Use of tactical Vs. historic, role play armies

At the risk of posting a thread that has been discussed ad nausea I was wanted to get a feel for how others play and or treat the game and the disadvantaged A.I.

I am of the general opinion that, while I can exploit the A.I. fairly easily by using creative/exploitative tactics, it is far more enjoyable for me to use an historically appropriate scheme for battles. If I am using an faction that had the advantage of war elephants...damnnit I am going to field them :) Also I tend to recruit elite units and prized mercs for same reasons and for the sheer glory of being able to do so even when it isn't exactly financially, nor otherwise prudent use of coinage!

My exception to this general rule in my play comes down to the historic looser of conflicts, the "forced" beneficiaries of the Pax Romana and such. Obviously if one ran Gaul as historically as possible one will invite the same fate as our common history teaches. I expect to play the "defeated" factions differently to whatever extent does not seem wholly a historical, exploitative etc.

I do some things in campaigns that have little to know value outside of my own enjoyment to whatever extent, I guess my question is do other players enjoy this game play or is a more tactical and mechanical approach favored?

Thanks for the attention, muvs :crazy:

I just utilize whatever the best units for a given faction are:shrug: I also tend to recruit mercs alot...Cretan Archers when a faction's vanilla archer unit just doesn't cut it; Ellies just for the fun of it; Arab Cavalry for desert fighting; Bastarnae because I have a great fondness for infantry that can traverse the entire battlefield on the run and arrive only "winded"; Spanish mercs, Illyrians, or Heavy Peltasts when I require 'spear-chuckers'; Sarmatian Heavy Cavalry when playing the Greek Cities or Thrace; and, well....you get the idea:laugh4:

I try to be realistic in my tactics, Roman checkerboard as Romans (although I use that with any non-phalanx army, barbarian tactic of just rushing the enemy will lose every time against Rome), and as a pike phalanx, I pin with the phalanx, slam with the heavy cav. Too bad there are not hypaspists in RTW. Have not done much as a hoplite faction, definitely not while trying to be realistic. As far as units go, I use Druids though they were unrealistic (Druids were exempt from military service, so many families had their children become Druids), but I don't use head-hurlers, I find that unit as revolting as it is unrealistic. Skirmishers, as useless as they are, are realistic, so I use them as well. Heavy Skirmishers, such as Heavy Peltasts or Illyrian Mercenaries, can fill a role as light infantry or be used to hold a line, so I like using them. I don't use too many mercenaries, I should, that would be realistic, though barbarian mercs are for the most part worthless.

Aye - each of us should play the way we get more fun. I tend to be more mechanical because I'm playing a computer AI. If I know there is a tactical or strategic weakness I exploit it - whatever units I or they have. The fact is there is no way to have a perfect game. You may have a superb plan that ends up with your cities earning efficiently and armies that are perfectly balanced - then a boatload of Carthaginians lands on Sycily out of the blue. Personally I'd enjoy that, but you can forget your perfect plan.

I know I can beat all the units in the game. Cretan archers will lose to a flank attack by heavy cavalry. Sarmatians can be wiped out with a couple of Rhodian slinger units (we know mercenaries will rout early). I remember outside a city killing two elephant units by repeated cavalry attack. My main approach is to check the unit attributes and if they are much better on defence or attack that's how I use them. For instance a phalanx is significantly better in defence so I rarely attack with them (has to be done if the AI is hanging back).

I like the historical aspect. I think TV programs used this game for simulations when it first came out. The game is very educational but I find it difficult to mimic actual events. For instance Caesar with a smaller army beat Pompey by taking one in three men from his front line and concealing them on the flank to combat a cavalry attack he knew was about to happen. Can't do that in this game.

Poor mercenaries I use as cannon fodder and sacrificial goats when my army is weak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by williamsiddell

For instance Caesar with a smaller army beat Pompey by taking one in three men from his front line and concealing them on the flank to combat a cavalry attack he knew was about to happen. Can't do that in this game.

