Why people love so much Heavy Infantry?

[Basil II the B.S]

i'm posting this since i read a lot that people loves using mass of heavy infantry in battle

Now i understand they often look awesome, but..

-they can't hold the ground when charged frontally by heavy cavalry(pls don't tell me that heavy cav is overpowered), very few infantry were decent enough to me(order spearmen, pikes but yeah they're specialised)
-they can't beat cavalry archers.they just waste energy pursuing a unit they'll never catch,suffering casualties, until the cav archer unit run out of ammo, when that happen the h.i. unit is usually left with few men
-overall i found most of the h.i. units less useful even that archers on the battlefield,since even paesant archers can engage and hold the ground for the minutes i need to resolve the battle with cavalry
-when gunpowder arrives, they become even more useless, since they are the unit that suffer more against musketeers, hand gunners, arquebusiers, even not counting artillery

the only good points i see of using a lot of h.i. is they are great when u auto-resolve, but that cuts half of the fun in the game.
also they r pretty useful in defending sieges and bridges

thoughts?

[Samir]

Style?!

[pwijnands]

Historical accuracy?!

[Miraj]

Because it looks cool. And also the teeny boppers have a residual fetishism of Roman Legionaires and Spartans that are being super-imposed ahistorically on medieval Europe. (most european knights being mounted warriors, not legionary style armoured foot troopers)

[N3rull]

Historically there were not 500 heavy infantry on the field, but 20000, 50000,...
But yeah, in M2:TW heavy infantry is hardly 10% as important as it was in a real battle.
Plus the idiotic AI, fouled up archers* and a limit to 20 units per army adds up to English being useless in their historic war-style of archers+h.i., for example.

( * - http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=86342 post #9 )

[bobfish]

Because Heavy Infantry will dessimate any other type of infantry out there?

I use Spears, H.Infantry, Archers, H.Cavalry, General primarily. Not having a balanced army is suicide unless you know the make up of the enemy armies. As the Moors at the moment, my Christian Guard are just fantastic for holding the walls or routing enemy Spearmen (which the AI uses a lot of).

When gunpowder comes along, things will change slightly, but not much, I'll use horse archers and more cavalry, but will still need the H.Infantry to deal with the AIs infantry.

Surely the question is, how do you deal with half an army of spearmen if you don't have heavy infantry?

[Basil II the B.S]

Because Heavy Infantry will dessimate any other type of infantry out there?

I use Spears, H.Infantry, Archers, H.Cavalry, General primarily. Not having a balanced army is suicide unless you know the make up of the enemy armies. As the Moors at the moment, my Christian Guard are just fantastic for holding the walls or routing enemy Spearmen (which the AI uses a lot of).

When gunpowder comes along, things will change slightly, but not much, I'll use horse archers and more cavalry, but will still need the H.Infantry to deal with the AIs infantry.

Surely the question is, how do you deal with half an army of spearmen if you don't have heavy infantry?

mmm ok HI beats any other infantry no problem,but HC and CA does it better; again with the exception of sieges and bridges.i have no probelm admitting they own in sieges

that being said i never told in my first post i NEVER use HI, i just use them in a very limited way compared to other troups,infantry in general including spearmen (foot archers are not included in the count), is few more tham 1/4 of the my army usually.

how do i deal if half of an army is spearmen?
well it's very simple, assuming that, it means i'm superior in cavalry number, which used well is way more deadly.
-first thing is cutting out enemy heavy cav thanks to my number superiority
-second(optional):in the while cav archer if i have them surround the bulk of spearmen, and yeah arrows on spearmen are deadly.if spearmen are a lot i would let cav archer using all their arrows on them.
- third thing is positioning my heavy cavalry behing and on the flank of the mass of spearmen.
-fourth: my infantry no matter who they are, even archers if needed engage the enemy infantry
-fifth:CHARGE from everywhere, the result is an instant route of the whole army. i'm using this since the orginal MTW

or: i may actually not even need infantry at all, nor foot missile units, a quite large deployment of cavalry archers,of a decent quality, combined to heavy cav power, can actually win battles by themselves. tried it as lithuania and turks in m2tw and parthia in rtw.obviously this is referred to open battlefields and is helped by the weak AI

