How should you go about a siege without quality infantry?

**HarunTaiwan** · 11-07-2005, 06:39

Attack the city at two locations. The computer must split his forces then.

**pezhetairoi** · 11-07-2005, 08:21

...Or simply transfer assault tower operations to another gate/wall area away from your strating position, then land a holding force to capture the gate and buy time while you pile your army into the gate. Once you move your entire army into the city, move down your wall force if they have not engaged the wall defenders, and leave them to die if they have. Just mass-charge to break the enemy within the city (since they're romans they have no phalanxes so use massed cavalry to break them and follow up with infantry) and bulldoze your way to the town square, and hold for 3 minutes. No finesse, no elegance, but with no quality and no archers you can't hope to demonstrate the art of assault.

I must disagree with HarunTaiwan's assertion that you divide your forces. It's the no.1 military rule that you should never divide your forces, especially in this case when the enemy is qualitatively stronger than you and will take your split forces apart even when he has split his. One on one hastati > iberian infantry/town militia. Your best bet (and the one with minimum casualties) is to form your troops into a massive battering ram and wear down the enemy via cavalry charge and demoralisation.

**HarunTaiwan** · 11-07-2005, 09:33

Hmmmmmm, attacking from two directions or flanking is also sound military strategy. Split attacks were often done during sieges where you have one misdirecting attack to cover the real one.

It's especially useful if you know the besieged enemy on has so many good units to go around. By forcing him to parcel them out you can achieve better results than forcing your way through that single sap point where he can simply keep the bulk of his good forces and bottle you up.

**Red Harvest** · 11-07-2005, 14:30

Originally Posted by pezhetairoi

I must disagree with HarunTaiwan's assertion that you divide your forces. It's the no.1 military rule that you should never divide your forces, especially in this case when the enemy is qualitatively stronger than you and will take your split forces apart even when he has split his.

And yet great generals have routinely violated this maxim to win "brilliant" victories.

Much depends on what you hope to acheive by doing so and the type of forces at your disposal. Diversions, raids, flanking, too many possibilities to name.

**antisocialmunky** · 11-07-2005, 22:41

It depends on the quality of generalship of which I must say the AI is pretty low on the totem pole.

There are no rules for war, just what you can make work in a situtation.

**Aesculapius** · 11-08-2005, 06:54

Originally Posted by pezhetairoi

It's the no.1 military rule that you should never divide your forces, especially in this case when the enemy is qualitatively stronger than you and will take your split forces apart even when he has split his. One on one hastati > iberian infantry/town militia. Your best bet (and the one with minimum casualties) is to form your troops into a massive battering ram and wear down the enemy via cavalry charge and demoralisation.

Let me add my voice to the shouts of protest! I find it hard to believe that that is "the number 1 military rule" - indeed, another number 1 military rule says "march divided, fight concentrated" - especially important when the enemy is stronger than you.

A favourite RTW battle strategy of mine, particularly when seriously outnumbered, is to deploy my forces in two groups: a main body, and a highly mobile group (cavalry, or Arcani if I have them). The AI must either divide its forces, or choose one of my groups to go after. If they don't divide, then I'm well on the way to having them flanked from the outset. If they do divide, my highly mobile group evades its pursuers and falls upon the rear of the other enemy group - ideally just around the time they engage my main body. I can then fight this part of engagement against somewhat better odds, and usually have time to regroup (or split again) before the remaining enemy force arrives, panting and exhausted, at the scene of battle.

Against infantry-only armies, such as the Germans, you can often erode away a full enemy stack like this with no more than two cavalry units.

**Red Harvest** · 11-08-2005, 08:41

Yep, that's the way to take down those phalanx armies, especially on VH where I can't afford to engage frontally with inferior troops. I remember in 1.2 destroying full hoplite stacks (including a few armoured hoplites) using only a few peltasts some roundshield cav, and a few units of Iberian infantry.

**GFX707** · 11-08-2005, 22:22

Learn the heavy cavalry "blitzkrieg".

Buy 2 Onagers and break a hole in the wall, then pile all your heavy cavalry through the hole while sending your infantry (or light cavalry) close behind....the cavalry destroys whatever is guarding the breach, and then you speed your heavy cavalry to the square and the infantry (or light cavalry) tangles up any forces coming back down from the walls....kill everything in the square with your cavalry, wait 3 minutes....you win.

Perfected this technique with the Armenians and Scythians. You don't need any infantry to perform well in sieges....probably the best "doctrine" for sieging in RTW

**Nelson** · 11-09-2005, 16:46

However hard it may seem to get into a walled town, it was much tougher for actual armies than the game infers. In R:TW, stone walls fall neatly and leave a perfectly smooth flat breach. How likely was that! Cavalry could not negotiate a rubble filled gap or a collapsed mine which is exactly what the infantry had to clamor over. Horses and formations would have been out of the question in a breach.