Retreating in battle

**complete noob:(** · February 22, 2012, 07:09 PM

I am currently the target of a crusade, and was wondering how effective armies of horse archers would be. After they run out of ammo they would just retreat from battle (withdraw). If all they do is withdraw instead of rout, do I lose any men?

**Macunaíma** · February 22, 2012, 07:13 PM

If you want to withdraw an unit be sure it is not dangerously near any enemy unit, otherwise they can get slaughtered

. The best way is to go to the corner of the map you came from and hit the withdrawal button. This way they will safely run away after skirmishes (as I see you're trying to kill some of the crusading army numbers by sending hit-and-run horse archer stacks).

**complete noob:(** · February 22, 2012, 07:16 PM

So assuming they cannot be caught by other enemy forces, will my soldiers on the campaign map move away, similar to if i lost the battle, just without all the death?

**Macunaíma** · February 22, 2012, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by complete noob:(

So assuming they cannot be caught by other enemy forces, will my soldiers on the campaign map move away, similar to if i lost the battle, just without all the death?

Yep. You will lose the men that eventually get killed during the skirmish (your losses will appear on the battle final scroll, as always). I've used this strategy before.

**Teutonic Warlord** · February 22, 2012, 08:52 PM

If I may say so, however, a full stack of horse archers should be able to wipe out an entire stack, or at least weaken it enough to die by a charge from your horse archers. Or, even better, an army of heavy cavalry to attack enemy foot troops and horse archers to attack enemy cavalry should be quite effective. You may not even need to withdraw with such stacks.

**Macunaíma** · February 23, 2012, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by Teutonic Warlord

If I may say so, however, a full stack of horse archers should be able to wipe out an entire stack, or at least weaken it enough to die by a charge from your horse archers. Or, even better, an army of heavy cavalry to attack enemy foot troops and horse archers to attack enemy cavalry should be quite effective. You may not even need to withdraw with such stacks.

Sometimes you don't have a full stack. When you have something like 4 or 5 units of horse archers wandering around and want to skirmish a little, this strategy works pretty well.

**Aeratus** · February 23, 2012, 12:14 AM

I don't think the AI is capable of building a crusade stack that can seriously challenge a full stack of horse archers, even crappy horse archers like the most basic one available to the Turks.

**Drachos** · February 23, 2012, 04:17 AM

AI crusades are weird. Once I played with Egypt and have fend off 3 crusader stacks with only one stack. I don't recommend withdrawing horse archers after they've lost ammo because you can use them as melee cavalry (very good cavalry, but it depends on the horse archers tho)

**Silverheart** · February 23, 2012, 11:12 AM

Have I understood it correctly, that you wish to know if you´ll lose any men if you attack an enemy army with Horse Archers and then just withdraw from the battle when they´re out of ammo?
Because if so, then the answer is: You´ll lose the men who die during the battle, but won´t lose any after they have withdrawn from the battle - provided they have somewhere they can retreat to. If your men withdraw from a battle and doesn´t have anywhere to retreat to on the campaign map (usually displayed before you enter the battle map with a skull displayed over your army) they will all die.
I think this also happens if they don´t have movement points left when they engage the enemy on the campaign map.

**NobleNick** · February 23, 2012, 01:41 PM

HA are a royal PITA, even when only controlled by the AI. When the tables are turned and the AI has to deal with human-controlled HA stacks . . . well, it ain't pretty for the AI.

IMO, Silverheart gave you the best and most complete answer to the original question; however, if I were you, I would give a long thought to Teutonic Warlord's post. HA (and other all cav force) warfare is an art form which can reap huge rewards. The higher mobility and stamina of the HA, coupled with their ranged capability allow you to do four things, any one of which is a great bonus. Used in combination, by a player dedicated to doing it right, it is almost like cheateing. The four things are:

1.) The horses' extra stamina allows you to run, run, run away from your enemy; until he is exhausted and ready to rout before he can close in to combat.

2.) The horse mobility allows you to pick the time and place of encounters, making it easy to close in on isolated enemy units.

3.) The ranged attack + mobility allows multiple units (like, say, FIVE!) to simultaneously attack a single enemy unit, typically from at least 3 of the 4 different directions (the four being: front, back, left side and right side). Missile attacks from back and right side obviate the shield bonus. Units subjected to this kind of assault typically rout very quickly.

4.) Some HA get decent melee stats and charge bonuses. When used judiciously (charge-retreat, repeat) they can serve as light cav. If used in multiple unit simultaneous charges to the front, back and sides of an isolated, exhausted, non-spear enemy unit, total annihilation of that unit is assured. Even spear units can be obliterated this way, by timing the attacks such that the attack from the rear comes a few seconds before that from the side, and the front a few seconds after that.

This really was cheating, in RTW. In M2TW, the disparity between horse and footman stamina was shrunk quite a bit. Not enough, however, to nullify the benefits of the strategy of medium quality HA (or better) running your enemy into the ground before pouncing. And even those pesky mounted knights don't like getting arrows in the back: so surround and conquer.

Happy hunting.

**tudor93** · February 24, 2012, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by NobleNick

3.) The ranged attack + mobility allows multiple units (like, say, FIVE!) to simultaneously attack a single enemy unit, typically from at least 3 of the 4 different directions (the four being: front, back, left side and right side). Missile attacks from back and right side obviate the shield bonus. Units subjected to this kind of assault typically rout very quickly.

but people say that this is not true, even if you shot them in their right (the side in which they have their weapons, not their shields) the shield bonus still counts (but only half of it or something like that; well doesn't matter, the thing is that even if you shot them in their right or in their left the damage dealt is the same)

**Silverheart** · February 24, 2012, 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by tudor93

but people say that this is not true, even if you shot them in their right (the side in which they have their weapons, not their shields) the shield bonus still counts (but only half of it or something like that; well doesn't matter, the thing is that even if you shot them in their right or in their left the damage dealt is the same)

That is not true.
In small battles - where I utilized an even number of horse archers on either flank of the enemy - I notice every time in the battle statistics that those who were on the right side of the enemy inflicted a lot more casualties, sometimes more than double.
So while it could be true what you say, I think it´s more likely that the shield is actually negated by attacks from the right - otherwise the difference in casualties inflicted shouldn´t be so high.

**Aeratus** · February 24, 2012, 12:24 PM

Actually, the shield is 50% effective for both left and right, and 0% effective for the back.

The rumor that the shield is different between left and right originates from RTW, I think. In RTW, the shield was only effective on one side. This was changed in M2TW.