What's with the archers?

[desdichado]

on very hard ai troops get plenty of combat bonuses (attack/defence & morale probably)- not sure how much but have a look through the forums and you should find exact figures.

this turns crap troops into good ones and elite troops into supermen.

very hard is just that, very hard!

I don't like it personally because of results like archers beating cavalry but on normal diff the ai is crap tactically and it makes the battles too easy. possibly vh has been overdone but still on my 1st campaign (vh/med) so not sure.

[Jeanne d'arc]

Thracian archers are plain useless in melee even with the bonuses they get on very hard.Unless you are using mods to reduce killrate u should have no problems in such battles.However when the initial charge didend kill enough men causing your cavalry to be outnumbered then u should not be surprised in taking losses.Try multiple charges to completely brake the unit and only engage into prolonged melee combat when u outnumber them 2 to 1.Also try a wedge formation charge for maximum effect in the beginning, then switch to normal formation and continue charging.

Falxmen have a good charge and with the bonuses on very hard that charge is devastating, the shock from that charge probably routed your cohorts.Perhaps u could charge in some cavalry from behind once they hit your main line of cohorts.Hope this helps.

[Red Harvest]

Single light cav units vs. archers and skirmishers often run into trouble (esp. on VH where the AI gets +7 attack.) Speed and small unit size play a factor. The missile units are very fast and this seems to sap the charge because you have to chase them so long (tiring and disordering your men.) They seem to take losses a bit more slowly because they are dispersed, sapping the charge bonus as well. Hit them with two units of cav and they usually rout rapidly with few losses to your side.

The answer with cav is usually to double up! Head-to-head much of the heavy infantry is decently matched vs. cav. However, if you hit the units with two units (and preferrably one of these in flank or rear) the infantry usually succumbs rapidly before they can gain support. I often end up with a mob of four light cav units working down a line starting at the end and working toward the center. As soon as a unit routs I hit the next one. It is a "disassembly" line process. Momentum is the key.

[HopAlongBunny]

You might find that re-charging helps a bit. I really noticed this with the light lancers: charge_make contact and dbl click away from the unit quickly; reform and re-charge; works much better with pairs to keep unit under continuous cav charge.

[Spuddicus]

You might find that re-charging helps a bit. I really noticed this with the light lancers: charge_make contact and dbl click away from the unit quickly; reform and re-charge; works much better with pairs to keep unit under continuous cav charge.

Yup ... charge and re-charge.
I usually keep my cav in wedge formation; helps break apart enemy lines and it appears to help in breaking off the attack so I can pull back a little and then charge again.

[Red Harvest]

Light lancers have insane charge bonuses (+15!!!) so they would benefit. Roundshields get something like +2 so it has only a small impact for them, and you might lose more men trying to disengage. You really need to be aware of the charge bonus before deciding whether to pull back and charge again.

The desert light cav are really odd. They are the only cav unit that size, and they get a +4 for that dinky shield...should be +2. The Egyptian unit stats are not in sync with their 3d models.

Unit size is an issue with some phalanx units as well. In MTW spear units were large relative to sword units. This allowed the spears to hold their ground for awhile even while being killed off. In RTW some phalanx units are the same size as the sword infantry they face. The swords wrap around with their wider frontage. I've modded to increase good smaller phalanx units all to the full size phalanx size (a 50% increase.) The base level trash phalanx units have been left at the default size or only slightly greater (+25%). Several became too powerful at full size.

[Doug-Thompson]

Unit size is an issue with some phalanx units as well. In MTW spear units were large relative to sword units. This allowed the spears to hold their ground for awhile even while being killed off. In RTW some phalanx units are the same size as the sword infantry they face. The swords wrap around with their wider frontage.

Is it possible that R: TW has re-written the ground rules on spear units so completely, that the greater depth and narrower frontage of spear units should be abandoned?

This flies in the face of both history and Total War past practice, but I'm not just trying to be provocative here.

Compare the typical M:TW sword with the equally typical M:TW spear.

The Feudal M@A had an attack of 3, a charge of 3 and a defense of 7: 3/3/7.
The Feudal Sergeant had an attack of 0, a charge of 5 and a defense of 2: 0/5/2

Obviously, the Feudal Sergeants had no business going head-to-head with the M@A. Only the rank bonus of M:TW and the greater number of ranks to "chew through" allowed the FS to stand ground long enough for archers, cavalry and other units to do the real killing. Also, the M@A ranks would be depleted and disorganized by a long rain of missile fire as they approached.

Now look at R:TW. Hastati have an attack of 7, a charge of 2 and a defense of 15: 7/2/15.

The figures for the Greek Hoplite are: 7/6/16.

Is there a rank bonus in R:TW?

If not, then it would appear that there's no advantage to a deep formation and more of an advantage to a long, thin one that had a long frontage and would put as many spear tips as possible into the initial, very strong charge.

Now, this may be a horrible, ahistorical design error etc. etc., and a gamey exploitation, etc. etc., but those are separate questions. My question now is, what's wrong with this proposition from a strict results-oriented gameplay standpoint?

[Doug-Thompson]

Single light cav units vs. archers and skirmishers often run into trouble (esp. on VH where the AI gets +7 attack.) Speed and small unit size play a factor.

emphasis added

Small unit size in particular is important. On large, an archer unit has 80 men. A typical light cav -- say, Greek Cavlary -- has 54. So, when the archers lose 27 men they've lost about a third of their men. When the Greek Cav lose 27, however, they're down to half strength and are about to rout.

Put another way, you only have to kill five or six cavalrymen and you've given the unit 10 percent casualties. You have to kill eight archers to get the same effect.

This is one reason Egyptian Desert Cav are so effective -- they are a bigger unit that can take more losses. Head-to-head, Desert Cav and Arabic cavalry are about equal in the stats -- until you look at unit size.