What's the point in elite units?

[QuintusSertorius]

I must admit that with the number of migrated faction games I play, I often can't recruit them anyway, but I've never felt the loss. Elites just seem to be a bad economy - and hardly worth it either.

You can't recruit them in many places, meaning particular settlements become the sole place you can get them (bringing all the logistics of getting them to the rest of the army). If you retrain (I try not to), you've got the reverse logistics to get them back there.

Then there's the cost; double or even triple a non-elite unit. Yet you aren't getting a lot more for your money, they may be significantly better in certain areas, but they rarely win a battle by themselves. It's still a numbers game a lot of the time past a certain minimum level of quality. Talking of numbers, they're often smaller than normal units too.

I'll illustrate the point by comparing some units who fit roughly in the same role. It's not a perfect comparison, because the elite can perform the role of "assault infantry" which few other units can.

Take the Peltastai Makedonikoi (http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/index.php?mp=unit&unit=greek%20infantry%20pheraspidai&text=&ownership=thrace&class=any&category=infantry) and the more regular Peltastai (http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/index.php?mp=unit&unit=greek%20skirmisher%20peltastai&text=&ownership=thrace&class=any&category=infantry). The former is almost 2.5x the price of the latter, and has a smaller unit. The elite is significantly more armoured, and has 150% the overall defense, and a much higher attack stat. Better morale and discipline. However, they have half the number of javelins, and they're shorter ranged. Obviously that's because Peltastai Makedonikoi aren't skirmishers, but their loadout is the same. Lacking spears, they can't be used as anti-cavalry.

Upshot is, I'd rather have two units of Peltastai than one of Peltastai Makedonikoi. You can do a lot more with them, and that's four times as many javelins. The comparison is even worse if you take Thraikioi Peltastai (http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/index.php?mp=unit&unit=dacian%20missile%20peltastaithrakioi%20merc&text=&ownership=thrace&class=any&category=infantry); only slightly more expensive than regular Peltastai, but you can still get two for the price of one unit of PM. They're almost as heavily armoured, and as a bonus their secondary weapon is AP, making them brilliant enemy Family Member killers. Both the latter two are available as mercenaries almost everywhere, too.

With cavalry it gets even worse; most elite cavalry is ridiculously expensive, but since it's often heavy, blown after a couple of charges. Or else not a huge amount better than their non-elite version. Take Tarentine Elite (http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/index.php?mp=unit&unit=hellenistic%20cavalry%20tarentinoi&text=&ownership=thrace&class=any&category=cavalry) and regular Hippakontistai (http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/index.php?mp=unit&unit=hellenistic%20skirmisher%20cavalry%20hippakontistai&text=&ownership=thrace&class=missile&category=cavalry). Once more, the elite is more than double the price of the non-elite. What you get is slightly better with their weapons, much better defense, slightly better morale. Again, unless you are stack-constrained, two of the cheaper are likely to be better. You shouldn't be using sword-armed cavalry for shock charges anyway, so the fact that the elites are more able to survive prolonged melee is kind of moot.

I can see the roleplaying reasons you might recruit elites, especially if your stack is a "royal army", or the bragging rights that you have so much money you can afford to use them, but from a functional standpoint, what's the value in elites?

[d'Arthez]

Functionally speaking Elites are most often not worth it. They are only worth it if you have a limited number of slots available (like the 20 in a regular full stack). They are, as you noted also better than levies, in terms of providing flexibility (not always, but usually). Another problem is that for garrisoning duties Elites are far worse than your regular levies, due to limited unit size, and offer less strategic flexibility on the campaign map. This also applies to replacing casualties. With some units, you are restricted to one or two provinces only to recruit the elites from - and spending 3 years to replenish losses is not a very efficient manner to go about military campaigns.

However, if you are venturing deep in enemy territory, and hence would struggle to reinforce your army / replace your casualties, a stack with more elites naturally will last a lot longer. This is especially true if you can wage battle on your terms, rather than the terms of the opponent.

I am sure that if you put 5 units of Hoplitai Haploi against pretty much any elite infantry they will win (at equal monetary recruitment cost). But battles don't work on the basis of such 1 vs. 5 mechanics. So even though 5 Hoplitai Haploi may be a match for a single unit of Elites, that does not mean that an army of 10 Hoplitai Haploi would beat an army of 5 Hoplitai Haploi and an Elite (both armies in conjunction with cavalry etc).

[QuintusSertorius]

I can certainly see the notion that the more durable troops (as elites tend to be) will survive a protracted stay away from home better. Though in the case of many of the regular units, you can easily replace with mercenary versions (true of Peltastai, Hoplitai, Thureophoroi/Keltohellenikoi at the least) so I think that works in the opposite direction.

I should say I see three tiers of unit: Levy, Regular and Elite. This is more of a comparison between Regular and Elite, rather than Levy (like the Hoplitai Haploi) and Elite. A better comparison for hoplites would be regular Hoplitai (http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/index.php?mp=unit&unit=hellenistic%20infantry%20hoplitai&text=&ownership=thrace&class=spearmen&category=any) and Hypaspistai (http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/index.php?mp=unit&unit=greek%20infantry%20hypaspistai&text=&ownership=thrace&class=heavy&category=any). The latter is more than double the price, yet you're not getting a huge amount more.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Generally I agree.

Elites are useful when money is not an issue, but your cities lack sufficient population to recruit a large, cheap army which will suffer heavy losses in tough battles - or if you simply prefer having your citizens making money and paying taxes rather than fighting. Under such circumstances a small army of elites bulked out with mercenaries might be best for the long-term growth of your economy.

Otherwise I only start recruiting lots of elites when the AI does so, and their armies become too tough to beat for my more historical army composition.

Hopefully in EB2 elites will be rare by limited recruitment, rather than overpriced to discourage the AI from spamming them.

My favourite elite unit are Kretan archers - they are awesome and worth every penny. For me, KH can't survive without them.

[QuintusSertorius]

My favourite elite unit are Kretan archers - they are awesome and worth every penny. For me, KH can't survive without them.

They're my only "must recruit" unit. I always have one unit in every army I make because they're better than almost everything else available in the west. In my Massalia game, I sailed an FM to Greece just to recruit a couple of units (one to use and one spare to merge in replacements).

It's not even for their melee ability; but because they outrange virtually everything else and carry a lot of ammo.

