Tips for an Eastern Faction Noob

[Fish-got-a-Sniper]

Well as the title says, I have little experience in playing with an eastern faction. I was considering a campaign with either Parthia, Pontus, Armenia, or Bactria and I was wondering if anyone had any tips or advice on which one to choose as well as tips for using eastern styled units and how to face eastern style units. Also, any tips for how to stick with a campaign because I never seem to make it past the 240's.

[satalexton]

shooty. lots of shooty. dakka, more dakka and more dakka. just make sure there's something reasonably durable between your boyz and the humiez. pantodapoi works wonders, their choppas own.

Always throw in a handful of HA, and a kata or 2 to finish them off when you run out of shooty things. if it still doesn't work, tell everyone to WAAAGH!!! and hopefully the shooty would have killed enuf of them humiez to make them runz.

[stupac]

Well as the title says, I have little experience in playing with an eastern faction. I was considering a campaign with either Parthia, Pontus, Armenia, or Bactria and I was wondering if anyone had any tips or advice on which one to choose as well as tips for using eastern styled units and how to face eastern style units. Also, any tips for how to stick with a campaign because I never seem to make it past the 240's.

Each of those factions plays extremely differently. Bactria has one of the strongest mix of units available to it, can effectively equal the suleukids in infantry with good phalanxes and elites and has a good mix of archers and some excellent medium-heavy calvary too, plus elephants. Pahlava is pretty much horse archer dependent early on, so pretty much play like saka or sauromatae, mass horse archers with a few units of melee calvary to break the enemy once reduced. Hayasdan is similar, but has to rely a bit more on infantry which is not up to par with their seleukid foes. Pontus is interesting, early on they seem to have a very weak roster with not very many good units to draw on, they definitely require a little creative tactics. Once you expand though you get access to a good variety of units including skythian calvary and galatian infantry. The real trick with the east is to be ready to adapt to the wide variety of styles of all the enemies you will face, you have to quickly change from facing nomadic foes you can't pin down to rock solid greek phalanxes. I would say of all of them, Bactria or Pahlava would be the easiest, Bactria definitely if you don't have experience with steppe factions. They will still provide much more of a challenge than the other eastern greeks and the more developed empires of the west.

[Khazar_Dahvos]

I would have to say Pontus through my own expiience they have one of the hardest starting positions with some very interesting unit reqruitment. Have fun with any of them since they are all unique though!!!

[Cambyses]

I'll give you three tips:

1. Dont engage in melee till youve run out of arrows
2. Use the terrain, in ranged battles the hills are even more important.
3. Every unit in the game will rout once very tired+ and charged from multiple sides at once by decent cavalry

[Tabeia]

Use horse archers, the computer can't defeat horse archers, so it's extremely easy
Some katas(FMs) are also good to kill the remaining enemys, you can also flee the battle to replenish your arrows

Pontus don't get so many horse archers so you will have to use lots of mercenarys instead, as their initial troop selection is weak, you also start poor, so you will need to get some cities quickly, i like to get byzantium asap

[socal_infidel]

Use hit and run tactics with the horsearchers against Baktria or AS. Be proactive. Once you're at war, don't hide behind walls or in cities. That negates your strength. Send your horsearchers to seek out and engage incoming armies. Empty quivers. Retreat (if you're still too outnumbered to charge en masse and cause a chain rout). Repeat.

With Pahlava, I never bothered to train infantry in the early going aside from garrison duty. Send spies to open the gates. And again, during sieges, empty quivers and withdraw if you have to. Repeat until the numbers are on your side and you can mop up the depleted infantry.

In the early-going, against units like Eastern Skirmishers, Persian Archers, Hellenic Spearmen, Hellenic Levy Phalanxes, etc., a horsearcher unit can take out 100-125 units each battle before you have to retreat.

It can be tedious fighting so many battles, but this tactic is brutally effective. Especially considering how many units the AS can throw at you each turn.

With Pahlava, I conquered up to Persepolis from the AS using nothing but horsearchers and cataphracts. The only infantry units I trained or hired were to keep the peace and defend my newly-conquered cities. Infantry slow your armies down.

[The Persian Cataphract]

Like it has been emphasized in this thread, all the factions play out very differently; Hayasdan and Pontos lean towards a combination of infantry and cavalry, while Pahlava predominantly relies on a combination of light horse and armoured cavalry. Whereas Pontos does not have the same lofty quality of armoured horse like Hayasdan or Pahlava (Who only find their equals in Baktria and Saka-Rauka), they are comparable to the Arche-Seleukeia or Sauromatae, especially with their shock chariotry. They also gain access to a wide range of Greek and Celtic (Galatian) troops, which marks their advantage against Hayasdan. Hayasdan instead gets a tough and rather unique spectra of Caucasian and Persianate forces, and along with it very reliable cavalry; Their source of light horse is superior to that of Pontos and they are second only to Pahlava in gaining the bulk of all recruitable Iranian units.

My own love-child, the Pahlava, start out with the recommended setting of light horse and a small nucleus of heavily armoured knights. So their initial roster is quite "nomadic" and bears to compare against Sauromatae and Saka-Rauka. However the Pahlavân key-word is flexibility. Had it not been for the limitations of the RTW-engine, I would have gone absolutely crazy with a number of reforms, including region-specific ones in Armenia and Caucasia, India, merchant contracts in Central Asia and Arabia and so forth. Their initial roster is modest, but if they manage to replace the Seleucids, they get the widest range of available troops in the East and the Steppes out of all the Eastern factions. In foot-archery, they are supreme, they gain access to the most organized feudal system of training light horse of high quality. They have access to elephants should they expand into India. Finally, they get a recruitable elite late cataphract unit, an advantage not obtained elsewhere. Should the player succeed as Pahlava, he will gain access to the advantages of Eastern and Steppen government as he sees fit, and gain at best decent infantry for garrison duty, excellent foot-archer corpus and finally the force that gained them their empire, a wide range of light horse, and arguably two of the most head-strong armoured cavalry in the game. Hayasdan, Saka-Rauka and Baktria only got one each. Only Baktria and Saka-Rauka makes up for it with stronger elephantry. Pahlava, Saka-Rauka and Hayasdan start out with an advantage not held by any other factions, and that is their unhindered access to cataphracts to begin with.

Baktria however matches Pahlava in their flexibility of units in their fullest blooming; What they sacrifice on range of horse-archers they make up with tough infantry, giving a slight twist in their tactical use of heavy horse which otherwise is equal. They are arguably the strongest of all Hellenistic nations in their potential, having almost no weaknesses (Which is contrasted by Pahlavân weakness on infantry; Only two of them, the Cardaces and the Babylonians warrant themselves as "elites" in equipment and training, while the Hyrcanians are lightly armoured shock infantry; The Partho-Hellenic thureophoros are medium troops of the Romanesque "imitation" type) at all, very much so comparable to the Seleucids.

The most important piece of advice I can give to a newcomer of the Eastern factions is merely to understand the different paradigm of deciding the battle. It reminds of the Graeco-Macedonian "anvil-and-hammer", but the anvil is in this case softer, and supported by ranged units in order to weaken and screen the enemy before impact; Ideally this anvil should never get in direct contact with the enemy, and only weaken them by the distance so that the cataphracts can decide the battle with one concentrated charge. So it's not about pinning down the enemy and hold them prepared to the strike of cavalry. It's about using light horse to disperse them, hopefully between several directions, spread them thin so that archers can dispatch the enemy, and to finally end it all with a charge by heavily armed knights. In my opinion, this "Eastern" anvil-and-hammer has reigned supreme in my experience.

I recommend Pahlava, and I'll illustrate why, with a simple strategical overview:

Defensive plan:



This force is preferrably small and mobile and is meant to hit-and-run, to screen, disperse and to weaken the enemy or to entice them into a premature pursuit; The two extremes of the outcome, the utter halt and retreat of the enemy or a rash pursuit are two of the primary goals of such a task-force, and the best thing is that they work like a wonder especially in the frontier. If ammunition is depleted simply retreat and no casualties sustained. The more you have of these small forces assigned to guard your frontiers the better; They can concentrate into a larger, more tacticall decisive force on their own.

Garrison:



This the entire array of decent infantry available for Pahlavân. The shield-bearer type infantry have been ommitted because in my experience they are of little value. The two first archers manifest each a quality; The first one by value and versatility, and the latter by quality. They are some of the best archers in the game, easily comparable to Syrian and Bosphoran archers. The third and fourth make for the lightly armed, but brave warriors who can be quite decisive, especially the ferocious Hyrcanians. The Cardaces are hoplite imitations, and they are some of the best defensive infantry available to Pahlava; The Pantodapoi are mediocre, but make for a nicely convenient auxiliary when the player might need a dense phalanx to thicken the centre. Finally, the Partho-Hellenic infantry, the mix of thureophoros and legion infantry who fight with swords and javelins. A defensive mentality must be assumed here; In accordance to the defensive plan (Which could act as external reinforcements in the event of siege), the enemy is ideally weakened and should be potentially disturbed by the archers, then the light infantry who double as warriors, and finally the defensive line with spears who are expected to hold, until help arrives. If an auxiliary force is available they assume the same role as in the defensive plan.

Early field army:




Don't let the mere two pictures of horse-archers fool you. If we speak in ratios, heavy horse is at least 1:10 (More representative of the early era), and at most 5:10 (Late Parthian era when the cataphract became a much more prolific unit). In this early field army, we are talking about a predominant army of light horse. The two horse-archers are different by themselves. The Parthian horse-archers are of excellent quality and the drill, but they lack the ferocity of the Dahae who may double as medium cavalry thanks to their spears. As such the Dahae make excellent support troops should their ammunition be depleted. The heavy horse speak for themselves, but the first and third are special because they are equipped with bows. They are not very capable in melee, but the Kinsmen cavalry and the early Pahlavân cataphracts do the grunt-work in deciding the battle in that one charge; Or should the fight continue at melee, they are equipped for it too. If the defensive task-forces at the area have nothing better to do for the moment, have them tag along in the campaign; They will make excellent auxiliaries. This force achieves well as a major interception of a significant enemy invasion, especially after a defensive task-force has done its work, and it achieves extremely well as an invasion force. It will do poorly at sieges, so in situ mercenaries will be a desirable addition if a siege is necessary.

Late field army:





This is basically the early field army on crack, but this is more like fancy cocaine, because it's efficient comes at a lofty price. It's fast-moving, it has fire-power and it's got enough knights to give any enemy a new cornhole. Ratios for heavy horse may be as low as 1:10, but by the late era, the ratios are more likely significantly more. The two first are the paragon of ass-kickery. The third is your staple elite heavy horse. The two bow-armed heavy horse are the chain that links the corpus of light horse with the cataphracts, and they hold the job of coordinating the symbiosis between the two. The horse-archer as always is expected to do the grunt work. As always, if auxiliaries or those defensive squadrons of light horse are available, bring them. The same basic qualities as the former, only it is better in all points and aspects. It will do poorly at sieges; In situ mercenaries will be fine fodder and will do dirty work for dollars.

Useful auxiliaries:





The utterly useless in most cases:





They should either be avoided, or only used as auxiliary, or if available as flashy supplement.

[Poulp']

and if you still got time to spare, you can also send about 4-5 units of horse archers deep into enemy territory to wreck havoc.

Have a few spy scout the land, hide your horse archers in some woods, and prey upon the enemy's mini-stacks.
Only target the stacks you can shoot to death, because you'll retreat to your land if you lose or quit the battle.

[Conqueror]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned here yet is the special reforms available to Hayasdan. By conquering Persia with this faction you can recreate the Achaemenid Empire, which adds a nice twist to them. The reform triggers are rather complex so be sure to read up on it (should be in the FAQ I think) if you want to give it a try.

[Olaf The Great]

Super elite Kataphracts=awesome. 47 charge and 36+defense(39 for the baktrioi, but thats only a bodyguard unit) they're also very nice too look at.


Now, while technically you should avodi Nizag Gund at all costs, I still use them because the Parthians used them, right now I'm sitting loftly with the best barracks in the highly developed Sel..I mean Ctesiphon(sp?) So that means I can recruit...



1 General.
3 Grinpavr(they're friggin awesome)
2 Armoured Horse Archers. (not the cataphract variety, I find them..stupid)
6 Units of Nizag Gund, if you're using this as a guide you can use kardaka or whatever, I love Kardaka, just experimenting with the Nizag.
4 Units of Archer-Spearmen(Awesome...)
2 Units of Parthohellenes(pretty cool)
2 Units of Axemen, I can't recruit Hyrcranians yet, but I hear they're good.



TPC You'd be proud of my Parthian Empire :)

(BTW why are Parthias end-goals include the steppes?

[Beefy187]

(BTW why are Parthias end-goals include the steppes?

Because historical Parthia (and Persia) was constantly harassed by the steppes (I think). Adding them to your empire will increase safety for the kingdom.

[The Persian Cataphract]

Actually, the map is out-dated. It should actually look more like this:



The black areas were supposed to be post-VC areas which are optional and divided into several sectors; The staggered shades of the pink represents different, but compulsory achievements, triggering a different victory message each. For now, all the pink shades represent Pahlava's current goals.

[jhhowell]

TPC, why do you favor archer-spearmen and heavy archers over regular Persian archers and Mardian archers? I have precisely the opposite preference, and only use heavy archers because you can grab them as retrainable mercenaries (though one can also get the Mardians the same way).

From what I recall of the unit cards, Persian archers have a range advantage over the archer-spearmen, and the Mardians are even better with an extra point of attack. Am I misremembering the relevant stats? I know for a fact that Persian Heavy Archers are not at all comparable to Syrians, the latter are much better armored, with the same attack and unit size (not sure about range). In-region, the Heavies are just regulars with a few more points of armor and more upkeep - pretty pointless, considering how easy it is to get more regulars and how little the extra 3-4 points of armor actually help.

While I'm disagreeing with people , there's socal_infidel's remark about avoiding siege sally battles with eastern (HA) factions. The large majority of my Hayasdan battles have been exactly that, and it works brilliantly well. The reason to avoid doing so would be because it's arguably an exploit. When you sally, the besiegers are standing within bowshot of the walls near a gate. The AI will almost always run them off to a map corner while your archers mow them down and your HA charge out the gate to shoot the more heavily armored units in the back. It's like an open field battle where you kill off 30-50% of the enemy for free before the fighting even starts! Late game, another advantage is that it tends to consolidate battles into one big sally battle instead of 2-3 medium field battles. Cuts down on the tedium a bit...

[The Persian Cataphract]

I have not played EB for several months, so I'm not really very aware of the statting procedures, but the heavy Persian archers are supposed to be at least as good as the Mardians, and with superior armour rating, making them the creme de la creme of foot-archers. They do have studded leather, and a helmet, as well as a functionable acinaces to do the cutting, so they should not fare all too lousy in melee. At least that was the intention

The reason why I and so many others favour the Iranian archer-spearmen, is because of the killer combination of cheap recruiting and maintenance costs, and the fact that they can kill horse-archers better than any other lightly armoured infantry. Put them on the down-ward slope of a hill and watch them turn light cavalry into dead meat. The enemy will think "Damn if I do, and damn if I don't". With them around, you don't need to chase light cavalry ever again, and if the enemy horse are enticed to charge, the spears will hold them off. They also provide an adequate line to hold against enemy infantry so that the cavalry hammer can smash them. It's all about philosophy. They won't decide a battle, but they'll do the shit work for you for a little cash

In siege defence, they are demi-gods. Once you give these guys some chevrons, I kid you not, they will rule. It's like laughing in the face of the craptacular Sotaroas. In fact, these guys are so important to me in a Pahlava campaign that I go first for the provinces that may get me these so I can have my back somewhat safe. All I miss is that enigmatic "Achaemenid'esque" wicker pavise to the front, but that is easily solved by recruiting a Parthian spearman, for every two contingents of the Iranian archer-spears, and stretch out their front.

[Olaf The Great]

Actually, the map is out-dated. It should actually look more like this:



The black areas were supposed to be post-VC areas which are optional and divided into several sectors; The staggered shades of the pink represents different, but compulsory achievements, triggering a different victory message each. For now, all the pink shades represent Pahlava's current goals.

Supposed to be?
I guess not implemented yet?

[The Persian Cataphract]

The basic goal has been implemented and if you turn on the highlighting function, you will notice what settlements to capture (Those that flash); Only the image which illustrates the goal has not been implemented. It's just cosmetical.

[jhhowell]

The reason why I and so many others favour the Iranian archer-spearmen, is because of the killer combination of cheap recruiting and maintenance costs, and the fact that they can kill horse-archers better than any other lightly armoured infantry.

That's what I use the Persian Archers for - cheaper, a bit more range, and IMHO if archers are in melee (whether they have spears or not) something has gone badly wrong. It does happen occasionally if my timing is off or I get distracted on a different part of the battlefield. But archers are there for shooting, Persian Hoplites or Shipri Tukul (or Pantodapoi Phalangitai, to some extent) are there to munch enemy cavalry who are silly enough to charge.

Can you really get away with letting the archer-spearmen pretend to be infantry? Their defense is just awful, so I'd expect them to get chopped to bits and rout before the hammer arrives. Heavy Archers might just be able to pull that off in an emergency, I guess... Perhaps I misunderstand partly - is the archer-spearmen choice an early game army build strategy, trying to economize on MIC construction? I've been approaching this discussion from an endgame point of view, with unrestricted access to any unit. Archer-spearmen look a little more appealing when the alternative would be Persians plus Pantodapoi, rather than Persians plus Persian Hoplites...

[Foot]

The archer-spearmen are there entirely for the purposes of overcoming the nomadic armies composed mostly of light-horse. Against infantry based armies the archers are far more suitable. However, because of their bonus against cavalry, the spear wielding archers can both take the HAs apart at a range and also if they decide to close. Cost-effective to the extreme, and exactly how the persian empires countered the steppe threat.

Foot

[Cambyses]

Archer Spearman are many people's favourite unit for all the reasons Foot mentioned. I do not think that they "pretend" to be infantry either. There are similar skirmisher/archer units found all over the game that can be suprisingly competent in melee. For example Numidian skirmishers, heavy peltasts, velites, cretan archers, dahae riders etc. After badly damaging a unit with missile weapons they are more than capable then to (help to) finish them off in melee. Clearly they cannot be expected to take on and beat (even weakened) elite troops on their own however.

With horse archers arriving in such large numbers from the steppes, the archer spearmen are perfect for driving them back.

Also I might say that the armoured archers in my experience do last quite a bit longer in a ranged duel. If you are playing on harder difficulty levels you may not notice this among your own troops, but certainly when shooting at the enemy you ought to see a significant difference in casluaties/volley.

[jhhowell]

Archer Spearman are many people's favourite unit for all the reasons Foot mentioned. I do not think that they "pretend" to be infantry either. There are similar skirmisher/archer units found all over the game that can be suprisingly competent in melee. For example Numidian skirmishers, heavy peltasts, velites, cretan archers, dahae riders etc. After badly damaging a unit with missile weapons they are more than capable then to (help to) finish them off in melee. Clearly they cannot be expected to take on and beat (even weakened) elite troops on their own however.

Archer-spearmen (and velites, IMHO the worst javelin skirmishers in the game) can't be expected to take on and beat any real infantry unit in melee. Not even pantodapoi, if I remember the stats right. Of course either would do a lot of damage as a missile unit. But the topic is these guys pretending to be infantry, not who would win a duel starting at range. Taking archer-spearmen (or similar, like velites) into melee is a desperation move, they just don't have the defense to survive (and last I checked, in the velites case they lack a melee weapon with decent lethality).

I've made my opinion of Riders plain over in the cavalry thread. Again, I'll take specialized units who do one thing well over multi-role guys who do two things worse than the specialists. Multi-role guys who do as well as specialists are another matter - Peltasts, cataphract horse archers, perhaps Syrians and Bosphorans if you absolutely must send foot archers into melee.

Like the Riders, actual use of archer-spearmen looks like a very early game economizing strategy to me. And it's good to know the historical basis for the unit. That actually makes a lot of sense with my own impression of the unit, namely that it's great for those annoying little rebel spawns one gets in the Persian highlands but not much use for the player or an AI faction. A real army can put together a much better force mix, either for fighting HA or fighting conventional foes. But if you're just a bunch of yokels in the back end of nowhere, archer-spearmen are probably about as good as you can get.

Also I might say that the armoured archers in my experience do last quite a bit longer in a ranged duel. If you are playing on harder difficulty levels you may not notice this among your own troops, but certainly when shooting at the enemy you ought to see a significant difference in casluaties/volley.

Unless 1.1 changed this, Persian Archers have 3 armor, Heavy Archers have 6 (blacksmith upgrade included for each). Syrians have 9 or 10, I haven't looked at them recently. I do see a difference between Persian and Syrian casualty rates; nothing significant between Persians and Heavies (there is a difference, it's just not very obvious or noteworthy). I value armored archers, I just don't consider the Heavies to be in that category.

[Swordmaster]

This Romani fanboy is gonna sticky this thread for when he gets to play the Parthians.

[tapanojum]

I just started a Hayastan campaign today, and heres a nice tip for you.

Get Scythian HA as soon as possible! My core army as of 259bc consists of 3FM's and 4-6 units of Scythian HA. I've destroyed anything AS sends at me. I am about to take Persis, Babylon and Selucia itself with just this core army. Of course if you like challenges, only use 1 FM.

Also with Armenia, at the beggining of the game, send a diplomat north and create an alliance with Sauoromate, that way you wont have to worry about HA's constantly harassing your northern borders.

[Bouketsu]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this but remember, surrounding an enemy with missile units is a great tactic. Of course if your arches are all in typical line formation facing the enemy they can brace for impact, but that's not what they're meant to do. Firing at them head long you're just gonna hit shield and that eats up arrows with little casualties, especially against elites.

It takes more effort than normal but try to run circles around your enemy. If they have cavalry you'd might as well forget this strategy but figuring if you're in the east, you're gonna be against the AS a LOT and they specialize in slow, tough as nails pike men, which any archer unit can run circles around. They'll start dropping like flies and to also give you a tip, hold your fire. Don't let them waste arrows shooting at shields.

Finally, when you're on a hill, spread your archers out. I had to figure this out the hard way, because they would fire up at the enemy, then land on the other side into my own men firing at their other side. .-.;

Be creative with the tactics though, and when you're just starting out, be conservative with your ammunition, you only have so much and you don't have it in your budget to be pumping out soldiers every turn from the casualties you shouldn't be getting.

However, once you get a few mining settlements you'll be good to go for the rest of the game.

[tapanojum]

With horse archers, I sometimes make a straight line, and have them run in colums along the outside of an enemy army, and then running around the back to the opposide sides, and doing the same thing again. Of course most of the time, either a heavy cav will start chasing them, or infantry.

Ussually, battle ends up with half my cavalry running around the map trying to loose the enemy while the enemy army is completely disorganized and my Cataphracts isolate groups and tear them up.