---

No, the AI heads straight for your hidden units. I have won because I had units hidden:boxedin: (lost the captain, Roman Cav), but had my ELC hidden, and they just chased my cav around, somehow a unit of Greek Cav ended up wiping him out. They never found my ELC. Greek Cav seems like it will beat Roman Cav, which is strange, Greek Cav stinks, Roman Cav is a decent light cav unit, but both for and against me, Roman Cav loses to Greek Cav. And that was E/E, I would hate to see it on anything harder:disappointed:. On M/M I am already seeing a difference in my losses, even to Eastern Infantry.

Quote:

---

No, the AI heads straight for your hidden units.

---

This I have not seen much:shrug: Now of course the AI has to know where all of your units are, hidden or not, or the game would be unplayable, but I love my traps and 99 times out of 100 I get to spring them without the AI "cheating" by heading straight for my concealed units.

Quote:

---

Roman Cav loses to Greek Cav

---

Are you referring to Equites or the post-Marian 'Roman Cavalry'? Agreed that Greek Cavalry is not all that great, which is why as the Greek Cities I hire as many Sarmatian Heavy Cav as I can. As Macedonia you get lots of nice cavalry so no need for mercs.

Quote:

---

On M/M I am already seeing a difference in my losses

---

Which is going to force you to change your tactics a bit, and it makes having good (5-star+) generals leading your armies. Don't neglect even the slightest edge you can gain from inherent general bonuses or those from ancillaries. All those bonuses stack and become unit modifiers to your troops. That's why I stated earlier that when you get your "Military Genius" (usually comes in the second generation), don't ever let him see the inside of a city. When I play Armenia, that general will lead nothing but a Cataphract army...all Cats and Arab Cavalry, and not ever a single infantry unit. Of course that's just my preference, but it pays off when he reaches legendary status as a horseman, attacker, defender, and/or conqueror.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

This I have not seen much:shrug: Now of course the AI has to know where all of your units are, hidden or not, or the game would be unplayable, but I love my traps and 99 times out of 100 I get to spring them without the AI "cheating" by heading straight for my concealed units.

---

Seems to be mainly EB, not RTW, I think it could be just the enemy swinging wide by where my hidden units are, but just about every time?~:confused:

Quote:

---

Are you referring to Equites or the post-Marian 'Roman Cavalry'? Agreed that Greek Cavalry is not all that great, which is why as the Greek Cities I hire as many Sarmatian Heavy Cav as I can. As Macedonia you get lots of nice cavalry so no need for mercs.

---

Post-Marian Roman Cav. Right, I love the Macedonian cav selection.[/QUOTE]

Quote:

---

When I play Armenia, that general will lead nothing but a Cataphract army...all Cats and Arab Cavalry, and not ever a single infantry unit. Of course that's just my preference, but it pays off when he reaches legendary status as a horseman, attacker, defender, and/or conqueror.

---

Armenia has good cav and only decent infantry, so the best use of your cav is not a combined operation, your infantry might not last long enough unless you use mainly Heavy Spearmen or Armenian Legionaries, who are line-holders at best. I guess you just need to hold long enough to bring your cav around, provided there is nobody that they first have to deal with, which is more the case the harder difficulties you play on. With Macedon or Seleucia it makes more sense to do a combined operation, because it is a different style of infantry. I am starting to think that archers are not really worth having, at least not with a phalanx, because then you are trying to protect the archers as well as fight the enemy. Probably depends on who you are fighting.:shrug:

Quote:

---

Armenia has good cav and only decent infantry, so the best use of your cav is not a combined operation, your infantry might not last long enough unless you use mainly Heavy Spearmen or Armenian Legionaries, who are line-holders at best.

---

Probably a correct assessment of Armenia's infantry. They are certainly a serviceable bunch...the Heavy Spears roughly equivalent to Phalanx Pike (without the sarissa, of course), and the AL's being roughly equal to Roman Principes. When combined with Cretan Archers as a support unit, and 4-6 Cats, they form my basic city assault army and can be used as a defensive-style army in the field.