EDIT: Hoisted by my own petard! Doing the analysis, Kretan Archers (http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/index.php?mp=unit&unit=hellenistic%20missile%20cretan%20archers%20merc&text=&ownership=thrace&class=missile&category=infantry) (who I can only get as mercs) are nearly four times as much as Toxotai (http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/index.php?mp=unit&unit=greek%20missile%20toxotai&text=&ownership=thrace&class=missile&category=infantry) (who I use for garrison troops since they're cheap). For that you get double the attack value, 50% again in extra range and more than double the ammo. Armour is a nice to have, since it reduces death from other archers/slingers, though I always post mine behind my phalanx which is as good as a wall.

[moonburn]

because rich people deserve a chance of dieing honourably on the batlefield too not just the poor people

to prevent grachism demagoges igniting internal socii wars when you should be concentrating your nation outwards

but i use them to keep the damm poor people in line and prevent them from deserting and ofc kill a few enemues if it comes to that

a true elite is for instance the original triarii veterans of many batles who can afford better equipment

most elites where just snoby richer dudes who wanted some recognition not superior troops with better equipment (aaltough they tended to be bigger and stronger due to better acess to resources except when bigger and stronger meant fat assholes who needed the better horse or else the regular horses couldn´t suport them)

kretans are not elites imho they aren´t rich/er dudes they are just the survivors of many fights those who where lucky to survive long enough that someone is willing to pay them to fight and they can afford better weapons and armour)

in that sence true elites are solduros or scordascii orca experienced warriors with better equipment without the experience just the better horse armour and sword will only get you so far

but as i said in my makedonian armies i use them to hold the right those extra 10% and extra time are well worth their money cause it sucks when you run with your general chassing around archers only to return and find your entire army disbanding and cracking

because of the horse shoe the message wasn´t deliverered
becuse the message wasn´t delivered the batle wasn´t fought at the right time
because the fight didn´t happened when it eventually happened it was lost
the loss of the batle turned the war
and the loss of that war meant the king lost it´s head

elites are to use when the right time comes (druids or gaesatae used at the right time beging the enemies rout or stop your own troops root)

financially they make no sence with just 1 unit you could equip 5 medium troops but culturally socially and in the math of war they do make sence it´s just the way you use them and when you fight against other players or if the ai had inteligence you would learn to apreciate them when they hold that line when they close the growing gap or when they stop the enemy on the streets or on the walls everyone needs simbols elites are just another one

[Thoras]

I am sure that if you put 5 units of Hoplitai Haploi against pretty much any elite infantry they will win (at equal monetary recruitment cost). But battles don't work on the basis of such 1 vs. 5 mechanics. So even though 5 Hoplitai Haploi may be a match for a single unit of Elites, that does not mean that an army of 10 Hoplitai Haploi would beat an army of 5 Hoplitai Haploi and an Elite (both armies in conjunction with cavalry etc).
Well I just tried it :
1. 1 Unit Peltastai Makedonikoi(123) vs 5 Hoplitai Haploi(811) = The Haploi lost 626 men but won.
2. 2 Units of Peltastai Makedonikoi(245) vs 10 Hoplitai Haploi(1621)=The Pelastai WON and killed 1397 men the rest of the Haploi routed,with the general.The Peltastai Makedonikoi had 87 left.

I didn't flank or used guard mode in both battles, just head on combat and the Pelstai were surrounded.

So no I don't think they are useless ;)they can easly hold serveral enemy units while giving your other troops time to flank,or of course using them to flank.



most elites where just snoby richer dudes who wanted some recognition not superior troops with better equipment (aaltough they tended to be bigger and stronger due to better acess to resources except when bigger and stronger meant fat assholes who needed the better horse or else the regular horses couldn´t suport them)
Hmm I doubt it, at least not for the celts and germanic tribes and definitly not for medieval knights,but they are a bit out of the time frame.
The richer classes usually trained for war ,something that many poorer classes couldn't afford or do(time).

[Ludens]

Peltastai Makedonikoi aren't upgraded Peltasts. The unit was originally concepted as assault troopers: the ones that, during a siege assault, would be the first into the breach.

And that's really the main use for elite units: for critical positions on the battlefield, where a bit more armour and better morale can make a huge difference. The vanguard in a siege battle is most obvious example, but holding a critical flank would count as well. If you lose the flanks, the battleline folds, so putting your best phalangites there could mean the difference between victory and defeat in real life.

However, in EB such conditions don't happen very often, for two reason. Firstly, you have far more control, and far more situational awareness, than a real-life general did. As a rule, you can prevent or counter flanking threats as they occur. And secondly, such threats don't occur very often, because the A.I. simply isn't that good.

[vartan]

In other words, EB's competence surpasses its intended performance due to the limited engine. You can always try the elites out in an online battle and see how you fare.

[athanaric]

Elites look awesome and you don't have to micromanage them as much on the battlefield as other units (because they are more difficult to kill or rout). I like to have a few elite units in every major army for these (and other, such as historical accuracy) reasons.

Also, this:


In other words, EB's competence surpasses its intended performance due to the limited engine. You can always try the elites out in an online battle and see how you fare.I, too, feel that it's more of an issue of engine limitations. At least, EB offers a better solution than the vanilla TW games where elites can just walk over any other unit.

[QuintusSertorius]

Peltastai Makedonikoi aren't upgraded Peltasts. The unit was originally concepted as assault troopers: the ones that, during a siege assault, would be the first into the breach.

And that's really the main use for elite units: for critical positions on the battlefield, where a bit more armour and better morale can make a huge difference. The vanguard in a siege battle is most obvious example, but holding a critical flank would count as well. If you lose the flanks, the battleline folds, so putting your best phalangites there could mean the difference between victory and defeat in real life.

However, in EB such conditions don't happen very often, for two reason. Firstly, you have far more control, and far more situational awareness, than a real-life general did. As a rule, you can prevent or counter flanking threats as they occur. And secondly, such threats don't occur very often, because the A.I. simply isn't that good.

I'm well aware Peltastai Makedonikoi aren't skirmishers, but as armoured, sword-armed infantry they perform the same role as infantry-flankers. They can't do anti-cavalry because of the lack of spears.

But I agree, assault infantry isn't really a role the RTW engine allows a use for.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

However, in EB such conditions don't happen very often, for two reason. Firstly, you have far more control, and far more situational awareness, than a real-life general did. As a rule, you can prevent or counter flanking threats as they occur. And secondly, such threats don't occur very often, because the A.I. simply isn't that good.

Good points - but here's a partial solution:

If you want to play hardcore EB, don't play on VH Battle difficulty level. Just go into the camera settings option and tick the general camera option. (And play on Huge unit settings).

