[Army Composition] What are the iconic/typical armies for each faction?

[QuintusSertorius]

I thought this might be an interesting exercise to engage people on. I note the various previews have told us about the units each faction has, but hasn’t said anything about how a typical army would be made up. For some of the factions that were in EB1, we already know (or have a good idea) what they should look like, but for the new ones in particular I haven’t seen anyone suggest what they should be like.

So here’s the rules: you have 14 slots (ie not a full 20-unit stack, that’s boring) to fill building a historically-accurate/typical army for any faction you choose (maximum 2 Family Members). If you’ve got actual sources to draw upon, even better. I recognise there will be new units we haven’t even seen yet, but go with what we do know, or suggest things that should be. If you have evidence how they should be deployed (again historically, rather than the best way to exploit the AI’s weaknesses) share that too.

[maurel]

Romani, camilian:

2 leves (skirmirshers)
4 units of hastati
3 units of principle
2 units of Triarii
1 Unit of Rorarii
1 Equites ( The second consul)
1-Legatus (The consul in command of the army)

The skirmirshers will be at the front of the army "skirmirhing" until the army is in position, the infantry will form a double acces with the Hastati in the front and the Principle in the second line the hastati will charge and after some battle will retreat to the back of the principles that will try to decide the battle, the triarii will be at the back of the army and will form a phalanx after the retreat of the 2 first lines. The Equites willl be at the wing of the army and the Legatus at the oposite flank. The legatus have a tendency of been defensive and the Equites ofensive. and at last: The rorarii will be a fresh reserve at the back of the Triarii and will try to close any gap in the Triarii lines.

[Wulfburk]

Romani: 1 family member, 2 hastati, 2 principe, 2 triarii, 2 slinger, 4 allied maniples, 1 allied cavalry. (for a 20 unit army enlarge the allied part, 2 velites and 1 romani cavalry, keeping the roman maniple the regular size).

At least that was what i used in EB1. Dont have any sources, but i do remember reading alot of posts that said that such a composition would be the most historical accurate in the EB1 forum. Since the allied portion of the roman allied was slightly bigger than the actual roman troops.

A-H-H-A ................A: allied maniple (in game italian -and eventual celtic infantry mercenaries)
S-A-P-P-A-S ...........H: Hastati, P: Principe, T: Triarii, S: Slinger, C: Cavalry, F: Family member.
C-T-T- F

Used that formation across the whole EB1 camillian and polybian era of my Romani campaign. Roman units supposed to guard the centre with the allied units on the flanks. Though i didnt use it because it was good against the AI, such a formation was great to play with. Most of my campaigns in all the TW games i usually just stretch the line as far as i can, but playing in such a tight formation proved quite handy. You can do some crazy manouvers with that, specially if the AI goes on a 20 unit army with just 1 stretched line.

[maurel]

WEAKNESS OF THE ROMANI CAMILIAN LEGIONS: Romans have a lack of spearman (atleast at my observation) the Triarii are very powerfull but also in small numbers, they also lack a good number of Cav. A large number of good quality Cav could exploit this and cause heavy damange at the roman forcers.

Hannibal exploited this in the battle of Cannae, he used his cav to obliterate the roman cav in both flanks and later this cav charged at the roman rearguard.

If you are a romani and are fighting against a enemy with a lot of Cav, i suggest that you turn to auxiliary units, try to recruit spearman, heavy/medium cav and hoplites.

[QuintusSertorius]

Romani: 1 family member, 2 hastati, 2 principe, 2 triarii, 2 slinger, 4 allied maniples, 1 allied cavalry. (for a 20 unit army enlarge the allied part, 2 velites and 1 romani cavalry, keeping the roman maniple the regular size).

At least that was what i used in EB1. Dont have any sources, but i do remember reading alot of posts that said that such a composition would be the most historical accurate in the EB1 forum. Since the allied portion of the roman allied was slightly bigger than the actual roman troops.

I agree that's a more accurate composition than one comprised entirely of Romans. You could do a lot of interesting things with those 4 "allied" units, with some Samnites, Bruttians, Lucanians, Greeks and Celts mixed to taste.

I'd change one of the slingers for Leves/Velites though, and if you hadn't halved the size of a Triarii unit, switch one for hoplites (expanding the allied element still further).

