how much do macadonians kick tail!!!!

[ptolemy]

jus thort id post my thorts and see wot u all think bout them.

aint it so much fun t play as the macadonians and line up ur phalanx of pikemen and watch ur enemy march rite into the spear points as ur cavalry smashes into them from the sides and rear, then the all start t crumble and die, ahh what a sight.

in the rite hands a macadonian army is invincible i think against ANY foe.



wot do u all think?

[Duke John]

I think that some posts are even for SpellCheck to difficult to fix :grin:

[edyzmedieval]

Get an english teacher and then we'll talk.....

[edyzmedieval]

I think that some posts are even for SpellCheck to difficult to fix :grin:

:laugh: :laugh2:

LMAO, ROFL....

I kicked the Macedonians a$$ easy by pumping rivers of Triarii and Preatorian Cohorts ~D

[ptolemy]

hahaha your all so funny. big deal so i spelt macedonia wrong and i put some of my words in text form bt you wouldnt realise that coming from shit countries.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I think the Seluecids are superior to the Macedonians, they get Cataphracts, Companions, Legionaries and great pikemen.

[edyzmedieval]

I sometimes dislike the presence of mods..... :furious:

If they weren't, I would have started a flame war.....
And also, I take it as an insult......

:furious3:

[Duke John]

Why flame when people resort to name-calling? They already lost.

[edyzmedieval]

Indeed my brother,

They have lost the war..... :bow:

Back to topic.

The Seleucids are the most powerful from the Hellenistic world.... Their Cataphracts and those Elephants combined with phalanxes make them the most powerful faction in the game....

[Megas Alexandros]

in the rite hands a macadonian army is invincible i think against ANY foe.

Yes, Macedonian forces are invincible. Noone can best them. But it also may come to the wits of the general as well.

Last time, my force consisted of 5 cavalry and 1 hoplita unit (cca 160 soldier). The Greek came upon me with 650 men army (half hoplites, half velites) I decided to fight it down manually. Well, in the outcome I've lost 30 men, they've lost 600. It was unbelievable! I thought I've taken a great risk to have nothing but cavalry against those nasty hoplitas (which was a reasonable worry), but it proved too easy to best them.

Well.

[Silver Rusher]

:egypt:
Indeed my brother,

They have lost the war..... :bow:

Back to topic.

The Seleucids are the the most powerful faction in the game....
O contrare, I do believe you are referring to the Egyptians.... :egypt:

[King of Atlantis]

the eygptions are fake and weak. The good thing about them is they have a very cheap phalanx unit, but any phalanx woks good.

[Conqueror]

Egyptians don't really have any weaknesses. They get phalanxes, regular infantry, good cavalry and excellent archers (pharaohs bowmen are just sick. I've seen them beat numidian legionary unit in MELEE combat). And then they get normal chariots and missile chariots.

Seleucids are very good except for one weak spot: they don't get any decent archers of their own.

Macedonians get good phalanx and good cavalry, but that's about it.

Overall, Egypt > Seleucids > Macedon. But I think Seleucids are the most fun to play, both for the challenge in surviving the early game, and for the great joy of training those elephants later ~:cool:

[Zenicetus]

Last time, my force consisted of 5 cavalry and 1 hoplita unit (cca 160 soldier). The Greek came upon me with 650 men army (half hoplites, half velites) I decided to fight it down manually. Well, in the outcome I've lost 30 men, they've lost 600. It was unbelievable! I thought I've taken a great risk to have nothing but cavalry against those nasty hoplitas (which was a reasonable worry), but it proved too easy to best them.Well.
The AI doesn't seem to know how to keep a phalanx line intact. I love going up against them with calvalry, because it's so easy to tease apart the formation with feint maneuvers. Then they start running around like ants, pointing in all directions as they try to chase down my cavalry (hah!), and they get torn up with my bowmen and artillery. If the AI would quit taking that kind of bait, and keep the phalanx line intact and marching forward, it would be fearsome indeed.

But I guess that's not an easy thing to program in an AI routine... trying to figure out if an approaching enemy unit is "faking it" or actually attacking.

[Hefaistion]

hmm want to know an unbeatable tactic? just put up a full army consisting armoured elephants that you simply rush them all in to those stupid macedon phalanx and such. easy win minimum losses .

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Who needs archers when you have COmpanions and Cataphracts? I rarely use missiles troops in a decisive fashion except in brige battles. I have held the bridge separating Gaul from Northern Italia (west side of top of the boot) with an army of 1 chariot archers, 2 slingers and 2 swordsmen with heroics against 3:1 odds. That is the only time my missiles units are truly decisive, otherwise my cavalry and heavy infantry generally prove far more valuable, and besides archers and Cretans are fine for missile work.

