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.

[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.

[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.

[Mithradates]

I like to be elitest. Using a well rounded but genrealy much smaller army trying to take as few casualties as possible whilst inflicting the most damage usualy achieved with a hammer of heavy cav with and anvil of strong infantry.

[Monsieur Alphonse]

I usually play like a woman. I like to throw things. So lots of archers, mounted or dismounted supported with heavy infantry or heavy cavalry. Depends on the faction I play. Although nothing beats a real heavy cavalry charge (except stakes )

[Joshwa]

lots of Guard Archers, lots of Vardaroitai, and a bunch of useless Byzantine Infantry to make up the numbers and make the sandwiches

[Thurak]

So much depends on the faction and time period you are playing in... I usually try to adjust my style to the faction I play. Most times those unique units are quiet useful so I try to compose my army around them.
For example:
As England: Mainly swordsmen and longbows, 2 spear units for the flanks and a few (light) cavalary units to play the hammer
As Byzanz: ~6 useless spearmen and ~6 useful archers, 4-8 HA. Later throw in the much better heavy infantry units and only keep 2 spears for the flanks. They are cheap so they love to be charged by enemy cavalary units
As Portugal: 6 Crossbow, 4 Aventuros, 4 DFK, 4 Cav [earlier on those almurghaven (sp ?) are great, but crossbowmen are even better]
As Egypt: 9 archers, 4 HA, 6 Saracene Infantry

Of course all those armies can be upgraded, but usually I like to think a little bit about the upkeep. And about versatility.

[spirit_of_rob]

Im very defensive always have been since shogun atm i have amy scottish campaign and i have a kingdom in turkey which is feeling the brunt of the mongol hordes adana i think its called has been assaulted now less than 10 times since they hordes arrived and they are still coming from their eastern provinces. I just hide in my fortresses they have too much cavalry of high quality to meet on the open field.

[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.

[magnum]

Tend to use a few infantry as a wall (defensive) backed by a lot of archers which decimate the enemy as they move forward. Then have a few cav to flank, take out enemy archers/siege engines and of course run down routers. A full stack is roughly 6 infantry, 4 cavalry, and 10 archers.

[Betito]

Generally, i will have 4 to 6 HA units, of which at least 2 should be melee capable ones (like mameluk, mongol heavies or sipahis). One or two other medium cav, something in the spirit of sipahi lancers, my general, and one or two heavy cav, such as qapukulu . About 3 or 4 foot missiles, if they are melee capable, like ottomans, or can deploy stakes, like yeomans or janissaries, much better. Then 3 or 4 spear infantry and 2 or 3 other infantry. Depending on the faction, it can be halberds or swords. One or two artillery units complete the roster.

The HAs go first, harrassing, shooting, retreating, and repeating; i have yet to try the combat group Doug suggests in multiplayer, sounds good to me. I try to focus on the troublesome units, such as knights, artillery or really good infantry.

The rest of the battle depends on the specific situation, but generally it's me seeking high ground, sending the foot missiles a bit forward, using the artillery with fire/explosives, sometimes with fire at will. Spear units on guard mode, i try not to move them too much, they are for containing purpouses mainly. The HAs double as flankers when needed, or when they run out of ammo (this is why i need some melee capable ones). If i need some more staying power, my missiles can usually handle it (this is why i choose janissaries/ottomans). A farily versatile formation, IMO, can attack and defend nicely

[andrewt]

I'm a missile cav fan. I love horse archers, javelin cav and gun cav. I send them at the start to shoot from the flanks and generally harrass. Then I send my heavy infantry and heavy cav. Depending on faction, I'll have infantry missile troops with the heavy infantry and cav as well. I typically like the hybrid ones like dismounted Dvor where you can sometimes turn off skirmish and watch them own anything that gets close.

I remember fielding armies of dismounted Dvor, Dvor and Cossack Cav with Russia. The Dvors pack the punch while the Cossack are really good chasers and can chase most cav. I usually kill/capture 95%+ of the enemy after a fight. Sometimes, I sacrifice troops by making cav mop up before rejoining the battle.

[Rozanov]

In terms of army composition:

a nice mixture please (you never know what you're going to be facing in the field.)

So (if available): 2/4 units spears or pike; 2 archers; 2 x-bows or musket; 2 light cavalry; 2 missile cavalry; 2/4 heavy cavalry; 4/8 heavy infantry; general's unit; a couple of artillery pieces and whatever specialist units I take a fancy to.

always merge damaged units and send the remnants back to be retrained; rarely use mercs except if attacking a settlement or castle and then I demob them once the garrison doesn't need them.

