most powerful faction

[brutii_warrior]

to use the most powerful faction you need to unlock the senate.

the senate's army strikes fear into the enemies more so barbians than profesional armies.

if you dont believe me try it.
you'll win most battles easily

:duel:

[Kekvit Irae]

I dont play the Senate for the very reason that it's very buggy. Looking at the Senate Floor tab crashes the game.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Seleucids once they've killed Egypt, is unstoppable. Romans after the civil war is over are also pretty much unstoppable. Egypt is unstoppable from start and unstoppable later in the game too. I think those are the most powerful factions.

[Craterus]

Egypt, Seleucid and Romans, I agree, Egypt the more-so. Egypt are incredibly powerful, perhaps even too powerful. ~D

[Hazzyguy]

I also agree. Rome, Egypt, and Selucia are really hard to stop once they get going.

[tibilicus]

I agree also i try and get rid of rome as erly as posible because once they get going your dead. Same with egypt. Unfortunatly Selucua dont really get the chance to get going...............

[Craterus]

They are attacked from all sides immediately and in almost every game they are controlled by the AI, they will be the first faction destroyed.

[Beefy]

Acutally on my game they took a big chunck out of the eygptians, which allowed me to finish them off being alies with the selecuid!

Now i control all of africa, spain, sciliy and moving up into france!

[Craterus]

I own all of asia minor as far as scythia, down to thapsus (africa)... None of europe and the balkans :(

[cunobelinus]

secluids but they are surronded in campaign but my favourite is germany i love beserkers

[Yesugey]

Why everyone thinks Egyptians are unstoppable and extremely imbalanced? I see they have very nice set of units but their general is a Chariot. (Easier to kill, have to be handled extremely carefully, die at the secont in contact with Phalances, and cant send to the crisis points in the battlefields or cant be used to sweep city centers without lose.) And they have no other huge advantages. Maybe population growth? Or you were talking about the old version which they have double unit size?

[ReluctantSamurai]

Why everyone thinks Egyptians are unstoppable and extremely imbalanced?

Because they have rich provinces to begin with, excellent temples, a very good unit roster, and.....chariot archers. All AI vs AI battles are auto-calc and the chariot archer rules vs just about any lower-tier troops, especially cavalry. In virtually every game I've ever played, it's the Ptolemaic's that conquer the Middle East and roll into Anatolia with relative ease, unless opposed by the player.

[Yesugey]

Because they have rich provinces to begin with, excellent temples, a very good unit roster, and.....chariot archers. All AI vs AI battles are auto-calc and the chariot archer rules vs just about any lower-tier troops, especially cavalry. In virtually every game I've ever played, it's the Ptolemaic's that conquer the Middle East and roll into Anatolia with relative ease, unless opposed by the player.

Thanks I was just thinking of the player's perspective, and without considering the temple and startup cities bonuses.
Chariots really are deadly, but they rarely gave me hard time since the AI uses them very stupidly most of the time. (Especially on bridge battles.. What a mess :laugh4:)

[Jehan Ali]

I like playing with Armenia, with a good economy, their legions and horse archers make a splendid combo

[Myth]

I like playing with Armenia, with a good economy, their legions and horse archers make a splendid combo

You really have to talk to ReluctantSamurai about Armenia :laugh4:

[ReluctantSamurai]

Here, here...:charge:

[edyzmedieval]

Seleucid armies man, those Silver Shields. :bounce:

[ReluctantSamurai]

Silver Shields? Gah!! Nothing but pin cushions:charge:

~D

[edyzmedieval]

Hammer and anvil with some Seleucid cataphracts. :knight:

[ReluctantSamurai]

The heavy Cats in Seleucia vs Armenia are a wash. Seleucia has no answer for the Cataphract Archers, however~;)

[edyzmedieval]

I heard the east has some good horse archers around that place... hammer, anvil and bow with my Eastern friends. ~;)

[ReluctantSamurai]

hammer, anvil and bow with my Eastern friends

Hammer & Anvil doesn't work against an all cavalry army:shrug:

Cataphract Archers will win any archery duel with any archer unit not named Cataphract Archer. The base defense rating of 22 is only 1 less than the Heavy Cats, and insures (when properly used, of course) that they take less losses in 1 vs 1, even against 80-man foot archers~:smoking:

[edyzmedieval]

Cataphract Archers tire quickly, and no shields means that specialised melee cavalry or some Seleucid Cataphracts will do relatively short work of them. Use some lancers to pin them down and then let the Cataphracts do the rest. :bounce:

[ReluctantSamurai]

no shields means that specialised melee cavalry or some Seleucid Cataphracts will do relatively short work of them

Selkie cats will have to deal with my cats before they even reach the CA's:devilish: Any other cavalry will be dealt with by Arab Cavalry (who will eat Lancers for lunch---and as fast as Lancers are, AC are faster in desert conditions).

My Armenian cavalry armies are never placed in the hands of anyone but high-ranking generals with a pile of bonuses. Fatigue is rarely, if ever, a problem~D The heavy cats tire much quicker than the CA's, by the way...

Check this thread---post #5:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?146930-What-s-your-most-satisfying-battle-victory

Granted it's against the AI (I play VH/H) and not another player, but 4000+ kills (several dozen of the enemy unit losses were Chariot Archers, btw) vs about 150 casualties ain't bad in my book~:eek:

[LordK9]

Hammer and anvil with some Seleucid cataphracts. :knight:

For my 2 cents worth, I've ad the easiest time winning with the Selucids probably because they have a little of everything.

[ReluctantSamurai]

The Selkie's would be in my top three...Macedonia and Armenia the other two, but one can make arguments for the Romans and Germania:shrug:

[Vincent Butler]

I can't believe nobody is giving Macedon any love. Royal Pikemen are really good, they have the light cav to deal with light infantry, and then the Macedonian and Companion Cav to finish the battle:scastle3:, and Macedon is also primed to make money. I like Seleucia, I like Rome. I am a heavy infantry general, so go figure. In my opinion, Militia Hoplites are the best starting unit, at least for defending a town, which as Seleucia you need to do a lot early on. Of course, if dealing with cav archers, that changes your tactics, more light cav and foot archers.

If Rome, I will let the cav archers waste their ammo on my infantry, if I start losing troops I can always go to testudo. Ditto Seleucid Silver Shield Legionaries. Roman armour is good enough that cav archers don't do much, especially after Marius. Now, I rarely face Armenia, they are usually gone by the time I get over there.

Egypt is too good (and with unrealistic units to boot, they would be Greek at this time), though I once saw Pontus take them out and then make it all the way over to Carthage.

[edyzmedieval]

I find it funny we're discussing on a thread more than 10 years old... :bounce:

[ReluctantSamurai]

I can't believe nobody is giving Macedon any love.

I did:shrug: They are probably my second favorite faction, although Germania comes in a very close third...

Royal Pike are my favorite phalanx unit, even more than Spartans, Armored Hoplites, or Sacred Band. Macedon has arguably the best all around cavalry roster of any faction, and its' temples rank with some of the very best. Hard not to like them~D

[Vincent Butler]

I did:shrug:

Missed it. Though I remember other threads you were singing their praises, especially "Cavalry, Macedon's finest!". I love Macedonian Cav, and since Companions require the top stables, I typically only run with one CC, and use more MC. I use the others too, I do want fast-moving cav in my army, and there is pretty much nothing faster than Light Lancers. Yes, I do field Greek Cav as well, they fare better in hand combat than the lancers do.

Macedon gets a temple to get to gold sword for your archers (actually two, but one gets there quickly, the other requires a Pantheion.) They get Ballista and Onagers. The only thing lacking, standard for Greeks, is archers. I wish they got a Hypaspist unit, that is my only quarrel with them. Greece at least gets Heavy Peltasts for a slightly more mobile light/medium infantry. The archer situation can be remedied with Cretan Archers. Macedon is forced to rely on mercenaries for that. But they do retain Illyrian Mercs when they bribe an army, so that is a bit of relief. Hard keeping a supply of them when you are in Gaul or Africa, though.

[LordK9]

Egypt is too good (and with unrealistic units to boot, they would be Greek at this time), though I once saw Pontus take them out and then make it all the way over to Carthage.

I don't believe they were using chariots when Persia conquered them let alone Macedon. Now, against the Hittites ---- ~D

Well, the chariots are easily defeated - eventually they'll charge headlong into your phalanx troops. Historically, the Egyptians of the time had a hard time with the Selucids because they would only use Greek and Macedonian soldiers in their armies. There weren't that many of them in living in Egypt so they hired mercenaries to guard cities and beef up their land armies which were quite small - basically they were a naval power. Yeah, I totally agree.