Because spearmen have no advantage over them. The advantage against cav is offset by the fact that swordsmen have a much higher attack rating so with a cav advantage of plus 8 only brings them to 15 on an average spear unit 2 higher then a sword unit the majority of which are 13 coupled with the fact that hi can take a cavalry charge as good if not better then spearmen. There aren't many reasons other then cost for taking spearmen. Which I believe to be entirely unrealistic by the way as swords were not the main infantry weapon. And I'm not even going to get into the dismounted knights...

ok agreed putting them over spearmen and light infantry, but compared to other units their contribute in the battle is really limited

to all the guys who said ''historical accurancy'';i understand, but what u can do about it...

[Trajan]

Moved to Battle Planning.

[Old Geezer]

Like the 50-year-old commercial said: "It takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'". But HI is so fun to chase H/As with in the snow. It is useful for hacking through pikes in city streets. I bet the Mongols in my games wished that they had some real HI to assault with. But having 50 percent or more HI in an army is rather useless and boring anyway. Does anyone intentionally have armies with over 50 percent HI? A very heavy crossbow army like the Milanese should inflict tremendous casualties - probably more than gunpowder because of their better accuracy. HI in the desert in MTW were almost useless because they would get so tired so fast in the heat that they'd just sit down and ask for iced tea after about advancing 500 yards.

[The King Of Peasants]

Because spearmen have no advantage over them. The advantage against cav is offset by the fact that swordsmen have a much higher attack rating so with a cav advantage of plus 8 only brings them to 15 on an average spear unit 2 higher then a sword unit the majority of which are 13 coupled with the fact that hi can take a cavalry charge as good if not better then spearmen. There aren't many reasons other then cost for taking spearmen. Which I believe to be entirely unrealistic by the way as swords were not the main infantry weapon. And I'm not even going to get into the dismounted knights...

[TwoScoopsOfViking]

Because spearmen are nearly worthless against other heavy infantry. Heavy infantry are the shock troops for the countries not possesing wide varieties of cavalry. They are also used by players who aren't cheap and imaginitive (i.e. players that don't use full stacks of horse archers and call it a day).

[prakimus88]

i guess it's a style of combat more than anything else. Prior to gunpowder (which did spell the end for suiting out soldiers in the heaviest metal around and giving them the sharpest metal around), heavily armed troops are the most versatile around. Perhaps historically, mounted knights were more important to europe, but they still definitely played a part.

Consider versatility; certainly heavy infantry are
- outranged by archers and crossbows
- outmanuevered by cavalry (and overwhelmed by charging cavalry)
- outranged and outmanuevered by missile cavalry.
- ripe targets for artillery
- outranged to some extent by pike formations
- outmaneuvered to some extent by light infantry

but at the same time, they have no fatal flaw that those troops have;
- cavalry rely on a 'shock and awe' element, they need to be position well to charge and need to get the troop to rout quickly (or get out of the combat), otherwise they lose their advantage and become very expensive for what they bring to melee.
- cavalry archers are useful in opening skirmishing and their maneuverability make them deadly archers, but they are very much a 'go for broke' unit, if they get bogged down in hand to hand combat or in an exchange with decent enemy archers (eg. Pavise crossbowmen), they will fall like flies. Remember also that much of the usefullness of cav. archers (and jinetes especially) is the inability of the AI to properly deal with them.
- enemy archers for obvious reasons are only good when they are out of melee combat, one squad of crossbowmen is going to have a hard time destroying a full unit of DFK before they can close down the space and engage in hand to hand (at which point they have lost).
- pikes are similar to cavalry in that they are only useful in specific situations. The moment they are flanked or penetrated by heavy infantry, cavalry, archers (or even archers in melee for that matter), they are useless and will sustain heavy casualties.
-light infantry have greater maneuvarability but have no defense against any ranged combat and are less capable of withstanding cavalry charges.

