Whats the deal w/...

[MackBolan]

How come the Marius reforms make your Spearmen nonexistant, and the tradeoff is weak light inf. Triarii were great mobile spearmen. Although they dont mess up cavalry as well as a phalanx, they're super mobile and they can take a beating before running. Then I get Auxila which suck. I try to hold my flanks from cavalry and the Auxilia book it. Triarii would stand there and impale my foes, keeping my archers and my line in safe solid formation. Does anyone know why they made Auxilia so weak and basically took out "Spearmen?" And yes, I know Auxilia have bonus vs Cav.

-Mack

[Productivity]

How come the Marius reforms make your Spearmen nonexistant, and the tradeoff is weak light inf. Triarii were great mobile spearmen. Although they dont mess up cavalry as well as a phalanx, they're super mobile and they can take a beating before running. Then I get Auxila which suck. I try to hold my flanks from cavalry and the Auxilia book it. Triarii would stand there and impale my foes, keeping my archers and my line in safe solid formation. Does anyone know why they made Auxilia so weak and basically took out "Spearmen?" And yes, I know Auxilia have bonus vs Cav.

-Mack

I would imagine it would have something to do with history, but I'm not the scholar around here .

[Uesugi Kenshin]

The Triarii were not used in the manner you described, they were last ditch elite troops who were only used when they needed to pull the Roman Bacon out of the fire. They were the last of three lines......


The Roman armies had many many more Auxilia available than they ever had Triarii, so they could use them in a more general support role. Roman armies always revolved around the legionarry, the spearmen were secondary and not used as the main fighting force. It is a pain from a gameplay perspective but to my knowledge it keeps with history.

[professorspatula]

It's a pity Auxilia aren't more cost efficient. They'd make for good garrison troops and a cheaper fodder unit on the battlefield. Unfortunately legionaries although more expensive, are far more effective on the whole.

[Quietus]

I think they did it for balancing. Archer Auxilla is overpowered. Their range is very long. With a powerful spear blocker, they would be even deadlier.

[The Stranger]

well here is what id did, put 2 auxilares closely behind each other so it it looks like one unit, after a cavalry charge in the center the first unit will bend inwards a little and the center of the 2nd units start to fight to this way they can take some beating before running.

[Count Belisarius]

After the Marian reforms, true "Roman" army units did not field spearmen, per se. Certainly, auxillary units would have contained spearmen; but as a previous post already indicated, the Marian armies revolved around the legionary armed with pila and gladius. Historically, the legions did have a tactic for dealing with cavalry.

Interestingly, the tactic was an antecedent to anti-cavalry tactics in the Napoleonic era: the front rank of legionaries would kneel, and plant the butts of their pila into the ground, holding the point out towards the oncoming horsemen at an angle. Unlike the Napoleonic soldiers, the legionaries could also shelter behind their shields. This tactic would impale the horses, using their own momentum against them, and would allow the following ranks of legionaries to ply their own pila.

Now granted, the pilum, like the flintlock musket of the Age of Napoleon, was not a perfect anti-weapon, only being 5-6 ft. in length. Hence, the Romans had a very difficult time dealing with enemies who fielded large numbers of heavy shock cavalry, such as the Sarmatians, among others.

So much for history. In the game, I have found that mercenary hoplites or a double rank of (admittedly substandard) auxillia infantry make a reasonably effective cavalry screen. However, the best anti-cavalry weapon in the post-Marian Roman arsenal is other cavalry. Legionary Cavalry units, while not as dominant as Companions or Cataphracts, are adequate if deployed in sufficient numbers. They may not win the battle for you, but they certainly will whittle away the enemy cavalry, which will allow your weak auxillia screen to mop up the rest, thereby protecting your precious legionaries and missile troops. Not that the Romans don't field decent cavalry. Praetorian Cavalry, of course, can hold their own with practically any horse cavalry unit in the game. My advice: don't rely on your auxillia, but rather meet cavalry with cavalry.

[The Stranger]

interesting advice, but as a defending player i would suggest a double line, the best is 2 hoplites infront and auxilia behind it.

[The_Mark]

Well, legionaires are pretty tough themselves. Once the cavalry stops their charge they will be cut into small, easily cookable pieces. Well, the horses at least. Dunno about the cavalrymen.

That's assuming cavalry doesn't steamroll them.

