NationStates

Conserative Morality wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Even the Romans and English need cavalry if your going to use even the most standard of Hammer and Anvil tactics.
You end up losing way more men then you need to if you can't break the enemies morale by charging them in the rear or flank with cavalry.

Not if you know how to use infantry. People tend to treat infantry like they're static, but infantry have their true strength in mobility. I play Shogun II online with no cav except my general (Who I keep well away from foolish charges) and I win 2/3s of the time.

Hmm...what exactly do you do with them?

Genivaria wrote:Only using low-born men. Your a man after my own heart, fuck the nobles.

I've always done that in strategy games.

That's why I like playing as Milan in M2TW.

Also, in Shogun II, the standard peasant spearmen outperform the Samurai spearmen. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Genivaria wrote:Hmm...what exactly do you do with them?

In Shogun II or in Rome?

The two game require vastly different infantry tactics for all infantry armies.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Even the Romans and English need cavalry if your going to use even the most standard of Hammer and Anvil tactics.
You end up losing way more men then you need to if you can't break the enemies morale by charging them in the rear or flank with cavalry.

Not if you know how to use infantry. People tend to treat infantry like they're static, but infantry have their true strength in mobility. I play Shogun II online with no cav except my general (Who I keep well away from foolish charges) and I win 2/3s of the time.

CM, do you think that hero units are "cheat"?

I had a French guy telling me that.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Only using low-born men. Your a man after my own heart, fuck the nobles.

I've always done that in strategy games.

That's why I like playing as Milan in M2TW.

Also, in Shogun II, the standard peasant spearmen outperform the Samurai spearmen. Don't let anyone tell you different.

I've always used Venice myself, whats the difference?

Conserative Morality wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Hmm...what exactly do you do with them?

In Shogun II or in Rome?

The two game require vastly different infantry tactics for all infantry armies.

Rome preferably, I don't have Shogun 2. But please feel free to explain that to.

Norstal wrote:CM, do you think that hero units are "cheat"?

I had a French guy telling me that.

Nah. Hero units are pathetically weak. Now, Bow monks are cheap.

Genivaria wrote:I've always used Venice myself, whats the difference?

Genoese Crossbowmen.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Norstal wrote:CM, do you think that hero units are "cheat"?

I had a French guy telling me that.

Nah. Hero units are pathetically weak. Now, Bow monks are cheap.

See, that's what I thought. And although I agree with you that infantry is better, I had to chase his bow horseys all around the map.

I had to resign since I had class. Ergh, I hate douchebags like them.

Norstal wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Nah. Hero units are pathetically weak. Now, Bow monks are cheap.

See, that's what I thought. And although I agree with you that infantry is better, I had to chase his bow horseys all around the map.

I had to resign since I had class. Ergh, I hate douchebags like them.

Thats why I always have a few fast cavalry units.
A diverse army is a strong army.

Genivaria wrote:

Norstal wrote:See, that's what I thought. And although I agree with you that infantry is better, I had to chase his bow horseys all around the map.

I had to resign since I had class. Ergh, I hate douchebags like them.

Thats why I always have a few fast cavalry units.
A diverse army is a strong army.

I used a cavalry for a preliminary charge and they routed. Guess that was a bad idea.

Genivaria wrote:Rome preferably, I don't have Shogun 2. But please feel free to explain that to.

In Rome you need to spread your forces out, form them into self-contained pockets. If you can, hide them, if not, don't worry much about it. Keep ranged units nearby, preferably artillery at a center position. If the enemy tries to pursue you with Cav, use the artillery to decimate them as your infantry pull back. Just pull their troops away from the battle if they only send infantry to pursue.

Never leave more than one unit being chased. Figure out which unit they're going after, and make sure they're wasting a unit for every one of yours that they're chasing. Keep ranged units pursuing them in turn with skirmish mode turned on. Now, the tricky part is the urge to run to the edges of the map or behind your lines. FIGHT THAT URGE. What you need to do is keep them in front of your lines and near your center position. Keep melee infantry behind your artillery to form up in front if they try to rush you. Keep the enemy in front of your artillery and in the killing zone. Keep your center guarded on the flanks with spearmen. Any frontal assault in full force, and you pull up your reserve and hit them with all of your little pockets at once, swarm and surround them.

