Battle accounts and discussion

[Heidrek]

The problem with defending the map edge is that it more or less negates your cavalry and tactical manuverability as you can't move in behind the enemy units. also, how do you handle armiés with plenty of polearms/spears to counter your cavalry or a lot of Missile units, particularly horse archers and mounted xbows that can out manuver your infantry and slower heavy cav?

[ArtistofWarfare]

The problem with defending the map edge is that it more or less negates your cavalry and tactical manuverability as you can't move in behind the enemy units. also, how do you handle armiés with plenty of polearms/spears to counter your cavalry or a lot of Missile units, particularly horse archers and mounted xbows that can out manuver your infantry and slower heavy cav?

Well, good intelligence on the enemy is always a given.

If you know your enemy has a ranged/missile advantage on you, you would never line up on the edge of the map no.

In general, there are going to be situations where you're just screwed...yeah. At that point we're talking about long term logistical issues...You're losing before you've even stepped onto the battlefield.

[Heidrek]

yeah, this is what I love about MTW, the fact that there is no perfect army, everything is situational and the best you can do is try to cover as many bases as you can and use the available resources in the most effective way.

have you ever encountered the "Knot Formation" phenomenon before? It's really got me puzzled.

[Martok]

Ah, to try and hold the edge of the map (against the enemy's reinforcements) or not.....a classic conundrum!

Unfortunately, I find that the answer of whether or not to do so is "it depends". What kind of units is your army composed of, and what kind of reinforcements is your opponent bringing on? What's the overall state of your army, in terms of morale/fatigue/ammo? Exactly how many reinforcments does the enemy have?

The simple fact is, there are too many variables that factor in to say whether it's usually beneficial to try and hold the edge or not. I myself tend to be conservative and hold my army back at or near its original position, but that's admittedly not always the smartest thing to do. My best friend -- also an MTW afficianado -- is more apt to simply move his army back & forth, depending how the battle continues to unfold.

Has anyone else experienced the "Knot Formation" before? Seems like a good way to throw away troops to me.....

Not that I'm aware of. It sounds rather like a bug in the AI.

[Jxrc]

Ah, to try and hold the edge of the map (against the enemy's reinforcements) or not.....a classic conundrum!

Unfortunately, I find that the answer of whether or not to do so is "it depends". What kind of units is your army composed of, and what kind of reinforcements is your opponent bringing on? What's the overall state of your army, in terms of morale/fatigue/ammo? Exactly how many reinforcments does the enemy have?

The simple fact is, there are too many variables that factor in to say whether it's usually beneficial to try and hold the edge or not. I myself tend to be conservative and hold my army back at or near its original position, but that's admittedly not always the smartest thing to do.

All in all, IMHO, it seems to me that trying to hold the map edge is almost always a mistake cause:

- the AI reinforcement will attack when still being fully fresh;
- there a good chance that the AI units will appear at slighlty different places and there is a good chance that by doing so the new unit will be in a position to flank your already engaged units;
- in some instances, you'll see that some AI missile unit start shooting at you while you cannot attack them cause they are not in an accessible part of the map;
- you loose any chance to capture routers;
- if things go wrong your own reinforcement will take ages to get to you and the AI will have ages to chase you....

AT first glance, I would say that holding the map edge is only worth it if you are attacking and need to beat the clock ....

Of course all of that is quite nice and everything cause it does not take into account one major factor: boredom. Always tempting to finish battles with the GH as soon as possible. Not a smart move cause it's a real pain in the neck to fight a battle for two hours and blew it cause you could not wait for an extra half an hour. My tip in such cases, hit the pause button and get something to eat or drink .... Do as I say, don't do as I did indeed

[Ironsword]

Ah yes. The map edge question. Below is one common problem I encounter.

My reinforcements are brought as a steady flow as units are killed/routed off the field/withdrawn due to lack of arrows etc. However, I have come across huge reinforcement armies by the AI that seem to appear en masse destroying my light cavalry as they are chasing down the last of the routers. That said, the last time this happened, my flagging heavy cavalry follwing up routed the reinforcement army with a grand charge. (Thankfully, there was a unit of peasants that sparked a chain rout...) So it can work, but in my experience luck plays just as big a part.

Also, recently I've taken to forming up my out of ammuntion archers in dire situations and charging them into the fray. Sometimes with great results, other times, well, best not to go into it... I try not to do this, but sometimes there is no choice. Any thoughts on whether it's worth the risk?

[Jxrc]

Also, recently I've taken to forming up my out of ammuntion archers in dire situations and charging them into the fray. Sometimes with great results, other times, well, best not to go into it... I try not to do this, but sometimes there is no choice. Any thoughts on whether it's worth the risk?

Would say it's worth the risk in three scenario:

- nothing else available and you spot an engaged unit of peasant (or another infantry unit wit poor morale) so that you can hope that the mere fact that they'll be attack from the rear and/or outnumbered will start a nice chain reaction;
- you've run out of arrows but not the IA. Can be useful to have you archers attack the AI archers head on. The IA will either start the usual retreat or fight. In both case they will stop shooting at your melee units ...
- your about to loose the battl anyway and you do not want to see too many missile units retreat to occupy the keep, castle, etc.

Just my two cents.

[drone]

have you ever encountered the "Knot Formation" phenomenon before? It's really got me puzzled.

