balancing between different armies

[omarquatar]

don't you think bosporan and indo-pathian armies are grossly overrated? in the end, they didn't conquer the known world...and for the slave armies, why are the gladiators, though superior troops, losing every combat?

[deadtorius]

The Parthians suffered from too much infighting between princes and overthrowing the current ruler or culling your successors to maintain the throne to really get out much and bother the neighbors. From what I understand that was why they never got around much, certainly made life miserable for the Roman armies that met them in battle though.

[batesmotel]

The current game balance seems like it makes missile fire too effective. Unlike the TT rules, I think it is possible in FoG PC to win a game purely with missile fire reducing units to the auto-break point and hence breaking an opposing army. Given this armies with lots of hard to catch shooters like the Bosporans and the Parthians are likely to be really strong. The killer elements in both armies are the LH and cavalry horse archers supported by the LF skirmishers.

Chris

[omarquatar]

and they never run out of arrows...

[arsan]

Nah! Late roman terminator like legionaries are overpowered!
Their "standard" troops are Superior, armored, impact foot & swordsmen+ and virtually no number limit.
You can get as many as you want to. They will stomp you at impact phase and again at melee phase. And willl keep fighting until 45% losses.
There is no real need to pick their Elite version... it's an overkill
It's the ideal newbie army. You don't need to plan much. Just keep on going straight for the enemy line until you blow a hole in it Once engaged it won't take more than a couple of turns..
Oh! how i hate them!!!

[Paisley]

Historically the Romans beat the Parthians far more often than they were themselves beaten. Carrhae casts a long shadow... and even there, the Romans were not beaten in the battle as such (though they certainly didn't win). The disaster was caused by Crassus's moral collapse and it was the subsequent disorganised retreat that led to the devastating losses. Even so, Cassius (who extracted ten thousand men in good order) beat the Parthians twice shortly afterwards.

[Talizh2]

Yes, the problem with the Parthians was that they were excellent in only one kind of terrain--flat and open. On terrain of their choosing they are going to run circles around you and make pincushions out of your heavy infantry. But nobody can guarantee a war is only going to take place on the terrain they want it to. If you are facing a Parthian army try to choose the most constricted terrain possible. With the new LOS feature you can keep your heavy troops hidden behind hills or screened. Use skirmishers to pin down enemy LH and then Cav to destroy them. Combined armed tactics were something the Parthians were never able to match because they never had more than one arm...unless you count the rabble and hillsmen as infantry.

[76mm]

...and for the slave armies, why are the gladiators, though superior troops, losing every combat?

i wish! i've opposed some gladiators that put up a very good fight.

[Paisley]

Yeah gl;adiators often do reasonably badly on impact but they shine in an extended fight where their swordsman+ comes into play

[Epicouros]

and they never run out of arrows...

They do... when the turn limit is reached. I was able to draw Carrhae with the Romans this way.

[Zonso]

Well the best cure for the Archers, whether LH or LF, is medium foot - you will have a gazillion MF against his and their missiles will do negligible damage and have no hope in melee.