Faction strengths? [Archive]

Cute Wolf

11-20-2009, 21:45

Sauro's strength lies in their horse's numbers! They have easy acess to the cheapest horse archers ever (in terms of both recruitment cost and upkeep), Sauromatae Fat Aexdantae, at mere 1000+ Minai and about 250 minai upkeep... they could ammased in great numbers compared to their Saka and Pahlava counterparts, not to mention that they are also mercenary so they could be levied quickly if sorely needed... compare with Duna Asya or Pahlava Shivatir, maybe in small 3 or 4 unit, that doesn't matter too much, but when you have multi stacks of HA army that need patrolling all the Steppe.... their difference in upkeep will matter a lot, especially if the economy was tight! Many Sauro Variants of the Nomad units are also cheaper, with just sightly less performance, just use them as Zerg version of Nomads.

Makedon and Epeiros have acess to Agrianikoi Pelekuphoroi, among the best assault troops to be employed against seleukid cataphracts on foot (read: TAB). And the makedonians has acess to Hysteroi Pezhetairoi, maybe not a relatively good units when compared to Argyraspidai or the Crack Chaonion Agema... but at least they have an incredibly large AOR (even to the extent you'll babysitting the Romans for march of time) you can just train them virtually anywhere in the mediterranians...

Epeiros has better choice, the Molosoan Agema is the fastest heavy cavalry that you can use not only for breaking enemy formations, but also to riding down skirmishers and still have enough stamina to impale enemy general... also the Chaonion Agema is the top-crack phalangitai by stats... they beat everyone and with acess to experience inducing temples, they become killing machine by birth... and the last thing wonderful with Epeiros is.... They can train Elephants at Ambrakia!!!! Means the Romans will get many fresh elephant meat if they carefully use their leves and velites, or become a smashed sticky meaty sauce if they aren't.

Pontos gaining extremely wide kind of units, that wasn't particularly good, but you did have every counter for everything your enemy is about to thrown at you...

Hayasdan? They had horse archers and catas while they are civilized and didn't get their reforms as hard as Pahlava does (you just build some market and then change the gov't type). They are basically a civilized nomads with inclination to massive archery tactics (having Kovakasi Archers available at the start and in nearby regions means that those cheap but damn good archers are about to be ammased and made the sky dark with their arrows)

Saba? At least.... they have really isolated position and they have mines in nearby settlements, just play turtle and you can build up your force. But actually, this faction is among the hardest of factions available........

ARCHIPPOS

11-20-2009, 21:54

"but I can't tell what makes Macedon and especially the Ptolemaic recruit lists better than the Seleucids (which is just huge)."

they are not... supposedly the Seleucids get THE best troop choice in the game.

Grade_A_Beef

11-20-2009, 21:57

Well, yeah, I know the Seleucids have the best troops choice. Just want to know what kinda perks Macedon and Ptolemaics get to differentiate themselves from the Seleucids. Looks like Macedon's explained, but the Ptolemaics are a different story.

The Ptolemaics seem to have nothing going for their unit roster; though their advantages on the strategic map is huge. Do they get anything aside from occupying fabulously rich provinces and a strategically strong poisition (as in they only have to deal with the distracted Seleucids early on?)

I've checked the EB list, and it looks like the Dacian bodyguard unit is slightly better than the Molosson Agema, although it's a shame the Getai can't recruit this unit as a standalone cavalry unit.

athanaric

11-20-2009, 22:00

but I can't tell what makes Macedon and especially the Ptolemaic recruit lists better than the Seleucids

Nothing. The Seleukids have the best recruitment list in the game.

Makedones are the masters of phalanx, though. Their reformed Heavy Palanx in addition to Argyraspides and a very decent levy phalanx are testament to that.
Ptolies get better access to Egyptian (levies/mid tier), Galatian (assault swordsmen), and Ethiopian (fast mid tier units + Elephants) units, but are inferior otherwise.

Also I don't understand what kind of advantages the Suromatae have over the other two nomad factions. Sauka gets decent infantry after reforms and Pahlava gets the super heavy catas......but the Suromatae.....yeah.

Again, the only difference is your own skill. Sauromatae have a quality problem against Saka in particular (lower range and armour on average), and therefore are difficult to play. Try to get Roxolani Nobles. They are very expensive, though. However, if you play smart you may have privileged access to some excellent Greek, Dacian and Germanic infantry units. Skythian units are also very useful!

Pontos, Armenia, and Saba all have different styles but I have no clue how to play as them. They don't seem to have any unit advantages over their neighbors.

Pontos and Armenia are very diverse, which means they can adopt any play style, even "barbarian". Armenia is like a weaker version of Pahlava, but with better infantry and a more consistent economy system.

Saba is "officially" the weakest faction (unit wise) but still fun to play. They have decent foot archers and are pretty enduring; a bit like Swêboz with better ranged units but no heavy units.

-> Edit: Hint: Saba can recruit Galatian Heavy Swordsmen in Egypt! This means that if you (as a Saba player) ever see some of those wandering unaccompanied through the desert, fel no hesitation to bribe them. These guys are heavier than any of your factional units and thus an excellent addition to your army. They were incredibly helpful for me when I defeated the Ptolemaioi.

Apázlinemjó

11-20-2009, 22:45

Ptolies get better access to Egyptian (levies/mid tier), Galatian (assault swordsmen), and Ethiopian (fast mid tier units + Elephants) units, but are inferior otherwise.

Let's not forget the Klerouchikon Agema, the second strongest phalanx unit in the game and the Basilikon Agema, the heavy thorakitai, also they can get Kretikoi Toxotai as factional unit.

To Pontos: They are the jack of all trades in the game, but you can't use your full potential at the start of the game, if you are playing them, because you have to survive the Seleucids first.

WinsingtonIII

11-20-2009, 22:50

Can anyone give me a rundown of all the faction styles and their strengths compared to other factions of similiar style?

I understand that Macedon, Seleucia, and Ptolemaics (Epeiros too to some extent) each have different regionals and some unique units, but I can't tell what makes Macedon and especially the Ptolemaic recruit lists better than the Seleucids (which is just huge).

Also I don't understand what kind of advantages the Suromatae have over the other two nomad factions. Sauka gets decent infantry after reforms and Pahlava gets the super heavy catas......but the Suromatae.....yeah.

Pontos, Armenia, and Saba all have different styles but I have no clue how to play as them. They don't seem to have any unit advantages over their neighbors.

Nice exception would be the Getai, who are a breath of fresh air whenever you fight them or use them, seeing as they can fight so many neighbors with different tactics and have their own unique ones as well.

Well I think it's important to remember that EB focuses on historical accuracy more than anything else, so some factions will simply be weaker than their neighbors, and that's just something that you're going to have to deal with. I personally think it makes the game more interesting than putting too much effort into creating factions that are perfectly balanced.

Cute Wolf already covered most of these, but I'll say what I think about some of the one's he didn't go into detail about.

The Ptolemaic roster is not as strong as the Seleucid roster overall as far as I can tell. That's a decision that I'm sure was made based on historical data, and when playing as them it's just something you have to deal with. The Ptolemaoi do have a couple things going for them. The Machimoi swordsmen, although not particularly good, provide a cheap and decent medium sword infantry in their homelands, and I don't think the Seleucids really have an equivalent to that. They also have the Galatikoi Kleruchoi (Galatian Heavy Infantry), which are a very effective heavy sword unit (with the added bonus of it being a Galatian that can be recruited outside of Galatia), and I'm pretty certain that the Seleucids do not have an equivalent to that.

Pontos is one of those factions that have it rough. Any campaign you play with them with be very difficult due to both their starting position and their poor roster. Their biggest benefit, as I can tell, is that they get the largest selection of Galatian troops out of any faction in the game, and Galatian troops are generally pretty good. However, they are only recruitable in one province. The combination of Hellenic and Galatian rosters is interesting, and you can play them with either Hellenic or "barbarian" tactics, or a mixture of both, but Pontos is hampered because its Hellenic roster is subpar and Galatians are limited to one province. They also lack cataphracts, so even their cavalry is generally outclassed by those around them. Conclusion: Pontos has a weak roster, with little in the way of strengths, but that's just how it is.

Saba, as Cute Wolf said, has a good starting position, but again, their roster is weak. Most Sabaean and Arabian troops wear little to no armor, so they will die like flies under missile fire. Even the Sabaean Noble Infantry, some of the heaviest armored troops they can muster, have less armor than Hellenic Theurophoroi, which are considered fairly light by Hellenic standards. The strength of many Sabaean and Arabian troops is that they have surprisingly high morale. Arabian Light Infantry will hold in melee versus superior foes for quite some time before routing, which is not what you would expect by looking at them. Sabaean Levy Spearmen have 13 morale (!) which is surprisingly high considering their levy status. But this is where the strengths end. Saba lacks cavalry, decently armored units in general (other than their bodyguard), and has trouble holding a line. When fighting against the Ptolies and Seleucids, you're going to have to resort to Pantodapoi Phalangitai more and more the further you get from home, which I hate doing when I'm not a Hellenic faction.

That's just my take, but I think it's just that EB makes factions historically accurate, so sometimes you will end up with factions that have weak rosters with few strengths.

GenosseGeneral

11-20-2009, 22:51

concerning ptolies i can just point at the galatians... ever seen an diadochoi army with useful hevy infantry? especially together with thorakitai, they can be used for some kind of a "reformed" army and they are VERY useful to assault walls... but u still got phanlanxes and all that other greek stuff. do not underestimate the ptolies' units...

Brave Brave Sir Robin

11-21-2009, 00:40

The Seleukids get access to the same Galatian roster that Pontos does I believe. And the Galatian Spearmen are basically the equivalent of the Galatian Swordsmen except that their secondary weapon is a spear instead of a javilin.

I would add that the major strength of Macedon besides the reformed Phalanx is their access to Thracian units including the Peltasts which they can recruit unlike any faction except Getai. Epiros has access to Italic infantry ranging from light to heavy and all decently effective. Ptolemies do get great access to Galatian Swordsmen but I feel this is their only major advantage. I don't think Klereuchoi Phalangitai are the equals of Argryaspides and they have very limited recruitment area as well.

On the flip side their Machimoi are very useful but no more useful than say, Eastern Axemen or Cappadocian Hillmen which the Seleukids have great access to.

