Close Quarters Battles (The ultimate strategy guide!)

[Frederich Barbarossa]

The CQB Roman Guide


Table of Contents

Vol I. Introducing close quarters battles

I. Introduction by the writer
II. Close Quarters Battles
III. Terrain
IV. Wheather
V. Basic CQB Tactics

Vol II. Getting to Know the formation

VI. Starting your Empire
VII. Using Terrains
IIX. Better formations
IX. Implementing Missle units
X. Using Artillery in CQB

Vol III. Advanced Guide

X. CQB in almost any situation
XI. Tactics
XII. Campaign Strategies
XIII. You don't need a big economy!
XIV. Last points
XV. Conclusion

[Frederich Barbarossa]

Vol I. Introducing Close Quarters Battles



I. Introduction by the Writer

I have through many years thought up new strategies and tactics to implement in Rome Total War. From the triangle all the way to the river formations. I have tried all of them, but I have actually come to analyze and think up a totally new strategy, that might as well change the way we percieve warfare in this great game. The thought that came to me was this. Why not use modern warfare tactics in Rome total war? It seems people might immediately respond that it is impossible, or will result horribly, but I found a way. A good way that could ensure victory after victory. Only quantity could beat it, or vastly superior technology like peasants vs. Spartans. It is a generally good strategy that can swing combat towards your favor if your fighting for example Hastati vs. Legionary, and couldbe implied in any given terrain, in any type of wheather condition. Even when I found this, I started to analyze the negative thoughts of it. I could only bring that your army will not be self centered, or basically I'm taking away the joy of massive scale or open field battles. Just check this guide, and hopefully you'll totally agree... Just check it.

I'm also going to tell you this guide was made for people who wan't a guide that actually analyzes battles in real life and compares them in rome total war. I take an in depth investigation in every scenario you can think of, and implement this strategy, so you can win. From deserts to mountains to glaciers, to jungles. This guide will make you the true conqueror of Europe! And all it takes is using any type of units that are descent and some auxilia? If not then just plain infantry will suite your needs.


II. Close Quarters Battles

Close Quarters Battle (CQB) or close quarters combat (CQC) is a type of fighting in which small units engage the enemy with personal weapons at very short range, potentially to the point of hand-to-hand combat or fighting with hand weapons such as swords or knives. In the typical CQB scenario, the attackers try a very fast, violent takeover of a vehicle or structure controlled by the defenders, who usually have no easy way to withdraw. Because enemies, hostages/civilians, and fellow operators can be closely intermingled, CQB demands a rapid assault and a precise application of lethal force. The operators need great proficiency with their weapons, but also the ability to make split-second decisions in order to avoid or limit friendly casualties. CQB is defined as a short-duration, high-intensity conflict, characterized by sudden violence at close range.

This is the general definition of CQB in wikipedia. It revolves around 3 important characteristics that can have us see what CQB is all about. Small units engage, Very short range, and a very fast, violent takeover. Basically CQB can be compared to Blitzkrieg though its not. Blitzkrieg is using every resource you have to achieve a certain objective as quick as possible without securing flanks. Now Blitzkrieg is more similar to attrition warfare because it uses resources, because its stupid to say Germany would invade Russia with only 3 guys and expect to win. Also now we see that in order to achieve victory using CQB you must be a good planner and achieve the element of surprise. In this case I'd say suprise in the campaign map. Basically this has been noted throughout history. Alexander planned in Gaugamela and he won even with a terrible 3:1 ratio against his favor. Hitler lost ww2 because he did not plan things, he just did them. For example in Stalingrad he basically said, 'Hold out and and try to breakout!' whereas someone like Manstein would say 'I want that army to secure the flank and safeguard our defensive positions here, blah, blah, etc!' Manstein was so logical that just look at his battle criteria.

Although there is considerable overlap, CQB is not synonymous with urban warfare, now sometimes known by the military acronyms MOUT (military operations on urban terrain), FIBUA (fighting in built-up areas) or OBUA (Operations in Built Up Areas) in the West. Urban warfare is a much larger field, including logistics and the role of crew-served weapons like heavy machine guns, mortars, and mounted grenade launchers, as well as artillery, armor, and air support. In CQB, the emphasis is on small infantry units using light, compact weapons that one man can carry and use easily in tight spaces, such as carbines, submachine guns, shotguns, pistols, and knives. As such, CQB is a tactical concept that forms a part of the strategic concept of urban warfare, but not every instance of CQB is necessarily enveloped by urban warfare—for example, jungle and guerrilla warfare are potential stages for CQB.

