Some thoughts on battle dynamics (guerilla warfare)

[Whacker]

For discussion.

I've been thinking about battle tactics lately in anticipation of the new patch, and have been concentrating mainly on the subject of archers and ranged combat. I'll prefix this by stating that I'm not even close to the best player out there, but I can hold my own.

I realized that my tactics in both RTW and M2TW tend to be somewhat "zerglike" in approach, in that in RTW I'd crank out entire stacks of Hastatii and use a flood type approach. The downside of this is the lack of unit diversity and the fact that against certain stack compositions, I'd take heavy casualties or just lose outright. The upside is that I could very easily retrain my depleted stacks on site instead of having to send them home. Using that logic and once I had Greece under control, it was pretty much game over as I could crank stuff out like there's no tomorrow. In M2TW, I found my general army to be a bit slightly more diversified, but in general I'd have some type of militia coupled with a roughly even number of heavy mounted knights (playing as English mainly). So get to the damn point! you say. The point is that I don't use ranged units, hardly at all.

In deference to Mr. DougT and the other HA fanatics hanging around, I've tried using heavily biased ranged armies, mainly in RTW, and by god it does work. The problem and the core of what I'm getting at is that more often that naught, when using a heavily arty based stack, you'll be able to kill upwards of 1/3 to 1/2, sometimes more, of an opposing stack before you run out of ammo. Now, realizing the situation you're in and that you're most often heavily outclassed in melee, the smart thing to do would often be to retreat and take the loss, giving the opponent the field and position, however it's arguably a victory for you, and a best a pyrrhic victory for your opponents. No matter what happens though, you'll still get slammed with a loss during the post-battle calcs and report. This to me is really the biggie, about the loss and the affects to your captain/general by having a loss.

The idea that I'm getting at here is allowing for this type of tactic and having a "more intelligent" post-battle calculator. If I go and attack a full melee stack with a full archer stack of my own, and I end up killing 1/2 of his stack yet retreating with 0 losses of my own, who won that battle? I'd call that a draw personally, as I didn't give up space but I didn't exactly gain any territory or capture anything. Kill 3/4 of his stack? I'd call that a victory. Here are some key points to this.

1. Movement points left is important. If your archer stack initiates the combat but does so on it's last movement point, and you attempt to retreat, logically you'd lose your entire stack as normal because you don't have the points left to retreat. If you attack with movement points left but tactically retreat, my thoughts are that all stacks involved should remain where they were pre-battle, to indicate that no ground has been taken/given. Another possible alternative is to have the retreating army move back 1 space.
2. The retreating force should not be able to recover captured men, as they are giving the field to the opponent when they retreat. Injuries I can see as it's possible to haul off an injured man while retreating, but this should be done in a sane way.
3. The AI should be able to do this as well, or at least attempt it.

Thoughts? Please note that this is entirely disregarding any multiplayer issues or balancing, this is SP discussion only.

[Maq]

Completely agree. A long time gaming friend and I have discussed this a number of times with reference to TW titles. The lack of recognition of the validity of guerilla tactics appears to be a failing of the series.

I don't know if withdrawing in good order is treated any differently to routing off the battlefield but it certainly should be.

[Ars Moriendi]

These ideas have come up before in various contexts, some even as far back as the first Medieval.

Pro : It allows for a greater variety in warfare (hit-and-run, raiding, guerilla, etc.). If well implemented it could add a lot of "color" to the campaigns.

Con : A smart human player could easily learn to use these tactics effectively. I doubt, however, that the AI will be able to return the favor. Getting hit with a loss when you retreat unharmed after inflicting heavy casualties to the enemy is somewhat unfair, but the AI needs all the help it can get if it is to pose a challenge. I don't think that it could learn to cope with the new rules, given it's current "brains".

That being said, I'd really love to see the mongols trying to pull a hit-and-run invasion on me, trying to break me by attrition... Can you imagine how difficult would be to defend against them if they could be made to learn this kind of tactics ? How many troops would you need to surround and force them to engage on your terms ?
As it stands now, unfortunately, one stack is more than enough to eliminate the horde, as they all seem to think that the best place to be for a horse archer army is on a bridge.

[HoreTore]

Uhm...

English longbowmen are extremely powerful troops.

You can shoot down anything from a quarter to half of the enemy army if you have about a half of your army as longbowmen. When you have done that, simply rush the enemy with the rest of your army as well as the archers, for example 5 knights and 5 infantry units. As the enemy will have reduced numbers, and more importantly, severely reduced morale, they will break easily. Yeoman Archers and Retinue Longbowmen are very good close combat troops.

Of course, you can't just fire away at the enemy, you'll have to choose your targets carefully. Avoid anything with pavises, and do not fire needlessly on units with big shields. Take down enemy knights first, as longbows are armour piercing, you don't waste ammo. Stop firing at a unit when it reaches about a third of its original size, as you waste arrows shooting at small units.

[pike master]

not sure if this is related but it sure would be nice to use withdrawing and harrasing tactics. for example using horse archers to thin out an enemy army then withdraw from battle over several turns you could wittle down an enemy army.

but if you do this then your general gets penalized for it. if you use your armies without generals sometimes they rebel.

[Zenicetus]

If the AI would also do this, I'd be for it. It would be a great addition to the game. But that's probably not in the cards anytime soon, so it would just end up being a player exploit.

Another problem is the free reload of ammo at the start of every battle. You could withdraw with no movement points left, be attacked by a weakened enemy in the next turn, and still start with a fresh load of ammo. I know we sort of assume there is an invisible supply train moving with your army, but it takes time in the real world to regroup and resupply. Not so in this game... you get immediate ammo refreshment. And that just increases the exploitation factor, if it's a player-only tactic.

[Foz]

I'm decidedly against rewarding gorilla tactics. My primary reason for this is that even up through the times of the American Revolutionary War, guerilla tactics were heavily frowned upon, and people engaging in them were thought to be dishonorable as a result. The fact of the matter is that no general during medieval times would have ever considered using such tactics as he had a reputation to uphold, and a general who did such things would be publicly scorned, not to mention feeling (rightly so to their thinking) some manner of shame at himself for having done it.

In game terms, what are the effects of taking a loss for guerilla tactics? The only real ones I can think of involve traits that the general can get. Granted you will have to retreat the army and haven't won the position, but that's as it should be since you did retreat from the battle. So if the only repercussion is for generals, then shouldn't the game follow the realities of the times? As I said it was shameful to do this sort of thing, and especially so in a period of time where chivalry and honor were so important. I would actually find fault with the game if it failed to penalize you for guerilla tactics, and it certainly should not reward such conduct.

[pike master]

i believe that to be true amongst most factions in the game except for the more professional armies of the byzantines. whos tactics often times involved allowing an invader into their territory and harass them while using their main forces to counterinvade the others country. or to let them come in and pillage then when they were burdened down with loot and not as well organized give battle.

i cant remember what book it was that a byzantine strategist wrote about this though.

[Locke11110]

Long answer yes with an if. Short answer No with a but. WESTERN EUROPEAN military commanders were against it. In the late medieval ages and on. In the beginning (Early Medieval, or more commonly the dark ages) it was common and even rampant. The Vikings were well known to do this, and yes while being before the set time period of this game, only a few decades before and were definitely not the only ones. Now the Muslims, the eastern european and most importantly the Mongolians used Guerilla tactics. The Turks assaulted the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Crusading armies in very complex guerilla battles. The idea that retreat isn't an option is ludicrous. retreat is not losing. In real battle tactics call for you to be flexible. The Mongols would retreat and counter multiple times in a battle. Indeed it is the general who believes retreat is not an option who is losing on one of his biggest assets, the ability to fight another day. Maybe the plan didn't go right, maybe you need different terrain, maybe your men are tired. Honestly Guerilla tactics and the ability to retreat is absolutley neccesary for any battle simulation. One classic example would be the height of english civilized battle, the battle of waterloo. The British unintentionally faked a retreat drawing Napoleons cavarly into the English square, thus destroying the Cavalry. And again when Napoleon sent his Old Guard to destroy the Remnant of the English infantry the English hid their numbers thus surprising the old guard and destroying Naploeon's army.

[pike master]

that is true. when the enemy attacks retreat.

when he halts harass.

when he retreats attack.

true the vikings whenever they encountered organized resistance they hopped back in their boats.

[zeroyuugi]

I agree with the statement that it is not necessary to the game because guerilla warfare doesn't fit into the scope of the game (for the most part)... the tactical retreat, to say nothing of more complex methods is not something a medieval (European) army (large scale) would have used...

The belief against retreating or using other less reputable methods has always been a part of the Christian war tradition and we still hold true to many of those standards (the Law of Armed Conflict presently)...

Thus it is perfectly reasonable that if you use said tactics in-game, your general might acquire traits according to his conduct.

[diotavelli]

I'm decidedly against rewarding gorilla tactics. My primary reason for this is that even up through the times of the American Revolutionary War, guerilla tactics were heavily frowned upon, and people engaging in them were thought to be dishonorable as a result. The fact of the matter is that no general during medieval times would have ever considered using such tactics as he had a reputation to uphold, and a general who did such things would be publicly scorned, not to mention feeling (rightly so to their thinking) some manner of shame at himself for having done it.

This is plain wrong. Lots of things were heavily frowned upon during medieval times and yet still prevalent in warfare. The use of archers in large numbers, especially as used by the English in the Hundred Years War, was considered thoroughly unchivalric but it worked. Did the French grumble about it? Too right. Did they respect Edward III, the Black Prince and Henry V as successful and threatening opponents? Too right.

As for guerilla tactics - how do they differ substantively from the tactics utilised by the French under Du Guesclin? Whenever possible, he refused to fight the English on their terms but attacked them when they were vulnerable and avoided pitched battles otherwise. Classic guerilla warfare.

The ideals of chivalry were important to the self-image of the knightly classes in this period but that should not be confused with the fact that successful generals were practical fighters. Almost all the great 'chivalric' generals have a few notable unchivalric episodes to their name.

It would be more accurate to say that the fact of the matter is that no successful general during medieval times would have considered putting chivalry above success on the battlefield and their tactics at times reflected that. A reputation for chivalry was all well and good but a reputation for winning was what got you land, power, influence and wealth.