Why Equites? Are you so desperate?

Besides, my armies tend to consist of 4 onagers and 4 archers. They will slaughter this.

[This message has been edited by Firefox (edited 02-03-2005 @ 07:50 AM).]

equites, becuase the cavalry are only there to lure the enemy, and oter cav will cost more. Its the infantry that win the battle in that tactic, and yes, it wont work all the time, but hey.. Generals dont go into battle knowing what there strategy will be untill thye see the enemy, so chances are they wouldnt use that tactic in the wrong circumstances, but it works in the right ones.

The thing is, most online players have at least 1 siege weapon and two archers.

Callisto,

You hit on the number one reason I don't play online: no clue what the other side is bringing makes it a despicable guessing game. That's totally unrealistic. You should at least know what civ they are playing, and real life generals had scouts and spies. Setting up a battle plan without knowing anything about the enemy is a recipe for disaster. There should be some information available. Maybe they could allow you to pay a small amount of your budget for "military intelligence" to help prevent mass slaughters through sheer luck.

and that is why balanced armies ownz.

Yes Agricola, balanced army "owns".

If you've read many of my earlier posts you would know that I believe that. But I think you missed my point that it is neither fair nor fun to face other people who will play in ridiculous ways like buying 20 wardog units. Yes, a balanced army could beat them, but it's just silly.

firefox: onagers and archers are owned by cataphracts, actually any cavalry. You wouldn't have much money to field units that repell it and still have your onagers and archers.

The onagers wont be able to hit the cav as they move to fast and their defense is rublish. Onagers cant even hit an elephant!!!

The archers wont have much effect before the cavalry hit them.

Onagers and archers only work if you field supporting troops and in a 10,000 denari game you wont have the money for the supporting troops.

There are actually many strats balanced armies can't beat. 20 Pharoan archers or Chosen archers, for one. 20 units of Persian cavalry, etc.

You do get to see which faction your enemy is playing and you can guess what kind of units they will be using. Of course you can guess wrong and they do something silly like getting 20 war dogs, but generally speaking if I see Cheesewiz selected Macedonians chances are he'll have 6 Royal Spearmen, 5 Cretans and 4 Companions.

I supose it also depends on who you are playing against, though. Random people can take very silly armies, but in forum parties most people tend to select balanced armies, though we see an all-cavalry Scythian/Pathian army from time to time.

To return to the original topic:

I tend not to play Romans very often. I'd always pick a 1st Legionary Cohort, then proboably a few more Legionary/Praetorian/Urban Cohorts, some archers, some Legionary/Praetorian Cavalry, some Auxilia and perhaps an onager. If I'm doing a siege I might get a unit of gladiators as well.

The term "balanced army" is the most loaded term in RTW. When the term is mentioned, people think of:

- an army that can handle multiple situations
- an army that consists of multiple types of units
- an army with combinations of units that make the army more than the sum of its parts (my definition)
- an army that that is not abusive in gameplay terms
- an army that good against more than one type of opposition, not necessarily good in all situations
- an army that is balanced between cost and power (ie flexible in games with variable amounts of denarii)

There is no such thing as an army that can satisfy all of the above conditions. I personally don't find balanced armies to be the best. In fact, as long as the strength of my army is greater than the enemy's, and/or my weakness harder to exploit, then I win. If 20 wardogs works for you, fine.

This is my Parthian army for a 10k game, if you're interested (before patch, so if prices changed, just adjest a little bit):

- 2 cataphract camels (1900)
- 4 cataphracts (3560)
- 4 horse archers (1760)
- 1 persian cavalry (780)
- 4 slingers (600)
- 2 archers (380)
- 3 Eastern infantry (990)
(leaves 30 denarii for upgrades)

The obvious weakness of this army to the observed eye is the lack of melee units (or in Ace_Cataphract's terms, a "woman's army"). It can also get trashed by mass archer armies and siege engine armies. But it has a strength - deal a lot of punishment in multitudes of ways. This, the opponant has to deal with. So far, I haven't lost with it online before precisely because this army is UN-balanced.

Old Celt, sorry for the internet slang, but it's the best way i thought of to put it.

I mean if oyu knew wht the enemy had you would change your army to suit it. Then the enemy would change and it would go on forever.

And (sorry) your analogy of the enemy/spies thing isn't quite correct, in this you can adapt and chane if you know the enemy, but even if you knew the enemy army's layout, your army wouldn't really be able to change that much.

Sylvanllewelyn: this is for 10,000 denari. You said 4 cataphracts at over 3000 denari. With these alone you have run out of money!

I have added your army up and it comes to 30,220???!!!

Are you sure it is the right army?

Maybe you got the cost wrong???

[This message has been edited by Lasha (edited 02-03-2005 @ 03:29 PM).]

i think he matn 4 cataphract units would come to 3200, not a single unit o' catas for 3200.

Yes, I meant the total cost of having 4 cataphracts.

Anyway, I was just trying to suggest that a good army doesn't necessarily mean a balanced one that's all.

As Parthia, even with low-money armies, I have been able to dominate everything with just two types of units: Persians and Camel Catas. The only adjustments I ever have to make are changing the unit mix depending on my opponent. Or example, if I'm fighting a phalanx-based enemy, I'll use more Persians. If I'm fighting an army like Armenia, which is usually mostly Cataphracts, I'll use more Camels. It also depends on if it's 1v1 or a multiplayer match. If it's just me and my opponent, he'll know im Parthia and adjust accordingly. Problem is, Parthia can usually beat him anyways. If he goes massive archers, my Persians will beat him in Cantabrian Circle. If he goes massive cavalry, a lesser number of camels can rout a greater number of normal horse cavalry.

So my basic point in all this is that Parthia is awesome, even with low money armies.

Quote:

You already have a fairly good idea of what the enemy is using by seeing what civ he is using. Plus, when the enemy adds units, the same number is added to the "total number of units on battlefield" on the top right corner. For example, on large unit size, if you see that the number jumped by 54 without any action on your part, you know that he has added a cavalry unit.

Quote:

This army:
Macedonians - 4x onagers (830x4 gold), 4x Cretans (550x4 gold), 6x phalanx pikemen (580x6 gold), 3 Greek cavalry (330x3)
Total: 9990 gold

Romans - 8 Praetorian/Urban cohorts (810/860x8), 2 Roman archers (190x2), 4 equites (390x4)
Total: Approx 9000 gold, allow for upgrades

Put 2 phalanx facing front and 1 phalanx on each flank facing sideways in a quasi V-formation. Remaining two phalanx face behind directly after the two frontal phalanx and turn if necessary. Onagers are defended by phalanx from the front. Greek cavalry at either the rear or all 3 on one flank. Cretan archers directly in front of the phalanxes, with the last rank almost touching the pikemen, defended by their long spears.

Not the best representation - the actual formation is far more compact - but it gives a basic idea.

-------CCCC
------P-P-P-P---GGG
--------P-P
-------OOOO

His equites are intended as lures, but this lineup will force him to move his whole army. I WILL win an archer duel. If he charges at my Cretans, the Cretans, protected by phalanx, will win. If he tries to flank me, I can rotate my phalanx. My onagers may rout, but I'll still have missile superiority. If he moves his urbans to attack, I can damage them with ranged attacks, and even phalanx pikemen can hold off urbans for a long time. Any surviving Greek cav can be used to surround the Urbans, as can any phalanx that aren't engaged. If my Cretan archers are still alive, they can offer fire support or even charge into the fray - even with the new patch, they still have respectable melee strength.

The most threatening enemies of this formation are all cav, all archer, and 4+ onager armies. But this enemy isn't.

[This message has been edited by Firefox (edited 02-03-2005 @ 11:10 PM).]

Firefox:
cataphracts and persian cavalry would finish that set up.

You leave the persians a way away and bring thecatas in front. Split the catas and dart them around you. you say you have 6 phalanx (sp.), well you can field 7 cataphracts with plenty to spare - they are only 890 or abouts - for the persians.

You would split the catas seven ways. Your phalanx couldn't block all my catas, then when an opertunity arises I would charge the onagers. Your archers would be firing at me, but would have little effect and you couldn't fire at all my catas. I would let you waste your ammo on a few of my catas, and i might lose them, but wikth no missiles all you are left with are some phalanxs that cant hurt me, crappy melee archers and rubish cav. I would charge your cav and bring my persians forward to attacke your phalanxs. You would have to do something and there will be a point where you would have to try and attack me. A this point I would attack with 3 catas (even if your archers wasted four there would still be these left) and attack from all sides. The one your pikemen face will be pulled backand the others would be let rip. Repeat this over and over. Even if there I didn't have persians there would be no way for you to beat me. You might draw, but it would never beat me.

I mean you might have an excellent strategy to beat me, and as i haven't played you it is possible, nut it is very unlikely.

Defeating the romans is just as easy. The only adjustment would be to have more persians and less catas.

[This message has been edited by Lasha (edited 02-04-2005 @ 02:36 PM).]

On low budget battles I could easily beat a Persian Cavalry & Camel Cataphract army with a bunch of hoplites. If you don't belive me we can try it out during the forum party tommorow (the one at 5 pm GMT).

Basicly, I look at the Faction and decipher its weakness's and counter that with my army selection. EG' Roman Jullii, Vs Britania.

If it is a low budget army, I will pick about 4 or 5 units of aux archers, as britons have poor armour, and 6 units of cohorts
__ __ __ __ __
/ \

Like that, cos the britons will get round my flanks with there huge armys, I put my archers behind my frontline, and support troops behind them to counter flank attacks, with my cav trying to divert them and attack when nessesary.

If that made sense, good, if it didnt, I am not very typative at the mo, I am off for the campaign now.

I hope you mean you can beat Persians/Catas with a hoplite+archer army.......even then, you lose. Persians rip apart phalanxes and annihilate normal archers, even Cretans.

Quote:

This setup is for 10000 gold. Besides, its main purpose was to show how weak Callisto's lineup is. If you are using Parthia, I would most certainly not use a civ lacking in cavalry; in fact I would actually go for 3 armoured elephants or a large number of camels.

It is the kind of setup I would use against a Roman, who has no phalanxes and weak ranged cavalry, and who is extremely vulnerable to onagers.

[This message has been edited by Firefox (edited 02-04-2005 @ 10:02 PM).]

Phalanx pikemen. Fairly cheap upkeep, 60 units/120 units instead of 40 units/80 units, awesome phalanx and sword attacks, good armor, good movement, good morale, etc.

I love them to pieces.

Also, Scythed Chariots are good versus all calvary, and slaughter most other chariots, and have a fairly basic upkeep/purchase cost. All you need is a blacksmith.

In a desert Numidia isn't bad, if you know how to play them, which, unfortuanatly, I don't. Cheap units and good morale

Numidia doesn't even have to be in desert, in all non-snow terrain they do well on low budget thanks to the l33t desert infantry.

Mainly holpites, perhaps two units of normal archers, but hoplites will win the day. I once lost to a Greek army composed mainly of hoplites with a Persian/Camel combo. It was a 5k game and the other guy had lots of arrow fodder militia hoplites. I ran out of arrows before I could weaken them enough to take them on.