[King of Atlantis]

Macedon has the best army..

Phalanx pikemen and compainion cavavlry. This is the best combo..

And like Uesugi said, you have acces to the cretian archers who are probably the best archers in the game.

[PseRamesses]

Hey, don´t forget the Greeks: Athenean hoplites, Spartan hoplites and armoured hoplites (can take on thoose dredded cohorts any day), decent archers (+cretan archers), heavy peltasts etc. Weak cav though but who needs them. I just bring 2 along for flanking.

[Krauser]

I like to do the whole traditional thing. Use siege weapons to soften them up, then continue with archers using fire arrows, and finally move the infantry in. Use cavalry to feint and break up their line or hit their flank.

[IliaDN]

hahaha your all so funny. big deal so i spelt macedonia wrong and i put some of my words in text form bt you wouldnt realise that coming from shit countries.
Are you friend of Clayton?
P.S. You have something in common.

[CMcMahon]

I'd say that Greeks and Selucids are both better than the Macedonians, especially in RTR.

[InsaneApache]

Originally Posted by ptolemy
hahaha your all so funny. big deal so i spelt macedonia wrong and i put some of my words in text form bt you wouldnt realise that coming from shit countries.

I would like to point out that the majority of folks from Yorkshire, come to that, the North of England...or even at a push south of Watford ~D do not behave like this... ~:handball:

[ptolemy]

yes i must apologize it was not my place to insult you or your countries it was a silly outburst on my part, and so i offer my forgiveness. ~:cheers:

[Conqueror]

Macedon has the best army..

Phalanx pikemen and compainion cavavlry. This is the best combo..

And like Uesugi said, you have acces to the cretian archers who are probably the best archers in the game.

You do realize that Seleucids also get phalanx pikemen + companions? And they get cataphracts which are better than maccie cavalry. Everything that Macedon can do, Seleucids can also do. But seleucids get elephants and chariots, while Macedon doesn't.

As for Cretan archers, they are mercs. Anyone can hire them, but only in certain provinces and only when they appear. You can't retrain them. Macedon can use them in custom/multiplayer battles though, which is a nice advantage to them.

BTW the reason why you should get good archers even when you have cataphracts and what not, is that you can then easily minimize casualties. Even win battles without a single casualty to your own troops. With the right formations and manouvering you can force a situation where the enemy has only two choises: to sit still and be killed by arrows to every last man, or to charge directly to your pikes. And good long range archers are very effective placed on stone walls when you sally out to drive away a besieging army.

[Arphaxad]

They sure do look cool those macedonians, and i have won a battle or two with them on my side...but i have also lost horribly. A freind of mine kicked my ars back to macedonia with a large selucid army, and i haven't dared use those macedonians again. Its all cohorts for me now. Long live Rome!!!!!!!!!!!

But yeah, macedonians are awesome in the right hands and should never be taken lightly. ~:cool:

[HarunTaiwan]

I've never lost to the Macedonians.

But they are one of the few factions to put up a fight, unlike that shite country Britain.

J/K mate.

[Al Khalifah]

I respect the level of detail you give in your location ptolemy. If I hadn't moved we'd nearly be neighbours.

Oh and by the way, Selucids rule. They remind me of the Macedonians in Age Of Empires.

[Kekvit Irae]

:blankg:

Let's keep this thread civil

[King of Atlantis]

You do realize that Seleucids also get phalanx pikemen + companions? And they get cataphracts which are better than maccie cavalry. Everything that Macedon can do, Seleucids can also do. But seleucids get elephants and chariots, while Macedon doesn't.


Really never knew ~;)


I like the macedons starting position much better though, plus their the kingdom the alexander came from. Sure they got a lot less than the selucids, but i like the better anyways.

[edyzmedieval]

Hey, don´t forget the Greeks: Athenean hoplites,

Excuse me?! ~:eek:
Athenean Hoplites?! ~:eek:

BTW,

Ptolemy, your apologies are accepted. :bow:

[Viking]

Man, this kicks tail!!!!(wouldn`t rear end be better? :charge: )

[King of Atlantis]

Excuse me?! ~:eek:
Athenean Hoplites?! ~:eek:

BTW,

Ptolemy, your apologies are accepted. :bow:


somebody has been plaing RTR methinks...

[Garvanko]

Macedon is fun because they have a small group of excellent units that ae easy to manage and effective against all factions. They also have easy access to the best Merc unit, IMO i.e basternae. Plus they get to fight the Romans early on.

Seleucid is the most powerful because they have a huge roster of excellent units.

