How close to a realistic Seleukid army would this be?

I've come up with a new houserule which i use for all campaigns since i'm so tired of being able to walk over absolutely anything that comes at me, and that is always play on VH/M and never use an army bigger than 10 units, no matter what. That's 10 units including the general. So with that in mind, here's what i've been using as the Seleukids, and i'm just wondering how close to realistic it is.

First of all i've got the main battle line. This is always 4 units strong for me. The unit descriptions say that Pantodapoi phalangites were used in and around 272BC, but not in great quantities and only in the part of the battle line that was going to see the least action. It says that Kleurchoi phalangites were the workhorse and most numerous, and that pezhetairoi were the cream and weren't used in all that great a number.

It says that peltastai were being phased out and replaced with thureophoroi, and it says that jewish spearmen were a common sight all over the empire in cities, in armies, pretty much everywhere.

So for the early campaign i've got:

1 General
1 Pantodapoi phalangite
2 Kleurchoi
1 pezhetairoi
1 peltastai
2 thureophoroi (or 1 and 1 jewish spearmen)
1 slinger
1 unit of light or medium cavalry.

So how is that on the realism scale? There's nothing overpowered about it, it's very balanced, it allows your to fight effectively but there is still a very real risk of losing battles, it isn't just a walkover, especially when you come up against 20-unit stacks. If the army is being led by my faction leader or faction heir then i'll perhaps replace one unit of the kleurchoi phalangites with some silver shields.

Now, that army is for the western half of the empire, where you will fight against the Ptolemaioi, Pontos, Armenia, possibly Makedonia.

The eastern half is completely different and it's hard to keep to a specific set of units, but the 10 per stack maximum rule still applies. I lose so many men fighting against the Pahlava there, losing cities and then retaking them, defending them, etc... it's a constant fight with the AI to hire the best mercenaries for that kind of warfare before they can. The only thing i can say for certain about what my army composition there is, is that it will always consist of 50% slingers and archers.

How did the Seleukids fight the horse heavy eastern people in reality? Especially the Pahlava. Surely they must have realised that lumbering phalangites were utterly useless in the vast expanses of the east against extremely mobile hit and run factions who could pick them off one by one day after day and retreat after the skirmish is over...

Or did they not? I understand the Seleukids suffered some spectacular defeats at the hands of the Pahlava...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

I understand the Seleukids suffered some spectacular defeats at the hands of the Pahlava...

---

That's true. And with your army composition you will suffer some quite historic defeats against historically correct pahlava armies consisting primarily of horse archers and better-than-you-will-ever-have cavalry units (which you can't ecpect ai to generate by itself). But your army will diw in historically correct fashion... .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marodeur

That's true. And with your army composition you will suffer some quite historic defeats against historically correct pahlava armies consisting primarily of horse archers and better-than-you-will-ever-have cavalry units (which you can't ecpect ai to generate by itself). But your army will diw in historically correct fashion... .

---

Well, like i said, the army i mentioned was the western army which works like a charm against the Ptolemaioi. On the eastern frontiers of my empire my armies look so different you'd hardly be able to tell they belonged to the same faction. Large amounts of long-range missile troops and medium and light spear infantry.

To be honest, i'm clueless as to how to fight the Pahlava. I've been attacking them in towns where their horses don't have the mobility of a field battle, and then defending towns. I've been waging war in city streets rather than out in the open, because i know if i go out in the open i'll be quickly annihlated and lose some very important eastern provinces which generate a lot of income for me.

Any tips for me on how to fight Pahlava as Seleukids?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

I've come up with a new houserule which i use for all campaigns since i'm so tired of being able to walk over absolutely anything that comes at me, and that is always play on VH/M and ...

---

OR you could set it to VH/M no battle fatige, or just VH/H, or Vh/h no battle fatige

as that gives you a challenge, but at the same time the AI's bonus is not too strong that you have to resort to AI abuse. (thats what I currently do)

I've also heard alex.exe gives the AI a few IQ point. I got a few days ago but have yet to install it.

Whats the difference between VH/H and VH/h ?

@ Dayve: I find it very suspenseful the way you play your campaign, I do it almost the same way, just playing another faction and that my 2 main armies still are fullstacks.

