View Full Version : Unstoppable Army
Grriffon
10-22-2008, 15:27
Let money not be an issue. Let Area of Recruitment not be an issue. You can have any 20 units you want from EB 1.1. What do you think would be the best all around army you could build, able to defeat all comers? I'll give it a shot, but will probably have to revise my army as I go, there are just so many awesome units and possibilities.
Also, I know it's quite possible that a 20 unit army of armoured horse archers would be unbeatable. To prevent this, let's make a limit of 4 horse archer units per army.
*EDIT* Limit number of elephants to 4 too, just so we don't nothing but elephants and horse archer armies.
I suppose mine would be as follows:
2 armoured elephants
4 saka generals
4 gaesatae
4 thracian peltasts
6 elite liby phonecian axemen
That's just a rough start, as I said, I'll probably have to revise as I go. Hope everyone else finds this interesting too! :beam:
We shall fwee...Wodewick
10-22-2008, 15:47
Why the Peltasts? I know you have to have some missles and that they can fight hand to hand, but you can't beat some good ol' slingers or kretans.
Mine would be very similar, just replace the thracians with 2 kretans and 2 thorakitai agemata Basiliues (sp?)
Grriffon
10-22-2008, 16:24
Why the Peltasts? I know you have to have some missles and that they can fight hand to hand, but you can't beat some good ol' slingers or kretans.
Mine would be very similar, just replace the thracians with 2 kretans and 2 thorakitai agemata Basiliues (sp?)
to me, slingers are only good once you get several chevrons on them. if we are assuming we are using freshly recruited troops, i'll leave them out of my army. although i did strongly consider adding a couple balaeric slingers. those guys are beasts with silver chevrons and up. as for the cretans, i love them, but i have 4 archer units already, and don't usually like to have more than that in my armies.
the thracians are just so versatile, i love them. i mean, they can be flankers pelting troops in the rear with javelins, or they make a pretty lethal lightly armored shock infantry. i could possibly go down to 2 units of them, but i would probably have to include at least 2 in any army i built, i think.
king hannibal
10-22-2008, 16:26
ok I'll give it a go
15 armored elephants
5 heavy armored horse archers
elephates get though anything
horse archers to take the enemies artillery and archers out and general protecting the elephants
Grriffon
10-22-2008, 18:14
ok I'll give it a go
15 armored elephants
5 heavy armored horse archers
elephates get though anything
horse archers to take the enemies artillery and archers out and general protecting the elephants
you may be right. i should limit the number of elephants to 4 too, and you went over the limit on horse archers :P
I honestly think that there is no real thing as an " Unstoppable" army....
I honestly think that there is no real thing as an " Unstoppable" army....
4- armored HA
4- armored elephants
6-cohors praetoriana
5-gaesatae
1- augustan general...
iauch
A nuke.
Oh, wait. From EB?
Apeleutheroi. Definitely.
20 Ebherni Armored Shock Troopers.
Yes.
Maion Maroneios
10-23-2008, 00:03
I personally don't believe there exists any ''unstopable'' army. Every army has its weak and strong points, no matter how cool or strong each unit is. For example, an army full of Dosedataskeli would probably lose against a steppe army with many horse archers.
Maion
I personally don't believe there exists any ''unstopable'' army. Every army has its weak and strong points, no matter how cool or strong each unit is. For example, an army full of Dosedataskeli would probably lose against a steppe army with many horse archers.
Maion
only if they have Unlimited ammo... I bet they wouldn't kill more than 30%
Maion Maroneios
10-23-2008, 00:53
OK yeah, but that was a manner of speaking...
Maion
These should all be recruitable by any faction I think, using a level 5 regional MIC:
8 Germanic Mercenary Generals
4 Celtic Lesser Kings
4 Helenistic Mercenary Generals
4 Nomadic Noble Mercenary Generals
Why is it unstoppable? Because it regenerates itself! As long as the general himself doesn't get killed...
I use this set up and its pretty unstoppable, im getting heroic victories all over the place
11 HA's any kind really but preferably armored.
5 infantry units. I use "Fast moving" inf, usually 1-2 swordsmen and the rest spearmen.
2 archer units, fast movers again.
A cavalry general and 1 heavy cav unit.
My inf hardly ever get any kills, my HA's and archers do most of the killing. I hold the infantry back just in case theyre needed. The other 2 cav units are used to charge from the back and kill routers.
Bactria is prob the best faction for this.
8 Babylonian Spearmen, 8 Cretan Archers, and 4 Prodromoi. The Babylonians, with their axes, spears, and armor can take on most melee units. The Cretans can deal with horse archers and act as light infantry. The Prodromoi could flank phalanxes and deal with skirmishers.
Aemilius Paulus
10-23-2008, 02:14
I believe you should make it to where there are AOR limits, since it is exceedingly easy to make an army with no cost or AOR consideration, plus it is also not as fun as that army is impossible.
My "unstoppable" army is my Romani campaign army that consists of:
ten units of 3 bronze chevron Cordinau Orca;
four of 3 bronze chevron Triarii; one single silver chevron Romani general;
two 55-men, 2 silver chevron Greek Mercenary Generals;
three Cretan Archers with one silver chevron.
All of these units have full (bronze) weapons & armour upgrades. Also, whenever sieging, I almost always temporarily detach the Greek Mercenary generals, Cretan Archers, half of Triarii (usually depending on whether the city/town besieged has a lot of cavalry), and three Cordinau Orca. Instead of these units I bring ten 2 silver chevron Accensi/Iosatae. With that many highly experienced, Accensi/Iosatae I annihilated usually about 70-90% of the enemy (I usually fire when the enemy has turned their backs on my slingers).
The Cordinau Orcas are the best sword infantry in the game, slaughtering just about anything in melee. The Triarii will quickly take care of any enemy cavalry, as the Cordinau Orcas have a disadvantage against mounted troops. The Generals are for pursuing missile units, charging in the rear and possibly even the front of non-spear units. They are also there for the pursuit of routers. The Cretans can deliver counter-missile fire as well as use their fire arrows to assist in the routing of the enemy. When sieging, one does not have to worry about flank attacks and pursuing routers as much, as well as having the leisure of shooting enemy units who cannot fight back (the AI will not usually sally out if you are the one leading the assault) so one can assemble more missiles than is possible in a field battle.
As for the HA/Dosedataskeli, I seriously doubt even 20 HA - a full stack, could inflict more than 7% casualties unless the HAs are consistently firing in Dosedataskeli's backs. As a matter of fact, I am going to test this in an EB custom battle tomorrow.
Maion Maroneios
10-23-2008, 02:18
Ehm, I already said it was a matter of speaking. Honestly more like a joke or something. Of course, if you play with unlimited amoo, you will decimate the tin guys for sure:laugh4:
Maion
Aemilius Paulus
10-23-2008, 02:23
These should all be recruitable by any faction I think, using a level 5 regional MIC:
8 Germanic Mercenary Generals
4 Celtic Lesser Kings
4 Helenistic Mercenary Generals
4 Nomadic Noble Mercenary Generals
Why is it unstoppable? Because it regenerates itself! As long as the general himself doesn't get killed...
I think we got a winner...
EDIT: Is there anyone who has actually ever tried playing with unlimited ammo? That is definitely my worst nightmare.
How about 4 Parthian Grivpanar(sp?), 5 TAB, 4 Tindanotae, 5 Rhodian Slingers, Greek General and Wargozez?
Aemilius Paulus
10-23-2008, 02:41
How about 4 Parthian Grivpanar(sp?), 5 TAB, 4 Tindanotae, 5 Rhodian Slingers, Greek General and Wargozez?
Why Wargozez? Because they look cool? (I do however agree on that, it is true that they look pretty neat) After all, they can't do anything that Tindanotae or Gaesatae can.
To be honest, I was expecting no one to have heard of them.
Aside from their massive missile and axe slaughter-power, they aren't all that great - they die more quickly than the naked guys.
Aemilius Paulus
10-23-2008, 02:58
To be honest, I was expecting no one to have heard of them.
This is EB forums here. We are all hard-core TW players and I bet most of the other people who have played EB for at least a year or even less heard of them. Especially if you were playing in Northern Europe.
I believe you should make it to where there are AOR limits, since it is exceedingly easy to make an army with no cost or AOR consideration, plus it is also not as fun as that army is impossible.
That's part of why I went with mine; the Seleucids can pull it off pretty easily. All they have to do is conquer Crete and build up the barracks in Babylon and they can get all three units.
Aemilius Paulus
10-23-2008, 03:53
That's part of why I went with mine;
Oh, I wasn't saying that to you. It was a request to the creator of this thread, Grriffon and some other people who have posted in this thread. I was still typing my reply to this thread when you posted.
Grriffon
10-23-2008, 04:32
Oh, I wasn't saying that to you. It was a request to the creator of this thread, Grriffon and some other people who have posted in this thread. I was still typing my reply to this thread when you posted.
We are indeed running into some situations such as 20 armoured HA's or 20 armoured elephants that sort of take away the fun of creating an army like this. limiting it to an area or a faction REALLY decreases the variety you could use. what if we just said NO horse archers or elephants? or maybe some other idea. i just thought it would be fun to try and see what people created as their armies.
Aemilius Paulus
10-23-2008, 05:34
Actually, by "AOR", I meant only the units any given factions can recruit, meaning that you can't put TAB and Triarii in the same army. I did not mean to say that you should limit the armies to a specific area of recruitment.
Grriffon
10-23-2008, 05:35
Actually, by "AOR", I meant only the units any given factions can recruit, meaning that you can't put TAB and Triarii in the same army. I did not mean to say that you should limit the armies to a specific area of recruitment.
That would almost make it a which faction is strongest thread. :clown:
I believe you should make it to where there are AOR limits, since it is exceedingly easy to make an army with no cost or AOR consideration, plus it is also not as fun as that army is impossible.
My "unstoppable" army is my Romani campaign army that consists of:
ten units of 3 bronze chevron Cordinau Orca;
four of 3 bronze chevron Triarii; one single silver chevron Romani general;
two 55-men, 2 silver chevron Greek Mercenary Generals;
three Cretan Archers with one silver chevron.
All of these units have full (bronze) weapons & armour upgrades. Also, whenever sieging, I almost always temporarily detach the Greek Mercenary generals, Cretan Archers, half of Triarii (usually depending on whether the city/town besieged has a lot of cavalry), and three Cordinau Orca. Instead of these units I bring ten 2 silver chevron Accensi/Iosatae. With that many highly experienced, Accensi/Iosatae I annihilated usually about 70-90% of the enemy (I usually fire when the enemy has turned their backs on my slingers).
The Cordinau Orcas are the best sword infantry in the game, slaughtering just about anything in melee. The Triarii will quickly take care of any enemy cavalry, as the Cordinau Orcas have a disadvantage against mounted troops. The Generals are for pursuing missile units, charging in the rear and possibly even the front of non-spear units. They are also there for the pursuit of routers. The Cretans can deliver counter-missile fire as well as use their fire arrows to assist in the routing of the enemy. When sieging, one does not have to worry about flank attacks and pursuing routers as much, as well as having the leisure of shooting enemy units who cannot fight back (the AI will not usually sally out if you are the one leading the assault) so one can assemble more missiles than is possible in a field battle.
As for the HA/Dosedataskeli, I seriously doubt even 20 HA - a full stack, could inflict more than 7% casualties unless the HAs are consistently firing in Dosedataskeli's backs. As a matter of fact, I am going to test this in an EB custom battle tomorrow.
The Cordinau Orcas are the best sword infantry in the game, slaughtering just about anything in melee.
Sorry bro, gonna haveta disagree with ya on that one. Give me the Iberian assault infantry any day of the week. In my current Carthage campaign, I have a vet army consisting of mostly them and sacred band infantry, now thats a killing machine.
To be honest, I was expecting no one to have heard of them.
Aside from their massive missile and axe slaughter-power, they aren't all that great - they die more quickly than the naked guys.
I havent. Post a pick or give the English name.
4- armored HA
4- armored elephants
6-cohors praetoriana
5-gaesatae
1- augustan general...
iauch
even that can be stopped-hunker behingd a stone wall or woods, and hose the elephants with javelins and slings (I'd say 10 units), the horse archers eat archer-spearman's arrows(5 of em), and the gaesatae get fired at by the horse archers i bring behind the army(another 5).
the general will be hosed by whats left....
Titus Marcellus Scato
10-23-2008, 19:42
:idea2: 20 UNITS OF SPARTANS!!! :beam:
Tristuskhan
10-23-2008, 22:14
Stop arguing about troops, my friends, I, and only I know the unstoppable army:
One single tiny....
Diplomat, with infinite money in his pokets. No army can resist. Really.
Stop arguing about troops, my friends, I, and only I know the unstoppable army:
One single tiny....
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Diplomat, with infinite money in his pokets. No army can resist. Really.
Assassins, my friend...
Tristuskhan
10-23-2008, 22:26
Well, since I never had any of my diplomats killed by ennemy assassins I suppose my proposal is still valid...
Aemilius Paulus
10-23-2008, 22:59
I take back my statement that Apgad's general army is the winner. Tristuskhan definitely bested all of us, or at least for now.
Tristuskhan
10-23-2008, 23:05
Nothing is so well fortified that money can't take it... Thank you Cicero.
Aemilius Paulus
10-23-2008, 23:12
Nothing is so well fortified that money can't take it... Thank you Cicero.
Philip II, father of Megas Alexander said the same thing: no wall is high enough that a donkey laden with gold cannot pass it.
Hah! Everyone knows you need at least two donkeys for that to work!
I rest my case.
I take back my statement that Apgad's general army is the winner. Tristuskhan definitely bested all of us, or at least for now.
OK, I'll see your diplomat and raise you another 5 diplomats, 6 assassins, and 8 spies... That'll let you buy whatever you don't want to take by physical force, help keep all of your generals safe form enemy assassins, and infiltrate settlements to open gate when you want to do it that way, and keep an eye out for ambushes!
teh1337tim
10-24-2008, 03:57
pfft a diplomat with unlimited money?
ill beat that with a campaign ending CTD
take that!!! nothing can stop it! nothing can fix it! i win :D:2thumbsup:
You know what else can beat a diplomat with unlimited money? An army made entirely out of Faction Leaders.
Praetor Diego
10-24-2008, 05:31
A single faction leader is sufficient, as an army commanded by him cannot be bribed. I voted for the full of generals army, commanded by a FL or FH.
Thisone, but with the FL instead one of the celtic:
8 Germanic Mercenary Generals
4 Celtic Lesser Kings
4 Helenistic Mercenary Generals
4 Nomadic Noble Mercenary Generals
ill beat that with a campaign ending CTD
take that!!! nothing can stop it! nothing can fix it!
Careful, Bovi might hear you...
gamegeek2
10-24-2008, 20:00
How about any faction, any units they can recruit in-campaign? Fully Updgraded is assumed.
And all-Armoured HAs isn't unbeatable: Rhodian Slingers + Argyraspidai + Thorakita Agematos Basilikou + Hetairoi. This being a Seleukid Army.
Aemilius Paulus
10-24-2008, 23:56
How about any faction, any units they can recruit in-campaign?
That's exactly what I was proposing too just in case you misunderstood my post.
teh1337tim
10-25-2008, 03:42
Careful, Bovi might hear you...
shhhh u didnt hear me...
I mean seriously guys! mine was the best one, it defeats all !!! lol
gamegeek2
10-25-2008, 03:46
How about one unit of Chuck Norris?
Last I checked, Chuck Norris isn't a playable unit in EB...:no:
Last I checked, Chuck Norris isn't a playable unit in EB...:no:
I'm pretty sure that there aren't enough unit slots in the whole game for one Chuck Norris - this isn't EB's fault, it's hard-coded...
SwissBarbar
10-27-2008, 14:10
Unstoppable Roman Army
After my Roleplay - Reforms wich happend between 185 and 180 BC, a roman regular legion is composed of
1 x FM who is Sharp/Charismatic/Vigorous
1 x Pedites Extraordinarii
5 x Triarii
5 x Principes
4 x Equites Extraordinarii
4 x Dorkim Shardanim / Accensi
(2880 Men + General)
OR if an auxiliary legion
1 x FM who can be as uncharismatic as he wants
19 x whatever non-factional skirmisher and light infantery troops are available.
(between 3000 and 4000 men + General)
Losses are exceptionless replaced by mercenary soldiers, recruited in the very region the legion is stationed. After every move they have to build a Camp/Fort if possible, where they camp till the next move.
A roman Legion is named after its Location + Leader (Example: Legio Africana Scipio or Legio Britannia Ivlia)
A roman (Invasion-) army is composed of minimum 1 regular legion and 1 auxiliary legion
The boarderline of the Imperium Romanum is in this time (172 BC) protected by
1 Legion in Africa at the boarderline to the Ptolemaic empire
2 Legions in Achaia and Macedonia in order to conquer the macedonian empire
2 Legions in the middle of Britannia to protect the boarderline against the still strong Casse ( with the Auxiliary Legions 4 Forts wich represent the Hadrianic Wall *GG*)
1 Legion in Ireland to conquer the Island
+/- 17'000 men
2 auxiliary Legions in Brittania, composed of Gallic and Brittannic troops
2 auxiliary Legions in Macedonia, composed of Italic and Hellenic troops
+/- 14'000 men
In my 60 Settlements are on average 600 men (normally 3 X light infantery, in regions of crisis more), that makes 36'000 Garrison-Troups.
Therefore in my roleplay (Armies and Population 1/10) 310'000 Men serve in the Roman Army , and 360'000 Cohortes urbanae protect the Cities
if lead capably quite unstoppable, hrhr
Grriffon
10-28-2008, 21:20
I'm REALLY not a fan of roman soldiers. I know everyone is SO quick to point out how well regarded they are historically, but when talking about the game EB I find SO many more soldiers that work better for me on the battlefield.
While triarii, pedites extrordinari, and equites extrordinari are good units, I could name any number that I beleive would outperform them. As for the rest of the roman units, I don't hold them in very high regard at all.
SwissBarbar
10-28-2008, 21:51
i like that they are so well organized. but you are right, looking at soldiers individually, there are loads of others, that are much better than a roman soldier.
Aemilius Paulus
10-29-2008, 02:52
I'm REALLY not a fan of roman soldiers. I know everyone is SO quick to point out how well regarded they are historically, but when talking about the game EB I find SO many more soldiers that work better for me on the battlefield.
While triarii, pedites extrordinari, and equites extrordinari are good units, I could name any number that I beleive would outperform them. As for the rest of the roman units, I don't hold them in very high regard at all.
That's why I like playing as the Romani. It is more of a challenge. I tried playing Seleukids but quit because Seleukids already had pretty much the best units in the game - Hetairoi, Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou, Peltastai Makedonikoi, Hypaspistai, Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi (with reforms), Galatikoi Tindanotae (regional), etc, it is no simply no fun playing as the Seleukids. You have almost no early-game money problems and in every battle you simply grind the proponent with your endless stacks of elites. One solution to that is having some house rules, but I'm no fan of that. With the Romani, you actually have to conquer various territories to gain access to better units, or regionals in this case. The romani may not be as difficult as Haysadan or the Saka, but they're still fun, especially if you are a Roman History nerd.
Gleemonex
10-29-2008, 04:24
I'm REALLY not a fan of roman soldiers. I know everyone is SO quick to point out how well regarded they are historically, but when talking about the game EB I find SO many more soldiers that work better for me on the battlefield.
So many other soldiers work(ed) better on the battlefield in reality too. The Roman Army's true claims to fame were/are basically modularity, adaptability and logistical mastery.
-Glee
Tellos Athenaios
10-29-2008, 04:29
Why Wargozez? Because they look cool? (I do however agree on that, it is true that they look pretty neat) After all, they can't do anything that Tindanotae or Gaesatae can.
Hint: fast, AP axe, morale. Whoever the Sweboz bodyguard who saw either those Wargozez or those Milnaht of my Casse general: he was a sure goner.
Aemilius Paulus
10-29-2008, 05:04
So many other soldiers work(ed) better on the battlefield in reality too. The Roman Army's true claims to fame were/are basically modularity, adaptability and logistical mastery.
-Glee
The Romans had a uniform army that was exceedingly skilled with the Roman sword-fighting techniques, the most effective in the world. Each piece of their equipment was specially designed for a specific purpose. Their sword, the gladius, was not too long, both slashing and thrusting, but primarily used for thrusting, which inflicts the most damage. Their shield, scutum, was very large and practical, being rectangular, with curved edges to better deflect blows. The shields were relatively light but yet strong, with an iron boss. The helmets, specifically the Coolus and Imperial Gallic type were masterpieces of their own, especially with the front ridges, to protect from overhead slashing strokes and with the large ear/cheek pieces that covered most of the face. Similar things can be said about the armour as well. In general, Roman equipment outclassed the enemies'. The enemies of Rome possessed very few select units that were superior to, the early imperial legionaries, for example. The Romans, on the other hand had legions and legions of their standardised soldiers in addition to the supplemental auxilia, which was often just as numerous. Even if the enemies did happen to have superior soldiers, the Roman fighting style (as well as tactics for that matter), in my opinion, far outclassed anything their enemies used, especially the more individualistic fighting styles of the northern barbarians.
Gleemonex
10-29-2008, 06:10
The Roman Army's true claims to fame were/are basically modularity, adaptability and logistical mastery.
I'd be content to leave the subsequent post be, but this thread is called "Unstoppable Army". [1]
The Romans had a uniform army that was exceedingly skilled with the Roman sword-fighting techniques, the most effective in the world.
They had a uniform army with standardised training. [2]
Modularity and logistics.
Each piece of their equipment was specially designed for a specific purpose. Their sword, the gladius, was not too long, both slashing and thrusting, but primarily used for thrusting, which inflicts the most damage.
Idea taken from the Celtiberians. (Hint: Its full name is Gladius Hispaniensis)
Adaptability.
Their shield, scutum, was very large and practical, being rectangular, with curved edges to better deflect blows. The shields were relatively light but yet strong, with an iron boss.
The scutum was effective but unremarkable on its own. I would hope it deflects blows -- it's a shield!
The helmets, specifically the Coolus and Imperial Gallic type were masterpieces of their own, especially with the front ridges, to protect from overhead slashing strokes and with the large ear/cheek pieces that covered most of the face.
The Coolus and Imperial Gallic were both adapted from Celtic designs.
Adaptability and logistics.
Similar things can be said about the armour as well. In general, Roman equipment outclassed the enemies'.
Because it learned from its enemies -- usually after the Romans getting their asses handed to them in the initial encounter.
Adaptability.
The enemies of Rome possessed very few select units that were superior to, the early imperial legionaries, for example.
Early Imperial Legionaries knew better than to wander into Parthia.
The Romans, on the other hand had legions and legions of their standardised soldiers in addition to the supplemental auxilia, which was often just as numerous.
Modularity and logistics.
Even if the enemies did happen to have superior soldiers, the Roman fighting style (as well as tactics for that matter), in my opinion, far outclassed anything their enemies used, especially the more individualistic fighting styles of the northern barbarians.
I can grant you that opinion, but that alone doesn't prove that the Roman Army was "unstoppable". As I said in my previous post, the Roman Army was famous, but its combat prowess alone wasn't the source of that fame.
-Glee
------------------------------------------------
[1] I should point out that I wasn't trying to damn the Roman military machine with faint praise, as you seem to have taken it. Logistics is arguably the most important aspect of generalship! And its modularity allowed generals like Scipio Africanus to fully exercise their genius.
[2] Also, I'd be exceedingly surprised if anyone knew more about Roman sword-fighting techniques than the Romans.
Aemilius Paulus
10-29-2008, 06:15
Hmmm, your definition of "adaptability" and "logistics" seems to be rather far-ranging in my opinion. Superior equipment of the Romans is a result of adaptability, but then again, all good choices are based on adapting/learning from experience. If Romans just straight-copied from other people, then why were they the only ones to do so in such an extensive way? Lot of their equipment was somewhat innovative.
---------------------------------------------
[1]You're absolutely right about logistics being important though. As they say, smart generals study logistics and stupid ones study tactics.
[2] ??? What do you mean by that?
Gleemonex
10-29-2008, 06:19
Hmmm, your definition of "adaptability" and "logistics" seems to be rather far-ranging in my opinion.
Perhaps. It's hard -- for me at least -- to draw clear lines between logistics and equipment readiness and training regimens and discipline and combat readiness. I think (in my own opinion of course) that I have adaptability nailed though.
-Glee
Aemilius Paulus
10-29-2008, 06:23
Notice I edited my last post while you were typing yours.
Pontius Pilate
10-29-2008, 06:41
I'd be content to leave the subsequent post be, but this thread is called "Unstoppable Army". [1]
They had a uniform army with standardised training. [2]
Modularity and logistics.
Idea taken from the Celtiberians. (Hint: Its full name is Gladius Hispaniensis)
Adaptability.
The scutum was effective but unremarkable on its own. I would hope it deflects blows -- it's a shield!
The Coolus and Imperial Gallic were both adapted from Celtic designs.
Adaptability and logistics.
Because it learned from its enemies -- usually after the Romans getting their asses handed to them in the initial encounter.
Adaptability.
Early Imperial Legionaries knew better than to wander into Parthia.
Modularity and logistics.
I can grant you that opinion, but that alone doesn't prove that the Roman Army was "unstoppable". As I said in my previous post, the Roman Army was famous, but its combat prowess alone wasn't the source of that fame.
-Glee
The thing that made the legions great was that all of them were trained to an equally high standard. In the other factions you have usually had alot of levy units with poor quality equipment and then you had the elites who were highly well trained and good fighters but there were few of them at best. The legions were not elites and yet were not levies. The thing that made the Roman's fighting style superior to the barbarians like say the gauls was that the Romans all fought as if ONE, while the barbarians just threw themselves at the Roman shield wall due to their individual fighting style, for the barbarians there was no plan B, they would either have to break the shield wall or flee.
Yes many of the Roman's equipment is originally from other cultures like Celtic, but the Romans then took the design, improved it, changed it, and perfected it into their own needs, created something uniquely Roman.
Yes, the Romans lost many battles, but then they learned from their mistakes and eventually defeated their enemies a.k.a-adaptablility, a trait very useful for an army.
And yes the Parthians and Germans defeated Rome a few times in battle. But Parthia didn't sack Rome like Rome sacked the Parthian capital multiple times. and the only famous battle of Germans defeating Romans is Tetuburg, (granted their were more) but do you know how many Germanic armies the Romans defeated?
Finally, in the end Rome did conquer most of the factions in Europa Barbarorum and this should say how unstoppable the Roman army truly was.
-Pontius Pilate
Gleemonex
10-29-2008, 06:52
Lunch break almost over, but I have time to address this.
Hmmm, your definition of "adaptability" and "logistics" seems to be rather far-ranging in my opinion. Superior equipment of the Romans is a result of adaptability, but then again, all good choices are based on adapting/learning from experience.
True. But this was a singular quality among Romans in Classical Antiquity. Change and adaptation was generally slow and/or misguided in the face of slow, unreliable meatspace communication (Blemmyes anyone?) and the cultural importance of respecting stodgy old traditions.
If Romans just straight-copied from other people, then why were they the only ones to do so in such an extensive way? Lot of their equipment was somewhat innovative.
Well, they didn't straight copy -- they were excellent at adapting and improving what they saw. But it's hard to argue that they were more innovative than the peoples that invented the original product in the first place.
Hrm.. how to bring this back on topic. What army composition is best for taking out an army of well-led Romans?
-Glee
---------------------------------------------
[2] ??? What do you mean by that?
I was being sarcastic. For instance: The Gauls probably didn't know much about Roman sword-fighting techniques, but I'll bet anything that they were pretty good at Gallic sword-fighting techniques ;)
Aemilius Paulus
10-29-2008, 06:58
Hrm.. how to bring this back on topic. What army composition is best for taking out an army of well-led Romans?
)
An all phalanx and a bit of cavalry army or an all-HA (preferably some heavy cavalry with bows as well, in addition to the light HAs) army would do very well against the Romani in EB.
Gleemonex
10-29-2008, 06:58
@Pontius Pilate: All basically true, minus the overly-simplistic barbarian stuff. And none of that contradicts what I said; else verily confirms it.
Alright, who has that Roman-stopper I ordered?
:wink:
-Glee
EDIT: Thanks, Aemilius Paulus! I imagine that would do the trick.
Aemilius Paulus
10-29-2008, 07:02
Alright, who has that Roman-stopper I ordered?
I already did, you just forgot to hit the 'Refresh" button. Apparently you were still typing our answer while I posted mine.
Pontius Pilate
10-29-2008, 07:38
@Pontius Pilate: All basically true, minus the overly-simplistic barbarian stuff. And none of that contradicts what I said; else verily confirms it.
Alright, who has that Roman-stopper I ordered?
:wink:
-Glee
EDIT: Thanks, Aemilius Paulus! I imagine that would do the trick.
none of that condradicts what you said, but it confirms it? so what are you trying to say exactly? are you not trying to press the point that Roman army was not unstoppable? so explain how my last post helped you explain how the Roman army was not unstoppable. for anything, I think it did show how the Roman army was unstoppable.
On the barbarian note, did they not have a fighting style that emphazied the role of heroic and individual combat? I mean come on, it is not like every barbarian army was pulling off tactical maneuvars and was as well organized as the Romans.
Gleemonex
10-29-2008, 08:08
I think it did show how the Roman army was unstoppable.
How exactly did the Roman war machine it learn from its mistakes if it never made any (ie was never stopped)?
On the barbarian note, did they not have a fighting style that emphazied the role of heroic and individual combat? I mean come on, it is not like every barbarian army was pulling off tactical maneuvars and was as well organized as the Romans.
GJC himself observed a Germanic phalanx. The phalanx, or anything resembling it, required plenty of discipline to use. As far as emphasising individual combat, that was actually pretty smart as they were superior individual combattants, as well as it being equally applicable in heavily-forested terrain.
And despite the barbarians "just throwing themselves at the [superior] Roman shield wall", they managed to sack Rome herself three times.
-Glee
SwissBarbar
10-29-2008, 08:46
An all phalanx and a bit of cavalry army or an all-HA (preferably some heavy cavalry with bows as well, in addition to the light HAs) army would do very well against the Romani in EB.
all HA - yes
all phalanx - nay. Phalanx - even elite ones - are too slow and immobile. Roman heavy infantery would just hold the phalanx in melee, killing the few cavallery (not a problem even against heavy cavallery, with some triarii and some pedites-javelins thrown in their back). Without flank-protection even the hugest phalanx army is easily outflanked. A charge in the rear of the phalany and the battle is over.
Example:
https://img399.imageshack.us/img399/8352/unbenanntio6.png
https://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5996/unbenannt222by5.png
edit: OK, i just see.... against the stupid AI you would do well with an all phalanx army, thats right
Pontius Pilate
10-29-2008, 21:18
How exactly did the Roman war machine it learn from its mistakes if it never made any (ie was never stopped)?
GJC himself observed a Germanic phalanx. The phalanx, or anything resembling it, required plenty of discipline to use. As far as emphasising individual combat, that was actually pretty smart as they were superior individual combattants, as well as it being equally applicable in heavily-forested terrain.
And despite the barbarians "just throwing themselves at the [superior] Roman shield wall", they managed to sack Rome herself three times.
-Glee
Yes, Rome was defeated many times but in the long run it defeated almost all of its enemies. Also, whenever a legion was destroyed another would be raised to take its place, which to Rome's enemies must have looked pretty unstoppable. and remember, in the ancient world raising multiple armies to replace lost ones was something many factions could not do.
true, the germans did use a phalanx but don't get the impression it was the same type of phalanx the greeks or makedonians used which required way more disciplined. As for the notion that the barbarians using individual combat was pretty smart, well I think GJC himself would have to disagree with that one after he conquered Gaul and a million Gauls were slain.
Yes, the barbarians did manage to sack Rome many times, but every civilization has its high and weak points in its history, every civilization declines, and no civilization lasts forever.
EDIT: Anyway, to stop this from turning into another Rome vs. the Barbarians thread (which I don't mind by the way) here is my unstoppable army composition:(spelling might be off)
1 equites singulares
1 imperial legionary first cohort
8 imperial legionary cohorts
4 imperial auxillaries (2 western and 2 eastern)
2 pretorian guard cohorts
1 imperial cavalry wing
1 pretorian guard cavalry
2 imperial eastern archer auxilia
Grriffon
10-29-2008, 22:15
It's like people are simply unable to not sing the praises of the Roman Military Machine in history ANY time the Romani faction is mentioned.
As far as an army that could easily beat a Romani army, I will try to name a few.
The phalanx army could work. As someone pointed out, phalanxes are slow to maneuver and vulnerable from the rear, but to prevent this you would need to bring along some peltasts and lighter infantry as well as your phalanxes and heavy cavalry.
If we say we are using an Epirote army for the phalanx, I would compose it something like this:
8x Phalanx (any kind, really)
4x Heavy Cavalry
6x thracian peltasts
2x hellenic spearmen
While the phalanxes are slow, when maneuvered correctly, they are the best defensive unit in the game, in my opinion. Of course you can beat an AI phalanx army. That does not prove that they could not defeat a Romani army.
For a Carthaginian army, mine would look something like this:
10x elite liby-phonecian axemen
2x elephants
5x sacred band cavalry
3x balaeric slingers
Those axemen would mow through legionaires.
Any number of horse archer armies could defeat a Romani army, although they are heavily armored enough that you would need some melee capable cavalry in there for when you eventually ran out of arrows.
others off the top of my head include:
6x thracian heavy phalanx
6x elite thracian infantry
4x elite dacian archers
4x thracian peltasts
8x elite hellenic spearmen
4x armored elephants
6x indian longbowmen
2x hellenic cataphracts
10x spartan hoplites
4x rhodian slingers
6x heavy cavalry
That's plenty for now , I think :clown:
Aemilius Paulus
10-30-2008, 00:05
all phalanx - nay. Phalanx - even elite ones - are too slow and immobile. Roman heavy infantery would just hold the phalanx in melee, killing the few cavallery (not a problem even against heavy cavallery, with some triarii and some pedites-javelins thrown in their back). Without flank-protection even the hugest phalanx army is easily outflanked. A charge in the rear of the phalany and the battle is over.
