Army Structure & Recruitment

[gollum]

Didnt know you were into mp Mr Glenn - nice one.

[HopAlongBunny]

Early campaign I always specialize. You get the best you can build in every class much quicker and it makes the "next tech" for each period easy to reach.

By mid-campaign I usually have a forward recruitment core as well. If I haven't achieved total domination of the sea, I will work towards that end. I try to avoid the "OMG!!! I need an army NOW!!!"
problem by always having a reserve army ready to go in a coastal province.

PS: I never played MP but one the best resources for learning SP: the MP forums. Tactics, "bang for buck", kill ratios...etc. The information was endless and valuable. Orda's replays made my jaw drop; so that's how HA's work!

[gollum]

Originally posted by HopAlongBunny
I try to avoid the "OMG!!! I need an army NOW!!!"
problem by always having a reserve army ready to go in a coastal province.

Indeed - the need to have a reserve army is paramount. Its actually best not to cover borders completely with strong border armies everywhere - but instead, have one or two of them at critical locations along a border (depending on the border length) and in the rest have small garissons ready to retreat in the castle of the province they dwell if invaded. In addition have a central reserve army that lies in te core/most developed territories and moves from there to punish any invader. In this way florins are released from upkeep to aid the cash flow rather than cover every border with capable and strong armies.

The later approach other than the financial burden has the disadvantage of becoming inept to function if you actually lose a border battle. I learned that the hard way by playing France many times. France is surrounded by many armies and its central position is actually a constant problem until the English OR the Spanish OR the Italians are taken over. Also while the land is relatively rich it aint that rich to support very good armies at all border provinces without bringing the cash flow into a halt. You have to actually leave gaps and use your armies in a *LATE ROMAN EMPIRE DEFENCE SYSTEM* style rather than and *EARLY ROMAN EMPIRE DEFENCE SYSTEM*.

There is also something to be said about the unit size setting one is playing. If you play in NORMAL - then the cash available in the map by agriculture (that is constant ie you always get it) are enough to support many stacks and thus covering all your borders with strong armies is more or less feasible, especially in places with bottleneck borders like say Spain or the Levant/Anatolia. If you play in LARGE or HUGE, stacks cost more to support (as they have more men) - this is actually much more sratategic as you cannot swamp by numbers your way through the campaign. In LARGE/HUGE while you build up your provinces and economy/trade - you need to take a certain risk as cash are not enough to produce stacks that wil cover all your borders in all cases.

Actually the need to design the game for all unit size setting is why for the NORMAL setting there are too much cash from agriculture around - the incomes set are meant to cover all settings but they give a less strategic (and also tactical as battles are less forgiving in the higher settings) game in SMALL/NORMAL because too many stacks can be supported on average (that is excluding trade that comes and goes). In general it seems that CA designs their games with HUGE primarily in mind.

Originally posted by HopAlongBunny
I never played MP but one the best resources for learning SP: the MP forums. Tactics, "bang for buck", kill ratios...etc. The information was endless and valuable. Orda's replays made my jaw drop; so that's how HA's work!

Indeed - this is very true and for the particular unit type all the more. As a new SP player i was frustrated with the Samurai cavalry archers and then with all the various mounted hybrids, like mameluk horse archers, byzantine cavalry, boyars as well as the vanilla horse archers, turcomans etc. Eventually with practice and especially after having went online i realised their awsome strengths that can win a fight in general and all the more so in flat/desert environments. They work like birds of pray really, and are very dangerous when combined together with light chargers - the Hobilar/Turcopole combo in the desert can beat almost anything! They can also be used en masse - as a fast mobile platform that assembles in weak spots (like flanks and rear or an unguarded by enemy missiles part of their line) to release mass volleys before retreating if challenged by diverted crossbows/foot archers - while still after having empty their quivers they work as fast/light cavalry - say to show the way out to routing units saving the energy to your heavier horse and troops for charges and melee. There is nothing best than to rout a strong melee unit in a fight like say varangians and then set a HA in their tail all the way to the exit. Also their presence even if they are forced to stay beyond range, diverts the attention and the forces of the enemy that can make for weak spots in their main melee line or even give you a local superiority if the disparity of placement becomes so large that their forces practically divide and so you have a chance to rush them piece meal. In an online match once i even saw them being used as a charging screen! my ally used a unit of CAs to charge a teppo line - but the CA was simply a pin cushion for the Yari cavalry that was following right behind them. The teppo routed the CA with a volley but then received the Yari cavalry in... the face - it was awsome!

Slower and stronger HA type units, like the mameluk HAs, the byzantine cavalry, faris are best used as a jack of all trades/stapple/support unit close to the main melee line. This is because they get too tired if used as the Turcomans say and their melee virtues are useless then. Just have them guard the flank of your main melee line and guard their rear while the foot units fight while at the same time your hybrids shoot some valuable enemy heavy cavalry say that guard the enemy flank/rear. They can also plug gaps if your melee line is having problems, or even do the occasional flank wrapping/rear charge if the enemy has no more reserve units to guard their back, giving the coup-de-grace.
If your engaged melee line is charged by enemy Heavies in the rear then have the hybrids counter charge them in their flank (timely though otherwise their charge will partially hit - this might be dangerous if they are knights say). In this way they deal good damage to the enemy assaulters and they can keep them busy until help arrives (say a Mameluk cavalry unit to flank them or your generals BGs or a foot unit that has beaten its melee opponent).
They can also be used for the occasional ambush due to their charge/attack and staying power - say charge with a HC an enemy HC and have then your Strong Mounted Hybrid charge them in the back (or the other way around). Dont set them loose to chase the enemy out at the first attacking *wave* - keep their stamina for the following waves - unless no other cavalry is available.
If the enemy consists of missiles/swords mostly they can even be used in a heavy cavalry role, to charge frontally the enemy line (avoiding spears that should be dealt with by the players swords) or also help with a missile duel if necessary (in loose formation or from higher ground or a flank/rear advantageous position). Flexibility is their middle name.

This is one more area that RTW/M2TW was worse imho - the mounted missiles didnt need any skill and good judgement to play with really - since they were shooting on the run/march. In doing so, while SP enthusiasts were happy since that was perceived as *more realism*, gameplay wise HA were in those too games simply devastating (since they couldnt be caught and by virtue of their mobility they could surround an enemy army and fire from all directions ensuring that shields were no protection to their victims) while requiring almost no skill to control.

[caravel]

This is one more area that RTW/M2TW was worse - the mounted missiles didnt need any skill and good judgement to play with really - since they were shooting on the run/march. In doing so, while SP enthusiasts were happy since that was perceived as *more realism*, gameplay wise HA were in those too games simply devastating (since they couldnt be caught and by virtue of their mobility they could surround and enemy army and fire from all directions ensuring that shields were no protection to their victims) while requiring almost no skill to control.

I liken them to (very) "mobile arrow towers" that move like a flock of birds/shoal of fish. There is no skill whatsoever in using horse archers in RTW. In fact when I first played RTW I went straight for the Parthian faction. Very disappointing all round. Silly and weak Cataphracts on mini horses and eastern infantry and hillmen spam that AI loves(called hillmen because they are famous for shouting "run to the hills" as they rout off the field). The only decent units are the HAs and using them to fight every battle is very boring.

Anyway HA usage in MTW is quite an art. I don't proclaim to be the expert, far from it, but I've had a lot of success in SP battles by turning off skirmish and effectively micromanaging the HAs. It's all about positioning and you should almost never actually order the unit to attack. It's best to let them find their own targets or place them in a position where you know they'll target the unit(s) that you want them too. Occasionally you do have to give them targets them but in general this should be the exception. I also make a lot of use of "fire at will" by toggling this on and off you can get your HAs to unleash volleys when required and it also helps to conserve ammo.

I find that with any missile unit there is no point in shooting to kill. The biggest advantages missile units give you is obviously range and in the "under fire" morale penalty that the attacked unit comes under. Also once the unit is under strength their morale drops lower. This is why on the occasions where I will target the enemy specifically (though this mainly applies to foot archers) I tend to target a unit until it's somewhat damaged and then switch to another unit, I never waste ammo shooting a unit to destruction as once a unit gets smaller you get more wasted arrows. I will also try to hit the lowest calibre unit first to rout it and then quickly switch to another. If you can have your HA's take up positions on the flanks the damages is greater. Also the morale penalty for an enemy unit being on the flanks is added to the equation.