I think I've seen it a few times in a VI campaign. If I remember correctly, the AI was outclassed on the field, I got them to move around a little, and then they just moved their units all into one space. I was peppering them with arrows, so this was a really stupid thing for the AI to do. It also subjects the enemy units to the overcrowding melee penalty. I think it only occurred early in the game though, and I don't think I've ever seen it in grand campaign game.

[Heidrek]

Well, after crushing about 3 or 4 "Knots" of troops I noticed a few things.

1. If you have missile units like Arbs/Longbows then it's easy to smash a knot as your missile troops will ahve depleted the unit numbers.

2. Without missile units it's actually quite hard to really crush one of these knots. Simple reason for this is that you can't surround any single unit and if the Knot includes a lot of good quality infantry like Halb's, footknights and CMAA's they will be fighting more or less one on one wit your troops which is to their advantage. Being unable to flank a key unit effectively is a real disadvantage. As a side note, if the knot contains good spearmen it's hard to charge the knot with cavalry without running into the spears because they are a bigger unit than the others and "overlap" them.

In short, if you have missile troops, you can smash a knot easily. If you don't you'll probably still beat it, but will face much higher losses in doing so. Add to this that reinfocements will soon show up, but yours will be miles awayand I don't really recommend trying to break a knot without the benefit of ranged troops. Javelins in particular would do great damage.

thus, after breaking a few knots and making some observations, I checked the clock and decided to wait out the remaining time as there wasn't much left.

Final results:
Scotland - 3042 men lost
Crusader States - 12,899 men lost (8312 killed, 4587 captured)

I could have done so much more damage to them with a bit more cavalry at the right time, but kept drawing Gallowglasses and Scottish Spearmen as reinforcements instead.

In addition to the sheer number of troops killed, the quality of the crusaders troops was far greater overall. I've lost track of how many units of Order Footsoldiers and Teutonic/Hospitaler/Templar/Royal/Chivalric/Feudal Knights got ground into hamburger along with the masses of Arb's, Pav. Arb's, CMAA's and Xbows.

My troops were mainly FMAA's, Gallowglasses, Scottish Spearmen, Pikemen and Highland Clansmen.

All in all I count that a pretty decisive victory. The Crusaders massive 19,000 man army of powerful troops has been humbled down to under 6500 while I have probably about the same garrisoned in Lithuania.

I didn't kill the 4500 prisoners I took because I didn't want to get the butcher type vice - it hurts your army's morale right? Does anyone know what Vice you'd get for killing 4500 prisoners???

Kinda sucks really because I don't really need the money and I'd rather deprive them of the troops than take their ransom money. I'm hoping that the ransom on 4500 quality troops will be too much for them to pay - with luck I've captured a bunch of nobles and minor commanders in amongst them to drive the price up.

[Innocentius]

I didn't kill the 4500 prisoners I took because I didn't want to get the butcher type vice - it hurts your army's morale right? Does anyone know what Vice you'd get for killing 4500 prisoners???

You get the Butcher vice, which gives your general +2 dread. Only if you kill large amounts of prisoners in several battles does your generals earn vices such as No Mercy or Bloodthirsty (which hurt morale).

[Jxrc]

Only if you kill large amounts of prisoners in several battles does your generals earn vices such as No Mercy or Bloodthirsty (which hurt morale).

How many prisoner you kill is only relevant for the butcher vice (need 1,000 or more). For vices such as scant mercy, No mercy, merciless, secret blood lover and blood lover, killing one prisoner per battle is enough.

Getting "Secret blood lover" is the point when youn should stop killing prisoners since it's the last opportunity to get the dread increase without the moral penalty.

[Heidrek]

No Mercy gives +2 dread and -1 Morale.

My general got this today after defending Scotland and smashing the French attack.

A glorious battle it was.....let me set the scene for you:

My 7* General defending Scotland against the French how were endeavouring to drive me out. there's no retreat as I'm isolated in Scotland, and no hope of reinforcements for at least a couple of turns as the French Navy has established itself and will take a great deal of effort to dislodge.

I have about 500 troops. 3 and a half units of Bashkorts, 1 full unit of Steppe Heavy Cavalry, 1 almost full unit of Kazanchis, 1 unit of Kursybays, 2 Archers, 2 Catapults and a couple of scrap units of around 10 men each (Slav. Javs, Horse archers, and a heavily depleted merc. Pav. Crossbowmen).

France attacked with 1700 odd troops led by a 2* commander and packed full of Crossbows, a few Chiv Serg's, royal knights, Hobilars, Chiv. Footknights and other similar infantry.

I had the advantage of holding a hill slope, and a far better commander, but vastly fewer troops and little cavalry.

Without going into too much detail, suffice it to say the VB army repelled the assault. As they enemy was withdrawing I had over 400 prisoners. Knowing that my biggest danger is attrition and not being sure I could withstand another assault of that magnitude I couldn't afford to let France have the equivalent of another half a stack of troops back I killed the prisoners.

Total losses were: France - 1036 dead. Volga Bulgaria - 184 dead.

The only troops I can produce in Scotland are Archers at present so resupplying the defensive froces is going to be a severe challenge unless I can clear the seaways. How long can The VB's hold onto their British outpost?

Hopefully the blood nose i gave France this time will make them think twice about attacking me again for a couple of turns. what will the next year bring....