It's wicked, because you can't move the camera view away from the immediate vicinity of your general, which makes it really hard to see what's going on over the battlefield. When the AI flanks you, often you won't see it until the attack hits. Sometimes not even then, until you notice a unit taking heavy losses! And you'll need to have your general running from one flank to another so you can see what's happening, and that will often entail a delay before you can respond to an enemy attack. If your general is on foot, then boy, you're going to have real problems with viewing the entire battlefield - you'll often have to take a guess at what forces the enemy is attacking with, throw in a unit or two of your own to stop them (if you have any reserves), and hope for the best.

Assaulting large cities becomes a lot more difficult as with your general sat safely outside the walls, you will have only a rough idea about how the street fighting is going inside the town, and you won't be able to see clearly how the streets are laid out, so the chances of you sending a unit down the wrong street are quite high. Coordinating attacks inside the town becomes all but impossible until your general goes in himself to organise things, but that could result in him being killed like Pyrrhus in Argos!

[The Stranger]

some elites are worth it, some arent.

mainly they are worth their weight in gold when pinning down the enemy to a certain spot. 2 elite units can tie down up to 15+ levy units for a long time if they dont get flanked. on huge settings some elite are extremely cost effective in some situations due to their high morale and their high armour. as long as they dont get flanked they will hold for a long time. just dont lose ur general :P

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?140084-Lusotana-Campaign&p=2053422110#post2053422110

[Alcibiade]

some elites are worth it, some arent. [/url]

Yes, and the Hypapistaie in my memory were impresively efficient; I can't remind their name as it was some years ago, but I remember I used their Baktrian equivalent with much success in a sp campaign.

But the elite unit who totally disapointed (still in sp campaign) is the epilektoi hoplitai. I remember how I progressively got doubts about their efficiency until I did some tests using custom battles, and saw how they were systematically raped by this Illyrian basic unit (the one with clubs).

[The Stranger]

one of the things we found out back then is that elite units get more efficient on bigger settings. because it takes much longer, ratio wise, for them to rout.

[QuintusSertorius]

one of the things we found out back then is that elite units get more efficient on bigger settings. because it takes much longer, ratio wise, for them to rout.

I only play on Huge; I've never found any to be worthwhile.

[Thoras]

I only play on Huge; I've never found any to be worthwhile.
They stay and hold far longer without routing,take less casulites and kill more and faster.They better at flanking.

[QuintusSertorius]

They stay and hold far longer without routing,take less casulites and kill more and faster.They better at flanking.

I've found it very rare that Greek units break (they have morale one or two points higher than their equivalents from other cultures). Even when my general is off haring about playing Alexander, as long as he doesn't get killed or routed himself, they tend to hold. I remember in a siege battle I had one unit of levy hoplites (!) who died almost to a man on the walls, but never gave up.

My non-Greek units, on the other hand, can be flaky at times.

[The Stranger]

I only play on Huge; I've never found any to be worthwhile.

well as i tested and posted in that thread i linked, the TAB or their spanish/irish equivalent can hold their own against almost 3x their cost in levy units. if thats not worthwhile, then I dont know... 1 unit can tie down 20 haploi, which are arguably one of the better levy units as well.

[QuintusSertorius]

well as i tested and posted in that thread i linked, the TAB or their spanish/irish equivalent can hold their own against almost 3x their cost in levy units. if thats not worthwhile, then I dont know... 1 unit can tie down 20 haploi, which are arguably one of the better levy units as well.

Levy are the wrong comparator. You should be comparing them with Regular units (eg Hoplitai) who are very good value.

I rarely face levy units, and I rarely use them except for garrisons or to make my armies deliberately less effective. For example in my current Epeiros game, the unit of levy hoplitai in my royal army are "Illyrians retrained as hoplites".

Here's that army:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t1.0-9/10013768_10154195958255317_5784244712005183690_n.jpg

The only elite in the stack (besides my FMs) are the Kretans.

[The Stranger]

i disagree, theyre not. The question we were debating, atleast in that thread, and also a bit in this one, was amongst others, the cost-effectiveness of elite units.

The result was, that SOME (with emphasis on some, for various historical and balance reasons) elite units are cost-effective, but that the regular units are in most cases the most cost-effective units in the game. It doesnt even take alot of testing to deduce this, because if you look at stats, elites are easily 2x more expensive while perhaps only 20-25% better in stats. However, if you are asking about the point of elite units, the point is this, they are simply unmatched in their specific role on the battlefield. So an elite cavalry will simply do better in routing the enemy faster, this will not always be worth 2x more upkeep, but that one battle you needed the enemy to route instantly to not lose the battle, you are going to wish you had that elite. The same for elite phalanx or melee infantry, and the ultimate unit, the TAB, like all elite they simply have more staying power, they barely ever route, they barely ever give up ground, and they can tie down so many other units, even when surrounded, they just dont die. Again, in most battles, specially if not flanked, a regular will do the job equally well (not better ofcourse, but as good to not warrant 2x the upkeep for an elite) but that one battle, for example in case your village got attacked by 60 angry hoplite citizen that want democracy, you are going to wish your garrison was made up of 3 TAB and not of 6 hoplites, because the TAB will fight to the last man, while the hoplites will break alot sooner.

[QuintusSertorius]

i disagree, theyre not. The question we were debating, atleast in that thread, and also a bit in this one, was amongst others, the cost-effectiveness of elite units.

The result was, that SOME (with emphasis on some, for various historical and balance reasons) elite units are cost-effective, but that the regular units are in most cases the most cost-effective units in the game. It doesnt even take alot of testing to deduce this, because if you look at stats, elites are easily 2x more expensive while perhaps only 20-25% better in stats. However, if you are asking about the point of elite units, the point is this, they are simply unmatched in their specific role on the battlefield. So an elite cavalry will simply do better in routing the enemy faster, this will not always be worth 2x more upkeep, but that one battle you needed the enemy to route instantly to not lose the battle, you are going to wish you had that elite. The same for elite phalanx or melee infantry, and the ultimate unit, the TAB, like all elite they simply have more staying power, they barely ever route, they barely ever give up ground, and they can tie down so many other units, even when surrounded, they just dont die. Again, in most battles, specially if not flanked, a regular will do the job equally well (not better ofcourse, but as good to not warrant 2x the upkeep for an elite) but that one battle, for example in case your village got attacked by 60 angry hoplite citizen that want democracy, you are going to wish your garrison was made up of 3 TAB and not of 6 hoplites, because the TAB will fight to the last man, while the hoplites will break alot sooner.

Yes, and from the very beginning I was talking about comparing elites to regular units, not to levies. Comparing them to levies is meaningless. You've just proved my point, in the meaningful comparison, regular to elite, elites aren't worth it.

