Roleplaying the English Army - a tactics thread!

Greetings!

Not being drawn by the abusive all knights army or the unrealistic DEK enmass force I have been using some of my time at work (you get tired of :whip: .....just kidding :laugh4:) to try and develop a standard army that I would be using when starting my campaign as the English. The aim of the army is to be realistic, some knights, some elite foot soldiers, some infantry etc, yet nothing in excess or in unnatural numbers. Another reason behind this is that I am a perfectionist, I have to have standard perfect armies before I attack, so that slows my expansion quite a lot, I always wait for that last archer to arrive from the other side of the kingdom :yes:

I will post the unit build up and proposed tactics screenshots and you people can show your brilliance by helping me improve my army, maybe this thread will get attached to the English guide section :2thumbsup: ....but that's just my ego speaking up at the moment.

I am also planning on playing through all the factions and if I have time, and actually enjoy MT2W, I may start a thread for each faction, but it depends on how this goes.

Alright, here goes!

The English Army

General Strategy

The aim of the tactic is to capture the enemy into a pocket and lynch it, letting none or very little men escape. It is a rather standard European incircle manevuer yet with more emphasis on the missles, as that weakens the enemy even more before they are captured into the pocket and makes them easier to crush and route. More details below.

Unit explanation

LC - Light Cavalry - Their task is threefold: a) ensure fire power superiority by harrasing the enemy missle troops b) Harass the enemy force by constantly charging the units on the flanks of the enemy c) through accomplishment of tasks A and B keep the flanks of our army safe and its position secure, since the enemy should be too busy with the chaos within to launch any counter maneuver.

Early Period - Hobilars
Late Period - Hobilars, Merchant Cavalry, Demi Lancers

A - Archers - They must cause as much damage as possible before the enemy closes in and seed chaos in their ranks with the help from light cavalry.

Early = Late = Best English longbows available

Infantry - Regular medium infantry - Their task is to hold the line for as long as the flanking force is able to encircle the enemy and complete the pocket.

Early Period - Spear Militia, Levy Spearmen, Mercenery Spearmen
Late Period - Heavy Billmen, Heavy Bill Militia

SS - Sword and Shield - Their role is to ensure the safety of the main line, in case of a heavy casualties and a danger of collapse these men with their superb armor and defense should plug the holes in the line.

Early Period - None, units of medium infantry should be used in their role
Late Period - Dismounted Feudal Knights, Armored Swordsmen

2H - Two Handed Heavy Infantry - They begin to form the pocket as the heavy cavalry takes up its position but is not yet ready to charge. As the are position on the flanks and kept safe by the maneuvers of light infantry, they are able to turn inwards and begin to massacre the enemy from the flanks while they are busy with the main line.

Early Period - Billmen, Billmen militia should be used in their role due to their high attack value
Late Period - Dismounted English Knights

HC - Heavy Cavalry - They complete the pocket and deliver a final blow to the already weakened and halfly encircled enemy.

Early Period - Mailed Knights
Late Period - Other standard European heavy knights

General - duh :juggle2: - Well he commands :whip:

Deployement

https://img65.imageshack.us/img65/56...loyment6ck.jpg

Phase 1 - The light cavalry sets out to harass the enemy while the archers make use of concentrated fire on the important enemy units

https://img65.imageshack.us/img65/5756/phase19bg.jpg

Phase 2 - The enemy has engaged the line and the two handed heavy infantry turns inwards to flank the enemy while the heavy cavalry makes its way to the rear of the foe. The light cavalry stays in the back and waits for the routers.

https://img260.imageshack.us/img260/9559/phase27ci.jpg

Phase 3 - The heavy cavalry charges the rear and the pocket is complete, a massacre and a route follows :2thumbsup:

https://img304.imageshack.us/img304/6955/phase31pp.jpg








Comments, critique, suggestions for improvement are all welcome, but most of all I would like to see a discussion :bow:

PS. The post is kind of rushed, but that's because I am tired and would like to get out of the computer quickly, I kind of get tired of them at work :dizzy2:

Nice diagrams. But this really is a standard for most battles... front line holds while cav and flankers run round the side, bang! :juggle2:
Although you may have to consider that your enemy may have better heavy cav then you, maybe not even better, just good enough that they hold your cav long enough to break your front line. There are differing scenarios.
All in all, not very innovative but it's a sound strategy.

One thing is that in a pinch you can use the gen as heavy cav.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slug For A Butt

Nice diagrams. But this really is a standard for most battles... front line holds while cav and flankers run round the side, bang! :juggle2:
Although you may have to consider that your enemy may have better heavy cav then you, maybe not even better, just good enough that they hold your cav long enough to break your front line. There are differing scenarios.
All in all, not very innovative but it's a sound strategy.

---

I know, been using that since MTW, but I felt like doing something like this, because I was hoping for suggestion for improving my tactics and because such a thing would get me in the mood for a new campaign.

