Elephants in Antioch

[ByzantineLover]

I'm not sure if this is intentional or not, but while playing E.B 1.1 as Arche Seleukeia I'm able to recruit Indian Elephants and Armoured Indian Elephants in Antioch even though I shouldn't be able to. Not that I'm complaining, mind you.

Has anyone else encountered something like this. I mean, being able to recruit a unit in an area that you know you shouldn't be able to recruit it in?

[Entropy Judge]

IIRC, that was intentional in 1.1.

Edit:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=452121
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=522928

A couple replies indicate that they either represented local elephants or the Seleukid imports from the Indian kings.

[ByzantineLover]

Ah, okay, thank you.

I have a few more EB questions:

1. If I remember correctly, 'Seleucid' is an 18th or 19th century term in origin. Much like the Byzantines calling themselves Romans, would the Seleucids have called themselves Macedonians? If not, what would they have called themselves?

2. I'm intrigued by the Iphikratous Hoplitai (Greek Hoplite Phalanx). By the time of the Second Punic War, Roman-Macedonian Wars and Roman-Syrian War(s), which was more prevalent, this type of hoplite or the Classical hoplite? I ask because I noticed the Classical hoplite is more widespread in terms of AOR than the Iphikratous Hoplitai. Is that just because it's exclusive to the Koinon Hellenon?

3. Also regarding the Iphikratous Hoplitai, I noticed on heimstatt.com that they can be recruited as far away as the Indian territories. Did this type of hoplite ever historically make it that far, or it is it just a sort of consolation prize for players who make it that far as the Koion Hellenon?

4. For phalanx-based factions, such as the Diadochi, Epiros, Pontus (?) and Baktria, if given the option, would it be best to abandon phalanx based warfare earlier or later (i.e. when the Romans arrive)

5. Would my normal army composition - 1x general, 4x main line infantry, 4x flank guard infantry, 4x missiles, 6x cavalry - work?

[Entropy Judge]

1. If I remember correctly, 'Seleucid' is an 18th or 19th century term in origin. Much like the Byzantines calling themselves Romans, would the Seleucids have called themselves Macedonians? If not, what would they have called themselves?

Not something I'm familiar with, but according to the FAQ, the names used in-game are what the factions referred to themselves as (so the third ruler of the Seleucid empire would have referred to his domain as "Arche Seleukeia").

2. I'm intrigued by the Iphikratous Hoplitai (Greek Hoplite Phalanx). By the time of the Second Punic War, Roman-Macedonian Wars and Roman-Syrian War(s), which was more prevalent, this type of hoplite or the Classical hoplite? I ask because I noticed the Classical hoplite is more widespread in terms of AOR than the Iphikratous Hoplitai. Is that just because it's exclusive to the Koinon Hellenon?

I can't find the link at the moment, IIRC but apparently the Iphikratian Hoplites were basically experimental; on the other hand, the Classical Hoplites would have been a tried-and-true formation. The Iphikratians were lighter-armoured than the Classical Hoplites, but didn't have the reach of sarissa-armed formations.

In any case, to answer the question, my belief (and I don't have the history to back this up, nor am I a Team Member able to make official statements) is that the larger AoR for the Classicals represent the fact that it's a very well-known fighting style and mercenaries are everywhere, whereas the Iphikratian model never really caught on.

3. Also regarding the Iphikratous Hoplitai, I noticed on heimstatt.com that they can be recruited as far away as the Indian territories. Did this type of hoplite ever historically make it that far, or it is it just a sort of consolation prize for players who make it that far as the Koion Hellenon?

... Haha, wow. Um, yeah, that's hilarious. I have no idea.

4. For phalanx-based factions, such as the Diadochi, Epiros, Pontus (?) and Baktria, if given the option, would it be best to abandon phalanx based warfare earlier or later (i.e. when the Romans arrive)

It depends on your army set-up, really. There's actually no reason a sarissa-based force, with flank-guarding infantry and heavy cavalry support can't beat the Romans. On the other hand, it's entirely possible to simply never use pikes at all (if, like me, you're terrible at pike-based warfare, for example).

5. Would my normal army composition - 1x general, 4x main line infantry, 4x flank guard infantry, 4x missiles, 6x cavalry - work?

Against what? The Romans? Certainly. Might be a bit difficult against steppe factions, for example, depending on your cavalry and missiles, but that's a pretty strong force, particularly if you're using good Heavy Cavalry as a hammer. Personally, I tend to field a few more infantry and less cavalry, but I also play as the Romans and Celts/Sweboz more often, so great, cost-effective cavalry is a bit rare. The last time I played as Makedon, my main armies tended to field 4-6 Pike units, 2-4 Ranged units (Rhodians and/or Cretans), 4 Cavalry (2 Thessalians, 2 Thracian Prodromoi), a General, and the rest were varying numbers of standard infantry (Agrianians, Triballi, Classical Hoplites, Galatians, etc).

[Revan The Great]

4. For phalanx-based factions, such as the Diadochi, Epiros, Pontus (?) and Baktria, if given the option, would it be best to abandon phalanx based warfare earlier or later (i.e. when the Romans arrive)

There's no reason you ever have to abandon phalanx based warfare. A lot of your best troops (and, as Pontos your only elite infatry) are phalanx pikemen when you play as a Diadochi.

Historically speaking the Phalanx didn't fail because it was a crappy formation. It just needed to be supported on the flanks with reliable, heavy infantry and complemented by a power, dominant cavalry army that could be the hammer to the phalanx's anvil. The only reason the Romans beat the Diadochi is because they were all pretty much on the decline when they faced the Romans, and in particular their cavalry arms were atrophied from misuse and lack of funds.

Though I do think that, being fair, the Roman Legion was in fact superior to the Phalanx, there's no reason that a skilled player couldn't keep his cavalry forces and supporting forces strong enough to make up for his Phalanx's weakness, and thus play historically (and rather effectively). In EB, a lot of unit descriptions allude to this.

[The Kybrothilian]

Historically speaking the Phalanx didn't fail because it was a crappy formation. It just needed to be supported on the flanks with reliable, heavy infantry and complemented by a power, dominant cavalry army that could be the hammer to the phalanx's anvil. The only reason the Romans beat the Diadochi is because they were all pretty much on the decline when they faced the Romans, and in particular their cavalry arms were atrophied from misuse and lack of funds.

Not all Diadochi were declining, the Seleucids were pretty much going strong before the wars with Rome. They lost the battle of Magnesia mainly because of poorly chosen ground, and Roman anti-elephant tactics.

[Entropy Judge]

Was Magnesia also the one where the Seleukids put chariots on their left flank, which bit them in the butt when they were routed back into their own lines, crippling their formations for the Roman countercharge? That happened in one of the Roman/Seleukid battles ....

[BroskiDerpman]

Yeah, I think that also happened. Then I think after the chariots routed, the roman cavalry on that wing destroyed the Seleucid's cavalry.

[Revan The Great]

That's a valid point, though it just feeds into my initial statement that phalanxes weren't inherently obsolete, just often misused. But you'd have to concede that Antiochus III was a particularly capable leader as far as Diadochi heads of state went, particularly in the latter days of the successor states. Though even he made plenty of mistakes and was defeated by the Romans with relative ease.