how do i make a good 20 unit 10k army?

i cant figure it out, i know 10k is the standard, but besides taking garbage i cant get 20 units...anybody got a nice 10k army that has 20 units i could use to get an idea plz

i just started playing mtw2 and havnt played any tw for about 6 months so i dont really know the good units etc, i know cav is cheese like in rome but apart from that i am blind

one thing i noticed is halberds/poleaxe get monkey raped by cav didnt think that would be the case, but i'm not suprised given the history... i still regard the "lancer patch" from mtw as doomsday :charge: :rifle:

thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabutai

one thing i noticed is halberds/poleaxe get monkey raped by cav didnt think that would be the case, but i'm not suprised given the history... i still regard the

---

If you mean units like norse axemen and varangian guard, and all other two handed units, then thats a bug. They can't kill cav due to an animation error. Should be fixed in next month's patch.

Oh and 20 units really isn't the way forward mate. Unless you included peasants. This is due to the unfortunate uberness of cavalry. Make sure you get *at least* 4-6 units of cav, at least in high era which is all I play.

i just meant halberd type weapons, i just did a test of a single unit of the good spanish pikes vs a unit of knights templar, think it was normal difficulty, so i, as the pikes, recieve a small advantage to my stats (if old games are any model)

the cav and i both lost a good deal of men on the first charge, we had a melee for a bit, seemingly we both lost an equal amount during this, then they pulled off, where they lost for the first time more men than me, then 2 or 3 times they charged and pulled back. at the end i had 7 pikes left they had 0 cav

i could understand if these were 4 ft spears, but these were pikes! now if you look at the unit cost, if i simply cancel out the cav i won but it just doesnt seem right, although cav do die fast if "pinned" etc and i could understand the argument for either side, it just feels wrong

so like you said, looks like my army will be having at least 5 cavalry which i really dont like using in large amounts as they require so much micro

You don't need to bring 20 units imo, I bring 16 most of the time
4 cav, 4 archers, 8 inf (tho sometimes I fill up with more infantry)

But if you want 20 units with 10k, I should do this:
don't bring a generals unit. He costs too much, you can also bring 1 good cav unit and an archers unit instead of just him
So I'd say first get some cav 4 units that are worth about 750 and 1 that is just a bit better and make him your general. (that's 4 x 750 + 800 = 3800 spend)
Then we have the archers/muskets. In late Muskets are very good, and you should take some, but they are expensive too, so you won't be able to bring 20 units if you take all 4 of them. I'd say bring some Arquibusiers for 600 a unit. Then bring 2 units of good archers as well (for example Pavise Crossbowmen) they are about 600. (that's 3800 + 2400 = 6200 spend)
We now have 3800 left for 11 infantry, which will be tricky.
Get some dismounted knights, 550 a piece, that's 2200, which means you have 1600 left. Get some sergeant spearmen (or similiar), which means 4 x 250 = 1000. And you will have to fill with peasants.


My ideal army is something like this really (Spain):
4 conquistadores, 2 muskets, 2 pavise crossbowmen, 4 dismounted conquistadores, 4 sword and bucklers (with 1 armour upgrade). I believe that fits into 10k very well, and it's a pretty good army.

i regret that the most powerful combination is not a 20-units-army.
i wished 20-units-min was established as a common rule.

i allways get a general and never get peasants.
save some money on the main body and fill up different sorts of archers.

shaka

i would say you need enough cavalry to dominate your flanks.

peasants especially christian peasants are unusually tough in the game and only need some valor to get their morale up.


but if you want quality and still fill 20 slots get your good units and make the rest peasant archers or crossbowmen. they are good filler units that will entice the enemy to come to you.

these arnt my preferred formations right now but i used them a lot when i first started on line.remember cav battles are won by having the last unit in reserve that can make the flanking move to roll up the others cavalry. domination of the flanks is crucial to making it an easier victory

All i can suggest sab is to try and find certain builds that u think can match ure playing type... there is no ONE MAGNIFICENT UBER BUILD, otherwise ppl would use it and find versions to counter it and it would be a hideous cycle :laugh4:
Some factions have more expensive options than others eg timurids compared to russia... important to realise this when deciding.

Ermm Barrett.. He didn't ask for "ONE MAGNIFICENT UBER BUILD". Just a normal build so he gets an idea.. ~;)

theres loads of good 18-20 unit 10k builds out there. The keys to get the right combination of both expensive and cheap units.

