Do you intend to use historical army compositions?

[QuintusSertorius]

Given the beta is coming soon, we can start to discuss this sort of thing. It's also a side-discussion that has been recurring in the house rules thread.

So do you intend to use a historical army composition in EB2? To be clear, but historical I mean as close to what we know was done as is possible, within the constraints of the engine. For example if you are playing the Romani, that means half your force should be allied, meaning non-Roman, as well as a 2:2:1 ratio of Hastati:Principes:Triarii. If you don't recruit allies, then "Partially" is the most accurate description. If you use full stacks of pedites extraordinarii, then it's "No".

In general you're probably using a historical army if you have no more than 10-20% cavalry (unless a nomadic faction), no more than 10% elites, no more than about 20% missile/skirmishers and a mixture of factional and regional/mercenary units.

[Docus]

The question is, will the AI?

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Yes, I intend to, but I may recruit a lot of mercenaries to bulk out my stacks.

[Ludens]

Unless I am planning a big campaign, my armies tend to be ad-hoc compositions of whatever units are available. I frequently use stacks that are rather heavy on mercenaries or local levies, i.e. soldiers that have only a loose attachment to my empire. However, these armies are always built around a core of professional, or at least citizen militia, units.

So, not quite historical, but not unrealistic either.

When I do plan a campaign, I prefer unit types that can be expected to stay loyal: my faction's core units plus quality mercenaries. However, I am quite willing to vary proportions (i.e. more emphasis on cavalry than infantry or visa versa) if that makes the army more effective.

[QuintusSertorius]

I find varied armies much quicker to recruit, since you tend to be more limited in what you get in your outlying settlements. Invariably that means they handle the light troops and the heavier, factional units come from the core.

[joshmahurin]

If enough people explain what certain factions historical armies looked like then yes I would love to play in this manner :) otherwise I build like Ludens.

[fallen851]

The question is, will the AI?

This is indeed the real question...

Or we will face the endless stacks of slingers like in RTW II...

[V.T. Marvin]

If the AI keeps on recruiting units close to its maximum capacity, it will be forced to produce fairly balanced historically plausible armies thanks to M2TW system of recruitment pools and replenishment rates, which we are using very thoughtfully to get as much from it as we can.

Therefore if the AI decides that it likes slingers and slingers only, such slinger stack would be very far from endless because it will only be possible to recruit only one unit per a given amount of turns.

[I_damian]

I've always used realistic army compositions in EB. I try to use them in all other strategy games as well. When playing as the Romans in EB I'm fanatical about realistic army composition because we have very good sources telling us exactly what their armies looked like. When playing as Seleukia I use a core of good quality phalanx troops and a small number of quality heavy cavalry recruited from Antioch, Seleukia and any other core Seleukid province, then lots of light troops, light cavalry and slingers and archers from wherever the army passes. If I'm fighting against the Parthians I'll draw lots of slingers and archers from those eastern provinces. Stuff like that.

Since I don't know how to compose a realistic army of "barbarians" when I play as someone like Averni, I tend to use a core of decent swordsmen supported by tons of light spear armed infantry and mostly light cavalry with one unit (usually the general) of heavy cavalry.

So yeah, in general I always use realistic armies if I can.

[gstephenopolous]

Yes, I plan to use historical compositions, and failing that as the game progresses however it may, I will use at least plausible ones. I play historical games such as these in almost OCD-like fashion, rewriting history as I go. If the game gets too game-y a feel to it I'm usually compelled to restart. As a result I never get far quite often. Is it healthy to play this way? It is fun when I pull it off, though.