To date I've rarely had a regular break, not unless it was a battle I'd lost anyway. Levies break when pressed, but that's because they're levies and have low morale.

I take issue with cavalry, though. Elite cavalry (like Thessalikoi) are no better at breaking infantry than regular heavies (like Lonchophoroi), or even light lancers (like Illyrioi Hippeis). Worse, they become completely ineffective once tired. I saw this in a battle against Makedonia once; my unit of Curepos killed a lot more enemies (because they could keep charging at reasonable fitness) than the Thessailoi (who were Tired after two charges).

[The Stranger]

lol... you didnt read my post?

i just said, that they are worth it, because if you need 1 unit to hold the line, which unit will do best? the elite obviously... so they are worth it.

and im NOT comparing elites to levies, im pitting elites VS levies, to see how cost effective they are. And then we pitted regulars VS levies and the conclusion was that regulars are slightly more cost-effective VS levies than elites. so please, read...

so your main army is best to be made up of regulars, they will give you the best upkeep-battle usefulness ratio, but taking 1-2 elites with you, is definitely worth it, because they can be assigned tasks and do stuff no amount of regulars can pull off. For example on VH-VH, 3 elite FM can take the entirety of greece in a blitz, no amounf of regulars, even if they replenished, could pull that off.

but in any case, if you are so rich that you can make an army of elites... why not. if u want to. ofcourse that would be the best army u could make... no debating tat

[QuintusSertorius]

lol... you didnt read my post?

i just said, that they are worth it, because if you need 1 unit to hold the line, which unit will do best? the elite obviously... so they are worth it.

I read and disagreed. As before, regulars are more than up to the task of holding the line, especially since I never have captain-led stacks and aren't careless with my generals. More to the point, two units of regulars will do a better job of it than one elite. I'd rather have two units of Hoplitai than one of Hypaspistai (or for that matter a unit of decent cavalry - more cavalry is better for flexibility). That's more tactical flexibility. Furthermore, they're recruitable all over the place, and replacable with an identical unit of mercenaries, who are again available all over.

You can see my army above, I never use a full stack, so it's not as if I'm short of space.


and im NOT comparing elites to levies, im pitting elites VS levies, to see how cost effective they are. And then we pitted regulars VS levies and the conclusion was that regulars are slightly more cost-effective VS levies than elites. so please, read...

You didn't put regulars against elites. So this is all meaningless and tells us nothing. The AI doesn't field armies comprised mostly of levies, most players don't use armies comprised mostly of levies.


so your main army is best to be made up of regulars, they will give you the best upkeep-battle usefulness ratio, but taking 1-2 elites with you, is definitely worth it, because they can be assigned tasks and do stuff no amount of regulars can pull off. For example on VH-VH, 3 elite FM can take the entirety of greece in a blitz, no amounf of regulars, even if they replenished, could pull that off.

The only worthwhile elites I've found are Kretan Archers, and that's not because of their armour or secondary weapon, but range of their bows and significantly more ammunition carried compared to Toxotai or Sotaroas (the easily-available archers in the west). They do a task other units do, but better (because range and ammo).

I don't play on VH-VH and I don't blitz, and FMs are a special category since you can't recruit them in the same way. In a longer campaign where you aren't exploiting the slowness of the AI's response, you need to be able to replenish, and that's much easier with regulars (especially those with a mercenary equivalent).


but in any case, if you are so rich that you can make an army of elites... why not. if u want to. ofcourse that would be the best army u could make... no debating tat

It might be a great vanity project, but it's a waste of money. I'd rather have two armies of regulars than one elite one - again greater tactical flexibility since that's two different missions rather than just one. I can invade from two different places with two armies, rather than weathering all the pressure in one place with just one.

[The Stranger]

I read and disagreed. As before, regulars are more than up to the task of holding the line, especially since I never have captain-led stacks and aren't careless with my generals. More to the point, two units of regulars will do a better job of it than one elite. I'd rather have two units of Hoplitai than one of Hypaspistai (or for that matter a unit of decent cavalry - more cavalry is better for flexibility). That's more tactical flexibility. Furthermore, they're recruitable all over the place, and replacable with an identical unit of mercenaries, who are again available all over.

You can see my army above, I never use a full stack, so it's not as if I'm short of space.

except that 2 dont always do a better job than 1. due to better morale, 1 elite can tie down enemy armies for longer in some cases than 2 regulars ever could. due to better endurance they can wear down the enemy longer on the flank in some cases than 2 regulars. etc. this is my experience atleast, and if you disagree, i guess thats where the discussion ends.


You didn't put regulars against elites. So this is all meaningless and tells us nothing. The AI doesn't field armies comprised mostly of levies, most players don't use armies comprised mostly of levies.

sigh, you dont get the concept of cost-effectiveness.

[QuintusSertorius]

except that 2 dont always do a better job than 1. due to better morale, 1 elite can tie down enemy armies for longer in some cases than 2 regulars ever could. due to better endurance they can wear down the enemy longer on the flank in some cases than 2 regulars. etc. this is my experience atleast, and if you disagree, i guess thats where the discussion ends.

I do disagree, because that isn't my experience. Elites are rarely much better at doing the same job, and they certainly aren't better than two regular units at doing it. Two units of Hoplitai will hold a line much more effectively than one of Hypaspistai, not least because one can pin and the other flank. Especially when you have the force multiplier of your own cavalry, doing the unit-breaking from the rear added into the mix.

The better morale is often irrelevant compared to the impact the general is having, and the difference between 11/12 (the usual morale of regulars) and 15 (usual morale of elites) not anywhere near as important as between 8-10 (usual levy morale) and 12.


sigh, you dont get the concept of cost-effectiveness.

No, clearly you don't. Levies are an irrelevance since they are not capable of doing the same job. Whereas elites are only at best 25% better than regulars stats-wise, for double the price.

The only economy elites are providing is in taking up less slots in a 20-unit stack than the equivalent cost in regulars.

[The Stranger]

I do disagree, because that isn't my experience. Elites are rarely much better at doing the same job, and they certainly aren't better than two regular units at doing it. Two units of Hoplitai will hold a line much more effectively than one of Hypaspistai, not least because one can pin and the other flank. Especially when you have the force multiplier of your own cavalry, doing the unit-breaking from the rear added into the mix.

The better morale is often irrelevant compared to the impact the general is having, and the difference between 11/12 (the usual morale of regulars) and 15 (usual morale of elites) not anywhere near as important as between 8-10 (usual levy morale) and 12.

thats not a fair comparison, you should compare 2 elites to 4 regulars, and not 1 elite to 2 regulars. manouvers are another extra thing to consider, and its not fair to take that out of the eqation for 1 unit but noth for the other.



