Help me enjoy MTW!

[PershsNhpios]

I reinstalled MTW Gold and XL with Tyberius 2.2 (Shame about that silliness with ownership!).

My my, what a charming political situation the game can become - sometimes it follows the traditional path (Turks destroyed by Byzantines, Danish conquer Britain, Portugal vanquished by Arabs, H.R.E. gone in twenty-five turns.) but sometimes some real wonders of chance can develop.
And the players themselves can influence things at time by small, precise actions.
I am always intrigued by the campaign map.

Indeed, there I have little complaint - and for the first twenty turns I get by with my faction - raiding and conquering rebels, managing my army, building an economy, securing my borders, and analysing who will be my future threats, and which part of Europe is my most lucrative target.

But eventually a war starts with my kingdom involved.

I create a balanced, semi modern army, (I usually choose morbidly old-fashioned factions - like the Norwegians- oh, and I almost always start in Early - never in Late), with something similar to;

3 Feudal Sergeants
4 Feudal Men-At-Arms, (Sometimes supported by Huscarles, or Baltic Warriors - the like)
2 Archers, (I also enjoy using 2 Javelinmen if available! Bohemia taught me of their use!)
3 Mounted Sergeants
1 Feudal Knights
Prince or King.

The last two places will be filled with infantry reserves, or cavalry reserves, depending on the weakness of the enemy army. Or it may be filled with disloyal princes whom the King can't trust to remain at home..

My Foot Sergeants are always my base of attack or defence. My battle line. They are steadfast.
The Men-At-Arms always suffer the most casualties, and they are often used to flank as the Sergeants are engaged.
The archers will seldom engage in an attack due to cavalry, but they are always firmly behind the Sergeants during a defence.
The mounted Sergeants are always one large cavalry wing serving as a hammer to my Foot sergeants' anvil.
The Knights always attend the royal knights in serving as a destructive force on the enemy's flanks and the assassins of his general.

-Rarely do I use artillery, and I have a great fear of castle assaults. I either weather the slow, costly siege, bribe the garrison, or auto-calculate at the loss of an average 216 men..

But for all my balance in the army, my enemies always repel me in when they have similar manpower, or lose after costing me two thirds of my strength!

And it always occurs under the most ridiculous circumstances!

For example, a general in a unit of Mounted Sergeants killing half a unit of Knights on his own!
Royal Knights themselves, especially Ghulams - are horrendous!
Mine are wiped out to five men in seconds if they chance against sergeants.
But theirs can destroy five hundred men before going down!

And I play on medium difficulty!

I engage F. Sergeants against F. Sergeants on level ground, and immediately put two units of Men-At-Arms into their right flank.
The Men-At-Arms are eaten up, then chased away by the Royal Knights who just won a fight with my Sergeants and Feudal Knights, (Even after they outflanked the enemy and outnumbered him 6 to 1) and routed.

How do you all cope with these frustrating, niggardly cheats?
It destroys my game, over fifteen campaign have been ended in approximately 1120 AD due to these circumstances. An unfairly stubborn unit costs me my entire campaign.

Please help me overcome this problem - how may I win?

[Haccapelite]

From your description it seems that you really don't need any kind of in depth-guidance on how to fight battles, since you use all the tactics that should win you a battle quite easily. (flanking etc) And I also believe that you know the rock-paper-scissors mechanics of this game, so the problem here isn't your lack of knowledge. I use all the same tactics that you have mentioned in your post, and my standard west-european army looks pretty same as you, but I could give you some hints that may help, or may not, but anyway..

I think some of your high casualities might be explained by the fact that with a large army, it is hard, if not impossible, to keep an eye on every single unit of your army at once. But thank god, or CA, there is a pause-button! I confess that I use the pause-button very much, and at least for me it is absolutely essential when I'm using units that require lots of micro management, eg. horse archers and such.

