Faction strengths?

[retep219]

So what is techniclly the difference between persian heavy cav and cataphracts?

In the case of the unit to which I were referring, it's the amount of armor. Compare



who is only armored in the front, with these two units: Hellenic Cataphracts and Grivpanvar, respectively



Grivpanvar ARE usually considered to be the game's best cavalry and cost about 1.7 times as much as the Persians. They have a 5 attack lance, 11-attack sword with .225 lethality, and 36 defence. Hellenic cataphracts are probably the game's worst cataphracts (According to their unit description, I didn't actually compare stats) with a 4-attack lance, 9-attack AP sword with .11 lethality, and 31 defence. Only thirteen morale, though. Kinsmen have the same stats, but they only have 25 defence. So that's the difference in game terms at least.

[Ca Putt]

Very nice list tho I think Pahlava's discription can be summed up in one word: CATAPHRACTS!

Kinsmen are not bad tho just "only" heavy Cavalry and no uber elite Cataphracts. o

[Cute Wolf]

Although in reality (when you playing as Pontus or Hay) the Khuveshavangan CAN DEFEAT CATAPHRACTS on their secondary weapons and better mobility.... their horses is a bit faster, and that means you could sent the first terrible blow...

[seienchin]

In Eb reality eastern axeman defeat cataphracts...

[WinsingtonIII]

You mean cataphracts were in decline?
AFAIK they were in use even in medieval times. (In the ERE e.g.)

No, I mean the Persian Kinsmen heavy cavalry such as the Achamenid Empire used were in decline. They are not true cataphracts.... as I mentioned in that very post that you quoted...

As Andronikos says, the Kinsmen had proven ineffective against the more versatile hetairoi of the Hellenes.

You probably already got all of this information from Andronikos' post, but I just want to make sure I'm not misunderstood.

Also, I never said or implied that Kinsmen heavy cavalry were bad, per se, in fact I think they are quite good, they just are not as good as Hetairoi or true cataphracts (although if used to flank catas they can take them down, as someone already mentioned).

[Ca Putt]

Oh, for my part I did not think you implied Kinsmen are bad only that with all this "Kinsmen are not Cataphracts" talk it sounded as if they were a bad cavalry unit. I did not want to let it stand there like that^^ I too find them a very usefull unit :)

on Pontos: imo they have the doctrine: Cheap and (relatively) weak Elite units. Their Elite Phalanx is more compareable to the Pezhetairoi than Agyraspidai, still they are not a bad unit, just not as strong as other Elites, same goes for kinsmen.

[WinsingtonIII]

Oh, for my part I did not think you implied Kinsmen are bad only that with all this "Kinsmen are not Cataphracts" talk it sounded as if they were a bad cavalry unit. I did not want to let it stand there like that^^ I too find them a very usefull unit :)

on Pontos: imo they have the doctrine: Cheap and (relatively) weak Elite units. Their Elite Phalanx is more compareable to the Pezhetairoi than Agyraspidai, still they are not a bad unit, just not as strong as other Elites, same goes for kinsmen.

I totally understand, and I'm actually in agreement with you on both of these points. Realistically I think Pontos suffers more from their ridiculously difficult starting position more than from their roster. But it is true that their elites are not up to the quality of the elites of other factions, and this does not help matters, especially when the AS sends ahistorical Agyraspidai spam full-stacks your way. Not that you would really have enough money as Pontos to effectively counter this anyways early on even if you had access to Agyrapsidai yourself.

[Apázlinemjó]

I totally understand, and I'm actually in agreement with you on both of these points. Realistically I think Pontos suffers more from their ridiculously difficult starting position more than from their roster. But it is true that their elites are not up to the quality of the elites of other factions, and this does not help matters, especially when the AS sends ahistorical Agyraspidai spam full-stacks your way. Not that you would really have enough money as Pontos to effectively counter this anyways early on even if you had access to Agyrapsidai yourself.

A few seasoned axemen and wild men will help you in that matter.

