Horse Archers are........balanced?

[The Mr Dave]

 

[The Mr Dave]

In terms of balance the battle was only won because the enemy foot men just chased me around the map and would not try and form shield walls while archers shot at us they just ran at us non stop while we ran circles around them

 

[Demoulius]

Against an AI that just leeroj jenkins all over the place horse archers are indeed OP.

Versus a properly thought out army with a well performed battle line they dont perform all that I feel. Their horses tend to be unarmoured and the riders are often dismounted by having their horses shot from underneath them. Shield walls also tend to make them kinda useless if you can keep the mounted archers from flanking.

That said its hard to see if theres a real balance issues here both top armies have like tier 3 units at the most. Khan's guard are a tier 6 unit. Many low tier units (and some factions in general) also lack shields. So yeah, perfect storm

 

[Antoine42]

It's already way more balanced that in Warband, where the Khergits had 100% horsemen armies, here the Kuzaits have a large portion of horse archers but also a lot of inf/foot archers
But yeah, the AI can't deal with them, but tbh, what can they deal with, properly played?

 

[SmattlePattle]

I'm no tactics expert but one would think the circle formation would be a defensive attempt to counter horse archers, if AI could use their shields in unison more effectively.

To really mess up horse archers (as someone who runs a mostly mamluke/faris army) you need to have medium intercepting cavalry. I experience my highest losses when my horse archers are disrupted and get dismounted and picked off. When I face predominantly infantry armies I tend to shred them.

 

[BarnardStar]

To be fair, this is pretty accurate to history. The Mongol hordes were so devastating because horse archers absolutely shredded infantry and were too fast to catch. From what I understand, the common tactic against the Mongols was to hide in a castle and wait till they went away. To (almost) quote Game of Thrones: 'Only a fool would meet the Kuzaits on an open field.'

Going by the Mongol comparison, the Kuzaits should be absolutely lethal in field battles but suck at sieges. Unfortunately, that wouldn't make for a fun faction since capturing towns and castles is such a big part of the game, which is why they also have some decent infantry.

 

[buca]

Yea, this was a reason why mongols armies destroied europe armies in 12th century. ...So it´s realy hard to setup balance for this.

 

[Antoine42]

Most of their troops are very light still, I had no siege battle with them or against them, I don't really know how they perform but I guess assaults must be pretty costly for them, once they're off their horses.
Doesn't really apply to the auto resolve though, considering their tendancy to steamroll.
And, player wise, with an army of horses I'd go make the town starve to death, wich is also a thing I believe Mongols would do before they took an interest in siege weaponry

 

[imgran]

Horse archer AI is probably the best AI in the game. They'll occasionally blunder into the enemy infantry, especially in a map with limited tactical space, but they often do exactly what you'd think they would, use their specialized skirmish-on-mount AI to harrass and bedevil the enemy infantry and skirmish fairly effectively against enemy heavy cavalry.

As for tactics that are effective against enemy horse archers -- Archers in loose formation with an intantry line behind them works surprisingly well in my experience. Foot archers are more accurate than horse archers for a start. The spread out formation means archers aren't as easy a target since horse archery is about firing into a mass of units where you literally can't miss and spreading out negates that. Loose formation also means archers aren't getting in each other's way for shots as much. If they try to burst through the line they'll get hit a lot coming in, many of the survivors will also get it leaving, or run into the infantry. If they try to circle they're basically target practice for the archers.

The problem with fighting cavalry right now is the AI isn't great at using spears and won't prioritize using them over other weapons because of their low damage ratings. If a spear is all they have they'll use a spear, otherwise they use literally anything else. That means that infantry as a check on cavalry simply doesn't work. So with that out of the question at the moment, dealing with cavalry is the job of the archers, and the job of the intantry is to protect the archers while they deal with the cavalry.

 

[imgran]

Most of their troops are very light still, I had no siege battle with them or against them, I don't really know how they perform but I guess assaults must be pretty costly for them, once they're off their horses.
Doesn't really apply to the auto resolve though, considering their tendancy to steamroll.
And, player wise, with an army of horses I'd go make the town starve to death, wich is also a thing I believe Mongols would do before they took an interest in siege weaponry

Khuzait units are really really squishy. They're very mobile but if you can pin them down literally any decently experienced infantry force can grind them down almost immediately.

That's why archer lines in loose formation are so deadly against them. As long as you have infantry on hand to prevent the Khuzaits from solving the problem by simply charging your archer line, you're going to win most fights against the Khuzaits with simple line formations and good timing.

 

[Alaric Kerensky]

As others said above me:

The power of archers was strongly apparent since ancient Greece. The near omnipotence of Horse Archers was immortalized first in Roman times, and then again with the Mongols. Cavalry can kill them, but properly deployed horse archers should massacre unsupported or lightly supported infantry. The Mongols had tactics to overcome shields as well, which we cannot do in game, half their archers would use plunging fire, while the other half used a more flat ballistic trajectory, meaning enemy troops had to choose to put their shields in front or above themselves, and arrows from the opposite trajectory tended to get through anything less than a Roman style Testudo.

Here, we only have Cantabran Circle tactics to use, which is the circular shape you get as a horde of horse archers surrounds the enemy. A complete Cantabran means the enemy is taking fire from all sides simultaneously, which should make shield use difficult.

These tactics made Horse Archers powerful in reality, and you can't really nerf them directly without kinda scummung the balance. Maybe an accuracy nerf, but even Khans Guard are already limited by a single quiver. Kuzait Heavy Horse Archers are not great in melee, as mounted units in general already struggle to engage effectively, especially when they get caught in the swarming crush of infantry.

