how much do macadonians kick tail!!!!

[Viking]

Man, this kicks tail!!!!(wouldn`t rear end be better? )

[King of Atlantis]

Excuse me?!
Athenean Hoplites?!

BTW,

Ptolemy, your apologies are accepted.

somebody has been plaing RTR methinks...

[Garvanko]

Macedon is fun because they have a small group of excellent units that ae easy to manage and effective against all factions. They also have easy access to the best Merc unit, IMO i.e basternae. Plus they get to fight the Romans early on.

Seleucid is the most powerful because they have a huge roster of excellent units.

[Eaglefirst]

The Horse Archer armies of Parthia/Armenia/Sycthia are the best openfield armies. Egyptians with Pharohs Bowmen and the bloody oversized, armored killing, and underpriced Desert Cavalry. Macedon is good but whatever they do the Selecucids can do and they can do better especially since they have cataphracts.

[Wishazu]

Macedon has the best army..

Phalanx pikemen and compainion cavavlry. This is the best combo..

And like Uesugi said, you have acces to the cretian archers who are probably the best archers in the game.

macedon does not have the best army, Rome, Germania, Parthia, Seleucids, Armenia all have much better cavalry, also the Royal pikemen are mediocre at best compared with the phalanx`s of the greeks, seleucids, Carthage, Egypt and pontus and cretan archers are not that good...

[Papewaio]

Gentlemen please remove the swearing from your posts.

This is a PG site and we have people from 10 to 70 and this is one of the high traffic forums.

Good to see the apologies which is a good sign, just clean up the mess before the party begins.

[pezhetairoi]

It is pointless in arguring about which army is the best, really, because qualitative differences don't matter as much as the person who commands and uses them. If you play to each army's strengths then obviously that army will beat any other army's. After all, why is it that the AI keeps screwing up cohort battles and losing even though I am facing them with warbands and barb cav?

In the qualitative department, though, the Macedonians are sufficiently high in troop quality and diversity to ensure that they will not find it difficult to beat any army as is.

Even without melee mercenaries they are sufficient to the task, and with the Macedonians command and control is easy with troops being divided into simply phalanx/cavalry/ranged. Only three elements, and therefore much less command friction. In comparison with the Seleucids who have to divide their army into phalanx/legion/cavalry/ranged/chariots/elephants it is much easier command-wise to use the Macedonian army, and adapt it to different situations.

To address the apparently hot debate about Seleucids vs Macedon:

Seleucids have elephants, but Macedonians have archers, and they fire flaming arrows. And besides, there's always the phalanx.

Seleucids have Legionnaires, but Macedonians have Royal pikemen (who are actually hoplites, and that is correct because the Hypasists were historically hoplites, not phalangitai) who can meet them stroke for stroke in attack if not defence, and can for phalanx anyway that will give them the definitive advantage over the legionnaires for most of the combat. A word on Royals: Those who say Royals suck compared to the hoplite units of the Greeks are missing the point. The raison d'etre of Royals is not phalanx combat, but melee flank guarding. The phalanx is a bonus rather than the standard usage of a Royal unit. Why otherwise would the Royals be given a 10 attack in phalanx but a nasty 12 attack in melee? They can hold their own.

Seleucids have Silver Shield pikes, the Macedonians don't. But what does it matter? It is the cavalry that is the Macedonian decisive arm, not the phalanx which is there just to fix the enemy in place, not damage him.

Seleucids have Scythed chariots, the Macedonians don't. But the Macedonians have peltasts and archers to whom the chariots keep dying to. And they don't have enough of a crew to ensure the chariot can keep going once a fatal hit is scored. Admittedly they are deadly against any cavalry, but they are hopeless against any phalanx, and no general worth his salt is going to set any cavalry in the path of chariotry anyway.

Seleucids have Hetairoi cavalry. So do the Macedonians.

Seleucids have Militia cavalry to pepper the enemy with javelins. Macedonians have Sarissophori (a.k.a. Light Lancers) who can catch the militia, or at least keep them away from the main battle formation. Also, the Sarissophori are very fast, and very deadly with their charge of 15. Who needs cavalry melee?

