What are your cheapest core units to defeat Rome?

[moonburn]

YeS ExactlY !!

all those Veteran Armies they could not cross Mesopotamia! because Parthians were tactican & powerful!

and they could not cross Syria! because Sassanids were highly Veteran and Advanced Equal to rome and even better!

thats why the romans burned the persian capital on 2 ocasions

crassus made a mistake when he trusted his scouts and was missinformed about the kind of catrphact he would be facing since he assumed he would be facing armenian cathraphacts wich weren´t as armoured or disciplined as the parthians

also the parthians inovated with their camel caravan suply train or they would be out of arrows and forced to face the romans in melee before they where in disaray

[zenisar]

After fighting battles with hellenistic phalanx for some time, slow and cumbersome heavy tool for steamrolling anything - if you can catch it - I switched to celtic more flexible style. Though at first, I used those units more like any regular swordsman until I discovered their charge. For those less patient generals among us - charge is the answer! Enemies tremble in fear when they see us. And where the fighting is the thickiest - Gaesatae is the answer!

Anyway, speaking about units available to celtic factions, I was actually impressed by Massilian Hoplites - they can stand to Roman legions in normal circumstances. On the other hand, the other naked unit Uiruduisios was rather dissapointment, they broked and fled even when facing some regular celtic units. But I never actually tried Celtic Axemen - does the armor piercing ability make a difference against against Romans? And Helvetii Phalanx, how do they fare?

[athanaric]

On the other hand, the other naked unit Uiruduisios was rather dissapointment, they broked and fled even when facing some regular celtic units.

They're a support unit, never use them as frontline troops. They should be standing behind your main line, lobbing javelins. They're also great for flanking enemy units. Basically like chariots, but easier to use.

But I never actually tried Celtic Axemen - does the armor piercing ability make a difference against against Romans?

Definitely. On top of being strong against armour, Celtic Axemen are one of the most versatile units in the game.

And Helvetii Phalanx, how do they fare?

Unsurprisingly well. Both the Helveti phalanx and the "Alpine" phalanx spearmen are very useful, especially for Celtic factions. The latter even have axes, making them a dual purpose unit.

[QuintusSertorius]

Anyway, speaking about units available to celtic factions, I was actually impressed by Massilian Hoplites - they can stand to Roman legions in normal circumstances.

Really? I've found them a good deal less capable than Keltohellenikoi.

[zenisar]

Really? I've found them a good deal less capable than Keltohellenikoi.

I just play around with Arverni campaign, trying to awake the "Celtic Storm" that once plundered Roma. Recently conquered Massilia. So in time, I will try once more both Keltohellenikoi and Massilian Hoplite against legions. Will let you know.

[QuintusSertorius]

I just play around with Arverni campaign, trying to awake the "Celtic Storm" that once plundered Roma. Recently conquered Massilia. So in time, I will try once more both Keltohellenikoi and Massilian Hoplite against legions. Will let you know.

Out of interest, are these Camillian or Polybian legions? Keltohellenikoi seem pretty well-matched to Camillian Hastati and even Principes, but the heavier-armoured Polybian variants are much more durable.

[athanaric]

Personally, I find it difficult to fight Romans as Gauls without axemen or other AP infantry. Reason being, Triarii (especially Camillan era), Pedites Extraordinarii, and Polybian Principes are very difficult to kill if all you have is spearmen and swordsmen. Sure, you have slingers and lancers for an AP punch, but they can't slug it out in melee. And slingers are notoriously bad at killing 4+ shield units from the front, and difficult to manoeuver around on the battlefield. Plus it's lame to spam those units. While Bataroas are the main killer unit in Gallic armies, you should always bring some Appea Gaedotos or Teceitos, or even Tekastos or Asturian axemen when fighting Romans.