[Eaglefirst]

The Horse Archer armies of Parthia/Armenia/Sycthia are the best openfield armies. Egyptians with Pharohs Bowmen and the bloody oversized, armored killing, and underpriced Desert Cavalry. Macedon is good but whatever they do the Selecucids can do and they can do better especially since they have cataphracts.

[Wishazu]

Macedon has the best army..

Phalanx pikemen and compainion cavavlry. This is the best combo..

And like Uesugi said, you have acces to the cretian archers who are probably the best archers in the game.

macedon does not have the best army, Rome, Germania, Parthia, Seleucids, Armenia all have much better cavalry, also the Royal pikemen are mediocre at best compared with the phalanx`s of the greeks, seleucids, Carthage, Egypt and pontus and cretan archers are not that good...

[Papewaio]

Gentlemen please remove the swearing from your posts.

This is a PG site and we have people from 10 to 70 and this is one of the high traffic forums.

Good to see the apologies which is a good sign, just clean up the mess before the party begins. ~:cheers:

:drummer: ~:smoking:

[pezhetairoi]

It is pointless in arguring about which army is the best, really, because qualitative differences don't matter as much as the person who commands and uses them. If you play to each army's strengths then obviously that army will beat any other army's. After all, why is it that the AI keeps screwing up cohort battles and losing even though I am facing them with warbands and barb cav?

In the qualitative department, though, the Macedonians are sufficiently high in troop quality and diversity to ensure that they will not find it difficult to beat any army as is.

Even without melee mercenaries they are sufficient to the task, and with the Macedonians command and control is easy with troops being divided into simply phalanx/cavalry/ranged. Only three elements, and therefore much less command friction. In comparison with the Seleucids who have to divide their army into phalanx/legion/cavalry/ranged/chariots/elephants it is much easier command-wise to use the Macedonian army, and adapt it to different situations.

To address the apparently hot debate about Seleucids vs Macedon:

Seleucids have elephants, but Macedonians have archers, and they fire flaming arrows. And besides, there's always the phalanx.

Seleucids have Legionnaires, but Macedonians have Royal pikemen (who are actually hoplites, and that is correct because the Hypasists were historically hoplites, not phalangitai) who can meet them stroke for stroke in attack if not defence, and can for phalanx anyway that will give them the definitive advantage over the legionnaires for most of the combat. A word on Royals: Those who say Royals suck compared to the hoplite units of the Greeks are missing the point. The raison d'etre of Royals is not phalanx combat, but melee flank guarding. The phalanx is a bonus rather than the standard usage of a Royal unit. Why otherwise would the Royals be given a 10 attack in phalanx but a nasty 12 attack in melee? They can hold their own.

Seleucids have Silver Shield pikes, the Macedonians don't. But what does it matter? It is the cavalry that is the Macedonian decisive arm, not the phalanx which is there just to fix the enemy in place, not damage him.

Seleucids have Scythed chariots, the Macedonians don't. But the Macedonians have peltasts and archers to whom the chariots keep dying to. And they don't have enough of a crew to ensure the chariot can keep going once a fatal hit is scored. Admittedly they are deadly against any cavalry, but they are hopeless against any phalanx, and no general worth his salt is going to set any cavalry in the path of chariotry anyway.

Seleucids have Hetairoi cavalry. So do the Macedonians.

Seleucids have Militia cavalry to pepper the enemy with javelins. Macedonians have Sarissophori (a.k.a. Light Lancers) who can catch the militia, or at least keep them away from the main battle formation. Also, the Sarissophori are very fast, and very deadly with their charge of 15. Who needs cavalry melee?

I suppose that covers all the bases. Macedonians already have something for every eventuality without requiring the huge overkill-diversity that the Seleucids are provided with and which takes 2 turns to build anyway. Against the other factions' armies, of course, I will make a list.

Against barbarians: the Macedonians rule without doubt. They have an answer to everything the barbarians can throw at them, and then some, as the decisive blow is struck by cavalry that can overwhelm the enemy's barb cav which are the best ingame in attack.

Against Greeks: I rest my case. The Greeks have no cavalry worth talking about. Oui?

Against the Romans: The Macedonians are made for the Romans. Not only do they get to go for Rome early ingame, they will trash the enemy hands-down. The republican cohorts have no answer to the hedges of long pointy sticks they will face, and a massed charge by 4 LL will sweep the opposition away, much less with more cavalry, the way I do it.

Against the Egyptians: The Macedonian cavalry arm will be taxed to the max, but it can be done. Admittedly, though, here the usage of some mercenary camel cav would be useful for their morale effect.

Against the horsearcher factions: The cavalry, again. This is potentially the most worrying faction group you will face. But they can be beaten, especially if you use your phalanx as bait and send your cavalry wide to do a double envelopment the way Alexander did it against the Scythians. Even better if you get hold of some of your own Scythian mercs or Bedouins to face them with.

