winrehs007
Knight
eastpaw said:
So that's the name ( obviously lacking vocabulary on medieval/ancient warfare ). Would've been fun though if it were implemented.
Living Steamroller - A Cavalry Strategy for Floris 2.53
- Thread starter DaElf
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Knight
So that's the name ( obviously lacking vocabulary on medieval/ancient warfare ). Would've been fun though if it were implemented.
The circular schiltron (also spelled as sheltron, sceldtrome, etc.) was a defensive move and generally did not move forward. It was used by smaller groups of infantry to defend against flanking horse archers/charioteers. Think about the movie Gladiator, and that one scene in the arena where they properly defended against the chariot archers. It wasn't as effective when moving forward because to hold a shield to the side and to the back like that would mean that some men would have to be moving backwards and sideways with their shields up. A straight shield wall would've been more efficient, and is almost always called when there is no possibility of flankers.
In the case of a pure infantry army fighting against an army of flankers, a good tactician would have used staggered line formations with units that are designed for covering or even countering flankers. A diagonal formation was often used with the more elite troops leading. A wedge formation would also make sense. An archer line well behind the main schiltron assault would stop or hinder flankers from attacking the schiltron itself, though they themselves are now possible targets for flanking. But the logic seemed to be that while flankers waste their time attacking your cheap and easy-to-replace archers in the back, your elite infantry is already wreaking havoc on the enemy line.
This is, however, a lot more difficult to pull off in M&B, because we can only have up to 6 additional groupings aside from the basic Infantry, Archer and Cavalry groupings. That means you can direct up to 6 schiltron formations in diagonal or wedge formation manually.
This is, however, a lot more difficult to pull off in M&B, because we can only have up to 6 additional groupings aside from the basic Infantry, Archer and Cavalry groupings. That means you can direct up to 6 schiltron formations in diagonal or wedge formation manually.
DaElf
Sergeant
Ghgl said:
This is true, but, as you say, there are limitations. If anyone has any tips for how to more effectively control their army in a more advanced manner whilst actually being in the fighting, I'd love to hear them, though!
Hanakoganei said:
I should probably clarify what I meant by 'Agreed', here. xD
I don't want the Nords etc. to suddenly have cavalry; they should all keep their independent identities. However, in the case of the Swadians or the Sarranids, for example, the % of cavalry in their army is a lot lower than it really should be. They're both factions which rely on their cavalry branches (particularly in the Sarranids' case, IMHO), and so it's a shame that they can't field more of them. Of course, this problem is mainly caused by the fact that cavalry are all higher Tier troops and so, if the AI were given more cavalry, their average troop level would be higher. To balance this, naturally, the factions such as the Nords should have a greater % of their higher-tier Infantry/Archers (in the case of the Rhodoks).
So, uhm, to put it more simply, I agreed that the AI's armies should be stronger, and have a higher % of cavalry where appropriate. Where that's inappropriate, they should have a higher % of whatever their stronger troops are.
Anyway, your description of your pure-Infantry army has inspired me to try the same in my next playthrough; I've only ever played pure Cavalry or a mixture of Archers and Cavalry before, leaving Infantry purely to siege situations. So, thank you for that!
eastpaw said:It was that good huh?
Ha! Oh, it really was that good.
*Thinks of some innuendo about Cavalry Lancers and breaches in the enemy's formation, thinks better of it.. types about it anyway*.Edit: Spotted a typo.
Good point and with that I agree.
Realistically, the historical armies that the Sarranids were based on were very cavalry-dependent, and all soldiers, especially the proper Arabic knights, were trained in riding or already knew how to ride because it was the normal form of transport in traversing the vast deserts. I'm actually pondering on making a submod that changes the Sarranids to have more cavalry, and make adjustments to the existing troops to suit my idea of a desert warrior, typically a tribal warrior united by a sultan for the purpose of conquering Calradia (not unlike the real ancient Mongolian army in that aspect).
I personally like the balance of Swadian troops as it is. I'm almost always faced with a huge cavalry contingent leading the charge or flanking us, while their longbowmen and steadily-advancing infantry harass us from the front. I find that turtling against the Swadians isn't always the best strategy, as my shield wall turns to face the flanking cavalry, only to get perforated by the considerable amount of arrows flying our way.
Realistically, the historical armies that the Sarranids were based on were very cavalry-dependent, and all soldiers, especially the proper Arabic knights, were trained in riding or already knew how to ride because it was the normal form of transport in traversing the vast deserts. I'm actually pondering on making a submod that changes the Sarranids to have more cavalry, and make adjustments to the existing troops to suit my idea of a desert warrior, typically a tribal warrior united by a sultan for the purpose of conquering Calradia (not unlike the real ancient Mongolian army in that aspect).
I've already made my own modifications to the Khergit troops so they're all mounted (but not necessarily great mounted soldiers). I'm still in the process of balancing and figuring this stuff out because Formations AI seems to have a problem with sifting through a purely cavalry army. They almost always start the battle charging, then suddenly form a line when they're already too close to my own line. By the time they form their lines, we may have already killed some of their more overly eager or weaker troops.
I personally like the balance of Swadian troops as it is. I'm almost always faced with a huge cavalry contingent leading the charge or flanking us, while their longbowmen and steadily-advancing infantry harass us from the front. I find that turtling against the Swadians isn't always the best strategy, as my shield wall turns to face the flanking cavalry, only to get perforated by the considerable amount of arrows flying our way.
Ghgl
Regular
To the contrary, turtling against Swadians works best for me. My crossbow man and archers are split into different grounds, usually placed apart, covering different angles in front of my holding infantry/lancers.
Then one of two scenarios will occur, either the cavalry charges straight into my lancers ( who are braced alternately with my shield wall), and get mowed down, or they attempt to flank one group of my ranged units, with which I use my cavalry to intercept them before they reach my archers. This allows me to pin them down long enough for me to issue the command for my infantry to move back then charge the cavalry mess.
Granted sometimes I mistime the cavalry interception and my ranged units gets killed and my cavalry slams into the side of their charge. Not very effective this way.
We have different army compositions.
My army is a thin line of shielded heavy infantry (Maybe about 15-25% of my army composed of Grosskomture + Matheld and her big Nordic shield), a small selection of archers (about 25-35%), then the rest are light infantry divided into multiple groups that I use for flanking and encircling the enemy position. I might have mounted archers for enfilading fire, depending on what faction(s) I'm at war with.
For this army composition, it's generally a bad idea to turtle anyway, as it's designed for fast offense, and my troops are not tough enough to absorb a full cavalry charge except by bandits. Showing the flanker units on one or both of their flanks often causes the cavalry and/or infantry to charge towards my shielded infantry and archers in the front in a panic. I can cause their cavalry and archers to be in disarray and even take away much of their open-field advantage by closing in on their position from both flanks simultaneously, while my forces from the front fire a healthy amount of arrows for good measure.
For this army composition, it's generally a bad idea to turtle anyway, as it's designed for fast offense, and my troops are not tough enough to absorb a full cavalry charge except by bandits. Showing the flanker units on one or both of their flanks often causes the cavalry and/or infantry to charge towards my shielded infantry and archers in the front in a panic. I can cause their cavalry and archers to be in disarray and even take away much of their open-field advantage by closing in on their position from both flanks simultaneously, while my forces from the front fire a healthy amount of arrows for good measure.
eastpaw
Sergeant
winrehs007 said:
Yea!
Hanakoganei said:
I think I shall start calling you Hanakopaedia.
Question for you: I was watching a programme on police special forces the other day and they formed a sort of mini-testudo while sieging an apartment block. Their sides were open to attack though (well, they were mostly in danger from falling objects). Anyway, that got me thinking: how does one form a testudo that is completely encased in shield? Is it even possible?
DaElf said:Ha! Oh, it really was that good.
Pictures or it didn't happen!
Wait. On second thought....
DaElf said:
Hanakoganei said:
Yea, more horsies for the Khergits and Sarranids would be great!