Heavy infantry also fill roles that no other troop can
- defending missile units from melee or artilery.
- protecting the flanks of pike formations
- their generally high morale (at least from my observations of troops like DFK, DCK, VHI, JHI, Sw.bu.men) makes them an invaluable holding/defensive force and a hands down winner in melee with pretty much anything else besides other HI.
- their supremacy in sieges is irrefutable, at manning breeches, tracking back to support other forces, manning walls, providing defensive lines for missile troops and also agressively for attacking breeches/walls
- perhaps most crucially, for acting as the holding force in any hammer and sickle battle tactic (heavy infantry holds the engaging forces in place and protects your assets while cavalry act as a flanking force when troops are locked in and can't manuevre)
- 'shock troops' (infantry with high armour piercing attack like Venetian HI, Jannissary HI and Noble Knights) are just as potent as cavalry for flanking while still retaining all the versatility of infantry.

certainly heavy infantry are not the be all and end all of an army. Any army made entirely of heavy inf. is a sitting duck for specialist troops (more maneuvarable archers with missile/heavy cav support can take out such an army with next to no losses). But any army with a spine of heavy infantry and good support of cavalry and missile troops requires heavy infantry to counter properly. Imagine attacking an army with 8 HI, 6 Missile troops, 4 cavalry and 2 artillery. Any massing of cavalry or cavalry archers would be in dire trouble as once they are forced to engage the well armoured HI, the defender is free to maneuver cavalry for flanking or simply allow the missiles and artillery to pepper the easy horse targets.

In Late era tactics, Pikeman can be used to replace HI because of their imperviousness to frontal attacks, but even then, it would be foolish to use them without a couple of HI units supporting the flanks and ready to fill any breach in the pike line. Only gunpowder spells the end of HI (to some extent) as the heavy armour means precious little to a gunshot (hence the efficacy of pike shot formations). Even still, HI based armies can still be useful, it just requires heavy artillery or powerful offensive cavalry to knock out gunpowder threats before a battle.

And finally, remember that much of the usefulness of cavalry archers is the inability of the AI to deal with them well. All powerful jinete armies are to do with the willingness of the computer to allow cavalry to march behind their lines and pummel them with javelins. A human player would see the threat to the rear and use artillery, fast cavalry (stradiots) or archers to cause havoc among the poorly defended cavalry.

[Basil II the B.S]

i guess it's a style of combat more than anything else. Prior to gunpowder (which did spell the end for suiting out soldiers in the heaviest metal around and giving them the sharpest metal around), heavily armed troops are the most versatile around. Perhaps historically, mounted knights were more important to europe, but they still definitely played a part.

Consider versatility; certainly heavy infantry are
- outranged by archers and crossbows
- outmanuevered by cavalry (and overwhelmed by charging cavalry)
- outranged and outmanuevered by missile cavalry.
- ripe targets for artillery
- outranged to some extent by pike formations
- outmaneuvered to some extent by light infantry

but at the same time, they have no fatal flaw that those troops have;
- cavalry rely on a 'shock and awe' element, they need to be position well to charge and need to get the troop to rout quickly (or get out of the combat), otherwise they lose their advantage and become very expensive for what they bring to melee.
- cavalry archers are useful in opening skirmishing and their maneuverability make them deadly archers, but they are very much a 'go for broke' unit, if they get bogged down in hand to hand combat or in an exchange with decent enemy archers (eg. Pavise crossbowmen), they will fall like flies. Remember also that much of the usefullness of cav. archers (and jinetes especially) is the inability of the AI to properly deal with them.
- enemy archers for obvious reasons are only good when they are out of melee combat, one squad of crossbowmen is going to have a hard time destroying a full unit of DFK before they can close down the space and engage in hand to hand (at which point they have lost).
- pikes are similar to cavalry in that they are only useful in specific situations. The moment they are flanked or penetrated by heavy infantry, cavalry, archers (or even archers in melee for that matter), they are useless and will sustain heavy casualties.
-light infantry have greater maneuvarability but have no defense against any ranged combat and are less capable of withstanding cavalry charges.

