could be a bad thing as well.
I put my infantry in the front facing directly to the enemy line. Archers behind the infantry line. Sometimes I swap the two ranks for the archers to reach the enemy line. I put Cavalry units to the flanks of the infantry line, but this can be a problem when the enemy concentrate the attack on the flanks, so I usually move them around a lot to adapt to the changing situation. The cavalry units are also used to sneak behind the enemy line from the flanks to destroy any heavy equipments.
My goal as the commander of my army is always to achieve a victory with minimum casualty.
The unit I like the most is probably heavy cavalry units due their high mobility.
The unit I fear the most is pikeman. they are very annoying when there are good units protecting their flanks.
~:cheers:
Welcome to the Guild! I have the same sort of style as you.