Early Campaign Conquest Guide

[Halie Satanus]

The same holds true for Peasants. I didn't say that Slingers were useless or that they couldn't be dangerous - I said they aren't very good and that they aren't really that efficient.

As I said we shall agree to differ.

The sayings you mentioned are some that are specifically referenced to Roman bullets.

Take That in 'Greek' on a slinger bullet in the British museum.

I'd probably take them over basic Archer units as well, due to their slightly higher Attack and better Ammo capacity. Compared to pretty much any of the second-tier Archers, though, they're not very good - they're outranged, for one, and nearly all Archer units can be retrained, so you don't need to horde them or go to efforts to ensure they remain out of harm's way.

Maybe I'm just a better tactician.

Although your very lack of description works against you here - you equated all slingers to 'lowly warriors' based on the bullet messages. What if the messages had been ascribed to specific elite units (Rhodians, for example, since you think they were Greek)? Then it would be the elites who have humour/pride, not the 'lowly warriors.'

Actually I was referring specifically to Carthaginian slingers as 'lowly warriors'.. Is Rhodes not a Greek city in the time frame of RTW?

Well, they're better than nothing at all, but I'd rather have other types of units. Slingers are unique in that they have a flat firing trajectory. This gives mixed results on the battlefield. In their favour, they are better at attacking chariots, but against this, they shouldn't be placed behind your units because they'll hit them. Their missile attack is very low and they have a reduced range compared to archers which is why archers are much better at just about everything. Flaming arrows for archers also means that the Scythed Chariots of TSE and Pontus aren't a threat either, so slingers only have the advantage against the chariots of Egypt and Britannia. I might recruit slingers if I really wanted some missile units and had no other option, but they're not a good unit in a speed run because their speciality will almost never be used, and they aren't efficient for what they do otherwise. The Rhodian and Balearic mercenary varieties are good though and I'd recruit them whenever I had the chance.

Where slingers have an advantage is their fire rate is slightly faster and has a wider spread, at least I find that. Don't get me wrong, I'll take archers sitting behind my lies in most cases, but with Carthage the option isn't there.

In their case I'll take six units of slingers, if the enemy has little or no cavalry I'll put three units on each flank and use them to split the enemy advance, the AI will usually send heavy infantry chasing them and creating a cross fire is a nice way of taking them out, they can't catch slingers (unless they're Praetorians/Spartans).

If the enemy has 3-4 cavalry units I put all my slingers on one flank in a crescent formation (this staggers their fire) with one side close to a unit of spear men on my flank. the cavalry will almost always try to hit the outside unit first (closest to them) and I draw them back until I create a cross fire, while advancing my main line to meet theirs which isolates the enemy cavalry.. Once they are dealt with I send the slingers forward to hit the enemy line from the rear..

It takes a bit of micro management and the you have to have confidence in the front line to match the enemy but it works..

[Willowran]

i have a single complaint with your barbaric guides. you have suggested the useage of warbands. also, a complaint with your suggestion to pour out skirmishers (i think it was spain...?) for a similar reason, though to a lesser degree.

i will agree that they are useful for the reasons you suggested, but i don't know if you took into account their upkeep. early game warbands (i've found) are some of the absolute worst units in the game--especially for a barbarian faction. 200 upkeep early game per warband, with a barbarian faction. barbarians don't make quite as much money as the civilised factions do. i have been financially crippled more than once by trying to rely on warbands. skirmishers have an upkeep of 170, which is not bad, per say, but i really don't think it is worth it.

early game (as a barbarian) i have found a heavy emphasis on dogs can save your life. they have an upkeep of only 50, though they do take two turns to recruit. their greatest advantage, however, lies in their unique retraining. lose all the dogs in battle if you want, you automatically get them all back at the end of a fight. so long as you protect the peasent handlers (retreat as soon as the dogs are let loose), you can fight it out geurilla style far better than any warband can.

also, the naked fanatics i would suggest over warband simply due to the upkeep. 130 over 200.

(i am not trying to pick a fight, just suggesting a different point of view).

[Willowran]

oops

[Genius of the Restoration]

In their case I'll take six units of slingers, if the enemy has little or no cavalry I'll put three units on each flank and use them to split the enemy advance, the AI will usually send heavy infantry chasing them and creating a cross fire is a nice way of taking them out, they can't catch slingers (unless they're Praetorians/Spartans).

