Faction strengths?

[vartan]

Na, I wasn't picturing that at all. I just expected a breath of fresh air. I'm sure others have pointed it out, but fighting in the nomad style gets repetitive way faster than other styles...

Subjective much? I think they all become repetitive faster than you can say...

[WinsingtonIII]

AtB will change that. The Arabians will no longer suck.

You have in particular the Nabatu to look forward to, who get a nice assortment of Hellenistic units in addition to a much-improved Arabian roster.

That's good news, particularly about the improved Arabian roster. Hellenistic units are nice, but I prefer to use the more traditional troops of a faction if I have the option.

Thanks for the sneak peek!

[Grade_A_Beef]

Subjective much? I think they all become repetitive faster than you can say...

Yeah, I am somewhat biased. Then again it's just that the nomad style plays the same way against every other style. Wipe out enemy cavalry, followed by missile troops, then withdraw when out of ammo. With other armies like a Celtic one there are foes to avoid (phalangites) charging at and foes that you can almost run over in one charge (Non Luso barb factions and occasionally the romans and those of carthage.)

[ARCHIPPOS]

In terms of tactics nomads are light years ahead of "civilized" mellee-infantry based factions ... i mean the nomads incorporate notions of firepower, high mobility, manouveuring/fluidity in their gameplay. Also they have an ultra-heavy cavalry branch with which they can storm the weakest parts of the enemy battleline and disengage and withdraw at will (kinda like tank warfare) . With small misleadingly few numbers of troops they can annihilate entire enemey fullstacks (with minimal losses) . In my view nomad warfare is very "modern" ...

[seienchin]

In terms of tactics nomads are light years ahead of "civilized" mellee-infantry based factions ... i mean the nomads incorporate notions of firepower, high mobility, manouveuring/fluidity in their gameplay. Also they have an ultra-heavy cavalry branch with which they can storm the weakest parts of the enemy battleline and disengage and withdraw at will (kinda like tank warfare) . With small misleadingly few numbers of troops they can annihilate entire enemey fullstacks (with minimal losses) . In my view nomad warfare is very "modern" ...

What?
You must be talking about the mongols. Yes they were very modern and killed everybody. The fact, that the nomads in the antics didnt play an too important role until the dark ages shows, that their tactics werent as superior.
I know the pahlva once were nomads and I also know that the sakken destroyed baktria, but look at the circumsances and on the development of the parthian forces.

[athanaric]

I, too, think that's too much of a general statement. There are a lot of other facets we must look at:

- Civilized armies in history and in EB have access to Katapeltai/Scorpiones, which outrange any Nomad unit. Slingers can also be utilized to counter heavy HAs of the period.

- Hellenic and Roman soldiers are quite resilient to arrow fire, especially Hoplites, Legionaries, and the upper tiers of Pikemen. History shows us that arrows alone were not enough to defeat an army in the EB time period.

- Nomadic factions become weaker as the distance between enemy fortifications lessens, not least due to their chronical weakness in terms of siege warfare (with the partial exception of the Pahlavân, who adapted).

- Alexander the Great managed to defeat a Nomad army upon first contact.

[ARCHIPPOS]

Athanaric all those things you mentioned are very true :)
Still there's no denying that if properly used a nomad army is a terrible irresistible force. Just look at Darius' defeat by the Scythians, the battle of Carrhae, The Mongolian expansion and so on ... strategically and tactically the nomads have the edge of higher mobility (=guerilla warfare)

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

As the Greeks and Romans with their kind of warfare could have never held out in the steppe, the same goes for the Nomad way of warfare in Greece or Italy. Which is kinda logical, but you have to bear it in mind.

[antisocialmunky]

I dunno local sheep/goat herders gave both quite alot of trouble form time to time.

[vartan]

In terms of tactics nomads are light years ahead of "civilized" mellee-infantry based factions ... i mean the nomads incorporate notions of firepower, high mobility, manouveuring/fluidity in their gameplay. Also they have an ultra-heavy cavalry branch with which they can storm the weakest parts of the enemy battleline and disengage and withdraw at will (kinda like tank warfare) . With small misleadingly few numbers of troops they can annihilate entire enemey fullstacks (with minimal losses) . In my view nomad warfare is very "modern" ...

Absolute best post in whole thread.

For you, deserving one. I'm humbled.

[seienchin]

Absolute best post in whole thread.

For you, deserving one. I'm humbled.

For generalizing something that only works in EB on history itself?

Comparing mongol kind of warfare to the nomads in EB is really far stretched.
And also the mongols failed using there Horsemen in south china or against japan and couldnt deal with korean partisans.

[Apázlinemjó]

For generalizing something that only works in EB on history itself?

Comparing mongol kind of warfare to the nomads in EB is really far stretched.
And also the mongols failed using there Horsemen in south china or against japan and couldnt deal with korean partisans.

And the stone fortifications and the regular armies of the Modern ages.

[JinandJuice]

And also the mongols failed using there Horsemen in south china or against japan and couldnt deal with korean partisans.

As far as I know, the Mongolians had relative trouble with the Chinese because 1. They can field armies as quickly as the Mongolians can kill them, and 2. They would turtle up behind walled cities, which the Mongolians would have to get POWs to assault. Their discovery of siege weapons certainly helped though.

For Japan, monsoons and bad weather destroyed both their invasion fleets. Bad luck, I guess, or some divine intervention. Who knows.

I don't remember the resistance of Korea much. Explanation?

[athanaric]

For Japan, monsoons and bad weather destroyed both their invasion fleets. Bad luck, I guess, or some divine intervention. Who knows.

Hence the word kamikaze = divine* wind.


*for lack of a more suitable word


Concerning Mongols and S China:

Large parts of Southern China have swampy terrain (good for rice), which is quite unsuitable for horsies. The climate there is quite tropical in summer. And where there are no rice paddies, there are mighty steep hills or mountains that are heavily forested. There is only limited space for a cavalry army to operate in, and plenty of rough terrain for bandits and mountaineers to hide in.
I can't say much about Korea (never been there), but they have plenty of mountains and forests, too. I guess it's a bit like central Germany, which also proved rather unsuitable for invading cavalry armies. Remember the Mongols were halted/turned back in Poland, where the forests become more numerous and the climate less and less continental (as seen from Central Asia).

[seienchin]

As far as I know, the Mongolians had relative trouble with the Chinese because 1. They can field armies as quickly as the Mongolians can kill them, and 2. They would turtle up behind walled cities, which the Mongolians would have to get POWs to assault. Their discovery of siege weapons certainly helped though.

For Japan, monsoons and bad weather destroyed both their invasion fleets. Bad luck, I guess, or some divine intervention. Who knows.

I don't remember the resistance of Korea much. Explanation?

First of all:
What? Read at least Wikipedia before posting something about history
Like the post above me shows, southern china was just not fitted for nomad warfare. North china was, so they fall even with their big walls quite fast.

The first time the mongols invaded Japan there was fearce fighting.
The second time they actually fought back the mongols from june 21 until august the 15th. There was a hell lot of fighting, but because the mongols had to rely on mostly subdued levies, because horse riders cant storm a beach they lost.

Korea... Well I am getting a little bit tired but they fought 6 campains in korea of which some were even repelled. Even after the mongols conquered korea there were guerilla and risings the mongols and there allied regime couldnt controll.
Anyway the mongols were the master of the steppes and I guess so where the sarmatians etc., but still there warfare wasnt modern and limited to open ground.

[JinandJuice]

First of all:
What? Read at least Wikipedia before posting something about history

I've actually read a couple of books regarding Mongolian invasions myself. The most recent one I read was Genghis Khan's Greatest General: Subotai the Valiant , which explained exactly what I had said about the invasion of China. It might not have been the exact reason in regards to this topic, but it certainly wasn't incorrect.

As with the Japanese, kamikazes might not have destroyed the fleet during the first invasion, but it did cut off supplies, reinforcements and forced the Mongolians to reassess their maneuvers, assisting in the failure of the invasion. As for the second invasion, as quoted directly from Wikipedia, "massive typhoon assaulted the shores of Kyūshū for two days straight, and destroyed much of the Mongol fleet."

[Beckis Robertus Californicus]

Ive been playing AS on VH/H and those damned Palava have swiped 5 regions. Argh. They have been the bain of my existence on my Eastern front.

I managed to develop a decent family member general with an experienced stack and a lone Palava general with 5 stars smoked him, because I was too confident and too lazy to fight him and expected an auto win.

[Grade_A_Beef]

Necroing......still, it's better than creating a redundant topic.

In any case I had a relatively easy time against the Pahlava when I was AS. I just teched up to stone walls, and then got a garrison of roughly 3-4 pantodapoi phalangitai (these are just a precaution) and around 5 slingers. You can then just wall up and sally every turn, decimating their nomad army.

It definitely won't kill their armored generals until you have perhaps gold chevroned slingers, but in general you can take out any sort of infantry attacking the walls before they even reach the it.

You pretty much stall until you're ready at the two cities south of Asaak, although the Pahlava only occasionally attack the city that starts with a Z (can't remember) and the province east of Nisa.

Granted you'll be stunting the growths of those cities until you're ready, but your main economic powerhouse lies in Mesopotamia and Asia Minor anyhow, so there's no real worries.

[anubis88]

Necroing......still, it's better than creating a redundant topic.

In any case I had a relatively easy time against the Pahlava when I was AS. I just teched up to stone walls, and then got a garrison of roughly 3-4 pantodapoi phalangitai (these are just a precaution) and around 5 slingers. You can then just wall up and sally every turn, decimating their nomad army.

It definitely won't kill their armored generals until you have perhaps gold chevroned slingers, but in general you can take out any sort of infantry attacking the walls before they even reach the it.

You pretty much stall until you're ready at the two cities south of Asaak, although the Pahlava only occasionally attack the city that starts with a Z (can't remember) and the province east of Nisa.

Granted you'll be stunting the growths of those cities until you're ready, but your main economic powerhouse lies in Mesopotamia and Asia Minor anyhow, so there's no real worries.

Yeah, this is a real exploit when playing with AS.

However there is nothing more frustrating than attacking a nomad faction, with a lot of archers and horse archers, + a few cata FMs.

When playing with AS i had a huge battle against the pahlava and quit 10 minutes in, becouse i just couldn't wait and see my man getting slaughthered

[Grade_A_Beef]

Yeah....they are very annoying to fight. Thank god I didn't spend much time with them as they were locked down at four provinces (Asaak, their original provinces, and the one to the north.) Asaak, thank god, is heavily forested as well. Although it isn't favorable for phlanxes, it's even less so for cavalry, particularly missile cavalry.

[J.R.M]

Yea, HA´s are a real trouble, thank god the AI is stupid, imagine how it could be if it was smart?!.