Which would win in a multiplayer battle?

[underworld965]

Assume the people are evenly skilled. Who would win? The guy which mounted archers or the guy which legionary cohorts?I personally think Horse archers, simply because you can keep running away until the legion is dead.

This post is in response to recent debates about infantry versus cavalry.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

There really can't be a debate "inf vs cav", because they really can't be compared.

Not voting.

[underworld965]

I'm just trying to resolve an argument. If you had an army of all legionary cohorts versus an all horse archer, or interspersed cavalry units, army, which would win?

[Genius of the Restoration]

I'm just trying to resolve an argument.

Making a poll doesn't resolve anything because the number of subscribers doesn't determine whether a hypothesis is true. Just look at the Rome vs Egypt thread that was floating around. Rome clearly polled better, but this, as those who know how dangerous Egypt is have said, is rubbish.

No vote.

[Titus Maximius Thongus]

apples and oranges.

and to answer your question, just look at what happened to Marcus Crassus and Carrhae

[Xion]

If the person with the Cohort is smart, possibly the legions..otherwise, the Horse archers will maneuver to the rear of the Testudo, shoot the back, and keep moving so th eshots never really hit the front of the shields, and tiring out the enemy before surronding them and charging..depends on the HA as well..

[underworld965]

I was assuming like persian horse archers

[Titus Maximius Thongus]

then i'd say the legions don't stand a chance.

at all

[KittySN]

Legionary cohort in testudo will win, but it depends on the cavalry you're using. If you're lucky, you'll only kill a quarter to half the legionaries before you run out of arrows. I've experienced dozens of Roman players using testudo against my Scythia, so this is plenty of experience with "back shots" speaking. You need to break the testudo, and it's nearly impossible to maintain effective missile fire yet break formation for such a weak cavalry unit. Elite horse archers are something else. Cataphract Archers? Easily. Scythian Nobles? They'd have good odds. Persian Cavalry? It would be close. Normal horse archers? No way!

[empr guy]

why would you one on one horse archers with legionarys??? unless they're cataphract archers i probably wouldnt use them for anything but skirmishing.

and im reporting this thread so it can be moved to the MP section, where most of the people who play MP stay.

[|Sith| Max]

Firstly i would have to say that this poll is completely useless because of a few things:
1. If arcade mode is on, the HA have unlimited ammo and unlimited stamina. ofcourse arcade mode is heretical like any scale above large and any money above 30K.
2. Normal players use Urban Cohorts as their primary line infantry.
3. All normal rules in use in the better circles of players involve limits on HA.

If i was using parthia, and for some reason joined a no rules battle, i'd go for around... a 50-50 spread between cata and HA.

[Ryou]

I voted horsearchers butitwould be cose, maybe even the legionarys
Frst of all I remember a testing run. 2 persain archers against 1 armored hopolite unit. First I trapped the hopolite in the middle so every singl second the greeks were being shot from front and bck at the same time. After I ran out of arrows and charged I only JUST broke them, like if they had 2 more men they would have won.
So lets think about it. If 2 persain cav sandwiching a unit not more armored than the legionaries could not kill half of them before running out of arrows and then flanking them totally surrounding the enemy and only just won, what chances will horsearchers fare if it was leginaries in testudo??? And plus, it depend on the map. In one of the smaller ones you can stretch each leginay into 2 man deep and one line and they would easily make a barrier, like this, the i beingthe legions,
______
l i l
l__i___l
so bascily they take up a whole vertical lineof hte map so the achers are forced to shoot from the front against heavy armor and a big roman shield..............victroy will not be possible for HA then.

[|Sith| Max]

implying that people play on huge scale and any other map aside of Grassy Flatlands

[ScottishAdam]

Assume the people are evenly skilled. Who would win? The guy which mounted archers or the guy which legionary cohorts?I personally think Horse archers, simply because you can keep running away until the legion is dead.

This post is in response to recent debates about infantry versus cavalry.

Is this a dig at me?

[Chris Death]

Is this a dig at me?

Just out of curiosity - Who are you?

~S~ CD

[ScottishAdam]

Just out of curiosity - Who are you?

~S~ CD

The guy that started the debate that went on for nearly 2 weeks on fielding an army consisting mainly of infantry and argued with a guy over horse archers.

[Medkirtys]

The guy that started the debate that went on for nearly 2 weeks on fielding an army consisting mainly of infantry and argued with a guy over horse archers.

yeah and you failed

[KittySN]

The guy that started the debate that went on for nearly 2 weeks on fielding an army consisting mainly of infantry and argued with a guy over horse archers.

You are correct in your observations of huge, but infantry spam is a poor choice in most multiplayer games of any other scale unless you have damn good micro. The effectiveness of cavalry vs infantry work inversely. At small, infantry is pathetic while cavalry owns, but on huge, there's not much point to spamming anything but infantry.

In a big money battle on huge like we'll be playing, I'll probably spam infantry too, because frankly, there's no reason to bring anything else. There's no tactics or skill necessary besides from marching forward, playing pila games and watching units grind down. Yes, there's not much point to playing anything but Rome either. You're always welcome in an attempt to surprise me, but artillery, cavalry and archers are nigh a complete waste of unit card space.

The reason everyone disagreed with you is because about 50% play normal, 40% play large, and 10% ever venture with huge/small. Interestingly enough, the best players play normal, moderates play large and noobs play huge/small (well, primarily huge). This is not only the usual representation of popularity or player skill levels, but the micro intensity of battles, unit balance, faction balance and tactics available. Thus when someone talks trash about owning in multiplayer, any experienced player instantly thinks of 15k on normal with certain rules. Maybe they think of 10k on large with certain rules too? Or even 31k on large with certain rules? A game without a budget or rules, and especially one played on huge, benefits a person who doesn't know how to play the game because:

1) few tactics (poor unit and faction balance)
2) little unit variety (once again, poor unit and faction balance)
3) less to expect and more to be accustomed to (less diversity in battle)
4) little micromanagement (speed of execution isn't nearly as crucial a variable)
5) more land to be covered (you see your opponent maneuvering forever)
6) lots of upgrades (preventing skill from accomplishing quick victories)

Those are just reasons off the top of my head. Everyone challenging you probably thought you'd be playing a real game, not something to which most experienced players would rather lick public toilet seats than play--it's just plain boring and a waste of time. It also proves very little to win such a battle because they're usually close--with so little skill required by your opponent, it's difficult to create positional advantages. If you want to prove you have skill, play 15k CWB on normal, and watch any decent opponent gracefully heroic you for your slips and lack of speedy execution.

Of course I enjoy almost everything regardless to the preferences of others. I think the best players should demonstrate their prowess in everything, not only a specialization. It's why I play everything, everyone, and also why I'm breaking from using my favored factions (Scythia/Macedon) or tactics (generally skirmishing).

[Ryou]

You are correct in your observations of huge, but infantry spam is a poor choice in most multiplayer games of any other scale unless you have damn good micro. The effectiveness of cavalry vs infantry work inversely. At small, infantry is pathetic while cavalry owns, but on huge, there's not much point to spamming anything but infantry.

In a big money battle on huge like we'll be playing, I'll probably spam infantry too, because frankly, there's no reason to bring anything else. There's no tactics or skill necessary besides from marching forward, playing pila games and watching units grind down. Yes, there's not much point to playing anything but Rome either. You're always welcome in an attempt to surprise me, but artillery, cavalry and archers are nigh a complete waste of unit card space.

The reason everyone disagreed with you is because about 50% play normal, 40% play large, and 10% ever venture with huge/small. Interestingly enough, the best players play normal, moderates play large and noobs play huge/small (well, primarily huge). This is not only the usual representation of popularity or player skill levels, but the micro intensity of battles, unit balance,

faction balance and tactics available. Thus when someone talks trash about owning in multiplayer, any experienced player instantly thinks of 15k on normal with certain rules. Maybe they think of 10k on large with certain rules too? Or even 31k on large with certain rules? A game without a budget or rules, and especially one played on huge, benefits a person who doesn't know how to play the game because:

1) few tactics (poor unit and faction balance)
2) little unit variety (once again, poor unit and faction balance)
3) less to expect and more to be accustomed to (less diversity in battle)
4) little micromanagement (speed of execution isn't nearly as crucial a variable)
5) more land to be covered (you see your opponent maneuvering forever)
6) lots of upgrades (preventing skill from accomplishing quick victories)

Those are just reasons off the top of my head. Everyone challenging you probably thought you'd be playing a real game, not something to which most experienced players would rather lick public toilet seats than play--it's just plain boring and a waste of time. It also proves very little to win such a battle because they're usually close--with so little skill required by your opponent, it's difficult to create positional advantages. If you want to prove you have skill, play 15k CWB on normal, and watch any decent opponent gracefully heroic you for your slips and lack of speedy execution.

Of course I enjoy almost everything regardless to the preferences of others. I think the best players should demonstrate their prowess in everything, not only a specialization. It's why I play everything, everyone, and also why I'm breaking from using my favored factions (Scythia/Macedon) or tactics (generally skirmishing).

Ummm.........what doyou mean Noobs play huge scale? And that modeates play large and the bes play medium????? NOOOO!!!!! Tell that to Prince of Macadon, or Severous, or thoe other "NOOBS" or "Moderates" that could probably beat you using half the money.

And as for legins vs. Cav, I kow one tactics that legions could use and they can't loose, probably, and that would be makng hte testudo, but standing back to back, so 2 testudo form pair protecting each other's back. That way they will be COMpletly invunerable to misle fire and i really can't see how persain cavalry could win even if theycharge legionaries in testudo.........hmmm.......
should have voted for Legionarys

and quite frankly, spamming forester warbands will probably defeat any other spam but cavalry spams, in fact Forester warband are surprisingly neglected. They have spears for melee weapon making light cavalry charges against them sucide and their defence isn't low and their atack is super high, so they're basicly firng volleys after volleys of pilas but with more ammo, rane and faster reload, lol, because, guys, this unit cost more that Bezerkers, Urban Cohort, Cataphract, onagers, and even the spartans!!!!!

[Plant]

To be honest at huge, all inf armies are still a bad idea, unless you hug a red line.
Or there is a bridge to hide behind. Same thing really. Restriction on movement, so no flanking. The main thing about 15k cwb is that it has the ability to accentuate slight skill differences, without making army choice too much of a dependent on victory. In max money huge, most victorys will be long, boring (Rome vs Rome) and only average at most, unless one player is atrociously bad. Either that or Armoured Elephant spam. A total waste of time.

Now to answer the question, horse archers wouldn't be able to beat legionary chorts. Testudo means that even when shot at the rear, only a quater can be affected normally. You'll have to charge to force out of testudo, whilst at the same time the other legionary cohorts will be trying to throw pila at you. The legionaries will win. Afterall Horse Archers are 440 points and legionary are 740, the point cost difference is massive. If it is Persian Cavalry, then the Persian Cavalry will probably be about 50:50 or greater chance of winning I reckon. Then again it depends on what kind of equal skill level it is ie, rubbish and equal skill level, or good and equal skilll level. It can only truly be answered specifically by playing a lot of games, after agreeing to the terms. You should really be more specific.