Why be tactical in battles?

[Rogerio]

I dont know why everyone goes on about tactics etc - i use the most simple tactics ever for this game and it works every time.

Dont use missile troops they are absoloutely rubbish unless you have lots of them and the enemy wont come and attack you and they allow you to shoot.

I get about 5 or 6 units of cavalry and a few blocks of infantry - basically charge EVERYONE into 1 point of the enemy line and cause a mass panic then rout everyone kill the general and run them down!

I had 404 men on a hill near Nottingham for scotland against 1041 english troops all i did was charge en masse at their generals unit caused a mass panic killed the genereal and sluaghtered everyone who ran.

I lost about 100 men out of my ranks and they lost 1021 troops out of 1041 an absoloutle massacre which crippled the whole of england and allowed me to take the whole place. a very fun battle for me as it is what the game is all about!

fighting the hated enemy who outnumber you more than 2 to 1 and killing them all and taking the whole land! class stuff.

i have taken most of france and all of britain using the cavalry zerg tactics just charge en masse at them basically. i am now in a war with milan and hammer them in every battle - they use hundreds and hundreds of pavise bowmen i just run straight past them to the combat troops and the generals unit and sluaghter them all then roll up all the crosbow guys with cavalry.

am only on about turn 70 and its my first grand campaign but it seems this tactic is unstoppable! if you get alot of spearmen in the enemy army then simply get a couple of crappy infantry units in the army to engage them them smash into them using cavalry and hey presto mass panic everyones dead.

i used this tactic on shogun a few years ago as well basically did the whole thing just using loads and loads of the fast cavalry guys to smash up the enemy army.

Is there anything that can stop this amazing tactic?

[pevergreen]

An army equal on composition with you? VH battle AI?

We use tactics to make it fun. Realism.

I play Rome total Realism as the Selu Empire, and i just back into a corner, around a hill. Charging full length into them takes the fun out of the game.

[Rogerio]

I try to be tactical and use archers and infantry etc but the point it - if you try and rely on archer units you get battered unless they dont charge you. i really dont see the point of missile troops they are just pointless.

The only thing i have seen from missile troops that has really done anything at all was when i fought the milan army in a masivve 1000 of them v 700 of me battle, i tried to sit back for a bit as i had 2 catapults and 2 archer units, 5 infantry units heavy infantry and the rest was just loads of chivalric knights feudal knights etc. i managed to get plastered by their trebuceht for a bit so i just charged en masse into their enormous formation of pavise crossbow guys, and as i chagred down the hill i saw how good a trebuchet can be against a massive charging formation of knights anbd heavy infantry.

1 shot landed took out my Faction leader and 6 bodyguards then another shot landed and killed about 6 more knights! i was a slightly concerened by this so just charged the machines killed them all and rolled up the rest of the army in the usual way.

So warmachines are scary but when you have enough cavalry it dosent matter how many bows they have i say - theyre dead!

[Alcorr]

I completely agree, I think missle units should be much more powerful, particularly gunpowder. Even though it seems everyone on these forums and others thinks that vanilla gunpoweder is too powerful, I completely disagree. By far, armies made up of nothing but 70% hvy cavalry and 30% light cavalry to chase down HA is much better than any other army stack.

Hvy infantry = pointless
Light infantry = pathetic
Missle units = too weak
Pike units = hahaha

Keep in mind I have played total war games since the first medieval and it didn't use to be this way.

[Garnier]

Yeah if I want to win any battle I can do so with about 3 or 4 units of knights. Just charge head on into their line a few times, and they all rout and get destroyed. It takes the fun out of the game for me...

[IrishArmenian]

I use a lot of missile units.
Here is what I do with my two prime factions: The Sicilians (Italo-Normans) and the Russians
Sicily: Muslim Archers and Pavise Crossbowmen for missile units. I use archers and crossbowmen for different tasks. Archers shoot at the charging light infantry/calvary and crossbows take out heavier troops or the general. Then they retreat behind my lines before the enemy gets too close. Norman knights, most dismounted, some dismounted. Pike Militia/Pike Mercenaries, General. This army fares quite well against most armies.
Russia: Dvor, mounted and dismounted, Boyar Sons (always mounted), Berdiche Axemen (with a two handed fix, by the way. Cossack Calvary, Tsar's guard. General.
I use tactics for
A) I play on VH/VH meaning I'm going against good troops and good generals
B) Its fun
C) Being a product of the military, I cannot do anything without thinking of tactics.

[Snoil The Mighty]

Well the short answer to the question is: marginal utility, as always!

I like using combined arms tactics, it's fun! I know that click-and-send battles will work most of the time, even on vh setting. I'm sure just about everyone (at least on the boards here) knows that can work. But if I want click-and-send fun, I can just plug in Starcraft, a very fun click-and-send game even after all these years.

As an aside, I am guessing CA will do well by the game as usual and address bugs first and rebalance second so by 1.4 or 5 I don't want bad habits costing me all my Knights of Santiago either.

[TevashSzat]

while this works when you have a fully developed army after many turns, just charging your militia units en mass into a bigger army usually doesn't work in the very beginning. Try using your strategy on vhvh while blitzing in four seperate directions as Venice, south to sicily, east to byzantium, north to HRE, and northwest to France and you will see that you will often be outnumbered crazily and are forced to fight strategically.

[Irishman3]

Why be tactical in battles?

Because its funner to play the game (any game) that way. You can find work arounds to "normal" methods of operation in just about any computer game, particularly when your facing its AI as an opponent. But its just not fun to do so IMHO, so I suppose I role play a bit and try to use real world unit compositions and the strategy they'd employ before just bum rushing it with the best units I can get my hands on.

[pevergreen]

If you are winnig every battle without trying, there isnt much point to playing the battles. Leave and play some game where its "balanced"

Every game has good stratageys. Battle for middle earth 2 for instance. Very balanced, S,paper & rock. But rush as dwarves, and youve won. No matter what.

Rise of Nations, on the campaign map (its Medieval Total War with base building and a bad campaign) at the start of every campaign battle, you rush, you win.

Same here, rush your forces, you win.

A fun army as england:
(best units at the time)
General. 4 Units mailed knights
2 units Yeoman Arch 3 Longbows
5 Billmen
5 Dismounted Knigts (3 Fuedal, 2 English)

Its very fun. Sit back and relax, as the Danish come in. It can be flanked, it has no spears, yes. But its fun to play as!

[Ivan_the_Terrible]

I must say, the AI in the TW series isn't the greatest when it comes to tactics (although I have seen it do some intelligent things), so its usually good enough to just charge right in with everything you have, provided your own forces are not too inferior in quality to the enemy's.

I usually try to control my army as close as possible to the way it was controlled in history. So if I'm spanish, I'll try to form a tercico formation with pikemen and arquebusiers/musketeers etc. Just seems more fun that way.

[Multiplicity]

I tend to like to use a mixture of units because I find it more enjoyable. Recently finished a Byzantium campaign with LTC 2.0. I must say that the Varangian Guard really put up some big numbers for me against the Venetians and Turks (and Egypt when they crusaded against Constantinople). I rather play the game to have fun, not to win.

[kallistus]

I'd say there's two basic types of wargamer:

Those that see a game. These are the folk that tend to look at the battlefield rationally and work out what it takes to win. They tend to come up with the innovative formations that work in the game, but would never happen in real life.

And there's the historical types. Those that love their history, want to get immersed in the period; and want to try and reproduce the feel of the period. Those are the types that will deploy their armies 'correctly' and try and make period tactics work (even if they're less efficient in the game context).

These groups will overlap a bit, but on a macro level that's what I have seen in the past.

This is, of course, IMHO. My apologies if you feel sterotyped.

[sapi]

I don't know what you mean with missiles being rubbish - i've won battles with all missile armies.

You must set them up in 2 or 3 lines, with teh back one using fire arrows.

As they close switch the middle one (if you have 3) to them as well.

I guarantee that they'll break before the charge is complete.

[dopp]

And not everybody agrees with the gunpowder nerf. I like them the way they are.

[Irishman3]

I'd say there's two basic types of wargamer:

Those that see a game. These are the folk that tend to look at the battlefield rationally and work out what it takes to win. They tend to come up with the innovative formations that work in the game, but would never happen in real life.

And there's the historical types. Those that love their history, want to get immersed in the period; and want to try and reproduce the feel of the period. Those are the types that will deploy their armies 'correctly' and try and make period tactics work (even if they're less efficient in the game context).

