Hunters All Their Lives: A Missile Cavalry Guide

[Doug-Thompson]

Sorry for the confusion. I took the names from the line "dictionary" which, as the unit file tells us, is "The tag used to look up the on screen name". I can't find the on_screen_names anywhere. While the dictionary line fits most of the time, Polish_Shooters etc. might actually have different in game/ on screen names.
Do you need the upkeep stats?

R'as

I should have put a smiley by that remark. I was "complaining" about the comprehensive wealth of data.

And if you can give me upkeep numbers, you'll be my hero.

[R'as al Ghul]

I should have put a smiley by that remark. I was "complaining" about the comprehensive wealth of data.

And if you can give me upkeep numbers, you'll be my hero.

Doug,
I wasn't taking any offense. I guess some of my posts come across as if I hadn't any humour at all. I'll try not sounding so dry in future.

Anyway, my main problem atm is that editing my guide is almost impossible. I've posted such extensive code (mainly the coloured columns formatting) that I can hear the database moaning when I only think about editing it. I'll upload my excel file soon, with added upkeep cost, before I touch the beast again.
Any other entries you must have?

R'as

[dopp]

Okay, did a quick scan through the building and unit files for those "mystery units". Turns out Polish Shooters are those mounted crossbowmen already mentioned in the guide; Strzelcy or something. Cost 510, upkeep 175. Buildable from a basic castle onwards.

Mounted Longbowmen are disabled; there exists no option to build them in the buildings file and they cannot be used in custom. DISmounted Longbowmen, on the other hand, are certainly available; they are otherwise known as Retinue Longbowmen. The mounted version is similar, except that the range has been shortened to 120.

Why the English Mounted Longbowmen are accurately portrayed (as mounted infantry rather than horse archers) but the French Mounted Archers are not (they have become horse archers) is a mystery.

[econ21]

This is an excellent guide - I'm moving it over to the Guides forum so that it does not get lost in the deluge of more ephemeral Citadel threads.

[Doug-Thompson]

Okay, did a quick scan through the building and unit files for those "mystery units". Turns out Polish Shooters are those mounted crossbowmen already mentioned in the guide; Strzelcy or something. Cost 510, upkeep 175. Buildable from a basic castle onwards.

Mounted Longbowmen are disabled; there exists no option to build them in the buildings file and they cannot be used in custom. DISmounted Longbowmen, on the other hand, are certainly available; they are otherwise known as Retinue Longbowmen. The mounted version is similar, except that the range has been shortened to 120.

Why the English Mounted Longbowmen are accurately portrayed (as mounted infantry rather than horse archers) but the French Mounted Archers are not (they have become horse archers) is a mystery.

Much thanks, dopp.

And thanks for being put in the guides section, too.

[dopp]

Ouch, mounted xbows are really bad. Let's compare a few crossbow types:

Normal crossbow: 9 attack, range 120, AP, normal bolt (Peasant Crossbows, Crossbow Militia, Crossbowmen)

Arbalest: 12 attack, range 160, AP, steel bolt (Pavise Crossbows, Muslim Crossbow Militia)

Elitle Arbalest: 14 attack, range 160, AP, steel bolt (Aventurier, Genoese Crossbow Militia)

Mounted Crossbow: 5 attack, range 120, AP, normal bolt (Mounted Xbows, Polish Shooters)

Now just one or two bow types:

'Short' Bow: 5 attack, range 120, arrow (Peasant Archers)

Cavalry Bow: 6 attack, range 120, arrow (Horse Archers, Turkoman)

Considering that mounted bowmen are equal or superior to their foot counterparts in attack rating, that's a huge gap in power between a mounted crossbow and the weakest of the foot crossbows (handled by militia, no less). Do they happen to fire faster or something to make up for this?

[Doug-Thompson]

Ouch, mounted xbows are really bad. ... Considering that mounted bowmen are equal or superior to their foot counterparts in attack rating, that's a huge gap in power between a mounted crossbow and the weakest of the foot crossbows (handled by militia, no less). Do they happen to fire faster or something to make up for this?

Not that I can tell. The do fire continuously, since they can fire on the move.

Still, I agree with you and katank: The armor-piercing feature simply does not offset the very low base attack. Even the ability to fire continuously is offset by the small unit size and the cost compared to foot crossbowman, which can stay still and keep firing if given elementary infantry protection.

You have to have a marksman's range to build MXBs, according to the tech tree provided in the game. Therefore, any faction that can build MXBs can recruit outstanding foot archers. The cost of MXBs is low compared to other horse archers — 470 compared to a Mamaluk's 900, for instance — but more than for a good foot archer. Even at the 470-florin price, it doesn't appear to be a good option compared to mercenary HA. You get what you pay for, HA-wise. Also, I'm not ready to declare MXBs to be comparatively cheap until I see the upkeep cost.

MXBs are medium-level melee cav that have an option to shoot, IMO.

[dopp]

I may be horribly wrong about this but I think mxbows were historically mounted infantry rather than true horse archers, just like the French 'Mounted Archers', so their crossbow attack should be no weaker than that of the foot soldiers. They should also all be on foot just like the Retinue Bowmen once the battle begins, or should not be allowed to fire on the move/form shooting circle because their horse is just for transportation rather than a fighting platform.

[Quillan]

I think they really did try horse crossbowmen back then, but with very limited success. The slow rate of fire, the contortionism necessary to reload one and the necessity of a weak crossbow all makes them suffer in comparison.

[Vladimir]

I may be horribly wrong about this but I think mxbows were historically mounted infantry rather than true horse archers, just like the French 'Mounted Archers', so their crossbow attack should be no weaker than that of the foot soldiers. They should also all be on foot just like the Retinue Bowmen once the battle begins, or should not be allowed to fire on the move/form shooting circle because their horse is just for transportation rather than a fighting platform.

Ouch? Weak attack? Missile attack equal to foot archers?

They're armor piercing mounted skirmishers that can launch successful flank and rear attacks once their ammo is exhausted AND are add mobile firepower to otherwise ham-handed European armies *whew*. To me it makes perfect sense that their missile attack isn't as strong that of foot units. Doesn't the description of one of the mounted X-bow units say that they have smaller weapons? They’re riding a horse for Christ's sake.

[Doug-Thompson]

It's official: R'as al Ghul is now my hero. He comes through with upkeep costs.

Also, thanks R'as and other members, I'm now confident we have all the faction's units accounted for including mercs.

[dopp]

Ouch? Weak attack? Missile attack equal to foot archers?

They're armor piercing mounted skirmishers that can launch successful flank and rear attacks once their ammo is exhausted AND are add mobile firepower to otherwise ham-handed European armies *whew*. To me it makes perfect sense that their missile attack isn't as strong that of foot units. Doesn't the description of one of the mounted X-bow units say that they have smaller weapons? They’re riding a horse for Christ's sake.

Right, and my point is that they are actually foot xbows that ride horses for mobility and dismount to shoot, rather than fight from the saddle, so their weapons should be every bit as powerful as the ones on foot. Consider French Mounted Archers, also for the most part foot archers that ride to battle on horses but dismount to fight. LONGBOWS on horseback? 7 attack and AP is no joke and only 1 point less than Retinues on foot, yet they move and fight as real horse archers.

[Quillan]

And I think that was my opposite point, Dopp. I don't think they are foot crossbows that dismount to fight; I think they are horse archers just equipped with crossbows instead of bows. I don't know how prevalent they were in that time period, but I'm pretty sure the European states did have some troops equipped in that fashion.

[dopp]

I believe they were predominantly mounted infantry, but I will not claim to be an expert on the subject, or demand that the game version matches history (which could prove to be very boring). Not that you can't shoot a crossbow from horseback effectively, but it takes more than just a bow to make a horse archer. Maybe some expert on mounted archery would know more.

The main issue here is that the mounted crossbow's attack power is so significantly lower than the infantry version that it makes them really weak, as this missile guide points out, whereas mounted bows are often more powerful than their foot versions. I'm playing around with increasing their attack power to something like 7 to 9, but that's modding territory. For the vanilla game, they would probably be best used as melee cavalry with an option to shoot, as Doug points out.

[Doug-Thompson]

Merged the unit guide with the tactics guide from the Citadel. Also extensively rewrote the "Basic Tactics" section.

[Vladimir]

I believe they were predominantly mounted infantry, but I will not claim to be an expert on the subject, or demand that the game version matches history (which could prove to be very boring). Not that you can't shoot a crossbow from horseback effectively, but it takes more than just a bow to make a horse archer. Maybe some expert on mounted archery would know more.

The main issue here is that the mounted crossbow's attack power is so significantly lower than the infantry version that it makes them really weak, as this missile guide points out, whereas mounted bows are often more powerful than their foot versions. I'm playing around with increasing their attack power to something like 7 to 9, but that's modding territory. For the vanilla game, they would probably be best used as melee cavalry with an option to shoot, as Doug points out.

Shouldn't most or all mounted missile units have a slight range advantage over their dismounted counterparts? Was "high in the saddle" an eastern or universal concept?

[Doug-Thompson]

Shouldn't most or all mounted missile units have a slight range advantage over their dismounted counterparts? Was "high in the saddle" an eastern or universal concept?

As logical as that sounds, it's a fact that even Steppe peoples carried two bows: One for horseback, one for long-range fire while standing themselves.

Horseback bows had to be short enough to be passed from hand to hand over the neck of a horse. In fact, Hun and Japanese bows for horseback archery are asymetrical: The bottom half of the bow is shorter than the top half. This is most pronounced in the Japanese bows.

This puts a physical limit on how far a bow can shoot.

In addition, suppose you had a very long bow on horseback. Let's suppose you pull it back all the way to your cheekbone, like an English Longbow. The drawstring is going to come into contact to your leg or the horse's side.

While it might be possible to fully draw a longbow while on the back of a horse, I'm not sure it would be possible to pull it that far back without aiming it into the air.

There are historical reports of horse archer firing arrows at prodigious distances. However, were they firing from their horses at those distances rather than dismounting? Better ask somebody who knows, like Orda.

=======

On the original crossbow question, I agree with Quillan that there were crossbows meant to be fired from horseback but can't seem to find where I've read about them. I remember that the article I read went into some detail about why the idea never worke well. Essentially, it was a lot of expense for what you got. You had to cock the things using some hook on your stirrup, or had to have an expensive turning crank. Crossbows required fine-grade steel and cast parts for the crank. They got so intricate and expensive that cheap cast iron tubes with powder and lead balls — guns — were actually cheaper.

[IvarrWolfsong]

First off, this is a great post! Thanks for pulling all this togethr and sharing it with the community.

I fell in love with dual duty missle cavalry after choosing Pontus as my first unlocked faction in RTW. The heavy jav cav could slaughter heavy units at a distance and melee weaker types with low losses. From there I moved to Sythia and then off to RTR and their bow weilding Cataphract Lancers.

As for M2TW, I have played the campaign as almost every missle cav faction. Here are a few of my observations (and they are mostly observations... no tests were done and the methodology is simply "I noticed this after playing waaaaaay too much" ):

-The best dual duty Horse Archers I have come across are Mamlukes Archers and Dvor Cavalry. The stats may indicate that there are much better HA in melee, but these 2 units have given me better performance hands down. I believe that they may have "effective vs armor" even though it isn't listed in their description.

-Vards are very nice. They have great ranged attacks and are fast moving while boasting nice defense. However, I have found they are kind of squishy when they mix it up. I would take a good deal of casualties even when facing greatly inferior units in melee. They also seem to route a bit quicker than my Sipahis, Dvor or Mamluke HAs.

-I have noticed that HA route a bit quicker than melee cav. A good quality melee cav unit that takes a lot of damage will stay together longer than a good quality HA taking similar damage.

-Skirmish mode is not as reliable as it was in RTW. Units like to let the enemy get very close before they begin to move away. Also, there is much more lag time as units start to move untill they are gallopping. In RTW, you went from 0 to 60 in .00001 secs, but in M2TW it is a bit more realistic.

-Camel Gunners like to kill their friends! Be very careful about straying into the line of fire! I learned this the hard way hehe. Also they are squishy and die if the wind changes directions. Of course, they have that incredible range so you can stay out of trouble if you keep your eye on them. They are definitly not fire and forget.

-Xbow Cav seem to get tired much more quickly than normal horse archers.

I use a different method to kill HA when fighting the AI. I have always liked Light Cav (napoleonic hussars make me giddy). <<TANGENT ALERT>>In RTW, I often got wierd looks in MP when I "wasted" a slot or two for Carthagian light cavalry. I recieved a lot of complements for using them well ... I could usually route most missles or siege long before the enemy could intercept me. They were also great for drawing off a unit or two of heavy cav on a wild goose chase. <<END TANGENT>>> Well I use em in M2TW to chase down missle cav. Alans are great and even Arab Cav can be used to drive off most HAs. When facing uber HAs, i sick a light cav unit on them followed by a heavy cav unit. The light cav tangles them up and the heavy cav stomps their guts out. Again, this is for fighting the AI, who doesn't use massed HA's or concentrate fire.

Regarding the Mongols, I would say that their missle rating, and endurance should be up'd... and possibly given a range boost. With that, I would reduce their melee prowess. They were not a hand to hand power.

[Doug-Thompson]

Thanks, IvarrWolfsong

The best dual duty Horse Archers I have come across are Mamlukes Archers and Dvor Cavalry. The stats may indicate that there are much better HA in melee, but these 2 units have given me better performance hands down. I believe that they may have "effective vs armor" even though it isn't listed in their description.

Haven't used Dvor Cavalry enough to tell, but Mameluks definitely have a mace and an anti-armor bonus. They're arguably better melee cavalry than Arab cavalary.

-Skirmish mode is not as reliable as it was in RTW. Units like to let the enemy get very close before they begin to move away. Also, there is much more lag time as units start to move untill they are gallopping. In RTW, you went from 0 to 60 in .00001 secs, but in M2TW it is a bit more realistic.

Add the straggler problem to that, too.

[Hun Sárkány]

I also thought of using HA armies like nothing else. For example it is not the battle won ratio what counts to final victory, but how many men you slaughter.

That is, I usually ride out from the fortress to meet the marching enemy on the fields before they reach walls. Let every single arrow fly, then retreat. All the way back to the castle. By the second battle, their men are down to 10% or less. It's useful I think.

I love HA too much. A totally other dimension than infantry. Even if I leave a castle to the Enemy because the cavalry cannot defend it, I retake it after I lay siege around it and the stupid enemy sallies. If not in the first round, then in the 2nd. Lost a few turn's income. Who cares? As long as my horses are fresh, I am king.

HA is such a mobile force which cannot be cornered, it gives you immense power, you can choose when to fight, when not.

Cavalry rules. (btw, it was only the scythians who could defeat Alexander the Great'a armies, no other force - not that it would have been too hard)

Sorry for this, I just had to come out with it.

[Doug-Thompson]

... For example it is not the battle won ratio what counts to final victory, but how many men you slaughter.

I'd already considered revising the "strategy map" section of the guide to reflect this. Now I'm sure I will.

I was "defeated" in battles with the Mongols and Timurids that constantly whittled them down while I could replace my losses. I remember one battle from RTW vividly. My Parthians shot every arrow they had. Dead Seleucid spearmen carpeted the battlefield. I could have charged their few remaining intact phalanxes with Persian Cavalry and defeated them, but saw no good reason to throw valuable, experienced cavalry away. I was "defeated," the computer told me. I laughed out loud.

[Hun Sárkány]

Exactly!

Although, what I said about final victory was refering to the campaign victory, not to how the game calculates battle victories. Perhaps you will win only the third arrow-pumping battle, but you will win in the end. And that is what counts. For us, players.

Withdrawing to gather more arrows looks like an effective strategy. Perhaps your general will not get that much stars, but then, he will be far from the place where your horse archers wreak havoc among enemy ranks. (slightly referring to that that the aura of the general will not help your units that much) However, after your cavalry gained tons of experience points - it is obvious that dead soldiers wont get any - later in the game, you will rule the region and you will not have to withdraw from won battles that often.

I don't know what your experiences are, but it did work by me.

