Always at numerical disadvantage

[kstanb]

After maybe 20 battles always at numerical disadvantage, I am wondering if there is a campaign or maybe a faction in which I can have numerical superiority of lower quality troops

In my last campaign (Darius), playing as Persia, my army was typically at 28K fighting against 40K enemies, lots and lots of enemies. This kind of forced me to follow only one strategy, tight defense; I would look at the most defensible spot on the map, and I would simply park there, 99% of the times this works wonderfully, as the AI's vast numbers meant little when less than half of its troops area able to fight or shoot.

So, easy victories, but after a few times doing the same, it kinds of get boring; is there a way to force the AI to go for high quality, less numbers? or is there a faction that having lower quality troops would be consistently show bigger numbers vs the AI?

[rbodleyscott]

Most other armies vs Romans.

Any faction with lots of lower quality troops.

[Ludendorf]

Romans, warband armies and pikes tend to suffer a bit in terms of number of elements on the field, though warband armies with lots of chariots can turn this on its head sometimes; the Britons can field a dangerous swarm of slingers and light chariots. The various Italian factions and the Greeks get to field armies with many elements, while the Carthaginians get fairly cheap infantry (outside of the lists with mandatory veterans) and plenty of light and relatively cheap heavy cavalry to tie down various parts of a smaller army with. Horse factions like the Huns are also sometimes capable of fielding swarms of light cavalry archers and regular cavalry archers which can render small, elite infantry formations almost helpless if used correctly.

The key words here are 'number of elements'. You won't necessarily outnumber, say, the Macedonians or Gauls in terms of absolute numbers of men on the field, but you'll have more elements those men are divided into.

[kstanb]

Yes I guess my problem was that by picking the Persians, I was by forced into high quality; Iranian cavalry and the Immortals are awesome; while pajama boys (I don't remember their exact name) as good on ranged, while adequate at melee

I need to find a good Thracian or Scythian campaign for a horse archer focused play

[jomni]

You can try hoplite armies.

[rbodleyscott]

You can try hoplite armies.

Or (if you have Age of Belisarius) Arab (City).

[rbodleyscott]

You also have to bear in mind that in the later stages of a campaign, your veteran units are worth even more points than normal. The system will attempt to keep the battles at the right difficulty level points wise, which will mean that (as the enemy units are lower quality) they will get more of them.

The solution to this, if you want to keep up your relative numbers, is to "pension off" some of your veterans by putting them "in garrison", and replace them with fresh young men.

It goes against the grain to do this, but the game is trying to make all of the battles challenging and interesting, by using the points system to balance the forces. Therefore, if you have an army of elite super troops, it is going to be smaller than the enemy army of mediocre troops.

[rbodleyscott]

Funneling the enemy into a defensive position isn't the only way to deal with numerical disadvantage, however. The alternative is to adopt an echeloned attack against one end of their line - as recommended by Vegetius - see the appendix in the manual. This works especially well if you have a big quality advantage at the leading edge of your force, and overlap their line at that end, so that you can make flank attacks on them once they are engaged. They will of course overlap you on the other flank, but it doesn't matter how much they overlap you by. You should be able roll them up from one end faster than they can defeat your refused wing.

This works even better if you can swing your attack around a piece of terrain that their troops are unsuitable for attacking. This will help your refused wing to last longer, giving you more time to roll them up with your attacking wing.

Attacking a numerically superior enemy in echelon certainly makes for more exciting battles than fighting on the defensive.

[Adraeth]

Agree for the echelon tactics, or maybe divide units in foot and horse and try to use your foor as a trap to invite the enemy army, then outflank with cavalry.

This kind of tactic i used with Lombards Vs Slav, i dismounted half of my horse, checkboarded them with massed archers and i left mounted ones in the rear; Slav engaged my foot and i outflanked with my cavalry, i won a bloody battle routing the enemy to 60%. With this tactic your foot must hold enough, so try to keep it on an hill

[kstanb]

I would try the echelons, but not with Persia, I think you need good shock troops to try that approach. Persian immortal are good troops, but they won't break a flank quickly enough

[SirGarnet]

The Persians as a rule always have ample good cavalry to swing round any flanking route, pin the enemy front to limit their readjustment, and support the infantry as they come up. Or they can deploy in the rear or center and use their speed to redeploy their weight to the striking echelon.

My biggest non-UI problem is the Garrison system. I like the battles, but not the dilemma of hollowing out my field army for garrisons. I would in most cases pension off the unfit, send wounded to recover,in garrisons of fresh recruits suitable for defending walls or works, , and continue with reliable troops in the field army.

Invalids, recovering wounded, and raw recruits are much more suitable for garrison duty and training up in the occupied towns. Good troops sitting in garrison lose their combat edge and tend to go to seed in actual experience.

The garrison phase is the unpleasant chore that sets my campaigns on the back shelf for an unknown future date.

Will the Mongols have to leave all these garrisons? Or can they just raze their way forward across the sea of grass?

Cheers

[rbodleyscott]

The Persians as a rule always have ample good cavalry to swing round any flanking route, pin the enemy front to limit their readjustment, and support the infantry as they come up. Or they can deploy in the rear or center and use their speed to redeploy their weight to the striking echelon.

My biggest non-UI problem is the Garrison system. I like the battles, but not the dilemma of hollowing out my field army for garrisons. I would in most cases pension off the unfit, send wounded to recover,in garrisons of fresh recruits suitable for defending walls or works, , and continue with reliable troops in the field army.

Invalids, recovering wounded, and raw recruits are much more suitable for garrison duty and training up in the occupied towns. Good troops sitting in garrison lose their combat edge and tend to go to seed in actual experience.

The garrison phase is the unpleasant chore that sets my campaigns on the back shelf for an unknown future date.

Will the Mongols have to leave all these garrisons? Or can they just raze their way forward across the sea of grass?

Cheers

The garrisons are mainly a mechanism for allowing the next battle to be smaller than the previous one in the historical campaigns, when the historical narrative calls for that. In the sandbox campaigns you don't usually have to leave garrisons, because the battles gradually scale up in size from the first to the last battle.

[SirGarnet]

Helpful to know that distinction. Thank you.

[rbodleyscott]

By the way, are you Mike Kroon or a different Mike K. If the former, why the username change?