So in my KH-Campaign (meanwhile late):

Royal Army (Europe)

1x FM (Faction Leader or Faction heir, if both are too old another son or grandson of the FL)
(core)
4x Koinon Hellenon Phalangitai
(heavy infantery)
2x Thorakitai Hoplitai
2x Thureophoroi
(light supportive infantery)
4x Sphendonetai Rhodioi
3x Peltastai
(cavallery)
4x Hippeis Xystophoroi



Royal Army (Mikra Asia)

1x FM (Satrap of Mikra Asia or one of his Aids)
(core)
4x Koinon Hellenon Phalangitai
(heavy infantery)
2x Katpatuka Zanteush
2x Thureophoroi
(light supportive infantery)
4x Sphendonetai Rhodioi
3x Peltastai
(cavallery)
4x Hippeis Xystophoroi



Standard Army

1x FM (must have served in another Standard Army for at least 5 years or 5 battles)
1x FM (second in command)
1x FM (third in command)
(core)
2x Koinon Hellenon Phalangitai
(heavy infantery)
2x Thureophoroi
(light infantery)
2x Ekdromoi Hoplitai or Hoplitai Haploi
(light supportive infantery)
2x Peltastai
2x Sphendonetai
(cavallery)
1x Hippeis
1x Hippakontistai


The Main armies are for emergency cases. I recommend you the same. I also am getting closer to pahlava, the late Hay heavy cavallery was a challenge alredy, but they had not so many horse archers, so its going to get even harder. 1 tip: good slingers are excellent against heavy cavallery and FM, no other unit has killed more enemy FM than my Rhodian Slingers. I also intend to create Asian Standard Armies with many archers instead of the light infantery and the light supportive infantery to fight Pahlava, it seems to be the only way.

Your armies are too powerful for my tastes, with all that elite infantry and so many slingers it's almost cheating against an AI that doesn't know how to react when faced with 4 units of slingers. What i mean is, slingers are supposed to cause heavy casualties BUT compell the enemy to fight, and once the fight starts they have to stop firing otherwise they kill their own guys too.

The AI doesn't know that. If you're the attacking army, they will simply stand idly and let you destroy them with slingers, so with those 4 units of slingers you could have an army of akontistai and levy hoplites and still win because the enemy would be weakened so bad by the slingers.

So... i only use 1 against western armies, at most.

But then east is different. In the east factions settle wars with arrows instead of swords, so it's an entirely different ballgame.

well its the royal armies, who are supposed to be elite and who are only used in emergency cases, as i wrote. The Standard armies use max. 2 Slinger units as you see.

Fuzzy rule of thumb for infantry - cavalry distribution of the ancient Iranian empires: For every five infantry, add one horseman. From there, for every three to ten horsemen, add a knight. You therefore get a range of fifteen to fifty infantry for every knight you field. Food-for-thought, especially if you know how your economy looks like and what types of troops are available to you.

Quote:

---

To be honest, i'm clueless as to how to fight the Pahlava. I've been attacking them in towns where their horses don't have the mobility of a field battle, and then defending towns. I've been waging war in city streets rather than out in the open, because i know if i go out in the open i'll be quickly annihlated and lose some very important eastern provinces which generate a lot of income for me.

---

You answer yourself :-)

and one more thing, use your elites as soon as possible I have no idea but I can only kill an elite AS Phalanx around %10 but can easily kill medium ones while playing with pahlava.

I think while they are in phalanx mode they have a defence bonus against arrow attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwissBarbar

Whats the difference between VH/H and VH/h ?

.

---

Not pressing "Shift" and "h" at the same time. :whip:

How the Seleukids and Parthians fought each other is, to be honest, unknown. We don't really have much on the record. We know that when Antiochos III, IV, and VII began their campaigns they were successful - about all we have info on is the Elburz crossing by Antiochos III, IIRC. The evidence for Antiochos IV is murky. Antiochos VII, however, didn't play it as smart as he should have and wintered in freshly conquered territory with his army split into smaller contingents. The sources may be biased, but apparently his military behaved badly pissing off the locals so that when the Parthians did come back they were easily able to isolate groups by ambush in Media. Parthians played smarter, not harder.

So it seems that when the Seleukids got their act together and made a serious attempt to push the Parthians back, they could; the problem was in keeping that land afterward. Of course, it doesn't help when your satraps declare independence all the time and you have infighting between the royal family.

So, considering we don't have much info, how did the Seleukids do it? My guess is the cavalry contingent of the Seleukids was big enough and quick enough to keep the Parthians worried about fighting a stand-up battle or getting caught in an attempt at a hit-and-run . From there, it would just be a matter of sticking to broken or rolling terrain where you can nullify the Parthian horse advantage and moving quickly enough to bottle-up the Parthians in their cities under siege. It's hard to conceptualize it since in RTW we can only represent so many cities on a map, but sieges small and large happened all the time and it's clear that the Seleukids were pretty damn good at it... as long as you wouldn't mind a city getting torn up in the fighting a la Sardeis or Tyre.

Good luck getting that to work when sticking to max 10 units/army though :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conqueror

Good luck getting that to work when sticking to max 10 units/army though :sweatdrop:

---

It's easy, in the west. Western factions (excluding Rome) throw out 20 unit stacks all the time, but only very rarely do they seem to put decent troops in them. Ptolemaioi, for example, just attacked me with a full stack. 6 units of pantodapoi phalanxes, some peltastai mercenaries and the rest, i shit you not, was akontistai. Around 13 units of Akontistai.