These groups will overlap a bit, but on a macro level that's what I have seen in the past.

This is, of course, IMHO. My apologies if you feel sterotyped.

I'd say you nailed it honestly. I'm the latter type of player myself, which is why I tend to not play online. The few times I've tried its always seemed I've been up against the former type of player and I've lost terribly. Not due to tactics so much but more due to my unwillingness to give into using units I know will be "the best" at winning.

My only player vs player victory was against my son and his friend who ganged up on me on a LAN game in RTW. Their two full stacks against my one. They tried to use the "best units" tactic, but their deployment and subsequent attack stunk. A good old fashioned Roman formation and manipular tactics won the day for me. Then again, maybe they just let the old man win for a change

[Sheogorath]

I completely agree, I think missle units should be much more powerful, particularly gunpowder. Even though it seems everyone on these forums and others thinks that vanilla gunpoweder is too powerful, I completely disagree. By far, armies made up of nothing but 70% hvy cavalry and 30% light cavalry to chase down HA is much better than any other army stack.

Hvy infantry = pointless
Light infantry = pathetic
Missle units = too weak
Pike units = hahaha

Keep in mind I have played total war games since the first medieval and it didn't use to be this way.

You have clearly never seen the effect experienced musketeers can have on a unit. A volley at close range into most militia = lots of dead guys and a route.
If that doesnt work, cavy' em.
Archers and crossbows have the same effect if used wisely.

And all those units you listed, used correctly, are devastating. Light infantry on the flanks or rear can easily route/destroy better quality units.

Hence, the use of tactics to GET those light infantry to the position where they can exploit a weakness in the enemy lines.

[econ21]

I get about 5 or 6 units of cavalry and a few blocks of infantry - basically charge EVERYONE into 1 point of the enemy line and cause a mass panic then rout everyone kill the general and run them down!

I don't know why you say you are not using tactics. You are applying two killer ones: concentration of force and decapitation of enemy command n control.

And you are being fairly historical: a lot of Medieval European armies do seem to have worked on a battle plan of an irresistable charge; and the Ottomans made a point of zeroing in on the enemy general, knowing that if they killed him, the enemy would be massively disadvantaged.

Is there anything that can stop this amazing tactic?

Maybe nothing the AI can do. In history, the counters would be things like the English stakes and dismounted knights; or perhaps the Ottomon field fortifications and horse archers.

[Dexter]

I really like to take my chances against the AI whit "lesser quality" units.

Now if I have 40.000 panzers and the enemy has 20 .. well it would be strange if you did not win ... panzers in the game are the heawy cav. ... but think a moment .. 90 % of your population are peasants .. not nobles ..

Nights were specially in the early period only nobles .. it was a way, like sayin` only the noble one deserves good armor - rather he is able to pay for it - as the peasant are only there to serve and die. Later they would train an unit of personal bodyguards .. but that is later .. even then these guys were by any standard wealthy ..

In all the Total War games starting whit Shogun it was more fun to have more "weaker units" as it is well know the low can oppress the high.

It depends how you like to play .. win no matter the cost .. meaning here to have an army of the best of the best.. ore be more realistic and have all ..

ok peasants are cannon fodder ... but hey .. 3 units of peasants charging a knight from all sides .. hehe .. the cheap units kill the Nights .. LoL ..

By the way try this ... all cav army ws a balanced army like 4 missile 2 archer 2 crossbow 4 spear 2 militia 2 castle some swordsman like knights 1-2 .. and peasants 5-7 + to balanced really 1-2 cav ... men ratio 1:2 then 1:1 .. meaning 1 horsemen vs 2 infantry .. - for the extreme 3:1 -

I always win with the 2. army ..
only cav. fighting in woods .... aaa ... help us Lord !!!

I would like to know wich units do you use ??? Only cav ? And how you arrange the army ? Do you change the placement before the battle or simply click begin battle ???

[Lord_hazard]

I think what the OP wants is the game to actually make it worthwhile or even force players into using tactics in order to win. Roleplaying is fun dont get me wrong i do it myself, but my notion is that the devs should have made it right in the first place. It really bugs me when i have to roleplay to get any fun out of it.

[Rogerio]

I would like to know wich units do you use ??? Only cav ? And how you arrange the army ? Do you change the placement before the battle or simply click begin battle ???

I ususaly put all the infantry at the front so they can get to the enemy quicker and the cavalry behind them or to the side.

Whack the infantry in there ASAP! i dont care about the infantry really as they are just cheap militia guys - i use them to engage enemy spears so my cavalry dosent have to charge them, then i just wait for the enemy to swarm the infantry and then just completely steamroller everyone with the cavalry, i always go for their general as it basically means you got a 90% chance of winning it if you break a couple of their units after killing the general.

i do use SOME tactics i suppose - if there is high ground i will always go up on it so i can charge into the enemy as they come up at me and they will be a bit more tired.

The main thing is when your fighting a bigger enemy army is just to concentrate on the heart of their army just ignore all the shooty bits and all the fancy stuff - just try and take out their main block of combat guys wth the general once that goes the battle is alot easier.

when i besieged a french cant remember the name now - i had a force of 800 seiging the castle and a small unit of 200 blocking off the way so no reinforcements could break the seige.

a force of 600 men attacked my 200 but mine were on a hill and i had more cavalry, i just sat as far back in my deployment zone as i could get and waited, they came up the hill with masses of infantry and i thought i was screwed, but they put their generals bodyguards with the general right in the middle of their line = big mistake!
i just grouped the whole aremy and charged straight at that unit - killed them all quite quickly then regrouped and charged their main combat formation and broke some of the weaker units which incited a massive panic from which they could not recover!
so basically fought of a massive reinforcement army that outnumbered me 3-1 and just zerged the general and won the battle!

Dont get me wrong i LOVE this game its great fun and i love the battles its just i found it strange that tactic always works!

[Ignoramus]

I like using Reiters as the Holy Roman Empire. They are extremely effective containing both pistol and lance. You set "fire at will" on, and just charge. My only gripe is that their pistols did not contian 30 balls. They had 2 pistols in holsters beside the horse's head. Once fired, they took too long to be reused in battle.

[pevergreen]

Impractical for what their role is.

[FactionHeir]

According to the OP's post, he has never been fighting Mongols or Timurids ;)
He'd die within a few minutes with that "tactic"

Your tactics should depend on the type of units you are facing and your enemy tactics. If the enemy likes to advance towards you, hold your line instead of forcing a ehad-on charge on both sides.

The entire beauty is to minimize your losses.

BTW, ever noticed that conventional tactics are bad against mongols? I killed all their stacks by attacking them on any terrain tyype using massive amounts of ranged infantry (moorish peasant xbows or english longbows) backed up with some heavy infantry if they dare charging in. Works like a charm.

[PureFodder]

Try being a faction that doesn't have strong infantry or lacks strong cavalry and you'll suddenly find youself looking for better tactics.

[dopp]

Try fighting three full stacks of troops at once and having to beat each stack with minimal losses before the next one can reinforce it. Play on VH so that fatigue is a real killer. You might beat the first wave handily, but your exhausted troops will break against the second wave.

The AI makes full use of the retraining 'bug' so often its troops are 3 silver chevrons or something compared to your totally green troops. The horror of gold chevron Genoese Crossbows... my gendarmes got slaughtered in melee with them. Back to latrine duty with those retards.

[Kraggenmor]

I dont know why everyone goes on about tactics etc - i use the most simple tactics ever for this game and it works every time.

Can I play you online?

[seneschal.the]

Hordes of peasants supported by cavalry + mercenaries. Peasants are the most cost-effective troops there is, and they don't have a shield (which is a plus in the M2TW world!).

Charge en masse, flank with cavalry. Rinse, repeat.

Hopefully the AI will be fixed/implemented properly in the next patch.

[crpcarrot]

@ Regerio

what difficulty are u playing on?

thi rush tactics only work since rome was released it didnt work in MTW. the very first time i played MTW i tried just that cos i was outnumbered they ran away screaming like women. my army i mean. i stopped playing rome after 1.2 cos of this sort of gameplay. i never tried it in M2TW but i didnt really think it would work and i hate losing men so its not a tactic i try out.

[Garnier]

Well, Ive fought 3 full stacks of french in one battle and won losing about 150 men, to their 3000 losses, by doing repeated cavalry charges, with the billmen finishing any survivors off while the horsemen wait for the next wave.