I have found the best mix, for me, at 10k is around 17 or 18 units total. It is very odd, but if you go with less florins 5k to 8k, you will find yourself using more units than at 10k. The reason being is that at those lower levels, the cheap to mid-level units come into their own. You can actually get some use out of the cheaper spear units, since you can get more of them to counteract anyone who still gets the knight cav and musket units. Volume, becomes a more important factor.

musket units roflmao... dont tell me you do late era?:laugh4:

I guess if you worry about losing, you wouldn't enjoy playing ALL or LATE era games. Since I have never had to worry about winning I can relax and enjoy the variety those eras offer. :laugh4:

I find it quite fun, in those eras, trying to devise ways of beating those supposed overpowered armies and units. I don't find much variety in the types of units available in the high and early era. You tend to see the same armies over and over again. To myself, that bores me to tears.

Using less florins DOES make things more interesting in LATE/ALL era games since you are never quite sure what the enemy will bring to the battlefield. I enjoy being surprised by players using unusual armies and by using unusual armies myself. It shows imagination and actual skill in being able to make them work in team play. Otherwise, you see a lot of clone armies and not teams consisting of armies tailored for a specific role in a team game.

Though I have noticed a lot of teams, apparently worried about giving even a slight advantage to their opponents, becoming mired in High era, Grassy plains, games. The same thing was found in STW and MTW, until those brave enough to take a few losses started playing other maps, eras, and money levels. They soon found that in, those maps, eras, and money levels it was possible to win regularly with good teamwork and a little practice. The best teams in STW/MTW could give their opponents every advantage: the best defensive positions, the best factions and units in the game, and then proceed to win handily. I haven't seen that ability, or even the willingness, of teams to play those kind of games yet, in M2TW.

The game is still new, which may explain it, but everyone appears to be terrified of losing, by refusing to play with anyone but their regular teammates or other known veterans, and always using Grassy Plains, High era to help increase the chance they will not lose.

What happened to those fearless players from before, that would take up the biggest challenges available because they found them the most rewarding and exciting?

Quote:

---

What happened to those fearless players from before, that would take up the biggest challenges available because they found them the most rewarding and exciting?

---

I did that yesterday, tried Russia under NF rules (obviously Manslaughter went for High Era, instead of All). So I had the choice Horse Archers, or Cav and Archers ... and I got pwned

hehe Stig.

BTW: What are the NF rules?

Memories always sound drastically better than present. That is, good memories, ElmarkOFear. But, rarely are in reality.

Quote:

---

BTW: What are the NF rules?

---

They are based on the Original Forumite rules I once posted at their forums:
max 4 every kind
max 4 cav
max 4 archers
no fire art
Those are the Forumite rules, and they added this to it:
no eles
no art
HA count as both cav as archers

Interesting. I didn't know about the No Fire (arrows?) rule. Guess I have been a bad boy when I got my English Longbows then. I must remember to turn them off of Fire the next time I play. Though nobody hollered at me. :)

Quote:

---

I didn't know about the No Fire (arrows?) rule

---

No that's a rule we use at The Forumites, no fire art, fire archers are allowed

If you want some complex rules look here:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/FORUMITE...?showtopic=387

Quote:

---

What happened to those fearless players from before, that would take up the biggest challenges available because they found them the most rewarding and exciting?

---

Probably they are waiting for the second patch. When I practise I mostly host flat map which happens to be grassy flat. Answer for this is simple. Not that I would like grassy flat map that much or that I would be affraid to lose it is just that flat map brings majority of players. If they see hilly map they get a bit tensed.

thanks for the replies guys, so far i am trying to get an army of 4 heavy inf 4 spears 4 pavxbows 2 hand gunners and 4 cav +general

i am figuring to have 2 units of spears on either side of my heavies and my handgunners in front of the spears, as my spears seem to die fast to cav i am hoping a couple volleyes from guns may soften them up plus they can fight ok if i can get them safe before any charge hits home, and for the high period they seem to pack a nasty punch, but i am still experimenting :smash:

what about upgrades is it still better to go with just armor and weapons and no experience? not that i can afford them anyway

The upgrade system is different than STW/MTW.

You have 3 upgrades to experience per Chevron. There are 3 Chevrons possible for a total of 9 upgrades to experience. The 1st upgrade for each Chevron gives you +1 to weapons and +1 to armor (I am also assuming the +2 to morale is included, or it could be +1, nobody from CA has stated exactly which), the 2nd upgrade per Chevron is cheaper and doesn't give you any increase to weapons or armor. The 3rd is the same way. When you upgrade the 4th time (which is the 1st of the next Chevron) you once again will receive the +1 Weapon and +1 armor upgrades. Same goes for the 1st upgrade of the 3rd Chevron.