I suppose that covers all the bases. Macedonians already have something for every eventuality without requiring the huge overkill-diversity that the Seleucids are provided with and which takes 2 turns to build anyway. Against the other factions' armies, of course, I will make a list.

Against barbarians: the Macedonians rule without doubt. They have an answer to everything the barbarians can throw at them, and then some, as the decisive blow is struck by cavalry that can overwhelm the enemy's barb cav which are the best ingame in attack.

Against Greeks: I rest my case. The Greeks have no cavalry worth talking about. Oui?

Against the Romans: The Macedonians are made for the Romans. Not only do they get to go for Rome early ingame, they will trash the enemy hands-down. The republican cohorts have no answer to the hedges of long pointy sticks they will face, and a massed charge by 4 LL will sweep the opposition away, much less with more cavalry, the way I do it.

Against the Egyptians: The Macedonian cavalry arm will be taxed to the max, but it can be done. Admittedly, though, here the usage of some mercenary camel cav would be useful for their morale effect.

Against the horsearcher factions: The cavalry, again. This is potentially the most worrying faction group you will face. But they can be beaten, especially if you use your phalanx as bait and send your cavalry wide to do a double envelopment the way Alexander did it against the Scythians. Even better if you get hold of some of your own Scythian mercs or Bedouins to face them with.

Against Carthage: Fear not their elephants, they run amok as easily as Seleucid ones. Iberians die like flies on pikes. Only their Poeni and Sacred Bands can make a dent, but with five rows of your pikes opposing two rows of theirs you get some advantage when it comes to the crunch, no? Also an easy victory, but only after you beat their longshields.

Against Numidia: Liberal peltasts, archery and cavalry are needed to kill the heavy archer support that any Numidian army can have. But, hey, you have LL, and they're on foot. What worries?

All that said, though, no matter how good the Macedonians are, their armies will die as easily if under a crap general who, for example, sends his LL on one-on-one melee missions against enemy cavalry, or allows his phalanx to be outflanked without relief by reinforcement or cavalry, or lets his levies stand alone against a massed cavalry charge without sending any counterforce, or does not use any of his troops/mercenaries for the purpose they were made for.

Qualitatively, and in the hands of a good or even decent general, Macedonians prod buttock!

[King of Atlantis]

Im not trying to argue anybody's post, as i have said i just like macedon out of prefrence..

[edyzmedieval]

I personally like Macedon, Julii, Seleucids and Egypt....

In my opinion, they are all equal....

[MerlinusCDXX]

"Seleucids are very good except for one weak spot: they don't get any decent archers of their own."

that's what Cretans are for

[Betito]

"Seleucids are very good except for one weak spot: they don't get any decent archers of their own."
that's what Cretans are for

But that's just the point: They can't train good archers, so they must rely on mercenaries, which sometimes are not avaiable in the required amount...

Still, i get your point: Seleucia can cover effectively this weak spot, given their location.

I think the Theurophoroi(heavy peltasts) and the sarissophoroi(light lancers) are the only troops that are superior to any seleucid counterpart (actually there might be no direct counterpart). But, seriously, with katatanks and elephants, seleucids don't exactly miss those troops.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

For me it would be Seluecids, Brutii, Armenians and then Germans; roughly in order of preference.

I mainly prefer Seluecids because they take walls much easier than the Macedonians and I rarely use Onagers in Campaign.

[magnum]

He's playing the Extended Greek mod. Several new units for greek factions to make them more comparable in ability to the Romans.

[Gaius Magnus]

I don't know, I think the Romans pretty much kick bootay. They are very versatile, and always up to flanking a rigid phalanx. Elephants? No sweat for the Romans. Just use Cohorts and Lergionary Cav, Cohorts and Triaarii, or Cohorts and Merc Hoplites.

Bye Bye Heffalumps!

Oh, and isn't it just great grinding down a phalanx with several units of Archer Auxilia or Merc Cretans? Those silly pole vaulters are so inflexible.

[Mikeus Caesar]

Macedonians being good? Pah. In any campaign i play they suck more than Numidia, if that's even possible. They get their asses wooped by the Romans, Greeks, Thracians, Dacians and Scythians before Cyrene in Africa rebels in their favour, and there they sit until their faction dies in poverty.

[pezhetairoi]

Heh, that's because of the AI. In the hands of a good general Macedon pwns all...Duel me one day and I'll silence you on that :P But first I have to get some home internet access... *looks rueful*

[King of Atlantis]

when ever I play as macedon i conquer greece and just become super rich, then i conquer the world ! Numidia may stay alive longer, but thats cause they got huge amount of land and not to many enemies.

[Eaglefirst]

The reason why Seleucia is better than Macedonia is not elephants or chariots. Cataphracts. Cataphracts used online are all used because they have the armor piercing maces that cause them to dominate whatever cavalry macedonia can throw at them even companions get destroyed by cats. Other than that boths sides are even. Scythed Chariots aren't to great for multiplayer and elephants get shot to pieces since humans target them first. The infantry are about even. During single player none of this matters since the AI cannot use Cataphracts or Horse Archers correct getting rid of your only weakness.

[pezhetairoi]

Cats are weak in defence. Who says you have to meets cats headon? As I said, Macedon will rock of you use the units to their strengths. Just watch what happens if I hit your cats in the flank with my hetairoi. :) It's a beautiful sight.

[Slug For A Butt]

After all, why is it that the AI keeps screwing up cohort battles and losing even though I am facing them with warbands and barb cav?

You must be doing something seriously wrong if you are facing cohorts at all, let alone with only warbands and barb cav. By that time they should be far dead and buried or at least you should have better units.

Something just doesn't sound right there. Sounds like another bit of "I'm better than the game" bashing to me.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

The Cataphracts completely override any cavalry Macedonia can field. So Macedonia loses all flanking capability if faced by a competent general. In that way the Seluecids should basically be able to defeat Macedon every time with similar armies, a brilliant general is not needed just a competent one who can track the battle and send the Cataphracts after the Companions and then the pikemen.

[Slug For A Butt]

**And since I don't have an edit button **
You can't be much better than the AI if you are having to fight cohorts with those crappy units. There is no way you should have to face cohorts with warbands...ever...ever...ever!!! By that time you should at least have an army whos backbone is chosen swordsmen or chosen axemen depending which warband you mean.

[bubbanator]

This is a highly debatable issue.

The Selucids have a slightly more powerful roster, however, Macedon has very good starting position with fairly weak neighbors and rich cities right nearby. Also, you can take out Rome very quickly which allows you be able to mop up the rest of the world quite easily.

The Selucids on the other hand, have to fight Pontus and Egypt right from the get go. If you can take them out, then your only real options are to expand north into the Scythian and Armenian lands where your unbeatable phalanxes will be turned into pincushions by horse archers. Or you could go into North Africa, but it isn't really worth it unless you can get all the way to Carthage. However, Carthage will be under Scipii control by that point and you will have a fight on your hands.

The other option is to go into Greece where the Brutii's massive field armies are running around like ants.


If you are a different faction however, the Selucids are a much tougher opponent. Macedon gets annihalated by by the Brutii. Also, the AI just sends the Macdonian phalanxes in a straight line that is easily snapped in half by a cavalry charge to the rear.

If the Selucids survive the Egyptian onslaught, then they are a much more difficult to beat in the feild. They have more of a mix. Or sometimes they just mass charriots...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Reading this thread, and musing about the various guides, it occurs to me that the AI is at a gross disadvantage on two levels.

1. Tactically, the AI tends to address piecemeal issues in a battle, rarely employing a cohesive tactical approach so much as doing a series of isolated actions. Save for those situations requiring zero flexibility or finesse, this leaves the AI in a position to create numerous heroic generals for the human player -- whether in command of a mort of Macedonians, a passel of Parthians, or cart-load of Carthaginians.

2. Strategically, the AI cannot contend with 2 millenia of military common knowledge. I think the modeling of the AI isn't hideous (given the limitations of computerized "thinking," and reflects the period decently. What it can't do is keep up with the gap of knowledge. We of this new millenia know that speed, shock and deep penetration can destabilize an entire faction. We'll ignore flanks to slam an army into a key city provinces away. We know the value of the blitzkrieg. We KNOW that our Gauls can sweep Rome away if we can win the first big battle and then leap forward rapidly enough to keep the Romans from rebuilding. One army can sack Rome with a heavy onager and a willingness to absorb the casualties needed to whack the final cavalry unit. Barca took years to cross Provence and wandered Italy for a long time -- but never sacked Rome because he knew he'd lose that one. The Danes who routed Rome at Idistaviso didn't bother to think "Now, the next strategic opportunity is to exploit this win with an assault on Rome itself before Marius can return to Italy, form Head Count armies and institute the Marian reforms." We do know this, having learned from Hitler's stupidity in diverting Guderian and Hoth in '41, from the inability of Hussein's forces to counter rapid advances by numerically inferior forces, from Tokugawa's use of superior firepower at Sekigehara -- how could the AI equal this.


I actually wonder if you could write an AI opponent that would make us truly sweat in an even fight, or work hard to extricate something in a fight against the odds -- instead of yet another heroic victory. Even if you could, could you fit it in one hard drive? Hmmmm.....

[pezhetairoi]

You must be doing something seriously wrong if you are facing cohorts at all, let alone with only warbands and barb cav. By that time they should be far dead and buried or at least you should have better units.

Something just doesn't sound right there. Sounds like another bit of "I'm better than the game" bashing to me.

My dear slug for a butt, I am not a bad general, and I know that. I'm not stupid enough to get myself into a situation where I have to hurl warbands against cohorts, though for the sheer hell of it I can jolly well choose to do so. I didn't need you to tell me that in campaign I should never be in a situation where warbands must face cohorts--that's a truism. But I never said I was fighting these battles in campaign, was I? Don't assume. For the record, I AM better than the AI, because the only battles that I lose are the naval ones. I have gone without defeat on land in seven campaigns. That should speak for itself. And since there are so many others better than me, it stands to reason that we are ALL better than the AI. We ARE better than the game, no big surprise given the game's AI.

I agree though that Cataphractoi will trash any hetairoi unit in one on one under a good general. Upon which we have some nasty manoeuvring to do to get the cataphractoi to charge into a double-line of phalanxes since no phalanx can hold up to a cataphract charge with the sole exception of Spartans, and even then not always. The cataphracts are the key. But they are susceptible to command mistakes, and have no staying power if hit in turn after they are engaged. That's their sole weakness and it's the role of the good Macedonian commander to ensure that that weakness is exploited and not to commit his cavalry until that time comes.

We are assuming all this while, of course, that we are fighting custom battles with all top-level units available. In the actual campaign the Macedonians will reign simply because of the sheer amount of time it will take for the Seleucids to produce their topnotch units compared to the Macedonians, whose lower-level units can already shoulder a lot of the combat burden.

And above all, the Macedonians have that really cool black-and-orange colour combi that the sickly greyish-purple-and-silver Seleucids don't have. :)

To Seamus, quite a blazing post. I never knew a battle of Idistaviso, and it just shows how much more there is to learn. But we all live to learn until we die, so. I think it is possible to write an AI that will duplicate human intellect, but that will be in the future, when drives are bigger (or when RTW is sold in drives instead of CD-ROMS) and even then the AI will have to be constantly updated online as the programmers come up with new strategic and tactical paradigms. Amazing knowledge you have though, I am in awe. Oh, and welcome to the Org, or have I already said it?

[bubbanator]

And above all, the Macedonians have that really cool black-and-orange colour combi that the sickly greyish-purple-and-silver Seleucids don't have. :)

Yes, the map looks pretty darn good when painted black and orange. Though the white and blue of Carthage looks suprisingly sweet also.

[pezhetairoi]

It does? I always thought I had something for the red and black of the Julii and the Christmas green-and-red of the Gallics. :)

Those are nice colour combis... white and blue, well, I must admit I never took a liking to it... looks too sissy to me :-P Blood will stain it easier than on black or red, too. =)

[bubbanator]

If you have the entire map with Carthage, everything looks so...crisp

it is so clean and simple

[pezhetairoi]

like cute little lambs prancing across Europe! ^_^

[bubbanator]

It's better than christmas trees :P