Use of tactical Vs. historic, role play armies

[muvs32]

At the risk of posting a thread that has been discussed ad nausea I was wanted to get a feel for how others play and or treat the game and the disadvantaged A.I.

I am of the general opinion that, while I can exploit the A.I. fairly easily by using creative/exploitative tactics, it is far more enjoyable for me to use an historically appropriate scheme for battles. If I am using an faction that had the advantage of war elephants...damnnit I am going to field them :) Also I tend to recruit elite units and prized mercs for same reasons and for the sheer glory of being able to do so even when it isn't exactly financially, nor otherwise prudent use of coinage!

My exception to this general rule in my play comes down to the historic looser of conflicts, the "forced" beneficiaries of the Pax Romana and such. Obviously if one ran Gaul as historically as possible one will invite the same fate as our common history teaches. I expect to play the "defeated" factions differently to whatever extent does not seem wholly a historical, exploitative etc.

I do some things in campaigns that have little to know value outside of my own enjoyment to whatever extent, I guess my question is do other players enjoy this game play or is a more tactical and mechanical approach favored?

Thanks for the attention, muvs

[ReluctantSamurai]

I just utilize whatever the best units for a given faction are I also tend to recruit mercs alot...Cretan Archers when a faction's vanilla archer unit just doesn't cut it; Ellies just for the fun of it; Arab Cavalry for desert fighting; Bastarnae because I have a great fondness for infantry that can traverse the entire battlefield on the run and arrive only "winded"; Spanish mercs, Illyrians, or Heavy Peltasts when I require 'spear-chuckers'; Sarmatian Heavy Cavalry when playing the Greek Cities or Thrace; and, well....you get the idea

[Vincent Butler]

I try to be realistic in my tactics, Roman checkerboard as Romans (although I use that with any non-phalanx army, barbarian tactic of just rushing the enemy will lose every time against Rome), and as a pike phalanx, I pin with the phalanx, slam with the heavy cav. Too bad there are not hypaspists in RTW. Have not done much as a hoplite faction, definitely not while trying to be realistic. As far as units go, I use Druids though they were unrealistic (Druids were exempt from military service, so many families had their children become Druids), but I don't use head-hurlers, I find that unit as revolting as it is unrealistic. Skirmishers, as useless as they are, are realistic, so I use them as well. Heavy Skirmishers, such as Heavy Peltasts or Illyrian Mercenaries, can fill a role as light infantry or be used to hold a line, so I like using them. I don't use too many mercenaries, I should, that would be realistic, though barbarian mercs are for the most part worthless.

[williamsiddell]

Aye - each of us should play the way we get more fun. I tend to be more mechanical because I'm playing a computer AI. If I know there is a tactical or strategic weakness I exploit it - whatever units I or they have. The fact is there is no way to have a perfect game. You may have a superb plan that ends up with your cities earning efficiently and armies that are perfectly balanced - then a boatload of Carthaginians lands on Sycily out of the blue. Personally I'd enjoy that, but you can forget your perfect plan.

I know I can beat all the units in the game. Cretan archers will lose to a flank attack by heavy cavalry. Sarmatians can be wiped out with a couple of Rhodian slinger units (we know mercenaries will rout early). I remember outside a city killing two elephant units by repeated cavalry attack. My main approach is to check the unit attributes and if they are much better on defence or attack that's how I use them. For instance a phalanx is significantly better in defence so I rarely attack with them (has to be done if the AI is hanging back).

I like the historical aspect. I think TV programs used this game for simulations when it first came out. The game is very educational but I find it difficult to mimic actual events. For instance Caesar with a smaller army beat Pompey by taking one in three men from his front line and concealing them on the flank to combat a cavalry attack he knew was about to happen. Can't do that in this game.

Poor mercenaries I use as cannon fodder and sacrificial goats when my army is weak.

[Vincent Butler]

For instance Caesar with a smaller army beat Pompey by taking one in three men from his front line and concealing them on the flank to combat a cavalry attack he knew was about to happen. Can't do that in this game.

No, the AI heads straight for your hidden units. I have won because I had units hidden (lost the captain, Roman Cav), but had my ELC hidden, and they just chased my cav around, somehow a unit of Greek Cav ended up wiping him out. They never found my ELC. Greek Cav seems like it will beat Roman Cav, which is strange, Greek Cav stinks, Roman Cav is a decent light cav unit, but both for and against me, Roman Cav loses to Greek Cav. And that was E/E, I would hate to see it on anything harder. On M/M I am already seeing a difference in my losses, even to Eastern Infantry.

[ReluctantSamurai]

No, the AI heads straight for your hidden units.

This I have not seen much Now of course the AI has to know where all of your units are, hidden or not, or the game would be unplayable, but I love my traps and 99 times out of 100 I get to spring them without the AI "cheating" by heading straight for my concealed units.

Roman Cav loses to Greek Cav

Are you referring to Equites or the post-Marian 'Roman Cavalry'? Agreed that Greek Cavalry is not all that great, which is why as the Greek Cities I hire as many Sarmatian Heavy Cav as I can. As Macedonia you get lots of nice cavalry so no need for mercs.

On M/M I am already seeing a difference in my losses

Which is going to force you to change your tactics a bit, and it makes having good (5-star+) generals leading your armies. Don't neglect even the slightest edge you can gain from inherent general bonuses or those from ancillaries. All those bonuses stack and become unit modifiers to your troops. That's why I stated earlier that when you get your "Military Genius" (usually comes in the second generation), don't ever let him see the inside of a city. When I play Armenia, that general will lead nothing but a Cataphract army...all Cats and Arab Cavalry, and not ever a single infantry unit. Of course that's just my preference, but it pays off when he reaches legendary status as a horseman, attacker, defender, and/or conqueror.

[Yesugey]

At the risk of posting a thread that has been discussed ad nausea I was wanted to get a feel for how others play and or treat the game and the disadvantaged A.I.

I am of the general opinion that, while I can exploit the A.I. fairly easily by using creative/exploitative tactics, it is far more enjoyable for me to use an historically appropriate scheme for battles. If I am using an faction that had the advantage of war elephants...damnnit I am going to field them :) Also I tend to recruit elite units and prized mercs for same reasons and for the sheer glory of being able to do so even when it isn't exactly financially, nor otherwise prudent use of coinage!

My exception to this general rule in my play comes down to the historic looser of conflicts, the "forced" beneficiaries of the Pax Romana and such. Obviously if one ran Gaul as historically as possible one will invite the same fate as our common history teaches. I expect to play the "defeated" factions differently to whatever extent does not seem wholly a historical, exploitative etc.

I do some things in campaigns that have little to know value outside of my own enjoyment to whatever extent, I guess my question is do other players enjoy this game play or is a more tactical and mechanical approach favored?

Thanks for the attention, muvs

That's my %100 play style. I train only the specific units of my faction, in fact thats why you play with that faction don't you?

I never get mercs because it is very very high advantage on your side. But I make an exception for some of the "cool" mercs such as Graal Knights, Elephants or Golden Band.