Macedon

I have to say - I am amazed at times how the AI looks at your slingers, standing out there in front or to the side of your main line, and cannot apparently resist the temptation to charge a cavalry unit (often the AI general himself) straight at them regardless of the consequences to the cavalry unit or, for that matter, the "whole" battle. The AI has even done that to my wardog handlers (even AFTER the dogs were released.) It's like holding red meat in front of a starving lion.

Needless to say, the AI cav may kill a few helpless handlers or slingers, but it doesn't let them off a death sentence. :no: In consequence, I've learned to be very protective of my dog handlers after release. When the AI wastes its general going after a few helpless slingers, the tide has turned in my favor right there. They are, indeed, good bait.

I'm in the full throes of a Mac attack. Started a campaign two nights ago. It's going well "Gyras the Conqueror" has secured Tarentum and Croton. The Brutii are toast, Thrace is on the ropes. I possess Rhodes and Pergamum and Halicarnassus. Pontus is eyeing me suspiciously. And the Scipii and Rome are my next targets. The Greeks have only Syracuse left to them. At the moment I'm allied to Carthage and Scythia.

Have taken more care in phalanx formations. But the AI will try to disturb the continuity of your formation by dancing around a lot, moving its units around to get you to break formation. Am adjusting the formation to erase gaps before marching forward. After studying the point assignments for Macedonian cavalry, I noticed that the light lancers actually have a slightly better offensive capability than the Greek cavalry. Greek cav are stronger defensively. So a good early Mac cav contingent should have a mixture of both, probably. Gaining experience chevrons has been a big help for the cav. Phalnx pikemen are my mainstay infantry at the moment.

I want to slow down my expansion to give my tech development a chance to catch up. My two most formidable future adversaries will undoubtedly be Carthage and Egypt. And after pondering Master Fermanagh's posts, I feel there is great wisdom in "turtling" one's campaign. At the moment, I'm having to do a lot of troop shuttling to replace unit losses. I don't like using up units completely if they have experience chevrons. I prefer to retain them as they are more effective in battle. I try to keep a replacement army just behind my spearhead army that is about half the size to keep fresh troops supplied to the leading general. They occasionally become handy in a pinch if a new threat develops. Throw a couple extra units in a replacement army and you have a new army that might be a "shield and sword" to protect a new flank vulnerability. My fleets are kept busy keeping the sealanes open and shuttling troops back and forth between Sparta, Thessalonica, and Larisima (sp). Athens is showing a 4000+ denarii figure, so it's pulling its weight and thensome.

I'm buying Cretan archers at every opportunity. Trade income is about to take off and I may be able to bribe Sardis into the fold.

Need to vary my use of siege towers a bit. Once Rome is out of the way, I want to move toward Egypt, taking a page from Alexander's book.

Money, profits, SLAVES, WOMEN!! :laugh4: yeeehah!

. . . guess I'm getting carried away, what?

About gaps in the phalanx line:

How do you organize your units on the field? Do you run a single group of 9 units, 3 groups of 3 units or, (what I'm doing now) 4 groups of 2 and a unit in reserve?

I used to group all my phalanxes into one long line. One group of 9 made my phalanxes easier to move and rotate but I had to micromanage to adapt my line to the opponent's move.
Then, I began to organize my line into 3 groups of 3; that way I could bend my line more easily and order my units to enter into phalanx mode more accurately (with just a quick look at my radar map). At the same time, the other pikemen remained mobile enough to fill or exploit gaps in my line.

Now I run tag teams; 4 groups of 2 phalanxes each. One unit is deployed as a long line while the other is deployed in a square. The wide phalanx is usually the one engaged by the opponent, and I flank the opponent's unit with the other phalanx; it is a mini version of the hammer and anvil.
Also, having 4 groups is the same as having 3 groups of 3; my line is more mobile and adaptive than a single group.

https://img116.imageshack.us/img116/2881/mac05oa2.jpg

This deployment leaves me with gaps in the line, but gaps don't matter that much since my line can curve and envelop the opposing army. I also use those gaps to have a heavy cavalry unit deployed in wedge formation engage the opponent directly from the front, the opposing unit usually breaks on impact, is overrun by the cav who is now behind the enemy line. (it doesn't work against other phalanx army though)


A short note about slingers:

In the long run, using slingers aggressively has an unexcepted consequence; even a few survivors can chase routing units and keep on the run. In my Carthagenian campaign, my slingers units were the first to reach the golden chevrons, along with my round shield cavalry... They're some kind of un-mounted militia cav.

