TACTICS: Which, When and Why?

[Emperor Mithdrates]

Hey. i would like for this little thread to be a tactic sharing forum, in order to improve overall game play for all Guild members. Try to talk about what tactics you use, when you use them (defense, attack, etc.) and why you use that one in particular if you do. ~:wave:

I like a certain tactic which i use when i out number the enemy heavily. i arange my heavy infantry in the centre and then my lighter infantry spreading diagonally up to each side. my calvary are then positioned right at the side ready to outflank. this tactic allows a clamping technique which surrounds an enemy and allow no escape. The enemy charge down the centre at the Heavies and get snapped in by the lighter infantry and calvary. None survive

[Emperor Mithdrates]

come on guys. this is an excellent way to improve your tactical approach to the total war series. Lets make some comments. :embarassed:plz

[GMaximus]

Well, my tactics usually depend on whatever I'm trying to achieve. If I'm just delaying another huge Seleucid incursion into Armenia with my border guard, then I'll just fire them up with arrows for as long as possible and retreat when out of arrows/enemy approaches for combat. Usually that's a good way to make some cassualties for the enemy and suffer none yourself (at least if the retreating troops don't go mad and start running around headless >.<)

Since my main battle line is usually composed entirely of Cataphracts and their archer variety, I'll use Byzantine (-ish, I can't recall if they were really Byzantines I was reading about) tactics - let my archers fire at the enemy, then retreat behind the trusty tanks if threatened by arrows or cavalry (although generally the archers will butcher Greek cavalry which Seleucids seem to love so much). Then, when I'm out of arrows, I use CatArchers as bait and beat them to death with my mighty armenian hammer. :smg:

[TheDruid]

seems like ages ago i played RTW but my favourite tactic was being massively outnumbered (as the greek) and forming a square phalanx :) or if possible a thermopylai version whereas i could use the environment as a shield. found a place in Makedonia where i always massacred the macedonians with this tactic :p

[Emperor Mithdrates]

They call that the nob square but i always use it. i sometimes use a similar thing in city defense. I position three sides of a square phalanx formation facing the main gate. Then when the enemy cature the gate they rush into the city and onto my spears. the ones retreating get blocked in by the ones charging and eventually it ends up as a blood bath.

[Quintus.JC]

The Nob square with a good few phalanx units is practically undefeatable, some could even call it cheating.

[Spartan198]

This threads has quite a few suggestions and tips regarding tactics and strategy.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=97931

[Rhyfelwyr]

I've just been playing as Carthage, and as soon as I got elephants I didn't even need tactics. Insta-rout is the only tactic.

[placenik]

Well, I always split tactics to global (battle choosing) and local (battle itself).
First I always have a squads of single-unit ultra-fast missile cavalery- HAs, or if none is available javelin cavalery. If I don't have them, any fast cavalery is option. These units are used for attack, kill whom you can and get to hell out of there before you are smashed tactic. They are there to annoy, haras and delay enemy. I even had to adopt knightly rule to break siege on sally when I run out of arrows with HAs, since that units can outrun everything in game, and you can actually wait timer to run down.
Now, when enemy approaches you need to fight for real. And tactic depends on what you have available.

Cavalery armies:

Persian (and Schytian) style:
HAs on flanks, melee cavalery in center. HAs are there to split enemy formation and let your heavy cavalery charge into exposed flanks. If somebody tries to chase your HAs, just lead him to your main body of charges to chop him to peaces.
Armenian bonus options:
You have heavy spearman, which is fairly good phalanax, and armored CAs. You can use Persian tactic, but you can also use spearman guard (to be explained afterwards), and can shoot from your center before going close if you put CAs in it (and I don't know why you shouldn't).
Pure charger:
All melee cavalery. Charge enemy unit from 2 or 3 sides at once. I mostly use this as Catharge against Romans. Unit of round shield cavalery can beat unit of hastati with 3-4 charge-retreats.

Infantry armies:

Horse and spear:
Have phalanax defending, attack enemy with cavalery in weak spots and hide behind spear wall when you are chased. Move spear wall in disturbed enemy formation, and when fight is closed, sharge cavalery to add that little something for rout.
Pure infantry:
Move infantry, try to flank and don't get flanked. Short to say but hard to do.


Edit: I didn't forget archers, chariots, elephants etc, but this post is already too long.

[Sarathos]

I only really started playing, so I generally use Roman but my tactics are quite similar.

A mix of heavy and light infantry from the centre, close range skirmishers behind them (i.e. Velitates) and just behnid them are the archers. I use a lot of cavalry, which are placed to the sides and behind the ranged units. It depends what scenario I am playing, as I might even have some siege equipment at the back.

I slowly move towards the enemy and wait for therm to charge, first the archers hit them while they move into position. Next, as they get closer the velitates fire and when the enemy is right infront of my infantry, they fire their pila.

This usually takes down a fair number of troops, those who survive either rout or engage in hand-to hand. A fun thing to do is to let my heavy infantry take the charge and then encircle the enemy with my light infantry, then there is no way out. But my normal tactic is to throw all my infantry into combat, while my range units are still fire, then position my cavalry behind the enemy and put a sword in the enemy from the front and back.

[khaos83_2000]

The Nob square with a good few phalanx units is practically undefeatable, some could even call it cheating.

Catapults, balistics, range units anyone?

[khaos83_2000]

Depends on the enemy.

If I'm going against gaul, spain, I definitely get 2 or 3 horse unit for flanking and quality footmen.

If i'm going against horse archers, I will go for lots of archers and range units and high shield rating units to tank.

Against phalanx, I will match their length, take them head on and flank the shit of of them while pray that my line holds. I hate fighting against phalanx.......

Against Chariots, archers or catapults (one hit and they run amok)!!! or loads and loads of human shield to bog them down. Eastern infantry works well in this case if they don't route.

Against Elephants, archers and catapults or !!!pigs!!!. I have never used the pigs even once before, even though i have been playing RTW for years. lol

[GreatEmperor]

Sarathos, your last tactic can result in casualties on your side so it's better to avoid. If you can, you should trap the enemy in a U shaped form so they have a way out and are able to rout. If they've got nowhere to go they will fight to the death. A better idea in my opinion is to let them rout and chase them down if you want 0 surivors on the enemy's side.

[Sarathos]

Sarathos, your last tactic can result in casualties on your side so it's better to avoid. If you can, you should trap the enemy in a U shaped form so they have a way out and are able to rout. If they've got nowhere to go they will fight to the death. A better idea in my opinion is to let them rout and chase them down if you want 0 surivors on the enemy's side.
Unfortunately there will always be casualites.

Though I like your idea, but my tactic is based on my troops being better trained/more experienced then the enemy. Letting them rout is a good idea, but having to chase them down can be a pain. When being charged, I normally use my troops pila ability and then counter-charge, granted this will result in death, but it will be death on both sides. After the infantry have charged each other, Then I surround them and attack from the front and rear while still pouring on range fire into the centre of concentrated enemy, this is where most casualites occur. Though most units do rout by now, I try to thin their number enough so if they do fight to the death, very little are left to do so, and my better skilled troops will finish them off easily. But mostly this do not happen because I either mess up the timing or the enemy routs beforehand.

[MacIan]

I once got old Uncle Quintus Julius to draw this hotheaded general into an ambush. It was at Carthago Nova. The general was holed up in the town square, and Quintus rode up and stuck his head around a corner. The general charged, Quintus led him down an alley and into a street bristling with pikes.

There's also been a couple battles where the initial (offensive) set up was in trees. I leave the cavalry in the woods, and put the general and everyone else on the side. When the defenders assemble, the main force pivots them around so at least a flank, and hopefully their rear, is exposed to the cavalry. Then when we're engaged, the cavalry charge out of hiding and the fun begins.