[Sint]

Romani: 1 family member, 2 hastati, 2 principe, 2 triarii, 2 slinger, 4 allied maniples, 1 allied cavalry. (for a 20 unit army enlarge the allied part, 2 velites and 1 romani cavalry, keeping the roman maniple the regular size).

At least that was what i used in EB1. Dont have any sources, but i do remember reading alot of posts that said that such a composition would be the most historical accurate in the EB1 forum. Since the allied portion of the roman allied was slightly bigger than the actual roman troops.

I usually use :1 General 2 Hastati,2 Principes,1 Triarii,1 Slinger,1 Skirmisher(javelins),1 Unit of Roman cavalry. + 4 Allied troops,1 Hoplite ,1 Skirmisher,1 unit either slinger or archer,1 Unit allied cavalry.
----Well 17 units...but I guess I could only use the roman Legion.
And then usually 1 unit Pedites Extraordinarii and/or Eqvites Extraordinarii + a mercenary unit mostly Cretan Archers.
-----

Sweboz army :
1 General ,5 Dugunthiz ,4 Slaganz ,3 Jugundiz, 1 Ridanz or later Marhathegnoz .
-----
Baktrian army :
1 General,2 Pezhetairoi,3 Klerouchoi Phalangitai,2 Thorakitai or Thureophoroi, 2 Baktrioi Hippeis,1 Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi,2 Archers,1 Peltastai Makedonikoi or Baktrion Agema.

[QuintusSertorius]

Baktrian army :
1 General,2 Pezhetairoi,3 Klerouchoi Phalangitai,2 Thorakitai or Thureophoroi, 2 Baktrioi Hippeis,1 Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi,2 Archers,1 Peltastai Makedonikoi or Baktrion Agema.

Interesting. I know the Baktrians fielded more cavalry than the Seleukids. They don't seem to go in much for local troops, besides cavalry. Were the archers likely to be locals?

[Wulfburk]

And then usually 1 unit Pedites Extraordinarii and/or Eqvites Extraordinarii + a mercenary unit mostly Cretan Archers.

Ah yes i forgot about the pedites extraordinarii, that unit is a must!

[Moros]

The Nabataeans (early period) would fight with light infantry, camelry and light cavalry. They would ride on camel and horseback and would try to use the desert as a weapon first. Knowing their way around, being used to desert life and having access to water in hidden cisterns they'd outlast most enemies. However if the enemy would need to be dealt with ambushes and hit and run tactics would be quite typical. We also know of a stealthy night assault where the Nabataeans took revenge on a Makedonian camp (312/311 BC) after they had attacked and looted defenceless women, children and the elderly at Selah.

Due to the climate, tactics and lack of resources in the desert, they were lightly armoured. Most men would be armed with spears and bucklers, some with shortswords or axes. Due to the lack of armour it is likely that archery became much used, though Persian and Mesopotamian influence would be important as well. They were quick to adopt the recurve bow as a result of it. The cavalry and especially the camelry could be numerous, they would however be mainly missile units. Javelins but especially the recurve bow would be most popular. However some cavalry was also capable of performing charges. Prolonged melee however would be a bad idea in most cases.

Anyway a possible Nabataean army for the first release could be:
General (=lancers), Nabataean lancers, 3 Nabataean Horse archers, 2 units of archers/slingers, 2 units of shortswordsmen, 6 units of spearmen.

If more units are added later:
General, Nabataean lancers, 2 Nabataean Horse archers, 4 camel archers, 2 units of archers/slingers, 2 units of shortwsordsmen, 2 units of axemen, 5 units of spearmen.


The Sabaean and south Arabian armies could vary largely depending on situation and who was conducting the war. The army could have been a royal army, with royal regiments (Khamis), could be tribal, could be an emergency army of citizens or could be and probably often was a mash of them. The royal army probably was pretty uniform in their basic equipment. They were expected to be both good at melee and archery and were trained as scouts as well. However when needed special task groups were formed and if the task required it could be armed differently. Standard arms would have been bow, spear and dagger. Though swords, especially later, could have been carried as well. Tribal armies could vary the leaders of the tribe(s) were either mounted on horseback in very small unit (especially later) but most of the time capatained their own levies. These would exist out of 'warriors' and troops of freemen from the clan, allied clans or subject clans and the unfree. In how much the warriors were better equipped and how they were equipped isn't really clear. But they certainly played a heavier role on the battlefield and responsible for holding lines or breaking/surrounding enemy lines. The free and unfree would exist mostly out of missile infantry and/or light support troops.