Now armor upgrades and wep upgrades only upgrade +1 for each upgrade to these. There is a different upper limit set depending on what unit it is. Some allow only 1 upgrade to armor or wep, while other allow more. Also, some do not allow you to upgrade one or the other at all. You just sort of have to play with it until you learn which units upgrade what.

I have found the first upgrade you make should be to Experience. This gives you the morale boost and the +1 to wep and +1 to armor. After that, unless you just want to upgrade your morale, you would want to either upgrade wep and/or arm by 1 level. I have found that I do better with a wep upgrade than an armor upgrade for some reason. The upgrade to armor doesn't seem to help much in defense, whereas the upgrade to wep really helps your unit when engaged.

So the most probable upgrade for you to do is the 1 Exp upgrade. After you have upgraded the experience for the number of units you want to, if you have any money left over, then upgrade wep. This seems to be the most cost-effective for my armies.

I hope this helps some. I bet you were expecting a simple: "It's jjust like MTW" or "+2Morale,+1Wep,+1Arm It's not so simple anymore. hehe :)

As Elmo said:
Experience: Melee Attack +1, Defence +1, Morale +
Weapon: Melee Attack +1
Armour: Defence +1

But the Weapon is quite cheap, the Armour upgrade more expensive, and Experience costs quite alot.
See it like this:
If an Experience upgrade is 100 gold, an Armour upgrade will be 75 and a Weapon upgrade about 10.

I give different Upgrades to different units. Since the Weapon upgrade no longer ups the Ranged attack I no longer give them to archers (as I did do in RTW). I give Weapon upgrades to Knights and bashing units, like Zweihanders and such, units that need to do the first charge, inflicting heavy casualties with that. A weapon upgrade is usefull for them. I give Armour upgrades to my main core army, things as Dismounted Knights or sometimes to Pikemen, as it will help alot against a cav charge. I give the Experience at first to my General, and I give it too Knights, as they will benefit alot from it, since the cav battle is most important, who wins that can win the battle easely if he makes the right moves (which I most of the time don't do).

it would be nice if competitions were based on different maps and less rules.

but one that is obviously not needed is 4 of a kind. this isnt rome where you could get any number of troops of one kind that you wanted without getting penalized. now like in vi if you want more than 4 you have to pay for it. no art or ele plus limited horse archers is plenty of rules to me. i know all the competitions require rules of recruiting units but in my own opinion i dont agree with it.

I'm with you Mad Cat. The simpler the better. My old brain can't handle too many rules. :)

in general i think, upgrades arent worth the money.

the strenght of a unit is only raised by about 1/20 of its basic strenght while its price increases about 1/10 of its basic price.

i never use upgrades. if i have 50 or 100 bucks left i buy armour for xbows and archers tho.

this aint rtw, rite but it aint mtw1 neither wich wasnt perfect but still much better balanced.

the clan war belt in mtw/vi used the 2-max-of-a-kind-rule. mite sound like a limmitation but in fact it intruduced a tactical variety wich i liked better than the regular 4 max.
there are some good 2 max armies in mtw2 too, alltho they mite be weaker than some 12-heavy-cav-armies. thats the weakness of the game itself, not that of a certain army.

shaka

i prefer a heavy rule set, but unfortunatly when i play there is alot of pick up groups and pot luck allies, hard enuff to get a game with a decent player as an ally when no other clan members on, let alone using a rule set

2 unit limit adds a deep element of strategy and in my opinion realism to the game, as i'm sure the spanish didnt fight with 5 units of "knights of santiago" but rather a mix of better and lesser armed cavalry, same as infantry, but as i said its hard to get pick up players to be willing to digest much more than no ele/art

i think mtw was the most balanced game of the series, before the lancer patch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear

I guess if you worry about losing, you wouldn't enjoy playing ALL or LATE era games. Since I have never had to worry about winning I can relax and enjoy the variety those eras offer. :laugh4:

I find it quite fun, in those eras, trying to devise ways of beating those supposed overpowered armies and units. I don't find much variety in the types of units available in the high and early era. You tend to see the same armies over and over again. To myself, that bores me to tears.

Using less florins DOES make things more interesting in LATE/ALL era games since you are never quite sure what the enemy will bring to the battlefield. I enjoy being surprised by players using unusual armies and by using unusual armies myself. It shows imagination and actual skill in being able to make them work in team play. Otherwise, you see a lot of clone armies and not teams consisting of armies tailored for a specific role in a team game.

Though I have noticed a lot of teams, apparently worried about giving even a slight advantage to their opponents, becoming mired in High era, Grassy plains, games. The same thing was found in STW and MTW, until those brave enough to take a few losses started playing other maps, eras, and money levels. They soon found that in, those maps, eras, and money levels it was possible to win regularly with good teamwork and a little practice. The best teams in STW/MTW could give their opponents every advantage: the best defensive positions, the best factions and units in the game, and then proceed to win handily. I haven't seen that ability, or even the willingness, of teams to play those kind of games yet, in M2TW.

The game is still new, which may explain it, but everyone appears to be terrified of losing, by refusing to play with anyone but their regular teammates or other known veterans, and always using Grassy Plains, High era to help increase the chance they will not lose.

What happened to those fearless players from before, that would take up the biggest challenges available because they found them the most rewarding and exciting?

---

Elmo you have to remember many clans participate in tournaments so for practice people just play the tournament's rule set.

Personally I find unbalanced games boring, I mean if somebody whips my ass with great skill and movement I just go dizzy and really enjoy the game because the guys so dam good (I remember playing a guy from hussars a few weeks back that barely gave me a chance to look up after finishing my drink before he had my archers run down, it was really awesome), likewise I enjoy epic games where the two teams are so close. However I dislike games where people beat me because of uber units, it just frustrates me and I don't enjoy it.

When m2 first came out I played quite a few different maps and tried the scenerios and the eras, on the maps most people just sat on hills, strategic deployment I know and on ntw2 it was all good when you did so but ntw2 also had artillery (balanced, artillery) which meant hill camping wasn't a sure win. The scenerios were fun lol but boring after you play them once, with eras early has too few units, its worse than high. Late, my favourite era due to all the variety...but its just too unbalanced for my liking.

Again, I just want to reinforce if games can be properly played on interesting maps then I'll play. If CA release NTW2 as their next game with a few more factions and a few more bells and whistles then it'll be my favourite game ever. But until then I'll try to make do and have the best battles I can on m2 :clown:

Quote:

---

Elmo you have to remember many clans participate in tournaments so for practice people just play the tournament's rule set.

---

I just signed up for a tourney but it's not like I'm going to practise for it, my first (and mostlikely last) battle in that tourney will be the first time I'll be playing with those rules I think ... I don't care about losing, bad luck in that case, maybe I win next time.

i really dont understand why people are so tore up about limiting horse archers. in mtw2 they are pretty much a waste of money becuase there arrows are not doing enough damage and they run out of ammo quicker than in other tw games.

i dont use horse archers but i have beat people using them by just ignoring them.

i played a battle where i had two turkoman horse versus a saracen infantry and town militia so i concentrate all my fire on the saracens they started out with 75 when all my ammo was gone there was still 50 left.

all you are doing by limiting units is making some factions pretty much worthless who specialize in horse archer warfare.or some factions are strong in certian areas but very weak in others if you limit the units they are strong in then you leave that unit unbalanced compared to factions that have good units across the board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

I just signed up for a tourney but it's not like I'm going to practise for it, my first (and mostlikely last) battle in that tourney will be the first time I'll be playing with those rules I think ... I don't care about losing, bad luck in that case, maybe I win next time.

---

But, as I said, some people do.

Personally I don't "practice" I just play games for fun and whatever I learn whilst doing it is a bonus. It always has kinda annoyed me when people go on about practice and training, for a game :shame:

But ye, many people do care aloot about tourney results so I just saying they practice with these rules.

About rules, ClanCommunityShield.net of which I am an admin is/was probably the first big tournament to get going. IMO you can't really find our ruleset too limiting.

No artillery (this excluded rocket artillery and ballista. They are not band because they are totally different and not as imba as bombards etc)
Max 12 horse archers per team (this is a 3v3, if somebody wants a horse archer faction they can have 12 ha, you can easily play any faction without being limited with 12 ha. This rule is in place just so people don't byz/turk/hungary wtfbbq spam ha.)

