Phalanx strenght

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 05-12-2007, 11:41

That's very true, also, they can be broken from the front. Drive two heavy infantry units straight for the centre line, If you can force the switch to swords then you've basically won.

It's bloody, but that's historical.

**Spoofa** · 05-12-2007, 15:42

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

That's very true, also, they can be broken from the front. Drive two heavy infantry units straight for the centre line, If you can force the switch to swords then you've basically won.

It's bloody, but that's historical.

a pyrrhic victory ehh?

**NeoSpartan** · 05-12-2007, 19:34

Well.... phalanx based factions have a slighter easier going in VH/VH, than non-phalanx factions. BUT, the relative difficulty non-phalax based factions have compared to phalanx based factions has to do with the starting position. For example, nearly all phalanx based factions have an easier time getting thier economy up. That is because those factions already have an economic infrastructure in place. While, on the other hand, most non-phalanx factions have to build up thier economic infrascture from scrath. Now, once you add this up to the fact that you take more casulaties in VH battles than in M battles, the AI $ bonuses, etc, it becomes more difficult to non-phalanx factions.
For example: As the KH, in a few turns you get your a + income, and don't get me started with Ptolemoi and Carthege. BUT when you play with the Aedui/Arverni, you have to kill the other faction ASAP, and then by 268BC the Romani start pushing north. All the while you have build up economy, and your MICs.

One thing I would also like to point out, in vh/vh battles in all comes down to cleverness on the part of the human player. The way you play in vh/m IS NOT the way you play in vh/vh.

**mAIOR** · 05-12-2007, 23:55

I agree with you Neo. The reason I stoped playing Vh/Vh was because of sieges. Having 900 of your units outflancking in the town square 300 units and see them die and rout is just not funny. But in medium, I believe battles are more realistic. All in all, in Vh battles you have to use more missiles than in Medium... and anything short of polybian Princeps is futile one on one against even Hoplitai haploi...
On the Phalanx matter, I think their quite good. Remember, the romans only defeated the Phalanxes because they were able to flank them and the Macedonian cavalry was but a mere shadow of it's former self...

Cheers...

**NeoSpartan** · 05-13-2007, 00:17

Originally Posted by mAIOR

I agree with you Neo. The reason I stoped playing Vh/Vh was because of sieges. Having 900 of your units outflancking in the town square 300 units and see them die and rout is just not funny. But in medium, I believe battles are more realistic. All in all, in Vh battles you have to use more missiles than in Medium... and anything short of polybian Princeps is futile one on one against even Hoplitai haploi...
On the Phalanx matter, I think their quite good. Remember, the romans only defeated the Phalanxes because they were able to flank them and the Macedonian cavalry was but a mere shadow of it's former self...

Cheers...

Or loosing 160 units against 80 units trying to take a wall.

p.s.personaly I am finding VH/M too easy.... in my next campaing I'll make it H/H, or H/VH. (I hate it when rebels seige my towns, with 3 crappy units and then I have to go free that town and waist 20min of my game time OR take severe casualties on the autocalc

)

**Pharnakes** · 05-13-2007, 01:24

use auto win attacker when you know you're going to win.

Keeps causuailties down to about 10%

**mAIOR** · 05-13-2007, 18:48

Yeah. Since I discovered auto_win I've been making a lot of progress... I usually keep auto_win battles to those where at I have at least 2:1 odds and enjoy numerical superiority...
For taking rebels (brigands not full armies) it's a given.

Cheers...