rs2excelsior's Lessons Learned & Tactical Musings

[rs2excelsior]

Hello folks!

While I think I did pretty well for myself in season 6 of the DL, my first real experience with MP in this game, between army choices more outside my comfort zone and moving up a division I did far, far worse in the following season. Not bottom of the table, but uncomfortably close to it! So, in the interest of generally improving my skills at this game, this is going to be an irregularly updated thread regarding "lessons learned" from battles I've fought, either SP or MP (after they're over for MP, of course!). I don't know if this will be of interest to anyone else, but what I'm hoping will happen is that other less experienced players also drop by to share their own observations and bounce ideas back and forth, and more experienced players give feedback on that advice. Will that happen? Will this thread be one that no one but myself posts on and die pretty quick? Let's find out!

So the first one I want to talk about is a SP match I just finished. Inspired by the Chaos tournament, I did a custom battle with the armies both set to potluck and the date and geography filters turned off. What I got was Sassanid Persian (629-651 AD) vs Lombard (776-1049 AD). I did manage to win, though I was behind for most of the battle.

The field was flat and mostly open, with a decent sized patch of rough ground in the middle. Knowing I'd mostly be up against armored lancers, I went for ten horse archers (none superior), both of my elephants, and a main line of infantry consisting of mostly Sassanid heavy foot backed up by two massed archers and three levy spearmen. My foot deployed just behind the rough patch with the elephants in the main infantry line and the levy spears forming a reserve to the rear. I split my horse archers 5 to a flank, intending to use them to harass, delay, and break up the lancer attacks.

The enemy had a small core of raw shieldwalls, massed archers, and one unit of poorly armed rabble in the center, a small force of about three lancers on the left, and an absolutely terrifying mass of lancers on the right. They remained stationary for the first couple of turns, while I moved my infantry up to just behind the rough ground, kept my right flank archers just ahead of them, and advanced my left flank archers aggressively to draw them out. I won't go into too much detail, but my right flank horse was overrun, my infantry took shelter in the rough, and the elephants (and returning cav from the left flank) were really what sealed the win.

So, some observations, in no particular order:

It seems horse archers are tough to handle against lancers. It takes a LOT of arrows to get a cohesion test, they pass quite a few of them since they're generally superior quality, and heavy horse archer evasion isn't that reliable. My right flank got one volley of arrows off (which did get a lucky disrupt against a lancer), but then one didn't evade at all - no idea why, he had room behind him - and two others tried to evade but were caught. That was basically the end of that force of cavalry. On the other hand, my left flank managed to break a couple of lancers with arrow fire by surrounding one and pouring arrows into it over multiple turns. However, I don't think a player would have done what the AI did here. The AI was worried about getting flanked if it charged and was locked down by my ZOCs, so basically just sat there and let me shoot them to death. A player in that position would probably charge through and hope that my horse archers evaded. Gets them out of the kill box or at least makes me move and shoot less effectively next turn, and in the worst case of the horse archers standing and taking the charge resulting in the lancers getting flanked and broken - well, they were gonna break anyway. A player probably would have been more cautious about letting individual lancers get isolated and surrounded in the first place, too, but sometimes that's not possible with how unpredictable cavalry is at times. All this said, I'm really not sure how a purely or mostly heavy horse archer army would handle an enemy lancer heavy army. Any thoughts?

The levy spearmen proved surprisingly effective, especially for their cost, at holding off lancers. They held on well even in the open (I had moved most of my heavy infantry into the rough when it looked like I was getting outflanked, as I couldn't get the best case scenario of lancers on rough charging my infantry in the open, and I figured the rough terrain would hurt the lancers more than my infantry). They actually did better than the Sassanid heavy foot when defending vs lancers - their PoA is the same (defensive spearmen vs light spear/swordsmen), but what I didn't take into account at first was that the defensive spears negate the enemy swordsman PoA. They proved very effective at grinding down enemy lancers, and even charged them a couple of times when I needed them to support a combat or pin a unit for a cavalry flank attack. It was a chancy impact phase (which one time did result in the levy spears getting disrupted and then broken, along with the heavy foot beside them), but generally paid off. Then again, I feel like a player would have tried to aggressively exploit their flanks more than the AI did. Still, if I were playing this match on this map again, I think I might swap some of the Sassanid heavies for more levy spears.

