What is your go-to army composition?

So we all have a go-to army compositions. Some of us like flexibility so we can fight in any terrain and any type of (land) battle, other times we make armies that are tailored to meet certain challenges, like sieges or ambushes, or even certain enemies. An infantry-heavy army will not do well against a mainly horse archer army.

Personally, I favor an agile force that can adapt quickly to anything with the exception of a horse archer army.

That means for me my force has a lot of infantry that can be flexible on the battlefield. If I have to quickly wheel around to meet a different enemy coming at me from a new direction, I need to do that fast.

So in general, its a cavalry general, two units of heavy cavalry, and depending on where I recruited them, two units of light cavalry or ballistas. More recently its been ballistas since they are quite amazing, much more useful than light cavalry in the long run as I can batter them even before the melee starts. Though I do miss out on more cavalry to chase them down as they rout, so its a give and take I suppose.

I have contemplated how I would deal with army composition with a greek faction, as their pikes are their strong points. But on the other hand, pikes are unflexible and lack the flexibility that normal spearmen have. So I suppose I will have to play around with the roster, see if normal spearmen can hold up to greek pikes.

So what are your army compositions like?

depends on the faction I play. As Romans, for example, I tend to roleplay a bit: hastati, mixed with principes, triarii, just a couple weak cavalry units, few missiles. As a hellenic pike faction, I tend to go 4 to 8 pikes + infantry or cavalry for flanks (depending on the faction setup and tech development at time) + the best javelins I can get for firing from the rear ranks. Why so few pikes? Because even though they are powerful, they are very inflexible (as mentioned by hooahguy above) when playing against the AI. AI would try to avoid your pikes at all costs and go for your flanks en masse. So, stronger flanks is a good idea against the AI.

I tend to avoid ballista unless it is a walled city assault army (that one would be heavy infantry + ballista + javelins for helping to clear the breach). No ballista setup makes for more fun battles when attacking the AI. If the player has artillery, the defending AI tends to rush you unless they have their own arty.

Then there is the early game "clear barb towns setup" for hellenistic factions: hoplites + massed slingers for no-walls settlements; hoplites + javelins for walled cities ;)

General
Pikes X4
Sword Infantry X4
Hoplites X4
Ranged unit X3
Cavalry X3

Generally

4 ballistas, rest whatever (no, not 15 units of slingers)

Roman
1. General (Cav or Inf, depends on region)
2. 2-3 various Cav (currently building Horsearchers somewhere East….adding them to my legions step by step)
3. 1-2 Praetorian
4. At least 3 Legionaries or a mix of Spear- and Sword Units
5. 2-4 Slingers/ Bows
6. 1 Artillery
7. If in danger: Merc Units

Pontos:
1. General (Cav)
2. 3 Cav
3. 2-3 Phalanx
4. 2 Sword Units
5. 2-5 Slingers/ Bows
6. 1 Artillery in case available
7. If in danger: Merc Units


Starting to develop a feel form y Gernerals/ Armies with the 4 TPY Mod.

Rome

Early game army: 12-14 units of Praetorians, 4-6 units of veites. 2 units of light cav for routers (mandatory).

Mid game: reduce veite count for Socii Equites Extraordinarii

Late Game (haven't even played that yet due to deleting my saves constantly): Mass pretorian guard (10 minimum), and an even mix of Aux. Cretan Archers and Aux. Eastern Cataphracts.


Northern Barbarians (Gaul/Suebi/Iceni)

A core of the best spear units I can field. Between 6 and 8 units.
Heavy sword infantry on the rear flanks - things like Oathsworn, Swormasters etc. Between 4 and 6 units (used to chop up enemy spear/phalanx units from the side and rear, and to dispatch cav units that get bogged down in melee).
Masses of shock cav and 2 units of light cav for the remaining slots, with 2-4 skirmisher troops if I lack funds/time to recruit more cav and melee.

Early armies get a lot more skirmisher support and only 2 light cav units to rout enemy skirmishers and kill fleeing armies.

Hellenistic factions (true greeks and successor states)

If true greek:

Masses of pikes (8+) as a core, 4-6 heavy hoplites on the flanks. 2 light cav to kill routers/route enemy skirmishers. Peltasts for support since hellenistic slingers are somewhat meh.

If successor state:

Pike core of 6-8 units. 2-4 heavy hoplites on the flanks. 2-4 heavy infantry as rear flanks. Rest is shock cav and 1-2 units of light cav to kill routers.

If early game army, replace cav units with peltasts/eastern slingers

As a nomad barbarian: 12-16 units of the best HA I can field (migh tmix in jav-cav if available) the rest is shock cav.


It's important for the factions who have niche units to make use of them correctly. Don't try to hold a line with berserkers, naked fanatics or painted ones. Use them to butcher enemies from the side/back. Don't chase down routers with heavy cavalry unless i'ts past the victory screen. Etc.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i.imgur.com/0XcdaD4.jpg

Image from the Pontus guide; it's pretty much the standard to which my Pontic army composition had evolved by end of the campaign. I've also been using this same composition and base formation as Egypt.

Pros:
- Open-field. Superb defensive strength. The BAI is sufficiently aggressive that one can set up in a defensive posture in any open-field battle, regardless of relative army strengths or who initiated the battle.
- Minor settlements. Confined approaches but lack of walls create excellent advance lanes (or defensive positions) for pike units, using structures to protect flanks.

Cons:
- Walled city assault. Pike units can certainly be effective in taking provincial capitals. But I usually find myself wishing I had a few more good-quality melee infantry for these battles.
- Not the greatest composition for outright killing power. The strength of this formation is its propensity to rout, rather than destroy, the enemy. And once they do start running, there's not much cavalry to chase them down.
- "One-trick pony". It's an extremely powerful method of beating the AI, who doesn't do very well against intelligently-used phalanxes. But with pikes, my take is that there is definitely a "right" and "wrong" way to use these units, and one cannot stray far from the proven formula. Top-quality melee infantry seem much more versatile...and forgiving.

I do think I've gone a bit overboard with the pikes, using 7x units (including general's guard). I think I'm probably going to drop to a 5-6 unit pike line in favor of increased melee infantry on the flanks. Something a little closer to the @Kamakazi composition above, which strikes me as quite flexible.

That, or go more heavy on cavalry rather than infantry (Macedon style). For Pontus, I sometimes drop pikes altogether and use roman style setup. After all, Pontus was known for their imitation legionaries.

I am not sure if you have seen it happen, but whenever I try something similar against the AI to what you have in the pic, the AI would respond with something I call "dumbell formation". It would throw all it's melee and cavalry at my flanks (huge blob on the poor hoplites or whatever I have there), while the AI's missiles would focus on the pikes. Essentially this splits the AI's melee forces into 2, leaving my pikes in the middle unoccupied (well, I can reoccupy them, but that means breaking the line and attacking with individual units). That dumbbell formation attack is why I have started to lower the % of pikes in my hellenistic armies. I've experimented also with going with heavy cavalry in the middle, pikes being just a place holder for the cavalry to be able to hit the AI missiles and the two heads of the dumbbell in the rear.

As to those ballistae: I know they're tempting, but I tend to avoid them in my field setup. The ballistae is the reason why you see the "aggressive field AI". Unless, the AI has arty of its own it will charge you if your army has ballistae. I have seen much more tactical battles when I have to attack without any arty in my army. The AI knows how to hold a hill, etc (when it has missile superiority). Then the battle turns into more of a tactical play where you have to create local superiority over the AI, etc rather than managing a huge mush-pit when the AI charges in. Just more interesting for me to try to get some tactical scenarios going.

My setup is the best ive found for flexibility. Even when totally out numbered I can generally win a battle with this. All I have to do it guard my pike flanks. That's where hoplites come in. If they are having trouble I can augment with swords for a buffer. Just enough cavs to throw out and kill enemy ranged units /chase down routers/and go for tactical kills on enemy ballista or general units.

Quote:

---

I am not sure if you have seen it happen, but whenever I try something similar against the AI to what you have in the pic, the AI would respond with something I call "dumbell formation". It would throw all it's melee and cavalry at my flanks (huge blob on the poor hoplites or whatever I have there), while the AI's missiles would focus on the pikes

---

It's a mixed bag, sometimes the AI does try frontal assault, such as the Iudaea battle in Egypt AAR (Part 8). But yes, what you describe is also very common, as seen in quite a few other AAR battles. My flank Galatians, Nubian spears, and Thorax swords often get quite a workout. Main reason why I'm thinking of reducing the number of pikes and replacing with more melee infantry for the flanks. Also will probably drop one archer unit as well. I don't really mind the "dumbbell". Splits the enemy army, often leaves those missile troops exposed. Many times I can wheel a couple of phalanxes to the right/left and create a V-shaped vise surrounding the enemy blob. Sure, it breaks the integrity of the overall pike line...but the enemy center is empty as well, except for now-exposed missileers in the second echelon.

Never occurred to me about the ballistae being "aggression bait"...but yeah, I think you're right. This actually strikes me as a plus for a pike-centric army...one wants the AI to charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bramborough

It's a mixed bag, sometimes the AI does try frontal assault, such as the Iudaea battle in Egypt AAR (Part 8). But yes, what you describe is also very common, as seen in quite a few other AAR battles. My flank Galatians, Nubian spears, and Thorax swords often get quite a workout. Main reason why I'm thinking of reducing the number of pikes and replacing with more melee infantry for the flanks. Also will probably drop one archer unit as well. I don't really mind the "dumbbell". Splits the enemy army, often leaves those missile troops exposed. Many times I can wheel a couple of phalanxes to the right/left and create a V-shaped vise surrounding the enemy blob. Sure, it breaks the integrity of the overall pike line...but the enemy center is empty as well, except for now-exposed missileers in the second echelon.

Never occurred to me about the ballistae being "aggression bait"...but yeah, I think you're right. This actually strikes me as a plus for a pike-centric army...one wants the AI to charge.

---

I have never seen the AI do anything that didn't seem to amount to control A, right click behind enemy units.

Open Field Battle
https://i.imgur.com/PbOkHcJ.jpg
Let them come. Usually I have 3 peltast units but in this I happened to have 2 ballista. Hid my cavs in the right flank trees and happened to split off half of the enemy force to try and stop those 3 units... Usually the Ai tries to find a weakness to the back and happens to just hit the sides. Then u pull the back ranks forward if the pikes get in trouble

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sp4

I have never seen the AI do anything that didn't seem to amount to control A, right click behind enemy units.

---

Try this Macedon move. Turn one, move your starting general from Pella towards border with Larissa. Train hoplites. On turn two: hire mercs to fill your army (not optional; this seems to trigger the city assault to be a field battle in this case and that's what we want) and ambush Pyrrhus' elephants next to Larissa. On the same turn, attack Larissa, which will have a garrison + the other Epirus starting army. Any time I try this, the AI sallies to the field. At this point, the AI will have missile superiority not you.

What will ensue will be a field battle against a defending AI. The AI won't rush you. It will defend a hill-top.

As to ballista: arty is definitely an aggression trigger. Any arty. The only time it is not a trigger in field battles is if the AI has similar arty to match.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kamakazi

Open Field Battle
https://i.imgur.com/PbOkHcJ.jpg
Let them come. Usually I have 3 peltast units but in this I happened to have 2 ballista. Hid my cavs in the right flank trees and happened to split off half of the enemy force to try and stop those 3 units... Usually the Ai tries to find a weakness to the back and happens to just hit the sides. Then u pull the back ranks forward if the pikes get in trouble

---

Yup, I know we can win against the AI this way. But is it the fun way to win an attacking battle (where you are supposed to be attacking)? Surrounding your own ballista, with pikes and taking a walk to the bathroom. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this: just questioning if it is interesting.

For one, it would never work if a human was controlling the defending AI (in an MP campaign). A human would just let the timer run out and you'd lose your attack.

This is a defense actually. I had an Egyptian city sieged and they attacked with an outer army. Just throwing out a strength of the composition of my army....

Quote:

---

As to ballista: arty is definitely an aggression trigger. Any arty. The only time it is not a trigger in field battles is if the AI has similar arty to match.

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sp4

No.

---

Do a quicksave before any battle where you are attacking and you have a ballista (one is sufficient) whereas the defending AI has none. Does the AI defend or attack you? OK, exit the battle, load from the quicksave, delete the ballista and attack that same AI again. Unless you have missile superiority of other type, the AI will defend. I am talking about a field battle here, not a wall-less town defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

Try this Macedon move. Turn one, move your starting general from Pella towards border with Larissa. Train hoplites. On turn two: hire mercs to fill your army (not optional; this seems to trigger the city assault to be a field battle in this case and that's what we want) and ambush Pyrrhus' elephants next to Larissa. On the same turn, attack Larissa, which will have a garrison + the other Epirus starting army. Any time I try this, the AI sallies to the field. At this point, the AI will have missile superiority not you.

https://i.imgur.com/PbOkHcJ.jpg

What will ensue will be a field battle against a defending AI. The AI won't rush you. It will defend a hill-top.

As to ballista: arty is definitely an aggression trigger. Any arty. The only time it is not a trigger in field battles is if the AI has similar arty to match.



Yup, I know we can win against the AI this way. But is it the fun way to win an attacking battle (where you are supposed to be attacking)? Surrounding your own ballista, with pikes and taking a walk to the bathroom. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this: just questioning if it is interesting.

For one, it would never work if a human was controlling the defending AI (in an MP campaign). A human would just let the timer run out and you'd lose your attack.

---

This is called a Noob Box in Rome 1 MP :clown:

@Myth, LOL, why did you grab that post with my text? The original newb box came from Kamakazi ;)

Unrelated

Temporary garrison army

I have started using temporary garrison armies. These armies get spawned right where I am doing conquest and disbanded when the area is pacified. They use cheap local militia exclusively (supplemented by mercs if some real danger appears), but, at times get decent fighting going for themselves (catching remainder stacks, etc.). For Seleucids, for example, such an army might consist exclusively of the cheapest spears + slingers (available anywhere). Once disbanded, the army's legacy can be reestablished later at some other point so such armies rack up traditions even.

Call me a newb if you want effective is effective. Id never use this in multiplayer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kamakazi

Call me a newb if you want effective is effective. Id never use this in multiplayer.

---

I think, he was just teasing. Cheers, mate.

Lighthearted humour yes :bow: I too use tactics that I would dub underhanded/ineffective for multuiplayer. I am sorry if I offended.

So I've just finished an Icini campaign and thought I'd share.

I go infantry heavy in my armies with almost all factions. With Britons it was...

6 spear band (chosen spear band once available)
6 sword band (ditto)
2 slingers and 2 skirmishers
2 scout cavalry (replaced with veteren riders when they were finally available)
1 ballistae (mainly for sieges but usefull in forcing the defender to attack, ammo upgrades a must)
Heroic nobles general (much more effective than cav for early battles)

I stuck with this for the entire campaign and felt it worked well against almost any enemy army composition. My basic strategy as to force the enemy into charging, catch the bulk of the charge on the spears (braced if possible) and then move in the swords to mince away while any spare infantry moved around to roll up the whole battle line. The only times I found it didn't work well was against cav heavy armies that equal me in infantry, as they could outmanouver me and my spears were always needed on the front line. In these instances I always had to get the enemy focussed on one part of the battle with a few heavy hitting but disposable units and chase down as much cav as possible while they fought to the end before re-engaging with the main force.

I also tended to array them the same for most battles.

Sp = spear band
Sw = sword band
M = Missile troops
C = cav
G = General
B = Balistae


-----------------M---M---M---M
Sp Sp Sw Sw Sw Sp Sp Sw Sw Sw Sp Sp
C---------------------G----------------------C
-----------------------B

The middle spears can't kill much but hold well and counter a central cav charge from the enemy well.

When im playing my normal campaigns I move armies in twos.

One army is mainly my main fighting infantry. Spears, heavy inf, auxiliary of some form. Second army comprises my archers/ranged, cav, and artillery. Special units normally tag along too depending on who im playing as.

Quote:

---

When im playing my normal campaigns I move armies in twos.

One army is mainly my main fighting infantry. Spears, heavy inf, auxiliary of some form. Second army comprises my archers/ranged, cav, and artillery. Special units normally tag along too depending on who im playing as.

---

I've thought about doing something like this, but have refrained from doing so for a couple of reasons:

1. Army Cap. Depending on territory configuration and # of enemies, I've sometimes felt stretched thin responding to incoming threats. Often my biggest problem is that while my armies are hugely successful in any battle, they just can't be everywhere at once.

2. Enemy agents. They're pretty good at immobilizing armies and preventing reinforcement. Using this setup further increases their power, allowing them to affect 2 stacks instead of 1. Plus the danger of one wing getting attacked when the other cannot help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bramborough

I've thought about doing something like this, but have refrained from doing so for a couple of reasons:

1. Army Cap. Depending on territory configuration and # of enemies, I've sometimes felt stretched thin responding to incoming threats. Often my biggest problem is that while my armies are hugely successful in any battle, they just can't be everywhere at once.

2. Enemy agents. They're pretty good at immobilizing armies and preventing reinforcement. Using this setup further increases their power, allowing them to affect 2 stacks instead of 1. Plus the danger of one wing getting attacked when the other cannot help.

---

I do pretty much the same: two armies working in tandem. One army is the regular strike force, the other one tags along with missiles, cheap auxiliaries, artillery (I do not like artillery in my main army since it triggers bad tactics from defending AI's). Sometimes I even use 3 armies (the third one would be a locally raised militia force for garrison duty until the area is pacified).

The way I avoid AI agents is by hiding armies in ambush stance. Sure, makes for slower advances, but has the side effect of slowing me down at the same time. Since I rotate the generals to maximize influence gain for my party, even if an agent kills a general of mine: it is not a big loss, LOL.

Somehow I do not encounter the issue of not having enough armies everywhere I need them even post patch 7. I gave Rome a try finally, playing on VH. I purposely followed the somewhat historical Roman expansion route (which implied leaving exposed areas, no continuous borders) and still I sense no danger from the AI. by 235, I own all of Italy, Apollonia, half of Sicily (left Syracuse there to take it some time mid 150's), Africa (former Lybia + Carthage) and couple holdings in Spain. Expanding into Illyria now. No AI has declared war on me. If I attack anyone, they run (and my armies still consist of hastati, principes, triarii).

The only campaign where there is a real sense of danger seems Epirus start. It used to be Seleucids for me, but with the diplo reliability working in patch 7, now I realized I was breaking preexisting truces when playing as this successor faction. Now I tried playing the way CA "intended us to play": not making peace with Quidri (making truce with them results in a reliability hit; especially with satraps); not attacking Egypt and Cyprus on turn 1 (that's what I used to do and, as it turned out, it would make me a scumbag in the world's eyes). This gameplay resulted in an extremely peaceful Seleucid start. I even managed to keep my satraps so far (turn 30 or so) and our relationship is steadily improving due to the wars I am dragging them in.

I use a mod that almost triples the amount of armies you can field. When you hit imperium rank 4 you can field a whopping 38 armies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

I use a mod that almost triples the amount of armies you can field. When you hit imperium rank 4 you can field a whopping 38 armies.

---

Which mod?

:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

I use a mod that almost triples the amount of armies you can field. When you hit imperium rank 4 you can field a whopping 38 armies.

---

I actually quite like the army restriction on me (the player) when playing vanilla.

Interesting to see the roles-playing and gaming type approaches to armies. For the SP campaign i try to play in a way i think is reasonably historical, with armies to match. So that means generally avoiding spamming top units and keep a balance of core and supports - including foot skirmishers, if only as a screen/bait. I like to have my armies flexible and mobile so I don't tend to use many siege weapons.

For Rome I used infantry heavy armies, with a decreasing number of pre-Marian types: Hastati>Principes>Trarii and roughly similar numbers of velites as hastati. I then exclusively use auxiliaries for support and cavalry, phasing out the velites (get a bit bored with them and you also have to worry about the damage to wild-life if they ALL wear a dead wolf).

My fave auxilliary skirmishers are the Numidians, on foot or hooves, as well as Cantabrians/Iberians. But also I'll take whatever's going...

Post Marius, I try to have veteran<=normal legionaries, with one First cohort per legion. I get a bit annoyed that my general's cohort gets shoved in the main line by the auto formations though.

In my current Seleucid campaign, i'm using a 10 pike core with a hoplite unit for each flank. Again, I try to scale the quality of pikes such that the majority are "normal", but not levy units. As such, I typically have 1 silver shield per stack and maybe 3 Thureaos. Persian hoplites are the perfect flank unit with their square formation. The lack of phalanx limits their offense, though that's the job of the slow marching pike line.

I've tended to focus on cavalry skirmishers, javlineers and camel archers, but they get less effective as the campaign progresses. I've then added more Median shock cavalry and superseded skirmishers for Tarantine cav.

I had my first experiement with chariots recently, hiding them in forest behind slingers before charging head-on into an advancing melee line of low level spears and skirmishers. The chariots were pretty impressive (1 unit killed circa 200 enemies in 1 charge) but I suspect they might come unstuck against e.g. legionnaires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by al Roumi

I had my first experiement with chariots recently, hiding them in forest behind slingers before charging head-on into an advancing melee line of low level spears and skirmishers. The chariots were pretty impressive (1 unit killed circa 200 enemies in 1 charge) but I suspect they might come unstuck against e.g. legionnaires.

---

Did it really kill that number in the charge or were the kills assigned after the battle? In my experience, the end-battle (once the enemy is routing) button assigns ridiculous amounts of router kills to elephants and chariots. In one battle, my elephants got around 500 kills assigned to them. There is no way they killed that many in the battle (the unit just charged one spear unit in the rear).

Has anyone made any real practical use of the Iceni donkey carts (aka. chariots)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

Has anyone made any real practical use of the Iceni donkey carts (aka. chariots)?

---

A friend of mine tried to use them on my half-depleted units the other day. I was playing the side of a weak AI (levy spears, slingers, that sort of mix) whom he was chasing on the map. The result: loads of dead chariots. On their own, chariots seem pretty useless to me.

I hear, to use them effectively you need many units per army (not one or two). First, need to try to get the target unit lose its cohesion (entice them to run). Then, charge chariots in, and run them out the other side immediately (this means you need open space behind the target, no uphill terrain, no trees, etc.). Follow up that chariot charge (almost immediately) with some heavy chavalry. The disorganized target unit will be ripe for a kill.

Elephants work the same way, btw. Those though, do not need the target to be disorganized in the first place. They (the elephants) make the target disorganized. If the elephant charge is followed up by a heavy cavalry one: dead spears, etc. abound. Good to take care of those pesky AI spear units chasing your cavalry.

I like to go heavy on everything. I like to go a Barbarian faction like Suebi or Iceni and get a lot of heavy infantry and cavalry. That (generally) works for me.

Quote:

---

Did it really kill that number in the charge or were the kills assigned after the battle? In my experience, the end-battle (once the enemy is routing) button assigns ridiculous amounts of router kills to elephants and chariots. In one battle, my elephants got around 500 kills assigned to them. There is no way they killed that many in the battle (the unit just charged one spear unit in the rear).

---

I've noticed that too. Not just elephants/chariots, but every unit gets an inflated kill count after the battle...even units which didn't engage, or only very lightly. It's not uncommon in my playstyle for missile troops and artillery to inflict enough casualties early to cause a complete enemy rout (mainly talking a minor settlement attack...where the defenders let one get away with this). Yet my infantry, not having entered and fought, still come away with "kills" in the post battle screen. Are these extras battle captives, perhaps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bramborough

I've noticed that too. Not just elephants/chariots, but every unit gets an inflated kill count after the battle...even units which didn't engage, or only very lightly. It's not uncommon in my playstyle for missile troops and artillery to inflict enough casualties early to cause a complete enemy rout (mainly talking a minor settlement attack...where the defenders let one get away with this). Yet my infantry, not having entered and fought, still come away with "kills" in the post battle screen. Are these extras battle captives, perhaps?

---

Yup, I think this accounts for extra captives if you decide not to pursue yourself but let the game engine assign captures. This was the way it worked in S2 as well.

I like to go heavy on the melee infanty and the melee cavalry, especially if I am a barbarian faction. Usually works for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GermanicWarlord

I like to go heavy on the melee infanty and the melee cavalry, especially if I am a barbarian faction. Usually works for me.

---

Yup, that generally works for me as well. Add in a bit of light cavalry to chase down routers or enemy or some artillery to hit them at long range and Im good.

try out an army of balearic slingers (roman auxilia) ;)

I opted in to patch 7 mostly to fix my mods lol. But since 7 came out pikes seem to have gotten nerfed. Before I could hold a ton of units back with 1-2 pike lines on defense now they are getting eaten alive by 1-2 opposing units. Anyone else experienced this? Oh and just to tell yall something im really happy about I held out against a 6000+ Egyptian army with only a 1 stack army and a garrison number I think at exactly 3000 but if you think about it that number is mob swelled etc. It was a crazy battle but I barely held on! Ill post pics if yall wanna see it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kamakazi

I opted in to patch 7 mostly to fix my mods lol. But since 7 came out pikes seem to have gotten nerfed. Before I could hold a ton of units back with 1-2 pike lines on defense now they are getting eaten alive by 1-2 opposing units. Anyone else experienced this? Oh and just to tell yall something im really happy about I held out against a 6000+ Egyptian army with only a 1 stack army and a garrison number I think at exactly 3000 but if you think about it that number is mob swelled etc. It was a crazy battle but I barely held on! Ill post pics if yall wanna see it

---

With patch 7, pike soldiers have larger gaps between them so now attackers are able to get between the pikes. However, my pikes still hold pretty well. Their real nemesis is AI missile troops, not melee.

By 1-2 pike lines do you mean pikes 2 rows deep? That sounds insufficient. They need more rows to be able to hold.

Have your pike boxes be thicker - more men behind the first line to get the bracing bonus. Spreading pikes thin like butter on bread won't work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

Have your pike boxes be thicker - more men behind the first line to get the bracing bonus. Spinning pikes thin like butter on bread won't work.

---

Have they changed pikes or are the Egyptians the only pike formation that have enough space between individual man that you can put like 3 units on top of each other and get something similar to what it was before/the Greeks have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sp4

Have they changed pikes or are the Egyptians the only pike formation that have enough space between individual man that you can put like 3 units on top of each other and get something similar to what it was before/the Greeks have?

---

They've changed all pikes that way (I think)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

With patch 7, pike soldiers have larger gaps between them so now attackers are able to get between the pikes. However, my pikes still hold pretty well. Their real nemesis is AI missile troops, not melee.

By 1-2 pike lines do you mean pikes 2 rows deep? That sounds insufficient. They need more rows to be able to hold.

---

No I don't let my pikes go less than 4 rows deep. They just get really messed up really fast. If they made a big gap in them what is the point of calling it a phalanx?

Well to be frank non levy pikes were a bit OP.

Regarding Pikemen:

I've run quite a few custom-battle tests this morning, on Patch 6 and then opted back into Patch 7 beta.

Pre-patch7beta, basic pikemen could stand up to just about anything. I pitted a line of 5 regular garden-variety pikemen (not thorax or high-end faction specific), with Thureos flank-protection units, against an equal-budget force of Roman plain legionaries (roughly equal cost/quality). The pikes of course won handily. Then I sent a superior force of Praetorians against the same line. The lower-cost/quality pikemen took more casualties, but held firm and still won.

With Patch7beta, however, things changed. Interestingly, I noticed little difference with pikemen-vs-legionaries. The pike line performed about as well as they had in the pre-7 test against these similar-quality troops. Against the superior Praetorian force, however, the pikemen suffered badly, took lots of casualties, and broke before the Praetorians did. I then lined up Royal Hellenic pikes against an equal-budget force of Praetorians. The Hellenics performed extremely well.

Based on this, my impression is that they've tweaked pike units so that they perform as expected against troops of similar quality, but no longer stand up as well to higher-quality opponents. Intelligently-used pike-centric armies continue to dominate under appropriate tactical conditions...as long as one continues to upgrade their quality. It is apparently no longer viable to just field basic pikemen and call it a day.

One thing I noticed is that with Patch7beta, Praetorians were able to close frontally with the basic pikemen units, and engage in melee. The usual gap created by the long sarissae collapsed. Pikemen could maintain this gap against legionaries, but not Praetorians. With Royal Hellenic pikes, however, they easily maintained this gap against Praetorians. So instead of some sort of morale tweak, somehow they've adjusted a melee unit's ability to overcome a lower-quality pike unit's standoff distance, but not an equal-quality pike unit's.

At least that's how it appears to me.

Well, in frontal melee, pikes should be able to withstand just about anything. Missiles, flank and rear attacks: that's a different matter.

One undocumented change of patch 7 beta is that "pikes", the unit that is one level higher than levy pikes now have higher hit points than levy pikes. Before the patch 7, levy pikes had higher hit-points. Probably was a bug.

I always use pike units better than levy... rarely do I have levy pikes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bramborough

Regarding Pikemen:

I've run quite a few custom-battle tests this morning, on Patch 6 and then opted back into Patch 7 beta.

Pre-patch7beta, basic pikemen could stand up to just about anything. I pitted a line of 5 regular garden-variety pikemen (not thorax or high-end faction specific), with Thureos flank-protection units, against an equal-budget force of Roman plain legionaries (roughly equal cost/quality). The pikes of course won handily. Then I sent a superior force of Praetorians against the same line. The lower-cost/quality pikemen took more casualties, but held firm and still won.

With Patch7beta, however, things changed. Interestingly, I noticed little difference with pikemen-vs-legionaries. The pike line performed about as well as they had in the pre-7 test against these similar-quality troops. Against the superior Praetorian force, however, the pikemen suffered badly, took lots of casualties, and broke before the Praetorians did. I then lined up Royal Hellenic pikes against an equal-budget force of Praetorians. The Hellenics performed extremely well.

Based on this, my impression is that they've tweaked pike units so that they perform as expected against troops of similar quality, but no longer stand up as well to higher-quality opponents. Intelligently-used pike-centric armies continue to dominate under appropriate tactical conditions...as long as one continues to upgrade their quality. It is apparently no longer viable to just field basic pikemen and call it a day.

One thing I noticed is that with Patch7beta, Praetorians were able to close frontally with the basic pikemen units, and engage in melee. The usual gap created by the long sarissae collapsed. Pikemen could maintain this gap against legionaries, but not Praetorians. With Royal Hellenic pikes, however, they easily maintained this gap against Praetorians. So instead of some sort of morale tweak, somehow they've adjusted a melee unit's ability to overcome a lower-quality pike unit's standoff distance, but not an equal-quality pike unit's.

At least that's how it appears to me.

---

Sounds about right. In Rome 1 you could charge Urban Cohorts right through Macedonian Royal Pikes and smash their faces in. My concern is with Sparta whom only get 20 Spartan Hoplites (which are equal tier to Thureos Pikes) and must otherwise use perioikoi pikes. Honestly Sparta needs some attention. Heroes of Sparta need to be more viable and the unit caps must be removed or at least tied to settlements having > 80% spartan culture.

Balanced. The way I see it is if you go too heavy or to cheap, it won't work out well for you. A balanced Roman army wins the day for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

Rome

Early game army: 12-14 units of Praetorians, 4-6 units of veites. 2 units of light cav for routers (mandatory).

Mid game: reduce veite count for Socii Equites Extraordinarii

Late Game (haven't even played that yet due to deleting my saves constantly): Mass pretorian guard (10 minimum), and an even mix of Aux. Cretan Archers and Aux. Eastern Cataphracts.


Northern Barbarians (Gaul/Suebi/Iceni)

A core of the best spear units I can field. Between 6 and 8 units.
Heavy sword infantry on the rear flanks - things like Oathsworn, Swormasters etc. Between 4 and 6 units (used to chop up enemy spear/phalanx units from the side and rear, and to dispatch cav units that get bogged down in melee).
Masses of shock cav and 2 units of light cav for the remaining slots, with 2-4 skirmisher troops if I lack funds/time to recruit more cav and melee.

Early armies get a lot more skirmisher support and only 2 light cav units to rout enemy skirmishers and kill fleeing armies.

Hellenistic factions (true greeks and successor states)

If true greek:

Masses of pikes (8+) as a core, 4-6 heavy hoplites on the flanks. 2 light cav to kill routers/route enemy skirmishers. Peltasts for support since hellenistic slingers are somewhat meh.

If successor state:

Pike core of 6-8 units. 2-4 heavy hoplites on the flanks. 2-4 heavy infantry as rear flanks. Rest is shock cav and 1-2 units of light cav to kill routers.

If early game army, replace cav units with peltasts/eastern slingers

As a nomad barbarian: 12-16 units of the best HA I can field (migh tmix in jav-cav if available) the rest is shock cav.


It's important for the factions who have niche units to make use of them correctly. Don't try to hold a line with berserkers, naked fanatics or painted ones. Use them to butcher enemies from the side/back. Don't chase down routers with heavy cavalry unless i'ts past the victory screen. Etc.

---

What would you guys be using as a balanced army for egypt? is myth suggestion good now on patch 8? Would the lack of missile units hurt me going in to Eastern provinces? i am about mid game /beginning (have teir 2/3 Buildings for my armys)

now i only play at normal so i guess that it would not hurt me using "wrong" setup, but it never hurt to ask for a good army setup :)

Under the new patch you will need at least 4 skirmisher units to soak up the missiles from those eastern slings and javelins. Some of the tribes in the Arabian Peninusla will mass slingers which can be devastating for low and mid tier infantry. Basically you must either have sufficient skirmisher support to counter the enemy skirmishers OR you must have sufficient cavalry support to just massacre the enemy skirmishers after the melee lines have engaged. The second approach requires you to close the battle lines fast but even then be prepared to be 1 or 2 infantry units behind.

As Egypt you have good pikes and heavy infantry, chariots and elephants. I think you will need skirmishers and you can use your speciality units to make short work of the enemy once it comes to melee. Chariots will also massacre skirmishers but you have to be careful if you try to attack them with spears guarding their backs. The AI seems pretty diligent about sending in melee units to protect its ranged core.

I'm playing the romans atm and I'm churning out identical stacks composed of

1 general
2 Cavalry
6 legionaires / hastatii
4 velites
3 ballistae
4 Auxiliary spearmen

With this one composition, anything can be broken, field armies, towns, cities. I've yet to deal with the Horde of the steppes and their massed missile cavalry, but otherwise it's been going like a warm knife through butter, rarely losing more than 10 - 20% of my starting force, even with 2-1 odds in favor of the defenders behind massive walls. Best of all, it does not cost an arm and a leg to keep them paid and fed.

In general, the legions advance in front of my velites to soak up incoming missile fire. The velites are in turn flanked by Auxiliary spearmen to ward off any cavalry and usually placed nearer the ballistae to stop the AI interfering with them. The legions supported by velites will break just about anything in front of them. The auxiliary spears have the fast advance ability to skirt around the edges. The cavalry is there to scout and to make charges from behind once I get all of the opfor to commit to battle.

The legionares and hastatii are really tough, so extending them out to a depth of 4 will usually cover the enemy front entirely, if kept in formation, otherwise the line will crack and stuff gets into your velites, not good. Managing the ballistae is key to plowing ahead. At long range I target their swords and spears, when the armies clash, I shift the fire to their missile troops so as not to cause friendly fire. The line of legionaires will not hold forever so speed is important, out in the field it usually ends when my cavalry charges in.

The sieges are won by poking a hole in the wall between 2 towers, flattening the towers and then inducing the defenders to sit in the gap while my velites make them into pincushions. If the ballistae have a few rounds left after knocking down the wall and towers, enjoy surprising the enemy with a massed volley or two of explosives as they are thronging to get at the men in the gap. Gruesome!

I love technological weapons such as ballistas, onagers etc. I never go to battle without siege weapons. (early battles are exception)

So, when playing as Scythia, my army;

1 Horse Archer general
11 Armored -or better- horse archers
8 Ballistas

as Scythia you can easily get "extra ammunition" so, all of your ranged unit have 23 ammunition and that makes your missile units very effective.

When playing Sarmatia or Massagetae replace horse archers with shock cavalry and replace horse archer general with shock cavalry general and rest same Ballistas!