Strategy Map - Marching Unitited or Concentration at a Point?

[RLucid]

There's that saying about "marching divided & fighting united", yet OTOH there's some advice about splitting up your forces being a bad idea from the advisor. Indeed moving multiple smaller armies around, risks the odd unpleasant surprise.

Yet, if you want to trap or lure an opponent on the strategy map, then it's bit tough to do with just 1 mega-army, marching directly to Go.

So any views on this? Do you amuse yourself with sneeky misdirection moves and offer 'bait', or just find smashing the front door down with overwhelming force working fine?

[Quirinus]

I'm generally a fan of the doctrine of taking enemy cities as fast as possible, on the principle that the loss of settlements hurts an opponent more than the loss of armies. After that, if armies come my way, I sally forth and crush them (Doesn't have to be 'sallying forth' in the strictest sense, could be that I see the army not two grids away from recently-occupied city, so I attack).

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

I usually use a more united approach to my forces when in enemy lands.

Marching divided never has really appealed to me due to the vulnerability of the scattered forces - the enemy can easily move a force other than the one being baited to attack one of the armies. These then rapidly fall.

Spies can help with this, but this results in movement being a bit tedious/hard to manage on occasions.

I'm also a bit like Quirinus, prefer to use a brute force approach. As said, in most cases, a rapid blitz method seems much more effective and reliable in damaging the enemy than an intelligent yet less reliable tactical manoeuvre or trap.

Having said that, bait can be useful/the only method of victory if you are outnumbered. Especially in sieges if you are able to take the settlement in the turn. Most of the time the AI sends out some troops to deal with the bait, leaving you to sneak in and take the town while they are gone. Sadly, the AI comes back to take back the settlement immediately afterwards which can be a problem - especially if the city taken has a weak defence for an outnumbered level of defenders (lower/higher than stone walls).

Using multiple armies to surround a force to prevent them fleeing can also be useful, but the same risks do apply and it's often possible to catch up with withdrawing forces easily anyhow.

[Bartholemew-Varath]

I always march with a united unit, i dont really like sending small parts of my army ahead, only usually for flankers and the like. I also like the idea of brute force, smashing the enemies frontline with hundreds of soldiers, making them rout, i do it if the advantage is infinately theirs, such as they are on a hill, and have a general or flankers backing them up, nothing feels better than destroying an enemy army in hand to hand combat with brute force

Marching as several groups is usually only useful if the enemy has a small army and rather than charge your lines, they will stay and defend their positions. Also, you might try to lure out an army out of a highly defensive position by dragging them out with bait, but you could use a light cavalry for that so i suppose its not relevant

[RLucid]

Good recce is important. Fighting smaller battles helps, as you avoid the 20 unit threshold, and the AI bodging part of a key battle, by insisting on control of some of your precious forces. It is definitely possible to get "burned". Some of the Diplomacy strategies mentioned in guide feature "misdirection", but it's possible to pull off occasionally without the drag of frustrating Diplo. negotations.

Whilst it's not always applicable, in a campaign where time/space considerations and manuever comes into play it's very satisfying. You can sometimes "take" a whole enemy army out of equation, simply by misdirecting them; if the AI is left with forces in the wrong place, it's worse than not having them, as the upkeep cripple the faction finances preventing them from raising troops in the required spot.

Detachments sent by AI are also cheaper to bribe, adding another strategic possibility.

Maneuver and a dynamic campaign (going in the back door) tends to lead to storming a town with open gates (may be no wall arrows), rather than siege possibly following a battle on ground of enemies choosing, Direct siege battle, where enemy fight to death generally leads to more casualties.

On Quirinus's point, I think you can capture cities faster (perhaps not first one but a whole string on campaign) if you destroy the main opposing army in the open taking very few losses fairly early on. Furthermore you can launch an attack sooner, with re-inforcements following on, if you're prepared to march divided. Sometimes, you can deflect armies long way away from a city (or have them halted by a 3rd faction with hidden stack), which is then attacked from a surprise direction.

Being willing to take the risk and bank on gathering a relief force in time, after a smaller force exploits an opportunity, justifies the recce effort of spies, and can unbalance opposing faction, as they rush to react with the superior forces.

The AI also tends to keep some garrison force, plus a force outside a city, so I've had some success with threatening a city from one direction, then turning to take a more important city; which gets a (weakened) army to chase a stack it shouldn't actually attack. Then have 2nd army moving in, which can wipe out the smaller city protection forces left behind after the main army destroys the attacking AI stack.

Another trick is to have a main force in "ambush" and have a smaller bait army in more open terrain which the AI promptly attacks, only to run into a superior army.

