Legions

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Why would you consider it an exploit? This strategy would be extremely costly, wouldn't it? Paying full recruitment price for one-shot use? I do use a variation of this tactic though-- if I think that I am in no danger of losing a battle on the way, I only hire mercs before a big battle or siege. Money conservation is pretty important for the Julii.

Its more the lack of any upkeep charge which I consider an exploit more than anything else. I'm a fairly rare user of mercenaries anyhow, considering their ability to be instantly recruited a little too useful against an already disadvantaged AI.

[Flying Pig]

NEVER EVER EVER keep mercs in a city or you'll end up wondering why yu're on -100000000 To Be Continued income and have only one roman unit

[Punicus]

NEVER EVER EVER keep mercs in a city or you'll end up wondering why yu're on -100000000 To Be Continued income and have only one roman unit

My suggestion to keep them in a city as a garrison and move on was meant as temporary - keep them there to keep order until you have a sufficient amount of your own units to maintain peace, as Omanes said.

[Caius]

I use mercenaries when I need to boost my numbers of soldiers. Or when I need to increase the population, but only if its very need.

[Quirinus]

I never said I disband them afterwards. :) Especially when fighting in barbarian lands, I only disband mercs (who are relatively cheap to maintain and fairly effective, anyway) when their numbers get too low (say, if their numbers fall into the single digits) or when I really need the population to prop up an emptied-out town. I hate it when I enter a barbarian stronghold, only to discover that they have bled the town dry in the process of fighting me. There's really not much you can do with a town with, say 500 people left, except to sit on it for a inordinately long time.

[Good Ship Chuckle]

There are some mercs I hire with out thinking. Like cretan archers, or dare I say...Mercenary War Elephants!! They pose such an advantage in the field, that you never find yourself regreting getting them.

[Quirinus]

Yes, but they are also prohibitively expensive to recruit and maintain, which is a problem if you're strapped for cash.

My mercenary recruitment policy depends on how much money I have, mainly. If I have tons of money and I'm teetering dangerously close to 50000d, I will go on a mercenary recruiting spree. Other than the fact that it's always nice to have an extra unit of super-fast light cavalry or dirt-cheap skirmishers, I sometimes also use them to scour my lands for brigands.

[The Wandering Scholar]

I tend to mass recruit mercs in early gamewith Carthage. Historically that's what they did when war came knocking.

[Quirinus]

Yep, same here. And Carthage has the income to support it, too. My gripe with Carthage is that it doesn't take into account how most soldiers in the Carthagenian armies were mercenaries.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

In a way, the mercenary factor in Carthage's armies is sort of considered by the game through them being forced to draft archers and similar ranged units from mercenary regions. I'm not sure whether its a deliberate feature or simply an unintentional addition though. Probably the latter, since I don't think Carthage historically lacked archers and similar ranged units.

[Hannibalbarc]

In a way, the mercenary factor in Carthage's armies is sort of considered by the game through them being forced to draft archers and similar ranged units from mercenary regions. I'm not sure whether its a deliberate feature or simply an unintentional addition though. Probably the latter, since I don't think Carthage historically lacked archers and similar ranged units.

I almost certain Carthage didn't lack archers(historicly speaking), they used a lot of Numidians and Iberians in their armies and the Numidians were made up of cav and light inf(javelinmen and archers), and the reason that archers aren't mentioned often is because the Balearic slingers were far better than any archers at the time.
Also in the game they have archers on top of their eles, why not on foot? and I believe I've said this before, Carthage should be able to recruit more units like Spanish mercs and Numidian cav, because the Romans can recruit their mercs.

[The Wandering Scholar]

because the Romans can recruit their mercs

Can they? (rtw v1.5)

[TruePraetorian]

Speaking of Merc War Ele's and Cretan Archers, does anyone frequent in purchasing Merc Hoplites? I do, as they prove invaluable as a Roman faction to guard gateways and such...

BTW is this topic about Rome's Legions or any faction's "Legions", because it's getting awfully into the despised, un-honourable Carthaginians...

[Hannibalbarc]

Can they? (rtw v1.5)

auxilia(sp?) archers, auxilia infantry, auxilia cavalry.
Sorry about changing the topic, I seem to be good at that.
If you stop calling the Carthaginians un-honorable I'll do my best to keep on topic, deal? great.

[The Wandering Scholar]

Obviously it depends on the location of my rmies and the foes I am facing. Generally against the Gauls I use:
1Gen ----the best can muster. I like the jupiter temples which give 'strategist' traits
5Infantry --the best again, one or two samnites the hold things
2missile -- I lik velites but archers can be useful
2cav--mainly to chase routers who are running from my pila!

Against pikes:
1Gen
7Infantry - -in this there will be merc hoplites to hold their pikes so I can get my romans flanking
1missile - -preferably Cretans
1cav- -basic flanking to weakened units, chase routers

Africa:

1Gen
4Infantry- - up against less infantry
4 missile - -for ellies
1 cav-- numidians

East:

1 Gen
3 Infantry --not needed in the east
1 missile - again not really needed
5 cav -- mainly mercs, missile cav is important. Cav is where the fights going to be won or lost.
3 Infantry

[Quintus.JC]

East:

1 Gen
3 Infantry --not needed in the east
1 missile - again not really needed
5 cav -- mainly mercs, missile cav is important. Cav is where the fights going to be won or lost.
3 Infantry

I personally tries to avoid going to war with Eastern Factions as the Romans, but when it comes to it I find chasing Horse Archers with your cavalry is rather pointless. while the legions can stand their ground and form the Testudo, your cavalry is left vulernable in the open. is their a really effective way to deal with Missile Cavalry? The Greeks often employed Militia cavalry in masses and I couldn't deal with them properly either.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Most missile cavalry are weak in hand to hand. The only problem is you've got to get them there in that situation first without taking a critical level of losses yourself.

A simply method to deal with missile units, is to set your troops into the "Loose Formation" rather than the "Tight Formation" which they are in by default.

Since missile weapons don't have 100% accuracy, there is a fairly high chance that, with loose formation enabled, the projectiles will land in between the troops causing fairly minimal damage.

If you have access to the "Testudo" special ability then you ought to use that rather than simply loose formation against standard (non-siege or large stone wall or above) missile weapons though.

Another method involves using similar missile troops of your own and using them to shoot at the attackers, hopefully causing more damage than they are.

Another tactic is to try and use poor quality peasants and similar men to absorb missiles and encourage the enemy to focus on them rather than your mainlines. This can sometimes be difficult though, since I've noticed the AI usually prefers firing on higher quality troops up to a certain extent.

[The Wandering Scholar]

The so-called dumb AI

[Quintus.JC]

forgot about using loose formation. they're really effective.
although I never really remembers this in the heat of battle.

[The Wandering Scholar]

Always stay cool in battle, QJC. A panicking general will always make mistakes.

[Good Ship Chuckle]

@QJC
I would reccomend playing the Battle of Cannae in the Historical battles of RTW. It puts you right in that situation of having mostly heavy roman legions and some roman cav to take out a parthian army of Persian Cav and Cataphracts. Play that a couple times, and you should be an expert against eastern tactics with the Romans.

[Quintus.JC]

@QJC
I would reccomend playing the Battle of Cannae in the Historical battles of RTW..........

It's the battle of Carrhae, Cannae is when Hannibal smashed Roman forces in the 2nd Punic War.

[Quirinus]

Sorry to come back to the topic of mercenaries, but I've found that, when fighting horse archers in the East, it does help to hire a few units of eastern mercenaries. These guys are cheap, numerous, and have pretty good defense, considering their cost. They might be prone to routing, though, but they're expendable anyway.

[The Wandering Scholar]

A better solution would be to control Cartahge first, recruit numidian jav cav. They'll eat HA's alive.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

A better solution would be to control Cartahge first, recruit numidian jav cav. They'll eat HA's alive.

The problem with them is catching up. They have fairly equal speed and a much lower range, often resulting in them ending up taking a high level of damage while the horse archers keep firing on them from a distance. Their pitiful defence doesn't really help in this matter, and often they flee from the field before they even gain a chance to throw a single projectile at the enemy.

If you can catch up with the horse archers without taking any damage somehow, taking them out with javelin based cavalry can actually work. The problem is ensuring the horse archer unit is sufficently distracted by something else, and that it won't avoid your attacking troops when it runs into them. This usually is much easier when the horse archer is tired, but by then it's probably already caused a level of damage large enough to make killing them a fairly worthless exersise.

[The Wandering Scholar]

Oh, are jav cav not quicker than HA's? I thought they were. My humble apologies.