Now basically, here it is saying that in CQB bombs, grenades, rifles are used to execute a successful mission. But in Rome we do it similar but with melee combat. We basically take modern thinking and use it even with primitive technology in our eyes. It's even said here CQB can be implemented outside of Urban combat zones, even though it works best there. I shall explain in the next chapter thoroughly. Please continue reading...


III. Terrain

CQB is so flexible that It can be incorporated into any battle situation, whether it is a desert or a tropical forest. You can combat with the poorest units and fight against the toughest if you know how to use CQB. Now I shall tell you about terrain but in a very general stance. I will set a rule book that you should follow, because the outcome of the battle will be very miserable if you don't. Some of this is obvious to the viewer, but there is some that is not really looked upon by the total war community. Take a look.

a.) Always maintain a leveled terrain if you can. If you can't place your units behind rocks or natural obstacles. In the campaign map there are many obstacles you can use to your advantage including rocks, cliffs, ridges, maybe even farms to hide troops.

b.) Always analyze your battlefield before engaging. Basically before you click that start button please take a good 5 minutes to see the terrain and to plan with caution. Don't be too cautious because if your enemy routes, you'll be in an uncomfortable position to counter-attack right away.

c.) Use natural obstacles or buildings that are located in open fields to have a sort of advantage. In some maps there are farms that have crops. They're tall enough to hide units. Obviously the AI will auto detect them, but the fact that hiding units will attract the enemy to attack them, thinking they're a major threat. Basically the enemy thinks they are foiling your evil plan.

d.) Believe it or not stay away from Forests for now. You want to have a clean visiual of your landscape. If you plan to sneak up on your enemy, it might counter on you badly.

e.) If your defending, use a defensive stance but make sure it's a flexible stance, so that you can counter-attack or attack easily. If your attacking, make the attack so good that if you are pushed back, you may return to a defensive stance in a jif.

This explains the basics of having a good army in a good terrain. Though I have not told you how to use CQB yet, this helps you develop your logic and knowledge to be able to use CQB. Hope you enjoyed!


IV. Wheather

A yes wheather. This is the prime factor of any armies victory. It alone can affect visibility, morale due to exhaustion, and inaccuracy. Well yes wheather is key. Because if your going across a muddy field it will slow you down believe it or not. It also makes the scenary either pleasant or unpleasant. The battle can damage the game units or armies themselves as it can damage the players morale. For example a player seeing an army face his with a 4:1 ratio and bad wheather, and him facing up (hes down hill) hes gonna say its impossible to win. Well think again.

a.) Rainy wheather is awful for cavalry and misslefire, however missles will shoot cavalry. So its good to have some missles.

b.) Take advantage of the rainy situation and use your melee to the sheerest force.

c.) Do not hesitate. One hesitation will result in you in the middle of the map just exhausting your men.

This was a short chapter because what more can I say? I wan't to explain CQB tactics to you already!


V. Using CQB Tactics

The Principles I want you to memorize for assaulting are planification, intelligience, surpise, methods of entry (to the battlefield; to engage your opponent), your armies speed without wasting breathe, and violence of entry. Have momentum. If you attack, attack with full force! Basically I will first tell you that the basic units to use CQB are infantry. These are your core, forget missles! This is where it's at! Now, get skirmishers if you want to help relieve your infantry.

Step 1) Planification --> Make a full stack if you want or half a stack 10 or 20. Make groups of 2. We shall call these regiments. Organization will help in CQB a lot. When you plan you should get 10 or 5 groups. Now you can get 1 missle unit to accompany both. It is recommended!

Step 2) Intelligience --> Know your enemy well. Know them as to know what tactics they use, what units they like, what allies they have. What type of terrain do they know most or live in, etc,etc.

Step 3) Suprise --> Not really a good tactic if your outnumbered but if you catch your enemy in a geological disadvantage, then take the bait. If you see them in a valley, surround them at the top! They will do the smart thing to run or stay and die. For defenders make sure you know when your enemy will be provoked or when they will provoke. Maintain your position in good terrain, that is favorable only to you.