Heavy infantry also fill roles that no other troop can
- defending missile units from melee or artilery.
- protecting the flanks of pike formations
- their generally high morale (at least from my observations of troops like DFK, DCK, VHI, JHI, Sw.bu.men) makes them an invaluable holding/defensive force and a hands down winner in melee with pretty much anything else besides other HI.
- their supremacy in sieges is irrefutable, at manning breeches, tracking back to support other forces, manning walls, providing defensive lines for missile troops and also agressively for attacking breeches/walls
- perhaps most crucially, for acting as the holding force in any hammer and sickle battle tactic (heavy infantry holds the engaging forces in place and protects your assets while cavalry act as a flanking force when troops are locked in and can't manuevre)
- 'shock troops' (infantry with high armour piercing attack like Venetian HI, Jannissary HI and Noble Knights) are just as potent as cavalry for flanking while still retaining all the versatility of infantry.

certainly heavy infantry are not the be all and end all of an army. Any army made entirely of heavy inf. is a sitting duck for specialist troops (more maneuvarable archers with missile/heavy cav support can take out such an army with next to no losses). But any army with a spine of heavy infantry and good support of cavalry and missile troops requires heavy infantry to counter properly. Imagine attacking an army with 8 HI, 6 Missile troops, 4 cavalry and 2 artillery. Any massing of cavalry or cavalry archers would be in dire trouble as once they are forced to engage the well armoured HI, the defender is free to maneuver cavalry for flanking or simply allow the missiles and artillery to pepper the easy horse targets.

In Late era tactics, Pikeman can be used to replace HI because of their imperviousness to frontal attacks, but even then, it would be foolish to use them without a couple of HI units supporting the flanks and ready to fill any breach in the pike line. Only gunpowder spells the end of HI (to some extent) as the heavy armour means precious little to a gunshot (hence the efficacy of pike shot formations). Even still, HI based armies can still be useful, it just requires heavy artillery or powerful offensive cavalry to knock out gunpowder threats before a battle.

And finally, remember that much of the usefulness of cavalry archers is the inability of the AI to deal with them well. All powerful jinete armies are to do with the willingness of the computer to allow cavalry to march behind their lines and pummel them with javelins. A human player would see the threat to the rear and use artillery, fast cavalry (stradiots) or archers to cause havoc among the poorly defended cavalry.

great post man; definetely worth reading it

there r few points i found arguable, however.i bolded them

first, i think u r quite underrating the skill of horse archers in hand to hand combat. i understand they are overpowered often by heavier troops, but a decent quality missile cavalry can definetely do the job.for example take Byzantine Cavalry, i tried them multiple times in campaign and custom battle, and apart specialised hand to hand archers, any other (pavise crossbows and so on)lose pretty badly in hand to hand combat, eventually they obviously win when talking about a only missile exchange.higher quality cavalry archers hold 2-3 minutes against bodyguards on VH, just the time u need to send reinforcements and kill the heavy cav. almost the same can be said against HI.

second: flanking, i would never compare a charge on the flank of HI to a HC one. Canons of the HS(just naming them becuase they are the strongest shock infantry) may be effective as feudal knights, not even close to Gothic Knights or similars. on the other side, if u r supposing that there is no time/space for a full speed charge of HC, i may agree with u

the battle: a countering army composed of 10 HC and 10 CA not only could beat that, it could squash that one. i experienced this playing on the net.but it would probably depend on the ability of the player.
-first of all having 8 HI will mean that i would use 6-7 of HC for a frontal charge, and no matter who they are, unless they are Canons( who eventually are not that special at defending) they'll go down.u could argue that u may use archers to lose the HC charge bonus, again it depends on player ability
-also the defender would be never able to flank that...simply because there is nothing to flank. u could try to surround the HC charging, but i would use the remaining 2-3 HC and most of the CA, at least 6 to engage yours.and again they would be outnumbered badly and go down.if u are not fast enough moving your HC, u risk to be trapped behing your HI and charged everywhere from my CA and the remaining HC. a CA charge won't obviously be so powerful against HI and even less against HC, but archers and artillery will route .
-i admit that the combo artillery +archers would be deadly for shooting cav archers, that's why i wouldn't use them shooting, but i would rather engage in melee.
this is the most common way i would counter that,i'm more than sure that u would try to counter my tactic with yours so i'll just end here.
also the troops u would choose may eventually need to re-make my tactic, e.g. the choice of archers with stakes could kill a frontal charge, or the use of pikes too, or as u said stradiots could kill CA(still they have no chances in 4 against 8,9,10)

