Genuine question from someone who played rome 2 about 2 years after launch and hated it, what do you enjoy about the game? I love medeival 2, napoleon, and shogun 2 a lot and I play several campaigns a year in each. I have not enjoyed any total war after Shogun 2. The campaigns seem slower and much more annoying to deal with, and the battles dont feel nearly as good as medeival 2 or rome 1 even. I know Rome 2 has a pretty huge following still, I just don't understand what it is people enjoy about the game really.
@janbazuine6636 the four defense directions (right, front, left, and back). In Med 2 and Rome 1, the shield was full value (the number it says) to the front and half that on left and right. Supposedly, because they hold their shields in their left hand, the left side is protected, as opposed to the right hand holding the weapon. This is my guess, based on the video and what I've heard. I don't actually know why, though.
Also remember that it is a game, use volleys to bring the hit points of enemy elite units down so that weaker units can get their kill animations quicker
The drawback of thin formations is that they lack manouverability ; for instance, the archers take longer to rotate and shoot a new target. Besides , if you don't pay attention, they might get into the melee fight if your melee soldiers are too close when you click on a target which it's to the side. In addition to this, if there's a great distance between one archer unit and the other, one might not be able to shoot to the same target, which it's troublesome if you have them in the same group as I do (again the problem of they getting into the melee). If the enemy has a plethora of skirmish cavalry, I suggest more compacted formations for the archers/slingers in order to rotate fast and effectively.
Slingers are just better imo. I feel like archers are an unhappy middle ground between javelin units' ridiculous damage and slingers' range. I never really use archers.
You should go over to dei mod, historical accurate factions and units and also realism mechanics! DEI with a few submods like orbis (realistic water and nature mod) along with AAA aging generals , Roman legions and extravaza and maybe 1-2 mods more mods make the game a whole new experience.
Using the option of skirmishing mode make them mobile, tactile. Hard to wipe out. You can even ignoring the archers while focusing on your front lines during the most delicate moments of the battle. If someone is chasing them, they will move away by default before taking contact with the enemy and while continuing to targeting them. Of course you should continue to have eyes on your flanks in order to avoid being surrounded. If you play Romans, that's basically the only way to lose a battle. Allowing the enemy to surround your formation. If your Legionnaires have their backs guarded by archers and equites, then they will just turn the enemy army in meat in can. I love Legionnaires. Still, a wise commander will build up his army in a reasonable way depending on his purpose in war. Fight other armies? 12 cohorts of legionaires, 4 cohorts of archers and 3 of equites. Raiding, sieges, and secondary roles? Change the balance of heavy troops in favor of light troops and chivalry. Then a key aspect to keep in mind is the cost of maintaining an army that can boosted up by the general skills. The capacity of movement through the map. Again easily boost by general and heroes units skills. And all those secondaries skills that grants you boost of morale, defense, attack, and more basic effects. These last can be ignored if you have strong armies like the Romans, Spartans, some of the asian or germanic tribes that can really do stuff once achieved the right technology. Otherwise the best way to face an enemy strong army is that of trapping it between two of your armies. Numerical superiority always works well in this game. Kinda like Teutoburg forest hambush made up by Arminius against the Romans. Then there's the vital role of magistrates and spies that can scout the terrain and show you where are enemy armies and magistrates that can turn against the enemy their own population and by that reducing their supplies and causing little troubles that can slow down their progress in war. Otherwise agistrates can boost up the morale of a province under your rule that is invaded and keep the region under control with little efforts (you still need a garrison army in the region no matter what). It is also wise to progress in wars by phases in order to recover cities from ruins and raids, rise the morale and avoid to dispatch armies back to face rebellions. In such way you can also heal your armies that are advancing while keeping control over key locations during winter and leaving the enemy with no options on how to control, take back or supply their forces. Moreover, direction of the war should be decided before starting the war itself, planning where you have to go, what you want to conquer, and harvesting informations that will grant you a better vision of the battlefield and in general of the war. For example, if you plan to fight a kingdom that have huge revenues on trade with other countries, and he have a single port where this trade pass in and out, that would probably be the best target you can hit to cripple their economy and by that they efficency in war. Of course surely the trading partner of your target will argue and complain a lot, but usually they dont fight a war they can possibly lose. At least, until now the AI is smart enough to not meddling in my businesses when I strike a possible enemy. But its not something granted 100%. So careful in starting wars. What else? 🤔 Uhm I think its all. Of course, Rome shall prevail, but lets not underestimate Syracuse, Carthage, Athen, Egypt, Suebi and Iceni. Also some of the minor factions can be really annoying if left untoached for long. Massilia for example always tends to conquer Hiberia (Spain) in my games. It is so annoying that sometimes it even try to fall down into Italy when I play as Rome. Moreover, conquering the whole Roman Empire looks kinda odd to me. Sometimes I just stop at the Marmara/Dardanels Straits and in Africa I don't go further over Cyrenaica. At the very best I prefer turning Egypt into a vassal state and leave the rest to the barbarians. The Aegean-Black seas line is excellent as defensive line. It costs literally nothing to guard a single stroke point and I can still capture Rhodi as a sort of sentey to watch Anatolia in times of peace or as a raiding base in times of war. Cnossus have little or no importance. You can either conquer it or leave it or force into submission. It will never be a threat. Anything else? 🤔 Ibernia (Ireland) have similar impact on the game. Alone by itself is powerless, if it starts to conquer Scotland it can possibly become a danger, but its also easily fixable. While the key of keeping the north barbarian hordes in check is that of selecting a tribe you like (I personally prefer the Suebi or the Marcomanni) and drawn them in gold. Donation after donation you can turn them into allies and trade partners and as soon as you take the Roman territories, these allies will wipe out whoever there are around without harming your territories. Just continue to support them and they will become your best insurance against barbarian invasions. Moreover they will form such vast kingdom in north that trade will benefit Rome on the long run.
I would say 10 cohorts of legionaries, 3 cohorts of evocati, 1 legion cavalry, the general, 3 units of archers and 2 units artillery. That's a good army composition. The legionaries in two rows of each 5 cohorts and the Evocati as last reserve and rear protection.
@@jarlnils435 I usually build my legions with 12 cohorts of Legionnaires, 4 cohorts of arciera or skirmishers and 3 of cavalry. That's as main force. If I need support roles or specific tasks I generally made armies less equilibrated but lighter and easy to move around. Usually cavalry forces. But those are rare cases. Legions are strong enough to wipe out multiple armies at full strenght in a single row. Last gameplay I did one single Legion was able to wipe out by itself two enemy armies and a garrison in a single battle. But of course strategy helps more than forces. You need to plan carefully your strategy and have some list of priorities. Usually its always something like: - eliminate hostile threats - secure cities - wipe out resistance Resistance and rebellions have to be dealt with a mix of military strenght and political actions. Its faster. Moreover its wise to put in construction queqe (how you write that?) Buildings that can rise morale before those who have opposite effects. Unfortunately due to lack of money in the earlier stages of the game, its important to prioritize and balance the expenditures over buildings, political actions and military expenditures. Having a big army is good, but leaving it doing nothing is bad. An army by itself gives no money (and this is kinda odd since in every empire armies are usually an economic stimulus for the civilians that sells a lot of stuff to soldiers) so the army must be used if you decide to build it. If you have no enemies close to your borders, moreover without sea connections, it could be wise to avoid to build the army and just keep those few elite units the game gives you at the start. Sparing the economic output of taxes to strenghten your economy base. After all, except for the Romans in almost every campaign, there are no immediate threats to address. Even with the Macedons its possible to rise sort of "Legions". Hiring swordsmen (Tedophorus) that are kinda like the earlier legionaries and can easily works as a proper Legion. Sometimes armies of that kind are even better than the normal phalanx of pikemen that the Macedons are famous for. Sarisse are not that good in many cases. I'm actually doing a gameplay where I use such "Macedon legions" to wipe out German tribes and enstablish an empire in Germany. Still Macedons seems to have very low control over stability so the presence of military forces is necessary to keep in the lines the territories conquered in war. 😤 Ah! If only the Romans have sent greeks to settle in specific areas and regions just outside the Empire, to this day the Empire would have been still alive. But would you deny it? Having a rich greek polis just in the middle of a barbarian land and have to defend it from the hordes of barbarians is one of the few pleasures of thos game. 😌✊
@@danielefabbro822 I have the two battle lines to throw fresh troops into the fight. As rome, I use cavalry mostly to hunt down fleeing enemies. But most of the time I play divide et impera with macedon or seleukia and there I organize my troops after Alexander the Great's troops. 6 units of pikemen, supported by hoblites, peltasts and light infantry and as the deciding factor on the battlefield I use lancer cavalry on mass. At least four units of shock cavalry to smash them into the enemy general and the back of their army. The pikes are only there to hold the enemy in place. It is Alexander's historical tactic and it works wonderful.
@@danielefabbro822 but only if you have them surrounded by flexible and fast units like peltasts, falxmen, swordsmen ect. In the end, the macedonian infantry is the support for the cavalry. Best is to use them offensive. Charge the pike phalanx with lowered pikes into the enemy in a frontal assault. And than destroy them with cavalry. A good way of defeating enemy cavalry is by using two lancer units as a ramm. The first has to form a collumn, the second must follow behind them spread out. The first will punch through the enemy unit and the second will charge into standing and disorganized riders. The double morale shock and the many death will break most enemy riders who are left standing.
