I Stand Converted

[Lokiss]

I've never been one to use missile troops - I didn't know how to properly use Jinettes, nor regular archers nor mounted archers/xbows. I usually just leave them out of my armies entirely, only using a few regular archers as cheap garrisons (and beastly when it comes to enemy sieges).

However, I just started an Early Poland campaign, and you start with a HA unit and can build mounted crossbows later on. I just conquered Denmark using more or less nothing but those two units (along with some spear + armor) and wearing down the insane number of princes Denmark had - 2 turn victory, got to love it.

I'm converted, these things rock.

[Misfratz]

I had a game very early on with the Vikings in Early, against the six units of Vikings in Norway. I used a good number of archer units and managed to whittle away at the enemy Vikings so that I could weaken them before finishing them off.

It went so well.

Then I became cocky and sloppy.

The Norwegians final unit - their general - managed to bring a charge home against my archers, and I'd been slow to reorganise my Vikings in support. Although I outnumbered the enemy by at least eight-to-one at this stage my army routed and fled the field!

I've always had a great respect for missile troops since using them so effectively in defensive battles against the Hojo in Shogun, but they do require more care and attention to use and you do get punished if you let it slip. Plus I've always found it much harder to use them when attacking, but that's to be expected.

[Lokiss]

Aye, my main problem is that I had so little faith in their ability to know when to back off, but the mounted ones have proved rather okay at it.

[Martok]

I've always valued missile units to some degree, going back to Samurai Archers in Shogun. How I use them, though, depends on the situation.

It took me a long time (too long!) to realize it, but I eventually learned that I generally prefer to eschew foot missiles while on the attack -- the exceptions of course being when the enemy has no (or almost no) missile units themselves, and/or my missile units outrange the defenders'. Maybe it's just because I'm not that great a general (see the other thread ), but I find it nearly impossible to position/maneuver foot missiles to do any real damage while on offense. It's a very rare offensive battle indeed where my archers/arbs/whatever manage to actually make a significant contribution....at least a positive one.

On the other hand, missile cavalry is excellent for attacking. They can be very effective at drawing a defender away from a strong position (especially important in bridge & mountain battles!), and of course excel at harassing the enemy in most situations. In addition, missile cav such as Jinnettes or (especially) Mounted Crossbowmen can be very good at taking down generals from a distance -- which is naturally far preferable to sacrificing 300-500 of your infantry/spearmen to the enemy's 8-star Jedi with the "Great Warrior" trait.

Still, my favorite use for missiles -- and foot missile units in particular -- has always been in defensive battles. There's nothing quite like flinging a flight of several hundred arrows/javelins/bolts into the advancing enemy to say "hello" (gotta give them a proper greeting, after all).

[Roark]

Ditto what Martok said.

On the defence, nothing beats a constant blanket of deadly shafts to deplete assaulting forces.

Against the Mongols it's essential, unless you prefer to hide in the forest for two hours like a big girl's blouse.

[Knight of the Rose]

RE: Foot archers on offence. I absolutly agree when it comes to vanilla archers, and to an extend vanilla crossbows. They can be used to lure the enemy into ambushes (approaching a formation and rout when they take the bait. Only then the spearmen in the forest come out to play) or as cannon fodder (standing in loose formation, pretending to do an archery duel, but in reality emptying the enemy's quivers and nothing more). But to be fair - woodsmen could do that job too.

But Arbalasters! These wonder-guys are absolutely essensial when doing offensive maneuvers! Their range is often great enough to push the enemy off the hill and force them to charge you. Just use two, or sometimes one is enough, and watch as the enemy commander charges your formation knowing it's the only alternative to stand and die.

I've lost countless offensive battles charging up a hill, but won most where I could meet the enemy in the valley.

/KotR

PS - on the original poster: Rock - Paper - Scissors

[Lokiss]

PS - on the original poster: Rock - Paper - Scissors

Hm?

