Light Infantry and Light Cavalry

[coinich]

Frankly, I haven't found too much of a use for them, except vs lightly armored troops. In addition, I just can't quite seem to use javalineers well; they never have enough ammo to be really effective vs enemy troops. Light infantry don't seem too useful as well; archers are good vs barbarian and levied units, but little else, and skirmishers only absorb arrows. Am I missing something here?

[Thracian Princess]

Well, the skirmishers absorbing arrows can be solved by taking your archers off fire at will and choosing their targets. As for Light Cavalry? They're always good for running down enemy skirmishers/archers and really just being a pain in the ass. Plus, if enemy infantry are engaged and have their back exposed, a charge in to them doesn't hurt. Light Infantry I'm less sure about. I tend to use them together with heavy infantry. For me they generally play the role of ambushers or flankers, while the heavy infantry hold the enemy in place.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

The light infantry javelineers (Velites & Antesignanii in the Romans case) are perfect for:

- having in a dispersed screen in front of the first line to take out enemy skirmishers and act as an anti-missile sponge (especially as they suffer few genuine losses after the battle that way)

- thickening up the 'pila volley' and reducing enemy numbers before the lines starts grinding away

- genuinely useful against chariots and elephants, but not on auto-fire

- particularly the Antesignanii, now, being an effective reserve when rested/retired from their original screening role and the enemy are tired

- chasing down routing enemy heavy infantry

As for light cavalry (I actually find the early Republican/Allied LC not bad), but if thinking missile troops...

- anti-enemy LC

- softening up infantry

- protecting Heavy Cavalry (when engaged by enemy HC, then joining in as a second wave) and/or joint attacks on the enemy General(s)

- the reserve if kept fresh, especially if the HC are busy charging into the rear of enemy infantry - and then released to ensure all routing enemy are destroyed

Numidians are particularly useful. Attaching 2-4 of them to a 'spare' General (one perhaps who isn't much good at anything else), they can often intercept the small (1-3u) enemy infantry forces moving in the enemies rear and eliminate them (skirmishing until they're tired and then routing them - very Parthian!).

[coinich]

Well, the skirmishers absorbing arrows can be solved by taking your archers off fire at will and choosing their targets. As for Light Cavalry? They're always good for running down enemy skirmishers/archers and really just being a pain in the ass. Plus, if enemy infantry are engaged and have their back exposed, a charge in to them doesn't hurt. Light Infantry I'm less sure about. I tend to use them together with heavy infantry. For me they generally play the role of ambushers or flankers, while the heavy infantry hold the enemy in place.

Err, I meant that my skirmishers only seem to absorb arrows. I can manage my units well enough to negate that issue, thanks.

But as for opportunities to run down archers or skirmishers, I really don't see one. Usually enemy missile troops are deployed close to their heavy cavalry and/or battle line, stranding and slaughtering my lighter troops. At the end of the battle, running down stray troops isn't much of a concern; usually the entire army routs together and is run down together, leaving few stragglers.

As for light infantry, I use them sparingly. I've found that flankers (Bastarnae, ect) with high attack but low armor need to be used carefully. Low and low respectively (peltasts) just don't get much use. That being said, I'm playing the Dacians right now, facing neither chariots nor elephants.

ur-Lord, any experience with Dacian units?

[ur-Lord Tedric]

.....
ur-Lord, any experience with Dacian units?

No, I'm afraid not. I only discovered RSII just before Xmas and have been trying Rome ever since, both originally and in testing for getting on for 2 months.

Indeed, whilst I realise that age is perhaps beginning to slow me down, I've almost started to wish I played 'faster' (as many others seem to), for then I could test more.....

[Thracian Princess]

I personally am in love with Skirmisher Cavalry. In my current Gallaeci campaign they've been very useful for me. I tend to send them around behind the enemy lines to cause havoc and do as much damage as possible with their Javelins before they run out of them. After that I use them to cut down skirmishers and archers, deal with enemy Light/Missile Cavalry, or join any Heavy Cavalry I have - if I have any - in taking out HC or charging the back of engaged infantry.

edit: Really? I often see a lot of opportunies to route skirmishers. I find that quite often they are left exposed after the main lines have clashed and it is a simple job of swinging around the main line to clean them up. And sorry about the skirmishers absorbing arrows comment, I misunderstood what you meant

[coinich]

I personally am in love with Skirmisher Cavalry. In my current Gallaeci campaign they've been very useful for me. I tend to send them around behind the enemy lines to cause havoc and do as much damage as possible with their Javelins before they run out of them. After that I use them to cut down skirmishers and archers, deal with enemy Light/Missile Cavalry, or join any Heavy Cavalry I have - if I have any - in taking out HC or charging the back of engaged infantry.

