Deployment of Veterans

[Cheimison]

When I have Veteran or otherwise high quality troops I was wondering if it was better to mix them into the ranks to create a line that's stronger on average, form them into a wing so I can smash one of the enemy flanks or use them to hold the center line? Obviously a lot of this depends on who's on the other side of the battlefield and what the terrain is like, but I've read about how the Roman armies often had the veterans in one cohort and sometimes one double strength cohort of elites.

[MikeC_81]

If the answer to this question was straightforward, simple or produced a consistent answer, I don't think this would be a very good game.

[devoncop]

To be fair it is often effective in a phalanx for example to have superior troops at both wings where the phalanx is most vulnerable to flanking. I am sure there are other examples of what our Human Resources Departments would call "best practice" (ugh!)

[76mm]

When I have Veteran or otherwise high quality troops I was wondering if it was better to mix them into the ranks to create a line that's stronger on average, form them into a wing so I can smash one of the enemy flanks or use them to hold the center line?

Personally I always deploy them together on one flank or, if possible, in the rear as a reserve. It seems to me that mixing them in with other troops just makes them more vulnerable when/if the weaker troops are pushed back. Plus you need to create some momentum by smashing one part of the enemy army as soon as possible, and generally speaking it is best to do that on a flank with your best troops.

This has always been how I play, but I can't claim to be particularly good. Would be interested to hear how others do it.

[JorgenCAB]

When I have Veteran or otherwise high quality troops I was wondering if it was better to mix them into the ranks to create a line that's stronger on average, form them into a wing so I can smash one of the enemy flanks or use them to hold the center line?

Personally I always deploy them together on one flank or, if possible, in the rear as a reserve. It seems to me that mixing them in with other troops just makes them more vulnerable when/if the weaker troops are pushed back. Plus you need to create some momentum by smashing one part of the enemy army as soon as possible, and generally speaking it is best to do that on a flank with your best troops.

This has always been how I play, but I can't claim to be particularly good. Would be interested to hear how others do it.

In general I tend to agree... when you mix in your stronger troops with the weaker (if you can say superior units is weak) then you sort of dilute their power and you are forced to push the entire front which usually is not a good idea.

I do however think it can be wise to put at least one veteran unit at the end of a refused flank and then pool the rest on the flank you intend to overwhelm. Having that veteran there will assure you to hold it for just a few more turns. I'm not keen on leaving my veteran troops as reserves (unless it is Triarii). I want to exploit them as fast as I can to win as fast as I can.

[Cheimison]

When I have Veteran or otherwise high quality troops I was wondering if it was better to mix them into the ranks to create a line that's stronger on average, form them into a wing so I can smash one of the enemy flanks or use them to hold the center line?

Personally I always deploy them together on one flank or, if possible, in the rear as a reserve. It seems to me that mixing them in with other troops just makes them more vulnerable when/if the weaker troops are pushed back. Plus you need to create some momentum by smashing one part of the enemy army as soon as possible, and generally speaking it is best to do that on a flank with your best troops.

This has always been how I play, but I can't claim to be particularly good. Would be interested to hear how others do it.

In general I tend to agree... when you mix in your stronger troops with the weaker (if you can say superior units is weak) then you sort of dilute their power and you are forced to push the entire front which usually is not a good idea.

I do however think it can be wise to put at least one veteran unit at the end of a refused flank and then pool the rest on the flank you intend to overwhelm. Having that veteran there will assure you to hold it for just a few more turns. I'm not keen on leaving my veteran troops as reserves (unless it is Triarii). I want to exploit them as fast as I can to win as fast as I can.

I rarely use reserves, unless there is a region I think the enemy might punch through and need gap fillers. Especially if you're saving and not playing in campaign mode, there is little reason not to throw everything at the enemy. A loss is a loss, it's not like there's any upside to doing an orderly retreat or whatever. May as well throw everything you have at them.

[JorgenCAB]

Reserves are as much an offensive as a defensive tool, that is the whole point of reserves. In defense they will save you those extra turns to turn the flank or push the enemy center and win the battle.

In my experience it is rather difficult to use all resources effectively if you commit them all at once or at least you will trust luck more, either you break the enemy or you don't and loose. When you play against an intelligent (non AI) opponent they will react fast and see what you are trying to do and shift their reserves or fall back accordingly into a defensive position. Ai is pretty bad at using terrain to their benefit in both offense and defense.

But I probably have different reasons for my thinking. First of all I don't care so much about winning as I am about loosing the battle. So if the opponent like to win that much they need to come and dislodge me from that hill or forest while my veteran troops and reserves move to crush the weaker point of the enemy line, or some such. If the battle is a draw I'm as happy as if I win, just as long as I don't loose.

In the current battle which is a 5000p battle you would be seriously beaten if not using reserves in a smart fashion, moving troops from one end of a line to the next will be rather slow so having a cavalry reserve is also important I have realized.. I guess that the amount of reserves also can depend on the size of the game I suppose.

[Cheimison]

I haven't really been using tactics other than collapsing a flank and swinging in on it, which requires that I either have a longer line or a strong flank, which usually means putting at least all my heavy infantry on the front. I do tend to keep a couple of phalanx behind the line every few squares for the reason I mentioned. Sometimes I will hide a few archers or heavy unprotected infantry in the woods to ambush obnoxious velites or surprise flank enemy cavalry.
I like the idea of a cavalry reserve, but cavalry suck unless they're flanking or vastly superior, so I've found it more profitable to shoot extra cavalry past the enemy line and to the left.

[JorgenCAB]

Well you seem to use what I term reserves, the question is just for what purpose you use it.

Turning the flank is usually very effective against the AI. The AI seem to love putting heavy resources on one flank and very little on the other. So... offering a refused flank (preferably anchored against a terrain object) and hammer the weak flank works pretty well. Only the Roman AI seem to distribute its forces more evenly.

I also tend to put my best troops up front and second rate troops in the back or as a follow up for any spearhead. Weaker units are better when they can attack an enemy in the flanks. Using a light spear medium infantry to attack a Gallic warband in the front will often go very badly. It can also be smart to put some strong units in the reserves for having the option of shifting focus of an attack along your line, such as a few elephants.
Once I charged an elephant unit into a gap opened by en enemy unit punching through my line. The enemy unit was charged by a second rate medium unit in the back and occupied it for a rather long time by itself, the elephant disrupted that whole section of the line and held up a proportionally large enemy force.

[Cheimison]

Well you seem to use what I term reserves, the question is just for what purpose you use it.

Turning the flank is usually very effective against the AI. The AI seem to love putting heavy resources on one flank and very little on the other. So... offering a refused flank (preferably anchored against a terrain object) and hammer the weak flank works pretty well. Only the Roman AI seem to distribute its forces more evenly.

It's easier for the Romans to do. Allies aside, the actual Roman-Roman army from the Principate onward was almost entirely heavy infantry, so there really aren't any weak units except for raw legions for them to use.

[Patrick Ward]

In multiplayer .. if you become predictable .. you lose.

[JorgenCAB]

In multiplayer .. if you become predictable .. you lose.

Yes... and this is why AI is so easy to beat once you know its pattern behaviors.

[rbodleyscott]

In multiplayer .. if you become predictable .. you lose.

Is that from Sun Tzu?