Which civilization has the best unit roster in your opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seleucid empire

Can I ask why you think Bactra is third?

Just curious cause I would usually put Dacia (mini AS) or Rome there

or epirus, they also have elephants. on top of that they have elite pikemen, agrianian assault infantry, the thracian roster and hellenic heavy skirmisher cavalry

---

Baktria has really powerful cavalry: shock cavalry (Cat without reform requirement and Cat elephant ), high-armor HA, FM bodyguard( Hetairio Cat is one of the best cavalries in the game, if not the best)

Compared with Epeiros, Baktria has much more better cavalry( better hammer), weaker phalanx( no elite phalanx, but most time the Pezhetairoi and the Thorakitai are tough enough for the line infantry, i.e., weaker but tough enough anvil ), Indian guild warrior as the assault infantry( the only very good stamina, fast moving, high-armor, high attack and ap attribute-infantry in the game), the Indian and Indian-Greek roster and the high armor Baktrioi Hippotoxotai.

Getai indeed has a good roster but the AOR(area of recruitment) is really limited, and i think the AOR is an important metric for unit, especially for line infantry. And for Bak, the AOR of the Hellenic Native Phalanx, the Pezhetairoi and the Thorakita are much more larger than the AOR of the Getai phalanx.

Roman infantries are really cheap and powerful, but they can't access to high-mass shock cavalry(Italic elite cavalry is good, but it's a medium cavalry after all) . And the unit roster is lack of diversity since most roles in the game is performed by the principles/Cohortes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moriluk

No love for Hayasdan? They have good infantry and cav that can go toe to toe with the nomads.

---

Their infantry is absolutely ineffective against against medium and elite phalanxes because they don't have strong assault AP infantry. The only way to win against Ptolies and AS is to crush as soon is possible with the heavy cavalry the enemy flanks and then hit to the back the phalanxes or spam a lot Scythian Riders. Essentially you must rout quickly the enemy because your infantry cannot tolerate for long time attrition.

I prefer Saba to Hayasdan, their levy spearmen can hold very well the ground, their Red Sea axemen are great to hack to pieces the medium-elite phalanxes spam, their infantry is fast and have endless stamina.

Until now the Saba roster is the one that I have enjoyed the most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Principe Alessandro

Their infantry is absolutely ineffective against against medium and elite phalanxes because they don't have strong assault AP infantry. The only way to win against Ptolies and AS is to crush as soon is possible with the heavy cavalry the enemy flanks and then hit to the back the phalanxes or spam a lot Scythian Riders. Essentially you must rout quickly the enemy because your infantry cannot tolerate for long time attrition.

I prefer Saba to Hayasdan, their levy spearmen can hold very well the ground, their Red Sea axemen are great to hack to pieces the medium-elite phalanxes spam, their infantry is fast and have endless stamina.

Until now the Saba roster is the one that I have enjoyed the most.

---

Hayasdan has access to Cappadoccian Hillmen though. They're more versatile than Red Sea axemen due to having javelins. And they have heavy cavalry and HAs, unlike Saba.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

Hayasdan has access to Cappadoccian Hillmen though. They're more versatile than Red Sea axemen due to having javelins. And they have heavy cavalry and HAs, unlike Saba.

---

Well yes they are more versatile but the Red Sea Axemen are cheaper and have more charge and slightly better shield, it isn't so much a difference but in my campaigns I notice that the Red Sea Axemen can face a lot better the Medium and Elite Phalanxes than the Cappadocian Hillmen. Maybe I should take in consideration the fact that the Red Sea Axemen don't face the AS armies which are supported by better archers.

IMO both in a vacuum and definitely on campaign the Saba are the weakest army rooster. Interesting in the beginning but terribly demanding on the tactical map. Speed and stamina, Khalid tactics and all that is the way to go, but knowing the solution does not mean the problem is not there. Because it is.... big time.
If you play MTW2 Kingdoms pretty much the same is true about Saladin's armies, but the variety and abundance of cavalry units makes it faster on the battle map and certainly more fun. I had little fun going up Egypt from Axum all the way to Alexandria.

There are so many candidates for best army. Bactria, AS, Ptolemies, Makedonia, Epeirus, Carthage ofc, KH are not bad, SPQR are quite boring (reforms help on that front) but very effective. Pontus is fine with all the regionals considered....
Personal preference is shown in order of appearance i guess..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kdrakak

IMO both in a vacuum and definitely on campaign the Saba are the weakest army rooster. Interesting in the beginning but terribly demanding on the tactical map. Speed and stamina, Khalid tactics and all that is the way to go, but knowing the solution does not mean the problem is not there. Because it is.... big time.
If you play MTW2 Kingdoms pretty much the same is true about Saladin's armies, but the variety and abundance of cavalry units makes it faster on the battle map and certainly more fun. I had little fun going up Egypt from Axum all the way to Alexandria.

There are so many candidates for best army. Bactria, AS, Ptolemies, Makedonia, Epeirus, Carthage ofc, KH are not bad, SPQR are quite boring (reforms help on that front) but very effective. Pontus is fine with all the regionals considered....
Personal preference is shown in order of appearance i guess..

---

That's because Saba are meant to attack, cause casualties then withdraw before engaged. Over the course of one battle, they cannot win easily. However, in a human v human campaign, they can go Fabian all over the Ptollies asses, and the Ptollies cannot easily reinforce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kdrakak

IMO both in a vacuum and definitely on campaign the Saba are the weakest army rooster. Interesting in the beginning but terribly demanding on the tactical map. Speed and stamina, Khalid tactics and all that is the way to go, but knowing the solution does not mean the problem is not there. Because it is.... big time.
If you play MTW2 Kingdoms pretty much the same is true about Saladin's armies, but the variety and abundance of cavalry units makes it faster on the battle map and certainly more fun. I had little fun going up Egypt from Axum all the way to Alexandria.

---

I agree there. They are the most painful faction to play with. You would think that there would be some satisfaction with beating armoured phalanxes with skirmishers but there isnt and even if you do get satisfaction, it only lasts for one battle and the next one you're having headaches again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seleucid empire

I agree there. They are the most painful faction to play with. You would think that there would be some satisfaction with beating armoured phalanxes with skirmishers but there isnt and even if you do get satisfaction, it only lasts for one battle and the next one you're having headaches again

---

Well yes, tactically speaking it isn't easy to play with Saba because you have to manage a lot the skirmishers but also it isn't so hard. In my experience I didn't use a lot the foot skirmishers but mainly mounted skirmishers which even if you leave them on their own they won't be caught so easily and they bring away far from the battlefield enemy troops weakening the enemy formation.

Anyway the skirmishers aren't decisive in winning against the phalanxes, charging against their sides and back with the Red Sea Axemen is the best way to deal against them, the skirmishers are useful only to soft and messing up the enemy formation.

This question is really subjective and depends highly on what you are trying to accomplish. It also depends on whether you are playing multiplayer or not. My commentary here applies to multiplayer only:

-The AS takes the cake for most diverse army options and general flexibility, with Carthage, Baktria, and Rome as the runners-up in some order.
-The "barbarian" factions (with the exception of the Lustanians) have the most offensive power, with the Sweboz being the greatest among these in aggressiveness of playstyle, and the Getai being the most flexible
-Roman units have the most staying power in general, and are probably the most predictable and reliable troops available

Nobody does heavy infantry like Carthage though :clown: