Having trouble winning

[durecellrabbit]

I got this game recently and have been playing for a week. I completed the Caesar campaign fairly easily so I turned up the difficulty and then did okay as Gauls but since then I've been losing with other armies and turned down the difficulty. I struggle with armies that don't have lots of legionaries, warbands or to a lesser degree pikes and elephants.

I don't know what to do with hoplite heavy armies. I lose with them against the other types of heavy infantry.

For armies with lots of medium infantry I don't really know how to play them. I know they go better in rough terrain but maps usually just have little patches of it and I can't fit the whole army there.

I'm struggling with horse archer armies and it's particularly frustrating as I own a Parthian miniature army for L'Art de la Guerre. I manage to break up the the enemy army but then I have trouble disordering and routing the enemy before friends arrive. Mounted don't seem to stay in combat so I can get a flank charge. I'll inevitably mess up and get a unit caught out losing the gains earned with several turns spent to rout an enemy unit. Also not sure how to use horse archers without needing to move/turn and get the movement shooting penalty.

Likewise I don't win much with armies like Persians with better cavalry and weaker infantry. My infantry lose quicker than the cavalry can defeat the enemy cavalry + whatever else the AI sends and arrive to help my infantry.

[BornGinger]

I think you should learn how the different units behave during a battle and their weak and strong sides. Some units don't stay put when an enemy withdraws after a charge on them and other units need more turns to move around. A unit, like horse archers or skirmishers, maybe need to be able to withdraw if the enemy charge on them. Watch a few Let's Play videos on YouTube to get more aquainted with the different units and their behaviour or just play the game and redo a unit's move if it didn't do what you expected and remember that til the next time.

[markwatson360]

I think the key to this is your first sentence. "I got this game recently and have been playing for a week". I'm in no way an expert but it really does take a while to get to grips with all the different armies and troop types in this game. Personally I think the best way to learn it is to play multiplayer, I feel I learn more from losing (and I do a lot ) than from winning and I have to say i've thoroughly enjoyed every game i've played to date.

[Rosseau]

Multiplayer is the best way, although I don't have time for it myself unfortunately.

I often learn by modding (experimenting) with the Squads file that contains all the unit attributes after backing up of course.

[GiveWarAchance]

.

[durecellrabbit]

In my defence or maybe not I have played the game a lot this week and I don't see a problem with asking for help to speed up learning. It's more I can win easily with some armies while struggling with others and I'm not having much luck finding advice on how to win with the latter. I'm sure I'm losing because I'm doing something wrong rather than because the armies are designed to lose. Cyrus won afterall. Although sometimes it feel like they are after a string of steady to fragmented results in a turn.

I'm not sure about playing MP yet. I tend in games to avoid MP until I'm confident of my skills vs a mid level AI.

I've had a look for let's plays on youtube but the ones I found were mostly players around my skill level doing the Caesar campaign or something similar. I could have easily missed someone good so I'm open to recommendation? Someone doing what TheMeInTeam or SBFMadDjinn did for the civ games with clear explanations for their moves playing matchups like Western Greeks vs Rome, Thracians vs Macedonia/Rome or Horse Archers vs Heavy Infantry (Or the other way around) would be ideal.

[Paul59]

You could try Mike's series of videos for beginners:

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 77&t=81192

I've not looked at them myself, but I think they have been well received.

[MikeC_81]

If your goal is to improve, don't waste time on the AI. The AI is awful and only presents a challenge because it gets more points than you starting at level 2. This is less of a criticism at the AI in the game and more of just a statement of fact that AI in games suck in general. Unless the ruleset and gameplay is shallow enough, any AI will struggle to be even remotely as good as humans. Even with today's technology, super computers have only just started beating real life opponents in games as simple as heads up no limit poker. And you need an array of super computers to run that particular program.

When you play alot vs the AI, it just teaches you bad habits because all you are really doing as you advance the difficulty setting is finding ways of abusing the flaws in the AI's *thinking* so to speak to overcome the numerical advantage that it has. Certainly it doesn't teach you the critical skill of anticipating what a human would do and you end up internalizing tactics that won't work against humans.

There is an inherent tier list of armies. http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... st#p688994

Some are stronger than others in most terrain types. There is the AAR forum where some people have deposited info. Unfortunately though, if you want to get good, there is no way around understanding core game mechanics and understanding the Points of Advantage charts, when and how they apply to which units and which unit capability keywords confer which advantages. Until you understand those things, you lack the tools to build a coherent strategy when the game loads and you see the two armies and terrain.

edit: Thanks for the plug

[76mm]

I also suggest against playing against the AI and sticking with MP. This is actually the only game that I generally play MP. Quality of MP opponents varies wildly, so at some point you are sure to come across a player with even less experience than you!

And don't worry about losing consistently with some armies; in my view, some armies, particularly the medium-foot armies, with struggle vs other armies on most maps. In my experience, unless in expert hands, most medium foot armies will usually lose against most heavy foot armies in open terrain.

[Bombax]

I disagree with the comments regarding the AI, which IMHO is quite capable of providing a decent challenge to your 'average' player from Level 3 upwards. And multiplayer - despite its passionate partisans - really isn't for everyone. After experimenting with around 20 MP games myself I've reverted to battles against the AI.

As for the OP's questions, I'd say that with armies like the Persians the trick against an opponent with stronger infantry is to -

(a) Hold back your own infantry, taking advantage of rough terrain where possible, whilst...
(b) Using your cavalry to hit one (or both!) of the enemy's flanks, giving you the chance to roll up his line, and once that has started to happen...
(c) Advance your medium infantry to pin the enemy and finish the job.

