Use of tactical Vs. historic, role play armies

[williamsiddell]

It's extremely difficult to be historically accurate when playing this game. For instance, Athens' power depended on it's navy, but I find I don't need a navy when playing the GC. The effectiveness of a cavalry army was demonstrated by the mongols, but they had a solid saddle and stirrups - so Armenian all-cavalry armies would be very vulnerable to having riders knocked out of the saddle (especially if armoured). That's why Roman armies are better known for ground troops and why Caesar was able to rout Pompey's cavalry with a few spearmen.

As far as changing difficulty levels is concerned - I've started playing GC VH/VH. Couple of immediate variations - I lost a general at sea for the first time and was asked for cash for trade rights for the first time. As suggested the economic penalty is not significant (for instance by 264bc I've already bribed Halicarnassus and the two rebel cities on the west coast of Greece, plus 2 generals building watchtowers in asia minor). Battles so far take a bit more winning but the outcome is the same. I destroyed the Brutii army that landed on the west coast with my starting units plus a merc phalanx, and outside Syracuse the AI still allowed my army to gain the high ground.