Battle accounts and discussion

I just thought this seemed like a good idea...

There are guides for almost everything related to MTW by now, and there's already the Pics & history of your empire thread, so the point of this thread is to put more emphasis on what is after all the most entertaining part of the TW games: battles.

The intention of this thread is to serve as some form of FAQ and guide regarding battles, so that we won't need a new thread for every battle-related question in MTW. Retell your more memorable battles, discuss battles and tactics and ask whatever battle-related questions you might have. This would also be good place to have a collection of useful links. I'll start with the perhaps most important one, frogbeastegg's The Complete Total War Unit Guide.

Feel free to post away.

PS. I recall this very detailed guide on the combination of Halberdiers and Arbalesters posted about a year ago, unfortunatel I can't recall who wrote it and where it was posted. Does anyone else also remember this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

I just thought this seemed like a good idea...

There are guides for almost everything related to MTW by now, and there's already the Pics & history of your empire thread, so the point of this thread is to put more emphasis on what is after all the most entertaining part of the TW games: battles.

The intention of this thread is to serve as some form of FAQ and guide regarding battles, so that we won't need a new thread for every battle-related question in MTW. Retell your more memorable battles, discuss battles and tactics and ask whatever battle-related questions you might have. This would also be good place to have a collection of useful links. I'll start with the perhaps most important one, frogbeastegg's The Complete Total War Unit Guide.

Feel free to post away.

PS. I recall this very detailed guide on the combination of Halberdiers and Arbalesters posted about a year ago, unfortunatel I can't recall who wrote it and where it was posted. Does anyone else also remember this?

---

First off, great thread...I'll be reading it quite a bit and contributing soon enough .

As for the Halberdiers and Arbalesters- I don't recall the thread you're referring to but I mentioned using spearman/pikeman/halberdiers as a "fence" in front of several units of Arbalesters. It can be an absolutely devastating defensive strategy...

More useful links:

Banquo's Ghost's Cuman campaign contains quite a few interesting battle lineups for the steppe factions.

And the one I was asking about earlier, MeglaGnome's guide on Halberdiers and Arbalesters Part 1, and Part 2.

I'm planning on writing some kind of essay on the same combo of troops, since my opinon differs slightly from the approach presented in MeglaGnome's guide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

I just thought this seemed like a good idea...

---

I think it's a very good idea!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

PS. I recall this very detailed guide on the combination of Halberdiers and Arbalesters posted about a year ago, unfortunatel I can't recall who wrote it and where it was posted. Does anyone else also remember this?

---

I recall this as well....but sadly I do not recall the author either....from memory there was a small series of articles covering terrain issues, use of screening troops, etc, etc....

Thanks Innocentius, that's a great link for some extra information! And thanks to MeglaGnome, of course) I myself have had some great results with a lineup of alerbasters with chivalric sergeants against the Horde, but normally I prefer feudal sergeants for their higher morale and slightly better attack. But in a purely defensive battle the chivalric sergeants are clearly better.:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bamff

I recall this as well....but sadly I do not recall the author either....from memory there was a small series of articles covering terrain issues, use of screening troops, etc, etc....

---

That will teach me to prevaricate with my posts!

Of course, it was MeglaGnome.....maybe I should demote myself once more to "Village Idiot"!

Alright, I have a question: How the heck do I use my horse archers properly?

In an ongoing Byzantine campaign of mine, it has become embarrasingly obvious how horrible I am at dealing with horse archers, whether they are mine or the enemy's. I don't use vanilla Horse Archers myself, but the Seljuk's did so to a large extent (basically all they can recruit right from start are HA's, Spearmen and Turcoman Horse). In my first large battle against the Seljuk's I was besieging Rum and the Sultan sallied out with reinforcements from Armenia and Edessa. I had my army lined up in a very traditional manner with Treb. Archers behind a wall of vanilla Spearmen (my Armoured Spearmen were on their way to the front) and with my Kataphraktoi (including the Emperor) on one flank and the Varangian Guard on the other.

The Seljuk's began by charging two units of Armenian Heavy Cavalry right into my line. Needless to say, they were routed. But then the Sultan sat back and let his HA's do his dirty work. Lacking light cavalry as I did, I could to little to drive them off, and it ended with a long firefight between my archers and the HA's. Normally, this wouldn't have been too much of a problem, but unfortunately I had no great height advantage and the map wasn't really ideal for defending. On my left flank, where my Varangians were, the enemy even controlled a slight hill (or knoll, rather) giving them the advantage in height. Also, it seems as if HA's have more ammo than Treb. Archers, or they just fire slower, 'cause they continued to pepper my men long after I had run out of arrows. This of course caused my rather heavy casualties, and when the Seljuk's finally took their infantry and remaining heavy cavalry to attack me head-on, I regarded it as a relief. My enemies were easily beaten and I managed to capture the Sultan.

However, although I sustained hardly any casualties in the melee, I realised that I needed a better way to deal with enemy horse archers. My Varangian Guard, which was at full strength at the onset of battle, was down to 43 men after it, most of if not all of them were killed by enemy HA's. My Spearmen also took heavy casualties since they lacked any real armour. Later on in the campaign, I tried Byz. Lancers as HA-chasers, with mixed results. I managed to drive them off, but never caught them and eventually only exhausted my own men. This bought my own archers time, but I still couldn't kill of those pesky Turcomans. With traditional Catholic armies, I rarely have this problem, at least not in High and Late, since Arbalesters can rout enemy missile cavalry before they can do any real harm, but how do you deal with this in Early? Ideas/suggestions?

And then, on to the second problem of mine: How do I use my own missile cavalry?

Once I got Byzantine Cavalry, I tried to keep two units of them in each army of mine - both for offence and defence. To put it simply, I usually deploy my army like this:
https://img144.imageshack.us/img144/6204/wegwegib6.png

Black being my general's BG (the position of which varies according to the situation).
Green being my spearmen.
Blue being my archers (I sometimes put the archers up front in offensive battles).
Red being some form of flanking units (usually Byz. Infantry or Kataphraktoi).
And Yellow being my missile cavalry (Byz. Cavalry)

This setup varies of course, and I usually bring a lot more cavalry to battles than the picture suggests. Anyway, my BC's usually manage to inflict some casualties and will, if they are extremely lucky, lure one or two units of infantry away from the main army. Mostly though, they are attacked by enemy cavalry and retreat until they reach the edge of the map where they are engaged and killed/routed, nullifying whatever casualties they've previously inflicted. Even if they are chased by infantry, the same scenario occurs. By the time they are cornered, I have enough to do watching over the main battle and whenever I have actually diverted time to try and save the BC's by running them back to the middle of the map, they fail miserably in their maneuvering and get caught by the enemy anyway. This means I sometimes have battles where 90% or more of my casualties consists of my HA's. To put it simple: They kill 30 enemies and then loose 30 men themselves, after which they rout.

The only instance when I found them useful was in Naples when the Pope invaded with an army of Spearmen and UM only. Since their stats are good enough to take on UM's head on, they proved quite useful, but as soon as an enemy of mine fields cavalry of their own, they're useless. How are you supposed to use these guys? I have ceased recruiting new BC's now, and the ones I have left I keep behind my spearwall until the enemy routs and they can serve as chasers (which Byz. Lancers do better anyway).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

This setup varies of course, and I usually bring a lot more cavalry to battles than the picture suggests. Anyway, my BC's usually manage to inflict some casualties and will, if they are extremely lucky, lure one or two units of infantry away from the main army. Mostly though, they are attacked by enemy cavalry and retreat until they reach the edge of the map where they are engaged and killed/routed, nullifying whatever casualties they've previously inflicted. Even if they are chased by infantry, the same scenario occurs. By the time they are cornered, I have enough to do watching over the main battle and whenever I have actually diverted time to try and save the BC's by running them back to the middle of the map, they fail miserably in their maneuvering and get caught by the enemy anyway. This means I sometimes have battles where 90% or more of my casualties consists of my HA's. To put it simple: They kill 30 enemies and then loose 30 men themselves, after which they rout.

The only instance when I found them useful was in Naples when the Pope invaded with an army of Spearmen and UM only. Since their stats are good enough to take on UM's head on, they proved quite useful, but as soon as an enemy of mine fields cavalry of their own, they're useless. How are you supposed to use these guys? I have ceased recruiting new BC's now, and the ones I have left I keep behind my spearwall until the enemy routs and they can serve as chasers (which Byz. Lancers do better anyway).

---

I normally only use horse archers ALOT at the beggining of a battle to take some casualties on targets who are going to be a meal in H2H. As soon as the approaching army gets to close I retreat them (running) to maximum firing distance and repeat. I keep doing this until they are back at my lines of defence. Then I'll use them at the flanks to either get a nice flank charge (rear if I am lucky) or just continue peppering approaching troops with arrows over the conflict in the centre. I use them for chasing down routers too they normally have a good recovery rate due to low armour and are fast too. When they run out of ammo I'll normally retreat them and bring on re-inforcements.

They effectively combine archers, flankers and router chasers into one troop type. Meaning I can have more of the speicalised guys. If I have two Horse archer units and use them like above it means I have no need for light cavalry, they can replace an archer unit, good enough horse archers can even replace heavy cavalry (Boyars, Byzantine Cavalry, Faris).

I just like their diversity. They fill hole's in an army till I can train some more specialised troops.

Specifically don't Byzantine cavalry units come with command stars a lot of the time too? I know it's not really a problem for the Byzantine's with their Jedi prince's but it's still a nice gain. Think I noticed the same for Faris too.

A few ways to get rid of ennemy HA's:

- Arrow barrage: HA's will normally lose a missile duel. Just make sure you have enough archer units in your army when facing an ennemy that uses HA's and concentrate your fire to make a HA unit rout/retreat faster

- Chasing them off: You can catch up to HA's with light to medium cavalry. It's not that hard to ambush a HA unit with 2 cav units oo your own. If you're Byzantium, you should have access to steppe cavalry, these are ideal to take down or at least chase of HA units. They'll probably be tired afterwards but they don't need much fighting power in there role as light cavalry.

- The SHC-tric: I discovered this tactic during a Volga-Bulgarian campaign. I was relying heavily on steppe heavy cavalry and came in contact with both western as eastern armies. I've noticed that most units of HA going up against SHC will lose one way or the other. SHC are armoured and will outlast all most other HA units in a pure missile duel and if they do catch up the ennemies HA are really done for. I don't think this is the case in vanilla MTW (VI) but in the XL-mod they even have AP missiles making them a sure win even when facing more armoured HA's. Just let them duel with another HA unit and wait for the chance to charge and decimate anything they're facing.

When I'm using HAs (of whatever flavour) in defence I usually do pretty much as BAD described, what I call a "retreating forward defence". Also, as the attacker tends to home in on the main part of your army, it's quite easy to get your HAs to the flanks when they have no cavalry to chase you down, so you get enfillade benefits. I also like to get at least one HA unit behind the enemy, which has two general outcomes - either you get to shoot the enemy general in the back a few times, or his entire army's advance becomes disorganised as he tries to deal with you. Either is a gain :2thumbsup:

Offensively, I often use a HA screen, 4-6 HA units spread across the field, well in advance of the main body. Use these to disrupt enemy formations, weaken any particularly troublesome melee units (eg Varangians ~D), and pull any impetuous types out into exposed locations, at which point you can do the HA sandwich.

Basically, HAs aren't battle winners, but they do shorten the odds. And once they're out of arrows they make good, fast router-chasers, or should be retired in larger battles in favour of something tougher. I think Turcoman Horse are about my favourites, as they have a bit of punch to them in melee (though benefit from some buffing and a province valour bonus), but are faster than SHCs, very good all-rounders IMHO. For the HRE in early the mounted crossbows are invaluable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

I think Turcoman Horse are about my favourites, as they have a bit of punch to them in melee (though benefit from some buffing and a province valour bonus), but are faster than SHCs, very good all-rounders IMHO. For the HRE in early the mounted crossbows are invaluable.

