What Are The Odds?

[xxmaelstrom]

So while playing tonight...I noticed that apparently you can defend a settlement from an army of 600+ with only 100+ men as long as you have a castle. And that got me thinking...what are the best odds that someone on the forum has won from. Clearly you will win when odds are in your favor on just the plains of Europe, but I wanna' know when you've been outnumbered, by how much and if you won. So let's see it.

Oh and don't think you can get away with saying you won a battle with 100 men against 900. Everyone will call that bull and want proof. So let's see the proof boys and girls (and yes, I'm talking screenshots).

[Ichon]

LOL just look around the threads... there are screen shots already of 25 vs 3,000 won. It is easy with a high dread general and few enemy cavalry.

Personally the best I saw was someone with only militia and 1 general fighting a full stack of pro with 4 feudal cavalry... 1400 vs 1900 I think and won with only 140 losses.

[xxmaelstrom]

LOL just look around the threads... there are screen shots already of 25 vs 3,000 won. It is easy with a high dread general and few enemy cavalry.

Personally the best I saw was someone with only militia and 1 general fighting a full stack of pro with 4 feudal cavalry... 1400 vs 1900 I think and won with only 140 losses.

25? Wtf? I think you mean 2,500. Which I deem plausible I suppose with the right general. I'm still working on how to add traits to my generals. Dread and chivalry and whatnot.

[meese]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/album...ictureid=32747
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/pictu...ictureid=29811

Those would probably be mine. Granted, I wasn't spectacularly outnumbered but it's a bit silly walking around with anything less than a near-full army in well-defended enemy territory except for quick raids.

25 against 3000 is a bit of an exaggeration unless the 3000 were all peasants and you had a general with full dread. That might be possible.

[Ichon]

If it wasn't so late I'd look for it but I know I saw a screen shot like that. Maybe it was more than 25 but it was a single generals bodyguard vs a full stack. I've done things like that in RTW and also many times put a half stack city to siege with 2 generals and won when the AI sallies... and not by running circles on the map. It is just a matter of timing and when you charge and withdraw. Unless you are unlucky and the main general dies in the first couple charges it isn't even very difficult.

It is much more difficult to do with 1 general which is why I was impressed. 2 cavalry though... if you micro well and know how to string the AI along you can get such victories over large numbers. Basically the only thing stopping that from happening every battle is lots of enemy cavalry and the fact your own cavalry has some infantry with it...

Taking few losses in large battles of thousands vs thousands is more impressive if you aren't a HA or strong cavalry army. There is some good screen shots of 6-7,000 large engagements where the HA army only had about 2,000 vs 4-5,000 but that isn't amazing. Do that with mostly infantry and its impressive. Even with strong archers that would be hard because they would run out of arrows before killing so many unless the enemy nearly completely unarmored.

Composition of the armies makes a huge difference as well. I've had many heroic victories vs rebels losing less than 10 men vs over 1,000 but my own army was about 800 so that isn't exactly impressive. Personally my favorite victory ever was as Danemark trying to invade HRE. The army led by my King was attacked 4 times in 2 turns, first Norway, then England, and then HRE and again HRE. The final battle HRE had a bunch of Handgunners which decimated my infantry and only my half strength crossbows won the battle because they outranged the Handgunners but it took forever. Starting strength army about 2,400 down to 300 by the 4th battle but all heroic victories. That campaign left little victorious battles symbols all over the road between Aarhus and Hamburg, in 5 turns about 8 of those markers. I think I have that screen shot somewhere though I might have lost it upgrading to Win 7.

[hpsauce13]

this didnt actually happen to me, but have a one unit of longbowmen, plant stakes in front of the only gate in a citadels last wall. the enmy have one small unit of peasants to take the ram and the rest cavalry. bam, easiest win ever against huge odds, boy i love stakes

[xxmaelstrom]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/album...ictureid=32747
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/pictu...ictureid=29811

Those would probably be mine. Granted, I wasn't spectacularly outnumbered but it's a bit silly walking around with anything less than a near-full army in well-defended enemy territory except for quick raids.

25 against 3000 is a bit of an exaggeration unless the 3000 were all peasants and you had a general with full dread. That might be possible.

Those screenshots are ridiculous, lol.

[sbroadbent]

So while playing tonight...I noticed that apparently you can defend a settlement from an army of 600+ with only 100+ men as long as you have a castle. And that got me thinking...what are the best odds that someone on the forum has won from. Clearly you will win when odds are in your favor on just the plains of Europe, but I wanna' know when you've been outnumbered, by how much and if you won. So let's see it.

Oh and don't think you can get away with saying you won a battle with 100 men against 900. Everyone will call that bull and want proof. So let's see the proof boys and girls (and yes, I'm talking screenshots).

