The Seleucid Empire

[Paradox]

I find the Seleucid campaigns to be slightly difficult, as you have much enemies to face. You have Pontus, Greeks, Parthians, Armenians, and Egypt all against you. The hard part was that the Pontics, Parthians and Armenians were all client kingdoms and kept launching multiple attacks right at me while my army in Greece have been threatened. Also, the Egyptians in the south, who are a big nuisance.

Basically, I've been surrounded on all sides, from land to sea, by five factions all at once. I managed to defeat the Egyptians and weaken their navy, conquer Salamis, and bribe captains, thus completing my short campaign. The Pontics weren't difficult at all, what made them a challenge was the fact that they had the Armenians and Parthians supporting them and distracting my lands in the east.

I pushed back the Parthians to the far north, easily eliminated the Pontics, and destroy the Armenians.

The Seleucid Empire was a fun faction to play as, it has many advantages and disadvantages. You just have to know how to use your wealth and army, which are the things the Seleucids are mainly good for.

[mrdun]

Yeah you are loaded, spam militia hoplites to keep your cities, I find that AI missile units will try to charge them when they have breached the walls, easy exp for themand your General!!

[Barbarian]

I think it isn't so hard, I found the Gauls campaign to be much harder.

Although I like to establish stable economy at the start, and only then start training troops, I do a bit different strategy with Seleucids. At the start it is useful to train 5-8 units of militia hoplites in each of the cities, to prevent others from planning an invasion on them. Even militia hoplites can perform extremely well in siege defense battles.
Diplomacy is also important. Making alliances with Pontus and Egypt will make them forget about you for some time and concentrate on Armenians and Parthians. AI only breaks alliances if it sees a great opportunity to take some weakly guarded city, but if you have a decent garrison in border cities, it will decide to keep the alliance and go for the enemies instead.

Once you get stable economy and units, like elephants, scythed chariots and your best phalanx units, the game seems even too easy. I got bored soon, because I needed to use only 25% of my army to win battles against egypt- the rest just stood there as reinforcements and watched over the battle, in a case anything goes wrong

[mrdun]

3 units of militia hoplites nearly stood up to 2 parthian Cata's in a siege, neededt the help of a few units of skirmishers plus general to rout them. They nearly did it on their own though

[Good Ship Chuckle]

Yeah you are loaded, spam militia hoplites to keep your cities, I find that AI missile units will try to charge them when they have breached the walls, easy exp for themand your General!!

I agree unreservedly.
Malitia hoplites, with their low cost(150 Rec, 100 upkeep) make great garrison for cities that are near borders of contension. On the defensive in a city, they can easily hold their own against most units early-through-mid game.

[JamesMarat]

My militia hoplites saved me from the Armenians, Pontics and Partians, plus dumb AI of course but ou cant argue with two Militias stopping two parthian catas!!

[Quintus.JC]

I understand the importance of miliitia hoplite in defending Sieges, but what if the enemy decides to starve you out, what are you going to do then. Eastern Factions would slaughter them in an open battle.

[Paradox]

I understand the importance of miliitia hoplite in defending Sieges, but what if the enemy decides to starve you out, what are you going to do then. Eastern Factions would slaughter them in an open battle.

Starve you out? Sigh, as I've said before, the enemy would never just stand there during a siege and wait for you to attack them. They will always attempt to breach the castle.

[mrdun]

Starve you out? Sigh, as I've said before, the enemy would never just stand there during a siege and wait for you to attack them. They will always attempt to breach the castle.

I have to disagree, if you have a weak garrison in the eyes of the AI, ie two/three militia hoplites you can be starved out even though you can overcome 10-1 odds at least. It does not happen always but it is not a dead cert to be attacked.

[Paradox]

So if you "sally forth", the enemy will just sit there as you wait for them to attack? That's just stupid.

[Quintus.JC]

it happened to me with the Seleucids. The Armenians beseiged Hatra, first time they assulted and was beaten back, second time they just camped out side the walls. if you do try to sally they'll probably win. They have masses of Horsh archers and skirmishers which could harrass the slow moving MH freely. when defending MH are alright but when forced to go outside they don't stand a chance against eastern factions.

[Good Ship Chuckle]

I had an awesome siege battle once only utilizing MH.
Odds were about 1:4 in the Armenian's favor. They were besieging Hatra, which they lust for so much. I just plugged up the alleys and watched happily as the Eastern Infantry impaled themselves upon my spearpoints.

It was wholesale rout. After the battle my general got the trait "famously courageous", +3 to morale. The Armenians never came back after that.

[Quintus.JC]

I know that'll happen if they assult, but what if they just wait? Militia hoplite just wouldn't beat Eastern Factions in the open fields.

[Good Ship Chuckle]

I highly doubt that they would starve me out. Armenians have too much pride (esp when it comes to Hatra) to be imtimidated by a few motely militia hoplites.
If they've built siege equipment then you know for sure that they are going to attack.
But as you hypothetically propose, if they really were going to starve me out, I would rather attack them and die a noble death the turn before surrender, rather than hand it over with out a fight.

[Punicus]

Yeah, I rarely have an occasion where the AI tries to starve me out.

When playing the Seleucids I always make sure I attack Egypt first. If I make the first move I feel I have an advantage because I will be able to take one of their cities before they can churn out the huge stacks. Honestly, there's absolutely no reason why the early Seleucid units can't handle early Egyptian units. Levy Pikeman and Militia Hoplites have always worked fine in my experience. And just like the Greeks, massing the weaker cavalry into one thick formation helps to get past early cavalry woes.

[Good Ship Chuckle]

Amen to that, brother.
I've written three posts trying to say what you've just said in one.

[Punicus]

Haha, I didn't read any of the posts before I posted my own strategy so I didn't notice. :)

[Good Ship Chuckle]

All in all, I found the seleucids to be pretty easy. One you establish yourself at the beginning, they become unstoppable. Their unit diversity is unmatched. What unit don't they have? Oh yeah, fanatical warband, How could I forget?

Here's the final shot of my campaign. 248 BC and lost only 18 battles. Not shabby, if I may say so. To be honest, I wish I had waited longer before crushing Rome, so I could use some of their higher teir units. In fact, I didn't produce a single Campanion Cavalry, nor Armoured Elephant, and only was able to produce a couple Silver Sheild pikemen in Egypt, far from the front lines. *sigh Though it was fun to beseige Rome with a horde of militia hoplites!

Also, can you find the five stacks of Seluecids in Italy?

Have at it then!!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

• Capua

• Rome

• Just outside Rome

• Ariminum

• One heading towards Patavium,which if full Chariots and Cav, which is why it looks only half stack.

The Romans never stood a chance.

[Vitellus]

As the Seleucids, my massed armies of militia hoplites absolutely destroyed Egypt in the open desert - the good ol' infantry square canna be beaten by the stupid AI! With them no threat, I quickly overran the entire East.

However, I've been sitting on my side of the Aegean for the last few decades, 'coz I don't wnat to end the game too soon. I've been having fun propping up the Macedonians, who only have Bylazora and are constantly under attack from Dacians and Romans. I've kept them alive with a singe diplomat and a general. The Seleucid gold works wonders, try it for an interesting game sometime.

Regarding sieges, you really have no need to sally. If they try and starve you out, you should have AT LEAST five turns to scrape together a relief force and chase 'em off. I've always found it more than enough, at least.

[Quintus.JC]

The whole point of playing as the Seleucids is to have their late period units. When I fought the Romans it was way after 240 B.C. Rome had their legions, and I had everything including the legions. I had fun fighting the Brutii in the Balkans and later in Italy.