---

Turcoman Horse are also among my favourite units. They obtain a +2 valour bonus when are trained in Tripoli with a Master Horse Breeder, and have an incredible stamina if you don't give them armour upgrades. When I play with a faction that can train HA I usually deploy a large line of them (six or five units with three ranks deep) in the front of my army both in attack and defense. In defense, especially in a hill, they can rout unarmoured units before these reach my files. If the enemy approach make the HA's position vulnerable I move them fast to the rear of my infantry line. Then they can shoot from a safe position or flank the enemy. In attack I use HA in a similar manner, but against an army with a lot of crossbowmen or arbalesters this can be risky. Only if the enemy don't protect their crossbows/arbalest I usually try to catch them with my own HA. In a Byzantine campaign I used armies which consisted of 6 ByzCav, 5 ArmSp, 4 TrebArch, 1 Kata(BG) with good results (and good fun!).

I have a question about deep ranks, do you use frogbeastegg's advices in this matter (Sp in 4, Sw 2, Arch 2 ...)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belisario

I have a question about deep ranks, do you use frogbeastegg's advices in this matter (Sp in 4, Sw 2, Arch 2 ...)?

---

With spearmen and pikemen, I do usually place them in 4-5 ranks, yes.

As for sword/polearm infantry, it largely depends on the situation. I tend to place them more in 3 ranks more often than not, but it still varies.

I usually station archers/crossbow units in 3 ranks. FBE is right in that 2 ranks is ideal, but I often find I lack the room, particularly if I have a large number of missile units.

Ok, I've just fought my two first battles against the Horde in the same campaign. Luckily, they only appeared in Khazar, so I fought them in Georgia where the terrain was to my advantage.

The first time they invaded with some 5,000 men against my 3,500 (for some reason they didn't attack me until 1233, so I had a few years to send troops from all of my empire).

It might be a good idea to just point out that I've modded the Byz unit roster to their advantage (I prefer seeing a powerful Byzantine Empire than a powerful Fatamid Caliphate). The Byzantines can now recruit Order Foot, which have the same stats and building requirements as Italian Infantry (I originally intended to make a whole new unit like in the Pocket Mod, but found it too complicated and looked up a unit that wasn't already used by some faction), since it would be realistic for them to have superior spearmen to European factions. I've also turned the Latin Auxillaries into good polearm units - like Halberdiers but with somewhat better stats and less armour, still only recruitable in 4 provinces and cost more than Halberdiers though. This usually means the Byzantines fare a lot better when the AI plays them, and makes my own Byz campaigns a walk in the park (I hardly ever play the Byz and only keep them as a worthy opponent though).

Anyway, my Jedi Emperor was on a hill with the traditional "Arbalesters behind spearwall" tactic and with Latin Auxillaries on the flanks. The battle was looong (and rather dull) and ended with 1300 dead Mongols and 500 dead Byzantines. I also managed to pick off their general, a 4-star one which, dissapointingly enough, was the best general the Mongols had. The next year they returned with 6,500 men under a 2-star general. This time I had an amazing terrain advantage in that I, err... it's a lot easier (and funnier) to just draw it up:
https://img260.imageshack.us/img260/9206/wegwegal6.png
The brown is height curves, I guess you can tell where the impassable cliff upon which my army stood was. Green is Arbalesters, Blue is "OrderFoot" (let's call them Hoplitai, like in MedMod, they have the same stats as them) and LA's, Black is the initial position of my cavalry, Red is the later position of my cavalry as more arrived with the reinforcements.
For this battle, I had way too few Arbs, so I ended up with three Katatanks on my right flank, and 4-5 (depending on when) Pronoiai to my left. It was horrible. Initially I had great success in mowing down the general, several units of MHC and MW's, but then reinforcements with endless amounts of MHA's arrived. I used my cavalry to slay the odd MHC and MW that still showed up, but mostly it was sitting there, waiting for time to pass. When I finally got some BC's from my reinforcements, I first used up their arrows and then tried to chase the MHA's off with little success.

In the end the Mongols lost 3,100 men (I killed all the prisoners) and I lost 600. A pretty good casualty rate one would think, if one didn't consider what a huge advantage I had in terrain. 95% of my casualties in both battles were my Hoplitai who could only stand there while being peppered, and I doubt I would have done better if I had had Halberdiers. I recall my Polish campaign in the Pics & History-thread, where I experienced similar situations. They just keep calling in wave after wave of untouchable units. I think there were 10 units in each wave, and I couldn't even count the waves. Next time I'm bringing at least 4x8 units of Arbalesters, to counter the 16x10 enemy MHA's.

You've beaten an army of 6500 mongols with only minor losses, I think that is pretty damn good! Considering the Mongols don't easily panic and are not much influenced by routing troops it's almost as good as you could expect, if you're not in a bridge battle. More missile-types would be helpful, though

The thread is a splendid idea.

My only reservation is that, if it stays in its current format, it will become quite difficult to find the information that you are looking for due to lack of coherence cause everyone will submit its own idea on every topic which will lead to duplicata and perhaps errors.

What I find really great with frogbeastegg's guides is that they are an excellent synthese of his original views and the feeback he got from other players (a bit like a wikepedia entry). It was apparently modified from time to time but never lost its coherence and that's really what makes those guides stand out (compared to the factions guides and the subterfuge guide).

My point is thus that perhaps we would be better off if someone could volunteer to some kind of synthesis bout each points discussed. The reward for the person willing to carry out that time consuming task would be, in addition to the gratitude of everyone, the privilege to decide what new comment "deserve" to lead to a modication of his chapter-synthesis.

In practice it could work a bit like the PBM worked with a "Synthesis thread" to whom only a few would have access and a second thread where each and everyone could suggest to the author any modification/update/precision he thinks necessary ...

Just my two cents...

And yes I realise that there is no guarantee that anyone will be able to spare the time required but what the heck it was worth a try ...:juggle2:

Well, I just got my arse handed to me by the Byzantines while playing the Armenians in XL 3.0.

Basically, I set myself up relatively close to a corner, and mostly on a hilltop to try and gain any advantage possible, as the Byzzies had me outgunned by Kats and some valored up Byz infantry, some Dejma, and a varangian guard, while my army consisted mostly of Armenian infantry, catapults, two mounted x-bows, and two Naxarars, my King and one of the princes.

https://i182.photobucket.com/albums/.../battlemap.jpg

Basically, the Byz took the vanguard of their army, which consisted of several Byz infantry, two units of Kats, and a unit of armored spears, and hauled them ALL the way around my formation, and attempted to take my army from the rear, while a horde of Dejma and the varangian guard continued marching on me from the front.

My catapults(the X's) bombarded the vanguard constantly, but it just wasn't enough to deter them. My two mounted X-bows also let off some bolts on the vanguard before switching fire to the rear guard and tearing up the Varangians. However, I was so surprised that the A.I. would actually attempt to haul all the way around the rear of my army that I didn't ultimately act on it until it was too late. The hill turned out to be my downfall, as my units parked on it couldn't get back in time until my king and prince had been routed by Kats and byz infantry, whereupon the Byz now had the hill advantage, crushed my catapults, and soon, the rest of my army. :embarassed:

Jxrc: A good idea as well, although like you said it might be a bit hard to go through with. We already have a few very good guides to units and I am, like I said, planning on writing somewhat of a complementary essay/a second opinion to what MeglaGnome has already provided us with. If someone who is an expert at dealing with and using horse archers and feel like writing a page or two about it, please step forward!

kamikhaan: Ouch. Ouch, particularly considering how important every single battle is to the Armenians, at least early on. I don't think I've ever seen such a complete outflanking and by so many units before, you are playing on Expert I guess? And how did they manage to get behind you if you were in a corner?

Personally I don't like using siege equipment in battles unless it's a bridge battle. The morale penalty for the enemy is lessened by the fact that you bring fewer troops to the field, which means that you risk a morale penalty on your own men if you bring too many siege engines and the crews get routed really easily, possibly creating mass routs as the AI counts routing units, not routing men. On top of that, I find them to be really useless at killing enemies. Even in bridge battles I've never seen a Culverin Crew kill more than 70-80 men, and that was a one-time occasion, whereas your average unit of Arbalesters will kill somewhere around 100 men in a standard bridge battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

Personally I don't like using siege equipment in battles unless it's a bridge battle. The morale penalty for the enemy is lessened by the fact that you bring fewer troops to the field, which means that you risk a morale penalty on your own men if you bring too many siege engines and the crews get routed really easily, possibly creating mass routs as the AI counts routing units, not routing men. On top of that, I find them to be really useless at killing enemies. Even in bridge battles I've never seen a Culverin Crew kill more than 70-80 men, and that was a one-time occasion, whereas your average unit of Arbalesters will kill somewhere around 100 men in a standard bridge battle.

---

I just had a Demi-Culverin kill the Turkish Sultan, at extreme long range and I was attacking. :skull: Well worth it. It's valour went up too. :laugh4: I think Serpentines are the best at killing guys though at long range. not sure though. I know organ guns rip it up on defending bridge battles and defending castles.

A link to Ludens' horse archer-thread might be in order:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=33313

Good thinking, Taedius! ~:cheers:

Can anyone else think of useful threads that should be linked?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

kamikhaan: Ouch. Ouch, particularly considering how important every single battle is to the Armenians, at least early on. I don't think I've ever seen such a complete outflanking and by so many units before, you are playing on Expert I guess? And how did they manage to get behind you if you were in a corner?

Personally I don't like using siege equipment in battles unless it's a bridge battle. The morale penalty for the enemy is lessened by the fact that you bring fewer troops to the field, which means that you risk a morale penalty on your own men if you bring too many siege engines and the crews get routed really easily, possibly creating mass routs as the AI counts routing units, not routing men. On top of that, I find them to be really useless at killing enemies. Even in bridge battles I've never seen a Culverin Crew kill more than 70-80 men, and that was a one-time occasion, whereas your average unit of Arbalesters will kill somewhere around 100 men in a standard bridge battle.

---

Well, I was sorta in a corner. I was very, very close, but there was a gap of about what would translate to in real life of about 50 yards or so that the AI basically wedged it Katsa against my troops from that 50 yards or so, and then the whole thing went kablooy on me. As for the catapults, I was kinda investigating as to the effectiveness of using them in defensive field battles, to see what kind of damage massed catapult shots would do. As you can see, it didn't quite work as I had hoped. The real problem became that a bunch of my troops, infantry, were in the front or sides, on hillside, which ironically prevented me from recovering enough to turn my army to face them before they steamrolled my somewhat meager rearguard and collapsed the whole thing.

Rather unfortunately, that pretty severely crippled my campaign, as my king got trapped in the fort, and his perverted, moron brother took the throne, and my whole situation just disheartened my to the point of stopping the campaign.

In the same Byz. campaign as mentioned above, I've just had a series of great battles against the Portugese in Egypt. A little background: The Portugese beat me to Egypt already in the first half of the 12th century, so Sinai was my SW-border for some time until they luckily decided to sink one of my fleets. A long naval war began where I eventually stood victorious since I could just out-produce them, snatching Egypt from them in the process.

It is now 1270, and I've been at war with them since they again attacked me in the 1220-ies. The naval war is more or less a stalemate. I can't entirely drive them out of the Med, but at least I'm in control. I've taken most of Iberia from them and they are now reduced to some lands in northern France and Northern Africa (their king is in France). Neither them nor I had updated our forces in Africa sine the mid 12th century, so these battles were essentially Early battles. While they were still an empire, they had massed up some 10,000 men in Cyrenaica, then I isolated them there by sinking some navies. Their general (their king) died and his heir spawned in Ile-de-France. For decades they sat at my border and didn't attack, even though I had 3,000 against their 10,000. Then, by 1250-something, they finally attacked.

The first two battles were pretty tough due to their numbers and my own stupidity (way too many silver armoured Hoplitai and Pronoiai). In all they lost about 3,000 men and I 1,000. I then reorganized my forces, sent away heavily armoured troops and recruited new ones with less armour. I also recruited about a dozend units of Byz Lancers.

