Units

[Roma]

I was told by a friend and by the war thing in here that you need to have different units. Like instead of an army of 35 swordmen you have 10 swords 10 horses 10 archers and 5 cataplutes. Why would you do that since swordmen fight as a 3:2:1 and all the other units are weakers.(I can see why you would include catas)

 

[Aabraxan]

Each has its own use and serves its own purpose. You see the the purpose of cats. Fast attackers can hit from further away. They can (sometimes) also retreat. Archers get a defensive bombard (IIRC).

 

[Norton II]

Depends on the situation, really. If you're playing on emperor and below and manage to prepare for war early, one-dimensional warfare is probably better, though I'd rather use horsemen than swordsmen. Swordsmen are stronger, but horsemen are faster--you can take all your enemy's cities before he can prepare any sort of counterattack. Also, if a horseman, or any fast unit, is losing a battle, he might retreat rather than dying. On higher levels, combined arms might be better: the AI will have more units than you and can replace its losses faster than you can, so a force of swords and cats, with a few spears to protect your swords, becomes more useful than a stack of horses. Also, with combined arms, you'll still want to include the strongest unit available; in the AA, you'll want swordsmen if you have iron, horsemen if you don't, and archers if you have neither iron nor horses.

 

[MAS]

horseman have 50% retreat, they will win less than swords, but they will also lose less. Those who survive can be healed to fight again. Also, they move faster, up to 6 moves over your own road network, making them good for defending your empire.

I don't see whey you would need to combine archers with swords though, or archers with horseman. Archers are really only for if you lack both iron and horses.

As for catapult, I would make the ratio 12 catapult and 4 offensive units. Or not use catapult, 5 catapults are not very useful.

 

[Roma]

I had 10 in an army of 50 some and it helped i distoried the arbs that had 20 citys with an army of 30 knights and 10 trebu

 

[Norton II]

If you had knights, the trebs might have slowed you down. Trebs are better used with longbows or maces (and some pikes or muskets for defense); both are as strong as knights on attack , and they're cheaper to build.

 

[Roma]

o I had gunpower and they didnt have chilvery

 

[Sashie VII]

Since they didn't have Ansars, you would probably have destroyed them faster with Knights alone.

 

[Gen. Rommel]

I usually prepare an attack force of extremely swift (i.e. fast) units who can sweep down and swallow up many enemy cities initially. I tend to have a force of defender units waiting in my territories who will distribute to the newly captured cities thereafter to elleviate the faster units as well as free them up for further fighting. The shock-attack of taking your enemy's cities right away usually means he has a big disadvantage due to the resulting lack of production as well as production sites meaning I will have the overhand, at which point the enemy usually can't keep up with my ever grwoing production.

Mixed armies are good though. Later in the game, the advantages of certain units are more noticeable, for instance paratroopers and marines, which are overall statistically weaker than their infantry counterparts but have a specialty which makes them unique and worth buidling.

But in the beginning, just make a city near some horse resources and release the pain amongst your enemies bwahahahahahaha!!!

 

[RFHolloway]

I was told by a friend and by the war thing in here that you need to have different units. Like instead of an army of 35 swordmen you have 10 swords 10 horses 10 archers and 5 cataplutes. Why would you do that since swordmen fight as a 3:2:1 and all the other units are weakers.(I can see why you would include catas)

Swords are a bit of a special case, they can pretty much stand alone, but the cost to produce is important. consider which would you rather have

10 swords or 8 swords and 3 spears (3 spears cost the same as 2 swords, and will absorb attacks first and act as garrisons when you capture the cities)

if you have no iron, which would you rather have - 10 longbows, or 8 longbows and 4 spears (or 6 longbows 2 spears and 4 trebs)

 

[Pyrrhos]

Also, horsemen/knights have little hope attacking spearmen/pikemen but are great against archers and warriors. Archers or swordsmen are much better attacking spears/pikes. Archers on their own are useless in defense as are, say, cavalry.

In the latter stages, bombers followed by artillery, tanks and then mech inf is far more effective than using tanks only.

 

[Norton II]

Also, horsemen/knights have little hope attacking spearmen/pikemen but are great against archers and warriors. Archers or swordsmen are much better attacking spears/pikes. Archers on their own are useless in defense as are, say, cavalry.

In the latter stages, bombers followed by artillery, tanks and then mech inf is far more effective than using tanks only.

In my experience, horsemen do pretty well against spearmen, and can even take down pikes on occasion. Knights are good against pikes and can still take out muskets if needed.

Also, I'd send the bombers in after the artillery to take full advantage of their lethal bombardment ability--it's easier for bombers to kill enemy units after those units have been weakened.

 

[Eltrai]

In my experience, horsemen do pretty well against spearmen, and can even take down pikes on occasion. Knights are good against pikes and can still take out muskets if needed.

I have had the same experiance.

 

[Sashie VII]

Also, horsemen/knights have little hope attacking spearmen/pikemen but are great against archers and warriors.

I've done horsemen conquest against spears and pikes so in my experience, they are good enough

 

[Roma]

Later I dont use artillery. Bomers are soo much stronger.

 

[Norton II]

Later I dont use artillery. Bomers are soo much stronger.

Bombers are more effective still in conjunction with artillery--your artillery redlines the enemy's units, your bombers kill them, and your tanks take the city without a fight (hopefully). Also, keep in mind that artillery targets units first, while bombers can hit buildings and population even if there are still units they can hit.

 

[Tomoyo]

Bombers are worse than artillery. I know I'm the only one that still thinks this, but it's true.

When you bomb a city, you're not trying to destroy it. You're trying to capture it. You might even want to keep it. As Norton II said, the bombers will hit buildings and population, while artillery won't.

The AI likes to build Flak and other anti-air things. You can't anti-air artillery. Trying to bomb a strong AI doesn't work very well. Artillery does though.

Artillery comes sooner.

Artillery is cheaper.

Artillery requires no resources.

And most importantly, artillery can be fired on the same turn that it moves. Bombers can't. They're so slow. I can't stand them. (Carriers are too expensive and totally not worth it)

Oh, and artillery upgrades to the totally awesome radar artillery, if you make it that far.

 

[Norton II]

I agree that artillery is better than bombers for all the reasons you listed, but bombers aren't completely useless. Carriers are, though--far better to rebase your bombers after building a city on the other continent.

As mentioned above, I like to use bombers after artillery--there's nothing like wiping out an entire city garrison without losing a single unit. Also, bombers are good for killing enemy units out in the open when you don't want to waste your artillery and attack units on them.

 

[Tomoyo]

I consider my pile of attackers endless. After all, they don't die. Therefore, I can afford to use one each to take care of each redlined AI unit. (Bombers are good for kill those units in the open and ships, but those units aren't pressing concerns)

 

[Norton II]

I consider my pile of attackers endless. After all, they don't die. Therefore, I can afford to use one each to take care of each redlined AI unit. (Bombers are good for kill those units in the open and ships, but those units aren't pressing concerns)

True. It's still fun to hurt them without them being able to hurt you, though.