Faction strengths?

[Grade_A_Beef]

But yeah, what do you expect with Pahlava? Weak line! Are you picturing a line full of hoplites?

Na, I wasn't picturing that at all. I just expected a breath of fresh air. I'm sure others have pointed it out, but fighting in the nomad style gets repetitive way faster than other styles...

[vartan]

Na, I wasn't picturing that at all. I just expected a breath of fresh air. I'm sure others have pointed it out, but fighting in the nomad style gets repetitive way faster than other styles...

Subjective much? I think they all become repetitive faster than you can say...

[Grade_A_Beef]

Subjective much? I think they all become repetitive faster than you can say...

Yeah, I am somewhat biased. Then again it's just that the nomad style plays the same way against every other style. Wipe out enemy cavalry, followed by missile troops, then withdraw when out of ammo. With other armies like a Celtic one there are foes to avoid (phalangites) charging at and foes that you can almost run over in one charge (Non Luso barb factions and occasionally the romans and those of carthage.)

[ARCHIPPOS]

In terms of tactics nomads are light years ahead of "civilized" mellee-infantry based factions ... i mean the nomads incorporate notions of firepower, high mobility, manouveuring/fluidity in their gameplay. Also they have an ultra-heavy cavalry branch with which they can storm the weakest parts of the enemy battleline and disengage and withdraw at will (kinda like tank warfare) . With small misleadingly few numbers of troops they can annihilate entire enemey fullstacks (with minimal losses) . In my view nomad warfare is very "modern" ...

[seienchin]

In terms of tactics nomads are light years ahead of "civilized" mellee-infantry based factions ... i mean the nomads incorporate notions of firepower, high mobility, manouveuring/fluidity in their gameplay. Also they have an ultra-heavy cavalry branch with which they can storm the weakest parts of the enemy battleline and disengage and withdraw at will (kinda like tank warfare) . With small misleadingly few numbers of troops they can annihilate entire enemey fullstacks (with minimal losses) . In my view nomad warfare is very "modern" ...

What?
You must be talking about the mongols. Yes they were very modern and killed everybody. The fact, that the nomads in the antics didnt play an too important role until the dark ages shows, that their tactics werent as superior.
I know the pahlva once were nomads and I also know that the sakken destroyed baktria, but look at the circumsances and on the development of the parthian forces.

[athanaric]

I, too, think that's too much of a general statement. There are a lot of other facets we must look at:

- Civilized armies in history and in EB have access to Katapeltai/Scorpiones, which outrange any Nomad unit. Slingers can also be utilized to counter heavy HAs of the period.

- Hellenic and Roman soldiers are quite resilient to arrow fire, especially Hoplites, Legionaries, and the upper tiers of Pikemen. History shows us that arrows alone were not enough to defeat an army in the EB time period.

- Nomadic factions become weaker as the distance between enemy fortifications lessens, not least due to their chronical weakness in terms of siege warfare (with the partial exception of the Pahlavân, who adapted).

- Alexander the Great managed to defeat a Nomad army upon first contact.

[ARCHIPPOS]

Athanaric all those things you mentioned are very true :)
Still there's no denying that if properly used a nomad army is a terrible irresistible force. Just look at Darius' defeat by the Scythians, the battle of Carrhae, The Mongolian expansion and so on ... strategically and tactically the nomads have the edge of higher mobility (=guerilla warfare)

[vartan]

In terms of tactics nomads are light years ahead of "civilized" mellee-infantry based factions ... i mean the nomads incorporate notions of firepower, high mobility, manouveuring/fluidity in their gameplay. Also they have an ultra-heavy cavalry branch with which they can storm the weakest parts of the enemy battleline and disengage and withdraw at will (kinda like tank warfare) . With small misleadingly few numbers of troops they can annihilate entire enemey fullstacks (with minimal losses) . In my view nomad warfare is very "modern" ...

Absolute best post in whole thread.

For you, deserving one. I'm humbled.

[seienchin]

Absolute best post in whole thread.

For you, deserving one. I'm humbled.

For generalizing something that only works in EB on history itself?

Comparing mongol kind of warfare to the nomads in EB is really far stretched.
And also the mongols failed using there Horsemen in south china or against japan and couldnt deal with korean partisans.

[Apázlinemjó]

For generalizing something that only works in EB on history itself?

Comparing mongol kind of warfare to the nomads in EB is really far stretched.
And also the mongols failed using there Horsemen in south china or against japan and couldnt deal with korean partisans.

And the stone fortifications and the regular armies of the Modern ages.

[JinandJuice]

And also the mongols failed using there Horsemen in south china or against japan and couldnt deal with korean partisans.

As far as I know, the Mongolians had relative trouble with the Chinese because 1. They can field armies as quickly as the Mongolians can kill them, and 2. They would turtle up behind walled cities, which the Mongolians would have to get POWs to assault. Their discovery of siege weapons certainly helped though.

For Japan, monsoons and bad weather destroyed both their invasion fleets. Bad luck, I guess, or some divine intervention. Who knows.

I don't remember the resistance of Korea much. Explanation?