[aw89]

In my experience, if the legionaries dont rout at the charge or shortly after (1-4 seks) they noramally win. wich makes them capable cav killers. (for having swords)

[katank]

Use the Auxilia as cheap fodder. Line em up in front of your legionaires to absorb the charge. Once the enemy cav gets tied down, and pila have been used, move up the legions to cut down the cav.

Put multiple auxilia units inside each other to make them more durable.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I just use anti-cavalry cavalry. Not only does it eliminate the AI flanking you, it also allows you to flank the enemy without reprisal.

Interesting bit about the pila set against charges....

[MackBolan]

However, the best anti-cavalry weapon in the post-Marian Roman arsenal is other cavalry. Legionary Cavalry units, while not as dominant as Companions or Cataphracts, are adequate if deployed in sufficient numbers. They may not win the battle for you, but they certainly will whittle away the enemy cavalry, which will allow your weak auxillia screen to mop up the rest, thereby protecting your precious legionaries and missile troops. Not that the Romans don't field decent cavalry. Praetorian Cavalry, of course, can hold their own with practically any horse cavalry unit in the game. My advice: don't rely on your auxillia, but rather meet cavalry with cavalry.

But thats what Spearmen are for. The effective countering of a cavalry charge. Sure, you can deplete your precious Heavy Cavs by having them block other cavalry, but thats a very bad tactic imo. While I do agree w/the balancing out between Archer Aux. and Aux., it seems very odd that the brilliant Romans w/their Aqueducts and Academies, never had a specific units to deal w/enemy cavalry. Im sure Auxila probably packed more punch, historically speaking, but not neccesarily used as anti-cav units. As far as I know, Auxilia were used in a more urban setting, as police, w/Preatorians being the FBI, and Urbans being the CIA. It was a big conspiracy.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Remember what happened at Carrhae? Maybe that proved not only the arrogance of the roman general (Crassus right?) but also the inferiority of Roman anti-cavalry tactics. Other than the Parthians they did not face many strong cavalry dependent enemies.

[Kraxis]

Indeed the romans had lots of problems with the horse archers, but in general they didn't have it too hard with the cataphracts. At Carrhae it was the arrogance that did them in, not any inherent lack of ability dealing with cavalry.

[Dutch_guy]

Remember what happened at Carrhae? Maybe that proved not only the arrogance of the roman general (Crassus right?) but also the inferiority of Roman anti-cavalry tactics. Other than the Parthians they did not face many strong cavalry dependent enemies.

well that was probably it, the Romans armys were based on their heavy infantry beiing the legionares they thought that their legionares could take on everything, and well that assumption was right when facing barbarians , but certainly not when facing parthians or sarmatians so they probably thought '' why do we need spearmen ? ''
and as said before triarii were not anti-cavalry units, merely the most experienced troops.

ps : Kraxis it wasn't really their arrogance that killed them at carrhae it was probably their lack of morale after following the Parthian army for weeks in the dessert

[The Stranger]

what about the Sarmatians.

[Kraxis]

ps : Kraxis it wasn't really their arrogance that killed them at carrhae it was probably their lack of morale after following the Parthian army for weeks in the dessert

Caused by Crassus' arrogance in refusing to follow the Armenian advise of not going into the desert and his arrogant son's cavalry charge prior to the battle. The soldiers were not arrogant themselves (well they might have been), but were lead to their doom due to arrogance.

[The Stranger]

well it was not mainly arrogance Crassus was losing his prime position in Rome to Ceacar and Pompejus both celebrated generals, while Crassus was only rich, he needed a victory to return to the top. and in his arrogance he thought he would succeed, while he wasn't a good general.

[Kraxis]

That was what caused him to be arrogant. He needed the big victory. But the arrogance was what brought the army into dire straits.

[Brutus]

But thats what Spearmen are for. The effective countering of a cavalry charge. Sure, you can deplete your precious Heavy Cavs by having them block other cavalry, but thats a very bad tactic imo. While I do agree w/the balancing out between Archer Aux. and Aux., it seems very odd that the brilliant Romans w/their Aqueducts and Academies, never had a specific units to deal w/enemy cavalry. Im sure Auxila probably packed more punch, historically speaking, but not neccesarily used as anti-cav units. As far as I know, Auxilia were used in a more urban setting, as police, w/Preatorians being the FBI, and Urbans being the CIA. It was a big conspiracy.

Auxilia used as police? That's new. I thought auxilia were the more or less non-Roman auxiliary forces, so units who retained there own native officers, although they might be under a higher-ranking Roman commander. They might get Roman weaponry and/or outfits, but they could be used in whatever kind of form they fought best at. For example, along the Rine frontier in what are now the Netherlands, Batavian (from a German tribe) horsemen were recruited and used widely in many Roman campaigns. As it were, the Batavians (by the way, hence: "Batavodurum", wich is not located right, but that's beside the point) were officially not a conquered people, but "allies" (who were, of course, very much dominated by the Romans), who didn't have to pay taxes, so that makes there auxilia more like allied troops. The Romans had many more forces from different peoples as auxilias.

[Arrowhead]

No, auxiliaries are underrated, even historically. At the battle of Mons Graupis the romans left their Legions in reserve and used the auxiliaries to hack through British lines. So in the game this would mean auxiliaries hacking through Chosen swordsmen.
Also auxiliaries should carry swords.

[Oaty]

Remember what happened at Carrhae? Maybe that proved not only the arrogance of the roman general (Crassus right?) but also the inferiority of Roman anti-cavalry tactics. Other than the Parthians they did not face many strong cavalry dependent enemies.

Actually one of the first things that happened was a charge with cataphracts against the Roman infantry. The infantry held and the cataphracts withdrew instead of getting slaughtered to set there losses at a minimum. That is when the horses archers came to whittle the Romans down. It is the fact that Krassus learned the Parthians had a nearly unlimited supply of arrows that did them in. Then when the HA's were getting chased down the cataohracts reemerged slaughtering all or almost all of there cavalry. This is when Crassus opted for a withdraw and in the next few days the Romans were harassed endlessly resulting in the loss of the whole army.

Count Belisarius

Interestingly, the tactic was an antecedent to anti-cavalry tactics in the Napoleonic era: the front rank of legionaries would kneel, and plant the butts of their pila into the ground, holding the point out towards the oncoming horsemen at an angle. Unlike the Napoleonic soldiers, the legionaries could also shelter behind their shields. This tactic would impale the horses, using their own momentum against them, and would allow the following ranks of legionaries to ply their own pila.

Actually in most cases the horses won't impale themselves, they'll just dance around ignoring there riders commands. And it probably was'nt the Romans pila that scared the horses away but the solid shield wall. The horses see this as the same as a brick wall. Also Alexander the great had a plan and it worked. He left a gap in his line, the chariots ignored the infantry even though the riders steered them towards the line. Most of the horses took the chariots into a gap where javelin/skirmishers made quick work of them.

[Lochar]

I conquered Britain with my auxiliary, there chariots caused havoc with me so I trained up alot and had them in the front lines, even non vets will hold a charge as long its not alone.

What I did was just overlap the and stayed still, the chariots would mow thru the ranks but if deep enuf even their momentum will slow. Now the bad thing is half of the time I had to give a attack order or they just milled around trying to reform. This is were having them paid off, once you can hold the charge those auxilia will bring down chariots fast, at least to me this was best unit for them.

The javelin throwers get good bonuses to chariots but they cant withstand a charge and cant outrun them if chased.

My bane so far has been the mobile archers, as since the equites are gone, I dont have a light cav, except for the auxilia javelin units and they always lose unless charge like melee. Right now my only tactic has been to charge them with heavy cav and since they are skirmishers that keeps em moving hopefully so I can use my foot troops to fight unmolested. The bad part is I get my cav support scattered all over and hard to get back when needed.

[Shadar]

Well, the thing is that Romans weren't exactly famed for their cavalry use. Their infantry were the best trained in the entire Meditteranean area, and so they used those as the backbone of the army with infantry/skirmisher auxilia support. The Roman cavalry that were attached to most legions were primarily escorts and ill-suited for fighting on the battlefield.

Base your tactics around this. As a Roman, you're going to be primarily using legionary cohorts with infantry backup. This tactic works brilliantly for things like barbarians (which for a long time the Romans were fighting). Remember, the strength of the Legions are in their discipline and their strength as their ability to act as a well coordinated team. With good teamwork and good generalship, a Roman legion could easily wipe out an army of barbarians a few times bigger than them.

Against the primarily cavalry nations, you may have to rely on defensive tactic (only really useful when you've got the timed battles, since your opponent will lose if they don't wipe you out in time), but if your infantry can receive the charge and hold their line, you've got a good chance you'll slaughter the cavalry since Roman soldiers generally have very good defence, so they win through stamina.

and concerning the strength of their archer auxilia - there is evidence that specialised troops such as Syrian Archers served in the Roman army as auxiliaries, stationed on the Danube. From my understanding, Syrian archers were some of the best foot archers in the world at the time, being trained from infancy to wield some very powerful bows.

[Count Belisarius]

Actually in most cases the horses won't impale themselves, they'll just dance around ignoring there riders commands. And it probably was'nt the Romans pila that scared the horses away but the solid shield wall. The horses see this as the same as a brick wall. Also Alexander the great had a plan and it worked. He left a gap in his line, the chariots ignored the infantry even though the riders steered them towards the line. Most of the horses took the chariots into a gap where javelin/skirmishers made quick work of them.

You're right. Horses are smarter than people think. Try galloping a horse towards a hedge of pointy objects or a brick wall, and the horse quite sensibly will shy and baulk. In a cavalry charge, however, the first few ranks of horses might TRY to "dance around ignoring their riders commands", but the horses of the following ranks cannot see the brick wall. The momentum of the following ranks would carry the charge on and impale the front ranks on the waiting pila.

As for your contention that the horses would have been frightened more of the shields than the hedge of pointy objects, I'm not so sure. If that were true I pose you this question: why did cavalry - even heavy cavalry and lancers - in the Age of Napoleon have such trouble breaking a properly-formed infantry square? The square formation, so long as discipline held, was basically invulnerable to melee cavalry; and the Napoleonic soldier carried no shield, of course.

Gunpowder technology is not the answer. Even the best British soldier under Wellington could not fire more than 3 times a minute under ideal battlefield conditions. The Brown Bess musket had an effective range (meaning it could hit something smaller than the Great Wall of China) of around 100 yards or so, and had absolutely no chance other than blind luck of hitting anything horse/human sized beyond 50-60 yards. I guarantee you that a galloping horde of cavalry can cover 100 yards in MUCH less than 20 seconds (1/3 of a minute), hence, the infantry square.

The pila and the flintlock musket were fairly similar in length: approximately 5-6 ft. Therefore, I hold to my original major premise: horses are scared of pointy objects.

[The Stranger]

Actually in most cases the horses won't impale themselves, they'll just dance around ignoring there riders commands. And it probably was'nt the Romans pila that scared the horses away but the solid shield wall. The horses see this as the same as a brick wall. Also Alexander the great had a plan and it worked. He left a gap in his line, the chariots ignored the infantry even though the riders steered them towards the line. Most of the horses took the chariots into a gap where javelin/skirmishers made quick work of them.[/QUOTE]

that's true, horses are very smart and won't trample everything in their way. instead they jump or walk around it. cows however just trample everything and won't turn around the object.

[Darius]

I guess one could say that Auxilliaries might be considered police, though not in the literal sense. They were more often than not used as garrison troops as the legionarries were far more valuable on the field to be allowed to sit around. So the Auxilliaries would patrol and keep watch and one would suppose generally "keep the peace" in a sense.

However any that might posess certain special skills (archery, superior horse-back riding, etc.) would typically be kept with the legions as well as any that might be needed due to special circumstances ( such as spearmen when dealing with cavalry heavy armies) or simply those that had been recently raised from the local region in which the campaign is taking place.

[Quietus]

The only problem with Auxilia I see is their high upkeep (170 denari).

Auxilia is good enough to block cavalry. You only need a couple of seconds anyway before you flank whatever you are blocking. Just have a secondary blocker at the back waiting just in case you get in trouble.

Blocker Blocker Blockers

-----Archer Lines------

Sec. Blocker+General Cav

Say you have three blockers covering for your archers. Put another blocker just behind the archers (I personally put them beside the General). If one of your blockers get charged, reinforce them with your secondary blocker so they hold long enough.

For heavy chariots, you need a mercenary hoplites or swarm them in all directions with Auxilia and cavalry (of course you shoot them first with archers).

[Kraxis]

Actually it ISN'T the pointy objects the horses are scared of, but the dense (or seemingly dense) formation they face.
Horses have a rather bad eyesight, add to that that they have a blind spot in front of them and that the rider will have the head of the horse pulled back (the horse will have to look upwards which it is even worse at) it becomes hard for the horse to see that there are in fact pointy objects.
In the wild horses do not shy away from bushes (not the dense one but light ones), eventhough there are many branches pointing at them. They can't see them. Luckily for the horse it seems that any branch it can't see is not likely to be harmful to it. A solid stone wall on the other hand tends to be rather harmful if you gallop into it. And because horses have no depth perception (the dark spot prevents that) a seemingly solid line of men becomes much denser to the horse.