Do you prefer Infantry or Cavalry based Armies?

[The Good]

Hello everyone!

I have a question for all of you Medieval II: Total War players.

Do you prefer armies mostly composed of Infantry (also includes ranged units like javelinmen and archers) or Cavalry (also includes ranged units like horse archers and mounted javelinmen)?

Here is what I prefer: An army that has about 10 Infantry units, 4 ranged units, and 6 Cavalry units (mostly heavy cavalries like knights and cataphracts). It works for me most of the time regardless of which Faction I play at the time.

[Brenil]

I like the slower pace and forethought required for mastering infantry-based combat.

Mass cavalry seems... cheap and unrealistic to me, especially an army full of knights.

Horse archer armies, I also dislike... but for no particular reason other than horse archers don't really appeal to me.

I like my armies to be Roman-style.

[The Good]

Yeah, I try to model my armies to be Roman Style too, especially when playing as the Byzantine Empire (they really called themselves Romans, actually 'Rhomaioi'), and as Venice (their Faction colour reminds me of the Faction colour of the Western Roman Empire from Barbarian Invasion).

[SOE digital]

Mainly infantry for me. Lots of Pikes if I can manage it. Slow moving, but strong. Hold the ground, exploit a weakness and attack that weakness with calvary.
Idealy my army would be 20% missle troops, 20% calvary and 60% infantry.

[Sher Khan]

It depends on the faction I play. Most European factions are mostly infantry based with a small core of mounted knights. They fill a small part of the army, but they carry more weight than any other unit. Anything more than a small contingent is usually overdone and expensive, wasting cash better spent on that next farm upgrade.


For Eastern factions, however, I tend to field lots of pure cavalry armies (1-2 generals, rest horse archers) in the earlier periods, but slowly I start to field more and more infantry armies (with small cavalry contingents) as the faction gets better and better troops. However, I don't throw away the cavalry armies. Rather, they become my specialist force for taking down enemy stacks that I don't want to entangle my infantry army with (dangerous elite stacks especially). Therefore, I send in a HA army and watch the enemy lose everything while I lose 4% (10% at worst).

[Axe-Battler]

I prefer cavalry armies...

more specifically, if I'm being someone like spain, the peak of my army without gunpowder would be...

7-10 chivalric knights,
5-9 chivalric foot knights,
3-4 pavise crossbowmen

Then what I do is rush the enemy full force, most of the time won't even use missile, I just love to charge and destroy.

[Darsh]

I prefer a balanced army

[SOE digital]

and by balanced you mean?

[Axe-Battler]

I only thought balanced armies worked good in mtw1.
(never played shogun but I heard it was the most balanced)

I think balance left total war when rome was released... in other words there was no need for it anymore.

All you had to do in rome was grab an all cavalry army army and charge repeatedly.

If the enemy was using pikes, then just bring either stronger pikes and more of them and/or use romans.

Honestly I think mtw2 is the least balanced one of them all, realistically you can take an all cavalry army and destroy any kind of army, except pikes of course, but not likely that the enemy will bring majority pikes.

[Jackster]

In my campaign, Cavalry army cost too much, infantry armies are more ecom-friendly.
Plus I play most as England, never even build staples, normally try to get Knightly orders. (you dont get English knights from Citadel, only the unmounted ones.)
Weird, since English Knights like to fight on foot, why are they not called "English Knights" and "Mounted English knights"?
You can destroy Infantry easily because AI is not adopt to fight that kind of army, against a good human player, it would be different.

[Eastern Red]

I prefer the infantry structure, more realistic and better control. The only cavalry units I have are the general + 2 other heavies to rout panicky enemies.

[mukali]

Defintely cavalry based, which is why I prefer the Eastern factions. Not only in M2TW but also in Rome TW and BI (Parthians, Persians and Huns), MTW (Turks, Mamelukes) and Shogun (Takeda clan).

[Towelie]

like to mix, but infantry mostly.. i just love those hand to hand combats

[Imperator Sulla]

I prefer to fight with an overall infantry army. (pre gunpowder)My army is made up of 80% infantry of which 30% is heavy (sword) infantry,40% is spearmen/billmen and 30% longbow archers. The rest is cavalry including my general, two heavy knight units and one light cavalry unit for catching /killing fleeing heavy cav. With this setup it's hard to lose

BTW I've noticed now that I've allmost annihilated France, it's building armies almost entirely made up of artillery. Geuss I'll have to adjust my configuration for that one. So although I prefer to work with a largly infantry army I do adapt to the opposing force if possible.

[mic111]

Generally it depends on the faction I play - European would be mostly infantry - if playing Turks, Moors etc cavalry is the main part of my armies.

[Premaximum]

I typically try to go for mostly infantry. I usually get about 6 spear/pikemen, then 4 heavy infantry of some kind, a few archers, and about 4 heavy cavalry, plus my general. Sometimes I throw in light cavalry, but not very often.

However, when I'm playing as The Moors (which is most of the time) I have about 6 Spearmen, 6 Jinetes, 3 Christian Guard, 4 Dismounted Christian Guard, and a General. Which, as you can probably tell if you can add, is a perfectly balanced army. 10 Infantry and 10 Cavalry. After I reach gunpowder I usually split the Jinetes off into their own army (and add to them until they're a full stack) and then replace them with 4 Camel Gunners and 2 extra Dismounted Christian Guard.

[Germanicus75]

Well for Western factions anyway, cav armies are somewhat ahistorical?

[Lusted]

I only thought balanced armies worked good in mtw1.
(never played shogun but I heard it was the most balanced)

Just because cav beats everything(well in vanilla, you should try using all cav in LTC and see how far you get) doesn't mean that players will only use it. I like using balanced armies(mix of cav, spears, swords, archers) because it's more fun.

[Giorgos]

infantry based.heavy infantry forms the core(when available), 2-4 horse archer units(depends on the size of the army), 2-4 heavy cavalry units.

---H/A-----------------------H/A
-------H/C----------------H/C
-----------AAAAAAAAAAAA
-----------IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
------------------G
H/A:horse archer units
H/C:heavy cavalry units
A :archer and light skirmisher units
I :heavy infantry units
G :general

the only armies i have trouble against using the above formation are the ones heavy on fast moving horse archers which is why for any army moving towards their lands i usually have an escort of 4-8(depends on the opponents present around) horse archer units that tag along in very close proximity but free to maneuvre on the flanks or back of the enemy army before the fight begins.

[Germanicus75]

I like using balanced armies (mix of cav, spears, swords, archers) because it's more fun.

QFT. More fun and more historical (at least for most Euro factions).