Quote Originally Posted by General_Sun
Now who among you would say that you would win a battle when you're out numbered 3:1 with equal troops and even terrain? I dare say not 1.
I don't consider myself a brilliant military strategist, just a passionate war gamer. Against the RTW AI I do the above fairly frequently on very hard/very hard. Although giving the AI such odds is generally not something I intend to do since 3:1 is pushing it. I've learned I can get away with quite alot when the AI is my opponent and the AI tends to throw everything but the kitchen sink at me, so I am often outnumbered. Others that post here also seem to do well whipping the AI in a much inferior position so I'm not deluding myself into thinking that my play is somehow unique. Most of the "vets" here probably lose no more than 1 out of 50 battles vs. the AI on VH/VH. It is not unusual for me to win 100 straight on VH/VH. With some factions a single early loss will often scuttle a VH/VH campaign.

What do you consider "equal troops"? I rarely see the same army composition on both sides, and for most faction match ups it is not possible. As has been said logistics and strategy are the keys to tactical victories. Bringing a small cav and skirmisher force to face a large army of hoplites and a few cav would be crazy vs. a decent human. But it is a fairly easy win vs. the AI. Switching sides, it is easy for a human to defeat reasonably sized cav forces with phalangites and some light troops, because the AI can be tricked into frontal charges (often there is not time for trickery, the AI just goes daffy and charges a formed pikewall.) On the other hand, I don't like taking melee infantry up against other melee infantry in RTW, the +7 differential in attack (plus morale effects) is a killer. Infantry are inferior to cav and archers in RTW, so it would be foolish for me to rely on them anymore than I must. Knowing one's opponent and the odds makes all the difference.

The problem with "equal" is that most of us use the special abilities of our forces to work over our AI opponent. We don't build armies that are poorly matched vs. what the AI will bring to the field. Among the many, many ploys that might be used:
1. Neutralizing AI cav by drawing them into an ill advised charge (like getting them to chase your outnumbered cav into a waiting pikewall or drawing them out individually to be destroyed serially by multiple units of cav and/or infantry.)
2. Getting phalangites to turn so that they can be routed by a flank charge.
3. Hitting infantry front and rear or flank at the same time so that they rout quickly. Repeat.
4. Using mounted missile units in cantabrian circle to deal with nasty elite archer units or to chase off other skirmishers.
5. Using a phalangite wall to pin the enemy while smashing a flank.
6. Peppering the AI with missile fire and withdrawing, killing any weakened extended troops within cav charge range.
7. Dividing in two or three and flanking both ends of the line.
8. Waiting for the AI general to charge a pikewall.
9. Taking the high ground. The AI almost always allows this.
10. Getting the AI to chase around until it is tired, then killing it piecemeal.

I submit that no good general would go into a planned battle without identifying some sort of winning advantage that they would attempt to exploit. Good tactics is working with what you have brought and executing well. Good strategy is making sure that you have brought the right force to the right place to fight the right enemy at the right time.