Non-Romans to crush Romans?

[DerekBaker]

What would be the best choice for crushing the Romans before they become a problem, as they have in my current VH Britannia game?

Gaul, Carthage, Greeks?

Thanks

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Gaul I'm enclined to say no for. Although their units are of sufficent quality, their starting empire's military is a tad disorganised and scattered. They also have threats from multiple fronts - Germania Eastwards, Spain Southwards and Brittania Northwards. Their lands are not of a very wealthy standard either, limiting troop capacity before the coffers begin to empty faster than they fill.

On the positive side, Gaul does not require too much additional development before they are able to train middle/upper class troops which can deal with the Roman's early unit rouster. Despite this, the postive really is outweighed by the negative problems.

For The Greek Cities I'm not quite sure what to advise. They have one of the same problems as Gaul - dangerous neighbours. This time in the form of the Macedonians and, if you choose to maintain your Turkish foothold, the Selucids and/or Pontus.

The problem with The Greek Cities is that these enemies, particularly Macedon, are not simple Barbarians. As Gaul, Spain, Britannia and Germania will send an odd medium class stack every now and then - they already have fights on other fronts or are too weak to finance an all out blitz. Macedonia, on the other hand, has no significantly important threats (or at least none that can put up a decent fight) to their dominance. This leaves them focusing on you for most of the time and you focusing on them - unable to deal with the Romans successfully in the meantime.

Your chances in a war with Macedon aren't helped by the fact that their phalanxes have longer spears than yours, making it harder to cause damage in hand to hand combat without taking a seriously high level of casualties yourself. This isn't made easier by the strength of the Macedonian cavalry when compared to yours either, making flanking a lot harder. This problem is taken away by auto resolve, but that could be consider to be cheating.

On the positive side, The Greeks do have a strong infantry based army which is able to sweep across non phalanx units (Romans) with relative ease. Their cavalry is weak, but in the early ages this isn't too much of a problem - the Roman cavalry isn't any better.

Carthage is the faction I would probably advise as the easiest to take out the Romans with. Their position is perfect, with very few enemies to cause problems, the Numidians are rather weak and your Spanish province can easily be abandoned if efforts need to be centralised in one place.

Their primary disadvantage though is the time taken to develop a force which can combat early Roman infantry with a good level of success - Iberian Infantry, which make up the early Carthaginian backbone, are not especially high class. Later infantry are much better, but this takes time - something which you don't really have if you want to take Rome out before they can expand too far out of Italy. The lack of archers also can be a problem, and sending a family member out to hire mercenaries from foreign lands isn't especially safe. The best tactic is to attack fiercely with your early infantry and gradually transition on to a more advanced military model later on in the game.

~:)

[Quintus.JC]

carthage definetly, not an fast paced player but I have known people to be able to finish off the Romans in the first decade of the game.

[DerekBaker]

I take it that wasn't on Very Hard/Very Hard?

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Very Hard/Very Hard is a very difficult setting to win on. Having a VH campaign map is ok, despite an odd quirk here and there. A VH battle map though, is exactly that - painfully difficult. It gives the AI a dramatically unfair advantage through the addition of eight attack points to all their units. This makes battles which would otherwise be fair almost impossible to win if fought manually. It's fine if you really do want a really serious challenge, but for many players it simply results in many rather frustrating defeats.

Hard is a much more reasonable setting, giving the AI an extra four attack points to each one of their units. It certainly makes things a lot easier to deal with. Medium on the other hand is balanced and gives no bonuses to either side.

~:)

[The Wandering Scholar]

Attack points or a morale boost?

[The Wandering Scholar]

Again I am pro-Macedon, their very long spears as Omanses said can defeat the Greeks leaving you with high income cities with high population and therefore your best units to take on the might of Rome, M/M Macedon should have no problems against Rome.

[Quirinus]

I'm inclined to go with the Greeks. If you blitz the Macedonians early at Corinth with your reinforced starting army in Sparta (with the Spartans), then Athens should be much easier to take. By then you should have a decent home base in Greece, after which defeating or holding back the Macedonians are not too difficult. From there resisting the Romans becomes a little easier, I think.

EDIT: The Wandering Scholar, I think they receive both an attack boost and a defense boost, but I'm not sure about that.

[Emperor Mithdrates]

What would be the best choice for crushing the Romans before they become a problem, as they have in my current VH Britannia game?

Gaul, Carthage, Greeks?

