Printable View
Replays are the fastest way to assimilte information and learn tactics.
Where can i get them? Does the org have a database somewhere? Also where can i get some tactical knowledge, preferably in the forms of diagrams and animation's?
Cheer's
Celtic Tiger.
Replays don't really work in 1.3 and BI. At least they differ wildly from what actually happened. AFAIK there is no public database of replays, though many clans and individuals do keep them (at least for 1.2).
As for tactics, what version are you talking about? There aren't really publically available diagrams and stuff, but I could give you ideas if you are facing particular issues.
Sad but very true. After a victory, it is possible to suffer a 'crushing defeat' in the replayQuote:
Originally Posted by Nihilist
......Orda
http://nomadalliance.forumup.com/vie...=nomadalliance
Tactics discussed here.
Thank you lad's ~:cheers:
Yes the replays are buggered yet again, and if you pick a weaker faction it near always shows you as defeated in the play back.
Well nihil i suppose im looking for ways to win as the more challenging factions, The Gauls, Thracians etc. I may get back to you on that one. Which clans have public replay's for download? also i wasint really looking specifically for RTW type tactics but actual military tactics used historically and im too lazy to read much text unless there are animations and picture's.
The Hun, look's a tidy site ill have a look later.
Well against a competent opponent who doesn't mess up you just won't win as the Gauls etc. against the more common factions: Rome, Seleucids and so on. In 1.2 I did play as these factions against the much stronger ones when playing against Randoms in the lobby, but this wasn't really using any great tactics with them, but just completely out-microing my opponents and exploiting their mistakes. Against an experienced opponent I wouldn't really take these factions unless messing about.Quote:
Well nihil i suppose im looking for ways to win as the more challenging factions, The Gauls, Thracians etc
Replays don't work so people don't really save them. Clans also can be a bit sensitive about making their replays publically available, as it could weaken them in tourney games as their opponents would know more about their preferred setups and tactics. I don't know of any good clan that regularly puts up public replays. There were some being put up in the early stages of the CWB tourney in 1.2, but the requirements were later changed, so this was no longer necessary.
There was never much discussion over tactics in 1.2 as it just was about winning the cavalry battle, so in 1v1 just a bit of micro around upgraded cavalry, or in team games getting all cav to engage together. I haven't played much 1.3 to tell much difference, but in BI infantry is more important. Probably too strong though in some cases, as there are Roman setups (with the silly amount of ammo the plumbatarii have) that are very powerful and hard to beat without any effort to use as well as the problem with horse archers not really having an effective counter in numbers.
I Agree with all
The cavalry numbers in RTW are insane and very untrue of the era. The Cav numbers should be reduced accordingly. You could expect a ratio of 80,000 inf and 2-5000 or so cav back then typically.
My approach may be different in with the weaker factions though as i try to use differing methods rather than out micro them as my micro is probably not the best any how. I know its a tall order and i get my ass kicked all to often but i dont take the game too seriously and the quest for a means to beat a good player's army with a poor one is the holy grail for me. Ive done it a few times only though.
I guess even if i see a good example of winning against a superior army i.e. cannae, it may not be possible to use this in the RTW engine anyways. for example numidian/Gaulic/celtic infantry will not beat the roman's infanty as in history and numidian cavalry are not going to beat the romans cav in the program but did in history. also its not possible to move infantry backwards defensively while engaged as hannibal did in history. Perhaps im flogging a dead horse.
edit: the flawed c circle has been ported over to 1.3 and now is practically uncounterable what next?
Well Numidia isn't quite the same league as the likes of Gaul etc., as they can be quite powerful, you do have to make use of their eles though. I used to use a setup with 6 camels, 2 eles, 6 Numidian Legionaries and 6 archers, which was more than capable of beating any Roman army for example.
My point though was that even if you play a perfect game, you will only beat a capable player with something like Gaul against a strong faction if the other player makes a very bad mistake. So you are probably better off just playing something that gives you a chance to be a bit more pro active and give you a chance to win a game, instead of just relying on your opponent losing it. So if you want to play something slightly weaker (i.e. not Seleucid, Rome, Egypt, Parthia, Britannia) factions like Pontus, Armenia, Carthage and Greece are still very powerful to give you a good chance to win and are interesting to play. That said, I have beaten capable players with Thrace against the likes of Egypt...