Just remember to tell your slingers that the unit they're facing shouted "Jehova"

Poulp'

For my part, I think you're technique sounds just fine. Perhaps Empirate could chime in here to offer some thoughts. His posts have shown some creativity on phalanx use, and Seamus handles his army deftly from the impression I've gained from his posts. My phalanx dispositions are very simple and are usually one long line. But admittedly, it's not proving flexible enough for all my circumstances. In fact, I like your idea of the tag teams, even 3x3x3 or 4x4/1 seems to have more flexibility then my method. But, I usually don't have that many phalnx units in one army. My typical disposition is 5 or 6 abreast, front-and-center. I have supplemented sometimes with Thracian mercenaries on a flank. (I'm still playing too fast and being too inflexible.) My armies are cav heavy with 5-6 units, not counting the general, and I'm not sure I want to change that. I try to keep 2-3 skirmishers and 2-3 archers behind. Perhaps if I went to 7 units, one facing line of 3 with two tag teams of 2, it would give me more capability. Much, of course, depends on the enemy army you're facing.

Your tag teams should give you enough flexibility to make gaps a superfluous issue in most situations. Sounds good to me. I think you've found a good technique that works for you.

To get rid of line gaps in my initial disposition, I put the phalanx units in standard formation and then press the '=' key to get the line to widen. Each '=' keystroke widens your unit's formation, and makes it more shallow at the same time. Each '-' keystroke, thickens your unit's position narrowing the unit's facing while increasing its depth. I'm not sure if those two keystroke functions are widely known by RTW players. But they've been very useful to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guyus Germanicus

To get rid of line gaps in my initial disposition, I put the phalanx units in standard formation and then press the '=' key to get the line to widen. Each '=' keystroke widens your unit's formation, and makes it more shallow at the same time. Each '-' keystroke, thickens your unit's position narrowing the unit's facing while increasing its depth. I'm not sure if those two keystroke functions are widely known by RTW players. But they've been very useful to me.

---

My formation above assumed this. Never thin your phalanx below three lines though -- and 4 is usually better. 5+ lines gives you a reserve, but narrows your front.

I rarely manuever my phalanx in groups, preferring individual commands as things get hairy. Remember, if they are out of phalanx formation, they move just as well as any other med/hvy infantry. The trick is to arrive at the key point with 0.5 seconds left to go into formation for the killing.

Reserve armies following on are a good tool.

Try a garrison army following that:

3 milhop/levpike, 4 peasant, 1 milcav/grkcav, 1 peltast. Your strike army pulls out one turn after taking the place and this group plops in to subjugate. Costs about 1k upkeep to field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

My formation above assumed this. Never thin your phalanx below three lines though -- and 4 is usually better. 5+ lines gives you a reserve, but narrows your front.

---

Excellent point about line depth. You don't want to make the line too thin, otherwise the AI will punch a whole through it and get in your rear. Watching my custom combats with phalanx one notices that as the phalnx takes casualties the back soldiers filter toward the front and replace the casualties. You want some reserves in depth for attrition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I rarely manuever my phalanx in groups, preferring individual commands as things get hairy.

---

. . . which is pretty much what I've been doing, but I've wondered if there wasn't a better way of doing business. As it is, I'm not taking a lot of casualties doing what I've always done. The phalanx seems to have a great deal of potential in spite of the Roman cohort as an "improvement." Our colleagues in the Guild have shown quite a diversity in the way they use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Reserve armies following on are a good tool

Try a garrison army following that:

3 milhop/levpike, 4 peasant, 1 milcav/grkcav, 1 peltast. Your strike army pulls out one turn after taking the place and this group plops in to subjugate. Costs about 1k upkeep to field.

---

Interesting . . . especially the cost you mention, which seems very economical. It would bring more order to the campaign as well. I had thought about doing something similar but just hadn't worked it through. I usually garrison more lightly. But a modified concept to your idea - a running garrison army that bleeds off units with each city conquered sounds appealing to me. What I've been doing: as I conquer a new city I prime the local garrison with units from the conquering army that are growing obsolete with the advances in my tech tree. Then I replace the units I've used as garrison with more up-to-date units or fresh mercenaries. Partially used up merc units can be used as garrison fodder, and then act as replacements as newer mercenary units take casualties in subsequent combats. Ahhh logistics.