Quote:

---

I am starting to think that archers are not really worth having

---

With my style of play, I couldn't live without them. It's one of the main ways to balance the battlefield bonuses the AI gets at the higher difficulty settings. When you can cause 10-20% casualties amongst enemy units before melee is joined, they are a good equalizer. Enemy cav rarely get to my archers, although it does happen on occasion. In defensive battles, archers are indispensable, IMHO. And if you happen to get a height advantage, a battle can be over before it ever gets to melee......

Right, but with Greece, I don't have a cav unit capable of dealing with flanking cav, and I would rather have my hoplites engaged in the battle line. I don't want my armies too big. Right now I have 4 AH, 3 Hoplites, 2 Heavy Peltasts, 1 or 2 archers (depending on which army), three cav in a mix of Militia and Greek, one of one, two of the other, and my general. I usually do a horseshoe with my missile units on the inside, I have gone complete horseshoe because the enemy kept charging their cav into the gap into the back of my engaged phalanx.

Quote:

---

with Greece, I don't have a cav unit capable of dealing with flanking cav

---

Depends on who you are fighting. Greek Cavalry is evenly matched with Roman Equites, but need major upgrades to deal with post-Marian Roman Cavalry. Greek Cavalry trump Macedonian Light Lancers as long as you attack them before they can charge, where their large charge bonus gives them the advantage; but lose to Macedonian Cavalry and Companions. That's why you need to eliminate Macedonia before they get that far in development.

Quote:

---

I don't want my armies too big.

---

Why? The Greek Cities are certainly capable of generating a very large income right from the start. Denarii in the bank is a waste if you are having trouble on the battlefield for lack of troops. You have 20 slots available...I'd use every one of them.

Quote:

---

I have gone complete horseshoe because the enemy kept charging their cav into the gap into the back of my engaged phalanx.

---

In my experience, you need six Greek Cav units to get the job done. My standard GC army usually has 10 hoplites (mixed Armored, regular Hoplites, and two Spartans), 3 Cretan Archers, the general unit, and six Greek Cavalry. Later on, I replace two or three GC's with Sarmatian Heavy Cav, and the regular hoplites with Bastarnae Heavy Infantry. It's a flexible enough mix to deal with just about anyone, and once the Bastarnae get added, I use a modified manipular formation with the Bastarnae in the second line. With some armor/weapon upgrades, the Bastarnae become a fearsome weapon...maybe even better than the Spartans. Charge them into the flank of an engaged Cohort, and it's usually insta-rout. They also have a knack for killing enemy generals. Few of them who charge a unit of Bastarnae live to go home to kiss their wife and children~;)

The Heavy Peltasts can be a nice addition, now and then. They are murderous against chariots, and can act as light infantry when needed. Militia Cavalry only see a spot in my armies at the outset, while I'm upgrading my stables to get Greek Cavalry. Once that happens, I disband any that are still left and don't train them anymore.

It's extremely difficult to be historically accurate when playing this game. For instance, Athens' power depended on it's navy, but I find I don't need a navy when playing the GC. The effectiveness of a cavalry army was demonstrated by the mongols, but they had a solid saddle and stirrups - so Armenian all-cavalry armies would be very vulnerable to having riders knocked out of the saddle (especially if armoured). That's why Roman armies are better known for ground troops and why Caesar was able to rout Pompey's cavalry with a few spearmen.