Now, that's defensive, of course. If you're looking to go aggressive, it's much easier. Form up with three wings, a center position behind two strong flanks. Move up and engage at a distance with their ranged units. Try to outflank them from such a distance that you can lead them away from their lines entirely if they try to pursue. If they reform to stop themselves from being outflanked, rush them in the center. If they recommit their troops to fight off the center assault, hit them from behind/on the sides with both flanks at once.

I just remembered, the reason why I do so badly is that I almost always field armies of almost nothing but infantry (non-ranged, too) and I really need cavalry to do adequately.

Norstal wrote:See, that's what I thought. And although I agree with you that infantry is better, I had to chase his bow horseys all around the map.

I had to resign since I had class. Ergh, I hate douchebags like them.

Ugh, I hate people who use skirmish with bow cav. Of course, I use skirmish with Mounted Gunners, so maybe I shouldn't be talking.

Genivaria wrote:Thats why I always have a few fast cavalry units.
A diverse army is a strong army.

Not necessarily. An army tailored to beat every kind of unit is better than an army made OF every kind of unit.

My primary problems come when I can only engage the enemy over narrow fronts or MUST make an assault. Then I fall apart in Shogun II (Which is odd, because I'm normally an aggressive player in the other TW games)

Norstal wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Thats why I always have a few fast cavalry units.
A diverse army is a strong army.

I used a cavalry for a preliminary charge and they routed. Guess that was a bad idea.

It depends on your army composition.
A Parthian army I send all my horse archers forward and constantly harass the enemy.
I can control their movements in this way.

In an English or Roman army I will keep my Cavalry in reserve until my infantry are defending against the enemy infantry.
Then bring your Cavalry around and hit them in the flanks. Charge, Withdraw, Charge. Repeat until the enemy breaks, then run them down.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Norstal wrote:See, that's what I thought. And although I agree with you that infantry is better, I had to chase his bow horseys all around the map.

I had to resign since I had class. Ergh, I hate douchebags like them.

Ugh, I hate people who use skirmish with bow cav.

um...

Conserative Morality wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Thats why I always have a few fast cavalry units.
A diverse army is a strong army.

Not necessarily. An army tailored to beat every kind of unit is better than an army made OF every kind of unit.

My primary problems come when I can only engage the enemy over narrow fronts or MUST make an assault. Then I fall apart in Shogun II (Which is odd, because I'm normally an aggressive player in the other TW games)

I'm normally defensive, always trying to bait the enemy into attacking my superior position.
On many occasions I've drawn the enemy out and crushed the army in the field where I had the advantage.

Genivaria wrote: um...

Not so much in previous TW games.

Genivaria wrote:I'm normally defensive, always trying to bait the enemy into attacking my superior position.
On many occasions I've drawn the enemy out and crushed the army in the field where I had the advantage.

That's what I always do. In Shogun II, rivers are my best friends. And hills. I can't even count how many times people have tried to assault my forces on a hill THROUGH A RIVER that slows down all units when I've got:

A stationary general giving ridiculous morale bonuses

Lines of Spearmen in a pike wall

Archers to play havoc with enemy archers

Gunners that can fire by rank and are RIDICULOUSLY effective at destroying infantry AND cavalry.

Hey Norstal, we should play some Shogun II sometime.

Would you say that the succeeding games are more difficult than RTW?

Forsher wrote:Would you say that the succeeding games are more difficult than RTW?

Not if you're good.

With all seriousness, the later games act as as sort of skill multiplier. If you were just good in RTW, you'll be great in Shogun II, because you have so much more control over the battlefield. If you were just okay in RTW, you'll probably be overwhelmed in Shogun II.

Empire it doesn't matter how good you are because it all comes down to lucky you are and whether or not you picked terrible units.

Medieval 2 is a little easier than RTW.

Conserative Morality wrote:Hey Norstal, we should play some Shogun II sometime.

Was thinking the same thing. I'll play you over the weekend if you like.

Though I'm still new at it. Only won 2/4 games.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Forsher wrote:Would you say that the succeeding games are more difficult than RTW?

Not if you're good.

With all seriousness, the later games act as as sort of skill multiplier. If you were just good in RTW, you'll be great in Shogun II, because you have so much more control over the battlefield. If you were just okay in RTW, you'll probably be overwhelmed in Shogun II.

Empire it doesn't matter how good you are because it all comes down to lucky you are and whether or not you picked terrible units.

Medieval 2 is a little easier than RTW.

I was never really any good at any aspect of RTW. I suppose because of the incredible difference between it and MTW (where I have conquered the world within 200 years). It si much easier.