Oh and at mad cat, you shouldn't be using HAs vs inf. Target cavalry. But ye mounted crossbowmen are waaaay better than normal mounted archers. just fyi.

i read the rules on that and i think its fair about 12 ha for a team i dont see a problem with that but i have heard other guys cry if you use more than 2 ha per person. i think that carries it a little too far.

and even against my cavalry i will ignore horse archers the only time i pay attention to them is when the battle has reached its climax and i know they are going to come between 4 to 8 oclock everytime so as long as i keep in mind that they are back there and to be ready i rarely get surprised.

iv even watched my general get hammered by horsearchers and ignore them and they might take out maybe 25 percent tops before the battles joined. they just dont have the punch they enjoyed in rome which is why its a dead rule to put a limit on them.

let the rattlesnake lose in the house because you took his fangs away :)

i dont have a problem if there is no art or ele but ca did a good job taking the bite out of horse archers.

Quote:

---

It always has kinda annoyed me when people go on about practice and training, for a game

---

It sounds worse that you get annoyed by it than them practicing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

They are based on the Original Forumite rules I once posted at their forums:
max 4 every kind
max 4 cav
max 4 archers
no fire art
Those are the Forumite rules, and they added this to it:
no eles
no art
HA count as both cav as archers

---

Our rules are just no artillery and no elephants (I don't agree with the no elephants) now. The horse archer rule was just plain retarded anyway, it something of an over-reaction after I used Byzantine horse archers against them and they didn't know how to counter them. Seems to me like Manspammer pulled a fast one on you. Hee hee.

And as for filling all the slots, I disagree with most here; I played with the Byzantines for a while with all twenty slots filled. You obviously use your superiority in numbers to overwhelm the enemy, but it's important you make the enemy attack you since the 'outnumbered' morale dent doesn't seem to occur to the enemy when you're attacking, at least in my experience.

spammed horse archer armies are practically worthless now because their missile damage is reduced and they run out of ammo very quickly.

Quote:

---

And as for filling all the slots, I disagree with most here; I played with the Byzantines for a while with all twenty slots filled. You obviously use your superiority in numbers to overwhelm the enemy, but it's important you make the enemy attack you since the 'outnumbered' morale dent doesn't seem to occur to the enemy when you're attacking, at least in my experience.

---

i didnt say 20 units is most effective. filling all the slot forces ppl to get a "lighter" army in most cases. i like that sort of games. its a rule in my games.
if all get 20 units nobody has a significant superiority in numbers.

you need as many units as you can get. what was napoleons maxim. the battle belongs to the army with the most battalions or something like that.

i dont mind horse ARCHERS horse xbows are a pain though :dizzy2:

Exactly. Battalions.. Not peasants.

The mounted crossbow cav don't really kill much with their arrows. They really come into their own by being able to outrun other units and cav to get to the enemy's flanks and then hit them in the rear with the nice charge bonus and push-through technique being used currently. Plus, they can hold a knight cav unit up until something which can kill it arrives. They are definitely powerful given their cost and their late-game usefulness in chasing down and routing small, fatigued units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

It sounds worse that you get annoyed by it than them practicing.

---

"kinda annoyed me", I'm hardly making posters about it am I. Seriously man...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear

The mounted crossbow cav don't really kill much with their arrows. They really come into their own by being able to outrun other units and cav to get to the enemy's flanks and then hit them in the rear with the nice charge bonus and push-through technique being used currently. Plus, they can hold a knight cav unit up until something which can kill it arrives. They are definitely powerful given their cost and their late-game usefulness in chasing down and routing small, fatigued units.

---

WO WO WWOOOOOOO STOP RIGHT THERE!! :laugh4:
Elmo the mounted xbow is possibly the most underpriced unit in the game, if u get say 4... split them into pairs u can harrass cav from all angles having it so that at least 2 are firing in the back, u can kill off whole units with no trouble at all i find.
I agree especially in this game their importance in chasing down routers as sometimes that is more important than using them to flank "live and active" enemy units...

i hate them, and if i dont take similar units or borderhorse types i am screwed cuz they seem to kill more than archers and my big dumb cav cant chase them :furious3:

why i like "all" era games cuz my muskets can kill em easy with long range :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabutai

i hate them, and if i dont take similar units or borderhorse types i am screwed cuz they seem to kill more than archers and my big dumb cav cant chase them :furious3:

why i like "all" era games cuz my muskets can kill em easy with long range :thumbsup:

---

What happens if ure opponent sends them around ure muskets and out of danger, so that they can form up behind u :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabutai

i hate them, and if i dont take similar units or borderhorse types i am screwed cuz they seem to kill more than archers and my big dumb cav cant chase them :furious3:

why i like "all" era games cuz my muskets can kill em easy with long range :thumbsup:

---

What happens if ure opponent sends them around ure muskets and out of danger, so that they can form up behind u :laugh4:

Elmo the mounted xbow is possibly the most underpriced unit in the game, if u get say 4... split them into pairs u can harrass cav from all angles having it so that at least 2 are firing in the back, u can kill off whole units with no trouble at all i find.

