Printable View
am cioming to the end of a rather fun campaign as selucid. I emean to say i have broken the scippi in africa and secured greece from the brutti, its only a matter of time now.
Im giving consideration to my next faction, and i want to play an missile heavy type campaign.
who would people reccomend?
parthians for horse archers?
egyptians for pharoahs bowmen?
someone else?
Try the scythians
It depends on whether you prefer horse- or foot-archers. Egypt has arguably the best foot-archers, while Persia as well as Armenia ( Cataphract Archers:2thumbsup: ) are strong on horseback. Barbarian factions have their Elite Archer Warband.
I would advocate for the Scytians, too. Because they are very strong in both fields. Being Barbarian, they have a restricted building tree, but their starting position makes for an interesting and challenging campaign. Quite different from other factions...
There are many factions with good missile troops. If you prefer horse archers, who are swifter then foot archers, then go for Scythia or Parthia, or maybe even Numidia. If you like traditional foot archers, then Egypt or Gaul could be good choice. I however will definitely pick Egypt if I want a missile heavy faction, who has a vast array of missile units, Skirmishers, Bowmen, Pharaoh’s bowmen, Chariot Archers, Camel Archers, Early Egyptian bodyguards and Camel Archers. Plus the siege equipments. Bowmen are good early choice missile troops, while later on you get Pharaoh’s bowmen who are no doubt one of the best archer unit in the game, they are also capable of holding there own ground in a melee. Chariot and Camel archers gives them more option as they are very speedy, Chariots have multi-hit points, while I’m not sure if camel archers have bonus against other cavalry, they aren’t expected to fight anyway. Their infantry is also quite impressive, Pharaoh’s guards can make the core while Desert Axemen are awesome against heavily armoured infantry, such as Roman Legions. Their cavalry is less impressive but they have a good variety of them (much better than the Greeks), plus the chariots, which could be a handful if used properly. Their economy is among the best early on due to their position which is also secure from multi-enemy attacks. I would no doubt recommend Egypt.:egypt:
I'm also inclined to say either Scythia or Parthia. These factions are not just missile heavy - missile units actually have to be a key part of their strategies - especially early on in the game.
~:)
I would say Scythia or Armenia. Unlike Parthia,they have good infantry selection (Axemen for Scythia and phalanx-capable Heavy Spearmen and Legionaries for Armenia) as well as missile units (like those afore-mentioned Cataphract Horse Archers of Armenian origib). But Scythia,especially,is a unique experience,partly because they're fairly docile when under AI control and the player usually never conflicts with them (at least I've never been outright attacked).
The simplest and by far the best are the greek archers which you can get in all hellenic and most eastern factions.Quote:
Originally Posted by carbz
:smg:
And unless you've modded the number of turns for recruitment,Pharaoh's Bowmen can be frusterating to get in numbers.
I personally doesn't like barbarian faction, Parthians are too reliant on cavalry (exact opposite of the Greeks). Armenia are good. I do like Pontus though. Their missile cavalry are of good quality, they can also deploy chariot archers.
Totaly agree, Pontus are my favourite. Their so different. No one can imagine a barbarian empire, carthage, rome, greece and macedon empires are easy to imagine but Pontus is simply a forgoten eastern faction that deserves a mention.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuintusJulius-Cicero
Pontus are my favourite Eastern Faction. Reason are good quality infantry and Cavalry.
You want to play a missile heavy faction? If you are planning on using only missile units, the foot archers will be vunerable to enemy cavalry so all cavalry armies will be a must have. This seriously limits the factions availiable to you and the best bets will be Sythia, Parthia or Armenia. Parthia and Armenia do have Cataphract Archers on their roster so Sythia would be ideal if you enjoy a challenge as Cataphract Archers are one of the best units in the game.
Dont forget Pontus, they're gr8.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave
I do not hold any grudges on Pontus, and you do seem to quite like them. In my book though they are not quite good enough. Yes they do have some fairly good units but in a missile v missile battle they would lose 7/8 times out of 10. Possibly a faction to play as when you are feeling invincible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord of Achaea
I’d have to disagree. Pontus when used wisely can be a match for any factions on the map. Their Pikemen are as good as anyone else. Cappadocian cavalry have similar stats compared to Cataphracts. Pontic light cavalry are excellent light skirmishing cavalry early on, while Pontic heavy cavalry are more than capable of defeating other cavalry in a melee. Their ability to recruit chariots & chariot archers gives them more option and gives it a Seleucid feel to their campaign. Good missile foot archers. Variety of good mercenaries early on up for recruitment. Their early situation is also highly exploitable. With the Seleucids fighting everyone else early on, Asia minors will be up for grabs. After kicking the Greeks out of Asia then they can think about rest of Asia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave
A valid point although I thought we were only talking about missile units here. My apologies.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuintusJulius-Cicero
Fair enough Pontus isn’t the kind of faction you’d think of when it comes to missile factions, but people tend to forget javelin cavalry, everyone only thinks of horse archers. Although in a one on one fight horse archer would probably have the upper hand, because of its superior range and more ammo. Which means the javelin throwing Numidia and Pontus would probably slaughtered before they get the chance to throw a spear against the enemy. I do like Pontus but they aren’t one of my favourite factions.
Point no.1. TrueQuote:
Originally Posted by Brave
Point no.2. Untrue
Quite true, I concede that I also overlooked the Numidians. I believe that although Javelin Cavalry are more "powerful" ie they pack an increased punch, their ammo runs out quicker. They are also just as quick if not slightly quicker than Horse Archers (not sure on them being quicker)Quote:
people tend to forget javelin cavalry, everyone only thinks of horse archers.
Yes, as soon as I had posted that I was unsure as to what I had said. To rephrase that I would say that (going purely on missile only stacks) faced with horse archers of higher quality ie Cataphract Archers then it would be nigh on impossible to defeat them. Presumably the trick would be to vanquish them early but this would only leave another threat unchecked.Quote:
Point no.2. Untrue
Unfortunately you can’t edit your post yet, wait till you’re a full member. Javelin cavalry undoubtly are in a disadvantage against horse archers. Cataphract archers are awfully good but the Capadocians can stand up to them, although the AP mace of cataphracts are really a pain in the neck for all heavily armoured troops.
If you want a missile heavy in the sense that you are forced into making missiles a key part of your strategy then the Kingdom of the Parthians and Scythia would be best for this. While the Scythians do have axemen to begin with they are a fairly low-level unit, with Parthia, who honestly rates Eastern infantry and hillmen as decent?
Numidia and their javelins could be interesting and a definite challenge. Also would be a majorly missile orientated campaign. On reflection these would a very good choice, but I can see it getting fairly difficult.
The Egyptians I've never played as, Pharaoh's bowmen are very good, but can take a while to build up to, also they can be vunerable to cavalry.
So I'd recommend Numidia, Parthia, or Scythia.
NB: Armenia is pretty much the same as Parthia but with better infantry, afaik.
Not in vanilla Rome. They're restricted to Armenia,unless they can be added to the Parthian roster in the EDU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave
I once routed an entire stack of Eastern Infantry with a single unit of Praetorians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
A good day,lol.
Javelin cavalry vs. Horse Archers in an interesting question. Javelins pack more of a punch per shot, but the number of shots is a lot fewer (they do less damage overall). Horse archers cause less damage per shot, but they have more shots to use.
The key issue with Javelin Cavalry is range - exceedingly low and, considering that they are lightly armoured, this makes them very vulnerable to longer ranged enemy units - often losing most of their men before they can even fire their first shot. Horse Archers are equal range with most archers, removing the time it takes to close in.
Cataphract Archers, I must confess, are brilliant units - the ranged power of a horse archer combined with a large proportion of the melee and armoured strength of a cataphract is pretty much unstoppable. Other unit's missiles are deflected and, unlike horse archers, they are still very useful when their own ammunition has run out.
Their only flaw is speed which is exactly the same as a standard cataphract - very slow.
~:)
Which pretty much defeats the purpose of mounting an archer, no? :laugh4: It is cool, though, because the AI seems to regard the cataphract archers like regular horse archers, meaning they will try to catch it on melee. No prizes for guessing which side gets slaughtered. :evilsmile:
I'd say the Parthians-- from a purely missile point of view, their basic horse archers are very low-tier and cheap-- easy to crank out in large numbers, and, as the game goes on, you get access to Persian cavalry, which is like the basic horse archer, but better. This is why I like the Parthians more than the Armenians.
If you want to go foot archers, try Gaul-- their forester warband has the highest attack rating of any archer, (except maybe Cretans) and only take one turn to build, as opposed to pharoah's bowmen or chosen archers.
mmm cheers for all the response, much food for thought.
I think im gonna go for the parthians, although scythians and armenians look interesting as well. i havent unlocked all the unplayable factions though, and i cant really be arsed getting involved in all that at present, so i think Im right in thinking i can go with the parthians.
Few points about HA factions (I just love them all):
Schytia:
If you take scythians your game might become too easy, since their basic HAs are best in game (better melee stats than Parthian counterpart, and +2exp from sacred grove) and if you are wise enough to go west you will face mostly infantry. You can also lay your hands on macedonian artemis temples. They have 2 long range missile cavalery units- if you ever wondered why Noble women are only 36 in unit, it is because they are ultimate HA- there is no faster cavalery then NW, and there is no longer range archer unit, basicly you get unit that can't be forced to engage except with siege equipement. Noble archers are nice combo of melee/missile end are beautiful multipurpose cavalery. Only trouble is lack of money early on, and keeping your tribesfolk happy.
Armenia:
Basic HAs are good, CAs are better, although they tire damn too fast (I guess armor they have compensate it). CAs are also available very early in game. As someone said they have decent infantry, and cataphrats, but your main force will probably be CA. Troble playing Armenia is Parthia which you must deal with ASAP, and that annoying chariot archers on south.
Parthia:
Has HA, has Parthian archers, but doesnt'have exp/armor temples. They have cataphrats and elephants but you'll have to wait for them. Infantry is nonexistent. Probably hardest to play.
Prepare to face some financial problems early on.Quote:
Originally Posted by carbz
Not so-- I played a short campaign as the Kingdom of the Parthians last week, and I never went into deficit-- the trick, I think, is to concentrate on economy buildings exclusively early on, and don't build anything more expensive than peasants. Use your initial troops and be aggressive. Attacking the Seleucids early on in Seleucia is crucial-- you get a very handy farming bonus (+ pop. growth and cash), a decent settlement, and you can probably coerce another city (Hatra is best) from the Seleucids in return for peace.
Try not to engage the Armenians early on-- horse archer duels are, if nothing else, expensive. Leave Armenia until you are rich enough to bribe-- I took the Armenian heartlands with a cavalry army of which half of them were originally Armenian, including two units of cataphracts which proved really useful.
I agree with Quirinus there Cicero. In my campaign as the Kingdom of the Parthians I didn't go into debt either.
The trick is (as Quirinus has already said) to concentrate on the economy first. Also grab Phrappsa straight away to stop the Armenians from expanding east.
In my case I actually allied myself with the Armenians and the Grand alliance held until I'd reached Antioch (a long time maybe 50 years, the first campaign I tried to play fairly realisticly). The other thing to mention was that all contact with the Seleucid Empire was short sharp wars taking one or two provinces at most and then forcing a ceasefire and trade rights for a large, but not huge indemnity. It worked surprisingly well as in the end they were wiped out by the Egyptians whilst allied to me!
So follow Quirinus' advice and you should be fine, and wait for the Seleucids to reassign their troops to another war before attacking Seleucia-on-Tigris.
Just my two cents.
After writing my short guide I decided that it would be best to have another go at my diplomatic quest of the known world. I must say that it still works well, by capturing Phraaspa the Armenians linger around the settlement long enough to be classified as a threat, as said above economic buildings are a must buy early on and you can easily hold out with the forces you start with. A good tactic is to attack and destroy all Armenian units which are out of a city in one turn, then siege both cities on the next turn leaving them unable to call in reinforcements and so you can starve them out or destroy them when they sally with ease. These two cities are quite rich and should set you up for a successful war.
In my campaign I ran into trouble when most of my forces were engaged in a wining war against Armenia (I got Seleucia). but an rebel army game out of no-where and sieged Susa. which was only garrisoned by a family member and some peasants, It would of taken at least 6 turns for any renforcement to arrive and soon Susa was lost. It was all downhill after that and I lost Seleucia too and just quit the campaign.:shame:
How do you make rebels to attack your settlements? In my game, they attack armies and occupy watchtowers, but they never siege a settlement or fort. I'd like to change that because I think passive rebels are quite unrealistic. Any advise?
Well, AFAIK the 'rebel' faction is divided into many different types, each of which behaves differently.
There's the brigand, which blocks roads and might attack nearby armies (not too sure about that).
There's the independent kingdom, which might develop a presence if left alone for a while. They can be considered 'true' rebels.
There's also a special type of rebel, the most dangerous type-- the gladiator uprising. They may occur to cities with Arena-line buildings (that is, the Romans only). They have elite troops and are quite aggresive.
Not sure if there are any more types, but that's the general idea, I think. I find it okay, because it's only logical that brigands attack small towns in the countryside rather than the province capital, no?
I've had rebels besiege my city once as Parthia - they had left their city with the majority of their troops to attack a passing force of mine, only to have it captured by me while they were away. These rebels then besieged the city the following turn, only to be defeated by me in their fairly pathetic assault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flavius Merobaudes
On another occasion, also as Parthia, a bunch of brigands managed to increase in size to a level large enough to try and assault one of my cities. They actually succeeded, only to have the city snatched off them two turns later by a portion of my main field force.
As said though, these are the only occasions when the rebels have ever acted aggressively towards my settlements. They attack forces passing through their lands all the time with forces from their cities though.
~:)
What is it with Parthia and attracting rebels? I mean every faction gets them but why do they attack Parthia?
No love for the Gauls? Their Forester Warbands are sweet, and available quite early on. Yeah, you need to use their infantry and cavalry too, but I don't see how anybody can win the game as Gaul without realizing that it's the Forester Warbands that win wars.Quote:
Originally Posted by carbz
Of course, I'm a fan of archery heavy army builds anyway - I even stick a bunch of Roman Archers in my pre-Marius Roman armies, and Roman Archers are about as sad as they come.
I don't know really - perhaps Parthia is considered an easy target, or rebels in that area somehow have higher levels of strength at the game's start. It's a bit of mystery really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave
~:)