which do you think is the best faction?

[Alexander_The_Great]

i think its carthage

[Slider6977]

/agree

[Kaldhore]

Seleucid

By far

[Kaldhore]

Well actually Roman but that goes without saying, apart from them - Seleucid

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I think Seluecid, cause I love Companions and Cataphracts and I like being able to train elite pikemen and legionarries. Balanced armies, plus if I ever feel like elephants....

P.S also they have archers and Carthage doesn't. :p

[Arrowhead]

Germania+Berserkers=OH NO!
Gaul, Foresters.

[Alexander_The_Great]

i think its carthge because it has good infantry and the deadly elephants

Im playing a VH/H campaign and i have all sicily and preparing to invader italy and in 10 turns

[jerby]

go get rome total realism, carthage is beefed up with now the scutarii, much like princepes and finally ARCHERS.
but unfortunatly, ele's are downed a lot, so you cant completly rely on them

for me, seleucids. pretty much al round, they just need a level 2 archer with more range.

[Kaldhore]

Seleucids have access from the start to the Archers of crete. A little more expensive to maintain - but ALOT better than normal Archers.

[Jonny Dangerously]

Seleucid have the most diverse and comprehensive all-round unit roster for type and flexibilty but for some unknown reason I'm going to say Roman. I guess it's because of the superior naval units, the bullet hard Urban Cohort, the superb range of Archer Auxilia, the power of Pretorian Cavalry.

Ok, they don't have elephants, but I've never had an elephant problem that I couldn't eliminate with a few onagers.

[Kaldhore]

[QUOTE=Jonny Dangerously]but I've never had an elephant problem QUOTE]

Must be a good metabolism.

[Atreides]

I am doubting the superiority of the Romans. The got the best tech tree. But a less diversified army.

Also there access to 'the great wonders of the world' is less. The tactical flexibility of the Romans is less. While the Seleucid got 'elephants', carpaths, silver shield pikeman and silver shield legionaars. So I am not sure..

Anyway Seleucid or the Romans. A good thirt are the people of Carthage.

[CrackedAxe]

I would say Seleucids, they have the most interesting, diverse army. A good alternative though, is the Armenians. They have half decent phalanx troops (heavy spearmen) and good sword troops (Armenian Legionaries). They also get cataphracts and cataphract archers. The only thing letting them down is the lack of elephants. Apart from that though, they are more of a challange than the Seleucids due to their rather poor starting position.

[Betito]

Seleucids have two big advantages, which are their military and their economy. (Katatanks + companions + argyraspids + elephants + one of the best economies out there is definately a winner)

However, their location is not very good: they start in the middle of 4 factions, so they will have to fight from the very beginning. But this could be seen as even another advange, since this leads to some very nice early campaigns.

[Kekvit Irae]

I love Germania, mostly because it takes FAR too long for the Marius Reforms so Rome can get any decent units

[EvilNed]

Carthage! Elephants! Sacred Band! Poeni Infantry! Arrrrrgh!

Besides, slingers are funny...

[Romeus Petrus]

Seleucids coz they can easily defeat all other factions, plus the money is good.

[Mikeus Caesar]

It's a draw for me, either Greeks (sure, they pretty much consist of hoplites, but, they are quite good), Seleucids (like people say, good balanced armies) or the almighty Armenians!! After all, as well as having one of the best copy-cat roman soldiers, Armenian legionaires, they also have the invincible Cataphract Horse Archers!!!

[Craterus]

The Seleucids have the best army but they have a horrible location in campaigns...

[Wishazu]

the greek cities, they have the most reliable troops, if you want someone to hold a pice of ground, look no further

[Craterus]

greek phalanxes just dont move do they?
quite annoying when you are against them but easy pickings for archers...

[Mikeus Caesar]

Actually, Armoured hoplites and Spartan hoplites aren't easy pickings for archers. They are only easy for archers to kill if they shoot at them from behind. But, if there aren't any archers, then they are pretty much invincible!!

[FURRY_BOOTS]

the MACS are alright ~D but personal favs are the juili

[CrackedAxe]

or the almighty Armenians!! After all, as well as having one of the best copy-cat roman soldiers, Armenian legionaires, they also have the invincible Cataphract Horse Archers!!!

A fellow Armenian fan, they are one of the most underrated factions in the game, IMO. If anybody is looking for a new challenge, give this faction a go.

[Sam Adams]

im surprised no ones mentioned egypt. They have a good army, but they have without a doubt the best strategic position. They have basically one front because no one is going to fight you across the desert to the west. They have really profitable large cities and the pyramids to help keep order.

[HarunTaiwan]

Pontus - because they are fun.

[Alien of Germania]

Germania forever

[Malachus]

In the early game, I'd say the romans have the best army. Reliable troops and very flexible. Late game, definitely the Seleucids because of the many avenues of options for armies.

[Craterus]

im surprised no ones mentioned egypt. They have a good army, but they have without a doubt the best strategic position. They have basically one front because no one is going to fight you across the desert to the west. They have really profitable large cities and the pyramids to help keep order.

i have a really fun egyptian campaign and i agree they start with a great position...

their army is great and they start with two wonders lol excellent!

[Betito]

im surprised no ones mentioned egypt. They have a good army, but they have without a doubt the best strategic position. They have basically one front because no one is going to fight you across the desert to the west. They have really profitable large cities and the pyramids to help keep order.


Maybe this is related to the fact that Egypt is one of the factions that more people complain about (you may have heard something like "They are overpowered", "They are historically inacurate", "Good lord, those desert axemen have invisible metal armour!!"...). So they don't think of it as the best faction, regardless of the fact that it's an easy faction to play as (you know, their power, location, economy, marvels...)

[The Stranger]

The Greeks

[Brutus]

im surprised no ones mentioned egypt. They have a good army, but they have without a doubt the best strategic position. They have basically one front because no one is going to fight you across the desert to the west. They have really profitable large cities and the pyramids to help keep order.

It depends what you value most. For example, Britannia also has a very nice strategis position, but on the other hand they suffer from the short barbarian tech tree and lack of cavalry, while the Seleucids have an utmost brilliant tech tree but a crappy strategic position to start with... and so on. I assume the Romans themselves are not mentioned here because they are to straight-forward? Because they (and mainly the Scipii and Bruttii) have the most potential.

And about Egypt, I always attack them through the desert. Best way to cripple them seems to strike at Egypt itself, either marching for years through Libya and Tripolitania or making an amphibious assualt ~D

[Craterus]

And about Egypt, I always attack them through the desert. Best way to cripple them seems to strike at Egypt itself, either marching for years through Libya and Tripolitania or making an amphibious assualt ~D

The Romans (Scipii) have done exactly that and tried to take Siwa on numerous occasions!

[RollingWave]

In terms of vanilla game setting disregarding everything else best is probably either Brutties or Egypt while worse is a hard call depend on what ur judging from, but it's probably either Dacia or the Greeks (the Greeks cause they are in a extermely shitty situation while Dacia because they usualyl can't go anyhere though often ppl don't bother to kill them either)

[Craterus]

i wouldn't say Dacia are the worst faction...
maybe the Greeks (campaign wise) but they have a good selection of troops

[Spartan117300]

romans own when it comes to a diverse, yet bala=nced fighting force, but if ppl would play and fight as real battles were fought(as in not using 10 units of chariot archers, the rest nile cavalry) the greeks would own any other army

[RollingWave]

i wouldn't say Dacia are the worst faction...
maybe the Greeks (campaign wise) but they have a good selection of troops
If everyone was played by a relatively equal skilled human player I think both factions have the least chance to go anywhere, while the greeks are doomed for sure and Dacia may survive because no one will bother to kill them.

Greeks are in 3 front and all 3 front they are in the worest position, the best they can hope for is that they can get into a diplomatic stalemate long enough that their wealth pays off

Dacia is arguablly even worse, if they cant' quickly grab a couple of rich cities they will never again be able to build a single thing!!!! while if controlled by real player I highly doubt the Macedonian or the Thracian will be stupid enough to let Dacia take their town in the first few turns. Scythians are in the same situation but at least they have horse archer to work with.

[knoddy]

the greeks rule. they have the central part to the mediterranian and start with the colossus which gives 40% to naval trade. there was one point in my greek campaign when i had like 500 000 denarii and even more lol. the only reason peoples dont like the Greeks is because they r hard to play as cos they have a difficult starting position but once u kill the brutii( just bribe away there armies with all your money) they rule. ive been playing my greek campaign for 200 years and im almost conquered the whole map lol. all 4 roman factions are gone and of the remaining 5-6 factions half of em are my proctrates. GO THE GREEKS WOOT!!!!!

[Atreides]

@ knoddy

I agree with the strengths of the Greeks. Rich starting position good infantry. But hey. The don not have descent calvary. Actually they haven’t got anything they other Greeks can’t do better. I mean the selucids. They got comparable infantry (not the Spartan worrier, but they got legionnaires),

And their line of cav end semi-cav is the best in the game:
- All elephants types.
- Chariot
- Entire greek cav + companion + carpaths

And regarding their starting position. Within a 5-10 years you can get with the Greek cities states AND with the selucids the The left halve of Asia minor. Leaving the Selucids with a much larger empire.

