Faction strengths?

[Grade_A_Beef]

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.

[Cute Wolf]

Sauro's strength lies in their horse's numbers! They have easy acess to the cheapest horse archers ever (in terms of both recruitment cost and upkeep), Sauromatae Fat Aexdantae, at mere 1000+ Minai and about 250 minai upkeep... they could ammased in great numbers compared to their Saka and Pahlava counterparts, not to mention that they are also mercenary so they could be levied quickly if sorely needed... compare with Duna Asya or Pahlava Shivatir, maybe in small 3 or 4 unit, that doesn't matter too much, but when you have multi stacks of HA army that need patrolling all the Steppe.... their difference in upkeep will matter a lot, especially if the economy was tight! Many Sauro Variants of the Nomad units are also cheaper, with just sightly less performance, just use them as Zerg version of Nomads.

Makedon and Epeiros have acess to Agrianikoi Pelekuphoroi, among the best assault troops to be employed against seleukid cataphracts on foot (read: TAB). And the makedonians has acess to Hysteroi Pezhetairoi, maybe not a relatively good units when compared to Argyraspidai or the Crack Chaonion Agema... but at least they have an incredibly large AOR (even to the extent you'll babysitting the Romans for march of time) you can just train them virtually anywhere in the mediterranians...

Epeiros has better choice, the Molosoan Agema is the fastest heavy cavalry that you can use not only for breaking enemy formations, but also to riding down skirmishers and still have enough stamina to impale enemy general... also the Chaonion Agema is the top-crack phalangitai by stats... they beat everyone and with acess to experience inducing temples, they become killing machine by birth... and the last thing wonderful with Epeiros is.... They can train Elephants at Ambrakia!!!! Means the Romans will get many fresh elephant meat if they carefully use their leves and velites, or become a smashed sticky meaty sauce if they aren't.

Pontos gaining extremely wide kind of units, that wasn't particularly good, but you did have every counter for everything your enemy is about to thrown at you...

Hayasdan? They had horse archers and catas while they are civilized and didn't get their reforms as hard as Pahlava does (you just build some market and then change the gov't type). They are basically a civilized nomads with inclination to massive archery tactics (having Kovakasi Archers available at the start and in nearby regions means that those cheap but damn good archers are about to be ammased and made the sky dark with their arrows)

Saba? At least.... they have really isolated position and they have mines in nearby settlements, just play turtle and you can build up your force. But actually, this faction is among the hardest of factions available........

[ARCHIPPOS]

"but I can't tell what makes Macedon and especially the Ptolemaic recruit lists better than the Seleucids (which is just huge)."

they are not... supposedly the Seleucids get THE best troop choice in the game.

[Grade_A_Beef]

Well, yeah, I know the Seleucids have the best troops choice. Just want to know what kinda perks Macedon and Ptolemaics get to differentiate themselves from the Seleucids. Looks like Macedon's explained, but the Ptolemaics are a different story.

The Ptolemaics seem to have nothing going for their unit roster; though their advantages on the strategic map is huge. Do they get anything aside from occupying fabulously rich provinces and a strategically strong poisition (as in they only have to deal with the distracted Seleucids early on?)

I've checked the EB list, and it looks like the Dacian bodyguard unit is slightly better than the Molosson Agema, although it's a shame the Getai can't recruit this unit as a standalone cavalry unit.

[athanaric]

but I can't tell what makes Macedon and especially the Ptolemaic recruit lists better than the Seleucids

Nothing. The Seleukids have the best recruitment list in the game.

Makedones are the masters of phalanx, though. Their reformed Heavy Palanx in addition to Argyraspides and a very decent levy phalanx are testament to that.
Ptolies get better access to Egyptian (levies/mid tier), Galatian (assault swordsmen), and Ethiopian (fast mid tier units + Elephants) units, but are inferior otherwise.

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.

Again, the only difference is your own skill. Sauromatae have a quality problem against Saka in particular (lower range and armour on average), and therefore are difficult to play. Try to get Roxolani Nobles. They are very expensive, though. However, if you play smart you may have privileged access to some excellent Greek, Dacian and Germanic infantry units. Skythian units are also very useful!

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.

Pontos and Armenia are very diverse, which means they can adopt any play style, even "barbarian". Armenia is like a weaker version of Pahlava, but with better infantry and a more consistent economy system.

Saba is "officially" the weakest faction (unit wise) but still fun to play. They have decent foot archers and are pretty enduring; a bit like Swêboz with better ranged units but no heavy units.

-> Edit: Hint: Saba can recruit Galatian Heavy Swordsmen in Egypt! This means that if you (as a Saba player) ever see some of those wandering unaccompanied through the desert, fel no hesitation to bribe them. These guys are heavier than any of your factional units and thus an excellent addition to your army. They were incredibly helpful for me when I defeated the Ptolemaioi.

[Apázlinemjó]

Ptolies get better access to Egyptian (levies/mid tier), Galatian (assault swordsmen), and Ethiopian (fast mid tier units + Elephants) units, but are inferior otherwise.

Let's not forget the Klerouchikon Agema, the second strongest phalanx unit in the game and the Basilikon Agema, the heavy thorakitai, also they can get Kretikoi Toxotai as factional unit.


To Pontos: They are the jack of all trades in the game, but you can't use your full potential at the start of the game, if you are playing them, because you have to survive the Seleucids first.

[athanaric]

Let's not forget the Klerouchikon Agema, the second strongest phalanx unit in the game and the Basilikon Agema, the heavy thorakitai, also they can get Kretikoi Toxotai as factional unit.

The Klerouchikon Agema has exactly the same stats as the Argyraspides, and a smaller AoR.
Every faction can recruit factional Kretan Archers, if they control Kydonia, Antiocheia, or Alexandria. I've even recruited those guys with Casse, Swêboz, Saka, Hayasdan, and Sab'yn.

In fact, the small AoR of most of their units, especially the elites, is the biggest weakness of the Ptolemaioi, compared to other successors.

[Apázlinemjó]

The Klerouchikon Agema has exactly the same stats as the Argyraspides, and a smaller AoR.
Every faction can recruit factional Kretan Archers, if they control Kydonia, Antiocheia, or Alexandria. I've even recruited those guys with Casse, Swêboz, Saka, Hayasdan, and Sab'yn.

In fact, the small AoR of most of their units, especially the elites, is the biggest weakness of the Ptolemaioi, compared to other successors.

Ahh checked the EDU, you're right about the Agema, however what I wanted to say with Cretans, that you can train them almost at the start of the game with Ptolies and with Seleucids too.

EDIT: Nvm

As for the issue of cataphracts, I don't know what exactly you mean by that term, but Pontos does get the Kinsmen Heavy Cavalry. They're not true cataphracts, but are pretty close. They're recruitable in Amarvir with an MIC that Hayasdan will always build for you if you don't blitz them out of existence within the first fifteen or so years. And if you're worried about cavalry inferiority, get the Scythed Chariots. They shred non-cataphract cavalry, and if maneuvered correctly will put a dent in even the cataphracts, assuming that the cataphracts aren't allowed to charge.

Or you can get a cheaper and almost identical unit in stats, the Scythian Nobles. Also you can train Steppe Riders, who are excellent at wearing out the A.I. Cataphracts and after that it's a piece of cake to bring them down.

[IrishHitman]

Makedonia's strength is that you can deploy a proper combined arms army without being distracted with random regional troops that generally don't fit such a strategy.

I've never played with the Ptolemaic or Seleucid kingdoms for any real period of time, because while they have some pretty fun units, they simply don't fit my military strategy.

[GenosseGeneral]

concerning ptolies i can just point at the galatians... ever seen an diadochoi army with useful hevy infantry? especially together with thorakitai, they can be used for some kind of a "reformed" army and they are VERY useful to assault walls... but u still got phanlanxes and all that other greek stuff. do not underestimate the ptolies' units...

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

The Seleukids get access to the same Galatian roster that Pontos does I believe. And the Galatian Spearmen are basically the equivalent of the Galatian Swordsmen except that their secondary weapon is a spear instead of a javilin.

I would add that the major strength of Macedon besides the reformed Phalanx is their access to Thracian units including the Peltasts which they can recruit unlike any faction except Getai. Epiros has access to Italic infantry ranging from light to heavy and all decently effective. Ptolemies do get great access to Galatian Swordsmen but I feel this is their only major advantage. I don't think Klereuchoi Phalangitai are the equals of Argryaspides and they have very limited recruitment area as well.

On the flip side their Machimoi are very useful but no more useful than say, Eastern Axemen or Cappadocian Hillmen which the Seleukids have great access to.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

@Grade_A_Beef:

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

[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.

[WinsingtonIII]

On the flip side their Machimoi are very useful but no more useful than say, Eastern Axemen or Cappadocian Hillmen which the Seleukids have great access to.

Machimoi have more staying power in melee than Cappadocian Hillmen or Eastern Axemen. They have 6 armor while the various axemen only have 2, and they have 3 shield while the axemen have 2. Overall they have 19 defense, while the axemen have only 15. I think that makes them better at holding in melee for some time and makes them less vulnerable to missiles, which is important in the east. The higher lethality of the axes makes them better flankers (the Machimoi's sword is armor-piercing just like the axes though) but the greater staying power of the Machimoi makes them a bit more versatile in their role in my opinion. Of course, if you want versatile medium infantry in the Middle East with surprising staying power, you should probably just go for Ioudaioi Taxeis (although they lack axes or swords and instead have spears), which both the Ptolies and the Arche have access to.

[WinsingtonIII]

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.

Well I think it's important to remember that EB focuses on historical accuracy more than anything else, so some factions will simply be weaker than their neighbors, and that's just something that you're going to have to deal with. I personally think it makes the game more interesting than putting too much effort into creating factions that are perfectly balanced.

Cute Wolf already covered most of these, but I'll say what I think about some of the one's he didn't go into detail about.

The Ptolemaic roster is not as strong as the Seleucid roster overall as far as I can tell. That's a decision that I'm sure was made based on historical data, and when playing as them it's just something you have to deal with. The Ptolemaoi do have a couple things going for them. The Machimoi swordsmen, although not particularly good, provide a cheap and decent medium sword infantry in their homelands, and I don't think the Seleucids really have an equivalent to that. They also have the Galatikoi Kleruchoi (Galatian Heavy Infantry), which are a very effective heavy sword unit (with the added bonus of it being a Galatian that can be recruited outside of Galatia), and I'm pretty certain that the Seleucids do not have an equivalent to that.

Pontos is one of those factions that have it rough. Any campaign you play with them with be very difficult due to both their starting position and their poor roster. Their biggest benefit, as I can tell, is that they get the largest selection of Galatian troops out of any faction in the game, and Galatian troops are generally pretty good. However, they are only recruitable in one province. The combination of Hellenic and Galatian rosters is interesting, and you can play them with either Hellenic or "barbarian" tactics, or a mixture of both, but Pontos is hampered because its Hellenic roster is subpar and Galatians are limited to one province. They also lack cataphracts, so even their cavalry is generally outclassed by those around them. Conclusion: Pontos has a weak roster, with little in the way of strengths, but that's just how it is.

Saba, as Cute Wolf said, has a good starting position, but again, their roster is weak. Most Sabaean and Arabian troops wear little to no armor, so they will die like flies under missile fire. Even the Sabaean Noble Infantry, some of the heaviest armored troops they can muster, have less armor than Hellenic Theurophoroi, which are considered fairly light by Hellenic standards. The strength of many Sabaean and Arabian troops is that they have surprisingly high morale. Arabian Light Infantry will hold in melee versus superior foes for quite some time before routing, which is not what you would expect by looking at them. Sabaean Levy Spearmen have 13 morale (!) which is surprisingly high considering their levy status. But this is where the strengths end. Saba lacks cavalry, decently armored units in general (other than their bodyguard), and has trouble holding a line. When fighting against the Ptolies and Seleucids, you're going to have to resort to Pantodapoi Phalangitai more and more the further you get from home, which I hate doing when I'm not a Hellenic faction.

That's just my take, but I think it's just that EB makes factions historically accurate, so sometimes you will end up with factions that have weak rosters with few strengths.

[retep219]

Pontos is one of those factions that have it rough. Any campaign you play with them with be very difficult due to both their starting position and their poor roster. Their biggest benefit, as I can tell, is that they get the largest selection of Galatian troops out of any faction in the game, and Galatian troops are generally pretty good. However, they are only recruitable in one province. The combination of Hellenic and Galatian rosters is interesting, and you can play them with either Hellenic or "barbarian" tactics, or a mixture of both, but Pontos is hampered because its Hellenic roster is subpar and Galatians are limited to one province. They also lack cataphracts, so even their cavalry is generally outclassed by those around them. Conclusion: Pontos has a weak roster, with little in the way of strengths, but that's just how it is.

I wouldn't call Pontos's roster all that bad. It does take some time to get to their better units, but once you have them, you can field an army that can easily beat anything the AI will throw at you. (Hey, is that surprising?) They don't really lack much--Chalkaspides are an elite phalanx that seem to get bad press, but aren't all that bad. They are the same price as Hysteroi Pezhataroi and are recruitable at the same MIC level. However, the Chalkaspides are almost identical to the reformed phalanx...they only lack a single point of attack. Same defence and morale. Pantodapoi Phalangitai are also present, being cheap and very good to hold the line. In the way of Galatian elites--true, it's just one province (Two, if you count Odrysai, which can recruit the Shortswordsmen and Heavy Spearmen, as well as Rhomphorai instead of Tindonatae) but is very centrally located and provides the Heavy Spearmen, unmatched among anything you'll see in the AI armies except for their clone, the Heavy Swordsmen that the Ptolemaioi sometimes field, as well as the Tindonatae which can easily rout an AI army. Plus you get cheap but dependable medium swords a good four turns after Galatia falls (Something you can accomplish on turn two/three without losing many men if you force a sally and win, which is quite possible, if difficult)

As for the issue of cataphracts, I don't know what exactly you mean by that term, but Pontos does get the Kinsmen Heavy Cavalry. They're not true cataphracts, but are pretty close. They're recruitable in Amarvir with an MIC that Hayasdan will always build for you if you don't blitz them out of existence within the first fifteen or so years. And if you're worried about cavalry inferiority, get the Scythed Chariots. They shred non-cataphract cavalry, and if maneuvered correctly will put a dent in even the cataphracts, assuming that the cataphracts aren't allowed to charge.

[WinsingtonIII]

I wouldn't call Pontos's roster all that bad. It does take some time to get to their better units, but once you have them, you can field an army that can easily beat anything the AI will throw at you. (Hey, is that surprising?) They don't really lack much--Chalkaspides are an elite phalanx that seem to get bad press, but aren't all that bad. They are the same price as Hysteroi Pezhataroi and are recruitable at the same MIC level. However, the Chalkaspides are almost identical to the reformed phalanx...they only lack a single point of attack. Same defence and morale. Pantodapoi Phalangitai are also present, being cheap and very good to hold the line.

But compared to Hysteroi Pezhetairoi, Chalkaspides have an AOR of 4 provinces in Asia Minor, while the Hysteroi Pezhetairoi are recruitable in S. Italy, all of Greece and S. Thracia, the entire West coast of Asia Minor, Antioch, N. Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Baktra. From a campaign perspective that makes them a better unit. Plus I think the more accurate comparison to make is between Chalkaspides and Agryaspides and Klerouchon Agema, because those are the elite phalanxes you will actually be facing for the most part. In comparison to these, Chalkaspides do not stack up. Just going by morale alone (which I consider the most important stat for phalanx troops) the have 13 while the equivalents the AS and Ptolies will be sending your way have 16. The fact that they are less expensive is actually a very good thing from the perspective of playing as Pontos, but they are not as good an elite as the ones you will be facing.

As for Pantodapoi Phalangitai, I agree they are a surprisingly good unit, but practically every faction in the East has access to them, so I don't think they are really a particular strength for the Pontic roster (that implies that it's something unique to them). So really, the three things the make the Pontic Hellenic roster weak compared to others are Chalkaspides, a lack of Pezhetairoi, and a lack of successor cavalry. I realize that these don't really hold them back much in the hands of any human player versus the computer, but technically they do have a below average Hellenic roster, that's all I'm saying.

In the way of Galatian elites--true, it's just one province (Two, if you count Odrysai, which can recruit the Shortswordsmen and Heavy Spearmen, as well as Rhomphorai instead of Tindonatae) but is very centrally located and provides the Heavy Spearmen, unmatched among anything you'll see in the AI armies except for their clone, the Heavy Swordsmen that the Ptolemaioi sometimes field, as well as the Tindonatae which can easily rout an AI army. Plus you get cheap but dependable medium swords a good four turns after Galatia falls (Something you can accomplish on turn two/three without losing many men if you force a sally and win, which is quite possible, if difficult)

I would agree with you on every point here. I said in my previous post that Galatians are one of the strengths of the Pontic roster, but I lamented their small AOR. The reason I didn't include Odrysai is because early on you probably won't control it, and Galatia is in a better location to reinforce against the AS anyways.

As for the issue of cataphracts, I don't know what exactly you mean by that term, but Pontos does get the Kinsmen Heavy Cavalry. They're not true cataphracts, but are pretty close. They're recruitable in Amarvir with an MIC that Hayasdan will always build for you if you don't blitz them out of existence within the first fifteen or so years. And if you're worried about cavalry inferiority, get the Scythed Chariots. They shred non-cataphract cavalry, and if maneuvered correctly will put a dent in even the cataphracts, assuming that the cataphracts aren't allowed to charge.

Well they don't have true cataphracts, that's all I meant by that term. I don't even like cataphracts very much, but I just thought that I would point out that this is something that Pontos lacks that pretty much every other Eastern faction has access to. I love the Royal Kinsmen (the early bodyguard) and the regular kinsmen heavy cavalry are quite good, but again, they don't stack up to the elite cavalry you will facing around you. True cataphracts will eat them in melee, and in general the Hellenic elite cavalry have better morale than them and are just are maneuverable as they are. All I'm saying is that there is a reason why these troops were in decline during EB's time period, they were somewhat archaic. As for chariots, in close battles where you are forced to take some risks with your cavalry, Scythed Chariots become more of a liability than they are helpful. I don't really think that Pontos has bad cavalry overall, but you have to admit that their selection (in their homelands, I'm not counting steppe regionals that many Eastern factions get) is small for an Eastern faction, which hampers their abilities somewhat.

[seienchin]

I would be interested which factions you think are the worst, unitwise?
I personally think Saba.
Armenia would be powerfull if it would be located in europe, but compared to its neighbours it is really mediocre. Still no saba though
I found casse to be surprisingly powerfull, because of huge units and good moral. Still in the campain their rate of casualties is insane

[Grade_A_Beef]

well, no, I'm asking for a rock-paper-scissors thing. It's easy enough to counter anything a faction sends at you....

What I want to know is what kind of distinguishing feature there is for each faction, especially the ones that practice similar fighting styles.

[ziegenpeter]

I love the Royal Kinsmen (the early bodyguard) and the regular kinsmen heavy cavalry are quite good, but again, they don't stack up to the elite cavalry you will facing around you. True cataphracts will eat them in melee, and in general the Hellenic elite cavalry have better morale than them and are just are maneuverable as they are. All I'm saying is that there is a reason why these troops were in decline during EB's time period, they were somewhat archaic.

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

[Andronikos]

The Kinsmen heavy cavalry is descendand of Persian heavy cavalry from Achamenid times, it's not cataphract. And this type of cavalry was on decline, because it was proven ineffective when comapred with hetairoi, the most powerful and widely used heavy cavalry of that era. On the other hand, cataphract model was a new one and it was on ascent.

[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).

[gamegeek2]

Saba, as Cute Wolf said, has a good starting position, but again, their roster is weak. Most Sabaean and Arabian troops wear little to no armor, so they will die like flies under missile fire. Even the Sabaean Noble Infantry, some of the heaviest armored troops they can muster, have less armor than Hellenic Theurophoroi, which are considered fairly light by Hellenic standards. The strength of many Sabaean and Arabian troops is that they have surprisingly high morale. Arabian Light Infantry will hold in melee versus superior foes for quite some time before routing, which is not what you would expect by looking at them. Sabaean Levy Spearmen have 13 morale (!) which is surprisingly high considering their levy status. But this is where the strengths end. Saba lacks cavalry, decently armored units in general (other than their bodyguard), and has trouble holding a line. When fighting against the Ptolies and Seleucids, you're going to have to resort to Pantodapoi Phalangitai more and more the further you get from home, which I hate doing when I'm not a Hellenic faction.

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.

Here's a sneak peek:



Nabataean Hetairoi

[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!

[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.

[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

[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?