Hanakopaedia, if you do get those Formations AI kinks worked out, I'll betcha there will be others out there who would love to play your submod.
Ghgl said:
Sounds like nice play!
Hanakoganei said:
How do you make so many groups do so many different things?
I really suck as a commander in comparison. :plol D:
Yeah it's possible. I'm not as well versed with Roman tactics so don't hold me to anything I say on the topic, but I'm not sure they really covered all sides in a normal testudo. There are historical records of the formation being defeated by mounted archers in the Battle of Carrhae, which means that the testudo was either vulnerable from one or more sides, or the cavalry were really just charging and jumping on the slow-moving formation, which is often depicted without phalanx to stop cavalry with, mind you. It seemed to be primarily for defense of units they need to place deep in a battlefield especially in a siege situation. Anyway, from what I gather from Roman infantry tactics, they much preferred to move in small sheltron groups but in a choreographed unison as to become more like one big shield wall, rather than one small sheltron group covering all of its own sides.
But, again, I'm not an expert on Roman tactics, and would have to research more on whether any of what I said is even true lol. Except for the historical defeat of the Roman forces at Carrhae. That one is a fact. I'm not a big fan of their style, because from what I've read so far, they employed some very scattered tactics that guaranteed many losses for both sides (attrition), leading the infantry formation with the lighter and inexperienced units while the elite units stayed in the back, while many other historical strategists (including modern warfare) will place the elite units in the front. Compared to some of my favorite tacticians, like the Mongolian Horde, Lawrence of Arabia, and so on, who did amazing strategic and tactical feats and minimized losses for their side as much as possible, the Roman military doctrine was just not as appealing to me, despite all the love it gets from pop culture.
Roger. I spend most of my game time testing and modifying this stuff nowadays anyway. I'll post it in the submods thread when I think it's usable or at the very least, ready for other people to test. Right now it seems it actually made the Khergits worse in the open field instead of better lol. I may the Sarranids keep in their current state, because I think their infantry is pretty good and fits the theme of a desert warrior quite well, but I may adjust the party templates so that there's a bigger chance for cavalry to spawn.
Oh and these direct changes to the units' stats aren't save compatible. You can load an existing save but it won't use the edited stats, skills or proficiencies. They will use any edits to the inventory, though. I'm just not sure if flags are saved (they don't seem like it), so a Khergit unit that now has a horse in inventory might spawn without a horse unless you start a new game. This is part of the reason I haven't released it yet, lest people complain that I keep making changes that aren't save compatible. D:
I make use of the wide troop trees that have multiple troops that seem to have similar roles. For example, the Khergit troop tree has two types of horse archer lines, both very similar except that one can go up to tier 7. You can group them into two different bunches, then further use the split troop trees feature (I think this was added by Custom Commander, obviously available in Floris as well via the Camp menu) so I can have 4 divisions of mounted archers. Put this with 1 or 2 divisions of lancers and I have a real Mongolian-style tactical powerhouse. I can position them at various points in the map including flanked fire, enfilading fire, and even draw the enemy line out or break them using the lancers so that I can expose the weaknesses of their lines to my capable horse archers.How do you make so many groups do so many different things?
Another example is my use of Sarranid cavalry. There are three types of tier 6 Sarranid melee cavalry. One is a normal light cavalry unit (Qilich Arslan - excellent swordsmen and useful even in siege situations), one is a normal lancer/heavy cavalry unit (Hasham and its lower tier Memluk - heavy armor but otherwise not spectacular for how hard it is to train them), and the last is my favorite of them all, the mace-wielding Sekban. That's already 3 (6 if you use split troop trees) groups of melee cavalry, which you can use properly if you can figure out some tactics to go with that.
Hint:
You can dismount the Qilich Arslan behind the enemy line for more kills per minute, instead of leaving them on their horses where they're actually more vulnerable and can only kill one or two soldiers after crashing into the enemy line, since they and their horses aren't heavily-armored. They're really good swordsmen, with the Elite Scimitar, 260 in one-handed weapon proficiency, a shield and Power Strike 8. When the time is right, just place them behind the line, order the dismount and have them charge. They'll wreak havoc while the other units are attacking from every other side.