In the third battle, I killed off their general pretty much immediately and won killing only 400 Portugese to my ~50 dead. But in the fourth battle, they attacked me with a force of around 6,000 (some were reinforcements from Tunisia). Most were Spearmen or UM's, and they were nice enough to bring six siege engines to the battle:
https://img524.imageshack.us/img524/6108/wegwegff0.png
Black = General (Hoplitai)
Blue = Hoplitai
Green = Trebizond Archers
Yellow = Byzantine Infantry
Red = Byzantine Lances
Orange dots = Position of enemy siege engines
Coloured arrows = Coloured arrows... (rather self-explanatory, enemy approach etc.)

What is illustrated above happened over and over again: A few enemy units attacked, I flanked with my Byz Infantry, brought one group of Byz Lancers into their back and chased down routers with the other group. All the while I had to replace my archers who ran out of arrows. After a few equally pathetic attempts to break my position, the enemy retreated, giving me a nice chance to slaughter the retreating units with my cavalry. In the end, ~3,000 Portugese were killed or taken captive (I killed all the prisoners and earned the nice Butcher vice) to my 250.

In all, it was essentially the perfect Early battle (although fought in the late 1260-ies) with every unit fullfilling its task and a light version of the double envelopment tactic in practice. In the following years I drove them out of Cyrenaica, Tunisia and Algeria, and I'm now planning a final strike against the 2,000 men trapped in Morocco.

Re: Horse Archers - I find them to be a very important aspect of my army. Missile Cavalry that can fight too (SHC, Faris, Jinettes, Boyars, Szekley etc.) are even better as they remain useful as strike cavalry after they run out of arrows. In essence here is how I use HA's:

In general:
1. To counter enemy heavy cavalry. Horse Archers are fatser and lighter than heavy cavalry so they can happily play hit and run against knights etc. The knights have to either stand there and take the arrows, losing numbers without gaining any kills in return, or try to engage the HA's. Simply run your HA's back to your anti cavalry troops and have them engage the chasing knights. If you want to be really nasty, lead the knights on a long chase first so they are exhausted by the time your Halb's engage them.

2. To weaken strong melee units. CMAA's, Footknights and other strong infantry units have no answer to HA's. Mounted Crossbows work better against high armour units of course, but even taking out 1/4 of a unit of Chiv. Footknights for free is worth it. 2 Units of HA's or MC's working together against one unit of strong infantry will render the unit more or less irrelevant to the battle. while getting shot up and dying, they are also fruitlessly chasing your HA's and not supporting their other troops.

3. Killing siege engines. Run the HA's around behing the enemy and take out the siege engines that are giving you trouble.

On attack: I usually range them out in front of my main force and keep them out of the way unless the enemy is very low on missiles or only has javelin units. Once the battle is joined I'll use them as rear archers or put them into Wedge formation and charge an engaged infantry unit. You may lose some of your HA's but they will probably break the enemy unit after 1 or 2 such charges. If you can isolate a part of the enemy force that has no missile units, send your HA's there and have them fire away, inflicting one sided casualties and morale penalties without any return losses.

On Defense: HA's are great here as they can effectively lead the enemy to your army, and force them to approach the way you want rather than taking an approcach that can negate of reduce the effectiveness of your terrain advantage. This is a HUGE advantage.

Once they have lead the enemy to the killing grounds and snipered a few kills themselves, park them behind your infantry and use them like regular archers until the enemy breaks, then use the to chase down routers and spread the fear.

In essence, HA's are archers that can never be caught by infantry and are very tough to catch with Cavalry if used right. In large numbers they can also outgun Arbalesters. 3 units of HA's volleying againsta unit of Arb's will take some loses, but will fire at a rate of around 6 arrows to each bolt the Arbs can shoot, the constant volleys will quickly thin the Arb's out and then it's Wedge charge time with the most damaged unit. Not advisable against the Pavise variety though.

One final but very important thing about the Combo Cavalry like Faris that can fight effectively as well as shoot: They effectively allow you to field more units than your opponent. If your 16 unit army includes 4 Faris, you effectively have 40 units on the field as they can be used as either archers or strike cavalry as the situation requires. The advantage of this can't be overstated. You can even do without dedicated heavy cavalry if your HA's can also fight reasonably well.


EDIT:::

Almost forgot the real reason for my post!!

My Scottis High age campaign has reached cruch point. The French have been crushed into relative obscurity in a small corner of Eurpoe and are not threat in of themselves. They could cause some truoble if they teamed up with the on;y other main power, but even then would only really be an annoyance. All other porties have been reduced to minor after toughts and exiles except for myself and my advesary - the Crusader States.

The Crusaders and I have been standing off at the Lithuanian border. For years troops have continued to build up in an uneasy peace on both sides, until the Crusaders were excommunicated for fighting the Danes. In theory I have the biggest army, income and technology lead, but my forces are widely spread, while the Crudarers have concenterated their forces on the Lithuanian border. I attacked with one force in some of their southern holdings, and they dropped a massive foce of 19,000 troops into Lithuania. I had gathered a garrison of 9,000 troops in response to their build up.

In terms of troops, the Crusaders have basically every advantage. Better Spears (Order Footsoldiers), Better general infantry (CMAA's, Footknights, Halbardiers), though I have access to plenty of Gallowglasses, and they or course have better Cavlary (CK's, Hosp, Teutonic and Templar Knights, Mounted Sergeants etc.). I have no access to Horse Archers other than a couple of mercenary units as the Scots don't get ANY mounted archers at all. Regaular archers are even, though I have access to Welsh Longbows, and I do have a few units of Swiss Halb's in the force. So, boiled down they outnumber me 2:1 and have better quality troops. My general is 7 command to their 4.

This will be the defining battle of the whole campaign. If I win it I will break the spine of the Crusader States army, and possibly plunge them into Civil war on the back of their recent excommunication. If I lose, the flower of my army will be destroyed and my foothold in their eastern border dislodged. I might recover, but it'll be a long and punishing process and time will probably run out before I can secure the 60% threshold.

Battle took place on flat terrain as there were no hills to defend at all. I set up shop in open ground, with Forests on either side. Their inital deployment had about 6 siege engines, a few Order Footsoldiers, Some Slav Javelinmen and a Teutonic Knights I think. My responding deployment was as follows:

2 Catapults
2 Naptha Catapults
2 Organ Guns
1 Demi Culverin
1 Royal Knights (general)
1 Scottish Lancers
1 Swiss Armoured Pikemen
2 Scottish Spearmen
2 Scottish Warriors
2 Welsh Longbows

I like Siege weapons as you can see!

Anyway, I won't go into detail, as this is a massive, massive battle, that has taken about 3-4 hours so far of real time. So far I have crushed them beneath my boot. The kill ratio is about 4.5 - 5:1 I'd say, and I have over 2000 prisoners at present. I'd estimate that I've killed at least 2-3 times that number as well, which would put their total losses at around 7000 men so far.

I've discovered the joys of Spearmen finally, and have managed to sucessfully create "Kill Squads" hich effectively assasinate enemy units. Typical example is a units of Order Footsoldiers or Heavy cavalry. As they approach, I send out a unit of Scottish Spears to engage it, with another melee unit sent off to each side and past the target. then enemy turn to have the attaching spears and charges them. The spears engage and hold the target in place. By this time the other two units (typically Gallowglasses and/ or FMAA's or Scottish Warriors/Clansmen) have drawn even or passed the engaged unit. They then turn and smash it from both flanks or flank + rear. The result is an almost instant break most of the time and complete slaughter of the target unit. Your flankers can even be half strength or less units and the result is the same, even better if they go in at wedge formation.

Using this technique, I have swiftly rounted a 100 man Order FootSoldier unit, using a 60 man Scottish Spears, a 24 man Scottish Warriors and a 26 man Gallowglass unit.

I can wait to see the final tally, though the game will almost certainly crash after the battle.

^^ Sounds interesing, but dont lose all hope against those crusaders as...

...Not two days past I had a massive Polish faction reappaearing in my territory with a whopping 5,098 troops to my 856. I moved an eight star general to the territory, but could only spare another 80 Arbalestors to join him, so this brought my total to 938 (300 Halbs, 196 Arbs, 95 LongB's, Mangonel, Culverin, 143 Feudal sergeants and rest were Hobilars (Including 8* general).
They attacked with Pikes, PavC's, RK's, Halb's. Their general was 4* too. Although, here's the trick, their general charged straight into my line and was cut down early on. Leaving their army demoralised and up against an 8*. Never before in my campaigns have the humble Hobilars done so much damage!! They took over 1500 prisoners and chased the Pikes off the field.

And, for the first time in my battles it was snowing...! Ah.

^^ Apologies for appalling spelling; I was typing quickly and can't yet edit posts...!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jxrc

The thread is a splendid idea.

My only reservation is that, if it stays in its current format, it will become quite difficult to find the information that you are looking for due to lack of coherence cause everyone will submit its own idea on every topic which will lead to duplicata and perhaps errors.

What I find really great with frogbeastegg's guides is that they are an excellent synthese of his original views and the feeback he got from other players (a bit like a wikepedia entry). It was apparently modified from time to time but never lost its coherence and that's really what makes those guides stand out (compared to the factions guides and the subterfuge guide).

My point is thus that perhaps we would be better off if someone could volunteer to some kind of synthesis bout each points discussed. The reward for the person willing to carry out that time consuming task would be, in addition to the gratitude of everyone, the privilege to decide what new comment "deserve" to lead to a modication of his chapter-synthesis.

In practice it could work a bit like the PBM worked with a "Synthesis thread" to whom only a few would have access and a second thread where each and everyone could suggest to the author any modification/update/precision he thinks necessary ...

Just my two cents...

And yes I realise that there is no guarantee that anyone will be able to spare the time required but what the heck it was worth a try ...:juggle2:

---

I'd have to slam my vote down on just reviving a new sub-forum under this MTW forum's directory.

In it, we could break all strategic discussion down by topic and keep things nice and organized.

My only difference is that I'd be voting for open access...at least viewable. Beyond that point, the more contributions...I'd say the better.

The battle against the Crusader States grinds on......I currently hold over 4000 prisoners, as the Crusaders continue to feed more and more troops into my meat grinder "Kill Squads". I'd estimate thier total losses at over 12,000 in total by now.

One interesting development though, and one that could change the course of the battle:

Recently, after yet another harrowing defeat the latest batch of Crusader reinforcements formed up out of range, towards their end of the map. This consisted of 1 x Halb, 1 x Hobilar, 1 x Royal Knights, 1 x Order Footsoldeirs, 1 x Pavise Xbows, 1 x Arqubusiers and 1 x Arbalesters. Possibly some handgunners and Javelin men too. All in all, about 400-500 men. They all bunched in together on top of each other like a compact little ball.

I figured they were just waiting for the rest of their reinforcements to join them, but no more arrived. I waited, and waited and waited patiently for them to attack but nothing happened. A few new units showed up in the distance, but immediately withdrew again. Finally no new units arrived and they just sat there......

Could they have come to the end of their troops I thought? why else wouldn't they bring up more? This could be my chance to finish the battle for good! Slowly I moved my full force towards their knot of troops. Formed up my archery troops, 1 x Welsh longbows and 1 x Arbalsters and started pelting them with missiles. Still no response, not even returned fire. After unloading all of my missiles into them, I sent in my infantry to finish them off. A sickening slaughter ensued as I surrounded and butchered them.

As soon as they broke though, a whole string of new reinforcements appeared and marched towards my diorganised army. I quickly reformed my forces and met them just inside the map border. However, unable to manouver properly I could not execute my tactics well, and was also faced with reinrocements constantly appearing on the horizon while my beleagured troops endeavoured to drive their remaining troops into retreat. Losses slowly became about 1:1, and some of my units broke, triggering a mass rout.