Haven't been able to get pass turn 30 in any game, I get bored :shame:

I use the General regularly to hit already engaged troops, but I don't bother with the light cav as mentioned earlier. I find heavy cav have enough gas in the tank to chase down routers at the end of the battle, so I'll take that extra 2 heavy cav instead of 2 light cav thanks...

You want help in improving your army so you will get more enjoyment from the game when you are bored at turn 20 already? Surely it will be even less of a challenge for you then. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slug For A Butt

You want help in improving your army so you will get more enjoyment from the game when you are bored at turn 20 already? Surely it will be even less of a challenge for you then. :dizzy2:

---

I am bored because the game is too predictable, it´s recruit, conquer and repeat many times. If I had to bring an example of the opposite then I´d name Europa Universalis, where I often scratched my head thinking of the next move, there were tons of different options each with different concequences and no obvious answer. With MT2W, it's always too straight forward, so I thought maybe it could get interesting with different armies and tactics, I know I always liked these topics during the original MTW.

nice strategy but in my experience armies aren't usually that diverse. I'm either fighting with scraps of militia and mercenaries, or a trained force of 3 Levy Spearmen, 3 Armoured Swordsmen, 6 Retinue Longbowmen, 7 English Knights and a General. The trained force is very rare as it usually gets depleted pretty soon and bolstered by mercenaries.

Defending I always hold the line with my infantry, and depending on what cavalry I have, I will ruin the enemy. I hate facing artillery so I always send a unit of cavalry (the worst one in the stack) to take that out.

Another thing I like is sending my two flank cavalry units to take out the enemy archers while my infantry is holding their infantry and cavalry. Then when the archers rout they get taken down pretty quickly, while my remaining cavalry rounds up the rest of the enemy.

I'm glad somebody brought up the much-neglected topic of infantry tactics.

We card-carrying missile cavalry nutcases can't stop discussing tactics. In fact, the best discussion of infantry tactics I've seen on these boards recently was a very good discussion on how infantry should fight horse archers.

===========

The strength of foot archers in concentration. Much of the fire here is concentrated against good-quality units. Does that keep up once the melee lines come into contact? Are archers grouped so they can concentrate fire to assist the flank attacks?

Once one of the flanks begins to collapse, do the archers behind it stay where they are to maintain fire, or do they advance to get some enfilade and flanking fire on the rest of the line? Are they out of arrows by that point, or is the collapse of the enemy line too quick for them to move?

Do they use regular arrows for effect, or fire arrows for the morale penalty?

What about using shorter-ranged javelin troops on one end of the line, then having archers on the other end concentrate their longer-ranged fire on the same side, acheiving a crushing concentration of missiles?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slug For A Butt

I use the General regularly to hit already engaged troops, but I don't bother with the light cav as mentioned earlier. I find heavy cav have enough gas in the tank to chase down routers at the end of the battle, so I'll take that extra 2 heavy cav instead of 2 light cav thanks...

---

Yeah well, you can't chase down routing heavy cavalry with heavy cavalry... Killing/capturing routing heavy cavalry is especially important when it's a general's unit, and you don't want to face him again.
Also, if you're being attacked by missile cavalry, and you only have heavy cavalry, you're just SOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rosscoliosis

Yeah well, you can't chase down routing heavy cavalry with heavy cavalry...

---

I totally agree that "fast cavalry" are extremely valuable for catching generals etc. But are all light cavalry in M2TW "fast" cavalry? In MTW, units like hobilars had no speed advantage over heavies[1]. You needed the good stuff like jinettes, Alans or Saharan cav. And I don't recall reading anything about hobilars being fast on the unit cards in M2TW. But you are the second poster who seems to assume light cavalry are faster, so maybe I've missed something.





[1]Historically, I suspect knights might be faster than hobilars, who presumably had poor mounts.

@Econ: their are 3 types of speed from what i can tell. Basic horses, Ponys, Fast_Ponys.

95% of light cav has Pony or Fast_Pony which are both faster than basic horses, but the Fast_Pony is faster, (well DUH~;p).

Genrally most missile cav is Fast_Pony.

Hmm, I'm not positive if they just use two cavalry speeds or what the deal is in M2TW, but I do know for a fact that my units designated as "heavy" cavalry have never overtaken routing heavy cavalry, (let alone light cavalry) but my Hobilars routinely catch up to heavy cavalry (even from a considerable distance) and slay them.
This was also the case in RTW, but it's been too long since I played MTW now to remember.

Ar7, You might get a bit more out of the game if you push ahead with what you got for battle. I like thos nattles were I cross my fingers. Is my Militia Spears gonna hold long enough for the hobilars to get there? Is my general going to survive long enough for my mailed knights to show up. These moments are what make the battles good for me. And by the by, fighting like this will make you tactically better. I submit most folks can win with the perfect army vs tha AI. A depleted army of town militia stiffened up with a couple of dismounted fuedal knights and some longbows.......... not so much.

