Some observations on army composition and success

[unmerged(85507)]

By now the rules are so that archers who stand in the “second line” at the beginning of a battle flee as soon as the front line collapses - even if they would have enough morale to continue the fight in “close combat”.

If you have too many archers you are likely to cause greater losses among the enemy but will lose the battle most likely as soon as your too small heavy infantry force cannot stand the pressure any longer.
However if you have too many heavy infantry and less archers you will cause less losses but win most battles - even if the enemy outnumbers you by far or begins with far better morale.

It seems to be really difficult to get a victory and a good kill ratio in the same battle. It is just contradictory. That’s why it is really important to find an optimal army composition - so that you will win most battles while the loss ratio remains okay.

So far I recommend 6 heavy infantry, 2 archers and 2 cavalry in a standard army with 10 cohorts. Although I have only talked about heavy infantry and archers so far, cavalry seems to make an army bear the pressure longer. So that you are the one who has the decisive "extra morale" in the end.

In my view winning the battle is better than killing many soldiers in doubt. Most manpower losses are due to attrition anyhow.

I hope this theory (proved by many trials and two frustrating afternoons :wacko: ) helps other new players to find out why their armies are always losing or why the enemy always gets a better kill ratio - and how they can avoid that. It might not be totally correct because most comes from subjective observations.

 

[Asmodeous]

I'd bump it to at least 2:1 HI:A.

So if you built 6hi, give them 3 a.

8:4, 10:5 and so on. It's enough infantry to keep your frontline from collapsing and still gives a solid damage output.

And always have at least 2-4 horsemen.

Me.

 

[Wdll]

I'd bump it to at least 2:1 HI:A.

So if you built 6hi, give them 3 a.

8:4, 10:5 and so on. It's enough infantry to keep your frontline from collapsing and still gives a solid damage output.

And always have at least 2-4 horsemen.

Me.

What about horse archers?

 

[Asmodeous]

I generally make random amounts of horse archers depending on my mood and the general's traits.

Which I should also mention, pay attention to the traits. If they have Tactician - Overload their cavalry. If they have Hold Ground - Overload their infantry, and so on.

Me.

 

[MightyM]

My typical "large" army in the early game has been 8 HI - 4 Archers - 2 horse archers - 2 cavalry. That keeps me with a 2:1:1 ratio of HI:Archers:Horsies that I scale down for smaller armies and plan to scale up for larger ones, if needed in the future. I've had a lot of luck with this mix/ratio since it seems to cause pretty good damage and has a lot of staying power, especially as the troops get more experience and fight alongside the general they're loyal to. I've held my ground against much larger forces and tend to butcher even large barbarian armies, causing significant casualties. So this seems to be working for me.

 

[delra]

Yeah. I liked many archers too, since they are cheap and so on. But I noticed many battles were lost simply due to archers running away as soon as main line does it. Now I always have twice more Heavy Infantry than my archers.

Also, cavalry is just necessary, your army with protected flanks can withstand much more than if there isn't such protection. Also nice flanking bonuses during a battle make cavalry a necessity.

I usually go for 12k HI, 6k archers, 2k cavalry, 2k horse archers (or 4k cavalry). I consider it a balanced army that can win with a lot bigger militia armies.