[Vincent Butler]

And has anyone ever tried to play as Egypt? They are very unruly. I may eventually try them again, but with their cav being as bad as it is, it is not worth much for support. I would be fielding lots of Pharoah's Bowmen. I don't want to try to build an army around Nile Spearmen. I also don't want the Axemen as my line troops. Really, I think the computer overcompensates Egypt.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I've played them a few times. No Pharaoh's Bowmen or Guard (too silly), Desert Cavalry reduced to 54 men and placed in square formation, Bowmen reduced to an 80 man unit. My biggest beef (besides the absurd Old Kingdom look) is having my generals in chariots. Their participation in city assaults is pretty much gone, and they are too susceptible to getting killed by arrow fire on the battlefield. I also fail to understand why they aren't allowed to build quinquereme's. Archeology shows Egypt built some very large and very advanced-design sailing ships. Besides, the Ptolemaic's were of Greek origin...why wouldn't they know how to build advanced warships?:book2:

I don't believe the AI overcompensates Egypt. IMHO, it's the chariots that leads to their dominance when fighting AI-led factions in the Middle East. In AI vs AI battles, it's all auto-calc and the chariots tip battles in favor of Egypt. Take those away (and they should never have been included in the first place, having disappeared from the battlefield after Alexander's time) and the Ptolemaic's are an ordinary faction:shrug:

Doesn't one of the mods address the fact that the Ptolemaic's, being of Greek origins, should have hoplites of some sort?

[Mitch the Mace]

While I think Rome is the most complete and powerful faction, Selucia does present the most power out of the east, being the most versatile faction there. Armenia definitely requires special tactics as you progress through their initial weak units (outside of HA) until you can make it to the Cats and CA. Their Heavy Spearman do provide a nice line infantry with which to pin opposing infantry. Playing as Armenia is a ton of fun since you can normally avoid Egypt until you have the units to handle them. I must confess though, I have never had an army of just Cats and CA, that would be hard to stop.
Egypt is just too unique in all of their units. I have never played with them, but I think it would be difficult to combine phalanx, poor light infantry, chariots, and poor cav into a flexible fighting force. As Selucia, I simply picked my battles with Egypt to have a large tactical advantage, whether that be in the city, at a river, or high ground. Never had a problem stomping Egypt with Selucia.

[Vincent Butler]

I also fail to understand why they aren't allowed to build quinquereme's. Archeology shows Egypt built some very large and very advanced-design sailing ships. Besides, the Ptolemaic's were of Greek origin...why wouldn't they know how to build advanced warships?:book2:

Doesn't one of the mods address the fact that the Ptolemaic's, being of Greek origins, should have hoplites of some sort?

They can't build quinquiremes? I could have sworn I faced them, but I just checked a campaign of mine that is in 138 BC, and no Egyptian navies have them, so yeah, that is stupid. I never noticed that before. Then again, since I have to autosim naval battles anyway, and usually build decent navies, I don't pay attention to what they have, just the status of their ships. I never noticed that I was never facing quinquiremes.

In EB, Egypt is Greek, I think, though those units I was looking at could have been regional troops, too.

[Mitch the Mace]

In EB, Egypt is Greek, I think, though those units I was looking at could have been regional troops, too.[/QUOTE]

I know that some of the regional troops around Egypt are hoplites, so I would assume Egypt has at least some Hellenic style units. Probably with an Egyptian twist.

[LordK9]

Doesn't one of the mods address the fact that the Ptolemaic's, being of Greek origins, should have hoplites of some sort?

That I don't know but the game does kind of sort of have them. I can't remember the name of the troops but their first available good spearmen are recruited (as per the in-game descriptions) from the aristocratic class which would be the Greeks. I don't remember if they could but hoplites (which spell check says should be shoplifter :laugh4: ) at least should be available a mercenaries. As a maritime power, they really should be able to build quincquerems - Egyptian ships at the time of Caesar were often described as larger and less maneuverable then their Roman counterparts.

[Vincent Butler]

I can't remember the name of the troops but their first available good spearmen are recruited (as per the in-game descriptions) from the aristocratic class which would be the Greeks.

Probably the Nile Spearmen. Egypt goes from Nubians to Nile Spearmen to Pharoah's Guards, as far as spearmen go. I forget where Desert Axemen fall. No matter, I will face Nubians and Nile Spearmen all day long with just about anybody.

Kind of funny, nobody is mentioning Carthage. I have never really done much with them, so I can't speak about it. They seem like they should be good, and Sacred Band Infantry (granted you need a special temple) have equivalent stats to Praetorian Cohort. They are weak at the beginning, though, so that could be why nobody is talking about them, not to mention their lack of archers.

[Mitch the Mace]

Carthage is not a versatile faction. With the Sacred Band Inf needing an awesome temple to recruit from, and the SB Cav needing an advanced stables, Carthage is limited to medium cav, and medium spearmen. Even the phalanx-using Poeni inf require an army barracks. Based on the troop limitations, it almost forces you to hire mercs, which is quite realistic. Spanish Mercs come in quite handy to balance out your spear based inf. And, of course, Rhodian slingers are awesome! Once you get the SB units, Carthage can steamroll just about anyone; especially if you throw in a few elephants! :grin2: Fortunately, outside of Rome, Carthage has few formidable factions to face early on, allowing a build up of a stable economy from which to build higher echelon units.
I have never had a cav unit so all around effective as the SB Cav. They don't carry the shock value of Cats, but they are much easier to move around, and don't get bogged down nearly as much. The Companian cav comes close, with a better shock value, but I seem to lose more of my men from the CC than SB.

[Vincent Butler]

Carthage is not a versatile faction. With the Sacred Band Inf needing an awesome temple to recruit from, and the SB Cav needing an advanced stables, Carthage is limited to medium cav, and medium spearmen. Even the phalanx-using Poeni inf require an army barracks. Based on the troop limitations, it almost forces you to hire mercs, which is quite realistic. Spanish Mercs come in quite handy to balance out your spear based inf. And, of course, Rhodian slingers are awesome! Once you get the SB units, Carthage can steamroll just about anyone; especially if you throw in a few elephants! :grin2: Fortunately, outside of Rome, Carthage has few formidable factions to face early on, allowing a build up of a stable economy from which to build higher echelon units.
I have never had a cav unit so all around effective as the SB Cav. They don't carry the shock value of Cats, but they are much easier to move around, and don't get bogged down nearly as much. The Companian cav comes close, with a better shock value, but I seem to lose more of my men from the CC than SB.

Good point about everything needing to be advanced. Greece gets AH from third barracks, Rome gets ELC from third, Britain and Gaul get Chosen Swordsmen from third, even Phalanx Pikemen from third are decent. Carthage needs 4th barracks to be really good, same problem with cav.

[edyzmedieval]

Playing with Egypt requires you to play with chariots often - and I was never an adept of chariots because they would be hard to manage if you weren't fighting open ground.

As for Carthage, the Sacred Band is tough stuff, but it's also expensive to both get there and to build.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I've always found the biggest problem with Carthage is public order in such a far-flung empire. Corduba, even with a decent governor, is a royal pain in the a$$. The other big difference with Carthage is the need for a very strong navy right from the start. With the Scipii and Julii constantly trying to debark armies on your shorelines, it's often hard to keep enough serviceable sailing ships afloat.

The key to success is booting both the Scipii and the Greeks off of Sicily (one MUST take advantage of Hanno before he dies!), beating off all the embarked-in-ship armies, and developing Carthage, with its grain-driven population growth, as quickly as possible. Sacred Band can be had sooner than one might think if you manage Carthage efficiently.

Round Shields are pretty much crap, but all you have at the start. Long Shields, with upgrades are serviceable, much like Greek Cavalry. Poeni phalanx is also serviceable, much like Phalanx Pike (though with less mass).

The biggest oversight by the devs (although with some minimal modding can be corrected) is no archers of any kind except mercs. Ummm....the War ellies seat archers, so someone knows how to make bows:dizzy2:


As a maritime power, they really should be able to build quincquerems

Yep. And to make matters worse, an AI-led Egypt will build several huge fleets in the Red Sea, where they are absolutely useless. It is, however, an easy thing to disable the ports at Memphis, Thebes, and Petra, from building ships.


I must confess though, I have never had an army of just Cats and CA, that would be hard to stop.

