Flanking or frontal attack?

[carlolimjo]

I've been playing RTW for a couple of years now and eversince I've used the strategy of pinning the enemy army's front then outflanking it with my reserve infantry and cavalry to roll up the line.

However this past few games I've been using the tactic of a full frontal engagement where I pin the enemy's left and right with minimal infantry and skirmishers then while his flanks are busy I launch a frontal attack by deeply massed infantry againts his centre aiming to pierce his line then exploit the penetration with my cavalry and reserve infantry.

Has anyone been using this stle of battle? I know its more costly but it looks more impressive than the traditional flank and enveloping attacks.
Which do you prefer Flanking or Piercing the enemy's line?

[prince_imperial]

I'd prefer flanking because it has the highest probability of succeeding wit hminimal casualties. I believe frontal attacks are resorted because flanking manuevers take more time and effort to implement.

[juanji15]

im with prince_imperial, its more effective too, plus i mean its perfect when you have heavy calvary, although when im outnumber, i put my light infantry in the middle of the line with the heaviest on the sides, then i retreat my light and let the heavy infantry take the heat while if i have calvary or any reinforcements i attack where my ligh infantry was. that usually works if you do it right.

[carlolimjo]

I also agree with prince_imperial's point. However since the usual strategy has been to outflank one another then there are more counter-measures againts this strategy since Total War has been a game about the battle of the flanks. In my past few games I've tried feint a flanking attack where my opponent, seing a threat on one or both his flanks transfers his reserves and cavalry to form a defensive line to prevent his front from being flanked. Then I launch my entire centre of heavy infantrty followed closely be my reserves againts his centre then split his line in two. If I succeed in breeching his line then I can envelop his left or right as I please.

[GeneralChaos]

Usually flanking. It's what everyone does and expects, but I haven't found a reliable method for breaking through the center that doesn't rely on your infantry simply outclassing the opponents.

I messed around with this for a bit when I was trying to make an infantry wedge-style tactic. The problem I kept running in to is that when a unit does penetrate the enemy line, its treated as being surrounded and loses morale fast.

I did one of those 1 million denarii roman only battles, figuring everyone would be on fair footing. I made something like this:
..L...L...L...L
L.L.L.L.L.L.L.L

The idea being to make mini-wedges that seperate the enemy units, like something I saw on the History Channel.

My opponent was lined up in a relatively standard way- 6 units wide, 2 ranks deep of Urbans. The minute out forces clashed, the 'teeth' of my saw all routed instantly, so I haven't messed around with it too much since.

That's not to say you can't thin out the ranks in the center with some maneuvering- especially pinning the far units as you mentioned. I might mess around with this a bit more and see how it goes over, as I really did write it off to game mechanics after seeing that whole rank instantly rout.

[fourganger]

Usually flanking. It's what everyone does and expects, but I haven't found a reliable method for breaking through the center that doesn't rely on your infantry simply outclassing the opponents.

Massed cataphracts. Three units charging frontally will break through any unit except pike users.

Also good against players who position their general right behind their main infantry line. After the cataphracts break through then they can then charge the general and end his miserable existence!

*ahem*

[Legio]

12 units of horse archers charging a pike unit head-on will rout it.

[Magno]

If you have pure cavalry armies in a huge wedge the piercing effect is most impressive and usually win against non spear units.

[Emperor Phalanx]

I haven't ever tried that, but I've heard of it and actually thought of implementing it sometime. I'm still new so I like to experiment tons of strategy, cause the usual pin and flank strategy can get repetitive.

[Legio]

It is really fun. The same will happen with fully upgraded Spartans and Persian Cav.

[Phalanx300]

Well, I always like to break apart the enemies front line. Though I usually flank in order to gain victory.

I did some experimenting agains the AI to, since I always like to break Phalanxes from the front . It will work with enough numbers, though in a serious fight I wouldn't recommand it.

[NobleNick]

Welcome to the TWC forums, carlolimjo and prince_imperial!

I want to also throw in my hat with prince_imperial. An attack on the flanks is easiest to accomplish, and there are a variety of ways it can be accomplished, if you brought a balanced force to the fray.

A full frontal assault, and piercing the center is good if you just want to enjoy a slugfest, or if your opponent made a blunder and left a weak spot in the middle of the line. Otherwise, pound the ends. Getting an enemy force to chain rout is a beautiful thing.

[Lord Thesaurian]

friend, one of the cardinal rules of war is this: never gamble victory on full engagement via frontal attack. "impressive" or not, frontal assaults and full engagements eleminate your tactical options the moment this measure is undertaken. countless men have been polevaulted to glory and fame through glorious victories against foes whose linear tactics of frontal assaults and full engagements got them, there armies, and the nations they represented (which were often far superior numerically and materially) slaughtered and shamed. WWI is a classic example of the stupidity of the full, frontal engagement. hundreds of thousands were slaughtered daily in this relentless, futile persuit. Sorry to burst your bubble, but i hate it when people say they prefer linear vs multidementional tactics and strategy. In my opinion, this is like saying one prefers stupidity to intelligence. Trust me, I am by no means trying to insult u or say u are stupid, but cmon man!

[captainbloodloss]

Historically, flanking has not been the method of choice to attain victory. Only great military minds have been able to attempt it successfully because it requires above-average leadership skills and exceptional troops. For example, if you were to send a few units by themselves to go round the ends of the enemy line, they would never agree unless they were sure you knew what you were doing, e.g. Alexander and his Companions. There are also difficulties in communicating with those units once you send them on their way, not a problem in RTW. This meant that the commander had to go with them and leave his "anvil" force under the command of an officer, very risky because the commander could be trapped in the enemy's rear and killed.

Historically, it was far easier for a commander to order around the center of his army before the advent of modern communications because that was where he was as well. What can you do with the center of an army besides utilize a wedge attack to try and break through? These commanders typically recognized the fact that the spearhead unit of such an action would be under an extreme amount of stress and used their most elite troops, Napoleon's Old Guard comes to mind, for the task to ensure they would not break until they had succeeded. These commanders also used gratuitous amounts of artillery and missile fire to "prepare" the enemy center for the attack. While this plan gambled the most it also had a large reward: splitting the enemy army in two. This usually resulted in a morale crisis and made the rest of the army easy to pick off because they could not be commanded as easily by their officers.