Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
The Welsh factions with their longbows are an exception: They actually deal more A.P. damage than most skirmishers. Normally, archers are most effective against massed units with poor armour, while javelinmen can be of better use to bring down armoured units. Also, javelinmen tend to have shields and are thus less vulnerable against enemy melee troops.
For optimal results, keep javelinmen at your flanks and wait till the batte lines clash. Then move them to the side/back of the enemy line, to shower their soldiers with javelins, while engaged in melee. Also, it helps to uncheck fire at will, to direct the volleys yourself. One nicely timed volley of a javelin unit can almost kill half a unit of charging cavalry. While archers are strong, they need at least two volleys to achieve that. That said, while playing the Welsh, one could easily do without javelinmen. Longbows are that much cooler :)
It wouldn't happen in reality as the javelinmen were supposed to throw the javs at the beginning of the battle in the front of the enemy - to "soften" them.
I hope the CA will make this tactics harder - eg. the morale of javmen should drop if they get behind the lines of the enemy. They should instantly flee in such circumstances.
It wouldn't happen in reality as the javelinmen were supposed to throw the javs at the beginning of the battle in the front of the enemy - to "soften" them.
I hope the CA will make this tactics harder - eg. the morale of javmen should drop if they get behind the lines of the enemy. They should instantly flee in such circumstances.
Javelins do much better against both shields and armor, and javelinmen do tend to be much better in melee, with many types (e.g. kerns) making decent light infantry once their ammo is shot, whereas your typical bowmen are only really good for chasing routers.
Again, I don't think sending javs behind the enemy line is a historical tactics, it's just a use of the engine mechanisms.
It's just exploiting the open flank, or it means the AI is not using any light infantry of its own to counter.
True enough, the AI can never do as good of a job as a human in this department, but it's not as if no human force, whether human-controlled units online or actual armed forces in history, has ever lapsed on flank security, or failed to address an envelopent, or seen the enemy light troops have range of movement across a flank because their own light troops failed or were absent.
One of the main strengths of light troops has always been their mobility, making them ideal for outmaneuvering heavy infantry, getting around the flanks.
That is why historically, light troops were usually placed on the flanks of the heavy infantry...to keep the enemy's light troops from out flanking the line! :)
Look at famous battles such as Sphacteria or Lechaeum in Antiquity, or less commonly known battles from the Medieval era, such as Dysert O'Dea (Irish versus Norman-English): mobility advantage is one of the reasons light infantry was retained as a troop type.
And speaking of troop types, I don't know why we should assume lights were "crappy," as Jurand put it, talking about how they could not handle the lowered morale of knowing they were behind the flanks of the enemy battle line.
If this was the case, you wouldn't have had lights standing their ground against, and then defeating, charging chariots and elephants, as the light javelinmen of Xenophon, Alexander, the Successors, and Republican Rome all had done, for example.
Keeping your nerve at oncoming chariots, horsemen and elephants, deftly opening ranks to let them pass, attacking them as they go by, then closing up and attacking till they rout = hold up just fine; but the idea of being behind the enemy flank at javelin cast distance, and throwing some into the enemy ranks = morale crisis?
What's more, in many places within the Thrones context, fighting as light infantry was simply the mode of combat, and was not an indicator of resolve, motivation or availability of equipment, as you'd expect with the lights of most the aforesaid forces.
In other words, throughout Britain you had Irish, Picts, Welsh etc. fighting in a light infantry mode owing to a variety of cultural and strategic factors. It's a mode of combat, and not a result of simply being too "crappy" to do another mode. That said, many troops who were relatively "crappy" were able to operate effectively as lights, so how much more effective would "professional" lights be?
Consider that Roman velites, for example, were formed on the basis of their low wealth and social class, and through a conscription process, and yet they fought remarkably in numerous battles, sometimes being decisive (as against Carthaginian elephants), and taking on critical roles (the vanguards of columns and protecting vulnerable baggage, and reconnaisance-in-force).
Compare them to, say, kerns in Ireland or Pictish warriors in Scotland, who fought as lights but were "main men," with all the motivation to fight and who formed voluntary warbands with other like minded men, and who could equip themselves with the best systems available for combat.