Very true. And it makes Armenia one of the most over-powered factions when played. Led by a Legendary General/Cavalry Genius/Legendary Attacker and a retinue of movement-boosting cards, there isn't any army on the board that can stop him:charge:

[edyzmedieval]

Fine then, I'll just mod out some ultra heavy Cataphracts, make them virtual indestructible tanks and we play. ~;)

[ReluctantSamurai]

What's an ultra-heavy Cataphract?~:confused: The current in-game stats for Cataphracts already makes them tanks. Isn't their popular nickname Catatanks?~D

[LordK9]

What's an ultra-heavy Cataphract?~:confused: The current in-game stats for Cataphracts already makes them tanks. Isn't their popular nickname Catatanks?~D

I've never really like cataphracts - so slow; so hard to turn; so depleted after a charge. I built them; just wasn't impressed.

[Vincent Butler]

I've never really like cataphracts - so slow; so hard to turn; so depleted after a charge. I built them; just wasn't impressed.

Their standard attack isn't great, though their charge bonus is. When they get into melee combat, have them go to their secondary weapons (shift-rightclick). Their maces are armour-piercing.

Bear in mind, they are a specialized unit, and must be handled as such. They are not designed (in the game) to fight as would Macedonian or Legionary Cavalry. Their survivability is very good, and when they slam into an enemy...:smash: For kicks, watch them fight wardogs.~D I am soon going to put them against screeching women in a custom battle. I will DVR the moment of impact. Buwahaha!

[ReluctantSamurai]

so slow; so hard to turn; so depleted after a charge

The Heavy Cats are shock troops. Their best use is in breaking enemy lines and formations, particularly infantry. The three-line formation certainly makes a traditional cavalry wheel-route turn more difficult, but one shouldn't be depending on them for lightning-quick maneuvers. I've played all the factions that get heavy cats and never noticed a speed problem. They get where I want them to go, and charge when they're needed. If "depleted after a charge" means tired...that's a factor of how far they had to travel before getting into action. If you had to traverse most of the battlefield beforehand, then yeah, you're only going to get one good charge out of them before you see true fatigue.

Armenia has the best flexibility in that you send the CA's out ahead to harass the enemy, and walk the heavy cats into position. The CA's can take care of themselves against most other cavalry, so one doesn't have to babysit them constantly like you do with the Scythian-style horse archer. I've found that Arab Cavalry make a good escort for the CA's when lancers are present. They're faster, and better in melee.

Heavy Cats, when used for what they are intended for, can turn the tide of any battle pretty quickly. Just ask Crassus at Carrhae:surrender2:

Speaking of Carrhae, it's in the list of historical battles you can fight...and one of the most difficult to win, IMHO. After the AI trashed me numerous times before I could notch a single win, I modeled my Cataphract army tactics along the lines of what the AI used on me. One of the few times the RTW battle AI humbled me:shame:


I built them; just wasn't impressed.

If you enjoy the Seleucids, put them behind the Heavy Chariots (works with Ellies too). When the chariots (or ellies) complete their charge (ie. pick a point beyond the units you are attacking so they don't get bogged down), immediately send in the cats and enjoy the ensuing mayhem. Chariots/ellies don't generate a lot of kills on their own, but they are the best at disrupting enemy unit cohesion and formation, which has a demoralizing effect. If your timing is good and the cats hit before a unit has reorganized....instarout~:wave:


I am soon going to put them against screeching women in a custom battle. I will DVR the moment of impact.

Man you're cruel~D....................a screen capture would be awesome though:creep:

[Mitch the Mace]

I agree. Cats cannot be handled as standard cav. They are a specialized shock cav, designed to deliver a knockout blow. I also like using them to protect my flanks if I am fighting on the defensive. Unless you let a phalanx get a hold of them, you can smash any infantry trying to sneak around the flank. With their high defense, I don't worry too much about letting them get in prolonged melee combat. Obviously I don't leave them out to dry, but they are great for delaying the enemy until I can reinforce that flank.

With more standard heavy cav, (PC, CC, SBC) I will try to engage the flanking elements before they start to flank, but with the Cats, I don't want to run them around too much because they do tire a little easier than normal cav.

Properly used, the Cats can turn a up-for-grabs battle into a mass rout.

[Vincent Butler]

Man you're cruel~D....................a screen capture would be awesome though:creep:

Now how do I post it? I have the video. Just to make it worse, I gave my Cats max upgrades and them none. I was a little too zoomed in, I think, but not too much, so you see pretty much everything that happens. They did not rout instantly, it actually took them a little longer to rout than I expected, probably due to the Cat's lower melee attack (SW are not armoured, so I did not use the maces).

[Vincent Butler]

Now how do I post it? I have the video.

Never mind, I think I have it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQXG8z4mpcs

I know this is overkill, and it is a waste of Cataphracts on Screeching Women. Well, not really:laugh4:. But Cataphracts are the hammer that either softens up a formation (hit with Cats, then with Companions if Seleucia). That should do it. Again, have Cataphracts use alternate attack if fighting armoured units, and it is better if they are used in conjunction with other units.

I think the developers intentionally made Rome the most powerful. The Praetorian Cav, unrealistic as they are, give Rome a decisive advantage. The best infantry and the best cav, though cases can be made for Seleucia, Macedon, and Armenia, though this is only with human control, otherwise the most powerful non-Roman faction seems to be Egypt. For the Barbarians, it is Britain, with again the stupid over-rated chariots.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Splaaaat!:laugh4:

What I would do differently is have the Cats charge to a point behind the...well, whatever you wish to call them:quiet: That way most of the unit clears the enemy formation and is now behind them. Wheel around and finish the job, or move to another target.


though cases can be made for Seleucia, Macedon, and Armenia

Very strong cases, I might add:devilish:


the most powerful non-Roman faction seems to be Egypt

If you run a campaign with all factions controlled by the AI, Rome will always triumph in their sphere of influence, and Egypt will always come out on top in the Middle East. IMHO, this speaks of roster imbalance, at the least. It's the main reason I removed a bunch of units from both factions because it became borderline monotonous to see the same outcome game after game (playing a faction not in the Middle East and watching Egypt run amok, or playing a ME faction and watch the Romans exterminate everyone around them).

Without the silly Pharaoh's Guard/Bowmen, Desert Cavalry and Egyptian Bowmen unit size reduced to standard, I've actually seen the Seleucids hold their own against them, and other factions like Pontus or the Greeks give them tough battles and actually win a few instead of getting trounced every time.

Same with the Romans. No Praetorian anything, no Urbans or Cohort II's (and when I play a Roman faction, same roster applies). Gaul can actually make some noise, for once. Had one game where they booted the Julii out of Segesta, and sacked Ariminum. If it wasn't for the intervention of the SPQR doomstack, they might have reduced the Julii to a lonely outpost at Caralis. It was refreshing to see. Oh, and I removed the SPQR's ability to build ships. I mean really? There's already three Roman factions building navies (and one could make an argument that three factions is too many), adding a fourth means Carthaginian and Greek City navies get crushed, and those two factions need powerful navies to thrive. Without the unrealistic SPQR navy, I've occasionally seen the Greek Cities do what they're supposed to do...fight for control of the seas near Apollonia and Thermon, and make it no cakewalk for the Brutii to land armies anywhere they please in Greece.

[LordK9]

I agree. Cats cannot be handled as standard cav. They are a specialized shock cav, designed to deliver a knockout blow. I also like using them to protect my flanks if I am fighting on the defensive. Unless you let a phalanx get a hold of them, you can smash any infantry trying to sneak around the flank. With their high defense, I don't worry too much about letting them get in prolonged melee combat. Obviously I don't leave them out to dry, but they are great for delaying the enemy until I can reinforce that flank.

With more standard heavy cav, (PC, CC, SBC) I will try to engage the flanking elements before they start to flank, but with the Cats, I don't want to run them around too much because they do tire a little easier than normal cav.

Properly used, the Cats can turn a up-for-grabs battle into a mass rout.

I'm likely using them wrong then. What I found happened was they'd get bogged down after the charge and cut to pieces in short order. They are too slow to turn and run - just barely faster then infantry and stuck there vs cavalry. A lot of the enemy would die but not worth the high expense of the cats. I do tend to use hit and run tactics with cavalry and rarely charge frontally. I've even had quite the success with that using round shields.

Also, as far as Egyptian infantry, I might be getting mixed up I may have been thinking of the Paeoni (sp?) infantry someone mentioned that Carthage had. I was thinking Egypt had them too. Really, I rarely played Egypt - just didn't like their time warp armies. And beating them when they were AI wasn't all that hard depending on who I was - bypass the Levant armies and go straight for the Nile cities.

[Mitch the Mace]

Frontal charges should be avoided with Cats as well as with any cav unit. Cats can get away with it against lighter infantry, but still try to hit them when they are not braced for the charge. You are right, unless a Cat unit is upgraded quite a bit, prolonged melee combat can result in heavy casualties, especially against heavy inf. If you leave them much longer after the charge bonus is negated, then they become basically a mounted infantry unit, without advantage of numbers or formation.

