Good army composition for broken terrain?

[kvnrthr]

Currently if I want to win a fight in the open I just stick a lot of heavy infantry in and hope for the best. But not too sure about the best way to fight in forests, mountains etc. I tried making a big stack of regular infantry and foot skirmishers, but limited frontage means I can't really guarantee a win. It comes down to quality which I can't generally guarantee over my opponents (playing Ptolemies).

What is a good army setup for these forests and mountains?

[Geffalrus]

Mercenary Infantry have an attack of 4 rather than the attack of 3 that Regular Infantry have. Stick a bunch of archers (not skirmishers, archers) behind them to provide a +3 support bonus. That will provide a Combat Score of 7 vs the defenders. Pikes are (strangely) not entirely terrible in Forests since their penalty is -3, which brings them down to an attack of 4......which is still pretty decent. Pikes have 3 hits instead of the 2 for mercs/regulars, and have 3 effectiveness vs the 2 of regulars. All that combined can make pikes decent (but expensive) in Forests/Mountains.

Your general is also crucial. You want one with an attack skill of 2 so that you have max chances to roll a 10. If you're lucky, you have one of those Wilderness Expert types.

The final part is making sure that your units are rested and as experienced as possible.

To be honest, there's no easy solution to broken terrain if you're a Hellenistic faction. You really just need to be more prepared than your opponent. Logistics and strategy > tactics and units. Broken terrain exists to give weaker armies/military forces a chance at beating superior armies. Such is life.

[kvnrthr]

Huh, I haven't looked too deeply into combat mechanics. But archers actually give a better support bonus than skirmishers? I thought they were just a better type of skirmisher. As Ptolemies I have some nice provincial archers that can be recruited near Nubia, though it would be tough to get them out of there.

[loki100]

Yep, grab all the provincial archers you can.

Also read the long manual section on combat resolution.

[Geffalrus]

Huh, I haven't looked too deeply into combat mechanics. But archers actually give a better support bonus than skirmishers? I thought they were just a better type of skirmisher. As Ptolemies I have some nice provincial archers that can be recruited near Nubia, though it would be tough to get them out of there.

I've been playing a lot as the Antigonids, so I've had to learn the combat mechanics pretty closely since they start off at war with two major factions and are quickly dogpiled. Fortunately, they have one of the best military machines on the planet, so they can sort of make it work.

I believe that non-skirmish units provide +1 support, skirmish infantry and cavalry provide +2, and archers provide +3. Archers are also rather good at inflicting fatigue during skirmish phase. They tend to cost more than generic skirmishers, are worse at attacking........but I think better at defending. Generally you don't want them to EVER be on the flanks, though some variants can have terrain bonuses that make them capable of fighting other skirmishers in melee (rarely can they defeat decent infantry).

Fun fact: elephants also contribute ranged damage during the skirmish phase.

All unit types in the game have nuances that make them unique and useful. I love the combat mechanics in this game.

[Southern Hunter]

My cretan archers (with shield!) have defeated many an enemy in hand to hand on the flanks (especially in mountains).

[Geffalrus]

My cretan archers (with shield!) have defeated many an enemy in hand to hand on the flanks (especially in mountains).

Oh they sound delightful! How does one access those beauties? My Lydian Archers are quite marvelous, but I think the mountainman trait for them only bumps them up to a 2/4 combat rating?

[shockk]

idk, but when the ai has a stack of 40 units in a forest or snowy forest(5 width) with alot of provincial forest heavy(?) goths. Of course with a 2 defense general, and if your unlucky forest general.... Only way i found is to send like 3-5 larger armies at them each turn for a few turns and pray because your at a massive disadvantage (which if the enemy wasn't elite troops they are now). Seeing as there is only 5-6 troops in battle, with a large disadvantage routing them isn't really possible, and with a stack of 40 and causing little to no damage grinding them out doesn't work well. Iv learned to really hate forests

As for archers, they are great but for what ever reason they tend to be put on the front line before other skirmisher units like javelineers. So if there is ever a hole the 1 attack 1 hp archer is now dead. (some nations start with both javelineers and archers, thats why i had both. Otherwise i don't see any reason to ever have javelineers over archers)

[Southern Hunter]

My cretan archers (with shield!) have defeated many an enemy in hand to hand on the flanks (especially in mountains).

Oh they sound delightful! How does one access those beauties? My Lydian Archers are quite marvelous, but I think the mountainman trait for them only bumps them up to a 2/4 combat rating?

Control the Crete/Ionia/Rhodes Province.

[Poliorcetes]

For Rome you want the Medium infantry, or mercenaries or Aelie heavy infantry. Phalanxes suffer too much in the scrub.
It can be brutal if they are in a marsh with a high level general, unless they are just really small its hard to grind them down. Often its better to retreat and let them charge out somewhere and then sweep them up in the counter attack.

[PDiFolco]

btw, where are archers recruitable ? I'm playing Rome but don't control Greece/Crete (yet!)

[Gray Fox]

A good Army needs the right mix of units. Three unit types are available. The best Heavy Infantry your faction can produce, whether it's a legion, phalanx or warband form the front line in combat. These units excel in melee. Additionally, special infantry units excel at siege warfare and have an icon for "Besieger". These can inflict damage on a garrison every turn that a siege is in effect. Finally, light cavalry are the best ranged support units. They cause more fatigue than skirmishers. These cause damage in the ranged missile phase, before melee begins. Terrain dictates the most effective size of an army. The Plains pic shows a frontage of 12, the largest terrain type, meaning that 12 units will fill the front line. Thus you will want 12 Heavy Infantry with 12 light cav in support in a stack to fight in a region with plains. An Army for forest or hill terrain, would only need a frontage of 8 units, and so on.

[Geffalrus]

A good Army needs the right mix of units. Three unit types are available. The best Heavy Infantry your faction can produce, whether it's a legion, phalanx or warband form the front line in combat. These units excel in melee. Additionally, special infantry units excel at siege warfare and have an icon for "Besieger". These can inflict damage on a garrison every turn that a siege is in effect. Finally, light cavalry are the best ranged support units. They cause more fatigue than skirmishers. These cause damage in the ranged missile phase, before melee begins. Terrain dictates the most effective size of an army. The Plains pic shows a frontage of 12, the largest terrain type, meaning that 12 units will fill the front line. Thus you will want 12 Heavy Infantry with 12 light cav in support in a stack to fight in a region with plains. An Army for forest or hill terrain, would only need a frontage of 8 units, and so on.

Archer type skirmishers provide a +3 support bonus in melee, while light cavalry and normal skirmishers only provide +2. I'll take a closer look at the range comparison, as anecdotally, it seems like my archers do rather well at shooting. Their main weakness is in melee.

[Gray Fox]

Skirmishers do only 3 fatigue in the missile phase, while light cav do 5. Some horse archers do 10.Get the missile phase right and the enemy are exhausted.

I still have the unit roster Dbase with all the stats. Perhaps this might be made available to everyone?

[Geffalrus]

Skirmishers do only 3 fatigue in the missile phase, while light cav do 5. Some horse archers do 10.Get the missile phase right and the enemy are exhausted.

I still have the unit roster Dbase with all the stats. Perhaps this might be made available to everyone?

The support bonus rules are easy to understand, but the ranged and skirmish fatigue calculations seem a bit more complex to me. Perhaps a more detailed breakdown would be useful?

[Gray Fox]

http://www.matrixgames.com/amazon/PDF/F ... 0Final.pdf

"While it may sound as if ranged combat is relatively unimportant, an army with either few ranged units or skirmishers will suffer badly against a better balanced opponent. Being fatigued in the duel combat phase is a serious handicap."

On the unit card, just cursor over the missile icon and you get a text of the value. As with melee, the higher the number the better.

[Geffalrus]

http://www.matrixgames.com/amazon/PDF/F ... 0Final.pdf

"While it may sound as if ranged combat is relatively unimportant, an army with either few ranged units or skirmishers will suffer badly against a better balanced opponent. Being fatigued in the duel combat phase is a serious handicap."

On the unit card, just cursor over the missile icon and you get a text of the value. As with melee, the higher the number the better.

With all due respect, I get the general idea that you want ranged units for support and skirmishing. That's not the issue. The issue is what do all the numbers on the unit card actually mean.

Ranged Attack and Defense are fairly self explanatory. Maximum damage? Range? Where do those get applied? That's not spelled out in the manual. I have it open right in the other tab. And what does "Extra Fatigue margin" actually mean?

These are the questions that make it unclear how to differentiate light horse from archers from skirmishers in a practical sense. Archers have higher damage, higher attack, and better support values than light horse. Outside of melee and speed, the only advantage of light horse is that Fatigue margin value, but it's not clear where that applies.

[Pocus]

Max damage is the max amount of effectiveness a unit can inflict
range: 0 is the melee line, 1 support, 2 reserve
Fatigue margin: this is the skirmisher trait. You need to win a duel beyond the fatigue margin of the skirmisher to avoid suffering 1 effec, as the winner


Horses: I see a lot of bashing against cavalry, relatively to the well appreciated skirmishers. I have looked again at the stats, and I see nothing wrong with them, for now
They are faster on the game map
As they are faster, they can evade damages much more than skirms in battles
They have better flanking bonus, so do more damages when flanking in pursuing
They are better skirmishers on average (light cav: skirm 3, basic skirmisher: skirm 1)

[shockk]

The issue is that with limited frontage, having the best unit for the job is the deciding factor in battle, and flanking is to rare to matter. Cavalry in this game is like a jack of all trades, good at nothing and decent at everything. In the battlefield it always better to have other units over cavalry, and its never effective to use them. If there are 2 equal size armies, one planned out, and other other has cav, well the cav army will most likely be at a disadvantage.

The higher move speed is nice, however it only matters in a pure cav army. Now a pure cav army can be very useful, however i expect it mainly to be used in multiplayer only. When playing vs the ai the goal tends to be more of destroying their armies rather then cripple their ability to fight.

[Geffalrus]

Max damage is the max amount of effectiveness a unit can inflict
range: 0 is the melee line, 1 support, 2 reserve
Fatigue margin: this is the skirmisher trait. You need to win a duel beyond the fatigue margin of the skirmisher to avoid suffering 1 effec, as the winner


Horses: I see a lot of bashing against cavalry, relatively to the well appreciated skirmishers. I have looked again at the stats, and I see nothing wrong with them, for now
They are faster on the game map
As they are faster, they can evade damages much more than skirms in battles
They have better flanking bonus, so do more damages when flanking in pursuing
They are better skirmishers on average (light cav: skirm 3, basic skirmisher: skirm 1)

So if I'm facing a bunch of skirmisher foot, the maximum amount of fatigue damage I can take is 1 for my units? So in the case of Regular Foot, they would drop from 2 = Fresh to 1= Tired, but never down to 0 = Exhausted? Or can multiple skirmishers damage a single unit? I was pretty sure that it was a one to one relationship.........

Thank you for the clarification on the Fatigue Margin. That makes a lot more sense now. Still deciding on how valuable that characteristic is to me and my playstyle.

I quite like cavalry, actually. I think they're fairly well represented. Perhaps people expect them to be too good in melee, which is somewhat unrealistic for non-heavy cavalry?

Speaking of heavy cavalry, I recently fought a battle with 14 melee units on an open plain. 6 pikes, 4 Mercenary Infantry, 2 Companions, and 2 Medium Cavalry. The 2 Companions were relegated to the reserve line, instead of the two Mediums or Mercenaries. Why did that happen? The Companions are better at melee in every way. I don't think there's any situation where the other units would perform better (everyone was well rested).

Thanks!