Tips for an Eastern Faction Noob

[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.

[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.

[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.