But Arbalasters! These wonder-guys are absolutely essensial when doing offensive maneuvers!

No doubt.

[Innocentius]

RE: Foot archers on offence. I absolutly agree when it comes to vanilla archers, and to an extend vanilla crossbows. They can be used to lure the enemy into ambushes (approaching a formation and rout when they take the bait. Only then the spearmen in the forest come out to play) or as cannon fodder (standing in loose formation, pretending to do an archery duel, but in reality emptying the enemy's quivers and nothing more). But to be fair - woodsmen could do that job too.

I for one have come to appreciate the use of archers on the offense. Their ability to fire over the heads of a wall of spearmen makes them really useful even on the offensive, even if managing two fairly long lines who are dependant on each other on the march can be troublesome in hilly terrain: you have to make sure your spear units have favourable ground while your archers are entirely protected - yet they also need a clear field of fire and mustnt become intermingled with the spearmen in front of them. Needless to say, this tactic works even better with longbowmen.

This allows you to maintain a steady line of battle that, while protected by the spearmen - who themselves can inflict great casualties upon the enemy in melee given that they have the right upgrades, valour etc - provides a constant rain of arrows to whittle the enemy forces. Having this stable line of fire established, your flanking units should be able to do the real work without much resistance.

But Arbalasters! These wonder-guys are absolutely essensial when doing offensive maneuvers! Their range is often great enough to push the enemy off the hill and force them to charge you. Just use two, or sometimes one is enough, and watch as the enemy commander charges your formation knowing it's the only alternative to stand and die.

Very true, although I usually bring a total of five or six units with an equal amount of polearms right behind them. Not sure if this is actually preferable to a lesser amount of arbs or not though... Probably not: offensive battles have nasty tendency to become sluggish, so generally more infantry would be of greater use.

[caravel]

PS - on the original poster: Rock - Paper - Scissors

Hm?

Spears beats cavalry beats swords beats spears.

"Spears" refers to units such as Spearmen, Feudal Sergeants, Saracen Infantry etc.
"Cavalry" is anything mounted, including camel mounted units.
"Swords" includes swordsmen, axes and polearms.

This is the general rule as to how melee works in STW/MTW.

It is only a general rule and has some exceptions. For example despite being classified as "swords", polearms also beat cavalry, though they are still more vulnerable to cavalry charges than spear units. Vanilla Horse Archers may be cut to pieces by even Trebizond Archers. Also upgrades and valour can totally unbalance the "RPS" system with well upgraded high valour spearmen defeating swordsmen for example.

[Knight of the Rose]

I for one have come to appreciate the use of archers on the offense. Their ability to fire over the heads of a wall of spearmen makes them really useful even on the offensive, even if managing two fairly long lines who are dependant on each other on the march can be troublesome in hilly terrain: you have to make sure your spear units have favourable ground while your archers are entirely protected - yet they also need a clear field of fire and mustnt become intermingled with the spearmen in front of them. Needless to say, this tactic works even better with longbowmen.

But if you're firing over the heads of your spears, then the enemy archers, mostly on a hill, would have been shooting your line to bits before you could possibly have placed your archers within range! The AI is fairly competent at relocating, though sometimes you can move your entire army to a good angle of approach - but in my experience you can't always count on it. And once the melee has begun, the numbers of suitable targets goes down. Usually limits it to archers, I'd say, and they are a minor priority when the lines are slugging it out.

Longbowmen have longer range, and make them almost as good as arbalasters.

/KotR

[Lokiss]

Spears beats cavalry beats swords beats spears.

"Spears" refers to units such as Spearmen, Feudal Sergeants, Saracen Infantry etc.
"Cavalry" is anything mounted, including camel mounted units.
"Swords" includes swordsmen, axes and polearms.

Oh, I knew that, I just hadn't heard it referred to as Rock - Paper - Scissors.