[Innocentius]

Thought I might revive this thread by asking for advice. I have yet again proven that I'm a lousy general when it comes to battles wherein I'm not completely familiar and comfortable with the situation.

In my current Byzantine campaign, I went on to steamroll Northern Africa after having defeated the Fatamids in Egypt (in those battles I experienced the same problem as described below, but the latter battle is fresher in mind, so I chose it to illustrate my point). The Almoravids were weakened from civil war, and Cyrenaica and Algeria were in rebel hands, whereas Tunisia was only lightly defended. I auto-calculated the battles for Cyrenaica and Tunisia as it was my army of 3,000 with a 3-star general against 2-300 men with a zero-star general. Once I reached Algeria I faced an awkward position. There were about 1,000 rebels in Algeria with a 5-star general with some 2,000 Almoravids waiting in Morocco. Thus not taking Algeria as soon as possible would give them the opportunity to claim it before me while regaining strength (they controlled the better part of Iberia). Foolishly, I decided to invade Algeria, figuring that my numbers would be enough and decided to command the battle personally.

The battle map looked something like this:


I brought mostly light troops since I figured light troops would fare better in the desert, although Algeria is a province with arid ground, so I probably should have sent stronger troops in retrospect. The black is my general, the deep purple Byzantine Lancers, the light purple Horse Archers and the dark blue Byzantine Infantry. None of my units had any armour upgrades. The yellow is Archers or Desert Archers, the orange Berber Camels (including the general) and the red Murabitin Cavalry. I decided to bring so many cavalry units into battle quite simply because my enemy brought so many.

My HA's rode up first for a brief archery duel, but the enemy camels attacked for some reason, so they withdrew behind my lines. The three Lancers on my far left were sent down into the valley to kill off the archers positioned there, while the two units behind them went to flank the attacking camels. The Lancers on my far right made a wide flanking movement, while my "main battle", the group of four Lancers, rode up the steep hill to attack the Murabitin and the archers behind them. The enemy camels withdrew for a little while, but just as I had gotten my attack going, they counter-attacked. Unsurprisingly, my Lancers on the left did well and routed the archers, but everything else failed miserably. My main battle got engaged in the steep upwards slope against the enemy, while the Berbers and archers peppered them, my Byz. Infantry met the same fate and the flanking attack failed, as a few units of Murabitin apparently were able to rout my Lancers on flat ground.

Despite this, I believe everything would have worked if not my units started routing much sooner than I had expected - I thought I still had plenty of time to bring my still fresh Lancers on the left into the enemy's flank, but no; they ran. To buy myself some time, I sent my general into a depleted unit of Berbers chasing my BI's. 40 fresh Byz. Lancers against 26 tired Camels sounds like a pretty easy fight, especially when you achieve a perfect charge in their flank. But no, a few seconds later my Lancers were losing badly, and then my general died. Mass rout.

I still thought I could win the battle, heck; the enemy would be tired by now and I had more than 2,000 men in reserve, but no. My army went into Benny Hill-mode, and every unit I brought onto the field from my reserves routed upon impact, even it was they who charged. To spare myself from further casualties, I withdrew my further reinforcements. At the end of the day, the rebels lost slightly less than 500 men, and I lost more than a thousand. How did this happen?

I realise that once your army is broken and your general dead, a battle is pretty much a lost case (and certainly so if the enemy has higher valour than you), but how come my units did so bad during the initial attack? I saw a unit of Lancers fighting the Murabitins rout after losing 7 men, and that was before my general was even engaged in battle! I have experienced equally "surprising" defeat earlier in the same campaign against the Fatamids; I fail in breaking the enemy with my first wave of attack, and thereafter the battle becomes chaotic and beyond my control, resulting in defeat with heavy losses. I realize part of the explanation is that I've only recently begun playing MTW again, which means I'm still unaccustomed to battles (and I never was the best attacker anyway) and that I underestimated my enemy. I figured the camels and the Murabitins would be worthless in head-to-head combat (as they appear to be when I'm using them), and that Byzantine Lancers would have an easy time kicking their butts, but no, apparently not. What are your thoughts on this? Have I missed to take something into the equation?

At least I have learnt one very valuable lesson now, I'll never rely on cavalr en masse again, and I'll never again attack without a heavier, infantry-based main battle (ie. a wall of spears protecting archers and the general) that can hold the line until my flankers can do their job.

[Martok]

First off, you clearly underestimated the power of the mighty Camel. Yes I kid, but only partially. Berbers can be very effective given the right situation(s), especially if they're able to avoid prolonged melee combat. I don't know how much direct action they saw against your Lancers, but don't underestimate the morale penalty they inflict on enemy horses -- it can make a bigger difference than you realize.

Second: If your general has any sort of trait which lowers the morale of troops under his command ("Strange", "Good Runner", etc.), that can make a *huge* difference. A 9-star general with all the best combat traits in the world is still worthless if he inflicts a significant morale penalty on his men in battle. A general rule of thumb is that if a commander's traits would lower his troops' morale by more than -2 (or possibly up to -4 if he's exceptionally talented), then you're better off disbanding his unit or retiring him from future battlefield duty.

I'm not certain what would cause your reinforcements to immediately route on impact and spark the Benny Hill code. I remember reading once or twice long ago about a supposed bug where sometimes the full morale penalty from a general's death can last the entire battle (instead of dissipating over time), but I remain unconvinced of the existence of this bug. I myself have never experienced it (at least that I've noticed), nor am I aware of anyone else having run into it in the last couple years.