If you can get any kind of success out of Round Shield cav, you should be happy. :bounce:

Poeni infantry is unique to Carthage. Egyptian inf. units are Nubian Spearmen, Nile Spearmen, Desert Axemen, Pharaoh's Guard. I don't think I'm missing any, please let me know if I am. The two spearmen units are basically worthless, with PG being one of Egypt's unrealistic units, as Reluctant Samurai already pointed out. I think I started a campaign with Egypt, but quit after two turns. :laugh:

[Mitch the Mace]

I know they definitely do not fall under most powerful, but as anyone ever gotten very powerful with Numidia? I have done several campaigns, but never got too far. I know they are a challenging faction to play as; early on I basically relied on skirmishers to take care of Egypt's phalanx and chariots, and my Generals to take care of their cav. Then I had a family member die hitting a retreating phalanx in the back. :wall:

After that I kind of lost interest, due to the fact that you have to micromanage every facet of the campaign. With a poor economic base to start from, and very light units, they are probably the hardest campaign I have ever played.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I know they definitely do not fall under most powerful, but as anyone ever gotten very powerful with Numidia?

I've played them several times. Can't say it was enjoyable, but I stuck with it once just to see how far I could get.

One thing I learned fast...abandon Siwa on the very first turn, and burn it to the ground. Use the garrison to take Lepcis Magna. That accomplishes two things: avoids immediate conflict with Egypt, and nets you a port city that you can easily connect with other ports later. Stay on the fringe of the Carthage-Scipii conflict until you can recruit Long Shields. I used horse archer tactics with Numidian Cavalry...hit & run. Effective against both Carthage & Rome early on because Carthage has no archers and Rome has only a smattering. Get within javelin range and pepper the hell out of their infantry. Unlike horse archers, these guys come dirt cheap so losing a unit or two doesn't bite the bank account as badly.

You get no decent infantry until Numidian Legionnaires (which become your staple), but Desert Infantry is serviceable...barely. I made extensive use of Spanish Mercs once I crossed into Iberia. When I had enough denarii coming in, I recruited Merc Ellies to pound on the Romans once I headed for Sicily and then The Boot. Numidia gets Onagers so you can lay siege to, and assault Roman stone walls.

I had screenies at one time, but after two new computer rigs I can't seem to find them:shame:

IMHO, Numidia is much easier, economic-wise, to play than Parthia. You get a decent trade temple (Milqart), a good law & order temple (Baal), and a farming temple (Tanit) which comes in handy for those pi$$-ant Numidian holes of Dimmidi and Nepte~:rolleyes:

My vote goes to Parthia as the hardest faction to play, mostly for their precarious geographical position, and absolutely dreadful economics.

[Vincent Butler]

You get no decent infantry until Numidian Legionnaires (which become your staple), but Desert Infantry is serviceable...barely.

If you choose to stick it out with Egypt, DI are not bad. They do well against chariots, especially in a town where the chariots can't maneuver as well. The legionaries are only equivalent to Principes. That said, Principes (and therefore Numidian/Armenian legionaries) are decent, and will hold their own against most other infantry units in the game. Until you encounter Cohort. But if you mod out the unrealistic cohort, the unit Marius came up with (that we know as ELC) was based on the Principe, so you could manage there too. As a history point for those who don't know, the LC are only unrealistic for the time period, they came later, and PC was only a palace guard.

[ReluctantSamurai]

If you choose to stick it out with Egypt, DI are not bad.

Tried that. Unfortunately, the AI acts like a rabid dog and will suspend its' conflict with Seleucia to come after you. Siwa stands no chance being so close to the Nile Delta, and Numidia can't compete that early with the endless stacks of desert gold winding its' way through Libya. Better to let sleeping giants sleep....at least for awhile:Zzzz:


As a history point for those who don't know, the LC are only unrealistic for the time period, they came later, and PC was only a palace guard.

Precisely.:bow:

[Vincent Butler]

Tried that. Unfortunately, the AI acts like a rabid dog and will suspend its' conflict with Seleucia to come after you.

That's for sure. That is the AI with anybody. If you are Parthia, Egypt, Armenia, and Seleucia will all ally to attack you, whereas normally everybody there gangs up on Seleucia.

When I am say, Brutii, Greece, Thrace, and Dacia all gang up on Macedon, with Thrace or Germania taking out Dacia, but they are not that friendly towards each other, one of them ends up in trouble and wanting an alliance with me. When I was Macedon, Greece, Thrace, Dacia, and the Gauls all allied together to fight me. It didn't work out so well for them:angry:. I let them :wall: against Bylazora while I took Byzantium and then Tylis (I was already dealing with Greece), I was lethargic in that campaign anyway. Thankfully, the AI doesn't realize they would be better off allying with me, because with the exception of attacking the Senate, I honour my alliances. But hey, then who would I fight?

[LordK9]

My vote goes to Parthia as the hardest faction to play, mostly for their precarious geographical position, and absolutely dreadful economics.
I am not disagreeing and I never bothered with Nubia but, doesn't the description at the kingdom selection phase at the very beginning describe Parthia as being rich due to sitting on the trade routes with China or something like that? Never could get their economy going so I never understood what that was about.

[Vincent Butler]

It is a sad situation when it is advantageous to build slingers (to deal with chariots). In a town, Eastern Infantry (aka cannon fodder) might be able to fend off chariots, but other than that...:rolleyes4: And against even Militia Hoplites? EI would get toasted, unless you just throw them at them and force your way through by weight of numbers (provided your first units don't rout).

[ReluctantSamurai]

doesn't the description at the kingdom selection phase at the very beginning describe Parthia as being rich due to sitting on the trade routes with China or something like that?

Well, they lied.:laugh4: While it's true that Armenia, Parthia, and Pontus get Trade Caravans/Spice Roads/Silk Roads (+2/+3/+4 to trade), they don't begin the game with them, and there are two issues at work.

The first is that a settlement needs to reach 12k population before you can even build a simple Trade Caravan. For Pontus, that's not a big problem because Sinope (and other port cities in Anatolia) can get there quickly. For Armenia, it's a problem at the start which is quickly remedied by eliminating Pontus and the Greek Cities and taking over Anatolia for themselves. For Parthia, only Seleucia is capable of getting to 12k in a reasonable amount of time, and horse archers are a very bad unit to be using to attack a walled city, which leaves only laying siege and waiting for the garrison to sally (or an outside stack coming to their relief). It's doable, but tough.

Problem two are the roads. Parthia (and Armenia) can only build dirt roads which is an oversight on the part of the devs. In a discussion 'long ago and far away' about the engineering capabilities of Eastern factions, I posted a picture of a paved road in Armenia built in BCE times that led to a stone bridge spanning a ravine. :thinking: And simple logic will tell you that a faction that can build stone city walls complete with buttresses, crenelations, turrets, etc., could certainly lay stone pavers for a road (and both Armenia and Parthia can build stone city walls). Why is this important? A paved road doubles the trade income along that route, a highway triples the income.~:eek:

IIRC, some simple modifications to the RTW\data\export_descr_building.txt, and RTW\data\text\export_buildings.txt, allows you give the capability to build paved roads to a faction.

Several quotes from this article---https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/36216/jacobson_herbert_r_194005_ms_95034.pdf


Persia, recognized by all authorities as a builder of roads, displayed considerable ingenuity in the improvement of transport and communications, much more so than in industry. The empire, extending from the Aegean to the Indus River and from the Caspian to the Indian Ocean, was interlaced with a magnificent system of highways. In order to unite and efficiently control his widespread empire, Darius I (521-485 B.C.) instructed his engineers to construct great roads between the various capitals, and over these excellent roads was maintained a government-controlled postal service such as had not hereto-fore existed on so vast a scale. The Persians inherited from the Babylonians and Assyrians a considerable network of great roads over which traffic had flowed for thousands of years regardless of the rise and fall of great empires. The most famous of these was the Royal Road which ran from Susa, the capital of Persia, through Arbela, Guagamela, Nineveh, Amide., Comana, Ancyra, Oordium, and Sardis to Ephesus. Although this road is called the Ancient Royal Road of the Persians, it was already ancient long before the Persians gained control over it.

And an indication of how developed, and sophisticated these highways were...from Herodotus:


With respect to this road, the case is as follows: There are royal stations all along, and excellent inns, and the whole road is through an inhabited and safe country. There are 20 stations extending through Lydia and Phrygia, and the distance is 94 parasangs and a half. After Phrygia, the river Halys is met with, at which there are gates, through which it is absolutely necessary to pass and thus to cross the river: there is also a considerable fort on it. When you cross over into Cappadocia, and traverse that country to the border of Cilicia, there are eight and twenty stations, and 104 parasangs; and on the borders of these people you go through two gates, and pass by two forts. When you have gone through these and made the journey through Cilicia, there are three stations and 15 parasangs and a half. In Armenia there are 15 stations for resting places, and 56 parasangs and a half. As you enter from Armenia into the country of Matiene, there are four stations; and from thence as you proceed to the Cissian territory there are 11 stations, and 42 para-sangs and a half to the river Choaspes, on this Susa is built. Now if the royal road has been correctly measured in parasangs, and if the parasang is equal to 30 stades, as indeed it is, from Sardis to the royal palace is a distance of 13,500 stades (1550 miles), the parasangs being 450; and by those who travel 150 stades(17i miles) every day, just 90 days are spent on the journey.

The RTW devs would like you to believe that only the Hellenic cultures and Rome were road engineers. As you can see, that is simply not the case. Middle East cultures weren't just building simple paved roads, but highways....very sophisticated and well-designed highways.....long before Rome came along.

[Mitch the Mace]

I have never tried Parthia, mainly because of their infantry. Or lack thereof. Slingers probably would do just as well as EI. :help: And it's not like Hillmen are putting any fear into people. I get that Parthia has good cav, I should probably try them out sometime just to see how it goes. I do prefer cavalry heavy army, but I like to have some infantry. At least to build a ram to knock a hole in the gate so my cav can wreak havoc.

And I love slingers against chariots, although I mainly use Rhodians or Baleric. ~D

[edyzmedieval]

I had no clue the Parthians were unable to build anything other than dirt roads. :dizzy2:

Learn something about the game after a decade.

[Vincent Butler]

Now it would be a simple modification to enable paved roads for Parthia, right? And they should get a decent melee cav other than Cataphracts.

Slingers probably would do just as well as EI

Defense is too low. According to export_descr_unit, defense for slingers is 4, while EI is ten. And EI are a spear unit, giving them a total +16 attack bonus vs cav, -4 attack penalty against other infantry. Which means that against other infantry, slingers would be more effective, both before and during melee. So they can wear light enemies (including EI) down, before engaging in hand to hand combat if necessary, against infantry, and have more attack than either EI or Hillmen. Slingers actually have better morale than EI as well.

Slingers actually get only two less attack than Hillmen before bonuses/penalties, same amount of men in unit, and Hillmen defense is actually lower than EI. Also spear, so same advantages/disadvantages as EI. So against cav, field EI or Hillmen, EI gain one defense, lose two attack, two lower morale, but extra forty men. If fighting infantry, you might as well be fielding slingers. Their attack is greater than EI vs infantry (who actually unupgraded get no attack vs infantry), and also than Hillmen, who unupgraded get only attack of one vs infantry. So vs Infantry, Slingers get 4 attack, EI get 0 (actually would be -1), and Hillmen get 1. So field Slingers as Parthia to deal with infantry/chariots, but protect them from cav with your infantry, and protect your infantry from their infantry.

[ReluctantSamurai]

And it's not like Hillmen are putting any fear into people.

Never, ever, waste precious denarii on Hillmen. They have all the disadvantages of Eastern Infantry, and none of the benefits. The biggest benefit of EI over Hillmen is mass. The extra +2 attack that Hillmen get (go figure that one out as both are basically militia) does not offset the added 50% in numbers of an EI unit.


I have never tried Parthia, mainly because of their infantry. Or lack thereof.

Elephants, elephants, and more elephants....when you can afford them, that is:brood:


At least to build a ram to knock a hole in the gate so my cav can wreak havoc.

Parthia can build Onagers.

Before taking on Parthia, browsing the Guide to Playing Parthia thread would probably help.:shrug:


Now it would be a simple modification to enable paved roads for Parthia, right?

To add more levels of roadbuilding to any faction:

http://rtw.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=ct&f=9,3850,2220,all

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?115686-Highways-for-other-factions

Parthia, IMHO, should get highways; Armenia and Pontus should get to advance from dirt to paved (the article I posted above is a fascinating read if you have the time as it covers road engineering from ancient to modern).

[Vincent Butler]

Never, ever, waste precious denarii on Hillmen. They have all the disadvantages of Eastern Infantry, and none of the benefits. The biggest benefit of EI over Hillmen is mass. The extra +2 attack that Hillmen get (go figure that one out as both are basically militia) does not offset the added 50% in numbers of an EI unit.


Parthia can build Onagers.



Somebody did the comparison, I think it takes three units of Hillmen to defeat one unit of EI. Maybe it was two units of EI. As far as the Onagers goes, it takes a while to get to the point of building Onagers. Then again, with the lousy infantry, one should focus on upgrading the archery range and stables instead of the barracks, so you will get there more quickly. If all you need is a first level barracks for EI, then don't waste your money going better. The extra experience that is gained (if I remember correctly) from a better barracks is not worth it to improve a lousy unit that you will want to use sparingly anyway. And once you get to your better cav, forget the infantry. And if dealing with chariots, if you can have Elephants, chariots are nothing. But if you must use infantry, you are better off with slingers and archers, with maybe some EI to ?protect? them from cav. One thing is sure, with Parthia you don't want to fight using a traditional battle line.

[Mitch the Mace]

While I realize in standard melee, EI are far better than slingers would be, I wonder if the added bonus of missile attack would be enough to field slingers instead of EI. Most of the infantry you will face will be either EI or phalanx. Either would be easy pickings for either slingers or archers.
With Scythia, I tend to field more CAW than Axemen. Granted, CAW's melee attack and defense are far superior to Parthian slingers and archers, but the same strategy is used. I would assume that the difference in attack and defense makes the strategy less effective for Parthia. Something for me to try sometime, I guess.

[Vincent Butler]

While I realize in standard melee, EI are far better than slingers would be

Morale:
Slingers 4
EI 2
Hillmen 4

Defense
Slingers 4
EI 10
Hillmen 9

Attack vs Infantry
Slingers 4 missile, 3 melee
EI 1 (I am assuming if penalty results in negative attack, attack equals 1)
Hillmen 1

Attack vs Cav
Slingers 4 missile, 3 melee
EI 19
Hillmen 21

So if going against infantry, slingers' reduced defense can probably compensate for their lack of armour to a certain degree, especially when paired with their missile attack. That said, you don't want to leave either in prolonged melee combat.

Ultimately, when your stables gets good, forget infantry. Use onagers to assault walls, don't even bother with archers/slingers. Go all cav.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Most of the infantry you will face will be either EI or phalanx.

Early on (game difficulty at VH/H), Seleucia will field Militia Hoplites, Militia Cavalry, and Peltasts; Armenia will field Horse Archers, Eastern Infnatry, Hillmen, and Peltasts; Egypt will field Nubian Spears, Skirmishers, Nubian Cavalry, and a few Chariot Archers. The VH campaign setting means that armies already on the map will have more advanced units even if the faction cannot recruit them yet.

Later you will see from Seleucia, scads of Pikemen (both Levy and Phalanx), Greek Cavalry, Archers, and some Scythed Chariots; Egypt will field scads of Desert Axmen, numerous Chariot Archers, Bowmen, and Desert Cavalry. Fighting Seleucia is much easier than Egypt because other than Scythed Chariots and Greek Cavalry, their battle line plods along only as fast as the Pikemen. If you allow them to get Elephants...you have a big problem....literally:laugh4: Egypt is much tougher not just because of the Chariot Archer, but the Desert Axmen are very fast-moving, and the AI thinks they have a big red S on their chest. I just shake my head in amazement when the AI throws them at my heavy Cats:crazy: At any rate, they get on you quickly, so skirmishing-style infantry has a hard time keeping distance.

The problem I see using slingers against Chariot Archers is range and hitpoints. All Slingers have a range of 80 (except Rhodian and Balearic Slingers who range out at 120). Chariot Archers range out at 120 which means that they will stay out of range and pepper you to death. Even if you get slingers into range, you've got to tear through the CA's hitpoints before you can start killing them. I find it hard to believe that a) you'll have enough slingers left to get the job done; and b) the slingers won't attract the attention of enemy cavalry.

I never had much luck with slingers, and stopped using them altogether. Doesn't mean, however, that they can't be useful for those who like them.:shrug:

[Vincent Butler]

The problem I see using slingers against Chariot Archers is range and hitpoints. All Slingers have a range of 80 (except Rhodian and Balearic Slingers who range out at 120). Chariot Archers range out at 120 which means that they will stay out of range and pepper you to death. Even if you get slingers into range, you've got to tear through the CA's hitpoints before you can start killing them. I find it hard to believe that a) you'll have enough slingers left to get the job done; and b) the slingers won't attract the attention of enemy cavalry.