If you prefer to always to campaign with 1 united force, and not use multiple armies, how do you take advantage of interior lines (those roads you like to build and naval transport), shifting thrust of an attack to provoke and exploit weak points?

[El Diablo]

I think that you will find the "march divided fight united" was a military maxim in that having a large force in one place meant that supplying the force was not possible without a good chain of supply. By dispercing your troops you could forage more effectively and thus limit what you needed to ship to the troops.

The down side of this was your force being spread out meant it was possible for the enemy to counterattack. They may have only had a 1/2 stack but if you split your full stack into four the force attacked would be outnumbered 2:1.

This is the "fight united" part. The trick being to march AS FAR AS POSSIBLE divided without having to fight. A true balancing act.

That was in the "real world" in RTW you have no issues with supply and therefore no reason to disperce your troops UNLESS you have multiple targets that a fraction of your force can TAKE AND HOLD or even just take and destroy (scorthed earth). Otherwise keep them together and take the only thing the enemy can not replace (cities) - rather than armies which they can re-recruit.

Also when you play you often specialise in one type of unit from a city thus if you were sending them to the front like that you run the risk of having a 1/4 stack of hoplies being ambused by a 1/2 stack of missle cavelry. I.e. having a non-mixed unit type of force. Never a good scenario!!

My 2c

[Praetor Rick]

I think that you will find the "march divided fight united" was a military maxim in that having a large force in one place meant that supplying the force was not possible without a good chain of supply. By dispercing your troops you could forage more effectively and thus limit what you needed to ship to the troops.

The down side of this was your force being spread out meant it was possible for the enemy to counterattack. They may have only had a 1/2 stack but if you split your full stack into four the force attacked would be outnumbered 2:1.

This is the "fight united" part. The trick being to march AS FAR AS POSSIBLE divided without having to fight. A true balancing act.

That was in the "real world" in RTW you have no issues with supply and therefore no reason to disperce your troops UNLESS you have multiple targets that a fraction of your force can TAKE AND HOLD or even just take and destroy (scorthed earth). Otherwise keep them together and take the only thing the enemy can not replace (cities) - rather than armies which they can re-recruit.

Also when you play you often specialise in one type of unit from a city thus if you were sending them to the front like that you run the risk of having a 1/4 stack of hoplies being ambused by a 1/2 stack of missle cavelry. I.e. having a non-mixed unit type of force. Never a good scenario!!

My 2c

It would actually be kind of cool to have scaling upkeep costs with the size of your army stack, so maintaining 20 units in one stack would cost more in upkeep than 2 stacks of 10 units each, which would in turn cost more than 4 stacks of 5 units each, to simulate the real world difficulties with keeping a large army mustered, in the field, and marching together across long distances. Maybe CA will implement something like that in a future game.

[El Diablo]

That would be good apart from the map would probably become a sea of one unit stacks and when you attack one unit it would have 8 "reinforcements"!

Could be pretty funny to win "8 battle in one day".

I understand the idea your are meaning though.

Does EB have addition unit upkeep costs for units in enemy territory to simulate the cost of supply?

That is another option...

ED

[placenik]

Well, I mostly have two types of armies in the field:

Scrimishing army: 1-2 preferably mounted scrimishing units to harass big enemy stacks using attack&retreat tactic, to screen field, make frequent siegies, and to distract enemy in eny other way.

Crushing army: For actual wining, best battle stack I can make.

[RLucid]

I think that you will find the "march divided fight united" was a military maxim in that having a large force in one place meant that supplying the force was not possible without a good chain of supply.
By dispercing your troops you could forage more effectively and thus limit what you needed to ship to the troops.

Yes! The nearest effect in the Game is simply time, concentrating force first and then marching on the objective, can be fair bit slower, than moving a number of medium stacks, coordinating to take an objective.

Need to forage, reduced marching time and led to more tired troops. Armies with efficient supply however would gain a significant advantage; remember Alexander was able to pass through rather barren lands, where foraging would have been difficult, because of the horse-based Macedonian supply train using Persian roads. Armies would also be forced to move on, once they'd exhausted the local resources.

Other factors would be limited transport capacity by ship, need for seperate mustering areas and so on.

But remember the need to trap opposing armies and force them to offer battle. There's an example in the historical armies, where Gaullish forces are trapped by a pincer between 2 Roman forces.

The down side of this was your force being spread out meant it was possible for the enemy to counterattack. They may have only had a 1/2 stack but if you split your full stack into four the force attacked would be outnumbered 2:1.

This is the "fight united" part. The trick being to march AS FAR AS POSSIBLE divided without having to fight. A true balancing act.

It's interesting how even successful Generals like Alexander, had difficulties forcing passes held by local tribes, with a large army. Another example is the attacks Hannibal suffered from Gauls before crossing the Alps, adding to the difficulty passing through enemy territory.

That was in the "real world" in RTW you have no issues with supply and therefore no reason to disperce your troops UNLESS you have multiple targets that a fraction of your force can TAKE AND HOLD or even just take and destroy (scorthed earth). Otherwise keep them together and take the only thing the enemy can not replace (cities) - rather than armies which they can re-recruit.

Actually you can unbalance the opposing faction forces, via diversions; and you can provoke mistakes by appearing weaker. The AI doesn't use defensive spies very well, and can be tricked into attacking on very bad terms.

In general though, the AI has a number of spread out forces, which you can prevent concentrating if you invade with multiple stacks. If you move in 1 huge stack, be-seige a town, it's likely to be 1 huge battle when the relieving force arrives.


On game realism, looking at Medieval warfare, the baggage trains featured even more heavily than in ancient. Few armies could resist looting, frequently making them vulnerable to counter-attack.

Without the supply, concentration and baggage train issues being represented, you cannot get a real appreciation of the factors in a battle. Nor the reasons why they chose to fight. Sometimes it was purely due to morale lowering effects of waiting in camp, and not accepting opponents challenge (implying you didn't expect to win) leading to potential for desertion.

Also when you play you often specialise in one type of unit from a city thus if you were sending them to the front like that you run the risk of having a 1/4 stack of hoplies being ambused by a 1/2 stack of missle cavelry. I.e. having a non-mixed unit type of force. Never a good scenario!!

Yep, if you do use multi-thrust attacks, then you have to think about force composition carefully, as well as the plausible responses.

One situation which worked well for me, was against Macedonia. They moved their armies northwards, probably to attack my ally Thrace. I took the opportunity to surprise capture (I think) Larissa, killing their faction leader, with very small forces led by my faction leader. Before the 2 main campaign armies I had prepared (one of which needed to be moved by ship) were in position.

Now the AI turned around and moved it's 2 big stacks back, giving me time to choose ground and set a trap. Meanwhile a 3rd smaller army, mostly mercenaries marched out on Bylazora from North, now denuded of forces.

The effect is, that the faction completely collapses, as soon as you win the first battle. It simply cannot meet the various threats, and you prevent effective withdrawal because retreat is cut off. Furthermore it just moves it's forces to your tune, without significant effect.

[RLucid]

Scrimishing army: 1-2 preferably mounted scrimishing units to harass big enemy stacks using attack&retreat tactic, to screen field, make frequent siegies, and to distract enemy in eny other way.

Crushing army: For actual wining, best battle stack I can make.

That's a good example.

A variation for even non Horse-Archer/Javelin factions is the cavalry screen. You can basically prevent an opposing army from reinforcing a key point, by fighting a defensive battle, which you win simply by remaining on the field.

That may seem unrealistic, but actually it was a function of cavalry to screen forces, and if you run into enemy cavalry, it is going to slow up the march; as you have to fear ambushes.

[Quirinus]

On Quirinus's point, I think you can capture cities faster (perhaps not first one but a whole string on campaign) if you destroy the main opposing army in the open taking very few losses fairly early on. Furthermore you can launch an attack sooner, with re-inforcements following on, if you're prepared to march divided. Sometimes, you can deflect armies long way away from a city (or have them halted by a 3rd faction with hidden stack), which is then attacked from a surprise direction.

That's working on the assumption that you take very few losses yourself. While the AI may be incompetent in advanced tactics and unrealistically vulnerable to any 'tricks', I find that, generally, when confronted with a similar army, my playing skills are mediocre enough to take significant losses myself. (This is proving to be an especially intractable problem as Bactria in my RTR game, fighting against Seleucids who can churn out stack after stack of advanced units) So while I can usually win, it's sometimes Pyrrhic, and constant attrition without re-training can really bite as a campaign goes on.

Taking the city also provides the additional benefit of being able to reduce the numerical advantage-- wall defenses help a lot.


I do occasionally use the 'many small armies' doctrine as a delaying tactic-- sending out lone units of peasants that the AI stack(s) chase around for a few turns, allowing for reinforcements to be brought up. Kind of an exploit, I guess.

[RLucid]

when confronted with a similar army, my playing skills are mediocre enough to take significant losses myself. (This is proving to be an especially intractable problem as Bactria in my RTR game, fighting against Seleucids who can churn out stack after stack of advanced units) So while I can usually win, it's sometimes Pyrrhic, and constant attrition without re-training can really bite as a campaign goes on.

Can't you break the symmetry and tilt things in your favour? This is one reason I'm fond of missile troops. Even a weakish unit, gains a lot of punch if it has a buddy Illyrian mercenary javelin unit, softening up the opposition, and then flanking. Or if you choose favourable ground, and can make the AI attack over a bridge or ford, or up a steep mountain. You may be able to refuse battle with your weaker units, and have number of stronger plus weak units, gain a local force advantage, routing 1 wing of AI army, before your weak wing collapses. The AI tends to leave it's skirmishers out on a flank unprotected, so they're vulnerable to pre-battle aggressive cavalry moves (oblique feigned charge forces them to retreat into isolated flank possition where they're mopped up by 2nd cav unit).

Of course if you're struggling for resources, and enemy has higher quality troops to, it may not be possible to reduce your losses. You'ld be doing well turning natural "defeats" into close hard fought victories.

But that pause for re-training & re-grouping, allows the AI to spit out units at max rate, and increases resistance. A big surprise attack, followed up by exploitation forces, may deny it that breathing space (may mean you need longer build up, before initial offensive).

Actually I think a lot of reason, I've got into multi-thrust advances, rather than single big stack play, is that it makes battles much simpler, when you're fighting with (against) 10-15 units, rather than full 20's.

[o_loompah_the_delayer]

Good recce is important.

Yes.

Detachments sent by AI are also cheaper to bribe, adding another strategic possibility.

Not really feasible after patches, bribing seems well nigh impossible and not worht it given the high cost.

On Quirinus's point, I think you can capture cities faster (perhaps not first one but a whole string on campaign) if you destroy the main opposing army in the open taking very few losses fairly early on. Furthermore you can launch an attack sooner, with re-inforcements following on, if you're prepared to march divided. Sometimes, you can deflect armies long way away from a city (or have them halted by a 3rd faction with hidden stack), which is then attacked from a surprise direction.

You dont need to find the enemies main army to destroy it, if you take the city, they will come to you and you can slaughter them there.
As for early attacks, the main army doesnt have to be 20 stacks as long as it is not significantly understength compared to the enemy. so in the early game 6-10 units is fine.

Another trick is to have a main force in "ambush" and have a smaller bait army in more open terrain which the AI promptly attacks, only to run into a superior army.

Agreed, especially if the enemy is positioned on very good defensive territory.

If you prefer to always to campaign with 1 united force, and not use multiple armies, how do you take advantage of interior lines (those roads you like to build and naval transport), shifting thrust of an attack to provoke and exploit weak points?

You keep defensive armies at other points and then once the main army smashes through the defensive armies move up where there is no threat opposing them.

One situation which worked well for me, was against Macedonia. They moved their armies northwards, probably to attack my ally Thrace. I took the opportunity to surprise capture (I think) Larissa, killing their faction leader, with very small forces led by my faction leader. Before the 2 main campaign armies I had prepared (one of which needed to be moved by ship) were in position.

Now the AI turned around and moved it's 2 big stacks back, giving me time to choose ground and set a trap. Meanwhile a 3rd smaller army, mostly mercenaries marched out on Bylazora from North, now denuded of forces.

The effect is, that the faction completely collapses, as soon as you win the first battle. It simply cannot meet the various threats, and you prevent effective withdrawal because retreat is cut off. Furthermore it just moves it's forces to your tune, without significant effect.

I would say this is only possible in Greece where all the the cities are so close together, elsewhere where distances are greater, there can only be one target for any given army.

[Quirinus]

Of course if you're struggling for resources, and enemy has higher quality troops to, it may not be possible to reduce your losses. You'ld be doing well turning natural "defeats" into close hard fought victories.

That's the case with me, though in RTR's Bactria the main problem isn't so much a lack of resources as a supply overstretch. RTR has an 'auxilia' system which only allows you to build units after making a significant investment in time and money, represented by 'auxilia buildings'. That means that my core, troop-producing cities are a great distance away-- reinforcements take years to arrive at the front line. Of course now as the game progresses investment in the former Parthian cities (as well as paved roads throughout my empire in general) has paid off, which should reduce reinforcement travel times by at least half. I now face another problem though: that of my generals dying of old age. I have two super night-fighting ten-star generals leading the two prongs of my invasion, and they are already about sixty and fifty-plus respectively. Since I have been relying almost exclusively on these two and their command stars to weather the Seleucid stacks, I shudder at the thought of having to use some greenhorn general, outnumbered, outclassed, and out-generalled.

But I digress.