May have to ponder that last one when I'm more awake (getting near my bedtime right now).

[Innocentius]

You may be right about the general... At the time I had about five or six units of Byzantine Lancers with 3 command stars, so I never bothered to check the VV's of my desert generals. It's very likely that he actually had a vice that gave a morale penalty and of which I was unaware.

Anyway, on the upside I learnt a valuable lesson: in my recent attacking battles I have been much more patient and cautious, resulting in some really great victories with a casualty rate between 4:1 and 5:1. I had a massive battle against the French in Leon in which I did about the exact opposite to the above tactic, and scored a 10:1 victory, effectively annihilating the French fighting forces. That battle left them with just over a thousant troops in total to defend their empire (consisting of France, northern Iberia and some of the HRE).

Another interesting aspect is how close to true Roman warfare this came. In the first of my two "final battles" against the Fatamids, I lost 2,000 men including my general to Fatamid's 1,400 casualties. However, the very next year I returned with an equally big army, crushing the 600 remaining enemies. The year after the defeat described above, I had replaced my casualties (I constantly recruited new low-quality troops in virtually all provinces at the time) and eradicated the rebels in a much smaller yet easier battle. If one army can't do it, another can. Ah, the benefits of having the stronger economy.

Thankfully, I have not yet seen my crack troops fail in any task I have given them, but the Horde has just arrived, so we shall se about that.

[Jxrc]

Second: If your general has any sort of trait which lowers the morale of troops under his command ("Strange", "Good Runner", etc.), that can make a *huge* difference. A 9-star general with all the best combat traits in the world is still worthless if he inflicts a significant morale penalty on his men in battle. A general rule of thumb is that if a commander's traits would lower his troops' morale by more than -2 (or possibly up to -4 if he's exceptionally talented), then you're better off disbanding his unit or retiring him from future battlefield duty. :

Would just add that you should take into account the "net penalty" given by your general.

You of course need to set-off the penalty against any bonus given by your general's V&V (famously brave + strange = no big deal) but also with the moral bonus granted by each couple of stars. Thus a six stars general with "unhinged loon" is fine since the bonus (+3) cancels the penalty (-3). Would be a bit more cautious than Martok when it comes to assessing which general you have to give the bin. A net penalty of -2 seems to be the maximum you can live with in my humble experience and only if you get some troops with a decent morale. A general giving a net penalty of (-1) is a god recipe for disaster if your army is made of vanilla spearmen, CS ... or peasants (but if you actually use peasants in battle there is no redemption for you anyway )

[Lokiss]

I have a question about deep ranks, do you use frogbeastegg's advices in this matter (Sp in 4, Sw 2, Arch 2 ...)?

I just read that guide and have gotten a chance to put it into play a few times, I find the 4-spear to be solid, but I prefer 3 for the other two. My archers have a habit of getting flanked but not retreating in 2 lines, and 2 lines makes my sword units unwieldy on everything but the flattest of maps.

[Martok]

@Innocentius: Outstanding! Glad to hear your tactics are working now.

If I can ask, though, what exactly do you mean about defeating the French by using the reverse tactic? Were you able to draw them to you this time around?

Would just add that you should take into account the "net penalty" given by your general.

Indeed. I actually had factored that in my previous post, but didn't specifically mention it. Good of you to point out the clarification, Jxrc.

Would be a bit more cautious than Martok when it comes to assessing which general you have to give the bin. A net penalty of -2 seems to be the maximum you can live with in my humble experience and only if you get some troops with a decent morale.

Hence why I added the qualifiers "possibly" and "exceptionally talented".

Actually, to be honest, I normally don't employ generals who bestow more than a -2 penalty either. However, there are always a few select generals that I simply can't bear to part with because they're too....colorful by then. (Perhaps that's the roleplayer in me, but I simply can't do it!) So in those cases, I just bear up and do the best I can with them.

A general giving a net penalty of (-1) is a god recipe for disaster if your army is made of vanilla spearmen, CS ... or peasants (but if you actually use peasants in battle there is no redemption for you anyway )

I cannot argue with either of those points. Well said!

[Roark]

I find that, if I've got a general with -2 Morale vices, he's pretty much good enough to win the battle anyway (having seen some serious action) so it's not an issue.

But I'm a big freak for religious buildings anyway. I usually build them before armouries. So, morale penalties don't usually affect me.

[Lokiss]

First off, you clearly underestimated the power of the mighty Camel. Yes I kid, but only partially. Berbers can be very effective given the right situation(s), especially if they're able to avoid prolonged melee combat. I don't know how much direct action they saw against your Lancers, but don't underestimate the morale penalty they inflict on enemy horses -- it can make a bigger difference than you realize.

No. Joke.

Just played a quick Egypt game today, nothing more annoying (and embarrassing) than having Berbers route my Ghulams. O_O

[Innocentius]

If I can ask, though, what exactly do you mean about defeating the French by using the reverse tactic? Were you able to draw them to you this time around?

More or less. First of all, I was patient and relied on steady line of Order Foot Soldiers (see my previous entries about my "upgrade" of the Byzantine roster [I chose to play the Byzantines since it would be my first campaign after returning from a 6 month absence from the game; I figured I'd be rather rusty and needed an easy faction to begin with]) with Treb. Archers behind rather than shock cavalry en masse. The main battle held throughout the entire battle, and I was able to safely withdraw my archers to bring on new ones. Wiser use of my Byzantine Cavalry also forced the French to give up their inital position, resulting in me taking control of the higher ground. From thereon, it was the French who attacked me. About 3,000 Frenchies dead on the field (no prisoners spared), another 300 who couldn't make it into the castle (I had cut off the province) were trapped, captured and executed as there was no ransom while the 400 hundred or something who made into the castle were starved out wihtin two rounds. So that's nearly 4,000 enemies, including their king, gone at the expense of 300 of my own men, a number that by then (early 13th century, 1207 AD to precise) was easily replaced.

[naut]

Thought I'd write up a battle account of a battle I enjoyed fighting. It's in a history book style.

The year is 901 AD, and Wessex finds itself fighting a defensive war against Cymru (the Welsh). King Æthelstan led an ill advised invasion of Gwent the previous year, and was forced into a humiliating retreat. Seeing an opportunity to expand their influence and send a message of warning to any other potential rivals the Welsh King decided to press his advantage. In 901 AD Saxon lookouts spotted a large force bearing the banners of Cymru travelling into the fields and meadows of Somerseate. Still reeling from defeat Æthelstan was forced to mobilise his men and intercept the invading force. He did so on a sunny day in July, drawing his men up into formation, still fresh from the months they had had to tend to their wounds and battered egos. The same could not be said for the Welsh army, still tired from the march in the mild British sun.

The two armies met a few miles north of the village of Cheddar, and readied themselves for what would be a bloody encounter. The Welsh King had sent his Crown Prince and an army numbering 1500, of which a mixture of professional soldiers and levied freemen and peasants. Æthelstan on the other hand had only 1000 men, also a mix of professional fighting men and levied men of the Fyrd.

The Welsh drew up battle lines on a hill overlooking the plains of Somerseate, and the defending West Saxons placed themselves in the fields below, (as depicted in fig 1.1).

Fig 1.1; The opposing armies.

Æthelstan placed his cavalry on his right flank, with his semi-professional Fyrdmen making up the main battleline, and the lightly armed Fyrd levies taking positions upon the left. Æthelstan and his personal bodyguard anchored the line in the center. He placed his archers thinly spread in front of the main batteline in a skirmishing formation.

The same could not be said for the Welsh army, who took up position in no distinct order. The left flank being totally comprised of vulnerable archers. While the core of the line was made up of semi-professional spearmen, tribesmen and pikes. With levies both on the right flank and also in-front of and behind the main battle line. Matters were made worse when the Crown Prince and his bodyguards decided against leading their men personally, preferring instead to observe from a "safe distance", (see fig 1.2).

Fig 1.2; The Crown Prince flees.

Later accounts of the battle depict the Welsh Prince as a blabbering fool. One medieval historian states, "Idwal could hardly command what food was laid out for his supper let alone a host of over fifty score campaigning men" (Edmundson, 1492), while Newton claims "[...] he was little more than the inbred son [...] from a miscarriage of a nation." (1215). Revisionists disagree with this portrayal of the Welsh Prince, rather focusing on the skill of West Saxon King Æthelstan and the superior quality of the soldiers of the Fyrd. Mabbot, (1998), states, "Æthelstan I was an obsessive scholar of Roman battle tactics, spending many a waking hour studying texts of ancient battles fought against barbarians.”. Bothroyd points out the superiority of the Fyrd, "[...] we must remember that although the Fyrd was a levy system many of those called to serve in the armies of Kings were actually semi-professional warriors, often owning chainmail armour and good quality spears. Likewise these warriors were privy to a wealth of experience, unlike the drafted men of the Gaelic, Celtic or Brythonic nations." (2001). Therefore, it is most likely that a combination of these factors led to the outcome that day.

Fig 1.3; Æthelstan and his army prepare to meet to the Welsh in battle.

The two opposing armies began skirmishing around noon, with the Saxons taking heavy casualties from the skilled bowmen and javelineers the Welsh had at their disposal. Skirmishing did not last long, with the Welsh core calling an all out charge into the main Saxon line. This was to be the first mistake of many. As although the Welsh core consisted of pikemen, professional spearmen and tribal spearmen they became locked in a frightful melee with the semi-professional Fyrdmen, spurred on by their King and his professional bodyguard. Thus unable to screen their light skirmishing troops and archers, Æthelstan called for an counter-attacking pincer, with the light Saxon cavalry charging out into the poorly formed and organised levies, causing irresistible decimation. While on the left flank the light spearmen of the Fyrd advanced to meet the archers and levies that had been firing upon them only moments before. This was a risky move, but a necessary one, as Æthelstan's left flank could not stand the onslaught of missiles for much longer, as their poor armour did not offer much in terms of protection.

The West Saxon main battleline fought valiantly, with records stating how the semi-professional soldiers would fight to the last hoping to be granted favour by their King. After the battle many of these men would be given housing in the King's Heerth, which is testimony to their belief in his abilities and the spirit of the warrior. However, the left flank was not fairing so well, with Welsh tribesmen having broken from the main melee to assist their skirmisher brethren, and if it had not been for the quick actions of the Saxon cavalry the battle could well have been lost with a rout upon the left flank.

