Army Structure & Recruitment

[caravel]

I find Byzantine infantry and FMAA and AUM true killer

Those are more so the exception than the rule. I make use of Byzantine Infantry in Vanilla MTW due to the large unit size and that faction's lack of spears. They're a very nasty unit. In fact any sword unit that you up to 100 men from 60 becomes very dangerous - I found that out with Arab Infantry. AUM are another exception. They are almost like "Almohad Legionaries" and make good line infantry. The alternative is the 60 men Muwahid Foot and they are only useful as flankers and gap pluggers due to their smaller size and good charge.

Playing as the Turks I use what are technically swords all the time, in the form of Futuwwa and Turcoman Foot, but they are always backed up by a backbone of the dependable Saracens.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
Those are more so the exception than the rule. I make use of Byzantine Infantry in Vanilla MTW due to the large unit size and that faction's lack of spears. They're a very nasty unit. In fact any sword unit that you up to 100 men from 60 becomes very dangerous - I found that out with Arab Infantry. AUM are another exception. They are almost like "Almohad Legionaries" and make good line infantry. The alternative is the 60 men Muwahid Foot and they are only useful as flankers and gap pluggers due to their smaller size and good charge.

Playing as the Turks I use what are technically swords all the time, in the form of Futuwwa and Turcoman Foot, but they are always backed up by a backbone of the dependable Saracens.

And yet BI are quite balanced for their class, especially in terms of thinking that they are the only foot swords the Byz get throughout the campaign. Their low stats (2 att, 2def) and morale (0) have to be made up by their numbers. When they are led by the jedi Byz imperial family - they are horrors indeed especially in early. But when not - they are quite average and need caution in how and where to engage them because they flee all too easily when things get a bit hot. Their size and low morale also prevent their use as flankers (as they might flee before completing the rear charge or get charged by enemy heavy cavalry that covers the enemy rear, and are too cumbersome to maneuver).

Your Arab swords had higher morale and higher attack IIRC - hence they were really dangerous regardless of general leading.

I personally think that the FMAA are far more steadfast and reliable than the BI. They have better stats (3 att, 2def IIRC) and more importantly better morale (2) that makes them very good line infantry. If combined with HC like knights or other - they are unstopable - have only to match the HC to enemy swords and your swords to enemy spears - you can rout the enemy army in record time (almost on contact) when having such an army composition and do the match up.

Agreed fully about the AUM and Muwahid - actually i make Mywahid to 100 men speaer units and exclusive to the Almohads in my *vanilla mod*.

Your tactics with the Turks is the one i also use too - simply because the Turks have no other unit than the Saracens that can stop enemy assault units like HC and Knights and offensively their swords are weak in defence and armor. Need to shoot them, tire them in fight against the SI while shooting them some more, and finally flank them with Armenian Heavies, Futuwas, Ghazis, Ottoman Inf, Turcoman Foot or even Desert Archers before unleashing the Turcoman horse and Ghulam BGs in their tails ... ah! the galloping, the slaughter, the cries, the... endless poetry... Actually, talking about this, i just remembered i had something in the oven - gotta get going... see you later

[caravel]

And yet BI are quite balanced for their class, especially in terms of thinking that they are the only foot swords the Byz get throughout the campaign. Their low stats (2 att, 2def) and morale (0) have to be made up by their numbers. When they are led by the jedi Byz imperial family - they are horrors indeed especially in early. But when not - they are quite average and need caution in how and where to engage them because they flee all too easily when things get a bit hot. Their size and low morale also prevent their use as flankers (as they might flee before completing the rear charge or get charged by enemy heavy cavalry that covers the enemy rear, and are too cumbersome to maneuver).

Exactly. What makes BI dangerous is the large unit size and the Byzantine jedi princes leading them. Apart from that they're nothing special.

Your Arab swords had higher morale and higher attack IIRC - hence they were really dangerous regardless of general leading.

The Arab swords had two morale and I think I exchanged a point of attack with a point of defence to actually give them lower attack and higher defence. This combined with the larger unit size gave them much more staying power.

I personally think that the FMAA are far more steadfast and reliable than the BI. They have better stats (3 att, 2def IIRC) and more importantly better morale (2) that makes them very good line infantry. If combined with HC like knights or other - they are unstopable - have only to match the HC to enemy swords and your swords to enemy spears - you can rout the enemy army in record time (almost on contact) when having such an army composition and do the match up.

