Kudos to CA for the varied army styles in the game

[econ21]

I was getting a little bored playing as Romans (it was getting too easy, especially as I don't like the higher difficulty giving stats boosts), but then joined the Carthaginian PBM and later helped my son out as Parthians. I was surprised at what a good job CA has done with giving these armies a different "feel" in battle from the Romans.

The Romans can get by comfortably on massed pila and sword armed heavy infantry. Their supports - esp. archers, dogs and cav - are perhaps ahistorically strong, but they are really not needed. Even vanilla hastati can handle most comers from the AI. I kind of expected this, coming from MTW - ie that the Romans would be like the Almohads relying on their well-armoured swordsmen (AUM), but it is well implemented. For example, you have to fight clever against a phalanx and cannot expect to simply defeat it head-on. I especially like the pila - it's pretty powerful when the troops are stationary, set to fire at will and have even been surprised by the AI biting me back with it a few times. I've even come to like velites - especially as Brutii vs the Greeks! - whereas I regarded javelin skirmishers as nuisance units in MTW.

Playing the Carthaginians on hard, I started to realise what people had been saying about cavalry in RTW being powerful. The Iberian infantry seemed pathetic (on hard) and while Balearic slingers are powerful, the lack of other ranged support meant I had to turn to cavalry (as recommended in the org guides thread on Carthage). Occasionally, I would use a unit of elephants but did not want to overdo it. Relying on melee cavalry made for a very fun campaign - you have to micromanage a lot more, as you need to use your maneouvrability to isolate portions of the enemy line, flank it and ideally hit it from behind, ideally when it is wavering. Great fun - and not a million miles from what I understood the Carthaginians tried to do against the Romans.

The Parthians were also an eye-opener. I had not read Doug Thomson's guide on horse archers, but having done so afterwards, I can see why he was so excited by them. Facing large Egyptian armies - massed archers/desert cav, chariots, iron-skinned axemen etc - I thought my son's virtually all-cav Parthians would be doomed. But they were startingly effective, if chaotic - we had them whirling around in a dozen or so Cantabrian circles, coming in from all angles, with the enemy virtually unable to touch us. The cataphracts were surprisingly vulnerable (given their impressive stats), but then I found that in MTW with knights too, and so kept them as a shock reserve. Again, good fun and not too bad a way of capturing the flavour of Parthian tactics.

Of course, both the Carthaginians and Parthians probably suffer in sieges - thanks to a spy, I blithely marched an army through an enemy gate and was appalled to see it virtually all barbecued by the flaming oil!

I've yet to try the Greek/Macedon phalanx heavy armies, but have heard they are very powerful against the AI.

And I'm not sure how the barbarians play out, but I quite admire the way the AI fields the Gauls, lining them up, getting them worked up with war chants and then running head long at your lines. However, I imagine a player may be tempted to be rely ahistorically on archers and cav rather than warbands.

Generally, I'd say that RTW presents more varied army types than either STW (given the more limited scope no surprise there, I guess) or even MTW. In MTW, I often found "ideal" armies looked rather the same, regardless of faction - for example, even the Egyptians could field massed ranks of mailed spears - and a faction was defined more by a deficiency in a particular unit class, rather than having an entirely different "mainstay" unit as in RTW.

[Silver Rusher]

You're right about the varied armies. Every faction has it's own unique army style. In MTW there were loads of units that were just available to everybody (at least in MTW there were more units to choose from). I am hooked on Armenia right about now and their cataphract archers are simply amazing, I must say.

[Colovion]

I agree. Big ups to CA for creating an array of armies that all feel totally different. I was also overwhelmed with the Parthians and how great the HA's are in RTW. In MTW I was seduced by them in my Turkish campaign and ever since have been kind of a dirty habit. I'll never get tired of picking on a big AI army with only a few HA's and then retreating once the arrows run out, only to do it again and again, retreating each time.

I have to say that Greece is a superb faction, albeit slightly overpowering once you defeat Macedon; and after that you find that you don't have that much growing room because you don't get any elite cavalry. I'd suggest playing as the Macedonians - in my opinion they're superior in every way to the Greeks, though they may lack some armour - they're a force which lends itself to quickly conquering, not the defensive/agreesive style that teh Greeks have - easily able to sit behind their city walls and let the enemy come to them.

I'm trying to wait for the Europa Barbarorum before I try my hand at the Gauls, some of the skinning work being done is remarkable.

[The_678]

I totally agree with you. In MTW since I couldn't stand the weak muslim units I always played as a catholic. And pretty much all cath armies were the same. But in RTW nearly every faction is unique to a degree. Also I love the new HA's. In MTW I never used them and thought they sucked but I've played a Armenian campaign and had nearly all Cata HA's and Katas and loved it.

[Silver Rusher]

I think the Gauls are dangerously underpowered. I hope that is also changed in Europa Barbarorum as well.

If you want to try a new and different faction try the Pontics. They have probably the most interesting army in the game. They are an Eastern faction, yet they still get phalanx pikemen and chariots, as well as their own unique javelin cavalry units.

[R'as al Ghul]

I absolutely agree with the above.
CA did a good job in this respect and others, such as the representation of surrounding terrain in the battlefield.
I have to comment on the HorseArchers, being a big Fan of this kind of unit ever since Shogun. What CA made out of them is amazing. They shoot on the move, they shoot backwards, they skirmish correctly and they look good!! Finally!
During my Parthian campaign I felt invincible. Whatever the Egyptian AI would breed out in the desert, I would shoot it to pieces. On good days under 10% survived. Once you have Persian Cavalry there's nothing to stop you. I didn't even build Elephant units or a lot of Cataphracts. I was always too short on money. I really liked this playing style.
Before I have played as Egypt, Seleucia, Greece and Brutii. Each of them is very different. Egypt is rich and quite easy. The limitation to Phalanx is a problem for the Greeks but Merc units are good and plenty to have. I'm now back to the Romans and enjoy as the Scipii the different armies of Carthage and Numidia, so far. I think it's nice to experience the different armies from a Roman perspective where you have to field armies that are capable of diverse tasks and on the other hand to have the possibility (after a tweak) to play all the other different factions.
So far I'm still enjoying the game.