I never had much luck with slingers, and stopped using them altogether. Doesn't mean, however, that they can't be useful for those who like them.:shrug:

I don't use them against chariot archers, though I certainly like them for dealing with chariots and unarmoured units, especially when firing from elevation. Especially if I am using Balearic/Rhodian Slingers. Slingers are actually better in EB (AP even), that is where I first actually really started fielding them regularly. I only discovered their usefulness in RTW as a desperation move to see if I could knock out some Armoured Hoplites from the rear, if that made a difference. It did:yes:. But in most cases, you will not be able to run them behind the enemy because of enemy cav. It just so happens that Greeks don't field much cav unless it is Militia Cav, and then the slingers can deal with them too. Also, as you said, Balearics and Rhodians have more range than standard slingers, so that makes a difference.

[Mitch the Mace]

One of the reasons I despise Egypt is their chariot archers. Yes, I definitely try to keep my slingers out of their range. If I have straight up missile units vs inf, I almost prefer slingers to archers. Although slingers definitely require more attention due to the fact that you can't have them behind your line of infantry. Against chariot archers, good archers are the way to go. Not sure what kind of range Cat Archers have, but I do like them against Egypt, because then I have a heavily armoured, very mobile archer unit; one that can go toe to toe with chariot archers.

[Mitch the Mace]

I should specify that I rarely train a factions slingers. The slingers I am referring to are Baleric and Rhodian.

[Vincent Butler]

One of the reasons I despise Egypt is their chariot archers. Yes, I definitely try to keep my slingers out of their range.

Does anybody know if range improves with experience or weapons upgrades?

Slingers are less than effective against armoured units in a frontal attack. Then again, I had lightly-upgraded Greek-style archers launch like seven volleys at LC before inflicting one casualty, so against high-armoured units, even archers don't do that much. Attacks from behind (and I believe the right side) inflict more casualties, as even Cohort and AH fall prey to attacks from the rear from any missile unit.

The ideal counter to Chariot Archers is elite foot archers, of which there are five units: Archer Auxilia, Chosen Archer Warband, Cretans, Pharoah's Bowmen, and Forester Warband. Cav archers work too, but most cav archers don't have the range, attack, or defense of these foot archers, all of who get Long Range Missiles as an attribute. Elephants work too.:2thumbsup:

[ReluctantSamurai]

Not sure what kind of range Cat Archers have

The same as foot archers, chariot archers, and any other mounted archer...120. The only unit with more range (in fact the longest reaching ranged unit in the game) are Cretan Archers at 170. To see the range of any missile unit, find the export_descr_unit directory (it's in the data folder). The fourth number in the stat_primary line is the range.


The ideal counter to Chariot Archers is elite foot archers...Cav archers work too, but most cav archers don't have the range, attack, or defense of these foot archers

The ideal depends on what faction you play. The best regardless of faction are the Cataphract Archers. Their heavy armor allows them not only to go toe-to-toe with Chariot Archers, but to chase them across the battlefield (inflicting rear missile fire the whole time) and go over to melee to clean up stragglers. All cavalry archers from Scythian-style to Cataphract Archers have the same range as any foot archer, Cretans excepted.

As any Greek faction, I employ scads of Cretans against the chariots. They do need a screen against enemy units, but they out-range everything on the battlefield. The Roman Archer Auxillia does well, but also need the frontal screen. Never made it to the Middle East as Germania or Gaul, but Chosen Archers and Foresters would decimate the chariots, I'm sure. In my experience, Ellies are too slow to give chase (and with the constant rallying of AI troops, chariots need to be destroyed outright, or decimated and "escorted" off the battlefield). Ellies should be busting up infantry formations anyway~D


because then I have a heavily armoured, very mobile archer unit; one that can go toe to toe with chariot archers.

I'm not sure if you saw the screenies I posted earlier, but this general (http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/aussiebirdman/Armenia02-1.jpg) (http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/aussiebirdman/Armenia06.jpg)took on four successive Egyptian stacks; the first had 10 Chariot Archers, and the next three had 8 or 9 each. IIRC, it was 36 Chariot Archer units total. In addition to wiping out the CA's, Egypt lost over 4000 men. Losses were about 150 Cataphracts, of which about 1/3 were the Archers. That's about 1900 Chariot Archers lost for 50 Cataphract Archers (game settings at VH/H). Can any other missile unit match that? And btw, the battlefield was basically an ironing board...no terrain advantage/disadvantage for either side.


Does anybody know if range improves with experience or weapons upgrades

No and no. Only terrain can modify range.

[Vincent Butler]

The same as foot archers, chariot archers, and any other mounted archer...120. The only unit with more range (in fact the longest reaching ranged unit in the game) are Cretan Archers at 170. To see the range of any missile unit, find the export_descr_unit directory (it's in the data folder). The fourth number in the stat_primary line is the range.



According to the export_descr_unit file, at least in the version I am playing of vanilla RTW (1.5), the five types of elite archers have range of 170, foot archers and most cav archers 120. Cataphract Archers, Scythian Noble Women, Scythian Noble Archers, and Persian Cav have a range of 170 as well. Chariot Archers and War/Armoured Elephants have range of 120.

I will agree, the defense and mobility of the Cataphract Archers, combined with their long range, would give a decided advantage. But of course, the AI has no qualms about charging them onto my phalanx.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I stand corrected:shame: Those are the numbers. Militia-type archers would be using a short bow, the more elite archers, foot or mounted, would be using a compound long bow.

I find use of the Scythian Noble Women rather redundant because the Scythian Nobles are available, the half-size unit, and limited melee value. Now the Head-Hunting Maidens with their AP axes, are fast and good for chasing down skirmishers and routers.

[Mitch the Mace]

Completely agree. The Noble women are basically an half-sized unit of the Nobles. Never did field them very much.

The Head-hunting Maidens do provide a nice light cav unit. And I believe their axes are armour-piercing, so they actually do a fair job against armoured units. Although, their low defense means limited melee is best; but that applies with any light cav. I had them do a rear charge on a unit of Cats that was already engaged, and they tore them up. One of the best jobs of taking care of Cats that I have seen cav do.

[Vincent Butler]

Completely agree. The Noble women are basically an half-sized unit of the Nobles. Never did field them very much.

The Head-hunting Maidens do provide a nice light cav unit. And I believe their axes are armour-piercing, so they actually do a fair job against armoured units. Although, their low defense means limited melee is best; but that applies with any light cav. I had them do a rear charge on a unit of Cats that was already engaged, and they tore them up. One of the best jobs of taking care of Cats that I have seen cav do.

Never really tried a Scythian campaign. If it is same level building to build Noble Women vs Noble Archers, yeah, why would you want Noble Women (unless they cost enough less to make it a factor). It actually makes sense that the Cats got wasted by the HHM. HHM are light cav, so not much armour, and AP. Cats have a low enough attack so that they won't do too much against the HHM, and with not much armour, the maces of the Cats (I never see them use them anyway) won't do much either. Scythia looks like another faction that you would forget about their infantry. That said, at least they have a good foot archer unit who can stand in as decent infantry and good melee cav, so you would not have to totally abandon conventional playing if you did not want to.

I ran a battle trying out Cataphract Camels vs Cappadocian Cav, and the Camels wasted the Cappadocians. The camels carry maces as well, Cappadocians carry swords for when they do go to the secondary. I am getting tempted to try Parthia out again.

[Mitch the Mace]

The HHM and SNW come from a temple. I think you can get SNW faster than Noble Archers, but it wouldn't be by too much, and definitely not worth spending the money on. I am pretty sure they are more than half the cost of NA. I believe the HHM are in the first level temple and SNW the third level, but don't quote me on that. :rtwyes:

[edyzmedieval]

Haven't played RTW in a while (I did play RTW Alexander relatively recently), but I reminded of mercenary Cretan Archers. Those guys were useful with literally every faction. Loved them.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I believe the HHM are in the first level temple and SNW the third level, but don't quote me on that.

Head-Hunting Maidens become available at lvl2 (Sacred Grove of Api). The Noblewomen become available at lvl3 (Sacred Circle of Api). The Lvl1 Shrine of Api costs 400 denarii; the Grove 800 denarii; the Sacred Circle 1600 denarii. The Sacred Circle is not worth building unless you are looking for the +2 to population growth:shrug:


Scythia looks like another faction that you would forget about their infantry

The Axmen are serviceable. Do their job well of tying up other infantry while the Scythian Noble lancers make their way to the flanks. Certainly much better than Eastern Infantry against other infantry. I do believe I used an all cavalry army as Scythia at times. Not as powerful as an Armenian cavalry army, but the tactics are the same. I found Thracians/Bastarnae to be an excellent alternative to Axmen. Love those guys! On a par with Germania's Bezerkers as shock troops.


mercenary Cretan Archers. Those guys were useful with literally every faction.

