Egypt Not Overpowered?!

I've been noticing all this jazz about Egypts uber army. But isnt this a bit exagerated?

Like lets take a line up at the seleucid empires BEST units:

-eastern legionaires(can you build these in campaing or are they only for custom battles?)
-armoured elephants
-scythed chariots
-silver sheild pike men
-cathaprachts.


With units like these how on earth is seleucia under powered and egypt overpowered!
In the early game egypt is indeed THE BEST but if an army of crack egyptian units fought an army of crack seleucid units who would win?
So arent the later seleucids the over powered faction?

And if Seleucia ever *got* to that point, I would probably agree.

One of the frustrating things about the game -- or most any game like it, to be fair -- is that you never end up facing the AI's best troops.

Except in the case of Egypt.

If you look at the highest-tier Egyptian units, you'll see that you recognize these guys. Pharaoh's Bowmen. Pharaoh's Guard. You end up fighting these things very early in the game.

But how often have you gone up against Armenian Cataphract Archers? Seleucid Legionaires? Parthian Camel Cataphracts? Carthaginian Armoured Elephants? I saw Carthage crank out some Armoured Elephants and even some Sacred Band cav in my latest Scipii campaign (post-BI), and I felt absolutely thrilled -- that sort of thing just doesn't happen very often. Maybe BI has changed this and given the computer-controlled factions more incentive to train their best troops. But in that very campaign, both Seleucia and Parthia were destroyed before I could even get an army down to Egypt to wipe them out before they threw their weight around.

Bottom line, it's not so much the coolness of the higher-end units, but the fact that you never see these units because Egypt (and Pontus) always always always destroy Seleucia and Parthia - or severely cripple them - within the first 40 turns.

CountMRVHS

I think it's unfair to blame the Ai for this 'fault' simply because thats what any human player would do anyway - take out the Seleucids and gain access to a rich area of the map.

Nevertheless, Egypt's early access to Pharoah's Guards and Bowmen does help, however the Nile does have unbelievable population growth. Its like Carthage x3.

Actually it's x2. Because Alexandria and Memphis both have the grain resource so they have massive popualtion growth because they feed each other. And you can't stop it cause they share a land border. So this means that Egypt can pump out full stacks and not drain the cities of man power.

Also if you compare the Seleucid line up to the Egyptian you'll see that they have a distinct advantage.

Seleucid silver sheild legions are level 5 barrack units. The Egyptian equivalent desert axemen are level 3. Seleucid scythed chariots are level 2 but they are very prone to running amok. IIRC egyptian heavy chariots are level 2 as well but they don't run amok and they are the size of a normal cavalry unit. Armoured elephants might beat heavy chariots but they are so expensive that if you lose them it really hurts. Silver shield pikes and pharaohs guards are very similar stat wise, but pharaohs guards are only 160 men to 240 pikes. Cataphracts may come a level earlier to nile cavalry but they are vulnerable to chariots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountMRVHS

And if Seleucia ever *got* to that point, I would probably agree.

<snip>

Bottom line, it's not so much the coolness of the higher-end units, but the fact that you never see these units because Egypt (and Pontus) always always always destroy Seleucia and Parthia - or severely cripple them - within the first 40 turns.

CountMRVHS

---

Exactly. And the other thing the original poster is missing? Autocalc. With the hordes of more advanced units that Egypt has the Seleucids will lose in autocalc. All AI vs. AI matchups are autocalc.

Egypt is in a corner, and unthreatened (Numidia is no threat at all.) Seleucia is threatened on multiple fronts. What is missing is that Egypt should have some sort of drain on its resources with the Southern extremity of the nile. (Hmmmm....perhaps this could be done by generating large brigand armies at high frequency in that zone.) Seleucia doesn't have the money it needs to fight Egypt, nor the building infrastructure.

Back in 1.2 I made some attempts to fix the Seleucids' build requirements and structures to give them a little staying power. I also fixed some of the egyptian stats (bowmen size, desert cav size, pharaoh's guard shield stat, axemen armour, etc.) Good to see that CA has fixed the same unit stats for 1.3.

Yes but Egypt is not a stable empire. Whenever I have played as Egypt I find that my original Egyptian homeland ALWAYS revolts. The population becomes so large that the whole thing just blows up! I have had to send soldiers into Egypt itself to quell numerous uprisings WHEN IM THE EGYPTIANS. So I would say that in the beggining Egypt is powerful but by the time Rome and Egypt start fighting one another Egypt is already being crippled by revolts.

That wonderous advantage they have of having a large population backfires on them later in the game.

Yes, Egypt is most often castrated by revolts, both in their newly aquired Seleucid towns and at home (no MTW "Egyptian expedition in Hungary" in RTW :P). However, by then the Seleucids are so badly chariot/axemen/archer-blitzed into humility that they can't use the situation to their advantage, especially with Partha or Pontus breathing down their necks. Autocalc kicks the Seleucids ass 10 times out of 10, no matter what the unit lineup says.

Sure, a human player can (with due frustration) defy the Egypt horde, but the AI can't. The Seleucids are also, after all, most often dead before they can crank out anything better than levy infantry. ;)

But thats also why the Seleucids lost big time in reallife. They were sorrounded by enemies and they refused to recruit anything else than macedonians or greeks in their armies. So they could have a huge empire, and vast manpower resources at their disposal. But they didn't use it.

You have to admit they 'only' lost when the Romans stepped in and said "enough!"
And it still took a good while before they finally broke up. And Egypt had pretty much been the whippingboy of Seleucia on land. Sure Raphia was a victory but the war was a loss.