Speaking of cannon fodder . . . I was reading Adrian Goldsworthy's book "The Punic Wars" on the battle of Zama. Scipio had positioned his line with Hastatii in front followed by Principes, followed by Triarii. His laned columns allowed Hannibal's ellies to pass through. Hannibal placed all his lower grade infantry up front keeping his elite with him at the back of the line. Had the Roman cavalry force not returned to the field after chasing off the Carthaginian cavalry, Hannibal's cannon fodder troops might have worn down the Roman troops enough so that his elite force could carry the day. Some of his fodder troops rallied retreating through his lines. The Hastatii were definitely worn out. However, the Numidian cavalry returned to the field and hit Hannibal's elite troops in the rear. Interesting account. So, I guess the moral is - even ancient generals did what they thought they had to to win even if it meant sacrificing human lives.

Regrettably, in real life, that is the calculus of combat. Sometimes you spend lives simply to buy time (Leonidas and company), other times you spend lives to divert attention (Italian 10th corps at Gazala). Back in Scipio's day, you couldn't use firepower to suppress either -- tough stuff.

I often base the broken merc units at a city near the fighting so that they act as a sort of repple-depple. Another fine use, after combining the fragments, is to send the 3 leftover peltasts to garrison a fort.

Further thoughts on Phalanx usage:
Actually, I don't use Phalanx units as the killing power of my armies. They're there to support battlefield domination, not rout and kill the enemy troops. I see it this way: Where your Phalanx stands, the enemy cannot go without suffering a lot of casualties, fast. If you can lure or force them to go there, the battle is won. Tougher units that cannot be killed by Phalanx are held at bay and take a loooong time to work their way through them even if they manage to get past the sarissas. This gives your mobile arm time and space to deploy and mow them down. I've never fielded an army with more than nine Phalanx units, leaving ample space in my stack for missile support and cavalry killing power. Usually, I use six Phalanx units, four missile, and all the rest cavalry (or equivalent, e. g. Chariots or Elephants). Six Phalanx units with missile support is sufficient to draw the enemy to you, and command the best part of the battlefield. The enemy can either try to pass them by, all the while whittled down by missiles they can't get at, or engage them directly. If the enemy hopes to attack my mobile forces on the flanks first, fine: Those can easily evade combat if it looks like trouble locally, withdrawing behind the Phalanx.
So Phalanx troops are like a solid, unsurmountable (or at least, not easily surmountable) obstacle. The obstacle is mobile, and has one side that can kill, and kill quickly. This gives you power over the battlefield. If the enemy has Phalanx, too, I can stop this using my Phalanx, then use my mobile forces to quickly destroy them. If the enemy relies on cavalry, you can take shelter behind your mobile obstacle and pepper them with missiles, then engage when and where favorable.
Having two or more batches of Phalanx is a minor nuance on this theme: You now have more and smaller obstacles. The basic idea stays the same: Force the enemy to hit the spearwall, or use it to create opportunities to strike out with mobile troops.

EDIT: A further reason not to use Phalanx units as the killing power of your armies is the following: Phalanx troops, especially Pikemen, are large units. This means they have to kill a lot of men before earning any experience chevrons. It's much easier for your cavalry to achieve valor in the triple-silver range than for your Phalanx units, making them ever so much more devastating. If you see Phalanx units as a mobile, deadly obstacle that can shape the battlefield for you, they don't need additional levels of experience to perform well.

Once again, some interesting thoughts in your posts, gentlemen. I must have printed the last couple pages of this thread 4 or 5 times now just to save the dialogue. (Is quadrologue a word?) :)

I'm starving for lunch so I will try to make this brief,(HA!) but I wanted to share an update. Borrowing on a couple recent ideas shared in this thread, I staggered the end units of my phalanx line in my most recent Mac campaign. I have been fielding 7 phlanx units now, consisting mainly of phalanx pikemen, the level just below the royals. My dispositions generally have taken on the form below.

-------- ----------------- pp pp pp pp pp
--------- gc gc ll ------ pp - mj mp mp -- pp ----- ll gc gc
----------------------------- ca ca
------------------------------ gen

(The armies I'm marching on Egypt have the Greek cav replaced by mac cav. And 3 or 4 of the pikers are royals.)