One of my top five favorite mercs (when playing a faction that doesn't have an elite foot archer). "Creeshan Arshers". Another of the classic unit calls....

[Vincent Butler]

The two hit points of the Bastarnae are really nice. Don't know if they will compare to this.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWrEHOIkz-o

[edyzmedieval]

Creeshan Arshers man, they always do the damage. :grin2:

To be fair, it was either Cretan Archers or Barbarian Mercenaries (spearmen/warband) as the most used mercenaries when you were playing as one of the Roman factions. Always good support from both.

[ReluctantSamurai]

As a Roman faction, "Creeshan's" were definitely useful until Uncle Marius showed up and you got Archer Auxillia, but Warbands were nothing more than fodder to throw at the enemy while you flanked them. The only two line units I recruited were merc Hoplites and Thracian/Bastarnae:shrug:

@ Vincent

You gotta love those 'Zerkers:chucks:

[Vincent Butler]

As a Roman faction, "Creeshan's" were definitely useful until Uncle Marius showed up and you got Archer Auxillia, but Warbands were nothing more than fodder to throw at the enemy while you flanked them. The only two line units I recruited were merc Hoplites and Thracian/Bastarnae:shrug:

@ Vincent

You gotta love those 'Zerkers:chucks:

I would hire those Barbarian Mercs simply to increase the size of an army to avoid a sally out when besieging a fortified city, increase size of my army before autoresolve, or to increase the size of a garrison in an underdeveloped town. Eventually you can disband them and they return to the population.

I was surprised when the Berserkers beat first the War and then Armoured Ellies. I think if I tried it again I would run my Ellies through them. I tried it as the Berserkers, lost one, won two, the one I lost I saw the white routing banner on my Berserkers:shrug:. Maybe just the captain was left, so he routed? Cataphracts beat Berserkers, but you certainly want to take advantage of the charge bonus, I won with only one charge, but lost more men. Also first time (with extra charge) I used Wedge, and lost my captain right off the bat. I still won. Yeah, Cataphracts are worth what you pay, provided you use them right. It can be expensive if you don't.:rolleyes2:

I have been trying out different one-on-one scenarios, most of the time the results are as expected, but not always. Usually Berserkers or Screeching Women come into play. Hmm...Berserkers vs Screeching Women...:bounce: But wait, I can't. They are both Germanic, and so it won't let me fight Germania vs Germania.

[edyzmedieval]

Despite them being used mostly as cannon fodder, the Barbarian Warbands can hold their own ground, particularly when you employ them in a defensive position and especially after they have some experience.

[Vincent Butler]

And when expecting a charge from cavalry, I always put my infantry in guard mode, it seems to help them absorb the shock better. I take them off guard after the impact so they will move around to attack more of the enemy's men. And I don't actually use men as cannon fodder, I don't like squandering men, even from my not so good units. Units like Barb Mercs usually are on my flanks so I can engage engage their cav, my infantry deals with their infantry, and then my units who come free go after whoever the Barb Mercs are fighting, if they need help.

[Mitch the Mace]

Barb mercs are good for soaking up the main punch of the enemies attack while your other units can move to flank. If I don't have a phalanx, I love having the Mercs first in line when defending a bridge. With the warcry, they can hold out for quite a while; in the mean time, my missile troops are unloading into the mass of troops on the bridge. ~D

Scythia is a fun faction to play as. The battles do take a little longer early on as the HA run rings around the slow infantry that the enemy throws at you. Although, militia cav from Thrace seems to tear up my HA in melee combat. ~:eek: I am sure there is some reason for that, but if I remember right, the stats are similar.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Although, militia cav from Thrace seems to tear up my HA in melee combat.

If I'm reading the export_decr_unit file correctly, the secondary attack for both units is knife (7 for the Militia Cav, 3 for the Horse Archers), the defensive value is 0 armor/4 defensive skill/4 shield (total 8) for the Militia Cav; 3 armor/2 defensive skill/0 shield (5 total) for the Horse Archers. So it's 7 attk/8 def Militia Cav vs. 3 attk/5 def Horse Archers. On paper, the Militia Cavalry should win melee combat:shrug:


I would hire those Barbarian Mercs simply to increase the size of an army to avoid a sally out when besieging a fortified city, increase size of my army before autoresolve, or to increase the size of a garrison in an underdeveloped town. Eventually you can disband them and they return to the population.

Look guys, my comments about Barbarian Infantry was meant for a Roman faction (with the outside chance that you might recruit them while playing the Julii). As a barbarian faction I recruit them all the time for all the mentioned reasons. I can't see a need, as the Brutii, for using Warbands when there are far superior mercs available (like the +2 Hoplites available in the Laconia Province, or Cretan Archers, or Illyrians). As the Scipii, hoplites and militia cav available on Sicily and in N. Africa, and eventually ellies...:shrug:

[Mitch the Mace]

[QUOTE=ReluctantSamurai;2053722171]If I'm reading the export_decr_unit file correctly, the secondary attack for both units is knife (7 for the Militia Cav, 3 for the Horse Archers), the defensive value is 0 armor/4 defensive skill/4 shield (total 8) for the Militia Cav; 3 armor/2 defensive skill/0 shield (5 total) for the Horse Archers. So it's 7 attk/8 def Militia Cav vs. 3 attk/5 def Horse Archers. On paper, the Militia Cavalry should win melee combat:shrug:

That would make sense. Thanks for clearing that up for me. :hail:


Look guys, my comments about Barbarian Infantry was meant for a Roman faction (with the outside chance that you might recruit them while playing the Julii). As a barbarian faction I recruit them all the time for all the mentioned reasons. I can't see a need, as the Brutii, for using Warbands when there are far superior mercs available (like the +2 Hoplites available in the Laconia Province, or Cretan Archers, or Illyrians). As the Scipii, hoplites and militia cav available on Sicily and in N. Africa, and eventually ellies...:shrug:[/QUOTE

I would agree. The only time I hire them is if I need extra numbers to soak up the hordes that the enemy is throwing my way. I try to avoid hiring them if I can. Merc Hoplites on the other hand, I do hire just about whenever I can. Especially when facing Egypt in a settlement. I love playing sticky-sticky with the chariots and watching their wheels roll past. :bounce:

I do like Illyrian Mercs as well. They provide a nice light inf that doesn't need constant supervision. And if they get some upgrades from armour or chevrons, they can hold their own against even medium inf. Although you don't want to let cav get a hold of them. :help:

I also like the Spanish Mercs, although I do not recruit them as Rome. That would be a bit redundant. But they do provide a solid inf unit that can hold the line if they need to.

[Vincent Butler]

Look guys, my comments about Barbarian Infantry was meant for a Roman faction

Understood.:bow: As a barbarian, they are equivalent to your basic infantry unit, though overpriced as mercs. Standard Warband are much cheaper, which is why I don't hire them quite as much, as Barbarians money is at a premium. Then again, it doesn't affect population growth to hire them, so there is a tradeoff.

As far as Scythia goes...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J01tGT2qkus

To quote Darth Vader..."Impressive...Most impressive."

[ReluctantSamurai]

To quote Darth Vader..."Impressive...Most impressive."

Reverse the roles---Cats on the attack, rather than flat-footed:creep:

I'm guessing the outcome to be rather different~;)

That being said, I use HHM's quite a bit in my Scythian campaigns. Now if they just had given them the Xena war-cry:horn:

[Vincent Butler]

Reverse the roles---Cats on the attack, rather than flat-footed:creep:

I'm guessing the outcome to be rather different~;)

That being said, I use HHM's quite a bit in my Scythian campaigns. Now if they just had given them the Xena war-cry:horn:

You were right.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjxAkuyf8Jg

I don't know what would have happened had I not decided to use maces, with HHM wearing some armour I figured it was not a bad idea.

You know, if somebody wants to take these videos and put them in a place for promotion purposes on the forum, that would be fine.

[Mitch the Mace]

As is always the case, AI doesn't know how to use it's troops to full effect. Comes in handy sometimes. :yes:

Just curious, how do you all defeat a HA army if you do not have any yourselves? I know the common strategy is elite foot archers, but I'm wondering if there are any other strategies out there. If I have heavy inf, sometimes I just wait for them to exhaust their (basically inexhaustible :rtwno:) supply of arrows. Although I have never played on VH, so I don't know how effective HA are against heavy inf. in that difficulty.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I don't know what would have happened had I not decided to use maces, with HHM wearing some armour I figured it was not a bad idea.