Whenever I play this way, it's typically a very sad bloodbath for the other side, which is why I don't do it unless necessary nowadays lol. It's fun and all but I like losing or the fear of losing once in a while. Keeps me on my toes and helps me try out different tactics with different forces.
Whenever I play this way, it's typically a very sad bloodbath for the other side, which is why I don't do it unless necessary nowadays lol. It's fun and all but I like losing or the fear of losing once in a while. Keeps me on my toes and helps me try out different tactics with different forces.
After the grouping is set up, if the opponent doesn't charge me immediately at the start of the battle, I will draw up the battle line by riding around the battlefield with my horse and find some ideal locations to send my troops to. Not always possible of course, as some armies are very eager to start the battle. In that case, I'll direct them all using the command UI (backspace key). It's easier to move them around that way, but since terrain and stuff isn't visible on the minimap, you need to make sure you have your troops in advantageous terrain as much as possible (don't leave your horse archers in a ditch, where they can't shoot the enemy, for example).
eastpaw
Sergeant
Hanakoganei said:
Would you say the Romans (seemed like) they basically just rolled over people using superior technology and discipline?
Hanakoganei said:
Righto.
Hanakoganei said:I make use of the wide troop trees that have multiple troops that seem to have similar roles. For example, the Khergit troop tree has two types of horse archer lines, both very similar except that one can go up to tier 7. You can group them into two different bunches, then further use the split troop trees feature (I think this was added by Custom Commander, obviously available in Floris as well via the Camp menu) so I can have 4 divisions of mounted archers. /snip/How do you make so many groups do so many different things?
I wasn't talking about how to split them up but rather about how to make so many groups do different things in a sane and orderly fashion all at the same time, lol. When I try, it often seems like I suddenly have ten thumbs and can't hit the right keys for nuts. :p You probably have a really good sense of timing, or read the battlefield much better than I do (and so can act earlier), or are an air-breathing octopus. I'm thinking all three. :p
winrehs007
Knight
eastpaw said:
When Roman Warfare is in for discussion, the first thing that comes out in my mind is "LOGISTICS".
eastpaw said:
True, the most complex formation I did was the Cannae Tactic and Strong Right/Left Flank. That's it.
Yes. o_oeastpaw said:
Well, their soldiers were trained in some complex infantry tactics, including well-timed executions of some maneuvers that require quite a lot of discipline. I think the real problem was either their generals or their military doctrine itself, or both. They kinda remind me of the depiction of the Russian forces in World War II (think of that scene in the movie "Enemy at the Gates", where the deserters, who mostly had no weapons and were sent in as fodder, were being shot by their own officers. But one of the greatest strategists of the entire war was the Russian Marshal Georgy Zhukov. He was a brilliant strategist, as proven by his successes in resisting, repelling and ultimately conquering the German forces at the time. But the military doctrine employed by the Soviets at the time of the war was not kind to their own soldiers, or their own land (scorched earth). The doctrine is effective for sure, but it's not my style. The Japanese had a similar philosophy, although under a different motive. The soldiers happily died, as in took extra effort in ensuring their death, knowing that dying in battle is glorious, and attacking with all your heart does something to enemy morale, even if you don't kill them.
In World War II, the Russians had something between 8.8-10.7 million military deaths, while the Japanese had 2.1 million deaths. To put this into perspective, the U.S. only lost 417,000 or so soldiers. I like to attribute this to a difference in doctrine--not necessarily a superiority in strategy. As we know the U.S. had a lot of crazy new ideas. They suffered a lot of defeats, some major like Operation Market Garden, and MacArthur's failed defense of the Philippine Islands. But because they generally had a better doctrine (like the Marines, who never left a man behind), they seemed to suffer less losses in general. They were flexible and would pull back when necessary, because the philosophy meant that as long as the majority of their force is still combat-ready or can be reinforced, they can fall back now and push back or push forward at another place.
All in all the Romans were like the Russians or the Japanese for me. Good soldiers, tough training and effective strategies, obviously, or else the Roman Empire never would've gotten so big. But their tactics and general military doctrine is just not my style.