So please explain me why you favour the Greek cities states.

[n00bicus]

Scythia, with SPQR mod, Brutii in 1.2 and Scythia in 1.0.

[Musashi]

The Greeks get Heavy Peltasts... I don't think anyone else gets these.

Also, they don't have to build up past the (useless) slingers to get their archers, which means they get them earlier than a lot of factions.

[HailMightCaeser]

The Roman factions for sure. Just the fact that there are three of them is amazing.... You only have to worry about a couple fronts because you are almost guaranteed that ur allies won't backstab you. There infantry is 2nd to none with disciplined foot soldiers able to adopt to many situations, excellent calvery that is fast, well armored, and nicely armed. They also have many pieces of artillery such as repeating ballistas, onagers, and heavy onagers. There tech tree is also very vast, and their temple bonuses are usually very good. I think they are the best because of the game name... "Rome Total War" ~;)

[Tricky Lady]

If you survive the first years (which practically every human player will), you can manage to become quite rich early and start developping all those great units: cataphracts, companions, silver shield phalanx, silver shield legionaries, "elefantes"... Perhaps not the best units on their own, but superdeadly when used together.
Romans are of course very powerfull too, but my personal preference goes to the Seleucids.

[jerby]

I am doubting the superiority of the Romans. The got the best tech tree. But a less diversified army.

Also there access to 'the great wonders of the world' is less. The tactical flexibility of the Romans is less. While the Seleucid got 'elephants', carpaths, silver shield pikeman and silver shield legionaars. So I am not sure..

Anyway Seleucid or the Romans. A good thirt are the people of Carthage.

sorry?!? the flexibility of teh romans isn't so good? how in gods name do you think they conquered the world? they weren't diverse, i agree. in fact they were even less diverse than in game, because they didn't have the kick-ass cav.
with rome all you need is infantry, they haven't got much else, they don't need much else. cav-flanking is a thing of the east. the only variety was archers and siege-engines.

[jerby]

The Roman factions for sure. There infantry is 2nd to none with disciplined foot soldiers able to adopt to many situations, ~;)

well, spartans do the job quit nicely too, but are not as flexible. in RTR 5.0 they are. urban cohorts ( wich didn't even realy excist, as you'll see in RTR5.4) lose to spartans OUT of phalanx.

[Mikeus Caesar]

A fellow Armenian fan, they are one of the most underrated factions in the game, IMO. If anybody is looking for a new challenge, give this faction a go.

They are a good fun challenge. Their hordes of horse archers are so good, your armies only need about four units of infantry for sieges. And as for the greek cities discussion, their cavalry does not suck. It just depends how you use it. Like me, i use my greek cavalry quite well, so well that they usually decide a battle.

[HailMightCaeser]

well, spartans do the job quit nicely too, but are not as flexible. in RTR 5.0 they are. urban cohorts ( wich didn't even realy excist, as you'll see in RTR5.4) lose to spartans OUT of phalanx.

True Spartans are good, but they have their drawbacks. Like you said, they are best in phalanx formation, but can be taken out at reduced effectiveness. They
also take 2 turns to train and require you to ahve the highest tech tree (I think). The main drawback is they can only be produced at 2 places, Sparta and or Syracuse. Roman legonaries, on the other hand, have pillas, can form testudo, require 1 turn to build, require the 2nd highest tier structure, and can be built anywhere with an army barracks.

[Craterus]

i still say egyptians.. those chariot archers are unbeatable if used properly!

[Craterus]

and they are cheap, and they only take one turn to build and you dont need high level buildings to build them!!
(sorry, i forgot to mention this in my above post)

[Atreides]

sorry?!? the flexibility of teh romans isn't so good? how in gods name do you think they conquered the world? they weren't diverse, i agree. in fact they were even less diverse than in game, because they didn't have the kick-ass cav.
with rome all you need is infantry, they haven't got much else, they don't need much else. cav-flanking is a thing of the east. the only variety was archers and siege-engines.

With al respect but I sayed less (than the best of second best fraction).

Romans are emphasising the legonar type. (which wil do anyware anyhow good) but that's mainly it.

[SirGrotius]

If someone had a gun to my head (or a spear as it were), I'd got w/ the Brutii. :balloon2:

[Craterus]

yes, the Brutii seem to have it all, don't they? But I've yet to play with them so I stick with The Egyptians.