Tactics Style

[Kommodus]

Still, I have an unexplained preference for Sword and axeman as shock troops, so where someone would bring Halberds, I would bring a mix of Halberds, sword/axemen and perhaps a few spear-bearing infantry or pikemen.

I understand completely. There are some great axe units out there; I'm always extremely fond of VG when I play as the Byzantines. I don't own VI, but from what I've heard, there are some wonderful axe units there too, including huscarls and even more powerful variations. Some units of swordsmen really do make excellent shock weapons. Every unit has its merits, and just about every unit shines in its own moment. Thus, a balanced army such as the one you describe would be very effective.

I also like to attack, but I admit my attacks are usually a bit more slow and methodical. Of course, there's those moments when the enemy reveals a weakness that must be exploited quickly, but since that usually means he's left some missile troops or artillery exposed, I'll usually make those quick attacks with cavalry.

I used to use a lot of spearmen and swordsmen. At the moment, spear/pike units are out of favor. They fall awfully quickly when flanked, and casualties start to mount pretty rapidly when they lose formation, which can happen even in a head-on engagement. Even though they move faster than halberdiers, their dependence on maintaining formation means that they actually turn more slowly, and thus seem more cumbersome and unwieldy. In my last campaign, I tried pikemen out for the first time, and found them uncomfortably vulnerable to missile weapons - even Swiss armoured pikemen. They can stop cavalry more effectively than anything, but they kill so slowly that they are sure to take casualties in the melee, even if their formation holds. Therefore, at this point I wouldn't use spearmen for much besides holding a narrow choke point. Of course, some factions rely on spearmen for their infantry core (such as the Turks, Gazis notwithstanding), and this changes things. Besides, some spear units, such as Saracen and Italian infantry, are really not that bad, and will perform well on most battlefields, despite the inherent weaknesses of spear units that I've mentioned.

As for swordsmen, I do like to have some of them around; as I said, they are good shock weapons and are very useful at times. I just have memories of sending large numbers of FMAA into large infantry clashes against infantry I considered inferior, and though my FMAA were usually victorious, they'd lose a whole lot of men before winning through. They showed great morale by sticking it out through mounting losses, but I'm just not comfortable losing half my men just to win a victory. I look for decisive wins. I've also had big groups of Byzantine infantry cut up by just a few elite heavy cavalry, or torn to shreds by enemy halberdiers.

But in the end, every unit has its purpose, and a balanced army will be very effective. We all have valid reasons for picking our favorite unit.

[derF]

I have the upmost respect for the Varangian Guard. They are elite and very effective against all troop types, even cavilry.

[Mithrandir]

Until they meet militia Sergs Bwhaha

[Kommodus]

I have the upmost respect for the Varangian Guard. They are elite and very effective against all troop types, even cavilry.

Yes, I did a few tests last night involving VG, and was surprised by some of the units they were able to beat. They handily defeated both Spanish lancers and JHI. I wanted to test them against Gothic knights but couldn't, since VG are not available to the Byzantines in the high period. As the Byzantines, I always use VG as my primary anti-cavalry unit, and they always do very well.

[Ayachuco]

Yes, I did a few tests last night involving VG, and was surprised by some of the units they were able to beat. They handily defeated both Spanish lancers and JHI. I wanted to test them against Gothic knights but couldn't, since VG are not available to the Byzantines in the high period. As the Byzantines, I always use VG as my primary anti-cavalry unit, and they always do very well.

I think you will like my tactic, although it is a little time consuming. the name??? Neo-Byzantine
The real strength in this tactic is your main core. I only use this tactic when I have very balanced and big army. What I do is the set my main core in this formation from front to back Naphta, TA, VGs and BInf., then the katanks. I would move main core about 40 yds. away from the enemy. Then I use my ByzClrv, and PAllagion to attack my enemy. After 45 seconds of fighting i withdraw them and while i am withdrawing i send my main core to the enemy and let loose my naptha and TAs. After the napthas are out I call for a full infantry charge as a buffer for my katanks. Remember the PAs and ByzClrv, I use to attack the flanks. With the enemy in the crucible, its only a matter of time before they collapse and rout. I like to use against the Turks, give them a taste of their own medicine.

If a man has not discovered something he will die for, then he is not fit to live.

[macsen rufus]

Rock, paper, scissors - I guess everyone has their own style! And some people would no doubt flunk with someone else's army.