Thanks

The greeks. :yes:

definatley, they are the hardest for the romans to beat because:

1. their empire is split up through the whole meditarenean.
2. They are the only real civized people other than the romans.
3. Their flanxes are almost Unbeatable. roman short swords cant get past greek spears.
4. the loyalty and courage are the best in the game. they rarley flee. compared to those cowardly Carthaginians.

[Hound of Ulster]

The Gauls if you run all-cav forces(remember the Roman cav suck) and the Greeks if you run balanced armies. You can use your peltasts to waste the Roman pila and then charge the Roman infantry with your phalanxes.

[Quintus.JC]

With Carthage crushing the Romans early on would need an army of:
2 Generals (Inspire troops, also play big part in battle)
4 Elephants (Mass killers, frightens nearby troops (enemies only), given the task of killing enemy generals)
2 Long shield cavalry (Capable of routing troops with one good charge around flanks and rear.)
3 Round shield cavalry (Killing Velites + Archers, charging into flanks and rear, chasing routers, fast moving)
2 Mercenary Hoplites (Holding the line)
1 Samnite Mercenary (protecting flanks, good against cavalry)
1 Mercenary Peltast (won’t contribute too much, only there to make up the numbers, normally slaughtered by the javelins of Hastati + Principes before any real uses)
3 Iberian Infantry (crappy melee capabilities, hoping to use their pace to out-move enemy infantry, which is more heavily armoured, therefore slower.)
2 Numidian Mercenray (can causing some damage early on, mainly used to chase router, very speedy, leaving the more capable shield cavalries to provide them with router to kill)

[Quirinus]

The greeks. :yes:

definatley, they are the hardest for the romans to beat because:

1. their empire is split up through the whole meditarenean.
2. They are the only real civized people other than the romans.
3. Their flanxes are almost Unbeatable. roman short swords cant get past greek spears.
4. the loyalty and courage are the best in the game. they rarley flee. compared to those cowardly Carthaginians.
2. What about the Macedonians and the rest of the Diadochi? What about Carthage?

4. Haha, not true.... remember that militia hoplites have low morale. And I don't find Greek hoplites to have excellent morale-- they still rout ignominously if they are flanked, or worse, surrounded.


By the way, QuintusJulius-Cicero, aren't Numidian mercenaries better suited to chasing and assassinating routing generals? That's why I love javelin cavalry, even though they are utter crap in combat. The elephants will run amok when tired, so it's best to avoid running around with them, yes? Do they move faster than a general's bodyguard?

[DerekBaker]

Having a VH campaign map is ok, despite an odd quirk here and there. A VH battle map though, is exactly that - painfully difficult.
My experience is exactly the opposite. It's the aggression on the campaign map that's given me trouble even though I could generally win on the battlefield. For example in my VH Britannia game, which I haven't quite played to the finish, I have 5 territories remaining (down from a peak of 18), despite a battle ratio of 132:64, very few of which were small anti-Rebel actions.

[DerekBaker]

Thanks for the suggestions. I decided to go with Carthage. So far, so good. :smile:

[Quintus.JC]

2


By the way, QuintusJulius-Cicero, aren't Numidian mercenaries better suited to chasing and assassinating routing generals? That's why I love javelin cavalry, even though they are utter crap in combat. The elephants will run amok when tired, so it's best to avoid running around with them, yes? Do they move faster than a general's bodyguard?

Under AI control the generals normally charges at my troops, send the elephants in, after a while the genearl either would be dead or running away, obviously elephant aren't gonna chase after them and finish the job, it's up to the Numidians and Round Shields to finish the job. I try charge the elephants in an densely packed Roman army, and then hitting it with cavalry from flanks and rear.

[Emperor Mithdrates]

[QUOTE=Quirinus]2. What about the Macedonians and the rest of the Diadochi? What about Carthage?
Haha, not true.... remember that militia hoplites have low morale. And I don't find Greek hoplites to have excellent morale-- they still rout ignominously if they are flanked, or worse, surrounded.[QUOTE]

Not if you have a smart brain like me.

I put my hoplites in a square formation and in hardly ever use militia hoplites, their pathetic. As for your comment on greeks having low morale, i'll have you now that the greeks invented the word bravery and my greek hoplites never flee.

[The Wandering Scholar]

noob box again

[Emperor Mithdrates]

noob box again

anyone with a mind for self preservation, defense and tactics will know that the so called noob box is one of the greatest strategies in a hellenic game.
:hmg:

[The Wandering Scholar]

I have to disagree, missiles will rape you

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

I have to disagree, missiles will rape youIn some cases this problems can be dealt with. Only units attacked in the back are serious vulnerable - this leaves only the boxed units with their rears turned towards the missile units in danger.