[Asmodai]

Sarathos, your last tactic can result in casualties on your side so it's better to avoid. If you can, you should trap the enemy in a U shaped form so they have a way out and are able to rout. If they've got nowhere to go they will fight to the death. A better idea in my opinion is to let them rout and chase them down if you want 0 surivors on the enemy's side
Sarathos is using old and classic formation (pincer maneuver - mobile flanks with hard and static centre), that works fine in most situations. This is not a bad tactic and battle formation, cos of flexibility(works well on very different armies). Also, you dont need too much deployment, cos in single player, similar formation is deployed by default.

If they've got nowhere to go they will fight to the deathMost units are mercillesly buthered without any casualties. Only good quality troops tend to last standing. But you have right about enemy surrounded from all sides. Risk of last stand is allways possible, and also you need two (at least)units for each enemy unit for complete encirclement. For me, wasting time and troops. When enemy break from combat, Immediattely send cavalry to do all chasing job, and immediattely send your victorious infantry to flank and break another enemy unit. Do not try to complete encirclement but try to rout as many, as you can with preferably most of your units.

Tactic on battlefield depends on what type of units enemy have, and what units we have. Then, we using maneuvres that bring more casualties to the enemy, and possibly more less to us. And i agree with Sarathos. Battles without casualties are rare, and mostly happens when enemy retreats from battlefield without contact. Not likely in both armies contact in melee or at missile range.
For egsample, trapping phalanxes in melee isnt good way to avoid losses, but surrounded phalanxes will flee or still be killed more easier, but they get the chance to kill lots of men. So, ouflanking them in melle still is good idea, but you can take heavy losses.
The best way is to outmaneuvre them with lots of javelin based troops(velites for egs.), and after they break, run them down with cavalry. Thats harder, but it pays off with lower losses.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Depends on which faction I am playing. As a Roman faction, I tend to have a std. mix of equal parts cohort/archer/cav. This gets modified to fit a particular opponent. For the Eastern factions I go heavier on cav (and I save my most experienced Equites for this even after 'Uncle Marius' shows up). For the :egypt: I throw in some Velite Glads to deal with the heavy chariots and go a bit more archer-heavy to shoot up those pesky chariot-archers, and for phalanx-heavy factions I go for more cohorts and heavy cav.

As an Eastern faction, I don't even bother with infantry in the later stages. I recruit some War Elephants, throw in substantial cataphract cav, heavy chariots, and merc Arab cav (my personal fav). With Pontus, there's the added benefit of Pontic HC.

With Carthage, War Elephants, plenty of Long Shield Cav, and Sacred Band. What else do you need:laugh4:

As a Barbarian faction, lots of heavy infantry (Gaul/Germany/Dacia/Thracia), lots of archers (Chosen Archers & Forester Warbands rock!) and merc Sarmatians for cav.

I tend to pepper the oncoming enemy with archers or 'spear-chuckers' before melee begins to thin out enemy infantry, and I try as much as possible to hit them from several directions at once, even if that means splitting my forces in the face of superior numbers (usually not a good idea).

With an all-cav + elephant set-up, I never wait for the enemy to reach me unless I'm sitting atop a big, fat hill. I'll charge them before they can get set up and use superior mobility to outmaneuver them.

Sadly, however, the mapmakers for RTW must not have played STW or MTW much because the opportunities to set traps are really restricted by 'cookie-cutter' maps that tend to be similar in form....usually hills in the corners, some forest or rough terrain thrown down in the middle, and an occasional rock or building plopped down in the very center:inquisitive:

[Owen Glyndwr]

You have a point, even with Bridge battles, I remember in MTW having a second bridge which really put a lot more strategy into the battle than defending side puts as much as he can to fill the whole with archers off to the side for good angle of fire, while attacker throws everything he can into the bridge.


In terms of strategy, I've played primarily Rome/Phalanx type factions, and I find the best offense to be a good defense. When you have superior infantry, you can move with slightly weaker armies than the enemy and lure them into a bridge battle or siege defense. Another thing I like to do, especially against the "Barbarian" type factions like Gaul or Spain is to go missile heavy. The great thing is to form up a long line with all legions set to fire at will, with archers and spear throwers either off to the flanks or behind. If you're lucky enough to have the entire enemy army to attack simultaneously, the sheer force of simultaneous volleys sent into the line is devastating. Then it's just a matter of deploying cavalry to mop up the stragglers.

[oz_wwjd]

I've been in many bridge battles in MTW and the ai seldom lacks the intellegence to actually use the second bridge,instead it tries to march everything over the bridge which has 6 units of archers spamming missiles at everything that moves..

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

On the topic of bridges, there are actually two "bridges" on (I think) every bridge map in R:TW. A better term probably would be river crossing point, since the second point is more a shallow crossing area that often is hard to notice.

Although in M:TW the AI does recognize the second bridge and, if stimulated to, will go and defend it, in R:TW the AI knows absolutely nothing about it. This can allow you to cross over with some cavalry (or indeed any unit) and surround them on the bridge. Although this often does result in them fighting to the death in the end, it's an easy way to totally, or almost totally, annihilate a stack of troops.

~:)

[ReluctantSamurai]

Nonetheless, tactics in RTW are greatly affected by the unimaginative maps. I make maps and scenarios for a WWII game called Pacific General, and experience from my own playtime and feedback from other players has taught me how important good maps are.

Bridge battles are a joke in RTW when defending. Unless you really, REALLY, bungle the defense you should never lose one of these. In STW, for instance, even with muskets a defense against a multiple stack invasion can get dicey.

The biggest impact for maps in RTW, IMHO, is to force nearly every battle in which you are the attacker to a frontal assault up a corner hill. I counted these in several campaigns just to get a feel for the proportion, and it turned out to be on the order of 2 out of 3. More imaginative maps would have made for more interesting tactics.

I would also have been nice to see the tactical map in the lower left corner before ordering an attack at that particular spot. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the AI is keeping track of which tactical map corresponds with what particular spot you are standing on in the strategic map (or is it a random generation situation?). In a "real-life" situation, as the commander of an army, you would have had SOME kind of idea of the terrain layout.....better if you had good scouts, less so if you had poor scouts.

The only time I allow myself a reload is to try coming at an enemy army from different directions to see what kind of map I get. Nothing more frustrating to be descending down on an opponent from a mountain area only to be stuck with the proverbial frontal assault uphill into a corner:no:

And as I mentioned earlier, traps are hard to pull off in RTW (at least for me they are) because of the maps. In STW & MTW, for instance, some of my most enjoyable moments were in setting a trap against a vastly superior force and pulling out a victory. Am I just imagining this or have other veterans of previous TW games seen this too?

[Asmodai]

And as I mentioned earlier, traps are hard to pull off in RTW (at least for me they are) because of the maps. In STW & MTW, for instance, some of my most enjoyable moments were in setting a trap against a vastly superior force and pulling out a victory. Am I just imagining this or have other veterans of previous TW games seen this too?

Well, it depends.

In S:TW you had the same terrain for each province, only deployment zones were different, depending on ownership over the province. Some provinces were better for trapping enemy forces, and some were not suitable for any defence.

Also, you must describe, what the trap will be?
Luring few(or) all enemy units into disadvantageuos position, and wipping them out? Or (as in Rome) starting battle already in advantage having most of enemy encircled and in long and vulnerable columns?
Second option didnt existed in S:TW and M:TW. So i think that you wroted about luring enemy units into a trap.
The first thing to remember: AI will stop whole army and will send some troops to destroy any unit, that trying flanking. This is done in 99% times, so you can use this to your advantage.