Step 4) Methods of Entry --> Before the assault begins plan methods to already defeat your enemy assuming he is going to use the same tactics he always does. In this case place the 5 groups dispersed in the front of the map. Most in the flanks and few in the center. This is to divert the enemy into two groups. If he doesn't take the bait, your right or left flank can punch a hole in his archers or back wing and you can preform the legendary Cannae encirclement. For defenders take up the same dispersed stance. In the back of the map. Do the same. The Ai will try to cut your center due to few troops. Take the advantage and crush his flanks. If he has cavalry he will attempt to stop you. So always be in loose formation. That is real CQB. Loose formation helps avoid missle fire and minimize looses for cavalry charges.

Step 5) Speed --> Always be kind to your troops. Their morale depends on their breather. Do not fall for your enemies traps. If you can't provoke them. Just attack them but logicially. Don't just preform attrition warfar or it won't work. Have some planning some skill behind it. Do it all with not too much marching.

Step 6) Violence of ENtry --> As I said if you plan something, execute it at least, with full potencial even if you lose. You'll inflict more casualties than without planning. A less humiliating defeat. If your troops are charging, don't stop them at the last minute. I

In conclusion to this chapter CQB is used to disperse your enemy. Dispersed your weak units stand a chance, because in reality units in the game depend on quantity. Here you basically follow the principles of dispersing your enemies units by dispersing your own. You use loose formation to engage in flexible combat and to just be flexible in any battle situation. I will explain tommorrow for my next volume. Comments are appreciated!

[Frederich Barbarossa]

reserved.

[Frederich Barbarossa]

reserved..

[Frederich Barbarossa]

reserved...

[|Sith| Max]

Looks good but do not count on it in MP. There the main point is not to encircle, but to remove key enemy units, mostly Heavy cav, chariots or horse archers, while minimizing your own losses and simultaneously order your teammates around. there are three important aspects, cavwar, archerwar and infwar(in order of importance). removing 2 out of 3 assets from the enemy army generally means they are ed. EG, if you kill both his cav and arch you can just shoot down his inf till your ammo is depleted and then do cycles of charge-withdraw charge- or hammer and anvil, depending on cav and inf available, if you kill both his inf and cav you can simply run his arch down with cavvies, and if you kill both his archers and inf you can just start organizing a standground pattern that makes it hard for him to use his cav effectively.

[Entropy Judge]

Looks good but do not count on it in MP.

I'm sure if he intended this to be a MultiPlayer strategy guide, he'd have placed it in the MP section.

OP:
It really looks like you're just doing a Roman Battle Strategy guide - 90% of all the battles fought in Rome are going to qualify as "close-quarters," and with the inclusion of Archery and Artillery, you've also covered the other 10%. I'm also wondering why you decided on the Romans - quite frankly, their units are good enough that Principes-spam will take care of almost any force you're likely to meet in the course of a Grand Campaign, HA being the primary exception.

No offense intended, but the CQB copy-paste from Wikipedia seems - to me - completely unnecessary. If this were a game with a higher focus on long-range warfare, I would understand it ... but as things stand, you're explaining a modern concept of near-melee warfare with medium-to-long-range weapons in a game that consists almost entirely of melee combat. Further, the vast majority of weaponry listed in that section is irrelevant.

You also made a mistake: Blitzkrieg is not attrition warfare - it is, in fact, the antithesis of attrition. Blitzkrieg relies on superior maneuverability and close artillery/air support to *cut off* pockets of enemy units from their supplies and command. It is a strategy used when a very quick victory is needed - when materiel or manpower limits the attacking side's ability to maintain constant combat.

Question: Why do you place the recommendation not to hesitate in the Weather section? Wouldn't it be better to place that in the CQB Tactics section, and merge the Terrain and Weather?

Step 2) Intelligience --> Know your enemy well. Know them as to know what tactics they use, what units they like, what allies they have. What type of terrain do they know most or live in, etc,etc.

Unfortunately, most of this is discounted by the pre-battle screen where it lets you see the opposing army. You will see whether any reinforcements are available to either side, what units are available to both armies. The AI's tactics (such as they are) tend to be effective only inasmuch as the AI has complete control over all its units at all times (although the player can counteract this by use of the Pause button).