This can be partially stopped by either having a cavalry unit running around dealing with problems such as this outside of the box or by having archers within the box managing attempts to attack back facing units.

I must admit though, with long range missile units, siege units in particular, this problem is a lot more difficult to sort out. Cavalry take a while to get to them and they are too far out to be in the range of any archers protected by the box.

~:)

[Quirinus]

I do use the "noob box" from time to time, but you have to admit, Overlord of Achaea, using it all the time pretty much removes the variety of the battles, already much diminished using a phalanx-centric troop roster.

[Quintus.JC]

An all phalanx army is so boring. While with Macedon and the Seleucids there is an variety because of their cavalry, but Greece have to purely rely on them all the time, which is why I don't like using them.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

The fastest way to destroy Romans with non-Roman faction is to use the Cartage .. they have elephant unit in the start of the game and using it wisely will make it very easy ..
Also with the Greeks you can do it pretty easely if you take sicily and do not allow the brutii to take apollonia ... after that you can take southern italy and romans will fall pretty easy ...
Gauls will need some time to get some better warriors .. swordsmen are good to take down the early roman army :yes: .. after taking the italian peninsula you would probably see only some town watch armys ..

~:)

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

An all phalanx army is so boring. While with Macedon and the Seleucids there is an variety because of their cavalry, but Greece have to purely rely on them all the time, which is why I don't like using them.I must admit that I agree with you there. With such factions there are very few tactics - in the phalanx's case this is mostly line them up and let the enemy charge into them or slowly walk forward and wait for impact.

~:)

[Ibn-Khaldun]

With Carthage crushing the Romans early on would need an army of:
2 Generals (Inspire troops, also play big part in battle)
4 Elephants (Mass killers, frightens nearby troops (enemies only), given the task of killing enemy generals)
2 Long shield cavalry (Capable of routing troops with one good charge around flanks and rear.)
3 Round shield cavalry (Killing Velites + Archers, charging into flanks and rear, chasing routers, fast moving)
2 Mercenary Hoplites (Holding the line)
1 Samnite Mercenary (protecting flanks, good against cavalry)
1 Mercenary Peltast (won’t contribute too much, only there to make up the numbers, normally slaughtered by the javelins of Hastati + Principes before any real uses)
3 Iberian Infantry (crappy melee capabilities, hoping to use their pace to out-move enemy infantry, which is more heavily armoured, therefore slower.)
2 Numidian Mercenray (can causing some damage early on, mainly used to chase router, very speedy, leaving the more capable shield cavalries to provide them with router to kill)
After some sucsess against romans and spanish and greeks i can tell that one of the best ways to defeat the romans in a battle with carthaginians is to make them attack youre center ..
"whats so different in this?" you ask ..
well center of the army have slingers(balearic if possible) and skirmishers (or cretan archers if possible) and on the flanks there are heavier infantry(libyan or poeni or greek mercs) .. behind them on the flanks are iberian infantry units(they will go around engaged heavy infantry and flank the enemy.. if used properly then they can rule the battlefield :2thumbsup: ) ..
now .. as i said the center is pretty weak but because they are missile troops then the enemy will attack them first (if they have FM in that army then he will be the first one to do that) .. but behind the missile troops there are elephant and charging the enemies general they will make the enemy to lose morale .. and now I will use my cavalry(my general and round shield or long shields if possible) .. after they attack the enemy will soon have brake and rout ..
so far this have always worked ...
the AI is just so stupid cause they always do this :shame:

HI_HI_____HI_HI
II_II_MMM_II_II
LC__E_E_E__LC
C_G_C

HI- Heavy Infantry
II- Iberian Infantry
M- Missile troops
LC- Light Cavalry(Numidians)
E- Elephants
C- Cavalry
G- General

:2thumbsup:

[Quirinus]

well center of the army have slingers(balearic if possible) and skirmishers (or cretan archers if possible) and on the flanks there are heavier infantry(libyan or poeni or greek mercs) .. behind them on the flanks are iberian infantry units(they will go around engaged heavy infantry and flank the enemy.. if used properly then they can rule the battlefield :2thumbsup: )
Hmmm.... this is fascinating. I've never thought of deploying like that before-- I do arrange my weaker infantry in the middle, but I've never thought of stretching the concept this far. I shall certainly try it the next time I play the Carthagenians.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Somehow I've always found placing the weakest units in the middle is a tad risky. If they route, they are a lot more likely to get noticed by a larger proportion of your force than if they were a little more out of the way.

