Golden Horde!

[drone]

Well, that depends on your faction. As the Danes, I usually save up on Huscarles just for the Horde, Vikings are OK, but you will lose a lot of them. The English should be using Billmen, full stop. The Germans can build up Swabians in Early, they work well. Other Catholic factions can use CFK, slow and expensive but very hard-hitting, CMAA, or (gulp) MS. Gallowglasses and Swiss Halbies are situational, both will perform well but require some strategic forethought.

Vanilla Halberdiers will work, but not "on the flanks". Sometimes I will put them in the middle, just back off the front line in a gap between spear units, and send them through after the enemy cav hits the spears. This way they are not taking charges, are surrounded by friendly units, and are near the general. But they are too expensive and vulnerable to be used as the front liners, and too slow and vulnerable to be used as true flankers.

[HopAlongBunny]

A cpl additions to what has already been said.

I used to believe that FS were it. +2morale over CS=no choice...right?
Ok. They can tolerate more casualties before becoming useless, but they will almost always accumulate casualties faster than CS. By the time you are even thinking about the horde, all units are being produced from a place with a reliquary anyhow; CS should stand firm.

Flankers cause casualties; striking into the flank or rear. They also attract attention.
The AI likes to play overlap: you charge a flank=>free enemy units charges your flank; flankers with higher morale will stand for this...at least until the cavalry arrives. That said...I usually use MS as flankers when playing as a christian faction :p

Halbs work nicely (for me) as filler. Just behind the spears to plug up the line if needed.

Final note

If you go after the Horde instead of waiting for them to dissipate their numbers; often unavoidable as Turks or BYZ; you will probably get at least one battle that will last "forever!" I usually patiently fight these out wave after endless wave; I have been known to set the spears on "hold", arbs to "fire at will" and go eat, or read, or anything to fill the time. Sometimes it works :)

[Vantek]

This thing is getting very confusing so I'll try to make a summary of what is going on. I have been asking what I assumed to be very sharp questions, but instead they have only misled people to write long explanations... Sorry :P

I think it all started when I suggested that Halberdiers are pretty much the perfect backbone unit against (Golden Horde) cavalry-heavy armies and make spearmen redundant. This incited the following responses.

A) Halberdiers have moral issues. I then proceeded to inquiry as to which unit people have in mind that doesn't. What I meant here is simply that the *only* other *standard* option would be Chivalric Sergeants/Saracen Infantry/Armoured Spearmen, who have the exact same morale. Suggesting CFK, JHI, the Swiss or other of this kind wouldn't make sense as they are infinitely harder to build and cannot typically be massed for a backbone. Nevertheless, in the end some truth was revealed in that Halberdiers get exhausted more quickly and have fewer numbers than Chivalric Sergeants (or equivalents). This is a valid point. I have personally never had moral issues with Halberdiers, but if you say there are situations where Chivalric Sergeants are superior because they do not get exhausted as quickly, and have higher numbers, I have no problem accepting that.

B) Spearmen have better staying power to hold the line. My response was, why waste time on holding the line when you can just crush the enemy directly, suffering more losses but also causing more casualties. In the end you need to kill the enemy and holding the line alone does not achieve that. The only thing that I could imagine that would fit the need for staying power was Arbalesters. This led to another good point being made - playstyle. I will admit I am not very experienced with Arbalesters, and in that case it might be best to rely on crushing the cavalry directly with Halberdiers, whereas someone more proficient with missiles might have better success holding the line with longer-lasting Chivalric Sergeants and doing the killing with Arbalesters instead. However, I remain sceptic as to wether holding the line could here be very synergistic with a flanking maneuver. After all a flanking maneuver ends up being still essentially a melee battle. Halberdiers have surely enough staying power to wait for the maneuver, and the purpose of the maneuver is to kill enemy in melee anyway, so why not start with the killing earlier by using Halberdiers in the first place.

C) There have been a lot of suggestions to use very complicated or specific tactics, for which Halberdiers are not suitable. I would like everyone to understand that this was never what I wanted to talk about. What I had in mind was the very crude basic effective tactics that could always be resorted to in most situations and serve as a foundation to any advanced tactics. Using a 8 Halberdiers/CS 8 Arbalesters hexagon is a crude tactic which I had in mind. Hiding someone in the woods, flanking with a faction-specific monster unit, massing CFK, these are not the crude basic idea that I had in mind.

