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.

[PershsNhpios]

Any thread which passes the second page in the Main Hall invariably includes two or more sideshow discussions (often followed to their conclusions and offering very useful information!).

I have never fought against the Mongols, and I have never wanted to.
This is because I have no confidence in my ability to survive them, so that my Early/High faction choices become limited somewhat! I usually wish to be no further east than Poland.

It is frustrating and horrible enough battling against Turks, let alone ten stacks of horse!

Yet this strategy involving Kiev may be my gracious hope! Perhaps I will attempt a slavic campaign once more.

On another subject attached to this thread, I believe that I will also now play all campaigns on Hard.
I did not realise that AI tactics improved so much with this one step higher in difficulty and without an absurd advantage in AI morale also! (RTW taught me to distrust higher difficulty levels in Total War).

I am glad to see so many here still involved in discussion!

[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.

[caravel]

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.

As I said before, "staying power" is different depending on conditions and the enemy you are facing. In terms of spears, the staying power is not just for protecting alrbalesters, but all other units that might be vulnerable to a cavalry charge. Also well armoured spears such as Saracens up front draw the enemies fire and protect your not so heavily armoured units and your cavalry from MHA.

[drone]

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.

Spearmen will maintain the cohesiveness your lines. When your lines get jumbled with an all attack-at-will strategy, your individual units will be susceptible to flank and rear charges, as well as morale penalties for unprotected flanks. Against a mobile enemy like the Horde, this is dangerous.

So the spear units are not necessarily there to protect missile units, they also give your army a solid backbone and axis of defense.

Concerning arbalester heavy armies, I think there is a code trigger in the battle AI, so that if you field too many (more than 4-5) infantry missile units, the enemy will rush you before you can set up. I've been the victim of this several times, so I limit my missile units to 4 max. Since I can't really use more than 4 effectively anyway, no big deal. I just set up the reinforcement queue to handle expected missile replacements when the ammo runs out.

And about the discussion, the Main Hall has been pretty dead lately. We are all just happy to talk about something.

[Vantek]

When your lines are jumbled, then so are the enemy's... I would consider myself better at taking advantage of this than the AI.

I limit my missile units to 4 max

Oh goodie! No need for spearmen then :)

And about the discussion, the Main Hall has been pretty dead lately. We are all just happy to talk about something.

Maybe I should use my expert Necromancer skills yet again to revive the battlestory thread... I am still shocked by how young that thread is and how little attention it got... It should have been an ancient thousand post thread I tell you!

[gollum]

Originally posted by Vantek
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.

Well if that's the case many of your arguments are in the wrong thread, it seems to me. Fighting the Horde, gives out notoriously long battles with far more than two stacks on the part of player in many cases.

It just seems to me that your arguments and questions are going in circles, because primarily you are not willing to consider other styles of play. Opinions and suggestions of other players are there to let us all draw knowledge from each other and enhance our playstyles and so enjoy the game more. They are not there to make you feel right or wrong - just try out the suggestions if you will or not. If not there is no reason to pursue this debate with the same questions and arguments, because you will most likely receive the same answers.



PS One good way to be more adaptable in your ideas is to play multiplayer. Try that, and it will teach you many things. There is a small but highly friendly and experienced cluster of players playing VI on friday evenings, Central European time. Just drop in and enjoy. This guide will tell you how and many other useful info:https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=32936

[Vantek]

:S

More recent portion of the discussion has been mostly people saying that MY playstyle sucks... I already admitted that I was totally in the wrong once, I thought that would have cleared suspicion towards my motives...

They are not there to make you feel right or wrong

Ah, but often using the aggressive argumentative approach results in fastest progress. Of course I am noone to say what's right or wrong - but making people feel a bit... confronted leads them to analyse and express their thoughts more clearly :)

[gollum]

Originally posted by Vantek
More recent portion of the discussion has been mostly people saying that MY playstyle sucks...

It seems to me that this is how you took it, as far as i can tell everyone has been friendly and open, and furthermore it has been stated over and over by various posters that playstyle is something to be respected. Its most likely due to the circular nature of your questions that seem to me like springing from the need to defend your current playstyle that you got the same answer multiple times from multiple posters.

I already admitted that I was totally in the wrong once...

Nobody asked you to admit anything, this is a friendly sub-forum with longtime knowledgeable and friendly members, there is no need to apologise, i'm sure everyone is glad to help; no reason for you to feel this way.

I thought that would have cleared suspicion towards my motives...

Nobody questioned your motives which was why the same questions were answered again and again in a friendly, consisted and informed manner if you ask me.