I'm now retreating towards my original position, having lost more troops than in the previous 5-6 exchanges but having learned a valuable lesson. Don't try and hold the map border. I should have killed the knot of troops then withdrawn back to tackle reinforcements on home turf. The lure of sealing the victory there and then simply proved too strong. Even after this bad engagements the kill ratio is still roughly 5:1, but now I have to get basicallya whole new army of reinforcements, hopefully there will a good assortment of units in the reinforcements, otherwise I could have a problem!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heidrek

Don't try and hold the map border.

---

Wise advice that I sometimes forget when attacking and too impatient to finish the battle ... Even if the enemy general has been killed, troops chasing routers will get disorganised and tired and will have a hard time coping with fresh reinforcements (esp fresh cavalry) ... Not too bad if you just loose a few isolated cavalry units sacrified to chase routers, more of a problem if your whole army is closely following.

Happened to me a few times but the worst instance was a x-hours battle with the GH in Khazar. Managed to kill the Khan and eveything was going nicely. Thought that they had run out of fresh troops, got daring and chased what I thought would be their last units from the map ... Got to the edge and 12 new unites appeared (mostly MHC, MHA) and routed my exhausted halbs and that was it ... Had to withdraw ... Lost Khazar to the rebels (about 6 ou 8 thousand remaing troops that had fled) ... Few turns later there was a Russian loyalist revolt in another prov and the rest of the GH became light blue. In such cases, I tend to utter a word that starts with an "f" ....:wall: :wall: :wall:

Ok, so I managed to retreat to my starting position and withdrew my battered army and bring on a fresh set of troops. ended up with a pretty good line up actually and was all set to continue slaughtering the Crusaders.

Once again they grouped almost all their troops into the "knot formation" and just stood there. A few scattered units (one damaged Mitia sergeants, an almost whole Arbalesters unit, a unit of Halbardiers and a mauled 25 man unit of Order Footsoldiers sat scattered in different parts of the map behind the knot.

I waited patiently, determined not to get greedy again. Waited some more. Put the time slider up to 100% and waited a while more. Still nothing. Do I just run out the clock? I could, but thats not how I want to win this fight.

Instead I decided to test a theory. I had 2 units of light cavalry, a Hobilars and a Steppe Cavalry. I took these two and moved them over to where the damaged Militia Sergeants units was standing around. Put both Cavalry units into Wedge formation and charged the MS from 2 sides. They routed almost immediately. I lost 1 hobilar and 2 SC and killed/captured all 40 MS.

Still no reaction from the Knot. A unit of Feudal Sergeants appeared on the horizon and moved to join his knot buddies. It's like they are paralysed or something - didn't even try to come to the aid of their slaughtered friends.

I waited some more and then got tired of waiting..... I brought up a couple of half strength spear units, some melee troops, the two cavalry units and my two archery units, an Arbalesters and Welsh Longbows. I left the general and a bunch of other troops back at home base in case of disaster.

formed up the assault squad and set my archers on the Knot. They tried to shoot back, but only managed to kill 3 of my guys due to their cramped position. They've brought in 2 more units and added them to the knot but haven't withdrawn and troops despite the constant missile storm. Soon I'll from up my melee troops and crush the knot. then withdraw them and see what happens.

Has anyone else experienced the "Knot Formation" before? Seems like a good way to throw away troops to me.....

If that's all he's going to do now, I'm thinking I can wrap this battle up pretty quickly from here on in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jxrc

Wise advice that I sometimes forget when attacking and too impatient to finish the battle ... Even if the enemy general has been killed, troops chasing routers will get disorganised and tired and will have a hard time coping with fresh reinforcements (esp fresh cavalry) ... Not too bad if you just loose a few isolated cavalry units sacrified to chase routers, more of a problem if your whole army is closely following.

Happened to me a few times but the worst instance was a x-hours battle with the GH in Khazar. Managed to kill the Khan and eveything was going nicely. Thought that they had run out of fresh troops, got daring and chased what I thought would be their last units from the map ... Got to the edge and 12 new unites appeared (mostly MHC, MHA) and routed my exhausted halbs and that was it ... Had to withdraw ... Lost Khazar to the rebels (about 6 ou 8 thousand remaing troops that had fled) ... Few turns later there was a Russian loyalist revolt in another prov and the rest of the GH became light blue. In such cases, I tend to utter a word that starts with an "f" ....:wall: :wall: :wall:

---

Well, in basically all warfare pre-dating WW2 (but still in WW2 at times...the huge surge in mobilization and mechanized infantry changed things a bit though, to say the least) victory in a battle regularly came down to that decisive moment where the commander of the side with the advantage at the time had to "flip the switch" so to speak and put the nail in the coffin. One would think this is the time where the winning side is at it's most advantageous, but in reality...this is often the time where they're most vulnerable. All offensive attacks involve high risk...all of them. Defense is almost always the preferable position...and this doesn't go out the window just because you have some routing units on the field of battle.

Now, Medieval Warfare was extremely tactical and highly complex (and why so many of us are interested in it) due to changes in cavalry usage and also...armor. Heavily armored units obviously move slower and tire more easily. These units, although extremely effective, can be extremely vulnerable when in pursuit. Now, in this case we're talking about Golden Horde and we already know that against almost every faction in the game, they have a cavalry and mobility advantage. Chasing these units to the edge of the map is always going to be extremely risky because you're extending yourself with units that can't move back to their original position realistically at all without turning their backs and being vulnerable during a rally.

I like to incorporate a strategy that leads me to fielding an army (often) that very much resembles the concepts and ideas of the Roman Empire's infantry. Moving wall "legions" that are going to push forward, paced, and gradually control more and more of the map. Gradually moving these units in a way that "boxes in" or "pins down" the enemy is the idea here...never over committing or spreading your vanguard too far apart. The entire strength of these units lies in their cohesiveness and discipline. Let the enemy rally and counter attack your infantry- If it was too much for them to handle in the first place, their secondary attacks will probably be too much too.

Now if it's simply reinforcements we're dealing with here- You're still going to be ok against them. Again- By appropriately moving your units and boxing the enemy in, your going to be giving reinforcements little option but to just charge head first into your moving wall infantry. Further, the more you advance, the less room they will have to charge or form formations before attacking your positions.

As far as my cavalry goes: The majority of my time, I like to separate my Cavalry in the following way: 1) The spearhead. The majority of my shock cavalry all grouped together. Hundreds, if not thousands of heavy horses in one giant clump. 2) The General and his bodyguard obviously, grouped with another royal knights unit or with just an auxilliary cavalry unit to protect his flank. 3) The lightest of the Cavalry will be grouped together will the sole purpose of being my screening unit. These will be the horsemen who chase routers.

Without going too in depth here- You can get an idea of what this would look like. Huge infantry vanguard. Major right or left hook of heavy cavalry off and to the flank. Screening unit placed wherever it would make most sense. General and his bodyguards in the rear behind the infantry, most protected.

The idea is to force the enemy to wind up in an early, heavy slugfest with your infantry vanguard and to get things positioned nicely so that you always have the opportunity to flank the enemy with your heavy cavalry. Think along the lines of two kids chasing eachother around the kitchen table. Your infantry is the table. Just keep the infantry advancing and holding it's lines.

Whenever units start to route, chase them with your smaller screening force of Cavalry. Whenever you encounter a pocket of enemy resistance that is breaking your lines or causing too much trouble, hit them with that large right or left hook using your heavy cavalry cluster. The idea is to round them, get the flank secured, and then charge crashing directly through their lines...from the side right through the center (or rear). While this is going on, your infantry is still in place...holding it's center and moving forward. Again...when units start to route, do NOT chase them with your heavy cavalry, or begin running with your infantry to close the gap and chase them down. Use your screening force...this is what it's for.

No matter how many enemy rally's or groups of reinforcements come into play, you continue to just address them with this same process. Engage with Infantry while keeping your heavy cavalry in a large group, constantly playing a game of angles, keeping a flanking opportunity open. Whenever you need to chase units or close the gap on the battlefield, you're going to be doing so with the screening units, and therefore never separating your main army.

Considering that rallying/reinforcement units come back toward you in piecemeal, you're putting these small groups of units in a position where they constantly have to just forward charge your main vanguard infantry, and risk being flanked by hundreds of heavy cavalry. There's no rush or reason to break your formation to chase the routers or get to reinforcements who have arrived on the field. You'll be winning, the enemy will not and you'll continue to have a large, cohesive, organized army moving toward it's objectives.

Lastly- The other major advantage this gives you is that it basically forces the enemy to have a superior infantry AND cavalry than you do. If either one is not up to par with your forces, they're going to have a very difficult time beating you. If they have an inferior infantry, and choose to instead engage your infantry with their heavy cavalry initially, they've just opened their supposedly superior units (their cavalry) to a flank by your own heavy cav. If their Cavalry is inferior, they're going to rely on their infantry...again, it's going to be open to that cavalry flank.

In order to really stand toe to toe with you, they would need an infantry and cavalry that can, separately, outmatch your infantry/cavalry. You're forcing this upon them by keeping your two types of units (infantry/cav) separate and en' mass. What are they going to do- Split their entire army on the field of battle? Exactly :yes:

Remember...there is no rush. They could have 30 units of reinforcements coming...just continue to stick to the plan and address things as they unfold. Any giant counter attack they perform will still have to deal with a massive infantry cluster, and also watch both flanks for a massive cavalry charge. No matter what your enemy does, it still will have the same problem to deal with.

The problem with defending the map edge is that it more or less negates your cavalry and tactical manuverability as you can't move in behind the enemy units. also, how do you handle armiés with plenty of polearms/spears to counter your cavalry or a lot of Missile units, particularly horse archers and mounted xbows that can out manuver your infantry and slower heavy cav?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heidrek

The problem with defending the map edge is that it more or less negates your cavalry and tactical manuverability as you can't move in behind the enemy units. also, how do you handle armiés with plenty of polearms/spears to counter your cavalry or a lot of Missile units, particularly horse archers and mounted xbows that can out manuver your infantry and slower heavy cav?

---

Well, good intelligence on the enemy is always a given.

If you know your enemy has a ranged/missile advantage on you, you would never line up on the edge of the map no.

In general, there are going to be situations where you're just screwed...yeah. At that point we're talking about long term logistical issues...You're losing before you've even stepped onto the battlefield.

yeah, this is what I love about MTW, the fact that there is no perfect army, everything is situational and the best you can do is try to cover as many bases as you can and use the available resources in the most effective way.

have you ever encountered the "Knot Formation" phenomenon before? It's really got me puzzled.

Ah, to try and hold the edge of the map (against the enemy's reinforcements) or not.....a classic conundrum!

Unfortunately, I find that the answer of whether or not to do so is "it depends". What kind of units is your army composed of, and what kind of reinforcements is your opponent bringing on? What's the overall state of your army, in terms of morale/fatigue/ammo? Exactly how many reinforcments does the enemy have?

The simple fact is, there are too many variables that factor in to say whether it's usually beneficial to try and hold the edge or not. I myself tend to be conservative and hold my army back at or near its original position, but that's admittedly not always the smartest thing to do. My best friend -- also an MTW afficianado -- is more apt to simply move his army back & forth, depending how the battle continues to unfold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heidrek

Has anyone else experienced the "Knot Formation" before? Seems like a good way to throw away troops to me.....

---

Not that I'm aware of. It sounds rather like a bug in the AI. :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

Ah, to try and hold the edge of the map (against the enemy's reinforcements) or not.....a classic conundrum!

Unfortunately, I find that the answer of whether or not to do so is "it depends". What kind of units is your army composed of, and what kind of reinforcements is your opponent bringing on? What's the overall state of your army, in terms of morale/fatigue/ammo? Exactly how many reinforcments does the enemy have?

The simple fact is, there are too many variables that factor in to say whether it's usually beneficial to try and hold the edge or not. I myself tend to be conservative and hold my army back at or near its original position, but that's admittedly not always the smartest thing to do.

---

All in all, IMHO, it seems to me that trying to hold the map edge is almost always a mistake cause:

- the AI reinforcement will attack when still being fully fresh;
- there a good chance that the AI units will appear at slighlty different places and there is a good chance that by doing so the new unit will be in a position to flank your already engaged units;
- in some instances, you'll see that some AI missile unit start shooting at you while you cannot attack them cause they are not in an accessible part of the map;
- you loose any chance to capture routers;
- if things go wrong your own reinforcement will take ages to get to you and the AI will have ages to chase you....