I just find that even when I have them hold fire, they do very little damage overall. I generally follow that formula, I just get little success with it. Is there a true medium cavalry unit in the game?

[Thracian Princess]

I don't know if there is a true medium cavalry unit, but there are Iberian Medium Cavalry . Not sure if the name means they're actual medium cavalry or not. Also, edited my last post.

edit: Also, I've recently started using Skirmisher Cavalry without Skirmisher mode on at times. I turn Skirmish mode off, put Fire at Will on, and ride them past the enemy at an extremely close point. I'm not sure if it is very effective, but I like the idea of point-blank javelins to the face.

[Jean Lannes]

I really love my Light Troops,such as Velites and Antesignanii.
I find them very useful in tearing apart enemy strongest units: I turn off "fire at will" and when enemies are engaged in melee I move them behind the troops and order them to throw their javelins:the results (and satisfaction) is assured!
This also avoids the painful,disturbing and unnecessarily epic scene of enemy elite units "fighting to death" ghgh

[dvk901]

We really tried hard to configure all cavalry in a way that was more or less historical in terms of their original use. I know we talked a LOT about this during development. Cavalry, unlike the concept many may have of glorious cavalry charges and Medieval knights, was nothing in these days compared to later stages in history. Horses were generally smaller, riders had no saddles, and with the exception of Cataphracts, they were very vulnerable and lightly armored. They were used to pepper the enemy with javelins or arrows, distract the enemy, feign attacks and withdraw, or chase down routing troops. Even charging into the backs of heavily armed troops would've been a risky business, and rare. If anything, I should think that cavalry is far MORE useful in this game than it really was in battles.

At the Battle of Cannae: "When the battle was joined, the cavalry engaged in a fierce exchange on the flanks. Polybius describes the Hispanic and Celtic horse dismounting in what he considers a barbarian method of fighting. When the Hispanic and Gauls got the upper hand, they cut down the Roman cavalry without giving quarter. On the other flank the Numidians had engaged in a way that merely kept the Roman ally cavalry occupied. When the victorious Hispanic and Gallic cavalry came up, the allied cavalry broke and the Numidians pursued them off the field."

And we're talking here of some 10,000 cavalrymen who attacked the two flanks of the Romans. But you can see that Polybius records that cavalry defeated cavalry, and was also used to distract and perhaps disrupt the plans of the Roman General. Anyway, our take on cavalry was that battles were not just won by the brute force of cavalry units, but by finesse and clever use of it.

As for light infantry....well, every nation and kingdom had it, because they had no choice. These were levy units and lightly armed\armored units dragged off the streets to defend the homeland. In a sense, they were 'cannon fodder' to be used a lot like cavalry in distracting the enemy whilst the 'real' army of heavily armed units did its thing. Yes, they get chewed up royally and can't be depended upon to do a lot of damage, but they were never expected to do much more.

[DarthLazy]

Frankly, I haven't found too much of a use for them, except vs lightly armored troops. In addition, I just can't quite seem to use javalineers well; they never have enough ammo to be really effective vs enemy troops. Light infantry don't seem too useful as well; archers are good vs barbarian and levied units, but little else, and skirmishers only absorb arrows. Am I missing something here?

Do not bother, spam elite troops . These units are only really useful in MP .

[menawati]

When it comes down to it your army is stronger if you forget skirmishers and cheap infantry and just use all the slots for heavy cav, elite heavy infantry, horse archers and shock infantry.
But it's really much more fun having a wider variety of troops in your army as it usually requires more varied tactics.....and having fun is the whole point of it really.

For example, I'm running a Dacia campaign at the moment - I often use 4 Elite Falxmen, 2 Dao Infantry, 2 Roxolani Lancers, 2 Heavy cav and the rest are cheap skirmishers/archers/slingers/light infantry.
Now, I could just use stacks with only Elite Falxmen and Roxolani Lancers. The falxmen toss javelins so can do what jav skirmishers do and the Rox lancers are usable in melee after they have carved up the enemy with their arrows. But it's a bit dull isn't it, and rather OP. As is a stack of just horse archers....very dull.
Much more fun when you need to use a wider mix of weak and strong troops and accept that historical armies weren't just a mass of elites.

[Jean Lannes]

When it comes down to it your army is stronger if you forget skirmishers and cheap infantry and just use all the slots for heavy cav, elite heavy infantry, horse archers and shock infantry.
But it's really much more fun having a wider variety of troops in your army as it usually requires more varied tactics.....and having fun is the whole point of it really.

For example, I'm running a Dacia campaign at the moment - I often use 4 Elite Falxmen, 2 Dao Infantry, 2 Roxolani Lancers, 2 Heavy cav and the rest are cheap skirmishers/archers/slingers/light infantry.
Now, I could just use stacks with only Elite Falxmen and Roxolani Lancers. The falxmen toss javelins so can do what jav skirmishers do and the Rox lancers are usable in melee after they have carved up the enemy with their arrows. But it's a bit dull isn't it, and rather OP. As is a stack of just horse archers....very dull.
Much more fun when you need to use a wider mix of weak and strong troops and accept that historical armies weren't just a mass of elites.

I completely and definitely agree with you,man ... and not only me!

[coinich]

When it comes down to it your army is stronger if you forget skirmishers and cheap infantry and just use all the slots for heavy cav, elite heavy infantry, horse archers and shock infantry.
But it's really much more fun having a wider variety of troops in your army as it usually requires more varied tactics.....and having fun is the whole point of it really.

For example, I'm running a Dacia campaign at the moment - I often use 4 Elite Falxmen, 2 Dao Infantry, 2 Roxolani Lancers, 2 Heavy cav and the rest are cheap skirmishers/archers/slingers/light infantry.
Now, I could just use stacks with only Elite Falxmen and Roxolani Lancers. The falxmen toss javelins so can do what jav skirmishers do and the Rox lancers are usable in melee after they have carved up the enemy with their arrows. But it's a bit dull isn't it, and rather OP. As is a stack of just horse archers....very dull.
Much more fun when you need to use a wider mix of weak and strong troops and accept that historical armies weren't just a mass of elites.

Hehehe, outside of the HA armies I agree. Its also been interesting trying to figure out which heavy infantry are best; the ones that cost 3k just don't seem worth it, nor do the ones that cost 2k.

But I cackle with glee every time someone tries to fight my stack of horse archers. Granted, I have one and they're not so hot at taking settlements, so I figure thats a fair trade.

[menawati]

Its also been interesting trying to figure out which heavy infantry are best; the ones that cost 3k just don't seem worth it, nor do the ones that cost 2k.

Ye you are right, not all the so called elites are worth their cost. e.g. most of the barbarian faction champions aren't really worth it over using standard sword and spearmen (apart from maybe the Belgae ones as they are effective vs armour). Some of the elite shock infantry that frightens the enemy are well worth the cost though (flank, warcry, charge, rout, move down behind next enemy unit, warcry, charge etc......)

But I tend to favour medium cost solid troops that can be retrained nearly everywhere without having to have the top level barracks - like the Armenian Kentronakan spearmen or the 'Hoplites of Pergamon'.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

When it comes down to it your army is stronger if you forget skirmishers and cheap infantry and just use all the slots for heavy cav, elite heavy infantry, horse archers and shock infantry.
But it's really much more fun having a wider variety of troops in your army as it usually requires more varied tactics.....and having fun is the whole point of it really.

.....

Yes, you are right - and this is where I would love to see if there's a way to balance things better. Currently the Team have changed stats so that things are 'wayyyyyyyy' better than Vanilla! But, if more 'realism' is what we're after, then tweaking costs a bit more (so there's extra encouragement to use other units) may be the way to go. Here I'm not talking about initial costs, which are already tweaked to encourage the AI I believe, but the maintenance costs, which are all that matter in the end.

At present, however, the AI armies I see are often reasonably mixed.

[dvk901]

The elite units may not be all that better than some of the other units, but bear in mind that many, many of them have the 'command' attribute. So in the event you lose a General, for example, they will inspire and steady other units....which they will do in any case. So having one is an advantage in that sense.

[Ferdiad]

They would also have a bit better morale as well?