Use of tactical Vs. historic, role play armies

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.

Originally Posted by williamsiddell

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

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.

Seems to be mainly EB, not RTW, I think it could be just the enemy swinging wide by where my hidden units are, but just about every time?

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.

Post-Marian Roman Cav. Right, I love the Macedonian cav selection.[/QUOTE]

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.

Armenia has good cav and only decent infantry, so the best use of your cav is not a combined operation, your infantry might not last long enough unless you use mainly Heavy Spearmen or Armenian Legionaries, who are line-holders at best. I guess you just need to hold long enough to bring your cav around, provided there is nobody that they first have to deal with, which is more the case the harder difficulties you play on. With Macedon or Seleucia it makes more sense to do a combined operation, because it is a different style of infantry. I am starting to think that archers are not really worth having, at least not with a phalanx, because then you are trying to protect the archers as well as fight the enemy. Probably depends on who you are fighting.

Armenia has good cav and only decent infantry, so the best use of your cav is not a combined operation, your infantry might not last long enough unless you use mainly Heavy Spearmen or Armenian Legionaries, who are line-holders at best.

Probably a correct assessment of Armenia's infantry. They are certainly a serviceable bunch...the Heavy Spears roughly equivalent to Phalanx Pike (without the sarissa, of course), and the AL's being roughly equal to Roman Principes. When combined with Cretan Archers as a support unit, and 4-6 Cats, they form my basic city assault army and can be used as a defensive-style army in the field.

I am starting to think that archers are not really worth having

With my style of play, I couldn't live without them. It's one of the main ways to balance the battlefield bonuses the AI gets at the higher difficulty settings. When you can cause 10-20% casualties amongst enemy units before melee is joined, they are a good equalizer. Enemy cav rarely get to my archers, although it does happen on occasion. In defensive battles, archers are indispensable, IMHO. And if you happen to get a height advantage, a battle can be over before it ever gets to melee......

Right, but with Greece, I don't have a cav unit capable of dealing with flanking cav, and I would rather have my hoplites engaged in the battle line. I don't want my armies too big. Right now I have 4 AH, 3 Hoplites, 2 Heavy Peltasts, 1 or 2 archers (depending on which army), three cav in a mix of Militia and Greek, one of one, two of the other, and my general. I usually do a horseshoe with my missile units on the inside, I have gone complete horseshoe because the enemy kept charging their cav into the gap into the back of my engaged phalanx.

with Greece, I don't have a cav unit capable of dealing with flanking cav

Depends on who you are fighting. Greek Cavalry is evenly matched with Roman Equites, but need major upgrades to deal with post-Marian Roman Cavalry. Greek Cavalry trump Macedonian Light Lancers as long as you attack them before they can charge, where their large charge bonus gives them the advantage; but lose to Macedonian Cavalry and Companions. That's why you need to eliminate Macedonia before they get that far in development.

I don't want my armies too big.

Why? The Greek Cities are certainly capable of generating a very large income right from the start. Denarii in the bank is a waste if you are having trouble on the battlefield for lack of troops. You have 20 slots available...I'd use every one of them.

I have gone complete horseshoe because the enemy kept charging their cav into the gap into the back of my engaged phalanx.

In my experience, you need six Greek Cav units to get the job done. My standard GC army usually has 10 hoplites (mixed Armored, regular Hoplites, and two Spartans), 3 Cretan Archers, the general unit, and six Greek Cavalry. Later on, I replace two or three GC's with Sarmatian Heavy Cav, and the regular hoplites with Bastarnae Heavy Infantry. It's a flexible enough mix to deal with just about anyone, and once the Bastarnae get added, I use a modified manipular formation with the Bastarnae in the second line. With some armor/weapon upgrades, the Bastarnae become a fearsome weapon...maybe even better than the Spartans. Charge them into the flank of an engaged Cohort, and it's usually insta-rout. They also have a knack for killing enemy generals. Few of them who charge a unit of Bastarnae live to go home to kiss their wife and children

The Heavy Peltasts can be a nice addition, now and then. They are murderous against chariots, and can act as light infantry when needed. Militia Cavalry only see a spot in my armies at the outset, while I'm upgrading my stables to get Greek Cavalry. Once that happens, I disband any that are still left and don't train them anymore.