You said that sometimes a single enemy general can eat huge numbers of your units and rout your men, well, that isn't actually that rare. The general unit can have a huge valour thanks to the glitch that counts every valour-boosting virtue of the generals unit twice when it enters the battle. So it isn't rare to see princes and kings with over 10 valour on the battlefield, and a unit with such a huge valour has so high attack, morale and defence that they can survive alone for very long. (I think that morale is the most important factor here as it keeps the unit fighting and enables it to sustain large casualities without routing, and a unit that has 10 valour has 20 more morale than a similar unit with no valour.) And when a unit is reduced to just one man, it gains more valour very fast, since it doesn't have to kill so many units to get even more valour.

You should remember that cavalry is mostly used as a pure shock troop, to break wawering enemies and deal the final blow to them and turn the battle to your favor. They are not meant to be used in prolonged melee, and if you have the option you should just pin the enemy with some spears or such and then charge its rear with cavalry, let them fight just for a while, then back off with the cavalry, repeat the charge again, and continue this for as long as it is necessary. I don't think i have seen any non-general unit survive more than two charges to their rear, since the casualities and morale penalty that follow a rear charge are so huge.

Also, I don't think there is such a thing in this game as a default army that would work against any foe. You should always adapt your armies to match the enemy you are facing as well as possible: If you are fighting someone with huge numbers of horse archers, don't attack with an army mostly consisting of footmen, intsead train lots of fast light cavalry, if your enemy has lots of infantry and almos no cavalry, get much swordsmen and some heavy cavalry, etc etc.

There is one more thing: Fight. Try to get to fights in your campaings as much as you can, if nobody attacks you, just attack them and fight every single fight, small or large, yourself. Some of these things just can't be taught but you have to try them yourself.

I really can't think of any more things, I hope at least some of these are useful.

[gollum]

Hi,
if you are frequently losing battles on medium with armies of your choice its time to digg a bit more into the tactical side of the game.


There are a few things you should be aware;

-Match ups.

When you engage battle lines you need to engage the right units against the right units. For example you say that your main line is made of seargents and your flanking units swords. Yet if the enemy main line is swords/polearms yours will receive heavy casualties or be devoured perhaps before you can even flank.

There are many ways to make a battle line. The obvious way is to divide units according to function, spears together, swords, cavalry etc. and yet this isnt necessarily the most effective one. Spears have a low morale and arnt exactly great in melee either. They can stop (not always kill but certainly stop and pin) cavalry though. Swords on the other hand have good morale and melee great, but will rout if engaged initially by heavy cavalry.


Then, you can have a mixed battle line with sword/spear/sword/spear arrangement of units intermixed. March your line towards the enemy as one and before the engagement micromanage the match ups and make sure your units receive the charge bonus - swords against enemy spears and spears to protect swords from cavalry. If the match ups are correct there is usually no need (and no time) for flanking - just engage enemy flankers like knights and heavy cavalry with your own and you ll find that in a few seconds the enemy battle line will rout. Then get a few liberated spears and throw them at the enemy knights disengaging your cavalry to pursue the fleeing enemy getting prisoners and making sure they dont rejoin the battle. The enemy heavy cavalry will be exhausted against your spears and you can finally flank and rout them with cavalry (or more spears on engage at will though - spears charging on hold formation waste the charge).

-Flanking.

There are (several) battles that the enemy has a similar battle line as you or that the way the battle lines meet does not outright decide the outcome - that is the battle lines are met and the melee is relatively long, vicious and uncertain.


In these battles assuming that both sides have equalish cavalry forces, the outcomne is decided by whom will manage to flank most effectively. While seargents (cavalry) have a great charge, they are not able to melee well - and so if you insist on using them, use them in great numbers. In this way, you can engage an enemy unit of knights/heavy cav with one seargent unit while at the same time another is maneuvering around the flanks to charge him in the back. Be aware that with this tactic you have to be fast otherwise the first seargents will rout - the match up is a bad one.

Obviously if you have knights or other heavy cavalry, engage them to the enemy cavalry on the flank battle first, they are your best bet - now assuming that you have an extra or spare unit move round the flank and kill them off. After the enemy cavalry is gone, then do not purue, but move around the infantry flank and charge - this is what they call defeating the enemy in detail.

Be aware that when flanking try to maximise the impact front of the unit. Charging rears with a front of 4 men is a waste.

This type of battle pressuposes that you have at least equal melee forces and equal or equalish cavalry - even one extra unit can provide a win because its all its needed to win the enemy piece by piece, by pin and flank, cavalry first and battle line after.

The are other ways of making a battle line - say for example mixing swords/axes/polearms with heavy cavalry/knights. The swords deal with the enemy spears while the cavalry mows down head on enemy swords, resulting in very swift enemy routs.

-Missiles.

Some players do not use their missiles in attacks or in an aggressive fashion, and this is a grave mistake and waste of potential. You say your shooters stay back when you attack. You should always use your missiles while engaging, as they can offer plenty of significant advantages. The advantages are;

1. Inflict a morale penalty on the enemy infantry just before engagement. A few kills will suffice, but they give you a better chance.

2. Stack the odds at your favor in the main melee in regards to outnumbering morale penalties. Units suffer a penalty or gain a bonus relative to which side outnumbers the other in the vicinity. Total war is unique because it actually accounts for what in military terms is called *local superiority*. In other words your swords and spears feel better when they are backed up by numbers and feel worse when the enemy numbers are stacked up against them in the vicinity.

3. A last reserve. All shooters can melee perhaps not well but they can - in cases that the enemy battle line is superior but you have superior or better cavalry and you know that you ll win the flank engagement, you can prolong the life of your battle line by plugging the gaps with shooters before the cavalry has time to come and deliver the kill on the flanks.

4. Flankers. Certain shooters have good attack ratings and as shooters are fast. They make excellent flankers. Trebizond archers, Futuwwas, Nizaris come to mind. You can handilly use them when the enemy cavalry is busy (or when the enemy does not have significant cavalry) and hence its safe for your missiles to move around the flank.

The best missiles to use agressively are those that have a high angle of fire, fast reload times (firing rate) and can shoot over the heads of their commrades in arms. To get the best out of them move them fast slightly ahead of your battleline with the said battle line running behind them (they can quickly retire behind them if enemy infantry or cavalry decides to charge them). Once in range of main enemy battle line stop the missiles so they can start firing while advancing your line to engage them.

Alternatively, if the enemy missiles are numerous and you want a missile duel first, stop the main line behind the missiles too. let the missiles take the casualties from the ranged duel and once volleys get reduced because of casualties and lack of arrows proceed with the melee line.

Crossbows play much better in a step by step static agression in which you keep your battle line straigh behind them (allowing them to fire even at enemy charging cavalry literally in their face before retiring to safety). In this way the crossbows and the infantry move in a tough monolithic
block. Remember again to play with the toggle fire at will button in order to synchrinise the volleys and release them when closest to targets while concentrating fire when possible. The same tactics can be used with guns. Guns can also be used right behind a crossbow screen adding fearful punch at close range to the volleys.

-Valor and upgrades.

You mention circumstances that seargents kill off men-at-arms and seargents or knights kill off other knights easily. Incidentally prefer to flank-charge armoured cavalry with polearms or axes or best with other cavalry or even by unarmoured spears (at engage at will to receive the high charge) - they are much more effective in that role than swords that are wasting their stamina in that task. Swords should be pited against spears and other swords and protected from cavalry while avoiding uneccessary marching and running - keep their energy for the melee.

Beware of valored and upgraded units - they are bound to last way more than their 0 valor 0 upgrade kind. This is especially true for valor, that provides plus 1 attack plus 1 defence plus 2 morale per valor point. In other words a valor 4 men-at-arms is equivalent in all (and quicker!) to a valor 0 foot feudal knights. Valor can be gotten due to buildings but it more often arises due to unit leader traits and commanding general stars. Units get plus one valor per 2 stars of the general (and hence why the Byzantine family line is such a dread at the start of the game). Too many valor points and units turn into jedis that is unroutable units that fight for very long periods and keep on even at 90 percent casualties or more.

