Faction with best Army

[Lord Winter]

What in your option is the faction with the best army in RTW. I think cathrage because they have good spear inf., Heavy Cav. missile calvary plus elepehents.

[Papewaio]

No real best one, but the Selecuid empire has such a good range in both which they can raise and hire.

[Rodion Romanovich]

In multiplayer, Romans win most of the time. Seleucids also got a pretty good army.

I think the flexibility of these two is more important than the strengths in individual aspects that the other factions have.

[Seasoned Alcoholic]

Yeah, depends what you want in an army tbh. It might be lots of heavy cavalry as a shock force that you can send in to break-up enemy skirmishes for example, or counter an AI/human cavalry charge. In this case, Parthia, Seleucids, Macedonians, Scythians etc are what you need.

If you want a core of specialist heavy infantry, the Germans are probably the best choice since they have effective shock troops (Night Raiders), misc (Screechers), as well as close-combat specialists (Chosen Axes, Beserkers).

Then again, you might want to overload with archers in your army, so a faction like Dacia, Scythia, Gaul etc will do a good job against vunerable enemy infantry with low armour ratings.

If you're playing multiplayer, let your opponents chose their factions first, then pick a good faction to counter them with. ~:thumb:

[Lord Winter]

Yeah, depends what you want in an army tbh.~:thumb:

Good point A better tiltle for this thred would be what is your favorite army.
In a army i like good mobile calvery and fair inf.

[Garvanko]

Carthage don't have specialist archers. But they probably have the best army overall. Just.

Depends on your preference, though, as others have said.

[Dutch_guy]

Imo SE have the best army , allong with the Romans.

The SE has the best units all round, maybe not the best archer units, but infantry and cav. is on par with the Romans.

And better than other factions.

:balloon2:

[Lord Winter]

Imo SE have the best army , allong with the Romans.

The SE has the best units all round, maybe not the best archer units, but infantry and cav. is on par with the Romans.

And better than other factions.

:balloon2:

Imo SE have the best army , allong with the Romans.

The SE has the best units all round, maybe not the best archer units, but infantry and cav. is on par with the Romans.

And better than other factions.

Cathrage has infentry equal to roman and numidan calvery which is a must better counter to elephents then mitila calvery.

but the sucluded empire has silver shilde legionarys which are as good as legoinary coharts. It's a mater of prefrance presonly i prefer missle calvery and javilins beter then capheracts which are a slower then both scared baned calvery and numidan calvery.

[Conqueror]

scared baned calvery
I know that pointing out typos isn't very nice, but this one's just way too funny~D

And I'd say that in RTW 1.2, the best army is from Armenia. That faction has normal horse archer, cataphract archers (the best HA unit in the game), cataphracts, and phalanx units and the armenian legionaries. Which is strong enough infantry that they won't suck in siege battles like the other HA factions. It's a combination that is both versatile and immensely powerful.

In 1.3 I don't know, since I haven't got BI yet. But I suspect that the balance of factions may be significantly changed from 1.2, what with the reduced efficiency of missile units.

[Taurus]

Carthage imo because they have everything you need (except archers) but they're slingers do the job.

*runs off to play BI*

[Rodion Romanovich]

I'm not sure slingers can make up for archers. They don't have flaming ammo and thus can't scare of elephants as effectively. They also have a very short range in vanilla R:TW. I'd personally, if faced with an enemy with slingers only, quickly destroy their missile troops and start raining death on their remaining troops, forcing them to attack or stand still and take plenty of casualties before I move in - or even worse - before THEY move in. In many 2vs2 battles in mp I've also been able to destroy an enemy, and be destroyed by an enemy, thanks to surviving archers when the rest of the army was destroyed. In mp, battles usually take much longer than in sp, so you often get to use up all the archer ammo.

[Seasoned Alcoholic]

In mp, battles usually take much longer than in sp, so you often get to use up all the archer ammo.

Here's to the AI in RTW v1.2 :medievalcheers:

Have you tried BI yet? I've had some interesting (and...surprisingly....lengthy...~:eek:) battles against the Western Roman Empire. In the first campaign, played as the Berbers and managed to grab Carthage. However, the Western Romans just didn't want to give it up without a fight, and landed army after army there until I was forced to pull back. They then sacked my two (and only) starting provinces, and that was that.

The Bebers really need more starting provinces tbh, as income and growth rates are poor - the whole of North Africa has something like 5/6 provinces in BI compared to the 9 or so in RTW.

[Yukon Cornelius]

If you want a core of specialist heavy infantry, the Germans are probably the best choice since they have effective shock troops (Night Raiders), misc (Screechers), as well as close-combat specialists (Chosen Axes, Beserkers).

Eh, you seem a bit off here. Chosen Axemen and Berserkers are better shock troops than Night Raiders while the raiders are more likely to survive a prolonged melee. The former both have crazy high attack but pitiful defense (though the 'zerkers do have multiple hit points) while the latter has strong attack (14 IIRC, which matches Urban Cohorts) but tolerable defense as well (10-ish instead of the 5 or 6 of the others). Note that the raiders have armor and shields, unlike Chosen Axemen and Berserkers. Armor counts for a lot more than "defense skill" since armor is non-directional while shields bring arrow protection ("defense skill" and shield points are about even in melee -- both protect the front and one flank, the only difference being which flank).

[Slicendice]

I think the Germans have the best. You can play the entire game with just their spearman. Plus by the time you get halfway through they are very tough troops. The German Cavalry is cheap and good. While some of the more specialized infantry are nice to have around they are slow to build, require special structures, and if you are an advancing army this will make them hard to reinforce. The Axemen are good enough and only slightly less capable than NightRaiders. By the time you get them you should have sufficient leadership and experience to make them work. Remember you have to keep your army moving and take those provinces fast or the enemy will counter-attack. Germany has that ability.
Carthage, (and others) are resource restricted. They just can't build elephant units anywhere they want. This makes conquering Europe a little tedious if you put your elephants into the fray.

Countless times I have smashed armies 5 times my strenght with just German noble cavalry and barbarian cavalry. If I have spearman they can hold the line long enough for my cav to flank and the powerful charge bonus does the rest.

[Garvanko]

With Carthage you only really need elephants to fight the Romans, the Greeks and the Egyptians.. depending on your expansion. Otherwise, Rond Shields/Long Shields are good enough. And you get Sacred Band Cav..

Nevertheless, I agree German Cav are excellent.

[Seasoned Alcoholic]

If you want a core of specialist heavy infantry, the Germans are probably the best choice since they have effective shock troops (Night Raiders), misc (Screechers), as well as close-combat specialists (Chosen Axes, Beserkers).Eh, you seem a bit off here. Chosen Axemen and Berserkers are better shock troops than Night Raiders while the raiders are more likely to survive a prolonged melee. The former both have crazy high attack but pitiful defense (though the 'zerkers do have multiple hit points) while the latter has strong attack (14 IIRC, which matches Urban Cohorts) but tolerable defense as well (10-ish instead of the 5 or 6 of the others). Note that the raiders have armor and shields, unlike Chosen Axemen and Berserkers. Armor counts for a lot more than "defense skill" since armor is non-directional while shields bring arrow protection ("defense skill" and shield points are about even in melee -- both protect the front and one flank, the only difference being which flank).
Yeah I see your point, perhaps if it was re-phrased as "...a specialist core of heavy infantry...", rather than "a core of specialist heavy infantry", this makes more sense.

However, I use Night Raiders as shock troops because of the 'frighten_foot' attribute they both have in the script - essentially they may demoralise opponents when used correctly since they possess this attribute.

I'd originally modded my copy of vanilla 1.2 to improve most of the existing units defence skill / armour ratings / hitpoints in order to prolong melee. Tbh, the Very Hard difficulty setting shortens the length of SP battles against the AI. From memory the AI and human player receive combat bonuses of +4 on this difficulty level. This results in shorter battles, and typically results in the AI / human's army routing almost soon as melee is underway. Another TW forum highlighted that Medium battle difficulty settings were more challenging, as battles lasted considerably longer compared to Very Hard.

