My only gripe with EB

[RabbitDynamite]

Yes, phalanxes do have verrry slow kill rates. They aren't supposed to be the deadly mincing machines of Vanilla, their primary purpose is to pin the foe in place so something else can deliver the killing blow.*

Mind, if one two phallanx units fight with one having a height advantage, or one manages to "catch" another in formation phallanx in the flank, things can get bloody.

*Historically, wasn't the decline of the successor states partially because that they neglected their missile and cavalry arms, and the all phalanx armies were much less effective?

[antisocialmunky]

Yes, phalanxes do have verrry slow kill rates. They aren't supposed to be the deadly mincing machines of Vanilla, their primary purpose is to pin the foe in place so something else can deliver the killing blow.*

Mind, if one two phallanx units fight with one having a height advantage, or one manages to "catch" another in formation phallanx in the flank, things can get bloody.

*Historically, wasn't the decline of the successor states partially because that they neglected their missile and cavalry arms, and the all phalanx armies were much less effective?

Yeah, more of less. One of the big reasons was the depletion of the cavalry arm by the Sucessor Wars.

[Watchman]

And them pesky horsemen take a while to train.

[Spoofa]

Hammer and Anvil, Good tactic, bad execution and lack of the correct manpower to carry it out effectively.

[Zim]

I like the slow battles, but I think you could shorten them by playing the Romans. A combo of their best troops and local mercs = short battles, if you flank
correctly.

EB battles are a bit slower, but not too bad. I got used to them fairly quickly.