I'm not a rome 2 player, but I am a total war player, to new players this might help. Keep a few spear infantry near your archers to prevent cavalry suprise attacking your archers. Also if you see enemies without shields or If they have shields but are walking away from your archers, they also are incredible vulnerable to archer fire. Lastly try not to accidentally shoot your own soldiers, if the game does not make your archers less stupid and they will shoot through your men, keep them on a hill so they can fire over your men onto enemy infantry just in front of your battle line. And lastly. No using archers in melee, Unless you are incredible desperate.
Have them on your left wing of your battle formation. But have peltasts on your right. The peltasts will dammage the enemy shields before the melee clash with your melee infantry.
Bro I’m telling you now from experience. Archers actually change the game if you can get really good with them each archer unit can dish out more 100 kills a game. Most games I get over 100-400 kills per unit of archers. I used to think there only good for killing pike man, other archers, and good for sieges I was wrong.
I always wait till all enemy untis are engaging my infantry and then let the ranged units go around the enemy and shoot them in the back. As long as the enemy has no cavalry he can send to kill my archers they are good bc they are faster than normal infantry. If the enemy does have cavalry i always send one or two melee units to guard them and if necessary engage the enemy cavalry
In the base gamew there is no reason to play archers. Slingers have thze same range and deal more damage to value units while at the same time winning every duel with archers. Only go for Steppe archers or special archer units
I hope I can say this: because as for me, Scythia and Parthia rock the archery world, I am able to destroy Boii, Sparta, Seleucid, Egypt, Arvernii, Carthage, and Rome itself with the hordes of Horse Archers from Parthia and Massagetae.
Even better, use cheap units that can hold the line for a while, after your front line is engaged, move your archers around the enemy line and shoot directly into their rear. Shooting enemies from behind is insanely powerful. Also, he didn't speak to any of the ammo types.
In multiplayer, against anyone who is competent, you will not always be able to freely move units behind your enemy. Even then, shooting a unit in it's sword side is the same as shooting them in the back. The damage is only applied through the base armor value since there's no shield on that side of the unit. As for ammo types, it's pretty straight forward. Normal shot is standard, heavy shot is used when you want to delete a high armor unit and your archers are up close, fire arrows are useful for a quick blitz break of enemy morale and sending elephants berserk. Whistling shot is pretty useless, imo.
@@Bubinni curious, how much friendly fire do you think you take shooting into the side of the enemy unit versus the rear? Since the side will also be the side of your units to since ideally each unit is engaging and pressing into each other? Just a thought. Also, I didn't know you were speaking to multiplayer. My tactic is for single player.
@@thearthritisgamer946 Friendly fire will happen regardless. But shooting in the side doesnt cause much because your units still focus their shots on a single point.
I don't play Total War, although would it be effective to have an archer/cavalry combo where your archers weaken an enemy and then the cavalry charges to finish them off?
It depends on what the enemy fields. Cavalry and skirmishers are strong but they won't always kill everything on the field. If the enemy has a lot of units with high armor, you probably won't win that fight with archers and cav alone.
Loved to let humble skiemishers run around enemy units and launch a volley into the back of a unit, massive kills guaranteed Of course you might have to send two units and sandwich the enemy unit so at least one unit can keep pinning their backs
Possibly. I haven't extensively tested it but I do know that there should be a more balanced hit box for their shields. In warband, arrows would be blocked for the entire front side of the soldier if he was blocking.
Does anyone know if they ever fixed the issue where armor is a deplorable stat? I stopped playing R2 ages ago because my heavily armored troops would eventually whither after enough projectiles hit their shields, which I found to be both incredibly frustrating and unrealistic. For reference, in Rome 1 your legionaries (and even pre-Marian troops aside from hastati) could take any kind of bombardment from archers or slingers with minimal losses as long as their shields were facing that direction
That is still in the game. To be honest, it is quite realistic. In this time period, most shields are made of wood, leather, bronze and sometimes a reinforcement of iron but nothing too crazy. A shield can only take so much bombardment before it is eventually ruined. A lead "bullet" fired from a sling will chip away at a wooden shield. Even an arrow, although a lot less effective at doing it. But the main thing that ruins a shield is a javelin. Especially the Roman pilum that was used as a precursor to destroy or render their enemies shields useless.
@@Bubinni I don’t have a problem with the concept, necessarily, but it does seem weird that a heavy unit can go from minimal losses to half strength in the span of a few volleys because a seemingly static armor stat was depleted. To use a historical example, the disastrous Roman losses at Carrhae came after they began moving their formations to engage the ranged cavalry. Accounts indicate that there were relatively few losses and many minor wounds to unarmored portions of the body such as hands and feet. If those accounts are any indication, the Romans’ shields stood up to dozens or perhaps hundreds of arrows each with little issue. While I acknowledge that my frustration could be partially a skill issue, I rarely used the Testudo formation to advance under fire because once that armor stat vanished my tightly clumped legionaries would drop like flies. At any rate, I liked this video and several others of yours that popped up in my feed and went ahead and subscribed, keep up the great work!
@@Bubinni I bet it is. I just found that the bow armed infantry was pretty weak at least when the game was released. I guess I used them wrong. Archers have always been a part of my armies. (Pharoes bowmen, Venetian archers, Ashigaru bowmen) For some reason I felt my other skirmisher units got more kills than archers.
No individual unit formations like line or spread out. I think the only formation that exists in the game is the wedge formation for certain cav units. This formation doesnt work and makes your unit worse by just tanking the unit speed even though its supposed to increase it.
@@Bubinni True. Three Kingdoms didn't do it for me either in terms of depth, even in Historical mode. Rome is probably the go to game for depth. I wish they made a third Rome game, but without the over simplified building mode, Rome 1 was so satisfying when I was little.
@@Bubinni For historical titles, yeah. Though I don't really care, stylized art can also help with clarity if done right. It's all about how they execute it, and what people prefer.
Standard, low tier archers have 125 range. That is correct. But, the more elite archers like Gallic hunters, Cretans, Syrians, etc have 150 range. Even the low tier steppe archers. Some horse archers also have 150 range.
Archers in this game are not really worth it. Javelinthrowers are better for skirmishing (with shields) and armorpiercing DMG while Slingers are better for constant DPS to non- to medium armoured troops. Archers have no niche other than a slight range advantage that is kinda irrelevant in this infantry based game
@@udozocklein6023 that may be so, but they cannot shoot over the high walls of Eastern/Hellenic walls and their buildings. If they shoot over the small buildings inside, most projectiles miss and hit the buildings themselves.
true but tbh - wouldn't you rather flank them, anyways and shoot into their backs? granted, sometimes this is not possible and then wasting half my ammo on a building is usually pretty sad but somehow still worth it xD I'm not gonna recruit archers just for something that happens once or twice in 100 turns. anyways, archers are nice for sieges and turtling but that is not what i mainly do, playing as egypt or rome. i wish suebi were not as ... weird to start out as. any tips for suebi?@@Bubinni
Respect for still making rome 2 content, probably my favorite total war to this day
Been playing for nearly 10 years. Love the game so much.
Genuine question from someone who played rome 2 about 2 years after launch and hated it, what do you enjoy about the game? I love medeival 2, napoleon, and shogun 2 a lot and I play several campaigns a year in each. I have not enjoyed any total war after Shogun 2. The campaigns seem slower and much more annoying to deal with, and the battles dont feel nearly as good as medeival 2 or rome 1 even. I know Rome 2 has a pretty huge following still, I just don't understand what it is people enjoy about the game really.
@@TinyBoatConcerts I love the time period and I've got a lot of friends to play it with. I also enjoyed playing a ton of solo campaigns.
@@Bubinniyeah the time period is like my favorite thing about the game + eventually the UI
@@Bubinniare you playing with mods
Ah! No wonder I was having trouble getting my slingers to kill more Samnites before they charge into my Hastati's.
Thanks! This shit helps in siege battles
It's extremely important in siege battles.
@@Bubinni love the explanatory videos on how to use troops more efficiently
Its all fun and games until the elite slingers arrive
The Balearic slingers liked it
I didn’t know about the shielded side. I thought you always had to flank em.
The more you know!
This must be a new differnec compared to Med 2 and Rome 1, correct?
Why does shooting from right flank deal more damage than left flankwhen they hold their shield forward when getting shot
@janbazuine6636 the four defense directions (right, front, left, and back). In Med 2 and Rome 1, the shield was full value (the number it says) to the front and half that on left and right. Supposedly, because they hold their shields in their left hand, the left side is protected, as opposed to the right hand holding the weapon. This is my guess, based on the video and what I've heard. I don't actually know why, though.
Also remember that it is a game, use volleys to bring the hit points of enemy elite units down so that weaker units can get their kill animations quicker
Even to heavily armoured units?
The drawback of thin formations is that they lack manouverability ; for instance, the archers take longer to rotate and shoot a new target. Besides , if you don't pay attention, they might get into the melee fight if your melee soldiers are too close when you click on a target which it's to the side. In addition to this, if there's a great distance between one archer unit and the other, one might not be able to shoot to the same target, which it's troublesome if you have them in the same group as I do (again the problem of they getting into the melee). If the enemy has a plethora of skirmish cavalry, I suggest more compacted formations for the archers/slingers in order to rotate fast and effectively.
If you can pin, slingers do ridiculous flanking damage and will beat archers because slingers have higher range and shields
Slingers are just better imo.
I feel like archers are an unhappy middle ground between javelin units' ridiculous damage and slingers' range. I never really use archers.
You should go over to dei mod, historical accurate factions and units and also realism mechanics! DEI with a few submods like orbis (realistic water and nature mod) along with AAA aging generals , Roman legions and extravaza and maybe 1-2 mods more mods make the game a whole new experience.
Never thought about this. Thank you!
Always happy to help.
