Fighting Horse Archer Armies as Romans

[SacremPyrobolum]

I find myself in the awkward position of having to pit my slow, heavily armored legionaries against horsed and hordes of horse archers. Seriously, that is all these guys build!

Luckily, most of them are light horse archers so they do not seem to do much initially, but massed volley fire can really decimate a cohort!

As I obviously cannot charge them effectively, I have found that advancing a tightly packed line of legionaries so as to get into pilla range works well when supported by archer units, as the AI will not retreat their units out of range even after my cohorts had unleashed their furious storm of 1000 javalines. This, combined with the more than adequate archer support (they are light calvary, remember), usually eventually leads to a full on rout after the third or fourth volley.

I also found that you could "herd" HA units with your own calvary to get them into range of your missiles. Just be carful, the storm of arrows cause severe casualties to even heavy cav.

What are your strategies?

[xisheng]

Flank and side or rear charge them with your own cavalry, works most of the time unless its a completely open field. Usually every legion of mine always has 1 unit of fast light cavalry just to engage horse archers and similar units, so i can crush them with my shock cavalry.

[Ygraine]

Aren't slingers the bane of horse archers?

[Petar]

Listen to Ygraine. Slingers are cheap and when used en masse can be effective. When the skirmish is initiated, the horse archers always yield first.

[TheRazaman]

vs AI: Simplicity. Army composition = 12 legionnaires, 4 archers, 4 horses (this is the basic conquering army once you hit Marian reforms). Infantry in front, archers behind, cav on flanks. March within distance of the horse archers--you should be dictating when/where to attack--enter tetsudo GG. The HA's will futilely spend their arrows on your legions, your archers decimate them from safety. Ultimately the enemy runs out of ammo and charges your lines; the legion destroys them. This works because the AI is awful and will NEVER try to pull your infantry out of formation so as to flank and crush your archers. I've used this strat to beat 3 full stacks of Saka Rauka hordes with 2 stacks + 1 garrison army on the open plain (pyrrhic but victory nonetheless; the AI is much better when attacking with horse archers).

vs Human: Difficult. There's no real prescribed strat other than don't fight battles on the open fields otherwise you'll get annihilated a la Crassus. These fights are very tough and incredibly fun/stressful

[The_Comrade]

vs Human: Difficult. There's no real prescribed strat other than don't fight battles on the open fields otherwise you'll get annihilated a la Crassus. These fights are very tough and incredibly fun/stressful

As someone who plays a lot of multiplayer (including DEI), I can say that the same anti-horse strategy applies. It takes a bit of micromanagement, but your best bet is to take at least four units of cav. Tetsudo the cohorts and then use your archers to draw their horse archers close to your lines and charge your cav to tie them up in melee. Before they can escape, charge in and hack them down with infantry. Rinse, repeat.

[Dangerman]

Do as the Romans did historically, get archer and slinger (IRL they hired from Syria, Crete, Rhodes and the Balearic islands) auxiliaries/mercs to augment Cohorts.

[Butan]

^

Basically.
Its a battle of micro as soon as there is tons of horse archers.
The horse archer guy wants to use his arrows as much as possible, make some charges here and there when there is a chance (especially with high end horse archers which are basically cataphract-like).
The guy opposite him, if he owns a possibly anti-horse archer army, needs to fires his own ranged at the horse archers as much as possible, while always keeping them protected from all sides and possibly using his own cavalry in a way where it stops horse archers charges or pin down horse archers close (except if the horse archer army is badly managed, infantry will never be able to pin them down).

[duskwarrior797]

Testudo formation is always vital to use, if you have more mobile units to cover the flanks in case the horse archers try to charge. Unlike vanilla, testudo formation actually protects units from missiles...from the front anyway. Just don't let the horse archers fire into your flanks while in testudo or you'll start to take losses.

[Eire_Wombat]

This will probably change a little when 1.0 hits, seeing as most of the steppe cav archers have lances as well. but I'm not sure. Just have to test it out.

[Kirsch27]

Easy answer? Don't do it. There's no real reason to be fighting the hordes except minor border skirmishes. Pay them off if they attack, or kill a few stacks and then pay them off if they won't leave at first.<br>Minimize fighting them as much as possible, as their land is not desirable and their armies are more expensive to kill than they are to buy off. <br><br>If you HAVE to fight the nomads for whatever reason, recruit regional cavalry and missile infantry, and leave a bare minimum of infantry in your armies. Most of infantry's job in a HA battle is to soak up arrows, legionaries do a good job of this with large shields high armor values and testudo formation.

[TheRazaman]

Easy answer? Don't do it. There's no real reason to be fighting the hordes except minor border skirmishes. Pay them off if they attack, or kill a few stacks and then pay them off if they won't leave at first.<br>Minimize fighting them as much as possible, as their land is not desirable and their armies are more expensive to kill than they are to buy off. <br><br>If you HAVE to fight the nomads for whatever reason, recruit regional cavalry and missile infantry, and leave a bare minimum of infantry in your armies. Most of infantry's job in a HA battle is to soak up arrows, legionaries do a good job of this with large shields high armor values and testudo formation.

I couldn't disagree more. I've had both Saka Rauka and the Budini (in the same campaign, as allies) push all the way to Magna Germania, Illyria and Nabatea. But most importantly, even if they didn't do so, I'd always recommend fighting them. They AI is incapable of using them correctly--in defensive battles. Your legions simply tetsudo and laugh as the HA hordes spend their ammo. Once they charge the infantry line its over; don't worry even if they have mostly Peh Skuda Aspa aka Heavy Missile Cavalry, your legions wipe them out.

60% legionnaires, 20% archers (AOR Skutjanz aka German Hunters are incredible and relatively quickly accessible for Rome), 20% cavalry. And as Rome don't EVER pay off anyone, you are the ROMANS and this is Divide et Impera so DIVIDE AND RULE THE WORLD! (let the fickle Spaniards, drunken Gauls, cowardly Persians or foolish Carthaginians pay off ppl, NOT ROME)

[Kirsch27]

I couldn't disagree more. I've had both Saka Rauka and the Budini (in the same campaign, as allies) push all the way to Magna Germania, Illyria and Nabatea. But most importantly, even if they didn't do so, I'd always recommend fighting them. They AI is incapable of using them correctly--in defensive battles. Your legions simply tetsudo and laugh as the HA hordes spend their ammo. Once they charge the infantry line its over; don't worry even if they have mostly Peh Skuda Aspa aka Heavy Missile Cavalry, your legions wipe them out.

60% legionnaires, 20% archers (AOR Skutjanz aka German Hunters are incredible and relatively quickly accessible for Rome), 20% cavalry. And as Rome don't EVER pay off anyone, you are the ROMANS and this is Divide et Impera so DIVIDE AND RULE THE WORLD! (let the fickle Spaniards, drunken Gauls, cowardly Persians or foolish Carthaginians pay off ppl, NOT ROME)

Well if you want to kill everything and zerg the whole map, you should certainly fight the horse nomads. Fighting them, just like any other AI nation, is not too terribly difficult once you get into your stride and make plenty of coin to build armies. BUT - if you want to just have a historical game or to win the victory conditions, it is a waste of effort to take over the steppe. Yes, sometimes the nomads expand into Europe like they historically did, but I almost always see them evaporate to their previous settlements on the steppe in a few decades. If I wanted to just kill everybody and rule the campaign map, I would probably be able to win in a few decades, but it isn't too much in the scheme of a long game played semi-historically.
Remember that armies are limited to a few, you will need some to defend your homelands in the Mediterranean and more to fend off other possible enemies or revolts. It is good then to not have to worry about the horse nomads, who can with a bit of luck on the AI's part wipe out a few of your stacks in ambushes or sieges even if you spend 20 minutes in field battles waiting for arrows to run out and win all of those. For the cost of a few armies you can send the horde's other enemies some gold and pay the horde for peace. The horde will likely be busy with other enemies if you keep funding them, allowing you to avoid a redeclaration of war.
If you want to fight them, yes, you want to use cavalry and missile infantry with a small core of legions to hold shields in testudo and absorb a million arrows. Slingers AND archers are good, but slingers come out ahead on the steppe with longer range and better projectiles so long as you protect them with your own cavalry.

[TheRazaman]

Well if you want to kill everything and zerg the whole map, you should certainly fight the horse nomads. Fighting them, just like any other AI nation, is not too terribly difficult once you get into your stride and make plenty of coin to build armies. BUT - if you want to just have a historical game or to win the victory conditions, it is a waste of effort to take over the steppe. Yes, sometimes the nomads expand into Europe like they historically did, but I almost always see them evaporate to their previous settlements on the steppe in a few decades. If I wanted to just kill everybody and rule the campaign map, I would probably be able to win in a few decades, but it isn't too much in the scheme of a long game played semi-historically.
Remember that armies are limited to a few, you will need some to defend your homelands in the Mediterranean and more to fend off other possible enemies or revolts. It is good then to not have to worry about the horse nomads, who can with a bit of luck on the AI's part wipe out a few of your stacks in ambushes or sieges even if you spend 20 minutes in field battles waiting for arrows to run out and win all of those. For the cost of a few armies you can send the horde's other enemies some gold and pay the horde for peace. The horde will likely be busy with other enemies if you keep funding them, allowing you to avoid a redeclaration of war.
If you want to fight them, yes, you want to use cavalry and missile infantry with a small core of legions to hold shields in testudo and absorb a million arrows. Slingers AND archers are good, but slingers come out ahead on the steppe with longer range and better projectiles so long as you protect them with your own cavalry.

Fighting AI HA's typically ends in fewer losses that fighting infantry heavy armies, imo b/c of AI limitations. There's no reason to worry about them at all is the message I'm trying to get across. My trepidation was high seeing the hordes spreading across Europe and Asia, but upon contact they're...underwhelming.

[zombieflanders]

Roman land that is really "desirable" is the mediterranean and britain/gaul, essentially. You want a big trade network and a few frontiers at the Rhine, Danube, Mesopotamia and the Caucasus. These are the best defensive positions you can set up really.

That's why I specifically mentioned Mesopotamia, south/west of the Danube, and Anatolia.

Once you get past the Caucasus, Mesopotamia and the Rhine + Danube, there's not a ton that's worth taking either.

Again, that's just your opinion.

The land is sparsely populated, with few settlements or resources and no ability to recruit factional troops. You will need to rely entirely on locals and the best you can really do in those areas is have a "client state" relationship where you rule in name only.

This just isn't true. Once you've built up your culture you can build any troops you want. That's the whole point of both the culture change mechanic and the updated auxiliary system that the DeI team put in place.

Well if you want to kill everything and zerg the whole map, you should certainly fight the horse nomads. Fighting them, just like any other AI nation, is not too terribly difficult once you get into your stride and make plenty of coin to build armies. BUT - if you want to just have a historical game or to win the victory conditions, it is a waste of effort to take over the steppe.

Part of the magic of the game is that you can create your own history. In my first Rome game, I expanded east of the Rhine and north of the Black Sea, but barely made it into Hispania and North Africa. A player doesn't have to paint the map, just do things their own way.

[Kirsch27]

That's why I specifically mentioned Mesopotamia, south/west of the Danube, and Anatolia.
Again, that's just your opinion.
This just isn't true. Once you've built up your culture you can build any troops you want. That's the whole point of both the culture change mechanic and the updated auxiliary system that the DeI team put in place.

Part of the magic of the game is that you can create your own history. In my first Rome game, I expanded east of the Rhine and north of the Black Sea, but barely made it into Hispania and North Africa. A player doesn't have to paint the map, just do things their own way.

Not trying to say anyone is doing anything wrong, but it is BEST to avoid them if you can. Yes you can spend lots of resources building up your culture in the steppe, but for years and years you will be unable to do that. You will need to rely on local troops for at least a decade or so, you will probably need a governor in the provinces you capture to help convert culture and the large provinces of the steppe are quite hard to defend and will require either a large amount of troops (draining your resources for the more lucrative and rewarding conquests in the south) or a peace with the nomads (which would be more advantageous if you fell back to more defensible borders along mountain ranges and rivers).

If you want to fight them you can of course game the AI and have testudos stand there like arrow wasting machines until they run out. The AI being too stupid to retreat when this happens, will try a melee attack and be promptly slaughtered. Of course you could have achieved the same thing in much less time by just turning the difficulty down to its lowest setting and zerg charging them with an army stretched across the entire map so they can't avoid your troops.

I usually play at least somewhat like what I would in real life, were I the commander, while taking into account their personalities, traits and cultural influences. No sane Roman commander would try to conquer the steppe and hold it, certainly not with a force made up predominantly of infantry. In real life, those little borders on the battle map don't exist, the horse nomads would simply retreat if out of ammo and unable to soften the enemy, or they would simply refuse to fight and fade into the steppe until the invaders got bored of chasing them around.
If an insane Roman did, for some reason, try to invade the steppe, he would probably not command his troops to stand there for 2-3 hours taking missile fire because he has a hunch that each horse archer has EXACTLY 22 arrows and once they run out, they will refuse to retreat and instead allow themselves to be chopped up into nice little bits. Probably. Depends how insane he was, I suppose.

[zombieflanders]

That's assuming they stay in their starting positions, which they rarely do. I've played a game where the Royal Scythians took over half of Anatolia and part of Thrace, and another where Parthia ruled Mesopotamia, which are desirable even by objective standards. And, of course, your idea of which land is desirable and which isn't is subjective.

[Kirsch27]

Roman land that is really "desirable" is the mediterranean and britain/gaul, essentially. You want a big trade network and a few frontiers at the Rhine, Danube, Mesopotamia and the Caucasus. These are the best defensive positions you can set up really. Once you get past the Caucasus, Mesopotamia and the Rhine + Danube, there's not a ton that's worth taking either. The land is sparsely populated, with few settlements or resources and no ability to recruit factional troops. You will need to rely entirely on locals and the best you can really do in those areas is have a "client state" relationship where you rule in name only. If the horse nomads attack the frontier the only good strategy is to pay them to go away. I rarely see nomads expand beyond the steppe, being stopped in Germany and Dacia, as well as in Persia. Parthia is usually wiped out or limited to eastern persia, and the scythians usually spend their time fighting in the caucasus and bosphoran. So I find it easier to just avoid fighting horse nomads altogether.

[Fedual]

As for fighting the eastern factions i suggest building an archer training building in syria and nabatea/judea together with a recruitment barrack in those 2 provinces aswell, and start pumping out the different auxilia archers at your dispolsal. 7 archer units, 4 or 3 cav & 10 or 9 infantry and perhaps squeeze in an Onager unit there aswell. You are gonna massacre any horse archer armies you face

[LewisVee]

Playing as Macedon, I struggled for a while against the steppe hordes, I had to re evaluate the armies I was building but in the end it was going to cost too much so I just decided to go for peace, which they accepted. Turned my affairs to Italy, and it was one off my favourite campaigns ever. Sparta and Athens assisting me with excellent armies, we wiped the floor with the Romans.