I'm not sure what you mean by "staying power".

There are two measures to a unit's performance. One - how fast it kills. Two - how long it lasts. At least against cavalry, Halberdiers emphasise one at the cost of two. Chivalric Sergeants, on the other hand, emphasise two at the cost of one. The discussion was about when to prefer killing power and when to prefer staying power. I say holding the line is only useful if there is something behind the line that cannot come in contact with enemy soldiers and needs to stay that way for a long time, namely Arbalesters. I say if you are not heavy on Arbalesters, then holding the line becomes meaningless, as you ultimately need to kill the enemy in melee, so better start with it sooner rather than later.

Well... Once again, which unit do you have in mind that doesn't?

Any unit that has a decent morale and balanced stats. A unit that doesn't tire or die too easily.

My point here was that only comparable alternative to Halberdiers is Chivalric Sergeants/Saracen Infantry/Armoured Spearmen. So instead of saying "Halberdiers have flaw x", people should be saying "Chivalric Sergeants/Saracen Infantry/Armoured Spearmen are better because y".

So to quickly summarise what has been going on in the past few pages in this thread:
1) I claimed that when facing a cavalry-heavy army, Halberdiers are the way to go and Chivalric Sergeants/Saracen Infantry/Armoured Spearmen are redundant compared to Halberdiers
2) I was proven wrong as CS/SI/AS were shown to have more staying power vs cavalry, due to slower exhaustion, better defense vs. cavalry, and higher numbers
3) I still insist that this staying power can only be used meaningfully to protect Arbalesters, and if you are not heavy on Arbalesters, then Halberdiers are better.

[HopAlongBunny]

So to quickly summarise what has been going on in the past few pages in this thread:
1) I claimed that when facing a cavalry-heavy army, Halberdiers are the way to go and Chivalric Sergeants/Saracen Infantry/Armoured Spearmen are redundant compared to Halberdiers
2) I was proven wrong as CS/SI/AS were shown to have more staying power vs cavalry, due to slower exhaustion, better defense vs. cavalry, and higher numbers
3) I still insist that this staying power can only be used meaningfully to protect Arbalesters, and if you are not heavy on Arbalesters, then Halberdiers are better.

Okies.

Provided the Horde engages you (defending) and does not sit back and pepper you with arrows, a Halb set up might work; I have never tried that since it doesn't fit my style. Backed up with cav, it might work as long as you have a means to make the MHA rout/retreat. You could use cav to herd the Skirmishing MHA and infantry into the Halbs.

Much the same on attack; but difficult to do w/o exhausting your forces.

So they kill faster...do they kill fast enough to cause a rout before they break? Will they exit the battlefield fast enough to have fresh ones for the next wave?

ps: wb Glenn!

[bondovic]

3) I still insist that this staying power can only be used meaningfully to protect Arbalesters, and if you are not heavy on Arbalesters, then Halberdiers are better.

Even so, I think one has to define "better". I do believe you may be right in that an open defensive battle, where the horde comes to your campsite, may favor a strictly halb approach. However, this, I believe, is only in terms of speed, not in kill/death -ratio efficiency. An approach with only melee units should still involve spears, IMO, and the standard tactics of pinning/flanking in order to maximize the kill/death ratio in ones favor.

It depends, thus, on wether you look for sheer killing speed on the one hand, or cost effectiveness on the other, what 'better' means. Even so, I'd say a strictly halb affair is very dangerous, due to their morale. They will lose numbers when recieving charges, spears won't. A unit with low numbers that is battling it out for some time (losing stamina) will begin wavering.

I realize that halbs with armor upgrades and morale boosts will do the job, and probably stay. Still, that doesn't make it the cost effective approach.

[bondovic]

And, BTW. Even if you have control of your own setup of troops, I've never seen a meaningful GH battle without droves of mounted archers. Only halbs against that? Forget that they have lots of armor, it's the morale penalty that counts here and that applies even with a single casualty IIRC. Eating charges when under morale penalty from arrow fire is not good. And how about a drawn out battle?

Bottom line:

You need missile units against the horde. And if you sport missile units you're gonna need spears to cover them. Otherwise you have to fight in the woods, but this discussion is not about that, since no horde army can ever win a woody.