[Cruelsader]

Bridge battles are a joke in RTW when defending. Unless you really, REALLY, bungle the defense you should never lose one of these. In STW, for instance, even with muskets a defense against a multiple stack invasion can get dicey.

Yes, bridge battles were harder in STW. But MTW? In MTW spears had more staying power. In RTW it is easier to break through formations. I think I have lost more bridge battles in RTW as defender than in MTW. BTW, I don't think that I bungled the defense. In most occasions I had poor garrison force against an elite stack. (Plus, I play at "hard" difficulty level, so AI has a bonus)


I would also have been nice to see the tactical map in the lower left corner before ordering an attack at that particular spot. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the AI is keeping track of which tactical map corresponds with what particular spot you are standing on in the strategic map (or is it a random generation situation?). In a "real-life" situation, as the commander of an army, you would have had SOME kind of idea of the terrain layout.....better if you had good scouts, less so if you had poor scouts.

The map is not random like in MTW. In RTW there is a huge battle map covering the whole strategic play area on land. Both strategic map and battle map are divided into squares that correspond to each other. So if you start a battle in a specific place the battle map is always the same, only your starting position differs. You can guess the general layout of the map by studying the strategic map closely.

I actually like RTW map system much better than the one in STW (not enough variety: most fighting takes place in certain maps) or MTW (too random). And it is great to recognize familiar vistas in RTW: the layout of the landscape is realistic enough (although the scale is wrong).


And as I mentioned earlier, traps are hard to pull off in RTW (at least for me they are) because of the maps. In STW & MTW, for instance, some of my most enjoyable moments were in setting a trap against a vastly superior force and pulling out a victory. Am I just imagining this or have other veterans of previous TW games seen this too?

Agreed. Ambushes were easier in STW. Much more places to hide your units. And lone units or small group of units seemed to have been less prone to routing.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Also, you must describe, what the trap will be?

As an example.......many maps in STW have hills around the perimeter with a valley in the middle. When fighting against a Yari-heavy invader with me having lots of cavalry, I will place my infantry in the center and hide my cav on the flanks (in wooded areas, if possible, or behind a large hill). I try to lure the main bulk of the enemy towards my infantry using Cav Archers skirmishers. If/when the enemy takes the bait, the trap snaps shut and not many make it out alive.

Another example using muskets.....usually one likes to have a long, clear line of fire for muskets to bring the enemy under constant, long-range fire. But hiding them in a wooded area on a flank, then popping them out for a close-range volley is often enough to cause the unit under fire to rout right then and there. I've busted H3 monks using this technique.


I don't think that I bungled the defense. In most occasions I had poor garrison force against an elite stack.

Well, that goes without saying.....I was referring to more or less equal forces. Still, even with such a mismatch, one should be able to take a heavy toll before defeat comes...........


You can guess the general layout of the map by studying the strategic map closely.

Guess is the key word, there. One shouldn't have to guess. Too many times the scenario I previously described where I should have the terrain advantage (even on the strategic map my army icon stands head-and-shoulders above the defending army) ends up being an uphill corner assault.


And it is great to recognize familiar vistas in RTW: the layout of the landscape is realistic enough (although the scale is wrong).

I thought the same thing.....at first. But I actually like STW maps better. Or more precisely, I much prefer STW ambiance, if you will. When you fight in heavy fog or a thunderstorm, the feeling produced by the graphics trumps the eye candy of RTW. And speaking of weather.....fog, for instance, adds another tactical possibility for traps. I love fighting in heavy fog as either the attacker, or defender. Bad weather in RTW has minimal impact on tactics other than affecting archer fire and snow giving combat benefits to certain units. Heavy rain doesn't last long enough to affect cavalry stamina....and besides, most battles seem to be 10 minutes or so of marching/maneuvering and 5 minutes or less of fighting:inquisitive: I've had monumental battles in STW, for instance, that lasted an hour and a half in real time:dizzy2: When those kinds of battles were over, you feel as tired as all those little sprites that made up your units:laugh4:

[Cruelsader]

STW maps were fantastic at the time and still look great. However, I like the look of RTW maps better. Also, I much prefer the RTW system of transition from the strategic map to a battle map (i.e. the fact that there are many more maps than in STW or MTW and that you can guess the layout of the map by studying the strategic maps)

Nonetheless, I agree that as battlefields the RTW maps are inferior to MTW and STW. They are rather featureless and offer less tactical options. I also miss longer battles. In RTW battles end much quicker once the units are engaged.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I much prefer the RTW system of transition from the strategic map to a battle map

I agree...that is a nice improvement but with the caveat that the AI knows which battle map goes with a particular set of co-ordinates on the strat map, but you don't. I've always felt the battle map should be displayed in the lower left-hand box when called up by the player but that's not going to happen so I just reload until I get a favorable disposition when I feel I deserve it.


They are rather featureless and offer less tactical options.

A point I'm glad to see someone else agrees with.


I also miss longer battles.

Which is why I still whip out my copy of STW once in a while and play several campaigns. Even as a STW veteran, one can still be humbled by the AI from time to time:laugh4:

[Shieldmaiden]

They are rather featureless and offer less tactical options .

QFT.

One thing I'd like to add - in STW and MTW, the Weather changed battles due to effects on ranged, tiredness, etc.

In RTW, I shoot Flaming Arrows in a blizzard... I don't notice it. CA, you puzzle me :inquisitive:

[Asmodai]

Against phalanx, I will match their length, take them head on and flank the shit of of them while pray that my line holds. I hate fighting against phalanx.......


The Nob square with a good few phalanx units is practically undefeatable, some could even call it cheating.

I found, that many people have difficulty with fighting with or against phalanx. The trick is to let them come for you. My tactic against them is maneuver with missile units, and flank only attacks, without commiting any troops to their front. The thing to consider how to beat any unit is to think, how that unit is used on battlefield. Phalanx have excellent defence and attack in melee, but only in front. Also, it must be in special phalanx formation, that makes whole unit very slow. Usually, when they try to move quickly, they adopting normal formation, with their spears high. That is clear sign, that phalanx lost some bonuses granted by formation, so they are easier to kill by missile fire, or by charge. Easy to exploit, cos their spears are big enough to signalize that maneuver.
Best use of phalanx is to make formation not very deep(about 3-4 ranks is enough), but it should be wide enough to cover as much front as possible. And in that formation, AI usually deploys. Combined with few units for flank protection (creating effectively a solid, spear wall) this seems, that our only hope is to flank whole their line by cavalry units. Well, thats only part of the truth. We can also shatter their line, simply by breaking own infantry line into more loose formation. Javelin armed troops(even velites or peltasts) are best to beat even the most solid phalanx line.
I play usually as romans, and i find simple pila armed troops to be my ultimate phalanx killers in most battles. I deploy them in two lines, usually with wide spaces between each unit. Second line is deployed similar to the first, but whole formation looks like chessboard or zigzag line (ie, each unit from first line closing to the second line one not by flanks, but by angles. I try to deploy each unit in roughly square formation. Each unit have their fire-at-will command checked, so they will be standing and throwing their pila at advancind phalanx. When whole line of phalanxes reach the first line, phalanxes will try to exploit your gaps, and starts to maneuver, to bring more spears against only one of our units. Thats logical, but unfortunatelly, you have second rank of pila armed troops, that starts javelin shower against flank of slow, and tightly packed phalanxmen. Also, that units threatened with 2 or more phalanxes will be having plenty of time to retreat, even when melee starts. When your units have javelins/missiles, tactic of steady and quick withdrawal is vital. Withdrawing units must end their move on phalanx flanks. When enemy line will be shattered, phalanxes will be forced to chasing much faster enemy, loosing flank protection and support of nearby troops. That will lower their morale (losses and exposed flanks), and sometimes they break even when charged(before contact)
But the fun starts, when javelins runs out, and you must get into melee to break them. Simply let one of your units to be anvil. Wait for phalanxes to get to your anvil, and then hit them with your second unit (hammer), charging phalanx flank. Do not charge into rear. Never.
When phalanx is attacked from the side, it seems to panicking more often, and the chance for running away rather than stand to the last is much higher. Attacking from rear will result in much higher casualties, and very high risk of fighting to the dead. You may prevent this situation simply by withdrawing one of your units from combat, leaving some escape path for enemy. They will change their stance from fighting to the dead for running away ,and you can simply run them down with some cavalry.
I usually killing whole stacks of phalanxes, with losses not higher than 10%. No matter of what type of phalanx i facing (spartans and other elite types of phalanxes are only harder to rout and taking about 5% casualties less from missile fire) theyll breake anyway.
When i faced elites phalanxes with ordinary ones, i concentrating on killing elites first, then the rest is much easier to kill)

