Army Structure & Recruitment

[gollum]

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
True, but if you don't have those units there at the time, or if your army is attacked two years in a row then you will have to try and win the battle based on what you have available, or go under siege. I find the SP battles are very unique and random. That's what I was alluding to.

Indeed - especially in times of warring stages of expansion/defence that armies explode and static borders become fluid and army compositions unpredictable. I guess this is why they hardcoded the AI to often retreat to the castle and come back to take the province - to give him the ability to be unpredictable in army composition and create favorable army match ups in quality and numbers. Sometimes it works in his disadvantage but its actually good overall i find - and this is an extra plus for the *risk style map* imho.

[gaijinalways]

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa

True, but if you don't have those units there at the time, or if your army is attacked two years in a row then you will have to try and win the battle based on what you have available, or go under siege. I find the SP battles are very unique and random. That's what I was alluding to.

Hmm, I still find MTW to have that element as well, as often I may have other troops available, but when the seas turn 'rough', those extra needed troops may not be available for quite a few turns.

That and sometimes you are defending several turns in a row and don't have men to spare as you risk being attacked in the other provinces. The inns are supposed to provide mercs, but sometimes they don't do so until after you need them (though you may decide to use them for revenge raids later).

[caravel]

Hmm, I still find MTW to have that element as well, as often I may have other troops available, but when the seas turn 'rough', those extra needed troops may not be available for quite a few turns.

That and sometimes you are defending several turns in a row and don't have men to spare as you risk being attacked in the other provinces.

I think the charm of single player battles is the character development. You know that it's e.g. Lord Fitzgilbert commanding the army and you know that he will benefit from it. You will see those results on the campaign map in the form of command stars and vices/virtues. Also you tend to acquire heroic or elite units as time goes on. It might be an "old guard" of FMAA or a unit of Futuwwa that you've been nurturing for years. The magic of MTW is that the campaign map game strings the series of battles together into something meaningful. In later TW games, the campaign map is the game and the battles are there for effect.

When you lose one of your best generals or units in battle, you feel it - and when one of your best units comes to the rescue to turn the tide of the battle it can be quite moving/exhilarating. As time goes on you find yourself fielding certain veteran armies of "old campaigners" who have survived many engagements. You get to know these units well and you when playing a campaign you think of Amir Ghazi's Syrian army, Hasan ibn Sabah's Egyptian regiment or Prince Orhan's army on the western frontier in Bulgaria. It all adds to the immersion factor.

The inns are supposed to provide mercs, but sometimes they don't do so until after you need them (though you may decide to use them for revenge raids later).

I find that the game is more enjoyable without using mercenary units. The problem with these units is that the AI cannot use them, so for me it feels like a bit of an exploit - but each to their own.

[Garnier]

I love how the titles and leadership works in MTW. In future total war games you have family members or generals who are a bodyguard unit, and the rest of the units don't command, which is really dull.

I love the feeling of granting lands to the men who distinguish themselves, and the sadness when my good governors fall in battle and need to be replaced. MTW practically forces immersion and interest upon you by this system. You get to know the guys in your army and you can remember what they've done in the past.

I do wish you could see the leader's name of each unit in battle though, that would be wonderful.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Garnier
I do wish you could see the leader's name of each unit in battle though, that would be wonderful.

For Role-playing and AARing purposes you can do so by the table of battle results provided at the end - usually you can tell who is who unless the battle is between too many stacks - then only the surviving (up to the end of the battle) units/Unit leaders are listed there.

[Garnier]

I think I made my game too hard... the French are attacking me with Feudal knights and armies of spearmen and militia, while I can barely stay out of debt. This is wonderful! It gives me a chance for my victories to not feel cheap.

[gollum]

heh - just make your lands poor and the enemies quite rich of you want that sort of challenge. Playing the HRE in early in the MedMod IV was a tough proposition of that sort - everyone was rich and ready to snatch lands away from you - the Poles, the Huns, the Italians - and either the English or French whoever took France over first. And in addition the only swords you were given were those Herbaans with their pitiful defence that were runing away all the time.