No, clearly you don't. Levies are an irrelevance since they are not capable of doing the same job. Whereas elites are only at best 25% better than regulars stats-wise, for double the price.

The only economy elites are providing is in taking up less slots in a 20-unit stack than the equivalent cost in regulars.

im not comparing elites to levies, im comparing how good elites do vs something and how good regulars do vs that same thing. its the obvious choice for that something to be levy units, because i can't balance the ratio of regulars vs another regular or an elite vs another elite. so i let 1 regular fight 1 levy and see what the casualties are and what the cost is for that unit, and i do the same for the elite, and then i compare the two. then i look at what point the levies will overwhelm and start to defeat the regular/elite and again i compare the results.

the conclusion was that when for example you can put 1 regular vs 1 levy, then cost-wise the regulars will suffer less casualties than the elite. but when you are in a chokepoint where you can't put two regulars but you can use 1 elite, then the elite (some of them atleast) will do better than even 2 regulars (put behind each other) because the elite will break at a much much later point.

its not that hard.

[vartan]

Some four years ago, we had similar questions to that posed in this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?129091-Europa-Barbarorum-A-Look-Into-the-Past). Tests proved to be much more efficient than theoretical discussion. Hypothesis. Method. Data collection. Analysis. Conclusion. Good times.

[The Stranger]

i did the tests way back. cant do any again even if i wanted to, disc is broken.

[Ludens]

More to the point, two units of regulars will do a better job of it than one elite. I'd rather have two units of Hoplitai than one of Hypaspistai (or for that matter a unit of decent cavalry - more cavalry is better for flexibility). That's more tactical flexibility. Furthermore, they're recruitable all over the place, and replacable with an identical unit of mercenaries, who are again available all over.

And that's the third reason why elites aren't as useful in EB as they were in reality. In the R:TW engine, experience has a major effect. The stat difference between regulars and elites isn't that big in EB, so regulars with a few bars of experience are as good as elites. And because losses in a regular unit are easier to replace, a veteran regular is actually more useful than an elite unit. IIRC regulars also gain experience faster than elites.

(Personally, I think the R:TW XP mechanism is unbalanced. We should give all units two or three bars of experience straight out of training, and slash base stats accordingly. This will mean that units will gain experience more slowly, and the max. effect of experience is lower. IIRC this idea was considered for EB1 at some point, but the team decided not to go with it.)


sigh, you dont get the concept of cost-effectiveness.

I am pretty sure that elites haven't been balanced on cost-effectiveness. I believe it's the reverse: you pay a premium for the extra ability - so it's only worthwhile to use them in critical positions or when you want maximum combat power in a 20-unit stack. In other words: they're only worth the premium in a one-on-one fight. If you're not fielding large (> 12 unit) armies, regulars are a better buy, since you you get twice as many men for only a ~20% reduction in survivability power. That's how it should be. Where it goes wrong is that, for a variety of reasons (poor A.I. tactics, the effect of XP), regulars will perform nearly as well as elites in critical positions, and are far easier and cheaper to replace.

[QuintusSertorius]

And that's the third reason why elites aren't as useful in EB as they were in reality. In the R:TW engine, experience has a major effect. The stat difference between regulars and elites isn't that big in EB, so regulars with a few bars of experience are as good as elites. And because losses in a regular unit are easier to replace, a veteran regular is actually more useful than an elite unit. IIRC regulars also gain experience faster than elites.

(Personally, I think the R:TW XP mechanism is unbalanced. We should give all units two or three bars of experience straight out of training, and slash base stats accordingly. This will mean that units will gain experience more slowly, and the max. effect of experience is lower. IIRC this idea was considered for EB1 at some point, but the team decided not to go with it.)

I hadn't even considered experience, that's a good very point. It's trivially easy to get units you can recruit at one or even two chevrons at the beginning (using a Type II or Type IV government, combined with a Gymnasium/it's equivalent).

In all those migrated faction games I've played, I almost never had the option of building a Type I (Homeland) government, so as a side-effect I was always getting experienced troops (usually with a Blacksmith in the recruiting centre, too).


I am pretty sure that elites haven't been balanced on cost-effectiveness. I believe it's the reverse: you pay a premium for the extra ability - so it's only worthwhile to use them in critical positions or when you want maximum combat power in a 20-unit stack. In other words: they're only worth the premium in a one-on-one fight. If you're not fielding large (> 12 unit) armies, regulars are a better buy, since you you get twice as many men for only a ~20% reduction in survivability power. That's how it should be. Where it goes wrong is that, for a variety of reasons (poor A.I. tactics, the effect of XP), regulars will perform nearly as well as elites in critical positions, and are far easier and cheaper to replace.

Indeed, the most illustrative unit to demonstrate that they're not costed on the basis of effectiveness is the Hoplitai Haploi. A levy unit which is a lot better than many other levy spearman units (such as Pantodapoi, Pontic/Slavic Light Spearmen and others), yet is also cheaper. I try to avoid using them for anything but garrisons, because it feels like an exploit, but for some factions they're the most cost-effective line troops.

[vartan]

(Personally, I think the R:TW XP mechanism is unbalanced. We should give all units two or three bars of experience straight out of training, and slash base stats accordingly. This will mean that units will gain experience more slowly, and the max. effect of experience is lower. IIRC this idea was considered for EB1 at some point, but the team decided not to go with it.)

Where were you when Creative Assembly was developing Rome: Total War? Where were you, Ludens, where?!! Is this really something that could have been modded into EB1 on the Rome engine? I didn't know that. The entire experience mechanism could have been designed better...what is it in RTW, linear? With a small slope at that.

[The Stranger]

And that's the third reason why elites aren't as useful in EB as they were in reality. In the R:TW engine, experience has a major effect. The stat difference between regulars and elites isn't that big in EB, so regulars with a few bars of experience are as good as elites. And because losses in a regular unit are easier to replace, a veteran regular is actually more useful than an elite unit. IIRC regulars also gain experience faster than elites.

(Personally, I think the R:TW XP mechanism is unbalanced. We should give all units two or three bars of experience straight out of training, and slash base stats accordingly. This will mean that units will gain experience more slowly, and the max. effect of experience is lower. IIRC this idea was considered for EB1 at some point, but the team decided not to go with it.)