[kdrakak]

Personally, I find it difficult to fight Romans as Gauls without axemen or other AP infantry. Reason being, Triarii (especially Camillan era), Pedites Extraordinarii, and Polybian Principes are very difficult to kill if all you have is spearmen and swordsmen. Sure, you have slingers and lancers for an AP punch, but they can't slug it out in melee.

In my experience, barbarian armies in Europe have the combination of speed, stamina and enhanced charge bonus as their greatest combat advantage. They don't hold the line against the Romans or anyone else... most of the time there is no line. They can however run their way to victory through any plan. They can team up on individual units that will rout and eventually get to the ones that don't usually rout, such as the Triarii and Pedites. Furthermore, most barbarian infantry units have a +8 charge bonus, while there are "freaks" with +10 or even +12 at reasonable prices, coming soon to a store near you! Outrun! Outcharge! Barbarize Barbarorum!!!

[zenisar]

Personally, I find it difficult to fight Romans as Gauls without axemen or other AP infantry. Reason being, Triarii (especially Camillan era), Pedites Extraordinarii, and Polybian Principes are very difficult to kill if all you have is spearmen and swordsmen. Sure, you have slingers and lancers for an AP punch, but they can't slug it out in melee. And slingers are notoriously bad at killing 4+ shield units from the front, and difficult to manoeuver around on the battlefield. Plus it's lame to spam those units. While Bataroas are the main killer unit in Gallic armies, you should always bring some Appea Gaedotos or Teceitos, or even Tekastos or Asturian axemen when fighting Romans.

Yep, similar experience here. As far as I can remember from my previous Arverni campaign, units like Triarii and Pedites Extraordinarii always stood in the melee for very long time, and were among the last to break and rout.

Regarding Celtic Slingers, I fought a tight battle against Aedui near Massilia last night. First, I was actually losing, until my 2 FMs sandwiched enemy general and killed him. That turned the battle in my favor, initiating a multiple routs. With slingers, I focused their fire solely on a unit of enemy Gaesatae, though the kills were rather dissapointing, reducing their numbers from 120 down to 90 only until they ran out of ammo. Next time I will focus their fire on enemy general instead.

[zenisar]

Out of interest, are these Camillian or Polybian legions? Keltohellenikoi seem pretty well-matched to Camillian Hastati and even Principes, but the heavier-armoured Polybian variants are much more durable.

In my previous Arverni campaign, I focused more on role-playing, expanded slower, just enjoying game. So that when I invaded Italy between 230-220 BC fighting Romani, my Bataroas/Botroas faced already Polybian legions. At that time, also for roleplaying, I focused more on Celtic units and rather skipped Celto-Hellenic units, using them fron necessity only. In order to compensate the lightly armored regular Celtic infantry, I used the combo of smith / temple / field of games, boosting Bataroas from attack 10 / defence 20 to 13/23 stats. Plus giving the general some experience chasing rebels before engaging in any serious campaign against Romani.

In this Arverni campaign, just for a change, I wanted to rush more, expand faster in all directions, particularly to Italy, in order to fully assimilate conquered regions (as the Celts miss the highest tier cities). Sack Roma on the way, following Brennus in 390 BC. Reaching Sicily and Gibraltar ASAP. That was the plan anyway.

The year is 246 BC. Until now, I united Gaul though being slowed down by crappy economy and under-populated cities, delaying Celtic reforms even further. The Aedui are still alive and kicking, holding Mediolanum, fielding also Gaesatae quite frequently, attacking Massilia and Viennos. The Sweboz expanded towards Belgium, holding half of it. I allied with them, in the hope the war on this front could be postponed few decades, as expansion in this direction is currently not in my interest. And my economy cannot bear to feed another army.

In the meantime, I got distracted from my plan by treacherous QH attacking Emporion, having to divert my troops into Hispania. Among the strategic difficulties playing Arverni, aside from crappy economy and low population, is the necessity to (sooner or later) wage war on 3 fronts against up to 5 factions.

This time, fortunately, at least the Romani diverted from their usual attacks on Massilia for the time being (temporary relief, for sure), and focused their attention on expansion north-east, taking Patavium and later Segesta (hopefully). Since the year is 246 BC, they still field Camillan legions. The proportion of Triarii and Pedites Extraordinarii starts to worry me. Sooner or later, my lightly armored Celtic units will have to face them, and the outlook to protracted melee is not promising ...



The repeated Aedui attacks starts to get annoying, I am thinking on wiping them out soon. Perhaps, while they besiege Massilia, I could mount a surprise attack on Mediolanum via the Alps. Since Mediolanum is their only region, this would finish them off. What do you think?

[Empire*Of*Media]

thats why the romans burned the persian capital on 2 ocasions

crassus made a mistake when he trusted his scouts and was missinformed about the kind of catrphact he would be facing since he assumed he would be facing armenian cathraphacts wich weren´t as armoured or disciplined as the parthians

also the parthians inovated with their camel caravan suply train or they would be out of arrows and forced to face the romans in melee before they where in disaray

simple comparison:

well 2 times capital was taken yes but we should see the POSITIVE side as 2 times capital was sacked and destroyed but the Romans could not Advance toward Mesopotamia & Iranian Plateau! because Parthia unlike Sassanids & Romans was a Federalical System that no one ruled all the things and Romans faced heavy resistance of local Armies and disciplined ones of course thats why they did never defeated Parthia.

unlike this Romans 2 Times their Capital was Sacked and taken and gradually gradually suddenly the whole Western Roman Empire Fell!

simple......

i dont understand most of you react to Rome and Iranian Plateau Kigdoms & Empires like Rome is your Father's Empire!!
and many of you say Crassus was fool! ok we suppose he was fool but rome fought 300 years against Parthians and 300 years against Sassanids!! so dont tell me that there was not at least 1 good general in the whole great Empire even succeded by Cassar's and others Legacies & Traditions......!!!

if Rome was better than Parthia or Sassanids, simple, they could penetrate and destroy the whole of their Empire, and believe me they would go until china! so we see otherwise.....


and if Parhia would not fell to Totalitarian Sassanids or Sassanids would continue the same Government System, Arabic Muslims could never conquer and abuse Those lands.........
(Sassanids were more powerful and equal to Rome unlike Parthians, but were easily broken as the king would fell and there would be no more local Resistance due to lack of governship and morale)

[moonburn]

rome was the father to western civilization

as for the rest of what you said romns used heavy infantry the parthians and sassanids used heavy cavalry so on the plains they won but had rome decided to keep conquering the sassanids and the parthians would have had a fight of a lifetime but when it came rome was already fractured within and no true great roman could afford to spend so much time away from the city without loosing influence and being betrayed and sold out not even emperors

wierdly enough it was crassus demise who created the 1st unbalance that gave cesar the oppurtunity to try and outgrowth everyone before him before crassus demise cesar relied on crassus and pompey to keep a balance beteween the diferent roman factions wich meant he could spend 10 years away from rome conquering without being forced to return for whatever reason (and the senators did try to get him to return and face trial for his crimes )

[Empire*Of*Media]

rome was the father to western civilization

as for the rest of what you said romns used heavy infantry the parthians and sassanids used heavy cavalry so on the plains they won but had rome decided to keep conquering the sassanids and the parthians would have had a fight of a lifetime but when it came rome was already fractured within and no true great roman could afford to spend so much time away from the city without loosing influence and being betrayed and sold out not even emperors

wierdly enough it was crassus demise who created the 1st unbalance that gave cesar the oppurtunity to try and outgrowth everyone before him before crassus demise cesar relied on crassus and pompey to keep a balance beteween the diferent roman factions wich meant he could spend 10 years away from rome conquering without being forced to return for whatever reason (and the senators did try to get him to return and face trial for his crimes )

yes indeed despite all those corruptions and barbarous wildery of romans, im obssessed with all those advanced technologies and high civilization lifestyle. i see USA as New Rome!

but for the thing you said, yes Parthians used heavy cavalry instead of Infantry, unlike rome. but Sassanids were a balance of heavy infantry & cavalry

because as time passed both Rome & Sassaanids (Easterns) realized and found out both of their weaknesses! Rome's weakness was in Heavy Cavalry so they made as little equal to Eastern Cataphracts (Calbinari - Armenian Cataphract);

even so as for Sassanids found out Weakness in Heavy Infantry so they made nomerous heavy infantry units such as Sughdians, Dylamites (they mostly attacked by Sudden Strikes and smashing through lines), Kushan Axmen, Kamandare Shahi (King's Bowmen), Gilanis, & ...... many other.
they even expanded their heavy cavalry to not only simple cataphract but also Super Heavy Irak (Iraq) Cataphracts, Pushtigban (Bodyguards), Zhayedan ( Immortals), Kardakan (Kurdish Lancers), & ....many other.

and please dont say in 700 years no Good Roman generals were there!! Pontus and Parthia were like each other even Pontus was very better in infantry but they fell and not Parthia!!
but as for sassanids they were a highly troublesome Great Citadel For Rome to go for easterners and China & India! and also a very equal enemy as they even conquered many roman cities and never lost Armenia & East Syria unlike Parthians. they even Sieged Capital Constantinople and Conquered Jerusalem and Damascus and Antioch once!!


its ok for you to have bias toward Rome, because your European and you think ther's only and ONLY Rome and even hellenics in the world's history!!!! but its your Bigotry that deny other civilizations & Empire's greatness.

as a say, says War makes Advancements! in war if for example 2 sides have a long conflict they will soon find out their Powerful and Weakness Points......

[moonburn]

i don´t even like rome too much but the trufh of the fact is that the sassanids particulary relied mostly on roman disunity to secure their western border then on their own might one constant concern of the sassanid foreigh policy was always not to give the romans an excuse to forget their internal rivalerys and unite against 1 single enemy

along other reasons being that romans where richer and had greater manpower then the sassanids themselfs thus the reason why they had to create heavy infantry to defend their cities if they ever went to war with rome as they did quite a few times and everytime they got cornered they knew they where screwed since cavalry without mobility ...

also for the easterns their greatest source of income was trade and trade altough it means high tax revenue it´s also incostant and in case of war they couldn´t sell to the romans and their 400 million citizens market

also the romans homogeneized their population for the most part due to their constant urbanization plans while the sassanids still had alot of heterogenity so they needed the cash either to bribe off local rulers into staying in line or to pay their soldiers to keep those less homogenous people in line

my bias is relative there´s civilizations i like more others i like less the easterns are not particulary less liked by me actually the achemid empire or the hitite empire are 2 of my favourites one for what they created the other for the misteries it still contains

i can read more of your drive by the way you make some statements then whatever piece of information you think you know about me you gave an emotional reply i gave you the facts

rome was the father of the western civilization kaiser emperor or czar are all the same cesar the 1st emperor even tough the world emperor already existed as the military leader of a region after him it became the byword for political leader of diferent people/nations under 1 ruler

as for in 700 years no good roman general as i stated earlyer if you had bothered to read what i said instead of just skimming it feeling enraged and replying in an overly emotional way roman leadership problem was keeping their status and so they couldn´t afford to spend 10 years away from rome (demagogy sucks but it´s highly effective to get rid of your political enemies ) and as you can check both times the romans went on the offenssive against the "easterners" where they burned down ecbatana it was always a blitz campaign and the loot those generals made had to be used then to apease their population and political adversaries so they could regain their status

thus as what i said earlyer had a true war broken out and the sassanids would have had 3-5 generals leading armies into sassanid lands and a multi pronged attack against the sassanids would have put them to panic since the sassanids couldn´t afford to split their forces or else the brother of the king or the nephew could decide he would be a better ruller then the current ruller (another side effect of carrhae )

basically the sassanids where weak defenders and strong on the offenssive