Results 1 to 30 of 65

Thread: Tactics Style

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Second-hand chariot salesman Senior Member macsen rufus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Ratae Corieltauvorum
    Posts
    2,481

    Default Re: Tactics Style

    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.
    ANCIENT: TW

    A mod for Medieval:TW (with VI)

    Discussion forum thread

    Download A Game of Thrones Mod v1.4

  2. #2
    Stadtholder Member Ash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    126

    Lightbulb Re: Tactics Style

    Quote Originally Posted by macsen rufus
    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...:)

  3. #3
    Arrogant Ashigaru Moderator Ludens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    9,063
    Blog Entries
    1

    Question Re: Tactics Style

    Quote Originally Posted by macsen rufus
    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.
    Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!

  4. #4
    Second-hand chariot salesman Senior Member macsen rufus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Ratae Corieltauvorum
    Posts
    2,481

    Default Re: Tactics Style

    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.
    ANCIENT: TW

    A mod for Medieval:TW (with VI)

    Discussion forum thread

    Download A Game of Thrones Mod v1.4

  5. #5
    Arrogant Ashigaru Moderator Ludens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    9,063
    Blog Entries
    1

    Thumbs down Re: Tactics Style

    Quote Originally Posted by 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?
    Exactly how do you use them? As pinning troops or as flankers? Because I don't see how they could function as pinning troops with their low defence stat and for flanking a unit of Ghazi will suffice as well. Or do you upgrade them?

    Ghazis are good at dead-or-glory charges and at flanking, but not at pinning. As far as I can see, Abyssinian Guards can do dead-or-glory charges (but it is rather a waste of money) and can flank. However, they will kill slower than Ghazis, and killing power is the main requisite for flankers (for me at least).

    Since Ghazis are religious fanatics, I have no compuction of sending them to their deaths. If someone is willing to die and their sacrifice will safe the lives of other people, then I think it worth the price. Sometimes, you have to be cruel in order to be kind.
    Last edited by Ludens; 01-06-2005 at 13:16.
    Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!

  6. #6
    Mafia Hunter Member Kommodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    In a top-secret lab planning world domination
    Posts
    1,286

    Default Re: Tactics Style

    Ludens: I think that what macsen rufus is saying is that he uses Abyssinian Guards similar to the way most of us use swordsmen - as front-line melee troops, whose purpose is to stand and engage in a head-on battle and kill effectively without running away or being destroyed too quickly.

    How would they perform at this task? I'm really not sure, since I've never tried them. Their stats indicate a high attack and high morale, coupled with poor defense and armor. Thus, I'm sure they die quicker than you'd probably want. However, in my experience, sometimes a strength in one area can make up for a weakness in another. For example, halberdiers have such a low attack rating that you wouldn't expect them to do much damage. However, their armor and defense are so high that they will have plenty of time to rack up kills while their opponent tries unsuccessfully to penetrate their armor. It could be that in many situations, Abyssinian Guards will slaughter and rout their opponents so quickly that the Guards don't lose many men. Of course, this is all hypothetical, and it is certain that armor, weapon, and valour upgrades would significantly add to the Guards' survival ability.

    So how would Guards differ from Ghazis in their usage and usefulness? Well, while Guards have a low defense rating, Ghazis have a MUCH lower defense rating, so even with plenty of upgrades, they will die very quickly in a head-on fight. They are also faster on their feet, which makes them a better flanker. As for holding a portion of a battle line, Guards will clearly be far better - both because of their better defense and because they are not the impetuous loose cannons that Ghazis are. Ghazis should be kept on the wings of an army, where they will be in a better position to flank, and be less tempted to go charging off on their own. Guards can stand and fight anywhere in a battle line, although as I've said, their low defense means they will not be the best for this task. Clearly, neither unit would be effective at pinning an enemy.

    In the end, Guards are probably only worth having if you've got plenty of money. If you do, however, they would make a good addition to an army, since they can do things that Ghazis can't. If I were building a large, powerful Egyptian army, I would rather have a few Abyssinians in my "A" lineup to augment the Saracens, archers, and cavalry than only Ghazis. They would be better at surviving the initial battle and still being around when enemy reinforcements start marching onto the field.
    If you define cowardice as running away at the first sign of danger, screaming and tripping and begging for mercy, then yes, Mr. Brave man, I guess I'm a coward. -Jack Handey

  7. #7
    green thingy Member the tokai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    over here you silly
    Posts
    246

    Default Re: Tactics Style

    The problem with using abyssinians as front line troops is that front line troops are often the victim of cavalry charges and abyssians completely suck at receiving cavalry charges. Troops like abyssinian guards and ghazi's are most usefull as flankers and should be used as such. there are much better units for holding the line and you should be able to build those by the time you can build abyssinians.

    As for my own tactics, i like battles in wich the melee lasts very short, or better yet, where the battle is solved without a melee. horse archers are great for such a tactic so they are my favourite kind of unit. Foot archers are also nice because they can also defeat units without getting into contact with them, but unlike the horse archers they need some support to survive.

    Altough they can be effective, i'm not a big fan of the catholic heavy slugging army's. They work but they lack subtlety. A good general doesn't need heavy troops to win his battles.
    Wheel down, wheel down to southward! Oh, Gooverooska, go!
    And tell the Deep-Sea Viceroys the story of our woe;
    Ere, empty as the shark's egg the tempest flings ashore,
    The Beaches of Lukannon shall know their sons no more!

    Rudyard Kipling, Lukannon

  8. #8
    Second-hand chariot salesman Senior Member macsen rufus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Ratae Corieltauvorum
    Posts
    2,481

    Default Re: Tactics Style

    Nice analysis, Kommodus, similar thinking to my own. I found the big drawback to Egyptians is the lack of swords (except when you get to proper handgunners). I mostly used the abs as flankers, cover for missile troops, or occasionally poised behind/between Saras to open the latest delivery of Canned Crusader stuck on the end of their spears.... I also love them for taking apart pinned cavalry, but in nearly all uses they have to be the hammer of a hammer and anvil tactic.

    And as I pointed out before, they also excell in woods for some reason, and can operate alone there. Personally, I find the -1 attack a good bargain for the +3 defence.

    Now with the Turks, I use ghazis occasionally, but I see them more as weak Otto's who've forgotten their bows, really ;)
    ANCIENT: TW

    A mod for Medieval:TW (with VI)

    Discussion forum thread

    Download A Game of Thrones Mod v1.4

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO