15k vs 12.5k denarii

[Rodion Romanovich]

IMO, 15k denarii makes for the best games, with more balanced armies and spam armies are usually possible to defeat. Both sides tend to bring quite similar balanced armies, with smaller differences and the entire battle is determined on the battlefield, not during army choice. However, only romans, seleucids, parthia and egypt can hope to win a battle in a 15k denarii game.

With 12.5k denarii, armies are usually chosen so that it has one strength and most other aspects weak, and this makes factions like gauls and others able to compete with romans and the others, but in return most of the battle is determined during the army choice, which makes it more of a paper-rock-scissors game than a measure of tactics. Furthermore, not allowing artillery in combination with the 12.5k denarii limit makes for a game where spam armies all cavalry and archers are strongly favored, and can crush anything without problems. Also the spam armies with hoplites and archers tend to be impossible to beat, whereas they in 15k with onagers can be forced to move, or in 15k without onagers can be outmanouvred.

I think 15k denarii with or without artillery allowed makes for the most dynamic games, but at the cost of making many factions unplayable in mp, but I think that's the best possible. Furthermore, I think in 15k the infantry is made more important.

[King Ragnar]

I beleive 12.5k is better it makes it harder for Roman factions to rule the battlefield, and also to stop spamming just set up rules.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Yes, but you can spam with 8 light archers + 8 better archers + 8 heavy cavalry + 2 other heavy cavalry even if I set a max 8 rule. Setting anything more than max 8 makes it bad for phalanx armies, that usually have to build their army around a long phalanx line. Setting max to say 10 for infantry and lower than 8 for anything else anything else gives very little variety. Setting max to 10 for infantry and 8 for anything else is perhaps the best solution, but I still think the 12.5k armies are lacking in variety and I like the idea of setting very few and not very restrictive rules so that the armies that appear in the battlefield are unpredictable. Then you're forced to picking a balanced army, because it's the only one that can beat all possible enemy armies. I'm more often facing spammers, and losing to them, in 12.5k games than in 15k games. Actually, in 15k I've NEVER lost to a spammer. In 12.5k games, I've lost to more than one spammer.

But again, I must agree that romans dominate slightly too much in 15k games. A power-down of praetorian cavalry would be desirable...

[King Ragnar]

You mention spamming with 8 HA you then put the rule of 4/5 max on any unti type, My Old RTW Rules were 5 max cav( because cav was way overpowered, 4 max on any unit type( no praetorian cohort amies), But now in BI they have changd as cav is now less overpowered, BI rules are 8 max cav 4 max on any unit( that stops Beserker spam)

[Loinnreach]

Matches from 11,5k to 12,5k are balanced and allow you follwoing rules, which making BI very nice balanced as well.

-max 5 units per same type
-some prefer no bersekers, some have 2 max, etc
-no max on anykind of cavalry. player can pick all cavalry units, but will lose for sure - no need to doubt here. ;)
-instead of max HA units, you just have rule no cantaberian circle for HA units

Discussed already at:

http://forums.totalwars.net/

forums:
http://forums.totalwars.net/viewforum.php?f=2
http://forums.totalwars.net/viewforum.php?f=19

Step by and mention your opinion.

:bow:

[King Ragnar]

-instead of max HA units, you just have rule no cantaberian circle for HA units

Thats a terrible rule, its like sayng no loose formation and no sheild wall.
I hate horse archers but that isnt the way to stop them.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I like horse archers with cantabrian circle, makes for interesting games. You have to do quick charges at them to temporarily put them out of circle, and this makes it difficult to face them, which is realistic. As for max 5 or so of same type it's bad for infantry based armies. Phalanx armies are worthless if they can't have a long line of phalanx units, otherwise they get flanked. And I don't believe RTW is balanced same as MTW in unit costs. Anyway, with 15k denarii I can say that it's possible to play without any rules and only non-lame armies can win, so those who play 15k regularly, that I face in mp, in general bring very balanced armies and it's a lot of fun.

The example I mentioned wasn't HA, it was a combo of foot archers and heavy cavalry. Totally impossible to beat a sassanid army with 10 archers and 10 heavy cavalry or similar, or a sassanid army with 8 foot archers, 6 cavalry and the rest the sassanid heavy infantry (I've unfortunately forgotten the name of it). Anyway, I've not played BI enough to pass a judgement on it, but in R:TW I preferred 15k.

[Lord Preston]

Why does everyone use 10k. 12.5, 15k or 100000000000000k ???

Try 13.5k I find its a good balance, you have a good alround army but can upgrade a small amount to make a part of your army stronger or all of it a bit better.

Also allows for the special units to be bought without weakening your army but not enough money to have every unit as bezerkers ect.

[NihilisticCow]

In RTW, 15k was always a bit too much money, you pretty much got an army for 12.5k, and upgraded it. 12.5k was always interesting, as it still allowed you to concentrate in areas, but it would weaken you elsewhere, as to 15k where you would just not have that weakness. After playing at 12.5k and lower in v1.2 for a while, I simply could not stand playing at 15k, as it felt just too much money, something pretty much all other veteran players feel as well. As for allowing only "non-lame" armies to win... well, I have a few exceeding lame 15k setups that there is very little you can do against. The issues about cavalry upgrades in v1.2 at 12.5k just become more pronouced. I don't have enough experience in v1.3, but cavalry is still very powerful, but the spearmen probably still not sufficient to counter them effectively.

For BI, things are a little different, but I'm of the opinion that less is more. 12.5k in BI now to me feels like a little too much money, and there has been a debate about lowering the standard denarii level, which I personally think that 10k is possibly a better level, after playing quite a few games at different levels, but others have been suggesting 11.5k. What this level also means that since cavalry is more expensive in BI, then heavy cavalry numbers are lower, so infantry have to take a more decisive role, but it still allows the flexibility not to.

As for the HA no cantabrian rule, it may end up being necessary, since mass horse archers are a problem to beat in cantabrian circle, as foot archers just can't touch them, and light cav gets chewed up quite easily if your opponent has a brain, yes they can be beaten, as everything (including the Sassanid army listed, which you just have to remember to flank), but it's probably too early to really set this rule.

[NihilisticCow]

One thing about the lower denarii limits is that they put a limit on the super heavy cavalry numbers, so the factions that do not have them are not unfairly hampered by having to spend more money on upgrades to end up with inferior units.

[Rodion Romanovich]

@Nihilist: How do I flank the sassanid army with foot archers and heavy cavalry? No others than sassanids can form an as good archer+cavalry army, so I have to go for something else. Infantry with cavalry support isn't good, then I have to have plenty of cavalry and infantry, and spam with no missiles at all. Or go for an all cavalry army, which is spam. Bringing any balanced army to face a such army mostly results in defeat. So I can't really defeat the spammer in that case unless I know what he'll spam with. Or? I'd very much like to know how.

In 15k, I bring an army with moderate strength in all aspects, then I can send all my medium cavalry at the same time forward to make the archers skirmish and not fire for a long time, and repeat that process. If artillery is allowed, the enemy can choose to either keep his cavalry close to the archers, but at the cost of getting the cavalry bombarded, or choose to keep the cavalry back, and give me a chance of wiping out his archers with a cavalry charge. That's how I defeat that spam army with a 15k balanced army.

[NihilisticCow]

Well, you're probably making life harder for yourself by playing against Sassanids at 15k, but the same idea still holds. You just have to get spears into their cav and flank with yours, while the remainder of your inf holds theirs (but is expected to lose, unless you flank their's as well. I find BI is better balanced at lower denarii, up to 12.5k, as there the Clibinarii and other super heavy cav will be low in number, unless they have practically no army, so that you will outnumber them, giving you troops to spare to help against the cavalry. Besides, I think Eastern Rome have a better cav + archer combination if you really want to extend that idea...

Another alternative is to play this in reverse, using most of your cav to slow down enemy cav, while you use your inf + a little cav to win the infantry battle, before you turn everything on to the enemy cav (something you couldn't really do in Rome).

You just have to remember that your cav is going to lose 1 on 1 head on to clibinarii (or whatever the Sassinids ones are called, I can't remember), which is why the lower denarii amounts are good, as it will give you numerical superiority, which you won't have to waste on upgrades that are not cost effective versus getting better troops, which your opponent will be doing.

One thing I like to do against Sassinids is to have about 3-4 groups of cavalry, one (perhaps 2) groups of heavy cavalry to engage and hold enemy cav, and 2 groups of light cavalry (especially lancers) to flank enemy units on both flanks, which seems to work quite well, though you need to be quick using your cavalry, as light cav doesn't fare very well at all in prolonged fights, but again this wouldn't work if you are playing high denarii games, as your light cav will be facing heavy cavalry 1 on 1, which they just aren't going to do well in. So basically in BI, I think you need to play at lower denarii, as it makes many more factions playable, and brings more possible tactics to use.

[Taurus]

In my opinion, the right money for BI is 12.5k or 13.5k because 15k is a bit too high and 10k is ridiculously small.

Also I find that a good counter for the Sassanids are the Saxons.

[NihilisticCow]

10k is not ridiculously small, you just have to get out of the mindset that half your army must be elite heavy cavalry units. This is part of the reason I think that the standard denarii level should be lowered slightly, to actually make games more of a contest of skill than elite cavalry upgrades as was the case in Rome.

[King Ragnar]

10k games were good in RTW, but in Bi i think 12.5k is better as alot of the units seem to cost a bit more now.

[Taurus]

you just have to get out of the mindset that half your army must be elite heavy cavalry units.


That's not the point I was trying to make mate ~;) , I'm just saying that as the units cost more and the upgrades a bit more too then 12.5k is an excellent amount as I personally don't find having a few units with all 10k can afford to be much fun. Also, 10k in my opinion makes the game slightly unbalanced as you cannot upgrade your units as much meaning that the weaker factions have a slight disadvantage when facing the stronger factions.

[Loinnreach]

12,5k battles seems to be problematic sometimes, becaus of morale issues.
Becaus you can afford quit few upgreads on infantry units, they seems to hold forever, even if 'properly' flanked, etc.

I suppose that in 11,5k match you can only have no onagers rule and it seems ok. 11,5k as well doesn't weaker any factions and don't have morale issues as mentioned.
Anyhow denari level from 11,5k to 12,5k seems to be somehow best to be played.

[Ayra]

I wish I was lucky enough to find games with those kind of denarii amounts... Most games I play (Mainly 2v2 or 3v3 though), you had anything from 25k to 500k... I find that anything that's <20k makes for better game, since it nulls most spam armies, as mentionned.

One thing I find annoying as of late (Which did get mentionned a few posts back) is the 8 max cavalry rule. I can understand why, no one wants to face 20 horse archers or 20 clibanarii armies. On the other hand, it definitively cripples any of the horse factions, like the Huns or the Sarmatians for example. It also stops me from playing my favorite Sarmatian army (Fits at 12.5k):

1 Warlord
2 Noble Cavalry (Name's not accurate: it's the heaviest cavalry they have)
5 Virgin horse archers
4-5 Virgin cavalry
4 virgin foot archers (Which are extensively used to melee as soon as the real battle starts)
3-4 Choosen Swordmen-Bosphoran Infantry (Depending on opposing factions)
(Copyrighted army! Anyone using a similar army will receive a drastic virtual frown, be warned!)

Maybe I'm deluding myself, but I don't think this army fit under "cheap" or spam armies. I certainly can't charge at anyone head on (3 heavy cav including the warlord, and the others are very light cavalry), I can't shoot them all day either. I can't skirmish their whole army with 5 weak horse archers.

It's a very mobile army though, well suited for ambushes and making tactical traps, while having a frontline that can hold for a while or to use in traps itself. It dies easily if I make a mistake or the trap backfires, though. It's also a mainly female army, which I love.

And yet, I can't use it in 75% of the games because of the max 8 cav rule... And it's getting mighty frustrating.:furious3: While I know the reason that rule is used, I don't see it necessary at all at <15k denarii. Even if it is, well... It stops me from using an army composition that isn't abusive (Correct me if I'm wrong) or invincible, though. I'm sure that the max 8 cav rules stops other fair armies also, especially from the horse factions...

[NihilisticCow]

Also, 10k in my opinion makes the game slightly unbalanced as you cannot upgrade your units as much meaning that the weaker factions have a slight disadvantage when facing the stronger factions.

Well it depends what you mean by strong factions, but generally the "weaker" factions fare much better at lower denarii, as they generally don't have the powerful and expensive units, so they can bring superior numbers to bare, which can counteract the more heavily armoured opposition. You don't need to upgrade units to make the game balanced, in fact it is probably better balanced in the absence of upgrades. Upgrades are though not cost effective versus getting better units, which was the key point I was making earlier. If you raise the denarii level so some factions have to upgrade, the factions that do not will be at an advantage.

As for the 8 cavalry max rule, well it was more of an 8 melee cav rule with an additional allowance for horse archers in v1.2, not everyone played the same rules though, but that was the most common. I kind of think though at normal denarii levels that the 8 cav max rule is obsolete.

[NihilisticCow]

Another thing is that units don't cost more, cavalry does, so just take slightly less cavalry and more infantry, or a mixture of heavy and light cavalry which I prefer, and the game is much more interesting in my opinion. Even at 10k, I still take pretty much a full stack of units with most factions. You don't have to have every single unit in your army to be elites, there are many other units in the game as well.

[Loinnreach]

8 max cavalry rule

Agreed. This rules as mentioned are pointless, but depends on each personality. People who like this rule, probably belive that cavalry spam is still possible such it was in RTW. Let me clear this up to them. It is not. BI is not RTW and in BI you don't need any max rule on cavalry or any unit type, except bersekers for example.

Since BI is out, I've never played with more then 5 or 6 cavalry units. I as well don't see nothing wrong with cavalry armies which are based on HA units as well, like Hun's for example. I just prefer infantry.

People have started to play 11,5k or 12,5k matches. This denari level as mentioned befor offers you balance gameplay (www.totalwars.net) and only rule which is needed is no artillery, some might as well prefer 2 or 3 max berseker units. (people I play against usually don't use more then 2 or none)

I usually play this matches in chat lobby from 8pm gmt on, where you can as well find some excellent players from STW and MTW times - they as well are one of best group of players you can encounter in RTW/BI lobby.

[Puzz3D]

You don't need to upgrade units to make the game balanced, in fact it is probably better balanced in the absence of upgrades.
LongJohn said he balances the units without upgrades. The issue in MP is that without upgrades the morale tends to be low, and many people don't want to play low morale battles. If you purchase a balanced army of 20 units using mostly middle range units, a typical army without upgrades costs around 10k to 10.5k. Adding one level of experience to all units brings to 12.5k or 13k. It seems to me that you can't buy all elites with 13k. That's an average of 650 denari per unit in a 20 unit army.


As for the 8 cavalry max rule, well it was more of an 8 melee cav rule with an additional allowance for horse archers in v1.2, not everyone played the same rules though, but that was the most common. I kind of think though at normal denarii levels that the 8 cav max rule is obsolete.
I wouldn't think you need a max cav rule with the better spears in RTW v1.3. That issue couldn't be addressed by changing denari level. It had to be fixed in the battle engine. I think using denari to limit the number of elite units is still a good idea otherwise that's all you'll see, and those elite units have better armor which impacts the effectiveness of archers.

[Taurus]

Well it depends what you mean by strong factions, but generally the "weaker" factions fare much better at lower denarii, as they generally don't have the powerful and expensive units, so they can bring superior numbers to bare, which can counteract the more heavily armoured opposition. You don't need to upgrade units to make the game balanced, in fact it is probably better balanced in the absence of upgrades. Upgrades are though not cost effective versus getting better units, which was the key point I was making earlier. If you raise the denarii level so some factions have to upgrade, the factions that do not will be at an advantage.


Yes, I understand what your trying to say mate, but what I'm saying is on a personal level I much prefer 12.5k than 10k because in my opinion it make for a more fun game because if you do limit the game too much by reducing denarii levels it just takes the fun out of the game as it limits what the player wants to buy be it spam armies or not. And if the player really wants to spam cavalry then he would realise that it is less powerful and he would easily be beaten and should learn from his or her stupidity.