Just curious of the demographic.
Misspelled "aggressive," but it can be French.
Bloody foreign languages to a number on you.
Kamikaze clash! Sack, sack, sack! Bloodlust! Lives are worthless!
I march to meet my enemy nonstop regardless to size and position!
I march forward, exchange missiles momentarily, and then charge.
I creep forward, exhange lots of missiles and carefully charge.
I spend about 10 minutes during deployment weighing strategy. Depends.
Rather passive, but I'll attack with with strong odds. Peace!
I usually let my enemy come where I want them, then I attack.
I always let my enemy come to me. Ranged combat preferred!
I camp out on the map edge with a fortified position like a wussy!
Run and hide! Avoid all contact! Zero casualties! All archery!
Senator
What sort of field tactician are you?
Just curious of the demographic.
Misspelled "aggressive," but it can be French.
Bloody foreign languages to a number on you.
Last edited by KittySN; December 07, 2009 at 06:46 AM.
SS Forum Moderator
Re: What sort of field tactician are you?
I fight battles that I can win, I will not sacrifice my men's life on a slight chance of a win. You can bet your bottom dollar that if you lose too many men, the AI will make you regret it when another stack turns up on the next end turn.
'Proud to be patronised by cedric37(My Father and My Guardian)
Do it now.
Re: What sort of field tactician are you?
Piss poor, I prefer range first, then employ the Zulu's "Horns of the Bull", a main Battle line to pin & hold then flankers to encircle and destroy...
http://www.fortunecity.co.uk/amuseme...00/battle.html
The mark for me is 9%. If I loose more men than that, I have a hissy fit and start pouting...I'm all defensive because of the fact that i hate losing men, even if i come out as the victor it feels like a defeat if i lose anything over 400men.
SS Forum Moderator
Re: What sort of field tactician are you?
My favourite battle formation, is the staggered line, one end of my line closer to the enemy than the other. I understand that Alexander the Great used this against the Persians on at least one occasion. The AI really struggles with this line, it does not know how to react and just stands there.
'Proud to be patronised by cedric37(My Father and My Guardian)
Semisalis
Re: What sort of field tactician are you?
I'm all defensive because of the fact that i hate losing men, even if i come out as the victor it feels like a defeat if i lose anything over 400men.
Re: What sort of field tactician are you?
Ok, fairly new to this forum, so someone please tell me how to register a vote (I'm more than a little dumb)....
Anyway, The Great Hando tends to camp out on the edge of the map with a fortified position, like a wussy :-)
Do it now.
Civis
Re: What sort of field tactician are you?
I voted the middle ground one because my battle tactics depend entirely on the circumstances. My army, their army, battle map, what my long term plans are, etc.
General battle plan is the tried and tested hammer and avil. However if I don't have cavalry superiority but an abundance of missile troops, obviously play to those strengths and have a shoot out.
If however I have an all cavalry army I just go steaming into the opposition, usually causing myself more casualties than if I isolate and pick off them. But its nowhere near as much fun as watching 300 armoured horsies plough through 1000 of the enemy in under 2 minutes
Civis
Re: What sort of field tactician are you?
I tend to pepper the enemy with arrows and let them charge at my spearmen. Then I charge my heavy infantry and axemen on the sides and cavalry in the back. Works good with western nations but poor with the more horse archer centric nations. There I just make a box so I can take out their horse archers and cavalry, then attack their infantry with all I got.
''We learn from history that man can never learn anything from history.''
Primicerius
Re: What sort of field tactician are you?
.That seems the best description of my field strategy. Unless the enemy fields superior missile units or artillery, I always harras them for a while before I engage. Often combine the engaging with some kind of ambush launch from my knights or whatever takes on their role.I creep forward, exhange lots of missiles and carefully charge
The Enemy of Human Souls
Sat grieving at the cost of coals;
For Hell had been annexed of late,
And was a sovereign Southern State.
Re: What sort of field tactician are you?
The question is which one are you?Originally Posted by KittySN
Just curious of the demographic.
Misspelled "aggressive," but it can be French.
Bloody foreign languages to a number on you.
I'm the "Creep forward, exchange as much missiles as possible, then carefully charge"
Re: What sort of field tactician are you?
Arrows, Arrows Arrows! And then I take my cavalry and use the Hammer and Anvil tactic. Flanking the enemy with the Cavalry ( Hammer ) and using the Infantry to hold enemy infantry (Anvil). Now, if the enemy also has Cavalry, I usually charge the enemy Cavalry first, while Infantry fights Infantry.
Praeses
Re: What sort of field tactician are you?
Usually my army is vastly outnumbered and since I most often play factions with more infantry than cavalry I have to wait for the enemy to charge and try to outmaneuver them sacrificing some cheaper infantry units. Taking less than 10% loss in the situation would be quite good result. 20-30% is typical fighting an army with lots of strong units. Only time easy to get 10% losses is vs rebels and unbalanced enemy armies led by captains.
If I am feeling lazy and have a few family members I will charge right away only with the generals to protect the main body of infantry if I need it later for a siege.