Even when they get their Galatians and elite phalanxes the armies are still going to have tiny numbers of them and huge numbers of levies and light troops. In my last campaign as Carthage i steamrolled them around 230BC with an army of light and medium troops at best. They only ever put a few elite troops in a stack and fill the rest up with crap. Everyone else is the same, excluding Rome. Their armies are nothing but extraordinarii and samnite infantry.

So yeah, 10 units a stack is just fine for me on VH/M.

In the east, it's going to be bad, but that's my goal. I'm sick of winning campaigns and steamrolling everything. I want to slowly lose ground to the Pahlavs, make a little progress then get thrown back. I want the eastern half of my empire to be a constant concern and problem, i want some realism, i want to lose damnit.

Ok, I don't have the epxertise to make a definite comment on this; but I'd have thought the Seleukids would've used Iranian troops? Medean Cavalry, Archers...

Certainly one would assume Seleukid armies dealing with the annoying horsemen of the Inner Asian plains made like most largely infantry-based armies have done in such situations - took along buttloads of missile troops and cavalry of their own, and used their superior heavy infantry as a solid base for those to operate around. (Seemed to work well enough in the Romans' later, post-Carrhae, wars with the Parthians anyway...) Both of the former should've been readily available from the native populations and military traditions of the eastern provinces after all, and not in the least as those have had lenghty practice in fending off nomadic raiders...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

To be honest, i'm clueless as to how to fight the Pahlava. I've been attacking them in towns where their horses don't have the mobility of a field battle, and then defending towns. I've been waging war in city streets rather than out in the open, because i know if i go out in the open i'll be quickly annihlated and lose some very important eastern provinces which generate a lot of income for me.

---

Heh, you've actually been making exactly the correct conclusions, young padawan. :2thumbsup: That's ever been the strategy combatants strong in infantry have adopted against opponents markedly superior in cavalry and mobility; for example, when the Swedes warred with the Poles in the early 1600s their field armies had a bad habit of getting pulverized by the formidable and numerous Polish cavalry - so they preferred to make the war one of sieges, where their much more infantry-heavy armies had an advantage.
It is, after all, by controlling the cities and fortresses that you actually rule a territory.

@ Dayve: I wish I had that sort of AI armies at times (not really). Apparently you don't get the Roman full stack of PE + EE + Triarii or full stacks consisting of 8 phalanxes of which 6 are elite and two are standard + Galatians + Heavy cav. Or (as AS against Pahlava) an army which had 10 Dahae Nobles + 6 Parhian Catas + 4 FMs (early variety). That army hurt. A LOT! Especially since all 4 FMs were 8-10 command + triple silver and above experience. I just spammed and auto calc-ed my way to victory. Lost something on the order of 4-5 full stacks of phalanxes + archers to do it but when you have a whole empire to spawn from it can be done.
But if you've been getting the sort of stacks thrown your way that you say you have I don't blame you on restricting yourself. I'd want a challenge as well.
Maybe its BI, but it seems my computer loves to throw elite stacks at me, and since I like to economize my armies, it tends to provide a challenge.

Stone walls are the best deterrant for all nomadic factions, since they're not bringing field artillery and all the horses will have to go through a gate. If you can destory their ram, you're all set. If you can't, two units of pantodapoi wll do the trick.

There's usually some mercenery infantry tagging along, but there shouldn't be too many of those.

hahahah i feel you're pain man i really do xD

I mostly try not to fight them. Putting archers (and if I'm really pressed even slingers) on stone walls should do the trick. Other than that: maybe consider using phalangites where you only need them (like one unit of pantodapoi in each frequently besieged city). Parthian spearmen and even massed pantodapoi should hold your line. If they don't, so be it. You'll lose several cities from the start onwards, and armies like the one you're experiencing might cost you another, but once you have a solid line of stone-walled-cities, you should be capable to hold your ground. Launch counteroffensives wherever Parthia seems weaker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XrexXxarX

hahahah i feel you're pain man i really do xD

---

The thread was a year old. Thanks, buddy, thanks a lot. :laugh4:

I'm such a hypocrite.

Necroposter alert!

Ha ha! Hide behind your walls, Greek! You won't stop the might of the Pahlava otherwise, and even then you're only wasting everyone's time! You should just surrender, then maybe the Great King will be merciful to you...

Other things:
Stone walls won't help much against sapping. The lousy Saka used that trick against me once, and broke through the light infantry that were supposed to hold the line there, resulting in a bizarre battle in which opposing sides of horse archers ran throughout the city shooting at each other, all the while trying to elude each other's lancers.
But if you have a well-armored phalanx group, you can plug any gap in the defense. It's good to have a few of them around, just in case.
Another tactic is to lunge at the nearest steppe town, take it, and hold it long enough to get some regional steppe horsemen. Then you can fight fire with fire.

The thread may be old but it's subject is always of interest :laugh4:

Optimizing city defenses VS nomad factions:
* Firstly, build stone walls ASAP. Wooden walls are terrible against nomads that can just shoot arching volleys over them. Stone walls OTOH will basically make any units on ground level arrow-proof, while those on the parapets will at least be protected by the crenellations and increased elevation. Also, any missile units on the walls will have longer range (and maybe more powerful attack?)
* Phalangites tend to not work so well up on walls, so use them on the streets to secure the gate and any holes in the walls. Won't do any good to have more than 3 such units per garrison, so send any extras to serve elsewhere.
* For infantry to defend the walls, you'll want them to have good armour and shields, plus high morale. They'll need to be able to endure clouds of arrows before any assault.
* For missile units on the walls, go for either the best range and attack or the best armour available. Archer-spearmen tend to be better assigned to field armies, although they're not useless on sieges either.
* Don't bother including cavalry in garrisons, beyond one FM governor's bodyguard unit. Your field armies will need all the cavalry you can muster.

Field armies:
* As has been stated already, you need plenty of archers and cavalry. Infantry is primarily used to protect the archers from being charged and run over. Nomadic horse archer units, whether mercenaries or recruited regionals, make extremely useful auxiliaries. Until you can afford such an army, there's little point to seek battle on the field.
* Don't initiate battles if you can avoid it. Provoke and lure the Pahlavans into attacking you. If you go aggressively attacking them, they can lead you on a futile chase till your troops are exhausted and killed.
* Don't build forts at the ends of turns. It may seem like a good idea, but really it's to your disadvantage. Forts are deathtraps: they only last some 4 turns (IIRC) under siege, have only palisades around them (= death by archers) and are a total pain to sally out of. If you get besieged in one it'll be far worse than a regular field battle.

Great post! Very useful.

I like to hire mercenaries when playing the Seleucids, it helps a lot. Usually I find it hard to recruit decent factional troops, but I have pots of gold, so hiring mercs isn't a problem.

So this thread is old and most have probably moved on, but I have to comment...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordCurlyton

@ Dayve: I wish I had that sort of AI armies at times (not really). Apparently you don't get the Roman full stack of PE + EE + Triarii or full stacks consisting of 8 phalanxes of which 6 are elite and two are standard + Galatians + Heavy cav. Or (as AS against Pahlava) an army which had 10 Dahae Nobles + 6 Parhian Catas + 4 FMs (early variety). That army hurt. A LOT! Especially since all 4 FMs were 8-10 command + triple silver and above experience. I just spammed and auto calc-ed my way to victory. Lost something on the order of 4-5 full stacks of phalanxes + archers to do it but when you have a whole empire to spawn from it can be done.
But if you've been getting the sort of stacks thrown your way that you say you have I don't blame you on restricting yourself. I'd want a challenge as well.
Maybe its BI, but it seems my computer loves to throw elite stacks at me, and since I like to economize my armies, it tends to provide a challenge.

---

You guys know that you CAN use cheats for the AI, right? : )

I do it all of the time, for allies, enemies, and even the factions on the other side of the map. I'm such a realist, and a masochist, that I insist on ramming the Seleucid, Saka, and other relevant reforms through ASAP when I play as Pahlava (I always try to help Hayasdan, but about halfway through their reform, I get bored/impatient and wipe them out...), and I give those armies that make you go "oh, what the hell..." corrections and plenty of elites, and, OH YES, sometimes I definitely regret it. But I don't the epic struggles between the Seleucids and Parthians to consist of battles with a late parthian general, two grivpanvar cataphracts (the late elite), 2-3 armored horse archers (either zradha type or the dehbeds), 1 Dahae noble, 1 Dahae Rider, and 4-6 Pahlava and Saka Horse Archers fighting a Seleucid FM, 1 merc Hippeis, 1 Prodomoi, maybe 1 other weak, odd type of cavalry, a few odd archers and slingers, and a stack of FRIGGIN' PANTODAPOI NATIVE SPEARMEN!!! I don't want the First Punic War to mostly equal mish-mash stacks of Rorarii, Hastati, and samnites, with maybe 1 or 2 cavalry units, taking on another odd stack of Poeni Citizens, Iberian mercenaries (BLASHPEMY!!!), barely any cavalry units, and more mercenaries that just don't make sense. I can't take it. I'm human, ya know? I mean really, I CAN'T TAKE IT! ARGHGHGHHGHGHHG!!!

You know what I mean?