[artavazd]

In the case of the unit to which I were referring, it's the amount of armor. Compare



who is only armored in the front, with these two units: Hellenic Cataphracts and Grivpanvar, respectively



Grivpanvar ARE usually considered to be the game's best cavalry and cost about 1.7 times as much as the Persians. They have a 5 attack lance, 11-attack sword with .225 lethality, and 36 defence. Hellenic cataphracts are probably the game's worst cataphracts (According to their unit description, I didn't actually compare stats) with a 4-attack lance, 9-attack AP sword with .11 lethality, and 31 defence. Only thirteen morale, though. Kinsmen have the same stats, but they only have 25 defence. So that's the difference in game terms at least.

The late Armenian bodyguard unit matches up nicely withthe Grivpanvar, plus the Arm. Cataphract has an AP mace.

[vartan]

No offence, but most of what I've been reading have been short responses that didn't quite fit into my expectation. To respond to the OP, I can only represent Hayasdan as 99.999% of my campaigns have been Hai campaigns. Here is my idea:

The Hai start in a rather peculiar situation. They are at war with the Sarmatian barbaric nomads to the north that have recently and unsuccessfully invaded Armenia. They have an uneasy 'alliance' with the Seleucid Empire (in Armenian: the 'selvuks'). You begin with one province, a patriarch, two sons, and several units of caucasian spearmen, caucasian archers, eastern skirmishers, and armenian medium cavalry. Your first goal is to ceasefire with sarmatia (no need to take their low fertile lands in the beginning), and consolidate the caucasus by conquering kabalaka, mtskheta, ani-kamakh and kotais (initiate the pan-caucasus reforms). Create a type I gov't in Armavir (and in the future, Ani and Karkathiokerta), and type II elsewhere, to upgrade barracks in the caucasus. Construct mines.

Now you are ready to recruit your royal armies that will go out to create the emipre that Armenia was supposed to be (and the empire that it WAS, under none other than Tigger the Great =p ). How is the style of play with Armenia? Well, you will expect to have armies that consist of a light spear group, medium swordsmen group, eastern skirmisher group, foot and horse archer group, and last but not least your all to important, and i cannot emphasize this enough, your super-critical cavalry group. Your cavalry is your beating heart. It defines your success as Arkah (king) of Hayasdan. Your medium cavalry are swift and can send light to medium enemy infantry crying to their mothers (and can switch to their axes to take down enemy armoured units in melee). All this time, your caphracts await their opportunity to strike down enemy cavalry and formations, causing havok and mayhem in enemy ranks.

@Grade_A_Beef:

The scissor-rock-paper system of vanilla has been replaced by the historical-accuracy system of EB.

Beautifully put.

The late Armenian bodyguard unit matches up nicely withthe Grivpanvar, plus the Arm. Cataphract has an AP mace.

As a fellow (biased) Hai, of course I'm going to have to agree with that. Unleash the ultra-nationalistic beast within and I'd say Arm. Kata > all.

On a more serious note, let's take a look at this baby.



Primary weapon: spear (atk 5, chg 37, lth 0.4) AP
Secondary weapon: mace (atk 5, chg 37, lth 0.165) AP
Armour: 18
Skill: 13
Total Defence: 31
Cost: 4457
Upkeep: 1114
Moral: 16

Costly? yes. Worth it? heck yes.

[Leão magno]

Can anyone give me a rundown of all the faction styles and their strengths compared to other factions of similiar style?

I understand that Macedon, Seleucia, and Ptolemaics (Epeiros too to some extent) each have different regionals and some unique units, but I can't tell what makes Macedon and especially the Ptolemaic recruit lists better than the Seleucids (which is just huge).

Also I don't understand what kind of advantages the Suromatae have over the other two nomad factions. Sauka gets decent infantry after reforms and Pahlava gets the super heavy catas......but the Suromatae.....yeah.

Pontos, Armenia, and Saba all have different styles but I have no clue how to play as them. They don't seem to have any unit advantages over their neighbors.

Nice exception would be the Getai, who are a breath of fresh air whenever you fight them or use them, seeing as they can fight so many neighbors with different tactics and have their own unique ones as well.