Against Carthage: Fear not their elephants, they run amok as easily as Seleucid ones. Iberians die like flies on pikes. Only their Poeni and Sacred Bands can make a dent, but with five rows of your pikes opposing two rows of theirs you get some advantage when it comes to the crunch, no? Also an easy victory, but only after you beat their longshields.

Against Numidia: Liberal peltasts, archery and cavalry are needed to kill the heavy archer support that any Numidian army can have. But, hey, you have LL, and they're on foot. What worries?

All that said, though, no matter how good the Macedonians are, their armies will die as easily if under a crap general who, for example, sends his LL on one-on-one melee missions against enemy cavalry, or allows his phalanx to be outflanked without relief by reinforcement or cavalry, or lets his levies stand alone against a massed cavalry charge without sending any counterforce, or does not use any of his troops/mercenaries for the purpose they were made for.

Qualitatively, and in the hands of a good or even decent general, Macedonians prod buttock!

[King of Atlantis]

Im not trying to argue anybody's post, as i have said i just like macedon out of prefrence..

[edyzmedieval]

I personally like Macedon, Julii, Seleucids and Egypt....

In my opinion, they are all equal....

[MerlinusCDXX]

"Seleucids are very good except for one weak spot: they don't get any decent archers of their own."

that's what Cretans are for

[Betito]

"Seleucids are very good except for one weak spot: they don't get any decent archers of their own."
that's what Cretans are for


But that's just the point: They can't train good archers, so they must rely on mercenaries, which sometimes are not avaiable in the required amount...

Still, i get your point: Seleucia can cover effectively this weak spot, given their location.

I think the Theurophoroi(heavy peltasts) and the sarissophoroi(light lancers) are the only troops that are superior to any seleucid counterpart (actually there might be no direct counterpart). But, seriously, with katatanks and elephants, seleucids don't exactly miss those troops.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

For me it would be Seluecids, Brutii, Armenians and then Germans; roughly in order of preference.

I mainly prefer Seluecids because they take walls much easier than the Macedonians and I rarely use Onagers in Campaign.

[magnum]

He's playing the Extended Greek mod. Several new units for greek factions to make them more comparable in ability to the Romans. ~:)

[Gaius Magnus]

I don't know, I think the Romans pretty much kick bootay. They are very versatile, and always up to flanking a rigid phalanx. Elephants? No sweat for the Romans. Just use Cohorts and Lergionary Cav, Cohorts and Triaarii, or Cohorts and Merc Hoplites.

Bye Bye Heffalumps! :charge:

Oh, and isn't it just great grinding down a phalanx with several units of Archer Auxilia or Merc Cretans? Those silly pole vaulters are so inflexible. ~D

[Mikeus Caesar]

Macedonians being good? Pah. In any campaign i play they suck more than Numidia, if that's even possible. They get their asses wooped by the Romans, Greeks, Thracians, Dacians and Scythians before Cyrene in Africa rebels in their favour, and there they sit until their faction dies in poverty.

[pezhetairoi]

Heh, that's because of the AI. In the hands of a good general Macedon pwns all...Duel me one day and I'll silence you on that :P But first I have to get some home internet access... *looks rueful*

[King of Atlantis]

when ever I play as macedon i conquer greece and just become super rich, then i conquer the world :charge: ! Numidia may stay alive longer, but thats cause they got huge amount of land and not to many enemies.

[Eaglefirst]

The reason why Seleucia is better than Macedonia is not elephants or chariots. Cataphracts. Cataphracts used online are all used because they have the armor piercing maces that cause them to dominate whatever cavalry macedonia can throw at them even companions get destroyed by cats. Other than that boths sides are even. Scythed Chariots aren't to great for multiplayer and elephants get shot to pieces since humans target them first. The infantry are about even. During single player none of this matters since the AI cannot use Cataphracts or Horse Archers correct getting rid of your only weakness.

[pezhetairoi]

Cats are weak in defence. Who says you have to meets cats headon? As I said, Macedon will rock of you use the units to their strengths. Just watch what happens if I hit your cats in the flank with my hetairoi. :) It's a beautiful sight.

[Slug For A Butt]

After all, why is it that the AI keeps screwing up cohort battles and losing even though I am facing them with warbands and barb cav?


You must be doing something seriously wrong if you are facing cohorts at all, let alone with only warbands and barb cav. By that time they should be far dead and buried or at least you should have better units.

Something just doesn't sound right there. Sounds like another bit of "I'm better than the game" bashing to me.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

The Cataphracts completely override any cavalry Macedonia can field. So Macedonia loses all flanking capability if faced by a competent general. In that way the Seluecids should basically be able to defeat Macedon every time with similar armies, a brilliant general is not needed just a competent one who can track the battle and send the Cataphracts after the Companions and then the pikemen.