With casualties mounting and no respite from any of the melees currently engaged the Welsh began to solemnly withdraw and attempt a second wave. Fresh Welshmen met the regrouping first wave and began the advance once more. Æthelstan now seeing he had the advantage of superior morale pressed forward with his remaining men massed around him. The second melee was much more frantic with the first, taking place as a tightly packed Saxon shield wall pushing up into a mess of Welsh bodies. Yet, it was once again the cavalry who provided the extra edge, slamming into the sides and rear of the Welsh formation, causing both panic and death. And thus seeing themselves surrounded the Welsh began to flee, and this time lacking order and with no thought for a third wave.

Fig 1.4; Æthelstan is victorious.

[Innocentius]

Probably the most ambitious write-up of a single battle I've ever read, and good work too! Generally, I find it a pain to defend when the attacking force has the higher ground. On which difficulty level was this played?

[naut]

Probably the most ambitious write-up of a single battle I've ever read, and good work too! Generally, I find it a pain to defend when the attacking force has the higher ground. On which difficulty level was this played?

Thanks. I was playing on Hard, and I was destroyed by the Mercians a few turns later.

[Vantek]

Despite this, I believe everything would have worked if not my units started routing much sooner than I had expected - I thought I still had plenty of time to bring my still fresh Lancers on the left into the enemy's flank, but no; they ran. To buy myself some time, I sent my general into a depleted unit of Berbers chasing my BI's. 40 fresh Byz. Lancers against 26 tired Camels sounds like a pretty easy fight, especially when you achieve a perfect charge in their flank. But no, a few seconds later my Lancers were losing badly

Can you give me the stats on Byzantine Lancers (I assume they are either from VI or some mod, I only have vanilla)? Since you said you brought lighter type of cavalry to the desert, I'm going to assume that they're not that beefy. If that's true, then your defeat isn't surprising in the slightest. Camels kick horse butt, I learned it the easy way only last week myself (ran some Bedouins into some Ghulam or Mamluk cavalry for the heck of it in a quick battle and was surprised to see that the enemy was ripped apart). I ran a few custom battle rounds of Bedouins agains Feudal Knights in the desert on flat ground and the average result was almost 30 camels left with 5-10 knights running away. Even up a slight slope there were 20 camels left (though they were wavering for a second there). Now Berber camels are weaker, but unless Lancers are on par with knights you still had it coming for you :P Camels mop the floor with any sort of lighter cavalry.

In fact, I had a major battle where I successfully used camels just yesterday. I unexpectedly had to fend off about 1200Mongols led by at most 2 star general on Khazar arid flat ground as Turks with 8 star general and both to my dismay and exitement found myself with all the wrong types of troops: only two units of foot archers (Futuwwas), three Saracen Infantry, two Ghazi Infantry and loads of various cavalry and cavalry archers instead of foot soldiers, as well as Naphta Throwers which I had never used before... With even something totally basic like half Murabitin Infantry and half whatever kind of foot archers it would've been a breeze - but also would've been boring. I was, however, lucky enough to find myself with camels :) And I was lucky enough to find the enemy with only 4 units of heavy cavalry. I didn't fight very well at all (in the replay I discovered that one of my Saracen infantry was facing the enemy with their backs -_- of course they were the only one to recieve a charge by heavy cavalry). But with a huge valor advantage I managed to crush the first wave anyway and in the second there were only like 8 units of Steppe Cavalry left. I was growing pretty impatient so I didn't hesitate sending my handful of camels (2 full units and 3 halved ones) straight against the 8 fresh units of Steppe cavalry and they slaughtered the enemy completely. I don't think I lost more than 3 camels in that one. Well camels didn't manage to actually CATCH them once they were routing so they went Benny Hill on me but I chased them over the border eventually.

[Vantek]

While we're at it, could someone give me some pointers on...how to attack an enemy on mountains, hills and bridges? I find defending in the same situation effortless, regularly achieving 10:1 victories, but when attacking I'm doing as bad as the AI does when attacking me. I guess when I manage to catch him with his pants down (I reach the hill he's climbing before he does, or am lucky with the map: I remember one battle where AI started down in the oasis and I was way up on the hill wall surrounding it, all I had to do was run my men down into their ranks immediately and they were losing badly uphill until they routed) it becomes easy again, but what if he manages to actually be smart once and shells up on some nice mountain with a good variety of troops? Charging melee uphill is absolutely hopeless. A missile battle uphill is absolutely hopeless. What if there's one bridge, and he blocks it. What am I supposed to do?! Outnumber the enemy 5 to one and accept losing four times as meny men as the enemy? Just walk away? Teach me, o' forummers.

[Martok]

Welcome to the Org, Vantek! A pleasure to have you with us.

While we're at it, could someone give me some pointers on...how to attack an enemy on mountains, hills and bridges? I find defending in the same situation effortless, regularly achieving 10:1 victories, but when attacking I'm doing as bad as the AI does when attacking me. I guess when I manage to catch him with his pants down (I reach the hill he's climbing before he does, or am lucky with the map: I remember one battle where AI started down in the oasis and I was way up on the hill wall surrounding it, all I had to do was run my men down into their ranks immediately and they were losing badly uphill until they routed) it becomes easy again, but what if he manages to actually be smart once and shells up on some nice mountain with a good variety of troops? Charging melee uphill is absolutely hopeless. A missile battle uphill is absolutely hopeless. What if there's one bridge, and he blocks it. What am I supposed to do?! Outnumber the enemy 5 to one and accept losing four times as meny men as the enemy? Just walk away? Teach me, o' forummers.