I haven't really observed that, probably for the very simple fact, my armies aren't around long enough on the battlefield to give the cross cav time enough to shoot em up! :laugh4:

I agree they are underpriced, given their archer ability, speed, charge, and hand -to-hoof fighting ability. :yes:

Quote:

---

"kinda annoyed me", I'm hardly making posters about it am I. Seriously man...

---

Sorry for delivering you what I caught from your sentence. It sounds really strange that you're annoyed because people practice to win a tourney.. Oh, at least that's how I understood "kinda annoyed me".

well barrett, most games i play there is 2 Ha limit ~;) so 1 unit of muskets is all i need, not hard to move them to my rear and leave 3 in my front missle line :rifle:

Hi guys, first post on this.
If you think that HA are a waste of money and not very effective, then all I can say is that you are not using them correctly. Granted HA are not as effective as foot archers, but they are not meant to be, use them to shoot at the sides and rear of units, they are more effective that way. And it is perfectly possible to flatten a unit of heavy infantry with a charge from light HA (skythion, Khazaks etc). The abilities HA have make them an indispensible part of an army for me. Which is why I really do not like the max HA rule, as it effectively penalises some of the factions, and forces you to choose an army mix you would not otherwise pick for that faction.
It is possible to make a 'good' 20 unit 10k army as well, with nearly all the factions, although I do find it difficuly in late era games as most of the units available are relatively expensive and picking a 20 unit medium army will quite probably end up with you been flattened by a 15 unit heavy army. Shaka's 20 unit rule makes very good sense in this regard.
Luc

hmm i have played too many games that require everyone to 3X speed the game at the end for 15 minutes cuz someone is being a lamer with horse archers and wont commit to a fight, i find it hard to be sympathetic to anybody saying 2 HA limit ruins mongols, hungary etc,...i do fine with 2 HA as mongols...there is a reason its a fairly common rule...now if it was a "2 jaguar warrior limit" i could see how that might ruin the faction :thinking:

if i am hosting like a scored 7k 3 vs 3, by all means take 15 HA, then i at least know someone will be below me for sure in the score from the start :laugh4:

It is a spread rule, because people don't know how to deal with HA (At least most of them), just the same as they couldn't back in RTW.

One way to battle against crossbow cav, I guess, would be to buy a few fast cav and wait until they are in a position away from their main force and then go after them. Even if you don't catch them, it will keep them busy running away instead of shooting your men. The maps are so large, it is very hard to corner them, like on the old MTW maps.

yes, why my normal army (Scots) always has 2 border horse...but they cant really kill the xbows, i just tie em up till i can get a unit of heavies to them

maps are huge in m2, not the the same as cornering them in rome, they do less dmg but are just as annoying, especially if some tool has 3 units of them at the end of a rough battle, u gotta chase them all over the map with exhausted heavily wounded units, or stand there wanting to stab yourself in the face on 3x speed while they use all their slow to shoot lasting forever xbows

Have CA program cav archer units, left over after all other units have routed, to shoot all their remaining arrows in one big volley and immediately charge the nearest enemy unit. :charge:

Put that battle AI to some use after all. :)

used the mounted xbow for the first time last night. they are a tuff skirmisher cav. good for flanking at end game too.

I'd suggest.. Having a couple of Light Cavalry units. Make one of them do all the chasing (So, your enemies HA get tired and their arrows will only kill the light cavalry unit..), then engage with the other Light Cavalry units when the enemy's HA fall to a certain level of fatigue that you can consider "slow".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabutai

well barrett, most games i play there is 2 Ha limit ~;) so 1 unit of muskets is all i need, not hard to move them to my rear and leave 3 in my front missle line :rifle:

---

Sab i guarrantee against a half decent opponent u wouldnt be able to fire off more than one usket volley on his mounted xbows lol

muskets have nice range :yes:

i normally never get to use muskets anyways unless i am hosting a novelty game, and none of the "cool dudes" like to join those...so my musket balls strike only fun loving newbs :smash:

It doesnt matter if muskets have nice range if ure aiming in the wrong direction mate :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by }{Huscarls}{Barrett|L|

It doesnt matter if muskets have nice range if ure aiming in the wrong direction mate :D

---

but i use magic bullets :lost: