army composition

[Vantek]

Ghazis are only good as flankers. You need to use them in conjunction with the Saracen. Once the MHC turn and attack them, they are done for.

Granted, granted. I also typically bring 2 units of them to battle - one for each flank :D

I also once tried to hide a unit in the forest for an ambush against the Golden Horde lol. I don't remember the details but it went very bad - they were charged head-on by a full unit of MHC and lost half of their men + routed in a few seconds...

For Turks, Futuwwa + Saracen Infantry = win until you get Janissaries. However, for Egyptians, I did not even know Nizaris existed lol. Do they require some high tech buildings? I have played Eggy but I never remembered Nizaris...

What's the difference between Turcoman and vanilla HA? I as if remember HA were better about something (was it morale?)

[jedi121212]

Thanks for all the info. It has been really helpful.

[bondovic]

If you want an army for the EARLY era, then scratch any thoughts of a cavalry based army. You could go for Cyrenacian master SC's (+2 valour) along with lots of camels. The real trick is conquering the non-sand desert provinces with this composition. Syria is contestable along these lines, but the turks have TH and camels of their own, so it's not a bank move.

Instead I'd go for a more balance army, especially since your best bet is attacking the Turks - you don't want to stretch yourself by going into north africa and comitting to fleet upkeep right away. A balanced army for the eggs is made up of:

4 SI
4 DA
2 GI
2 SC
3 BC
1 GC (General)

Massing infantry against the Turks is a gamble, since your roster is slightly weaker than theirs (TF + Futtuwa). Going cavalry heavy is also making things harder than they should be - the Turks simly outmatch you by having camels of their own along with AHC and TH. Even by going balanced you're at a disadvantage, of course. But you'll at least have options on the battlefield.

For the HIGH era, I'd do plenty of MamlukHA, a few MC and pump arbs. SI infantry is always your backbone. Spice up your life with a Nizari on each flank and tear into it. Can't stress the importance of MamlukHAs enough, really. Serious bad boys. With +2 valour from Sinai with master breeder they make a HUGE (!) difference in battle. 5 atk 3 def is extremely solid for a horse archer unit. Granted, they're not "fast", and that bugs the hell out of me, but they still mince infantry to man kebab in a jiffy. *Stressing point* Arbs are very nice support for an army with a strong HA unit like the MamlukHA. That's like your biggest advantage going into HIGH - combining weapon systems like that is a war winner.

[oz_wwjd]

Actually I would advise NOT usung Nubian spearmen,as they seem to distingrate quickly when the AI uses them against me. Saracen Inf on the other hand are a pain in the ass to deal with. Also I would advise using camels sparingly as the AI seems to like throwing them at my line of archers,backed up by heavy infantry,which leads to a massacre of camels.

[Vantek]

I also see no reason to use Nubians when you have Saracens. That's like using Feudal Sergeants when you have Chivalric Sergeants. They do have +2 morale, but that just doesn't outweigh being so vulnerable to even vanilla archers and generally just less durable. Lasting long is spearmen's job.

[caravel]

Granted, granted. I also typically bring 2 units of them to battle - one for each flank :D

I also once tried to hide a unit in the forest for an ambush against the Golden Horde lol. I don't remember the details but it went very bad - they were charged head-on by a full unit of MHC and lost half of their men + routed in a few seconds...

For Turks, Futuwwa + Saracen Infantry = win until you get Janissaries. However, for Egyptians, I did not even know Nizaris existed lol. Do they require some high tech buildings? I have played Eggy but I never remembered Nizaris...

What's the difference between Turcoman and vanilla HA? I as if remember HA were better about something (was it morale?)

No, I thought the thread was about the Turks, so not much of what I posted applies to the Egyptians.



Nizari are Egypt only unit that require the Grand Mosque and Bowyers Workshop. Valour bonus in Syria.

[Vantek]

Grand Mosque as a requirement is a bit of a killer...

[bondovic]

I really don't get the nubians. They're slightly better than vanilla spears, but not exactly comparable - better morale and attack with worse defence (due to their "small" shield). This basically means that their only task to be imagined is anti cavalry. They simply cannot stand against infantry. This fact makes them quite useless, as there's no reason to not bring Muwahids instead of Nubians if you're looking for a flank cover unit.