Hobilars/MtSgt are as fast as mailed knights, so pony doesn't do anything.
Fast pony is a bit faster than the early cavalry.

I'd place infantry only at the flanks for the English as Longbows have stakes which will pierce any incoming cavalry if you place them properly. That way only infantry can charge your front and your cavalry is quick enough to deal with them. No need thus to have infantry block your archer's sights and lower their effectiveness. Besides, longbows pack a punch in melee anyway.

As English, I usually go for general + 4 hobilars + 2 mailed + 8 longbow + 2 spear. Works fine generally and is fairly versatile. If you can hide 2-4 of your cavalry during battle, it will force the AI to attack your position, making your stakes quite useful even in attacks. Actually funny how you can exploit the AI this way.

For my army compositions, I usually have at least half of my army made up of cavalry and the rest as infantry with a little missle support. I target the enemy cavalry first, wiping them out quickly with a mass charge of 4+ units of cavalry destroying there mobility. The rest of the battle is easy and I would engage the enemy infantry with mine and then charge my cavalry into the enemie's back causing mass rout. This works wonders against factions like turks, russians, or byzantines where there is a large focus of horse archers since they start off far away from the main battle line loowing you to wipe them off without being afraid of enemy infantry getting into the mix

Re: Cavalry speed

A unit that's been standing relatively still waiting to pursue routers is not as tired as a broken cavalry unit's that been in a fight, especially if the unit being chased is an exhausted, armored unit. Stamina matters too.

There are only four types of pure melee cavalry that are fast, according to R'as al Ghul's unit stats. All have good stamina. These are:

Alan Light Cavalry (Mercenary)
Albanian Cavalry (Mercenary)
Border Horse (Scotland)
Stradiots (Venice)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson

I'm glad somebody brought up the much-neglected topic of infantry tactics.

We card-carrying missile cavalry nutcases can't stop discussing tactics. In fact, the best discussion of infantry tactics I've seen on these boards recently was a very good discussion on how infantry should fight horse archers.

===========

The strength of foot archers in concentration. Much of the fire here is concentrated against good-quality units. Does that keep up once the melee lines come into contact? Are archers grouped so they can concentrate fire to assist the flank attacks?

Once one of the flanks begins to collapse, do the archers behind it stay where they are to maintain fire, or do they advance to get some enfilade and flanking fire on the rest of the line? Are they out of arrows by that point, or is the collapse of the enemy line too quick for them to move?

Do they use regular arrows for effect, or fire arrows for the morale penalty?

What about using shorter-ranged javelin troops on one end of the line, then having archers on the other end concentrate their longer-ranged fire on the same side, acheiving a crushing concentration of missiles?

---

I'd echo a lot of Doug's statements.

Also (to horribly murder the statement) but I believe a basic military idom is to travel dispersed, fight concentrated. While this is good and can limit losses at points, never let yourself be caught too dispersed. A unit that can neither support an ally nor be supported by an ally is dead.

I'd tend to try to move with cav on the wings of an infantry line with archers lagging a bit. Try to envelop part or all of the enemy, but untill you commit deny him access to a large portion of your force. Remember with infantry you have a lot less mobility than a comparable cav heavy force.

Use cheap units as bait when you need to.

Leaving a "hole" in a line can sometimes allow you to achieve artifical enfilade from the front, especially if you can tempt the enemy into chasing a lone unit to be flanked.

Learn where heavy weapons can mean a far easier path. Use them. A single, can't-hit-the-broad-side-of-a-barn cannon can nearly break a unit at point blank with a single shot, so use two or three for full effect in streets to pave the way for a push up them.

Above all, win the fight before the fight begins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stlaind

Also (to horribly murder the statement) but I believe a basic military idom is to travel dispersed, fight concentrated. While this is good and can limit losses at points, never let yourself be caught too dispersed. A unit that can neither support an ally nor be supported by an ally is dead.

---

I thought that referred to strategy rather than tactics. You travel dispersed (think Napoleonic French Army Corps), then concentrate for battle before the enemy can. Once it comes down to the battle map, you really want to fight concentrated, unless you have both the men and the CPU power to send a second army into the enemy's rear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson

There are only four types of pure melee cavalry that are fast, according to R'as al Ghul's unit stats. All have good stamina. These are:

Alan Light Cavalry (Mercenary)
Albanian Cavalry (Mercenary)
Border Horse (Scotland)
Stradiots (Venice)

---

Going a little off-topic, but that's a rather short list. It puts a premium on horse archers, if they are also better at the pursuit role than pure melee cavalry.

Going a little back to topic: to confirm - hobilars and mounted sergeants are only worth taking over knights if you are short of cash? (=almost never, in my SP games). I'm not sure that's a big problem for role-playing the English though, as they probably only used light cavalry for budget reasons.