Such Gaelic and Brythonic warriors weren't likely to go weak-in-the-knees just because they weren't standing in a shieldwall. To the contrary, if you had men accustomed to fighting in loose order and on a running basis, then forcing them to fight statically, to not allow them maneuver and to not give them rein to out flank the enemy would be the thing likely to lower their morale.
You see this factor even into the recent ages. Look at how poorly American militia typically performed when forced to face British lines frontally during the American Secession War, then compare to how invigorated and effective these same troops were at, for example, the Battle of Cowpens, where they were encouraged to move around the enemy's flanks and rear.
Yes, that could definitely happen; the result would be that it weakened the enemy's melee line. So moving one's light troops around the flank would still have a positive affect on the fight, whether the enemy stood there and took the missile shots, or left the line to chase them off.
Typically, and again using a battle such as Lechaeum or Dysert O'Dea as example, light troops would indeed simply run off if charged by heavies, but come back and attack again as soon as either they got terrain advantage, or the pursuers stopped chasing and went back to resume what they had been doing. That's why it's called "harassment" tactics, because it devils the enemy and they can't quite get to grips with it.
https://www.amazon.com/Warfare-Classical-World-Encyclopedia-Civilizations/dp/0806127945/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1547970093&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=warfare+in+the+classical+world&dpPl=1&dpID=619Z%2BXbu6-L&ref=plSrch
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Medieval-Warfare-military-history/dp/0895292629/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1547970157&sr=8-3&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=ancient+and+medieval+warfare&dpPl=1&dpID=51AC8YQCCTL&ref=plSrch
"Warfare in the Classical World" only cover Antiquity, stopping around 500 AD, but is a great primer on all the fundamentals, which hold true well into the Medieval ages. This book also has some great, thorough breakdown of armor and shield development, and many nice maps of battles that illustrate some of the placement of and movement of troops, including what was talked about in this thread (example: Darius outflanking Alexander's line at Battle of Issus using javelinmen, and Alexander's counter attack on the same flank using his own javelinmen).
What I really like about this book is that everything the author says, he sources and links to ancient texts and archaeological evidence, so you know what works to search out later on, and you can do some deeper research looking at Polybius, Xenophon, etc.
The second book covers further in time in Western history, down to about the Second Crusade. It is an introductory book for U.S. Army cadets and OCS candidates though, so unfortunately the maps are no where near as good as the first book I listed, and it is lacking detailed info on weapons, equipment and stuff like that; but it does a great job of getting to the pertinent info, including Viking Age fighting and the Anglo-Saxon response to viking attacks.
Another great little book is, "The Vikings," by Time Life, in the "Seafarers" series, chief editor Robert Wernick, printed 1979. The problem with this book is that it has been out of circulation for awhile, so it might be hard to track down, but it is a great intro to Norse culture, warfare and Viking Age history in Britain and Scandinavia. Although it is written in a laid back way and isn't high brow or anything, it has one of the best overviews of Norse ship building techniques and design, complete with excellent diagrams and illustrations, and even great info about how Norse ships were used in combat, actually much better write ups than you see in current academic journals, imo. Highly recommended book, if you can snag it.
Aside from these, the following site is excellent for gathering tons of authoritative articles, papers and book reviews on Medieval military history, including many on Viking Age and Early Medieval battles, weapons, logistics, and tactics, all for free:
www.deremilitari.org
De Re Militari site is particularly good at hosting articles about niche subjects, looked at by actual experts, that mainstream sites and even most books won't touch about the Viking Age, such as how Irish war bands were formed and operated, how the "Viking sword" evolved over time, and how the Anglo-Saxons fyrd system really worked, instead of obsessing over Hollywoodish and politically correct, "muh shieldmaidens" type stuff.
Finally, speaking of the sword, I'd recommend this channel, to see some excellent reconstruction of Norse and Early Medieval weapon use: https://m.youtube.com/user/warzechas/videos
The channel author is unique in being both a scholar/academic, and actual professional practitioner of Medieval martial arts.