[Slug For A Butt]

**And since I don't have an edit button :furious3: **
You can't be much better than the AI if you are having to fight cohorts with those crappy units. There is no way you should have to face cohorts with warbands...ever...ever...ever!!! By that time you should at least have an army whos backbone is chosen swordsmen or chosen axemen depending which warband you mean.

[bubbanator]

This is a highly debatable issue.

The Selucids have a slightly more powerful roster, however, Macedon has very good starting position with fairly weak neighbors and rich cities right nearby. Also, you can take out Rome very quickly which allows you be able to mop up the rest of the world quite easily.

The Selucids on the other hand, have to fight Pontus and Egypt right from the get go. If you can take them out, then your only real options are to expand north into the Scythian and Armenian lands where your unbeatable phalanxes will be turned into pincushions by horse archers. Or you could go into North Africa, but it isn't really worth it unless you can get all the way to Carthage. However, Carthage will be under Scipii control by that point and you will have a fight on your hands.

The other option is to go into Greece where the Brutii's massive field armies are running around like ants.


If you are a different faction however, the Selucids are a much tougher opponent. Macedon gets annihalated by by the Brutii. Also, the AI just sends the Macdonian phalanxes in a straight line that is easily snapped in half by a cavalry charge to the rear.

If the Selucids survive the Egyptian onslaught, then they are a much more difficult to beat in the feild. They have more of a mix. Or sometimes they just mass charriots...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Reading this thread, and musing about the various guides, it occurs to me that the AI is at a gross disadvantage on two levels.

1. Tactically, the AI tends to address piecemeal issues in a battle, rarely employing a cohesive tactical approach so much as doing a series of isolated actions. Save for those situations requiring zero flexibility or finesse, this leaves the AI in a position to create numerous heroic generals for the human player -- whether in command of a mort of Macedonians, a passel of Parthians, or cart-load of Carthaginians.

2. Strategically, the AI cannot contend with 2 millenia of military common knowledge. I think the modeling of the AI isn't hideous (given the limitations of computerized "thinking," and reflects the period decently. What it can't do is keep up with the gap of knowledge. We of this new millenia know that speed, shock and deep penetration can destabilize an entire faction. We'll ignore flanks to slam an army into a key city provinces away. We know the value of the blitzkrieg. We KNOW that our Gauls can sweep Rome away if we can win the first big battle and then leap forward rapidly enough to keep the Romans from rebuilding. One army can sack Rome with a heavy onager and a willingness to absorb the casualties needed to whack the final cavalry unit. Barca took years to cross Provence and wandered Italy for a long time -- but never sacked Rome because he knew he'd lose that one. The Danes who routed Rome at Idistaviso didn't bother to think "Now, the next strategic opportunity is to exploit this win with an assault on Rome itself before Marius can return to Italy, form Head Count armies and institute the Marian reforms." We do know this, having learned from Hitler's stupidity in diverting Guderian and Hoth in '41, from the inability of Hussein's forces to counter rapid advances by numerically inferior forces, from Tokugawa's use of superior firepower at Sekigehara -- how could the AI equal this.


I actually wonder if you could write an AI opponent that would make us truly sweat in an even fight, or work hard to extricate something in a fight against the odds -- instead of yet another heroic victory. Even if you could, could you fit it in one hard drive? Hmmmm.....

[pezhetairoi]

You must be doing something seriously wrong if you are facing cohorts at all, let alone with only warbands and barb cav. By that time they should be far dead and buried or at least you should have better units.

Something just doesn't sound right there. Sounds like another bit of "I'm better than the game" bashing to me.

My dear slug for a butt, I am not a bad general, and I know that. I'm not stupid enough to get myself into a situation where I have to hurl warbands against cohorts, though for the sheer hell of it I can jolly well choose to do so. I didn't need you to tell me that in campaign I should never be in a situation where warbands must face cohorts--that's a truism. But I never said I was fighting these battles in campaign, was I? Don't assume. For the record, I AM better than the AI, because the only battles that I lose are the naval ones. I have gone without defeat on land in seven campaigns. That should speak for itself. And since there are so many others better than me, it stands to reason that we are ALL better than the AI. We ARE better than the game, no big surprise given the game's AI.

I agree though that Cataphractoi will trash any hetairoi unit in one on one under a good general. Upon which we have some nasty manoeuvring to do to get the cataphractoi to charge into a double-line of phalanxes since no phalanx can hold up to a cataphract charge with the sole exception of Spartans, and even then not always. The cataphracts are the key. But they are susceptible to command mistakes, and have no staying power if hit in turn after they are engaged. That's their sole weakness and it's the role of the good Macedonian commander to ensure that that weakness is exploited and not to commit his cavalry until that time comes.

