Historically composed armies- how essential?

How much is lost by not strictly following the prescribed armies that nations/factions historically fielded?

The last I can remember attempting to stay true to one of those rubrics was in a .81 Romani game, primarily since the forum documentation for it is so complete. I got sidetracked before I could even get to the Polybian reforms, but I do remember having a blast being outnumbered in virtually every battle of import and relying on the tenacity of veteran cohorts to maintain a steady line rather than fielding enough units of men-with-pointed-sticks to tie up an enemy so the heavy elite infantry can huff and puff around the flank and end every battle in under five minutes.

In my current Baktria game though, I haven't followed any sort of rubric. Don't get wrong, I'm not fielding full stacks of pezheitairoi led by five generals, but I'm not taking the same anal-retentive attention to detail a Warhammer fanatic takes to the ratio of his companies of Skaven head-hurlers to Orkish oliphaunt riders or somesuch.

What is the EB team's take on historically composed armies- are they an essential for a complete game experience? I imagine piecing them together would be a lot easier for some factions rather than others-- the game is building around the countless lacunae in both the archaeological and written records after all.

Because the game is not a complete representation of reality, i've always assumed that you have to adapt the historically correct formations/composition to what works in the game.

I'd try to keep my armies realistic, gives it an extra touch. Shipping in Iberians to fight your battles as Carthage. It changes the game. However my advise is: play the way you like to play the most. If it's with stack full of elites, than play that way. If it's as historical as possible, than play that way. It's your game, you never cheat. But you can amuse yourself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

I'd try to keep my armies realistic, gives it an extra touch. Shipping in Iberians to fight your battles as Carthage. It changes the game. However my advise is: play the way you like to play the most. If it's with stack full of elites, than play that way. If it's as historical as possible, than play that way. It's your game, you never cheat. But you can amuse yourself

---

Well said Moros, well said.

sometimes I play historical, with few elites and not retraining a unit after it has 3chevrons. And othertimes I play Elite full stack ONLY (usually VH/VH type of games).

For some reason, I can't STOP playing historically accurate as Rome.

..Which is why I don't play rome :P.

Otherwise its the polar opposite of "accurate"

The fact that I have absolutely no idea what the ratio composition was of period armies for most of the factions (or, for that matter, any of the factions) certainly helps when it comes to not playing "accurately". Need to go take down an army of horse-archer rebels in my Baktria campaign? Grab a dozen Persian Archer-Spearmen and set to work. Need to do just about anything else? Make a useful army for the purpose.

Granted, if somebody could be so kind as to direct me to "historically accurate" compositions for factions like Hayasdan, Baktria, and the Ptolemaioi, I would be quite appreciative.

For that matter, perhaps the boards would benefit from a sticky that took known historically-accurate army compositions for all of the factions (or as many as possible) and "EBicized" them, that is, present possible EB stacks (or partial stacks, or whatever) that represent historically accurate period armies.

Cheers.

I don't like people who insist you should play historically. If you want to buy a full stack of Camillian Triarii and form a phalanx then go ahead. Having said that I think it is a good idea to play with a reasonable mixture of different units appropriate for your faction; you don't need all five Camillian Roman classes in every stack though.

I always tend to take a "whatever is available and seems like it would work given the expected opposition" approach. Which in most cases shouldn't really be very unhistorical - commanders tended to have to make do with what could be scrounged up, and the smart ones at least tried to take steps to counter any specific competences the enemy might possess (eg. lots of archers mounted and foot if you're going to chase steppe-nomads, lots of spearmen if the enemy is known to favour heavy horse etc.).

Although granted, when possible I do tend to build them armies to certain basic and usually more-or-less symmetric patterns.

I tend to play historically accurate especially when I play Rome. For some reason I can't play it othewise. But not with every other faction. For example with Macedonia when a levy phalangite gets some exp then I replace it with a Phezetairoi unit and after they get some silver I replace them with the Silver Shields. With Chartage I like to play with more elites and also with Baktria. My advice is: play it the way you like it and just enjoy this miracle called EB.

AFAIK only Romans had legions that followed the same pattern (of course with variation of allies and sometimes specially enlarged ones). So for the rest of the factions its a matter of

1. Looking at major battles of the period if they are around and work out ratios if you feel mathy
2. Think of something plausible that works in EB (AI turns as good for this)
3. Convince yourself its plausible and reflects what you've read or looked at(AI turns good for this as well)
4. Create plausible army

Rinse and repeat if something in environment changes and you can link it to a change in army composition

Usually playing as the Seleukids, I go for something inbetween historical and strong, the main reason is that when I go west, Rome inparticular fields alot more armies than it should, until you can take out all those cities.

Now Hannibal is someone who found out Rome could field a few armies, but then as I understand it sat around for 10yrs not having the strength to finish the job.

If the game represented the realism of say a decisive battle like Raphia(spelling?) then having some weak levy pikemen would be ok. Also travelling times in EB are slow, so reinforcements are a pain over distances.

Overall I like a balanced mix of troops, trying to represent the type of forces the faction I am playing would of fielded, with a more sturdy backbone to cope with all those scraps so far from home. I find battles are more imersive if for example, you stick with 1 unit of Thoratikai Agyaraspidai, when you commit them to the fray, it seems to mean more than having unrealisticly spammed the blighters.

There's extra incentive to play outside of history when the opponent is using armies that have nothing to do with history, such as several full stacks of nothing but slingers and skirmishers. Maybe the historical setup would work, but even a real Roman general might have said it was time to adapt and try something new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danest

There's extra incentive to play outside of history when the opponent is using armies that have nothing to do with history, such as several full stacks of nothing but slingers and skirmishers. Maybe the historical setup would work, but even a real Roman general might have said it was time to adapt and try something new.

---

That's what I like about my Seleukid armies they seem semi-realistic and yet are flexible bacause they have such a strong cavalry arm to chase down 'silly armies', and for my trouble a few silver chevrons please!
For people playing as the Romans against such a force of missile troops is a pain, but as you say, Generals like Caesar would have whatever merc cav he could get his grubs on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danest

There's extra incentive to play outside of history when the opponent is using armies that have nothing to do with history, such as several full stacks of nothing but slingers and skirmishers. Maybe the historical setup would work, but even a real Roman general might have said it was time to adapt and try something new.

---

The Romans used lots and lots of local and auxiliar troops especially for that reason. No Roman general, save may be for Crassus, would have said, "damm it, we are Romans so we have to fight an army of horse archers with just heavy infantry". He would have hired some thousand horse archers himself. Or take Caesar for example, hiring hundreds, thousands of Barbarians for his campaigns in Gaul.

The Legions were the core troops in battles against similar armies (a lot of heavy infantry, arranged in organised lines). Under other circumstances they were just the backbone to the auxiliar forces, or even acted as reserves leaving the fighting to local forces that were equiped and fougth like the enemy.