When attacking a bridge, I find my best strategy is usually the "bait-and-kill" gambit -- it's essentially about tricking the enemy into attacking *you* instead of the other way around. Send a vanguard unit of light cavalry (or if necessary, some fast infantry will do in a pinch) to cross the bridge. When the enemy moves to attack them, pull your unit back to your own side of the river; usually your opponent will charge a good portion of his army after your vanguard and right into the waiting arms of your own troops. Repeat as necessary until the enemy army has been whittled down to almost nothing (or they withdraw away from the river, allowing you to cross the bridge in force).


Assaulting hills/mountains is a little trickier, but still doable. Ideally, the enemy's position is such that I can get my army (or at least a good-sized chunk of it) onto the hill first, and then attack my opponent on one of their flanks. This will frequently cause the AI to shift and/or move its army into a position I can attack more easily (and in some cases, even withdrawing off the map entirely).

If the above tactic is not a viable possibility, however, then the next-best thing is to try and draw the enemy off the hill (similar to my strategy for bridge assaults): Use 1, maybe 2 units -- and it pretty much *has* be light cavalry or missile cavalry (infantry simply isn't fast enough to pull it off) -- to trick my opponent into chasing them and abandoning their positions on the hill/mountain. Preferably, you want to lead these enemy units into your own men who are waiting in ambush.

[Vantek]

Welcome to the Org, Vantek! A pleasure to have you with us.

Thanks! A pleasure to be here ^_^

Thanks for the advice as well. In fact, had a battle where I needed it just today. I was attacking Burgundy, as Italians, with a 5 star general, on Expert (my first!). Since I had no cavalry I decided to go for a Pyrrhic victory against the odds (he had about six units of Chivalric Men-At-Arms, as well as two of Feudal Knights and four of Hobilars, I had various spearmen and Arbalesters), but it became a... how to say this... Pyrrhic loss? :P Casualties maybe 3:2 against me (rather than the hoped 2:3 for...). By the second battle the enemy was so weak however that I could mow him down.

Your suggestion worked perfectly in both cases. I happened to be lucky enough to have a unit of mercenary Mounted Crossbowmen, and they won me the conflict. First of all they mopped up redundantly placed siege engines in both battles. Then in the first one they didn't have to do much more to make the enemy launch a full attack, just dance near and shoot someone. In the second one he was just ridiculous. After I had wiped off the siege engineers, he chased me with a unit of 80 Chivalric Sergeants and let me shoot them down to 50 or so from twenty meters while they stood with their BACKS towards me. Then he sent a lone unit of PEASANTS, out of all units, to chase my ranged cavalry down straight into my ranks. They routed in a few seconds. Then he sent a lone unit of Chivalric Men-At-Arms straight into my ranks. He was shot down to half before he even reached my men, and routed as quickly. Then he sent pretty much everyone at me and unsurprisingly failed miserably. So yeah, I achieved some 6:1 victory when attacking by making my enemy attack me instead. I guess I never realised he might actually be stupid enough to do it. I may have to start limiting myself to keep a challenge!

[Martok]

Excellent! Glad it worked.

I may have to start limiting myself to keep a challenge!

Heh. Yeah, overall it's not that hard to trick the AI into abandoning a strong defensive position. I too try not to exploit it more than I can help. Of course, given that I'm not the greatest at commanding offensive battles, I still wind up using that trick fairly often.

[Vantek]

Had a few interesting battles today.

Let's start with the shortest. I had invaded deep into French territory (hey, the bastards started it themselves!), and Champagne was completely cut off from the mainland. And there was just one unit of Chivalric Knights sitting in it! The pope had warned me not to mess with France, and it was the turn after the one where I got the warning, so I couldn't stand a siege even if I was willing to waste men on it. So I decided to try to kill every SINGLE enemy knight in battle :D I attacked with: one of Feudal Knights, one of Chivalric MAA, two of Arbalesters and 25 high valour Mounted Crossbowmen. Luckily the enemy didn't retreat to the castle. And can you imagine, it worked PERFECTLY! I positioned my Feudal Knights randomly between two houses, and the enemy decided that he should charge them! So now they were between the buildings so I could nicely shoot them in the back with MC, as well as Arbalesters positioned on a hill nearby. Once my knights started failing, I ran my MAA behind enemy and attacked. So now they started fighting the MAA instead, so I ran my MC to the other side and shot them in the back. Soonafter my knights decided they should rout, and there were only about 10 knights left. I think the general got killed when there was just one other unit left and luckily it didn't manage to escape, but was captured. I executed the captive just to be sure XD