If, on the other hand, they would have had a "large" shield, they'd essentially been "disciplined" FSs. That would have made a lot of sense. The Eggs would then have had a little bit of tactical flexibility for desert fighting that their arch nemesis - the Turks - lack. Basically, that flexibility would be the only thing resembling an advantage for the Early era vs. the Turks. Much needed, indeed, but inexplicably overlooked.

As it stands, the Nubians are utterly redundant as either main body or flank cover due to the more streamlined Muwahids and SIs. Therefore I take it upon myself to edit their shield to "large", which just gives them a function as opposed to none whatsoever.

[jadast]

I use the Nubians for variety. The same with all the other types of troops available. I get bored using stacks of the same troops. I have found that I gather troops in a province until I need them. Then I send them forth regardless of unit makeup. Sometimes this does cost me but I do enjoy the look of the battle field when I have two units of camel warriors on my left flank and 2 units of Armenian heavy on my right flank backed up by 2 units of Saharan cavalry as a reserve. The cav protecting a mixed line of 3 Saracens, 1 Nubian spearmen, and 1 Muwahids. These supported by both 1 Abyssinian Guards and 2 Ghazis. 1 desert archer and 1 general unit.

I do not like to bring archers on the attack. I have found that desert archers can work around the battle line and send arrows into the back of my enemies general.

This approach has worked for me so far although the numbers of each unit may vary from battle to battle.

[Knight of the Rose]

I feel I kind of need to throw in a little defence of the Nubians here

I really don't get the nubians. They're slightly better than vanilla spears, but not exactly comparable - better morale and attack with worse defence (due to their "small" shield). This basically means that their only task to be imagined is anti cavalry. They simply cannot stand against infantry. This fact makes them quite useless, as there's no reason to not bring Muwahids instead of Nubians if you're looking for a flank cover unit.

Nubians are meant for the desert, and you use them in the desert. In the desert you can't have armor. Thats why they beat Saracens in that setting. Why use them instead of Muwahids. Well, they're a higher unit size (100 vs. 60 on normal settings). The key concept of the spearman is to resist and hold units for others to destroy. High morale simply keeps the unit holding longer. And when your urban millitia routs they'll hang on for your camel warriors flanking maneuvre. SI just runs along when that happens.
And better attack helps against armored cav. that is tired out, and Nubians can destroy these on their own.

As it stands, the Nubians are utterly redundant as either main body or flank cover due to the more streamlined Muwahids and SIs. Therefore I take it upon myself to edit their shield to "large", which just gives them a function as opposed to none whatsoever.

I completely agree a large shield enhances the Nubians fighting ability. But in my view these brave desert warriors do have a limited role in the desert. Not to be relied on comepletely, but nice as anvil for the camel hammer.



/KotR

[bondovic]

I've said before that Nubians are for desert offense. But that was when I believed they had a large shield. Maybe we have different styles of combat, but, for me, they're just too vulnerable to do main body. Granted, the Turks don't have any proper heavy infantry, but even UM can cause problems for Nubians. Regarding fatigue, I'd say SI can do the job on defense. They have sufficient defence even with low stamina - especially since the stronger cavalry are armored and the Turks lack heavy infantry.

As flank cover I simply don't see a place for them. Again, maybe it's styles, but for flank cover I want anti-cavalry infantrymen and medium cavs. I have no intention whatsoever to intercept inf. with inf. As such, the Nubians could do the trick (I realize that they're not useless in an absolute sense) but Muwahids simply do it better.

Perhaps I should go back on the 'no use'. Perhaps they still provide some benefits in desert attack. They won't be tired, at least, when they reach the enemy line.

[caravel]

Nubians are better in the desert - no doubt due to lack of armour, but Saracens are better holding troops and better all round. The important thing to remember is that, though armoured troops will tire in the desert anyway, spear units should not really be doing much running about.

Don't put too much stock in the large shield - it helps to make up for the lack of armour but is no substitute. The large shield gives a +2 attack bonus to units attacking the large shield bearer from the rear. The shield modifier is also a big factor.

You may find the famous numerology thread at the .com good reading: http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic...gy.html?page=1