But that pause for re-training & re-grouping, allows the AI to spit out units at max rate, and increases resistance. A big surprise attack, followed up by exploitation forces, may deny it that breathing space (may mean you need longer build up, before initial offensive).

Remember that while the AI is spitting out new troops for the meat grinder, you can be doing the same too.

[RLucid]

Not really feasible after patches, bribing seems well nigh impossible and not worht it given the high cost.

Sometimes you're stinking rich, and bribing a reinforcement stack disrupts the AI's attempt organising a counter. So whilst it's not advisable to make a habit of it, sometimes throwing an expensive hammer in the works, simplifies a campaign and leads to rapid decisive conclusion avoiding need to divert march stack long way. So whilst it may still not be cost-effective, it's not too costly, due to the earlier capture of enemy cities, and avoiding need to raise additional units.

Bribing is possible in RTW 1.5, but you need a decent influential Diplomat and a decent treasury, expect to drop 3,000-5,000 dn. At first, I couldn't bribe anything because I didn't train up the Diplo.s nor have enough unspent treasury to make it work, when attempted.

You dont need to find the enemies main army to destroy it, if you take the city, they will come to you and you can slaughter them there.

That's fine if you like the ground outside the city. But Narbo say, has woods and that means more casualties when fighting against barbs, and a harder to control battle (due to lower visibility, reducing my command effectiveness).

But you are permitting the AI to gather it's reinforcements, and know where your army is, rather than setting up ambushes, and defeating it in detail.

Part of real Generalship is dictating the ground you fight on. This is actually possible in the game, if you manage the time/movement effects. The AI doesn't know exactly what forces you have, so you can aim for defensive battles, where it traps itself, resulting in total extermination of all routers (as they're well away from safe map edge).

I would say this is only possible in Greece where all the the cities are so close together, elsewhere where distances are greater, there can only be one target for any given army.

Done it in Spain, where campaign ran into some difficulties caused by need to heavily garrison Coduba (until could rebuild own faction temple), and the lack of mercenaries to sustain campaign. Just wasn't able to raise the kind of overwhelming forces I'd have liked for frontal assault, and losing time was allowing resistance to become better organised.

Large Spain stack moved to counter-attack. Unknown to AI, I had re-inforcements coming, so I moved away waiting to see which direction the AI would decide on. Before AI could move to land it's blow against my inferior army, I landed a 4th army in the NW corner, to attack the capitol, which caused it to panic & turn about.

So main Spain stack retreats, and my inferior force now chases it (expecting to concentrate a superior force once reinf's combine. They stand off slightly and build a fort to camp in. If the Spain stack laid siege, a relieving force would arrive tilting the odds in my favour. Furthermore any attack means, main stack looses any hope of relieving the Capitol in time. The smaller army now actuallly took the capitol early thanks to spie, whilst the Corduba lot finally got out to storm the other Atlantic port. Faction Spain & Gaul destroyed in 1 turn (3 Spain settlements all falling same move), as Numantia now falls to the re-inforcements attacking out of Gaul who could safely lay siege once main Spain stack moved off to South, then back to North.

No army had to fight on inferior terrain, smaller forces acheived local concentrations of superior force, and after capturing all cities, the now Rebel Spanish stack, stayed still, allowing concentration to defeat it.

The effect is like Napoleonic maneuver warfare, or say Marlborough's campaigns. So actually where space is great, that can be an ally to, not just when objectives are close together.

[RLucid]

That's the case with me, though in RTR's Bactria the main problem isn't so much a lack of resources as a supply overstretch. RTR has an 'auxilia' system which only allows you to build units after making a significant investment in time and money, represented by 'auxilia buildings'. That means that my core, troop-producing cities are a great distance away-- reinforcements take years to arrive at the front line. Of course now as the game progresses investment in the former Parthian cities (as well as paved roads throughout my empire in general) has paid off, which should reduce reinforcement travel times by at least half.

That sounds interesting. One of my reasons for investing in control of sea as Julii (contrary to land-lubbing advice of some), is to allow rapid movement of reinforcements, not tried a land-locked faction.

Generally what I try to do, is prepare the anticipated campaign, or at least be able to rapidly draw on reserves, if I have cease-fire and appear weak to AI. So with say the Julii this preparation would include TW garrison troops, plus some replacements following on, say couple Hastati, Equites; may be merc skirmishers or velites. In the case with inferior quality troops, it'd have to be a whole fresh force, which exploits the initial hard won victory, by following up and storming the now (hopefully) lightly defended towns. I really try to gain a big edge though, by hiring the right mercenaries, and if possible a good cavalry superiority.

Normally the slowness of AI to act decisively, allows switching of effort from front to front, re-deploying a main army against a new faction after the key objectives are seized, with smaller forces mopping up.

[RLucid]

I think that you will find the "march divided fight united" was a military maxim in that having a large force in one place meant that supplying the force was not possible without a good chain of supply. By dispercing your troops you could forage more effectively and thus limit what you needed to ship to the troops.

The down side of this was your force being spread out meant it was possible for the enemy to counterattack. They may have only had a 1/2 stack but if you split your full stack into four the force attacked would be outnumbered 2:1.

This is the "fight united" part. The trick being to march AS FAR AS POSSIBLE divided without having to fight. A true balancing act.

Actually I don't think it was just supply issues. Been considering some of the campaigns, ancient & medieval.

One big army, on march becomes a huge long column in much W. European terrain. Estimates are that Hannibal's 50,000 starting force would be 15 miles long, or about 3/4 of a days march! Even the smaller Medieval forces, suffer where van and rear would be hours apart, even not considering the hours needed to form up for battle. Hoplites would take hours to armour up, and form into phalanxes (hence need for light skirmishing protective screens pre-battle). You see these effects even in Napoleonic era, where commanders were much more careful than some of the rather careless Ancient commander's who'd regularly blunder into ambushes, despite using ambushes themselves against enemies.

If you think about it, 1 big army can be stopped at choke points. This is what happened to Alexander at times. A good example of then dividing forces to overcome the block, is the River crossing battle in India. That put the defender in awkward spot of not knowing whether it was a diversion or the main thrust. If you move against it with whole force, the rear is now exposed. Similarly Thermopylae was lost, due to a turning movement, that wasn't blocked by Phocians, who were intended to hold the pass, but fell back to protect their home town, and let the Persians pass, making the main Greek forces position untenable.

A reason therefore to march divided (but in communication range), was to avoid concentration of local superiority of force, by a smaller army against the vanguard, who have to fight an offensive battle in unfavourable terrain terms. Waiting for main army to catch up, is no use if there's insufficient space to deploy. With multiple coordinated forces advancing, the blocked force can simply stop & wait, whilst the other forces concentrate in a turning movement against the "blockers" who now may have to withdraw from good defensive terrain, without a fight because their situation becomes untenable.

In game, at times you can maneuver around a blocking force, and force it to withdraw, by careful movement to a point where you can offer defensive battle. If the enemy engages, it may have a tactical victory at cost of high losses, but face total strategic defeat due to loss of city. The larger stack defending can then post-battle be in an untenable position, as now it's inferior to the other stack (which is reinforced by survivors of first battle). Also one complaint is that the AI tends to dispatch small stacks around on map, to re-inforce; multiple armies have more chance of intercepting these and destroying them in detail.

So basically, whilst you can just use brute force, there actually is scope in RTW to make more subtle maneuver's, prevent the AI from concentrating it's forces, and taking advantage of mobility & strategic terrain to disrupt it's counters. You have to be on lookout for the possibilities, and wary of nasty suprises, but then your campaign is much more interesting; than taking the simple frontal assault option.

[Quirinus]

Bribing is possible in RTW 1.5, but you need a decent influential Diplomat and a decent treasury, expect to drop 3,000-5,000 dn. At first, I couldn't bribe anything because I didn't train up the Diplo.s nor have enough unspent treasury to make it work, when attempted.

In my experience bribery of full/almost-full stacks take quite a bit more than 5000d, somewhere in the range of 7500+ denarii, though it might possibly be because it's the late-game when factions are churning out high-tier units.

Bribery of Roman forces are still nigh impossible, though. Possibly that was what o_loompah_the_delayer was referring to. Even a half-stack take upwards of 100000d to bribe-- not feasible at all, even as an occasional stand-by.

[RLucid]

Yes, "Detachments sent by AI are also cheaper to bribe, adding another strategic possibility." means those small 3 unit stacks the AI likes to march around, and I had that always in mind in responses. I presume if you have absolutely overwhelming force, the AI realises such gestures are hopeless, whereas if it looks like they'll give it an advantage it marches making it interceptable by Diplomats to. Would have been clearer to suggest kind of units likely bribeable for about 3,500 dn.

Tried a 2nd move spot of bribery, with 3I Diplo that Julii get, cost 6,600dn (treasury about 8,500dn) for 3SWB + 1BLC units just outside Patavium. Not in this case a good deal, as they are destroyable in detail for few losses on attacking the city (opening gates with spy), if you deploy close to them.

[Raz]

I normally have two half stacks running around, but very close together. This way, one can lay siege while the other sets an ambush nearby and waits for any enemy counter-attack. You know, when they sneak up behind your besieging army and have you pinned between the army in the city and their army in the field.

Of course, sometimes you'll get that "Reinforcements Delayed" message and you'll have to make do without it. This is when marching united is a much better option that marching divided.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

One tactic of marching, in a way, divided, involves dragging siege weapons behind the main military force. This allows the main force to move ahead without heavy weaponry slowing them down.

The problem with this is the vulnerability of lone seige weapons - even a unit of peasants may be able to bring down a small force of them. This means a guard has to go with them, partially defeating the purpose.

[Quirinus]

Also, since siege weapons are useful for being able to storm a city the turn you attack it, having it trail behind also somewhat defeats the purpose....

[RLucid]

They don't need to be present at every battle or siege, but moving them by ship and landing to rendez-vous with other forces deployed may help.

[o_loompah_the_delayer]

Sometimes you're stinking rich, and bribing a reinforcement stack disrupts the AI's attempt organising a counter......

Bribing is possible in RTW 1.5, but you need a decent influential Diplomat and a decent treasury, expect to drop 3,000-5,000 dn.

By the time I am stinking rich in the game, either I stop as the campaign is basically over or I want to fight the massive battle so I want the enemy to have as many men as possible.

In terms of actual money, I dont think I have ever been asked less than 5,000d for a bribe, even using my best diplos (4-5 influence). Too rich for me, even in the mdgame when I have balances of 10,000 plus.

I saw your post later that you mean AI reinforcements armies of three units. I didnt realize that, but I woldnt bother bribing these armies. Usually I would send out whichever family member was closest with a smaller army (the heavy cav of the family member would ofcourse give a decisive edge to me) and try and pick up some experiencce and traits. A good way to blood the many spotty teenagers the Roman factions get. Admittedly this is harder with the other factions which to me always have far fewer family members for some reason.

That's fine if you like the ground outside the city. But Narbo say, has woods .......
Part of real Generalship is dictating the ground you fight on. This is actually possible in the game, if you manage the time/movement effects. The AI doesn't know exactly what forces you have, so you can aim for defensive battles, where it traps itself, resulting in total extermination of all routers (as they're well away from safe map edge).

I meant wait for the AI to assault you and then slaughter him in a defensive battle. If they try and starve you out over four turns, it should be possible to organize a relief army. Sally only if this isnt possible or if the enemy is clearly beatable or if there is no other option.

Narbo is one place I wouldnt do this though, mainly because whenver I have tried to take it as the Julii, the Gauls have always had three largish armies nearby, presumably the army recruited at Narbo, another from Numantia and the third from Condate and Alesia. I would always try and destroy two of them separately before actually attacking Narbo.

In terms of choosing ground if say from Narbo to Condate is three turns, I wouldnt keep my stack marching for its entire movement allocation. Each turn I would stop a little short if necessary to be on suitable defensive ground.

Done it in Spain, where campaign ran into some difficulties caused by need to heavily garrison Coduba (until could rebuild own faction temple), and the lack of mercenaries to sustain campaign. Just wasn't able to raise the kind of overwhelming forces I'd have liked for frontal assault, and losing time was allowing resistance to become better organised.
......
No army had to fight on inferior terrain, smaller forces acheived local concentrations of superior force, and after capturing all cities, the now Rebel Spanish stack, stayed still, allowing concentration to defeat it.

The effect is like Napoleonic maneuver warfare, or say Marlborough's campaigns. So actually where space is great, that can be an ally to, not just when objectives are close together.

Nicley done!

See I dont think we are that different after all. In a similar situation I would garrison Corduba as lightly as possible (my defensive army) but also send out the rest also by sea as all Spanish provinces are easily attackable from the sea except the one in the northwest, Asturicas?

Only with the Iberians scurrying back I wouldnt chase them (as Corduba would revolt) but I would move the other seaborne army to either take the city (Lisbon) by assault (1st choice) or take up a defensive position at one of the river crossings (2nd choice).

The closest I have ever come to anything Napoleonic would probably be the fighting around Narbo. Over two turns I would have two fight three or four battles against the three sperate gaulish armies, making sure that at the end of each turn I was in the yellow zone of no more than two of the Gaul armies so that they couldnt combine overwhelming force against me. I flatter myself that its rather like Nappy in his frist campaign in Northern Italy, trying to maintain a siege in Mantua (Narbo) while beating the the various Austrian relief armies crawling all over the place.

Somthing like the Ulm campaign wouldnt be possible I think as you dont have vast spaces where there would be no resistance as your units swung around on a massive flanking maneouvre, nor something like Davout marching his corps of reinforcements a hundred miles in two days to Austerlitz - no option for forced march though some traits and retinue give bonus movements.

[RLucid]

I saw your post later that you mean AI reinforcements armies of three units. I didnt realize that, but I woldnt bother bribing these armies. Usually I would send out whichever family member was closest with a smaller army (the heavy cav of the family member would ofcourse give a decisive edge to me) and try and pick up some experiencce and traits.

In some situations I don't want to do that, because it's a diversion from the main objectives. I may have a twin thrust attack, and I don't want the enemy blocking units slowing movement, perhaps preventing a more important attack. Also the reason for it can be to do with timing of re-inforcements, sometimes I initially lay siege with slender force advantages and even 3-4 units arriving on the AI turn would permit a successful sally. By bribing them, even extra 2 units of Hastati arriving on my turn make the siege a comfortable victory.

A good way to blood the many spotty teenagers the Roman factions get. Admittedly this is harder with the other factions which to me always have far fewer family members for some reason.

Another argument for multi-stack. Actually I'll blood Generals with mopping up & secondary tasks in exactly that way, whilst the big guns deal with the main challenge.

I meant wait for the AI to assault you and then slaughter him in a defensive battle.

The key word is "wait". The multi-thrust style, means amassing the forces, to sustain an offensive, and keep posing threats, so the opponent is just being reactive. Setting up ambushes, and massacres at choke points, may also allow denial of mercenary re-inforcements where you cross recruiting zones. Sitting and letting them turn up outside a town, disrupting trade, against the main force doesn't fit in with that strategy. It does nothing to unbalance the opponent, who meanwhile waste population producing units and may gain time for stone walls etc.

Narbo is one place I wouldnt do this though, mainly because whenver I have tried to take it as the Julii, the Gauls have always had three largish armies nearby, presumably the army recruited at Narbo,

*nods* Yeh. I've actually allowed Narbo to be recaptured by cease-fire breaking Gauls, because by allowing that to happen, I could threaten Alesia, destroy their weakened force in open, and grab the capitol turn after, still lightly defended. Think a bribe prevented re-routing of a small stack which was heading south to Narbo area.

See I dont think we are that different after all. In a similar situation I would garrison Corduba as lightly as possible (my defensive army) but also send out the rest also by sea as all Spanish provinces are easily attackable from the sea except the one in the northwest, Asturicas?

I suspect folk do take similar decisions, it's just that I've not seen any discussion on the forum. If ppl really do play very simplistically on the Strategy map, build a big army, send it out to a town, rebuild & repeat; then I hope the discussion frees them up to experiment with more opportunistic (but riskier hence more exciting) strategies.

Only with the Iberians scurrying back I wouldnt chase them (as Corduba would revolt)

The Corduba army was able to leave the town, and was headed for the W. Atlantic coast, not the threatening army. Of course as it moved, it took a strong defensive river position, preventing AI stack moving on Corduba.

Chasing the army with a weaker force within range, was to inhibit it's movement to relieve a siege of capitol, or concentrate against another target. It's hard to picture, without map, but it's all down to the potential concentrations of force against the points the AI army could possibly move to. It forced the AI to make a decision, and multiple weaker armies could paradoxically advance, due to this effect.

The closest I have ever come to anything Napoleonic would probably be the fighting around Narbo. Over two turns I would have two fight three or four battles against the three sperate gaulish armies, making sure that at the end of each turn I was in the yellow zone of no more than two of the Gaul armies so that they couldnt combine overwhelming force against me. I flatter myself that its rather like Nappy in his frist campaign in Northern Italy, trying to maintain a siege in Mantua (Narbo) while beating the the various Austrian relief armies crawling all over the place.

Very Scipio like then! You are a to

You don't get much maneuvering effect because the AI appears to only understand the most crude effects. ie. Marching on it's capitol, sieging some town, or moving with a big army through it's territory.

The other difficulty, is the coarse grained 6 month turns, Though the units can't move nearly as rapidly as they did in reality (1 Roman army with Consul who arranged supplies to be prepared on route, marched up from South to North to aid other consul fighting Hannibal in 2 weeks or so, and then battle over, marched back with Hasdrubal's head even faster).

Somthing like the Ulm campaign wouldnt be possible I think

Don't know about the details, but the basic idea I was trying to describe is of using maneuver as a weapon, to make feints and threats to draw off forces, making the main thrust face lighter resistance. So I wasn't really meaning Napoleon, as the whole period is generally known as Napoleonic, and covers a long period where armies used marching as a campaigning weapon, as much as actual battle.