In my Templar campaign from my AAR (Turn 26):
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=315673&page=2

I defended Jerusalem against an army twice as large with nothing but Pilgrims (as well as my faction leader a single unit of templar spear).

Then turn 42 (second battle):
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=315673&page=3

I was outnumbered about 2-to-1 and the enemy decided to attack my weakened forces that were on the south side of Al Aqaba when my full stack was on the north side. Because both armies had laid siege, the garrison could join the battle whereas my full stack could not

In the Jerusalem battle, admittedly my Faction Leader was the key. They had a mere captain, and the AI was intent on assaulting as opposed to trying to attack my cavalry, and Hugues racked up most of the kills.

In the other battle, I wasn't sure I was going to win it. Thankfully though, my defensive position and the fact that they had to march across the entire battlefield may have thankfully made a difference.

In the later turns of that game, outnumbered, I devastated a full Mongol stack with my own full cavalry stack, and took only 150 casualties. Of course, the advantage of having 20 units of cavalry can't be denied

In all the above, I have screen shots of both the stats and the battle itself.

[xxmaelstrom]

In my Templar campaign from my AAR (Turn 26):
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=315673&page=2

I defended Jerusalem against an army twice as large with nothing but Pilgrims (as well as my faction leader a single unit of templar spear).

Then turn 42 (second battle):
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=315673&page=3

I was outnumbered about 2-to-1 and the enemy decided to attack my weakened forces that were on the south side of Al Aqaba when my full stack was on the north side. Because both armies had laid siege, the garrison could join the battle whereas my full stack could not

In the Jerusalem battle, admittedly my Faction Leader was the key. They had a mere captain, and the AI was intent on assaulting as opposed to trying to attack my cavalry, and Hugues racked up most of the kills.

In the other battle, I wasn't sure I was going to win it. Thankfully though, my defensive position and the fact that they had to march across the entire battlefield may have thankfully made a difference.

In the later turns of that game, outnumbered, I devastated a full Mongol stack with my own full cavalry stack, and took only 150 casualties. Of course, the advantage of having 20 units of cavalry can't be denied

In all the above, I have screen shots of both the stats and the battle itself.

All I gotta say is that's ridiculous, lol.

[Point Blank]

Good quality medieval fortifications were reckoned to multiply the combat power of the defenders by as much as 10x.

[xxmaelstrom]

I just wish I knew the trick to winning a battle you're outnumbered by.

[sbroadbent]

I just wish I knew the trick to winning a battle you're outnumbered by.

Quality of troops and a good general (high command as well as high chivalry/dread) tend to be the most important things.

Secondly is having units that trump the enemies. If the enemy comprises a lot of non-spears, micro-managing a half dozen cavalry can practically eliminate a large chunk of enemy units, drastically evening the odds. My AAR has plenty of examples of that. I had at one point an army of 14 or so 9-Experience Hospitaller Knights simply due to the fact that they had seen so much battle.

1 30-man Hospitaller Knight unit (7-9 Experience) can decimate an entire 60-man Heavy Infantry unit in the initial charge and brief melee afterwards.

For further example of overwhelming odds, check out the AAR: I am Skantarios! - Rebirth of the Eastern Roman Empire.

He just makes it look so easy

[meese]

As sbroadbent said, a lot comes down to your use of cavalry, both heavy and light. This is particularly important in small-scale battles which are faster.

I've always preferred the larger battles and for me, cavalry are again very important but not necessary. In the second screenshot I posted, the cavalry killed close to 400 each and did most of the mopping up work. In the first, my cavalry honestly did very little except fill in the gaps after the infantry had tired - the enemy army just had too many troops for me to really utilise the cavalry safely and make the charges when the timing was right.

Other than cavalry, good infantry (like Obudshaer) will allow you to hold the line against a heck of a lot of troops while Archers/crossbowmen pull their weight and possibly make the most kills.

It's really just army composition and timing the shift from defensive tactics, like witholding troops or keeping your frontline spears on defensive mode, to offensive charges when the enemy is tiring.

[Concrete]

For further example of overwhelming odds, check out the AAR: I am Skantarios! - Rebirth of the Eastern Roman Empire.

He just makes it look so easy

YES, WE MUST SPREAD THE WORD OF THAT AAR!

And on topic: You can have a battle with two full stacks and win it flawlessly if you have and are lucky with mangonels and have a high dread general.
My usual stratergy when incredibly outnumbered in castles, is to put all my units in the capture zone of the castle, and have my spearmen provide a shieldwall for my archers, which do all the work, and eventually cause a rout, which works even better if one also has a cavalry unit, which is kept hidden in the alleys until the moment a flanking charge will be most devestating.