On the battlefield, once I have every one lined up I assigned units to attack the enemy units (unless I'm adopting a purely defensive posture.) I let them finish the job, reform and then send them off to their next target.

[Skott]

I guess I'm a combined arms type commander with a leaning more towards infantry.

[Sir Robin the Brave]

Im a terrible commander!

Really I tend to have mainly infantry, with archers or skirmishers and light cavalry

[Plebian#10]

I am a combined arms commander who likes small well trained and heavily experienced troopers. There is nothing like having a little bit of everything to take your enemies apart. In addition small armies cost less and gain experience faster. I rarely use mercenaries because when you sack a city you get significantly less money.

[Mordon]

I've always been a fan of combined arms, especially if I can do combined arms with hybrid units.

I have a Milanese campaign going now, and I find that my armies consist of the general, 2-3 Italian Calvary Militia, 1-3 Caroccio(sp) Standards, 3 Italian Spear militia, and the rest as many Genoese Crossbow Militia as I can get.

The Standards supplement the spears if the enemy is cavalry heavy, and keep morale high.The Cavalry Militia help with routers and charging the enemy from the rear once they engage my battleline, and simply look cool.

I use the General to support weak points in the infantry line.

The spears are mainly there to hold up cavalry so they can be gunned down readily.

For everything else, its the crossbows. What they don't gun down at range, they can chop up in melee, they do *very well* as swordsmen. I find that with the archers in a checkered two-line formation(so everyone has clear LOS, but still two lines of units), the rear can usually swing around to slightly flank the engaged line, and enfilade fire the enemy to death.

I take some losses to friendly fire, but I find overall I can defeat equal or greater numbers with ~5-12% casualties. And there's nothing like watching a full unit of DFK's take a few hundred crossbow bolts in a single volley and wind up with like 15-20 guys left instantly.

The only time this hasn't worked for me was when the blasted Sicilians sent two almost-all-cavalry stacks against mine. That wasn't pretty...

[gingergenius]

Ideal army: 6 Retinue Longbowmen, 3 Armoured Swordsmen, 3 Levy Spearmen, 7 Knights Hospitaller, 1 General.

I'd like all cavalry armies, but things don't work that way...

[Rebellious Waffle]

I'm cool with any army as long as it's fast, surprising and deadly. Horse archers are great, and I adored the forester warbands the Gauls used to have back in the day. There's a twisted sense of satisfaction in getting five guys to lead a hundred angry spearmen around by the nose while a horde of heavy sluggers are trashing the opposite side of the line. As for enemy generals... spies find targets, assassins deliver the bomb. Any faction leader who doesn't have the Spymaster and Master of Assassins trait isn't trying hard enough -- start shaking hands with doorknobs!

[Stonezal]

It always depends on the factional strenght, but I tend to prefer ranged power.

For example as the English, I have 3-4 longbowmen, to attack the enemy backed up by spears, and later armoured swordsman, and use calvery to harrass the enemies archers. Later as seige and gunpowder come along, I add a few seige units to project power further.

This forces the enemy to attack you or lets your archers to wipe them out. Generally I play defensively, I let the enemy attack me by seiging their castles, or holding bridges.

The key to my armies is to minimise casualties, so generally my main casualties are in calvery which are easier to rush up to replace. As the English I can get away with smaller armies, knowing that I will suffer few casualties.

If playing an Italian faction, my armies are based on pavise crossbowmen and Italian Spear Miltia backed up by Calvery Miltia. This leaves me fairly weak against heavily armoured units, but due to the incredibly cheap to maintain armies I can have more armies and more units readily availible to meet any threat. So I will suffer slightly more casualties but they are cheap and very easy to replace. Italian armies are all about economy, plus with the key cities so close its very easy to reinforce.

Stonewall

[Doug-Thompson]

Whole lot of ranged attack in these posts — cavalry and infantry.

Anyway, to answer the question: Clearly I'm a missile cavalry nut. I love all cavalry armies. However, what army I use depends on terrain and "city density."

If I'm campaigning in Germany or France, for instance, where there are a lot of towns close together, I like an infantry-heavy army with a siege train, going from one city to the next.

I don't think infantry are second-rate, although that's the clear implication made with the argument that going all-cavalry against the AI is too easy.

Cavalry is great, but send in the infantry when things are tough.