Just a crazy idea.... surround before attacking.

[Loki_999]

So, was thinking about this, and wondering if anyone has ever tried this.

Let's say we are about to attack a stack. Let's say both mine and the enemies stacks are full ones (so 20 units in each) and the strengths are relatively balanced.

Normally you just attack directly and form up at the start of battle.... and when the battle starts the computer either attacks or tries to manouver to the best ground possible.

But what if, before attacking, you split the stack into 8 mini-stacks and attack from every side? So on each side there are 2-3 units. When you select your general to attack then you select all units to control yourself. As the battle starts, you tighten the noose as the AI tries to manouver, holding back those who are being advanced upon, and advancing the others.

I could see this working with any types of units. Cavalry charges from every side, rain of arrows from every side, or simply just a ring of melee units. Hell, perhaps even an artillery in every mini-stack shielded by some melee units.

What if you put a general in every mini-stack? Would it be possible then for every general after the battle to get new traits instead of just the leading general?

Thoughts?

[✠Ikaroqx✠]

It's easy to do this. On the campaign map move split your army into 4 parts of 5 units each, then surround an enemy army. When you initiate battle your surrounding armies will enter as reinforcements and you'll be able to surround them. Cool idea though, imagine desperatley trying to fight our way out of such an encirclement.

[Mikail Mengsk]

Just split your army before the battle...

[Loki_999]

Just split your army before the battle...

Erm, yes, that's what i'm suggesting. What i was looking for is thoughts on its viability and whether people actually do this successfully. Whether its a good strategy.

I do plan on trying it out myself, just looking for others thoughts.

[✠Ikaroqx✠]

I did it in my Austrian campaign in ETW, and it was definitely very fun watching the inevitable demise of my enemies, slowly strangling them!

[ThaDoews]

I've done this serveral times in ambushes

[ArmyCharger]

There's just one big danger to this tactic. If you devide your stack too much, for example in 8 smaller stacks, and try to encircle the enemy, the enemy cavalry might be able to destroy your smaller stacks one by one.

So make sure your devisions are large enough. Even if they are, the enemy might still send their cavalry to engage one division, catch up with their infantry, and destroy the division before the others can come to its aid.

[DrBeast]

Only your leading General will benefit trait- and ancillary-wise.

Sounds like an interesting strategy, but I try to avoid battles with reinforcements - primary reason being the occasional CTD (relatively rare in MOS, but still happens).

[LuckyPistol]

On paper the strategy is sound, especially for M2TW, but this is TATW, where factions like High Elves and Silvans could easily split their archer heavy forces as well to repel the smaller stacks and break the circle. On the flip side, since elven units are generally low in number, it would be hard for elvish armies to make a good enough circle to trap the enemy. This strategy sounds like it would work for top tier orc units, like Uruks. They can swarm around and their high unit count makes them more effective to encircle the enemy. As mentioned before, don't let enemy cavalry destroy your unprotected troops.

[Macilrille]

It may work against the AI, sometimes. But against a Human player you are doomed as it will allow him to fight you piecemeal; which is what any general through history has dreamed about doing to his enemies. Some of the more successful ones were the ones who did so.

Personally I follow Clausewitz's, and Guderian's maxims, against the AI as well.

[muller227]

It may work against the AI, sometimes. But against a Human player you are doomed as it will allow him to fight you piecemeal; which is what any general through history has dreamed about doing to his enemies. Some of the more successful ones were the ones who did so.

Personally I follow Clausewitz's, and Guderian's maxims, against the AI as well.

I agree with this in general not that I haven't cheated myself with small BG heavy Cav it is fun. I would never try it against a human player. I would not try against AI either with say standard orc units on Elves, dwarves or Gondor. At least not in MOS.I personally like Sun Tzu's planned defeats(at least they are defeats gamewise) hit hard cause plenty of casualties get the hell out before those damn trolls can fully engage. I like too strip Mordor of the support units before I engage a troll stack.

[ElvenBlight]

I did this often when playing with dwarves against OotMM; snaga skirmishers are just hell for the dwarves
and such a pain to chase so I chose to charge them from all sides.

This strategy may be perilous if the enemy is fast; risking that they take out one mini group after the other
by their fast moving cavalry.

http://www.inmivoz.com - Third age day and night

[Loki_999]

Yeah, aware of the possible problems. Thinking of combining this with the cavalry general concept. Could be fun, and i like setting challenges that are different as opposed to stupid massive AI stacks that become predictable.

[Peahead]

Yeah, aware of the possible problems. Thinking of combining this with the cavalry general concept. Could be fun, and i like setting challenges that are different as opposed to stupid massive AI stacks that become predictable.

When i make a Gondor general stack i always do this, and it works great. Engage them from the front with Imrahil and a couple of others charge into the flanks, and a couple extra in reserve on the right because the enemy general is usually left exposed at the back, charge him and when he's dead charge the rear and it triggers a mass rout. I wouldn't like to try with slow moving troops for the reasons above

[DrBeast]

Hey, your game, your rules. It's worth a try at least, no?

[Encablossa]

I usually have a crap stack of militia or other weak units behind my main army. This way you can break up your reinforcing stack, surround the enemy. and take out the entire stack with low casualties.
I think it also boost your army's morale when reinforcements clash with the enemy.

[alreadyded]

This works very well, too well really. If you time it right so your troops hit the enemy army on enough sides at the same time their whole army will rout from the shock even if you have less troops total. Then you just chase them so they don't regroup and you win. I usually only use this tactic when the odds are heavily balanced in the enemies favor as the AI does not deal with tactics like these well at all. They usually just face their whole army toward the largest force and sit there or they just mindlessly run their entire army straight for your weakly defended general which makes it too easy to flank the hell out of them. I haven't done this since fighting off multiple elite Mongol hordes in the Crusader campaign with a single stack of tier one units back in 2006. There was no way I should of held on to Jerusalem, but by using this tactic about ten times straight I did. In that situation it was really fun and challenging because the odds were completely against me, so much so that I had to re-fight some of the battles because I lost the first one or two times.

Another tactic similar to this is the ol' "put your general far away" tactic. You can either move him right next to your stack before battle, or keep him in the same stack and move him far away from your army before the battle starts. The AI will go for your general making them easy to flank, especially if you can hide your army as they will run right past your army.

Nowadays I try not to micromanage my battles or use good tactics, I just use simple tactics like the AI does. It is just too easy to take advantage of the AI for it to stay fun for long. Unless they have a huge advantage... then I will keep re-fighting that battle until I find a way to win, assuming there actually is one.

[knight of meh]

.
I haven't done this since fighting off multiple elite Mongol hordes in the Crusader campaign with a single stack of tier one units back in 2006. There was no way I should of held on to Jerusalem, but by using this tactic about ten times straight I did.

what kind of monstrous memory do you have

.
Nowadays I try not to micromanage my battles or use good tactics, I just use simple tactics like the AI does. It is just too easy to take advantage of the AI for it to stay fun for long.

personally i like killing things to much , so i use my own house rules severely limiting any recruitment and retraining i am allowed to do so that i have to make the most out of each unit... you do it properly and enforce self control on yourself and losing a half stack can spell doom in some campaigns it truly makes things "very hard"

although that is why i like PCP because you can retrain but recruiting too much for a campaign and you get broke quite quickly

[Loki_999]

Not done this so much now in open battles, although currently trying to finish an Orc campaign, and these are fun because you can stretch your forces from one side of the map to the other. Hordes are fun!!!

But now when attacking castles/towns i nearly always attack from every side possible, sometimes making 4 battering rams to go through each gate at the same time.

Yes, it does tend to make the sieges easier, but its more realistic. I mean, any general worth his salt wouldn't just stupidly line up his entire army in a single line of attack if multiple lines were possible and achievable.

[Liamar]

When playing field battles I always sent about half of my army to flank the enemy and attack from the sides and behind, even without cavalry. It works especially well for dwarves because stupid skirmishers don't waste your whole day running away.