Battles on Very Hard - brilliant!

[AntigonosDoson]

Hi, People!

Just spent 4 hours playing my Makedon campaign with VH battle difficulty (and H campaign - due to the bug that makes VH campaign actually easier).

Let me tell you - I sincerely don't know why the reccomended levels are M/M.

The battles on M are extremaly easy. Enemy sometimes rout the moment he touches your line (if you softened him a bit with arrows on his way towards you). The battles on H were more challenging, but still - once you found proper tactics noone could actually beat you.

Well, on VH it is much more difficult and each battle is a risk!

I managed to win all the battles during those 4 hours, but it was a much more immersing! The enemies could actually do something, they fought valiantly even when surrounded, sometimes they did not rout at once when flanked... great!

Ofcourse your casualties due to it are much higher. And if you play (like me) with City Mod b, then it's not too easy to replenish the losses...

Anyway, I'm loving it! Ten years into the game I kicked the Koinon out of continental Greece and forced Epeiros to migrate to Italy. My situation is stable, so I decided to lay low and observe the develompent in the world. After I build up some strength, I'm going to visit Asia.

People, play on VH battles - then you WILL definatelly find a challenge!

AntigonosDoson

[Stingray970]

The recommended difficulty, to my knowledge, is VH/M. This makes it so that campaign AI is aggressive, but doesn't give AI battle bonuses.

That "bug" is a myth. You're actually making it easier.

Very hard difficulty, I believe, gives +7 to enemy morale, attack, and defense. It doesn't require a stretch of imagination to believe it makes battles risky.

[Entropy Judge]

The battles on M are extremaly easy. Enemy sometimes rout the moment he touches your line (if you softened him a bit with arrows on his way towards you). The battles on H were more challenging, but still - once you found proper tactics noone could actually beat you.

Easy battles? Yeah, they're pretty easy. Though I don't think I've ever had an enemy simply rout on first contact unless I had really good Archers shredding his line + Fear Units and the enemy were levy-quality units with poor morale. Playing on Medium, the AI is still capable of threatening a normal line (IE, one that isn't made up of high-XP elite units), particularly if they outnumber the defending line. The last campaign battle I can recall actually losing was an Aedui game, literally on the first turn - I moved my army out of Bibracte to attack the northern Arverni army, except he hired pretty much all the mercs in the area and attacked me on the AI interturn. I lost the battle, but still killed more of his men than he did of mine. Other than that ... yeah, playing with smart tactics and terrain choice will let you win 95% of the battles without risk.

And yeah, playing with factions that don't have phalanxes means you actually have to work for your wins. :/

[Slaists]

Easy battles? Yeah, they're pretty easy. Though I don't think I've ever had an enemy simply rout on first contact unless I had really good Archers shredding his line + Fear Units and the enemy were levy-quality units with poor morale. Playing on Medium, the AI is still capable of threatening a normal line (IE, one that isn't made up of high-XP elite units), particularly if they outnumber the defending line. The last campaign battle I can recall actually losing was an Aedui game, literally on the first turn - I moved my army out of Bibracte to attack the northern Arverni army, except he hired pretty much all the mercs in the area and attacked me on the AI interturn. I lost the battle, but still killed more of his men than he did of mine. Other than that ... yeah, playing with smart tactics and terrain choice will let you win 95% of the battles without risk.

And yeah, playing with factions that don't have phalanxes means you actually have to work for your wins. :/

After a long break, I reinstalled this mod finally. I think, the recommended medium battle difficulty is there for EB to preserve unit type balance [as in what type has advantages against what type]. The extra blanket-type attack bonus that the AI gets throws EB unit balance into the gutter (i.e., cavalry can win a straight charge against a phalanx all of a sudden, etc.)

On a side note, unit balance gets trashed by experience bonuses too

[athanaric]

Let me tell you - I sincerely don't know why the reccomended levels are M/M.

Because you've never played any other faction than Makedonia on VH, that's why. Makedonia has the best phalanxes in the game, as well as the biggest selection of heavy metal units outside of Rome. It would also be interesting to know your army composition.
Try playing Saba on VH battles before you churn out misguided "advice".

Any system that gives one side stat boni to "make things more difficult" is unrealistic. In RTW's case, it may be excused with the age of the game.

[spartan117]

Hey, Saba isnt that hard

In one of my current campaigns vh/vh, alex.exe I am like 40 years into it. As Saba have plenty of spies and simply skirmish to your heart's content in battle. Knowing the composition of the Ptolemaic armies is key to preparing for battle although my armies only consist of arabian slingers, arabian light infantry, archer-spearmen, the family member bodyguard retinue, and the occasional arabian light cavalry. Just as well, I am excited as I have just begun to build a more advanced barracks with the Saba levy spearmen and Ethiopian Heavy Cavalry in Axum.

With the Saba campaign and my other greek city states campaign I have had to learn how to successfully skirmish with just infantry especially against the phalanx/cavalry armies of the Ptolemies and the Seleucids. It has been great fun but also at times can be mentally taxing as the constant and intense micromanagement of every unit and creating a viable network of available reinforcements and defensible positions against the hordes of phalanx armies.

There has been a great deal of awesome battles though. There was one where I was constantly shifting and extending my line to the left with the attempt of slamming my left flank of spear units and light cavalry into the opposing general and another FM bodyguard. It was crazy as the two bodyguard units fell back and attempted to go around their reinforcing line in the end my line was stretched to the breaking point. And I had a weird formation where I my rightflank had to hold even though the Ptolemies had two heavy persian archer units approaching it from the rear. I stationed two peltasts and a Rhodian slinger to cover that flank. But my main line would not be able to hold for long especially once their phalanx units would engage. I ran counter feint attacks to slow their progression toward my line and expose their rear for my slingers and peltasts. And then there is the habit of the enemy bodyguard units of retreating even after they are engaged which led me on a wild chase of attempting to kill the general with mere spear units and a couple of light cavalry units. I was successful in finally killing them and then had to rush back to my line before I sustained greater losses. I finished with relatively few losses with the heaviest losses in the unit that was key in holding off the reinforcing enemy infantry that allowed me to continue my pursuit of the two cavalry bodyguard units.

[AntigonosDoson]

@ athanaric:

Ok, maybe for non-Roman and non-Hellenistic factions it is undoable. Didn't do much testing yet, though I intend to try this setting with Saba too.

But for at least 5 factions in the game (Rome, Makedonia, Seleukeia, Ptolemaoi, Pontos and perhaps also Koinon, if you use lots of mercenary phalanx while waiting for the reforms) it's a perfect way to enchance the experience.

@ Stingray970:

If the VH bug is a myth than it's really popular on these forums :-) I'll have to play on VH then.

@ Entropy Judge:

The only battles I recall loosing on M were those against the advanced Pahlava. These guys smashed even the elite forces of Makedon. The Gallatian Heavy Cavalry was no much for them. The Thessalians they ate for breakfast. Even the Hetairoi were defeated. Finally I just subdued them with numbers. And they still managed to put up a good fight.

In my current campaign I am still in Greece, but I am tempted to try my forces against Sarmatias. They should be similar to Pahlava so I hope to use them for testing my tactics and finding a solution to massive horse-archers stacks.

[Rhomphaiaphoros]

If the VH bug is a myth than it's really popular on these forums

The only "VH bug" I know about was that the AI rarely recruited anything else than the best troops available to it on VH campaign difficulty. Needless to say, this didn't work very well for the AI in vanilla RTW, as it didn't bother to recruit any units for a very long time (it couldn't recruit quality units from the start, so it "politely" waited until it had the best barracks/stables built and only after that, actually started being a very hard opponent; however, this took so long that the player could steamroll most factions to their graves long before it happened).

But, why was that paragraph of mine written using the past tense? Because said bug existed only in RTW 1.0 and was done away with patches. What I don't know is whether these present-day rumours are based on that particular bug (which was at one point a real one), or are they just ol' player's yarns, or some sort of children's scary-story, about something that never existed in the first place...

I am tempted to try my forces against Sarmatias. They should be similar to Pahlava so I hope to use them for testing my tactics and finding a solution to massive horse-archers stacks.

The standard (historically accurate) Hellenic army composition isn't among the most effective ones against horse archer armies. So if you want to play with historical house rules applied, you may need to improvise a bit when fighting nomads. But if effectiveness is all that matters, an army of long-range archers/slingers supported by spearmen and light cavalry will fare better than the standard Diadochi phalanx + heavy cavalry combination. Fighting horse archers with horse archers is also a good tactic, but playing as the Macedonians, you will almost certainly be outnumbered in that department for a while, until you've conquered some provinces in the steppes which allow you to recruit horse archers.

- Rhomphaiaphoros

[Spike]

hmm, as long as you playing phalanx based factions, with decent acess to (Cretan) archers and cheap slingers, you'll always think VH battle is the best, especially against hoplite based and pretty crippled KH AI (hopeless hoplite spam anyone?), not yet marian SPQR, and half-naked barbarians of the North... the early parts maybe easy, I just think you should continue your campaign and I"ll want to hear what you'll whine when facing AS' Argyraspidai Spam

[AntigonosDoson]

@ Strategos Lykos:

Well, up to now I faced one phalanx-based army, the Epeirotes. We had several phalanx battles (in one my army was storming uphill) in which I was victorious. They did not use anything more than Pethzetairoi. I'll have to wait for Arche Seleukeia to start sending the silver shields agains me... but they might have problems with it, because they are slowly eaten up by Pahlava and Pontos!

[Durnaug]

I managed to win all the battles during those 4 hours, but it was a much more immersing! The enemies could actually do something, they fought valiantly even when surrounded, sometimes they did not rout at once when flanked... great!

I play on medium and I find that enemy units do not rout quickly for me. For example, Pikemen are very stubborn in my battles and when surrounded will often fight to the death. I once played with the battles set to hard and the gameplay started to drag. I will stick with Medium.

[Dr. Croccer]

I generally play VH/M because it means that the Campaign AI is challenging, and the Battle AI isn't given ridiculous bonusses. I like challenging battles, but just handicapping yourself isn't challenging. I want to be challenged because the AI has achieved the tactical upperhand, not because its militia units have defeated my elite ones in a straight one-on-one melee because of magic.

[Sting the King]

VH/VH is very boring, especialy when AI's Hellenic Native Spearman kills your elite heavy infantry =P.

VH/H for me is quite good for most factions.

[Thuycidides]

So now it's ok to say that phalanxes are over done in EB?

I play on medium and I find that enemy units do not rout quickly for me. For example, Pikemen are very stubborn in my battles and when surrounded will often fight to the death.

I've said the same thing before, almost verbatim.

[Durnaug]

So now it's ok to say that phalanxes are over done in EB?



I've said the same thing before, almost verbatim.

I cannot say that phalanxes are over done in EB but even playing in medium you have to be extra careful when these units are abroad. Considering that the Makedonian phalanx is one of the pre-eminent military formations at the game's opening perhaps it is right that the game reflects its effectiveness.

[Rhomphaiaphoros]

Considering that the Makedonian phalanx is one of the pre-eminent military formations at the game's opening perhaps it is right that the game reflects its effectiveness.

This.

Phalanxes are one thing that is difficult to balance in relation to other types of units. If you make phalanxes strong, they work as intended in frontal engagements, but the combat power is also applied (to some extent) to fighting that takes place in the flanks or rear. But if you make phalanxes weak, then they may not even be able to hold the enemy attacking from the front, and will get wiped out too quickly when flanked. Personally, I think that phalanxes of the latter kind are a far more annoying option, and hence I like EB's phalanxes as they are. They may feel a touch too strong at times, especially when flanked, but the main thing with a phalanx is that it should always work properly in frontal engagements. In EB they do, and any imbalances are related to game mechanics and how the phalanx formation works in RTW, rather than the units being statted "wrong".

- Rhomphaiaphoros

[Spike]

This.

Phalanxes are one thing that is difficult to balance in relation to other types of units. If you make phalanxes strong, they work as intended in frontal engagements, but the combat power is also applied (to some extent) to fighting that takes place in the flanks or rear. But if you make phalanxes weak, then they may not even be able to hold the enemy attacking from the front, and will get wiped out too quickly when flanked. Personally, I think that phalanxes of the latter kind are a far more annoying option, and hence I like EB's phalanxes as they are. They may feel a touch too strong at times, especially when flanked, but the main thing with a phalanx is that it should always work properly in frontal engagements. In EB they do, and any imbalances are related to game mechanics and how the phalanx formation works in RTW, rather than the units being statted "wrong".

- Rhomphaiaphoros

well, even if with weak phalanx, as long as you have supporting troops on the flank, the "long_pike" attribute alone can hold enemies at bay

but then, they're very vulnerable in game against another phalanx

[Rhomphaiaphoros]

well, even if with weak phalanx, as long as you have supporting troops on the flank, the "long_pike" attribute alone can hold enemies at bay

Oh yes it can, for a time that is. But if phalanxes are statted weak, then they tend to lose cohesion more quickly as well. And when the phalanx gets disorderly enough, it stops being effective in the front as well.

- Rhomphaiaphoros

[Thuycidides]

In EB they do, and any imbalances are related to game mechanics and how the phalanx formation works in RTW, rather than the units being statted "wrong".

But isn't it correct to say that there are two stats for the phalanxes? There's one for the sarissa, and there's one for the side-arm. I'm aware that the stats for the sidearms are nothing special relative to the standard attack of other units, but the potential to fight decently against flankers, in combination with annihilating anyone foolish enough to attack from the front, makes them the preeminent unit of EB.

Everything I've read on the subject says that the phalanx was highly vulnerable if flanked. It needed protection from more flexible types of infantry and cavalry. This was as much due to the cumbersome length of the sarissa as it was to the inadequacy of the typical sidearm. Such a large weapon as the former did not afford the opportunity to carry around a substantial backup.

Within the environment of EB, however, the sarissa disappears and reappears as it is most convenient for the phalanx. Where does it go while the men are fighting with their swords or axes?

Finally, on top of all those considerations, the phalanxes are nearly impervious to missile weapons from the front. You can literally reign down thousands of arrows at the front quarter of a 240 man unit and count on killing 5 of them.

[Entropy Judge]

But isn't it correct to say that there are two stats for the phalanxes? There's one for the sarissa, and there's one for the side-arm. I'm aware that the stats for the sidearms are nothing special relative to the standard attack of other units, but the potential to fight decently against flankers, in combination with annihilating anyone foolish enough to attack from the front, makes them the preeminent unit of EB.

However, the sidearm doesn't have very good Attack unless you're dealing with Elite units, and even then they're little better than Medium Infantry skill - Elite African Pikemen have a Sword Attack of 10 and Argyraspides have a Sword Attack of 12, while Bataroas have a Sword of 10. If you compare the Sword and Defense stats of Bataroas with Pezhetairoi, you find that the Bataroas are better attackers (+1 Attack, .225 Lethality vs .13), and the total Defense is similar (21 Pez vs 20 Bataroas), if weighted toward Armour for the Pezhetairoi (10/5/6) and Skill for the Bataroas (5/3/12). Oh, the Sarissa Attack for the Pezhetairoi? 17 Attack with .17 Lethality.

And Pezhetairoi would likely have formed the core of a typical phalangite army, not the entirety - most would probably have been more along the Levy/Machimoi/Pantodapoi quality, which is much weaker: 16 Sarissa, 7 Sword, 8/5/4 Defense.

Everything I've read on the subject says that the phalanx was highly vulnerable if flanked. It needed protection from more flexible types of infantry and cavalry. This was as much due to the cumbersome length of the sarissa as it was to the inadequacy of the typical sidearm. Such a large weapon as the former did not afford the opportunity to carry around a substantial backup.

And the Phalanx units are (almost) all carrying Short Swords - although of Good Quality in all cases, which I find a bit odd - with the two exceptions carrying a small Axe (5 Attack - compare with the 9 of Teceitos/Tekastos/Agrianikoi, and the typically 8-9 of other Axemen units).

Within the environment of EB, however, the sarissa disappears and reappears as it is most convenient for the phalanx. Where does it go while the men are fighting with their swords or axes?

Which usually means that it's always there, unless the player actively engages with the sidearms ... which usually goes poorly whenever I do it :/ As for the question you're making, it's called an engine limitation; if you don't have the sarissa disappear and reappear, you're forced to always use the sarissa, since there's no "discard weapon" function in the game. Look up at those stats for the pikes again - those would be pretty wicked in melee, and if you lower them so they aren't quite so dangerous, you weaken the integrity of front, which should not happen. Thus, give them weaker sidearms so that when an enemy does close, they aren't using the stronger weapon.

Finally, on top of all those considerations, the phalanxes are nearly impervious to missile weapons from the front. You can literally reign down thousands of arrows at the front quarter of a 240 man unit and count on killing 5 of them.

Because the Persian archer-heavy armies completely slaughtered Alexander's pike blocks whenever they encountered them in battle, right? (Slight) Sarcasm aside, there is a(n unreasonable) boost to the unit when it's in Phalanx Formation - which Rhomphaiaphoros referred to - which gives them a sizable defense to missile attacks in addition to the good Shield they have. Of course, you could just not attack with Archers (who typically have low Attack anyway ...) from the Front, and attack from the Rear, which would negate the Shield advantage.