Another one was a bridge battle against the French again, I was defending. I had two Trebuchets, three of Halberdiers, two of Chivalric MAA, three of Arbalesters, one of Handgunners and Italian Infantry, and one of Royal Knights led by a prince. The enemy had some MAA, some knights, and I think three of Archers and one of Crossbowmen. I gordoned off both bridges and put a Trebuchet facing each, but the enemy only attacked one bridge. It was a pretty boring slugfest until the enemy finally routed, at which point I decided to chase the Archers with the Royal Knights. I know, I know, not a good move, and the results were according. Went well at first, they took 150 prisoners and killed a few more, but some of the enemy Archers managed to rally. I decided to charge them. Bad idea. I lost a few knights before I even reached them, and it took them quite a few seconds to rout again (damn Expert moral bonus which I'm not used to!). Meanwhile other Archers rallied as well, meaning I was being peppered with arrows from every direction once I finally retreated, and on top of that I was being chased by a few enemy Hobilars. There were only 7 Knigts left when they reached the bridge again. Oh well, all's well that ends well, right? *thump* Oh what's that? Oops, my Trebuchet is on fire at will... *whooosh* Oh, that's okay, they never hit anything! Right? BANG! And there went the prince, the general, and half of the remaining noble band of knights, dismaying the other lucky four to the point where they abandoned their courage completely and fleed from the ten damned Hobilars, who were shot to pieces within seconds later. Now I'm left with just one prince of age, who is a Drinker, as well as a Good Runner, whereas my dear Doge is nearing the ripe age of 70. The battle wasn't over yet: it featured hundreds of Benny Hill impersonators in blue-yellow suits, who would courageously approach the bridge, get shot to ribbons, and run away, over and over and over again, until my Arbalesters were out of bolts. This didn't put an end to the performers' ambition: they would follow the exact same routine even without the hail of projectiles! If some band of perverts managed to cough up the courage to actually walk ON the bridge and even reach the other end, the masochists were greeted with loud noise and smoke coming from the Handgunners, and finally recieved a sufficient dose of fear. The show ended at the promised time mark.

There was one more battle, which however went ridiculously unexpectedly. I was defending Venice from a seemingly suicidal attack by German pigs (they were excommunicated soonafter), aided by a small band of Hungarian brigands led by the crooked king himself. I had a very solid defensive army, with three of Arbalesters, perhaps five of Italian Infantry and two of Halberdiers, as well as my own king, whereas they didn't have much to show, a few units of Knights but they had only a two or three hundred more men and were fielding several junk units like Urban Militia, Spearmen, Archers, Feudal Sergeants and Militia Sergeants. I was confident in victory even thought I had to defend on nearly flat land. A few small units of riders that came to the range of my Arbalesters were halved in seconds. Then a lone unit of Militia Sergeants approached my line, lost 20 men to Arbalesters, and started hacking away at my Italian infantry. And now I don't understand what the hell happened here. I didn't pay much attention because I was sure that my infantry would stand ground easily, but after a while I was surprised to see that the formation was completely trashed, I had lost something ridiculous like 30 men, while some 30 Sergeants were still "Winning Easily". What was even more disturbing was the fact of how it turned out that spacebar showed that the unit was intending to place itself exactly under the right angle from what it was supposed to, with one flank invading into my arbalesters and one sticking out of my whole formation. I can only imagine the idiots must've decided that they should reposition after being forced into the ranks of another unit by the attackers, chose the most ludicrous facing ever, and since it was going to leave them with their backs towards the attackers, were now recieving horrible penalties. The only other possibility is that I somehow misclicked madly and didn't notice it, but something like this has NEVER happened before. Anyway I didn't manage to correct this before the mass of enemy army reached my men and had to charge everyone outwards from original formation to keep my Arbalesters clean. I evacuated my King's Royal Knights out of the chaos and halved and routed a unit of Archers with them until I recieved attention from the enemy General's unit of Chivalric Sergeants and retreated to safe distance while being chased by them. The melee between the mass of the armies was very close, with casualties nearly equal. The King of Hungarians was shot by my Arbalesters and all that was left of them fleed shortafter, as well as some unit of German Urban Militia. But my units were still outnumbered and beginning to waver as well, and some of them routed from random flanking penalties which I couldn't figure out because the formations were trashed completely. Somehow, it didn't start a mass rout however, and more and more enemy units started routing along with my own. I thought the battle was over and ordered my Arbalesters to save their honour and withdraw, but funnily enough soonafter the place was as clear of the enemy soldiers as my own, and I told them to return just before they exited. They actually managed to cause a few more destroyed units to rout (again), but sadly they were attacked by some 15 hobilars, and even though only maybe 6 reached them, that was still enought to inflict lots of casualties, make them waver, make it impossible for them to run from the remnants of enemy units and prepare for enemy General's unit that was the only enemy unit left along with a few archers that wasn't depleted down to something minuscule, and soon even they routed. If my men had stood for just a few SECONDS longer in the mass melee, I must've won, it was THAT close. I don't understand how it's possible that the mass of BOTH armies routed but they did, and sadly the enemy still had his General's unharmed Chivalric Sergeants (who were away from the battle because they were chasing my king), and my King had only a handful of knights. I should've withdrawn my King at this point but I guess I felt the need to make him a good runner, in the hopes that this would perhaps prolong his life a few years more until the next heir reaches maturity, so I can send the poor drunkard prince on a suicide mission.

This invasion was much a Pyrrhic victory for the Germans nevertheless, leaving nearby territories empty of soldiers, allowing me to invade them on top of taking back Venice without battle, and another failed invasion left their front with me in shambles. After this and the excommunication, Holy Roman Empire finds itself in another civil war. They will be gone soon.

Sadly, I forgot to save replays of any of these battles =(