AT first glance, I would say that holding the map edge is only worth it if you are attacking and need to beat the clock ....

Of course all of that is quite nice and everything cause it does not take into account one major factor: boredom. Always tempting to finish battles with the GH as soon as possible. Not a smart move cause it's a real pain in the neck to fight a battle for two hours and blew it cause you could not wait for an extra half an hour. My tip in such cases, hit the pause button and get something to eat or drink .... Do as I say, don't do as I did indeed:whip: :whip: :whip: :beam:

Ah yes. The map edge question. Below is one common problem I encounter.

My reinforcements are brought as a steady flow as units are killed/routed off the field/withdrawn due to lack of arrows etc. However, I have come across huge reinforcement armies by the AI that seem to appear en masse destroying my light cavalry as they are chasing down the last of the routers. That said, the last time this happened, my flagging heavy cavalry follwing up routed the reinforcement army with a grand charge. (Thankfully, there was a unit of peasants that sparked a chain rout...) So it can work, but in my experience luck plays just as big a part.

Also, recently I've taken to forming up my out of ammuntion archers in dire situations and charging them into the fray. Sometimes with great results, other times, well, best not to go into it... I try not to do this, but sometimes there is no choice. Any thoughts on whether it's worth the risk?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironsword

Also, recently I've taken to forming up my out of ammuntion archers in dire situations and charging them into the fray. Sometimes with great results, other times, well, best not to go into it... I try not to do this, but sometimes there is no choice. Any thoughts on whether it's worth the risk?

---

Would say it's worth the risk in three scenario:

- nothing else available and you spot an engaged unit of peasant (or another infantry unit wit poor morale) so that you can hope that the mere fact that they'll be attack from the rear and/or outnumbered will start a nice chain reaction;
- you've run out of arrows but not the IA. Can be useful to have you archers attack the AI archers head on. The IA will either start the usual retreat or fight. In both case they will stop shooting at your melee units ...
- your about to loose the battl anyway and you do not want to see too many missile units retreat to occupy the keep, castle, etc.

Just my two cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heidrek

have you ever encountered the "Knot Formation" phenomenon before? It's really got me puzzled.

---

I think I've seen it a few times in a VI campaign. If I remember correctly, the AI was outclassed on the field, I got them to move around a little, and then they just moved their units all into one space. I was peppering them with arrows, so this was a really stupid thing for the AI to do. It also subjects the enemy units to the overcrowding melee penalty. I think it only occurred early in the game though, and I don't think I've ever seen it in grand campaign game.

Well, after crushing about 3 or 4 "Knots" of troops I noticed a few things.

1. If you have missile units like Arbs/Longbows then it's easy to smash a knot as your missile troops will ahve depleted the unit numbers.

2. Without missile units it's actually quite hard to really crush one of these knots. Simple reason for this is that you can't surround any single unit and if the Knot includes a lot of good quality infantry like Halb's, footknights and CMAA's they will be fighting more or less one on one wit your troops which is to their advantage. Being unable to flank a key unit effectively is a real disadvantage. As a side note, if the knot contains good spearmen it's hard to charge the knot with cavalry without running into the spears because they are a bigger unit than the others and "overlap" them.

In short, if you have missile troops, you can smash a knot easily. If you don't you'll probably still beat it, but will face much higher losses in doing so. Add to this that reinfocements will soon show up, but yours will be miles awayand I don't really recommend trying to break a knot without the benefit of ranged troops. Javelins in particular would do great damage.

thus, after breaking a few knots and making some observations, I checked the clock and decided to wait out the remaining time as there wasn't much left.

Final results:
Scotland - 3042 men lost
Crusader States - 12,899 men lost (8312 killed, 4587 captured)

I could have done so much more damage to them with a bit more cavalry at the right time, but kept drawing Gallowglasses and Scottish Spearmen as reinforcements instead.

In addition to the sheer number of troops killed, the quality of the crusaders troops was far greater overall. I've lost track of how many units of Order Footsoldiers and Teutonic/Hospitaler/Templar/Royal/Chivalric/Feudal Knights got ground into hamburger along with the masses of Arb's, Pav. Arb's, CMAA's and Xbows.

My troops were mainly FMAA's, Gallowglasses, Scottish Spearmen, Pikemen and Highland Clansmen.

All in all I count that a pretty decisive victory. The Crusaders massive 19,000 man army of powerful troops has been humbled down to under 6500 while I have probably about the same garrisoned in Lithuania.

I didn't kill the 4500 prisoners I took because I didn't want to get the butcher type vice - it hurts your army's morale right? Does anyone know what Vice you'd get for killing 4500 prisoners???

Kinda sucks really because I don't really need the money and I'd rather deprive them of the troops than take their ransom money. I'm hoping that the ransom on 4500 quality troops will be too much for them to pay - with luck I've captured a bunch of nobles and minor commanders in amongst them to drive the price up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heidrek

I didn't kill the 4500 prisoners I took because I didn't want to get the butcher type vice - it hurts your army's morale right? Does anyone know what Vice you'd get for killing 4500 prisoners???

---

You get the Butcher vice, which gives your general +2 dread. Only if you kill large amounts of prisoners in several battles does your generals earn vices such as No Mercy or Bloodthirsty (which hurt morale).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

Only if you kill large amounts of prisoners in several battles does your generals earn vices such as No Mercy or Bloodthirsty (which hurt morale).

---

How many prisoner you kill is only relevant for the butcher vice (need 1,000 or more). For vices such as scant mercy, No mercy, merciless, secret blood lover and blood lover, killing one prisoner per battle is enough.

Getting "Secret blood lover" is the point when youn should stop killing prisoners since it's the last opportunity to get the dread increase without the moral penalty.

No Mercy gives +2 dread and -1 Morale.

My general got this today after defending Scotland and smashing the French attack.

A glorious battle it was.....let me set the scene for you:

My 7* General defending Scotland against the French how were endeavouring to drive me out. there's no retreat as I'm isolated in Scotland, and no hope of reinforcements for at least a couple of turns as the French Navy has established itself and will take a great deal of effort to dislodge.

I have about 500 troops. 3 and a half units of Bashkorts, 1 full unit of Steppe Heavy Cavalry, 1 almost full unit of Kazanchis, 1 unit of Kursybays, 2 Archers, 2 Catapults and a couple of scrap units of around 10 men each (Slav. Javs, Horse archers, and a heavily depleted merc. Pav. Crossbowmen).

France attacked with 1700 odd troops led by a 2* commander and packed full of Crossbows, a few Chiv Serg's, royal knights, Hobilars, Chiv. Footknights and other similar infantry.

I had the advantage of holding a hill slope, and a far better commander, but vastly fewer troops and little cavalry.

Without going into too much detail, suffice it to say the VB army repelled the assault. As they enemy was withdrawing I had over 400 prisoners. Knowing that my biggest danger is attrition and not being sure I could withstand another assault of that magnitude I couldn't afford to let France have the equivalent of another half a stack of troops back I killed the prisoners.

Total losses were: France - 1036 dead. Volga Bulgaria - 184 dead.

The only troops I can produce in Scotland are Archers at present so resupplying the defensive froces is going to be a severe challenge unless I can clear the seaways. How long can The VB's hold onto their British outpost?

Hopefully the blood nose i gave France this time will make them think twice about attacking me again for a couple of turns. what will the next year bring....

Thought I might revive this thread by asking for advice. I have yet again proven that I'm a lousy general when it comes to battles wherein I'm not completely familiar and comfortable with the situation.

In my current Byzantine campaign, I went on to steamroll Northern Africa after having defeated the Fatamids in Egypt (in those battles I experienced the same problem as described below, but the latter battle is fresher in mind, so I chose it to illustrate my point). The Almoravids were weakened from civil war, and Cyrenaica and Algeria were in rebel hands, whereas Tunisia was only lightly defended. I auto-calculated the battles for Cyrenaica and Tunisia as it was my army of 3,000 with a 3-star general against 2-300 men with a zero-star general. Once I reached Algeria I faced an awkward position. There were about 1,000 rebels in Algeria with a 5-star general with some 2,000 Almoravids waiting in Morocco. Thus not taking Algeria as soon as possible would give them the opportunity to claim it before me while regaining strength (they controlled the better part of Iberia). Foolishly, I decided to invade Algeria, figuring that my numbers would be enough and decided to command the battle personally.

The battle map looked something like this:
https://img297.imageshack.us/img297/8233/eg32rfn1.jpg

I brought mostly light troops since I figured light troops would fare better in the desert, although Algeria is a province with arid ground, so I probably should have sent stronger troops in retrospect. The black is my general, the deep purple Byzantine Lancers, the light purple Horse Archers and the dark blue Byzantine Infantry. None of my units had any armour upgrades. The yellow is Archers or Desert Archers, the orange Berber Camels (including the general) and the red Murabitin Cavalry. I decided to bring so many cavalry units into battle quite simply because my enemy brought so many.

My HA's rode up first for a brief archery duel, but the enemy camels attacked for some reason, so they withdrew behind my lines. The three Lancers on my far left were sent down into the valley to kill off the archers positioned there, while the two units behind them went to flank the attacking camels. The Lancers on my far right made a wide flanking movement, while my "main battle", the group of four Lancers, rode up the steep hill to attack the Murabitin and the archers behind them. The enemy camels withdrew for a little while, but just as I had gotten my attack going, they counter-attacked. Unsurprisingly, my Lancers on the left did well and routed the archers, but everything else failed miserably. My main battle got engaged in the steep upwards slope against the enemy, while the Berbers and archers peppered them, my Byz. Infantry met the same fate and the flanking attack failed, as a few units of Murabitin apparently were able to rout my Lancers on flat ground.

Despite this, I believe everything would have worked if not my units started routing much sooner than I had expected - I thought I still had plenty of time to bring my still fresh Lancers on the left into the enemy's flank, but no; they ran. To buy myself some time, I sent my general into a depleted unit of Berbers chasing my BI's. 40 fresh Byz. Lancers against 26 tired Camels sounds like a pretty easy fight, especially when you achieve a perfect charge in their flank. But no, a few seconds later my Lancers were losing badly, and then my general died. Mass rout.

I still thought I could win the battle, heck; the enemy would be tired by now and I had more than 2,000 men in reserve, but no. My army went into Benny Hill-mode, and every unit I brought onto the field from my reserves routed upon impact, even it was they who charged. To spare myself from further casualties, I withdrew my further reinforcements. At the end of the day, the rebels lost slightly less than 500 men, and I lost more than a thousand. How did this happen?

I realise that once your army is broken and your general dead, a battle is pretty much a lost case (and certainly so if the enemy has higher valour than you), but how come my units did so bad during the initial attack? I saw a unit of Lancers fighting the Murabitins rout after losing 7 men, and that was before my general was even engaged in battle! I have experienced equally "surprising" defeat earlier in the same campaign against the Fatamids; I fail in breaking the enemy with my first wave of attack, and thereafter the battle becomes chaotic and beyond my control, resulting in defeat with heavy losses. I realize part of the explanation is that I've only recently begun playing MTW again, which means I'm still unaccustomed to battles (and I never was the best attacker anyway) and that I underestimated my enemy. I figured the camels and the Murabitins would be worthless in head-to-head combat (as they appear to be when I'm using them), and that Byzantine Lancers would have an easy time kicking their butts, but no, apparently not. What are your thoughts on this? Have I missed to take something into the equation?

At least I have learnt one very valuable lesson now, I'll never rely on cavalr en masse again, and I'll never again attack without a heavier, infantry-based main battle (ie. a wall of spears protecting archers and the general) that can hold the line until my flankers can do their job.

First off, you clearly underestimated the power of the mighty Camel. ~;p Yes I kid, but only partially. Berbers can be very effective given the right situation(s), especially if they're able to avoid prolonged melee combat. I don't know how much direct action they saw against your Lancers, but don't underestimate the morale penalty they inflict on enemy horses -- it can make a bigger difference than you realize.