Have you ever had the interest to play a little of western mediterranian warfare???? Try Karhadast and it huge number of light infantry, missiles units, the greater mix of army possibilities ever!With Carthage you are not bond to one fighting style... you can use diferent styles and even combine them to your will!!!!

[athanaric]

Vartan:

The mace charge is lower than the lance charge, IIRC 18. Apart from that, I agree with you. Curiously, Armenian Noble Catas have the same stats as Hetairoi (only slightly lower morale), except for the secondary weapon (and personally, I prefer the maces because of lethality issues).

[Grade_A_Beef]

I was asking for perks, not for rock-paper-scissors counters.......

Then again what I put in the first post might have been worded to mean counters.....I think?

I was asking mainly about the east because that's where most of the simliar factions are located aside from the Celts. I already have experience with the Celts, so I didn't really ask about that. The Casse get a very good starting position but almost no heavy regular infantry aside from Milnaht, while the Aedui and Arverni both get well armored line infantry but have a dynamic starting position.

[WinsingtonIII]

I was asking for perks, not for rock-paper-scissors counters.......

Then again what I put in the first post might have been worded to mean counters.....I think?

I was asking mainly about the east because that's where most of the simliar factions are located aside from the Celts. I already have experience with the Celts, so I didn't really ask about that. The Casse get a very good starting position but almost no heavy regular infantry aside from Milnaht, while the Aedui and Arverni both get well armored line infantry but have a dynamic starting position.

Well I think Vartan gave a very good rundown of Hayasdan, without any rock-paper-scissors business, but if you're looking for a comparison to other factions I can try to do that. I'm going to look at the three factions that could traditionally be considered "Eastern" factions in EB: Hayasdan, Pahlava, and Pontos. Now, note that the with the term "Eastern" I'm mainly referring to their ruling classes, by which I mean they are not Hellenic rulers controlling empires in the East but rather actual Eastern dynasties. That said, there are many differences in their play styles, but I think they all have the same feel of attempting to recreate a Persian Empire of some sort, which draws them together.

I'll start with the Hai as they are arguably the most stereotypically "Eastern" faction to play as in EB, because they are Easterners who are neither nomadic nor are they very influenced by the Hellenes, so you get the closest to the feel of the old Achaemenid Persian Empire with them. Now, Vartan already covered most of what you need to know here, so I'm not going to say as much as I would. Your main infantry line will be mainly light spear units (I find it somewhat blasphemous to utilize phalanx troops as the Hai, I'm not sure why), they may lack armor, but they have a strong will to fight, and you will surprised by their resilience. In support you will have some medium swordsmen, who are effective but should not be the core of your army, and various foot archers, skirmishers, axemen, and slingers (this is the East after all). The core of your army is your cavalry. Your bodyguards (both early and late, although the late ones are true cataphracts) are heavily armored melee cavalry that can deliver devastating charges and deal out damage in melee, but with all that armor they get tired quickly. Your cataphracts are some of the best in the game, and you should take advantage of them. You also have great medium cavalry that is both fast and good in melee (they have axes), and you will be using horse-archers (both light and armored) in support, but they are not as important as the melee cavalry. After you complete The Orontid Empire Reforms you will get Persian Hoplites, which are decent heavy infantry, but your cavalry should still reign supreme. So, in terms of play style, the Hai are distinguished as the faction in which melee cavalry (and particularly heavy cavalry) is most important out of the three, and the most important element of your armies.

Pahlava starts the game as nomads, and this is evident in their play style. Horse archers are very important, and should form the core of your armies early on. They will mostly be unarmored, but will also have some armored HAs, and your early bodyguard unit is actually an armored HA. You will also have some amazing cataphracts, but I argue that whereas for the Hai the cataphracts perform the primary role and the HAs the secondary role, with Pahlava, the HAs perform the primary role and the cataphracts perform the secondary role. After you complete the reforms, you will get access to a couple types of Hellenic influenced heavy infantry, but they are still secondary to your cavalry. So, for Pahlava, horse archers form the core of your armies, with heavy cavalry in a close second and infantry remaining least important.

Pontos throws us a huge curveball because they are heavily influenced by Hellenic military traditions and heavily employ Galatians in their armies. Pontos is the only one out of the three for which infantry are the most important component of their armies, with heavy cavalry being secondary and horse archers being fairly neglected. Your armies will have a phalanx core of Pantodapoi Phalangitai, Klerouchoi Phalangitai and Chalkaspides. In support are the usual Hellenic support troops, like Theurophoroi, Hoplitai, and Peltastai, but the big difference between Pontos and the more traditional Hellenic factions is that you will have lots of "barbarian" Galatians in support as well. Celtic spearmen, Galatian Shortswordsmen, Galatian Heavy Cavalry, Galatian Heavy Spearmen, and Galatian Wild Men (the East's version of Gaesatae) should form an important Galatian support core in your armies, and the play style that results from the fusion of the Hellenic phalanx and "barbarian" infantry is very interesting and unique. You will also have Eastern light infantry such as archers, skirmishers, and axemen in your armies. Your heavy cavalry is of the archaic Kinsmen variety, but it is still effective, they are just not true cataphracts. So, your play style with Pontos will arguably be one of the most interesting and unique in the game, with a fusion of Hellenic phalanxes, Galatian "barbarians," and Persian heavy cavalry all playing important roles in your armies.

I don't know if I helped, but I hope that gives you an idea of how it feels to play each faction, at least on the battlefield (I didn't want to keep going on and on about the campaign). It's interesting, because you can play out a similar campaign of attempting to recreate a Persian empire with all of them (with the obvious difference of starting in different starting positions), but you will do so with very different battlefield tactics and troop types.

[vartan]

Vartan:

The mace charge is lower than the lance charge, IIRC 18. Apart from that, I agree with you. Curiously, Armenian Noble Catas have the same stats as Hetairoi (only slightly lower morale), except for the secondary weapon (and personally, I prefer the maces because of lethality issues).

Can somebody explain to me the point of the secondary charge? I ask this for the following reason.

When your horse is at a distance, and you alt-right-click in order to get them to trot to the enemy, charge with spears, and when charge is over, to continue in melee with the secondary weapon...since the charge occurs with lowered spears and not axes/maces (the secondary weapons), why does the computer not just use the primary spear charge initially? The secondary weapon is actually NEVER used in a charge...so what's the point of its existence?

[anubis88]

Well I think Vartan gave a very good rundown of Hayasdan, without any rock-paper-scissors business, but if you're looking for a comparison to other factions I can try to do that. I'm going to look at the three factions that could traditionally be considered "Eastern" factions in EB: Hayasdan, Pahlava, and Pontos. Now, note that the with the term "Eastern" I'm mainly referring to their ruling classes, by which I mean they are not Hellenic rulers controlling empires in the East but rather actual Eastern dynasties. That said, there are many differences in their play styles, but I think they all have the same feel of attempting to recreate a Persian Empire of some sort, which draws them together.

I'll start with the Hai as they are arguably the most stereotypically "Eastern" faction to play as in EB, because they are Easterners who are neither nomadic nor are they very influenced by the Hellenes, so you get the closest to the feel of the old Achaemenid Persian Empire with them. Now, Vartan already covered most of what you need to know here, so I'm not going to say as much as I would. Your main infantry line will be mainly light spear units (I find it somewhat blasphemous to utilize phalanx troops as the Hai, I'm not sure why), they may lack armor, but they have a strong will to fight, and you will surprised by their resilience. In support you will have some medium swordsmen, who are effective but should not be the core of your army, and various foot archers, skirmishers, axemen, and slingers (this is the East after all). The core of your army is your cavalry. Your bodyguards (both early and late, although the late ones are true cataphracts) are heavily armored melee cavalry that can deliver devastating charges and deal out damage in melee, but with all that armor they get tired quickly. Your cataphracts are some of the best in the game, and you should take advantage of them. You also have great medium cavalry that is both fast and good in melee (they have axes), and you will be using horse-archers (both light and armored) in support, but they are not as important as the melee cavalry. After you complete The Orontid Empire Reforms you will get Persian Hoplites, which are decent heavy infantry, but your cavalry should still reign supreme. So, in terms of play style, the Hai are distinguished as the faction in which melee cavalry (and particularly heavy cavalry) is most important out of the three, and the most important element of your armies.