I'm talking about defeating an AI Romani army.
Gleemonex
10-30-2008, 06:05
Yes, Rome was defeated many times but in the long run it defeated almost all of its enemies. Also, whenever a legion was destroyed another would be raised to take its place, which to Rome's enemies must have looked pretty unstoppable. and remember, in the ancient world raising multiple armies to replace lost ones was something many factions could not do.
Yes, that's true -- again an example of the Roman Army modularity and mastery of logistics. But that's wandering away from the EB context now; I think the OP (and other posters) were thinking more along the lines of a MP or "quick-start" battle sure-winner.
true, the germans did use a phalanx but don't get the impression it was the same type of phalanx the greeks or makedonians used which required way more disciplined.
There's zero hard evidence for that, one way or the other. The above statement is just a default to the "smelly naked savages" precept.
As for the notion that the barbarians using individual combat was pretty smart, well I think GJC himself would have to disagree with that one after he conquered Gaul and a million Gauls were slain.
Caesar's successes, brilliant as they were, were due more to his own leadership and charisma, and his forces' esprit-de-corps, which again wanders from EB territory.
EDIT: Anyway, to stop this from turning into another Rome vs. the Barbarians thread (which I don't mind by the way) here is my unstoppable army composition:(spelling might be off)
[...]
Alright, good idea. I'm guilty of OT-ing here too. Here's my "unstoppable" army:
1 x Late Saka Bodyguard/General
1 x Pahlava Late Cataphracts
1 x Armoured Indian Elephant
1 x Dahae Rider
2 x Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou
1 x Thraikioi Rhomphaiaphoroi
2 x Thraikioi Peltastai
1 x Rhodian Slinger
2 x Balearic Slingers
1 x Persian Archer-Spearmen
1 x Gaesatae
6 x Liby-Phoenecian Spearmen
-Glee
teh1337tim
10-30-2008, 06:45
mine is still bettter... an campaign ending ctd.. mwauhahahahah..
lol
m armor would be...
3x hetaroi
2x thessalian
2x thraiken prodimo
1x thracian light calv
6 phalanxes (preferably pezhetaroi or klourochi)
4 theurophia or hoplites (rly any spearmen or medium infantry)
2 kretan archers.. wam :)
Unstoppable Roman Army
4 x Dorkim Shardanim
OT but... Romans shouldn't be able to recruit nuragic infantry.
Livy cites that Sardinians were known to be the kind of slave that tries to kill the owner at the first chance.
Given the long and bloody resistance they made against roman conquest having them in one legion means that you're going to be backstabbed as soon as there is a chance...
SwissBarbar
10-30-2008, 14:47
not under my fair-minded and magnificent rule ;-)
satalexton
10-30-2008, 15:25
ie slaughtering every lot of them then turning the bodies into pig feed >_>
SwissBarbar
10-30-2008, 15:27
wich would be part of my fair-minded and magnificent rule ....
Gleemonex
10-31-2008, 14:06
Alright, now that we've seen a few Roman-killers -- does anyone have ideas on how to stop the other "unstoppable armies" in this thread? I'm curious about mine in particular, as I generally like my grand armies to be generalist.
:duel:
-Glee
Grriffon
10-31-2008, 18:17
something i've never tried in game, but would be possible in a "money is no object" army making thread, is using a few of the large arrow projectors to force a horse archer army to either attack you or slowly get picked off.
perhaps something like this:
3x arrow projector
10x dodisaskeli (sp?) the awesome lusotannan spearmen from 1.0
4x indian longbowmen
3x armoured elephants
I can't remember what army you listed. If it wasn't a horse archer army though, please remind us what it was.
Gleemonex
10-31-2008, 23:26
something i've never tried in game, but would be possible in a "money is no object" army making thread, is using a few of the large arrow projectors to force a horse archer army to either attack you or slowly get picked off.
perhaps something like this:
3x arrow projector
10x dodisaskeli (sp?) the awesome lusotannan spearmen from 1.0
4x indian longbowmen
3x armoured elephants
Interesting. But would they fire rapidly enough to make a difference?
I can't remember what army you listed. If it wasn't a horse archer army though, please remind us what it was.
1 x Late Saka Bodyguard/General
1 x Pahlava Late Cataphracts
1 x Armoured Indian Elephant
1 x Dahae Rider
2 x Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou
1 x Thraikioi Rhomphaiaphoroi
2 x Thraikioi Peltastai
1 x Rhodian Slinger
2 x Balearic Slingers
1 x Persian Archer-Spearmen
1 x Gaesatae
6 x Liby-Phoenecian Spearmen
-Glee
Grriffon
11-01-2008, 00:16
Well, it looks like you have an elephant, some heavy cavalry, a couple different types of archers, and 10-11 units of infantry, mostly spearmen.
To counter that army I would use something like:
4x indian longbowmen
2x thracian peltasts
2x heavy cavalry, kinsmen if I could take any, I guess
2x armoured elephants
10x elite liby-phonecian axemen
For me, that's a pretty all purpose army that I would put up against almost anything.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.