I am pretty sure that elites haven't been balanced on cost-effectiveness. I believe it's the reverse: you pay a premium for the extra ability - so it's only worthwhile to use them in critical positions or when you want maximum combat power in a 20-unit stack. In other words: they're only worth the premium in a one-on-one fight. If you're not fielding large (> 12 unit) armies, regulars are a better buy, since you you get twice as many men for only a ~20% reduction in survivability power. That's how it should be. Where it goes wrong is that, for a variety of reasons (poor A.I. tactics, the effect of XP), regulars will perform nearly as well as elites in critical positions, and are far easier and cheaper to replace.

i know they havent, thats why i have been saying some elites. their cost has nothing to do really with how good they are, as roman elites (though they dont really have any real elites) are considerably cheaper than most other factions but alot better for their cost. the dacian komatai are also very expensive and pretty bad (or dont work well anyway). there are a few more examples too.

i didnt say that elites are cost effective, ive always said that regulars are more cost effective, ive pretty much said what you have said, that elites are worth their cost in special cases. and in such cases, theyre worth their weight in gold. the reason why i said he doesnt get cost-effectiveness, is because hes insisting that i test how well elites do vs regulars, while that doesnt necessarily say anything about their cost-effectiveness. its way easier to test them both vs 1 levy and compare how effective they slaughtered the levy for their cost. this guy tested it in regular vs elite, https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1ZQajd6tqe8Fo1gSCkWhI3xmm6KRT3nw48a1axITfr1Q&hl=en

anyway, its also subjective, and since he also plays on medium battle difficulty, i would probably argue you wouldnt ever need anything else than levy units, since depending on the civ, theyre often as cost effective + all the easy access bonusses. the ai is so bad you could conquer half of the world with 5 low tier horse archer, 1 general and 1 infantry merc you recruit on the spot to conquer cities.


also a reason that elites arent much better is because how EB balanced units, a spear wielded by an elite doesnt have much higher attack or charge than one wielded by a regular. nor do they often have alot more defensive skills or a better shield value. they really differ much when it comes to morale and armour value. i think atleast in defensive value there is some room for better balance (some elites have a lower value there than even some levies)

as for gaining experience, ye the system is flawed, it should be a procentual bonus on the base skill of the unit, so when a elite ranks up 1 experience point, his boost is bigger when compared to the boost a levy gets from his experience. or something in that general direction

[The Stranger]

did some more testing, not real tests but just 1 time battles.

Test 1 with me commanding the dosidataskeli
2 dosidataskeli vs 4 thorakitai (upkeep: 3796 cost: 949 vs upkeep: 1910 cost: 478 for a single unit)
243 vs 649: 566 kills and 62 losses

The battle was pretty straight forward, 3 units attacked my dosidataskeli head on, 1 unit went for a rear attack. All I did was keep my units in a line and turn around at the last moment to catch the flanking enemy. This test is a bit skewed because the AI is uncapable of using troops that throw missiles before charge. But I'm pretty sure that the Dosidataskeli would still win this fight even if javelins were properly used.

Test 2 with my in charge of the thorakitai:
2 dosidataskeli vs 4 thorakitai (upkeep: 3796 cost: 949 vs upkeep: 1910 cost: 478 for a single unit)
649 vs 243: 135 kills and 507 losses

At the end my general got killed and the units broke and fled. The battle was already lost however, with 1 dosidataskeli down to 40, and another still left at 80, there was pretty much no way to win it anymore. Around 60 my thorakitai started routing one by one, but they all rallied again to rejoin the fight. I didnt try to go for a full surround and I used my javelins sparsely to simulate the AI. I must add that the dosidataskeli didnt go for the most direct route to attack me and as a result started the fight when already "very tired". This undoubtedly affected the fight in my favor and is probably why the losses are alot higher.

Tried again with 1 dosidataskeli vs 2 thorakitai and the reverse of that. Results were the same, the dosidataskeli win, even when surrounded. They will have around 50 to 90 men left, and the thorakitai will start routing around 40-60 men left in a unit.

Need to test more and actually vs a player, but at face value it seems that some elites, atleast at huge settings, can be more cost-effective than a regular, even when facing regulars, as long as a full surround can be avoided. So elites are worth it when theyre flanks are being protected (by elites or other units) or when fighting in chokepoints or when fighting small battles where manouvering isnt as important.


Test 3 with my in charge of the epilektoi:
3 epilektoi vs 7 hoplitai (cost: 3123 upkeep: 781 vs cost: 1367 upkeep: 342 for a single unit)
367 vs 1135: 981 kills and 226 losses

It was a bit hard to balance these, as in upkeep the ratio was 1:2, but in recruitment cost it was more 1:2,25. I decided to do 3 vs 7, which may have influenced the battle a little bit. However the AI didnt really use their general much, they tried to keep it out of combat in most of the battle, so I think it was ok. They did go for a full surround, which means that numbers offer more advantage. The hoplites started breaking later than the thorakitai despite having 1 morale lower, perhaps because of their disciplined trait. When most of the hoplitai had broken the general started to join the fight, but it was already a bit too late. The elites lost 62% of their men, the regulars 82%. This was pretty close, if all units wouldve been used by the AI and with a full surround, the hoplites may just win the fight, of no surround would be achieved, I'm confident the epilektoi would clinch the victory.

Test 4 with my in charge of the hoplitai:
3 epilektoi vs 7 hoplitai (cost: 3123 upkeep: 781 vs cost: 1367 upkeep: 342 for a single unit)
1135 vs 367: 315 kills and 985 losses

The hoplitai got defeated, but it was very close. I went for the full surround, and unlike the AI i used all my units to do so. At first it seemed like I was going to win, but the more men died, the less likely this became as there werent enough soldiers left to keep the full surround intact. When at about 80% losses for both sides I lost my general, 2 hoplite units had already routed at that point (both only started routing at around 15-25 units left). It didnt cause a chainroute though, so I dont think it affected the battle much. In the end all my units routed (all around 15-25 except for the last one) and the battle was lost.

It seems epilektoi are also worth it, even when surrounded, but theyre alot less cost-effective than the dosidataskeli (which, granted, have insane stats and are easily the best infantry unit in the game)

[athanaric]

the dacian komatai are also very expensive and pretty bad (or dont work well anyway). there are a few more examples too.
I take it you mean Komatai Epilektoi, seeing as the regular Komatai are very cost-effective.

