HYW French campaign opening battle

[MVP7]

I realized that I had never played the French version of HYW campaign and decided to give it a go. Five seconds after hitting Start in the first battle I realised that I actually had played it during the beta, dropped it, and never touched it again (and why I had apparently repressed the memory). The reason is that the first battle of the 10 battle campaign, fought against the Low Countries, is insanely hard matchup for the French.

I normally play at difficulty 3. I rarely lose and when I do, it's either due to some big, lazy and continuous error in judgement by me (e.g. marching to meet the stalling enemy in an extremely unfavorable terrain) or a cluster of extremely bad luck (e.g. three fresh units of legionaries consecutively fragmenting on first contact with average light spear in the open, resulting in an instant ALT+F4). My casualties are very rarely over 15%. I'm not the greatest player but I'd like to think that I understand the game, the AI, and don't make beginner mistakes in single player. Despite that, I just cannot get a decent result from the first battle of the French 100 years war campaign.

The French army is predominantly mounted Men-at-Arms with a token force of massed crossbowmen. The enemy army consists mainly of Low Countries Spearmen (undrilled heavy foot, 80% offensive spear, 20% heavy weapon, average, protected, large size, can form square). The problem for the French is that their one trick army is faced by what is basically a hard counter to their one trick army.

I think I played my attempts pretty well. I used my light foot and 3 units of crossbowmen to tie down half of the enemy army in difficult terrain while flanking the entire enemy formation with my knights to produce a local advantage of 2 to 3 MAA against each individual surrounded unit of LC Spearmen. An easy win in most situations.

However, the stable tactic of flanking to drop cohesion was practically impossible because of a combination of square formation, the limited MAA mobility (French have no other cavalry), and the steady stream of new enemy units. The secondary tactic of softening up the enemy units with missile attacks was also not viable because A: the combined (static) firepower of entire french missile contingent can't reliably force a CT on even a single large protected unit, and B: those troops were needed elsewhere to tie down half of the enemy force and to keep their light guns off the MAA. Even the tertiary tactic of just ignoring and kiting the problematic enemy units (works wonders against pikes/keils) and routing everything else on the field only produces 20-30% rout percentage against the Low Countries list.

The only remaining approach I could think of was to pound the enemy spearmen with MAA charges which have about 25% win chance on impact with guaranteed bounce unless the enemy is disrupted. The problem is, even when the MAA "win", the relative losses of the units are near 1 to 1 (because of the unit size difference) with anything else hurting the MAA more than the enemy. The LC Spearmen cohesion was dropping in fewer than 1 in 10 impacts, and even if disrupted, the LC Spearmen didn't reliably collapse in melee against MAA and sometimes even managed to rally (I could have been consistently unlucky with the CTs over several attempts but I doubt it).

As a result, at the end of the battle all of my infantry had been (auto-)broken and every one of my remaining MAA units had suffered 30-40% casualties despite most of them never losing a single round of impact or melee. This was one of the worst meatgrinders outside of dark-age shield walls and missile army duels I have ever seen. In my most successful attempt was a pyrrhic victory where my final losses were over 30%, a non-starter for a 10 battle campaign.

In my experience, this is probably the hardest battle and opening of any campaign in Medieval or Ancients. I have had easier time producing acceptable battle results running down horse archers and lancers with limitanei on an open steppe. Has anyone else had this much trouble with this particular campaign battle (or the matchup in general)? Am I missing some smart tactical approach here?

[Paul59]

In my most successful attempt was a pyrrhic victory where my final losses were over 30%, a non-starter for a 10 battle campaign.

I know that is the conventional wisdom, but I have never accepted it myself. I often lose a lot of units in winning the first battle, but go onto complete the campaign. In the French HTW campaign I won the first battle 32/60, but completed the campaign, and that was on Prince difficulty.

I'm sorry that I can't remember what my tactics were against the Low countries, but in situations like that (Lancer/Knight cavalry vs strong foot) I normally advance my knights to block the foot's advance and let them charge me (at very bad odds), while trying to outflank them if possible. If the foot won't charge the cavalry, then I try charging with my general led knights units to create a gap.