[bobfish]

Well, I did assume that we wouldn't be exploiting a weakness in the AI for our reason to not use them. A full stack of cavalry should be useless against an entrenched standing army, should be.. but obviously the AI can't deal with cavalry and doesn't know the meaning of defensive positioning.

[HANDsolo]

I agree with you about HI being the spine of your army. I use HI as the base to launch specialised attacks from and to give my army shape, and when those attacks are exhausted, the HI mops up. Its important that the core of your army is your most disiplined troops, because if the core breaks, the rest of the of the army follows.

[Mr Harold]

Hello there, Basil

-they can't hold the ground when charged frontally by heavy cavalry(pls don't tell me that heavy cav is overpowered), very few infantry were decent enough to me(order spearmen, pikes but yeah they're specialised)

Some Hevy infantry can form a kind of phalanx with their halberds. Also Most heavy infantry can hold a line sufficiently when warding off cavalry, just make sure theyre stationry to brace the charge.

-they can't beat cavalry archers.they just waste energy pursuing a unit they'll never catch,suffering casualties, until the cav archer unit run out of ammo, when that happen the h.i. unit is usually left with few men

But thats not the heavy infantry's job. Thats the light or missle cavalry's job. Its good to put some useless units like peasants infront of your heavy infantry to draw the fire.

Heavy infantry are there to be he 'spine' as I believe someone else said, and to either hold the bulk of the line in a defence, or lead the charge in an attack. They are best deployed all at once.

I mean, who ever saw an army with no bulky soldiers to do some ripping?

XKillerX

[Basil II the B.S]

Hello there, Basil

Some Hevy infantry can form a kind of phalanx with their halberds. Also Most heavy infantry can hold a line sufficiently when warding off cavalry, just make sure theyre stationry to brace the charge.

But thats not the heavy infantry's job. Thats the light or missle cavalry's job. Its good to put some useless units like peasants infront of your heavy infantry to draw the fire.

Heavy infantry are there to be he 'spine' as I believe someone else said, and to either hold the bulk of the line in a defence, or lead the charge in an attack. They are best deployed all at once.

I mean, who ever saw an army with no bulky soldiers to do some ripping?

XKillerX

sorry for double posting

yeah i know about halberdiers,i tend to consider them in the group of pikes,with sword staff militia too.as i said in the first post, they're specialised anti-cavalry troops.i disagree on the other point, DFK and DCK, to name the most common holding line infantry still suffer too much heavy casualties against a charging HC. try in custom battle, even putting VH difficulty, DCK suffer from 35% to 50% casualties against Feudal Knights charge, not even mentioning better ones

well i saw an army with no bulky soldiers making some ripping,not medieval times but it was against one of the best infantry ever.Battle of Carrae, the Parthian army was entirely composed of Mounted Archers and Cataprachts, no infantry, and squashed the Roman legions. btw it's just an example i hope this does not lead into an histocal debate
i agree on the rest

[Erwin Rommel]

because you jsut gotta love thme charge into a ggroup of people

axe raised, swords waving.........................ahhh the sound reminiscent to thunder!!

[Garnier]

As england, heavy infantry are indispensible. They form half of my army, (I limit myself to max 4 cav and max 4 archers and max 16 units in an army).

So I have my longbowmen place stakes out there, and the heavy infantry sit behind the stakes. Enemy cav can't charge them because of the stakes, but they can demolish enemy infantry that tries to get at them.

[TwoScoopsOfViking]

Historically they were more of an asset to the Army than cavalry were as it was cheaper to train, supply and deploy an infantryman than it was a mounted fully armored knight/cavalier/archer.

A full stack of HC and HA can be flanked, ever hear of maneuver warfare? Just out flank the flanker, it's quite simple.