Tests: Timurids in multiplayer.

**Captain Crimson** · June 30, 2007, 02:48 PM

Imagining an all period game, my 'standard' 10k Timurid army with no rules is:

4 Afghan Javilenmen
4 Naffatun
4 Khan's guard
1 Ele
1 art Ele
4 Trebuchets (for the morale)

Any other people who use either the mongols or timurids in multiplayer? If so, any template armies I could try or criticisms for mine?

CC

**kelvintyk** · July 01, 2007, 11:15 AM

Its risky when your elepants go berserk and runs back and kills your units instead. Happened to me lots of time...

**Captain Crimson** · July 01, 2007, 12:56 PM

I haven't had that problem too much.... By the time they go berserk they've already plowed through half the enemy.

CC

**Dagonet** · July 18, 2007, 04:40 AM

1: elephants and artillery are 'banned' in most games between competent players

2: elephants can be wiped out in seconds by javelin cavalry for a fraction of the cost.

3: that is at once a 'rush' and a static army - your army will at once want to move slowly to allow the trebuchet's time to fire and the infantry to keep up, or move quickly in order to allow the elephants to actually get into a melee, a sensible opponent would take poland, portugal or spain and rip you to peices. hf & gl =)

**Captain Crimson** · July 19, 2007, 08:09 AM

1: Because people have a huge problem with seeing bits of thier units die before they even move, then get in a fuss about it.

2: The light cavalry usually run away due to fear and gunpowder.

3: It's a defensive army that has currently 4 MP victories. Portugal managed to do quite well, but still lost.

CC

**Lord Firkraag** · July 19, 2007, 08:19 AM

2: elephants can be wiped out in seconds by javelin cavalry for a fraction of the cost.

Too bad not all factions have javelin cavalry... But I imagine Russia would have no trouble there

**Dagonet** · July 19, 2007, 11:34 AM

1: Yes, that's pretty much the reason - the use of artillery is entirely devoid of skill.

2: russia, portugal, spain for 3

3: a defensive army that would have to rush against a competent player. Don't get me wrong - i haven't got much of a problem with enemies using artillery, it's generally a good indication that they don't know how to use the rest of their army properly and will want to camp next to their artilery.

And ye, light cav used one by one - or badly - against the elephants will rout.

**Captain Crimson** · July 20, 2007, 02:57 AM

1. I never saw M2TW a game of 'skill', just simple micromanagement. Other people's incompetence in multiplayer does shock me quite badly. Also note the first sentence of the OP.

2. See 1.

3. Using artillery normally means they haven't got enough cash or think they are good. They are not, I only use trebuchets in field battles for the morale. Sometimes I swap out 2 of them for some light cavalry.

Most 'competent' normally quit as soon as we start the game as if I use Hungary in the early period. The 'no cavalry' and 'no arty' rules don't make any sense to me at all, they are normally limiting factors used by the hosts to try and get an easy victory. Huge confusion between AI and an human opponent in MP it seems.

**Dagonet** · July 21, 2007, 05:39 PM

no cav at all is a bit bizarre, no ele because as a single unit they define the game 'too much' by which i mean, at 10k florins, everything becomes a battle to keep/rout the ele.

I wonder what you mean by huns in early.. i assume you mean you're spamming horse archers - in which case even by your own minimsation of the skill in mp - it's a waste of time - as HA require next to no micromanagement to get kills.

Tournament games tend to be somewhere along the lines of 8 max cavalry, no art/ele max 4 horse archers. Though different different tournaments use different rulesets, most try to encourage 'balanced' armies.

Micromanagement is just one of the 'skills' in battle, spotting and applying pressure to weakness, working effectively with teammate(s), knowledge of variables and the engine, etc. Saying there is no skill in battles is muchlike saying there is no skill in physical sport - if there were none, one player would not consistently beat others.

**Darth Caesar** · July 22, 2007, 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by Dagonet

3: a defensive army that would have to rush against a competent player. Don't get me wrong - i haven't got much of a problem with enemies using artillery, it's generally a good indication that they don't know how to use the rest of their army properly and will want to camp next to their artilery.

or he could pick artillery to fool you into thinking hes not that good, deception and counter deception, I did it a few times in RTR, took rome against armenians with kataphracts, he thought i couldnt use the romans good and because I had crap cavalry compared to his, he thought he could beat me with his cavalry, but the artillery was for his kataphracts and I ripped him to pieces with my romans.

tactics only work if your opponent lets them work

**Lupu** · July 27, 2007, 04:08 PM

Why does it mean your a noob when using art?No! art is a very useful thing when playing on hilly maps because you can force your enemy to come to you, shoot uphill and losing distance battle, than hving to rush uphill.
You say using horse-archers needs little micromanagement? Not at all, horsearchers are the units needing most micromanagement of all unit types if your against a good player(maybe exept ele)
No art/ele is nonesense because both have strenghts and weaknesses, both are unit types needing much micromanagement against a skillful player and the funny thing: when everyone says art is nooby to use, why forbid it? - if it is dumb to use art in your opinion then you shouldnt have probs playing against it.
As to ele: ele has strenghts and weaknesses both needing skill and good micromnanagement to use.

A-L