[Athos1660]

This first battle 'reenacts' the battle of Saint-Omer in 1340 where 3000 French faced 11000-16000 Anglo-Flemish (according to wiki).

As others did, I found it difficult to win.

But also very fun to play.

(This battle was discussed in a thread called '100 YW French Campaign' on the 3rd DLC closed beta forum.)

[MVP7]

In my most successful attempt was a pyrrhic victory where my final losses were over 30%, a non-starter for a 10 battle campaign.

I know that is the conventional wisdom, but I have never accepted it myself. I often lose a lot of units in winning the first battle, but go onto complete the campaign. In the French HTW campaign I won the first battle 32/60, but completed the campaign, and that was on Prince difficulty.

Yeah, it would likely ultimately have been a workable win but I still wanted a better result and hit replay. I imagine those losses would effectively bump up the campaign difficulty by half a level or so. I find the difficulty 3 most tactically interesting while going above that requires more gamey moves and manipulating the AI than I prefer.

There's actually one thing I don't know about the campaign mechanics: if the player losses in battle exceed ~15%, the difficulty is increased (I assume the player points are reduced) but is that increase permanent through the whole campaign or can it improve if you win future battles with less than 15% casualties?

This first battle 'reenacts' the battle of Saint-Omer in 1340 where 3000 French faced 11000-16000 Anglo-Flemish (according to wiki).

As others did, I found it difficult to win.

But also very fun to play.

(This battle was discussed in a thread called '100 YW French Campaign' on the 3rd DLC closed beta forum.)

It's certainly a pretty unique battle in that the most sensible tactic seems to be pounding heavy spearmen with cavalry. I wonder if there's a way to win it with lower casualties without using any overly gamey techniques though. One thing I considered was dismounting some of the MAA to stick to the spearmen to enable flanking by the mounted MAA but I doubt the dismounts would survive long enough to be worth it.

[Athos1660]

In game, the French armies (and their cavalry) start being effective around... 1625 AD...1650... 1670 for sure ! In Pike and Shot

[Paul59]

There's actually one thing I don't know about the campaign mechanics: if the player losses in battle exceed ~15%, the difficulty is increased (I assume the player points are reduced) but is that increase permanent through the whole campaign or can it improve if you win future battles with less than 15% casualties?

I've forgotten how the mechanics works exactly, but I am sure Richard can tell you if he sees this thread.

It's certainly a pretty unique battle in that the most sensible tactic seems to be pounding heavy spearmen with cavalry. I wonder if there's a way to win it with lower casualties without using any overly gamey techniques though. One thing I considered was dismounting some of the MAA to stick to the spearmen to enable flanking by the mounted MAA but I doubt the dismounts would survive long enough to be worth it.

Reading through the beta test forum thread that Athos mentioned, this battle did give some players a hard time, but others found it easy, especially after the rules were changed to give a -2 cohesion test modifier for foot losing Impact against Knights/Men at Arms.

Apparently, the best tactic is to pick 100% mounted knights and concentrate on the Flemish non spear units, once they are routed you can beat the spearmen.

[MVP7]

It's certainly a pretty unique battle in that the most sensible tactic seems to be pounding heavy spearmen with cavalry. I wonder if there's a way to win it with lower casualties without using any overly gamey techniques though. One thing I considered was dismounting some of the MAA to stick to the spearmen to enable flanking by the mounted MAA but I doubt the dismounts would survive long enough to be worth it.

Reading through the beta test forum thread that Athos mentioned, this battle did give some players a hard time, but others found it easy, especially after the rules were changed to give a -2 cohesion test modifier for foot losing close combat against knights.

Apparently, the best tactics is to pick 100% mounted knights and concentrate on the Flemish non spear units, once they are routed you can beat the spearmen.

That's basically how I got my best result. While I did use couple MAA's worth of points on crossbowmen and light foot to delay half of the enemy, I otherwise routed majority of the enemy non-spearmen units before committing to the impact exchange with the bulk of the LC Spearmen.

With great luck the battle could certainly turn into an easy one, I have seen average based armies go from near zero to 40%+ routed in just one turn with a series of cascading routs and CTs (though that requires open flanks for pursuers to charge). This could have been bad luck over several games in my case but the LC Spearmen were just not losing cohesion. I have been playing a lot of Ancients lately so I'm a bit out of touch with how brittle average heavy foot should be against knights but they did feel abnormally steady. I'll probably give the battle another go in the future and see what happens.

[Paul59]

That's basically how I got my best result. While I did use couple MAA's worth of points on crossbowmen and light foot to delay half of the enemy, I otherwise routed majority of the enemy non-spearmen units before committing to the impact exchange with the bulk of the LC Spearmen.

With great luck the battle could certainly turn into an easy one, I have seen average based armies go from near zero to 40%+ routed in just one turn with a series of cascading routs and CTs (though that requires open flanks for pursuers to charge). This could have been bad luck over several games in my case but the LC Spearmen were just not losing cohesion. I have been playing a lot of Ancients lately so I'm a bit out of touch with how brittle average heavy foot should be against knights but they did feel abnormally steady. I'll probably give the battle another go in the future and see what happens.

I've played it twice today, both with 100% Men at Arms armies.

The first attempt was a disaster. Despite the -2 cohesion test modifier, none of the spear units dropped cohesion on impact, despite several successful charges. Generals died, AI units rallied, I had zero luck and lost 49/24.

The second attempt was the complete opposite. This time nearly every spear unit dropped cohesion after losing the impact. I would have won 0/40, if it weren't for a fortuitous rally. I have yet to finish it, but should win any turn now.

EDIT: I eventually won 17/42.

[MVP7]

I've played it twice today, both with 100% Men at Arms armies.

The first attempt was a disaster. Despite the -2 cohesion test modifier, none of the spear units dropped cohesion on impact, despite several successful charges. Generals died, AI units rallied, I had zero luck and lost 49/24.

The second attempt was the complete opposite. This time nearly every spear unit dropped cohesion after losing the impact. I would have won 0/40, if it weren't for a fortuitous rally. I have yet to finish it, but should win any turn now.

EDIT: I eventually won 17/42.

Thanks. Here's hoping my next attempt will be closer to your second battle.

[rbodleyscott]

There's actually one thing I don't know about the campaign mechanics: if the player losses in battle exceed ~15%, the difficulty is increased (I assume the player points are reduced) but is that increase permanent through the whole campaign or can it improve if you win future battles with less than 15% casualties?

In reality the actual replacement points are averaged between the "expected" 15% losses and the number required to replace the actual losses.

So excess losses (above 15%) are in fact only half as damaging to future chances as the documentation might lead you to believe.

[MVP7]

There's actually one thing I don't know about the campaign mechanics: if the player losses in battle exceed ~15%, the difficulty is increased (I assume the player points are reduced) but is that increase permanent through the whole campaign or can it improve if you win future battles with less than 15% casualties?

In reality the actual replacement points are averaged between the "expected" 15% losses and the number required to replace the actual losses.

So excess losses (above 15%) are in fact only half as damaging to future chances as the documentation might lead you to believe.

Thanks! So in practice, does that mean that with 30% losses my total force points be reduced by about 7% for the rest of the campaign?

[rbodleyscott]

There's actually one thing I don't know about the campaign mechanics: if the player losses in battle exceed ~15%, the difficulty is increased (I assume the player points are reduced) but is that increase permanent through the whole campaign or can it improve if you win future battles with less than 15% casualties?

In reality the actual replacement points are averaged between the "expected" 15% losses and the number required to replace the actual losses.

So excess losses (above 15%) are in fact only half as damaging to future chances as the documentation might lead you to believe.

Thanks! So in practice, does that mean that with 30% losses my total force points be reduced by about 7% for the rest of the campaign?

No, it means it will be down by 7% for the next battle, 3.5% for the one after that (if you lost 15% in the 2nd battle), and so on.

So it is perfectly possible to catch back up.

[MVP7]

In reality the actual replacement points are averaged between the "expected" 15% losses and the number required to replace the actual losses.

So excess losses (above 15%) are in fact only half as damaging to future chances as the documentation might lead you to believe.

Thanks! So in practice, does that mean that with 30% losses my total force points be reduced by about 7% for the rest of the campaign?

No, it means it will be down by 7% for the next battle, 3.5% for the one after that (if you lost 15% in the 2nd battle), and so on.

So it is perfectly possible to catch back up.

Ok thanks, that's good to know.

[MVP7]

Ok, this campaign is just the most cursed thing I have ever experienced in my life (not in the game, in general)...

I got a good result of 11/44 final losses on my 7th try at the first battle (that's more retries than what I have needed in campaigns over the last six years). The whole battle was some decent luck and timing, nothing else was different. I can say with hand on my heart that this was the only time in FoG2A and FoG2M where the whole battle was completely decided by pure luck rather than the luck just being a source of unpredictability to enforce adaptation.

So on to the second (open) battle against the continental English army I go. What do I see as soon as I start the battle? A map where an impassable river and impassable forest limits the width of the map to a half. The English trench covered almost the entire available front plus there were a couple small difficult hills to add an insult to injury. Behind that trench were three layers of English longbowmen (and assortment of other units) all packed elbow to elbow from the river to the woods.

Ok, not ideal (this wasn't a scripted narrow map either, I checked). Nevertheless, I started breaking the few isolated longbow units on the hills with my crossbowmen which went well enough. Then with a small opening created I started squeezing some of my knights through between the difficult hill and the trench line, all the while being barraged by longbows that I was trying to reach.

A difficult battle on the best of days but my unfathomably bad luck continued (and I say this as someone who posts 1000+ word essays on probability and gambler's fallacies). For every cohesion test that the longbowmen passed, my MAA failed two. Not a single MAA took two volleys of arrows without losing cohesion. Not a single MAA lost a melee without losing cohesion. Even when the AI decided to move good part of its army over the ditched, the longbowmen somehow ended up holding their ground against a horde of MAA in the open. Not a single pursuit by my MAA resulted in anything but them getting flanked. Somehow the MAA seemed to ignore several opportunity charges against easy targets like artillery or non-entrenched longbowmen, while never shying away from unadvisable targets. During one round, a breaking longbowman unit (after an extremely long UPHILL fight against an MAA) resulted in 7 surrounding average English units Holding Firm. Later in the same turn, a rout by my MAA (broken by a Hobilar charge) caused every single surrounding Crossbowman/Brigand unit to fail the CT.

I did not play that battle to the end, because I was genuinely worried of suffering an aneurism or heart attack. I would never touch this campaign again (and I'd carve a note to my table to make sure I won't ever forget again), if I weren't so utterly engrossed by this seemingly cosmic streak of misfortune that has forced me to question my outlook on metaphysics. Without an iota of irony, I'm considering making a comparison of script files between the stable and the beta patch (that I'm currently playing) just to make sure the CT modifiers haven't been inverted by some highly unlikely bit-flip error.

TL;DR still not my favourite campaign.

[MVP7]

This is just absurd... For the first time ever in non-epic battle I lost to the nightfall at 36 to 57 rout percentages advantage... I didn't even pay any attention to the turn limit because I wasn't stalling any more than what was absolutely required to avoid charging dismounted knights over trenches.

Once again, longbowmen somehow managed to stonewall my MAA in the open (obviously not over fortifications before anyone asks). For half(?) of the battle's duration I had already breached the trench-line but the MAA were just not getting anything done. The second attempt overall was more of a "pretty unlucky throughout" rather than "the unfathomably unlucky" of earlier attempt.

I find it unbelievable how such a great game series can produce such a disgusting campaign through numerically balanced and heavily randomised circumstances. The way this campaign forces you to use the most idiotic tactics in any given battle explains half of it but I'm seriously starting to suspect that Richard has slipped in some bit of code that gives the French armies a hidden penalty to everything they do...

[SnuggleBunnies]

I don't normally do single player but I did the first 2 missions at difficulty 3 out of curiosity. First one was kinda messy but won it 45-15; mostly by spreading out enough to open up gaps, luring spears into the rough and counter charging with knights, etc etc. Mission 2 I won on turn 16 42-5; really easy, just slow. Shoot longbowmen until they break, eventually the English will counter attack into the open, ez mode unlocked. Ribauds to the flanks.

