Faction with best Army

[Slicendice]

The archers on the armored elephants are not very effective for the money.

Why mention Gaul at all. Besides the Forester Warband their units are crap. Of course if all you want to do is hang back and shoot up the enemy with archers and go in with their noble cavalry that's fine. But with a determined enemy your forces will be over run.

I still think Germans are the best. No they don't have chariots, but frankly I don't care. I can't stand chariots. It always seems hit or miss with them. Plus they are so unwieldy and not very dependable. I'd rather flank with some Barb Cavalry or Noble Cav. while my phalanx is holding the line.

But to be sure there is no faction I can't play and beat all the others. Which of course is the primary reason I didn't buy BI. There is just no way I can tilt the odds against me without doing reckless and stupid stuff in the game.

[Garvanko]

The archers on the armored elephants are not very effective for the money.

.

Dunno about that. When trained and experienced they offer tremendous versatility, both as missile and in melee. Probably the best support unit for moving infantry I can think off. Plus they fire while theyre moving, unlike specialist archers.

I agree with you about chariots. I disagree with you about BI. Buy it.

[eyupwoof]

While some would consider the egypt overpowered. In the right hands I gotta say that they have got to be imho the best army. I mean they can fight in almost any style and have enough flexibility to go from a steppe easten style army with chariot/camel archers, to greek style with all those spear units and barb like axemen, and ive not even mentioned the archers! If anything the egyptians lack real heavy cav, but the armor piecing cav and chariots come close to filling that gap. Not only that but if you play in the campaign egypt can get access to some decent mercs like elephants and num cav. The only other army I can see even coming close to the flexibility is armenia, if you prefer heavy cav. Flexibility to fight any army is close to what could be considered best army at least imho.

[Seasoned Alcoholic]

While some would consider the egypt overpowered. In the right hands I gotta say that they have got to be imho the best army. I mean they can fight in almost any style and have enough flexibility to go from a steppe easten style army with chariot/camel archers, to greek style with all those spear units and barb like axemen, and ive not even mentioned the archers! If anything the egyptians lack real heavy cav, but the armor piecing cav and chariots come close to filling that gap. Not only that but if you play in the campaign egypt can get access to some decent mercs like elephants and num cav. The only other army I can see even coming close to the flexibility is armenia, if you prefer heavy cav. Flexibility to fight any army is close to what could be considered best army at least imho.

Take your point about Egypts army, but as you say they have no heavy cavalry. I'd modded my original copy of RTW vanilla 1.2 so that Egypt (when controlled by the AI) stopped steamrollering the Seleucids every new SP campaign. Once the Seleucids have chance to tech-up and get access to their heavy cavalry and elephants, then you're in trouble Problem is, the AI in RTW simply isn't challenging enough, and doesn't deploy its units in a way which would seriously threaten you - the most competitive battles IMO are online MP. Even Medium difficulty (battle difficulty) is harder than Very Hard.

[Craterus]

Even Medium difficulty (battle difficulty) is harder than Very Hard.

Wrong, AFAIK. The strategic AI is no different in either mode. VH just adds bonus morale (maybe other stats) to the enemy units. This RTW 1.2 I am talking about, not 1.3 or BI.

[eyupwoof]

Take your point about Egypts army, but as you say they have no heavy cavalry. I'd modded my original copy of RTW vanilla 1.2 so that Egypt (when controlled by the AI) stopped steamrollering the Seleucids every new SP campaign. Once the Seleucids have chance to tech-up and get access to their heavy cavalry and elephants, then you're in trouble Problem is, the AI in RTW simply isn't challenging enough, and doesn't deploy its units in a way which would seriously threaten you - the most competitive battles IMO are online MP. Even Medium difficulty (battle difficulty) is harder than Very Hard.

True enough but point i was trying to make is that army's can only do so much its the player behind them that makes an army good. I was thinking more in terms of which army is most flexible, and flexibly is the key if fighting online unless you know what army your facing. Egypt can do pretty well vs your army setup if you switch to pharaohs bodyguard based army, and the ap cav do well against the heavy armor trick is just to use enough of em :) Of course its not perfect but it was the flexibly i was trying to point out. Just like the army you mentioned could do quite bad vs a highly mobile shoot yarmy which Egypt can also do, maybe not in rome but for sure in real life :)

[eyupwoof]

Just to point out what i mean Ive got a link from a battle I made if anyones interested, Yes I know its against the ai and there is a few mistakes but I think its a good example of a good flexable army.

[Seasoned Alcoholic]

Even Medium difficulty (battle difficulty) is harder than Very Hard.

Wrong, AFAIK. The strategic AI is no different in either mode. VH just adds bonus morale (maybe other stats) to the enemy units. This RTW 1.2 I am talking about, not 1.3 or BI.

Craterus, when I said Medium difficulty was harder than Very Hard, I wasn't referring to the AI, but instead to the actual battles that take place. This is what I have noticed after playing many campaigns on VH / VH, then switching to VH / M after reading a debated thread on another TW forum.

Since the human player and the AI don't receive combat bonuses of +4 and (if applicable) morale bonuses / penalties on Medium, the length of battles as a result is extended considerably. Units will not rout as fast on VH / M, as I typically found to be the case in VH / VH - battles were often a steamrollering affair for the latter (lasting only a few minutes), and you could easily aquire multiple provinces in not time at all.

IMO VH / M difficulty improved RTW a bit, but since the AI wasn't upto scratch in the first place, then it didn't make a huge difference. Battle difficulties should be what it says on the tin, and not containing hidden combat / morale bonuses etc which was the case in RTW.

At least in BI the AI on VH / VH is challenging and is difficult to overcome. I've lost many veteran armies against the damn WRE (in central europe) playing as the Celts in my latest SP campaign for example.