Support units, espetially archers with fire arrows are very good at lowering phalanx morale. As for cavalry, use them only for chasing, and for killing enemy cavalry and/or skirmishers, that are supporting phalanxes. Charging at phalanxes with cavalry(even from flank or rear!!) will bring you pile of dead horses and little effect.

As for that noob sqare....
Deploying missile unit at the flank of one "side"(unit) and the phalanx will get very high losses. If they do not break this formation, whole square will be shoot to pieces(losses from even javelins may reach more than 30% in each unit, dont mention about bowmens, ballistas). Weird and very unpractical formation. If player is using phalanx agains AI in that way, i can see some point. But against human opponent......expect massacre.

[Quirinus]

As for that noob sqare....
Deploying missile unit at the flank of one "side"(unit) and the phalanx will get very high losses. If they do not break this formation, whole square will be shoot to pieces(losses from even javelins may reach more than 30% in each unit, dont mention about bowmens, ballistas). Weird and very unpractical formation. If player is using phalanx agains AI in that way, i can see some point. But against human opponent......expect massacre.
Only if there are no missile units providing ranged cover from inside the box.....

[Asmodai]

more units packed into this weird box = more losses. Any tactic that lowers maneuvrability and rises losses is bad from the start. Surely, for noob. Mobing units on some small area is best used in offence, not in defence. For defence, whole formation mus be either deep and mobile, to react quickly, and absorb enemy assault (like i wroted above), or wide frontage to give maximum chances to outflank advancing forces.

I think, that square can only be used against cavalry based armies, such as scythians. Fewer missiles on horsmeman will prevent huge losses, and it is impossible with any infantry ( not only with phalanx), to outrun cavalry.

[Chloe]

Agreed. They are only good against cavalry-based armies and if you are really terribly outnumbered.
Otherwise, you will take too many unnecessary losses.
It is also terrible against melee chariots.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Asmodai...

I agree with pretty much everything you said about phalanx except this:


Best use of phalanx is to make formation not very deep(about 3-4 ranks is enough)

If I'm reading that correctly, you are advocating using phalanx in shallow, but wide formation.

If you are fighting Macedonian Lancers, Sarmatians, or Cataphracts, you are dead....as in big gaping holes punched in your line. With the high charge bonuses those units have, the only way I could stop them while using phalanx was to have deep and narrow formations.....and bunch your phalanx units elbow to elbow or even one stacked behind another.

In this manner, the cav unit punches only part way into your unit and has a difficult time backing out...if they get out at all:skull:

When I first started playing the Greeks I thought cool.....lookit those shiny Armored Hoplites....they'll stop anything cold:2thumbsup:

.....until I met my first Light Lancer charge with my formation wide and shallow:dizzy2:

and this:


When phalanx is attacked from the side, it seems to panicking more often, and the chance for running away rather than stand to the last is much higher. Attacking from rear will result in much higher casualties, and very high risk of fighting to the dead. You may prevent this situation simply by withdrawing one of your units from combat, leaving some escape path for enemy.