[Vantek]

No, I do not mean JUST Halberdiers, I would bring some Arbalesters, but just enough to kill most of enemy archers (say 4 per army). When you use spearmen, Arbalesters will have to do almost ALL of the killing. If you use Halberdiers, they only need to kill missile units.

if you sport missile units you're gonna need spears to cover them.

If you don't bring very many of them, you don't need spears to cover them.

The thing with missile units is that for each missile unit you bring, there will be one less foot unit you bring. If you bring a lot of missile units, then you need to use the infantry with absolute most staying power (spearmen), since there won't be as many of infantry. If you bring just a few Arbalesters though, you have enough slots left for infantry to keep the Arbalesters safe even with less sturdy (but more lethal) units, like Halberdiers. If you use 8 Arbalesters and 8 infantry, I have no problem accepting that you need to use spearmen in order to keep the Arbalesters safe. If you use 4 Arbalesters 12 infantry though, Halberdiers will be able to keep them safe just fine.

An approach with only melee units should still involve spears, IMO, and the standard tactics of pinning/flanking in order to maximize the kill/death ratio in ones favor.

This could be true on offense. This could be true on defense on very flat terrain - I don't have a lot of experience there. Defending on even slightly hilly terrain (typical against the Golden Horde), I do not agree. Flankers would need to attack uphill and the ones recieving the charge hold the high ground, so it's better to just crush the enemy directly from the high ground without maneuvers.

[Jxrc]

No, I do not mean JUST Halberdiers, I would bring some Arbalesters, but just enough to kill most of enemy archers (say 4 per army). When you use spearmen, Arbalesters will have to do almost ALL of the killing. If you use Halberdiers, they only need to kill missile units..

Fair enough if you face just one stack of Mongols but if you face the GH when it shows up, you will end up facing an army made exclusively of MHA and MW since your halbs will kill MHC much faster than your arbs will deal with the missile units. Then your only option is probably to run for cover in whatever woods you can find. Chasing MHA and MW out of the map is tedious, and rather risky if you have enough cavalry, but it's just not possible with halbs

The thing with missile units is that for each missile unit you bring, there will be one less foot unit you bring. If you bring a lot of missile units, then you need to use the infantry with absolute most staying power (spearmen), since there won't be as many of infantry. If you bring just a few Arbalesters though, you have enough slots left for infantry to keep the Arbalesters safe even with less sturdy (but more lethal) units, like Halberdiers. If you use 8 Arbalesters and 8 infantry, I have no problem accepting that you need to use spearmen in order to keep the Arbalesters safe. If you use 4 Arbalesters 12 infantry though, Halberdiers will be able to keep them safe just fine.

They will be safe from the MHC but probably not from MHA and MW (unless you keep them in the woods to but then they become pretty useless themselves)

This could be true on offense. This could be true on defense on very flat terrain - I don't have a lot of experience there. Defending on even slightly hilly terrain (typical against the Golden Horde), I do not agree. Flankers would need to attack uphill and the ones recieving the charge hold the high ground, so it's better to just crush the enemy directly from the high ground without maneuvers.

Aprat from Georgia, I do not recall hilly terrain as being typical of fights against the Golden Horde. Khazar, Kiev, Crimea and all the Russian provinces seem pretty flat to me.

Facing an unweakened GH with infantry and a few missile units is quite doable but I do not see how it makes the battle shorter. After your infantry has dealt with the HMC, you do not have enough missile to keep the same killing rate for Mongol Missile units and you are sure to end up with a pretty un-balance Mongol army that you will have nothing to counter. If you can find some woods, you will prevail but most of the time the AI will not be dumb enough to attack with MHA and MW in the woods and will just pepper your troops with arrows for ages. You will not take a lot of casualties but you can be sure that the battle will only end once the time has run out. I encountered this once with an army of almost entirely made of vikings. Battle took place in Lithuania so there was quite enough forest. MHC attacked the vikings in the woods, got slaughtered and then I could do nothing but wait for the GH to run out of arrows and time. Must have been my most boring battle against the GH ever (and battles against the GH are always boring IMHO) especially since the next year the GH came back with an army made of the survivor of the previous battle .... thus MHA and MW only They kept coming back for four years in a row before givin up as a result of a civil war ... Even with the possibility to accelerate the clock, that makes three hours of boredom (after the few fun minutes during which the vikings made horsemeat out of the MHC).

