how much do macadonians kick tail!!!!

[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!