Second: If your general has any sort of trait which lowers the morale of troops under his command ("Strange", "Good Runner", etc.), that can make a *huge* difference. A 9-star general with all the best combat traits in the world is still worthless if he inflicts a significant morale penalty on his men in battle. A general rule of thumb is that if a commander's traits would lower his troops' morale by more than -2 (or possibly up to -4 if he's exceptionally talented), then you're better off disbanding his unit or retiring him from future battlefield duty.

I'm not certain what would cause your reinforcements to immediately route on impact and spark the Benny Hill code. I remember reading once or twice long ago about a supposed bug where sometimes the full morale penalty from a general's death can last the entire battle (instead of dissipating over time), but I remain unconvinced of the existence of this bug. I myself have never experienced it (at least that I've noticed), nor am I aware of anyone else having run into it in the last couple years.


May have to ponder that last one when I'm more awake (getting near my bedtime right now). :sweatdrop:

You may be right about the general... At the time I had about five or six units of Byzantine Lancers with 3 command stars, so I never bothered to check the VV's of my desert generals. It's very likely that he actually had a vice that gave a morale penalty and of which I was unaware.

Anyway, on the upside I learnt a valuable lesson: in my recent attacking battles I have been much more patient and cautious, resulting in some really great victories with a casualty rate between 4:1 and 5:1. I had a massive battle against the French in Leon in which I did about the exact opposite to the above tactic, and scored a 10:1 victory, effectively annihilating the French fighting forces. That battle left them with just over a thousant troops in total to defend their empire (consisting of France, northern Iberia and some of the HRE).

Another interesting aspect is how close to true Roman warfare this came. In the first of my two "final battles" against the Fatamids, I lost 2,000 men including my general to Fatamid's 1,400 casualties. However, the very next year I returned with an equally big army, crushing the 600 remaining enemies. The year after the defeat described above, I had replaced my casualties (I constantly recruited new low-quality troops in virtually all provinces at the time) and eradicated the rebels in a much smaller yet easier battle. If one army can't do it, another can. Ah, the benefits of having the stronger economy.

Thankfully, I have not yet seen my crack troops fail in any task I have given them, but the Horde has just arrived, so we shall se about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

Second: If your general has any sort of trait which lowers the morale of troops under his command ("Strange", "Good Runner", etc.), that can make a *huge* difference. A 9-star general with all the best combat traits in the world is still worthless if he inflicts a significant morale penalty on his men in battle. A general rule of thumb is that if a commander's traits would lower his troops' morale by more than -2 (or possibly up to -4 if he's exceptionally talented), then you're better off disbanding his unit or retiring him from future battlefield duty. :

---

Would just add that you should take into account the "net penalty" given by your general.

You of course need to set-off the penalty against any bonus given by your general's V&V (famously brave + strange = no big deal) but also with the moral bonus granted by each couple of stars. Thus a six stars general with "unhinged loon" is fine since the bonus (+3) cancels the penalty (-3). Would be a bit more cautious than Martok when it comes to assessing which general you have to give the bin. A net penalty of -2 seems to be the maximum you can live with in my humble experience and only if you get some troops with a decent morale. A general giving a net penalty of (-1) is a god recipe for disaster if your army is made of vanilla spearmen, CS ... or peasants (but if you actually use peasants in battle there is no redemption for you anyway :laugh4:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belisario

I have a question about deep ranks, do you use frogbeastegg's advices in this matter (Sp in 4, Sw 2, Arch 2 ...)?

---

I just read that guide and have gotten a chance to put it into play a few times, I find the 4-spear to be solid, but I prefer 3 for the other two. My archers have a habit of getting flanked but not retreating in 2 lines, and 2 lines makes my sword units unwieldy on everything but the flattest of maps.

@Innocentius: Outstanding! Glad to hear your tactics are working now. :2thumbsup:

If I can ask, though, what exactly do you mean about defeating the French by using the reverse tactic? Were you able to draw them to you this time around?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jxrc

Would just add that you should take into account the "net penalty" given by your general.

---

Indeed. I actually had factored that in my previous post, but didn't specifically mention it. Good of you to point out the clarification, Jxrc. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jxrc

Would be a bit more cautious than Martok when it comes to assessing which general you have to give the bin. A net penalty of -2 seems to be the maximum you can live with in my humble experience and only if you get some troops with a decent morale.

---

Hence why I added the qualifiers "possibly" and "exceptionally talented". ~;)

Actually, to be honest, I normally don't employ generals who bestow more than a -2 penalty either. However, there are always a few select generals that I simply can't bear to part with because they're too....colorful by then. (Perhaps that's the roleplayer in me, but I simply can't do it!) ~;p So in those cases, I just bear up and do the best I can with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jxrc

A general giving a net penalty of (-1) is a god recipe for disaster if your army is made of vanilla spearmen, CS ... or peasants (but if you actually use peasants in battle there is no redemption for you anyway :laugh4:)

---

I cannot argue with either of those points. :laugh4: Well said!

I find that, if I've got a general with -2 Morale vices, he's pretty much good enough to win the battle anyway (having seen some serious action) so it's not an issue.

But I'm a big freak for religious buildings anyway. I usually build them before armouries. So, morale penalties don't usually affect me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

First off, you clearly underestimated the power of the mighty Camel. ~;p Yes I kid, but only partially. Berbers can be very effective given the right situation(s), especially if they're able to avoid prolonged melee combat. I don't know how much direct action they saw against your Lancers, but don't underestimate the morale penalty they inflict on enemy horses -- it can make a bigger difference than you realize.

---

No. Joke.

Just played a quick Egypt game today, nothing more annoying (and embarrassing) than having Berbers route my Ghulams. O_O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

If I can ask, though, what exactly do you mean about defeating the French by using the reverse tactic? Were you able to draw them to you this time around?

---

More or less. First of all, I was patient and relied on steady line of Order Foot Soldiers (see my previous entries about my "upgrade" of the Byzantine roster [I chose to play the Byzantines since it would be my first campaign after returning from a 6 month absence from the game; I figured I'd be rather rusty and needed an easy faction to begin with]) with Treb. Archers behind rather than shock cavalry en masse. The main battle held throughout the entire battle, and I was able to safely withdraw my archers to bring on new ones. Wiser use of my Byzantine Cavalry also forced the French to give up their inital position, resulting in me taking control of the higher ground. From thereon, it was the French who attacked me. About 3,000 Frenchies dead on the field (no prisoners spared), another 300 who couldn't make it into the castle (I had cut off the province) were trapped, captured and executed as there was no ransom while the 400 hundred or something who made into the castle were starved out wihtin two rounds. So that's nearly 4,000 enemies, including their king, gone at the expense of 300 of my own men, a number that by then (early 13th century, 1207 AD to precise) was easily replaced.

Thought I'd write up a battle account of a battle I enjoyed fighting. It's in a history book style.

The year is 901 AD, and Wessex finds itself fighting a defensive war against Cymru (the Welsh). King Æthelstan led an ill advised invasion of Gwent the previous year, and was forced into a humiliating retreat. Seeing an opportunity to expand their influence and send a message of warning to any other potential rivals the Welsh King decided to press his advantage. In 901 AD Saxon lookouts spotted a large force bearing the banners of Cymru travelling into the fields and meadows of Somerseate. Still reeling from defeat Æthelstan was forced to mobilise his men and intercept the invading force. He did so on a sunny day in July, drawing his men up into formation, still fresh from the months they had had to tend to their wounds and battered egos. The same could not be said for the Welsh army, still tired from the march in the mild British sun.

The two armies met a few miles north of the village of Cheddar, and readied themselves for what would be a bloody encounter. The Welsh King had sent his Crown Prince and an army numbering 1500, of which a mixture of professional soldiers and levied freemen and peasants. Æthelstan on the other hand had only 1000 men, also a mix of professional fighting men and levied men of the Fyrd.

The Welsh drew up battle lines on a hill overlooking the plains of Somerseate, and the defending West Saxons placed themselves in the fields below, (as depicted in fig 1.1).

https://img244.imageshack.us/img244/...verviewgt6.jpg

Fig 1.1; The opposing armies.

Æthelstan placed his cavalry on his right flank, with his semi-professional Fyrdmen making up the main battleline, and the lightly armed Fyrd levies taking positions upon the left. Æthelstan and his personal bodyguard anchored the line in the center. He placed his archers thinly spread in front of the main batteline in a skirmishing formation.

The same could not be said for the Welsh army, who took up position in no distinct order. The left flank being totally comprised of vulnerable archers. While the core of the line was made up of semi-professional spearmen, tribesmen and pikes. With levies both on the right flank and also in-front of and behind the main battle line. Matters were made worse when the Crown Prince and his bodyguards decided against leading their men personally, preferring instead to observe from a "safe distance", (see fig 1.2).

https://img153.imageshack.us/img153/1982/battle2bf6.jpg

Fig 1.2; The Crown Prince flees.

Later accounts of the battle depict the Welsh Prince as a blabbering fool. One medieval historian states, "Idwal could hardly command what food was laid out for his supper let alone a host of over fifty score campaigning men" (Edmundson, 1492), while Newton claims "[...] he was little more than the inbred son [...] from a miscarriage of a nation." (1215). Revisionists disagree with this portrayal of the Welsh Prince, rather focusing on the skill of West Saxon King Æthelstan and the superior quality of the soldiers of the Fyrd. Mabbot, (1998), states, "Æthelstan I was an obsessive scholar of Roman battle tactics, spending many a waking hour studying texts of ancient battles fought against barbarians.”. Bothroyd points out the superiority of the Fyrd, "[...] we must remember that although the Fyrd was a levy system many of those called to serve in the armies of Kings were actually semi-professional warriors, often owning chainmail armour and good quality spears. Likewise these warriors were privy to a wealth of experience, unlike the drafted men of the Gaelic, Celtic or Brythonic nations." (2001). Therefore, it is most likely that a combination of these factors led to the outcome that day.

https://img120.imageshack.us/img120/9310/battle1yu3.jpg

Fig 1.3; Æthelstan and his army prepare to meet to the Welsh in battle.

The two opposing armies began skirmishing around noon, with the Saxons taking heavy casualties from the skilled bowmen and javelineers the Welsh had at their disposal. Skirmishing did not last long, with the Welsh core calling an all out charge into the main Saxon line. This was to be the first mistake of many. As although the Welsh core consisted of pikemen, professional spearmen and tribal spearmen they became locked in a frightful melee with the semi-professional Fyrdmen, spurred on by their King and his professional bodyguard. Thus unable to screen their light skirmishing troops and archers, Æthelstan called for an counter-attacking pincer, with the light Saxon cavalry charging out into the poorly formed and organised levies, causing irresistible decimation. While on the left flank the light spearmen of the Fyrd advanced to meet the archers and levies that had been firing upon them only moments before. This was a risky move, but a necessary one, as Æthelstan's left flank could not stand the onslaught of missiles for much longer, as their poor armour did not offer much in terms of protection.

The West Saxon main battleline fought valiantly, with records stating how the semi-professional soldiers would fight to the last hoping to be granted favour by their King. After the battle many of these men would be given housing in the King's Heerth, which is testimony to their belief in his abilities and the spirit of the warrior. However, the left flank was not fairing so well, with Welsh tribesmen having broken from the main melee to assist their skirmisher brethren, and if it had not been for the quick actions of the Saxon cavalry the battle could well have been lost with a rout upon the left flank.

With casualties mounting and no respite from any of the melees currently engaged the Welsh began to solemnly withdraw and attempt a second wave. Fresh Welshmen met the regrouping first wave and began the advance once more. Æthelstan now seeing he had the advantage of superior morale pressed forward with his remaining men massed around him. The second melee was much more frantic with the first, taking place as a tightly packed Saxon shield wall pushing up into a mess of Welsh bodies. Yet, it was once again the cavalry who provided the extra edge, slamming into the sides and rear of the Welsh formation, causing both panic and death. And thus seeing themselves surrounded the Welsh began to flee, and this time lacking order and with no thought for a third wave.

https://img390.imageshack.us/img390/1791/battle3eo7.jpg

Fig 1.4; Æthelstan is victorious.