The indented phalanx units (pp) are only set back about 3/4 of their full length, and the pikemen in the five unit facing I have overlapped so that there are no gaps. The number of Cretan Archers I employ has unfortunately depended on their availabilility. So I have either substitued extra peltasts, ballistas, or Mac archers. Phalanx pikemen are the highest quality of pikers I can recruit in large numbers. I'm producing the royals now in my game (I'm 12 cities away from victory condition.) But even with three cities producing, I'm not getting the royals out in sufficient numbers to replace the phlanx pikers. And I need units that I can feed replacements to.

This small change in my phalanx disposition has made a great deal of difference in my line discipline. I'm dominating the field more even against large armies. I think increasing the number of pikers in my standard army along with the line adjustments was equally important. One thing that I may try as an addition to this plan is to have one militia hoplite stationed close to my general for flank and rear protection. Then, using him for garrison "fodder" when a city falls, replacing him in the army at convenience.

I'm marching these seven unit fronts straight into the teeth of the enemy line. They are holding up well, and with the large cav contigent, I'm able to take advantage of their hold to get units behind the enemy line. But I AM letting them carry some of the load in the combat.

In city streets, 5-7 pikers stacked as one unit are devastating to charging cav. War dogs become kabobs, and the hastatii don't like it too much either. Small rebel bands get ground to hamburger as I am able to fold the phlanx line around them from both flanks. Egyptian chariots are not faring well against the line either. My heaviest casualties have come on stone walls against principes.

I am managing to get my pikers some experience chevrons along the way. But the cav are the ones that usually acquire this "glory" more frequently as Empirate has noted.

The Romans are caput now. Carthage and Scythia are still allied to me but they're wary. I tried giving Scythia their capital city back after taking it from the Dacians, but the Scyths refused the gift. Amazing! I've bribed three provinces away from the Pontids. And the Egyptians did me the favor of attacking me. Salamis is lightly garrisoned and my navy is strong, so it's going to be an early target.

No sign of the companions yet. I need to check the tech tree to see how they're produced. Wish the Greek Cities produced better cavalry. It's chow time. Have really enjoyed the exchanges. More later . . .

First, I have a question:
What does "mj" and "mp" stand for?
I guess "pp" mean phalanx pikemen, "gc" greek cav, "ll" light lancers", and "ca" cretan archers.
Are "mj" and "mp" mercenaries or macedonians?

If it is mercenary peltasts, then I think they are a fine choice; mercenaries or Illyrians are better suited to stand in the second line than regular ones since they are better in hand to hand.

This leads me to the second part of my thoughts. You said you considered taking militia hoplites as a reserve. In my experience, they make a bad reserve. Strange as it may seem, "mh" are better in the front line; as long as they are wielding their pike, they can hold the line well enough but their ability with a sword is way too low.
The royal pikemen you consider fielding shall make a good reserve; their number is too low to field an army of them and more importantly, reserves sometimes have to rush into melee and engage their opponent with their sword.

This is why I think royals are more suited to do the rear guard duty than mere militia.
After all, who would you trust to protect your army? The best men of Macedon or untrained troops you recruted in one of your conquered province?

About Egypt: if you have both Salamis and Cyrene, you can ship troops into Egypt really easily. Logistics goes more smoothly when you have two supply lines.

Sorry about the abbreviations, Poulp.

'MJ' is for Macedonian javelin throwers and 'MP,' as you guessed, is mercenary peltasts. When the money is available and speed of deployment of a field army is crucial, I concentrate my recruiting on cav and pikemen and then buy some peltasts because they are of slightly better quality than Macedonia's home grown variety.

Also, at the moment I do have Salamis and Cyrene, AND Tarsis. Memphis and Thebes are under siege. I literally bribed two Egyptian armies out of existance. I have three armies and a small reserve contingent en rout to the Egyptian theatre. Besides the two armies carrying out siege duty on the Nile, I have one more army guarding the bridge over the Nile just south of Memphis. A small reserve army is building watch towers in the desert between Cyrene and Siwa. So only five more cities to take to reach the victory condition. They will probably be Lovice in Central Europe, Tanais (Rostov) on the Don River, Memphis, Alexandria and Thebes.

I may have all this done before I build a royal palace to enable royal stables for Companion cavalry. So, I guess I didn't turtle my game enough.

I shall probably try another game with Mac after this one, but slow things down a bit and try some variations on my formations. I may try to go with 1 or 2 more pike units in my standard army. I've had a boatload of good generals in this game. Did have a couple of wastrels. They're good for babysitting reserve armies and building watchtowers and forts - kind of like fence riders on a cattle ranch. They're not top hands, and you wouldn't want them doing the bookkeeping (governing cities), but they can still do some essentials.

Well it seems your campaign is going great.

Do you have Siwa? If not, you should conquer it as your last and 50th province.
It is a fine last step to end your campaign; finishing it where Alexander met the oracle.

Finished my Mac campaign. Had one awful battle at the bridge just south of Alexandria. The Egyptians tried to force a crossing and it was a bloodbath. Four of my pike units held the bridge backed up by skirmishers and camel archers. I wouldn't wish such slaughter on my worst enemy. But they just kept coming. Alexandria fell, and I had Antioch under siege at the end. But I stopped the game at 50 cities. I will probably start another game soon, but want to put off a few days before starting another so I don't burn out.

I did appreciate all the feedback from my fellow guilders. A tip 'a the hat to you all.

I may activate Armenia just for grins and take them for a test drive. I like some of their units.

Hello
I need some help with upgrading the generals' bodyguards. I have v1.0 and i can't upgrade any generals' bodyguards. I've been looking the different desc_texts and I can't find how to tweak everything to make this feature appear. by the way I just love being able to use bribing!!!! Perhaps some can give me and answer or it's just a bug from thegame only to be solved by downloading a patch...???

Upgraded bodyguards should become available after the Marian reforms. Incidentally, it is highly recommended that you play with the latest patch (R:TW 1.5 of BI 1.6) installed, as they solve many problems with the engine.

I tried unlocking the factions with the edit example but it doesnt seem to be working? What am I doing wrong? Should I expect to see the factions imediatley available in the new campaign screen or do I have to conquer that faction first? Anything helps thanks!

If you placed it under playable then it should be playable immediately. I think you also need to have the factions lined up directly under each other.

:help:
I made all the factions (exept slave) playable like you said but Macedon and Pontus are the only ones that work, when I select any other faction in the imperial campaign the whole game turns off. What can i do?

No other factions except Macedon and Pontus work for you? Never heard of that problem before but I think you need to leave 2 factions unplayable. Try moving the Senate to nonplayable and see if that helps.

As Phoenix suggests, but uninstall and reinstall to give it a clean start.

The most interestig nations. I had found very good strategy to play with Macedonians. At the beggining create only money buildings and no army. With levy pikeman and lancers conquer Greek towns in Motherland and aly with Thracians, Romans, Pontus, Selucia, Scynthia and Dacia. When you have conquered Motherland and Kydonia without messing with Romans and Thracians(they are very loyal aly) and you get the towns In Asia minor and Rhodos. When you finished war with greeks who luckily occupy whole Greece you should protect all paths thro mountains and all brifges you should develop your citys and do not mess with anybody for 2-3 years. A lot of money I was gathered in my empire(100,000). I started building three stacks of army(royal pikeman, macedonias cavalary) and two fleets full of trirerm. After all preparation I attacked Italy and conquered all brutiai and scipiai towns. Only to show about the whealt of Macedonia, Athene(4235 per turn), Sparta(3500), Kydonia(3125), Thessalonika(2800), Rhodos(3150), appolonia(3000)... Advice - Create your army with falang units and Macedonians. Do not EVER attack, wait to be attacked, the defence ist best attack. Also before going on east you must create solid and wealthi main kingdom in Greece, ilyricum and Italy, and also be in very good relations with Gauls.

Everybody. sorry for bad english in post above, that happen when you play RTW on one copmuter and post here in the other comp. I also wanted to start a discussion about combination of troops that each players prefer for Slucids, Greeks, Macedonians, Thracians and Pontus.

Field Fighting forces for Selkies, Greeks, Macs are all pretty well the same for me.

Line of spears in phalanx, but not stacked more than 5 deep. (6)

Fronted by loose thin belt of peltasts/cheap slingers to slow charges & (sometimes) draw cav to spears. (2)

Backed by best archers available. (3-4)

Tucked in flanker infantry ready to go around the sides or prevent a flanking. (2). Selkies use legio, Greeksor Macs use Illyrians/Bast'nae.

1 Commanding officer -- usually not a combatant save during route or moment of crisis.

6 Cavalry, usually 4 heavy (general, companion, sarmatian) 1 Lt (lancer or greek) to chase routers, & 1 skirmisher (javcav or scythian) used to annoy, harass or draw a unit or two out of the fight.


Thracians are different. Missile component weak, so I try to use phalanx on the flanks and have the middle full of falx or bast'nae. Some archers for support (Cretans if I can for the range) and a little light cav/general cav for quick punch. Key with them is to minimize time under missile fire -- they drop way too fast so you conserve energy, keep the flanks solid, and then burst rapidly on your target.

I have few friends that are huge fans of RTW and alll the rest of TW series. We dont like to use peltast and skirmishers(very small range of fire) so I wanted to know why do you all on internet use them. I also wanted to know how do you resolve friendly fire casulties from archers. Archers doesnt obey very well, I order to shout at the hastati while I am fighting their cavalary with my general but they constantly(in every battle) fire all over the place and several times they killed my general. I think that the best formation for falang is to put them in circle whit one unit coverig the rest and just wait for them to run on your spear and with your cavalary massacre their archers, this especially work pretty well against romans.

I have interesting tactic for romans and gauls, i play only with phalanx and create 4 line circle on the battlefield. I wait them to attack me and then I massacre

Hey all, I just started playing as the Macedonians just last night and I was very amazed at how far I got! I started out by taking Byzantium, which is very lucrative in trade. Then I took Sparta and Thermon, afterwards signing a cease-fire with the Greeks, I just wanted them off the Greecian peninsula, with a very high cost of 17495 denarii, :furious3: which I felt was a bit insane! Next Brutii attacked me, predictable, so I began a campaign against the Romans, which went REALLY well because I had taken Appolina and Salona, pushing them back to Italy, then I gathered quite an impressive army of Pikemen, or hypaspists, and sent them to Tarentum and... Croton... I think? :inquisitive: Well that effectively wiped out Brutii. Then came Scipii... quite a difficult seige happened at Tarentum, I could tell from their 1134 massed stack that they really wanted the town, but I showed them!! Then I took Capua then Rome!! :2thumbsup: I then created a watchtower border with Julii. No attack from them yet so I sent my Faction heir with an army of... I think 976 men, which included Greek Cavalry, Royal Pikemen and Archers over too Massila which gives me an effective landing area to wipe out the Scipii on Sicily. The year I decided to call it quits was 237 BC. This was the furthest I've ever been with a non-roman faction and I felt quite proud.

Oh words of advise I found that placing, if you have enough, your Phalanx troops in a box formation with your general in the middle, ofcourse, you really can hold out against a massive army. The Senate's army had extremely skilled velities, hestati, principes and 4 roman generals. The funny thing was right at the start all they did was charge head long into the huge spear wall... quite daft if you ask me... It just solidified my win. they lost all thier men whereas I lost I think about 150-200 of my men. Sometimes the AI can be silly but it helped!!!:2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:

Right now ive destroyed Thrace, at war w/ Brutii, greeks, and Scythians. The Romans and Greeks actually made an alliance with each other! Has this ever happened to any of you playing against AI??? The Scythians were already allied w/ Thrace and felt threatend by my presence. The Dacians were my allies till they broke alliance since Scythia was also their allies. So ill probably have the Dacians attack me next. But the war is going alright. I had a heroic victory against and full sized Greek army and I have captured Thermon from the Greeks so they are out of my way for now.

Just need to focus on Romans, kick them out of balkans and then take on the Scythians and maybe Dacians.

Ooh, I liked this campaign. 's still going, but so far:

First off, I nabbed Athens with the Crown Prince, Gyras, and his army. Stuffing it full of archers, pikemen, and cavalry, I marched south, past Corinth, and met the Greeks' main army in the field. It was a bit hairy at first as their better-trained hoplites punished my pikemen, but then my longer line got in on the flanks, and the cavalry won the battles on the flanks, before turning and ramming the hoplites from behind.

So, after about five years of warfare, most of the Balkans was united under me. I'll just follow the fortunes of Gyras, the one who fought the Romans, as the other front isn't too interesting.

After kicking the Greeks out of Greece, my main field army had no one left to fight. I noticed a full-stack Brutii army near the border of Thermon, however, so I moved Gyras out there and kept an eye on them. They decided not to try my defenses, and made for Salona instead. However, a Roman fleet, perhaps under the commnad of an insane admiral, blockaded Thermon that winter! I brushed it aside with ease (Macedonia had been building a powerful navy, both to win control of the Aegean and to push across the Adriatic), and Gyras immediately pursued the Brutii northwards. I quickly stormed Apollonia, forcing the Roman force to turn around. In the first of 4 great field battles, the Romans were crushed against the wall of pikes and powerful cavarly.

As the war escalated, the Macedonian navy was able to clear a corridor across the Adriatic, sinking or driving out all enemy ships in the area. Gyras and another, less-well trained army were shuttled across. Tarentum and Croton both fell to brief sieges, the cream of the Brutiii military having perished across the sea.

Gyras marched north. The Scipii were waiting for him, with another full-stack army. In a confused fight in the middle of a forest just outside Capua, the blue-clad troops were eventually broken and annhiliated. Capua fell without a fight in the aftermath of this, the second of Gyras's 4 battles.

The two Macedonian armies did not wait, but pushed on to Rome itself. Gyras was attacked by the powerful Senate army there. As the Macedonians fought to hold the line, the second army appeared on the flank of the SPQR troops, and they were crushed between hammer and anvil. Gyras, now known as the conqueror, owned Rome.

The losses incurred in hese battles with the Romans had been heavy. In scarcely 5 years, the Crown Prince had destroyed 3 seperate Roman armies, scattered numerous small detachments, taken 5 towns, and killed dozens of Roman family members. Also, he was no longer the crown prince: The old king had died back in the capital city of Athens, leaving his eldest son, the war hero Gyras, to rule the empire.

Gyras would not be bound in a throne room, however. He stayed in Rome long enough to consolidate his rule, replenish his losses, and repair the city. Then he marched north again, towards the Julii, a family of Roman die-hards occupying most of Northern Italy.

The Julii, on the approach of the black-clad soldiers, hastily concluded their war with Gaul, and concentrated most of their troops into one great army to try to destroy the oncoming Macedonian one. The two sides were fairly evenly matched in numbers - Gyras's second army had been folded into his original, due to losses to combat and garrisons.

The two forces met in the plains below Arretium. A powerful Julii attack ploughed right into the Macedonian center, breaking up the phalanx, slaughtering pikemen by the dozens. On the flanks, the lethal lancers had engaged the ill-disciplined noblemen of the equites class, and would soon be able to help.

That might not be in time, however - the Macedonian center was bowing dangerously under the pressure. Gyras rode forth personally, charging towards the danger point, his bodyguard around him. The horsemen stopped the Romans cold, throwing them back in disorder. The pikemen rallied around the general's unit, reforming the line, while at last the cavalry won on the flnaks and closed in from behind. The Julii broke, and their army was destroyed.

However, Gyras the Conqueror, King of Macedonia, lay dead on the field. He had fallen in the inital moments of the charge into the fray, perhaps on a friendly spear, or perhaps to a lucky pila.

I stopped the campaign there, because it seemed like a good ending. Gyras won 5 major field battles against armies at least equal to his own, each one receiving the "famous battle" marker. He only ever won one against each faction - the Greeks, the Brutii, the Scipii, SPQR, and the Julii, but he only needed to win one. After that, resistance collapsed, usually.

I'm still not sure what killed him, though, when I charged him to stabilize my line at Arretium. Guess I was just unlucky that time.

Right now ive secured the Balkans by kicking the Brutii out. I captured Apollonia and the Brutii lost 4 family members at Apollonia!!! (One of them was the faction heir along with a 5 star general.) The Balkans is is secured and im starting to get money in.

The Dacians attacked but they are weak.

Right now, my greatest threat is Scythia. There armies are full of cavalry and they captured Campus Getae from me. I only have infantry and a few Cavalry. I dont think im prepared to fight them. Lack of missile troops and cavalry prevent me from going on the offensive. I pulled my northern army back onto a bridge to defend my settlement. (cant think of name.) Im going to recruit more cavalry and start getting some archers out there so i can fight back.

The Greek cities are building a new empire in Asia minor. I though pontus would destroy them but they are advancing rapidly against the easterners. My ally Seleciud empire is on the brink of defeat but they are holding out pretty well.

So thats my Macedon campaign right now. Ill build up my navy to attack the Romans and may send some armies into the Italian peninsula. But ill probably focus more to fighting the barbarians since they are the greatest threat right now to my empire. Scythians are tough troops. Their the only ones ive truly lost battles to. Ive also had some Phyrric victories against them.

I played as Macedonia once. I dont have much to say here, just that I kicked the Bruttians from Apollonia. But I am weak. I dont have how to be much stronger. Could you give me some tricks?