Incidentally, are there "slow" cavalry in M2TW - like the MTW Gothics and kataphracts? I'm guessing not, but that might be more of a role-playing issue. AFAIK, part of the reason demi-lancers etc were less well armoured was so they would be faster.

Actually, I can't even find the speed settings for the various types of mounts.

Its actually funny but I don't know what this is due to.
Mailed Knights can overtake General's bodyguard for example, even though the mounts aren't all that different (heavy mount vs barded horse)
There probably is another factor somewhere that controls speed.

And yes, hobilars/MtSgt are only good when you are short of cash or trainable units. In my game, I fixed them to fast moving (fast pony) because they wouldn't really have a purpose otherwise.

@econ21: Considering that Demi-Lancers are so much more ferocious in melee than those under-performing Gendarmes, I'd say they are pretty good, actually. Higher attack, higher morale, higher defense skill offsetting the lower armor.

So gendarmes drew the short straw again, huh? Perhaps we should start a separate thread on cavalry speeds and usage, as it is not exactly England's "thing".

Back on topic - having derailed the thread for a bit, I feel obliged to comment on the original post. I guess it depends what period you are role-playing, but for the iconic Hundred Years War English army, I think you have too much "infantry" (ie spears) and no mention of stakes.

I would role-play the HYW English army starting with a nice row of stakes. Ideally planted by retinue archers who can fight well enough in a pinch, but that may be overpowering. I'd aim for 3-5 archers - more and it becomes a turkey shoot.

The HYW English army did not use large numbers of low grade spearmen. They did occasionally bring some lightly armed Welsh spearmen, but they were not the front line. I would bring 2-3 spears and put them on the flanks of the stakes or in the rear.

Historically, the frontline would be dismounted men-at-arms (well armoured fighters including knights). In M2TW, I would represent these by armoured swordsmen and DEKs. Ideally, they should have anti-cav weapons like spears/dismounted lances/polearms but they don't in the game. Luckily, the stake line substitutes. As soon as the battle starts, I would pull back my archers from their stake line and bring up my swords.

Essentially that's it - just think of the English army in the Agincourt battle.

But I would have a couple of mounted knights and a general - mainly to guard the flanks and chase routers. Hobliars would be characterful too.

The whole approach is predicated on the AI charging straight at you and your stakes. It works pretty well on the defensive, although you may get overwhelmed if the AI has lots of good swords and cavalry.

On the offensive, you unfortunately lose the anti-cav protection of the stakes but to compensate the AI is very timid using cavalry when defending. I often can shoot them, and indeed the entire AI army, down when it just sits idly defending.

Being on the defensive is much more fun and also more like role-playing the English. Which great English general said you should fight offensively in strategy and defensively in tactics? Actually, I wonder if it wasn't Napoleon... :sweatdrop:

Great advice econ21, that was exactly what I was looking for! It will be a bit hard to recreate at the very beginning, atleast until the first dismounted feudal knights and longbows with stakes are available, but I can postpone my wars and turtle until I am able to create an army I wish.

A few questions though.

What part would you give to the billmen, if any? Or if none is the answer, then why?

You mention archers in melee between the stakes, though I can see it only in critical situations, as you yourself mentioned a knight frontline. Though did you actually mean that commiting the archers to the melee in every battle could be a viable option?

PS. I didn´t mention the stakes in my OP since I forgot, it kind of seems natural :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Perhaps we should start a separate thread on cavalry speeds and usage, as it is not exactly England's "thing".

---

I'll do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ar7

What part would you give to the billmen, if any? Or if none is the answer, then why?

---

I don't use billmen (yet) because apparently they are afflicted by the 2-handed weapon bug which makes them largely ineffective against cavalry. When they are patched, I would use them as flankers as you suggested. This would be largely for role-playing reasons - in a future patched game, the DEK (also currently bugged) should be able to do the same job better, but an all elite army is a bit much.

Quote:

---

You mention archers in melee between the stakes, though I can see it only in critical situations, as you yourself mentioned a knight frontline. Though did you actually mean that commiting the archers to the melee in every battle could be a viable option?

---

No - just a last resort. I'd rather have them shoot. If they are out of ammo, the retinue longbowmen should be decent enough in melee to help out. But it would be wasteful to use lesser archers in melee - I often prefer to retreat them off the battle when they are out of ammo. Their melee effectiveness is so low, I'd rather let them survive to build up experience, although I know that is not roleplaying it.

But to role-play the English, they should be outnumbered and archer-heavy, so you may have to rely on the archers pitching in on occasion. Sometimes M2TW battles become so bloody, both sides end up with relatively few real melee fighters still battling it out. At that point, charging in 300 archers from your reserve might actually be decisive. Hopefully the casualties they have inflicted from range means they have a morale advantage.

Longbowmen have a better melee attack than ranged. Assuming the shield bug is patched, they will soon be much better at hand-to-hand.