Probably the most ambitious write-up of a single battle I've ever read, and good work too! Generally, I find it a pain to defend when the attacking force has the higher ground. On which difficulty level was this played?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

Probably the most ambitious write-up of a single battle I've ever read, and good work too! Generally, I find it a pain to defend when the attacking force has the higher ground. On which difficulty level was this played?

---

Thanks. I was playing on Hard, and I was destroyed by the Mercians a few turns later. :cry:

Quote:

---

Despite this, I believe everything would have worked if not my units started routing much sooner than I had expected - I thought I still had plenty of time to bring my still fresh Lancers on the left into the enemy's flank, but no; they ran. To buy myself some time, I sent my general into a depleted unit of Berbers chasing my BI's. 40 fresh Byz. Lancers against 26 tired Camels sounds like a pretty easy fight, especially when you achieve a perfect charge in their flank. But no, a few seconds later my Lancers were losing badly

---

Can you give me the stats on Byzantine Lancers (I assume they are either from VI or some mod, I only have vanilla)? Since you said you brought lighter type of cavalry to the desert, I'm going to assume that they're not that beefy. If that's true, then your defeat isn't surprising in the slightest. Camels kick horse butt, I learned it the easy way only last week myself (ran some Bedouins into some Ghulam or Mamluk cavalry for the heck of it in a quick battle and was surprised to see that the enemy was ripped apart). I ran a few custom battle rounds of Bedouins agains Feudal Knights in the desert on flat ground and the average result was almost 30 camels left with 5-10 knights running away. Even up a slight slope there were 20 camels left (though they were wavering for a second there). Now Berber camels are weaker, but unless Lancers are on par with knights you still had it coming for you :P Camels mop the floor with any sort of lighter cavalry.

In fact, I had a major battle where I successfully used camels just yesterday. I unexpectedly had to fend off about 1200Mongols led by at most 2 star general on Khazar arid flat ground as Turks with 8 star general and both to my dismay and exitement found myself with all the wrong types of troops: only two units of foot archers (Futuwwas), three Saracen Infantry, two Ghazi Infantry and loads of various cavalry and cavalry archers instead of foot soldiers, as well as Naphta Throwers which I had never used before... With even something totally basic like half Murabitin Infantry and half whatever kind of foot archers it would've been a breeze - but also would've been boring. I was, however, lucky enough to find myself with camels :) And I was lucky enough to find the enemy with only 4 units of heavy cavalry. I didn't fight very well at all (in the replay I discovered that one of my Saracen infantry was facing the enemy with their backs -_- of course they were the only one to recieve a charge by heavy cavalry). But with a huge valor advantage I managed to crush the first wave anyway and in the second there were only like 8 units of Steppe Cavalry left. I was growing pretty impatient so I didn't hesitate sending my handful of camels (2 full units and 3 halved ones) straight against the 8 fresh units of Steppe cavalry and they slaughtered the enemy completely. I don't think I lost more than 3 camels in that one. Well camels didn't manage to actually CATCH them once they were routing so they went Benny Hill on me but I chased them over the border eventually.

While we're at it, could someone give me some pointers on...how to attack an enemy on mountains, hills and bridges? I find defending in the same situation effortless, regularly achieving 10:1 victories, but when attacking I'm doing as bad as the AI does when attacking me. I guess when I manage to catch him with his pants down (I reach the hill he's climbing before he does, or am lucky with the map: I remember one battle where AI started down in the oasis and I was way up on the hill wall surrounding it, all I had to do was run my men down into their ranks immediately and they were losing badly uphill until they routed) it becomes easy again, but what if he manages to actually be smart once and shells up on some nice mountain with a good variety of troops? Charging melee uphill is absolutely hopeless. A missile battle uphill is absolutely hopeless. What if there's one bridge, and he blocks it. What am I supposed to do?! Outnumber the enemy 5 to one and accept losing four times as meny men as the enemy? Just walk away? Teach me, o' forummers.

Welcome to the Org, Vantek! A pleasure to have you with us. :medievalcheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vantek

While we're at it, could someone give me some pointers on...how to attack an enemy on mountains, hills and bridges? I find defending in the same situation effortless, regularly achieving 10:1 victories, but when attacking I'm doing as bad as the AI does when attacking me. I guess when I manage to catch him with his pants down (I reach the hill he's climbing before he does, or am lucky with the map: I remember one battle where AI started down in the oasis and I was way up on the hill wall surrounding it, all I had to do was run my men down into their ranks immediately and they were losing badly uphill until they routed) it becomes easy again, but what if he manages to actually be smart once and shells up on some nice mountain with a good variety of troops? Charging melee uphill is absolutely hopeless. A missile battle uphill is absolutely hopeless. What if there's one bridge, and he blocks it. What am I supposed to do?! Outnumber the enemy 5 to one and accept losing four times as meny men as the enemy? Just walk away? Teach me, o' forummers.

---

When attacking a bridge, I find my best strategy is usually the "bait-and-kill" gambit -- it's essentially about tricking the enemy into attacking *you* instead of the other way around. ~;) Send a vanguard unit of light cavalry (or if necessary, some fast infantry will do in a pinch) to cross the bridge. When the enemy moves to attack them, pull your unit back to your own side of the river; usually your opponent will charge a good portion of his army after your vanguard and right into the waiting arms of your own troops. Repeat as necessary until the enemy army has been whittled down to almost nothing (or they withdraw away from the river, allowing you to cross the bridge in force).


Assaulting hills/mountains is a little trickier, but still doable. Ideally, the enemy's position is such that I can get my army (or at least a good-sized chunk of it) onto the hill first, and then attack my opponent on one of their flanks. This will frequently cause the AI to shift and/or move its army into a position I can attack more easily (and in some cases, even withdrawing off the map entirely).

If the above tactic is not a viable possibility, however, then the next-best thing is to try and draw the enemy off the hill (similar to my strategy for bridge assaults): Use 1, maybe 2 units -- and it pretty much *has* be light cavalry or missile cavalry (infantry simply isn't fast enough to pull it off) -- to trick my opponent into chasing them and abandoning their positions on the hill/mountain. Preferably, you want to lead these enemy units into your own men who are waiting in ambush.

Quote:

---

Welcome to the Org, Vantek! A pleasure to have you with us.

---

Thanks! A pleasure to be here ^_^

Thanks for the advice as well. In fact, had a battle where I needed it just today. I was attacking Burgundy, as Italians, with a 5 star general, on Expert (my first!). Since I had no cavalry I decided to go for a Pyrrhic victory against the odds (he had about six units of Chivalric Men-At-Arms, as well as two of Feudal Knights and four of Hobilars, I had various spearmen and Arbalesters), but it became a... how to say this... Pyrrhic loss? :P Casualties maybe 3:2 against me (rather than the hoped 2:3 for...). By the second battle the enemy was so weak however that I could mow him down.

Your suggestion worked perfectly in both cases. I happened to be lucky enough to have a unit of mercenary Mounted Crossbowmen, and they won me the conflict. First of all they mopped up redundantly placed siege engines in both battles. Then in the first one they didn't have to do much more to make the enemy launch a full attack, just dance near and shoot someone. In the second one he was just ridiculous. After I had wiped off the siege engineers, he chased me with a unit of 80 Chivalric Sergeants and let me shoot them down to 50 or so from twenty meters while they stood with their BACKS towards me. Then he sent a lone unit of PEASANTS, out of all units, to chase my ranged cavalry down straight into my ranks. They routed in a few seconds. Then he sent a lone unit of Chivalric Men-At-Arms straight into my ranks. He was shot down to half before he even reached my men, and routed as quickly. Then he sent pretty much everyone at me and unsurprisingly failed miserably. So yeah, I achieved some 6:1 victory when attacking by making my enemy attack me instead. I guess I never realised he might actually be stupid enough to do it. I may have to start limiting myself to keep a challenge!

Excellent! Glad it worked. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vantek

I may have to start limiting myself to keep a challenge!

---

Heh. Yeah, overall it's not that hard to trick the AI into abandoning a strong defensive position. I too try not to exploit it more than I can help. Of course, given that I'm not the greatest at commanding offensive battles, I still wind up using that trick fairly often. :laugh4:

Had a few interesting battles today.

Let's start with the shortest. I had invaded deep into French territory (hey, the bastards started it themselves!), and Champagne was completely cut off from the mainland. And there was just one unit of Chivalric Knights sitting in it! The pope had warned me not to mess with France, and it was the turn after the one where I got the warning, so I couldn't stand a siege even if I was willing to waste men on it. So I decided to try to kill every SINGLE enemy knight in battle :D I attacked with: one of Feudal Knights, one of Chivalric MAA, two of Arbalesters and 25 high valour Mounted Crossbowmen. Luckily the enemy didn't retreat to the castle. And can you imagine, it worked PERFECTLY! I positioned my Feudal Knights randomly between two houses, and the enemy decided that he should charge them! So now they were between the buildings so I could nicely shoot them in the back with MC, as well as Arbalesters positioned on a hill nearby. Once my knights started failing, I ran my MAA behind enemy and attacked. So now they started fighting the MAA instead, so I ran my MC to the other side and shot them in the back. Soonafter my knights decided they should rout, and there were only about 10 knights left. I think the general got killed when there was just one other unit left and luckily it didn't manage to escape, but was captured. I executed the captive just to be sure XD

Another one was a bridge battle against the French again, I was defending. I had two Trebuchets, three of Halberdiers, two of Chivalric MAA, three of Arbalesters, one of Handgunners and Italian Infantry, and one of Royal Knights led by a prince. The enemy had some MAA, some knights, and I think three of Archers and one of Crossbowmen. I gordoned off both bridges and put a Trebuchet facing each, but the enemy only attacked one bridge. It was a pretty boring slugfest until the enemy finally routed, at which point I decided to chase the Archers with the Royal Knights. I know, I know, not a good move, and the results were according. Went well at first, they took 150 prisoners and killed a few more, but some of the enemy Archers managed to rally. I decided to charge them. Bad idea. I lost a few knights before I even reached them, and it took them quite a few seconds to rout again (damn Expert moral bonus which I'm not used to!). Meanwhile other Archers rallied as well, meaning I was being peppered with arrows from every direction once I finally retreated, and on top of that I was being chased by a few enemy Hobilars. There were only 7 Knigts left when they reached the bridge again. Oh well, all's well that ends well, right? *thump* Oh what's that? Oops, my Trebuchet is on fire at will... *whooosh* Oh, that's okay, they never hit anything! Right? BANG! And there went the prince, the general, and half of the remaining noble band of knights, dismaying the other lucky four to the point where they abandoned their courage completely and fleed from the ten damned Hobilars, who were shot to pieces within seconds later. Now I'm left with just one prince of age, who is a Drinker, as well as a Good Runner, whereas my dear Doge is nearing the ripe age of 70. The battle wasn't over yet: it featured hundreds of Benny Hill impersonators in blue-yellow suits, who would courageously approach the bridge, get shot to ribbons, and run away, over and over and over again, until my Arbalesters were out of bolts. This didn't put an end to the performers' ambition: they would follow the exact same routine even without the hail of projectiles! If some band of perverts managed to cough up the courage to actually walk ON the bridge and even reach the other end, the masochists were greeted with loud noise and smoke coming from the Handgunners, and finally recieved a sufficient dose of fear. The show ended at the promised time mark.