IIRC FMAA are elite and with a better morale. So they won't rout along with the UM, spearmen and archers. The reason I use so few of them is because I tend to focus on spears/missiles/cavalry when playing as catholics. I'm also a very defensive player, so I'll often attack with a force that is more suited to defence by moving it into a position where missiles can hit the enemy and they are forced to attack me When the enemy rout it's a case of sending the light and medium cavalry after them. This is how I play as the Turks and that probably affects how I play catholics. I should probably try different tactics.

Agreed fully about the AUM and Muwahid - actually i make Mywahid to 100 men speaer units and exclusive to the Almohads in my *vanilla mod*.

That's how they are in the PocketMod.

Your tactics with the Turks is the one i also use too - simply because the Turks have no other unit than the Saracens that can stop enemy assault units like HC and Knights and offensively their swords are weak in defence and armor. Need to shoot them, tire them in fight against the SI while shooting them some more, and finally flank them with Armenian Heavies, Futuwas, Ghazis, Ottoman Inf, Turcoman Foot or even Desert Archers before unleashing the Turcoman horse and Ghulam BGs in their tails ... ah! the galloping, the slaughter, the cries, the... endless poetry... Actually, talking about this, i just remembered i had something in the oven - gotta get going... see you later

IIRC Saracens are equal in stats to Chivalric Sergeants. Pretty decent for a unit that is available in early (I think Italian Infantry are similar if not the same).

Let us hope that your lunch has not become a burnt offering.

[gollum]

Right, back with me burned roast chicken

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
The reason I use so few of them is because I tend to focus on spears/missiles/cavalry when playing as catholics. I'm also a very defensive player, so I'll often attack with a force that is more suited to defence by moving it into a position where missiles can hit the enemy and they are forced to attack me When the enemy rout it's a case of sending the light and medium cavalry after them. This is how I play as the Turks and that probably affects how I play catholics. I should probably try different tactics.

I know what you mean and now i kinda understand why in 1.0.8 beta of the PoM the FMAA were recruitable through the Citadel Barracks and so were lacking from the battles mostly.

Playing defensively is the norm for TW SP, no matter how many years you play that. Used to do the same thing until i went online. There, if you leave too much of the initiative to the opponent you get creamed - and at the beginning you dont really understand why that is. Eventually you start being proactive too rather than just being only reactive to the point that when you go back to play against the AI you see how much he leaves the initiative and you now... cream him

This is one of the reasons why MP enthusiasts dont come back to SP - after the pop there is no stop. The pop of course is to have the time and will to go online and weather the crazy hours, long waits, insulting people and clan rivalries. However, if one invests the time and effort he is rewarded with good times like no other imho in playing TW as well as very good online friends.

Offensive tactics were never coming naturally to me - but through online play i eventually got into them and when i did, i realised that they are the dark side of the moon of sorts - a whole new world within the world i was in. They are really the Ying to the defensive Yang of war tactics. Seeing replays of online play from good players for the first time i was left with the mouth open - it was more like a dance than war. While the attacker was expanding - the defender was contracting just enough to find the weak overextended spot and gather the momentum to counterattack it. The attacker then would bypass the counterattack and start in turn contracting to stabilise and gather momentum. It was like watching waves on a beach - so natural and beautiful - there was no notion of a deadly struggle there.

I am fully aware that defense is what is most natural to people - thats why online play is good in that sense - because it forces you to try things that you wouldnt otherwise, extending your skills in the process.

But i digress.

[Garnier]

Very early on I try to get FMAA as fast as I can, and they form an important part of my army. If the enemy is mostly spearmen I also dismount some of my knights to get even more spear-killers. My main line is usually a mix of spears and polearms (militia units and halbardiers). Then I have gaps in the line for the small bodies of dismounted knights or men at arms to charge through in wedges. Good swordsmen eat up enormous amounts of enemy spears and militia.

[gollum]

Mr Garnier if you dont mind me asking are you the same Garnier moderator in the TWC?

[Garnier]

Yeah I am.