Melee exposes them to more losses so it's still a last resort, but last resorts are important. Many times, I've sent Desert Archers and/or javelinmen into melee when a regular infantry unit in front of them was wavering. These new troops restored morale and saved the day almost every time, in MTW1 and 2.

Although archers can't catch routing units as well in MTW2 as they did in 1, they can "keep up the scare," making a routing unit run farther before recovering. They can also stop periodically and shoot the routers in the back. Get 'em running, keep 'em running. Then they can turn around and shoot into the backs of units that haven't routed yet.

About the only English missile troops I've never send into melee are peasant or militia.

==============

It's hard to get crossfire going with foot troops, but any unit caught in crossfire by longbows would quickly become mincemeat.

Re: Move dispersed, fight concentrated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dopp

I thought that referred to strategy rather than tactics. You travel dispersed (think Napoleonic French Army Corps), then concentrate for battle before the enemy can. Once it comes down to the battle map, you really want to fight concentrated, unless you have both the men and the CPU power to send a second army into the enemy's rear.

---

While that's generally correct, it's hard to move around the map while in tight formation. I deploy my melee cavalry in a line, for instance, and then change formation to a loose wedge. When I'm ready to attempt a charge, I turn off wedge and pick close formation.

WARNING! WARNING! NAPOLEONIC DIGRESSION AHEAD!

In the real world, the French were the first to realize that you didn't have to have a perfectly set, straight and seemless line to be effective with muskets. If your line was ragged and had some gaps, any unit trying to bayonet-charge through those gaps would get shot to pieces while marching toward them. Napoleon benefited greatly from this discovery, which was made before his time during the French Revolutionary wars. It was hard to get "levee masse" troops who were relatively poorly drilled to line up in those perfect lines, so the French made a virtue of necessity by adopting "quick and ragged" manuevering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson

It was hard to get "levee masse" troops who were relatively poorly drilled to line up in those perfect lines, so the French made a virtue of necessity by adopting "quick and ragged" manuevering.

---

Blasphemy! The French adopted the column formation because they were REAL MEN, not sissy British adopting the woman's tactic of throwing things at the enemy. A charging Frenchman could impale three enemies at once on his bayonet; he didn't need to form perfect lines. But he could, of course, because he was a REAL MAN, and had been practising drill before he was even born.


Anyway, I use the animation fix and Billmen form a large part of the army. I try not to use dismounted knights as it is awfully demeaning for the poor fellows to go on foot. But you need at least 8 longbow units for a solid English army. The longbows plant the stakes but then step back and let the Billmen take their place in front. I leave gaps to tempt the enemy cavalry into attacking, then attack with bills when they invariably get hung up on the stakes (the AI is smart enough to form wedge to narrow its frontage, but it always seems to get caught anyway).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dopp

I try not to use dismounted knights as it is awfully demeaning for the poor fellows to go on foot.

---

In general, I would agree but not when roleplaying the English army. I don't think they had hang-ups about fighting dismounted and in fact became renowned for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Thomson

Longbowmen have a better melee attack than ranged.

---

Good point, although with M2TW, the attack stat does not always tell the whole story. The speed with which the unit attacks is also important. However, given the sedate speed at which longbowmen shoot, I suspect factoring this in might favour melee even more. Against that, the ranged attack is AP - I am not sure the melee one is.

That really depends on the longbow unit in question. Sherwoods and Retinues use swords and are not AP (but have higher attack and better armor in general), Yeomen and Plain Longbows use mallets and are AP. Their sword attack animation seems to be significantly slower than that of 'real' swordsmen, but it's hard to compare it properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dopp

Blasphemy! The French adopted the column formation because they were REAL MEN, not sissy British adopting the woman's tactic of throwing things at the enemy. A charging Frenchman could impale three enemies at once on his bayonet; he didn't need to form perfect lines. But he could, of course, because he was a REAL MAN, and had been practising drill before he was even born.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :2thumbsup:

Ok so if I was roleplaying historical English, I'd have something like this right:

1 general
1 hobilar
1 retinue longbowmen
1 yeoman archer
6 longbowmen
1 swordsmen
1 heavy billmen
1 heavy bill militia
2 bill militia
4 levy spearmen
1 peasant :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marquis of Roland

Ok so if I was roleplaying historical English, I'd have something like this right:

1 general
1 hobilar
1 retinue longbowmen
1 yeoman archer
6 longbowmen
1 swordsmen
1 heavy billmen
1 heavy bill militia
2 bill militia
4 levy spearmen
1 peasant :laugh4:

---

Sounds broadly ok. Reading around, it seems my practice of taking 3-5 archers is too few. At their peak, longbows should account for around 60% of the English army.

But I'd say you have too few men-at-arms: knights, swordsmen etc. While they were usually outnumbered by the archers, they were in some ways the core of a medieval English army.

Billmen come in after 1400 or so, largely replacing spearmen. Both types would probably be less common when fighting in France than in the British Isles.

