Re: Advice need - 15 questions
It means that you should attack units that are standing still or marching slowly, and choose a direct way, i.e. your cavalry unit should be facing the targeted unit before you order the charge.Originally Posted by Jurand
Under no circumstances should you order them to "run through" the enemy unit. Not only is this considered cheating in multiplayer mode, but it is also suicidal. Only chariots and elephants can realistically run through enemy units and still inflict damage - though they have a nasty habit of getting stuck in a blob of infantry and getting cut to quivering shreds.
Archers should be placed a few metres behind friendly troops, and should cease firing if the target approaches your line.2. Friendly fire
2.1. How far behind my own troops should the archers be positioned so that they don’t shoot at the back of their comrades?
2.2. Is there a difference between slingers and archers as far as above distances are concerned? (maybe sling shots have more parabolic trajectory, so the distance is smaller?)
Slingers logically have a flatter trajectory and should not be placed behind your line at all.
They will cease firing at an enemy unit that is engaged in melee with one of your units, unless specifically ordered not to.2.3. If the archers are put at „Fire at will” mode and a friendly unit is approaching their target, will they change shooting to another target, or they will shoot their fellow unit?
AFAIK they will lose morale at a slower rate.3. Units’ features
3.1. What does the feature „training” do? Is a “highly-trained” unit more likely stand in formation? Or does it move faster?
The archer part seems to be true. With melee units, it depends on the situation. Your ranks should be deep when facing a cavalry-heavy opponent, so as to better withstand charges from any side.3.3. How deep should a unit’s formation be – for instance for Hoplitai: 4 ranks, 6 ranks? I have read that for the archers to shoot the best is 3 ranks.
Walls can help with countering cultural maluses or low public order. Also, the enemy might launch a surprise attack where you don't expect them. In which case stone walls are very practical.5. Sieges
5.1. Why should you bother to build walls in your cites? You will not use them and they are expensive. My experience tells me that it is always better to fight in the open terrain than allow the enemy to put up a siege.
Not true. In my games, the AI regularly gets shot to pieces when attacking stone walls. You can defend walled cities with just a handful of archers and other infantry against vastly superior AI forces.• First, the walls don’t add much – you can approach walls with little loses and AI is very good at doing it. The siege equipment is also very good, no problems going up the walls.
City fighting is bugged as hell, that's right. The AI makes a lot of mistakes though.• Second, you cannot maneuver in the city – AI is very steady at storming the city, difficult for it to make serious mistakes.
Not true, see above. Archers and other missile troops on walls can brutally decimate enemy troops. You need to put them on guard mode and then individually select targets that are in range.• Third, your archers and skirmishers do little damage even if you put them at the walls.
Storming a city always costs you more lives, unless the garrison is very small and can be destroyed by missile troops that are out of range of the defensive systems.5.2. Related question: I always storm a city as soon as possibile (if a spy opens the gates – immediately, if not – I wait just one season). What are the benefits of waiting, but the (minor) loses for the defender which accrue in the meantime? (of course, sometimes you are afraid of the enemy inside (elephants?), so you’d like him to go out of the city and fight in the open).
To figure out the real income of the city, look at the income tab in the city details. The numbers displayed on the strat map are sometimes misleading.6.4. In general: I would expect higher differences in income between large cities and small town. In one game, my Ptolemai have Alexandria of 20K size and Paraitonion of 2K size, but the income (both very high taxes, Alex has some income-improving buildings) are 3,4K and 1K minnai, respectively. I find this difference too small, economies of scale should exist.
I use assassins to counter enemy assassins (they always try to kill your governors if they don't have an army nearby) and spies that might cause unrest in your cities. Also, diplomats that are trying to bribe my troops. Sometimes enemy generals that have fled from a battle and left their infantry as a roadblock for pursuing troops. Sometimes I destroy enemy barracks so as to deter them from spamming troops. I don't assassinate governors though because that's gay.7. Other
7.1. Assassins: does anybody use them? They are extremely cost-unefficient – high upkeep, and very low chances to kill anybody. Of course, you can train them on enemy captains, but until they get some experience you will pump a lot of money in them. Waste of money, better to put up an army.
All in all, assassins are worth the expense, though not in all situations.
You should set battle difficulty to medium, otherwise your game is unbalanced. That said, only some units can reasonably be used for autoresolve, especially phalanx pikemen and heavy cavalry FMs.7.2. Autobattles: I like the concept “you have brain, the computer gets stars” for FMs. But in this case a human player cannot resort to auto-battles, since he always looses or suffer such loses that even a small battle can change the balance (I play VH/H – I find myself always striving to get any surplus). But at some point there are so many battles (f.i. when Ptolemai fights AS) that you’d like to resort to autocalculations for some of them. Do you know if somebody made a mini-mod which supports human players in auto-battles?
from Hannibal Khan the Great, Brennus, Tellos Athenaios, and Winsington III.
Reply With Quote
Re: Advice need - 15 questions
Bookmarks