As far as changing difficulty levels is concerned - I've started playing GC VH/VH. Couple of immediate variations - I lost a general at sea for the first time and was asked for cash for trade rights for the first time. As suggested the economic penalty is not significant (for instance by 264bc I've already bribed Halicarnassus and the two rebel cities on the west coast of Greece, plus 2 generals building watchtowers in asia minor). Battles so far take a bit more winning but the outcome is the same. I destroyed the Brutii army that landed on the west coast with my starting units plus a merc phalanx, and outside Syracuse the AI still allowed my army to gain the high ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

I use a modified manipular formation with the Bastarnae in the second line. With some armor/weapon upgrades, the Bastarnae become a fearsome weapon...maybe even better than the Spartans. Charge them into the flank of an engaged Cohort, and it's usually insta-rout. They also have a knack for killing enemy generals. Few of them who charge a unit of Bastarnae live to go home to kiss their wife and children~;)

The Heavy Peltasts can be a nice addition, now and then. They are murderous against chariots, and can act as light infantry when needed. Militia Cavalry only see a spot in my armies at the outset, while I'm upgrading my stables to get Greek Cavalry. Once that happens, I disband any that are still left and don't train them anymore.

---

Manipular involving phalanx? How does that work? Now the enemy flanks with cav, and actually charges them in at my battle line instead of my missile units, that is why I closed my horseshoe. I don't like the horseshoe, but can't see a better formation for the situation, I may discover something later. I am definitely open to ideas. The Bastarnae, I guess as long as you make sure you hire Bastarnae and not Thracians. My brother won't train Greek Cav, only Militia (or Light Lancers if Macedon), because the stats are almost identical except for charge bonus, and Militia Cav get a missile attack. I prefer Greek over Militia myself, though, because of how I use my cav. I happen to have a MC unit in an army in Italy because that army came from fighting Macedon, where MC can help bombard a phalanx. Also, my army in Turkey has MC, what with Egypt and Pontus. The Heavy Peltasts, once they gain some experience, will be nice,though you need a catapult range to build them. I do have a silver chevron/gold sword/bronze shield Peltast unit, that does pretty good.

Quote:

---

Manipular involving phalanx? How does that work?

---

The same as with Roman infantry, except instead of Hastati in front with a unit space between them, and Principes in the second row positioned in the spaces between the Hastati...you have your phalanx in front with a unit space between, and the Bastarnae in the second row filling the gaps. Any unit that enters the gap between your phalanx, gets whacked by the Bastarnae in the flank. Once holes begin to appear along the enemy front, you can roll up a line with your Bastarnae and continual flank attacks. However...you must not expose the Bastarnae to a flank attack, in turn, so you have to pay attention to where enemy cavalry units are.

Quote:

---

Now the enemy flanks with cav, and actually charges them in at my battle line instead of my missile units

---

You need to place your cavalry to the flanks somewhat ahead of your main battle line, and you need to be aggressive with them. When enemy cav are attempting to flank, it's obvious way ahead of time. Move your cav forward to intercept. Break their line but don't give chase. Instead pull back to nearly their original starting position and wait to see how the battle is unfolding. Often times those broken cav units rally and return to try again...and you repeat the previous maneuver. Smash them but don't give chase. This is why I suggested 6 units of Greek Cavalry...you can rotate the attacking units while resting the others.

Quote:

---

My brother won't train Greek Cav, only Militia

---

Militia Cavalry certainly have their place. But they are weaker than Greek Cavalry, and are worthless as an anti-cav unit. They have no armor and use a short sword as their secondary weapon, whereas Greek Cavalry do have some armor and are armed with a spear...the prime anti-cavalry weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

Militia Cavalry certainly have their place

---

I use them preferentially because it is easier to find a local barracks for repair.

Quote:

---

and are worthless as an anti-cav unit

---

Once they've used their missiles, I use them to engage an enemy unit which I subsequently flank attack with a better unit.

Quote:

---

I use them preferentially because it is easier to find a local barracks for repair.

---

Which falls under my comment of using them until there are enough upgraded barracks to produce Greek Cavalry.

Quote:

---

Once they've used their missiles, I use them to engage an enemy unit which I subsequently flank attack with a better unit.

---

And I'll bet your losses are moderate to severe, depending on how long it takes to get a second unit engaged~;)

Fair comment. But I rarely build Greek cavalry, preferring instead one of your favourites - Sarmatians (they seem easy to pick up).

Surprisingly not that bad (but I don't pay much attention since they'll repair at a nearby city). My standard use is to wait until a general attacks my lines then send them in first. They act as a distraction as I follow up with a couple of generals. Usually their general dies while mine survive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by williamsiddell

Sarmatians (they seem easy to pick up).

---

You must be expanding northeast. Turkey and Scythia have some, but they are limited to that area of the map. That is the only heavy cav merc unit, which stinks for Greece, Thrace, Britannia, and Egypt. Even Egypt's best cav (Nile Cav) is medium at best. I guess Britannia and Egypt are expected to use their chariots, which definitely need support, whereas something like Cataphracts or Legionary Cav can fend for themselves. The Long Shields that Spain and Numidia can train can, with experience, fill the role of heavy cav. I guess the same can be said for Nile Cav.

Like you I don't rate most of the cavalry or chariots in the game. I do use Sarmatians NE, but also in the arc Armenia, Parthia and Egypt. Elsewhere it's mostly generals. Typically I'd set out on a particular direction with 5 generals in my army (to leave behind for slave boosts and to act as heavy cavalry). I don't mind losing the odd general since, before long, you'll have plenty and some are better off deid :) With them I would have up to 4 militia cavalry. They start the battle lined up behind the front line (double parked if necessary), and when their missiles are used up I use them as said (deselecting skirmish). It's true if they get isolated they are deid - I just keep an eye on them.

Quote:

---

That is the only heavy cav merc unit, which stinks for Greece, Thrace, Britannia, and Egypt. Even Egypt's best cav (Nile Cav) is medium at best

---

.

One of the fun aspects of playing RTW is learning how to play to the strengths and weaknesses of each faction. Some rosters have good infantry, but crappy cavalry, and some are the opposite. There are a few balanced rosters that have good to excellent in both categories (Romans, Macedonia, Seleucia, Germania, Armenia)...you just have to adopt your style of play to fit the faction. You need to be a cavalry genius for certain factions, and an infantry stalwart for others. With some you can play it both ways. It's what keeps me playing....:yes:

Yeah, especially with Barbarians, you can get a pretty sizable cav force from just your worthless generals. Or many of them will just be good for command, but their management and influence stink, so you want them out of the town. Good for destroying rebel armies, you don't need to retrain them (I don't think they need to be in a town to replenish their bodyguard, I could be wrong).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vincent Butler

I don't think they need to be in a town to replenish their bodyguard

---

Battles seem to be tougher in VH and I've had a general reduced to 8 some turns ago, and it replenished to 28 in the wild in one turn. If I remember correctly.

Right, it seems that I have had them replenish while out. Maybe they need a town to get back to full strength quickly, I don't know. Now I just went from Easy/Easy to Medium/Medium, and it seems that while the enemy's tactics are better, their morale is worse. Even for Rome. Now, I think part of that could be I am not usting fighting Eastern Infantry. And for RS, I think I have found a phalanx formation that works, it combines checkerboard with horse shoe. I have 3 Hoplites in a line, at the rear corners of that formation are the front corners of an Armoured Hoplite unit on each side, and at near right angles protecting the flanks, I have another Armoured Hoplite. I have Heavy Peltasts behind the forward-facing Armoured Hoplites, one archer and one peltast or two archers behind the Hoplites, then the general behind the archers, flanked by Greek Cav on each side. The right angle AH are not long enough to cover the sides, so I have a more flexible unit, currently Samnites, there as well, that will change with where I am; Scutarii will probably fill the role very nicely, warband not so much. I could even put more Heavy Peltasts there, though I would prefer something heavier. I can shift the formation as needed.

Quote:

---

Right, it seems that I have had them replenish while out. Maybe they need a town to get back to full strength quickly, I don't know.

---

Not necessary to bring a general's unit to a city to replenish. Their bodyguard will recover regardless. It helps to have ancillaries that make the recovery quicker (Chirugeon, Doctor, Witch Woman, etc.).