Most efficient option I found is 7 arbs, 7 CS and 2 units of cavalry to chase routing MW. If I am waiting for the GH in Khazar or Kiev I off course keep reinforcement available, more or less 2/3 arbs, 1/3 CS since after a while all you really have to replace are the arbs that have run out of bolts. I sometimes change the line-up a bit for the fun of it or as a result of the circumstances but I have not found anything that would make battles with the appearing GH faster or more entertaining.

Just an opinion of course
Bye for now,

[Trapped in Samsara]

Hi

Can I join this party?

OK, I reckon I must have fought initial Horde Tsunamis at least twenty times in open field battles. I cannot recall losing any of those engagements - which could be selective memory, of course - but I can bring to mind some awesome battles (20,000 bloodthirsty Mongols screaming for my head! Well that's how I like to imagine it, anyway.) that warped away a whole day, transporting me to the Russian steppe/Caucusus/Black Sea coast in the process.

None of which makes me an expert, but here's my ha'penny worth.

I'm firmly in the spears + arbs/xbows camp. Fighting the Horde requires patience. I've normally found that leaving the laager is when I suffer stupid casualties. So I force myself to stick to the plan: sit behind the spearwall (SIs or FS do nicely) and have a plentiful supply of missile unit reinforcements - maybe in the sequence missile, spear, missile, cav.

It helps to be able to roll a cigarette when the urge to go after those badboys from the East strikes.

Mind you, having a couple of MS or even HA is useful to round up fleeing routers - just watch the captured counter rack up.

I'm not a big fan of fighting in forests: I tend to lose control of the action and sometimes find my front has been infiltrated by an enemy unit slipping through a gap I didn't notice.

I do find archers useful, 'cos they're quick, have a better rate of fire, and can sit behind the spears. I usually (and this is not just against the Horde) select 3 or 4 archers in my initial deployment and group them in a 2 x 2 block set back from the main battle line, fire at will off. Their job is to take out the enemy general when he foolishly comes within range. Bit of an exploit, I know, but the fate of the civilized world - not to mention Christendom/the Jama'ah - is at stake, so the gloves are off.

Regards
Victor

[Vantek]

Oh goodie, here we go again.

1) I claimed that when facing a cavalry-heavy army, Halberdiers are the way to go and Chivalric Sergeants/Saracen Infantry/Armoured Spearmen are redundant compared to Halberdiers
2) I was proven wrong as CS/SI/AS were shown to have more staying power vs cavalry, due to slower exhaustion, better defense vs. cavalry, and higher numbers
3) I still insist that this staying power can only be used meaningfully to protect Arbalesters, and if you are not heavy on Arbalesters, then Halberdiers are better.
4) People then thought I was claiming that being low on Arbalesters is optimal. I assure you I never meant to claim this. I merely meant to point out that when you use CS/SI/AS over Halberdiers, then it must be for the protection of Arbalesters and nothing else. People have somehow been very reluctant to let this simple fact see daylight, which confused the hell out of me and resulted in this long discussion getting drawn out even further. It might have been obvious to everyone else, but I honestly did not realise for the longest time that everyone had in mind that we are necessarily talking about Arbalester-heavy armies. It might well be that Arbalester-heavy armies are the most effective thing ever. I never argued *against* that, I just didn't realise that people even had this in mind.

Fair enough if you face just one stack of Mongols but if you face the GH when it shows up, you will end up facing an army made exclusively of MHA and MW since your halbs will kill MHC much faster than your arbs will deal with the missile units.

Good point. The thing is, I personally never take personal command of a battle where I would need to use more than two full stacks, hence my comment.

This coupled with my low patience and bad micromanagement also explains why I would ever want to be low on Arbalesters even in the case that properly managed Arbalester-heavy armies are more effective in the long run. In the kind of short battles vs the Horde that I most typically have, crushing the first wave of heavy cavalry is the core issue, and Halberdiers are by far the easiest solution to this issue. I don't mind pushing the slider right and waiting for remaining enemy archers to empty their quivers as long as I don't have to pay any further attention.