In World War II, the Russians had something between 8.8-10.7 million military deaths, while the Japanese had 2.1 million deaths. To put this into perspective, the U.S. only lost 417,000 or so soldiers. I like to attribute this to a difference in doctrine--not necessarily a superiority in strategy. As we know the U.S. had a lot of crazy new ideas. They suffered a lot of defeats, some major like Operation Market Garden, and MacArthur's failed defense of the Philippine Islands. But because they generally had a better doctrine (like the Marines, who never left a man behind), they seemed to suffer less losses in general. They were flexible and would pull back when necessary, because the philosophy meant that as long as the majority of their force is still combat-ready or can be reinforced, they can fall back now and push back or push forward at another place.
All in all the Romans were like the Russians or the Japanese for me. Good soldiers, tough training and effective strategies, obviously, or else the Roman Empire never would've gotten so big. But their tactics and general military doctrine is just not my style.
Oh. Hmm. I dunno. I don't really think too much about that. I do read the battlefield but I don't think my positioning of multiple troop lines is anything really special like other people can't easily learn to do it as well. One thing's for sure though. When dealing with many groups you're really going to have to be using the command UI and choreograph the movements. Not easy if you're in combat. Hence I don't prioritize combat lol.eastpaw said:
I'll fire a few arrows or hurl a few javelins, but I'm generally behind my main force watching the battlefield to make sure we're not getting flanked, or that my line is holding, etc.I'm editing a few videos using annoying cavalry tactics. Might help you guys see how I do the whole multiple-group battlefield management thing.
Mine's 225. I get a little lag with 250 or more. I can go higher but I'd have to turn Formations AI off, and that's no fun. D:
And yeah, that's what we're talking about. In the Camp menu there's an option to "Manage Split Troop Assignments" I believe it's called. It allows you to have the same unit put into two groups. So for example, you have a lot of the troop called "C6 Swadian Lancer", you can split that stack of troops into two "cavalry" groups so that you can move them to two different places, rather than having all your Swadian Lancers in just one spot like they're a clique. At larger battle sizes (anything above 200), it becomes ridiculous to have all your Cavalry just bunched up in the generic Cavalry spot, because depending on your formation you'll either have one stupidly long line or one stupidly big triangle, neither of which are actually useful for any real tactics than just ordering them to charge.
And yeah, that's what we're talking about. In the Camp menu there's an option to "Manage Split Troop Assignments" I believe it's called. It allows you to have the same unit put into two groups. So for example, you have a lot of the troop called "C6 Swadian Lancer", you can split that stack of troops into two "cavalry" groups so that you can move them to two different places, rather than having all your Swadian Lancers in just one spot like they're a clique. At larger battle sizes (anything above 200), it becomes ridiculous to have all your Cavalry just bunched up in the generic Cavalry spot, because depending on your formation you'll either have one stupidly long line or one stupidly big triangle, neither of which are actually useful for any real tactics than just ordering them to charge.
DaElf
Sergeant
Hanakoganei said:
That's what I was thinking and, given that one of their major advantages in combat comes from their maneuverability, the fact that their armies under-represent cavalry, it rather spoils things.
I'd be very interested in playing this sub-mod of yours!
eastpaw said:
Sounds like a fitting name.. I approve. xD
eastpaw said:
Ha, I think that might result in me being removed from this Forum, and scarring worse than you could get from any M&B battle for the rest of you.
eastpaw said:How do you make so many groups do so many different things?
I've been wondering the same thing; I find the troop movement controls in M&B not particularly easy to use even for perhaps 2 different regiments, let alone 10!
Hanakoganei said:Oh. Hmm. I dunno. I don't really think too much about that. I do read the battlefield but I don't think my positioning of multiple troop lines is anything really special like other people can't easily learn to do it as well. One thing's for sure though. When dealing with many groups you're really going to have to be using the command UI and choreograph the movements. Not easy if you're in combat. Hence I don't prioritize combat lol.