If the enemy is advancing it is usually because they have superior power according to the pre-battle calculator. All missile units are much less efficient in these battles, because it's highly unlikely that you'll get to use all your ammo. The real boon of missile units is when you can reduce the number of casualties taken by your troops. This is easier to do when the enemy is the defender because once you stop shooting they'll retreat to their original position, allowing you to start all over again. The problem with slingers is that in this situation, they have to fire on the unit at the front, and most likely from the frontal arc that doubles the shield value, causing very little casualties. Archers have the ability to fire over the top of these front units, but a slinger's trajectory doesn't let him. I wouldn't usually take many (or any) missile units in a scenario where I knew the AI was going to come for me. In this case, where the enemy has little or no cavalry, I'd stock up on extra cavalry myself. Depending on the infantry, I don't think slingers are great for what you've described either. Their measly attack of 4 won't do much against the unprotected rear of a heavy infantry unit andI don't imagine it would do anything at all against the front. Additionally, while your slingers are trying to take out heavy infantry with crossfire, their flat trajectory would make it difficult to manoeuvre cav in behind (to inflict the morale penalty) without being hit, though the low attack of slingers wouldn't worry me too much really. I'd also be concerned about how many units this takes to get the effect you're after. Also, Carthage lacks temples that provide experience and missile weapon upgrades, so they lose out there and have to start with just the basic slingers. Spain might have more hope.

i have a single complaint with your barbaric guides.

They're not that bad are they?

i will agree that they are useful for the reasons you suggested, but i don't know if you took into account their upkeep. early game warbands (i've found) are some of the absolute worst units in the game--especially for a barbarian faction. 200 upkeep early game per warband, with a barbarian faction. barbarians don't make quite as much money as the civilised factions do. i have been financially crippled more than once by trying to rely on warbands. skirmishers have an upkeep of 170, which is not bad, per say, but i really don't think it is worth it.

Yep, I've taken upkeep into consideration. Warbands do cost a lot I know, but they are a very solid early unit and often underestimated IMO. They can match up with a unit of Hastati, or be used to fight the enemy general, due to their warcry ability. They're not cheap at 520/200 but they're very strong for the early game. Upkeep shouldn't be too much of a worry with these units, as their relative power should allow you to conquer quickly and extermination (for Gaul, Dacia) and new trade routes (Britannia, though they should be chariot and ranged-heavy) should provide enough money to keep you afloat. The early strength of the barbarian factions really makes you want to start conquering from 270.

early game (as a barbarian) i have found a heavy emphasis on dogs can save your life. they have an upkeep of only 50, though they do take two turns to recruit. their greatest advantage, however, lies in their unique retraining. lose all the dogs in battle if you want, you automatically get them all back at the end of a fight. so long as you protect the peasent handlers (retreat as soon as the dogs are let loose), you can fight it out geurilla style far better than any warband can.

Dogs can be pretty good, but I'm not a big fan of units that I can't control. As you mentioned, the two-turn recruitment is also a bit of a bummer. If I specialised a settlement to build wardogs I'd always be tempted to just recruit cav, as they're more useful in most situations.

also, the naked fanatics i would suggest over warband simply due to the upkeep. 130 over 200.

The problem with Naked Fanatics is that they require a level two temple to recuit and retrain as well as taken two turns to recruit initially. Warbands are much easier to keep rolling with, as they only require the most basic barracks and you can be attacking with a larger number of them quicker than if you were using NFs.

Thanks for you input guys, it's nice to talk about different perspectives.

[Bonez]

Genius, can you pretty please make a guide for Egypt? Pretty please.

[Genius of the Restoration]

Post #93 wasn't detailed enough?

Maybe after we've tried this succession game. It takes a lot to muster my will to write...

[Willowran]

[QUOTE=Genius of the Restoration;11149368] They can match up with a unit of Hastati, or be used to fight the enemy general, due to their warcry ability. [QUOTE]

i've often found this not to be the case--eseciallyif i tried to take out a general. the warcry has a very temporary effect. only the first line of warband soldiers per unit is actually doing anything. the rest of the unit just spreads out backwards, making them especially vulnerable to flanking attacks, and removing their numerical advantage. i've found a thin line can combat that, but thin ranks also mean the enemy is more liable to break through, and the warbands have pretty crappy morales. it ends up becomming a "slug fest", but the warbands don't hold long... on the other hand, maybe i'm just using them wrong...

i will concede defeat on the fanatics. the warbandsa are easier to get at.

as for dogs... i'd still say theyre worth it. especially because they don't take a lot of people to recruit. early game (i'm playing as gaul right now) barbarian settlements don't have a lot of people in them. if i start pouring out warbands in newly exterminated settlements i will lose too much of the population and lose the ability to recruit at all. you can't control them, but in the type of combat i was suggesting, you don't really need to. just let em loose to wreak havoc, run away, repeat. eventually the enemy army is small enough to take out with a smaller conventional force. though the two-turn thring really is a bummer...

[Halie Satanus]

If the enemy is advancing it is usually because they have superior power according to the pre-battle calculator. All missile units are much less efficient in these battles, because it's highly unlikely that you'll get to use all your ammo. The real boon of missile units is when you can reduce the number of casualties taken by your troops. This is easier to do when the enemy is the defender because once you stop shooting they'll retreat to their original position, allowing you to start all over again. The problem with slingers is that in this situation, they have to fire on the unit at the front, and most likely from the frontal arc that doubles the shield value, causing very little casualties. Archers have the ability to fire over the top of these front units, but a slinger's trajectory doesn't let him. I wouldn't usually take many (or any) missile units in a scenario where I knew the AI was going to come for me. In this case, where the enemy has little or no cavalry, I'd stock up on extra cavalry myself. Depending on the infantry, I don't think slingers are great for what you've described either. Their measly attack of 4 won't do much against the unprotected rear of a heavy infantry unit andI don't imagine it would do anything at all against the front. Additionally, while your slingers are trying to take out heavy infantry with crossfire, their flat trajectory would make it difficult to manoeuvre cav in behind (to inflict the morale penalty) without being hit, though the low attack of slingers wouldn't worry me too much really. I'd also be concerned about how many units this takes to get the effect you're after. Also, Carthage lacks temples that provide experience and missile weapon upgrades, so they lose out there and have to start with just the basic slingers. Spain might have more hope.

As Carthage...

Sounds like a long and differing conversation about campaign/battle tactics. I rarely attack an enemy, unless I'm going through a blitzing phase after a period of playing turtle.. Even then I always wait for the enemy to attack and place my army at the far end of the field forcing the enemy to advance, it's during their advance that I use skirmishers (slingers) to harass their lines so they send units out, this gives me an advantage when the lines meet which I capitalise on by bringing units around the flanks, as I rarely use cavalry I always have the numbers in infantry, as their moral wavers my slingers sap them further by hitting them from behind.. It works for me any way.. Admittedly these tactics came after years of using the hammer and anvil (with cavalry) tactics which became to easy..

[Bonez]

Went and looked at your Greece run, using tips and strats from that I have started a Julii campaign and am currently going pretty good, 6 turns 7 settlements and am heading towards Spain with a small force of train and bloodied soldiers who took the Carthaginian islands.

[CashMoney]

Seleucids anyone? The best army out there, what with chariots, great legionary copies, phalanxes, archers (looking at you, Carthage), and, most of all, elephants. Plus they have Antioch, which is obviously the greatest city in both Rome and Medieval 2.

I'm trying to get started with them, but RTW is turning out to be quite clearly not the cakewalk Medieval 2 is on Very Hard. I'm especially wondering if my traditional massed-archers-guarded-by-infantry tactics from medieval are gonna work with the mediocre archers of the Seleucids.

[Bonez]

In rome only gaul and 2-3 others have amazing archers, in rome the best stratedgy is to use cavalry to hammer and anvil among many things, from what I've heard and seen cav is much more effective in rome than in medieval.

[Genius of the Restoration]

i've often found this not to be the case--eseciallyif i tried to take out a general.

Oh yeah, they need backup, but with the warcry they have 30 seconds during which they have 20 attack, as well as a bonus against cav for having spears. Even a bodyguard unit suffers horribly if they get bogged down in a fight against these guys. Run them with a unit of cav so the bodyguard doesn't get the charge off and you should be laughing.

the warcry has a very temporary effect. only the first line of warband soldiers per unit is actually doing anything. the rest of the unit just spreads out backwards, making them especially vulnerable to flanking attacks, and removing their numerical advantage. i've found a thin line can combat that, but thin ranks also mean the enemy is more liable to break through, and the warbands have pretty crappy morales. it ends up becomming a "slug fest", but the warbands don't hold long... on the other hand, maybe i'm just using them wrong...

I prefer a unit 5 or so ranks deep. Lets them surround cav units easier. Their morale isn't too bad as long as you keep the general nearby or a unit of cav to charge into the flanks of whatever unit they're fighting, but on VH you'd want to do this for most units anyway.

as for dogs... i'd still say theyre worth it. especially because they don't take a lot of people to recruit. early game (i'm playing as gaul right now) barbarian settlements don't have a lot of people in them. if i start pouring out warbands in newly exterminated settlements i will lose too much of the population and lose the ability to recruit at all. you can't control them, but in the type of combat i was suggesting, you don't really need to. just let em loose to wreak havoc, run away, repeat. eventually the enemy army is small enough to take out with a smaller conventional force. though the two-turn thring really is a bummer...

They have their advantages. The current succession game demonstrates this, as dogs on the frontier of Scythia are a great way of dealing with HA spam. I don't generally want to use them though. It's true that exterminate settlements don't often have the require population, but a bit of slavery can help with that. Or turn those settlements into spy-producing towns for a bit, that would work too. Maybe take some screenshots during a battle you have with them and I'll see where you're coming from.

Went and looked at your Greece run, using tips and strats from that I have started a Julii campaign and am currently going pretty good, 6 turns 7 settlements and am heading towards Spain with a small force of train and bloodied soldiers who took the Carthaginian islands.

That sounds very promising. Are you trying to cut off your allies at all? Please keep us updated

[Bonez]

No, I'm not trying to cut off my allies as of yet because they seem to be conquering quite slow, but after Spain I plan on moving a couple of armies down to North Africa and heading towards Egypt, but if I can spare the men I'll probably move up into Greece if there is a chance.

[Paggers]

Seleucids anyone? The best army out there, what with chariots, great legionary copies, phalanxes, archers (looking at you, Carthage), and, most of all, elephants. Plus they have Antioch, which is obviously the greatest city in both Rome and Medieval 2.

I'm trying to get started with them, but RTW is turning out to be quite clearly not the cakewalk Medieval 2 is on Very Hard. I'm especially wondering if my traditional massed-archers-guarded-by-infantry tactics from medieval are gonna work with the mediocre archers of the Seleucids.

To put it bluntly, no, I find massed infantry supported by missile troops and some cavalry.
The main issues I find with Seleucid on vh/vh is the constant sieges.
It's imperative that you spam Militia Hoplites when and where you can in the early game so that you can defend in sieges.
You'll also have to fight dirty in the early game, ie bridge battles and sallying from sieges using mercenary missiles eg Rhodian slingers and Cretan archers to degrade/deplete the enemy forces.
I also don't bother repairing the walls after the first siege. When there is a subsequent siege, just check they are buliding battering rams and wait for him to assault. Most, if not all, will charge for the gaps in the wall from the previous siege and then it should be party time for you.
The other complicating factor is co-ordinating your strategy as your initial settlement setup is very fractured. I find that concentrating on 1 faction at a time and defending/holding the others is my most effective strategy.
Anyway, enough of that, back to work.

[Bonez]

That sounds very promising. Are you trying to cut off your allies at all? Please keep us updated

There is your update , Spain and Gaul both have 1 settlement left and Gaul just gave me 5k for a "ceasefire", which means I can get a few more troops to help my beleagured forces. Only thing is, I'm using mercenaries a lot because some are amazing, cheap, and almost as good as my early infantry so it all works out.

[Genius of the Restoration]

Very nice. I also use a heap of mercenaries all the time. They've got expensive recruitment costs, but I think they're well worth it because if they let you capture a settlement a couple of turns earlier, they'll quickly pay for themselves and allow you to conquer faster in the future too. If you check my last save in the Will of Zyraxes succession game, you'll see quite a few mercenaries in armies. I recruit them from the front line whenever they become available, so good move