[The Stranger]

I take it you mean Komatai Epilektoi, seeing as the regular Komatai are very cost-effective.

ye meant those


Test 5 with me commanding the Rhomphaiaphoroi
2 Rhomphaiaphoroi vs 4 hoplitai (cost: 2899 upkeep: 725 vs cost: 1367 upkeep: 342 for a single unit)
241 vs 649: 535 kills and 87 losses

2 hoplites cost slightly less than 1 Rhomphaiaphoroi to recruit and also slightly less upkeep. To balance this out i gave all 4 hoplites +1 attack upgrade, this basically made the recruitment cost completely equal in multiplayer. The fight was pretty straight forward, i had both Rhomphaiaphoroi charge 2 hoplites, which got pretty easily massacred and the fight was over pretty quick, the general didnt die but routed as one of the first. I also tried with 1 Rhomphaiaphoroi vs only 2 hoplites, this was alot closer, but still the Rhomphaiaphoroi won with about 40 units left.

Test 6 with me commanding the hoplitai
2 Rhomphaiaphoroi vs 4 hoplitai (cost: 2899 upkeep: 725 vs cost: 1367 upkeep: 342 for a single unit)
649 vs 241 : 153 kills and 492 losses

The ai did a significantly worse jobs in using these units somehow. But they still managed to win. I engaged with 2 hoplites head on and with 2 coming from both flanks. The ones that charged head on got massacred while the flankers stayed relatively intact. At around 20 units left my general unit lost his life and broke. The other center hoplite unit also broke at around 15. The flankers broke around 60 or so, but there were still about 90 Rhomphaiaphoroi left and only about 120 hoplites. so the Rhomphaiaphoroi wouldve won anyway.


just discovered a gem of an elite unit

Test 7 with my in charge of the Cordinau Orca:
3 Cordinau Orca vs 7 hoplitai (cost: 3151 upkeep: 788 vs cost: 1367 upkeep: 342 for a single unit)
364 vs 1135: 914 kills and 124 losses

Balanced them similarly to the epilektoi with at 1/2,5. Which is slightly in favor of the hoplitai. The cordinau orca did a much better job than the epilektoi though. Their stats are simply amazing at 15 attack 30 defense and they were at 30% losses while the hoplitai had suffered 70% losses already. At this point the general died and it caused a rout which later rallied. I dont think it mattered too much, the cordinau had already won. I think the ai did a poor job at engaging though and if they werent so clumsy the cordinau wouldve suffered more losses for sure. But not over 200 i think, perhaps not even over 150. Amazing unit.

another gem

Test 8 with my in charge of the kluddargos:
2 Cordinau Orca vs 6 hoplitai (cost: 3109 upkeep: 777 vs cost: 1367 upkeep: 342 for a single unit)
243 vs 973: 813 kills and 100 losses

1 kluddargos tied down 3 hoplites each and chewed through them. They were at 40% losses when the hoplitai were at 80% and the enemy general died. All were routing not much later. They took on 6 hoplites with ease and may have been able to even take down 7. Which i think says enough about their strength and cost-effectiveness. Ofcourse the hoplites are heavily armoured and the kluddargos have an armour piercing bonus, probably haploi wouldve done better relatively.


well maybe its my game, and there is something wrong with it (would be strange cuz clean install)

but for me alot of elites are beating levys and regulars both actually winning the battles and being more cost-effecienct. elites are winning even when its a single elite vs 2 regulars or so, but do significantly better when its 2 elites vs 4 regulars or so. also they get increasingly better when the unitsizes dwindle, because of diminishing returns.

some elites are not much more cost effective than regulars, but some are alot more, even in the open field. Notable names are: Gaesatae/tindonatae, the Dosidataskeli/TAB/Dubosaverlacica, the cordinau orca (solduros/rycalawre/hypaspistai have similar stats but have a secondary spear, which screws them up), kluddargos, all roman elites (not so much because they have amazing stats, but because they are amazingly cheap for their stats and unitsize), any horse archer elite. i havent really tested cavalry, but horse archers pwn all, and armored horse archers pwn unarmored horse archers.

[QuintusSertorius]

Your first set of tests were valid since it was comparison of the same troop type (spearman v spearman), but swordsman against spearman isn't a fair test. We already know spears get a -4 to attack against swords (and axes) making them less effective.

[The Stranger]

i could do with swordsmen vs swordsmen, i doubt it would change alot. there is no clear elites are not or are worth it answer. some are, some arent. some regulars/levies are overpriced and some are extremely underpriced (most notably the roman and hellenic ones)

tried 2 kluddargos vs 3 galatikoi klerouchoi.

the klerouchoi got completely massacred, alot worse than the hoplites for some reason. The kluddargos just chewed through them. i dont know why because their shield and armour stats are similar to the hoplites.

i clicked away the result before i could write it down, but it was like 25% lost for the kluddargos and over 70% for the klerouchoi. I think 2 kluddargos could take on 5 klerouchoi easily. and klerouchoi have good stats.

i guess this is more about armour piercing being really good than elites though. but the other sword elites often have a spear as secondary weapon which makes them less effective imo because they switch to the spear in close combat, oddly enough.

2 cordinau orca vs 3 klerouchoi was pretty close, if the cordinau attacked they lost, if they defended they won. both pretty close.

[moonburn]

the orcas are unbeatable in a wall they can take on an entire army

in a street nobady can pass by them may them be hetaroi romans or most incredably they pinned down my elephant squad and made the elephants rout ... i mean they went amok 1st and then routed on my epirote campaign ofc they where tired already and had been pelted by a few machinegun towers but still those cordinau scordiscii are trully the toughest of the toughest warriors i´ve ever seen

never saw them against rompharoi but could be fun

[d'Arthez]

There are simply too many variables to consider. It is not like these isolated Tests prove much. For every unit is part of the battle. Maybe the two units of regulars would beat the elite in two-on-one-combat. Sure. However, how does that impact on the battle-lines? If that would leave a massive hole on one of the flanks, the two units might return to a decimated army by the time they are done with beating the elite. Alternatively if an elite unit takes on the center of your line, that may create space on the flanks for the enemy cavalry.

The battle engine also plays its part. An experienced Pahlava / Sakae player can decimate a full stack of elite phalanx units. They'll lose the battle, simply because they might have to retreat since they are all out of arrows, despite wiping out 50% of the enemy army or run out of time. A loss without casualties is hardly a loss in most cases.

Then of course there is the issue of counters. A single unit of Gaesatae is easily countered by two units of anything that offer missile fire. However, the other (possibly 19) units determine how effectively those Gaesatae can be shielded from those counters, and thus greatly enhance or inhibit the potential of the Gaesatae to inflict mayhem. In the occasional campaign with the Gallic factions, I don't use them as front line troops, I use them as support troops because they have the fear effect, and can really make a difference to enemy morale. On average I lose about 3-4 soldiers per battle (per unit of Gaesatae), and I play on huge.

Problem is of course that it is not easy to determine the effectiveness of a stack. Sure, we know that a stack of 20 units of Pantodapoi won't get you far, but it is less clear how much staying power a more balanced stack has, as each unit will have its own specialised role on the battlefield. While the army Quintus uses in Magna Graecia is effective there, it is a fair assumption that it would struggle to last long in horse-archer country, even though unit replenishment is not much of a problem in the Crimea.

Sometimes space is scarce (for example bridge battles and sieges). Then you might be better of having the concentrated power of elites. Other times, space is abundant, or formations are so favourable that you don't even need the elites. If you have a few units of sphendetorai or toxotai on top of a steep hill, they'll decimate the Cretan Archers before they can even get into firing range. However, you cannot count on having advantageous terrain, unless you have established a defensive chokepoint for you to exploit.

It is a bit like chess. It is not about creating big threats that can easily be parried. It is about creating weaknesses in the opposition's position, and creating threats that increasingly stretch the oppositions defences, until (simple) threats cannot be parried anymore. Even the seemingly most secure position may have a weakness, that can be ruthlessly exploited. Elites may help in creating a multitude of threats / defences, that regular units cannot counter or exploit effectively.

[The Stranger]

There are simply too many variables to consider. It is not like these isolated Tests prove much. For every unit is part of the battle. Maybe the two units of regulars would beat the elite in two-on-one-combat. Sure. However, how does that impact on the battle-lines? If that would leave a massive hole on one of the flanks, the two units might return to a decimated army by the time they are done with beating the elite. Alternatively if an elite unit takes on the center of your line, that may create space on the flanks for the enemy cavalry.

Thats true, but I'm trying to show that atleast some elites can hold their own vs regulars or levies in a two-on-one-combat. And that even when they lose, they don't lose as hard as some people think.


Problem is of course that it is not easy to determine the effectiveness of a stack. Sure, we know that a stack of 20 units of Pantodapoi won't get you far, but it is less clear how much staying power a more balanced stack has, as each unit will have its own specialised role on the battlefield. While the army Quintus uses in Magna Graecia is effective there, it is a fair assumption that it would struggle to last long in horse-archer country, even though unit replenishment is not much of a problem in the Crimea.

Sometimes space is scarce (for example bridge battles and sieges). Then you might be better of having the concentrated power of elites. Other times, space is abundant, or formations are so favourable that you don't even need the elites. If you have a few units of sphendetorai or toxotai on top of a steep hill, they'll decimate the Cretan Archers before they can even get into firing range. However, you cannot count on having advantageous terrain, unless you have established a defensive chokepoint for you to exploit.


yup, roles are important, and i think some roles suit elites better, simply for the nature of the unit, they pack more power in a tighter space, and they have more morale so can keep fighting in situations where other units would rout.



It is a bit like chess. It is not about creating big threats that can easily be parried. It is about creating weaknesses in the opposition's position, and creating threats that increasingly stretch the oppositions defences, until (simple) threats cannot be parried anymore. Even the seemingly most secure position may have a weakness, that can be ruthlessly exploited. Elites may help in creating a multitude of threats / defences, that regular units cannot counter or exploit effectively.

there is no decisive answer, context matters as you say, and ofcourse each elite and each regular is different. but atleast for me its clear that while some elites may be less cost-effective and would lose to the ratio-balanced equivalent of regulars, the difference isnt very big. And some are more cost-effective, but again if they win vs the regulars, the difference isn't that big. And still i think that in chokes, elites can pull of stuff you can never do with regulars or levys, no matter how many you have.

[QuintusSertorius]

While the army Quintus uses in Magna Graecia is effective there, it is a fair assumption that it would struggle to last long in horse-archer country, even though unit replenishment is not much of a problem in the Crimea.


I did find an effective counter-horse-archer army, without having to recruit horse archers myself. It was still one easily replenished with mercs/regionals. It comprised 2x Hoplitai, 2x Thureophoroi, 2x Thraikioi Peltastai, 1x Kretan Archers, 1x Bosporan Heavy Archers, 1x Scythian Foot Archers, 2x Family Members and 2x Thraikioi Prodromoi for cavalry.

Heavily armoured enough that the horse archer's bows have little impact, with enough longer-ranged archery to decimate the unarmoured horse archers. Plus FMs and Prodromoi to hunt down any horse archers who come too close/charge when out of ammo.

[The Stranger]

the ai is unable to use any missile units properly so its fine. i usually just recruit mass phalanx and autoresolve. but with that army vs a player, i doubt you will do well. you have too few units that can stand up to a charge of a heavy cavalry archer unit such as the FM of saka rauka or sarmatians.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Against the AI, I find a sensible mix of Klerouchoi & Pantodapoi phalangitai is actually very effective when backed up with some heavy cavalry and plenty of missile units of your own.

Some careful maneouvering allows you to create a "crescent" (with plenty of gaps, mind you) of phalanx moving around. The AI will be largely preoccupied with the mass of pikes and spend its arrows on them, but the Klerouchoi are relatively well armoured enough to survive the worst of it and easily replenished anyway. The pantodapoi are useful as moderately armoured axemen that can stand up to most cavalry and medium infantry, even when flanked.

The heavy cavalry must deal with the enemy general, and as the AS you get what is arguably the best cavalry for that job as part of your FM bodyguard forces (Hetairoi). The masses of missile units are there to whittle down the enemy, and again easily replaced.

You'll suffer losses, but you should be able to replenish them fairly easily and also fairly cheaply. Also, you can essentially replace all of these units with the local mercenaries which means a two-stack army can hold out for quite some time.

Ironically, though, this army would never work without its elite component: the heavy cavalry. It's extremely doubtful that you would get lucky enough to see all enemy generals die quickly as opposed to a protracted melee while they attempt to hack their way through your infantry. And to avoid the worst of that, or at least speed up the melee significantly and reduce casualties on your side you need EB's most versatile elite cavalry: the hetairoi. Fast enough, good stammina (and they'll need it), vicious in a melee, with a good shock impact, and crucially: their effect remains even when their unit is downsized. Even in your small 30 men unit configurations, they continue to be simply the most reliable tool to open up and tear apart those 70 men cataphract units that the AI gets for bodyguards while still being fast and resilient enough to chase down light horse archers.

[The Stranger]

hetairoi are really nice, but the sarmatian FM are the best. too bad that their overal campaign is a bit dull. parthia is a good 2nd, but once you get the hang of it, theyre also pretty easy :P in the end ive always liked AS the best