Some serious questions regarding Parthia for CA gods! :)

[Cvetko]

Hey,
some of you guys may not be die hard fans of Parthia, I don't know why, probably because they had pink pajamas in previous Rome

But things are changing, we have realized, that the CA know what Parthia was: a superpower equal to Rome, the last image was just mindblowing:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Full image: http://www.pictureshack.us/images/76...lashLargeW.jpg

So don't tell me you still don't like Parthia? I mean why isn't it awesome to play with the best cavalry of the ancient world?

However we still have some vital questions about this faction so don't mind us creating a thread

For the questions go here bros:

[DogSoldierSPQR]

A cavalry-dominated faction has never interested me. I like cavalry but my tactics are infantry based with cavalry tagging along but not necessary. However, now that there is emphasis on Parthian infantry, Parthia definitely looks interesting to me now

Do not get me wrong, I never thought Parthia was crap or anything. It's just that I never had any uses for a faction dominated with units I had no real tactics for. Now that Parthia has some good looking infantry who seems like they're going to be interesting too, I may just give them a playthrough

[rudthemighty]

A cavalry-dominated faction has never interested me ... It's just that I never had any uses for a faction dominated with units I had no real tactics for.

Ever heard of Alexanders Hammer and Anvil tactics? The Huns? The Mongols? Companion Cavalry? Knights of Medieval Europe? The phrase "the cavalry has arrived!"

Cavalry tactics are as complex as infantry tactics. Cavalry is the dominant fighting force before gunpowder. Most other tactics are ways to counter cavalry!

I love infantry too, but the cavalry demands your attention and respect sir!

[DogSoldierSPQR]

Ever heard of Alexanders Hammer and Anvil tactics? The Huns? The Mongols? Companion Cavalry? Knights of Medieval Europe? The phrase "the cavalry has arrived!"

Cavalry tactics are as complex as infantry tactics. Cavalry is the dominant fighting force before gunpowder. Most other tactics are ways to counter cavalry!

I love infantry too, but the cavalry demands your attention and respect sir!

LOL I know the benefits of cavalry, but they don't interest me. If I could show you, the only time you would ever see me use cavalry is for the final charge from behind at the bogged down enemy and then the chase when they route. I only need a max of 4 cavalry units for that. With Parthia, I'd have way more cavalry units which is more than I'd need and to be honest, my mind only specialises with Infantry tactics.

I've got the Spartan mentality of "fighting the enemy man to man"
Cavalry are just used to make sure no one leaves alive, to put it straight

I do agree that cavalry tactics are complex, one of the reasons I don't specialise in them. Haha I respect , don't worry

[rogergargantua]

LOL I know the benefits of cavalry, but they don't interest me. If I could show you, the only time you would ever see me use cavalry is for the final charge from behind at the bogged down enemy and then the chase when they route. I only need a max of 4 cavalry units for that. With Parthia, I'd have way more cavalry units which is more than I'd need and to be honest, my mind only specialises with Infantry tactics.

I've got the Spartan mentality of "fighting the enemy man to man"
Cavalry are just used to make sure no one leaves alive, to put it straight

Nice! I have same fighting style. Also one of the biggest reasons why I never played factions which tactics are heavily focused on cavalry. Though it could be very interesting.....I should at least give it a try in Rome2. And now while i am reading Ben Kane - The Forgotten Legion....which has a end battle of Rome vs Parthia, I am far more intrigued in Parthia then before!

[DogSoldierSPQR]

Nice! I have same fighting style. Also one of the biggest reasons why I never played factions which tactics are heavily focused on cavalry. Though it could be very interesting.....I should at least give it a try in Rome2. And now while i am reading Ben Kane - The Forgotten Legion....which has a end battle of Rome vs Parthia, I am far more intrigued in Parthia then before!

Yeah, it's really the only things I've found cavalry to be useful for. But to have an army composed entirely of cavalry is just way too much for someone like me to cope with.

With the emphasis on the Parthian infantry, I could finally get a bit of both. Rome never exactly had the best cavalry so you never know how Rome 2 will turn out. I hope I will get a playthrough with Parthia in at some point.

[High Fist]

Ever heard of Alexanders Hammer and Anvil tactics? The Huns? The Mongols? Companion Cavalry? Knights of Medieval Europe? The phrase "the cavalry has arrived!"