Quote:

---

And for RS, I think I have found a phalanx formation that works, it combines checkerboard with horse shoe

---

It's fun coming up with your own tactics, isn't it?:2thumbsup:

The only thing that stinks about Greece (besides their cav) is their lack of a good flexible infantry unit, HP only fill that role once they get experience. This campaign, I just got betrayed by Spain, Buwahaha. Rome has had the Marius changes, but all the Julii have left are Lemonum, Condate Redonum, and Alesia, the only thing larger than a Town the Brutii have is Mogontiacum, and the Scipii are gone, I think their last city went rebel, when I got to Capua it was Brutii. Spain took Narbo Martius, Lugdunum, Massilia, Mediolanium, and Segesta from the Julii, Britain has the North Sea coast, and Thrace has most of inland Germania, don't know if they are fighting the Brutii or not, but the Brutii seem to be powerless. So the dream situation: Marius changes to improve my bodyguard, but Rome is virtually gone.

Quote:

---

The only thing that stinks about Greece (besides their cav) is their lack of a good flexible infantry unit, HP only fill that role once they get experience.

---

I would try the Bastarnae:shrug: Thracians mercs are pretty good too (though not as good an attack value as Bastarnae, and only 1 hit-point to the Bastarnae 2). Either one of them are durable, fast-moving, and almost tireless. I love 'em...:daisy:

Right, but those are pretty limited on where you can recruit them. For that region, probably a good idea, in Gaul, I think I will bring Scutarii into it. Against Pontus, I will try the Bastarnae. I guess in Egypt and Germania it will be HP, though most of my fighting there should be in towns anyway, so the flexibility is not as big a deal.

For those of you that prefer historical, how do you handle Egypt as the scythe chariot was obsolete even in Alexander's time (Darius resurrected them for a single battle but they proved useless)? Do you just not build them? Also, Egypt was a Greek country in the game period - native Egyptians were not heavily used in the military until after the reforms circa 168 BC so their armies were mainly mercenary until then. Do you hire a lot of mercenaries or use the light spearmen available until builds allow Pharaoh's Guards?

Quote:

---

how do you handle Egypt as the scythe chariot was obsolete even in Alexander's time

---

I don't play Egypt anymore, or Britannia. I don't like having my generals in chariots. And you are quite correct about the historical use of chariots....they were long gone by the time setting of RTW.

Quote:

---

Do you hire a lot of mercenaries

---

I use mercs extensively no matter which faction I play.

Well, after Marius, your general is regular cav. Horrible cav, I had a Egyptian Cavalry General get ahold of a unit of my ELC while they were climbing a tower. Meaning my guys weren't braced for an attack, and the whole unit was not available. The ELC still won. Since Egypt has archers, whereas Britannia does not, you don't need Chariot Archers. Chariots are by no means a necessity if you are concerned about realism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muvs32

At the risk of posting a thread that has been discussed ad nausea I was wanted to get a feel for how others play and or treat the game and the disadvantaged A.I.

I am of the general opinion that, while I can exploit the A.I. fairly easily by using creative/exploitative tactics, it is far more enjoyable for me to use an historically appropriate scheme for battles. If I am using an faction that had the advantage of war elephants...damnnit I am going to field them :) Also I tend to recruit elite units and prized mercs for same reasons and for the sheer glory of being able to do so even when it isn't exactly financially, nor otherwise prudent use of coinage!

My exception to this general rule in my play comes down to the historic looser of conflicts, the "forced" beneficiaries of the Pax Romana and such. Obviously if one ran Gaul as historically as possible one will invite the same fate as our common history teaches. I expect to play the "defeated" factions differently to whatever extent does not seem wholly a historical, exploitative etc.

I do some things in campaigns that have little to know value outside of my own enjoyment to whatever extent, I guess my question is do other players enjoy this game play or is a more tactical and mechanical approach favored?

Thanks for the attention, muvs :crazy:

---

That's my %100 play style. I train only the specific units of my faction, in fact thats why you play with that faction don't you?

I never get mercs because it is very very high advantage on your side. But I make an exception for some of the "cool" mercs such as Graal Knights, Elephants or Golden Band.