Last edited by Ichon; December 07, 2009 at 10:27 AM.
Re: What sort of field tactician are you?
I usually start out fairly conservative, trying to whittle them down with missle units. Sooner or later I get bored and end up doing reckless things.
Civis
Re: What sort of field tactician are you?
Seeing how the AI usually advances to me I deploy or move somewhere advantageous and send out my cavalry to harass the rear of the approaching army. My archers hit them with arrows a bit till they meet my line. Then I send my swordsmen infantry to circle around and hit their flanks while my cavalry charges the rear. I use my spearmen in the front as the main battle line.
If the AI is standing in place then I move my army up to them just out of archer range. Then I send my cavalry around to threaten their flanks a bit and they usually adjust. While they are moving, I then advance my army forward and hit them with archers till they engage me and repeat same tactic from above.
If I have melee cavalry superiority, sometimes I'll just do a straight frontal charge to cause maximum damage from the get go unless the AI has something like pikes. Regular spearmen aren't enough to halt a charge though and I play early campaign for the most part.
Campidoctor
Re: What sort of field tactician are you?
When playing on the campaign map and moving my armies, I always try to lure my enemy to attack me, so I can defend. So basically I simply siege one enemy settlement and most usually another enemy army attacks my besieging army. Then I can fight a defensive battle.
In the battle I choose a high ground position and wait for the enemy to attack. Still sometimes I prefer more aggressive tactics. Once I attacked against a Seljuk army. I noticed they mostly had archers, light infantry and horse archers. Then I thought I should quickly advance so my men wouldn't suffer many losses caused by enemy arrows. That tactic worked out well.
Re: What sort of field tactician are you?
1. I deploy my troops and weigh the strategy. When I've decided how to battle, I start the battle.
Usually I place my melee cavalry on the right, missile cavalry on the left flank. Pikemen/spearmen on the flanks as well, heavy infantry in the middle. Archers behind, crossbowmen/gunners in front of them. Artillery behind
archers.
2. I immediately attack the enemy archers by using my melee cavalry and harass the enemy infantry by my missile cavalry.
3. I withdraw, then charge again and then perform the final withdraw.
4. I keep shooting the enemy until they're close; then missile units withdraw and heavy infantry binds the enemy infantry and cavalry if possible. Archers shoot all the time behind the battle line.
5. I take my cavalry on the flank, attack the enemy artillery if any, then charge the enemy infantry from the rear. They usually rout and flee. Then it's prisoner time.
I like using morale-decreasing weapons too.
Semisalis
Re: What sort of field tactician are you?
lol you must go insane playing early era, i find it quite hard to even keep it under the 20% mark when playing it.The mark for me is 9%. If I loose more men than that, I have a hissy fit and start pouting...
Do it now.
Re: What sort of field tactician are you?
My specific tactics depend on the type of army I'm fielding.
General Tactics:
If I have Cavalry: Send them around to flank and get opportunities to charge the enemy archers, generals or spear units from behind.
If I have missile/artillery: Move up my units so that missile are in range. One of two things will happen:
1) Wait until ammo is depleted and send missile troops in the opposite direction of the enemy and then send infantry forward, or
2) if the enemy decides to come at me, move my infantry forward and archers back.
If I have lots of spear, or far less missile than the enemy, I send the entire line forward to minimize casualties coming from their missiles.
Where possible I try to create an army that will be more effective than the enemy units. If they have lots of cavalry, bring lots of spear. If they have lots of spear, bring lots of non-spear infantry. If they have lots of archers, bring lots of cavalry. If they have lots of armored units, pray that I have armor piercing units, unless you're playing the Danes/Norwegians, in which case you almost always have armor piercing
Although superior numbers can help in a battle, having the right troops for the right job can do wonders.
I had one battle as Ireland going up against a massive Levy Spear army of the English (with a few missiles of their own). I had 3 Generals BodyGuard and several more of Hobiguir, 4 units of archers, and about 3 spear units of my own.
My cavalry was able to distract and draw away individual spear units that I'd double-team to deplete their numbers or cause a rout, meanwhile the enemy never seemed to advance on my archers, even though they could have easily tied up and devastated my few spear, though catching archers may have been difficult.
Having lots of things happening at once, and using fast units to lure away slower units is a sure way to cause the AI problems. About the only way you can get an advantage over the AI which can at any time micromanage it's 20 or more units on the field at all times, while you have to either babysit your units spread across the battlefield, or hope that they don't charge an enemy when you want them to get out of danger. I'm sure I've lost plenty of cavalry to spears when the idiots decide that it'd be fun to charge at long pointy sticks. I almost hesitate when bringing more than one stack into a battle. Either the reinforcements to the battle will be too late to have much of an effect, or the AI (if I give them control of it), will do a random charge at the enemy.
It would be nice to have a hit and run option. When turned on, a unit will charge into battle, and once damage has been done, to withdraw to a safe distance. Almost like a temporary skirmish option. Unit skirmishes away once it's within "0" feet of an enemy, and doesn't stop until it's say 40 feet of an enemy. Would make controlling things much easier, or is that the "challenge" for the player.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