[Durango]

Hi Gollum! I have read many interesting posts of yours while reading on these forums, and I feel it's time to respond for a change

Playing defensively is the norm for TW SP, no matter how many years you play that. Used to do the same thing until i went online. There, if you leave too much of the initiative to the opponent you get creamed - and at the beginning you dont really understand why that is. Eventually you start being proactive too rather than just being only reactive to the point that when you go back to play against the AI you see how much he leaves the initiative and you now... cream him

I think you're right about how playing cautiously is the natural way for most single players. After all, maybe the very mechanics of the game actually attract people who like to take their time, and plan out their approach. Meticulously setting up formations and fields of fire is part of the appeal of the battle engine, at least for me. It's a welcome change from let's say Age of Empires, where even when playing against the AI you would have to harass, scout and disrupt the enemy all the time.

This actually applies somewhat to all of our real lives, to a degree. Action rules the day.

This is one of the reasons why MP enthusiasts dont come back to SP - after the pop there is no stop. The pop of course is to have the time and will to go online and weather the crazy hours, long waits, insulting people and clan rivalries. However, if one invests the time and effort he is rewarded with good times like no other imho in playing TW as well as very good online friends.

True. There is, however, a danger for SP enthusiasts who wish to participate in MP. When you become sufficiently skilled, the AI can no longer challenge you at all when it comes to the campaign battles, thereby potentially diminishing the fun and challenge of single player games on the whole. If you can beat the AI blindfolded, a large part of the campaign is rendered pointless.

That is the reason I'll never play MP in any past or present Total War game. The campaign enjoyment would suffer too much, and besides, I don't think that a battle is very interesting anyway when there are no benefits and consequences to it. Just putting together an army and fighting for fighting's sake is IMHO not very satisfying.

With guys like in the Main Hall, however, I'm sometimes tempted to maybe try it a little....

Offensive tactics were never coming naturally to me - but through online play i eventually got into them and when i did, i realised that they are the dark side of the moon of sorts - a whole new world within the world i was in. They are really the Ying to the defensive Yang of war tactics. Seeing replays of online play from good players for the first time i was left with the mouth open - it was more like a dance than war. While the attacker was expanding - the defender was contracting just enough to find the weak overextended spot and gather the momentum to counterattack it. The attacker then would bypass the counterattack and start in turn contracting to stabilise and gather momentum. It was like watching waves on a beach - so natural and beautiful - there was no notion of a deadly struggle there.

How long would you say an average battle like this lasts?

I am fully aware that defense is what is most natural to people - thats why online play is good in that sense - because it forces you to try things that you wouldnt otherwise, extending your skills in the process.

But i digress.

I personally have a taste that's somewhere inbetween defensive and offensive. While units such as spearmen die slowly and consist of a lot of men, they feel somewhat clumsy and vulnerable due to their static nature. My absolute favourite unit class would be that of the "raving shirtless madman" that can just go in and kill the enemy, without fuss. You need units with plain good killing power. When my axe is bigger then my enemy's, I feel good. Interpret that as you wish...

(But I might add that I'm playing MedMod with all weapon/armour/morale and valour upgrades removed. If a unit wants valour, it's gonna have to wrench it from the cold dead hands of the enemy)

/Durango

[gollum]

Hey Durango!

hope you are doing fine. Been seeing your signatures everywhere and they re great!

Originally posted by Durango
I think you're right about how playing cautiously is the natural way for most single players. After all, maybe the very mechanics of the game actually attract people who like to take their time, and plan out their approach. Meticulously setting up formations and fields of fire is part of the appeal of the battle engine, at least for me. It's a welcome change from let's say Age of Empires, where even when playing against the AI you would have to harass, scout and disrupt the enemy all the time.

This actually applies somewhat to all of our real lives, to a degree. Action rules the day.

Indeed you are right - TW SP in particular is a change of pace with its realistic parameters, like moral, terrain and the weather from teh standard RTS - and people who hated SC because micromanaging skill and Actions Per Minute were paramount there, found their way in TW.

However - at least as far as STW/MTW MP are concerned believe it or not, speed and actions per minute arent that important even when you play offensively and the battle is very dynamic and full of action. The greatest factor is learning to filter the information coming from the game through the interface. Good players in those games werent only the speedy ones - but those that were good strategists (that matters in large team games) and tacticians (during the actual engagement).

Originally posted by Durango
True. There is, however, a danger for SP enthusiasts who wish to participate in MP. When you become sufficiently skilled, the AI can no longer challenge you at all when it comes to the campaign battles, thereby potentially diminishing the fun and challenge of single player games on the whole. If you can beat the AI blindfolded, a large part of the campaign is rendered pointless.

