what type of commander are you?

[Hellenic_Hoplite]

personally im more of an infantry commander mainly archers, its easier to destroy half your enemy before they can evan reach you

I don't care much for cavelry, but I do try to include at least one cavelry unit in my armies so I can run down routers.

[Csargo]

I usually have a good mix of all three.

[Xehh II]

I use mainly Infantry and Archers I hardly ever use Cavalry.

[WhiskeyGhost]

Im a general kind of man myself. I like to use my generals as a "Hero" unit among my semi-balanced stacks of units (usually around 3 spears, 3 hvy cav, rest a mix of archers and hvy inf)

[Sheogorath]

Im a footslogger myself. I certainly USE cavalry, but never as the main composition of my army.
Typically I'll wait for the enemy to come to me, using my archers to shoot them up along the way, then pin with spears/high defence infantry while my shock troops/cavy flank. I generally have some light cavalry around to mop up as well.
The only exception is my all cavy-archer armies, typically for use with the Muslim factions or Russia.

[sapi]

Depends on my faction.

If pressed, I can go 100% cavalry with no problems at all, using merc infantry to take settlements.

I'll win a lot of battles that way (usually at least a 10:1 kills:losses ratio) but it's just not as 'fun' as playing with a balanced army, imo

[Furious Mental]

Infantry and archers, generally tactically defensive. Strategically ruthless.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Depends. In the early game I like to spam cheap infantry and crush what little opposition I have by sheer weight of numbers. 10,000 peasants and town militia can crush 1000 knights. The key is to surround them completely and charge like you're indestructible. Confidence when you are carrying a rusty pitchfork means having 9,999 other peasants frothing like mad dogs next to you as you bum rush 'well equipped' excuses for armies.

Make sure you have a decent general though, and for God's sake, dont get him near the actual fighting. That's peasant work. That armor is no good around a dead general.

In the middle game, I like to spam crusaders or jihadists. Nothing says "I love you" like a raging horde of bloodthirsty zealots. Make sure you adopt plenty of generals by rushing wandering rebel armies with town milita on fairly even odds and winning battles. Your family tree will start to look odd, but that's ok.

Show those peasants they have a reason to fight... they might become part of the Royal family for their trouble, or become a national hero!

In the end game, It doesn't matter what kind of troops you have. You have so many to choose from. And you are smart to keep 2 or 3 stacks within 1 square of each other... there's strength in numbers.

Armor and good weapons are for cowards.
Yes, it's cheap, but it works.

...OK fine... you don't want to fight like a horde? Very well, 'civilized' man, all you have to do is work on cavalry. Lots of heavy cavalry paired with lots of infantry spearpoints. It might be ancient Greek strategy, but it works.

Archers are a waste of time unless you're on a hill.

[Silvershade]

I usually end up playing with a lot of ranged units, mounted or unmounted. It seems like that is the way to win by the ratios required if you are going to fight the multiple stacks the ai seems to manage to throw at you over a number of turns. Retraining is a killer if you arent careful to avoid heavy casualty rates. What infantry i use is really just there as protection for archers or as a fallback should the ammo run out against a massive infantry army.

The exception would be in defending settlements, there i rely heavily on infantry with maybe only a third of my forces being ranged.

My favourite factions are Byzantium, Russia and the Turks. All lend themselves quite well to the style of play i prefer.

[sapi]

Oh yeah - I forgot to mention - I never retrain.

If I take casualties, I merge and move on

[Didz]

Hmm! I had trouble answering this question as every time I'd thought I got it sussed I thought of an exception.

I suppose the only common trend I have is a love of missile units, particularly though not exclusively crossbowmen. I prefer to kill from a distance as far as possible, but recognise that a solid battle line is needed to fend off enemy assaults and so not everyone can be an archer. I use cavalry sparingly as I find it fragile and unreliable, but at the same time its value in outflanking and pursuit cannot be ignored.

I try to win through morale rather than brute force, so once battle is joined I work around flanks rather than relying on superior weaponry, armour and unit stats to win through.

Generally, I have trouble being Chivalrous. My natural instinct is to exterminate my enemies, those who fight and are allowed to run away merely come back to fight another day. So, most of my generals have very high dread, and I tend to keep a clear distinction between family members who govern and family members who kill and keep them seperate.

[Caliburn]

Horse Archer armies are especially fun at the beginning, though they're a bit too strong vs. the AI and give a great strategic advantage as they suffer few losses. Later when I can build good balanced armies I like to use them as well, usually mixing up elites and weaker units to make playing more fun. Archers/crossbows/gunpowder units get quite a few of the kills. I let infantry slug it out and use cavalry mainly for cavalry vs. cavalry and hunting missiles.

I don't use artillery too much, cannons I use when they appear, but in field battles mainly Serpentines, and I usually autoresolve settlement assaults anyway.

[Matt_Lane]

I like a small core of heavy infantry and large wings of heavy cavalry. I've little patients to wait for the enemy to come to me so all too often I charge in with the cavalry. This can be very wasteful but the visuals of horse and lance hitting home at full tilt is (almost) worth it.

I'm currently playing England but I'm finding it hard to adapt to missile troops as in previous campaigns they were just something to charge at.

[Budwise]

personally im more of an infantry commander mainly archers, its easier to destroy half your enemy before they can evan reach you

I don't care much for cavelry, but I do try to include at least one cavelry unit in my armies so I can run down routers.

I am the exact same way. I usually only have a horse unit or two and I usually never run down routers, but as a whole its mostly longbowmen with stakes placed and other heavy infantry for backup.

[Hellenic_Hoplite]

I am the exact same way. I usually only have a horse unit or two and I usually never run down routers, but as a whole its mostly longbowmen with stakes placed and other heavy infantry for backup.

same here, when you have stakes cav cant charge into your archers without getting destroyed and the archers act as great light infantry if the enemy make it past your arrow shower.

I was playing against this guy today that said archers are useless, lets just say I proved him wrong