Flimpsy herbaans against those Italian spear tanks - gah! Talk about Imperial status...

[Garnier]

That's basically what I did, hehe. The AI is out-teching me finally!

Edit; Oh no! The French were putting up a real fight when suddenly their king dies and they have no heir... There goes my challenge, hehe.

Anyway, I got really beat up trying to kill this one unit of dismounted feudal knights they had in Ireland. Those guys are amazing, I can't wait to get some for myself. After three successive attacks on Ireland I had worn that unit down to 20 men, in the next attack they charged my spear line head on and killed nearly two hundreds before they were overwhelmed by my king's bodyguard.

[Fagar]

At the beginning of a campaign I will generally take some time to plan where I am going to build my troops from.

Building troop types in provinces that are famous for them and making sure my most used troops, sword and horse are built in coastal provinces.
I will designate one province for swords, one for spears, one for bow... horse... agents etc and try to stick with these as my core army provinces and concentrate my expansion on being able to maintain troop supply from these core provinces.

I don't tend to tech up too much in provinces that I conquer, concentrating there instead on taking provinces that are already well developed and buildin farm and trade here instead.
In this way I find I normally have a relatively stable empire and one that has a firm basis for expansion.

[gaijinalways]

Asai Nagamasa posted

I find that the game is more enjoyable without using mercenary units. The problem with these units is that the AI cannot use them, so for me it feels like a bit of an exploit - but each to their own.

But of course the AI can also build some buildings quicker and control his armies without thinking. I don't feel it's an exploit, the game makers put it in the game.

But as you said, to each his own.

That's what I love about this game, there are so many ways to play it.

I notice a lot of players seem to overlook what starting buildings you may have when you take a province. It makes a difference if you can get certain units right away versus years down the road. I always think about that before building certain buildings, as some units are nice to have, but you may be waiting a while to get them.

Adding mercs is one way to get around that as the mercs may include certain troops that you're years away from building.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Garnier
Anyway, I got really beat up trying to kill this one unit of dismounted feudal knights they had in Ireland. Those guys are amazing, I can't wait to get some for myself. After three successive attacks on Ireland I had worn that unit down to 20 men, in the next attack they charged my spear line head on and killed nearly two hundreds before they were overwhelmed by my king's bodyguard.

Just put the spears in hold position/hold formation and shoot the FFK from front (as they apparoach) and back (after they engage) with crossbows and/or arbalests.

Because the unit is small has amazing stats and is slow - they tend to melee a lot and accumulate valor much faster than other units. Bolts and bullets are your friend - they dont care about valor (or armor). Javelins may do too (although their killing rate is slower and the FFK might have time to chew your line if too many).

[jadast]

Asai Nagamasa posted

Adding mercs is one way to get around that as the mercs may include certain troops that you're years away from building.

I only buy units that I can not build. I like the flavor they add to my unit rosters. I use them the way Rome did. Mercs get nasty frontal assault jobs that would chew up my regulars. The high upkeep limits the number that I keep on hand at any time.

[Fagar]

I only buy units that I can not build. I like the flavor they add to my unit rosters. I use them the way Rome did. Mercs get nasty frontal assault jobs that would chew up my regulars. The high upkeep limits the number that I keep on hand at any time.

I generally do not use mercs, just do not like the feel of them in my carefully planned armies.
However as far as motivations for employing them go Jadast you raise a very good point.

[gaijinalways]

jadast posted

I only buy units that I can not build. I like the flavor they add to my unit rosters. I use them the way Rome did. Mercs get nasty frontal assault jobs that would chew up my regulars. The high upkeep limits the number that I keep on hand at any time.

I agree with jadast to a point, as the upkeep is high if you keep mercs as regular troops. Sometiems I keep tem if their　numbers are not too depleted. For example, I hired long bowmen and billmen in my last campaign and kept some of them for years as they did a commendable job complementing and protecting my Danish missile troops.