Does any one starve the enemy???

I am currently playing a Casse campaign and I admit it to be the hardest campaign for me to play in eb. I have attempted the Nigh-impossible with saka and conquered most of my victory conditions and then I got bored. I am finding that the only way for me to conquer all of brittania is to starve. I take a half stack army, just enough for the enemy not to sally, and seige. I wait for the number of seasons that it has to survive and when it is down to its last, I lift the seige and then besiege again. I do this until they have 200 or so men left. I find this to be cheating, but I find battles with the casse versus casse-fakes are too risky. If even my second in command general dies, my men rout and it is utterly stupid when I have lost of all of 100 men. Their moral sucks. I was wondering if any one else uses my tactic to assure vistory. I just feel really guilty. :embarassed:

I used this tactic several times myself in my Getai campaign. To be honest, I don't consider it cheating, as sieges were known to last for years on end (as least in medieval times), with the besieging army living off the land, as it were. The EB team added the Rationing/Tightened Belts/Starving traits to limit this course of action, I imagine, in addition to rampaging far behind enemy lines.

I'm playing as the Casse myself right now, and am thankful to say that the campaign is almost done. Only three settlements left. And I think you're right to have found the Casse so difficult. The campaign didn't get any harder for me than uniting the isles. I've starved the Eleutheroi, but not quite in the same way as you have.

What I ended up doing was moving half-stacks, being all that I could afford, to siege the settlements. The engine calculated this as a 1:1 advantage. Too bloody for me to assault and too bloody for the AI to sally. Then I let the seasons pass and wait for their numbers to dwindle, until they have no choice but to sally. At which point, I don't break off but accept the fight with the severely weakened AI. So if you really feel guilty, I would suggest letting the starved AI sally without going through the same motions again and again until you can't possibly lose. I can guarantee it's far more satisfying this way, and definitely doable.

Here are just some pointers to help you win these encounters. The enemy can only sally forth one unit at a time. Even if the unit is much more powerful than yours, you still have a half-stack against it. Furthermore, as those units run out one at a time, remember that launched bullets and javelins can utterly cut them down to half their numbers, and may even rout them (especially with your general nearby). In fact, even a single routing enemy unit slows down the rate at which the others sally forth. This allows even more time for your slingers to slaughter them. And even if they somehow manage to sally forth, at these reduced numbers, your infantry should make short work of them. What can easily clinch the battle in favour of one side or the other though is the death of a general, as you've discovered. It's incredibly easy to lose your Casse general by a stupid mistake, like the chariots getting themselves stuck in melee. So only let that general charge if your absolutely positive it'll cause the enemy to rout.

All in all, though, you shouldn't feel like you have to do it the way you're doing it. It sounds like slow unrewarding work. The Casse take a while to get used to at the beginning, but once you get the strategy of it down, Britannia starts to seem like the easy part of the campaign. :)

Playing as The Romani, its quite easy to start taking every province with a super-full stack..

I got a little bored of siege battles in one game, so started starving out rebel cities...I took Massalia, Tolosa and Emporion, ALL without a battle...when the last siege turn came, the rebels decided to just give me the city.....very sensible of them.

Quite a boring way to play though ;)

I don't like to play attacker in siege battles, that's why I usually use that method to conquer the cities.

just take my time with the towns and siege them until they rally .

sometimes its better to have them break the siege on the first turn if your units are better equipped than theirs.

I use this tactic as Seleucids to capture those settlements in India. For some reason fighting against several units of elephants(who may already have silver chevrons because of Bactria) is not that entertaining.

I use this tactic, reluctantly - usually with two different armies, one besieging, one behind my own lines, taking turns when the hunger sets in. Though I really enjoy it when the enemy attacks after the first turn in order to relieve their comrades. Yes, I HATE sieges!

Though I, as an honest Makedon, prefer to fight, sometimes I starve out ther enemy (or just wait for them to sally forth) when their army is quite strong.

Maion

As a pahlava fan, I have no time to wait AS garrison die, they love sending reinforcement again and again so although it is a nightmare to fight with shvatir i pahlavanig in the streets, I always assault I have no time to stop until fall of antioch then finally I have time to build reformed goverment. plus AS mostly sally on advised difficulty VH/M just after the turn I besieged the city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios

Though I, as an honest Makedon, prefer to fight, sometimes I starve out ther enemy (or just wait for them to sally forth) when their army is quite strong.

