Advice on Roman vs Roman tactics?

[discovery1]

Cavalry is the way to go. Mass on the flanks and they are devistating when they charge into the enemy rear. As long as your infantry hold long enough for this, you have won the day. And a cav heavy army will help ensure that the enemy army doesn't escape.

[Oaty]

Keep your army together and put them in guard mode. I've noticed the A.I. with the Romans will send 1 unit at a time to try to open up gaps in your line. And whats the sense in countercharging a unit that is suicidaly charging your front line. Plus the A.I. strings out there units and I box mine so when they do there suicidal charge they are attacking 3 units at once causing a quick route do to morale penalties. If you counter charge though that will open gaps in your lines and they will start rushing there army at you.

[econ21]

Interesting to see such varying advice - depending variously on heavy inf, cav or archers etc are all clearly viable.

I had my first couple of battles last night. In one, I had a maxed out top-notch army stack under my faction leader defending a hill against a full Brutii stack. For some reason, the Brutii had a lot of auxilia - light and spear. It was a turky shoot - 3 onagers and 3 or 4 auxilia archers went to town on the poor Brutii. It really seems to me that archers in RTW are more like longbowmen in MTW in terms of there raw killing power (but they don't run out of arrows so quick). The Brutii did not really make contact with my front line in that battle, although the velites brought down a few dozen Praetorians.

The other battle was attacking the main Senate army - interestingly, they seemed to deploy in a historical pre-Marian way, velites, then hastati, then principes and then triarii. Again 3 units of archers were devastating but the front line of 4 legionnaries did a lot of work - especially halting their several units of heavy cav (bodyguards). Taking Rome after that was surprisingly easy - much easier than attacking large castles in MTW; using siege towers to secure the walls, the towers did virtually no damage unlike MTWs lethal invisible archers.

A more interesting challenge awaits - two full post-Marian Brutii stacks are now besieging a Greek city I hold with a mediocre general.

EDIT: bottomline so far is that it does not seem necessary to deviate from my standard army of 4 heavy inf, 3 archers, 2 cav, 2 dogs - at least on medium/medium. Onagers and more archers might be good though, especially if the enemy has multiple stacks (ie as a reserve for when ammo runs out).

[chunkynut]

EDIT: bottomline so far is that it does not seem necessary to deviate from my standard army of 4 heavy inf, 3 archers, 2 cav, 2 dogs - at least on medium/medium. Onagers and more archers might be good though, especially if the enemy has multiple stacks (ie as a reverse for when ammo runs out).

I have found this also, even with armies of other nations against the romans. Once you kill their general even the best of roman troops will rout when between hammer and anvil. Other than that it is a war of attrition.

I rarely remember archers in a stack (prefering them in city defence) and generally use a couple of onagers and more cav. Legionary cav can take many losses and still fight on with a resonable commander and there flanking charges cause even the staunchest troops to lose many man and run.

The senate army must have been there since the begining (i had a similar senate stack good experience but bad against high end troops) fighting only the odd rebel army that must appear, makes taking rome easy though.

[Didz]

I use a standard army composition which consists of:

3 x Cohorts of Heavy Infantry
1 x Urban Cohort
1 x Archer
1 x Javelin
1 x Heavy Cavalry
1 x Onager

Two of these corps forms an army led by a General.

In battle against a Roman enemy I tend to favour the three line deep formation with missile troops in front essentially giving me a front line of two archer units and two auxilary units.

All my heavy infantry are ordered to use their pilums at will and the two onagers to fire fireballs at will.

Deploy this formation on high ground if possible and try to bait the Romans to attack your position first. Normally they try and rush the skirmish line with cavalry or light troops when they do let your missile troops do their stuff and retire drawing the enemy into you main heavy infantry line.

Let the heavies do their stuff but stop them pursuing any routing enemies using your cavalry to make limited counter-attacks and pursuits.

Be prepared to lose a lot of men to Freindly Fire, for some reason CA didn't get the missile fire control right on this game despite the fact that it worked in STW and MTW.

As soon as the enemy falls back to regroup redeploy your missile line and repeat the process until the enemy are beginning to waver. When you are happy you have the upper hand order and steady advance on the enemy line peppering it with missile fire until it give way. If you run out of missiles select your heavy infantry and move them forward in a units 4 deep and finish the job with the sword. Using your cavalry to sweep in from the enemies flanks and pursue the survivors.

[Zharakov]

Or you could simply reaenact Stalingrad...

"OK COMRADES CHARGE!!! FOR MOTHER RUSSIA... ROME... WHAT EVER FACTION WE ARE.

[econ21]

Just a further update - I really came unstuck last night with my concept of a Rumsfeldesque lean army (4 heavy, 3 archers, 2 cav, 2 dogs, 1 general). I was sieging Capua when the Scipii came up with 2 full stacks. Nothing in MTW had prepared me for battling 40 units, mainly of heavy infantry, all deployed on the map at the same time. My elite force did brilliantly, driving most of them away but there were too many and my men died virtually to a man - including the high command general. First hard lesson - bring a full stack when invading Roman heartlands!

I still think the lean army can probably survive in the field against single stacks twice its size. But besieging increases the greater likelihood of being attacked simultaneously by two stacks (one reinforcing) and thus outnumbered 4:1 which is too much. This makes besieging rather risky unless you have driven away nearby field armies. Rather nice - it seems fairly realistic (Alesia, anyone?).

Other learning points - legionary cav are rather good. Elsewhere, I was forced to reluctantly charge one head first into a unit of auxilia spearmen in a city forum and did not lose a man! Although on reflection, maybe the learning point is that auxilia are rather bad...

[Dark_Magician]

Cavalry is the way to go. Mass on the flanks and they are devistating when they charge into the enemy rear. As long as your infantry hold long enough for this, you have won the day. And a cav heavy army will help ensure that the enemy army doesn't escape.

this pretty much sums up everything

[Somebody Else]

As you're playing against armies that will closely resemble your own, apart from bringing the best in each category of unit to the field, the main onus is on your own generalship. If you bring the same army as what the AI brings, outmanoeuvre them on the field, and that should be that. As far as I can say, there's no such thing as an ideal 20 unit army - as a different composition would be better suited to each different occasion. Just make sure you know what you're up against, and kit yourself out appropiately.

*edit*

Oh yeah, almost forgot. Just bribe them, then you have not only removed their army, but increased your own.

[drwangchung]

In my experience, archers don't work well against post-Marius legionaries--not even Pharoah's Bowmen. They just have too much total armor, plus the giant shield. I usually just forgo archery completely when fighting other Romans and just beef up with more infantry--you can never have too many urban cohorts. I normally have at least 1/4 of my stack being archers against other factions, though.