[jadast]

I have recently begun using foot missle units on offense. I get into a duel with defensive archers and then retreat usally with the defenders following me. Repeat until the defenders are close enough to charge but far enough from their lines to be supported. Once I route the defending missle units I reform my missle units and try to whittle away the rest of the defense.

Of course the AI doesn't always let me do this!

[Motep]

In RTW was where I first valued the missile units, at watching a horde of cretan archers decimate a roman army, a battle in which I was outnumbered 3 to 2, but still managed to only lose 10 men tio their 500 or so. I noted their destructive froce in seige defense, and fell in love, so to speak.

I found that if you place in front of your infantry at the onset of battle, you can wreak havoc on the enemy soldiers as they mach to greet your men. Once they get too close, you place them behind your infantry and turn skirmish off. Then, you fire at the enemies rear ranks while their front ranks fight your men (to reduce friendly fire). When you run out of ammo, send them away from your ranks. They are easily protected by cavalry, and both cavalry and your archers themslves can generally take on an infantry unit that snuck around your line (very rare, especially if you use proper flank support.

[Ironsword]

My armies are rarely seen without arbalesters, longbowmen or some mounted archers. (I guess I'm just too afraid of being out-arrar'd...)

Maybe Agincourt sticks in my mind?!?

[Lokiss]

If memory serves, the victory of the English at Agincourt was due to the French heavy calvary (of which they brought toooons) getting stuck in the wet mud. I think they tested it and determined a longbow couldn't punch through the armor the French were wearing.

Hand to God.

[Ironsword]

^^I didn't know that!

But if memory serves me also, the nimbler, less armoured bowmen were able to put blades through the visors of the 'stuck' french knights, thus making good use of their support costs!

[Innocentius]

The debate on whether longbow arrows could actually pierce plate armour is an old, and stil ongoing, debate which I won't go any deeper into other than saying that nothing has yet been concluded. The few tests actually made are suggestive and often poorly executed. Also, one must consider that not all the French knights were wearing armour of the same quality and thickness, and far from all of them could afford full plate armour in the first place. Moreover, many of the French casualties would have been squires and retainers, who would've carried even poorer armour than their masters. And then there's the factor of unarmoured vs. armoured horses, the above mentioned mud and the crowded situation on the battlefield: quite a few knights must have died from dehydration or from being trampled by their own.

There's of course no single explanation for any single military victory (or random historic event), but there's also no need for me to drag this thread further off topic, so I'll let it rest at that.

[Mooks]

I cant imagine fighting a battle without a few archer units. I usually get 5-6 units of archers in every stack.

[Lokiss]

Wow, really? That's quite a lot.

[ChaosLord]

For a while when I first started playing MTW I kept my archers only in defensive armies, but gradually as I was forced to use said armies in desperate measures I switched to keeping archers in all my armies. I really love those hybrid units the AI has such trouble using, like Bulgarian Brigands and the like. I keep 4-6 units in my armies now, and while they don't often claim alot of kills they do provide fear as well as "free hits" against an enemy army. Archers make any defensive action easier and are useful for denying an enemy defender the advantage of a position. Plus in the case of hybrid units, they can be great to roll around the flanks of an enemy to attack once their ammunition is depleted.

[drone]

I use archers in defense, and in attack when the enemy is lacking missiles. Otherwise, I can't be bothered dealing with missile duels, they are just too wasteful and I'm just not good enough to micro mine effectively. It's so much easier to just rush the lines and send cavalry around to crush or disrupt the enemy's weak archer units. This also puts the cav is a good position to charge the rears of anything that withstands the main assault. Each enemy archer unit is just one less infantry block to deal with. I will use archers against javelin units though, they are just too nasty (but fortunately short ranged) to leave alone.

If attacking an enemy that lacks missiles, then I try to let my archers expend all their ammo before starting the melee. Not only will this save my infantry and cav, but it also valors up my archers for better accuracy later on. High valor missile troops can be handy when 1230 rolls around.

[Lokiss]

I will use archers against javelin units though, they are just too nasty (but fortunately short ranged) to leave alone.

Yeah, tell me about it. I routed a fuedal knight unit with Murabitin (sp?) in a custom battle yesterday, just to try them out. Pretty nasty.

[gaijinalways]

I have always used missile troops, often using them to soften up the enemy before attacking or to get them to go out of position.
You can also use one missile unit to draw out some enemy units and then let them flee past your other missile units who take pot shots at the pursueing enemy soldiers.

Finally, those battles where you don't have any and keep getting whittled down in missile showers are annoying.

[bondovic]

If memory serves, the victory of the English at Agincourt was due to the French heavy calvary (of which they brought toooons) getting stuck in the wet mud. I think they tested it and determined a longbow couldn't punch through the armor the French were wearing.

Hand to God.

I read a paper by a physicist who'd done some calculating on this same matter. In it he mentioned a test where it was confirmed that the arrowheads in fact could penetrate the 1mm plate at about 200 metres but not the thicker type of breast plate. He also included some statistical reasoning, giving about every 100th arrow a kill. Can't remember if he included disabled horses in that figure. I think so.

The fact that the horses got stuck in the mud actually only served to prolong each wave's exposure to arrowfire, causing routes before they could reach the english line. Was it something like 15 charges made over the course of the whole day? Imagine that... "But it's MUDDY, Sir!"

[Lokiss]

The fact that the horses got stuck in the mud actually only served to prolong each wave's exposure to arrowfire, causing routes before they could reach the english line. Was it something like 15 charges made over the course of the whole day? Imagine that... "But it's MUDDY, Sir!"

I saw a computer simulation of the battle with regards to the mud and they showed the horses falling into each other like dominos, because there was so many, and leaving the knights incredibly exposed and stuck. *shrug*

[Emperor Mithdrates]

I hate archers.
They are cowards.
They run away when the enemy chargers them, so i always put them on stand ground and hold position. I never try to use them except as garrisons cause they can fire over the wall while enemy troops are trying to break it down. I love just using regular infantry in my battles and my armies are usually only made of them. I just like to lead a single huge charge and kill the enemy.

[Mooks]

Wow, really? That's quite a lot.

Ya, when im attacking and can effectively destroy the enemy's archers with my archers, it forces him to attack me. Changing from a attack to a defense.

On defense they can rake a enemy force before they even touch me! And they rarely take casualties. Having archer-infantry combos help alot.

[Knight of the Rose]

I hate archers.
They are cowards.
They run away when the enemy chargers them, so i always put them on stand ground and hold position. I never try to use them except as garrisons cause they can fire over the wall while enemy troops are trying to break it down. I love just using regular infantry in my battles and my armies are usually only made of them. I just like to lead a single huge charge and kill the enemy.

This is actually a surprisingly effective way to lead a battle, it just requires two things.

1) Your regular infantry can match the enemy's after being hit by archers and fighting on disadvanteous ground.

2) You can flank them with superior melee numbers - I find that when defending the AI doesn't try to hard to flank you.

So better troops and higher numbers will support this strategy.

But wait! Then you are already winning!

If you are not already winning, then you need archers, and you need cavalry even more...

/KotR

[Raz]

If attacking an enemy that lacks missiles, then I try to let my archers expend all their ammo before starting the melee. Not only will this save my infantry and cav, but it also valors up my archers for better accuracy later on. High valor missile troops can be handy when 1230 rolls around.

I swear that valour has no effect on missile troops' accuracies... or am I mistaken?

[drone]

I swear that valour has no effect on missile troops' accuracies... or am I mistaken?

My understanding has always been that the added valour from the general's command rating does not have any effect, but the actual valour of the unit does. I've been looking around for clarification, and there is mention of it in the numerology thread, but I don't know the exact effect.