HA's such as Turcoman Horse are good, because they have a decent attack. I like to bring my HAs suddenly swarming in for the kill on a weakened and isolated unit, or a unit that has exposed a flank and has switched to loose formation - indeed using HAs in this fashion can often change the course of a battle.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
(called hillmen because they are famous for shouting "run to the hills" as they rout off the field)

But with a goat (or two) for trophy nonetheless

[gaijinalways]

I often do building of troops more hodge podge. It really does depend on which provinces you're holding and how strong and where your enemies are. Also, when I take provinces over, it might depend on what buildings the AI has built.

Like in my last Dane campaign, another factor is where your trade provinces are. These provinces will often be built up for trade, but at the same time you need to defend them, so their location may necessitate building troops there on the spot (or very nearby).

But certainly you may have more than one spot for spear, sword, cavalry, etc.. Partly depends on how quickly you need to build units, as well the armor and attack bonuses you may have from certain provinces. I alo found in this last campaign that retraining worked well as I had a lot of troops, and rather than disbanding and building all new units, it took less time to retrain many of them (and was less risky as well, from a defensive point of view). a bit of juggling to get them retrained in the right provinces for certain units, but definately a money saver in the latter part of the game. Could also be managed earlier if you see units falling behind, but many of mine were busy dying to save the empire to bother with it.

Mercs are also a good unit to fill in for those quick surges, especially when you can get speciality troops.

[caravel]

Indeed "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy". I find that in most decisive battles, you never have the ideal lineup. This is perhaps where MP differs greatly from SP. MP players can pretty much choose (buy) the units that suit them, whereas in SP battles you're often stuck with what is in the province at the time - and these may be remnants from a previous battle. There is a lot of improvisation and making do with what you've got, units having to adapt to different roles etc.

[Durango]

I like to bring my HAs suddenly swarming in for the kill on a weakened and isolated unit, or a unit that has exposed a flank and has switched to loose formation - indeed using HAs in this fashion can often change the course of a battle.

They, horsearchers, are like vicious Piranhas or Hyenas that circle their prey. Seeking out the vulnerable in the enemy flock. Weeding out the weak and fragile and striking when they are low in spirits.... *evil laugh*

Isn't it about time for a new HA thread?



On topic: Does anyone else have a slight problem of cheapness when building and planning your tech-tree? I do. It's like a strong unwillingness to not spend money on the better kinds of infrastructure. I always build the cheaper stuff first, but whenever a particular building costs more than about 600 or so and takes longer than 4 turns to build... I hesitate even though I know that it's necessary in order to get the better units.

"So, I need this big Baronial court to get the Knights of XXX..... I have the money.... but the Church and the mines are so cheap! Oh so cheap. Well, looks like my spearmen won't get support for at least another 10 turns...."

And when recruiting, this mindset gets even more troublesome. My armies are almost always crammed full of vanilla archers and crossbowmen (actually useful in MedMod mind you) just because they are cheap with low upkeep. When I look at the recruitment scroll, I just think "Hmm.... how about one more archer unit just in case.... they cost so little".

[gollum]

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
Indeed This is perhaps where MP differs greatly from SP. MP players can pretty much choose (buy) the units that suit them, whereas in SP battles you're often stuck with what is in the province at the time - and these may be remnants from a previous battle. There is a lot of improvisation and making do with what you've got, units having to adapt to different roles etc.

Unless of course your opponent does bring the correct counterarmy to what you brought

In SP actually you can make more informed decisions and suit more your army structure to the opponent due to the border forts and the agent intelligence. In MP there is always risk and a rock/paper/scissors game in the army selection too. You can have a slow but strong army or a weak but missile heavy and fast army or a cavalry heavy (very mobile) army or an infantry heavy (quite static) army or many many varieties of *balanced armies* that lie somewhere in between.

The terrain influences the decision - say obviously in a very wooded map - you want more infantry, while in a barren and flat map cavalry might be more helpful. The weather too - in a rainy battlefield - a teppo say heavy army is doomed.

