1. The 15-20 infantry cohorts quadrangular box
Since there is no max infantry limit with Civilized factions then a player can just buy a 15-20 infantry cohorts and position them all in a huge quadrangular box, and then just go away to cook a meal or clean the apartment, so when the player comes back then he has won regardless of that what the opponent had done with his units or the time spent in thinking out some strategy as a countermeasure. This applies especially if the opponent is using some western infantry factions.
It should be noted that in reality did the Roman army consist one third by an auxilary/native units from the war-zone in question, where the romans units were mostly outnumbered by the opponent but did still manage to win through their superior discipline and equipment, so how more does it say about the outcome in Eb online battles when the Romans have more units? I don‘t neccesarily think that the Roman faction is overpowered but its main problem lies rather in the players themselves who get too many legionary cohorts, so in order to counterbalance this then it should be made rules that the melee infantry of post-marian Roman army must always be 1/3 non-Roman units and in regard to Polybyan era then the Italian units are also included with the auxilia, so this should make it fair for the opponents in a similar way like there is a max limit to phalanx untits (about 8). Also since Steppe armies must have a minimum 4-8 infantry then the similar thing should apply about a Civilized armies where they must have a minimum about 4-6 non-infantry units which consist of cavalry/archers.
2. Making use of Roman or Phalanx factions with a huge settting against different factions.
Each legionary cohort is about 100 men on large while a phalanx unit is about 120 men, while the better sort of infantry units with a western factions do consist of about 80 men each. So since on huge setting this number is doubled then it makes the Romans and Phalanx armies simply outnumber the opponent even more.
For an example then lets say I have about 12 Iberian medium spearmen with Lusotana which makes them about 960 men on large and 1920 on huge setting, while the Romans have about 1200 men on large and 2400 on huge, while the phalanx army has about 960 on large and 1920 on huge with the addition of 4 other infantry units (since phalanx unit are max 8). So on large do Romans outnumber mine Luso units with 240 men which are similar to a two and half extra Roman units or a 3 extra Iberian medium spearmen units, while on huge setting this number gets bigger when it is about 480 men which are in real the same number of units but look rather upon it how the Roman lines get even more outstretched with their ranks maybe about 4-6 men deep each, where the similar thing can apply about the phalanx units how they get more wider in outnumbering the enemy. It is already too time-consuming to kill phalanx units from the sides or rear with ones own mobile infantry while ones own units tend to lose morale much sooner than the phalanx units, so on huge setting this disadvantage is increased even further for ones own western infantry.
3. The Magic button feature:
You can just buy a lot of cheap hoplites about 1300 minaii and put them on guard mode (but this can also apply about a legionary cohorts which are stacked together in a giant box), so regardless of that how powerfull and expensive infantry the opponent uses (excluding elites/shock) with a western faction then those heavy infantry will either way be killed or delayed so long by those cheap enemy units that it will recoil upon the opponents strategy in whole.
I played two battles with one Roman player, and I have noticed that when I had a guard mode on and did not attack with mine Neitos but the other player attacked with his cohorts then mine infantry won the battle, while in the latter battle when the situation was reversed then the Roman player won with his infantry. This guard mode thing is really a stupid device to acquire a victory when the player which attacks by pointing upon enemy infantry does always lose, so I think it does recoil upon people playing fair and enjoying the game. Since guard mode can't be removed from the game then I suggest that all players are forbidden to use it, so there is appealed to the players conscience and honesty in doing it in a conditionless way.
To make this hypothetical: Lets say that it would historically have happenend that a huge army of Gallic Neitos were about to engage with some lame Hoplite units, then the hellenic general would not know what to do because he would know that his men were inferior both in attack and defense to the Gauls, but then he would all of a sudden get an idea to push some magic button that would make all his men lot better than the gauls through some positive thinking alone, like that the same men had hitherto not already been doing all the best they could done in regard to their physical stamina and skills. Conclusion: Why does the guard mode button exist at all? Can‘t people just fight with one personality each and one body each, instead of having some alternate mode to switch on and off?
In regard to these issues then there is simply just manipulated with the game engine rather than by applying a fluid strategy, like it has nothing to do with any merit or effort in developing as proper strategy, because the battle is mostly just already decided by some irrelevant factors. Many people talk about having the system historically correct, but it can also be said that it should be realistically correct like the same natural laws would apply about the modern man in being in the same position. The main aim of all rules is to create a fair basis for all the people involved, so instead of gazing upon some petty factors about the surface or minor issues then it should be kept to the spirit of the rules by means of that how the player himself must be considerate toward his opponent and give him at least some decent chance of defeating the player with his available units of balanced army. For is it the purpose with this strategy game to be both entertaining and educational, where it should encourage players to be constantly testing out new tactics and formations regardless of the result of some single battles, while it is a rather petty thing to be always choosing again and again the overly safe way while never learning anything from such victories, while I believe that you can often learn more from own defeats. Although this knowledge has been aquired through a battles with other players then it is still not meant to be some personal attack against them or that I am attempting to defend mine own defeats and shortcomings, but the purpose of this article is rather to point to these enumerated factors in an objective way and create a fair basis for all players to simply enjoy the game.
Bookmarks