Slitherine

Which nations have the strongest army for open battle? I can take a guess that it's Rome and the Alexandrians.

Cheimison wrote:Which nations have the strongest army for open battle? I can take a guess that it's Rome and the Alexandrians.

India. Actually what’s does “Stong” mean? Easy to win without thinking a lot?

jomni wrote:

Cheimison wrote:Which nations have the strongest army for open battle? I can take a guess that it's Rome and the Alexandrians.

India

What do they have that makes them so effective?

Cheimison wrote:

jomni wrote:

Cheimison wrote:Which nations have the strongest army for open battle? I can take a guess that it's Rome and the Alexandrians.

India

What do they have that makes them so effective?

Lots of bows, lots of elephants. Phalanx crumbles before they can do melee.

Fighting with a Phalanx Army at present in MP v Indian Army......we are only at turn 2 and already I can tell it ain't going to be pretty.Huge firepower and 5 elephants......

I haven't fought India yet, but already agree they sound like the most dangerous.
Elephants in this game are absolutely brutal. That said, I'm not complaining either cause they was pretty much how they were in real life.

Anyone who thinks Rome is somehow 'the strongest', has not witnessed me playing a battle as Rome. The spindly legions always melt like butter in the Arabian desert at high noon.

Rome is very strong for sure but its high costs make fielding the army pretty challenging since it is easier to get outflanked and outnumbered as your men whittled down. I think that most combined arms armies are among the strongest because you can adjust force composition for many situations. The army that is strongest in a specific aspect will be more depended on its match-up and terrain though.

Ancient Rome reminds me of WW2 Germany. Gamers see them as sophisticated, state of the art armies that are quite strong. Many appear to gravitate towards playing these factions. And there’s a cult proclaiming their superiority.

What does OPEN battle mean?

If this mean playing on a randomly generated map then I would say any list with a good selection of different troop types is a strong contender for being a good army list.

If you want to be at least semi-realistic then maps need to be random as well as the army composition outside an agreed upon time period.

JorgenCAB wrote:What does OPEN battle mean?

It's a game mode in skirmish. Two armies of roughly equal force in terms of purchase points meet in a set piece battle. Not guerrilla action (baggage train mode) or attack / defence situations.

jomni wrote:Ancient Rome reminds me of WW2 Germany. Gamers see them as sophisticated, state of the art armies that are quite strong. Many appear to gravitate towards playing these factions. And there’s a cult proclaiming their superiority.

Technology aside, WW1 Germany had a much better trained and organized army.
Rome and the Greeks work well for me because I have a decent grasp on heavy infantry tactics. But I am sure other players will be able to use other armies more effectively than I have been able to so far.

jomni wrote:

JorgenCAB wrote:What does OPEN battle mean?

It's a game mode in skirmish. Two armies of roughly equal force in terms of purchase points meet in a set piece battle. Not guerrilla action (baggage train mode) or attack / defence situations.

Yes... sure... that I know... brainfart.

jomni wrote:Ancient Rome reminds me of WW2 Germany. Gamers see them as sophisticated, state of the art armies that are quite strong. Many appear to gravitate towards playing these factions. And there’s a cult proclaiming their superiority.

Very good comparison. But I think the Romans in their time were much more dangerous and won many more of their battles than the Germans in WW2 going by what I've read. And I like Germany in WW2 a lot so this is not biased.
I heard that at WW2 reenactments, 75% of participants want to be German troops. I guess they are considered cool.

its not proclaimed superiority.. lol, they won their wars in that time period, it was not because their generals were excellent (most often were quite unqualified or incompetent) but because of strength of their legions they pulled through. Whole concept of military organization where even low command structure is open and allowed to do own decisions in battle was something completely revolutionary.. Greeks at the other side rellied on infantry doing practically nothing and any initiative was actually penalized (phalanx has to be preserved at all costs) So if you realize practically nonexistent way how to pass commands to units once melee started around battlefield, Roman structure was actually perfect.. It was not their weapons or armors that dominated the battlefields(they played role, true), but individual initiative of their Centurions and Military Tribunes who were not afraid to exploit any weakness they saw in enemy line...

JaM2013 wrote:its not proclaimed superiority.. lol, they won their wars in that time period, it was not because their generals were excellent (most often were quite unqualified or incompetent) but because of strength of their legions they pulled through. Whole concept of military organization where even low command structure is open and allowed to do own decisions in battle was something completely revolutionary.. Greeks at the other side rellied on infantry doing practically nothing and any initiative was actually penalized (phalanx has to be preserved at all costs) So if you realize practically nonexistent way how to pass commands to units once melee started around battlefield, Roman structure was actually perfect.. It was not their weapons or armors that dominated the battlefields(they played role, true), but individual initiative of their Centurions and Military Tribunes who were not afraid to exploit any weakness they saw in enemy line...

There are also other factors, Roman logistics and infrastructure technology was quite good - one of the reasons they built roads and aqueducts everywhere they went was because they needed a way to get their legions and baggage around while keeping four or five thousand men watered, for example. Their mere possession of the techniques to construct these was something that many other people did not have (like the ability to construct large-bloom steel for Lorica Segmentata), so they could not have replicated Roman successes even if they had adopted their command and training methods. Rome, like most empires, was in some ways progressive, more rationalistic and less tribalist than their competitors; their ability to deal with natives as something other than slaves (though they did a lot of slaving!) also made it easier to hold onto and exploit their conquests. Running an empire is a real pain in the ass and tends to actually make the country doing it poorer (which eventually happened to Rome).

Are there any army lists that have Roman-style heavy infantry AND hoplites or phalanx?

Doesn't the Pontic list have a bit of both... Phalanx and Roman imitation legions. Can be wrong though, don't have that in front of me.

Cheimison wrote:Are there any army lists that have Roman-style heavy infantry AND hoplites or phalanx?

Yes, armies with Imitation Legionaries, such Armenian, Pontic, Ptolemaic and Seleucid. Close Order Warbands fight more or less like Romans, so you can use other armies that include those as well.