Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
"I've found that when defending a settlement with pikes, it's most effective to use pikes as a holding force at a crossroads, and have slingers or javelinmen on the side,"
And for those that may be unaware: the slingers should be to the LEFT of YOUR line (this puts them on the attacker's right). You do this because any shields they carry are carried on their left hand.. so you want to be shooting toward their right side. I just think "ranged on my left" before an attack. If you maneuver this way, make sure you have some spears near the skirms to protect against cav charging.
I've won many a war this way. Even when outnumbered 4+ to 1, a line of pikemen guarding the entrance to a fortress (with proper supports) is virtually unbeatable. Only thing ever gave me trouble was better pikemen.
Also, cataphracts for the general and agema (essentially companion) cavalry for the horsemen dominates imo. I use heavy syrian archers as well for some solid range. I almost never use siege weapons, since they slow campaign movement speed.
All opinions/discussion elicitation.
Nerd question: roman manipular warfare or Alexander. Who would win?