Step 5) Speed --> Always be kind to your troops. Their morale depends on their breather. Do not fall for your enemies traps. If you can't provoke them. Just attack them but logicially. Don't just preform attrition warfar or it won't work. Have some planning some skill behind it. Do it all with not too much marching.

I disagree with part of this. Yes, how tired your units are affects their morale - but if you have morale-boosting troops and a good Leader, they'll counteract that penalty.

Further, against many enemy units, the Romans *can* effectively perform attrition warfare due to the higher stats Roman units have (particularly armor).

You use loose formation to engage in flexible combat and to just be flexible in any battle situation.

Honestly, outside of high numbers of opposing missile units, I've never seen a use for Loose Formation. It takes up more space on the battlefield, affects your units' ability to wrap around an enemy unit, and allows enemy units to penetrate your own units.

[Frederich Barbarossa]

The difference between war of attrition and other forms of war is somewhat artificial, since war always contains an element of attrition. However, one can be said to pursue a strategy of attrition when one makes it the main goal to cause gradual attrition to the opponent, or when one considers high losses of men or resources as acceptable so long as the enemy suffers equally high loss, as opposed to trying to conquer terrain or to isolate large sections of the enemy through maneuver, or trying primarily to preserve ones own forces.

This shows that blitzkrieg incorporates attrition warfare and has a piece of it. That means I'm right. Im tired of this arguement Ive had with you all for months. Its from wikipedia and even they say its attrition warfare! Also CQB is not just any close melee battle. You fail to realize that the real element of CQB is small engagements to distract, disperse or simply play with your enemy. It is not just close quarters melee fighting. Something you failed to see. Also taking out an armies best units is essencial obviously. But you could easily do it with CQB. With your formation you can lure enemy cavalry trying to track down your flank. When they arrive they'll find a loose formation so minimum losses. Next your supporting infantry close by can engage with them to out preform them. Now the battle is an infantry infantry battle.

I don't know about you guys. But this strategy has worked for me in MP and here so ok...


is a headline and anglicized word describing all-mechanized force concentration of tanks, infantry, artillery and air power, concentrating overwhelming force and rapid speed to break through enemy lines, and once the latter is broken, proceeding without regard to its flank.

Another definition! Its an all-mechanized force concentration. Thats attrittion because they're using all of their resourcings or a lot to achieve victory. Ugh

[Entropy Judge]

The difference between war of attrition and other forms of war is somewhat artificial, since war always contains an element of attrition. However, one can be said to pursue a strategy of attrition when one makes it the main goal to cause gradual attrition to the opponent, or when one considers high losses of men or resources as acceptable so long as the enemy suffers equally high loss, as opposed to trying to conquer terrain or to isolate large sections of the enemy through maneuver, or trying primarily to preserve ones own forces.

Grant vs Lee in the American Civil War was attrition-based warfare. Blitzkrieg is not. From your beloved Wikipedia:

In his book, The Blitzkrieg Legend, German historian Karl-Heinz Frieser referred to the notion of 'Blitzkrieg' as "a world wide delusion".[63] Frieser, in agreement with Overy, Cooper and others that reject the existence of a Blitzkrieg doctrine, argues that after the failure of the Schlieffen Plan in 1914, the German Army came to the conclusion decisive battles could not be executed on a strategic level. This meant the idea of one early large scale offensive could not bring about a knockout blow. Frieser argues that the OKW had intended to avoid the decisive battle concepts of its predecessors and planned for a long all out war of attrition. It was only after the hastily improvised plan for the invasion of Western Europe in 1940 and its successful conclusion, which led the German General Staff to believe that decisive battles were not obsolete. It was only after the Battle of France German thinking reverted to the possibility of a Blitzkrieg method for the Balkan Campaign and Operation Barbarossa.[64]
...
The German armament industry did not fully mobilize until 1944, and this has led to some historians in the 1960s, particularly Alan Milward, to develop a theory of "Blitzkrieg" economics. Milward argued the German Reich could not fight a long war, so it deliberately refrained from arming in depth, to arming in breadth, to enable it to win a series of quick victories

Blitzkrieg was used as an alternative to attrition warfare, which Germany could not win, particularly against the USSR. Attrition warfare takes time, which Germany did not have.

This shows that blitzkrieg incorporates attrition warfare and has a piece of it. That means I'm right. Im tired of this arguement Ive had with you all for months. Its from wikipedia and even they say its attrition warfare!

I've never even seen you before, so I have no idea what you're referring to. Also: You're wrong - Wikipedia does not say Blitzkrieg is attrition warfare, it refutes the idea. This is what Wikipedia has to say about Attrition Warfare, though:

Attrition warfare is a military strategy in which a belligerent attempts to win a war by wearing down its enemy to the point of collapse through continuous losses in personnel and matériel.
The war will usually be won by the side with greater such resources.[1] A good example of this was during World War I when the Allies wore down the Central Powers to the point of capitulation

In other words, Attrition warfare seeks to grind the enemy to dust, while Blitzkrieg seeks a short victory. In Rome, if you seek to win through Attrition, you send army after army to break your opponents' armies. If you want to win through Blitzkrieg, you ignore the armies as much as you can and go for the cities.

Also CQB is not just any close melee battle. You fail to realize that the real element of CQB is small engagements to distract, disperse or simply play with your enemy. It is not just close quarters melee fighting.

You're right. However, CQB as listed in Wikipedia is functionally non-existent in terms of Rome: Total War. The game simply does not function with CQB as a type of combat. Also: LOL at no sources in the entry.

Something you failed to see.

It's an irrelevant point.

Also taking out an armies best units is essencial obviously. But you could easily do it with CQB. With your formation you can lure enemy cavalry trying to track down your flank.

Of course you need to take out the opponent's best units - but a big part of what I'm saying is that Rome simply doesn't allow for the detail in combat that this "CQB" requires. The closest it comes to it is using multiple Light Cavalry units to charge any given unit simultaneously, leading to high casualties through the shock of the charge, then retreating the individual units.

When they arrive they'll find a loose formation so minimum losses. Next your supporting infantry close by can engage with them to out preform them. Now the battle is an infantry infantry battle.

Personally, I always have more and better cavalry than the AI, and since I prefer standardized units, I have more and better infantry (and Archers) than the AI as well, which means the battle is simply number-crunching. My cavalry breaks their cavalry, my archers take out enemy infantry until my infantry line closes, my Cavalry then engage archers and infantry until everything is shattered.

I don't know about you guys. But this strategy has worked for me in MP and here so ok...

*shrug*

is a headline and anglicized word describing all-mechanized force concentration of tanks, infantry, artillery and air power, concentrating overwhelming force and rapid speed to break through enemy lines, and once the latter is broken, proceeding without regard to its flank.

Another definition! Its an all-mechanized force concentration. Thats attrittion because they're using all of their resourcings or a lot to achieve victory. Ugh

Attrition is using superior numbers to grind the enemy down. "Force Concentration" means "have more guys in the area than your opponent," not "have more guys," or even "use all or most of your guys." If I have three regions, and my opponent has fifteen, he's going to win an attrition war. However, I can use blitzing tactics to attack places where I have higher concentrations of units than he does.

1.
a reduction or decrease in numbers, size, or strength: Our club has had a high rate of attrition because so many members have moved away.
2. a wearing down or weakening of resistance, esp. as a result of continuous pressure or harassment: The enemy surrounded the town and conducted a war of attrition.

3. a gradual reduction in work force without firing of personnel, as when workers resign or retire and are not replaced.

4. the act of rubbing against something; friction.

5. a wearing down or away by friction; abrasion.

[xccam]

' Thats attrittion because they're using all of their resourcings or a lot to achieve victory. Ugh '

that isnt attrition, thats concentation of force. attrition is wearing down an enemy, wheras blitzkreig is the sudden elimination of isolated or spread out enemies through a large concentration of force to act as a force multiplier.

[Frederich Barbarossa]

OK leave this thread then. to me blitzkrieg contains elements of attrition warfare. Its not completely because attrition does not contain elements of speed and suprise, but still it contains some according to wikipedia.

[vanity]

OK leave this thread then. to me blitzkrieg contains elements of attrition warfare. Its not completely because attrition does not contain elements of speed and suprise, but still it contains some according to wikipedia.

It's always funny the attachment people carry for their threads. "Oh, you disagree with me? I'll show you. This is MY little kingdom! I rule here! Leave at once!"

[|Sith| Max]

Entrophy, this game does focus extremely on mobile and ranged warfare when both players are human. Those two elements decide who wins and infantry are only there to guard ranged assets or hold units for the cavalry. Only Greece and Carthage rely on majority inf armies. Also I know he does not mean MP but when ppl stop by to say that inf is the best kind o unit and that peasants can beat anything I generally post a "don't do this in MP" message lest noobs that read his guide take Greece or Carthage or Rome and spam inf.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Well infantry can win MP battles, but they need other units to drag the enemy cavalry into a battle with your infantry. Biggest threat to infantry are archers, so all armies that can't make testudo after neutralizing the enemy cavalry needs something to chase/shoot down the enemy archers with. Infantry only never works, unless maybe if you are playing Romans and the enemy plays Thrace.

[ram32]

im sorry, but since when have wikipedia been a reliable source? hahah that is person editted information and not always 100% accurate so you cannot just go straight by it. Blitzkrieg is not attrition warfare. the point of blitzkrieg, for the germans at least, was to basically avoid an attrition war. Because of there limited resources, they had to make a rapid attack and secure whatever they were going after quickly and avoid attrition warfare.

[vanity]

Wikipedia is a regrettable source for anything non-research related (i.e., scientific, technical, or historical). Even those three categories will be thrown out in acedemic environments. To provide Wikipedia as a citation for opinionated subjects, such as politics, religion, or for instance extrapolations of history (such as the meaning of the term 'Blitzkrieg') means few people will take what you stated seriously.

A not small percentage of people disregard any claim made with Wikipedia as the sole supporting authority. I regard these people as lazy, automatically rejecting anything they don't agree with in an everlasting circle of confirmation bias. This group enjoys appearing clever by retorting with, "anyone can edit Wikipedia."

And those who say Wikipedia is editable by everyone are often those most unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Half the people on this board would find their submissions rejected on the merits of their writing ability alone. Most of the rest would be unable to meet the criteria necessary to submit their own articles. Those preferring to edit articles would run into page locks and the thousands of users monitoring their favorite articles. Anything that makes it through this is guaranteed to be scrutinized by eyes other than their own (hundreds in the case of heavily trafficked articles) and find their vandalism potentially reverted within seconds by the duteous bots. (Check out this little guy's history - it really is an eye-opener.).

A second group believes the burden is on the reader to disprove a claim sourced by Wikipedia, that they should dig through the provided article's references and dispute those instead. A journalist who did any such thing would quickly have his reputation slandered, forced to find another line of work.

Of course, if you need to prepend the statement "Blitzkrieg is defined as [X]" with "...according to Wikipedia" then you probably are not qualified to be discussing the meaning of Blitzkrieg.

And lastly, a bit of perspective from His Arrogance himself. We are on a forum board devoted to the Total War video games. I doubt if anyone cares whether or not anything we say is fully accurate.

[/end-derailment]

[ram32]

yeah but were also not looking for articles we can just find on wikipedia..

A not small percentage of people disregard any claim made with Wikipedia as the sole supporting authority. I regard these people as lazy, automatically rejecting anything they don't agree with in an everlasting circle of confirmation bias

so im lazy because i "disregard any claim made with wikipedia"? im lazy because i want a better/more reliable source when being told information? that does not make any sense.. its far more easier to go on to wikipedia to research something then it is to actually research something through numerous reliable sources.. if anything going onto wikipedia and past that article is lazy. but hey if you want to use wikipedia as your primary research source, go right ahead.. but you will not always be correct

[vanity]

No, as I said above that, using Wikipedia as a source for technical or other provably correct information is fine. This is usually always accurate, and unless you venture into areas of new research or that few understand, like quantum computing for example, it's not a problem. Even your professors are unlikely to bat an eye if you use Wikipedia to source unimportant parts of your work.

It's the idiots that - I struggle to be nice here - dismiss an entire argument because it cites the Wikipedia article of Big O notation, something universally understood and taught in the first year to every mathematics and computer science graduate in the world, that elicit a facepalm from me. Wikipedia is just a scapegoat in these cases; they point to it instead of admitting they were wrong.

Blitzkrieg doesn't fall into the scientific category, so I'd say it's fair game. But then again, we are on a Total War forum. It's probably good enough.

[Entropy Judge]

... Is the OP coming back?

[{GrailKnight}]

That's a bit harsh lol