Tactics Style

[_Aetius_]

My egyptian armies are cavalry heavy lots of mamluk HA units, ghulam cavalry mamluk cavalry etc, for infantry i tend to have saracens, muwahids and abyssinians i also tend to have significant numbers of italian and english mercenaries in my ranks to make up for some of egypts shortcomings and ive had alot of success this way.

Ive had little respect for horse archers especially light ones, but in my recent turkish campaign ive found that turcomans are spectacular HA's. No fewer than 4 victories against crusader armies are thanks to the turcomans, i stripped dozens of troops from the best of the crusader armies, not to mention the small units that all crusades have were swept up in melee charges and really the templar knights once the bane of my existance are now reduced by showers of arrows.

Ive now mastered horse archery and rarely lose more than a few HA's in a battle and once their finished i find swift charges from ghazis break up whatever infantry is left in the army and my hordes of cavalry can chase them down.

There was a close call once though when a german crusade and a spanish one arrived in Rum and would possibly have defeated me even after my HA's had caused there damage, but foolishing the german and spanish crusades fought each other and my army merely destroyed what survived.

[macsen rufus]

I make a lot of use of Turk Horse - v2s from tripoli/master, re-equipped with upgraded weapons, but no armour. Usually 6 out of my sixteen units, possibly with some steppe heavies thrown in too, if there are no SoP handy (I took Russia first for a change ...)

They are good for wearing the knights out before melee, and with the upgraded weapons they are still useful and dangerous light cav for taking out foot missiles and routers. They are even useful in sieges dismounted. The problem is I like so much I can't stop training them, they're everywhere now

[Manstein]

When I attack, I just send skimishers and archers to draw them out first, then attack head on with heavy infantry with ranged support. Then, I attack the flanks of the enemy with calvalry, and, when they break off, I halt my infantry and archers and send "fast" units to kill the routers.

When you attack the rear of an enemy, it's very likely that they'll rout and get killed from the behind. That's enough to draw them into a circle and destroy them.

If there are reinforcements that I know of, then, I'll just regroup and not follow the enemy so that I can await the next attack.

I mostly rely on infantry, archers, and heavy calvalry. That's where the Byzantines come in.

[Oleander Ardens]

Ha it has been some time since the last post here in the Main Hall, a shame for the great game MTW still is;

Here is a great discussion about the use of missile units in MTW in general, with creative use of the underused.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...6&page=3&pp=30

By the way: Szekely all the way


OA

[fuddha]

Oh my God! How can you people talk about "my armies are comprised of this and that and I usem in this and that way"?? There is no proper way to create an army! There is no proper formation or proper usage! Hell, I'll charge to a frontal melee uphill with horse archers against billmen if I can benefit from it!

Got carried away a bit, sorry 'bout that... :)

What I mean to say is that 90% of victory is in terrain, enemies army and the way he uses it. Only 10% is in abilities of your units. Adaptation to the current situation on the battlefield is what brings victory not Katatanks or Szekely or Longbowmen...
Read Sun Tzu! He derailed my thoughts from "ow these Swiss Pikemen are sooo nice..."

[macsen rufus]

And didn't Sun Tzu spend a lot of time discussing the construction of a balanced army to achieve tactical flexibility, the proper equipping of troops, and the benefits of morale and discipline? Did he not rave about his halberdiers?? (Okay, not Swiss ones, but he did )

[fuddha]

Well "Ping Fa" (Art of War) is, as I see it, all about Tao (the Way). And following Tao is to conquer without a fight, being honorable to your enemy, being fair to your troops. It doesn't say anything about "spear beats cavalry", because he is all about deception. Sun Tzu tells us to keep our units in state of orderly disorder so that the enemy cannot see the obvious (hmm, why does he have fast cavalry far out on his flanks I wonder... - that kind of obvious). Most of the book is about lay of the land, morale of troops and winning without combat in the first place. And the BIG point of that book is to being able to use your main force as a manouvering force and vice versa.

But hey, it's just me... The book was written about 2000 years ago, what do I know what he actually said? Reading Sun Tzu is just like reading Aristotel for example. It's language is archaic and poetic and it doesn't reaveal some long lost recipe for instant victory or instant understanding to the meaning of life.