Praetorians vs Scholae Palatinae

[Soldat665]

I just found out that when you check off the Roman Renaissance, you basically lose the option for cataphract retinues in favor of praetorians. Still not sure how I feel about it personally, so I thought I'd start a conversation on the subject.

The Romans disbanded the Praetorian Guard because the emperors to used their services kept, in CK2 terms, dying under suspicious circumstances. Eventually, their job was taken up by the Scholae Palatinae and (later still) the Varangian Guard. These units are implemented as mercenary warbands the Byzantine Romans can hire at a massive discount, basically allowing them to function as a secondary retinue (or - whenever I play them - as forces to combine with my cataphract retinues to recreate the imperial tagmata).

Some questions for starting off... 1) Did Paradox do the Praetorian Guard just for thematic purposes? I kind of think they did, personally. 2) Why do that as a replacement for cataphract retinues when the Romans in the Late Empire (3rd-5th centuries, not to mention later periods) used cataphracts? 3) Do you think it would have been better to make them a formable unit like the Varangian Guard (made by a decision and acting as a mercenary force for cheap)? 4) While I don't mind that the Praetorians are mainly pikemen with a few heavy infantry, does this bother anyone based on their historical weaponry?

[dv]

This game starts 769 AD. The recreated Roman Empire is not historical. The Roman Emperor can use whatever he wants. And he has the Varangian Guard as a vassal assuming he had them as Byzantine Emperor.

Historical considerations aside, both cataphract and pretorians are worse than generic defence retinues. Noone should use them. At least the Roman cultural building works for defence retinues.


1)
They probably did. All useless cultural retinues (which is most of them) exist for RP purposes only.

2)
The Roman Legions are famous for infantry, not cavalry.

3)
Yes, because as mercenaries there would be a reason to use them.

4)
No, weapon selection is fine from a historical point of view. Roman Legionaires are widely known to use pilum and gladius.

[Yaldabaoth]

Just because the retinue uses the name Praetorian Guard doesn't mean that they regressed to 1st century weaponry, tactics or social position. The United States has Air Cavalry Brigades. Doesn't mean they ride flying horses.

[Soldat665]

Originally posted by dv:

This game starts 769 AD. The recreated Roman Empire is not historical. The Roman Emperor can use whatever he wants. And he has the Varangian Guard as a vassal assuming he had them as Byzantine Emperor.

Historical considerations aside, both cataphract and pretorians are worse than generic defence retinues. Noone should use them. At least the Roman cultural building works for defence retinues.


1)
They probably did. All useless cultural retinues (which is most of them) exist for RP purposes only.

2)
The Roman Legions are famous for infantry, not cavalry.

3)
Yes, because as mercenaries there would be a reason to use them.

4)
No, weapon selection is fine from a historical point of view. Roman Legionaires are widely known to use pilum and gladius.

I mean, clearly it's ahistorical. However, it's also clear to me that they attempted to take inspiration from the early empire rather than much of anything from the late empire that would be much closer to the 769 start date.

1) Not sure how you figure the cultural specific retinues are worse than the generic ones (as I haven't looked into any stat differences), but I've frequently found running a stack of "tagmatic" cataphracts, bolstered by the Scholae Palatinae and Varangian Guard to be highly effective. What makes retinues like knights and cataphracts so inferior in your view? Some, like English longbowmen I can understand considering their effectiveness would plummet in the melee phase.

2) True, although it is noted that cavalry was developed to have a much greater role than the mere 120 scouts per 6000 heavy infantry legion in a post-Marian legion. Over time (such as with the Justinian Restoration and certainly by the centuries covered by CK2), the infantry had transitioned to a supporting role and the Roman armies were known for their elite cataphracts (and horse archers, although these were eventually phased out except for the non-Roman troops who excelled in the role).

[Kapika96]

Originally posted by Soldat665:

What makes retinues like knights and cataphracts so inferior in your view?

It's not anybody's particular view, they're just statistically inferior. I think a big part of it is the horse archers that come with cataphract retinues, horse archers just suck. But I believe even heavy cavalry alone fares worse than just using generic defence retinues of the same retinue cap usage.

Pikemen are one of, if not the, best troop types in the game so the generic defence retinue with mostly pikemen are one of the best choices. I believe some solely heavy infantry retinues (with cultural bonuses) can be more effective and camels are also very good so if you're playing as one of the Arab camel countries or the Outremer then use your camel retinues. And of course the Italian/Scottish retinues that are 100% pikemen are better than defence too.