For me that depends on which faction I'm playing........as the Selucids, with Armored Elephants as the anvil and Cataphracts as the hammer, even cohorts or armored hoplites simply vanish leaving only colored splotches on the ground. As Carthage it's elephants & Sacred Band cav. As Pontus it's Bronze Shields & Cataphracts.........

But yeah.....you don't really want to send Greek or Barbarian Cav into the rear of a phalanx unless you absolutely have to......

[Asmodai]

If I'm reading that correctly, you are advocating using phalanx in shallow, but wide formation.
In general situations, yes. In unusuall, such as facing elite units, deeper formation could be usefull. But that can leave your entire battleline vulnerable to flanking. Flank attacks are far worse for phalanxes, than head-on cavalry charge.
And i agree, that elite units, or units with very high charge bonus can break phalanx, but for what cost? I can be sure, that the losses in that cavalry unit will be very high.

[Flavius Merobaudes]

Over at twcenter, they have the best battle tactics guide I know of. Written as an AAR, based on real Roman tactics that were actually used and also work in-game. Simply amazing:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=142738

Have fun!:2thumbsup:

[ReluctantSamurai]

Flank attacks are far worse for phalanxes, than head-on cavalry charge.

In most cases, yes. But I don't usually travel with an all-phalanx army and much of the time the phalanx I do have is protecting valuable archers (most phalanx factions have only vanilla archers so this usually means 'Creshan Arshers') which was the case in my example. Sure the Lancers paid dear before they broke my hoplites but they got to my archers, as well, and those cost far more than the Lancers do.....

It's more style, I guess. I protect my flanks with cavalry or some fast-moving light infantry so rarely do I get exposed there. I keep my phalanx no less than 5-deep except if there is no enemy cav then it's 4-deep.

Flavius....thank you:2thumbsup: and damn you:laugh4: I'm going to be hours at that place.......:book:

[YouHaveRecieved]

Usually enemy units attack at random places, so if you make a spear wall, even 2 men thick and you outnumber the enemy by an average margin then you are assured victory. They will send random cav charges into your line, in which case bail out of phalanx and merge a lot of units on them, if they are low end units don't even bother. Once the infantry comes just mopve your spare infantry to the hammer postition and whack away. Also, if you use Phalanxes (not Hoplites) place a low end missile unit in the ranks of the phalanxes. I actually mean in, but no in front of it. This ensures cavalry to charge your spears, which are so long you are guaranteed they wont break your line.

[ReluctantSamurai]

so if you make a spear wall, even 2 men thick and you outnumber the enemy by an average margin then you are assured victory.

That's not been my experience. As I said, Macedonian lancers punched right through my three-deep Armored Hoplites and had enough momentum to get to my archers that were behind. Yes, they took heavy losses but 'Creeshan's' are a lot more expensive than Light Lancers to replace, so it's not very cost effective to let it happen as a matter of course.

When I stack my hoplites 5-deep, and elbow-to-elbow with units on either side, it's a bloody massacre and few, if any, lancers ever get to go home to their wife and kids:laugh4:


place a low end missile unit in the ranks of the phalanxes. I actually mean in, but no in front of it.

I never use that tactic as I believe it to be rather cheesy. Not criticizing you for using it, but my playing style just won't permit me to do it:beam:

[Quirinus]

Not sure, but wasn't the "spearmen effective against cavalry even in the rear" thing a bug that was corrected by a patch?


On an unrelated note, how would you guys use a shield wall? I probably have read about it somewhere, but I still have no idea. :sweatdrop:

[ReluctantSamurai]

Perhaps I'm wrong but I believe you put a unit into loose formation and place another unit, also in loose formation in the exact same location.

[YouHaveRecieved]

That is not a shield wall. A shield wall is used in BI as a special ability. It is a unit with large sheilds grouped closely together with interlocking sheilds. If you place a lot of these units together in a line that is a sheild wall.