Someone asked what's the point of Abyssinian Guards - when I played Egypt, I rarely had Ghazis, but went for the Abs instead. Can't remember now whether they're elite or disciplined, but it is handy status. Because they don't vaporize on contact with the enemy like Ghazis do, I found I could do a lot more damage with them. Especially good at clearing the cowering foil-wrapped infidel from out of the trees, that's for sure.

I'm now doing Late Turks just to play with Janisseries. So far have my JHI flying out of Constantinople, and my Master Archer is ready next year. My current balance is 3 Saras, 1 JHI, 2 Otto, 2 Turk foot, 2 Turk horse, 2 Armenian heavies, 1 Turk Sipahi, 1 SoP (pref general), and the last 2 usually extra armour piercing, Slav Javs, extra Ottos, etc, depending on the balance of the enemy. Turkoman Horse are great for the desert.

For a bit of fun, I'm thinking about trying a solely 'spear'-based army, though may have to call JHI "spears" to make it work, lol. And I have no Jinetes yet.... Gotta get my emissaries to Spain with a big wad.

But what I hope to try is a 4 x Sara wall with 1 JHI either flank, backed up by 4 Slav Javs, 2 Jinetes, 2 Armenian heavies, 2 light steppe. Apart from the JHI, all spears, and 470 men on small units. Or maybe one of the Javs could be replaced by Muwahids....

Tactics have to vary with terrain, weather, enemy forces etc. There is a simple word for generals who always use the exact same (or predictable) tactics: vanquished!

Since getting addicted to this game, I've starting reading history again, and I'm amazed just how many crap generals there were then! It was more often that a battle was spectacularly lost than actually won by the other side. And mostly impetuousness, poor morale, or pride was at fault.

[Ash]

Since getting addicted to this game, I've starting reading history again, and I'm amazed just how many crap generals there were then! It was more often that a battle was spectacularly lost than actually won by the other side. And mostly impetuousness, poor morale, or pride was at fault.

Don't forget, generals didn't have the advantage you have as a game. You look from above your troops. You can rotate the camera. Your orders are followed out almost immediately. And you can pause the game to issue some more orders.

Generals in those days didn't have that kind of luxery, and often once the battle commenced it was pure chaos. Communication remained (and remains ) a problem on the battlefield.

Plus, the nobility were general the most well-trained forces on the battlefield, and they were battlewinning. However, they weren't exactly the types to listen to orders from their generals. Nobility comes with ego. This is reflected quite nicely with the impetious stat.

At Agincourt French knights got turned into pincushions after they decided they could charge up a hill straight through their own troops. Well brave they were, but no one is accusing them for being smart...:)

[Ludens]

Someone asked what's the point of Abyssinian Guards - when I played Egypt, I rarely had Ghazis, but went for the Abs instead. Can't remember now whether they're elite or disciplined, but it is handy status. Because they don't vaporize on contact with the enemy like Ghazis do, I found I could do a lot more damage with them. Especially good at clearing the cowering foil-wrapped infidel from out of the trees, that's for sure.

That's odd, because my Ghazis kept going even while they were getting slaughtered (and this wasn't with a seven-star general either). Abyssianian Guards have one huge drawback: they are bloody expensive. Their upkeep is way too high for unit that is basically a buffed-up Ghazi. And despite their better defence, they still get killed very quickly. I treat both Ghazis and Guards as fire-and-forget missiles, and for that purpose the Ghazis are better suited because they are faster, have a better morale and, most importantly, don't have a ridiculously high upkeep. If you try to be tactical, the more sturdy and more disciplined Abyssinian guards might help, but for enveloping and flanking cavalry works better.

BTW Ghazis actually have a higher morale than Abyssinian guards. The guards are elite, but that only helps when your troops start routing.

[macsen rufus]

Re Abs: The upkeep cost didn't really figure, I had trade cranked up so high it was impossible to spend everything even with every province building and training permanently. I also use them differently to Ghazis, in that they tend to protect my line rather than go charging into the enemy. I don't really like suicide troops, they're my people, digital or not, and it's such a waste

Maybe because I don't see them as buffed up ghazis is why I like em more?

Re crap generals: yeah, the game does give us certain advantages, and so does a few thousand years recorded history.... we know stuff some greats had to discover for themselves. I was thinking particularly abt one of the Scottish Kings (maybe David) who invaded England and decided his best tactic was to charge his highlanders straight uphill into English bows and knights, doh! If he'd had VI to practice with history may well be different.