I like using archers but I’ve essentially specialized in skirmishers because that’s the base for Rome
and then Testudo comes in and says f your archers
when r we got to see game like this again?😢 Im so loving this game to this day. Plus the mod ,goddamn it man.
Interesting that you spread em to avoid slinger fire instead of boxing them up to allow quick pivots
wth, didnt even know that sword side was a thing in total war.
It indeed is.
I love how he hearts all comments ❤️❤️
Only way I can show that I read y'alls comments. 🙂
Using the option of skirmishing mode make them mobile, tactile. Hard to wipe out.
You can even ignoring the archers while focusing on your front lines during the most delicate moments of the battle.
If someone is chasing them, they will move away by default before taking contact with the enemy and while continuing to targeting them.
Of course you should continue to have eyes on your flanks in order to avoid being surrounded.
If you play Romans, that's basically the only way to lose a battle. Allowing the enemy to surround your formation.
If your Legionnaires have their backs guarded by archers and equites, then they will just turn the enemy army in meat in can.
I love Legionnaires.
Still, a wise commander will build up his army in a reasonable way depending on his purpose in war.
Fight other armies? 12 cohorts of legionaires, 4 cohorts of archers and 3 of equites.
Raiding, sieges, and secondary roles? Change the balance of heavy troops in favor of light troops and chivalry.
Then a key aspect to keep in mind is the cost of maintaining an army that can boosted up by the general skills.
The capacity of movement through the map. Again easily boost by general and heroes units skills.
And all those secondaries skills that grants you boost of morale, defense, attack, and more basic effects. These last can be ignored if you have strong armies like the Romans, Spartans, some of the asian or germanic tribes that can really do stuff once achieved the right technology.
Otherwise the best way to face an enemy strong army is that of trapping it between two of your armies.
Numerical superiority always works well in this game. Kinda like Teutoburg forest hambush made up by Arminius against the Romans.
Then there's the vital role of magistrates and spies that can scout the terrain and show you where are enemy armies and magistrates that can turn against the enemy their own population and by that reducing their supplies and causing little troubles that can slow down their progress in war.
Otherwise agistrates can boost up the morale of a province under your rule that is invaded and keep the region under control with little efforts (you still need a garrison army in the region no matter what).
It is also wise to progress in wars by phases in order to recover cities from ruins and raids, rise the morale and avoid to dispatch armies back to face rebellions.
In such way you can also heal your armies that are advancing while keeping control over key locations during winter and leaving the enemy with no options on how to control, take back or supply their forces.
Moreover, direction of the war should be decided before starting the war itself, planning where you have to go, what you want to conquer, and harvesting informations that will grant you a better vision of the battlefield and in general of the war.
For example, if you plan to fight a kingdom that have huge revenues on trade with other countries, and he have a single port where this trade pass in and out, that would probably be the best target you can hit to cripple their economy and by that they efficency in war.
Of course surely the trading partner of your target will argue and complain a lot, but usually they dont fight a war they can possibly lose. At least, until now the AI is smart enough to not meddling in my businesses when I strike a possible enemy.
But its not something granted 100%. So careful in starting wars.
What else? 🤔 Uhm I think its all.
Of course, Rome shall prevail, but lets not underestimate Syracuse, Carthage, Athen, Egypt, Suebi and Iceni. Also some of the minor factions can be really annoying if left untoached for long.
Massilia for example always tends to conquer Hiberia (Spain) in my games.
It is so annoying that sometimes it even try to fall down into Italy when I play as Rome.
Moreover, conquering the whole Roman Empire looks kinda odd to me. Sometimes I just stop at the Marmara/Dardanels Straits and in Africa I don't go further over Cyrenaica. At the very best I prefer turning Egypt into a vassal state and leave the rest to the barbarians.
The Aegean-Black seas line is excellent as defensive line. It costs literally nothing to guard a single stroke point and I can still capture Rhodi as a sort of sentey to watch Anatolia in times of peace or as a raiding base in times of war.
Cnossus have little or no importance. You can either conquer it or leave it or force into submission. It will never be a threat.
Anything else? 🤔
Ibernia (Ireland) have similar impact on the game. Alone by itself is powerless, if it starts to conquer Scotland it can possibly become a danger, but its also easily fixable.
While the key of keeping the north barbarian hordes in check is that of selecting a tribe you like (I personally prefer the Suebi or the Marcomanni) and drawn them in gold. Donation after donation you can turn them into allies and trade partners and as soon as you take the Roman territories, these allies will wipe out whoever there are around without harming your territories.
Just continue to support them and they will become your best insurance against barbarian invasions.
Moreover they will form such vast kingdom in north that trade will benefit Rome on the long run.
I would say 10 cohorts of legionaries, 3 cohorts of evocati, 1 legion cavalry, the general, 3 units of archers and 2 units artillery. That's a good army composition. The legionaries in two rows of each 5 cohorts and the Evocati as last reserve and rear protection.
@@jarlnils435 I usually build my legions with 12 cohorts of Legionnaires, 4 cohorts of arciera or skirmishers and 3 of cavalry.
That's as main force.
If I need support roles or specific tasks I generally made armies less equilibrated but lighter and easy to move around.
Usually cavalry forces. But those are rare cases.
Legions are strong enough to wipe out multiple armies at full strenght in a single row.
Last gameplay I did one single Legion was able to wipe out by itself two enemy armies and a garrison in a single battle.
But of course strategy helps more than forces.
You need to plan carefully your strategy and have some list of priorities.
Usually its always something like:
- eliminate hostile threats
- secure cities
- wipe out resistance
Resistance and rebellions have to be dealt with a mix of military strenght and political actions. Its faster.
Moreover its wise to put in construction queqe (how you write that?) Buildings that can rise morale before those who have opposite effects.
Unfortunately due to lack of money in the earlier stages of the game, its important to prioritize and balance the expenditures over buildings, political actions and military expenditures.
Having a big army is good, but leaving it doing nothing is bad. An army by itself gives no money (and this is kinda odd since in every empire armies are usually an economic stimulus for the civilians that sells a lot of stuff to soldiers) so the army must be used if you decide to build it.
If you have no enemies close to your borders, moreover without sea connections, it could be wise to avoid to build the army and just keep those few elite units the game gives you at the start.
Sparing the economic output of taxes to strenghten your economy base.
After all, except for the Romans in almost every campaign, there are no immediate threats to address.
Even with the Macedons its possible to rise sort of "Legions". Hiring swordsmen (Tedophorus) that are kinda like the earlier legionaries and can easily works as a proper Legion.
Sometimes armies of that kind are even better than the normal phalanx of pikemen that the Macedons are famous for. Sarisse are not that good in many cases.
I'm actually doing a gameplay where I use such "Macedon legions" to wipe out German tribes and enstablish an empire in Germany.
Still Macedons seems to have very low control over stability so the presence of military forces is necessary to keep in the lines the territories conquered in war. 😤
Ah! If only the Romans have sent greeks to settle in specific areas and regions just outside the Empire, to this day the Empire would have been still alive.
But would you deny it? Having a rich greek polis just in the middle of a barbarian land and have to defend it from the hordes of barbarians is one of the few pleasures of thos game. 😌✊
@@danielefabbro822 I have the two battle lines to throw fresh troops into the fight. As rome, I use cavalry mostly to hunt down fleeing enemies.
But most of the time I play divide et impera with macedon or seleukia and there I organize my troops after Alexander the Great's troops. 6 units of pikemen, supported by hoblites, peltasts and light infantry and as the deciding factor on the battlefield I use lancer cavalry on mass. At least four units of shock cavalry to smash them into the enemy general and the back of their army. The pikes are only there to hold the enemy in place. It is Alexander's historical tactic and it works wonderful.
@@jarlnils435 eh the greeks as very good. I love to play with them.
In matter of phalanx nothing beats the greeks.
@@danielefabbro822 but only if you have them surrounded by flexible and fast units like peltasts, falxmen, swordsmen ect. In the end, the macedonian infantry is the support for the cavalry.
Best is to use them offensive. Charge the pike phalanx with lowered pikes into the enemy in a frontal assault. And than destroy them with cavalry.
A good way of defeating enemy cavalry is by using two lancer units as a ramm. The first has to form a collumn, the second must follow behind them spread out.
The first will punch through the enemy unit and the second will charge into standing and disorganized riders. The double morale shock and the many death will break most enemy riders who are left standing.
They said spread out and do not shoot shields lol my sarcasm thanks you
you're the best
Thank you, I appreciate that.
The shield side 🤯
Crazy, I know.
Bro, putting archers on the sword side? Im gonna try and apply that to bannerlord, thank you
I'm not a rome 2 player, but I am a total war player, to new players this might help. Keep a few spear infantry near your archers to prevent cavalry suprise attacking your archers. Also if you see enemies without shields or If they have shields but are walking away from your archers, they also are incredible vulnerable to archer fire. Lastly try not to accidentally shoot your own soldiers, if the game does not make your archers less stupid and they will shoot through your men, keep them on a hill so they can fire over your men onto enemy infantry just in front of your battle line. And lastly. No using archers in melee, Unless you are incredible desperate.
Have them on your left wing of your battle formation. But have peltasts on your right. The peltasts will dammage the enemy shields before the melee clash with your melee infantry.
wth for real?
@@samuelcontreras9248 ^^??
thanks, I've just began my first playthrough and it will definitely help
Glad to help you out!
Which unit is the first one in the video, the Hellenistic looking archers?
Mercenary Cretans
Bro I’m telling you now from experience. Archers actually change the game if you can get really good with them each archer unit can dish out more 100 kills a game. Most games I get over 100-400 kills per unit of archers. I used to think there only good for killing pike man, other archers, and good for sieges I was wrong.
400 kills per archer unit? Thats a lot.
I always wait till all enemy untis are engaging my infantry and then let the ranged units go around the enemy and shoot them in the back. As long as the enemy has no cavalry he can send to kill my archers they are good bc they are faster than normal infantry. If the enemy does have cavalry i always send one or two melee units to guard them and if necessary engage the enemy cavalry
Goooodd jobb
Hey what soundtrack did you use here been hearing it everywhere and its driving me crazy cause it sounds so familiar,
I do not remember. I'd have to look.
I love Rome 2 ❤
In the base gamew there is no reason to play archers. Slingers have thze same range and deal more damage to value units while at the same time winning every duel with archers. Only go for Steppe archers or special archer units
I hope I can say this: because as for me, Scythia and Parthia rock the archery world, I am able to destroy Boii, Sparta, Seleucid, Egypt, Arvernii, Carthage, and Rome itself with the hordes of Horse Archers from Parthia and Massagetae.
Well, those nations were known for their archery skills!
Even better, use cheap units that can hold the line for a while, after your front line is engaged, move your archers around the enemy line and shoot directly into their rear. Shooting enemies from behind is insanely powerful. Also, he didn't speak to any of the ammo types.
In multiplayer, against anyone who is competent, you will not always be able to freely move units behind your enemy. Even then, shooting a unit in it's sword side is the same as shooting them in the back. The damage is only applied through the base armor value since there's no shield on that side of the unit. As for ammo types, it's pretty straight forward. Normal shot is standard, heavy shot is used when you want to delete a high armor unit and your archers are up close, fire arrows are useful for a quick blitz break of enemy morale and sending elephants berserk. Whistling shot is pretty useless, imo.
@@Bubinni curious, how much friendly fire do you think you take shooting into the side of the enemy unit versus the rear? Since the side will also be the side of your units to since ideally each unit is engaging and pressing into each other? Just a thought. Also, I didn't know you were speaking to multiplayer. My tactic is for single player.
@@thearthritisgamer946 Friendly fire will happen regardless. But shooting in the side doesnt cause much because your units still focus their shots on a single point.
Hmm, this helps M&B Bannerlord players as well
Interesting.
How to use
Legt Click on the Archer Right Click on the Enemy
Done
Theres a little more to it than that if you wanna get value.
trust him hes Gorilla Bois
Oh no! I've been spotted!
I don't play Total War, although would it be effective to have an archer/cavalry combo where your archers weaken an enemy and then the cavalry charges to finish them off?
It depends on what the enemy fields. Cavalry and skirmishers are strong but they won't always kill everything on the field. If the enemy has a lot of units with high armor, you probably won't win that fight with archers and cav alone.
Loved to let humble skiemishers run around enemy units and launch a volley into the back of a unit, massive kills guaranteed
Of course you might have to send two units and sandwich the enemy unit so at least one unit can keep pinning their backs
I haven't started playing yet but I'm pretty sure this would work in Mount and Blade 2 Bannerlord but that's just a wild guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Possibly. I haven't extensively tested it but I do know that there should be a more balanced hit box for their shields. In warband, arrows would be blocked for the entire front side of the soldier if he was blocking.
@@Bubinni interesting thanks
Make them shoot arrows
Does anyone know if they ever fixed the issue where armor is a deplorable stat? I stopped playing R2 ages ago because my heavily armored troops would eventually whither after enough projectiles hit their shields, which I found to be both incredibly frustrating and unrealistic. For reference, in Rome 1 your legionaries (and even pre-Marian troops aside from hastati) could take any kind of bombardment from archers or slingers with minimal losses as long as their shields were facing that direction
Depletable*
That is still in the game. To be honest, it is quite realistic. In this time period, most shields are made of wood, leather, bronze and sometimes a reinforcement of iron but nothing too crazy. A shield can only take so much bombardment before it is eventually ruined. A lead "bullet" fired from a sling will chip away at a wooden shield. Even an arrow, although a lot less effective at doing it. But the main thing that ruins a shield is a javelin. Especially the Roman pilum that was used as a precursor to destroy or render their enemies shields useless.
@@Bubinni I don’t have a problem with the concept, necessarily, but it does seem weird that a heavy unit can go from minimal losses to half strength in the span of a few volleys because a seemingly static armor stat was depleted. To use a historical example, the disastrous Roman losses at Carrhae came after they began moving their formations to engage the ranged cavalry. Accounts indicate that there were relatively few losses and many minor wounds to unarmored portions of the body such as hands and feet. If those accounts are any indication, the Romans’ shields stood up to dozens or perhaps hundreds of arrows each with little issue. While I acknowledge that my frustration could be partially a skill issue, I rarely used the Testudo formation to advance under fire because once that armor stat vanished my tightly clumped legionaries would drop like flies. At any rate, I liked this video and several others of yours that popped up in my feed and went ahead and subscribed, keep up the great work!
@@Tocroach22 Thanks for subscribing! I'm almost positive it's just the shield value that has an "HP pool". The base armor is unaffected
Do most of ur tips also work for atilla ?
Yes
Does this work with other games? Such as Warhammmer or Atilla?
Attila, yes. Warhammer, possibly. I dont play Warhammer.
When this game launched I found archers to be complete trash. Javelin throwers were a lot better. Good to see they are now useful.
This mechanic is in every total war as far as I am aware.
@@Bubinni I bet it is. I just found that the bow armed infantry was pretty weak at least when the game was released. I guess I used them wrong. Archers have always been a part of my armies. (Pharoes bowmen, Venetian archers, Ashigaru bowmen) For some reason I felt my other skirmisher units got more kills than archers.
@@gaiuscaesar3841 probably because jav units have higher armor pen which gives a faster visual result for killing.
shame such tactical considerations dont exist in the warhammer games
I have not played WH3, there really isnt anything like this? Im certain there is.
No individual unit formations like line or spread out. I think the only formation that exists in the game is the wedge formation for certain cav units. This formation doesnt work and makes your unit worse by just tanking the unit speed even though its supposed to increase it.
I like javelins more they are so good
They are indeed amazing.
The poor choosens😅 but nice!
Bye bye Chosens!
Would this be effective with Slingers ?
Absolutely devastating. Javelins also.
Get cretan archers. Profit.
Does this apply to other Total War games?
Indeed.
I am surprised at what is basic info is news to other people
You'll be surprised how many new folks there are to the TW series that haven't seen this stuff before.
@@Bubinni I am aware, that is why I am surprised
I need to get back into this game. Warhammer lacks this kind of depth
I think this applies to all TW titles, but I dont play Warhammer. So I could be wrong.
@@Bubinni True. Three Kingdoms didn't do it for me either in terms of depth, even in Historical mode. Rome is probably the go to game for depth. I wish they made a third Rome game, but without the over simplified building mode, Rome 1 was so satisfying when I was little.
@@adrianbunea2006 I just want the old historical art style back. The new games look too cartoony for historical
@@Bubinni For historical titles, yeah. Though I don't really care, stylized art can also help with clarity if done right. It's all about how they execute it, and what people prefer.
❤
🥰
@@Bubinni Your videos are some of the best, dude. Would be cool to see some DEI stuff, but whatever you're doing is working
@@rajatheking003 gotta learn DEI
why they range shorter than slingers?!!!
Standard, low tier archers have 125 range. That is correct. But, the more elite archers like Gallic hunters, Cretans, Syrians, etc have 150 range. Even the low tier steppe archers. Some horse archers also have 150 range.
Archers in this game are not really worth it. Javelinthrowers are better for skirmishing (with shields) and armorpiercing DMG while Slingers are better for constant DPS to non- to medium armoured troops.
Archers have no niche other than a slight range advantage that is kinda irrelevant in this infantry based game
Shooting over walls and buildings is pretty important, I would say.
@@Bubinni even javelinmen can throw in arch in this game, so... Not really
@@udozocklein6023 that may be so, but they cannot shoot over the high walls of Eastern/Hellenic walls and their buildings. If they shoot over the small buildings inside, most projectiles miss and hit the buildings themselves.
true but tbh - wouldn't you rather flank them, anyways and shoot into their backs?
granted, sometimes this is not possible and then wasting half my ammo on a building is usually pretty sad but somehow still worth it xD
I'm not gonna recruit archers just for something that happens once or twice in 100 turns.
anyways, archers are nice for sieges and turtling but that is not what i mainly do, playing as egypt or rome. i wish suebi were not as ... weird to start out as. any tips for suebi?@@Bubinni
Does this apply to total war attila?
Yes
Please lemme know If you have any rome 2 gift card
Game name please
Total War: Rome 2
I have over 500 hours in rome II.
The ONLY tactic i used is *cheese* 😎
Nah i'm kiddin', great video! I didn't expect to see rome II in my shorts.
It aint easy being cheese-eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Sword side? I have never heard of such a term my entire life. Like wtf is that? Some gen z made up crap? Its called a rear
It can also be referred to as "unshielded" side. The side of the unit where they're holding the sword? Sword side. Rear is shooting them in the back.
Is this true for atilla too?
And ANY other Total War series as well.
Yes.
@@dan-wiiu-killer Any Total War series. As far as I'm aware.
Uhh those launch animation is so uggly
They have a grand total of 3 arrows and are pretty useless after that
Do you have a problem? You just went through 3 shorts in 5 mins to comment something negative on each of them?
Slingers are better
Archers and slings are better at different things
Jesus, the archer firing animations are awful
Basically, rome had all the same characteristics just worse graphics.
Rome 2 is so boring. The battles are easy and the ai rarely attacks first even on legendary.
Play multiplayer.
@@Bubinni I do, but mostly siege battles. Nowadays I just play Attila.
I’m not doing my land battles.