We are assuming all this while, of course, that we are fighting custom battles with all top-level units available. In the actual campaign the Macedonians will reign simply because of the sheer amount of time it will take for the Seleucids to produce their topnotch units compared to the Macedonians, whose lower-level units can already shoulder a lot of the combat burden.

And above all, the Macedonians have that really cool black-and-orange colour combi that the sickly greyish-purple-and-silver Seleucids don't have. :)

To Seamus, quite a blazing post. I never knew a battle of Idistaviso, and it just shows how much more there is to learn. But we all live to learn until we die, so. I think it is possible to write an AI that will duplicate human intellect, but that will be in the future, when drives are bigger (or when RTW is sold in drives instead of CD-ROMS) and even then the AI will have to be constantly updated online as the programmers come up with new strategic and tactical paradigms. Amazing knowledge you have though, I am in awe. Oh, and welcome to the Org, or have I already said it?

[bubbanator]

And above all, the Macedonians have that really cool black-and-orange colour combi that the sickly greyish-purple-and-silver Seleucids don't have. :)

Yes, the map looks pretty darn good when painted black and orange. Though the white and blue of Carthage looks suprisingly sweet also.

[pezhetairoi]

It does? I always thought I had something for the red and black of the Julii and the Christmas green-and-red of the Gallics. :)

Those are nice colour combis... white and blue, well, I must admit I never took a liking to it... looks too sissy to me :-P Blood will stain it easier than on black or red, too. =)

[bubbanator]

If you have the entire map with Carthage, everything looks so...crisp

it is so clean and simple

[pezhetairoi]

like cute little lambs prancing across Europe! ^_^

[bubbanator]

It's better than christmas trees :P

[IliaDN]

Partian empire looks great too!

[Conqueror]

I like the Numidian and Armenian colors but not Brutii. Wrong type of green they got ~:handball:

Back on topic (well, sort of): If we assume generals of equal skill, in a Seleucids vs Macedonians fight, then I'll put my money on Seleucids. With equal generals, neither side will be likely to outflank the other's cavalry. So it will likely be a head-on cavalry fight, if they fight at all. Phalanxes will be basically the mirrors of each other (levy pikes, phalanx pikes, royal/silver shield pikes available for the two factions) so no advantage to either side there. Assuming it's a fight with units available in the campaign, both sides can hire cretans, so no archer advantage to either (in custom/MP battle, standard RTW, the Maccies will have advantage here).

Whether or not Elephants or legionaries are used at all is entirely up to the Seleucid general. They're not really needed, since he already has superior cavalry in otherwise almost identical armies. Legionaries might be useful on the flanks of the phalanx line. Elephants can be useful if there aren't too much archers.

In the end, Seleucids have more options at their disposal, but they can always play it safe and mirror the Macedonian army.

[alx1078]

Seamus... great post, although the upseting thing about this game's AI as pezhetairoi wrote, is that most people who play the game are better at it, and believe me Most people have no clue of what you wrote in that post of yours let alone know any of the battles or historical instances you mentioned ( i myself know just half of those and i pride myself of being a part-time history buff.)

As for the debate:

Seleucids do indeed have the most impressive army, but as a general i would always chose to have the Macedonians for every reason pezhetairoi wrote (along with the fact that i live there ~D ). Early on in the game, there are few armies that can deal the damage a Macedonian army can, if commanded carefuly. Plus the starting point is ideal for world domination.

Seleucids start off with way too many enemies, and formidable ones to face with their early army. Plus in order for them to get some doe they have to challenge the Egyptians/Ptolemays.

And as A Macedon general, i have ended battles (against Romans) of 1000 + on both sides with 30 or 40 casualties on my side and a complete destruction of the oponent, by just using peltasts, archers and LL to deliver the final blows (while my phalanxes just waited for an attack that was never made -they all routed before they reached me), or by using just 4-5 units of phalanxes and 6-7 units of Mac Cavalry and LL (with no archers or missile whatsoever). So i guess that's the beauty of the Macedonians. You can achieve victory either with missile or by phalanx, but always with Horses.

That's the Key!Cavalry. Lots of it. :charge:

[Lord Preston]

Those are nice colour combis... white and blue, well, I must admit I never took a liking to it... looks too sissy to me :-P Blood will stain it easier than on black or red, too. =)

you call them sissy yet you worry about stains!

[Garvanko]

They're like wasps, those Lancers.

[pezhetairoi]

you call them sissy yet you worry about stains!

A very good point, Preston! A very good point! ~D

But I love the Lancers, because as bad as their armour is, that means no armour piercing attack has any effect on them which means they're ideal for dealing with Cataphracts/Desert Cavalry, at the least. You may ask, why cataphracts? Sure they'll take casualties like hell, but at least they won't be fighting at a relative disadvantage compared to other more armoured foes. And they're cheaper, easier to retrain, and have you seen that charge bonus?

[Wishazu]

I thought the charge bonus was "broken" in rome total war?????

[pezhetairoi]

It so is not... Or at least, not in my Rome Total War. But my Rome is weird. The 1.2 patch has close to no effect, for example. But nay, LL have an effect. Anyway, even if they don't, it is sufficient to get them to charge en masse. the Charge bonus is just a bonus, as its name implies. As long as they charge, that's good enough for me; with the battles going as they are that is sufficient to win the war for me.

[Rayven1]

My tactic is a pretty traditional one. I stay in my spot while the stupid AI marches my way. I sit there firing siege weapons into the enemy formations till they get close enough for me to open up with arrows. Once they have gotten a bit closer I allow the auxila skermishers to throw a round or two of javilins before retiring behind my infantry. Once the auxilia has retired I allow the first line of infantry to go into fire at will mode. Most enemy units break from the first salvo of pilums even before they make contact with my first line. If they don't break then I allow the second line to go into fire at will while my cav harrasses the enemy missle troops to keep them out of range. The AI seems to like a all or nothing approch so by this time they would have destroyed thier cav on my spear troops, charging into obvious traps on the left and right flanks..

[pezhetairoi]

A nice strategy, but it's based on the assumption that the AI will come to you, and that you have lots of missile power. I rely on shock so you'll forgive me if I say this strategy isn't really very practical from a personal bias... Although I do use archers to open the battle whenever possible.

[Rayven1]

Its my experience that the AI when attacking will always come to you. I try to be on the defencive as much as possible because I get the best results that way with minium loss. I usually allow my army to wait nearly the full duration of a siege if the enemy garrison is large. This way I draw them into combat outside the city walls. A little trick I use on the AI is to park an army right in front of the enemy stack forcing him to ether turn around or attack to get through my area of control. Usually works to draw the enemy into a scrape he will not get out of. Being on the defence however can backfire when facing armies like Macadon which will use almost all cav and siege weapons. Key to those battles is to have a good amount of spear units to counter the cav and to get into melee as quickly as possible. Set your siege weapons on 1) enemy general(siege weapons seem to hit him if you target him more often than not) 2) enemy siege equipment.

If you are low on missle units pilas can make up for that if you use them right and have atleast a unit of skermishers. I never turn on fire at will as a default. I usually save them for the main body of the enemy infantry. Often the enemy will send up skermishers or a single unit of infantry first and if you have fire at will on you will waste your ammo with crappy results. Wait for the main body to engage and then turn on fire at will on your front line only. This way if you even need engage with your second line they will have a nice set of pilums to throw at the already weakened enemy.

[pezhetairoi]

nicely argued; that's what I do if I was on defensive, but most of the time I prefer to force an engagement instead of just waiting in the enemy's red zone... Admittedly though I base this on my experience when I tried three times as Germania to stand in an enemy's red zone and he just stood there and stared back at me until I lost patience and attacked him. The enemy's attacking you only matters if you're already at war with him and your chances of winning are significantly lower than his. Or so it seems; no faceoff in which I have parity or more in red/blue ratio has ended in the enemy attacking me, only when they are fighting battles of relief.

[bubbanator]

I use Rayven1's stratagy only if I am defending against lightly armored troops like the germans, or if I have onagers. Usualy, my army is about 2/3 infantry 1/3 cavalry. I exploit the AI formation and just wait until they come at me in their line. Once they engage my line, I just run around and focus all of my cavalry and archers on one unit. The line breaks. It's almost too easy.

If I am attacking, I still use the same basic thing. I just advance my infantry line, throw my pillas. I have my reserve units and archers fireing at the center unit. I then advance until I am in hand to hand combat, then I let my cavalry destroy them. This makes it even easier when attacking because I can sit back all day with my one or two units of Cretan Archers and annihalate the center unit.

Overall, I prefer Pez's stratagy of using overwhelming force at their weakest point. Well, I agree with your battle map stratagy (we differ in how we work the campign map)

[gardibolt]

My tactic is a pretty traditional one. I stay in my spot while the stupid AI marches my way. I sit there firing siege weapons into the enemy formations till they get close enough for me to open up with arrows. Once they have gotten a bit closer I allow the auxila skermishers to throw a round or two of javilins before retiring behind my infantry. Once the auxilia has retired I allow the first line of infantry to go into fire at will mode. Most enemy units break from the first salvo of pilums even before they make contact with my first line. If they don't break then I allow the second line to go into fire at will while my cav harrasses the enemy missle troops to keep them out of range. The AI seems to like a all or nothing approch so by this time they would have destroyed thier cav on my spear troops, charging into obvious traps on the left and right flanks..