Centurio Nixalsverdrus

11-21-2009, 01:12

@Grade_A_Beef:

The scissor-rock-paper system of vanilla has been replaced by the historical-accuracy system of EB.

WinsingtonIII

11-21-2009, 02:14

On the flip side their Machimoi are very useful but no more useful than say, Eastern Axemen or Cappadocian Hillmen which the Seleukids have great access to.

Machimoi have more staying power in melee than Cappadocian Hillmen or Eastern Axemen. They have 6 armor while the various axemen only have 2, and they have 3 shield while the axemen have 2. Overall they have 19 defense, while the axemen have only 15. I think that makes them better at holding in melee for some time and makes them less vulnerable to missiles, which is important in the east. The higher lethality of the axes makes them better flankers (the Machimoi's sword is armor-piercing just like the axes though) but the greater staying power of the Machimoi makes them a bit more versatile in their role in my opinion. Of course, if you want versatile medium infantry in the Middle East with surprising staying power, you should probably just go for Ioudaioi Taxeis (although they lack axes or swords and instead have spears), which both the Ptolies and the Arche have access to.

athanaric

11-21-2009, 03:15

Let's not forget the Klerouchikon Agema, the second strongest phalanx unit in the game and the Basilikon Agema, the heavy thorakitai, also they can get Kretikoi Toxotai as factional unit.

The Klerouchikon Agema has exactly the same stats as the Argyraspides, and a smaller AoR.
Every faction can recruit factional Kretan Archers, if they control Kydonia, Antiocheia, or Alexandria. I've even recruited those guys with Casse, Swêboz, Saka, Hayasdan, and Sab'yn.

In fact, the small AoR of most of their units, especially the elites, is the biggest weakness of the Ptolemaioi, compared to other successors.

retep219

11-21-2009, 05:18

Pontos is one of those factions that have it rough. Any campaign you play with them with be very difficult due to both their starting position and their poor roster. Their biggest benefit, as I can tell, is that they get the largest selection of Galatian troops out of any faction in the game, and Galatian troops are generally pretty good. However, they are only recruitable in one province. The combination of Hellenic and Galatian rosters is interesting, and you can play them with either Hellenic or "barbarian" tactics, or a mixture of both, but Pontos is hampered because its Hellenic roster is subpar and Galatians are limited to one province. They also lack cataphracts, so even their cavalry is generally outclassed by those around them. Conclusion: Pontos has a weak roster, with little in the way of strengths, but that's just how it is.

I wouldn't call Pontos's roster all that bad. It does take some time to get to their better units, but once you have them, you can field an army that can easily beat anything the AI will throw at you. (Hey, is that surprising?) They don't really lack much--Chalkaspides are an elite phalanx that seem to get bad press, but aren't all that bad. They are the same price as Hysteroi Pezhataroi and are recruitable at the same MIC level. However, the Chalkaspides are almost identical to the reformed phalanx...they only lack a single point of attack. Same defence and morale. Pantodapoi Phalangitai are also present, being cheap and very good to hold the line. In the way of Galatian elites--true, it's just one province (Two, if you count Odrysai, which can recruit the Shortswordsmen and Heavy Spearmen, as well as Rhomphorai instead of Tindonatae) but is very centrally located and provides the Heavy Spearmen, unmatched among anything you'll see in the AI armies except for their clone, the Heavy Swordsmen that the Ptolemaioi sometimes field, as well as the Tindonatae which can easily rout an AI army. Plus you get cheap but dependable medium swords a good four turns after Galatia falls (Something you can accomplish on turn two/three without losing many men if you force a sally and win, which is quite possible, if difficult)

As for the issue of cataphracts, I don't know what exactly you mean by that term, but Pontos does get the Kinsmen Heavy Cavalry. They're not true cataphracts, but are pretty close. They're recruitable in Amarvir with an MIC that Hayasdan will always build for you if you don't blitz them out of existence within the first fifteen or so years. And if you're worried about cavalry inferiority, get the Scythed Chariots. They shred non-cataphract cavalry, and if maneuvered correctly will put a dent in even the cataphracts, assuming that the cataphracts aren't allowed to charge.

Apázlinemjó

11-21-2009, 10:20

The Klerouchikon Agema has exactly the same stats as the Argyraspides, and a smaller AoR.
Every faction can recruit factional Kretan Archers, if they control Kydonia, Antiocheia, or Alexandria. I've even recruited those guys with Casse, Swêboz, Saka, Hayasdan, and Sab'yn.

In fact, the small AoR of most of their units, especially the elites, is the biggest weakness of the Ptolemaioi, compared to other successors.

Ahh checked the EDU, you're right about the Agema, however what I wanted to say with Cretans, that you can train them almost at the start of the game with Ptolies and with Seleucids too.

EDIT: Nvm

As for the issue of cataphracts, I don't know what exactly you mean by that term, but Pontos does get the Kinsmen Heavy Cavalry. They're not true cataphracts, but are pretty close. They're recruitable in Amarvir with an MIC that Hayasdan will always build for you if you don't blitz them out of existence within the first fifteen or so years. And if you're worried about cavalry inferiority, get the Scythed Chariots. They shred non-cataphract cavalry, and if maneuvered correctly will put a dent in even the cataphracts, assuming that the cataphracts aren't allowed to charge.

Or you can get a cheaper and almost identical unit in stats, the Scythian Nobles. Also you can train Steppe Riders, who are excellent at wearing out the A.I. Cataphracts and after that it's a piece of cake to bring them down.

IrishHitman

11-21-2009, 13:24

Makedonia's strength is that you can deploy a proper combined arms army without being distracted with random regional troops that generally don't fit such a strategy.

I've never played with the Ptolemaic or Seleucid kingdoms for any real period of time, because while they have some pretty fun units, they simply don't fit my military strategy.

abou

11-21-2009, 13:38

I think you guys are focusing too much on the military and not everything else about gameplay - starting positions, economy, location, etc. The Seleukids may be able to build up the best military, but their starting position means that they can't really utilize such a military right away.

ziegenpeter

11-21-2009, 13:48

And they will never have the best available units in ONE army, because it would be very cumbersome to gather them from all over the empire.

Alien of Germania

11-21-2009, 16:26

You are all forgeting Baktria, Im playing Seleucids at the moment after an amazing campaign as Baktria and I found Baktria the more stronger and richest concerning unit recruitment comparing to other factions in general.

WinsingtonIII

11-21-2009, 16:57

I wouldn't call Pontos's roster all that bad. It does take some time to get to their better units, but once you have them, you can field an army that can easily beat anything the AI will throw at you. (Hey, is that surprising?) They don't really lack much--Chalkaspides are an elite phalanx that seem to get bad press, but aren't all that bad. They are the same price as Hysteroi Pezhataroi and are recruitable at the same MIC level. However, the Chalkaspides are almost identical to the reformed phalanx...they only lack a single point of attack. Same defence and morale. Pantodapoi Phalangitai are also present, being cheap and very good to hold the line.

But compared to Hysteroi Pezhetairoi, Chalkaspides have an AOR of 4 provinces in Asia Minor, while the Hysteroi Pezhetairoi are recruitable in S. Italy, all of Greece and S. Thracia, the entire West coast of Asia Minor, Antioch, N. Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Baktra. From a campaign perspective that makes them a better unit. Plus I think the more accurate comparison to make is between Chalkaspides and Agryaspides and Klerouchon Agema, because those are the elite phalanxes you will actually be facing for the most part. In comparison to these, Chalkaspides do not stack up. Just going by morale alone (which I consider the most important stat for phalanx troops) the have 13 while the equivalents the AS and Ptolies will be sending your way have 16. The fact that they are less expensive is actually a very good thing from the perspective of playing as Pontos, but they are not as good an elite as the ones you will be facing.

As for Pantodapoi Phalangitai, I agree they are a surprisingly good unit, but practically every faction in the East has access to them, so I don't think they are really a particular strength for the Pontic roster (that implies that it's something unique to them). So really, the three things the make the Pontic Hellenic roster weak compared to others are Chalkaspides, a lack of Pezhetairoi, and a lack of successor cavalry. I realize that these don't really hold them back much in the hands of any human player versus the computer, but technically they do have a below average Hellenic roster, that's all I'm saying.

In the way of Galatian elites--true, it's just one province (Two, if you count Odrysai, which can recruit the Shortswordsmen and Heavy Spearmen, as well as Rhomphorai instead of Tindonatae) but is very centrally located and provides the Heavy Spearmen, unmatched among anything you'll see in the AI armies except for their clone, the Heavy Swordsmen that the Ptolemaioi sometimes field, as well as the Tindonatae which can easily rout an AI army. Plus you get cheap but dependable medium swords a good four turns after Galatia falls (Something you can accomplish on turn two/three without losing many men if you force a sally and win, which is quite possible, if difficult)

I would agree with you on every point here. I said in my previous post that Galatians are one of the strengths of the Pontic roster, but I lamented their small AOR. The reason I didn't include Odrysai is because early on you probably won't control it, and Galatia is in a better location to reinforce against the AS anyways.

As for the issue of cataphracts, I don't know what exactly you mean by that term, but Pontos does get the Kinsmen Heavy Cavalry. They're not true cataphracts, but are pretty close. They're recruitable in Amarvir with an MIC that Hayasdan will always build for you if you don't blitz them out of existence within the first fifteen or so years. And if you're worried about cavalry inferiority, get the Scythed Chariots. They shred non-cataphract cavalry, and if maneuvered correctly will put a dent in even the cataphracts, assuming that the cataphracts aren't allowed to charge.

Well they don't have true cataphracts, that's all I meant by that term. I don't even like cataphracts very much, but I just thought that I would point out that this is something that Pontos lacks that pretty much every other Eastern faction has access to. I love the Royal Kinsmen (the early bodyguard) and the regular kinsmen heavy cavalry are quite good, but again, they don't stack up to the elite cavalry you will facing around you. True cataphracts will eat them in melee, and in general the Hellenic elite cavalry have better morale than them and are just are maneuverable as they are. All I'm saying is that there is a reason why these troops were in decline during EB's time period, they were somewhat archaic. As for chariots, in close battles where you are forced to take some risks with your cavalry, Scythed Chariots become more of a liability than they are helpful. I don't really think that Pontos has bad cavalry overall, but you have to admit that their selection (in their homelands, I'm not counting steppe regionals that many Eastern factions get) is small for an Eastern faction, which hampers their abilities somewhat.

seienchin

11-21-2009, 18:02

I would be interested which factions you think are the worst, unitwise?:book:
I personally think Saba. :whip:
Armenia would be powerfull if it would be located in europe, but compared to its neighbours it is really mediocre. Still no saba though :laugh4:
I found casse to be surprisingly powerfull, because of huge units and good moral. Still in the campain their rate of casualties is insane :help:

Grade_A_Beef

11-21-2009, 18:40

well, no, I'm asking for a rock-paper-scissors thing. It's easy enough to counter anything a faction sends at you....