That is the reason I'll never play MP in any past or present Total War game. The campaign enjoyment would suffer too much, and besides, I don't think that a battle is very interesting anyway when there are no benefits and consequences to it. Just putting together an army and fighting for fighting's sake is IMHO not very satisfying.

With guys like in the Main Hall, however, I'm sometimes tempted to maybe try it a little....

This is of course the Main Hall and what we discuss is off topic - but i would advise anyone to get online if he has the time. Its true that there are plenty of people that are insulting - but the ones that are decent are great usually as players and guys too. In the end its worth it - at least for me. The danger you mention isnt that the SP game becomes boring - the real danger is what you have to go through until you can *stand at your own feet* sort to speak, that is until you have learned the game online at a decent level. This is indeed a tough stage - and its best to try and find people you trust and like that can show you the ins and outs of the game (and there are many).

If you are thinking to do so about ETW - ill be happy to share my experiences with you - just pm.

As for beating the AI too easily - i can personally testify that the MTW AI is more than decent when he has an equal army selection as the player - i have never felt that the game became boring. In campaigns you also fight outnumbered or outclassed - and in such cases anyone may lose no matter how good. Unfortunately RTW and M2TW were boring in the battlefield for me - as there were uber units, the mounted missiles were unstoppable and the action was faster even than the AoE type RTSs. However, even so you can see many battles fought with skill and strategic/tactical vision in those games too, by good players.

Say for example have a look at these videos with the very good commentary by Clunny the Scourge;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNEv...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHSl...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqhT...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-DK...eature=related

They give an idea of what is like. Veteran players and clans have piles of Replay battles that also are worth seeing. Some of them are available for download.

Originally posted by Durango
How long would you say an average battle like this lasts?

It depends first and foremost by the number of players, and the length of the skirmish phase - say in MTW/VI with the long skirmish phase of the pavise arbalasters battles would be on average between 45 minutes and more than an hour - depending on how much people were ready to commit there forces, the terrain etc. In STW - battles were faster, with an average time of 25 to 35 minutes - because the teppos that were used as skirmishing units reloaded much faster than the arbs.

1v1 is the shortest game, and 2v2 is noticeably longer. 3v3 and 4v4 counterintuitively however can be either very long or very short. This is because in a 3v3 or 4v4 double teaming is much more significant while in 2v2 allied armies are seldom isolated - in fact they mesh. In 3v3 and above though you cant mesh with all your allies as it becomes too cramped and you risk to be subject to surrounding morale penalties and backkills from the arbs/teppos.

Originally posted by Durango
I personally have a taste that's somewhere inbetween defensive and offensive. While units such as spearmen die slowly and consist of a lot of men, they feel somewhat clumsy and vulnerable due to their static nature. My absolute favourite unit class would be that of the "raving shirtless madman" that can just go in and kill the enemy, without fuss. You need units with plain good killing power. When my axe is bigger then my enemy's, I feel good. Interpret that as you wish...

I interpret it as lots of fun Which is the most important thing however one wishes to play the game.

Originally posted by Durango
(But I might add that I'm playing MedMod with all weapon/armour/morale and valour upgrades removed. If a unit wants valour, it's gonna have to wrench it from the cold dead hands of the enemy)

Thats a good way to play the MedMod - the upgrades make up for too much jedaism otherwise, because Wes gave all units decent base stats.

[PershsNhpios]

I remember playing Rome: Total War multiplayer.. which was terrible due to the unit rosters.

In a 2v2 game, often times three players would pick the roman families and fill the screen with Urban Cohorts and Praetorians, and the fourth player would simply form a group of Spartans in a hedgehog.
Boo!

But Europa Barbarorum made things more interesting - and I lost very badly most times in that - without knowing why.

Until I realised that I was thinking about my strategy too much - it wasn't an actual battlefield - just a simple movement!
Skirmish, push the lines together, and make like crazy to get as many units around into the enemy flanks as possible.

But that spoiled the multiplayer for me, because 1v1 games were all similar.

So everynow and then I would play a 4v4 game... Ah, now they were epic! 10,000 units lined along a plain and the impossible difficulty of allies trying to co-ordinate their attacks.

I have never played MTW online though, however I find the AI often easy to destroy anyway.
When I lose, or suffer badly, (Except in NTW) it is because I played fairly and honourably - without disrupting the enemy line - or using secret weapons, but historically marching my men to a good clean fight.