I haven't used hoplite armies or the Parthians so can't really help with those I'm afraid.

Cheers,
Bombax.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with your disagreement. The AI is a great way to learn the game, to get basic strategies down, and to understand the interaction of various POAs. Beyond that though, it offers an extremely low ceiling for what you can learn. The AI will frontally attack strong defensive positions that a player would simply flank, allow its cavalry to be shot to pieces, and generally mismanage its skirmishers. It will always attack eventually if a player simply camps, and is incapable of coming up with unexpected strategies like weighted flanks, massed ambushes, etc. The only thing the AI really teaches you is how to successfully fight an opponent with overwhelming numbers but little intelligence. Again, it's not bad for a game AI (and it's a huge improvement over FOG1) but humans are simply smarter, and capable of innovation and learning from their mistakes.

As for the OP:

The Persians are actually a great army. Their archers have light spear impact capability, and thus can see off enemy cavalry in the open. If they are stationed in terrain, they can see off hoplites. Their massed archery is extremely deadly. Coupled with bow armed cavalry on each flank, they have a solid chance against hoplite forces. It's a well balanced matchup though, as the hoplites can sometimes overrun the Persian infantry before the cavalry arrives in the rear.

Hoplite armies are tricky. They do well against 6th and 5th century BC armies; in the open, they can run down medium foot armies, and brave arrow storms to close with Persians and the like. Once Impact Foot and Pike Phalanx units are on the scene, they don't do as well. It's still possible to win though; the hoplite units are cheap and numerous, so the extra units can be used as line extenders or reserves to pull off flank attacks. The later hoplite armies also tend to be able to field Thureophoroi to fight in terrain, offsetting some of their traditional disadvantages. Don't expect to win simple head on fight vs legions or pikes, though, subtlety is required.

[Jishmael]

I agree with snuggle on the persians, i think they are very very strong and versatile, possibly one of the strongest and most versatile lists in the game as so far i didnt see anything that just evaporated them. And they even have camels!

While i basically agree that mp is the way to go, i do think high difficulty ai teaches you some worthwile skills besides ai exploitation and poas. When faced by such superior numbers its essential not to slip up.
So you do learn to carefully judge poas, movement and terrain. You learn to pick your fights and not to overcommit. And the ai is pretty ruthless in exploiting flanks.

Also while thei ai mishandles skirmishers a lot, they often come back late in big battles and destroy weakened units

[MikeC_81]

I've had a look for let's plays on youtube but the ones I found were mostly players around my skill level doing the Caesar campaign or something similar. I could have easily missed someone good so I'm open to recommendation? Someone doing what TheMeInTeam or SBFMadDjinn did for the civ games with clear explanations for their moves playing matchups like Western Greeks vs Rome, Thracians vs Macedonia/Rome or Horse Archers vs Heavy Infantry (Or the other way around) would be ideal.

I was already working on a video doing post game analysis and its up now, it doesn't cover the specific topics you mentioned since I can only draw on competitive material that I actually had to play in the tournament but I hope something like this will help.

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 93&t=82453

[BornGinger]

I'm open to recommendation. Someone ... with clear explanations for their moves...

You can check out the videos from DasTactic. He was the first one I watched on YouTube. If I remember correctly he was explaining the reason to his moves quite well. He was also playing against "stronger" armies and won.

You have to look in the Videos section of his YouTube channel and start with the ones before the Bactrian campaign. The Playlists section only has one video, I think.

[durecellrabbit]

I was already working on a video doing post game analysis and its up now, it doesn't cover the specific topics you mentioned since I can only draw on competitive material that I actually had to play in the tournament but I hope something like this will help.

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 93&t=82453

Yes, that is exactly the type of video I was looking for, thanks.

You can check out the videos from DasTactic. He was the first one I watched on YouTube. If I remember correctly he was explaining the reason to his moves quite well. He was also playing against "stronger" armies and won.

You have to look in the Videos section of his YouTube channel and start with the ones before the Bactrian campaign. The Playlists section only has one video, I think.

Will check him out later.

[bodkin]

Problem with putting up the difficulty to a level where you get close battles is that if your playing a campaign you get penalised further because you're probably going to go over the 15% casualty rate meaning you won't have as much to spend on the next battle, I wish this could be toggled off.

[jomni]

Problem with putting up the difficulty to a level where you get close battles is that if your playing a campaign you get penalised further because you're probably going to go over the 15% casualty rate meaning you won't have as much to spend on the next battle, I wish this could be toggled off.

There’s no harm keeping preferred campaign difficulty and skirmish difficultly different. That’s what I do.

[bodkin]

Problem with putting up the difficulty to a level where you get close battles is that if your playing a campaign you get penalised further because you're probably going to go over the 15% casualty rate meaning you won't have as much to spend on the next battle, I wish this could be toggled off.

There’s no harm keeping preferred campaign difficulty and skirmish difficultly different. That’s what I do.

Yes but I want challenging close fought battles in a campaign, it's too easy on anything less than Governor. Maybe with an increase in the 15% threshold on higher difficulties so you don't get that additional hit to your carry over force. Can this be modded?

[jomni]

Understand.
It’s different from the old P&S campaign method.

[stockwellpete]

I agree with snuggle on the persians, i think they are very very strong and versatile, possibly one of the strongest and most versatile lists in the game as so far i didnt see anything that just evaporated them. And they even have camels!

The Persians are completely hopeless on an open battlefield. Hoplites will massacre them and the Persian cavalry have no lances or light spears and usually evade when charged. The Persians need terrain in the central areas of the map or they have had it.