[Phil]

Doug-Thompson

an excellent and enlightening read, thank you. i did, however, not find any mention of the russian cossack musketeer - plan on starting a campaign for them, so if anyone could post their range/ammo/some interesting uses and tactics that would be great

[Orda Khan]

Mounted longbows are historically accurate, the archers however, dismounted to use them and I would expect the mounted crossbows to do the same, using or trying to use a crossbow in true horse archer style would be totally impractical. Rate of fire and range would suffer even more than those on foot.

The Asiatic composite bows are generally short and the reason behind this has been explained by many historians precisely because they needed to be for use on horseback. This is only the opinion of these historians, most if not all of whom, have no experience of using a bow. The Asiatic bow was shorter due to lack of materials more than any other reason; there is limited supply of trees on the steppes. The wooden core, horn belly plates and sinew backing is attributed to the Scythians but it was a short bow, the Huns improved this by adding rigid siyahs to the end of the limbs. This produced a larger more powerful bow with a longer draw and the leverage applied by the siyahs greatly improved the physical mechanics of their bows. It is worth noting here that only the Huns (among the steppe nomads) used a markedly obvious asymmetrical design (a lot of the composites featured a slight difference) the rest, Avar, Magyar, Mongol etc used bows of symmetrical design.

The question of range regarding these weapons is a contentious issue, much like the longbow efficiency debate. There are countless reports of tests carried out but these mean very little to me and I do not consider they 'prove' a thing. Most historical accounts are exaggerated to say the least, army sizes especially, whereas modern tests are precisely that, modern and just a test. In my signature pic you can see my beautiful Hun bow from Kassai Lajos. It is 45lbs draw weight at my draw length and can easily shoot an arrow 150 metres, though I must admit I have never really tested its maximum distance. I would hazard a guess of around 180 - 200 metres and this is with my normal 100 grain field arrows not flight arrows.
Distance, therefore would be far less important than mobility (but far greater than M2TW horseback javelins whose range is a joke) and the way in which the bow was used. The Mameluks for example were less mobile and relied more on massed rapid fire before galloping to another target and so on.

The evolution of the composite design, according to historians, reached its zenith with the Turkish bow of the Ottomans which is another questionable statement. The quality of the bow rests with the bowyer and its ability with the archer, the design was not that considerably different.
Speaking from my own experience over the years of using Magyar, Mongol, Scythian, Turkish and Hun, the most user friendly is definitely the Hun because there is no noticeable handshock, making it more accurate (but this is only my opinion).
BTW, the Turkish is the only one that resembles a "C" shape when unstrung

......Orda

[Orda Khan]

Perhaps you will win only the third arrow-pumping battle, but you will win in the end.

Far better to lose a few battles and remain intact

.......Orda

[Hun Sárkány]

A very small addendum:

In the past, I marvelled and admired Megass Megass great hammer-and-anvil tactic. It is funny how easily any light cavalry will slip out of and avoid this grasp.

[Hun Sárkány]

It is "Megas Alexandros", you bloody Spell Check thingie!

[Czar Alexsandr]

This guide... is an inspiration to all horse archer fanatics everywhere!

Lol. I got some really good ideas here. Both for my cav archers and against them. I never seem to be able to take them out as good as other things.

But excellent work! And with good pictures too! I'm sure this guide is one of the most valuable. A lot of people either hate horse archers or love em. So this guide is great for everyone. Awesome work! Everyone!

[Kekvit Irae]

I would like to take this time to mention that now that this thread is in the Guides forum, it will abide by the Guides rule. This means no more chatter, unless it is a new addition, an addendum, or a correction to the strategies presented. Questions or general chatter can be asked in the Comments & Suggestions thread stickied at the top of the M2TW thread list, or PMed to the person in question. From now one, I will be deleting anything that does not contribute to the general strategies on the first page.

[Doug-Thompson]

Finally added some more worthwhile building information. Also, I've developed more respect for the Polish Strzelcy. Its very low building requirements and cheap price make it a good fit with the Polish Noble, an expensive unit that you often receive as a reward in the campaign game for accomplishing missions. Together, they make a decent and almost affordable cavalry force for the Poles.