I'm not sure how exactly the Roman praetorian retinue fares vs defence (I've heard the ideal situation is to have only 1% archers, so using them in conjunction with the defence retinue may be optimal), but they're definitely better than cataphract retinues at least.

[Langkard]

Kapika96 is correct, AFAIK. My information may be a little out of date, because until recently I played only version 2.4.5 (pre-Conclave).

There is a good discussion of it here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CrusaderKings/comments/9y0tgo/the_holy_fury_retinue_composition/

As of Holy Fury, camels (and light cav in general) remain the best cultural retinue. Pikes/heavy infantry (especially with Scottish or Italian commanders) are top too. Generic defense (which includes pikes) is also top tier.

Heavy infantry mixed with some archers or pure heavy cav are middle tier. An example of pure heavy cav used to be Mongols making Constantinople their capital, thus enabling pure heavy cav as a cultural retinue. This may have changed, though.

Archers (regular, heavy and horse), light infantry, heavy cav mixed with light cav, and elephants are at the bottom.

There are advantages to diluting some of the retinues with a small amount of archers, especially for light cav/camels. It can be tricking getting the right mix though.

Back before Horse Lords, longbows were the best using English/Welsh commanders to trigger tactics. Paradox nerfed archers and they have never recovered. Never, ever, have 60% or more archers in a flank. It will get destroyed, even by generic levies, because the charge unprotected flank tactic fires at a 100% chance, instantly switching the combat phase from skirmish to melee.

[dv]

Originally posted by Kapika96:

Originally posted by Soldat665:

What makes retinues like knights and cataphracts so inferior in your view?

It's not anybody's particular view, they're just statistically inferior. I think a big part of it is the horse archers that come with cataphract retinues, horse archers just suck.

Exactly. The problem with horse archers is tactics. They enable harass tactic in the skirmish phase which gives -150 % horse archers attack. And don't get me started on horse archer specific tactics.

The general consensus is that you do not even want 1 % horse archers in your levies. Do not build the cultutral buildings that give horse archers.

Originally posted by Kapika96:

Originally posted by Soldat665:

What makes retinues like knights and cataphracts so inferior in your view?

Pikemen are one of, if not the, best troop types in the game so the generic defence retinue with mostly pikemen are one of the best choices.

It is not the difference betweeen pikemen and heavy infantry. The main advantage of defence over shock ist the amount of archers. Shock has 20 % archers for barrage tactic in the melee phase. Defence has 16.7 % archers and no access to barrage, only force back (and stand fast in forest).

Originally posted by Kapika96:

I believe some solely heavy infantry retinues (with cultural bonuses) can be more effective and camels are also very good so if you're playing as one of the Arab camel countries or the Outremer then use your camel retinues. And of course the Italian/Scottish retinues that are 100% pikemen are better than defence too.

Heavy infantry retinues are effective if you mix with less than 20 % archers via shock. Pure heavy infantry or pure pikemen have bad tactics in the skirmish phase (nothing but generic skirmish tactic) (*); 1 % archers enable shieldwall and volley. The same goes for pure pikemen: Add at least 1 % archers via defence to enable shieldwall and volley.

Camel cavalry and light cavalry retinues are good but do disorganized harass instead of harass. Mix with light skirmish for less than 75 % camel/light cavalry (replaces disorganized harass with harass if flank leader has martial 12+) and less than 20 % light infantry (avoids shieldwall).

Originally posted by Kapika96:

I'm not sure how exactly the Roman praetorian retinue fares vs defence (I've heard the ideal situation is to have only 1% archers, so using them in conjunction with the defence retinue may be optimal), but they're definitely better than cataphract retinues at least.

A mixture of pikemen and heavy infantry is supposed to excel in the melee phase. Only it does not. The problems are advance tactic with -150 % pikemen attack and in forest stand fast tactic with -150 % heavy infantry attack.

Heavy infantry and pikemen do not mix well and they want at least 1 % and less than 20 % archers.


(*)
An argument can be made for pure pikemen or pure heavy infantry if you have an inspiring leader or defensive leader who gives access to a tactic other than generic skirmish.



So much for tactics. The thread is supposed to be about historical influences.



Edit:
Added to horse archers.