~:)

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Yes it is risky...
If you do not have elephants then the risk of losing is much much higher ..
Also if you do not have strong cavalry to hit the enemy again after the elephants have attacked then enemy can regroup and use skirmishers against eles and cause them to rout ...
This strategy is tricky cause if ain't fast enough and are late in some actions then you can lose the battle .. I always play one finger on the pause button :laugh4:

[Quirinus]

Somehow I've always found placing the weakest units in the middle is a tad risky. If they route, they are a lot more likely to get noticed by a larger proportion of your force than if they were a little more out of the way.

~:)
They do keep the low-quality infantry from routing too fast, as compared to placing them at the edge of a line. Combined with my habit of using reserves, my line rarely collapses into chain rout. Besides which, outflanking with a superior unit usually has a more devastating impact to a wavering line.

I've found that this tactic doesn't work well with phalangites though. They are far too slow to be adaptable, which is what this tactic demands.

[Spartan198]

I've always found that the Greek Cities have the highest chance (when under player control) of crushing the Romans early. Their best units (besides Spartans) are relatively low-tiered,so you can start pumping out Armored Hoplites,Archers,and Heavy Peltasts (if you use skirmishers,which I don't) rather quickly. And depending on how good a money manager you are,you can upgrade Syracuse rather quickly to start doing this. Combine that with it's position in Sicily,and it's most commonly the best staging point to begin your invasion of Roman lands.

Somehow I've always found placing the weakest units in the middle is a tad risky. If they route, they are a lot more likely to get noticed by a larger proportion of your force than if they were a little more out of the way.

~:)
I use that rout to my advantage with hoplites. About every 7 out of 10 times that my center gives way,the enemy will pour their entire army toward the gap left behind. When that happens,I turn my flanks inward to surround them. Combine that with a rallying action by my general which can sometimes reform my center at the last moment,and I lay back to enjoy the slaughter. :beam:

In my experience,Romans seem to be especially susceptible to this.

[Quirinus]

But do your hoplites normally move fast enough to encircle the enemy? It nearly ruined me during a major battle with the Germans when my center of militia hoplites caved in. Luckily I had a reserve barbarian mercenary unit at hand, which plugged the gap.

[Spartan198]

But do your hoplites normally move fast enough to encircle the enemy? It nearly ruined me during a major battle with the Germans when my center of militia hoplites caved in. Luckily I had a reserve barbarian mercenary unit at hand, which plugged the gap.
Roughly 8/10ths of the time. I haven't actually lost any battles because of it,yet,though I have had a few close victories. If you're uncomfortable with using phalanx infantry in this manner,then barbarian mercenaries would probably serve you better. I myself use prefer to use Armored Hoplites all across the board and fake a rout instead to draw the enemy in,then immidiately reform my center after turning my flanks inward to form the killbox.

My suggestion would be to test out tactics you're unsure about in sandbox before using them in the campaign,as everyone has their own distinct command style and strategies (balls to the wall brute force for me). So,using this individual's tactics with the same identical troops as he,may not yield the best results for that individual.

[The Wandering Scholar]

I'm sure that any faction can infact take on the might of Rome.

[Spartan198]

I'm sure that any faction can infact take on the might of Rome.
It all depends on the player's command ability. A superior commander with inferior-quality troops will always defeat a lesser counterpart with top-tier units.

[Quirinus]

Yes...... that goes without saying. The OP was asking about the best choice, I think.

[IceWolf]

I've been able to do it with Carthage (good starting position, biggest drawback is no archers) and Scythia (just keep attacking them with full stacks of HAs). I was doing well with Germania, running them out of the boot, now Julii and Scippi are confined to one island each, but I'm having a hard time eradicating the Brutti completely. I ran them out of Greece but they're holding out in Illyria and now and then Croton or the other Italian Brutii city rebels back to them. Coupled with overall Italian squalor and now the Dacians and Brits are eating away at my homeland up north. Oh yes, I've run into negative cash flow as well. This German campaign is stalled possibly broken we shalll see.

IceWolf

[DerekBaker]

Thanks for the replies.

I got beaten four times as Carthage, before finally getting my act together and winning. Went on to conquer the whole map for the first time:

https://img406.imageshack.us/img406/2076/0028ru8.th.jpg (https://img406.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0028ru8.jpg)

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Impressive :bow:

[Quintus.JC]

Well done.:2thumbsup:

[Quirinus]

Thanks for the replies.

I got beaten four times as Carthage, before finally getting my act together and winning. Went on to conquer the whole map for the first time:

https://img406.imageshack.us/img406/2076/0028ru8.th.jpg (https://img406.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0028ru8.jpg)
Whoa. That is cool. How do you keep all those huge cities from revolting?

