Of Light Troops and Rough Terrain

The least employed and most underrated troops in the game are those of the "Light" troop stock. With the exception of an occasional mob of Men-at-Arms, wave after wave of Heavy Infantry and Heavy Cavalry armies dominate the maps of most games.

This is to be expected. After all, the Heavy troops require less armor and less food for exactly double the strength at double the cost. It first glance it would seem foolish to consider hiring Light Infantry or Light Cavalry when, at a much faster pace, troops that make more efficient use of materials can be hired instead. Drawn to the "scarier", tougher Heavy troops, there seems little to find attractive with the scantily-clad Light troops.

But then why would GSI have invented Light Cavalry and Infantry in the first place? What purpose, aside from adding realism to the game, do they serve?

There are several good reasons to hire Light Inf/Cav, especially if your nation is at relative peace early in the game, or if you are attacking or defending a population center in the rough, desert, mountains or shore hexes.

Contrary to popular belief, the Light troops can be *much more effective* than their bulky counterparts when properly employed in the right terrain, and at the same gold maintenance cost each turn. Think about it - how effective would fully armored knights, or ungainly trolls be in the shifting dunes of the desert, or the rocky hills around Mordor? The answer: Not very.

Heavy troops work only at 60-80% in rougher terrain, where Light troop stock is often at 100%. When you add this to the advantage of having troop tactics which will defeat the typical heavy troop stock tactics, you are even more at an advantage. How so, you ask? Here is an example: (all of the following numbers are approximate, based on a combat calculator found on the web)

1000 Heavy Infantry lead under Lord Predictable face off against Lord Fear's 2000 Light Infantry. Lord Predictable is sure that, since his troops are exactly double the strength of the enemy's troops, that the battle will result in the elimination of both armies. After all, why should the enemy win when they are both paying the same maintenance cost in gold each turn?

If Lord Predictable were to examine his surroundings, he would realize that he had already been beaten. Standing in the Hills & Rough, his troops are vulnerable and weak, slipping and sliding on the loose earth in their heavy suits of armor. So ineffective are they, that the outcome of the battle with standard tactics would leave them with no troops, and Lord Fear with over 300 men still standing.

But Lord Predictable must live up to his name, so he attacks with the typical Heavy Infantry troop tactic - Flank.

In answer to this, Lord Fear employs the tactic Surround, which leaves him with upwards of 700 troops! Light Infantry can employ the Surround tactic 13% more effectively than Heavy Infantry, giving Lord Fear another effective, optional tactic to stave off those overconfident Heavy Infantry - a tactic that Lord Predictable won't expect in a game with all those Heavy Infantry armies running around.

The same can be said for Light Cavalry and Heavy Cavalry in the desert. A lightly dressed desert warrior with his Light Cavalry of 2000 sleek horses and a fitting Ambush tactic will easily outstrip the plodding Charge of 1000 Heavy Cavalry when in the desert, shore or hills & rough - for the *same cost in gold*.

This is not to say that there is no down side to hiring Light troops. To match their Heavy brethren, Light Cavalry requires double the number of mounts to hire, not to mention the food. But for a nation which produces a large surplus of mounts and a couple of mages with "Conjure Food" or a large food surplus, or the food support of a large population center, this is not such a pressing concern. In addition, Light Cavalry only require one unit of leather while Heavy Cavalry require two.

There is also the not so well known "rout" rule: If your troops drastically outnumber your enemy's troops (by about more than 6 to 1), you have a chance of completely routing and "rolling over" the opposing army. All characters with that army *will be killed*! No more return visits from that enemy commander that keeps popping up. Supporting an army of 4000 Heavy Infantry is an economic strain few can bear, but 4000 Light Infantry (or even 6000 Men-at-Arms if you have the Nation Ability for well-trained/free MA troop armies) are financially possible to maintain. Such an army can be effective for taking out small, expensive, well-equipped forces. But don't scrimp when you recruit. Make sure you completely overwhelm them with numbers.

Men-at-Arms and Archers, although not nearly half the strength of the Heavy troops, are also worth considering hiring. Archers can be used to "beef up" a force of Light Infantry which is mostly armed with wooden weapons. With their free steel weapons (arrows) and troop strength of 6, it might be wise to add a few hundred of them to your Light Infantry ranks. An army fully composed of Archers, however, should be avoided, unless safely behind the walls of a castle or keep. For the same cost, 2 Men at arms come close to an Archer's strength, and a fully Men-at-Arms army will defeat an army of Archers at the same cost with several of their troops remaining. Archers are meant as an addition to an existing army, and nothing more. Men-at-Arms are a cheap substitute for Light Infantry, and will lose when facing a same-cost army of Light Infantry due to the Light Infantry's troop strength of 5. For this reason, contrary to conventional wisdom, I recommend Light Infantry for threatening, NOT Men-at-Arms.

Light Infantry is more cost effective than a Men-at-Arms army, even when in rags and holding wooden weapons. And an army of Light Infantry can be brought to bear as an *effective military force* if need be, whereas Men-at-Arms armies are truly the dregs of military troop stock. If Men-at-Arms were not issued weapons and armor from the start, no one would bother equipping them. They are that bad (what can you expect from slaves and mercenaries?). You should only recruit Men-at-Arms if:

1. You are in a remote corner of the map, want to threaten an enemy pop center and then plan to quickly disband the army.
2. You are so economically strained that you need army icons on your map but can only afford to keep 100 Men-at-Arms in each army. For a few hundred gold of army maintenance each turn, you can keep several icons on your map. This is assuming you won't waste 5000 gold in hiring these armies...
3. You need a "seed" army in that hex for later, but can't afford real troops.
4. You want to use a "decoy" tactic. This is arguably the best use for Men-at-Arms. Move an army of 100 MA in a bee-line towards a major population center of your enemy's. If he moves to intercept it, he will be sorely surprised to see your REAL army land on another of his pop centers, while the smaller army goes off his map, only to return later as a fake army of "reinforcements"!
5. The "scare" tactic. Move a "huge" army of Men-at-Arms onto your neighbor's population center as a show of muscle. All he will see is "a huge army" on his hex, not the troop type. Your neighbor will be irked, and on the defensive, perhaps even willing to negotiate a truce if he is not ready to lose that population center. Of course, you shouldn't actually have any intention of using those troops to fight. If your neighbor reacts in a hostile manner, and you think you have the troops and command rank to pull it off, then Threaten the population center. Then retire all but 100 troops after moving away. Even after losing his camp/village, your opponent won't know what hit him. All the better to keep him guessing!

*Light Cavalry: Deadly in the sands, quick through the rough

Aside from their obvious terrain advantages in the Desert and Shore hexes, Light Cavalry are also an excellent troop type for use in the rough. The whole Southeastern corner of the map is, in my opinion, the proper domain of Light Cavalry (no wonder they are often listed as "camels"!). Getting through all of those rough hexes with Infantry takes forever, (though Light Infantry *are* fit for the terrain), and iron-shod Heavy Cavalry was never meant for crumbling hillsides and narrow gullies.

But a Light Cavalry army, though not in top form, performs satisfactorily in the rough, and more importantly, traverses it in half the time. Anyone based in Southeastern Mordor should seriously consider a "reactionary" force of Light Cavalry.

*Light Infantry: Lethal agility in rougher terrain

Light Infantry is useful anywhere there is rough or mountains. Why make an attack on the mountain-dwelling Witch King with Heavy Infantry when HI are at 60% effectiveness in the mountains? A large force of Light Infantry not only does better in the mountains (80%) for the gold you shell out, but can also be used as a cost-effective force for threatening. If guarding your own mountain/rough home from future attacks, remember Lord Predictable and Lord Fear. Light Infantry will do a much better job for the money in fighting off your foes.

Break out the Leather Armor! Perhaps the least favored form of armor is leather armor. But it is the perfect armor for lighter troops. When leather is sold on the market for only 1 gold per unit, don't sell it and send out your troops to the front line in rags. Pool your leather and use it to outfit your Light troops. It may not seem like much, but leather can mean the few points your army needs for victory, and can save *hundreds* of Light troops after winning a battle. Instead of winning in the rough with over 300 troops against an "equal" HI force of 1000, you can win with over 500. That's a significant reason, in my book, to spare the leather, especially since most battles won't be equal.

Is there a down side?

Of course there are plenty of reasons to hire Heavy troops, especially if you plan to be in the Open Plains for most of the game. If you like your troops well-armored and few in number, then hiring Light troops might not make much sense in the end. Heavy Infantry armored in steel/steel are more than a match for an unarmored army of Light Infantry, even in the rough. But not everyone has the money or resources to armor their troops so nicely, and when metal prices drop far enough, armoring Light troops is painless.

There's also the problem of feeding larger armies, which can effect morale and movement, and that's a definite downfall.

However, most experienced players would agree that it is not a rare sight in a game to see an army of unarmored Trolls or muscle-bound Knights clambering around in the hills & rough with wooden weapons and *no food*. This is especially true when the Dark and the Free clash in the hills of Mordor, the troops far from their capitals. If that's to be the case, then why not hire the more effective Light Infantry to begin with? It makes sense, whether its a force meant to invade Mordor, or a force which will be chasing invaders around for several turns - and population centers can be threatened away or back.

Hiring takes time. This is true. But if you have the time to build up a Light army, which many nations do, then why not pick the troop that's right for the terrain? It'll help you more than a few points of training!

Here are the basic pros and cons to recruiting Light Cav/Inf:

Pros:

1. Effective, sometimes much more so, than Heavy troops in rough terrain.
2. Having Light troops offers a variety of alternative tactics.
3. Double the troops for the same money. Outnumbering your opponent by more than 6 to 1 gives you a chance of *completely routing the enemy and killing all enemy characters with that army*. Threatening becomes a viable option.
4. Light troops cost less. If you're having trouble balancing your budget in the first few turns, you can build half your army, and complete building the other half later. The same number of heavy troops have a more immediate impact on your finances.

Cons:

1. Light troops cost more to armor.
2. Light troops need more food.
3. Light Troops take longer to recruit.
4. Light Infantry is not at top form in the Open Plains. (Light Cavalry is OK)

The cons can be weighed out if:

1. You don't have enough metal to armor your troops anyway.
2. Metal is cheap and abundant.
3. You have the Nation Ability to go without food and still gain morale. 4. You are based in the mountains, desert, or hills & rough. 5. Your troops are more or less permanently stationed in a Major Town or City -- food will be provided.

As I have illustrated, terrain and tactics have a major impact on combat, and the lighter troop types add an element of surprise to the game even experienced players may overlook with their over-dependence on heavy troop stock.

So the next time you plan to give that order to "Recruit Troops", consider carefully your location, and the predictability of your opponent. You just might have him pulling his hair out over the fight he "should have won".