Cantabrian circle is not uncounterable individually, it's in numbers that the problem arises, as you get into the situation that archers are ineffective against them, skirmishing cav gets shot and killed and infantry is useless. Individually, you can just disrupt the cantabrian with cavalry and shoot with archers, but this just doesn't work when you have many horse archers... It's one of many balance issues I just wish would actually get noticed by CA, but lets not go there...
CA is well aware of the balance issues, but, as MikeB said, it's not economically feasible for them to patch the game many times. The remaining balance issues would require several more patches to iron out, but I expect the next patch to be the last from CA for RTW/BI. Back during MTW days, LongJohn said he felt balancing to approximately 25% was pretty good. My contention since STW days has been that multiplayer total war needs to be balanced to within 10% for the gameplay to reach its potential. This is something that will never happen if CA's position is that 25% is good enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihilist
Some players here may not realize what happens when a playing community sticks around and plays a game for a long time. What happens is that the difference in skill among the players diminishes as they learn from one another. As a result, over time the weak factions and weak armies become unplayable, and the gameplay converges to a narrower focus depending on the imbalance. The greater the imbalance the narrower the focus. In the end, you have to use factions and armies that work, and at that point you decide if the gameplay is still interesting enough to keep you playing.
The way the game is though is that most balance issues can be dealt by tweaking the stats etc. with without changing the code, so it should be much cheaper to do. Of course there have been efforts by the community to do this kind of thing, but it is never "official" so most just ignore it and stick with the worse set of imbalances that exist in the unmodded versions...
I don't really expect this kind of thing to happen though, as CA don't seem to consider MP to be the main focus of this game, it's just one of those things that would greatly improve the game for not a great deal of effort compared with the original development. It's just me really, the potential of the game compared with the reality does grate at times... It's still enjoyable to play, but the problems become all the more apparent the more you play.
I agree with nihil with the above. Yes the game is still playable without the realism but its not as enjoyable. People buy this game for its realism you see and not as a fantasy game those people are then dissapointed and bemused by the baffling imbalances. The Imbalances i suspect are there to have people enjoy the single player aspect of the game with the romans and these imbalaces where lazily ported over to the MP.
http://www.geocities.com/i_s_s_alpha...Animations.htm
Back to topic: Hope the above works its basically what i was looking for and its the business -enjoy:san_grin:
As for numidia. I played as them before and eventually abandoned the elephants as they ran amok too easily and where countered with little effort although i had some good success with em they had a slow speed for cavalry. I was probably overlooking something though or maybe the 12500 deniri was too low to make them viable. Could you email me a some replay's?
I can't send you any replays as I don't save them in 1.3 as they don't work. I don't think I have any in 1.2 either.
The general trick with eles is to keep them well back and away from archers until you make a move (or your opponent makes a move). Once I'm moving them in, I generally don't stop moving them. In engaging them, they are best sent into the side of pinned infantry (your infantry won't hold very long, so you have to time it reasonably well). As long as you keep double clicking on the next infantry, you keep them moving, one elephant will rout an entire line of infantry. With the 2 eles setup with Numidia, I use 1 elephant on either flank and send the camels into the cavalry. The eles move and flank or just attack the enemy cavalry after the infantry has routed, which pretty much routs the enemy cavalry as well. I may though send 1 ele with the camels into the cavalry, while the other routs the infantry, as one will suffice. If cavalry is on both flanks, then I mirror their setups with camels, and make sure the eles get into the infantry, which is where the game is inevitably won.
Cow's strategy is (oddly :san_grin: ) the same as mine. Cavalry experiences morale penalties with the eles in the mix, as well as a morale penalty from the camels. Although heavily upgraded cavalry can sometimes route your camels, you still have the option of releiving the cav struggle with your additional elephants. Remember that the infantry is the least of the concern, you have to win the cavalry battle or the enemy can drag the battle into a skirmish and wear down the morale of your elephants.