Pahlava starts the game as nomads, and this is evident in their play style. Horse archers are very important, and should form the core of your armies early on. They will mostly be unarmored, but will also have some armored HAs, and your early bodyguard unit is actually an armored HA. You will also have some amazing cataphracts, but I argue that whereas for the Hai the cataphracts perform the primary role and the HAs the secondary role, with Pahlava, the HAs perform the primary role and the cataphracts perform the secondary role. After you complete the reforms, you will get access to a couple types of Hellenic influenced heavy infantry, but they are still secondary to your cavalry. So, for Pahlava, horse archers form the core of your armies, with heavy cavalry in a close second and infantry remaining least important.

Pontos throws us a huge curveball because they are heavily influenced by Hellenic military traditions and heavily employ Galatians in their armies. Pontos is the only one out of the three for which infantry are the most important component of their armies, with heavy cavalry being secondary and horse archers being fairly neglected. Your armies will have a phalanx core of Pantodapoi Phalangitai, Klerouchoi Phalangitai and Chalkaspides. In support are the usual Hellenic support troops, like Theurophoroi, Hoplitai, and Peltastai, but the big difference between Pontos and the more traditional Hellenic factions is that you will have lots of "barbarian" Galatians in support as well. Celtic spearmen, Galatian Shortswordsmen, Galatian Heavy Cavalry, Galatian Heavy Spearmen, and Galatian Wild Men (the East's version of Gaesatae) should form an important Galatian support core in your armies, and the play style that results from the fusion of the Hellenic phalanx and "barbarian" infantry is very interesting and unique. You will also have Eastern light infantry such as archers, skirmishers, and axemen in your armies. Your heavy cavalry is of the archaic Kinsmen variety, but it is still effective, they are just not true cataphracts. So, your play style with Pontos will arguably be one of the most interesting and unique in the game, with a fusion of Hellenic phalanxes, Galatian "barbarians," and Persian heavy cavalry all playing important roles in your armies.

I don't know if I helped, but I hope that gives you an idea of how it feels to play each faction, at least on the battlefield (I didn't want to keep going on and on about the campaign). It's interesting, because you can play out a similar campaign of attempting to recreate a Persian empire with all of them (with the obvious difference of starting in different starting positions), but you will do so with very different battlefield tactics and troop types.

Very good description Indeed.

I would like to add a few points for Pontos, since they are one of my favourite factions. You forgot to mention, that they are the only ones of the three that can use chariots, which are quite deadly in the right hands. (i think iirc that they are better than the Seleucid ones.) Also if you expand historically and capture the Crimean peninsula you get a lot of awesome units, which are not available for most of your enemies. I would point out the Bosphoran Heavy archers, the Steppe riders and the Scynthian noble cavalry. Once you have in your control let's say the Crimean peninsula and the middle of Micra Asia, you can field one of the most diverse and strongest army in the game

[Apázlinemjó]

Very good description Indeed.

(i think iirc that they are better than the Seleucid ones.)

Sadly, they are actually weaker than the Seleucid ones, the difference is 4 armor.

AS:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

;147
type             hellenistic chariot scythed
dictionary       hellenistic_chariot_scythed      ; Scythed Chariots
category         cavalry
class            heavy
voice_type       Female_1
soldier          eastern_chariot_crew, 10, 10, 1
mount            scythed chariot
mount_effect     elephant -4, horse -2
attributes       sea_faring, frighten_foot, can_run_amok, power_charge
formation        7, 9, 15, 15, 2, square
stat_health      1, 2
stat_pri         10, 50, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0 ,1
stat_pri_attr    area, ap, launching
stat_sec         10, 50, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0 ,1
stat_sec_attr    area, ap, launching
stat_pri_armour  24, 8, 0, metal
stat_sec_armour  14, 5, metal
stat_heat        3
stat_ground      0, 0, -6, -3
stat_mental      6, impetuous, untrained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay  0
stat_food        60, 300
stat_cost        1, 3600, 900, 100, 140, 3600
ownership        romans_julii