From the original text files:

Chosen Axemen


type warband dhaxe german
dictionary warband_dhaxe_german ; Chosen Axemen
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type Heavy_1
soldier warband_dhaxe, 40, 0, 1.5
officer barb_standard
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, hardy
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 3, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 18, 9, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, piercing, axe, 25 ,0.87
stat_pri_attr ap
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, no, no, none, 25 ,1
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 0, 6, 0, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 2
stat_ground 2, -2, 3, 2
stat_mental 12, impetuous, untrained
stat_charge_dist 40
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 580, 200, 60, 90, 580
ownership germans
Night Raiders


type barb night raiders german
dictionary night_raiders_german ; Night Raiders
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type Medium_1
soldier barb_night_raider, 40, 0, 1.2
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, frighten_foot, hardy
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 4, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 14, 8, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, piercing, axe, 25 ,1
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, no, no, none, 25 ,1
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 3, 2, 5, leather
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 3
stat_ground 2, -2, 3, 2
stat_mental 10, impetuous, untrained
stat_charge_dist 40
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 2, 540, 130, 60, 90, 540
ownership germans
Beserkers


type barb berserker german
dictionary barb_berserker_german ; Berserkers
category infantry
class light
voice_type Heavy_1
soldier barb_berserker, 12, 0, 1.5
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, frighten_foot, very_hardy
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 2, horde
stat_health 3, 0
stat_pri 19, 8, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, axe, 25 ,0.87
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, no, no, none, 25 ,1
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 0, 5, 0, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 2
stat_ground 2, -2, 3, 2
stat_mental 16, berserker, untrained
stat_charge_dist 40
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 2, 840, 120, 90, 130, 840
ownership germans
You might decide to utilise Night Raiders in sustained melee and / or to commence an attack (or however you deploy them) due to their improved defence values. Tbh, I find the superior offensive values of the specialist attackers (Beserkers, Chosen Axemen) much more devastating toward enemy formations. They can simply bring down enemies at a swifter rate, even if they may reasonable casualties due to wearing next to no armour.

Beserkers and Chosen Axes (due to their poor armour ratings) make good targets for opposing archers / missile troops. I've seen many MP battles where people have tried to keep these two units as a reserve, only for them to realise that they are easy archer fodder. You might as well use Beserkers and Chosen Axes to carve a path through the enemies' lines before the opposing archers / other missiles get a chance to soften them up before they engage in melee. Then as the enemies' morale is weakening, throw in the Raiders who will literally 'shock' opponents with the 'fighten_foot' attribute. Depends how you play the game though...

[Abokasee]

(slaps everyone who thinks sythia or romans or anything are the best) The truth is that.. it depends what kind of player you are!

[Yukon Cornelius]

However, I use Night Raiders as shock troops because of the 'frighten_foot' attribute they both have in the script - essentially they may demoralise opponents when used correctly since they possess this attribute.

...

You might decide to utilise Night Raiders in sustained melee and / or to commence an attack (or however you deploy them) due to their improved defence values. Tbh, I find the superior offensive values of the specialist attackers (Beserkers, Chosen Axemen) much more devastating toward enemy formations. They can simply bring down enemies at a swifter rate, even if they may reasonable casualties due to wearing next to no armour.

Beserkers and Chosen Axes (due to their poor armour ratings) make good targets for opposing archers / missile troops. I've seen many MP battles where people have tried to keep these two units as a reserve, only for them to realise that they are easy archer fodder. You might as well use Beserkers and Chosen Axes to carve a path through the enemies' lines before the opposing archers / other missiles get a chance to soften them up before they engage in melee. Then as the enemies' morale is weakening, throw in the Raiders who will literally 'shock' opponents with the 'fighten_foot' attribute. Depends how you play the game though...


As far as the frighten_foot feature of Night Raiders, I feel that it makes them even better as line infantry since the morale penalty will apply throughout the fight. I think frighten_foot applies whenever you're within a certain distance of the frightening unit, so it probably doesn't matter whether you flank with them or not (so long as you keep them close). I just prefer to use them as the main fighting force due to their additional staying power. The absolute certainty that the fear factor hits my opponent is icing on the cake. I generally don't use a unit *because* it causes fear so much as I do it because they have other perks.

However, contrary to that general stance I have been known to field Screeching Women occasionally simply for the morale effect. Just keep them safely behind your line raising a ruckus. Also note that it doesn't seem to matter how many units screech. Thinking I was clever, I once had a full 20 unit stack of women stand in one spot raising hell. I hoped the morale effect would be cumulative and insta-rout anyone who came close. Didn't work worth a damn.

When I play Germania (and I haven't in quite some time -- I enjoy the speeches and Senate politics too much as the Roman), I typically build Night Raiders for my line infantry since Spear Warbands make battles far too easy (generally, phalanx = player wins, regardless of who fields the phalanx). I sometimes add some Chosen Axemen or Berserkers, usually as flankers though sometimes as part of the main infantry body.