The elephants most definitely pulled their weight. One helped blunt the lancer attack on the right flank, then went on to break through one of the Lombard shieldwalls. The other got caught up in an unfavorable matchup, but held on without breaking until the first elephant looped back around and charged that shieldwall in the rear. Once that unit broke, the followup attacks from both shattered the Lombard infantry line and pushed the score over 60%. Even though they didn't engage the enemy lancers themselves much, having a unit that could go on the offensive without really worrying about lancer flank charges was worth it - the AI proved unwilling to charge my elephants with its horse, even in the flank (which I know from painful experience on the other side doesn't result in an auto-drop, haha).

I didn't go with any Dailami foot. I figured they wouldn't do the best charging either defensive spears or lancers, and the high price tag would be better spent elsewhere (those two units had the same cost as my two elephants, iirc). Did I miss out? I think they could be better in other circumstances or against other armies, but here, where the lancers dominated the field and the infantry was mostly on the defensive, I feel like they weren't worth the price. Was I wrong?

Looking at it from the other side, I feel like had the roles been reversed, I could have cleared off the horse archers fairly easily. Then, had the AI done the same thing I did and pulled their infantry into the rough terrain... I'm not sure how I would have gone about digging them out. The Lombard army had very little infantry, and what it did have was defensive. I could have tried to outshoot them, but both sides had two massed archers, so that would have been iffy (plus any remaining Sassanid horse archers). I feel like sending in the lancers would have been troublesome, as they lose their lancer PoA charging into rough ground - I don't know exactly how that would have stacked up, but the AI didn't seem to be in any hurry to charge my heavies in the rough. Maybe gang up on a Sassanid heavy on the flank, pin it from the front then gang up and flank charge it. The trick is getting that first cavalry to stick into melee, though. And then you come up against the elephants...

So, those are my thoughts on the battle in particular and the matchup in general. Anyone else? Anything to add to this or alternate points of view? Any battles of your own you'd like some feedback or discussion on?

[Nosy_Rat]

The field was flat and mostly open, with a decent sized patch of rough ground in the middle. Knowing I'd mostly be up against armored lancers, I went for ten horse archers (none superior), both of my elephants, and a main line of infantry consisting of mostly Sassanid heavy foot backed up by two massed archers and three levy spearmen. My foot deployed just behind the rough patch with the elephants in the main infantry line and the levy spears forming a reserve to the rear. I split my horse archers 5 to a flank, intending to use them to harass, delay, and break up the lancer attacks.

So there is some quick feedback:
- elephants are great picks in this situation since you expect to face a lot of lancers
- Sassanid heavy foot is kinda ok, but it's not clear what was your plan for them? They can't reliably beat raw shieldwalls in frontal combat. More levy spearmen probably would've been a better choice, since they are cheaper and better vs lancers
- massed archers could do good damage to cavalry, but using them vs raw shieldwalls is pretty much pointless, so that depends on what you had in plan for them
- generally speaking, imo, horse archers work much better when massed on one flank due to higher concentration of fire. Splitting them 50/50 to kite enemy cavalry while your infantry defeats enemy is also perfectly viable, but you have to be extra careful not to lose the peace-meal - more of being a threat than actually engaging.

It seems horse archers are tough to handle against lancers. It takes a LOT of arrows to get a cohesion test, they pass quite a few of them since they're generally superior quality, and heavy horse archer evasion isn't that reliable. My right flank got one volley of arrows off (which did get a lucky disrupt against a lancer), but then one didn't evade at all - no idea why, he had room behind him - and two others tried to evade but were caught. That was basically the end of that force of cavalry. On the other hand, my left flank managed to break a couple of lancers with arrow fire by surrounding one and pouring arrows into it over multiple turns. However, I don't think a player would have done what the AI did here. The AI was worried about getting flanked if it charged and was locked down by my ZOCs, so basically just sat there and let me shoot them to death. A player in that position would probably charge through and hope that my horse archers evaded. Gets them out of the kill box or at least makes me move and shoot less effectively next turn, and in the worst case of the horse archers standing and taking the charge resulting in the lancers getting flanked and broken - well, they were gonna break anyway. A player probably would have been more cautious about letting individual lancers get isolated and surrounded in the first place, too, but sometimes that's not possible with how unpredictable cavalry is at times. All this said, I'm really not sure how a purely or mostly heavy horse archer army would handle an enemy lancer heavy army. Any thoughts?

Yeah, only horse archers vs lancers is a match-up that mostly boils down to luck - whether you get enough disruptions from shooting, whether evasion works, etc. So that's why you should support your horse archers with other troops (usually your own lancers, but there's none in the Sassanid list) - in this case elephants would've worked really well. Another option would be to use some levy spearmen alongside your cavalry to ZoC enemy lancers (significantly slowers your advance, of course, but probably doesn't matter in this scenario).