I like how the caption says, tongue in cheek, "There is nothing more to prove.." :laugh4: Is the cutscene the same as when you conquer fifty provinces?

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Thanks for the replies.

I got beaten four times as Carthage, before finally getting my act together and winning. Went on to conquer the whole map for the first time:



That is impressive indeed!!! :2thumbsup:

Do you really get some message after you have conquered the whole map?? :dizzy2:
That makes me want to play some campaigns all over again :yes:

[RLucid]

3. Their flanxes are almost Unbeatable. roman short swords cant get past greek spears.

Guess the AI doesn't simply retreat some units, concentrate missile fire, force your army to turn, nor use terrain that disorders the phalanx forces. Nor will it, use Heavy & Light Cav combined with Light Infantry spearmen to engineer a cavalry superiority, defeating the Light Lancer units.

The main problem, is when outnumbered, that you tend to run out of ammunition, which is particularly embaressing if you cannot withdraw.

Historically, even the Macs evolved Phalanxes (based on Philip & Alexander forces) proved no match for the manipular legions, once the Romans learned not to take on the Phalanxes frontally.

The long term trend, was for lighter shields and armer, in favour of mobility. The Mac phalangists were less well protected, than the classic Greek Hoplites, but with advantage of longer double-handed sarisssa.

Heavy Infantry is dominated by more mobile missile wielding Light Infantry & Cavalry, accept where holding ground or breaching is essential eg) sieges & bridge crossings.

[DerekBaker]

Do you really get some message after you have conquered the whole map??
Yep, that screenshot was taken immediately after taking the 103rd and final territory.

[Motep]

I've always found that the Greek Cities have the highest chance (when under player control) of crushing the Romans early. Their best units (besides Spartans) are relatively low-tiered,so you can start pumping out Armored Hoplites,Archers,and Heavy Peltasts (if you use skirmishers,which I don't) rather quickly. And depending on how good a money manager you are,you can upgrade Syracuse rather quickly to start doing this. Combine that with it's position in Sicily,and it's most commonly the best staging point to begin your invasion of Roman lands.

I use that rout to my advantage with hoplites. About every 7 out of 10 times that my center gives way,the enemy will pour their entire army toward the gap left behind. When that happens,I turn my flanks inward to surround them. Combine that with a rallying action by my general which can sometimes reform my center at the last moment,and I lay back to enjoy the slaughter. :beam:

In my experience,Romans seem to be especially susceptible to this.

Yeah...what he said.

[Motep]

You get a different message for taking the whole map than you do when you just take the fifty provinces.

You conquered at 18 bc? I have nver gotten a game to last that long before.

[CaptainBlack]

Against what everyone has said I'd go with Gaul on H/H. First I take care of the scattered mess at the beginning by moving my capital to Mediolanium from Alesia, then I take all my forces west of the Alps and migrate them into Italy. Because Mediolanium and Patavium increase in population at a very rapid pace, getting choson swordsman isn't all to hard.

And when it came the battles I had to make sure I had a full stack everytime. Then my tactics were attack them right away before they can get their velites and archers into position, then with my attacking force I send 2 units of infantry around the flanks, each set of infantry accompanied by a unit of barbarian cav on their flank to take care of the Gen, or any cav. So I usually go for the outnumbering of the romans. And sometimes I also found it very easy to send a full stack or two straight to rome.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Barbarian's biggest weakness for me always has been unit power overall - especially vs the Romans and their dramatically powerful late Roman unit roster. Although Chosen Swordsmen can hold standard Roman legionaries, holding back Urbans and Praetorians can be a bit of a challenge. If you know how to use their special abilities, it is do able though.

The Barbarian special ability "warcry" is quite simply brilliant. It provides a massive attack bonus against the attackers, so is a must before combat ensues. The "chant" ability is also quite good, boosting morale in critical situations.

The only problem with the "warcry" ability is it's temporary nature (something like eight seconds) and then, afterwards, the fact that it needs time to recharge before it can be used again. During this time the Barbarians are vulnerable to attacks from superior forces. Also, if it is called while fighting, blows cannot be issued in the meantime, this makes it useful before a charge, but not very good in prolonged hand to hand combat.

~:)

[Quirinus]

Isn't it more like thirty seconds? The warcry itself takes ten or so seconds, doesn't it?

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Isn't it more like thirty seconds? The warcry itself takes ten or so seconds, doesn't it?Sorry - that was a mistake. I meant to say the warcry itself takes about eight seconds to complete rather than the effect.

My apologies ~:(