Cavalry tactics are as complex as infantry tactics. Cavalry is the dominant fighting force before gunpowder. Most other tactics are ways to counter cavalry!

I love infantry too, but the cavalry demands your attention and respect sir!

Cavalry was sure as hell not the dominant fighting force before gunpowder. At least not in Western Europe. Here's a thread: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...aw-of-this-mod

Cav of course had its place and was used rather effectively, but not in the way Rome: TW portrays it or how many would imagine it.

As for the power debate it seems fairly obvious that Rome was the superior over Parthia. In terms of size the RE was larger than Parthia and a lot of Parthia's land was desert, as mentioned above. Militarily, the Romans did suffer losses but I'd hazard a guess that they won more than lost. As for finances, well I think Rome got on well enough, don't you?

[Markas]

Cavalry was sure as hell not the dominant fighting force before gunpowder. At least not in Western Europe. Here's a thread:

Of course they were, don't be ridiculous. Apparently Knights were wasting their time being redundant rather than being the premier arm of warfare. That and the thread you posted has far more compelling evidence to the contrary of what you claim.

[High Fist]

Of course they were, don't be ridiculous. Apparently Knights were wasting their time being redundant rather than being the premier arm of warfare. That and the thread you posted has far more compelling evidence to the contrary of what you claim.

I meant before the medieval age. I thought I said that, my apologies.

I'm not trying to put cavalry down but I'm not gonna over exaggerate their use. If they were the dominant fighting force than the Romans would have done so well. I do believe Carthage was renowned for its cavalry. Rome was renowned for its infantry. We know who won.

Once again, I'm not saying "hurr durr cav sux infantree is da best" but saying cav dominated the battlefield before gunpowder is just silly. At least not around the Mediterranean. Up Scythia however...

But this is off topic so I'll stop now.

[GatorMarine1833]

Cavalry was sure as hell not the dominant fighting force before gunpowder. At least not in Western Europe. Here's a thread: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...aw-of-this-mod

Cav of course had its place and was used rather effectively, but not in the way Rome: TW portrays it or how many would imagine it.

As for the power debate it seems fairly obvious that Rome was the superior over Parthia. In terms of size the RE was larger than Parthia and a lot of Parthia's land was desert, as mentioned above. Militarily, the Romans did suffer losses but I'd hazard a guess that they won more than lost. As for finances, well I think Rome got on well enough, don't you?

A lot of the things in that post are either highly debatable or outright wrong. Cavalry most certainly could (and did) charge infantry formations. Horses weren't easily made to charge solid, disciplined infantry formations, but it could happen. I don't have the link at hand, but another forum that I've read before had a discussion on this exact topic wherein a horse trainer described at length how wrong the assumption that horses won't physically charge into things is. He described an incident in Colorado in the 1960s in which an enraged horse chased people through a department store, crashing through glass and wood to get to the children whom it chased. Another involved a horse that plowed through a throng of people that were protesting in order to get back to his "master." Essentially what it boils down to is that horses, which have very good senses of their riders' feelings, either balk due to their own fear or the fear of the rider, or most often it is the rider himself who pulls back at the last second, usually subconsciously, out of fear, that causes the horse to stop or turn. In any case, shock cavalry did absolutely exist. The confusion is that because shock cavalry tactics don't always work, in particular against solid infantry formations, then people extrapolate that it simply didn't work ever.

I do agree though that much of the success of a cavalry charge was related to the receiving infantry losing their discipline and breaking their formation in the moments before the charge.

In this period, before truly widespread use of saddles or stirrups, the shock cavalry charge would be difficult, but not impossible. Professional jousters will tell you that they can still joust without a saddle or stirrups (though it is more difficult). We have Parthian cataphracts wielding huge two-handed lances that could only be effective in the charge, so clearly they were used in charges. Think about it, once you've let go of the reigns, you can only control the horse with your knees, which is no easy task when you're fighting in a melee trying to thrust a huge, unwieldy two-handed lance at moving, armored infantry (who've also got weapons aimed at you) from an unstable platform.

[High Fist]

A lot of the things in that post are either highly debatable or outright wrong. Cavalry most certainly could (and did) charge infantry formations. Horses weren't easily made to charge solid, disciplined infantry formations, but it could happen. I don't have the link at hand, but another forum that I've read before had a discussion on this exact topic wherein a horse trainer described at length how wrong the assumption that horses won't physically charge into things is. He described an incident in Colorado in the 1960s in which an enraged horse chased people through a department store, crashing through glass and wood to get to the children whom it chased. Another involved a horse that plowed through a throng of people that were protesting in order to get back to his "master." Essentially what it boils down to is that horses, which have very good senses of their riders' feelings, either balk due to their own fear or the fear of the rider, or most often it is the rider himself who pulls back at the last second, usually subconsciously, out of fear, that causes the horse to stop or turn. In any case, shock cavalry did absolutely exist. The confusion is that because shock cavalry tactics don't always work, in particular against solid infantry formations, then people extrapolate that it simply didn't work ever.

I do agree though that much of the success of a cavalry charge was related to the receiving infantry losing their discipline and breaking their formation in the moments before the charge.

In this period, before truly widespread use of saddles or stirrups, the shock cavalry charge would be difficult, but not impossible. Professional jousters will tell you that they can still joust without a saddle or stirrups (though it is more difficult). We have Parthian cataphracts wielding huge two-handed lances that could only be effective in the charge, so clearly they were used in charges. Think about it, once you've let go of the reigns, you can only control the horse with your knees, which is no easy task when you're fighting in a melee trying to thrust a huge, unwieldy two-handed lance at moving, armored infantry (who've also got weapons aimed at you) from an unstable platform.

Those horses my friend, were out of their freakin' minds!

Honestly I haven't the knowledge to continue this argument (or the inclination to either, for that matter). I was never a horseman in the iron age so I can't say anything with conviction. But I'd still put infantry before cavalry - in this time period anyway.

[Cvetko]

This...
Actually the fact that Parthia has "crappy infantry" is pure stereotype, the only time cavalry was overused over infantry was in some battles like Carrhae.

Now that Parthia has some good looking infantry who seems like they're going to be interesting too, I may just give them a playthrough

[DogSoldierSPQR]

This...
Actually the fact that Parthia has "crappy infantry" is pure stereotype, the only time cavalry was overused over infantry was in some battles like Carrhae.

The problem with Eastern factions is that they usually have light infantry because of how hot it is and how far they used to march etc.
I've not got much use for light infantry, but the Parthian infantry we see in the screenshot are not light infantry. This makes me want to try out Parthia in a custom battle to see what they are packing this time around. I like the theme for Parthia now. They look very serious.

I would love it if Parthia had the Persian Immortals
They don't have to be called that, just give us a unit who looks like them and I'll rename that army to Immortals and savage Greece in revenge for the fallen Persian brothers!

[PROMETHEUS ts]

I much have preferrred Schythians and Sarmatians factions , wich we received 0 Information by CA , and they won't even be present in the base game so I smell some costly DLC program by them in order to have a full completed game .

[Bucle_CT]

Parthia looks awesome!
I've always used infranty-based tactics along every total war game (even medieval 2!!). That's precisely why I will give a serious try to Parthia, and see if I can make it with a bunch of cataphracts with thousands of supporting horse archers, I'm sure it'll be a completely different experience.

[Cvetko]

Lol... The Parthian equivalent of an immortal is General's bodyguard, the great house elite dressed in gold and silver embrodiered armour,
believe me, that's a step forward from an Achamenid immortal

Well yeah... did you know that each Parthian soldier had to carry a flask of water with him, as every Roman soldier had to shave regularily.

Parthia looks awesome!

No man!

But yes, Schytia and Sarmatia... better make theese finished dear developer gods.

[Strattios]

I hope they fix ranged cavalry. They required to much micro management once they switched to the wars cape engine. I would love to see ranged units fire in any direction, without having to turn.

[Cvetko]

I hope they fix ranged cavalry. They required to much micro management once they switched to the wars cape engine. I would love to see ranged units fire in any direction, without having to turn.

That's the most important gameplay issue in Empire, Napoleon and Shogun, so good point bro, I truly hope so too.

[achilles-91]

I hope they fix ranged cavalry. They required to much micro management once they switched to the wars cape engine. I would love to see ranged units fire in any direction, without having to turn.

i agree, 360 degree arc of fire is MUST

[biohazardcake]

I think parthia looks interesting as long as they don't rely too much on horse archers i liked mounted samuarai in rots but to a small extent.