Roleplaying the English Army - a tactics thread!

[econ21]

I try not to use dismounted knights as it is awfully demeaning for the poor fellows to go on foot.

In general, I would agree but not when roleplaying the English army. I don't think they had hang-ups about fighting dismounted and in fact became renowned for it.

Longbowmen have a better melee attack than ranged.

Good point, although with M2TW, the attack stat does not always tell the whole story. The speed with which the unit attacks is also important. However, given the sedate speed at which longbowmen shoot, I suspect factoring this in might favour melee even more. Against that, the ranged attack is AP - I am not sure the melee one is.

[dopp]

That really depends on the longbow unit in question. Sherwoods and Retinues use swords and are not AP (but have higher attack and better armor in general), Yeomen and Plain Longbows use mallets and are AP. Their sword attack animation seems to be significantly slower than that of 'real' swordsmen, but it's hard to compare it properly.

[Doug-Thompson]

Blasphemy! The French adopted the column formation because they were REAL MEN, not sissy British adopting the woman's tactic of throwing things at the enemy. A charging Frenchman could impale three enemies at once on his bayonet; he didn't need to form perfect lines. But he could, of course, because he was a REAL MAN, and had been practising drill before he was even born.

[Marquis of Roland]

Ok so if I was roleplaying historical English, I'd have something like this right:

1 general
1 hobilar
1 retinue longbowmen
1 yeoman archer
6 longbowmen
1 swordsmen
1 heavy billmen
1 heavy bill militia
2 bill militia
4 levy spearmen
1 peasant

[econ21]

Ok so if I was roleplaying historical English, I'd have something like this right:

1 general
1 hobilar
1 retinue longbowmen
1 yeoman archer
6 longbowmen
1 swordsmen
1 heavy billmen
1 heavy bill militia
2 bill militia
4 levy spearmen
1 peasant

Sounds broadly ok. Reading around, it seems my practice of taking 3-5 archers is too few. At their peak, longbows should account for around 60% of the English army.

But I'd say you have too few men-at-arms: knights, swordsmen etc. While they were usually outnumbered by the archers, they were in some ways the core of a medieval English army.

Billmen come in after 1400 or so, largely replacing spearmen. Both types would probably be less common when fighting in France than in the British Isles.

A lot of the mercs in M2TW could find a home in a historical English army. Merc spearmen, knights and crossbowmen especially before the HYW. Welsh spears and Irish kerns as well.

Here are some numbers I found on the web for the English army at Crecy:

3900 knights
11000 archers
5000 light troops - Welsh foot, Irish kerns etc.

For a full stack, that would be:
1 general
3 knights - mounted or on foot
11 longbows - various
5 other - eg. 3 Welsh spears, 2 Irish kerns

Given that the English were supposed to be typically heavily outnumbered, you might half the above. Unfortunately, if you did try to fight with such a half stack, I suspect you would be rolled over by a full AI stack. It's pretty hard to model the historical superiority of the HYW English in M2TW (in the demo battle of Agincourt, the English were pumped up and face piecemeal AI attacks, but still do far worse than they did in history).

[dopp]

In the real battle of Agincourt, the English were backed into a corner and faced badly uncoordinated 'AI' attacks. Same result, surely. The French literally killed themselves with their own superiority in numbers.

[m3k]

the english is easy really... as deep a line of spear infantry as possible interspersed with heavy infantry... and loadsa longbow directly behind...

if u find the top of a hill or a narrow-ish gap between 2 woods or sumfink u should do the do DEFENSIVELY...


i reckon the same for attacking, but have ur cavalry concealed on the flanks... play it like the carthaginians played Cannae and let the opposition centre push... then do em with the hidden cavalry....

this game, for ze english... it's totally bout artilliary... ie. longbow and the variants...

cavalry really means nothing... it's a luxury... for the english... and should be regarded as such.


the english way is to only ever attack when u know u can win... and make the enemy attack when u know u WILL win ;)


it's why the world speaks english... it's cuz we're bastards =D

[Garnier]

I use 15 unit stacks as the English, to represent their superiority in tactics and longbows, and the fact that they were always outnumbered. My army is madeup of the following:

1 Gen
1 Knight
2 Hobilar
1 DK (ArmSpear before I get DK.s)
2 Bill
4 Spear
4 Archer

But after about turn 75 in my LTC H/VH game, I start to use full stacks, since the AI armies are starting to increase in strength and numbers.

1 Gen
1 Knight
2 Hobilar
2 DK
3 Bill
5 Spear
6 Archer

My archers are in the earliest armies are all peasant archers
then they are half longbow half peasant
then half Yeoman archers half longbow
then 3 yeoman, 2 longbow and 1 Retinue (by which time I usually replace 1 hobilar with 1 sherwood archer. In the late game I can also replace 1 bill and 1 spear with 2 Armored swords.

[Marquis of Roland]

Sounds broadly ok. Reading around, it seems my practice of taking 3-5 archers is too few. At their peak, longbows should account for around 60% of the English army.

But I'd say you have too few men-at-arms: knights, swordsmen etc. While they were usually outnumbered by the archers, they were in some ways the core of a medieval English army.

Billmen come in after 1400 or so, largely replacing spearmen. Both types would probably be less common when fighting in France than in the British Isles.

A lot of the mercs in M2TW could find a home in a historical English army. Merc spearmen, knights and crossbowmen especially before the HYW. Welsh spears and Irish kerns as well.

Ok, so revised, it would be:

1 general
1 english knights (dismounted if more men-at-arms are needed?)
1 dismounted english knights
1 swordsmen
1 retinue longbowmen
1 yeoman archers
8 longbowmen
1 heavy billmen
1 heavy bill militia
2 bill militia
1 irish kerns
1 levy spearmen

And if I wanted to recreate a French army (using two armies, so 40 units total) what would their composition be, 1300's or so?

[econ21]

And if I wanted to recreate a French army (using two armies, so 40 units total) what would their composition be, 1300's or so?

For one 20 unit stack to represent the French army at Crecy, I would say:

1 generals
6 knights - mounted
4 crossbowmen
2 peasant archers
3 Brigans - sergeant spearmen
4 Bidets - should have javelin and shield, but could substitute spear militia, town militia or peasants

So then you could double it to get your 40.

This list is based on an illustrative army lists for Terry Gore's Medieval Warfare miniatures rules. Again, researching this, I am surprised at the high proportion of missile troops.

[Ar7]

Ok, so revised, it would be:

1 general
1 english knights (dismounted if more men-at-arms are needed?)
1 dismounted english knights
1 swordsmen
1 retinue longbowmen
1 yeoman archers
8 longbowmen
1 heavy billmen
1 heavy bill militia
2 bill militia
1 irish kerns
1 levy spearmen

And if I wanted to recreate a French army (using two armies, so 40 units total) what would their composition be, 1300's or so?

Even though historically correct, this army will get massacred.

[Marquis of Roland]

Even though historically correct, this army will get massacred.

Just played a custom battle (VH) 20 English units vs. 40 French units as layed out by Econ21 on more or less flat field and I won as English, took maybe about 20% casualties and let about 20% of French get away from battlefield. Probably would've lost if I dismounted the French knights though.

[Horatius]

Ok so if I was roleplaying historical English, I'd have something like this right:

1 general
1 hobilar
1 retinue longbowmen
1 yeoman archer
6 longbowmen
1 swordsmen
1 heavy billmen
1 heavy bill militia
2 bill militia
4 levy spearmen
1 peasant

I would just add in dismounted english knights, and Irishmen and you would have the perfect role playing english army.

Edit-I see that you put those in later, my mistake so sorry.

[Shahed]

Greetings!....

Excellent post. I love posts like that.
Question: Did you do those diagrams in CS3 ?

Here's one of my early English armies:

1 BG
3 FK
10 Longbowmen
6 Spear Militia

[resonantblue]

Pre-gunpowder morale rules the day.
Post-gunpowder firepower rules the day. Tactics get boring in the gunpowder era so let's stick with the pre-gunpowder era.

Flank, flank, flank. You don't even need to get clearly around to double envelop (and in crowded multiplayer battles you rarely have that kind of room). Stacking one flank and gett behind even just the corner unit can be enough to trigger a chain-rout. Win the cav battle. That's all there is to it. You don't have to take more or better cav to win the cav battle (you can use infantry to gain a superiority in cavalry)

And watch out for single player tactics like all cav armies. They don't translate well in multiplayer. Anyone dumb enough to go all cav in a multiplayer battle will die quickly. Or longbow-heavy (eg replacing most infantry for longbows) like you can in single player. Against a competent player you will lose 9 times out of 10.

[Furious Mental]

I tried "role playing" as an English army and using 12 retinue longbowmen in a 20 unit stack, although in reality the ratio of longbowmen was even higher. It works great as a defensive because if you put 2 or 3 longbow units projecting forward on each flank, protected by stakes, they just pour so many arrows into the attackers that they have no chance even against your outnumbered heavy inf (whichever you choose to use; I use DEK's with a different animation). Harder to use on the attack though. If longbowmen could replant their stakes I think a stack like that would be unstoppable though. Well, except against a massive rampart with 300 cannon in it.

Incidentally, the English force at Crecy had alot of Welsh soldiers in it, and some "gonnes" (possibly ribaulds).

[Didz]

In the real world, the French were the first to realize that you didn't have to have a perfectly set, straight and seamless line to be effective with muskets. If your line was ragged and had some gaps, any unit trying to bayonet-charge through those gaps would get shot to pieces while marching toward them. Napoleon benefited greatly from this discovery, which was made before his time during the French Revolutionary wars. It was hard to get "levee masse" troops who were relatively poorly drilled to line up in those perfect lines, so the French made a virtue of necessity by adopting "quick and ragged" manoeuvring.

Hmm! that whole concept has been seriously challenged by more recent historical debate. It might well have been true during the early period when Frances Demi-Brigades were partly formed by poorly trained conscripts but by the time of Napoleon's rise to power the French drill manuals show that infantry formations, drills and tactic's were much more rigid and controlled. This drill’s were published in 1803, specifically modified by Dedon from earlier regulations and took into account his experiences in the field. They go into considerable detail about the precise placement of specific individuals and drills for changing front and formation in battle.

The fact is that order is essential for the maintenance of morale under fire and the idea that the French would have managed to maintain an advance without also maintaining some order is unlikely. There is also evidence from several sources that French troops were trained and capable of firing by files contrary to the popular belief that their musketry was always uncontrolled and ragged.

So, I would say that France understood the initial value of 'revolutionary zeal' in securing victory, but soon released that it could not previal in the long term without being able to harness that zeal and direct it effectively and efficiently in under fire.

The other myth is that French skirmishers were highly trained specialists who operated in 'clouds' of uncontrolled activity. In practice, just like the British the French skirmished according to a strict procedure, and drill, keeping proper reserves and using mutual support. They also employed men from the third rank of their fusilier companies to boost their skirmish line whenever the tactical situation required it. A system copied by the Prussian's and latter the Austrian's.

Have to say that I think the British are responsible to promulgating much of the myth about French tactic's and drills. It suited the British attitude to the French to depict them as a highly excitable somewhat undisciplined rabble, led by men who didn't give a fig about their welfare or survival, and it also appealed to the British soldiers assumptions of his superiority over the French to interpret everything they did as uncontrolled and undisciplined. The language used in eyewitness accounts reflects this and the cultural differences reflected on the battlefield tended to feed British prejuduce. For example a lot of contempt is generated in British eyewitnesses because of the noise French troops made when advancing e.g. singing, chanting, cheering and playing 'old trousers' are all ridiculed by British accounts as evidence of poor French discipline and lack of control. Whereas the French considered it proof of superior elan and other nations considered it a sign of their impending doom.

[econ21]

Harder to use on the attack though.

True, although sometimes your longbows can do more work on the attack. The AI may stand around getting shot, whereas on the defensive, it will close more promptly.

Historically, the English often seemed to fight on the defensive. Maybe in game, this should be simulated by fielding smaller armies than the AI? But even then, I can easily see the relatively small proportion of non-missile infantry getting eaten up through attrition after a few repeated battles.

[Per Ole]

been seeing some of you wondering about the horse speeds, so I just thought I'd enlighten you.

There are "Basic horses", "Ponies" and "Fast_ponies". The difference between these are speed.

Basic horses are very easy to spot on the battlefield: They're covered in armour/cloth or whatever (generals bodyguard, feudal knights, kataphracts, that sort of horses). These are the slowest types of horses.

Ponies are the medium speed ones. They are not covered in armour, so they're easy to spot as well. However it can be quite hard to separate them from the Fast_ponies becouse there's no obvious difference in looks between them. Examples of Ponies are Mailed knights, Mounted sergants, Hobilars, Siphantis (those turkish HA) and generally all mounts that does not have the "Fast moving" trait and are not covered in armour/cloth.

The last type is Fast_ponies. These are the fastest horses and are generally reserved for missile cavalry (the exeption beeing border horse and stradiots). These horses are marked with the "Fast moving" trait in the description, so if a horse archer does not have that trait, it is just a normal pony.

Hope I enlightened you

[Didz]

Thought it might be interesting to get some historical evidence of English army composition.


The Welsh at Falkirk might well have been Welsh longbowmen I'm not sure as the record doesn't say.

It does seem that English armies were very heavy on Archers.

[Furious Mental]

The later it gets, generally the more archers there were. One expeditionary army late in the Hundred Years War was 600 men-at-arms and 4,000 mounted archers. Don't know about army compositions in the War of the Roses though.

[gardibolt]

Of course, the troop numbers given in records of medieval and ancient battles are almost always complete and utter *baloney*.

[Furious Mental]

We know the numbers for this and numerous other English armies in the Hundred Years War not from some chronicler penning a yarn a century later but from the Exchequer rolls which record the contractual raising and payment of the force. The development of bureaucracy in this way means such numbers can often be cited without hesitation in the later Middle Ages, depending on which is the state in question.

[Didz]

Assuming the exchequer rolls were correct. In the 1815 campaign for example Wellington complained bitterly to London that the number of troops they were paying the allies to provide bore no resemblance to the number actually arriving in Belgium. Its a minor point but one worth keeping in mind.

[gardibolt]

Exactly. It's not like war profiteering and military contractor fraud are new phenomena.

[Furious Mental]

The Exchequer was well aware of that. It did not just throw away cash in the futile hope of an army turning up at the appointed time; it took the trouble to inspect indentured retinues and ensure that they were of the right size and composition- the rolls in fact record the number of the troops of particular types which the captain was contracted to provide, which ones actually turned up and how long they stayed.

[Lupiscanis]

I'm glad somebody brought up the much-neglected topic of infantry tactics.

We card-carrying missile cavalry nutcases can't stop discussing tactics. In fact, the best discussion of infantry tactics I've seen on these boards recently was a very good discussion on how infantry should fight horse archers.

===========

The strength of foot archers in concentration. Much of the fire here is concentrated against good-quality units. Does that keep up once the melee lines come into contact? Are archers grouped so they can concentrate fire to assist the flank attacks?

Once one of the flanks begins to collapse, do the archers behind it stay where they are to maintain fire, or do they advance to get some enfilade and flanking fire on the rest of the line? Are they out of arrows by that point, or is the collapse of the enemy line too quick for them to move?

Do they use regular arrows for effect, or fire arrows for the morale penalty?

What about using shorter-ranged javelin troops on one end of the line, then having archers on the other end concentrate their longer-ranged fire on the same side, acheiving a crushing concentration of missiles?

I've played fairly extensively as both England and Spain, both of whom can rely on either archers or Javelinmen to an extent (Spain less so than England).

As England, I'll utilise Archers in different ways, but I think people underestimate just how deadly they are. I know a couple of friends who play and all they do with their archers is stick them on walls and leave them there during sieges, or stick them at the back of the army and let them fire arrows indiscriminately.

Tactics as described by the OP using heavy cavalry to circle around and flank the already engaged infantry? I'll do that with longbows. They can move pretty fast and if you keep them with your front line can flank fairly smoothly. Once flanking, they are pure and simple deadly, either with fire to rout, or plain missiles to kill, they will quickly decimate units.

In town sieges, I'll usually have longbows on the walls for a moment or two, and let fly a few volleys before retreating to the town square (I usually defend around there, not the gates). Longbows (or bows of any kind, crossbows are insanely deadly also, but longer reload times) are deployed along the longest straights I can find. Firing volleys of arrows straight into the oncoming enemy (especially early in the game) is devestating, and with fire arrows, can be an almost guaranteed rout, which leads to your general pursuing and cleaning up.

As for Javelins - I've used them to some extent, and they can be absolutely lethal, but they require a fair amount of micro management. Alumghvars can be absolutely deadly if used correctly. Excellent vs mounted troops, plus the javelins is a good combination, and they work wonders in siege defence.

Just my 2cp =p