[rbodleyscott]

but I'm seriously starting to suspect that Richard has slipped in some bit of code that gives the French armies a hidden penalty to everything they do...

I really hope this is a joke.

[MVP7]

I don't normally do single player but I did the first 2 missions at difficulty 3 out of curiosity. First one was kinda messy but won it 45-15; mostly by spreading out enough to open up gaps, luring spears into the rough and counter charging with knights, etc etc. Mission 2 I won on turn 16 42-5; really easy, just slow. Shoot longbowmen until they break, eventually the English will counter attack into the open, ez mode unlocked. Ribauds to the flanks.

That is literally what I did and got the 36/57 timeout.

edit. That is, 36% of my force routed and 57% of the enemy routed. If one of my units had rallied or one more enemy had stayed routed it would have been a win.

but I'm seriously starting to suspect that Richard has slipped in some bit of code that gives the French armies a hidden penalty to everything they do...

I really hope this is a joke.

It is.

[SnuggleBunnies]

That is literally what I did and got the 36/57 timeout.

Not to be rude, but I really doubt that RNG alone can account for an 8 turn and 30 rout % difference. For force comp, I maxed out on massed missile units and ribauds, and only then grabbed a few maa. I immediately dismounted all of my maa, though in the event that was probably unnecessary. By turn 5 the entire line was in ranged contact. Due to having ludicrously more missile units than the enemy I won the missile duel without a single French unit being broken, shuffling disrupts off to the rear. The ribauds concentrated on infiltrating the forest on the side where it was accessible and not impassable. As the casualties piled up, the English attempted to counter attack, but it wasn't very organized due to the casualties, proxy checks, and constant shooting. The few units that got close enough to charge my missile units I engaged with the dismounted MAA and then flanked for auto drops.

Like I said, it was easy, easier than the first mission. I rarely do SP but did dabble in testing campaigns during the beta, and this struck me as slightly more difficult than usual, but not out of this world or anything.

[MVP7]

That is literally what I did and got the 36/57 timeout.

Not to be rude, but I really doubt that RNG alone can account for an 8 turn and 30 rout % difference. For force comp, I maxed out on massed missile units and ribauds, and only then grabbed a few maa. I immediately dismounted all of my maa, though in the event that was probably unnecessary. By turn 5 the entire line was in ranged contact. Due to having ludicrously more missile units than the enemy I won the missile duel without a single French unit being broken, shuffling disrupts off to the rear. The ribauds concentrated on infiltrating the forest on the side where it was accessible and not impassable. As the casualties piled up, the English attempted to counter attack, but it wasn't very organized due to the casualties, proxy checks, and constant shooting. The few units that got close enough to charge my missile units I engaged with the dismounted MAA and then flanked for auto drops.

Like I said, it was easy, easier than the first mission. I rarely do SP but did dabble in testing campaigns during the beta, and this struck me as slightly more difficult than usual, but not out of this world or anything.

That is definitely a different force composition than what I had. I didn't dismount my knights and I didn't max out Ribauds or Crossbowmen. I had a full line of crossbows to break every frontline longbowman unit behind the trenches before running low on ammo at the cost of one disrupted crossbow unit on my side. More than half of the enemy front was dismounted MAA and they didn't move over the trenches until the last couple turns of the battle despite losses to missile fire. I sent my Ribauds and few light foot to forests on both sides of the front. Right side Ribauds didn't get much done but the left one held out till the end, tying down several times their number of enemies. It was probably around turn 10 that most of my MAA had moved well past the trench line on both sides and were charging enemies in the open but with minimal results and even the longbowmen just weren't losing cohesion.

I can say with hundreds of hours of playtime, decent grasp of the game mechanics, and solid mathematical background that this was certainly not a lucky or even average battle for me in terms of RNG. Overall, the luck in this battle wasn't anything I haven't seen before but usually this kind of bad luck is occasional, not something that happens in 8 out of 9 consecutive games.