In the game, infantry's useful for getting other infantry - especially on walls. Cavalry armies are useful, but you're rather stuck when you hit a wall. Also, there are some cases where infantry are able to rout cavalry. I can't explain what you've pointed out, but I know that in some cases, cavalry can be beaten by infantry.

- Nick

Also, you can't "hold the line" with cavalry. Generally you use cavalry to flank, but you can't do that if there is no central front to distract the enemy. Most cavalry do very poorly in hand-to-hand, and their fewer numbers will make them die faster.

The AI is easy to manipulate, there's no bragging rights there.

Infantrymen have more men in unit. If they are manouvred with care, they can seriously reduce effectivity of cavalry.

In low money, all cavalry can be particulary effective even against living players (although not overly effective I must say).

Archer heavy armies are bane of cavalry armies (My Parthian army just eats all-cav - and I have only two dedicated melee units - eles).

In high money cavalry heavy armies will lose badly as strong phalanxes can be afforded and fully upgraded. Spartan hoplites/sacred band will massacre any cavalry unit utterly (even when charged from flank/back).

Cavalry canīt hold in fight for too long as well as chariots.

Cav/chariots are good for thunderous charges which cause rout/riding on flanks and killing archers and many more things. But infantry offers you some sort of reliability and durability against archers.

I donīt want to say that cav is worse than infantry - but both have their places. All infantry wonīt be too effective mostly as well as all-cavalry. But both cases have exceptions.

AI is stupid - I would say it even that roughly. It just is. To certain extent, it can play reasonably, but it is outmanouvred far too easily. +important thing is, that it is impossible really to do with all your units - charge, withdraw, charge...it is possible only with pause button. And that isnīt usual in multiplayer. If you leave infantry to fight with cavalry, it is mostly fine. If you leave cavalry to fight infantry, it works opposite way.

+some tactics are unbeatable without infantry - without infantry, you wonīt be able to kill spartan circle with onagers (and occasionally cretans) in it.

Yes, cav cant climb walls, but you can a) wait till they sally, or b) hire a cheap merc infantry unit to push a ram etc.

However, while victory always tastes good, after winning 48 territories and 600 battles with just cav armies, the tase goes a little... stale. Your tactics are always the same, (stack cav, charge, charge someone else, repeat, chase routers, win).

I much prefer pounding the enemy with arrows as they approach my line, charging into them when they get close, then smashing into their rear with a few units of cav.

Cavalry is good while it runs. But when it is stopped (and that happens pretty frequently in MP, when they fight infantry), they die very very quickly.

Cavalry was used just for chasing? That was purpose of equites. But cataphract/roman heavy cavalry were typical heavy cavalry units. Or warlordīs groups - they were rich and could have afforded good weapons and armor.

And primary use of cavalry in Rome wasnīt chasing - their cavalry was the hardest hitting power they had (in game, horses may look small - but when you really face a horse which is charging you - it is something completely different).
They could breach even phalanx from front reasonably - especially pike phalanxes - as those spears were really long, they couldnīt be too thick as they would become too heavy. Those spears were frequently breaking. Furthemore, with such long spears, their control was another problem. After some time (I am not certain, maybe something about 200 BC), even special plating for horses came - their breast was plated in a way spears glanced.

And heavy cavalry which sometimes had to charge phalanx from the front had special backsight leaf - when they charged, the horse didnīt see where he does run.

But that isnīt case of all cavalry and youīre right that for example horse archers wouldnīt probably charge phalanx from the front.

When you charge with cav and a man is standing on his own, fleeing or unit broken, you can ride past him while hitting with your lance, but once he stands in a shieldwall or formed unit, you cant ride past. In RTW you see cav charge head on into the enemy line (4+ ranks deep) with lance first and charge 'over'. That tactics was impossible untill after the Stirrups.

If you hit a 4 rank line head up with your lance, the force pushing back on the rider is several hundred kilos, enough to push him off the horse, the change of holding on is zero. Once a cav charge comes to a hold in a mass of men, and the line isnt broke, you will get into melee where without anything holding your foot in place, the rider will be tipped off the horse when the infantry push his foot up.

Caesar wrote his book about his war in gaul and there's a discription of german cav fighting gaul cav and gaul infantry. Its very unlike what you see in RTW.

We had this argument while back and a guy posted some 'proof' that charges was possible but if any of you remember that, the situation was a jousting contest where you ride past eachother which is vastly different from slamming home into a formed unit.

A phalanx was impossible to attack with horses from the front, very much like the pike hedgehog from mediaval times. Even armored knights on armored warhorses couldnt charge home. A funny thing is that 2 handed swords were used to slash pikes on the battlefield, not men.

...Archers are also way overpowered in RTW but thats another heated argument I'm sure =)

Although Rome was certainly big, it was not the only nation there - and other nations had more cavalry units.

Horses were in abundance in Italy during the republic and Rome would have been able to expand their cavalry arm easy enough if they wanted to.

In those days infantry were the masters of the battle field.

When Caesar were fighting Gaul and Britain, Crassus were campaigning in the east fighting 'non' barbarians. Rome pretty much fought all around the 'world' in the late republic.

Chariots was also obsolete at this point. Both Egypt and Britain used Chariots against roman troops with poor result. Most Chariots were used by archers and the bows were not powerful enough to penetrate a shield or a heavy leather armor. In return a single javelin hitting a horse will bring the chariot to a halt.

Cavalry dominance is still 500 years away.

If this period and subject interest people, I can recommend P.A. Brunt's book called Italian Manpower. Its written for historians so it can be alittle hard to get through.

Yes, infantry ruled the fields of big battles. Cavalry was used only for certain purposes - the biggest use of cavalry was against uncoordinated hordes - if you charge unit, it means trouble. But some mob can be charged rather easily - smaller skirmishes against local revolts and so on.

Certain heavy cavalrymen charged even phalanxes - those spears werenīt controllable easily and could be easily smashed aside (btw. those men with 2handed swords against pikes - lanceknechts - used this factor for their good). Heavy cavalry thundering the battlefield could charge phalanx - the spears broke - as I said - they were long - they couldnīt bee too heavy - they couldnīt be too thick.
And about charging organised units - the spears werenīt held like we see on cataphracts for example - they were held like javelins - so the impact was absorbed by horse.
But yeah - to charge organised unit wasnīt the best idea.

And about archers...I myself can hit a unit in range 120 meters - and if I hit him into torso, he is knocked back (even when he is in heavy plates)- and I have very safe heads (with cork and so on). I did a test - when I fired at about 80 meters with sharp arrowheads, I impaled medieval cavalry cuirass (which was heavier than those from ancient times) through - man inside would be dead.
And I am not living by archery - as some archers in ancient times were - they had to be better. + I donīt have that strong bow.

Simple archers, who were commoners with a bow basically, werenīt too effective. But specialists (like in game are cretan archers/pharaohīs bowmen) were truly heavy hitting power - romans were suffering terrible casualties until they started using testudo. And in game - casualties from missile fire are truly poor - if you have shields, all right. But from behind...at least 10 men would die from one salvo (of 40 archers).

There is one nonsentical thing in RTW about archers - they fire in salvos - but thatīs highly ineffective and it wasnīt used - attacked unit could raise shields to desired angle (although it was difficult - you see an arrow just several moments before it hits you).

The real armorpiercing on the battlefield came with the longbow much later, but that was able to pierce armor at fairly long ranged if hitting in a 90 degree angle.

A funny thing, most of the time Longbows wasnt available and archers used short bows with far less piercing power, especially in defending at sieges where longbows were too cumbersome to operate within small areas. But the shortbow wouldnt penetrate an armored knight, so to make knights vulnerable they build the steps of some castles so high that an armored knight couldnt climb or decent them with greaves on. So they had a remove the greaves and their legs became target for the archers.