small vs big army mp

[Acronym]

I've been playing MTW since it came out, but just recently i've been practicing with smaller, more elite, armies online. For example, someone will pick 16 units in a 15k-20k game(or 12k), and i'll go with 9-12.

Now this seems quite effective with some factions. If I'm Germany, I can get 4 beefed up militia sergants, , 2 order foots, 2 gothic sergants, 3 pavis, and 1 mounted sergant. Trying high valor, with weapon and armor upgrades on the militia sargents, they ripped apart the enemy, and all my other units were tough enough to hold even when flanked. In some cases my milita sergants routed a unit within 10 seconds.

Has anyone else had good results with smaller armies? I think it is more challenging, cauz u really gotta watch your flanks, but if used with good tactics they can prove deadly.

[Ryttare]

U can always as someone called smoke how succesfull his 3 Boosted MAA were against my army...poor bastards =)

[Puzz3D]

Since routing an ememy unit can cause a chain rout effect, fielding stronger units is certainly an attractive idea. You do have to close for hth combat to resolve battles in MTW sooner or later. Essentially, when buying the army players are trying to maximize the hth combat power/cost ratio while not neglecting ranged units to cover the vulnerability of the infanry to ranged fire, and cav to cover the flanks and protect the ranged units which are usually way out in front of the infantry. Also, having fewer units eases the management tasks involved in moving the units around. However, quite a few things are working against the smaller army:

1) There is a diminishing return on upgrades on non-ranged units because the cost of an upgrade is more expensive than the improvement it confers on the unit. A valor upgrade cost 70%, but only confers a 44% increase in combat power and a 2 point increase in morale. A weapon upgrade costs 33%, but only confers a 20% improvement in combat power. An armor upgrade is a better value at 35%, but the 20% defensive power increase it gives doesn't help a unit kill faster. For example, if I cut a v3 ChivMAA from my army, I save 1229 florins which can be used to buy a weapon upgrade for 3 of my v4 MilSgts. The problem is I gave up 14 combat points when I cut the ChivMAA, and I only got back 3 combat points with the 3 weapon upgrades.

2) Morale penalties to the smaller army from being outnumbered, and possibly having it's end units flanked during the hth fighting. The cost savings of taking 3 or 4 less units is probably only buying weapon upgrades which doesn't boost morale. The basic morale level of the smaller army is probably no better than that of the larger army.

3) Tactical inflexibility. The smaller army is comitted to a frontal assault as it's only means to win. Certainly you cannot afford to assault in the face of strong enemy ranged fire since you have fewer but more valuable men. Trees or very bad weather would help in making such an assault since it reduces ranged unit effectiveness. If you bring ranged units to engage and nullify enemy ranged units, you'll need cav to protect your skirmishers. Do you chop a couple of infantry units to add cav, just to stay within 12 units total? If you don't, then you start approaching a full size balanced army. Also, artillery could be really damaging to an army composed of almost all high value units.

4) Flanking advantage to the larger army. Well this is the crux of the issue assuming you have successfully closed to hth combat. Can the smaller army's line rout the enemy front line before it gets flanked? I think the answer is yes against relatively inexperienced players, but no against veteran players. The reason is that many veteran players take strong infantry and don't spend a lot of money upgrading their cav. This means their line will probably hold long enough for the cav to flank and charge into the back of your line. A rear charge by cav is really devastating since it gets something like a +7 charge bonus and there is a morale penalty involed as well. Maybe a couple of well placed spear units can fend off the cav long enough for the front line to rout the enemy. In fact, Byzantine players utilize this strategy without taking less than 16 units and giving up the flank since they already have the strongest infantry unit.

In any case, whether you achieve it by flanking or getting an advantageous head-to-head matchup, in the MP game as it's currently played in the 12k to 15k range it's important to get that first enemy unit to rout.

[Knight_Yellow]

well i use 16 units all the time but there always cheap units like militia seargents holibars and gallowgllases so i can usualy get all of my men at val 4 in a 15 k game.

[Acronym]

Puzz3d

I agree with you, except I am not restricted to frontal assaults. There are several ways of tricking an opponent(like a diversion). Maybe I should save some replays

[Orda Khan]

I would say you were more likely to be successful with a reduced army here at MTW than at MI. I tried it a couple of times at MI
Not much else to say...

.......Orda

[Alrowan]

well ive got a nice replay pre patch where i beat nash.. i had 9 units vs his 16... was interesting to watch again...

[Puzz3D]

Acronym,

Yes agreed. You could try someting other that a frontal assault, and, since weapon and armor upgrades are invisible to the enemy there is an advantage of surprise there. Such as, winning a little skirmish that you would otherwise loose. You would be able to spread units out more since they are better able to hold their own. Trees could be used to conceal the actual size of your army. However, if you routinely adopt this smaller army strategy, the element of surprise won't be there against opponents you play repeatedly. If you can avoid, over the long term, being forced to adopt a relatively compact deployment then you would have more tactical options. Certainly, if you could win 3 or 4 small skirmishes, then the balance of power would shift to the smaller army.

[shingenmitch2]

In almost no case is it better to sacrifice numbers for upgrades. The flank, rear attack bonuses plus morale hits for unit proximity more than make up for any bonuses a unit may get through upgrades.

If you short your army by 1 or 2 units to gain higher upgrades on the others, it might be okay. Anything more than that will never compensate for your army being flanked/penetrated by free roaming enemy units that you cannot counter cause all ur units are engaged.

If you have had success online shorting your army by 3,4,5 or more units you're beating newbies.

BTW: you might not be restricted to frontal assaults, but any opponent worth his salt is only going to give you his front--unless he's baiting a trap.

[Acronym]

shingenmitch2

You're pretty much right, for 1on1 that is. But if you can prevent the flanking the game will look positive for the smaller army. If you can even send a shock unit or 2 in before the battle get's off(granted his missles don't wear you down) then the advantage is in the smaller army. Generally people will try and support their infantry if it's losing, so by attacking before the initial battle of armies, you might force him to reduce his flanking units. If he doesn't, then you have the possibility of punching a hole in his line. And you can always pivot/rufuse a flank and out maneuver, which is easier with less units.

But I found games with 2v2 and more the smaller army mostly wins. So if my ally and I are defending, I'll combine with him and wait for the opponent to get close. My ally usually has enough missle support, along with my extra units of val 1 merc cav. The high honor and weapon upgrades on the infantry is just enough to make up for less numbers, and in most cases it's an advantage causing routes very quickly. For example, use a small army with 2 units of val 3 weapon 3 naptha's as support, the enemies numbers will soon drop below yours.

[cugel]

I tried this in MI once. Once Thought I would buy a couple of upgraded Kensai, just to see what happened. What happened was that my army was running for the hills before I knew what hit me

"My Lord How can you expect your men to die for you when you turn your back to the enemy"

Remember that one?