There was one more battle, which however went ridiculously unexpectedly. I was defending Venice from a seemingly suicidal attack by German pigs (they were excommunicated soonafter), aided by a small band of Hungarian brigands led by the crooked king himself. I had a very solid defensive army, with three of Arbalesters, perhaps five of Italian Infantry and two of Halberdiers, as well as my own king, whereas they didn't have much to show, a few units of Knights but they had only a two or three hundred more men and were fielding several junk units like Urban Militia, Spearmen, Archers, Feudal Sergeants and Militia Sergeants. I was confident in victory even thought I had to defend on nearly flat land. A few small units of riders that came to the range of my Arbalesters were halved in seconds. Then a lone unit of Militia Sergeants approached my line, lost 20 men to Arbalesters, and started hacking away at my Italian infantry. And now I don't understand what the hell happened here. I didn't pay much attention because I was sure that my infantry would stand ground easily, but after a while I was surprised to see that the formation was completely trashed, I had lost something ridiculous like 30 men, while some 30 Sergeants were still "Winning Easily". What was even more disturbing was the fact of how it turned out that spacebar showed that the unit was intending to place itself exactly under the right angle from what it was supposed to, with one flank invading into my arbalesters and one sticking out of my whole formation. I can only imagine the idiots must've decided that they should reposition after being forced into the ranks of another unit by the attackers, chose the most ludicrous facing ever, and since it was going to leave them with their backs towards the attackers, were now recieving horrible penalties. The only other possibility is that I somehow misclicked madly and didn't notice it, but something like this has NEVER happened before. Anyway I didn't manage to correct this before the mass of enemy army reached my men and had to charge everyone outwards from original formation to keep my Arbalesters clean. I evacuated my King's Royal Knights out of the chaos and halved and routed a unit of Archers with them until I recieved attention from the enemy General's unit of Chivalric Sergeants and retreated to safe distance while being chased by them. The melee between the mass of the armies was very close, with casualties nearly equal. The King of Hungarians was shot by my Arbalesters and all that was left of them fleed shortafter, as well as some unit of German Urban Militia. But my units were still outnumbered and beginning to waver as well, and some of them routed from random flanking penalties which I couldn't figure out because the formations were trashed completely. Somehow, it didn't start a mass rout however, and more and more enemy units started routing along with my own. I thought the battle was over and ordered my Arbalesters to save their honour and withdraw, but funnily enough soonafter the place was as clear of the enemy soldiers as my own, and I told them to return just before they exited. They actually managed to cause a few more destroyed units to rout (again), but sadly they were attacked by some 15 hobilars, and even though only maybe 6 reached them, that was still enought to inflict lots of casualties, make them waver, make it impossible for them to run from the remnants of enemy units and prepare for enemy General's unit that was the only enemy unit left along with a few archers that wasn't depleted down to something minuscule, and soon even they routed. If my men had stood for just a few SECONDS longer in the mass melee, I must've won, it was THAT close. I don't understand how it's possible that the mass of BOTH armies routed but they did, and sadly the enemy still had his General's unharmed Chivalric Sergeants (who were away from the battle because they were chasing my king), and my King had only a handful of knights. I should've withdrawn my King at this point but I guess I felt the need to make him a good runner, in the hopes that this would perhaps prolong his life a few years more until the next heir reaches maturity, so I can send the poor drunkard prince on a suicide mission.

This invasion was much a Pyrrhic victory for the Germans nevertheless, leaving nearby territories empty of soldiers, allowing me to invade them on top of taking back Venice without battle, and another failed invasion left their front with me in shambles. After this and the excommunication, Holy Roman Empire finds itself in another civil war. They will be gone soon.

Sadly, I forgot to save replays of any of these battles =(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vantek

While we're at it, could someone give me some pointers on...how to attack an enemy on mountains, hills

---

My S.O.P. when forced to attack an enemy firmly established on elevations: study the terrain thoroughly. Usually there's a shallower flank on one side - try to approach (out of missile range) perpendicular to the enemy's line from that flank. My army in these situations is kept in a much more compact formation, usually with infantry/cavalry following closely behind missile troops in a narrow (but deep) front. I don't want troops strung out down in the valley - everyone should be as high on the ridge as they can.

Usually the A.I. is forced to redeploy to face my troops - which results in many of their troops no longer having an elevation advantage. As I approach, missile troops will engage - but mine will outnumber the A.I.'s at first, as it takes time to bring the ones on the opposite flank over to where the action is. I try to have my elite troops, or at least troops of the best type for the ones they'll face, at the highest point of my formation. They'll take the brunt of the fighting at the initial point of melee, and may be at a little disadvantage in elevation - hopefully their quality/type matchup will prevail. As the A.I. tries to bring troops around the flank of the fighting on the high ground, troops in the rear of my formation (now higher than these enemy units) can rush to engage at an advantage.

If the A.I. doesn't redeploy, you can focus more of your fighting units on a narrow front against fewer/weaker enemy units, feeding new troops only when or where they've an advantage. Don't accept a general engagement where you're fighting everyone uphill - that seldom works.

This "perpendicular approach" has worked for me in hundreds of uphill battles against Expert A.I. It's only when they're entrenched in very mountainous terrain, with both flanks secured by impassable areas (a rare situation), that I have to use bait to tempt them out of position. :beam:

Thanks for the help! I'm not sure I understand though :P Could you draw me a map? =P

Another query to you old hands. How often are you still sometimes completely surprised by the outcome of a certain matchup or situation? Like today, there was an enemy AT MOST Valour 2 Sergeant Militia consistently "Winning Easily" against two 40-men (out of 60, were coming from different provinces) units of Chivalric Men-At-Arms (2 star General), UP a slight slope and then after an unit of Urban Militia attacked them as well (those were at least ripped apart quickly!) actually cause one of them to rout at 20 men. Well it was Expert and I think my General might have been a good runner but still, how the hell does a unit of Sergeant Militia, out of all units, "Win Easily" against 1,5 times as many Chivalric Men-At-Arms, UP a slight slope?? Are they supposed to do that?? Or is it indeed as weird as it seemed to me? Do such unexpected things happen to you?

At least I won the battle :P It was quite a fun one. I actually didn't position my men near the map edge, but in front of a nearly vertical slope, as if IT was the edge of the map =) If only the engine allowed the enemy to push me down... =P

I particularly enjoyed shooting a full units of Katatanks including the General himself down to 4 routing men (NOT including the General anymore ^_^) in four volleys.

Yeah - the game holds many little nasty surprises to even an old hand (both in MTW terms and in RL (30 summers)) like myself. Just last week, I'd striven to build the pronai whatever (byz knights), and proudly brought them to the battlefield. Unfortunately while charging head to head against a unit of steppe cavalry, they lost miserably, routing with 5 pronais left and the steppe (not heavy) cavalry with 3/4 of their unit. I was just like: Oh **** they cost me 450 florins and a massive upkeep! And this was what I got!!! :wall:

Part of the charm :2thumbsup:

/KotR

Yeah, Militia Sargeants vs CMAA is a funny one, and there a number of factors which can tip the balance either way... The Militia Sargeants' armour piercing hurts bad and, 1 on 1, your normally-solid CMAAs will almost never achieve a "massacre" against these guys with all things being equal.

If the Militia Sargeants:

- wrap you
- have 1 or 2 more valour
- have no other foes

...then it's quite conceivable that they could beat your lads via attrition.

But "winning easily" up a slope? Hmm, I can only consider that the valour differential might have been more than you thought, or that you accidentally changed the CMAAs formation settings to something less advantageous, or that your slope maybe had a kink or a plateau in it (or all of the above).

and two other things - they might have been charging +

Luck

Yeah, sometimes, they just get lucky.

/KotR

Militia Sergeants with a valor upgrade can be pretty formidable in melee combat. Yours probably had one of the line of Pride traits, which can boost valor considerably - more than the 2-point lead needed for a MS to equal uphill CMAA.

When playing as a Catholic faction in Early, I've often "farmed" MS for valor, combining experienced remnants together to make an uber-unit. The best ones are so good I'll keep them in the unit roster, even after the change to High period (when better unit types become available). And since they're non-Elite, they valor-up faster than many of the "better" units. MS are a very versatile unit, one of which I'm quite fond.

Cheers! :beam:

I had the AI suprise me last night,when i moved half the garrison of the Crimea,as the Spanish were massing next to EGypt,and I needed to discourage them from trying anything. They invaded with 950 men,mostly rus spearmen,Balkan warriors,spearmen,armoured spearmen a few units of Druzhina Calvary and many crossbowmen,archers and horse archers,against my garrison of 2 units of the Vangarian Guard,a Kara unit,1 units of Kontarioi,and a unit of lancers,that also happened to be my 3 star general.

Luckly it was a bridge battle,so I waited patiently until 2 units of Baltics and a unit of Rus Spearmen had crosed the bridge,then I struck with my spearmen from the front,while sending my Guard units around to flank them,and them routed after some hard fighting.

But them my Guard units got tied up with the Armoured spearmen/Duzinha calvary on the bridge,and they were getting decimated by arrows/bolts,so I sent my Kara unit over the other bridge,and struck them from behind,which routed what was left of them,by this time I was down to 35 guard in one units and 20 in the other,and they had reinforcements comming in,which caught my heavy calv retreating and destroyed them to the last man.
Then they tried to bring some Druzhina calv over the bridge,so I again waited until the units had partially crossed the bridge,then i met with with my lancer group head-on while sending my depleted guard units around on the flanks,which after some hard fighting again,they routed and the entire stack routed along with them,ending the battle,which I was glad of,as I only had 7 and 14 Vangarian guard left,35 Kontarioi and 37 lancers.

Nice, oz_wwjd; sounds like a very tense battle (but in a good way). :thumbsup:

Was this Novgorod that attacked you, btw? Kiev?

The Novgorods,which shocked me,as they'd been passive ever since I destroyed the cumans for them,but that's AI Gratitude for you. I dont mind admiting that when they intially invaded I though something along the lines of "o crap" but I thought that if I couldn't beat them at least I'd give them a bloody nose,it turned out better than I expected..

In a semi-recent High campaign as the Aragonese I had a nice hill battle against the Spanish.

They controlled a large hill or a mountain in one of the corners with a good quality army, it seemed to be very difficult to charge easily. Both generals with 4 stars.

I decided to split my troops into three groups to counter their superior position. The first group, consisting of 3 halberdiers, 1 Chivalric Sergeants, 2 Arbalests and a heavy infantry unit (CMAA or Chivalric Foot Knights, can't remember), was to approach the enemy from one of the sides of the hill.

The second group, consisting of 3 light cavalry units, screened the first party and tried to lure Arbalests from the hill so they could be charged and shot by the Arbalests in group 3.

The third group, made of 2 Arbalests, 2 halberdiers, CMAA and a light cavalry unit (Jinettes), took the long way around the hill, and was seated in a small forest waiting for their turn to charge the hill.

The plan was to make the enemy attack my main group, while the second group attacks from a flank, having marched quite a long way to get to an innocent-looking spot pretty far away from the enemy lines. Both armies were elite, so they could hold their lines long enough for the flanking force to attack.

Group 2 (light cavalry) managed to do its job to some extent, and a lot of enemy Arbalesters and almost all enemy cavalry were killed by Group 3. One of my three cavalry units got annihilated, though, as they got stuck between some enemy Arbalesters and some royal or another, a princeling maybe.

After this, my main group (Group 1) started climbing up the hill, while light cavalry continued to harass enemy missiles. They were heavily outnumbered and had to face enemies uphill, but their task was to hold the line long enough for Group 3 to join the battle from the flank.

Even though Groups 1 and 2 were heavily outnumbered, they were faring pretty well. The nifty Jinnettes managed to break some of the engaged units, but the enemy general was putting some pressure on my line, and it was starting to buckle. Good thing I had sent Group 3 to the back of the enemy: I didn't even engage with all the forces, and the enemy routed.

Their stream of reinforcements happened to be exactly where I had earlier put my Group 3, so as they were still fresh, I could pretty quickly withdraw Group 3 to its initial position and slaughter the conciderably weaker reinforcements while Group 1 mopped up the remainder of the Spanish main army.

EDIT: One thing always manages to surprise me: having to face a valour 7+ Saracen Infantry unit with limited Early Catholic troops, especially when you notice all too late, and having flanked it with all sorts of things your guys start running for mama...

I have split off the Javelin related discussion to a new thread. :bow: