Enlighten me

[Dayve]

1 x General
1 x Hetairoi
1 x Hippeis Thessalikoi
1 x Prodromoi
2 x Argyraspides
4 x Pezhetairoi/Hysteroi Pezhetairoi
2 x Thureophoroi
2 x Hoplitai
2 x Sphendonetai Rhodioi
2 x Toxotai Kretikoi
2 x Random units of your choise

Next step is watching yourself getting bitch-slapped. At least I would if I was controlling this army against you

Maion

That's a very, very unrealistic army composition and i'd leave the server before even starting the battle if you brought that into a game with me.

[Βελισάριος]

I'm very curious, Dayve... why?
I happen to find that unit roster very much to my liking.

[Vasiliyi]

Well to tell the truth i just tried the unit composition of both armies. The romans (whom i played as) had

1 General
1 Calvary (roman)
1 Pedites extrordinari
2 Trarii
3 Princepe
4 Hastati
2 Velite

The maks had

1 gen
1 calvary
2 Theruphoria
2 Peltasta
1 slinger
2 Akonkistai
4 Pezhetaroi
1 Asparygaros (the elite unit)

and the battle difficulty was on hard and i got my @ss handed to me... now im a romani fan, but it seemed to me like the phalanxes on hard were a bit overpowered. ill have to try the same composition on normal. (oh and im not a terrible infantry commander)

To the maks

[LordCurlyton]

Depending on which Equites you gave the Romans and Maks that should be a very winnable battle on M, which is what the stats are balanced for in any case.
Oh, and my thumb-up-butt self feels like saying its "cavalry", not "calvary".

[Dayve]

I'm very curious, Dayve... why?
I happen to find that unit roster very much to my liking.

Because unless you fought that army with Marian Roman troops you couldn't win, the Romans have no units like those to compete with their huge numbers, huge attack and defense and morale stats.

In real life a republican Roman army could smash that to pieces on any given day, but not in this game because the units are far too superior, which would make the battle an unfair one, which defeats the object of this game.

Plus, these battles are supposed to be realistic. It's very unrealistic that the Makedonians would be using an army of nothing but nothing but the absolute elite of the elite. There isn't a single unit of levies in that army, of which Makedonia and Greece used more of than anything else.

[Βελισάριος]

I beg to differ.
I don't think Alexander set out to conquer half the known world with an army of levies.

Look at the battle of Gaugamela, both sides used their elites. Darius recruited the best of his cavalry from the satrapies under his command, Indian elephants and the dreaded scythed chariots (well, we know what fate those had).

The macedonian army had its elite phalangites, 7000 [by some estimates] of Alexander's best cavalry (with some Thracian and Thessalian mercenary units) and the man himself leading his guards. Parmenion and his elites on the other side of his army.

Also, you have to keep in mind... some of those battles numbered 50 to 200 thousands on each side. In RTW you can have roughly 4000 for each. Not much room for levies and arrow fodder in this kind of an army.

And Vasiliyi, thanks for sharing that with the rest of us. Takes guts to admit a defeat like that (especially with Maion around to rubb it in your face later... don't mind him, he's just a kid with a crush on a whole faction =P).

[Dayve]

I beg to differ.
I don't think Alexander set out to conquer half the known world with an army of levies.

Look at the battle of Gaugamela, both sides used their elites. Darius recruited the best of his cavalry from the satrapies under his command, Indian elephants and the dreaded scythed chariots (well, we know what fate those had).

The macedonian army had its elite phalangites, 7000 [by some estimates] of Alexander's best cavalry (with some Thracian and Thessalian mercenary units) and the man himself leading his guards. Parmenion and his elites on the other side of his army.

Also, you have to keep in mind... some of those battles numbered 50 to 200 thousands on each side. In RTW you can have roughly 4000 for each. Not much room for levies and arrow fodder in this kind of an army.

And Vasiliyi, thanks for sharing that with the rest of us. Takes guts to admit a defeat like that (especially with Maion around to rubb it in your face later... don't mind him, he's just a kid with a crush on a whole faction =P).

Then Rome should use it's most elite forces, Marian legions and re-inlisted veterans so that their units are on par with the Macedonian units, stats wise. Also Rome should be given extra units to use, because Macedonian mainline infantry have 240 men per unit as opposed to Rome's 160, even though the Macedonians units have better stats.

I should also point out that all Macedonia could ever throw at Rome were rabble, and were utterly brushed aside like a light sweat on ones forehead. So if you want to make this a realistic "once and for all" battle, your Macedonian army should reflect the fact that it has been at constant war with its every neighbour for half a millennium and was in a state of stagnation and decay in this period, and should thus be composed of mostly levies and led by incompetent drunkard who think that the phalanx is a practical offensive weapon without decent mobile infantry support.

[Βελισάριος]

Then Rome should use it's most elite forces, Marian legions and re-inlisted veterans so that their units are on par with the Macedonian units, stats wise...

Was I arguing that point?

I should also point out that all Macedonia could ever throw at Rome were rabble, and were utterly brushed aside like a light sweat on ones forehead. So if you want to make this a realistic "once and for all" battle, your Macedonian army should reflect the fact that it has been at constant war with its every neighbour for half a millennium and was in a state of stagnation and decay in this period, and should thus be composed of mostly levies and led by incompetent drunkard who think that the phalanx is a practical offensive weapon without decent mobile infantry support.

And I should point out that this is neither the point of the game nor desirable in any way.

The way I see it, you're simply fishing for arguments to make the Roman army invincible. Not to mention the fact that your last statement is horribly ignorant and insulting to a certain degree.

If you fancy yourself such a great Roman general that you think yourself in the position to insult greater men than you why don't you attempt a fight against a "general" of your par in an online tournament with the above Macedonian army and tell us how badly you got your arse whooped afterwards.

[Dayve]

I'm not fishing for anything.

The point of this game is to settle the "Which army was better, Rome or Greece?" question. In history, we already know which one was better. In the game, it cannot be tested properly, because people will not use historical armies. The army posted a while ago with nothing but elites in it is simply not historical for the time this game is set in. A mix of any of those troops with a lot of levies is, but not a 100% elite army that never existed in this time frame.

Instead people should be picking individual battles between Rome and Greece/Macedonia/Seleukia and recreating those. That would be a much easier thing to test with the game.

[Maion Maroneios]

I think your mistaken as to what i was asking. I want to play the Romani and practice slaughtering the Maks. I will be putting the battle difficulty at hard, it should be pretty fair. and i plan to have a balanced roman army from the camillian era. That is why i wanted to have a balanced Phalanx army because whenever i play as a successor faction i created armies that are "efficient" not exactly balanced.

OK I understand now I suppose

That's a very, very unrealistic army composition and i'd leave the server before even starting the battle if you brought that into a game with me.

It's not unrealistic at all, it's just out of date. As for that last part, that means you're a plain coward Romaios barbaros

Because unless you fought that army with Marian Roman troops you couldn't win, the Romans have no units like those to compete with their huge numbers, huge attack and defense and morale stats.

And you want to win per se, right?

In real life a republican Roman army could smash that to pieces on any given day, but not in this game because the units are far too superior, which would make the battle an unfair one, which defeats the object of this game.

That was a nice one. Have you ever haired of the quote of Aemilius Paulus saying: "I have never seen anything as terrible and fearsome as the Macedonian phalanx?". He said that for a reason. Macedonia was a shadow of it's former self, repeatedly beaten by anyone who came into range (Epirus, the southern Greek states, northern Thracian and Illyrian tribes, then Rome) but managed to pull off quite well. Add the complete incompetency of the leaders of that time and the poor quality of the armies (plus the habit of using the phalanx as an offensive force) and you get a clear result: Roman victory.

Ah, before I forget it: The Romans were never able to get the Macedonians on head-to-head. Only when they encircled them. This means there weren't any units that could just mop the floor with the Makedones. They just used their troops wisely and took advantage of their flexibility and terrain.

Plus, these battles are supposed to be realistic. It's very unrealistic that the Makedonians would be using an army of nothing but nothing but the absolute elite of the elite. There isn't a single unit of levies in that army, of which Makedonia and Greece used more of than anything else.

I must disagree with you. The southern Greeks used many levies, that is correct. The Makedones used levies only when they were in dire need, not always. They only used psiloi as levies. Even their crappiest phalangites received a considerable amount of training before thrown into battle.

Maion

[Dutchhoplite]

Not very new but still very interesting:

http://www.ancientbattles.com/WAB_Su..._vs_Legion.htm

[Macilrille]

No one could defeat the Maginot Line from the front. Does that then, by the same way of judging things, make French 1940 doctrine and army superior to German 1940 doctrine? Everyone then thought they were, and their tanks were better as well, and more numerous... Yes, they must indeed have been superior to the Germans, just as the Hellenes were superior to the Romans.

Oh both the Germans and the Romans employed superior battlefield tactics and mobility!! No they must not!! That is cheating! They must understand their inferiority!!!

[antisocialmunky]

Belgium FTW?