Sometimes you can lure the enemy out with a cavalry charge against your camels. Even good players make the mistake of a glorious cavalry charge, while in the meantime abandoning their infantry. If you can lure them out via archers or taunting them with javeline cav, then you may save yourself the iffy infantry engagement. Although the elephants demolish the enemy legions, Numidian infantry is disgustingly weak. Especially against Urbans they will route very fast. This method of luring cavalry away from enemy positions is effective in all battles, since they lose the footing of a solid defense. With weaker factions that require more skillful elephant play, you may wish to attempt it. If this fails, at least you have exercised a different option than simply charging into their lines.
But in essence Cow's setup is useful, and perhaps the best way to use Numidia. It becomes even more useful when you team it up with a Roman faction with versatile, elite infantry to defend the cavalry interests.
I don't believe I have any replays either, since I only record tournament matches :san_cry:
I have used this setup many months ago but abandoned it because even though i can dominate the archery my eles can still be hit with onangers behind my line moving them out of range puts them too far away with their slow speed to counter a rush as my army then is vulnerable. Numidian light camels where still no match with 2 - 3 exp(1.2) for prathoreon cav. to attack the cav with my eles could mean my inf/1 ele will rout to the urbans v quickly. The archers must be in front of your line due to their short range and are vulnerable to light cavalry from good players especially as light camels are that bit slower when countering. I have been very successful with the tactic but its too brittle to rely on. so I switched. I have no doubt that i am maybe missing something thats why my ears pricked up when i heard that someone else uses eles reliably.
Using elephants is a matter of how and when you engage them. Keep them well back until you're about to move, and only get them to charge the enemy infantry once yours has pinned it. Doing this will rout the entire enemy line with just 1 elephant.
With regards to onagers, most people tend to just ban them as they are considered to not require much skill to use and are so very random, as to make the game even more so. It would be far more random to use elephants against onagers, as it would depend on whether your eles got hit or not (something neither side really has much control over). So you can't really depend on anything working. Keeping eles on opposite flanks maximises the chance of at least one ele making it into the infantry though.
Also, keep your eles away from each other to ensure that if perchance they are being targetted by archers or onnies, you wont lose both from target concentration. Keep pressure on enemy archers. Use light cav to skirmish them to dwindle their numbers. Remember winning the archer war is critical, so if you have to spend a few extra bucks to beat their archers to ensure safe passage for your eles it is well worth it.
Numidia have a better chance against piky armies even without using elephants, but against rome, you will have to hope that your opponent make a mistake, but even if he did make, a mistake its better that you move your ele fast, because...numidia infantry can run very fast...off the field.
Winning the archer war is even more critical depending on which faction you face. Some faction are simply not cut out to win the archers war while others are just made for target practice, take rome for example, they are geared for archers war and design to kill pikes not to mention excellent in winning "cav bash" because of their flexible infantry. I wouldn't blame a guy who would chairot and cav spam rome with Brits and egypt.
IMO unless you take rome out of the picture, considering how stupidly slow pike kills are now is and how well covered the romans are in almost every aspects, there are times I feel that discusiing tactics in RTW vanilla can become as exciting as discussing the race between the hare and the tortise.
I know how you feel mate
It can be done but your tactics must be better than your roman opponent. What ive done in the past is used numidian cavalry which are excellent to attack the enemy cavalry they are fast and can cause casultys quite rapidly to the prathoreans but most importantly if your opponent gives chase with his cav then he has temporarily weakened his centre which makes good time to attack if the opponent takes v few cav then use the numidian cavalry in cantabrian circle against his archers and the results are very rapid and the archers are routed leaving a safer passage for the eles if you bring them.
I gave up with the eles instead giving my numidian cav weapon upgrades and my inf / cav exp upgrades and this works BUT you must be on top form and time things well to succeed if you are in form though the results can be spectacular and the game very frustrating for your opponent who may be unused to such tactics. Its about harrassment and confusion.
Basically the roman players can become predictable over time by picking sensible/conventional armies no matter how good the army if its predictable then it can be beaten thats how hannibal beat the romans at cannae because they where so predictable IMO. I got about 10 wins in a row one day with the Gauls against average roman/egypt players by simply playing on the accepted and predictable behaviour something like this:
hide foresters, hide 4 souped up skirmishers behind them. foresters cause casultys to egypt he sends in his chariots/cav to kill them (which would be the right thing to do) foresters retreat behind. Chariots are attacked and suprised by skirmishers foresters then flanked by some of my cav and routed. The egypt player has played seemingly correctly, its a matter of creating a mistake for him to make rather than hoping for a mistake in this example.
If people are predictable then they can be beaten but it does take a little imagination, but this is just my opinion.
Yeah like everyone said, you have to face a inexperience rome player to win with a weaker faction. Against a experience rome player, he is usually aggressive with his archers and he shoot the right thing, knows where and when to commit his inf and when to stop chasing skrimishing light horses.
I have to admitt that those time when I beat rome, my opponents are usually over confidence with their units or simply underestimate the army they face. Against a experience player, I don't stand much chance.
Rome is no where near as strong as people keep making out. In the latter days of 1.2, taking Rome against me in a 1v1 for experienced players was practically suicide if I took Seleucid, and was difficult if I took Pontus, Armenia, Parthia, Britannia etc. In fact, I started playing Rome due to the ease in which I defeated it, which meant I was thinking that the Seleucids etc. were more powerful in a 1v1 if used correctly, since even levy pikemen will hold urbans for quite a long time if they are not flanked.
Pikes aren't slow at all, you just only put them in phalanx formation at the last moment. The result is a cheap unit that holds the far more expensive urbans while you beat their cavalry and flank the infantry.
I haven't played much 1.3/1.5 to really say how much has changed, though morale penalties appeared a bit reduced in some scenarios, so it may be a bit more difficult to rout Rome, but the same principles still hold.
Rome is by far the most over-rated faction in the game. They are extremely easy to play, which is why so many unexperienced players do fairly good against other unexperienced players. As soon as people reach a level where they have a thorough understanding of the game mechanics and anti'ing factions, it becomes quite easy to beat Rome. In fact, the only time Rome was ever used by the better clans was normally in team matches where Rome's versatility could be more appreciated. Cheap archers and good cav could support the elephants or phalanx of other teams.
The way to beat Rome is quite simple. The standard legion-breakers, such as chariots and elephants are also the same units that annihilate cavalry. So, if for example I play a Roman team, I expect a fair amount of heavy infantry as well as heavy cavalry. So, you take a more aggresive tactic otherwise intend on winning the archer duel. Chariots > Cavalry, interestingly enough Chariots also > legions. Both require a backup of cavalry support, so for example using Pontus I would bring in 2-3 scythed chariots with a group of Cappadocian cavalry. Your cavalry crisis is solved.
Now for those pesky urbans. Well hands down urbans are the best legions in the game, and if you let them get their pilum off you might as well eat worms. With phalanx, you have to be very skillful, and basically run in range of the urbans so that they can get a maximum of 1 round off. Once you lower the pikes they shouldnt be anymore effective. Now remember the Urbans WILL win in melee, so you have to win the cav battle. But the bronze shields should hold them off long enough to route the enemy cavaly. There is something like 200 denari difference between urbans and shields, as well you may be able to hold off more urbans with less shields because of the number difference (40 vs 60 pike).
To do this you engage your cavalry (I usually use wedge then after the charge turn into block, but most people dont do this). Due to the chance that the chariots will go crazy, you want to engage them last and smash into the side of all the (enemy) cavalry engaged. This will make a sure win, providing the Romans did make uber cavalry and bad infantry. If they try and send urbans into the mix, just target those with your chariots first. Me and Nihilist have had considerable success with this tactic in 2v2's as well.
Now make sure you hit the urbans in the back, and they should route. You can use your scythed chariots as well but if the game is close then you might want to hold them as a reserve. This is the forumula for all chariot, elephant factions vs rome. And if you can coordinate this with a partner it will win 2v2s almost every game.
Rome was easier to kill in 1.2, but with the slow kill rate of the pike in 1.3/1.5. Rome becomes the awsome faction to use. Put it this way, an experiment game I did with a friend who is very good with the game. Note that I used Numidia legionaire against pikes, it took the pike forever to kll my numidia inf(given the smoothness of the game) while I successfuly defeats his cav with a couple of inf that I can pull easily away from the pike meele (suffering only 3-4 loses in an easy disengage move).
Thats how bad this two patches made the pike becomes and indirectly makes rome the super faction. In 1.3/1.5 pike become weaker instead of stronger, they can't react to Numidia legion, how good would you think that they would react to roman inf and skirmishers. constantly lifting ur pikes to chase afer "nimble heavy infantry" will result in breaking up your own foramtion and increasing the rate of casulties to the pike inf from a counter charge. Note that all the guy have to do is click the location.
Heres a trick against Pikes that was effective both in 1.2 and even more so in 1.3/1.5, put rome inf in defensive stance infront of a lower pike formation. As long as you don't throw yourself into the pike(basically charge head on) nothing with scratch you, you can even walk away from a engaged lowered pike formation while drinking a cup of tea at the same time. Now would you risk raising your pike to chase afther the romans inf knowing your oponent intention? Yes, but then, exposing urself to a cav charge in these situation or you become a legitimate targets to archers again and we know how wonderful archer can be against pikes. Roman inf are very resilaint to arrows, even without testudo so same trick agains roman doesn't work much.
Giving this new terrible weakenese of pikes, a "cav bash" would be even more tough to win for pike fraction against rome.
I can imagine the numidian legionaire saying this to the pikeman: "ouch! you poke my leg!"...and a roman legionaire saying: "ouch you scratch my shield, I just polished it!" Then stroll away.
IMO when a player is restricted to a a few units type to take on rome (e.g chariots, elephants), then thats really not alot of option and tactics regarding fighting rome. Lets us take a look at the number of factions that can take on rome, only a few privilage ones as mentioned. Lets have no ele in the game, we have even lesser factions and some close contender are now virtually crippled.
"I wouldn't blame a guy who would chairot and cav spam rome with Brits and egypt."
As we've said, the pikes aren't there to kill, they're there to hold. Yes, you can run away from them, but you just run after them. If you win the archer battle, you'll be shooting at their cavalry anyway, so they won't want to run around too much. Pikes aren't any weaker against Roman infantry than before; they never really killed much anyway, that was never their purpose.
All you need to do is to delay the Roman infantry, as cataphracts easily beat all the Roman cavalry and will then quickly rout the pinned infantry. Scythed chariots only hasten this. If the Roman player ignores your infantry and hits everything on your cavalry, then the pikes in the back do do quite a bit of damage and hurt morale.
I would blame a guy who chariot spammed as it's a sign of a player that can't deal with something immeadiately so gives up. Chariot spamming is not hard to beat anyhow.
If the roman infantry can easily disenage from the Pike, what chance do you think the pike can do to pin the roman inf down, like I mentioned before that the cataphracts would have their hands full fighting both roman inf and cav while the pike would find themselves pinning a few roman inf? The pike will have nothing to hold if nothing throw themselves into their pike, only a few legions standing infront of them pretending to be engaged, I told a guy who doesn't know this trick after I beat his pike with rome, we reversed the role and he simlply excel in this better than me.
The Pikes can stand there to have their own morale hurt most of the time, considering the fact that they lost their cav support thinking that they had pinned something as many as a few roman inf.
Scythe chariots can lose control rather easily deal to fire arrows. Do we have to use Brits and egypt when all else fail? Chariots spaming can be beaten easily, wouldn't that make roman even stronger?
Just find one day ask one of your clan mates to try my tricks using rome while you use selecid with no ele and art as the game rule basis. If you are afriand that your achers are no match against roman aux, try pike factions with cretian archers or their equivalent.
Edit: Yeah I did play RTW vanilla for a very long period so I never did give up on it, just bored with the tactics that are often geared towards a limited number of factions and units.
Pikes, being a slow but solid unit in frontal fighting, would be used to hold your center. You either have to win on the flanks with something else such as cavalry or you have to win the ranged duel to force the opponent to attack you. If the pikes cost too much, you won't be able to get an advantage in the cavalry or ranged units when going up against a non-pike based army. The problem as I see it is that mobility hasn't been given a proper denari value, so the pike units end up being too expensive. The changes to pikes in v1.5 allows them to fullfill their role, but their cost means you are at a disadvantage in the other areas of the RPS system. Ever since Total War moved away from players drawing their armies from the same unit pool, multiplayer has become an army purchase game.
Maybe you don't quite understand the sheer amount of Rome I've played online. I've seen that kind of thing attempted and countered it by moving as I said. As long as your patient, you will be able to pin the infantry (or prod it in the back). I'm not someone who has just been playing the game for 5 minutes.Quote:
Just find one day ask one of your clan mates to try my tricks using rome while you use selecid with no ele and art as the game rule basis. If you are afriand that your achers are no match against roman aux, try pike factions with cretian archers or their equivalent.
Yeah I do agree that RTW is a bit too much of an army purchase game and that the limited number of playable factions is a bit frustrating, it's just that the number of playable factions are most certainly not dominated by Rome, and there are more tactics that you allude to. 1.2 Rome was though all about winning on the flanks.
I don't quite get why you keep saying chariot spamming, as it's just not the way to beat a competent Rome and will be countered in a series of games, so at the most you'll win 1 game and lose the rest. Besides pretty much all high level games were played at max 8 cavalry (which includes chariots). Why did most veteran players not use Rome all the time in tourneys? I hated facing Parthia or Britannia much more than I ever did Rome.
No Not all battles are won on the flanks...but by many situations and circumstantes and mostly concentrated Cav charge in a single point at the rigth time and place...As I agreed with you rome is easier to beat in 1.2...just go try out 1.5 and use pike.
It is due to all kinds of considerations with different approach on mind , test and proven games with friends and other online players that that I come to this conculsion, not a five mins game.
Like you I too have a sheer amount of game with RTW in 1.2 and have seen you play quite amount of game in 1.2, so I don't really think you are defending the game properly without trying out 1.5...or 1.3 if you prefered.
No I don't believe that a competent rome player would win 9 out of 10 games against a chariots spam used by a competent player, hell even a competent player would fall prey to a noob who cav spam without those "high level rules" to check spaming, past complains from so many of them had proven this. The "high level rules" are there in fact, because overpowered spaming stack cav/chariot/ele(and certain inf unit spaming) charge is a problem and a no brainer, and people want decent intelligent games,therefore the rules...
In team games I always see good clans do a single combined cav charge in a single point(center/flanks and sometimes straight at pikes) in 1.2 too often to know that how victories can be won in so many ways with cav concerntrations...
People fear Britannia in 1.2 because the chariots are cheap reliable, don't lose control due to casulties and fire arrows and the fact that there are ha,catacphracts and the much hated elephants in a parthian army.
I am not understanding why you disagree with my frustartion over Rome in 1.3/1.5 when you already know that in 1.2 tactics are so limited by the unit factions available in the game as you have mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Thanks for clarifying certains points better than I can do. Pikes are definately doing a better job in a frontal fight now but they are facing a new problem with the current patch which in turns make certain units especially those found in Rome even more dominating in MP, espcailly against a competent and patient Rome player.
Doesn't the improvement to phalanx and the fixed charge in v1.5 stop this? I was hoping it did so you wouldn't have to use unit limiting rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaLurker
If the anti-cav infantry are working properly this can be countered. It's a matter of being able to hold long enough for your allies to flank the attack in a hammer and anvil fashion. There was always disagreement among vets about how long a single army should be able to hold a larger force. Some vets wanted the single army to collapse immediately so that any relief force had to arrive at the point of attack simultaneously with the attacking force. I've always felt that the relief force should have enough time to respond to allow for some separation between armies.Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaLurker
I havent played the new 1.5 RTW has the cav been balanced like in BI?
Hi guys, in 1.5, cav are slighly weaker so phalanx are more resilent to cav charge in the front but a test shows that cav stack charge to the front is still very devasting to non pike units, not like BI which can be quite sucidal, cav still dominates the games in RTW vanilla you still see players still using 6 or more cav in 1.5 RTW, in BI this had dropped to usually not more than 5 melee cav, sometimes only 1-2(and some zero) in an army, none the less cav still have the potential to act as a decisve force in BI.
Limit rules are always there to ensure a healthy level of intelliegent games, we simply can't stop random players with 1.2 spam mentality from fielding all cav armies in BI/RTW which is quite stupid considering that inf are stronger in BI and RTW 1.5 than in RTW 1.2 and that can offenly spoil a potential good game.
One thing you have to note is phalanx are extremely hard to beat in a frontal fight now when they are in neat, tight formation leaving no gaps between units because the enemy now dies at in the edge of the pike, even romans preats have problem dealing with pike in neat tight formations...
... now the new problem is... pike kill slower...even more slower if the unit facing pike use defensive mode, they seems to be more vulnerable to overlapping 1.5, so if the pike break fromation or try to be agressive against say, non pike infantry, exposing themselves to overlap, they can be beaten very easily. They are still very vunerable to missle not to mention slow.
Troops with anti cav abilites now work properly but unlike their counterpart in BI they do not form shiltron or shield wall, making them less effective against the umber cavs of RTW, most phalanx armies do not have spearman, so relying on units like eles/chariots/cav to win the flanks is even more important than it use to be especially for phalanx armies facing rome. Don't forget though, rome still have their killer pilums which is pretty nasty, combine with cheap and effecient aux archers(and preat cav) its pretty clear which side will have a better head start in terms of control.
Well that's correct isn't it? cav --> swords --> pikes --> cavQuote:
Originally Posted by AquaLurker
Bring on the all cav. It looses now against anti-cav infantry, so after a while you won't see all cav armies anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaLurker
I think that's ok. Phalanx did loose if it broke formation or its flanks became exposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaLurker
I used to play MP as The Greek Cities quite often, and it was difficult due to their weak cav. That seems to be a faction balance issue, but it's actually more accurate historically because the cavalry did decline after Alexander and the phalanx lost to the more flexible Romans as a result. Of course, in MP that translates to the faction being less desireable to play or even unplayable against an opponent of equal skill.Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaLurker
Cav--->swords---> pike----> cav? No thats don't seems ok, you don't just rout a line of fresh heavy infantry with a spam stack cav that, MTW scissor paper stone theory...that was pretty lame atually.
Yes Cav spaming have stopped good ridance but the use of cav is not dimished and still dominating simply because cav still have the sames stats.
Yeah phanlanx did lose when the break formation historically, so would their cav if they are too slow to do anything...so should they break formation to help their cav getting wiped out slowly by arrows after they lose the archers war against rome or should they try to out run the romans who are already slaugthering their cav with Preatorian cavalry and urban cohort? At the same time, while while the selecid achers are struggling to kill the aux archers, their chariots are most likely running their own men down due to longer range fire arrows.
"I used to play MP as The Greek Cities quite often, and it was difficult due to their weak cav. That seems to be a faction balance issue, but it's actually more accurate historically because the cavalry did decline after Alexander and the phalanx lost to the more flexible Romans as a result. Of course, in MP that translates to the faction being less desireable to play or even unplayable against an opponent of equal skill."
Exactly, as quoted by yourself, whats the point of anyone trying to make the Romans sound less undefeatable when they are not. Balance is the issue in 1.2 and its new problem arise when new features are badly introduced, making an already powerful faction even tougher, limiting the already small pool of tactics that alvaible to face Rome. Only by using a limited catagory of units which is in turn limited by a number of factions to even things better? So what do we do? Bring on the Brits/egypt/ and any faction that use elephants everytime we face Rome? What if the rules says no ele? Get a factions with chariots? Historically Romans have strong and flexible infantry, but cavalry? So were there historical acurate features or game balancing elements? None of it.
Thus making any form of tactical discussion in RTW vanilla as exciting as discussing about a race between the rabbit and the tortise with rome around.
Well that lame theory is still part of the game design in RTW/BI. Anti-cav infantry get a combat bonus against cavalry. If you want all infantry types to beat cav, that would be ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaLurker
Then you have inf --> cav --> ranged --> inf.
If the cav spamming has stopped that's good. I don't understand your objection to players using a lot of cav. I don't see anything wrong with that as long as there is a way to counter it. Ever unit should have a counterunit. Or to put it another way. Every unit should have strength and a weakness.Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaLurker
I don't think you should be using a slow unit to chase a faster unit. That's playing to your unit's weakness rather than its strength. If you are going to take a relatively slow infantry based army, you cannot afford to loose the ranged duel. Likewise, you have to protect your flanks in some way.Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaLurker
Yes. Well CA said they didn't make historical accuracy or realism high priorities. What I was doing with The Greek Cities was determining by playing how weak I could make the phalanx line so that I could upgrade the cav as much as possible. I'd put some armor on the phalanx so it could absorb a fair amount of ranged fire, but pilum is a problem. I haven't played v1.5 to see if this army purchasing strategy works. It didn't work at all in v1.2, but it worked better in v1.3 since the phalanx line could repel cavalry. My objective is not to beat the romans straight up. I have to maneuver in such a way to get some flank attacks. I don't have to win the ranged duel, but I have to sufficiently neutralize the enemy ranged units so that they cannot significantly harm the phalanx.Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaLurker
Is it really that bad or do you need more imaginative or agressive tactics? Keep the denari low enough so that players can't load up with elite units. A unit like urban cohorts will, for the most part, get priced out of the armies.Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaLurker
Point taken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
I do not object to people taking more cav but rather pointing out that though Cav has been weaken, the element of stack cav charge is still there, so its seems that cav is really not weaken enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Don't think there is another option considering the type of troop avaliable in most phalanx army.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Since you have played 1.3, its the same as 1.5, just that 1.3 lags more..., well your objective is to flank a roman infantry, the obejective of the romn infantry is also to flank you isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Would you like to suggest a feasible agressive tactcis that can worked with your imagination? One can state, patience, tricks/deception and manipulation or waiting for the opponnet to make their mistake? The same elements mentioned that allows you to beat the Roman opponent who already had a head start in advantage can also be applied by the Roman player...so is the tortise praying for the rabbit to make the same mistake twice?Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Do something to take the opponent out of his gameplan. The last time I had greeks vs romans I charged with my cavalry and then pulled back when the romans countercharged which drew their cav into my archer range. I then massed all my cavalry on one side of the romans and advanced my infantry waiting for opportunities to hit some of their infantry from behind. The idea is to overwhelm your opponent's ability to effectively manage all of his units without you loosing control of your own units. This is why the maneuver aspect of the gameplay and the ability to effectively control all of your units individually is so important because it's the means by which you overcome a combat power deficiency. That's why when I saw the speeded up gameplay of RTW and the reduced flexibility of control in the interface I knew that rush tactics with the most powerful units was going to be very difficult or possibly impossible to overcome. At the time, I never imagined that CA would also drop the combat penalty for stacked units which makes things even worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaLurker
Yeah that is what most vets do, sending fast cav to go running into archer sometimes just to scare/send the archers running backwards while your archers take the oppoturnity given to kill more of his archers. But guarded by rome inf with pila, this can be more risky to that player's cav due to pilum and cav may panick mid way and suffer more casulties while failing to achieving their goal, such cav luring action can been seen in clans games between experience players. But it can be easily avoided by puting the romans inf infront with the archers behind taking the advantage of a roman inf amour against arrows which most people do really, they can also adopted testudo if they wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
It would have been easier if Rome suffer the same slowlness as any pike inf might suffer without risk exposing their flanks or rear to archers fire or suden charges in awkward postions with their pike raise. Against a flanking manuvour, players tend to just turn their entire army and refuse flanks. Its easier to do this if you use rome...and its sounds like a good players using a tortise trying to fight a rabbit who have a head start in advantage hopping that the guy would not see it coming. This reminds me of some funny games I played with my clan mates and it seems like a merry go round to us lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
A pike army do have difficulty to overcome rush because its needs to stay in its neat tight formation or risk getting overwhelm. Rushing is more difficult to overcome when you face powerful cav heavy armies with strong flexible infantry supporting them, but a pike rush can be easy to overcome even with strong cavs support. Speed is a problem for pike armies still. But I am not really sure if it is easier to control units in MTW because I always find maintaing a formation while on the move in MTW a pain compared to RTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Thats one of the thing that bothers me too, its doesn't seems realistic for man to fight better in a compact manner especially stack pikes and stack cav...but if I look at the bright side, at least they(pikes) are now more vunlerable overlapping attacks and morale penalties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D