Historically composed armies- how essential?

[The Internet]

Because the game is not a complete representation of reality, i've always assumed that you have to adapt the historically correct formations/composition to what works in the game.

[Moros]

I'd try to keep my armies realistic, gives it an extra touch. Shipping in Iberians to fight your battles as Carthage. It changes the game. However my advise is: play the way you like to play the most. If it's with stack full of elites, than play that way. If it's as historical as possible, than play that way. It's your game, you never cheat. But you can amuse yourself

[NeoSpartan]

I'd try to keep my armies realistic, gives it an extra touch. Shipping in Iberians to fight your battles as Carthage. It changes the game. However my advise is: play the way you like to play the most. If it's with stack full of elites, than play that way. If it's as historical as possible, than play that way. It's your game, you never cheat. But you can amuse yourself

Well said Moros, well said.

sometimes I play historical, with few elites and not retraining a unit after it has 3chevrons. And othertimes I play Elite full stack ONLY (usually VH/VH type of games).

[Olaf The Great]

For some reason, I can't STOP playing historically accurate as Rome.

..Which is why I don't play rome :P.

Otherwise its the polar opposite of "accurate"

[Landwalker]

The fact that I have absolutely no idea what the ratio composition was of period armies for most of the factions (or, for that matter, any of the factions) certainly helps when it comes to not playing "accurately". Need to go take down an army of horse-archer rebels in my Baktria campaign? Grab a dozen Persian Archer-Spearmen and set to work. Need to do just about anything else? Make a useful army for the purpose.

Granted, if somebody could be so kind as to direct me to "historically accurate" compositions for factions like Hayasdan, Baktria, and the Ptolemaioi, I would be quite appreciative.

For that matter, perhaps the boards would benefit from a sticky that took known historically-accurate army compositions for all of the factions (or as many as possible) and "EBicized" them, that is, present possible EB stacks (or partial stacks, or whatever) that represent historically accurate period armies.

Cheers.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't like people who insist you should play historically. If you want to buy a full stack of Camillian Triarii and form a phalanx then go ahead. Having said that I think it is a good idea to play with a reasonable mixture of different units appropriate for your faction; you don't need all five Camillian Roman classes in every stack though.

[Watchman]

I always tend to take a "whatever is available and seems like it would work given the expected opposition" approach. Which in most cases shouldn't really be very unhistorical - commanders tended to have to make do with what could be scrounged up, and the smart ones at least tried to take steps to counter any specific competences the enemy might possess (eg. lots of archers mounted and foot if you're going to chase steppe-nomads, lots of spearmen if the enemy is known to favour heavy horse etc.).

Although granted, when possible I do tend to build them armies to certain basic and usually more-or-less symmetric patterns.

[Emperor Burakuku]

I tend to play historically accurate especially when I play Rome. For some reason I can't play it othewise. But not with every other faction. For example with Macedonia when a levy phalangite gets some exp then I replace it with a Phezetairoi unit and after they get some silver I replace them with the Silver Shields. With Chartage I like to play with more elites and also with Baktria. My advice is: play it the way you like it and just enjoy this miracle called EB.