Maion

---

Except for Barbaropolis I'm sure =]

I use starvation as the Romanii nearly all the time despite the fact legionaries are some of the best troops for clearing walls.

I like to role-play and feel it represents a more realistic time scale to subdue a province. If a relieving army intervenes so be it, and I fight the battle.

I don't like playing siege battles.

There are exceptions, if the garrison is really small and my spies have opened the gates. Then I nearly always use auto-calc for the battle unless there is a high star FM in the garrison and I'll get excessive losses.

Slingers are the key. They murder any troops in the game once you get some chevrons on them. Get them to sally out after they run out of food. The slingers should be able to take down 4 or more units to half strength as they leave the settlement. Get some of your spears and swordsman to face off with them and get your chariots to hit em from behind and the bastards will run! :)

Guessing from what has been posted sofar it looks as I don't belong to the majority in case of Sieges - I like them. Although this does depend on which faction I play: as the romani no city has been besieged longer then the time necessary to build siegen engines. As AS or Makedon I also prefer to take cities by force ("only over thoose lands may you rule which you have taken trough the blood and valor of your soldiers and your skill as General").

On the other hand as Saka or Pahlava I have to wait for the enemy to sally most often - I like that too since there is nothing more demoralising for the enemy then to see there own soldiers die in a hail of arrows just after they went out the gates:skull:).

I truthfully like seiges. When I play any greek faction, I attack as soon as possible, but with the casse, its too risky. Any little mistake will cause my men to rout like flies. Even if my general is on the other side of the map and the only unit around him is his bodyguard, and he dies. My men magicly feel his passing and run for their lives even only haveing lost a few men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghaust the Moor

I truthfully like seiges. When I play any greek faction, I attack as soon as possible, but with the casse, its too risky. Any little mistake will cause my men to rout like flies. Even if my general is on the other side of the map and the only unit around him is his bodyguard, and he dies. My men magicly feel his passing and run for their lives even only haveing lost a few men.

---

Well, I believe that the farther away your general is away from the action and his troops, the more the morale of the soldiers will suffer.

And again, I typicly(spl?) like having my general in the thick of it, but I am not good at commanding chariotteers. I find them to be very weak. Now while symbolicly a good choice for a generals bodyguard, a cavalry unit is much more pratical. I original planned on playing the casse to take myself out of my comfort zone. So when being casse, I keep my general out of the fight until the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghaust the Moor

And again, I typicly(spl?) like having my general in the thick of it, but I am not good at commanding chariotteers. I find them to be very weak. Now while symbolicly a good choice for a generals bodyguard, a cavalry unit is much more pratical. I original planned on playing the casse to take myself out of my comfort zone. So when being casse, I keep my general out of the fight until the end.

---

i find the chariots are great for flank and rear attacks. hitting the enemy from behind and with the fear factor of the chariots usually equals a serious drop in enemy morale.

combine that with some decent infantry and the INCREDIBLE slingers and you have a sweet army.

Everyone seems to love slingers. I find them to be the worst missle troops. I don't see how they are any good. please enligthen me. Maybe I'll use them form now on.

I just started playing EB last week and have had a great campaign with the Casse. I read on another forum that slingers are very important, especially against other Gallic factions. In a battle 3-4 units of slingers can devastate an enemy unit very very quickly. Once you get some stripes on them they are even more deadly. They are especially good in sieges. They will decimate any unit that is guarding the gate.

Once you get some silver stripes on them they will take out Roman elite infantry no problem. Just protect them with your spears and use your chariots to do hit and run attacks on the enemy flanks. I was suprised myself. I didnt even bother with slingers until someone said i should try them. No I keep at least 4 in all my armys. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghaust the Moor

Everyone seems to love slingers. I find them to be the worst missle troops. I don't see how they are any good. please enligthen me. Maybe I'll use them form now on.

---

I find them Ideal when I need to get some heavy Nomad cavalry out of there saddles:skull:. Seriously I was almost schocked by how fast these tank horsemen die under led bullet fire. Most off the time more them 3 to 4 arrow salvos are necessery to cause any losses against them:wall:.