Ah, but often using the aggressive argumentative approach results in fastest progress.

I hope you mean that you used such a style because as far as i can tell no one else did. In any case it is (once more) not a matter of style but of argumentation and being able to accept suggestions without feeling the need to prove yourself right.

Of course I am noone to say what's right or wrong - but making people feel a bit... confronted leads them to analyse and express their thoughts more thoroughly

It sounds like what happens when someone has fixed ideas that he is not prepared to give easily up. I understand that the more he is prompted to, the more he will react, but when the reaction subsides, dont neglect to put them into the test after a while and see if they work for you. Like everything new they'll be strangers at first, but if they do work, they'll be eventually ingrained in you and become part of your game hopefully.

This process is key in improving in TWmp and in anything for that matter. Pride and the need to be correct have to be thrown out of the window because often they are the greatest impediment in learning and so improving.

[Vantek]

Now-now, don't you worry about me... I haven't taken anything personally and I have no problem accepting other ideas. If I continue the "argument" it's because I genuinely don't understand the other side, not because I have an infantile need to prove everyone wrong.

I hope you mean that you used such a style

Yes, that's what I meant.

Nobody questioned your motives

You are questioning them still. You think I'm "arguing" just for the sake of argument, because I'm dying to prove I'm right. Well, if there's anything I'm dying to prove, it's the fact that I'm only "arguing" because I'm interested in understanding what other people think :P

Nobody asked you to admit anything.

They should have. I was in the wrong. Being respectful is one thing. Paving the way for genuinely erroneous ideas is another.

Its most likely due to the circular nature of your questions that seem to me like springing from the need to defend your current playstyle that you got the same answer multiple times from multiple posters.

How are my questions circular? There has been considerable progress in the discussion. I now know things I didn't know before. The only problem has been a lot of misunderstanding and misplaced emphasis, not circularity.

[gollum]

[Vantek]

[caravel]

On behalf of our Main Hall forum Taishos Mithrandir and bamff, may their camels never falter: Back to topic if you please gentlemen.

It's been a very good thread so far (one of the best thread necromancies ever in fact).

[gollum]

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
...(one of the best thread necromancies ever in fact)

Indeed, by far the most succesful i've seen... it seems we all felt its... magic

[Vantek]

I am honored by the approval of my act of necromancy Perhaps indeed I should use my skills on that battlestories thread as well...

To get back on topic...

What strategies do you guys use to:
1) defend against Golden Horde on FLAT terrain
2) attack Golden Horde on flat terrain?

When we are attacking, is AI stupid enough to let their missile units be massacred by Arbalesters in a missile duel without charging? In that case, attacking could paradoxally be easier than defending... As when the AI is attacking, he will definitely charge cavalry WHILE using missile units, making it difficult to use missile units of your own on flat ground.

Am I correct in that cavalry is much more valuable on flat ground? As your front line cannot have height advantage, and flank/rear attacks won't be uphill either, making flanking much more effective.

So the best I can come up with is simply something crude like, 6 Halberdiers (:P), 6 Arbalesters, 4 heavy cavalry, and just have a very long Halberdier+Arbalester line, moving Arbalesters in front during a missile duel and moving Halberdiers in front to deal with melee charge, while using heavy cavalry to deal rear charges and chase routers...

Does everyone use that change-facing-of-spears-and-shoot-through-the-gaps approach on flat ground? That still feels mind-boggling to me!! How can you create gaps in your formation when there's cavalry around... Oh well...

[gollum]

Originally posted by Vantek
How can you create gaps in your formation when there's cavalry around...

You dont create gaps but have a loose front.

high ground
.........LightC......................................HC*............................................ ..........LightC
.....................................arbs...........arbs..........arbs.............................. .....
.................elites........................................................................elite s......
..........flankers.......arbs...........arbs..........arbs..............arbs.....flankers
................spears........................................................................spears ...
....................................spears..............................spears.....................
low ground

If your front line is solid (as i've written previously) the arbalasters won't do much damage when the MHC is pinned and most vulnerable (because the MTW engine gives a penalty to accuracy for missiles that shoot at moving targets) since all missiles target enemy units when the projectile path does not intersect with friendly units (in fire at will), unless you specifically instruct them to shoot at a target. If you do so however while the arbalasters are sitting behind your solid front line, you'll be hiting your own troops at the back, making them very likely to turn tail and run.

Such a deployment gives opportunities to put with ap flankers to good use that can deal a lot of casualties when all enemy horse engages (as i've written previously). This saves your flankers being counterflanked by incoming MHC. Another way to do it is to send them after a pinned MHC while a spear protects their rear from more incoming MHC.

Its best to leave elites, like Varangians and Chivalric Foot kanighits close to the arbs and not move them around too much to deal with any MHC that comes up to the arbs or to act as a last resort that can keep the MHC at bay for the rest of your army to rally if you are overun.

Its also best (as i've written previously) to deploy the arbs in depth; that is 3 in one level and 3 in a level above them up the slope. This depth of missiles makes their formation more resilient and easier to safeguard when you have a slope. It does not work on flat ground however, because obviously the front guys impede that back guys to shoot. In a slope situation even if the MHC reach the arbs, they will be shot by the arbs behind them or you can rotate one of your own arbs next to the one that is engaged and have a clear volley of death against the MHC. You can rotate units or gruops of units with alt+right click towards the direction you want their new facing to be.

The idea is simple; to deny space to the MHC that charges you, while allowing space to your missiles and ap flankers to do teh job.

In the context of such a formation, halberdiers would work as last trench guards, pretty much like the elites i described above, as they are too slow to flank and cannot pin. They are poor for that too though, because they aern't elite, have low morale and tire lots that brings their morale down (as i've writen previously).

Make sure you use a 5-6 ranks depth for the spears if you try this as they become unyieldy if they are stretched too long and they also close the "gaps" the arbs can shoot through.

Obvoiusly the mix proportions may be adjusted, you can bring more flankers and less elites, or more arbalasters and less spears etc.

Keep in mind that one of the great disavdantages of this formation (and any other that involves missiles lined up) is the risk that the line can be "rolled up" from the flank, ie if an enemy HC reaches the edge arb and engage him long enough to rout him, then you may be in for a chain or even mass rout. This is because the other arbs cannot shoot any cavalry that approaches from the side - this is actually very much used in mp. That's why the flanks are strongly guarded with spears, flankers and the elites. If the enemy changes their approach to avoid your main line of fire, you should redeploy accordingly
to move it to target the new enemy approach to your line. This is why slopes that are at the side edge of the map are pure gold; one of your flanks is covered.

[caravel]

I am honored by the approval of my act of necromancy Perhaps indeed I should use my skills on that battlestories thread as well...

To get back on topic...

What strategies do you guys use to:
1) defend against Golden Horde on FLAT terrain
2) attack Golden Horde on flat terrain?

It very much depends on the faction you're playing. I would go archer/arbalest and spear heavy and try a very much defensive approach. Horse archers and any cavalry have the advantage on flat open terrain. If there are lots of woods, i.e. Lithuania, the battle can go in your favour by drawing the enemy into it. Almost any intantry unit with an AP attack, such as woodsmen, MS, Ghazi, Vikings or better still, the polearms units such as CFK, JHI and yes even halberdiers can do well in the woods against cavalry. The trick is to not let the enemy draw you out of the woods or waste energy chasing the MHA. The most important trick is to save ammo. Keep your missiles on hold fire and only let them fire at will when you know that they will have devastating effect. Arbalest bolts should be saved for the MHC and any archers you bring should concentrate their fire on the MHA. Dion't waste arrows on the warrirors, have some light cavalry to sneak in on their flanks, rout them and then get back to your lines.

When we are attacking, is AI stupid enough to let their missile units be massacred by Arbalesters in a missile duel without charging? In that case, attacking could paradoxally be easier than defending... As when the AI is attacking, he will definitely charge cavalry WHILE using missile units, making it difficult to use missile units of your own on flat ground.

No, but the AI has to approach your battle lines in order to charge, and that's when most of the damage is dealt. Also during the melee, you will have to designate the horde units further from your lines in order to avoid hitting your own men.

Am I correct in that cavalry is much more valuable on flat ground? As your front line cannot have height advantage, and flank/rear attacks won't be uphill either, making flanking much more effective.

Absolutely. Flat, open terrain gives cavalry the advantage.

So the best I can come up with is simply something crude like, 6 Halberdiers (:P), 6 Arbalesters, 4 heavy cavalry, and just have a very long Halberdier+Arbalester line, moving Arbalesters in front during a missile duel and moving Halberdiers in front to deal with melee charge, while using heavy cavalry to deal rear charges and chase routers...

Does everyone use that change-facing-of-spears-and-shoot-through-the-gaps approach on flat ground? That still feels mind-boggling to me!! How can you create gaps in your formation when there's cavalry around... Oh well...

Heavy Cavalry are for destroying heavy infantry. They are there for shock effect. Deploying them against the horde would be a waste as they would either get worn down by arrows or forced to duel it out with the MHC. Also they would not be that useful in pursuing routers. The best approach is to to let the enemy throw himself at your spears and then deal the killer blow with your flanking units. When the MHC begin to rout, chase them down with light cavalry. You arbalesters and archers should ensure that the MHC are worn down when they reach your lines. Though try to have your archers target selected MHA units. Again using the woods is a good idea if they are available. You can often position your main army defensively adjacent to a wood and hide your flankers inside. When attacking from woods: select the unit and then click on the target unit [i]once[i]. Let the unit go to it's target unhindered. If you click again, the "surprise" factor will be lost.

[bondovic]

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.

Perhaps this wasn't directed at me, but I believe I argued my point quite proficiently. That point was that: Spears are not ONLY (!) for arb protection. Seen? NOT only for arb protection. It's almost as if you're completely in the dark about the fundamentals of flanking. This point sticks regardless of wether you sport nothing but halbs or mix in 2 cavs and 3-4 arbs. Killing speed vs. kill/death ratio effectiveness is the issue.

Try not to get snippy now, I'm just using confrontationalism to get you sharper.

[PershsNhpios]

That boat has not only left, Bondovic, it is also long since sunk beneath the waves of wise censorship!

Forgive me if I have not understood your formation description clearly enough, Gollum s'ah, but I believe I would have some difficulty in maintaining a defence with what you have described in post 174.

This is not to say that I doubt the efficiency of that formation, but rather that I have no experience in the use of it, nor with Mongolian assaults, nor do I know the power of arbalesters.

If such a wave of bolts can really and totally prevent heavy horse from approaching the front of the army, and if one unit of spears and one of elites and flankers are truly capable of quickly disarming a flanking attack, then it is a most valuable tactic.

But even in western European battles against conventional troops, I find that unless terrain features permit, a static defense is simply too stubborn and predisposed.

If however this formation is meant to be more manipular and improvised, can you explain which units would exchange places with each other in order to protect the missile units and how a chain rout can be prevented?

Surely you can't be leaving so much to chance! With this formation appearing otherwise to be a rotten tooth...

[HopAlongBunny]

This is a standard set up

..................................................arb...arb...arb...arb

..........................................................spr...spr...
...................................................spr..................spr
.............................................halb/ms...halb......halb/ms
....................................cav........cav......gen.........cav.......cav


On offence it is compact enough to be easily adjusted and tweaked on the move; on defence the centre is solid and flanks easily reinforced.

Its flexibility is why I use it on attack or defence. Flank attacks can be countered or created by wheeling the components; the arbs/missile can withdraw to the flank if rushed where they can set up for flank rear attacks. The cav allows for flank/rear attacks on engaged units or quick support.

Patience against the Horde super-stacks is key. I have lost engagements when down to their routers by: ctl-a >select annoying MHA > charge! and doing it repeatedly until their gone or my army routs :p

On attack the Horde often does what it is supposed to do: feign engagement; retreat; all while peppering your units with arrows. I have chased to Horde to all 4 corners of the map before getting them to stand and fight.

There is no magic bullet to making these fights fast; or at least none that I have found outside the usual => kill general => corner and kill army

[gollum]

Dear Glenn,

this formation works first and foremost in defending against the Horde. In such battles you are typically heavily outnumbered hence why a static defence is preferable. Also i refer you to my post #128 in this very thread in which it is stated that this formation would not work against sword infantry heavy armies.

It is also mantioned by myself and Asai Nagamasa throughout this thread, that the arbalasters need to befiring mass coordiated volleys that you control and order, by grouping them and toggling fire at will off and then on when the enemy has moved at an appropraite range, because otherwise you are waisting your ammo in suboptimal use. Typically new players neglect to use them this way, hence each arb is firing in his own time, scaling down significantly their effectiveness and wasting away their ammo, which is probably why you are in disbelief.

First try out to fight the Horde in person (something that as you have recently written you have not attempted yet) and then you will understand why different tactics than those using in Western Europe are needed; tactics based around being static, and that furthermore are economical in terms of casualties and movement of your troops because as ive said you are heavily outnumbered and have only so many soldiers against a sea of Mongols. These are battles that you have prepared two-three stacks to deny landing to 15 or more Mongol Stacks.

All a Mongol army wants you to do is go after him and spread out; then they can set up their greatest advantages into play: mobility, shock and firepower. Mongol AI armies are masters of counterflanking, envelopping and grinding down. They have patience, cunning and play to their strengths , which is why battles against the Horde tend to be boring once you get the hang of it; you learn not to go and engage them as this brings outright disaster or results in so many casualties that you risk losing the battle by being overwhelmed.

You need to become steady as a mountain and still as a wood in order to deny them their strengths and allow your fewer troops to last to the end of the battle.

The formation can be adapted in terms of composition and geometry (it doesnt have to be exactly symmetrical; you can adapt according to the terrain and the deployment of teh enemy), but the basic aim is the same: take space from your opponent (so he can't charge you), give space to yourself (so you can shoot him, pin him and flank him). The above depiction is diagramatic only, the formation becomes fluid from the positions shown according to the deployment of the enemy during attack. No description from me will ever substitute you trying out things in battle. First try what your instinct tells you and if that proves no good start picking up hints.

It is not a panachy nor the one i always use, even against the Horde. It is really effective though against it (the Horde), and very very safe in that it economises in fatigue and casulties, because your primary killers are the missiles.

[Vantek]

Thanks for taking the time to write a long explanation gollum. I am still having trouble understanding what is going on though

You dont create gaps but have a loose front.

Erm, what is the difference? Are the spears stretched into very thin lines? That doesn't sound right. Aren't there gaps in your front line? Won't enemy cavalry come through those gaps to attack the Arbalesters?

Absolutely. Flat, open terrain gives cavalry the advantage.

For once I am right about something :D

Heavy Cavalry are for destroying heavy infantry. They are there for shock effect. Deploying them against the horde would be a waste as they would either get worn down by arrows or forced to duel it out with the MHC. Also they would not be that useful in pursuing routers. The best approach is to to let the enemy throw himself at your spears and then deal the killer blow with your flanking units.

But who do you use as flankers then to deal that killer blow if it's not heavy cavalry? As heavy cavalry is exactly the ideal flanking unit! Heavy cavalry has "killer blow" written all over it! No other unit possesses as high attack + charge.

Perhaps this wasn't directed at me, but I believe I argued my point quite proficiently. That point was that: Spears are not ONLY (!) for arb protection. Seen? NOT only for arb protection. It's almost as if you're completely in the dark about the fundamentals of flanking. This point sticks regardless of wether you sport nothing but halbs or mix in 2 cavs and 3-4 arbs. Killing speed vs. kill/death ratio effectiveness is the issue.

Try not to get snippy now, I'm just using confrontationalism to get you sharper.

Not at all, very good :)

Do you here mean that you use cavalry as flankers? Is this only on flat ground?

In my experience, Halberdiers survive the first charge very well and proceed to turn any cavalry into ground meat very quickly. Chivalric Sergeants and equivalents survive a lot of charges but also cause very little damage. So the way I feel is, using CS/SI/AS is just prolonging the battle and making things unnecessarily complicated, when you can just use Halberdiers to directly crush the charging cavalry without any fancy maneuvers. It would make sense if there was a true monster killer unit available that when charging into anyone's rear would tear through enemy lines like paper and guarantee a snap-rout. The only thing that comes close to that effect is heavy cavalry, but compared to Halberdiers, is the difference really so strong to warrant making things so complicated?

It's genuinely hard for me to imagine how trying to flank MHC like that could be preferable when defending on hills (as the units recieving the charge will be holding the high ground and I'd really want to use that power to kill, whereas flankers will need to fight uphill, making the whole maneuver much less effective). Will you at least give me that? On flat ground, as you see from my new question, I am not at all as confident in my knowledge :P Still, even so it's hard for me to imagine how you could flank very well with anything but cavalry.

It's almost as if you're completely in the dark about the fundamentals of flanking.

To me the fundamentals of flanking surface when we are facing infantry-heavy armies. You have an infantry line (I guess against *infantry* I would use mostly CMAA, not spears or Halberdiers... Though I guess typically enemy also has some cavalry, so a mix of CMAA&Halbs is best) and cavalry. You engage your infantry line with enemy infantry line. Then you run cavalry behind enemy infantry line and charge the rear to deal a devastating blow.

When facing cavalry though, in the form of Halberdiers you already have the perfect anti-cavalry unit that can both withstand charges as well as massacre the charging cavalry directly without the need for complicated maneuvers. The units that possess highest killing power against cavalry (Halbs, CFK) themselves are too slow to be used for flanking, otherwise I would use them to flank as well. If there existed a "mounted halberdier" or "supercamel" unit, and if Halberdiers were truly bad at withstanding cavalry charges, I would be flanking MHC exactly the way you describe. Thing is though, Halberdiers can take a charge pretty damn well, and proceed to massacre cavalry right afterwards. No need to bother with the even slower-dying but almost pacifist CS/SI/AS.