Missle vs Close Combat

[VOP2288]

Hey, I just got done playing some of the Europa Barbarum mod for RTW, I decided to give the nation of Parthia (or whatever it's called in EB) a go...I must say...for someone like myself that is a nation that's almost useless and NO FUN to play...I dont mean to slander the mod or anything but what it did do was lead me to think of something...

What do you prefer more? The missile based units like horse archers, skirmishers, archers, and the like or do you prefer close combat: swordsmen, spearmen, etc ?

Personally I HATE all ranged and missle units besides some skirmishers and archers of coarse but I cant understand why anyone would ever want to or enjoy using 8 different types of horse archers, 2 types of javalin throwing horsemen, or 3 different kinds of skirmishers...how fun is that? Not very. It also doesnt help when the nation you want to play has nothing but these things with maybe 1 unit of levy, militia spearmen. It may be histoircally accurate in some cases but it's just boring!

Opinions?

[Hader]

Both really. I use both equally and effectivly, but I must say that my favorite just to watch is melee combat.

I like Armenia, and they of course have great missile units, with great melee units as well. I grew accustomed to using both together, and not really liking one over the other.

[Azog 150]

Depends who i am playing, i try to use both, but with some factions like Parthia its unavoidable but to mainly use one type of unit. Same with the barbarians, isnt a big variety in cavelry, so you use mostly infantry.

[Arceus]

i chose missile, why fight them in melee, when you can make your horse archers shoot them from far away, without suffering heavy losses, after that smash them with your heavy cavalry, that what i did with parthia in EB

[Dulce_et_Decorum_Est]

Missiles, missiles and more missiles.

Close order shock combat is good if you want a fast victory. Nothing disheartens and enemy more than getting gagged with their own buddy's entrails, but I don't do fast. I do methodical.

Every enemy soldier that runs from the battlefield will come back to bother you later. Every soldier that does not return home is one less sword to lean upon in future battles. Given that wars tend to be rather drawn out grudge matches versus the AI rather than Clausewitz's ideal of statescraft by other means, attration combat is ideal. In RTW war isn't a rational exercise conducted between two parties with opposing interests in an area; it's an elimination procedure. Victory conditions are exclusive; there can be only ONE!

This in mind, the AI will only capitulate or negotiate after it's been beaten to scrap. This means the elimination of their forces, not merely their defeat.

To this end, horse archers are simply the best soldiers, preferably fancier types that can hold their own in close combat, like Scythian Nobles, Persian cavalry, Cataphract archers and some of vanilla's nastier chariots.

Deploy this army against any Mediterranean-style heavy infantry based army, and it's Carrhae again and again and again. Demoralize and seperate the enemy forces, and then round them up for the slaughter. The steppe peoples were pastoralists, and they'll soon draw the connection between herding game and herding enemies.

Since everyone is on horses they can run away if necessary. Killing the enemy is not a time-critical process. Just ensure that the enemy is killed, preferably to a man, and you will find the AI suddenly more tractable to your demands.

ALL HAIL THE MOUNTED ARCHER!

[NobleNick]

Missiles, missiles and more missiles.

Close order shock combat is good if you want a fast victory... but I don't do fast. I do methodical.

Every enemy soldier that runs from the battlefield will come back to bother you later...

...the AI will only capitulate or negotiate after it's been beaten to scrap. This means the elimination of their forces, not merely their defeat.

To this end, horse archers are simply the best soldiers, preferably fancier types...

...Killing the enemy is not a time-critical process. Just ensure that the enemy is killed...

Great points! (BTW, I gave you rep for that post.)

I would like to add that your strategy works even for non-mounted archers. I like to pack lots of archers into my stacks. If trained well enough (e.g. foundry) and protected long enough, they can become the predominate force in your armies.

My favorite faction to play out this strategy is the Gauls. A Forester Warband trained in the correct temples and protected for just a few fights, can boast an astonishing missile attack rating of 17 or more! That is a higher missile attack than the melee rating of the elite H.I. protecting them! Field 6 of these units behind a wall of Chosen Swordsmen and a few chanting Druids, and the Swordsmen (I am not exaggerating) often come away with NO kills. That's right, a similar sized enemy stack typically routs before making melee contact. Since you never lose Foresters, these units just keep getting better and better as the game progresses.

[Adrian]

phalanx with archers behind thats mi tactic the selucid combine both well so you can put a line of phanlagites up front archers behind them & mobile shock troops to the flanks......

[Oldgamer]

I make use of both. For instance, if the enemy is just going to stand there, I'm going to make use of my missile units. If the enemy has both melee and missile units, I'll start out with an attack on their missile units, and then decide when to attack in melee.

Since I employ 4 units of foot archers in each stack, and 2-3 units of horse archers (if available in the faction I'm using), I can put a lot of hurt on the enemy. When he's suitably "softened up", then I hit him with my melee units.

[^Gr8^Xander]

Roman infantry rocks, so you'll hardy lose a battle with 'm. But on the other side missile works as well. Killing or wounding most of the enemies, and then kill the remaining ones.

So I chose for both missile and hand-to-hand-close-combat.

Together; infantry in the front, supported by missile troops behind them will win the day.

(And cavalry to finish them off)

[Wrath]

Although Melee combat is more effective and fun it leads a greater risk for your own troops to die. Missle combat is much safer if your trying to avoid casulties.

[Cato the Younger]

I also chose both, as it's more strategically sound.

[Severous]

I was the first person to vote missiles.

I play on VH settings. I am at less of a disadvantage against the various AI bonuses when using missiles. Mobility and missiles is my preferred style.

[Kamos]

Melee because nothing screams "I'm a real man" like another man screaming like a women in front of you, because of you and your trusty Sword/Spear/Club/Yeah I'm stopping this could take awhile.

[sentinel37]

For me, it really depends on my "role-playing" mood and which faction I play. When I play a barbarian faction (except the huns), I expect to go mano-to-mano with everyone, since I also have superior numbers and that is the forte of the barbarian faction. Also because most units are easy to retrain. Gotta admit that those are good fights. I do bring a couple of forrestor archers along, since they are really good and just in case I meet an elephant somewhere, I'll need some flaming arrows.

But for the romans and most greek factions, I'll need combine arms, so I'll need a little of both to survive and make sure I don't unneccessarily lose too many units. I haven't played Armenia or Sythia yet, so I still haven't gotten use to Horse Archers yet, but man, they are annoying!

[^Gr8^Xander]

After some hard thinking (hehe), I came to this: troops like the roman Legionary Cohort. They have a well missile attack AND a good melee attack. And after that they got a very good defense.