yardrefa.blogg.se

Now with the new strategy I need only 1.2~1.5x to defeat it, and with 2x I can win without a scratch. With the same army, I used to need 2.5x size to defeat Francia feudal army. But its success depends on killing off opposing enemy flank very fast. It is also nearly independent from commander stat and traits. Light Skirmish is strong not because its stat is strong, but because it can fire relatively strong Feint tactic with very high probability, and backed up with still ok Volley tactic. In other words, selecting only Light Skirmish for retinue, but mixing it with anything for major battles can make them stronger, be that pikemen or even camel cavalry. Since their job is just surviving and holding off enemy's melee attack while the Light Skirmish kills them off, Heavy Infantry, Pikemen, or some mixed army stands much better, and with 1+% archers and 16+ martial commanders for higher chance of Shield Wall tactic. Meanwhile I still have mixed feudal levy (and mercenary) to put on the other two flanks. The tactic is that putting all the Light Skirmish on one side flank to quickly kill off its opposing flank, and then kill off the other flanks even faster with 30% flanking bonus. Although I haven't experienced it causing actual problems.īut the second reason, having only Light Skirmish retinue doesn't mean that using only that for major battles. Since this tactic doesn't need any commander trait and is even strong with 12-15 martial than 16+, I can just put a siege leader with crappy 12 martial on the skirmish flank and don't even need to switch between combat and siege.ĭo you use any other type of retinue? If so what's your reasoning?Ĭlick to expand.Supply limit I can understand. And that didn't even account raiding, which is even more about sieging. Now, if I consider that my army is mostly sieging enemy holdings once it defeats enemy's main stack, and only number of men matters in a seige, it feels like exclusively using Light Skirmish retinue is a no brainer to me.

But 2x larger army insures that I take no loss and the enemy is decimated without any micro management between battles. I don't seem to loose with just 1.2~1.5x larger army, and can even do fine with same size army if I am defending and I have narrow flank leader or a tiny bit of pikemen to withhold the other two flanks until my skirmish flank joins. Since I can get 10 Light Skirmish units (5500 Men) for about the same cost of 8 Shock units (2000 Men), having 2x larger army isn't hard at all. Even against a same size feudal army, my skirmish flank is twice larger than enemy's defending flank, and still finish off at least that flank during skirmish stage. The enemy just melts away during skirmish and withdraws, no matter what type of army it has, and my light infantry and archer flank is almost never melee attacked. Not only that I always win battles, but also that I take almost no loss while my enemy suffers horrendous loss always. With my army 2x larger than my enemy's and my right flank 4x larger than enemy's left flank, I haven't yet seen the enemy surviving until melee stage. With Light Skirmish retinue and flank commander's martial 12-15, I get Feint 68% and Volley 17%. Relative unit strength and cultural unit bonus just compares pale against Feint tactic firing reliably. Any setup that can fire the right tactic with relatively high frequency can overcome good commanders or stronger unit. In CK2 battle, tactic is much stronger than anything else as its effect ranges +100~300% instead of 10~40%. But after carefully observing all battles during my recent 12 years of invasion war against Abassid, it seems Light Skirmish retinue (400 Light Infantry + 150 Archers) is so over powered that I can't see logic of using any else, except for roll play purpose maybe. Of course any type of army can be used to dominate the game.