Barbarians vs Selucids

[Arphaxad]

HELP!!! :help:

A freind of mine recently handed me my ass on a silver platter after a long battle with me being the macedonians and him being the selucids( i know how could i have lost?! such a shame.)NOw i want my revenge, what Faction do you think i should use. I am partial to a barbarian factoin cause losing to them is more embarrassing, specially if he's using those damned elephants , but i'm open to any suggestions. Any field strategy would be helpful too.

thanks ~D

-~:)Arphaxad

[NihilisticCow]

Selecids are much stronger than Macedon, so it is no dishonour to lose to them.

Facing Seleucids, I quite like taking Parthia and using Cata Camels to kill the catas (once the catas are down, Seleucid is generally finished). Parthia also have elephants, so they're another option. Many other factions like Pontus, Rome, Greece, Armenia can also work.

If you want to use Barbarians, Germanic Chosen Axemen can help in killing catas, as can Scythian Head Hunting Maidens and Britannic Heavy Chariots. Elephants can be a nuisance though, but both Scythia and Germania have better archers than Seleucids so can win any archer duel and fire arrow the eles. Seleucid pikemen are shot to pieces easily with archers. For Britannia, a combination of Heavy Chariots, Chosen Swordsmen and Head Hurlers (maybe Light chariots if you want to try and fight a missile duel) should deal with any Seleucid army. Britannia does need a bit of practice to get used to though.

[Wishazu]

its not embarrasing to lose to a barbarian faction, they have some of the best melee troops in the game.

[Azi Tohak]

I'm not so sure there are any really weak factions in the game. I don't like Numidia and most of the Carthage infantry is poor, but I think the game (well, without the silly Egyptians) is fairly balanced.

But...to beat the Seleucids, I do think Parthia would be decent, and the Dacians, Germans or Gauls would not be too bad either because of the arrow storm you can get. I just don't have much experience killing the Seleucids, just who I don't like to fight when I use them.

Azi

[NihilisticCow]

Dacia and Gaul do not counter the Seleucids. An arrow storm just won't kill many charging armoured cataphracts, and once they have reached your lines, you are finished.

Carthage infantry is not at all poor... Sacred Band Infantry are the second best phalanx in the game, losing out only to Spartans.

[SaSBadman]

Sacred band are the best phalanx unit in the game when you take ability and cost level into account. Poeni infantry are not bad either but lybian spearmen will often get you into trouble and are not ment to be a frontline troop.

And yes a big cataphract charge alone is usually enough to rout Dacia and Gaul not to mention that barbarians hate pikes.

[Taurus]

Carthage are my favourite faction in the game and if they had archers like Cretans they would be one of the best factions in the game.

~:cheers:

[Wishazu]

even without archers they are one of the best, besides balearic slingers will do the job against regular archers however upgrading them is allways a good idea.

p.s welcome to the forums SASbadman

[jacked]

welcome to the forums SaSBadman

[Jammin]

Nihilist:
Actually, I disagree with Sacred Band being second best to Spartans.
I've done some extensive testing on spartans versus Sacred band and Sacred band win out at equal cost.
Obviously, at basic cost for each, spartans win out due to their hitpoint advantage, but if you upgrade the sacred band with 2 chevrons and 1 weapon upgrade (its something like 60 denarii difference - sacred being cheaper) then the sacred will beat the spartans in a standard phalanx battle hands down.

[Lord Preston]

please dont try and complicate things jammin, when people start talking about upgrades/cost the possible combinations are endless.

all nihlist was doing is correcting somebody who said carthage infantry is rubbish, which sacred band are not, they are one of the best.

and im sure you will know that Spartans strength isn't just in there phalanx, there melee is great to, not to mention there moral.....

[Jammin]

I'm not trying to complicate things Preston.
I'm just stating my opinion that Spartans are not number one in my books.
Take it as you will. It's hard to say that sacred is better without giving some evidence.....
And I know its not their phalanx that gives spartans their power.
Its also their morale, hitpoints and their stats.
And I know Nilhilist was just stating that Carthage has good infantry.

I was just stating that if you compare Spartans to Sacred by equal cost (which is the only FAIR way to do it) that spartans lose.
FYI - The combinations are not endless with regards to cost and upgrades etc. You just make both units equal - keeping the more expensive one at its basic cost - so it has no upgrades. Then the cheaper unit gets whatever upgrades it can afford to get to the price of the more expensive unit.
There will only be so many things you can try (which I have) and the result is that Sacred Band wins out.

[NihilisticCow]

Jammin - You're forgetting the other stengths of Spartans - their very high morale and their very high melee secondary attack. You really shouldn't be using Spartans in your front line as Greece, so a straight comparision with uber upgraded SBs is irrelevant. Spartans are best at fending off cavalry, with out which Greece has no real chance. They do well in this due to their high primary and secondary attack (which is very important when phalanxes are disrupted when charged by cav), their 2 hps and their high morale. SBs do not fair any where near as well.

Clinical tests putting one unit against another can be useful, but you shouldn't go basing your opinion of units on them alone. Battlefield usage is often dramatically different, so much so as to render most tests irrelevant.

The only fair test of a unit is on the battlefield in combination with the rest of the factions army, not in a synthetic test with notionally balanced pricing.

[NihilisticCow]

So would you prefer if I slightly restated what I said to be "unupgraded, Sacred Band are second only to Spartans"?

BTW, I forgot to mention, I have tests that "prove" that Levy Pikemen are better then Urbans. ~;)

[Wishazu]

why are you spending money upgrading SB? you should be spending it on cavalry

[Jammin]

Nihilist:
I know exactly what you're saying regarding individual tests between spartans and sacred band. My opinion is not strictly off my tests I've done.
I've played this game long enough (sp and mp) to see and use both of these units in action lots of times in battle and I still think Sacred Band are better.
I know battlefield usage is totally different, but that's what makes battlefield usage irrelevant to being a fair test, imo- all the other factors that CAN happen in a battle are too many to account for.
That's why one on one tests are more fair imo - they show you basic performance of each unit under a relatively closed and fair system that can show which unit will have a greater "tendency" to perform better based solely on their stats and equal cost - not by support of other units, terrain, or whatever.
Which is all I'm saying when I say Sacred at equal cost is better than spartans. In a battle, obviously there are other factors that come into play which can change that but that's dependent on the person controlling the units (or the AI). And if sacred was not upgraded there is no agrument whatsoever that sacred band is second best.

You can say what you want Nihilist, I'm just stating my opinion that Sacred is not second best to spartans. You can say they are second best. That's your opinion.

Wishazu - Well, you could spend it on cavalry - but in this instance why?
I'm comparing two infantry units - and if it DID come down to comparing the greeks to Carthage - Carthage's cavalry already beat greek cav without upgrades - so you'd be better to make your infantry line stronger in order to compete with the greeks infantry line, knowing that your cavalry already have an advantage over the greeks. That's my take on it.

[Jammin]

Oh and the only barbarian faction that I would attempt to take up against Seleucids is Germania. Maybe Spain, but I think Germania would be easier.
They have much better units than any of the other barbarian factions.

[Lord Preston]

I know battlefield usage is totally different, but that's what makes battlefield usage irrelevant to being a fair test, imo- all the other factors that CAN happen in a battle are too many to account for.

you seriously hurt your position with this paragraph. battlefield usage is the ULTIMATE test, if they can't perform there then what point is there using them because in fair tests they are the best.

in a battle i would rather have spartans than upgraded SB, my opinion but i'd rather see the red of spartans as i trust them more. then again i would rather have carthage than greece but nevermind.

im not sure what money your playing at but if you can afford to upgrade SB and still take there cavalry and decent archers i would expect Greece is able to upgrade there army due to rubbish cav being so cheap.

back on topic:
germania and britannia are the only realistic barbarian factions.

germania:
use a mix of spears + chosen axemen to kill the Seleucid cavalry.
chosen archers to murder enemy archers then target the phalanx (problem is if they take legionaries as i would against germania. pila on light armored units!)
gothic cav are very good and can be used to pin enemy cavalry while chosen axemen get to work.

britannia:
heavy chariots which are cheap so can be upgraded to take on cataphracts+chariots
light chariots to take out some enemy archers (slingers can assist) then attack the enemy melee
head hurlers the biggest threat of all, AP heads, mmm nice. make sure you get these guys to fire everything they have against enemy cav or melee. i upgrade there armour to gold so they dont get slaughted before they can fire everything.
chosen swordsmen + woad warriors to finally slaughter whatever is left.