In the first video the HHM's win easily because a) their formation is broader and they wrap around the sides of the cats (and the reason they killed the enemy captain so quickly); b) the cats never switched from lance to their close-combat maces.


Just curious, how do you all defeat a HA army if you do not have any yourselves?

If you don't have any cavalry...you're in for a loooong tedious battle:Zzzz:


Although I have never played on VH, so I don't know how effective HA are against heavy inf. in that difficulty.

I play the campaign map on VH but the battlefield maps on H, so can't help you there. I've tried VH but losing battles where I did everything right, ie. outmaneuvering the AI and for all practical purposes, outfighting it, and still losing because of the insane buffs given the AI...so I backed down to H where I could enjoy it more. Even when I lose. And if you thought playing pinball naval battles was ridiculous on H, you don't win one on VH unless you outnumber the enemy fleet at least 3 to 1...and even then you might lose:freak:

In Shogun I, the AI was fully capable of kicking your a$$ with minimal buffs...you could get outmaneuvered/outfought if you didn't pay attention. In RTW, the AI had gotten so bad that huge buffs were needed (+4 to attack on H; +7 to attack plus morale bonuses on VH). Battles that are already too fast become even shorter because it becomes a death-match where the troops with the higher morale win because they fight to the last man.

End of rant:soapbox:

[edyzmedieval]

I always disliked those artificial bumps whenever you played VH / VH. It was so tedious sometimes... all you had to do was to fend off huge stacks, and then try to creatively find ways to destroy endless stacks of enemies who would simply not budge even if you hit them with cavalry in the rear.

Shogun / MTW was the best.

And even then you had some horribly tough battles... Hattin on MTW anyone?

[ReluctantSamurai]

Shogun / MTW was the best.

It was Shoggie for me. Just never could get excited about warfare in the time period of MTW:shrug:


And even then you had some horribly tough battles

My #1 complaint about RTW was the very short length of the battles. Don't ever recall having one longer than 20 min or so, maybe 30 min to defend a bridge against multiple stacks:smash:

But Shogun...campaigns filled with epic marathon battles of over an hour or even more.:jawdrop: Battles where you had to pause the game to take a break because you were just as tired as your digital army:tired:

[Vincent Butler]

My #1 complaint about RTW was the very short length of the battles. Don't ever recall having one longer than 20 min or so, maybe 30 min to defend a bridge against multiple stacks:smash:

But Shogun...campaigns filled with epic marathon battles of over an hour or even more.:jawdrop: Battles where you had to pause the game to take a break because you were just as tired as your digital army:tired:

I play with a battle time limit anyway. It helps in those circumstances where you can't win, but can run around where they can't catch you, or a siege battle where they just sit outside the walls, and they would have the upper hand if I moved outside my walls. Usually only happens when Rome has Scorpions or Repeating Ballista in a besieging army.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I play with a battle time limit anyway.

The very first time I lost a Shogun battle from the time limit after a hard-fought battle against long odds, I turned off the timer and never used it again. I still remember running around the battlefield trying to find the last AI unit hiding in the woods somewhere. It turned out to be a broken Yari Cavalry unit with 6 men left.:shame:

[Mitch the Mace]

I have never played STW, but if the battles last that long, they must be intense. The only time I ran out of time fighting a battle in RTW was in BI against a horde army. I kept defending my city against the sea of humanity and horses, and the time ran out before the enemy could throw their last units against me. I love racking up the kills against the hordes. I believe the most I killed was 4000+ while losing around 200 of my own. Heavy infantry mows down just about any horde army.

In a city, that is. :evilgrin:

[Vincent Butler]

I still remember running around the battlefield trying to find the last AI unit hiding in the woods somewhere.

I actually won a battle that way. Two ELC and a Roman cav got attacked by a full Greek army. I hid my cohort in the woods, and ran the Roman Cav around. One unit of Greek Cavalry got ahold of them and wiped them out.~:mecry: Don't know how that happened, it should have been fairly even. But they never found the infantry, so I won the battle.

Have also done it, say I am moving some cav, and they get attacked by a large army of infantry. I just run around till time runs out. Usually I am able to take out one or two of their units that get too far ahead of everybody else. Even better if it is cav archers I am moving.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I have never played STW, but if the battles last that long, they must be intense.

Not all battles are an hour or two. Most are in the 15-45 min range depending on the number of reinforcements and the terrain (several provinces have extremely high mountains and it might take 15-20 min just to maneuver). But in every campaign there are at least several epic battles that take 1-2 hours to resolve~:eek: Immensely gratifying when you win...heartbreaking when you lose.

If you haven't played Shogun 1, I highly recommend it. The AI is smart, both on the campaign map, and on the battlefield. The music is AWESOME: www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1_1Re0fTR8; weather effects are THE best...when there's a thunderstorm, it's a damn downpour complete with lightning flashes and thunder (I got forever hooked when I fought the historical Battle of Okehazama with the thunder of your cavalry hooves as they charged down the hill matching that of the raging storm, and your NoDachi slinking through the heavy woods to snap the jaws of Oda's trap shut). Fighting a battle in the fog is simply a blast; if it's heavy enough, you can't see a damn thing and setting ambushes is just way cool (not so much if you stumble into one:shame:)

And of course, everyone's favorite, the ninja assassination cut-scenes:www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzUs1MYjeXA


I actually won a battle that way

Not for me:hide:

[LordK9]

Must be physically connected to their horses - can't seem to understand that they are useless in a city battle. :)

[Vincent Butler]

Not for me:hide:

Oh, by no means is it my preferred way to win, but I don't like to lose. Especially if I am sending a freshly retrained unit, and don't want to have to retrain them again, or lose the unit if I autoresolve.

The battle time limit is so I don't have the issue of a battle going long when I have other things to do, so I have to either quit or leave it paused. I like to be able to gauge about how long I have, so that doesn't happen. I don't like leaving my computer with a program running, especially a game or web browser. If I am not using it, I like to have it closed.

[edyzmedieval]

Shogun was a very special game - it broke barriers, it established a new genre and it paved the way for Total War to become what it is.

Medieval however brought it into the spotlight, and Rome established the franchise. M2TW was a gem, but MTW however remains my thing. :smitten:

[LordK9]

Just curious; I've only played three TW games, three of the four you mentioned. I'm not much interested in samurai warfare so never considered Shogun. Have you played any of the other TW games? I just ordered the MTW-II expansion (Kingdoms) from Amazon but hadn't had much interest in the other titles. Just wondering what your take is on them (if you have played them).

[edyzmedieval]

Just curious; I've only played three TW games, three of the four you mentioned. I'm not much interested in samurai warfare so never considered Shogun. Have you played any of the other TW games? I just ordered the MTW-II expansion (Kingdoms) from Amazon but hadn't had much interest in the other titles. Just wondering what your take is on them (if you have played them).

Played and own every TW game, except for Warhammer. ~:)

Each and every one of them has a different flavour. It depends here very much on how willing you are to delve into the period of the title in question - I never had any interest in 18th century warfare before Empire, but I approached it with an open mind and I was pleasantly surprised. Napoleon TW is one of my most played TW games. (about 250 hours)

All of them have their advantages and disadvantages. MTW is my favourite by far, second place followed by a tie between M2TW and Shogun 1. Third is Attila TW (yes, Attila!).

Approach each game with an open heart and you will be surprised. Don't hold any preconceived thoughts, especially with regards to the criticism of some games - I'm looking here at Empire TW and Rome 2 TW.

:bow:

[ReluctantSamurai]

Shogun 1 is all about tactics. The rock-paper-scissors adage applies here in spades. If you fight cavalry-heavy, the AI will adapt with lots of spears. If you fight being heavy on the spears, the AI will adapt with swords (Warrior Monks, NoDachi). Yes the campaign map is 2-D, but it is simplistic and handled very well by the AI (unlike all the 3-D maps from Rome 1 onwards, where the AI is simply lost). The battle maps are 3-D, quite variable, and along with the top-notch weather effects, rendered beautifully.

There are 4 seasons and you only receive income at fall harvest. While city management is not as complex as Rome 1, for instance, you have to be much more careful with planning infrastructure and purchasing/retraining troops. If you run out of koku in the spring, you can't get any more until fall.

If you don't care for the time period, I certainly understand. Personally, I don't care for the Napoleonic period, and will never play ETW/NTW. But if you want a game where the AI is clever and challenging (even at medium settings), and you live or die by your skill at tactics, then STW (and MTW 1) should present you with a lot of enjoyable game-time.

[edyzmedieval]

I totally forgot about the Autumn / fall harvest only income... oh man, that was so hard to manage sometimes. :freak: