Roleplaying the English Army - a tactics thread!

[econ21]

So gendarmes drew the short straw again, huh? Perhaps we should start a separate thread on cavalry speeds and usage, as it is not exactly England's "thing".

Back on topic - having derailed the thread for a bit, I feel obliged to comment on the original post. I guess it depends what period you are role-playing, but for the iconic Hundred Years War English army, I think you have too much "infantry" (ie spears) and no mention of stakes.

I would role-play the HYW English army starting with a nice row of stakes. Ideally planted by retinue archers who can fight well enough in a pinch, but that may be overpowering. I'd aim for 3-5 archers - more and it becomes a turkey shoot.

The HYW English army did not use large numbers of low grade spearmen. They did occasionally bring some lightly armed Welsh spearmen, but they were not the front line. I would bring 2-3 spears and put them on the flanks of the stakes or in the rear.

Historically, the frontline would be dismounted men-at-arms (well armoured fighters including knights). In M2TW, I would represent these by armoured swordsmen and DEKs. Ideally, they should have anti-cav weapons like spears/dismounted lances/polearms but they don't in the game. Luckily, the stake line substitutes. As soon as the battle starts, I would pull back my archers from their stake line and bring up my swords.

Essentially that's it - just think of the English army in the Agincourt battle.

But I would have a couple of mounted knights and a general - mainly to guard the flanks and chase routers. Hobliars would be characterful too.

The whole approach is predicated on the AI charging straight at you and your stakes. It works pretty well on the defensive, although you may get overwhelmed if the AI has lots of good swords and cavalry.

On the offensive, you unfortunately lose the anti-cav protection of the stakes but to compensate the AI is very timid using cavalry when defending. I often can shoot them, and indeed the entire AI army, down when it just sits idly defending.

Being on the defensive is much more fun and also more like role-playing the English. Which great English general said you should fight offensively in strategy and defensively in tactics? Actually, I wonder if it wasn't Napoleon...

[Ar7]

Great advice econ21, that was exactly what I was looking for! It will be a bit hard to recreate at the very beginning, atleast until the first dismounted feudal knights and longbows with stakes are available, but I can postpone my wars and turtle until I am able to create an army I wish.

A few questions though.

What part would you give to the billmen, if any? Or if none is the answer, then why?

You mention archers in melee between the stakes, though I can see it only in critical situations, as you yourself mentioned a knight frontline. Though did you actually mean that commiting the archers to the melee in every battle could be a viable option?

PS. I didn´t mention the stakes in my OP since I forgot, it kind of seems natural

[econ21]

What part would you give to the billmen, if any? Or if none is the answer, then why?

I don't use billmen (yet) because apparently they are afflicted by the 2-handed weapon bug which makes them largely ineffective against cavalry. When they are patched, I would use them as flankers as you suggested. This would be largely for role-playing reasons - in a future patched game, the DEK (also currently bugged) should be able to do the same job better, but an all elite army is a bit much.

You mention archers in melee between the stakes, though I can see it only in critical situations, as you yourself mentioned a knight frontline. Though did you actually mean that commiting the archers to the melee in every battle could be a viable option?

No - just a last resort. I'd rather have them shoot. If they are out of ammo, the retinue longbowmen should be decent enough in melee to help out. But it would be wasteful to use lesser archers in melee - I often prefer to retreat them off the battle when they are out of ammo. Their melee effectiveness is so low, I'd rather let them survive to build up experience, although I know that is not roleplaying it.

But to role-play the English, they should be outnumbered and archer-heavy, so you may have to rely on the archers pitching in on occasion. Sometimes M2TW battles become so bloody, both sides end up with relatively few real melee fighters still battling it out. At that point, charging in 300 archers from your reserve might actually be decisive. Hopefully the casualties they have inflicted from range means they have a morale advantage.

[Doug-Thompson]

Longbowmen have a better melee attack than ranged. Assuming the shield bug is patched, they will soon be much better at hand-to-hand.

Melee exposes them to more losses so it's still a last resort, but last resorts are important. Many times, I've sent Desert Archers and/or javelinmen into melee when a regular infantry unit in front of them was wavering. These new troops restored morale and saved the day almost every time, in MTW1 and 2.

Although archers can't catch routing units as well in MTW2 as they did in 1, they can "keep up the scare," making a routing unit run farther before recovering. They can also stop periodically and shoot the routers in the back. Get 'em running, keep 'em running. Then they can turn around and shoot into the backs of units that haven't routed yet.

About the only English missile troops I've never send into melee are peasant or militia.

==============

It's hard to get crossfire going with foot troops, but any unit caught in crossfire by longbows would quickly become mincemeat.

[Doug-Thompson]

Perhaps we should start a separate thread on cavalry speeds and usage, as it is not exactly England's "thing".

I'll do it.