[Good Ship Chuckle]

Playing the game fast has its pros and cons. It all really comes down to a matter of taste. For me, bashing every faction in my way before they can react, holds more merit.

[Quintus.JC]

My Seleucid Army towards the end of campaign:
1 General
2 Cataphracts
2 Companion Cavalry
2 Elephants of choice
2 Archers
1 Onager
7 ShilverShield/Phalanx Pikemen
2 ShilverShield Legionaries.

I am not a big fan of Militia Cavalry, while Militia Hoplite for me is no more than basic town garrison, although they're essential for your early campaign against Egypt and the rest.

[Good Ship Chuckle]

Interesting...Not that I don't love cataphracts, I find militia hoplites and cav to be extremely useful. Alone, they are useless, but when both are used in a group, they fair remarkably well in combat, well up until the middle game, which is how I finished by campaign so early.

Like Archimedes said "give me a place to stand, I shall move the world."
Similarly, I say "give me a militia hoplite and a militia cav, and I shall conquer the world."

My seleucid army (In this game at least) usually consisted of:
1 general
9 Militia/levy/phalanx pikemen
4 range units (onager/archer)
6 militia cav (greek cav is a joke) or ellies

See the picture above for a picture of my army I used to conquer Rome with.

[Vitellus]

They are indeed fairly devastating in sufficient numbers - all my early fighting was done with militia hoplites and cavalry. However, those higher-tier units are there, so, dammit, I'm gonna use 'em! If that means sitting in the Orient for a while instead of constant aggressive expansion, so be it. That's the reason why his army, which is from a much later time period, doesn't include those units - not that he doesn't think they're enough to get it done, but the units he DOES have available are much more effective, plus allow for a more varied playstyle.

[Good Ship Chuckle]

However, those higher-tier units are there, so, dammit, I'm gonna use 'em! If that means sitting in the Orient for a while instead of constant aggressive expansion, so be it. That's the reason why his army, which is from a much later time period, doesn't include those units - not that he doesn't think they're enough to get it done, but the units he DOES have available are much more effective, plus allow for a more varied playstyle.

I agree unreservedly. I have no argument with what you say. What I'm saying is that it all boils down to taste. There are two schools:
1)Blitz your enemys, and crush them swiftly with early units
2)Build your support slowly, and then descend upon your enemies like an inexorable steamroller.

It's all about the taste.

[Punicus]

I prefer personally - at first - to build up my empire's economy while fighting perhaps one major war against a faction which will get me rich lands and trying my hardest to keep the peace with everyone else. Luckily, it is most likely that there will be only one or two factions around you with true potential to dominate, in this case, Egypt. However, there isn't any way I'm letting Pontus or Armenia or Parthia expand on me - they don't have the troops, nor the money to do so when faced with even my Militia armies, especially early on when this is taking place. This way you can expand a bit, keep a steady economy, and work your way towards high-tier units all at the same time. Once you've got 20-some provinces, good units, and the cash is just flowing in, there's no issue from then on.

I'm certainly not denying the use of Militia Cavalry and Militia Hoplites - they've saved my butt a good few times, along with Levy Pikemen. However, as Vitellus said, if Cataphracts are there, with their 23 defence and shiny armor... I'm gonna have to go with Cataphracts.

[Punicus]

So? No one's to say you can't have both Cataphracts and a lighter form of cavalry in the same army. Besides, their charge and defensive stats are unmatched by any other cavalry, and when they get experience they're close to unstoppable (by the AI, at least). I think it's a good trade-off.

[The Wandering Scholar]

It is but they are like tanks, they should have unmatched defence and charge

[Quintus.JC]

Armoured Elephants are like armoured tanks of the ancient world. I find them to be immensely successful against cavalry. All elephants are like that. Even cataphracts can't handle them.

[Good Ship Chuckle]

Settle down guys. Luckily with the Seleucids, you can have both in the same army. The ellies are for smashing, and the cata's are for bashing.