I'm editing a few videos using annoying cavalry tactics. Might help you guys see how I do the whole multiple-group battlefield management thing.
Despite your dodging the question, I think eastpaw probably guessed right with the air-breathing octopus comment! (which, by the way, is pretty damn awesome).
Frankly, whenever I read quite how complicated you manage to make your military tactics in M&B, I find myself thinking I must be completely incompetent, so, uhm, kudos?
Like I've said elsewhere, though, I guess you can play M&B as an RPG or an RTS, and this is reflected in how you conduct your battles. As an RPG, one might well be limited to my sort of 'set up tactics before hand, lead the action and let the others get on with it' tactic. I'm not sure which leads to more casualties, though; one can take quite a few of the enemy down when actually fighting, but the tactics are likely to be inferior overall. I guess it depends on personal preference.
I'd be interested in seeing your battlefield-management videos, though!
Ghgl said:How big are your battle sizes guys? and what is this sorcery of splitting divisions you speak of
Here's where I come unstuck.. I play on 150. This isn't because I fear larger battles, but because I've tried it and it gives me the most colossal lag even at 200.
Yeah. I wish I could go up to 800 or something. Would be awesome and probably a lot harder to do my tactics stuff at that size, especially using or against a lot of cavalry. Could make for some epic battles though. I mean, if you have like 250 troops on the field (no more reinforcements) versus a big army of maybe 1200 (with one big wave of reinforcements), and you actually win even with heavy losses?! I would LOVE to try to take command of that battle!
winrehs007
Knight
Going to build my new gaming desktop soon. I wonder how 500 vs 500 ( or even 1000 vs 1000 ) would feel?
Would the sun be blocked out by arrows?
Would the land be painted with red and covered with tons of dead bodies?
Would I even survive?
Would the sun be blocked out by arrows?
Would the land be painted with red and covered with tons of dead bodies?
Would I even survive?
Best wait for Floris 2.6/the new version of WSE, unless you don't mind turning FormAI off. It's just not possible to play the large sizes without lag (reference post and reply). I have a 6-core 3.3 GHz computer and 8 GB of RAM, running at a really low temperature. The game just isn't able to cope, and looking at my various programs to report my processor usage, I'm not even breaking the 10% barrier on any of my cores. I think it's because there's so many mini-errors going on as the game looks for WSE to run some of the things or something, and it was the same regardless of my graphics settings (since actually my graphics are being handled by my fairly capable HD6850 and can easily manage maximum settings with no drop in FPS).
But it sure would be awesome when we finally get that. I'm already getting goosebumps just thinking about it.
But it sure would be awesome when we finally get that. I'm already getting goosebumps just thinking about it.
winrehs007
Knight
Hanakoganei said:Best wait for Floris 2.6/the new version of WSE, unless you don't mind turning FormAI off. It's just not possible to play the large sizes without lag (reference post and reply). I have a 6-core 3.3 GHz computer and 8 GB of RAM, running at a really low temperature. The game just isn't able to cope, and looking at my various programs to report my processor usage, I'm not even breaking the 10% barrier on any of my cores. I think it's because there's so many mini-errors going on as the game looks for WSE to run some of the things or something, and it was the same regardless of my graphics settings (since actually my graphics are being handled by my fairly capable HD6850 and can easily manage maximum settings with no drop in FPS).
But it sure would be awesome when we finally get that. I'm already getting goosebumps just thinking about it.
True, currently playing this mod on my old laptop ( Asus VPCEA22FX ). I lowered some of the settings to run it smoothly on a 250 vs. 250 battles. Although I get more lag on tree abundant areas such as forests. Other than that, it runs well.
Octopi are pretty smart. 8DDaElf said:
Actually I haven't really thought much about it because honestly I thought everybody played the way I did. I mean, not exactly the way I do, but I thought that everybody also micromanaged the battlefield. It's not that hard to learn and it's certainly easier than learning to play an RTS.
I mean, this cavalry guide is pretty comprehensive, so I was in fact thinking it was written with micromanagement in mind lol. Because as we know, using the wrong strategy with cavalry against a strong formation is suicidal.
