Re: I'm re-evaluating my strategy...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Ludens, it's not certain. I think there's the chance that he was the son of his mother's husband, or his mother's lover, Philip II of Macedon. So there's a chance of them being half brothers, which means that he married his maybe half-sister.
I did say it was debated did I? Anyway, Ptolemaios' mother's husband was related to Alexander as well, though I am not quite sure how close. I thought he was an uncle or an great-uncle.
Quote:
Also, surely the barbarians should try to get the population as high as possible? That gives them an edge, having more advanced units than the civilised factions. Later, as you said, the massive warbands can be used to regulate the growth of the cities.
The problem is that squalor also comes with an happiness bonus that, if unchecked, can cause riots before city growth stops. Also, the Barbarians lack the health line of buildings counterbalance their growth bonus with a hapinness one. In other words: they need less growth and they cannot compensate for squalor as well as civilized factions. So I'd rather keep population growth somewhat lower.
Re: I'm re-evaluating my strategy...
first for every strategy you must know where is your army weak and where is strong.I now play with Dacians I have almost no cavalry so flanking is not an option,this is realy nasty becouse its my usual strategy i place my cavalry behind my infantry and when infantry is engaged I order to all my cavalry units to flank them and hit them from behind this works perfectly against AI couse he is realy stupid:).But when you played with barbarians withaout cavalry you must ask yourself what can you do to your enemy.Barbarians have realy good charging bonus and they have ability to raise a warcry,so my strategy is realy simple,concetrate on enemy center place there your most efective units against infantry(chosen swordsman or falxmen),place your spearmen to flanks becouse you do not want to be flanked by enemy cavalry,put your archers behind and set to fire arows this couse fear to enemy ranks and when you raise a warcry they are preaty scared then when you charge rout is almost certain,my usual tactic is to destroy enemy center and then with my own center suraound their flanks they will rout or you will kill them all.I can tell you my strategy for every faction but its stupid to write so much,just ask what you need and I will answer you.
Hope that this what I said can help someone...
Tell me what you think about this...
thanks
Re: I'm re-evaluating my strategy...
I usually make do with whats available and keep marching. I don't set out to build any particular army. Most of my armies grow heavily mercenary. I currently have three armies each of which has a different flavor.
Tiberious Brutus had a standard infantry heavy army. He had a velite unit and one cavalry plus the general cav. He was able to recruit a few more skirmishers. An infantry heavy army usually weathers casualties well. It is capable of crushing victories. Velites are one of the most underated units. Not only can they weaken oncoming enemy infantry (in particular hoplites), but they are fast and capable of excellent flanking and can extend the size of your line as long as cav guard them from enemy cav attack. Infantry are very good, you don't get too far without them. Just as you don't want to run your cav head on neither does your opponent. Infantry deter charges just be being their. They can form a line to safeguard archers. They can safeguard your general. They basically create a no-go pocket.
My second army is AMulius Brutus. He started out skirmisher heavy with 2 velites and only one hastati but picked up tons of mercs. In particular he will usually pick up hoplites to deter enemy cav charges. He currently has an army with 6-7 skirmishers and only 3 infantry. he is the only cav. Skirmisher heavy army is excellent at withering other armies, but will occasionally have a big chunk taken out if enemy cav gett into your rear field.
My thrid army is cav heavy, because that's all I could produce at my capital. Cassius brutus took 3 cav, joined with a velites and hires a peltast unit. Later he picked up a much needed infantry unit in barabarian mercs and then added a hastati or two from production in my north italy holdings. This army is capable of sometimes decimating attacks because of mass routing, but some armies are just too resilient for that and you end up losing allot of cav in a particular battle or so. A cav heavy army, is kindof an all or none affair. You may decimate the enemy with few losses, but you also can lose your whole army if they have even infantry to your cav.
In summation:
Infantry heavy armies are the most resilient.
Skirmisher heavy armies are capable of great victories although they will from time to time lose major components.
CAlvalry heavy armies are the most devastating, but also the most frail.
Re: I'm re-evaluating my strategy...
Ludens: I was just confirming your statement, no need to get so worked up. Anyway, with their massively large and cheap warband units, they can keep happiness up easily.
Re: I'm re-evaluating my strategy...
Well, I've been using the tips you all mentioned and I can tell my campaigning has improved a lot. Thanks!
Re: I'm re-evaluating my strategy...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Ludens: I was just confirming your statement, no need to get so worked up.
My apologies if I appeared angry. It was not my intention.
Quote:
Anyway, with their massively large and cheap warband units, they can keep happiness up easily.
True, but I'd rather prevent squalor in the first place. Recruiting garisons is such a waste of time and money.
