Anyone tried to use real life tactic in the game?

[strategist.com]

I was experimenting in using real life because using the hammer and anvil was too repetitive. Though applying real life tactics was difficult for me. First off I tried to copy the tactic that Alexander the Great used when dealing against a massive army in Battle of Gaugamela. His flanks feint retreated so a gap would be created and sent in the cavalry to kill Darius. I tried doing that, a gap was created but my cavalry just attacked the troops instead of my intended target and I keep on ordering to break off and attack the general but it wont work! >

[ckndr]

Instead of right clicking and directly attacking the intended target. Try running right next to them and attacking only when your target is the closest.

[strategist.com]

That is what I did. I got my cavalry in a very thin and straight formation as possible and made them run along the gap but they automatically engage the enemy that was on the sides of the gap.

[ckndr]

Well that's realistic, Engagement without orders was not very uncommon in real. Unless they were especially trained for specific task.
I try to play my battles realistically, by keeping micro to minimum and avoiding pausing the game. Even if I get more loses that way, I enjoy the feeling of battle more. Prolly cause Im still new to the game. I'm sure the feeling of doing realistic things go away once you are experienced player, and go for most efficient tactics.

[Aeratus]

Well that's realistic, Engagement without orders was not very uncommon in real. Unless they were especially trained for specific task.

Engagement without orders seems to be like putting your entire army on AI assistance mode.

[Double A]

You could try horns of the bull or a really big crescent formation made of horse archers.

[Greek Firethrower]

You can try to wait until the enemy comes and when they fight against your infantery you can attack their flanks and their rear with cavalry.
(nearly like the Battle of Cannae).

(I'm not sure but I think you must position your general behind your main infantry, because the enemy want to attack mostly your general)

[Nazgûl Killer]

Well, I've often used the crescent formation that (I think) was applied by the Turks. When your army is stacked together in a form of a backward crescent, and when the middle part of it engages, the flanks rush forward and engulf the enemy within the crescent. It's a dangerous tactic though because, with the relatively small armies of M2TW, your line becomes quite thin.

I've had the chance to use that tactic for about two dozen times now, and won every time but once - When my army was lacking in quality of troops compared to my foe. It's a great tactic but requires a lot of preparation and trial&error. It breaks the enemy morale pretty quickly.


I find it best to employ this tactic with your high-chivalry generals, this way despite having a thin line to keep, your troops won't flee. Also, have only around 2-3 archer units in your army. Sure, when the enemy's army is engulfed your archers will fire into the center of the fray with devastating effect, but you simply won't have enough troops to do said engulfing if you have too many archers. Cavalry are used to completely outflank and take the enemy from behind, closing the gap and truly encircling the army, or to hunt down other cavalry.

[Double A]

You can try to wait until the enemy comes and when they fight against your infantery you can attack their flanks and their rear with cavalry.
(nearly like the Battle of Cannae).

(I'm not sure but I think you must position your general behind your main infantry, because the enemy want to attack mostly your general)

Yeah that's hammer and anvil.

Well, I've often used the crescent formation that (I think) was applied by the Turks. When your army is stacked together in a form of a backward crescent, and when the middle part of it engages, the flanks rush forward and engulf the enemy within the crescent. It's a dangerous tactic though because, with the relatively small armies of M2TW, your line becomes quite thin.

I've had the chance to use that tactic for about two dozen times now, and won every time but once - When my army was lacking in quality of troops compared to my foe. It's a great tactic but requires a lot of preparation and trial&error. It breaks the enemy morale pretty quickly.


I find it best to employ this tactic with your high-chivalry generals, this way despite having a thin line to keep, your troops won't flee. Also, have only around 2-3 archer units in your army. Sure, when the enemy's army is engulfed your archers will fire into the center of the fray with devastating effect, but you simply won't have enough troops to do said engulfing if you have too many archers. Cavalry are used to completely outflank and take the enemy from behind, closing the gap and truly encircling the army, or to hunt down other cavalry.

I bet a crescent would kick ass with a Sassanid stack of Immortals and generals. Of course, with that much heavy cavalry, you could do practically anything and still win.

[.L.]

Well, I've often used the crescent formation that (I think) was applied by the Turks. When your army is stacked together in a form of a backward crescent, and when the middle part of it engages, the flanks rush forward and engulf the enemy within the crescent. It's a dangerous tactic though because, with the relatively small armies of M2TW, your line becomes quite thin.