I have never, ever, had the AI do anything but just sit there unless I attack them first. If I did this I would lose every single battle on the timer.

[pezhetairoi]

yeah. so true.

[Rayven1]

EDIT: (I should have said who I was responding to)

I have never, ever, had the AI do anything but just sit there unless I attack them first. If I did this I would lose every single battle on the timer. --Gardibolt


hmm... wondering what game you are playing ~:) . The AI will always come to you if they are attacking. What I mean is that if thier army attacks yours and starts the battle they will always come to you. If you are on the attack however a different strategy is needed since they will indeed wait for you to come to them. The tactic I mentioned is very effective. You can often force the AI to attack by parking your army in a place where they have to move through your area of control. Often I will siege a city and allow my army to sit there for the duration of the siege because 1 of 2 things will happen. Either they will attack me and give me another heroic victory using the tactic I mentioned in my last post or they will forfeit the city and I lose no troops at all. Right now in my RTR game its 118BC and I control 128 regions. 627 battles won 98 lost(mostly sea battles against egypt. I do not understand sea battles and why my fleet will engage one ship at a time when there are 300 ships in the fleet.)

[pezhetairoi]

naval battles are the one blemish in my record... otherwise it's, so far, at least 1400 battles in 7 campaigns, no land defeats.

It's possible to make the enemy move for you in offensive battle... but you have to put them in such a situation that they are forced to react. E.g. as spain I like to move my cavalry to threaten their flank so my infantry can outflank them where they don't expect it, after they move their line to respond. Or for Macedon I like advancing my pike line to striking distance so they are forced either to charge at me or face my cavalry coming round the back. Alternatively, eat arrows, stupid Greeks! They'll come. They have no choice.

[Deus ret.]

They'll come. They have no choice.

There's an exception to this, though: When the enemy sallies forth and your army is superior to theirs, they will stop sending their troops out of the town to be massacred by your forces quite soon.
This is one of the rare occasions where one really regrets to have switched off the battle time limit... because to end the battle, you either have to retreat, i.e. abandon the siege, or storm the city yourself (in a SALLY battle). Well, hopefully you've equipped yourself with some means to get past those walls.
Pretty annoying, that one. Even if it's the enemy who attacks, they force you to attack them if you actually want to win.

[Dark_Magician]

1 to 1, any archer wins against AI hoplites. Just by firing and retreating

[Dark_Magician]

There's an exception to this, though: When the enemy sallies forth and your army is superior to theirs, they will stop sending their troops out of the town to be massacred by your forces quite soon.


Me, it usually helped to follow their retreating units through the gate and capturing them in the process. Be careful as the gates still pour stuff

[gardibolt]

EDIT: (I should have said who I was responding to)

I have never, ever, had the AI do anything but just sit there unless I attack them first. If I did this I would lose every single battle on the timer. --Gardibolt


hmm... wondering what game you are playing ~:) . The AI will always come to you if they are attacking. What I mean is that if thier army attacks yours and starts the battle they will always come to you. If you are on the attack however a different strategy is needed since they will indeed wait for you to come to them.

Ah, I see where the miscommunication came in. I'm too aggressive; I always attack the AI before it can attack me. So I wouldn't ever see it do anything but sit and wait.

[pezhetairoi]

Some factions are more suited for defensive battles... the HA factions, of course, are definitely in this category. Usually when the enemy sallies, I already have 3 rams. So if they stop coming out, I will go to them. But of course, if this happens to be a last-turn sally, then the enemy will keep rushing out at you until they are dead or the cause is lost anyway. Yummy.

[Deus ret.]

then the enemy will keep rushing out at you until they are dead or the cause is lost anyway. Yummy.

Will they? I have had sally battles in which the enemy decides so stop sending out victims (=troops) after maybe half of their army is dead, this is what I described above. So e.g. if you have a cav-only army, you're screwed if you aren't fast enough to take the gate (of wooden walls). The problem is that you have to retreat in this case and re-start siegeing since there is no battle time which could run out. dead end, that one.

[Kourutsu]

I destroyed them with Germ warfare. I didn't have to send one unit in to take care of them.

[LestaT]

My Roman armies are punishing the Dacians (now down to their last city) when my ally Macedonia decides to stab my back... Luckily my Principees are all battle hardened now so their phalanx and hoplites are no more a nuisance to me ...

[pezhetairoi]

Not so when they have fullstacks to throw at you... any fullstack is more than just a nuisance.