In fact this is one reason i dont particularly cherish excel. If anything it makes things worst as average base morale is raised and titles are more numerus and more easily accessible creating even more high command rating generals than in vanilla. XL promotes the jedi concept considerably. If you want to play a game that the match ups are clear and jedis less frequent play mods that take off the upgrades and bonuses.

Trait valored units can be found here and there but they tend to especially appear in units of bodyguards due to the prince s *killer instincts*, *prides* and the like. Also units that harbor princes and especially kings are especially difficult to kill because of the prince/king having more than one life. This cat-like characteristic is reffered to as *health* in traits.

The rest of the unit dies but he lingers on in a LOTR fashion. These units disturb the match up relationships and you have to either keep them occupied with junk units (like spears), or shoot them to death (with bows, crossbows and javelins) to not get significant parts of your army entagled by them.

There is a reason why jedi kings and princes are allowed and this is well understood if you play Shogun - basically you can just shoot to death prior of engagement or mob the small bodyguard of the daimiyo in that game winning the battle and killing off clans very quickly and easily. In MTW its much more difficult - even if thay are down to one man they can often escape. The mistake made in MTW was in not devising alternative mechanics for when a faction is out of heirs (say a civil war that the player can take sides leading in a new royal line), and also not making princes units regeneratable like kings units. You often see those one man units of princes that get shot or die of course in melees which is silly.

The way to count valor is to pay attention at it in the pre-battle screen; make a note in your minds eye of any units other than peasants that have more than 1-2 valor. You can distinguish them in the battlefield by the number of the small flags the units carry; the flags indicate valor. Pay also attention to the average valor level of the two armies. If they are equipotent but enemy army has two more points of valor on average, this is going to be tough.

!it burnsus!

[PershsNhpios]

Thank you both for these appreciably detailed answers!

I have read them both thoroughly, and discovered what I guessed was true; that Vices and Virtues screen makes a very large difference.
I am now considering using assassins more often.

However - what strange fortune - I have made a triumph just after creating this thread!
Beginning an Early campaign as the Aragonese in XL 3.0 with Tyberius 2.0, I conquered in my most difficult battles - Europeans vs Arabs! As I wrote in another thread here, I formed a great alliance against the Arabs, and in many battles defeated them with a kill ratio of 5:1.

In one of these, I had 1 Feudal Sgt., 3 Spears, 3 Archers, 1 Javelins, 1 Urban Militia, and the Prince against;

5 Ghulam Bodyguards, 4 Ghulam Cavalry, 2 Camel Archers.

Into the woods I went! And the Khaliph himself came riding in with his four sons, after they tried to barrage the army.
They were surrounded by the archers, who were backed by the spears, and as the arrows started the crossfire, the militia charged in amongst the bewildered enemy under a withering support of javelins.

I have never seen so many Ghulams dead in one forest! Although the Urban Militia were depleted to one quarter strength - I almost destroyed the entire Royal family!

Spears and javelins have become my main units in Iberia, though this may change if the Catholic Alliance falters in time.

As for match-ups, I ask if these are correct statements;

Valour being equal, Swords beat spears.
Spears beat cavalry.
Cavalry beat swords.
Ranged units are auxiliary with few exceptions.
Heavy cavalry beats light cavalry.
Beserkers are fun.

[Knight of the Rose]

Valour being equal,
Swords beat spears.
Spears beat cavalry.
Cavalry beat swords.
Ranged units are auxiliary with few exceptions.
Heavy cavalry beats light cavalry.
Beserkers are fun.

In general yes, but there are different versions of spears and swords and cavalry.

Swords beat spears, though not if you place light or obsolete swords straight into armoured and organised spears.

Spears beat cavalry, but can usually only manage to pin them unless you make them engage at will. And then they will take losses. And light spears can't beat heavy cav. Though usually they can withstand the charge reasonably well.

Cav beats swords. Well - charging cav cause losses to sword units, but light and med. cav take a lot of losses to swordsmen. Unless they are Arab swordsmen, that is. Heavy cav will also take losses, but will usually persevere.

Ranged units are a chapter on its own. But I agree with you: Missiles cannot win the battle, but you will lose without them.

Heavy cav beats light cav, this is true.

Beserkers are either annoying OR fun. Depends on who has them.

BUT in general I find that two factors often outmaches the standard RPS system, and that is morale and fatigue. Very fatigued heavy cav is useless, and a unit that is running home to mamma doesn't fight. The succesfull general is the one that realises when a unit is capable of fullfilling its role.

/KotR

[gollum]

Valour being equal, Swords beat spears

Valour and class and morale and fatigue as KOTR says being equal, Yes - dont matchup feudal men at arms with chivalric seargents and excpect a win. Swords get a hidden +1 attack against spears in VI - this was supposingly to restore the RPS as v1.0 MTW was ver much a spears game (swords were essentially flankers at best).

Spears beat cavalry.

Yes and no. If you match up vanilla spearmen against knights the spears certainly lose. Feudal and chivalric seargents usually persevere to victory up unless their morale breaks - most spears suffer from low morale in MTW (= 0). Few spears have good morale such as, methinks Italian Light Infantry (= 2).

In MTW spears have very low attack and good defense and in addition get similar bonuses versus cavalry that is again good defense and low attack with rank bonuses. This, and their immunity to charges makes them good for holding cavalry. However they often dont have the power to deliver kills, it takes ages for them to kill the cavalry while on hold formation. if you are confident that they wont break (say because your battle line is in a crisis) and they are facing reasonable opponents for their class (not vanilla spears against chivalric knights) then put them on engage at will - their offensive ability is best. However its best receiving charges and pinning superior opponents with hold formation - their low morale otherwise betrays them.

The only TW game that spears worked properly is STW - they were also 60 men units but were eating cavalry alive - the only working total war RPS to date.

Cavalry beat swords.

Yes and no. Heavy cavalry does. Medium cavalry might with the charge. Light cavalry never frontally always flanks while engaged. However MTW has a fine selection of heavy horse pounders for all factions. In terms of match up these should be dealing with enemy swords while ideally your spears keep enemy cavalry occupied and your swords beat their spears. If you manage this its battle over very quickly.

Ranged units are auxiliary with few exceptions.

Yes, as the cards often say keep them out of melee. In practise use them only as a last reserve frontally or for flanking when its safe for them.

Heavy cavalry beats light cavalry.

Frontally yes, with no exception that i know off - perhaps camels in the desert might beat some heavy horse sometimes.

Beserkers are fun.

Fun is subjective but yes.

!it burnsus!

[Lokiss]

Why the christ were you sending knights against Feudal Srgs anyway? That's asking to get your unit handed to you on a platter.

[Haccapelite]

Lokiss, that is true. I don't think that under any circumstances should anyone use any kind of cavalry against any type of spears, since that only ties the cavalry to a long and possibly costy fight. Even if it is sometimes possible to win spears with cavalry, that should only be used as a last option because usually your army will have some other units, like swords, that can beat those spearmen with ease. The cavalry should be kept free to move as they have a very good mobility, this way they can be used to break enemy units and serve as a good reserve unit that can quickly move to give aid to any unit that is in trouble.

One thing that you should never forget when thinking of charging horses into a group of swordsmen is that even if your cavalry would have slightly better stats than the swordsmen, cavalry has less men in one unit. So if your charge doesn't kill enough units and the swordsmen still have more men after the cavalry loses it's charge bonus, the swordsmen can take down lots of horses thanks to their bigger number. If I have to use horses against swordsmen, I try at least to run behind them, charge their rear in wegde formation and after the initial shock switch back to close formation.

Into the woods I went!

I always feel almost guilty when I'm being attacked by a cavalry-oriented army and I deploy my troops deep in the woods. I had some funny moments fighting against the Golden Horde as the Swedish, 8 units of nearly fully upgraded chivalric foot knights with plenty of valour, need I say more?

Frontally yes, with no exception that i know off - perhaps camels in the desert might beat some heavy horse sometimes.

Even though I havent used the (almost) allmighty Camel Warriors in a while (I miss you, my dear Turkish empire) I have to say that in the desert, camels can beat almost any heavy cavalry without much trouble, as there are so many advantages that camels have compared to heavy cavalry in a desert. Not only do camels get a nice attack and defence bonus against horses in the desert(+1 atk for camels in sandy desert, +4 def for camels against horses and +2 atk for camels against horses) , they also don't get tired as fast as heavily armoured horses, and the penalties from fatigue should never be taken lightly. In my Turkish campaing I managed reduce the Bysantine emperors' Kataphraktoi unit down to one man with two units of plain camels, and mind you the emperor had (as usual) about as much valour as my entire army together. (I eventually managed to kill the emperor as well, but it took a long long time.) Never underestimate the power of camels just because of their odour and goofy looks, there's a lot of hidden power in that hump!

Beserkers are fun.

I agree, but if you like berserkers, I would recommend you to try out the Irish. Gael Ghaedils (or something like that) are absolutely insane units, since they have almost identical stats to berserkers, plus they have an armour piercing attack! I have to say that I have never killed as many units with such little effort as with those guys. One unit of them was fighting with fyrdmen when a unit of royal knights attacked their rear, and the Gaels didn't lose a single unit in the charge and after that they beat the sheet out of both the royal knights and the fyrdmen!

[gollum]

Originally posted by Haccapelite
I have to say that in the desert, camels can beat almost any heavy cavalry without much trouble

Well, if we stick to the pressuposition that they are equal valour and equally fresh i am not sure that this is strictly true. Bodyguards regularly beat camels in sandy desert - yet its difficult to tell from campaigns as BGs have all these valor points.

Knights Templar vs Camels 0 valor both, head on, unfatigued, flat ground, i wouldnt bet all my money on the dromedas - although it will be a costly fight. Usually though there's quite a lot of marching and running before the melee is joined and HC has taken its sweat bath by the time they cross swords with the gamels.

!it burnsus!

[Haccapelite]

gollum, I ran some quick tests under the circumstances you mentioned (flat ground, head on- charge, unfatigued, and no valour or bonus armor) with three different types of cavalry against the camels, and the results were these:

Feudal Knights - Bedouin Camel Warriors: Camels won, killing 24 knights and losing 3 men. (in this test feudal knights used wedge formation when charging and the camels didn't.)
Knights Templar - Bedouin Camel Warriors: Camels won, killing 25 knights and losing 9 men. (both in wedge)
Kataphraktoi - Bedouin Camel Warriors: Camels won, killing 32 men and losing 15 men. (camels in wedge, kataphraktoi wasn't.)

I think these results aren't absolutely waterproof since I ran every fight just once, and maybe once in a while the knights might win, but still it seems that camels really have the advantage when fighting in the desert, even in a "fair" fight. I have to admit that I was pretty suprised by the fact that Templars went down that easily.

[caravel]

It's simple, on a level field with no morale/valour bonues or upgrades:

*The camels would have had the advantage due to fighting in the desert

*The Western Knights would be at the disadvantage due to armour in the desert and due to the horses' fear of camels.

[gollum]

Thanks for running the tests and reporting Haccapelite

!it burnsus!

[gollum]

Hi again,
i just did some customs too - and when i controlled the camels i got results similar to those you posted. Notice however that the knights waste their melee by withdrawing temporarily to charge again (the AI does that often to get another charge bonus with knights), and while they do this the camels crunch them cause they attack them essentially at the rear.

I played the same battle with the knights this time (did nothing fancy just not the redraw in the middle of the melee - i charged them and let them duke it out) and voila:

Knights Templar win having killed 27 camels and lost 27 men, that is tough and costly but a win.

As you say waterproof tests require mp testing where the players take different units as generals than the units to be tested and do not charge the units just let them touch and melee frontally, because the general harbored in the unit also affects the results (if he gets killed) as well as the charge (the effect isnt precisely the same every time - some times one unit charges a little better some times the other).

EDIT:
Did a few more and it seems that on sandy desert - flat ground with charge and generals against the AI, withboth 0 valour and 0 upgrades, Beduin Camels beat always convincingly Feudal knights, win very closely against Chivalric Knights, lose closely to Crusader knights (templars,hospitallers,teutons) and get absolutely skewered by Gothic knights.

!it burnsus!

[PershsNhpios]

Aye! Thank you very much - this is all extremely helpful! From suffering a defeat every time I fought the Almohads at even odds, I have just won 3 battles in a row with the odds against me at 3:1 - in Morocco!
When I attacked the HRE through Provence, Savoy, Burgundy and Schweiz, taking a foothold in central Europe, I had no difficulty in despatching 1300 spears, swords, archers and knights upon a mountain with the aid of 1 archer group, 4 swords, and 5 medium cavalry.

I now own Iberia, Morocco, and the mentioned German provinces. I am at war with the re-emerged Almoravids in Algeria - and excommunicated because I disallowed a German crusade from creating desertion in my three central European armies. Up until 1172 I was receiving 1000 florins from the pope every third turn - I had never attacked a Catholic without his sanction - and I had engaged in two successful crusades.

France has just declared against the small HRE. The French are my allies, but they are distrusting. I have 3800 men on south of the Pyrenees, France has 4300 in the north.
Due to their 70 year uninterrupted peace, they have many technological advantages over me - mainly in armour.

I am unsure if I should attack now with a newly furnished army in Brittany, and thus trap all of France between my other armies in; Burgundy, Provence, Aragon, Switzerland, and Navarre. Each consists of generally 3 F.S., 4FMAA, 2 Archers, 3 Andalucian Cavalry, 2 Royal knights. Generals range between 4 and 8 stars. 3 armies are veteran quality.

My main dissuading factors are my fear for influence, (I have just been excommunicated, and France is my ally, and has been since 1129. Also, she is allied to all but 3 of my other allies - and very intimate with Genoa, a small kingdom with a military of 2100 threating Provence.), defeat at the hands of superior armour, and a constant worry that another war will place me behind the East in the coming shift to Chivalry.

Should I invade Brittany, or strengthen my borders and continue building in Iberia?

[Haccapelite]

gollum, when I did the tests I also noticed the thing you said about the heavy cavalry running back and forth in two of the fights, and now that I think of it, it's pretty sure that did have something to do with the outcome of the battle. It looks to me that both tests show that when the camels and heavy cavalry are evenly matched, the camels can cause serious trouble to almost all types of cavalry. I would imagine based on the results that if you would make the heavy cavalry use some of their stamina before entering the battle the camels could stand out pretty well and maybe even manage to defeat Templars or some other high class heavy cavalry.

Thanks for your further researching, those results might be very useful for me since the Egyptians have huge numbers of camels standing by my borders just outside Palestine. Looks like I'll have to keep my cavalry far away from those camels, I'll be using my spearmen and archers mostly.

@Glenn, from your description it sounds that you could manage to take down the French, but as they are more developed than you, it might prove quite costy. If I were you I would propably take a short break from fighting and modernise my armies, and after that strike the French from a large front at once. Try to attack as many provinces on the same turn so that after the battles (which you hopefully will win) they will have as few provinces to regroup themselves as possible. This way you can then isolate them into small "pockets" and defeat them much easier.

You said you have 3800 men standing in the pyrenees, are all those deployed in Navarre? If that is so I think you could cut the garrison there down by at least 2000 men. Navarre is very easy to defend since anyone invading there from south France will be facing steep mountains, and you can easily defend it with a small force against vastly larger enemy forces. If you move some of the troops away from there, they are free to be used elsewhere, like at the Genoan border, or you can also use them in the invasion against France when the time comes.

During the peace time develop your economy as much as possible, Iberian peninsula has some real moneymakers and once you get a good trade fleet, you will be churning out tons of cash. Make sure you have savedsome money for the wartime, since it looks like you could also have to fight Genoa, and their ships can be a real nuisance to your trading fleets, and usually the income drops pretty much during the wartime. Out of curiosity, how much is your annual income?

[PershsNhpios]

It is now 1183.

Genoa attacked me, with Venice as an ally. I stripped Genoa of all but Tuscany, and destroyed Venice - pillaging the land before returning to my new border of Genoa-Savoy-Burgundy-Schweiz.
France denied England the right to crusade, and consequently lost the entire north coast - because they refuse to remove their now 4700 strong force from my borders.
I have few allies now due to the wars with two minor factions - and until recently everyone rather despised Aragon.

I have 3800 men still in the Pyrenees, divided between the King in Aragon, and a general in Navarre.
They are the only troops guarding Iberia, as every coastal province neighbouring me has between 4-7 ships as a defense from a very belligerent, opportunistic Byzantine navy.
My other forces consist of 4 armies in central Europe - one in Provence, Genoa, Burgundy, Schweiz. Each is 1100 - 1300 strong, with the uniform troops I described earlier.
I destroyed a Venezian army 1200 strong under a 6 star general with my cavalry alone - with 33 losses!
These are my greatest, most modern strength.

I also have another army in Morocco, 1103 strong - very good for defending against the Almoravids - who are too strong and versatile for me to attack, (And not worth the war with Egypt), but easily kept in Algeria.

With all this military power focusing on holding what I have in the current situation with increasingly powerful France, (I am seeing many silver shields - and England is in civil war!), I have only just enough economy for another 1200 strong army - +2 armour, +2 weapons, 3 morale as a base value on the units within.

My income is now 552 with the new army created. I have no trade, however I am afraid to expand my navy!
I cannot see many fair targets for conquest, unless I invade Britain. Italy I shall not touch. I want nothing more in central Europe.
I will explain the diplomatic situation more, (I enjoy it!), but then I must go to bed!

France holds Aquitaine to Champagne, Brittany to Tolosa. She is at war with England.
England holds only Flanders, Lorraine, Friesland, Normandy and Wessex. At war with France.
Genoa holds Tuscany. Allied with Papacy.
HRE holds Swabia, Tyrolia, besieged in Champagne. At war with Bohemia, myself (inactive), and Almoravids due to a persistant crusade.
Almoravids hold Algeria. At war with myself and Sicilia. Allied with Egypt.
Sicilia holds Sardinia, homelands. Allied with myself.

This gives a picture of my immediate vicinity - the East is divided between the Byzantines and Egypt. The North-East between Novgorod and Lithuania.

Should I pick a neighbouring target - or crusade? Or disband this new army - which will give me 1357 per turn. (All provinces are taxed very highly.)

Thank you again for your interest!

[Martok]

Well I'd say a Crusade to the Holy Land was in order, but it sounds like you might have a problem getting there: With the Almos blocking your shortest land route and the Byzantine navy apparently attacking your shipping any chance they get, that may not be your best option.

Are you sure you can't break through the Almoravids in Algeria? Wiping them out would solve many problems, as it would then pave the way for invasion/Crusade of Egypt and the Levant.

[Roark]

Yeah, Algeria is rich and can fund an army by itself (eg: useful for when a crusade is successful and the troops then start to cost you money!!).

If you don't take Algeria, the Sicilians probably will, unless they've become involuntarily isolated due to loss of ships, or wandering ship syndrome. You don't really want low-zeal Christians between you and Egypt/Outremer. A bit inconvenient.

Secondly, the Almo's Urban Militia are extremely annoying and heavily armoured and you should relish the opportunity to finish them off once and for all in a nice hot desert environment where they will bake like spuds.