The Sabaeans and their neighbours also made a big use of mercenaries mostly bedouins or Ethiopians, while the former had a bad reputation, the latter were always appreciated. Typically South Arabian armies were very archer heavy and very cavalry poor. Due to the light armour of the average soldier, especially when facing nomads, missiles were effective. Rugged terrain and a lack of horses made them cavalry poor. Even in the early centuries AD cavalrymen usually numbered less then 50 and rarely exceeded the 100 mark. Their bows and many spears however help them overcome their cavalry richer neighbours from (mostly) the North.

A possible Sabaean army for our first release:
General (heavy archer-longswordsmen), 5 khamis (medium archer-spearmen), 1 Nobles (heavy archer-spearmen), 4 qadub (levied, unarmoured spearmen), 4 archers, 2 ethiopian spearmen.

[Samraat Mahendra Maurya]

HMMM, nice info there, any one got anything on the celys or the Diaodakhoi?

For the polybian Romani, i use

4 Hastati
4 Principes
4 Triarii
2 Velites
2 Eqvites
1 Eqvites Consvlares

in the triplex acies formation.

Is this historically accurate?

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Good

[Samraat Mahendra Maurya]

Anyone got anything on the celts in the time of bondsmen?

[QuintusSertorius]

HMMM, nice info there, any one got anything on the celys or the Diaodakhoi?

For the polybian Romani, i use

4 Hastati
4 Principes
4 Triarii
2 Velites
2 Eqvites
1 Eqvites Consvlares

in the triplex acies formation.

Is this historically accurate?

No, because it's all Roman with no allies. Halve the number of Romans (and in any case that's twice as many Triarii as you should have, unless you've halved the size of the unit) and replace with Greeks, Bruttians, Campanians, Lucanians, Samnites and Celts, mixed to taste across the various roles/lines.

[Funeh]

When you play roman tactics (retreating the first lines of infantry), will you use it in MTW2 engine? Because I think when you retreat fighting infantry they retreat so slowly and lose many many units..

[Vexillifer]

When you play roman tactics (retreating the first lines of infantry), will you use it in MTW2 engine? Because I think when you retreat fighting infantry they retreat so slowly and lose many many units..

In M2TW it is not possible to withdraw a unit from a combat without making it suffer heavy casualties, because when the units retreat they won't defend themselves. In reality they could go backward protecting themselves with their shields, but in the game they can't disengage so easily (yes, it is sad, I would have loved to see the three lines of legionaries fighting one after the other).

I remember a threa with a similar discussion, someone suggested to change the animations but I don't think it would be enough since you would have to add a specific command for the unit.

[Samraat Mahendra Maurya]

Hmm, very good.

For Diadakhoi factions I usually use this format

-1 Somatophylakes Strategou
-9 Phalangitai (4 Medium Phalanx 2 Heavy Phalanx 3 Levy Phalanx)
-2 Peltastai/Thuerophoroi
-1 Hoplitai + 1 AOR/1 Thorakitai + 1 AOR
-2 Toxotai + 1 Sphedonetai
-1 Lancer Cav/1 Missile Cav
-1 Special Unit (e.g. Elephants, Chariots, Horse Archers or Heavy Specialist Cavalry)

E.G. For the Selukidai i would do this

1 General - G
4 Kleroukhoi Phalangitai 2 Argyraspidai Phalangitai 3 Phalangitai Dueteroi (KP AP DP respectively)
2 Theuerophoroi (Th)
1 Thorakitai + 1 Galatikoi Kuarathoroi (T GK respectively)
2 Misthorphoroi Kretikoi Toxotai + Misthorphoroi Rhodio Sphedonetai ( KT RP respectively)
1 Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi + 1 Hetaroi Asphidophoroi (K A Respectively)
1 Harmata Drephanephora (HD)

Th..kp..kp..kp..kp..ap..ap..dp..dp..dp..Th
T..............KT..KT..RP......................GK
__________________________________G___k..a..HD

Can someone please corret me if i stand wrong.

[RubiconDecision]

In M2TW it is not possible to withdraw a unit from a combat without making it suffer heavy casualties, because when the units retreat they won't defend themselves. In reality they could go backward protecting themselves with their shields, but in the game they can't disengage so easily (yes, it is sad, I would have loved to see the three lines of legionaries fighting one after the other).

I remember a threa with a similar discussion, someone suggested to change the animations but I don't think it would be enough since you would have to add a specific command for the unit.

Instead of the tired first line of Romans (probably Hastati) retreating, you press with a stronger rested unit forward, and that micromanagement means that the stronger unit ends up in front of the tired first line. Then I usually pressed with my third line(Triarii) at some point to offer relief to the second line. Instead of attacking, most units have a stronger defensive value, and pressing forward results in them defending and utilizing that better fighting attribute...that is unless they get a charge bonus.

Do a pin or flanking maneuver with this and you over run the enemy. I'm not big on thin front lines of brute strength as butting heads with the enemy can make your forces buckle if evenly matched. Stacking one line three deep and forcing forward buckles the enemy line and then rolls up the carpet. The problem with a less wide formation is the enemy will try to surround you if you're matched in numbers. Leaving intentional gaps means more surface area for soldiers to fight the enemy, and the AI always moves into the gaps which is foolish.

I'd almost always use slingers as their range is great for harassment but Roman slingers aren't so great versus others like the Gauls. Were the Gaul head tossers really historical? Their ability to break formations is pretty powerful.
(first to rout last to rout)
enemy enemy enemy enemy
Hastati Hastai Hastati Hastati
Principes
Triarii

This breaks this leftmost part of the enemy line. They waver and rout. The left-most can sweep to the right and then make the enemy rout along that side. Any cavalry is timed to come along-side or behind the enemy units as they're wavering. The enemy panics with their rear exposed and this makes routing even easier. It's a Clausewitz tactic.

EDIT:
http://dedefense.blogspot.com/2014/0...caesar-vs.html
"Under standard deployment, Roman legions were formed in a triple line. The first line would have 2400 men, standing in 4 cohorts, 10 ranks deep. The second and third lines would each have 1800 men. The first rank of the legion would extend about 720 feet whereas a triple line of battle might extend a mile or a mile and a half long. The Roman soldiers in each battle line stood about three feet apart each way. As the first line went into action the second followed closely behind; as the men of the first fell or withdrew exhausted, those of the second pressed forward and took their places; in case of need the third line advanced and in like manner relieved the combined first and second."

[QuintusSertorius]

Hmm, very good.

For Diadakhoi factions I usually use this format

-1 Somatophylakes Strategou
-9 Phalangitai (4 Medium Phalanx 2 Heavy Phalanx 3 Levy Phalanx)
-2 Peltastai/Thuerophoroi
-1 Hoplitai + 1 AOR/1 Thorakitai + 1 AOR
-2 Toxotai + 1 Sphedonetai
-1 Lancer Cav/1 Missile Cav
-1 Special Unit (e.g. Elephants, Chariots, Horse Archers or Heavy Specialist Cavalry)

E.G. For the Selukidai i would do this

1 General - G
4 Kleroukhoi Phalangitai 2 Argyraspidai Phalangitai 3 Phalangitai Dueteroi (KP AP DP respectively)
2 Theuerophoroi (Th)
1 Thorakitai + 1 Galatikoi Kuarathoroi (T GK respectively)
2 Misthorphoroi Kretikoi Toxotai + Misthorphoroi Rhodio Sphedonetai ( KT RP respectively)
1 Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi + 1 Hetaroi Asphidophoroi (K A Respectively)
1 Harmata Drephanephora (HD)

Th..kp..kp..kp..kp..ap..ap..dp..dp..dp..Th
T..............KT..KT..RP......................GK
__________________________________G___k..a..HD

Can someone please corret me if i stand wrong.

The brief was a 3/4 stack, not a full stack, so both have too many units in them. As before, I've always found (on M/M) if you use a full stack the AI avoids you most of the time, and besides which it's too easy to win.

You shouldn't really be using Thorakitai until much later on - and then as a replacement for Thureophoroi.

Two Toxotai is probably too many, replace one of them with Akontistai for a proper mix of psiloi. For a richer Successor army, replace the remaining Toxotai with Kretans.

Not enough cavalry, probably needs one or two more units. The Successors had a fair bit to draw on (the Seleukids moreso than anyone else).