The levy spearmen proved surprisingly effective, especially for their cost, at holding off lancers. They held on well even in the open (I had moved most of my heavy infantry into the rough when it looked like I was getting outflanked, as I couldn't get the best case scenario of lancers on rough charging my infantry in the open, and I figured the rough terrain would hurt the lancers more than my infantry). They actually did better than the Sassanid heavy foot when defending vs lancers - their PoA is the same (defensive spearmen vs light spear/swordsmen), but what I didn't take into account at first was that the defensive spears negate the enemy swordsman PoA. They proved very effective at grinding down enemy lancers, and even charged them a couple of times when I needed them to support a combat or pin a unit for a cavalry flank attack. It was a chancy impact phase (which one time did result in the levy spears getting disrupted and then broken, along with the heavy foot beside them), but generally paid off. Then again, I feel like a player would have tried to aggressively exploit their flanks more than the AI did. Still, if I were playing this match on this map again, I think I might swap some of the Sassanid heavies for more levy spears.

Actually very good decisions there.

I didn't go with any Dailami foot. I figured they wouldn't do the best charging either defensive spears or lancers, and the high price tag would be better spent elsewhere (those two units had the same cost as my two elephants, iirc). Did I miss out? I think they could be better in other circumstances or against other armies, but here, where the lancers dominated the field and the infantry was mostly on the defensive, I feel like they weren't worth the price. Was I wrong?

I usually find myself buying a couple of superior Dailami everytime I have an option, since it's an excellent all-around unit. They usually completely destroy raw spearmen in a matter of turns (something like 75% to win on a charge iirc). But your concern about lancers is perfectly valid.

So in general, it feels like you somewhat lack experience with this particular army type, and tried to use it more as a typical heavy foot army, but that's mostly the matter of your personal preferences, Sassanids can be played this way. Otherwise, nice analysis and right train of thought

[DanZanzibar]

I think you can say this thread is off to a good start. Already got your experienced player's opinion... here's comes the inexperienced!

Yeah, only horse archers vs lancers is a match-up that mostly boils down to luck - whether you get enough disruptions from shooting, whether evasion works, etc. So that's why you should support your horse archers with other troops (usually your own lancers, but there's none in the Sassanid list) - in this case elephants would've worked really well. Another option would be to use some levy spearmen alongside your cavalry to ZoC enemy lancers (significantly slowers your advance, of course, but probably doesn't matter in this scenario).

I should say firstly that I have little experience with the cav based armies yet but I'm trying to get there. In my first round match of the current automated tournament (as Persia) I had my armoured bow/sword cav concentrated heavily on one flank going up against a comparable block of lancers. They were scattering to the winds and I was sure it would turn out poorly for me after a few rear charge connections but it actually very slowly turned my way on that flank. I don't think my opponent was particularly thoughtful with his charges after the initial scattering or it would have turned out worse.

So I'm curious, when you say to back them up with elephants/lancers/infantry, are you ever actually preventing them from evading by blocking off the requisite squares (I'm not even sure what needs to be open for them to evade...please enlighten me!)? Meaning, you don't mind if you horse archers take a charge, so long as they stick the enemy lancer so you can counter with your supporting crew? How does this tactic change depending on the quality/armour of the bow/sword cav?

p.s. rs2excelsoior - thanks for starting this thread! Something like this is perfect for a new player like me.

[rs2excelsior]

- Sassanid heavy foot is kinda ok, but it's not clear what was your plan for them? They can't reliably beat raw shieldwalls in frontal combat. More levy spearmen probably would've been a better choice, since they are cheaper and better vs lancers

Yeah, I realized that afterwards. In general I'm leery of cheap, raw foot units, but they did absolutely prove more effective versus the lancers. My plan for the Sassanid heavies was just to form the core of my heavy infantry line, and give me a little more offensive punch than the levy spears. But as you said, if I did this again, I'd take less of them, definitely.

Yeah, only horse archers vs lancers is a match-up that mostly boils down to luck - whether you get enough disruptions from shooting, whether evasion works, etc. So that's why you should support your horse archers with other troops (usually your own lancers, but there's none in the Sassanid list) - in this case elephants would've worked really well. Another option would be to use some levy spearmen alongside your cavalry to ZoC enemy lancers (significantly slowers your advance, of course, but probably doesn't matter in this scenario).

Some good points. It'd be interesting to try again with horse archers, elephants, and levy spears all in the same line. In general the Lombard forces were attacking, so speed wouldn't be much of a concern. In another MP match with an Avar army, I formed three divisions of horse archers (~5 each, not much space between them) with another division of lancers in the rear. I think more lancers spread out within the horse archers might've done better for me there.

So in general, it feels like you somewhat lack experience with this particular army type, and tried to use it more as a typical heavy foot army, but that's mostly the matter of your personal preferences, Sassanids can be played this way. Otherwise, nice analysis and right train of thought

Oh, definitely, never played the Sassanids before and most of what I have played and done well with has been armies with good-quality heavy foot. But thanks for the feedback, definitely things to think about

I should say firstly that I have little experience with the cav based armies yet but I'm trying to get there. In my first round match of the current automated tournament (as Persia) I had my armoured bow/sword cav concentrated heavily on one flank going up against a comparable block of lancers. They were scattering to the winds and I was sure it would turn out poorly for me after a few rear charge connections but it actually very slowly turned my way on that flank. I don't think my opponent was particularly thoughtful with his charges after the initial scattering or it would have turned out worse.

So I'm curious, when you say to back them up with elephants/lancers/infantry, are you ever actually preventing them from evading by blocking off the requisite squares (I'm not even sure what needs to be open for them to evade...please enlighten me!)? Meaning, you don't mind if you horse archers take a charge, so long as they stick the enemy lancer so you can counter with your supporting crew? How does this tactic change depending on the quality/armour of the bow/sword cav?

Cavalry pursuits are pretty chaotic as well. Your opponent might have been pulled into bad situations. Or they might've just gotten confident off the initial charge and been less careful, I don't know.

As far as I know, as long as the square directly behind a unit is open they can evade. Maybe they can evade to the back-left and back-right as well? Friendly lancers to their left and right shouldn't block evades. That said, I have seen units without an evade path try and evade anyway... and just turn around in their square and turn a frontal charge into an auto-drop and rear charge. So do be careful about blocking off your horse archers too much.

I am far from an expert on horse-based armies, but I had some fun with the Byzantine 551 AD list. Lots of Byzantine lancers - above average, armored, and with 50% bow capacity which gives you some nice flexibility other than just charging home. You won't win a battle on archery, but it's fun to have. Plus they've got some noble lancers for higher quality backup. Might be worth giving a try

p.s. rs2excelsoior - thanks for starting this thread! Something like this is perfect for a new player like me.

Glad to hear it! I'm pleased this thread isn't just me in a corner rambling to myself haha

[SimonLancaster]

A nice thread. I would like to hear more about your multiplayer experiences. What you did right and what you did wrong. Thanks for posting!

[Nosy_Rat]

I should say firstly that I have little experience with the cav based armies yet but I'm trying to get there. In my first round match of the current automated tournament (as Persia) I had my armoured bow/sword cav concentrated heavily on one flank going up against a comparable block of lancers. They were scattering to the winds and I was sure it would turn out poorly for me after a few rear charge connections but it actually very slowly turned my way on that flank. I don't think my opponent was particularly thoughtful with his charges after the initial scattering or it would have turned out worse.

So I'm curious, when you say to back them up with elephants/lancers/infantry, are you ever actually preventing them from evading by blocking off the requisite squares (I'm not even sure what needs to be open for them to evade...please enlighten me!)? Meaning, you don't mind if you horse archers take a charge, so long as they stick the enemy lancer so you can counter with your supporting crew? How does this tactic change depending on the quality/armour of the bow/sword cav?

p.s. rs2excelsoior - thanks for starting this thread! Something like this is perfect for a new player like me.

No, blocking evade paths of your own cavalry is generally a very bad idea and you should be careful when positioning big groups to avoid that.

Generally speaking you put supporting units either upfront to make it more diffiult for enemy to charge your horse archers in cohesive fashion, or somewhat behind the line to catch enemy out of formation once they pursue your evading cavalry.

If you really need to pin enemy lancers, superior horse archers can charge them somewhat reliably without losing cohesion, but it's still risky, of course.

[DanZanzibar]

Thanks for the tips guys. You know, I have seen the turn-on-a-dime, get charged in the rear thing before. Should have known there’s no advantage to blocking off your own evades. I’ve got an MP match right now against a strong opponent (Bretons vs Arab City) where I’m going to try to put some of this to use. Perhaps I’ll check back in afterwards and let you know how it goes.

[Jagger2002]

What we need is a league with team play. Each experienced player gets one or two rookies. Teams can be 4 or more players. Schedule 4 or more games from a specific time frame with historical or historical plausible matches and focus on how to use those type armies. The experienced players give the rookies tips on the upcoming match ups or even do practice games while explaining tactics and strengths/weaknesses of the armies. Then everyone has fun with the games. Game results are by team, not individuals, to encourage improving rookie play and producing team results. Not so competitive a league but probably build up the player base and improve play while having fun at the same time. The key would be finding enough experienced players willing to spend the time coaching rookies.

Why coach? The advantage of coaching is that it helps to solidify your own understanding of your own game. I suspect a lot of us play instinctively without really having a structured understanding of our play and strategies. Coaching encourages looking at and understanding our own play. So coaching is good for everybody, both the rookie and the experienced player.

[rs2excelsior]

That would be a fun idea... not sure it could be a thing set up by players, though. The game engine would have to be set up to allow that (or at least the multiplayer tournament).

Should've started this somewhat sooner - I just finished up the chaos tournament, might've had a couple of MP matches from there to discuss. Alas, the ones that were more close-run I don't remember well enough to give a good overview of what I did and why, and what questions I have about the matches.

[SimonLancaster]

The Digital League is returning so you will have plenty of things to talk about.

[rs2excelsior]

So, I ran another SP game testing out an army for the upcoming DL season: Ptolemaic 55-30 BC. It looks like an interesting army, with some cheaper pike units, imitation and full on legions, and a decent bit of medium foot.

I ran the Ptolemaic army against a pot-luck opponent, with the date filter on but geography filter off. As luck would have it, I pulled the Romans as an opponent. I took the maximum number of pikes (one average quality and three raw Machimoi phalanxes), two imitation and two regular legions, and the maximum number of xystophoroi. I rounded things off with thokratoi and thureophoroi. My xystophoroi were all on my right, with one noble cav on the left. The Romans were in a two-line checkerboard formation, with two cav units both on the right. I thought about sending the xystophoroi around to help them, but decided to send them forward to exploit the Roman left flank. I advanced to stay out of range of the Roman artillery, broke up their advance a bit with skirmishers, and basically used my pikes to hold them in place and exploit flanks. Once again, I'm sure a player would have been more proactive about protecting their flanks and denying me opportunities to exploit them, but the thokratoi and xystophoroi on the right and my legions on the left were both able to get flanks on Roman units and break them. It was a bit of a slog, with some of my own units getting flanked or chewed up by the Romans, but in the end it was a win. Those raw phalanxes were in a tough spot - up against the Romans, they were in a disadvantage even in melee and with the Romans already in contact. Still, they held on well enough in the end.

I have less to say about the direct matchups - I think I used rough ground to funnel the Romans into a fairly narrow front, and the cavalry was certainly helpful in exploiting flanks. Those Machimoi pikes I can see being a double-edged sword... if they do break, it's a large unit with a big impact on the break score. Overall, though I think it's a fairly flexible list with some good potential. I was convinced enough to put them in my choices for the DL. I thought about picking Roman allies as well, which would have given me an elephant and more legionary units, but cost me some of the mediums which give flexibility for rougher battlefields, so in the end I kept them without allies.

Not as detailed a report, because it was a matchup of units I was more familiar with - so fewer "lessons learned," I think. Also I played it a couple of days ago, so a few of the details are fuzzier.

I do plan to post some of my thoughts about my upcoming DL games (after they're completed - don't want to let my opponents know too much of what I'm thinking!) once that gets started up again. Hopefully I'll be able to learn something useful from analyzing and discussing them!

[Ludendorf]

The real thing the Ptolemaic 55-30 BC list is missing is elephants. I value having some elephants in an army as a mixed elephant-cavalry formation can dominate the cavalry battle as long as the elephants can be protected and kept away from supporting pikes. Camels are another way of achieving this, though they aren't as tough (but are less exposed to mixed cavalry-spear formations). The list before, 166-56 BC, has elephants, and most of the elements found in the 55-30 BC army. This, in my opinion, makes them the more flexible choice.

[rs2excelsior]

That is a good point... You lose a little medium infantry with the previous list, but you still have 8 (instead of 11), which is pretty good. I do like the Roman units in the last list, though, but then I just really like the Romans

[rs2excelsior]

And another SP game, trying out a different army for Classical Antiquity in the DL - Samnite 355 - 272 BC with Gallic 300-101 BC allies. This one was my second pick, and will probably be the one I get if the diadochi spots are filled before it comes around to me. I put them up against the Romans (105 - 25 BC) just to see how they did.

The map was pretty open, which wasn't the best for a medium foot army. The Romans didn't bring any heavy cav, which let my units operate pretty much unhindered. I had some units hidden in the woods to the left of my main line, which did succeed more or less in what I intended them to do. They didn't sweep down on an exposed Roman flank, but they did put pressure on that end of the line and exploit some gaps. Same disclaimers as before, the AI did some dumb things that a player definitely wouldn't have. But overall, my thoughts on the armies:

I had picked Gallic allies to stiffen up the line a bit in the open. I think the warbands are good for that, giving a bit more offensive punch and holding on while my Samnites look for flanks to exploit. The Gallic allies also give a few other options for cavalry and light infantry. Overall, I think the warbands I took were helpful. However:

The Romans are a tough nut to crack. I've used them in the league before and they've pulled off some absolutely heroic holds, eating cohesion tests like candy. They certainly held up well in this fight. I pretty much had to set up a flank charge to start getting a Roman unit to break. And the veteran legions are terrifying. Two of my warbands hit one of their veteran units, and it was still handling both of them easily before another unit got pushed back and I was able to hit it in the flank. Even after it dropped to fragmented, though, it still had a pretty small chance to lose an individual combat.

Having impact and swordsmen on a medium foot unit is nice, even if I didn't get to use it but so much in this battle since the field was pretty open. The veteran Samnites are scary, being equal to the Romans in quality (and I think in armor as well). Still, they're fragile. That penalty to cohesion tests hurts. There was at least one chain break, where a warband breaking resulted in two other Samnite units breaking (one of which may have been fragmented, but at least one was only disrupted, I'm pretty sure). Plus, between the penalties for armor and troop quality, they really had to exploit flanks to break Roman units.

Overall, I'm pretty excited to see how they do. I think they could shine on a map dominated by rough ground, although I know it's hard to force heavy infantry into bad terrain to attack mediums - and I don't have enough ranged units to really force someone to attack me. It might take more finesse than I have to pull off the maneuvers needed to do well with this army... but we'll see!

[Nosy_Rat]

I had picked Gallic allies to stiffen up the line a bit in the open. I think the warbands are good for that, giving a bit more offensive punch and holding on while my Samnites look for flanks to exploit.

Can't you just use veteran Samnites for that? I think they are only slightly more expensive, like 60 to warband's 58 or something?

[rs2excelsior]

I could, but they still get the penalty for medium foot in the open, don't they? Just less likely to lose in the first place because they're superior. I think taking allies gives me a few more heavy units to play with than just relying on the veterans, and I liked some of the other options the Gallic allies gave me.

[SimonLancaster]

I had picked Gallic allies to stiffen up the line a bit in the open. I think the warbands are good for that, giving a bit more offensive punch and holding on while my Samnites look for flanks to exploit.

Can't you just use veteran Samnites for that? I think they are only slightly more expensive, like 60 to warband's 58 or something?

Veteran Samnite foot are 66 not 60. Warbands at 58, yes. Is there a big difference between close and loose order Warbands at 58?

[rs2excelsior]

I *think* the only difference between the two is that close order acts like heavy foot and is disordered in terrain, while loose order is treated as medium foot but gets the penalty to cohesion tests when in the open. I don't think the close order warbands get that penalty, is that correct?

[SimonLancaster]

That makes sense. I don't play with Warbands that much.

You are playing baldrick in Classical so that game will go on YouTube. Would be nice to get your thoughts on it and then we can see you in action!

[Swuul]

I *think* the only difference between the two is that close order acts like heavy foot and is disordered in terrain, while loose order is treated as medium foot but gets the penalty to cohesion tests when in the open. I don't think the close order warbands get that penalty, is that correct?

Right, but also remember Close Order Warbands don't get the +1 to CT rolls other heavy foot gets. Ie close order warbands have the downside of being heavy foot (malus in rough terrain) but don't get the bonus (they don't get the +1 to Cohesion Test rolls other heavy foot (who are of at least Average quality) get).

In my opinion, there is no point in taking close order warbands over veteran samnites unless points cost is an issue. And if points cost is an issue, then why not take etruscan imitation legionares as allies instead? Etruscan imitation legions are cheaper than close order Warbands, they get the +1 to CT, and they don't pursue (pursuit might of course be good, but it might also be not so very good if they rush to their death).