Strategy Guide - Rome 2 DEI

[geala]

Historically the greek/macedonian armies had their left considered weaker than their right because their right flank consisted of their most valuable household troops, while the left were usually composed of weaker troops and allies, therefore their left flank were usually the one being attacked and outflanked (the most handy example would be Alexander's army, where Parmenion commanded the left and was always struggling with being outflanked, since Alexander's right always was the one doing the outflanking and being the hammer with Parmenion being the anvil). But that detail isn't important, since we're talking about a mod that covers all the styles of ancient warfare right up to the early medieval/dark age, so strategies vary. We're seeing hoplites being the kings of the battlefield turning obsolete, even the sarissa phalanxes to a certain extent, so things change.
What I am trying to say is that I find your full pike army warfare kinda boring. Sure, it may bring good results to you and kudos to yourself for that, but I find it unnecessarily time consuming since the pikes don't have that that great kill ratio - they're more for holding and pinning the enemy, whereas peltasts, thureos and thorax units do most of the killing. Besides that, you yourself said that even with 8 pikes you are struggling with being flanked. Well, duh, that's because the pikes are slow, cumbersome units which need to be supported by lighter, more maneuverable units like your hyspaspists and other units, which, by the way, don't need to be also spearmen to protect the flanks. You see, the pike or should I say the sarissa phalanx, is a very particular, very specialized kind of unit: while it is very valuable in holding the line, it can't reach its full potential by itself like other types of troops ( the Roman legion being the most obvious example of versatility). Even the hoplites are more versatile than the sarissa, but that's because the greeks couldn't afford great cavalry, skirmishers and ferocious thracian troops like the macedonians did, so they had to adapt. Even the pikes in the middle ages needed support - "the pike and shot" era, so it's a very specialized kind of troops which loses its shine when used in other roles not suited for it. The mod offers you many many options, therefore I don't understand why would you choose to play with so many pikes, so little variety. Put aside the fact that is historically inaccurate, but gameplaywise I find it so lazy, so boring, so time consuming and even reckless, since a skirmisher army, a Parthian army for example, would tear yours to shreds. You're a Carrhae waiting to happen, a modern day Crassus lol.

Of course you can do what you want in DeI, that's the great thing. Maybe I would not play Macedon or Epirus if I don't want to play a pike based army.

I know a bit about pike phalanx warfare. It had it pros and cons. The pikemen were one part of a combined arms system. If it was not balanced the performance suffered. If it was balanced and well led, no army could deal with it. Also not the Romans (see Heracleum, Asculum). So we had a very effective but rather fragile system while for example the Roman army was much more resistant (being manipular heavy infantry mainly).

I don't think in reality the well composed Hellenic army had to fear a skirmisher army or a missile heavy army. Do you know some battles lost against such forces?

Horse archers may have posed a problem but an easily solvable one, increase your own light troops. I would do if I had to fight such troops. Do you think you would win with a duel of your horse archers with Cretan archers and artillery? Maybe with heavy armored ones who would not die fast enough. Here comes the problem of 20 against 20. In reality horse archers usually were less in number than their infantry adversaries and bodies of pikemen rather well protected against arrows from far away. I will test.

If you hint to Carrhae, it was a proof that heavy Parthian cavalry was unable to deal with heavy infantry. It was proof that even after day long bombardment a Parthian army could not win on the battlefield. It was also a proof that heavy infantry alone was not able to beat a horse based army. It showed that having too few and bad cavalry was bad. But if I look at Issus 333 BC I don't see that heavy eastern cataphracts were superior to Hellenic cavalry, either Thessalian or Macedonian.

Carrhae btw is a good example that the Roman soldiers were no warrior machines, as some modern historians see them, but soldiers with problems of morale from time to time (on which the ancient authors laid great importance). Anyway, if you look at the battles of Ventidius against the Parthians and the crushing defeat of the latter you see that the Romans learned the lesson.

Ok, I stop here, as it is a thread about a guide.

[Basilius]

But the Rodians are the only ones I've seen so far. All the rest have 20 hp

As far as I know, this is correct.

[Rendon]

As far as I know, this is correct.

The elite Massalian Marine Swordsmen are also 24 HP and as far as I can tell they're the best marine unit in the game, having better armor than the Rhodians. I think both the Rhodian marines and Massalian marines are also the only units to carry four javelins which makes them extremely powerful.

[Basilius]

IMO all unit hp should be standardized at 20, but maybe KAM can offer his view.

On another note, what does everyone think of the General skills "Night Commander" and "Quartermaster"? I think both are extremely strong. I know some people consider NC to be a cheese (as do I), but QM is also top tier. Should they be nerfed? Are there other talents that need to be addressed? Either for being too strong or too weak?

[KAM 2150]

Marines have a bit more HP so they stand better chance vs land units due to lower unit size.

[PietrolEremita]

Quartermaster is good and convenient but not exceptional unless you are playing a nomadic faction, then it is a must.

Night Commander is... Situational. In hundreds of hours of dei and over a dozen campaigns played to the late game (turn 150+) I have never found it necessary. Convenient? Sometimes. But necessary never.

I said it before, the best Commander talent is the blue one that gives -EM and + research. Second is the one that gives +strategic movement

[PietrolEremita]

Double post

[Basilius]

Marines have a bit more HP so they stand better chance vs land units due to lower unit size.

Respectfully Kam, this doesn't make sense. Rhodesian Marines, for example, have the same unit size has many other naval groups, but have 24 hp, instead of 20. So surely unit size cannot be the explanation.

Quartermaster is good and convenient but not exceptional unless you are playing a nomadic faction, then it is a must.

QM is the only talent that gives armor to units, giving many 1-2 additional armor. It also makes all archers/singers last 50% longer. Those are incredible value stats that I don't see matched elsewhere.

In hundreds of hours of dei and over a dozen campaigns played to the late game (turn 150+) I have never found it necessary.

I can't fathom this. I find the ability to separate groups of enemy stacks absurdly (and constantly) useful.

Second is the one that gives +strategic movement

You mean campaign movement?

[Basilius]

Okay, just discovered that the "General Skill" spreadsheet is out of date and does not reflect in-game. Quartermaster is much worse, at only +5% armor and +15% ammunition.

Dresden, can I be allowed to edit the spreadsheet to help update it?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...Qgw/edit#gid=1

[hoho96]

Respectfully Kam, this doesn't make sense. Rhodesian Marines, for example, have the same unit size has many other naval groups, but have 24 hp, instead of 20. So surely unit size cannot be the explanation.

I just came across a couple of other marines with 24 HP somewhere in eastern mediterranean. I forgot which ones were those BUT it's there. If anything I think marines with 20 hp are to be reported in the bugs section^^

It actually makes some sense, at least in game terms. Most marines won't be able to fight even levy units with only 80 men and 20 hp. at least this way naval factions could effectively conduct naval raids against undefended towns.

[popovic]

NC is as cheesy as it gets.

Would the devs consider removing it?

(yeah, I know, I know, "just don`t use it" etc...)

[Basilius]

Does anyone know what Authority/Cunning/Zeal do for generals? One point unlocks a clickable move for them in battle; what does higher A/C/Z scores do? Make the ability more powerful?

[hoho96]

Authority increases the generals aura (as well as morale?)
Cunning reduces abilities recharge time
Zeal increases the commander's units battle stats (ex: melee attack ... etc)

Moreover, a high score of each of those attributes counters certain agent actions; high cunning will protect from cunning actions, high authority protects from authority actions, Zeal protects from zealous actions AND increase the chance that your character will injure enemy agent and protect from assassinations.

[Basilius]

Hey everyone; just a friendly BUMP. I apologize if it's against the rules, but I would love to see more of the community updating this guide with how Rome 2 and DEI are evolving.

The politics section needs an overhaul and I'm still not confident on the mechanics section. Further, I would love if we could start adding short strategy guides for every faction in-game. Any updates are appreciated!

Guide found here (anyone can edit):

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...TuqsJbuQY/edit

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

No worries. Thanks for the heads up.
Ι'll move it to the DeI Strategy Guides and Gameplay Discussions thread though.

[Basilius]

The more I work on this, the less it becomes a "strategy guide" and more a DEI Encyclopedia.

I think I'll convert this to a DEI wiki. What would be the best program/website to do use?

[Imperator Aug]

I wouldn't mind helping out, just set it up on a wiki site or steam guide