A lot of the mercs in M2TW could find a home in a historical English army. Merc spearmen, knights and crossbowmen especially before the HYW. Welsh spears and Irish kerns as well.

Here are some numbers I found on the web for the English army at Crecy:

3900 knights
11000 archers
5000 light troops - Welsh foot, Irish kerns etc.

For a full stack, that would be:
1 general
3 knights - mounted or on foot
11 longbows - various
5 other - eg. 3 Welsh spears, 2 Irish kerns

Given that the English were supposed to be typically heavily outnumbered, you might half the above. Unfortunately, if you did try to fight with such a half stack, I suspect you would be rolled over by a full AI stack. It's pretty hard to model the historical superiority of the HYW English in M2TW (in the demo battle of Agincourt, the English were pumped up and face piecemeal AI attacks, but still do far worse than they did in history).

In the real battle of Agincourt, the English were backed into a corner and faced badly uncoordinated 'AI' attacks. Same result, surely. The French literally killed themselves with their own superiority in numbers.

the english is easy really... as deep a line of spear infantry as possible interspersed with heavy infantry... and loadsa longbow directly behind...

if u find the top of a hill or a narrow-ish gap between 2 woods or sumfink u should do the do DEFENSIVELY...


i reckon the same for attacking, but have ur cavalry concealed on the flanks... play it like the carthaginians played Cannae and let the opposition centre push... then do em with the hidden cavalry....

this game, for ze english... it's totally bout artilliary... ie. longbow and the variants...

cavalry really means nothing... it's a luxury... for the english... and should be regarded as such.


the english way is to only ever attack when u know u can win... and make the enemy attack when u know u WILL win ;)


it's why the world speaks english... it's cuz we're bastards =D

I use 15 unit stacks as the English, to represent their superiority in tactics and longbows, and the fact that they were always outnumbered. My army is madeup of the following:

1 Gen
1 Knight
2 Hobilar
1 DK (ArmSpear before I get DK.s)
2 Bill
4 Spear
4 Archer

But after about turn 75 in my LTC H/VH game, I start to use full stacks, since the AI armies are starting to increase in strength and numbers.

1 Gen
1 Knight
2 Hobilar
2 DK
3 Bill
5 Spear
6 Archer

My archers are in the earliest armies are all peasant archers
then they are half longbow half peasant
then half Yeoman archers half longbow
then 3 yeoman, 2 longbow and 1 Retinue (by which time I usually replace 1 hobilar with 1 sherwood archer. In the late game I can also replace 1 bill and 1 spear with 2 Armored swords.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Sounds broadly ok. Reading around, it seems my practice of taking 3-5 archers is too few. At their peak, longbows should account for around 60% of the English army.

But I'd say you have too few men-at-arms: knights, swordsmen etc. While they were usually outnumbered by the archers, they were in some ways the core of a medieval English army.

Billmen come in after 1400 or so, largely replacing spearmen. Both types would probably be less common when fighting in France than in the British Isles.

A lot of the mercs in M2TW could find a home in a historical English army. Merc spearmen, knights and crossbowmen especially before the HYW. Welsh spears and Irish kerns as well.

---

Ok, so revised, it would be:

1 general
1 english knights (dismounted if more men-at-arms are needed?)
1 dismounted english knights
1 swordsmen
1 retinue longbowmen
1 yeoman archers
8 longbowmen
1 heavy billmen
1 heavy bill militia
2 bill militia
1 irish kerns
1 levy spearmen

And if I wanted to recreate a French army (using two armies, so 40 units total) what would their composition be, 1300's or so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marquis of Roland

And if I wanted to recreate a French army (using two armies, so 40 units total) what would their composition be, 1300's or so?

---

For one 20 unit stack to represent the French army at Crecy, I would say:

1 generals
6 knights - mounted
4 crossbowmen
2 peasant archers
3 Brigans - sergeant spearmen
4 Bidets - should have javelin and shield, but could substitute spear militia, town militia or peasants

So then you could double it to get your 40.

This list is based on an illustrative army lists for Terry Gore's Medieval Warfare miniatures rules. Again, researching this, I am surprised at the high proportion of missile troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marquis of Roland

Ok, so revised, it would be:

1 general
1 english knights (dismounted if more men-at-arms are needed?)
1 dismounted english knights
1 swordsmen
1 retinue longbowmen
1 yeoman archers
8 longbowmen
1 heavy billmen
1 heavy bill militia
2 bill militia
1 irish kerns
1 levy spearmen

And if I wanted to recreate a French army (using two armies, so 40 units total) what would their composition be, 1300's or so?

---

Even though historically correct, this army will get massacred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ar7

Even though historically correct, this army will get massacred.

---

Just played a custom battle (VH) 20 English units vs. 40 French units as layed out by Econ21 on more or less flat field and I won as English, took maybe about 20% casualties and let about 20% of French get away from battlefield. Probably would've lost if I dismounted the French knights though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marquis of Roland

Ok so if I was roleplaying historical English, I'd have something like this right:

1 general
1 hobilar
1 retinue longbowmen
1 yeoman archer
6 longbowmen
1 swordsmen
1 heavy billmen
1 heavy bill militia
2 bill militia
4 levy spearmen
1 peasant :laugh4:

---

I would just add in dismounted english knights, and Irishmen and you would have the perfect role playing english army.

Edit-I see that you put those in later, my mistake so sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ar7

Greetings!....

---

Excellent post. I love posts like that.
Question: Did you do those diagrams in CS3 ?

Here's one of my early English armies:

1 BG
3 FK
10 Longbowmen
6 Spear Militia

Pre-gunpowder morale rules the day.
Post-gunpowder firepower rules the day. Tactics get boring in the gunpowder era so let's stick with the pre-gunpowder era.

Flank, flank, flank. You don't even need to get clearly around to double envelop (and in crowded multiplayer battles you rarely have that kind of room). Stacking one flank and gett behind even just the corner unit can be enough to trigger a chain-rout. Win the cav battle. That's all there is to it. You don't have to take more or better cav to win the cav battle (you can use infantry to gain a superiority in cavalry)

And watch out for single player tactics like all cav armies. They don't translate well in multiplayer. Anyone dumb enough to go all cav in a multiplayer battle will die quickly. Or longbow-heavy (eg replacing most infantry for longbows) like you can in single player. Against a competent player you will lose 9 times out of 10.

I tried "role playing" as an English army and using 12 retinue longbowmen in a 20 unit stack, although in reality the ratio of longbowmen was even higher. It works great as a defensive because if you put 2 or 3 longbow units projecting forward on each flank, protected by stakes, they just pour so many arrows into the attackers that they have no chance even against your outnumbered heavy inf (whichever you choose to use; I use DEK's with a different animation). Harder to use on the attack though. If longbowmen could replant their stakes I think a stack like that would be unstoppable though. Well, except against a massive rampart with 300 cannon in it.

Incidentally, the English force at Crecy had alot of Welsh soldiers in it, and some "gonnes" (possibly ribaulds).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson

In the real world, the French were the first to realize that you didn't have to have a perfectly set, straight and seamless line to be effective with muskets. If your line was ragged and had some gaps, any unit trying to bayonet-charge through those gaps would get shot to pieces while marching toward them. Napoleon benefited greatly from this discovery, which was made before his time during the French Revolutionary wars. It was hard to get "levee masse" troops who were relatively poorly drilled to line up in those perfect lines, so the French made a virtue of necessity by adopting "quick and ragged" manoeuvring.

---

Hmm! that whole concept has been seriously challenged by more recent historical debate. It might well have been true during the early period when Frances Demi-Brigades were partly formed by poorly trained conscripts but by the time of Napoleon's rise to power the French drill manuals show that infantry formations, drills and tactic's were much more rigid and controlled. This drill’s were published in 1803, specifically modified by Dedon from earlier regulations and took into account his experiences in the field. They go into considerable detail about the precise placement of specific individuals and drills for changing front and formation in battle.

The fact is that order is essential for the maintenance of morale under fire and the idea that the French would have managed to maintain an advance without also maintaining some order is unlikely. There is also evidence from several sources that French troops were trained and capable of firing by files contrary to the popular belief that their musketry was always uncontrolled and ragged.

So, I would say that France understood the initial value of 'revolutionary zeal' in securing victory, but soon released that it could not previal in the long term without being able to harness that zeal and direct it effectively and efficiently in under fire.

The other myth is that French skirmishers were highly trained specialists who operated in 'clouds' of uncontrolled activity. In practice, just like the British the French skirmished according to a strict procedure, and drill, keeping proper reserves and using mutual support. They also employed men from the third rank of their fusilier companies to boost their skirmish line whenever the tactical situation required it. A system copied by the Prussian's and latter the Austrian's.

Have to say that I think the British are responsible to promulgating much of the myth about French tactic's and drills. It suited the British attitude to the French to depict them as a highly excitable somewhat undisciplined rabble, led by men who didn't give a fig about their welfare or survival, and it also appealed to the British soldiers assumptions of his superiority over the French to interpret everything they did as uncontrolled and undisciplined. The language used in eyewitness accounts reflects this and the cultural differences reflected on the battlefield tended to feed British prejuduce. For example a lot of contempt is generated in British eyewitnesses because of the noise French troops made when advancing e.g. singing, chanting, cheering and playing 'old trousers' are all ridiculed by British accounts as evidence of poor French discipline and lack of control. Whereas the French considered it proof of superior elan and other nations considered it a sign of their impending doom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

Harder to use on the attack though.

---

True, although sometimes your longbows can do more work on the attack. The AI may stand around getting shot, whereas on the defensive, it will close more promptly.

Historically, the English often seemed to fight on the defensive. Maybe in game, this should be simulated by fielding smaller armies than the AI? But even then, I can easily see the relatively small proportion of non-missile infantry getting eaten up through attrition after a few repeated battles.

been seeing some of you wondering about the horse speeds, so I just thought I'd enlighten you.

There are "Basic horses", "Ponies" and "Fast_ponies". The difference between these are speed.

Basic horses are very easy to spot on the battlefield: They're covered in armour/cloth or whatever (generals bodyguard, feudal knights, kataphracts, that sort of horses). These are the slowest types of horses.

Ponies are the medium speed ones. They are not covered in armour, so they're easy to spot as well. However it can be quite hard to separate them from the Fast_ponies becouse there's no obvious difference in looks between them. Examples of Ponies are Mailed knights, Mounted sergants, Hobilars, Siphantis (those turkish HA) and generally all mounts that does not have the "Fast moving" trait and are not covered in armour/cloth.

The last type is Fast_ponies. These are the fastest horses and are generally reserved for missile cavalry (the exeption beeing border horse and stradiots). These horses are marked with the "Fast moving" trait in the description, so if a horse archer does not have that trait, it is just a normal pony.

Hope I enlightened you

Thought it might be interesting to get some historical evidence of English army composition.


The Welsh at Falkirk might well have been Welsh longbowmen I'm not sure as the record doesn't say.

It does seem that English armies were very heavy on Archers.

The later it gets, generally the more archers there were. One expeditionary army late in the Hundred Years War was 600 men-at-arms and 4,000 mounted archers. Don't know about army compositions in the War of the Roses though.

Of course, the troop numbers given in records of medieval and ancient battles are almost always complete and utter *baloney*.

We know the numbers for this and numerous other English armies in the Hundred Years War not from some chronicler penning a yarn a century later but from the Exchequer rolls which record the contractual raising and payment of the force. The development of bureaucracy in this way means such numbers can often be cited without hesitation in the later Middle Ages, depending on which is the state in question.

Assuming the exchequer rolls were correct. In the 1815 campaign for example Wellington complained bitterly to London that the number of troops they were paying the allies to provide bore no resemblance to the number actually arriving in Belgium. Its a minor point but one worth keeping in mind.

Exactly. It's not like war profiteering and military contractor fraud are new phenomena.

The Exchequer was well aware of that. It did not just throw away cash in the futile hope of an army turning up at the appointed time; it took the trouble to inspect indentured retinues and ensure that they were of the right size and composition- the rolls in fact record the number of the troops of particular types which the captain was contracted to provide, which ones actually turned up and how long they stayed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson

I'm glad somebody brought up the much-neglected topic of infantry tactics.

We card-carrying missile cavalry nutcases can't stop discussing tactics. In fact, the best discussion of infantry tactics I've seen on these boards recently was a very good discussion on how infantry should fight horse archers.

===========

The strength of foot archers in concentration. Much of the fire here is concentrated against good-quality units. Does that keep up once the melee lines come into contact? Are archers grouped so they can concentrate fire to assist the flank attacks?

Once one of the flanks begins to collapse, do the archers behind it stay where they are to maintain fire, or do they advance to get some enfilade and flanking fire on the rest of the line? Are they out of arrows by that point, or is the collapse of the enemy line too quick for them to move?

Do they use regular arrows for effect, or fire arrows for the morale penalty?

What about using shorter-ranged javelin troops on one end of the line, then having archers on the other end concentrate their longer-ranged fire on the same side, acheiving a crushing concentration of missiles?

---

I've played fairly extensively as both England and Spain, both of whom can rely on either archers or Javelinmen to an extent (Spain less so than England).

As England, I'll utilise Archers in different ways, but I think people underestimate just how deadly they are. I know a couple of friends who play and all they do with their archers is stick them on walls and leave them there during sieges, or stick them at the back of the army and let them fire arrows indiscriminately.

Tactics as described by the OP using heavy cavalry to circle around and flank the already engaged infantry? I'll do that with longbows. They can move pretty fast and if you keep them with your front line can flank fairly smoothly. Once flanking, they are pure and simple deadly, either with fire to rout, or plain missiles to kill, they will quickly decimate units.

In town sieges, I'll usually have longbows on the walls for a moment or two, and let fly a few volleys before retreating to the town square (I usually defend around there, not the gates). Longbows (or bows of any kind, crossbows are insanely deadly also, but longer reload times) are deployed along the longest straights I can find. Firing volleys of arrows straight into the oncoming enemy (especially early in the game) is devestating, and with fire arrows, can be an almost guaranteed rout, which leads to your general pursuing and cleaning up.

As for Javelins - I've used them to some extent, and they can be absolutely lethal, but they require a fair amount of micro management. Alumghvars can be absolutely deadly if used correctly. Excellent vs mounted troops, plus the javelins is a good combination, and they work wonders in siege defence.

Just my 2cp =p