Pontos:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

;112
type             eastern chariot scythed
dictionary       eastern_chariot_scythed      ; Scythed Chariots
category         cavalry
class            heavy
voice_type       Heavy_1
soldier          eastern_chariot_crew, 10, 10, 1
mount            pontic scythed chariot
mount_effect     elephant -4, horse -2
attributes       sea_faring, frighten_foot, can_run_amok, power_charge
formation        7, 9, 15, 15, 2, square
stat_health      1, 2
stat_pri         10, 50, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0 ,1
stat_pri_attr    area, ap, launching
stat_sec         10, 50, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0 ,1
stat_sec_attr    area, ap, launching
stat_pri_armour  20, 8, 0, metal
stat_sec_armour  14, 5, metal
stat_heat        3
stat_ground      0, 0, -6, -3
stat_mental      6, impetuous, untrained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay  0
stat_food        60, 300
stat_cost        1, 3500, 875, 100, 140, 3500
ownership        carthage

[WinsingtonIII]

Very good description Indeed.

I would like to add a few points for Pontos, since they are one of my favourite factions. You forgot to mention, that they are the only ones of the three that can use chariots, which are quite deadly in the right hands. (i think iirc that they are better than the Seleucid ones.) Also if you expand historically and capture the Crimean peninsula you get a lot of awesome units, which are not available for most of your enemies. I would point out the Bosphoran Heavy archers, the Steppe riders and the Scynthian noble cavalry. Once you have in your control let's say the Crimean peninsula and the middle of Micra Asia, you can field one of the most diverse and strongest army in the game

Thank you! I hope it is what the OP was looking for.

Good point about the chariots, they slipped my mind, but they certainly do give Pontos an even more unique flair.

I do love those Bosphoran Heavy Archers, but if you check out their info on the EB unit list, they're available to every faction in the game if they hold the Crimean provinces, so I don't necessarily think they add a unique flair to Pontos, but Pontos is in a good position to easily get them and use them.

I overlooked Skythian Nobles, but they are certainly very powerful, especially with a .225 lethality sword as a secondary.

[-42-]

Carthage is probably my favorite faction in terms of roster, a bit of everything, including absolutely insane Iberian units, which have the AP javelins as well as swords. Iberian cav is also better than anything west of Byzantium.

[seienchin]

Nope. Iberian heavy cavallery isnt too usefull, because of their low stamina. I prefer the greek style cavallery like the molosson agema.
And the normal iberian units are outclassef by the lusotan ones.
But still carthage is a great faction I esspecialy like their elite african units and iberian assault troops.

[antisocialmunky]

Iberian Cavalry is abit wonky. They are good on paper but are underwhelming on the battlefield. This is especially true of the missile cavalry like the cantabrian missile cavalry(has tons of missiles but they don't work that well).

[-42-]

Never had an issue with them, hammer and anvil all day long with those suckers. They don't have the charge of the sacred band though. I actually find the cartaginian citizen cav to ve very useful against Rome, great hammers for what they realistically are. Some guys lement that they suck in melee, but I never really use my cavalry for prolonged melee if given the option, too pricy to replace.

[WinsingtonIII]

Iberian cav is also better than anything west of Byzantium.

What about the Getai's Ktistai? There isn't any Iberian Cav unit that can counter heavy horse archers that also have incredible morale (18) and have secondary lances to bring home a powerful charge. They are technically West of Byzantium as well....

Thraikioi Prodromoi, Hippeis Thessalikoi, Molosson Agema, and Illyrioi Hippeis (they may not look like much but they are incredibly fast and versatile) are also in the running for the best Western cavalry in my opinion as well. The Heavy Iberian Lancer cavalry are certainly the heaviest cavalry in the West, but I think all of the above units are potentially better in that they are more versatile. But, then again, I'm biased, because I prefer versatile, fast, and hard-hitting cavalry that can't necessarily hold in a melee over the heavy melee cavalry like cataphracts.

[antisocialmunky]

Molosson Agema is the best cavalry to fight other cavalry though the Iberian Lancers and Sacred Band are the heaviest in the West. However, those two heavy cavalry units end up comparing not as favorably against the Greek and Eastern Cavalry. They do their job well enough.

I was mainly referring to their medium/missile options. They are somewhat underpowered...

[athanaric]

Iberian Cavalry is a bit wonky. They are good on paper but are underwhelming on the battlefield. This is especially true of the missile cavalry like the cantabrian missile cavalry(has tons of missiles but they don't work that well).

With the Cantabrians, I guess it is the complete lack of body armour (which most other skirmisher cav possess, to a limited extent). OTOH, I use Dahae skirmishers a lot, who are almost identical, and haven't found them too weak.

For comparison:

Dahae skirmishers/Cantabri skirmishers: armour 0, shield 2; 14 missiles (!) and AP sword/axe though.

Arachosians: armour 1, shield 2; otherwise see Dahae.

Hippakontistai: amour 3, shield 2; same AP sword as Cantabri, but otherwise inferior.

Leuce Epos: armour 5, shield 2; AP spear (good for charge). No Cantabrian Circle.

Bedouin cavalry: armour 4, shield 2; AP spear.

etc.


Dahae, Arachosians, and Cantabrians are fearsome elephant killers, but very vulnerable to missiles.

[ARCHIPPOS]

I prefer versatile, fast, and hard-hitting cavalry that can't necessarily hold in a melee over the heavy melee cavalry like cataphracts.

different troops for different tasks ... you can't crash medium-class cavalry on the back of a phallanx and leave it there for long (more than 5 seconds actually) ... and you can't chase down annoying horse skirmishers with your shinning kataphracts either...

[-42-]

What about the Getai's Ktistai? There isn't any Iberian Cav unit that can counter heavy horse archers that also have incredible morale (18) and have secondary lances to bring home a powerful charge. They are technically West of Byzantium as well....

Thraikioi Prodromoi, Hippeis Thessalikoi, Molosson Agema, and Illyrioi Hippeis (they may not look like much but they are incredibly fast and versatile) are also in the running for the best Western cavalry in my opinion as well. The Heavy Iberian Lancer cavalry are certainly the heaviest cavalry in the West, but I think all of the above units are potentially better in that they are more versatile. But, then again, I'm biased, because I prefer versatile, fast, and hard-hitting cavalry that can't necessarily hold in a melee over the heavy melee cavalry like cataphracts.

All nice, but I think I simply use my cavalry differently, if I want missles I use foot missle troops and have cavalry screen them. The greek psuedo-companions are nice enough, but I'm always afraid to get them into a melee. I dislike javelin cav, as I can rarely get more than 20 kills out of them with missles (probably a fault in my play style). I almost never counter cavalry with cavalry, I simply use a unit of reserve spearmen to kill them efficiently. Getting my flankers bogged down with a force they may not be able to escape from is a nightmare for me.

[antisocialmunky]

With the Cantabrians, I guess it is the complete lack of body armour (which most other skirmisher cav possess, to a limited extent). OTOH, I use Dahae skirmishers a lot, who are almost identical, and haven't found them too weak.

For comparison:

Dahae skirmishers/Cantabri skirmishers: armour 0, shield 2; 14 missiles (!) and AP sword/axe though.

Arachosians: armour 1, shield 2; otherwise see Dahae.

Hippakontistai: amour 3, shield 2; same AP sword as Cantabri, but otherwise inferior.

Leuce Epos: armour 5, shield 2; AP spear (good for charge). No Cantabrian Circle.

Bedouin cavalry: armour 4, shield 2; AP spear.

etc.


Dahae, Arachosians, and Cantabrians are fearsome elephant killers, but very vulnerable to missiles.

They are nice for slaughtering certain infantry types or pin cushioning someone's butt. However, from the MP perspective - you can't do anything with them because they aren't good enough to fill their job description for the price in an Iberian army. If you look at them as a horse by itself. Its a okay unit. Its kinda of hard to explain. Iberians as a whole are really good on paper but don't perform as well as you would expect against humans.

Their heavy line infantry are very good but cost too much. Their medium infantry is some of the best in the world but they have to double as line infantry since Iberia doesn't have an affordable heavy infantry. A lot of the value of their medium infantry comes from the fact that they are fast and mobile. So if they are forced to stand and fight outside of the woods they aren't fighting at their max potential. They also tend to get shot to pieces if they have to stand and fight.

Iberian cavalry gets rocked by Greek cavalry but Iberia has FAST medium infantry that along with their cavalry can take Greek cavalry in a stand up fight. However, FAST infantry are still slower than horses and the Greek infantry aren't that slow.

I don't know. Iberia is a good faction but it doesn't work out that well against humans atleast in a 20vs20 unit match up where maneuver is unfavored due to having even unit numbers.

[athanaric]

I don't know. Iberia is a good faction but it doesn't work out that well against humans atleast in a 20vs20 unit match up where maneuver is unfavored due to having even unit numbers.

Well, the bigger the battle becomes, and the less room you have for maneuvering, the stronger the Greeks and Romans become, beause they have the most staying power in a classical battle.

Besides, I'd half expect the Lusotannan to lose against Swêboz/Getai (because among mostly unarmoured factions, high lethality/morale beats AP). Unless of course you use Dosidataskeli or other WTF troops. (But then again, for the price of one Dosidataskeli unit you can field three Drapanai ones, which will simply zerg your tanks...)

I'd say Iberians in general and Lusotannan in particular are really good in campaign, but I probably wouldn't dare play them online.

[WinsingtonIII]

different troops for different tasks ... you can't crash medium-class cavalry on the back of a phallanx and leave it there for long (more than 5 seconds actually) ... and you can't chase down annoying horse skirmishers with your shinning kataphracts either...

That's why I said that you shouldn't leave them in melee, and I don't leave them in melee. The way I play, cavalry are not meant to be getting into prolonged melees, that's what infantry are for (different troops for different tasks, as you said yourself). If the enemy has heavier cavalry than me, I can charge them with my lighter cavalry to occupy them and then run over a reserve spear unit to tie them up (or just block them with a spear unit in the first place). Then I pull out the lighter cavalry immediately and the enemy cavalry are stuck fighting spear infantry. The way I see it, cataphracts and other super-heavy cavalry are rarely, if ever, truly necessary. The only situation in which they really might be is if your enemy is using cataphracts extensively themselves (to the point where your infantry cannot deal with it because in ahistorically huge masses, cataphracts are a tad overpowered). Against infantry, repeated charges by lighter cavalry can accomplish the same result of a more reasonable number of cataphracts (it may take longer though, and you probably can't charge from the front). And achieving repeated charges is much easier when your cavalry has speed, maneuverability, and stamina.

That is not to say that cataphracts are bad, they are very good units, but I just personally prefer the lighter shock cavalry units that focus more on charge and speed at the sacrifice of melee abilities. Cataphracts are like a big expensive sledgehammer, I prefer the precise (and in some cases still just as expensive) scalpel of more maneuverable cavalry, that's just my personal play style.

All nice, but I think I simply use my cavalry differently, if I want missles I use foot missle troops and have cavalry screen them. The greek psuedo-companions are nice enough, but I'm always afraid to get them into a melee. I dislike javelin cav, as I can rarely get more than 20 kills out of them with missles (probably a fault in my play style). I almost never counter cavalry with cavalry, I simply use a unit of reserve spearmen to kill them efficiently. Getting my flankers bogged down with a force they may not be able to escape from is a nightmare for me.

Take a look at the earlier part of this post (in response to Archippos), I think we actually use them kind of similarly. I can understand preferring foot missiles to horse archers, I actually find HAs to be annoying to control sometimes. I too dislike javelin cavalry, and none of the units I mentioned there were jav cav, nor would any jav cav ever make that list in my opinion. As I say above, I never get cavalry into prolonged melees with other cavalry, that's the job of reserve spears. Also, as noted above, the Thessalian and Epeirote heavy cavalry (along with the others on that list) aren't meant to be prolonged melees, their power is in their charge and speed/stamina.

EDIT: We're getting off-topic here, this can be deleted if necessary.