I usually choose Chosens over Berserkers because of their AP bonus and size. Berserkers count as roughly triple size due to their three hit points, so I consider them a "36" man unit instead of 12. Chosens, however, have 40 men per unit. Since retraining a unit does not lower its average valour, the fact that any given berserker is more likely to survive a fight than a single axeman is irrelevant. In terms of combat power, 'zerkers aren't really much stronger than Chosens anyway (+1 attack, -1 defense).

I suppose you may have a point about archers hitting your flankers, but they must never have caused enough damage for me to worry about it. Of course, I've never played a Germania game to the point where I've had to contend with Egypt.

In short, I prefer raiders to hold my line and Chosens or 'zerkers to flank, often with a unit of screechers in the back shrieking about something.

[Seasoned Alcoholic]

As far as the frighten_foot feature of Night Raiders, I feel that it makes them even better as line infantry since the morale penalty will apply throughout the fight. I think frighten_foot applies whenever you're within a certain distance of the frightening unit, so it probably doesn't matter whether you flank with them or not (so long as you keep them close). I just prefer to use them as the main fighting force due to their additional staying power. The absolute certainty that the fear factor hits my opponent is icing on the cake. I generally don't use a unit *because* it causes fear so much as I do it because they have other perks.
I understand your tactics - your enemy will be continually insecure whilst fighting against the frightfully appearing raiders. Have you played BI yet? One of the best features CA have included here is a visible morale indication of both your own units, and that of your enemies (when they are in close enough proximity to your army that is). Simply leave your cursor over any unit in your own or another army, and there current state of mind is displayed. For example, "Feeling safe knowing that the flanks are secure", "Unhappy over taking casualties", "Fleeing in panic and oblivious to the world", "Dismayed at losing the battle" etc.


When I play Germania (and I haven't in quite some time -- I enjoy the speeches and Senate politics too much as the Roman), I typically build Night Raiders for my line infantry since Spear Warbands make battles far too easy (generally, phalanx = player wins, regardless of who fields the phalanx). I sometimes add some Chosen Axemen or Berserkers, usually as flankers though sometimes as part of the main infantry body.
I'm currently playing an Allemani campaign (VH/VH - this is Very Hard ~D). You can train almost identical units to the original Germans in RTW. Main differences are that they wear more armour, but the new beserkers especially can tear through formations:

http://show.imagehosting.us/show/771330/26725/user_26725/T1_26725_771330.jpg (http://www.imagehosting.us/index.php?action=show&ident=771330)

http://show.imagehosting.us/show/771335/26725/user_26725/T1_26725_771335.jpg (http://www.imagehosting.us/index.php?action=show&ident=771335)

The Allemani can train Spear Warband (no phalanx capability now, but they can run with spears and can also form Schiltrom), Chosen Axemen, Night Raiders, Lombard Beserkers (who can go into Heroic Bloodlust state of mind ~:mad), Wardogs, Barbarian Cavalry, Burgundian Lancers, Noble Cavalry, Chosen Archers, Lombard Archers, Onagers etc.

You can always take phalanx capability away from existing spearmen in RTW, thats what I did to Nubian Spearmen - unrealistic in the first place.


I usually choose Chosens over Berserkers because of their AP bonus and size. Berserkers count as roughly triple size due to their three hit points, so I consider them a "36" man unit instead of 12. Chosens, however, have 40 men per unit. Since retraining a unit does not lower its average valour, the fact that any given berserker is more likely to survive a fight than a single axeman is irrelevant. In terms of combat power, 'zerkers aren't really much stronger than Chosens anyway (+1 attack, -1 defense).
Chosens as you say have the advantage of armour-piercing attack, which essentially halves opponents' armour values. This is why I like to use them in an opening, as I'll know they'll cut through opponents (even Romans) like there's no tomorrow. Once you've carved a path through the enmies lines, send your cavalry through the hole in wedge formation and then you can do some serious damage. Alternatively, pin the enemy in position with spears / wardogs, then flank / assault at mercy from several angles with heavy infantry and heavy cavalry. And so on...

IMO, all of the Roman factions in RTW are too overpowered in the first place. This is why I took up modding, and removed their 'fantasy' heavy legionary and praetorian cavalry (the Romans were reknowned for their infantry after all, and recruited many of their auxiliaries / supporting troops from the borders / conquered regions), arcani, urban cohorts etc.

Egypt in vanilla 1.2 are also overpowered, with their dirt-cheap Pharoah's Guards & Pharoah's Bowmen. Plus their 40 / 80 Desert Cavalry, 60 / 120 Bowmen, and 27 / 54 Chariots per unit. Just spam tbh ~D

[Seleukos]

for Rtw,i think...
romans have the strongest units,for the money u pay for them.
Seleucids have the most completed army-
carthage has a huge minus-not archers at all and the elephants are easy for a solid phalanx some archers or pigs!
anyway,its a bit individual the subject -best army.
personally,i play best with macedonians ,maybe cause i am macedonian :P

[SIGNIFER,LEGIOVIICLAUDIA]

Egypt is also very powerfull and Gaul has formidable archrers,the forester warband.

[Garvanko]

carthage has a huge minus-not archers at all

Armoured Elephants?

[Slicendice]

The archers on the armored elephants are not very effective for the money.

Why mention Gaul at all. Besides the Forester Warband their units are crap. Of course if all you want to do is hang back and shoot up the enemy with archers and go in with their noble cavalry that's fine. But with a determined enemy your forces will be over run.

I still think Germans are the best. No they don't have chariots, but frankly I don't care. I can't stand chariots. It always seems hit or miss with them. Plus they are so unwieldy and not very dependable. I'd rather flank with some Barb Cavalry or Noble Cav. while my phalanx is holding the line.

But to be sure there is no faction I can't play and beat all the others. Which of course is the primary reason I didn't buy BI. There is just no way I can tilt the odds against me without doing reckless and stupid stuff in the game.

[Garvanko]

The archers on the armored elephants are not very effective for the money.

.
Dunno about that. When trained and experienced they offer tremendous versatility, both as missile and in melee. Probably the best support unit for moving infantry I can think off. Plus they fire while theyre moving, unlike specialist archers.

I agree with you about chariots. I disagree with you about BI. Buy it.

[eyupwoof]

While some would consider the egypt overpowered. In the right hands I gotta say that they have got to be imho the best army. I mean they can fight in almost any style and have enough flexibility to go from a steppe easten style army with chariot/camel archers, to greek style with all those spear units and barb like axemen, and ive not even mentioned the archers! If anything the egyptians lack real heavy cav, but the armor piecing cav and chariots come close to filling that gap. Not only that but if you play in the campaign egypt can get access to some decent mercs like elephants and num cav. The only other army I can see even coming close to the flexibility is armenia, if you prefer heavy cav. Flexibility to fight any army is close to what could be considered best army at least imho.

[Seasoned Alcoholic]

While some would consider the egypt overpowered. In the right hands I gotta say that they have got to be imho the best army. I mean they can fight in almost any style and have enough flexibility to go from a steppe easten style army with chariot/camel archers, to greek style with all those spear units and barb like axemen, and ive not even mentioned the archers! If anything the egyptians lack real heavy cav, but the armor piecing cav and chariots come close to filling that gap. Not only that but if you play in the campaign egypt can get access to some decent mercs like elephants and num cav. The only other army I can see even coming close to the flexibility is armenia, if you prefer heavy cav. Flexibility to fight any army is close to what could be considered best army at least imho.

Take your point about Egypts army, but as you say they have no heavy cavalry. I'd modded my original copy of RTW vanilla 1.2 so that Egypt (when controlled by the AI) stopped steamrollering the Seleucids every new SP campaign. Once the Seleucids have chance to tech-up and get access to their heavy cavalry and elephants, then you're in trouble ~D Problem is, the AI in RTW simply isn't challenging enough, and doesn't deploy its units in a way which would seriously threaten you - the most competitive battles IMO are online MP. Even Medium difficulty (battle difficulty) is harder than Very Hard.

[Craterus]

Even Medium difficulty (battle difficulty) is harder than Very Hard.

Wrong, AFAIK. The strategic AI is no different in either mode. VH just adds bonus morale (maybe other stats) to the enemy units. This RTW 1.2 I am talking about, not 1.3 or BI.

[Seleukos]

Armoured Elephants?

Elephant's superiority depends of course on the fear they cause and on their unstoppable charge.

Keeping them back firing arrows for much time,as a true missile unit is not really a wise tactic.

[eyupwoof]

Take your point about Egypts army, but as you say they have no heavy cavalry. I'd modded my original copy of RTW vanilla 1.2 so that Egypt (when controlled by the AI) stopped steamrollering the Seleucids every new SP campaign. Once the Seleucids have chance to tech-up and get access to their heavy cavalry and elephants, then you're in trouble ~D Problem is, the AI in RTW simply isn't challenging enough, and doesn't deploy its units in a way which would seriously threaten you - the most competitive battles IMO are online MP. Even Medium difficulty (battle difficulty) is harder than Very Hard.

True enough but point i was trying to make is that army's can only do so much its the player behind them that makes an army good. I was thinking more in terms of which army is most flexible, and flexibly is the key if fighting online unless you know what army your facing. Egypt can do pretty well vs your army setup if you switch to pharaohs bodyguard based army, and the ap cav do well against the heavy armor trick is just to use enough of em :) Of course its not perfect but it was the flexibly i was trying to point out. Just like the army you mentioned could do quite bad vs a highly mobile shoot yarmy which Egypt can also do, maybe not in rome but for sure in real life :)

[eyupwoof]

Just to point out what i mean Ive got a link from a battle I made if anyones interested, Yes I know its against the ai and there is a few mistakes but I think its a good example of a good flexable army.

[Seasoned Alcoholic]

Even Medium difficulty (battle difficulty) is harder than Very Hard.Wrong, AFAIK. The strategic AI is no different in either mode. VH just adds bonus morale (maybe other stats) to the enemy units. This RTW 1.2 I am talking about, not 1.3 or BI.
Craterus, when I said Medium difficulty was harder than Very Hard, I wasn't referring to the AI, but instead to the actual battles that take place. This is what I have noticed after playing many campaigns on VH / VH, then switching to VH / M after reading a debated thread on another TW forum.

Since the human player and the AI don't receive combat bonuses of +4 and (if applicable) morale bonuses / penalties on Medium, the length of battles as a result is extended considerably. Units will not rout as fast on VH / M, as I typically found to be the case in VH / VH - battles were often a steamrollering affair for the latter (lasting only a few minutes), and you could easily aquire multiple provinces in not time at all.

IMO VH / M difficulty improved RTW a bit, but since the AI wasn't upto scratch in the first place, then it didn't make a huge difference. Battle difficulties should be what it says on the tin, and not containing hidden combat / morale bonuses etc which was the case in RTW.

At least in BI the AI on VH / VH is challenging and is difficult to overcome. I've lost many veteran armies against the damn WRE (in central europe) playing as the Celts in my latest SP campaign for example.

[Goalie]

Hands down the best faction is any roman one. They have the best infantry:Urban Cohort, best calvary: Praetorian, best artillery: Heavy Onagers, second best archers: Archer Auxilla. If you put those all together you have an unstoppable force.

[Sowilo]

IMO, all of the Roman factions in RTW are too overpowered in the first place.
Hmm I think before Marius you have a real problem to face better barbarians especially if they outnumber your troops (what is quite often the case).
For example without throwing Pilia 160 Hastati have problems to beat 240 Gaule spearmen. Hastatii against fanatics or axemen is a nightmare too. I dealt with this problem getting cavalry and beating the barbarians at one wing so that I could charge the left wing in the back of the enemies who are busy with my right one. But the point is imho that the troops itself arn't overpowerd. Only with tactic you can win if they outnumber you with equal units.

I prefer to play Romans because they infantry can hold the line for a long time so that I can charge with the cavalry in the back of the enemy and they are sth like a tool which can deal with so good as each problem in western Europe. A specialised army can't face all kind of enemies.
I have a few problems with phalanx and mounted skirmishers/archers only.

The Carthagians are easy to play but you have only one chance. The elephants are the backbone of the army and after they charged into the enemy you have to kill him with your other troops. If the first charge don't work the time is against you.

Barbarians especially the Germans have nice troop to fight but because of they can't build good streets it is to difficult to move your troops in your kingdom. So I think it is not easy to creat a big barbarian empire.


They have the best infantry
2*48 bersercs kill 241 urban cohort. 48 Bersercs kill armoured elephants too in Melee combat.

[Petsman]

Seleucid Empire has the best army.
By the way the army would a combination of German/Roman heavy infantry, Greek Phalanx, Seleucid Cavarly , German/egyptian archers and the support troops from Carthage.