I would advise using slingers against anything that has armor on - eastern, Rhodian and of course balearic ones are the best availeable:yes:

Yeah, as AS the only reason I was able to hold onto the majority of my eastern provinces was through a single double silver chevron eastern slinger unit in my eastern army which ran hither and thither dealing with the Parthians. The majority of my army was archer units and light spearmen, most of what you can raise in those regions but the only thing that could really kill those 40 man parthian generals (large unit size) was either a cavalry charge into their rear after being engaged, or slingers.

Of course, I was rewarded for finally taking back Sogdiana from Pahlava by now being constantly attacked by the Saka who have, surprise, more armored horse archers for bodyguards. At least by that point I'd taken Baktra and started to recruit better infantry.

What difficulty are you playing at? I found uniting the british isles was pretty easy but it was only on normal difficulty. Getting the first few settlements involved moving my army into the enemy territories, luring them to attack me in split groups rather than facing several forces at once in pitched battles around settlements, but after that it got pretty easy.

Siege until the enemies die starving is real warfare tactics.... And you MUST siege them until dead if you only have HA's in your army (playing as the nomads)... Casse is better, they can order their men to use the Ram and Ladders.... Steppe infantry is useless...

Anyway, when playing Casse, after get 3 or 4 settlements with starving siege... you just need to pump out swordsmen...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

Siege until the enemies die starving is real warfare tactics.... And you MUST siege them until dead if you only have HA's in your army (playing as the nomads)...

---

I beg to differ. If you besiege a city with a SMALL ENOUGH horse-archer army, the AI would think it can win a sally and will sally forth immediately. This, of course, is to bring forth its own doom, because it will be slaugthered by concentrated missile fire. Killing off routing units fleeing back to the town-square is something that even horses in narrow streets can manage.:yes:

I have done this quite often in my Pahlavan campaigns, but it sometimes felt as an exploit.:embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HunGeneral

On the other hand as Saka or Pahlava I have to wait for the enemy to sally most often - I like that too since there is nothing more demoralising for the enemy then to see there own soldiers die in a hail of arrows just after they went out the gates:skull:).

---

You have no time to wait reinforcement believe me, you have a right to lose after you conquered 15 - 20 cities so you can replace your field army. As a Pahlava Fan I can assure you, send your spies at least 3 of them during the siege or in the next turn they open the gates for you.

I do not know why but they never sent me pezotarioi on the other hand She sent me Arpyraspides:wall: so I swore I shall not stop till I destroy antiocheai.

Slingers are great because they're ap (Armor piercing) which means they attack any unit and treat it as if it were of an armor value half that which it already is. Early on slingers are only so-so, but once they get about three chevrons you can expect to see them start flying through the experience levels as they continue to tear through enemies.

I originally tried to starve out hostile cities, but it seems like everytime I do my generals get the "Indecisive Attacker" nonsense. I could understand getting that if I outnumbered the enemy at least 2:1, but when they got me practically matched in numbers and a military savant (which seem to be a dime a dozen in the rebel settlements tbh) to lead them, that's just stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darius

I originally tried to starve out hostile cities, but it seems like everytime I do my generals get the "Indecisive Attacker" nonsense. I could understand getting that if I outnumbered the enemy at least 2:1, but when they got me practically matched in numbers and a military savant (which seem to be a dime a dozen in the rebel settlements tbh) to lead them, that's just stupid.

---

Well, that's appropriate if you're a Casse general, or any barbarian general. Barbarians are impatient, easily bored, and don't enjoy long seiges. They like fighting and killing, cutting off the enemy's heads, plundering their town, ravishing their women, and then getting absolutely blind drunk!

So IMO it's quite realistic for your bored, disgruntled warriors to label you an "Indecisive Attacker." In their eyes, that's exactly what you are! You're delaying them from doing what they enjoy most, and not letting them go home to their wives and children either. In fact, they probably call you a lot worse things than "Indecisive Attacker" behind your back. Things like "Woman", "Greek Merchant", or even "Ball-less Wonder"!

I usally starve out cities with stone walls, although it rarely comes to that as a enemy stack will come along and attack me after few turns drawing the defenders out to join the battle.

I always attack wooden walled cities though, got to have some training for my troops:yes:

I do not like siege battles so I rarely attack. Most of the time I just siege the city and wait for relieving army to come and help me by killing themselves and their comrades in the city.. i think it's rather historical too as the assaults of large walled cities were a rare and risky thing.