And the myth of the Seleucid manpower is not true. They had massive armies up until the end. And they included Arabs, Macedonians, other Greeks, Persians ect ect... The phalangites were Macedonians, true, but cavalry and light troops were 'natives'.

So in terms of the game the Seleucids should at least be able to hold back two-three of its four enemies at any one time. And it should be able to beat any one of them one on one. As it is it can't even beat Pontus (how often doesn't it lose Tarsus to them?).

The strength of Egypt really lies in its chariots. It has been proven that chariots are overpowered in auto-calc, so the ready numbers of Egyptian chariots really do crush the Seleucids. They could be faced with Silver Shields and still roll on the next turn.
This also explains the power of the Britons and why they seem to conquer Gaul so easily.

Chariots are the gods of autocalc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

The strength of Egypt really lies in its chariots. It has been proven that chariots are overpowered in auto-calc, so the ready numbers of Egyptian chariots really do crush the Seleucids. They could be faced with Silver Shields and still roll on the next turn.
This also explains the power of the Britons and why they seem to conquer Gaul so easily.

---

Interesting. I haven't checked this out yet.

I wonder if this is a formula error in autocalc? A likely formula would be:
Chariot power = # chariots * (primary attack + defense) * hit points

However, it might be using something like:
Chariot power = # men * (primary attack + defense) * hit points

That would effectively be a double multiplier.

Wasn't in 1.2 readme something about making elephants and chariots weighted more in autocalc then before?

I guess autocals was too weak before, and then made too good later.

No, chariots killed everything in autocalc in 1.1 and 1.0 too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Interesting. I haven't checked this out yet.

I wonder if this is a formula error in autocalc? A likely formula would be:
Chariot power = # chariots * (primary attack + defense) * hit points

However, it might be using something like:
Chariot power = # men * (primary attack + defense) * hit points

That would effectively be a double multiplier.

---

I have no idea... But it is interesting that a few units of chariots can ruin large armies alone, even good ones. And when people began to talk about them being overpowered in autocalc it suddenly made sense why the Seleucids, even with massive help in terms of money (modded) never was able to halt Egypt and why the Britons made such easy work of both Gaul and Germany at the same time.
It simply fits too well. The two factions with chariot-generals rip the others to shreds. I would imagine that they are even worse now since they will combine their troops better with their generals.
It might also explain why the Celts do so well when they finally do attack in BI.

It is interesting that the autocalc ratio is often considerably different from what you see on the field (in RTW.) The power bar is sometimes off by 50% from that.

I thought the knowledge of overpowering chariots in autocalc is a common knowledge already? ~:confused:

In one of my less enlightened, more RTS-oriented "bored" campaigns, I just played Egypt and use only their chariots and autocalc. Nothing stands in my path. Nothing.

The best things the modders could do for both RTW and BI is to remove chariots from all factions, even if that would be historically inaccurate. It is a necessary compromise, otherwise, the chariot-wielding factions would be extremely overpowered compare to their true historical strengths against other AI's.

Historically, though, the Seleucids owned the Ptolemies in war. Period. Their empire was just too unstable--too large and widespread, even multicultural--to put their full effort against Egypt. Always there was a rebellion in some far-off corner of that widespread empire. When they did, they won most of the Syrian wars. Indeed, if memory serves, Antiochus IV even reached Alexandria or something but the Romans demanded that he retreated. But it could be me mistaking...

Their manpower, also, outnumbered Egypt. But they could never ever raise an army out of all that manpower at once--it is logistically impossible. Also, those manpower forces were not the most loyal around. Compare to Rome's loyal allies and its own warlike citizens, the Seleucids were actually at a numerical disadvantage in a long run.

The seleucids made one big mistake :they messed with Rome.


Seleucia decided to attack Greece and Thrace. This prompted a declaration of war by Rome. Seleucids lost all of their terrirotory in Asia Minor and only held on to some terrirtory in the holy land and a few other places.

Did the silver sheilded legionaires really exist though?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emperor Aurelius

Did the silver sheilded legionaires really exist though?

---

Yup, they are called "the men that fought in the Roman style." They were used most often to clear passes and lead assaults. Obviously they were rather good or else they would not have recieved such importance. But that is hardly surprising since they were professionals while the Roman versions were only citizen soldiers.

I must admit that I like having a powerful enemy nearby while playing the Parthians.

I am doing my best to protect the Seculids by sending out raiding parties on the Eygptian family members... horse archers can 'assassinate' a charioteer in open combat and the Eastern Infantry are showing up as very fine anti-charioteers on a coin for coin basis.

.
The political scheme in my recent Greek campaign is rather interesting and surprisingly balanced;

I killed the Makedonians on a basically defensive blitzkrieg and secured almost all Hellenic provinces eliminating the rebels. Made an early alliance with the Seleukid, which has lasted long and proven fruitful. The Pontes are upon their throat but on more than one occasion I saved their butt without engaging directly. (Bribery. ~;)) They have been in trouble with Egypt too but allied with a surprisingly successful Numidia, and Parthia isn't just sitting ducks either.

The most unreal thing is, Roma and Karthago have been allies for nearly a century now but we're sitting peacefully on the two edges of Sicily with the latter, while the Brutii are now history and the Scipii have one single town left. The Julii are busy with my hairy beyond reason allies in the north.

So, save Makedon and the Brutii (and the Scipii in a couple turns), all having been doomed with the ill fate of messing with Mouzafphaerre the Greeks, everyone is well and alive, none being uneven against another yet.
.