[Wishazu]

Nihilist:
I know exactly what you're saying regarding individual tests between spartans and sacred band. My opinion is not strictly off my tests I've done.
I've played this game long enough (sp and mp) to see and use both of these units in action lots of times in battle and I still think Sacred Band are better.
I know battlefield usage is totally different, but that's what makes battlefield usage irrelevant to being a fair test, imo- all the other factors that CAN happen in a battle are too many to account for.
That's why one on one tests are more fair imo - they show you basic performance of each unit under a relatively closed and fair system that can show which unit will have a greater "tendency" to perform better based solely on their stats and equal cost - not by support of other units, terrain, or whatever.
Which is all I'm saying when I say Sacred at equal cost is better than spartans. In a battle, obviously there are other factors that come into play which can change that but that's dependent on the person controlling the units (or the AI). And if sacred was not upgraded there is no agrument whatsoever that sacred band is second best.

You can say what you want Nihilist, I'm just stating my opinion that Sacred is not second best to spartans. You can say they are second best. That's your opinion.

Wishazu - Well, you could spend it on cavalry - but in this instance why?
I'm comparing two infantry units - and if it DID come down to comparing the greeks to Carthage - Carthage's cavalry already beat greek cav without upgrades - so you'd be better to make your infantry line stronger in order to compete with the greeks infantry line, knowing that your cavalry already have an advantage over the greeks. That's my take on it.

you make yourself sound rather ignorant, especially in your replies to NihilisticCow. However im not going to turn this thread into an argument i`ll just say that if your upgrading your sb you wont be able to take much cav whereas unless you take your best cav the greek player can put a few upgrades on his cavalry to make them more dangerous. and as to Seluecids vs barbarians, on any open field or map with sparse woodland the Barbarians will have their butt`s kicked all the way across it and back by the seluecids, also dont put faith in the briton heavy chariots bonus` against cav they are not as effective against cataphracts in my experience and generally tend to suffer.

[Jammin]

You missed my point and you're putting words in my mouth, Preston.

I'm not saying that they cannot perform on the battlefield. I'm saying if you want to compare two units you need to compare them to each other. There has to be a correlation between the two.

Comparing on the battlefield is still a valid testin itself, in which you can see how effective they are as support for their army. BUT, you're not comparing the two units in question to each other, because there are so many other units with varying stats on the battlefield at the same time that can affect the outcome of any encounter differently.
In other words, you'd have to compare all the stats and performance of all the other units in the battle and how they affected the battle in order to determine how effective the spartans and sacred band are in comparison.
That's too much to test. Too many variables that can change too easily.
I'll stop discussing this now as no one seems to get what I'm saying...
Carrying on talking about barbs and sels.

Preston, I use 13,500 denarii btw.

[Jammin]

How am I sounding ignorant?

[NihilisticCow]

I do get what you're saying, but you're not quite understanding what we are saying. You can't just compare units one on one and expect that to give you any meaningful insights into the game. The only really way of judging a unit's effectiveness is on the battlefield in co-ordination with the rest of the faction's army. As you say, this is less clear, but tbh it doesn't matter which unit is better than another, all that actually matters is the result of a game.

[Jammin]

Nihilist - Actually I DO understand what you're saying and I agree that a units effectiveness in the end does depend on how it performs on the battlefield as part of its army. Its effectiveness also depends on how it can perform on its own though - which is why I do single unit tests and why I said what I said.
You guys have all assumed that I have made my choice of sacred band being better solely of my 1 vs 1 tests - which I haven't. I use them to see how unit would fare versus each other - which does give some valid information to battlefield performance.

Anyways, performance on the battlefield also depends on the skill level of the player as well as the unit stats. So spartans could be exceptional in the right hands or down right poop in the wrong hands.
Let's just drop this whole thing and agree to disagree.
~:)

[Lord Preston]

can i just get back to how this whole discussion started.

All cow said was SB are the second best phalanx in the game, now im sure you will agree that this is true Jammin since you seem to be open minded.

Your point Jammin was that SB CAN BE as good, if not better than Spartans when upgraded to the same cost. two important words CAN BE as in the base stats they are the second best once modified there position will change. the permutations possible are lengthy so when in general topics it is much easier to describe units using there base stats.

it was not the right place to bring this line of thought up, because then i could mention Pharoahs Guard upgraded being better than SB (not strictly true but just using it as an example). i think this discussion is best left to a specific topic about upgrading/unit comparision and we should of stayed on topic.

maybe if a mod can move these off topic posts to a new topic we could continue discussing? until then there is no point continuing taking a topic off topic.