 

[Demoulius]

Horse archer AI is probably the best AI in the game. They'll occasionally blunder into the enemy infantry, especially in a map with limited tactical space, but they often do exactly what you'd think they would, use their specialized skirmish-on-mount AI to harrass and bedevil the enemy infantry and skirmish fairly effectively against enemy heavy cavalry.

As for tactics that are effective against enemy horse archers -- Archers in loose formation with an intantry line behind them works surprisingly well in my experience. Foot archers are more accurate than horse archers for a start. The spread out formation means archers aren't as easy a target since horse archery is about firing into a mass of units where you literally can't miss and spreading out negates that. Loose formation also means archers aren't getting in each other's way for shots as much. If they try to burst through the line they'll get hit a lot coming in, many of the survivors will also get it leaving, or run into the infantry. If they try to circle they're basically target practice for the archers.

The problem with fighting cavalry right now is the AI isn't great at using spears and won't prioritize using them over other weapons because of their low damage ratings. If a spear is all they have they'll use a spear, otherwise they use literally anything else. That means that infantry as a check on cavalry simply doesn't work. So with that out of the question at the moment, dealing with cavalry is the job of the archers, and the job of the intantry is to protect the archers while they deal with the cavalry.

Good post, havent really considered the loose formation myself. But then again I havent had that many problem with them so far

Mostly because the most cavalry that ive faced is in large battles or those mounted bandits, who probably have even less armor

 

[imgran]

Mounted bandits are basically where I learned to do what I do. When 3 of the 5 types of bandits you have to deal with early can hit you with mounted units, you're forced to learn how the game wants you to counter mounted units. And in my case, it was with archers in loose formation protected by a line of infantry.

 

[Alaric Kerensky]

Mounted bandits are basically where I learned to do what I do. When 3 of the 5 types of bandits you have to deal with early can hit you with mounted units, you're forced to learn how the game wants you to counter mounted units. And in my case, it was with archers in loose formation protected by a line of infantry.

My reply was often just me running them down alone while my troops dealt with the infantry, hahaha.

...
Now I realise this has continued. I'll try to draw off and solo the 20 enemy Cataphracts while my army waits to engage....

 

[Antoine42]

Khuzait units are really really squishy. They're very mobile but if you can pin them down literally any decently experienced infantry force can grind them down almost immediately.

That's why archer lines in loose formation are so deadly against them. As long as you have infantry on hand to prevent the Khuzaits from solving the problem by simply charging your archer line, you're going to win most fights against the Khuzaits with simple line formations and good timing.

That's what I do also, spread out archers mow them down in no time.
This or maybe tougher horse archers, the Aserai Mamelukes are way more versatile, heavier armored and better equipped in terms of melee, when i'll get to fight them in my Aserai game, i'll try, maybe those can hunt them down, and beat them at their own game

 

[SmattlePattle]

As some other posters have mentioned:

The issue is a bit pronounced because the Horse archer AI is fairly decent but the AI for infantry in particular is kind of rubbish. (Its worse than Viking Conquests by a long shot, to be frank). Combined with the fact that spears are kind of trash, and everything that would mitigate HA advantages isn't present (infantry tactics/polearms, etc).

 

[Soulcharger]

Did not have a chance to read everyone's post here just eh original so forgive me if someone stated something similar.

Horse Archer VS AI.......yep not fare at all, no matter what universe of M&B we are in. AI simply dumb and only stands still or chases. Does not have understanding of herding targets or using terrain to their advantage.

Human vs AI horse archers. Very easy to be honest. I keep my Spear men and standard infantry in separate groups. Use them in conjuction with map border to heard the enemy horses into a corner. Mean while your archers pick them off. The horsemen are usualy too dumb to break through the ranks and if they do its some random that ends up jumping back in with his buddies. Easy day. Its allso a good idea to have a 3rd infantry rank on tab, usualy under skirmishers #5 as your archers may need protection from assaulting infantry which you can slow down with your own horse archers or heavy cavavlry. You will always be fighting uphill battles with troop deployments and keeping your army scattered but this also enables having more than 1 archer group which greatly enhances their effectiveness on the battle fields. If possible keep horses running so that their right side is facing you when closests, this means they can not have as large or a firing range, when they rotate around they are now further out when firing decreasing their effectiveness.

Edit: Never be afraid to organize your troops after loading the game. Those 3-4 mins can save your battles easy, also use all group slots when possbile. the more control you have the better outcomes you will experience.

 

[imgran]

Interesting. I've found it's actually usually better to keep my tactics very simple. Overcomplicated tactics, trying to do too much with limited tools, guarantees mistakes. This is reflected IRL in the fact that only very well trained armies were capable of using advanced tactics.

I find that simple movements and tactics are usaully very effective and make it easier to play into your army's strengths to maximize impact.

 

[Alaric Kerensky]

Interesting. I've found it's actually usually better to keep my tactics very simple. Overcomplicated tactics, trying to do too much with limited tools, guarantees mistakes. This is reflected IRL in the fact that only very well trained armies were capable of using advanced tactics.

I find that simple movements and tactics are usaully very effective and make it easier to play into your army's strengths to maximize impact.

But simple tactics are not going to win when I'm outnumbered 3to1:

Twitch

Twitch is the world's leading video platform and community for gamers.

www.twitch.tv

I had forgotten to split my horse archers into one and two quiver groups on this one, but hey, it worked out.

 

[Soulcharger]

If your able to keep track of everything going on complex formations and tactics you will find that it works out better in the long run. Where this really fails hard is in siege as your guys say F U and ignore all orders. Second thing about keeping a moving battle is that AI seem to lose moral quicker and flee sooner when they are unable to deal sufficient damage vs their losses. If you can cause alot of death early in the fight with minimal loss alot will just flee.