I've had the chance to use that tactic for about two dozen times now, and won every time but once - When my army was lacking in quality of troops compared to my foe. It's a great tactic but requires a lot of preparation and trial&error. It breaks the enemy morale pretty quickly.


I find it best to employ this tactic with your high-chivalry generals, this way despite having a thin line to keep, your troops won't flee. Also, have only around 2-3 archer units in your army. Sure, when the enemy's army is engulfed your archers will fire into the center of the fray with devastating effect, but you simply won't have enough troops to do said engulfing if you have too many archers. Cavalry are used to completely outflank and take the enemy from behind, closing the gap and truly encircling the army, or to hunt down other cavalry.

I'm pretty sure that that was a Hannibal tactic, the Turks did use a crescent formation, but a different kind.

[Sitalkes]

I'm pretty sure that that was a Hannibal tactic, the Turks did use a crescent formation, but a different kind.

Well that's something like Cannae but it's more useful to think of the Zulu tactic of the chest and the horns - the "chest" fixes and holds the enemy while the "horns" surround him

[Nazgûl Killer]

I'm pretty sure that that was a Hannibal tactic, the Turks did use a crescent formation, but a different kind.

Well, I'm not too sure about that. I'm talking about the crescent that has it's thicker end go father from the rest of the army, and engage the enemy, holding it in place, and the flanks quickly then join up with the rest of the army and engulf the enemy.

Nazgûl Killer: Why would high chivalry be better than high dread?

The reason is that when your lines are stretched as thin as they are in my formation, you need your soldiers to stand their ground, and they'd do that with a general they respect, not fear (High chivalry general). High dread is good if you're a small army looking to beat a bigger army with significant numbers disadvantage, high chivalry is good if you don't want a surprise defeat on your hands with your massive army. In general I prefer high chivalry generals, I just like it better than dread.


But I'm getting off topic, high chivalry in this case would be best because you're engulfing the enemy army with the purpose of annihilating it, not routing it, you're actually locking it into place and letting all hell loose on them to demolish that army (Good tactic against main armies), so you don't want to make them rout, that would just make them 'fight for their lives', instead you want to make sure your own soldiers do not rout.

[Parzival2211]

I find it best to employ this tactic with your high-chivalry generals, this way despite having a thin line to keep, your troops won't flee. .

Nazgûl Killer: Why would high chivalry be better than high dread?

[Blaze of Macedon]

Nazgûl Killer: Why would high chivalry be better than high dread?

Cause he figures that in his case it's more important for his guys to hold steady rather that the enemy to flee faster.

Chivalry makes your guys rout harder and dread makes the enemies rout faster.

[Avatar]

The trouble with trying to use most real life tactics, is that they are dependent on having a real life general on the other side to react to/fall for them. Since the default AI is somewhat moronic the intended effects will often be lost.

[Sitalkes]

I think a better question would be "when don't you use real life tactics in a MTW2 battle?". The main non-historical tactic is to use fire arrows (can't think of any battle where that was significant) and to stack archers behind other units and shoot in support of units in combat. I love MTW2 because it helps to use historical tactics - make use of terrain, double envelopment, refused flank, ambush, spears vs cavalry, cavalry vs swords, swords vs spears, bows vs anything (maybe a bit too powerful though) - they all work! Sieges need improvement though as it is difficult to get troops to defend the walls properly.

[EmperorBatman999]

This may be a tad off topic, but was it historical for European/Persian/Turkish/Saracen forces to hide in Castles and Fortresses to deny the Mongols their use of cavalry? Did it work?

[Double A]

This may be a tad off topic, but was it historical for European/Persian/Turkish/Saracen forces to hide in Castles and Fortresses to deny the Mongols their use of cavalry? Did it work?

You can hide in a castle and let your country fall into ruin or you can try to fight. M2 doesn't do the Mongol invasion justice.

[CavalryCmdr]

This may be a tad off topic, but was it historical for European/Persian/Turkish/Saracen forces to hide in Castles and Fortresses to deny the Mongols their use of cavalry? Did it work?

I dont know about the western people, but the Chinese tried it. Contrary to popular myth, you simply could not have conqoured the span of empire that the mongols did without effective use of infantry. If they had tried they would have simply been like the Huns, very dangerous, true, but not conqoureres.
The main reason thier cavalry get all the hype is because they arrived first and were devastatingly effective. Most particularly of note to westerners is the ease with which they took out thier Russian counterparts, though that really had more to do with the Mongol bows outranging the Russians then the skill on either side.

[Caesar15]

they would just siege the castles and starve them so they didnt use the tactic that much