Originally posted by Durango
Does anyone else have a slight problem of cheapness when building and planning your tech-tree? I do. It's like a strong unwillingness to not spend money on the better kinds of infrastructure. I always build the cheaper stuff first, but whenever a particular building costs more than about 600 or so and takes longer than 4 turns to build... I hesitate even though I know that it's necessary in order to get the better units.

"So, I need this big Baronial court to get the Knights of XXX..... I have the money.... but the Church and the mines are so cheap! Oh so cheap. Well, looks like my spearmen won't get support for at least another 10 turns...."

And when recruiting, this mindset gets even more troublesome. My armies are almost always crammed full of vanilla archers and crossbowmen (actually useful in MedMod mind you) just because they are cheap with low upkeep. When I look at the recruitment scroll, I just think "Hmm.... how about one more archer unit just in case.... they cost so little".

I certainly did - although the more i play the less i do. As a newby i wanted to build everything everywhere and later on i was hesitating to build higher tech buildings. Now a careful balance is what i do - in one province i go all the way for teching fully a single aspect (whether be knights, or high priests or agents or ships or agents). In 2-4 provinces i have decent military facilities and in provinces with many/high yield goods i aim first and foremost for the higher merchants. I try to just combine and use according to needs and the dynamics of the game and the cash flow/ cash available - without trying to impose my will too much.

While i was playing the MedMod i was very happy with it - however one of its weaknesses comparing to vanilla is the lack of variety (to justify the large tech tree). Its rosters are too linear. This is good on the battlefield but it fails to make the campaign tech aspect of the game shine. Nowdays for SP i prefer home moded vanilla.

However dont get me wrong - the Medmod is one of the best mods and i hold it in very high esteem.

[Durango]

I certainly did - although the more i play the less i do. As a newby i wanted to build everything everywhere and later on i was hesitating to build higher tech buildings. Now a careful balance is what i do - in one province i go all the way for teching fully a single aspect (whether be knights, or high priests or agents or ships or agents).

Me too, generally. Province specialization is the natural way to go once you come to grips with the campaign gameplay. Also, you can vary the amount of "production centers" according to the unit roster of the faction in question (that you're playing with). I might for example get two dedicated provinces for swordsmen if those are of particular quality, and maybe no religious agents at all if I feel I have no real use for them. Being able to adapt is key.

In 2-4 provinces i have decent military facilities and in provinces with many/high yield goods i aim first and foremost for the higher merchants. I try to just combine and use according to needs and the dynamics of the game and the cash flow/ cash available - without trying to impose my will too much.

Again, pretty much what I do

Another thing regarding expensive buildings. You can seek to take over provinces with good infrastructure instead of building them yourself, with the use of spies to cause rebellion, bribing weak commanders, or attacking with the intent of seizing the castle with as little pillaging as possible. Why
get the good stuff yourself when the enemy can get it for you? This is one of the many highly enjoyable aspects of MTW that I love.

While i was playing the MedMod i was very happy with it - however one of its weaknesses comparing to vanilla is the lack of variety (to justify the large tech tree). Its rosters are too linear. This is good on the battlefield but it fails to make the campaign tech aspect of the game shine. Nowdays for SP i prefer home moded vanilla.

However dont get me wrong - the Medmod is one of the best mods and i hold it in very high esteem.

Check your inbox

[caravel]

Unless of course your opponent does bring the correct counterarmy to what you brought

In SP actually you can make more informed decisions and suit more your army structure to the opponent due to the border forts and the agent intelligence. In MP there is always risk and a rock/paper/scissors game in the army selection too. You can have a slow but strong army or a weak but missile heavy and fast army or a cavalry heavy (very mobile) army or an infantry heavy (quite static) army or many many varieties of *balanced armies* that lie somewhere in between.

The terrain influences the decision - say obviously in a very wooded map - you want more infantry, while in a barren and flat map cavalry might be more helpful. The weather too - in a rainy battlefield - a teppo say heavy army is doomed.

True, but if you don't have those units there at the time, or if your army is attacked two years in a row then you will have to try and win the battle based on what you have available, or go under siege. I find the SP battles are very unique and random. That's what I was alluding to.