What I want to know is what kind of distinguishing feature there is for each faction, especially the ones that practice similar fighting styles.

athanaric

11-21-2009, 23:47

What I want to know is what kind of distinguishing feature there is for each faction, especially the ones that practice similar fighting styles.

In short, I would sum it up like this:

Successors:

Makedonia - most "pure" Successor-style faction; best Phalanx roster (also when counting availability). Lots of specialist melee troops (incl. elites); some excellent but difficult to get missile support. All in all very strong in melee and combined arms.

AS - excellent unit selection covering every troop type in the game, but difficult to assemble. Lots of elites, but still has to rely more on levies and regionals than Makedonia.

Ptolemaioi - like AS, but lacking HAs and true Cataphracts. Also the AoR of their best units is very small. This is of course offset by their advantageous position on the map.

Surrounding factions:

Pontos - much like AS, but slightly weaker in terms of Phalanx, factional heavy infantry, and heavy cavalry. Has easiest access to Galatian troops though.

Hayasdan - in between Pontos and Pahlava, with some good infantry, especially (light) archers. Strong but expensive cavalry of all kinds.

Pahlava - Strongest cavalry faction with 4 types of recruitable cataphracts; also their HAs are a distinct advantage over the Hellenistic neighbours. Decent light and medium infantry, especially archers, but no factional elite infantry. Their best units are readily available almost everywhere, even more so after the "reforms"! Fear the Dêhbêd cavalry :skull:

Baktria - much like AS but more cavalry heavy. Again, limited AoR of the best units. Only Hellenistic kingdom with factional HAs, but no elite phalanx. Easiest access to Indian units.

Epeiros - kinda like a western version of Baktria, without the HAs and super-heavy stuff. In matters Phalanx almost equal to AS or Makedonia.

etc.

ARCHIPPOS

11-21-2009, 23:58

Athanaric's post sums it up excellently i'ld say :)

i really like the short sentences and using up the AS as common measure :)

Dodge_272

11-22-2009, 00:28

I've found the Casse are very good at making people run away, and that's about it. :D

ziegenpeter

11-22-2009, 12:12

I love the Royal Kinsmen (the early bodyguard) and the regular kinsmen heavy cavalry are quite good, but again, they don't stack up to the elite cavalry you will facing around you. True cataphracts will eat them in melee, and in general the Hellenic elite cavalry have better morale than them and are just are maneuverable as they are. All I'm saying is that there is a reason why these troops were in decline during EB's time period, they were somewhat archaic.
You mean cataphracts were in decline?
AFAIK they were in use even in medieval times. (In the ERE e.g.)

Andronikos

11-22-2009, 12:24

The Kinsmen heavy cavalry is descendand of Persian heavy cavalry from Achamenid times, it's not cataphract. And this type of cavalry was on decline, because it was proven ineffective when comapred with hetairoi, the most powerful and widely used heavy cavalry of that era. On the other hand, cataphract model was a new one and it was on ascent.

Pinwhistle

11-22-2009, 12:43

Apázlinemjó

11-22-2009, 12:47

The Casse are one of the more competent factions, at least in battle, for their unfailing ability to make at least 2/3s of any opposing army run away. They are, more or less, expert terrorizers. They can be a bitch to play though, because despite being able to sustain the isles as an economic powerhouse, expansion is usually difficult.

Naked dudes & Chariots, you can do that with Pontos too.

Brennus

11-22-2009, 12:59

The Casse are one of the more competent factions, at least in battle, for their unfailing ability to make at least 2/3s of any opposing army run away. They are, more or less, expert terrorizers. They can be a bitch to play though, because despite being able to sustain the isles as an economic powerhouse, expansion is usually difficult.

Thats very true, especially if you hit one of those two very sensitive nerves, the Sweboz or Romani, then your continental empire never sees peace.

ziegenpeter

11-22-2009, 14:49

So what is techniclly the difference between persian heavy cav and cataphracts?

retep219

11-22-2009, 16:51

So what is techniclly the difference between persian heavy cav and cataphracts?

In the case of the unit to which I were referring, it's the amount of armor. Compare

https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/arche-seleukeia/seleukid_persian_heavy.gif

who is only armored in the front, with these two units: Hellenic Cataphracts and Grivpanvar, respectively
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/arche-seleukeia/seleukid_hellenikoi_kataphraktoi.gif
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/pahlava/pah_grivpanvar.gif

Grivpanvar ARE usually considered to be the game's best cavalry and cost about 1.7 times as much as the Persians. They have a 5 attack lance, 11-attack sword with .225 lethality, and 36 defence. Hellenic cataphracts are probably the game's worst cataphracts (According to their unit description, I didn't actually compare stats) with a 4-attack lance, 9-attack AP sword with .11 lethality, and 31 defence. Only thirteen morale, though. Kinsmen have the same stats, but they only have 25 defence. So that's the difference in game terms at least.

Ca Putt

11-22-2009, 17:09

Very nice list tho I think Pahlava's discription can be summed up in one word: CATAPHRACTS!

Kinsmen are not bad tho just "only" heavy Cavalry and no uber elite Cataphracts. o

Cute Wolf

11-22-2009, 17:27

Although in reality (when you playing as Pontus or Hay) the Khuveshavangan CAN DEFEAT CATAPHRACTS on their secondary weapons and better mobility.... their horses is a bit faster, and that means you could sent the first terrible blow...

seienchin

11-22-2009, 18:41

In Eb reality eastern axeman defeat cataphracts...:furious3:

WinsingtonIII

11-22-2009, 19:35

You mean cataphracts were in decline?
AFAIK they were in use even in medieval times. (In the ERE e.g.)

No, I mean the Persian Kinsmen heavy cavalry such as the Achamenid Empire used were in decline. They are not true cataphracts.... as I mentioned in that very post that you quoted...

As Andronikos says, the Kinsmen had proven ineffective against the more versatile hetairoi of the Hellenes.

You probably already got all of this information from Andronikos' post, but I just want to make sure I'm not misunderstood.

Also, I never said or implied that Kinsmen heavy cavalry were bad, per se, in fact I think they are quite good, they just are not as good as Hetairoi or true cataphracts (although if used to flank catas they can take them down, as someone already mentioned).

Ca Putt

11-22-2009, 22:13

WinsingtonIII

11-22-2009, 22:23

Oh, for my part I did not think you implied Kinsmen are bad only that with all this "Kinsmen are not Cataphracts" talk it sounded as if they were a bad cavalry unit. I did not want to let it stand there like that^^ I too find them a very usefull unit :)

on Pontos: imo they have the doctrine: Cheap and (relatively) weak Elite units. Their Elite Phalanx is more compareable to the Pezhetairoi than Agyraspidai, still they are not a bad unit, just not as strong as other Elites, same goes for kinsmen.

I totally understand, and I'm actually in agreement with you on both of these points. Realistically I think Pontos suffers more from their ridiculously difficult starting position more than from their roster. But it is true that their elites are not up to the quality of the elites of other factions, and this does not help matters, especially when the AS sends ahistorical Agyraspidai spam full-stacks your way. Not that you would really have enough money as Pontos to effectively counter this anyways early on even if you had access to Agyrapsidai yourself.

Apázlinemjó

11-22-2009, 22:47

I totally understand, and I'm actually in agreement with you on both of these points. Realistically I think Pontos suffers more from their ridiculously difficult starting position more than from their roster. But it is true that their elites are not up to the quality of the elites of other factions, and this does not help matters, especially when the AS sends ahistorical Agyraspidai spam full-stacks your way. Not that you would really have enough money as Pontos to effectively counter this anyways early on even if you had access to Agyrapsidai yourself.

A few seasoned axemen and wild men will help you in that matter.

artavazd

11-22-2009, 23:00

In the case of the unit to which I were referring, it's the amount of armor. Compare

https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/arche-seleukeia/seleukid_persian_heavy.gif

who is only armored in the front, with these two units: Hellenic Cataphracts and Grivpanvar, respectively
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/arche-seleukeia/seleukid_hellenikoi_kataphraktoi.gif
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/pahlava/pah_grivpanvar.gif

Grivpanvar ARE usually considered to be the game's best cavalry and cost about 1.7 times as much as the Persians. They have a 5 attack lance, 11-attack sword with .225 lethality, and 36 defence. Hellenic cataphracts are probably the game's worst cataphracts (According to their unit description, I didn't actually compare stats) with a 4-attack lance, 9-attack AP sword with .11 lethality, and 31 defence. Only thirteen morale, though. Kinsmen have the same stats, but they only have 25 defence. So that's the difference in game terms at least.

The late Armenian bodyguard unit matches up nicely withthe Grivpanvar, plus the Arm. Cataphract has an AP mace.

vartan

11-23-2009, 07:21

No offence, but most of what I've been reading have been short responses that didn't quite fit into my expectation. To respond to the OP, I can only represent Hayasdan as 99.999% of my campaigns have been Hai campaigns. Here is my idea:

The Hai start in a rather peculiar situation. They are at war with the Sarmatian barbaric nomads to the north that have recently and unsuccessfully invaded Armenia. They have an uneasy 'alliance' with the Seleucid Empire (in Armenian: the 'selvuks'). You begin with one province, a patriarch, two sons, and several units of caucasian spearmen, caucasian archers, eastern skirmishers, and armenian medium cavalry. Your first goal is to ceasefire with sarmatia (no need to take their low fertile lands in the beginning), and consolidate the caucasus by conquering kabalaka, mtskheta, ani-kamakh and kotais (initiate the pan-caucasus reforms). Create a type I gov't in Armavir (and in the future, Ani and Karkathiokerta), and type II elsewhere, to upgrade barracks in the caucasus. Construct mines.

Now you are ready to recruit your royal armies that will go out to create the emipre that Armenia was supposed to be (and the empire that it WAS, under none other than Tigger the Great =p ). How is the style of play with Armenia? Well, you will expect to have armies that consist of a light spear group, medium swordsmen group, eastern skirmisher group, foot and horse archer group, and last but not least your all to important, and i cannot emphasize this enough, your super-critical cavalry group. Your cavalry is your beating heart. It defines your success as Arkah (king) of Hayasdan. Your medium cavalry are swift and can send light to medium enemy infantry crying to their mothers (and can switch to their axes to take down enemy armoured units in melee). All this time, your caphracts await their opportunity to strike down enemy cavalry and formations, causing havok and mayhem in enemy ranks.

@Grade_A_Beef:

The scissor-rock-paper system of vanilla has been replaced by the historical-accuracy system of EB.

Beautifully put.

The late Armenian bodyguard unit matches up nicely withthe Grivpanvar, plus the Arm. Cataphract has an AP mace.

As a fellow (biased) Hai, of course I'm going to have to agree with that. Unleash the ultra-nationalistic beast within and I'd say Arm. Kata > all.

On a more serious note, let's take a look at this baby.

http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/pics/Info/eastern_cavalry_nakhararakan_aspet_INFO.jpg

Primary weapon: spear (atk 5, chg 37, lth 0.4) AP
Secondary weapon: mace (atk 5, chg 37, lth 0.165) AP
Armour: 18
Skill: 13
Total Defence: 31
Cost: 4457
Upkeep: 1114
Moral: 16

Costly? yes. Worth it? heck yes.

Leão magno

11-23-2009, 15:13

athanaric

11-23-2009, 17:15

Grade_A_Beef

11-23-2009, 20:05

WinsingtonIII

11-23-2009, 22:46

I was asking for perks, not for rock-paper-scissors counters.......:no:

Then again what I put in the first post might have been worded to mean counters.....I think?

I was asking mainly about the east because that's where most of the simliar factions are located aside from the Celts. I already have experience with the Celts, so I didn't really ask about that. The Casse get a very good starting position but almost no heavy regular infantry aside from Milnaht, while the Aedui and Arverni both get well armored line infantry but have a dynamic starting position.

Well I think Vartan gave a very good rundown of Hayasdan, without any rock-paper-scissors business, but if you're looking for a comparison to other factions I can try to do that. I'm going to look at the three factions that could traditionally be considered "Eastern" factions in EB: Hayasdan, Pahlava, and Pontos. Now, note that the with the term "Eastern" I'm mainly referring to their ruling classes, by which I mean they are not Hellenic rulers controlling empires in the East but rather actual Eastern dynasties. That said, there are many differences in their play styles, but I think they all have the same feel of attempting to recreate a Persian Empire of some sort, which draws them together.

I'll start with the Hai as they are arguably the most stereotypically "Eastern" faction to play as in EB, because they are Easterners who are neither nomadic nor are they very influenced by the Hellenes, so you get the closest to the feel of the old Achaemenid Persian Empire with them. Now, Vartan already covered most of what you need to know here, so I'm not going to say as much as I would. Your main infantry line will be mainly light spear units (I find it somewhat blasphemous to utilize phalanx troops as the Hai, I'm not sure why), they may lack armor, but they have a strong will to fight, and you will surprised by their resilience. In support you will have some medium swordsmen, who are effective but should not be the core of your army, and various foot archers, skirmishers, axemen, and slingers (this is the East after all). The core of your army is your cavalry. Your bodyguards (both early and late, although the late ones are true cataphracts) are heavily armored melee cavalry that can deliver devastating charges and deal out damage in melee, but with all that armor they get tired quickly. Your cataphracts are some of the best in the game, and you should take advantage of them. You also have great medium cavalry that is both fast and good in melee (they have axes), and you will be using horse-archers (both light and armored) in support, but they are not as important as the melee cavalry. After you complete The Orontid Empire Reforms you will get Persian Hoplites, which are decent heavy infantry, but your cavalry should still reign supreme. So, in terms of play style, the Hai are distinguished as the faction in which melee cavalry (and particularly heavy cavalry) is most important out of the three, and the most important element of your armies.

Pahlava starts the game as nomads, and this is evident in their play style. Horse archers are very important, and should form the core of your armies early on. They will mostly be unarmored, but will also have some armored HAs, and your early bodyguard unit is actually an armored HA. You will also have some amazing cataphracts, but I argue that whereas for the Hai the cataphracts perform the primary role and the HAs the secondary role, with Pahlava, the HAs perform the primary role and the cataphracts perform the secondary role. After you complete the reforms, you will get access to a couple types of Hellenic influenced heavy infantry, but they are still secondary to your cavalry. So, for Pahlava, horse archers form the core of your armies, with heavy cavalry in a close second and infantry remaining least important.

Pontos throws us a huge curveball because they are heavily influenced by Hellenic military traditions and heavily employ Galatians in their armies. Pontos is the only one out of the three for which infantry are the most important component of their armies, with heavy cavalry being secondary and horse archers being fairly neglected. Your armies will have a phalanx core of Pantodapoi Phalangitai, Klerouchoi Phalangitai and Chalkaspides. In support are the usual Hellenic support troops, like Theurophoroi, Hoplitai, and Peltastai, but the big difference between Pontos and the more traditional Hellenic factions is that you will have lots of "barbarian" Galatians in support as well. Celtic spearmen, Galatian Shortswordsmen, Galatian Heavy Cavalry, Galatian Heavy Spearmen, and Galatian Wild Men (the East's version of Gaesatae) should form an important Galatian support core in your armies, and the play style that results from the fusion of the Hellenic phalanx and "barbarian" infantry is very interesting and unique. You will also have Eastern light infantry such as archers, skirmishers, and axemen in your armies. Your heavy cavalry is of the archaic Kinsmen variety, but it is still effective, they are just not true cataphracts. So, your play style with Pontos will arguably be one of the most interesting and unique in the game, with a fusion of Hellenic phalanxes, Galatian "barbarians," and Persian heavy cavalry all playing important roles in your armies.

I don't know if I helped, but I hope that gives you an idea of how it feels to play each faction, at least on the battlefield (I didn't want to keep going on and on about the campaign). It's interesting, because you can play out a similar campaign of attempting to recreate a Persian empire with all of them (with the obvious difference of starting in different starting positions), but you will do so with very different battlefield tactics and troop types.

vartan

11-24-2009, 13:39

Vartan:

The mace charge is lower than the lance charge, IIRC 18. Apart from that, I agree with you. Curiously, Armenian Noble Catas have the same stats as Hetairoi (only slightly lower morale), except for the secondary weapon (and personally, I prefer the maces because of lethality issues).

Can somebody explain to me the point of the secondary charge? I ask this for the following reason.

When your horse is at a distance, and you alt-right-click in order to get them to trot to the enemy, charge with spears, and when charge is over, to continue in melee with the secondary weapon...since the charge occurs with lowered spears and not axes/maces (the secondary weapons), why does the computer not just use the primary spear charge initially? The secondary weapon is actually NEVER used in a charge...so what's the point of its existence?

anubis88

11-24-2009, 15:18

Well I think Vartan gave a very good rundown of Hayasdan, without any rock-paper-scissors business, but if you're looking for a comparison to other factions I can try to do that. I'm going to look at the three factions that could traditionally be considered "Eastern" factions in EB: Hayasdan, Pahlava, and Pontos. Now, note that the with the term "Eastern" I'm mainly referring to their ruling classes, by which I mean they are not Hellenic rulers controlling empires in the East but rather actual Eastern dynasties. That said, there are many differences in their play styles, but I think they all have the same feel of attempting to recreate a Persian Empire of some sort, which draws them together.

I'll start with the Hai as they are arguably the most stereotypically "Eastern" faction to play as in EB, because they are Easterners who are neither nomadic nor are they very influenced by the Hellenes, so you get the closest to the feel of the old Achaemenid Persian Empire with them. Now, Vartan already covered most of what you need to know here, so I'm not going to say as much as I would. Your main infantry line will be mainly light spear units (I find it somewhat blasphemous to utilize phalanx troops as the Hai, I'm not sure why), they may lack armor, but they have a strong will to fight, and you will surprised by their resilience. In support you will have some medium swordsmen, who are effective but should not be the core of your army, and various foot archers, skirmishers, axemen, and slingers (this is the East after all). The core of your army is your cavalry. Your bodyguards (both early and late, although the late ones are true cataphracts) are heavily armored melee cavalry that can deliver devastating charges and deal out damage in melee, but with all that armor they get tired quickly. Your cataphracts are some of the best in the game, and you should take advantage of them. You also have great medium cavalry that is both fast and good in melee (they have axes), and you will be using horse-archers (both light and armored) in support, but they are not as important as the melee cavalry. After you complete The Orontid Empire Reforms you will get Persian Hoplites, which are decent heavy infantry, but your cavalry should still reign supreme. So, in terms of play style, the Hai are distinguished as the faction in which melee cavalry (and particularly heavy cavalry) is most important out of the three, and the most important element of your armies.

Pahlava starts the game as nomads, and this is evident in their play style. Horse archers are very important, and should form the core of your armies early on. They will mostly be unarmored, but will also have some armored HAs, and your early bodyguard unit is actually an armored HA. You will also have some amazing cataphracts, but I argue that whereas for the Hai the cataphracts perform the primary role and the HAs the secondary role, with Pahlava, the HAs perform the primary role and the cataphracts perform the secondary role. After you complete the reforms, you will get access to a couple types of Hellenic influenced heavy infantry, but they are still secondary to your cavalry. So, for Pahlava, horse archers form the core of your armies, with heavy cavalry in a close second and infantry remaining least important.

Pontos throws us a huge curveball because they are heavily influenced by Hellenic military traditions and heavily employ Galatians in their armies. Pontos is the only one out of the three for which infantry are the most important component of their armies, with heavy cavalry being secondary and horse archers being fairly neglected. Your armies will have a phalanx core of Pantodapoi Phalangitai, Klerouchoi Phalangitai and Chalkaspides. In support are the usual Hellenic support troops, like Theurophoroi, Hoplitai, and Peltastai, but the big difference between Pontos and the more traditional Hellenic factions is that you will have lots of "barbarian" Galatians in support as well. Celtic spearmen, Galatian Shortswordsmen, Galatian Heavy Cavalry, Galatian Heavy Spearmen, and Galatian Wild Men (the East's version of Gaesatae) should form an important Galatian support core in your armies, and the play style that results from the fusion of the Hellenic phalanx and "barbarian" infantry is very interesting and unique. You will also have Eastern light infantry such as archers, skirmishers, and axemen in your armies. Your heavy cavalry is of the archaic Kinsmen variety, but it is still effective, they are just not true cataphracts. So, your play style with Pontos will arguably be one of the most interesting and unique in the game, with a fusion of Hellenic phalanxes, Galatian "barbarians," and Persian heavy cavalry all playing important roles in your armies.

I don't know if I helped, but I hope that gives you an idea of how it feels to play each faction, at least on the battlefield (I didn't want to keep going on and on about the campaign). It's interesting, because you can play out a similar campaign of attempting to recreate a Persian empire with all of them (with the obvious difference of starting in different starting positions), but you will do so with very different battlefield tactics and troop types.

Very good description Indeed.

I would like to add a few points for Pontos, since they are one of my favourite factions. You forgot to mention, that they are the only ones of the three that can use chariots, which are quite deadly in the right hands. (i think iirc that they are better than the Seleucid ones.) Also if you expand historically and capture the Crimean peninsula you get a lot of awesome units, which are not available for most of your enemies. I would point out the Bosphoran Heavy archers, the Steppe riders and the Scynthian noble cavalry. Once you have in your control let's say the Crimean peninsula and the middle of Micra Asia, you can field one of the most diverse and strongest army in the game

Apázlinemjó

11-24-2009, 16:35

Very good description Indeed.

(i think iirc that they are better than the Seleucid ones.)

Sadly, they are actually weaker than the Seleucid ones, the difference is 4 armor.

AS:

;147
type hellenistic chariot scythed
dictionary hellenistic_chariot_scythed ; Scythed Chariots
category cavalry
class heavy
voice_type Female_1
soldier eastern_chariot_crew, 10, 10, 1
mount scythed chariot
mount_effect elephant -4, horse -2
attributes sea_faring, frighten_foot, can_run_amok, power_charge
formation 7, 9, 15, 15, 2, square
stat_health 1, 2
stat_pri 10, 50, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0 ,1
stat_pri_attr area, ap, launching
stat_sec 10, 50, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0 ,1
stat_sec_attr area, ap, launching
stat_pri_armour 24, 8, 0, metal
stat_sec_armour 14, 5, metal
stat_heat 3
stat_ground 0, 0, -6, -3
stat_mental 6, impetuous, untrained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 3600, 900, 100, 140, 3600
ownership romans_julii

Pontos:

;112
type eastern chariot scythed
dictionary eastern_chariot_scythed ; Scythed Chariots
category cavalry
class heavy
voice_type Heavy_1
soldier eastern_chariot_crew, 10, 10, 1
mount pontic scythed chariot
mount_effect elephant -4, horse -2
attributes sea_faring, frighten_foot, can_run_amok, power_charge
formation 7, 9, 15, 15, 2, square
stat_health 1, 2
stat_pri 10, 50, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0 ,1
stat_pri_attr area, ap, launching
stat_sec 10, 50, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0 ,1
stat_sec_attr area, ap, launching
stat_pri_armour 20, 8, 0, metal
stat_sec_armour 14, 5, metal
stat_heat 3
stat_ground 0, 0, -6, -3
stat_mental 6, impetuous, untrained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 3500, 875, 100, 140, 3500
ownership carthage

WinsingtonIII

11-25-2009, 17:36

Very good description Indeed.

I would like to add a few points for Pontos, since they are one of my favourite factions. You forgot to mention, that they are the only ones of the three that can use chariots, which are quite deadly in the right hands. (i think iirc that they are better than the Seleucid ones.) Also if you expand historically and capture the Crimean peninsula you get a lot of awesome units, which are not available for most of your enemies. I would point out the Bosphoran Heavy archers, the Steppe riders and the Scynthian noble cavalry. Once you have in your control let's say the Crimean peninsula and the middle of Micra Asia, you can field one of the most diverse and strongest army in the game

Thank you! I hope it is what the OP was looking for.

Good point about the chariots, they slipped my mind, but they certainly do give Pontos an even more unique flair.

I do love those Bosphoran Heavy Archers, but if you check out their info on the EB unit list, they're available to every faction in the game if they hold the Crimean provinces, so I don't necessarily think they add a unique flair to Pontos, but Pontos is in a good position to easily get them and use them.

I overlooked Skythian Nobles, but they are certainly very powerful, especially with a .225 lethality sword as a secondary.

-42-

11-26-2009, 03:05

Carthage is probably my favorite faction in terms of roster, a bit of everything, including absolutely insane Iberian units, which have the AP javelins as well as swords. Iberian cav is also better than anything west of Byzantium.

seienchin

11-26-2009, 19:05

Nope. Iberian heavy cavallery isnt too usefull, because of their low stamina. I prefer the greek style cavallery like the molosson agema.:book:
And the normal iberian units are outclassef by the lusotan ones.:juggle2:
But still carthage is a great faction :2thumbsup: I esspecialy like their elite african units and iberian assault troops. :egypt:

antisocialmunky

11-26-2009, 20:26

-42-

11-26-2009, 20:41

Never had an issue with them, hammer and anvil all day long with those suckers. They don't have the charge of the sacred band though. I actually find the cartaginian citizen cav to ve very useful against Rome, great hammers for what they realistically are. Some guys lement that they suck in melee, but I never really use my cavalry for prolonged melee if given the option, too pricy to replace.

WinsingtonIII

11-26-2009, 20:52

Iberian cav is also better than anything west of Byzantium.

What about the Getai's Ktistai? There isn't any Iberian Cav unit that can counter heavy horse archers that also have incredible morale (18) and have secondary lances to bring home a powerful charge. They are technically West of Byzantium as well....

Thraikioi Prodromoi, Hippeis Thessalikoi, Molosson Agema, and Illyrioi Hippeis (they may not look like much but they are incredibly fast and versatile) are also in the running for the best Western cavalry in my opinion as well. The Heavy Iberian Lancer cavalry are certainly the heaviest cavalry in the West, but I think all of the above units are potentially better in that they are more versatile. But, then again, I'm biased, because I prefer versatile, fast, and hard-hitting cavalry that can't necessarily hold in a melee over the heavy melee cavalry like cataphracts.

antisocialmunky

11-26-2009, 20:58

Molosson Agema is the best cavalry to fight other cavalry though the Iberian Lancers and Sacred Band are the heaviest in the West. However, those two heavy cavalry units end up comparing not as favorably against the Greek and Eastern Cavalry. They do their job well enough.

I was mainly referring to their medium/missile options. They are somewhat underpowered...

athanaric

11-26-2009, 21:00

Iberian Cavalry is a bit wonky. They are good on paper but are underwhelming on the battlefield. This is especially true of the missile cavalry like the cantabrian missile cavalry(has tons of missiles but they don't work that well).

With the Cantabrians, I guess it is the complete lack of body armour (which most other skirmisher cav possess, to a limited extent). OTOH, I use Dahae skirmishers a lot, who are almost identical, and haven't found them too weak.

For comparison:

Dahae skirmishers/Cantabri skirmishers: armour 0, shield 2; 14 missiles (!) and AP sword/axe though.

Arachosians: armour 1, shield 2; otherwise see Dahae.

Hippakontistai: amour 3, shield 2; same AP sword as Cantabri, but otherwise inferior.

Leuce Epos: armour 5, shield 2; AP spear (good for charge). No Cantabrian Circle.

Bedouin cavalry: armour 4, shield 2; AP spear.

etc.

Dahae, Arachosians, and Cantabrians are fearsome elephant killers, but very vulnerable to missiles.

ARCHIPPOS

11-26-2009, 21:03

I prefer versatile, fast, and hard-hitting cavalry that can't necessarily hold in a melee over the heavy melee cavalry like cataphracts.

different troops for different tasks ... you can't crash medium-class cavalry on the back of a phallanx and leave it there for long (more than 5 seconds actually) ... and you can't chase down annoying horse skirmishers with your shinning kataphracts either...

-42-

11-26-2009, 21:29

What about the Getai's Ktistai? There isn't any Iberian Cav unit that can counter heavy horse archers that also have incredible morale (18) and have secondary lances to bring home a powerful charge. They are technically West of Byzantium as well....

Thraikioi Prodromoi, Hippeis Thessalikoi, Molosson Agema, and Illyrioi Hippeis (they may not look like much but they are incredibly fast and versatile) are also in the running for the best Western cavalry in my opinion as well. The Heavy Iberian Lancer cavalry are certainly the heaviest cavalry in the West, but I think all of the above units are potentially better in that they are more versatile. But, then again, I'm biased, because I prefer versatile, fast, and hard-hitting cavalry that can't necessarily hold in a melee over the heavy melee cavalry like cataphracts.

All nice, but I think I simply use my cavalry differently, if I want missles I use foot missle troops and have cavalry screen them. The greek psuedo-companions are nice enough, but I'm always afraid to get them into a melee. I dislike javelin cav, as I can rarely get more than 20 kills out of them with missles (probably a fault in my play style). I almost never counter cavalry with cavalry, I simply use a unit of reserve spearmen to kill them efficiently. Getting my flankers bogged down with a force they may not be able to escape from is a nightmare for me.

antisocialmunky

11-26-2009, 21:30

With the Cantabrians, I guess it is the complete lack of body armour (which most other skirmisher cav possess, to a limited extent). OTOH, I use Dahae skirmishers a lot, who are almost identical, and haven't found them too weak.

For comparison:

Dahae skirmishers/Cantabri skirmishers: armour 0, shield 2; 14 missiles (!) and AP sword/axe though.

Arachosians: armour 1, shield 2; otherwise see Dahae.

Hippakontistai: amour 3, shield 2; same AP sword as Cantabri, but otherwise inferior.

Leuce Epos: armour 5, shield 2; AP spear (good for charge). No Cantabrian Circle.

Bedouin cavalry: armour 4, shield 2; AP spear.

etc.

Dahae, Arachosians, and Cantabrians are fearsome elephant killers, but very vulnerable to missiles.

They are nice for slaughtering certain infantry types or pin cushioning someone's butt. However, from the MP perspective - you can't do anything with them because they aren't good enough to fill their job description for the price in an Iberian army. If you look at them as a horse by itself. Its a okay unit. Its kinda of hard to explain. Iberians as a whole are really good on paper but don't perform as well as you would expect against humans.

Their heavy line infantry are very good but cost too much. Their medium infantry is some of the best in the world but they have to double as line infantry since Iberia doesn't have an affordable heavy infantry. A lot of the value of their medium infantry comes from the fact that they are fast and mobile. So if they are forced to stand and fight outside of the woods they aren't fighting at their max potential. They also tend to get shot to pieces if they have to stand and fight.

Iberian cavalry gets rocked by Greek cavalry but Iberia has FAST medium infantry that along with their cavalry can take Greek cavalry in a stand up fight. However, FAST infantry are still slower than horses and the Greek infantry aren't that slow.

I don't know. Iberia is a good faction but it doesn't work out that well against humans atleast in a 20vs20 unit match up where maneuver is unfavored due to having even unit numbers.

athanaric

11-26-2009, 23:27

I don't know. Iberia is a good faction but it doesn't work out that well against humans atleast in a 20vs20 unit match up where maneuver is unfavored due to having even unit numbers.

Well, the bigger the battle becomes, and the less room you have for maneuvering, the stronger the Greeks and Romans become, beause they have the most staying power in a classical battle.

Besides, I'd half expect the Lusotannan to lose against Swêboz/Getai (because among mostly unarmoured factions, high lethality/morale beats AP). Unless of course you use Dosidataskeli or other WTF troops. (But then again, for the price of one Dosidataskeli unit you can field three Drapanai ones, which will simply zerg your tanks...)

I'd say Iberians in general and Lusotannan in particular are really good in campaign, but I probably wouldn't dare play them online.

WinsingtonIII

11-27-2009, 01:01

different troops for different tasks ... you can't crash medium-class cavalry on the back of a phallanx and leave it there for long (more than 5 seconds actually) ... and you can't chase down annoying horse skirmishers with your shinning kataphracts either...

That's why I said that you shouldn't leave them in melee, and I don't leave them in melee. The way I play, cavalry are not meant to be getting into prolonged melees, that's what infantry are for (different troops for different tasks, as you said yourself). If the enemy has heavier cavalry than me, I can charge them with my lighter cavalry to occupy them and then run over a reserve spear unit to tie them up (or just block them with a spear unit in the first place). Then I pull out the lighter cavalry immediately and the enemy cavalry are stuck fighting spear infantry. The way I see it, cataphracts and other super-heavy cavalry are rarely, if ever, truly necessary. The only situation in which they really might be is if your enemy is using cataphracts extensively themselves (to the point where your infantry cannot deal with it because in ahistorically huge masses, cataphracts are a tad overpowered). Against infantry, repeated charges by lighter cavalry can accomplish the same result of a more reasonable number of cataphracts (it may take longer though, and you probably can't charge from the front). And achieving repeated charges is much easier when your cavalry has speed, maneuverability, and stamina.

That is not to say that cataphracts are bad, they are very good units, but I just personally prefer the lighter shock cavalry units that focus more on charge and speed at the sacrifice of melee abilities. Cataphracts are like a big expensive sledgehammer, I prefer the precise (and in some cases still just as expensive) scalpel of more maneuverable cavalry, that's just my personal play style.

All nice, but I think I simply use my cavalry differently, if I want missles I use foot missle troops and have cavalry screen them. The greek psuedo-companions are nice enough, but I'm always afraid to get them into a melee. I dislike javelin cav, as I can rarely get more than 20 kills out of them with missles (probably a fault in my play style). I almost never counter cavalry with cavalry, I simply use a unit of reserve spearmen to kill them efficiently. Getting my flankers bogged down with a force they may not be able to escape from is a nightmare for me.

Take a look at the earlier part of this post (in response to Archippos), I think we actually use them kind of similarly. I can understand preferring foot missiles to horse archers, I actually find HAs to be annoying to control sometimes. I too dislike javelin cavalry, and none of the units I mentioned there were jav cav, nor would any jav cav ever make that list in my opinion. As I say above, I never get cavalry into prolonged melees with other cavalry, that's the job of reserve spears. Also, as noted above, the Thessalian and Epeirote heavy cavalry (along with the others on that list) aren't meant to be prolonged melees, their power is in their charge and speed/stamina.

EDIT: We're getting off-topic here, this can be deleted if necessary.

antisocialmunky

11-27-2009, 03:23

Well, the bigger the battle becomes, and the less room you have for maneuvering, the stronger the Greeks and Romans become, beause they have the most staying power in a classical battle.

Besides, I'd half expect the Lusotannan to lose against Swêboz/Getai (because among mostly unarmoured factions, high lethality/morale beats AP). Unless of course you use Dosidataskeli or other WTF troops. (But then again, for the price of one Dosidataskeli unit you can field three Drapanai ones, which will simply zerg your tanks...)

I'd say Iberians in general and Lusotannan in particular are really good in campaign, but I probably wouldn't dare play them online.

Its more of the fact that in 20/20 fights the Iberian player won't be able to flank effectively because the enemy can just count by matching infantry up 1:1.

-42-

11-27-2009, 04:00

Iberians do not fare as well against Barbarian factions as Romanised or Hellenised factions, because of an abundance of AP weapons, and decent spears to keep heavy cavalry out of the way. I've done better with Milites then Haploi. And you can ofen simply tire out the enemy with skirmishes then pounce with fresh Iberians. Granted, this only really works with the AI, people are far more tricky.

vartan

11-27-2009, 04:57

Can somebody explain to me the point of the secondary charge? I ask this for the following reason.

When your horse is at a distance, and you alt-right-click in order to get them to trot to the enemy, charge with spears, and when charge is over, to continue in melee with the secondary weapon...since the charge occurs with lowered spears and not axes/maces (the secondary weapons), why does the computer not just use the primary spear charge initially? The secondary weapon is actually NEVER used in a charge...so what's the point of its existence?

I ask again, please, if anybody know, why a secondary charge? What is the reasoning, if any? :shame:

Cute Wolf

11-27-2009, 05:59

I ask again, please, if anybody know, why a secondary charge? What is the reasoning, if any? :shame:

I'm pretty sure that secondary charge things has been discussed in modding forum (scriptorium or mod questions, I forgot) for some times... For example, if your cavalrymen has lance as primary, and mace for secondary, at first he'll use lance for charging, as intended, but when you order with alt r click on to fight with secondary, they'll use the secondary attack stats. And when you withdraw them from melee, but not enough time for them to grab their spears again (read: revert to animated lance graphics, as opposed to animated mace graphics... it need some transition time), and you order them to charge again, they'll show the "charging" note at their unit comments, but they won't use the primary charge value, instead they'll use the secondary.

You'll got secondary charge really working when you play M2TW, since the lance will be unavailable in longer times after switching to secondary, making your horsies must use secondary swords to charge when their lance regeneration time is not enough...

vartan

11-28-2009, 03:44

I'm pretty sure that secondary charge things has been discussed in modding forum (scriptorium or mod questions, I forgot) for some times... For example, if your cavalrymen has lance as primary, and mace for secondary, at first he'll use lance for charging, as intended, but when you order with alt r click on to fight with secondary, they'll use the secondary attack stats. And when you withdraw them from melee, but not enough time for them to grab their spears again (read: revert to animated lance graphics, as opposed to animated mace graphics... it need some transition time), and you order them to charge again, they'll show the "charging" note at their unit comments, but they won't use the primary charge value, instead they'll use the secondary.

You'll got secondary charge really working when you play M2TW, since the lance will be unavailable in longer times after switching to secondary, making your horsies must use secondary swords to charge when their lance regeneration time is not enough...

Any explanation why a secondary charge should be used instead of a primary one? The difference may be up to 40 attack points! And funny thing is, both are the exact same thing! They both charge with a spear! It is like saying a chair is both a chair and NOT a chair at the SAME TIME. I do not understand.

antisocialmunky

11-28-2009, 03:57

Nope. There is not good reason. Lances have AP and 40ish charge.

Cute Wolf

11-28-2009, 04:04

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, contrary with their horsie riding comrades, infantry used teh secondary charge exclusively if available....

Grade_A_Beef

11-28-2009, 13:26

That explains why my Solduros and Hypaspistai units are so bloody useless......

I'm assuming it's possible to change the big longsword into the secondary rather than the primary in the EDU, right?

Cute Wolf

11-28-2009, 14:46

That explains why my Solduros and Hypaspistai units are so bloody useless......

I'm assuming it's possible to change the big longsword into the secondary rather than the primary in the EDU, right?

Nah, better deactivate their spears if you badly want them to become plain swordsmen units, by giving them empty secondary weapon line like this:

before:
;157
type greek infantry hypaspistai
dictionary greek_infantry_hypaspistai ; Hypaspistai
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type Light_1
soldier hellenistic_infantry_hypaspistai_massiloi_hoplitai, 30, 0, 1.22
officer ebofficer_hellenic_officer
officer ebofficer_hellenic_standardbearer
mount_effect elephant -1
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, hardy
formation 1.2, 1.5, 2.4, 3, 4, square, shield_wall
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 12, 8, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.225
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 17, 8, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 0 ,0.13
stat_sec_attr light_spear
stat_pri_armour 14, 11, 4, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 4
stat_ground 0, 0, -3, -3
stat_mental 16, disciplined, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 3250, 813, 60, 90, 3250
ownership macedon, romans_julii, thrace

after:
;157
type greek infantry hypaspistai
dictionary greek_infantry_hypaspistai ; Hypaspistai
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type Light_1
soldier hellenistic_infantry_hypaspistai_massiloi_hoplitai, 30, 0, 1.22
officer ebofficer_hellenic_officer
officer ebofficer_hellenic_standardbearer
mount_effect elephant -1
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, hardy
formation 1.2, 1.5, 2.4, 3, 4, square, shield_wall
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 12, 8, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.225
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, no, no, none, 0 ,0.1
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 14, 11, 4, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 4
stat_ground 0, 0, -3, -3
stat_mental 16, disciplined, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 3250, 813, 60, 90, 3250
ownership macedon, romans_julii, thrace

anubis88

11-28-2009, 14:46

my Solduros and Hypaspistai units are so bloody useless......

:dizzy2: Ahem... What?!?:dizzy2:

Cute Wolf

11-28-2009, 14:49

:dizzy2: Ahem... What?!?:dizzy2:

Well, it looks like he want they to act like bloody infantry killers, not just elite horde-holders (spears kills more slowly than longswords :yes:), but beware, when they lose their spears, they become extremely vulnerable to cavalries, so use them as melee anti infantry unit afterwards....

Centurio Nixalsverdrus

11-28-2009, 21:31

Hypaspistai = bloody useless? Wow.

Knight of Heaven

11-28-2009, 22:06

Hypaspistai = bloody useless? Wow.

lol yes they are far from useless. are great to take walls, and can fare very good against everything, even against AP troops.

seienchin

11-29-2009, 17:01

When I made a game, where I fortified myself with a wall made of phalangitai and hoplites the hypaspitai killed more enemies than 2 units of agyraspidai together.
They are anything but useless :whip:

Grade_A_Beef

11-30-2009, 08:09

Well, no I consider the Solduros near useless because it doesn't take advantage of the longsword's charge, which is almost a trademark move of the Celts.

The Hypaspistai I generally use to attack, not hold the line. Thorakitai and Phalangitai hold the line much more cost-effectively. When it comes to attacking the sword is much better than the spear, and it's exasperating to watch my units switch to spears during a prolonged melee (or even worse during the charge.) I mean, if you have such high lethality long swords, why in the world would you bother to hold the line?

In general the swords first combo is utter pain. As mentioned before they switch to spears when charging and even worse when not moving they stick with their swords rather than go with a much better defensive weapon. It'll hurt to let these type of units absorb a cavalry charge, although considering most units with this weapon combo is at least regular infantry and up......

As I'm in a Seleucid campaign right now, I can choose much better elites than the Hypaspistai, namely the TAB and the Peltastai Makedonikoi. They're better in their roles of line holding and attacking (Peltestai have an added option of flanking utilizing that extra stamina), respectively, and have defense values suitable for their job.

I'd admit Hypastpistai is the better of the three when on walls, but that's awfully specialized. In any case I prefer to stealth capture a gate and have the AI stupidly retreat units off the wall. It leaves my units free to capture the wall with low casualties.

Centurio Nixalsverdrus

11-30-2009, 20:17

The Hypaspistai I generally use to attack, not hold the line. Thorakitai and Phalangitai hold the line much more cost-effectively. When it comes to attacking the sword is much better than the spear, and it's exasperating to watch my units switch to spears during a prolonged melee (or even worse during the charge.)
They always charge with spears and that's indeed useful as I was informed long time ago.

I mean, if you have such high lethality long swords, why in the world would you bother to hold the line?
This sentence doesn't make much sense. So if you've got a longsword, you don't hold the line? Holding the line, keeping formation is essential for surviving and subsequently winning the battle, although I admit they would perform much better with spears when holding the line.

As I'm in a Seleucid campaign right now, I can choose much better elites than the Hypaspistai, namely the TAB and the Peltastai Makedonikoi. They're better in their roles of line holding and attacking (Peltestai have an added option of flanking utilizing that extra stamina), respectively, and have defense values suitable for their job.
Peltastai Makedonikoi are much better suited for attacking than for holding the line. Hypaspistai are excellent at holding the line. They are basically excellent in any job that doesn't consist of running around. As are Kuarothoroi etc.

athanaric

11-30-2009, 22:44

Hypaspistai are excellent at holding the line. They are basically excellent in any job that doesn't consist of running around. As are Kuarothoroi etc.

While I generally agree with you, I still think that it would have been better to make spears primary and swords secondary weapons for most of these units. The main poblems arise in a defensive position vs cavalry or on walls. It's no big deal with the Germanic bodyguard, because FMs should never fight on walls anyway (tried that with Saba once, and my general promptly jumped off the wall :wall:). But for Solduros etc., it is far more practical and logical to use their swords in a wall fight, instead of spears.

Grade_A_Beef

12-01-2009, 10:30

They always charge with spears and that's indeed useful as I was informed long time ago.

And how in the world is that useful when compared to charges with a longsword? Now if I had the option to charge normally with the longsword I wouldn't be complaining as much, but they charge with spears regardless of alt click, which is not as effective against anything but cavalry. That's assuming you can catch them with the slow Hypaspistai/Solduros/Arjos/etc.

This sentence doesn't make much sense. So if you've got a longsword, you don't hold the line? Holding the line, keeping formation is essential for surviving and subsequently winning the battle, although I admit they would perform much better with spears when holding the line.

Well I'm generalizing here, but most people choose to hold the line with spears and attack with swords, due to the defensive advantages of the spear. In that case the Hellenistic factions have spears galore to hold the line with. I personally think I'd be better to take advantage of the longsword's lethality over keeping them on the defensive (defensive as in guard mode on) as another spearmen unit....

Peltastai Makedonikoi are much better suited for attacking than for holding the line. Hypaspistai are excellent at holding the line. They are basically excellent in any job that doesn't consist of running around. As are Kuarothoroi etc.

Again, in that case I'd rather prefer using the TAB over the Hypaspistai. I think it's pretty obvious but they hold the line much better and surpass the Hypaspistai in anything that "doesn't consist of running around" (although with that level of defense they both last forever.)

Leão magno

12-01-2009, 16:04

Now if I had the option to charge normally with the longsword I wouldn't be complaining as much, but they charge with spears regardless of alt click, which is not as effective against anything but cavalry. That's assuming you can catch them with the slow Hypaspistai/Solduros/Arjos/etc.

Well I'm generalizing here, but most people choose to hold the line with spears and attack with swords, due to the defensive advantages of the spear. In that case the Hellenistic factions have spears galore to hold the line with. I personally think I'd be better to take advantage of the longsword's lethality over keeping them on the defensive (defensive as in guard mode on) as another spearmen unit....

I never played with those two units, but if you give the alt+doubleclick won't they charge with the secondary weon? In case the long swords?

Cute Wolf

12-01-2009, 16:24

I never played with those two units, but if you give the alt+doubleclick won't they charge with the secondary weon? In case the long swords?

If secobdary weapons are available, infanteries always charge with their secondary, regardless of clicks...

Oh yeah, and I must admit that you are not alone Grade_A_Beef, most of us also think how to made the spear and swords switchable, but that was hardcoded points on RTW... so basically if you don't mod them for using only swords, you should use them as a kind of elite hoplitai, and they are more than statisfication... spears kills slower, yes... but they kills in good, steady rate, and not as vulnerable against cavalry charges (which EB has truly deadly cavalry charge... even the stupid ai can damage your swordsmen considerably if you let them charged frontally), not to mention they has superrior range as well.... BTW, if you want to play longswords, best try to get Tindanotae or Gaesatae... they are the ultimate swordsmen anyone can get in EB...

Apázlinemjó

12-01-2009, 17:41

BTW, if you want to play longswords, best try to get Tindanotae or Gaesatae... they are the ultimate swordsmen anyone can get in EB...

I concur, those units are the top among the swordsmen in the game. The funny is that they are quite effetive against cavalry too and don't take that much casualties from a rear charge either (probably because of the 2 hp). Their only real weakness is that they are nude, thus vulnerable to missiles.

Cute Wolf

12-01-2009, 18:11

I concur, those units are the top among the swordsmen in the game. The funny is that they are quite effetive against cavalry too and don't take that much casualties from a rear charge either (probably because of the 2 hp). Their only real weakness is that they are nude, thus vulnerable to missiles.

Agreed, everytime I play with either Aedui or Avernii, I tend to build my primary campaigning army in the middle to late game campaign almost entirely with them, just spare some Remi Mairepos, Iasotae, and my Brihentin Bodyguards, as well as some Nietos to absorb the missile if face the pesky Mistophoroi Toxotai Kretikoi (I call them wonderful if I used them)...

They are the main Strength of the Gauls, and in Fact, my entire campaign depends on them most of the way...

Grade_A_Beef

12-01-2009, 21:46

Yeah, Gaesatae are the best! When it came to elites in my Aedui campaign it was all Gaesatae and occasionally the Carnutes Cingetos. I rarely recruit a lot of elites however, but it's all good. Also, I've only recently noticed but the Gauls have no javelin based skirmisher infantry :inquisitive:....not that it matters as the bulk of their units throw javelins before charging.

On the other note the weapon choice of the Persian hoplites should be the ideal for Hypaspistai and Solduros units.....spear as a primary and longsword as a secondary. I was utterly surprised that Persian Hoplites would carry longswords (which for some reason have short sword lethality)....now if only they had higher morale.

At the very least they can hold with their spears when in a neutral position and charge with their swords when engaging.

Cute Wolf

12-02-2009, 04:27

vartan

12-02-2009, 05:00

Hey what persian hoplites did you refer? Shipri Thukul carry maces, not swords... And Kardaka Arthensar's sword are certainly the thin one (yes, they are long, but compare with Gaesatae / Milhant longswords and they are thin longswords, lack in power)

...
If you refer to the Nayakarakhan Tiknapah... they allready got longswords lethality...

Kardaka Arteshtar (Persian Hoplites) are a great holding line as well as flanker due to their swords (shortswords).

Aznvakan Tiknapah (Armenian Noble Infantry) are an ELITE unit, and come in small numbers. All of this aside though, they have great ability to push enemy heavy cavalry back with their spears, while devastating enemy infantry with their longswords.

NOTE: Both the Kardaka Arteshtar as well as the Aznvakan Tiknapah have spear as primary weapon and sword as secondary (which IMO is a great decision on the part of the EB Team; I can't imagine the units in any other way, shape, or form).

Grade_A_Beef

12-02-2009, 09:53

I was talking about the ones Pahlava gets, which I understand seem to be the generic Persian Hoplites with those short sword lethalities.

It gets awfully boring killing fullstacks with only horse archers and cataphracts, and throwing in an incredibly weak line helps spices up things quite a bit, especially since it is subject to crumbling instantly versus a heavy cavalry charge. Makes it even more fun and challenging because the East is absolutely saturated with Heavy Cav.....and the occasional elephant!

vartan

12-03-2009, 10:10

satalexton

12-03-2009, 10:37

Persian hoplites are fair enough. Not as tough as real hoplites, but they have a pointy sword for scrums.

Grade_A_Beef

12-04-2009, 00:05

But yeah, what do you expect with Pahlava? Weak line! Are you picturing a line full of hoplites?

Na, I wasn't picturing that at all. I just expected a breath of fresh air. I'm sure others have pointed it out, but fighting in the nomad style gets repetitive way faster than other styles...

gamegeek2

12-04-2009, 06:14

Saba, as Cute Wolf said, has a good starting position, but again, their roster is weak. Most Sabaean and Arabian troops wear little to no armor, so they will die like flies under missile fire. Even the Sabaean Noble Infantry, some of the heaviest armored troops they can muster, have less armor than Hellenic Theurophoroi, which are considered fairly light by Hellenic standards. The strength of many Sabaean and Arabian troops is that they have surprisingly high morale. Arabian Light Infantry will hold in melee versus superior foes for quite some time before routing, which is not what you would expect by looking at them. Sabaean Levy Spearmen have 13 morale (!) which is surprisingly high considering their levy status. But this is where the strengths end. Saba lacks cavalry, decently armored units in general (other than their bodyguard), and has trouble holding a line. When fighting against the Ptolies and Seleucids, you're going to have to resort to Pantodapoi Phalangitai more and more the further you get from home, which I hate doing when I'm not a Hellenic faction.

AtB will change that. The Arabians will no longer suck.

You have in particular the Nabatu to look forward to, who get a nice assortment of Hellenistic units in addition to a much-improved Arabian roster.

Here's a sneak peek:

https://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii28/Ibrahim_059/3dsmax2009-08-2011-53-13-96.jpg

Nabataean Hetairoi

vartan

12-04-2009, 10:50

Na, I wasn't picturing that at all. I just expected a breath of fresh air. I'm sure others have pointed it out, but fighting in the nomad style gets repetitive way faster than other styles...

Subjective much? I think they all become repetitive faster than you can say...

WinsingtonIII

12-04-2009, 18:31

AtB will change that. The Arabians will no longer suck.

You have in particular the Nabatu to look forward to, who get a nice assortment of Hellenistic units in addition to a much-improved Arabian roster.

That's good news, particularly about the improved Arabian roster. Hellenistic units are nice, but I prefer to use the more traditional troops of a faction if I have the option.

Thanks for the sneak peek!

Grade_A_Beef

12-06-2009, 10:29

Subjective much? I think they all become repetitive faster than you can say...

Yeah, I am somewhat biased. Then again it's just that the nomad style plays the same way against every other style. Wipe out enemy cavalry, followed by missile troops, then withdraw when out of ammo. With other armies like a Celtic one there are foes to avoid (phalangites) charging at and foes that you can almost run over in one charge (Non Luso barb factions and occasionally the romans and those of carthage.)

ARCHIPPOS

12-06-2009, 11:11

seienchin

12-06-2009, 12:42

In terms of tactics nomads are light years ahead of "civilized" mellee-infantry based factions ... i mean the nomads incorporate notions of firepower, high mobility, manouveuring/fluidity in their gameplay. Also they have an ultra-heavy cavalry branch with which they can storm the weakest parts of the enemy battleline and disengage and withdraw at will (kinda like tank warfare) . With small misleadingly few numbers of troops they can annihilate entire enemey fullstacks (with minimal losses) . In my view nomad warfare is very "modern" ...
What? :book:
You must be talking about the mongols. Yes they were very modern and killed everybody. The fact, that the nomads in the antics didnt play an too important role until the dark ages shows, that their tactics werent as superior.
I know the pahlva once were nomads and I also know that the sakken destroyed baktria, but look at the circumsances and on the development of the parthian forces.

athanaric

12-06-2009, 16:40

I, too, think that's too much of a general statement. There are a lot of other facets we must look at:

- Civilized armies in history and in EB have access to Katapeltai/Scorpiones, which outrange any Nomad unit. Slingers can also be utilized to counter heavy HAs of the period.

- Hellenic and Roman soldiers are quite resilient to arrow fire, especially Hoplites, Legionaries, and the upper tiers of Pikemen. History shows us that arrows alone were not enough to defeat an army in the EB time period.

- Nomadic factions become weaker as the distance between enemy fortifications lessens, not least due to their chronical weakness in terms of siege warfare (with the partial exception of the Pahlavân, who adapted).

- Alexander the Great managed to defeat a Nomad army upon first contact.

ARCHIPPOS

12-06-2009, 17:13

Athanaric all those things you mentioned are very true :)
Still there's no denying that if properly used a nomad army is a terrible irresistible force. Just look at Darius' defeat by the Scythians, the battle of Carrhae, The Mongolian expansion and so on ... strategically and tactically the nomads have the edge of higher mobility (=guerilla warfare)

Centurio Nixalsverdrus

12-06-2009, 21:18

As the Greeks and Romans with their kind of warfare could have never held out in the steppe, the same goes for the Nomad way of warfare in Greece or Italy. Which is kinda logical, but you have to bear it in mind.

antisocialmunky

12-06-2009, 21:25

I dunno local sheep/goat herders gave both quite alot of trouble form time to time.

vartan

12-07-2009, 09:00

seienchin

12-07-2009, 09:33

Absolute best post in whole thread.

:balloon2: For you, deserving one. I'm humbled. :shame:
For generalizing something that only works in EB on history itself? :inquisitive: :inquisitive:

Comparing mongol kind of warfare to the nomads in EB is really far stretched.
And also the mongols failed using there Horsemen in south china or against japan and couldnt deal with korean partisans.

Apázlinemjó

12-07-2009, 13:02

For generalizing something that only works in EB on history itself? :inquisitive: :inquisitive:

Comparing mongol kind of warfare to the nomads in EB is really far stretched.
And also the mongols failed using there Horsemen in south china or against japan and couldnt deal with korean partisans.

And the stone fortifications and the regular armies of the Modern ages.

JinandJuice

12-07-2009, 23:05

And also the mongols failed using there Horsemen in south china or against japan and couldnt deal with korean partisans.

As far as I know, the Mongolians had relative trouble with the Chinese because 1. They can field armies as quickly as the Mongolians can kill them, and 2. They would turtle up behind walled cities, which the Mongolians would have to get POWs to assault. Their discovery of siege weapons certainly helped though.

For Japan, monsoons and bad weather destroyed both their invasion fleets. Bad luck, I guess, or some divine intervention. Who knows.

I don't remember the resistance of Korea much. Explanation?

athanaric

12-07-2009, 23:31

For Japan, monsoons and bad weather destroyed both their invasion fleets. Bad luck, I guess, or some divine intervention. Who knows.

Hence the word kamikaze = divine* wind.

*for lack of a more suitable word

Concerning Mongols and S China:

Large parts of Southern China have swampy terrain (good for rice), which is quite unsuitable for horsies. The climate there is quite tropical in summer. And where there are no rice paddies, there are mighty steep hills or mountains that are heavily forested. There is only limited space for a cavalry army to operate in, and plenty of rough terrain for bandits and mountaineers to hide in.
I can't say much about Korea (never been there), but they have plenty of mountains and forests, too. I guess it's a bit like central Germany, which also proved rather unsuitable for invading cavalry armies. Remember the Mongols were halted/turned back in Poland, where the forests become more numerous and the climate less and less continental (as seen from Central Asia).

seienchin

12-08-2009, 00:00

As far as I know, the Mongolians had relative trouble with the Chinese because 1. They can field armies as quickly as the Mongolians can kill them, and 2. They would turtle up behind walled cities, which the Mongolians would have to get POWs to assault. Their discovery of siege weapons certainly helped though.

For Japan, monsoons and bad weather destroyed both their invasion fleets. Bad luck, I guess, or some divine intervention. Who knows.

I don't remember the resistance of Korea much. Explanation?
First of all:
What? Read at least Wikipedia before posting something about history :book:
Like the post above me shows, southern china was just not fitted for nomad warfare. North china was, so they fall even with their big walls quite fast.

The first time the mongols invaded Japan there was fearce fighting.
The second time they actually fought back the mongols from june 21 until august the 15th. There was a hell lot of fighting, but because the mongols had to rely on mostly subdued levies, because horse riders cant storm a beach they lost.

Korea... Well I am getting a little bit tired but they fought 6 campains in korea of which some were even repelled. Even after the mongols conquered korea there were guerilla and risings the mongols and there allied regime couldnt controll.:book:
Anyway the mongols were the master of the steppes and I guess so where the sarmatians etc., but still there warfare wasnt modern and limited to open ground.:juggle2:

JinandJuice

12-08-2009, 00:16

First of all:
What? Read at least Wikipedia before posting something about history :book:

I've actually read a couple of books regarding Mongolian invasions myself. The most recent one I read was Genghis Khan's Greatest General: Subotai the Valiant , which explained exactly what I had said about the invasion of China. It might not have been the exact reason in regards to this topic, but it certainly wasn't incorrect.

As with the Japanese, kamikazes might not have destroyed the fleet during the first invasion, but it did cut off supplies, reinforcements and forced the Mongolians to reassess their maneuvers, assisting in the failure of the invasion. As for the second invasion, as quoted directly from Wikipedia, "massive typhoon assaulted the shores of Kyūshū for two days straight, and destroyed much of the Mongol fleet."

Beckis Robertus Californicus

01-06-2010, 19:25

Ive been playing AS on VH/H and those damned Palava have swiped 5 regions. Argh. They have been the bain of my existence on my Eastern front.

I managed to develop a decent family member general with an experienced stack and a lone Palava general with 5 stars smoked him, because I was too confident and too lazy to fight him and expected an auto win.

Grade_A_Beef

01-06-2010, 19:51

Necroing......still, it's better than creating a redundant topic.

In any case I had a relatively easy time against the Pahlava when I was AS. I just teched up to stone walls, and then got a garrison of roughly 3-4 pantodapoi phalangitai (these are just a precaution) and around 5 slingers. You can then just wall up and sally every turn, decimating their nomad army.

It definitely won't kill their armored generals until you have perhaps gold chevroned slingers, but in general you can take out any sort of infantry attacking the walls before they even reach the it.

You pretty much stall until you're ready at the two cities south of Asaak, although the Pahlava only occasionally attack the city that starts with a Z (can't remember) and the province east of Nisa.

Granted you'll be stunting the growths of those cities until you're ready, but your main economic powerhouse lies in Mesopotamia and Asia Minor anyhow, so there's no real worries.

anubis88

01-06-2010, 23:07