Deeper formations should be more effective

[High Voltage]

One thing STW was missing was the fact that formations deeper than 5 men didn't really help much in hand to hand fighting, unlike real life. A formation 10 men deep should be able to break through or push back a formation 4 men deep.

Same principal as tug o war, but pushing instead of pulling. Back in 4th century BC, the Thracians would amass a formation 50 men deep against the Atheniens, the shear weight of 50 men deep broke right through the Athenians who were 8 men deep. Philip and Alexander the great also did this but using 16 man formations. In much of the greek and roman wars, the deeper formation would usually win. But, just as Hannibal did in the battle of cannae, a deeper formation can be out done.

[Toda Nebuchadnezzar]

This is an interesting idea.

Another example is the Battle of Thermopylae where the Hellenes needed to fill the pass between the mountains with hardly any men, and so defeated the Persians for a couple of days, until the Persians sneaked around the side and so encircled the Spartans and Thebans and Thespians.

------------------
Grand Master of
The Knights Templar
"non nobis Domine non nobis sed Nomine tuo da gloriam"
http://www.gifs.net/animate/aniyin.gif

[Hirosito]

the prob with deeper formations in STW was that they didn't get involved in the fight. especially in MTW i would like a little less control once units are engaged with your men finding the nearest opponent and attacking them.

------------------
Hirosito Mori

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

[Toda Nebuchadnezzar]

Indeed, let them run their course but at the best possible success rate.

------------------
Grand Master of
The Knights Templar
"non nobis Domine non nobis sed Nomine tuo da gloriam"
http://www.gifs.net/animate/aniyin.gif

[theforce]

I would like to see what, too. In shogun nomally when you have deepers units the resault is simply for them to last longer. How many times 3 mens stopped aan entire units just before flanking?
I would like my 10 men formation to punch through a 3-4 line formation.

------------------
Don't use only honour, use theforce, too.

[Hirosito]

that's very true but by the same token i would then like the 3-4 formation to envelop your formation and not stand idly by the sides.

------------------
Hirosito Mori

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

[longjohn2]

People often raise this, but I don't buy it myself. The battle of Leuctra that High Voltage refers to, is as far as I know a unique event. I know of no other battle where forming so deep was reckoned to have been effective. The Macedonian phalanx formed fairly deep too, but the Romans dealt with them quite well using much shallower formations.
While to a degree it depends what you're armed with, I fail to see the advantage of have the guys behind you push you forward and impale you on the enemies sword point. Certianly would be much use for a shieldless samurai with a yari whoose chief protection is the distance he can keep from his opponent.
In my opinion, the main reason for forming deep was to keep from breaking, which Shogun depicts pretty well. Speed of manoeuvre may also have been a factor for some armies (i.e. Medieval Swiss). I'll though admit the game doesn't really depict the difficulty of moving in a line.

[High Voltage]

longjohn2:

I do agree it wouldn't work in Shogun, since there are no shields, but there are shields in MTW.

Quote I fail to see the advantage of have the guys behind you push you forward and impale you on the enemies sword point.[/QUOTE]
Even so, that's how many ancient battles in the greek/roman era were faught, by "push" wars. Many times the armies lines would push eachother until one of them eventually broke, usually resulting in the whole army fleeing.

Quote The Macedonian phalanx formed fairly deep too, but the Romans dealt with them quite well using much shallower formations.[/QUOTE]
The reason the romans were victories was not really formation deapth, but a variety of factors. When the romans hurled their pilums from a distance, they would kill a number of macedonians, punching holes in the phalanx. And when the armies clashed, the romans would create/find gaps in the phalanx, rush in very close, and use their superior swords to do the job. Once they got past macedonian spear, the men in the phalanx were extremely vulnurable at close range. Neverless, there are accounts of deeper macedonian phalanxes litterally pushing roman formations back due to deeper formations, resulting in victory.

[Khan7]

Though obviously there would be advantages in deep formations, I must say that it seems highly unlikely that these derive from compounded "weight" of men "pushing" from behind you. In fact, I can confirm that it is physically impossible for this to be the case.

The advantage of deeper formations would lie more in the difficulty of breaking them. An 8-deep formation would respond much more dynamically to serious stress than a 50-deep formation, though a 50-deep formation was quite obviously a desperate act by the Thracians in this case, due to their various inferiorities. We could expect that if the 50-deep formation had not in relatively short order succeeded in breaking the Hoplites, it would have simply been a very dense mass of jumbled of men who would be picked off one by one until they ultimately fled.

There are no special advantages to deep formations-- they offer, in essence, the same advantages as deep formations do in modern warfare and every other epoch. But a 50-deep formation isn't going to compound all the 50 dudes pushing behind the front into some sort of fighting/pushing power. The 50 dudes behind simply add a physical barrier against their comrades in the front fleeing or falling back, as well as reserves to relieve/replace tiring/fallen comrades in the front, as well as moral/psychological support, etc.

At this Battle of Leuctra the Thracians sallied out the way they did because they realized they had no chance in a prolonged, standard battle, and that their only hope was to amass at one point and violently and quickly break the Hoplites.

Nevertheless HV certainly has a point in his suggestion of more dynamic melee, for instance involving this pushing/squishing/breaking, and I would hope some of the designers are paying attention here.

Matt

[High Voltage]

Actually I disagree. I think this tactic was revolutionary in it's time, and the principals behind it were improved by Alexander and Philip.

In the battle of Leuctra(371 BC), the Thebans are badly outnumbered, but decide to fight. The Spartan and their allies form a nearly straight, semi-crescent line. The thebans 50-men mass is on the left, with a long line of cavalry on their left flank, while the rest of the Theban line is angled about 45 degrees back. The idea is not to fight with the whole army at once, especially being outnumbered, but to amass a large amount of men in one spot, breaking a hole in the spartan line. The cavalry on the left prevents flank, while the shear weight of the theban numbers drive back the spartans.

I don't see how it was physically impossible since most historical records of many greek/roman battles(including Leuctra) indicate the weight of men actually pushing the opposing line.

The Thebans use a very similar tactic, also with 50-men deep in one spot, to drive back the Athenians in the battle of Mantinea(362 BC).

[Khan7]

It is physically impossible for a guy in front to recieve a push from 50 guys back, or even 10 guys back. You're picturing it wrong in your head. The advantages of deep formations are as I stated.

And you basically just repeated everything I said about the battle (which, by the way, I was simply extrapolating based on the one piece of information you provided). I'm not arguing with you what happened in the battle. I'm trying to better explain the reasons, such as the reasons the Thebans (oops not Thracians) acted the way they did, and how it is not because having 50-deep formations translates into a 50-man strong push. What you are speaking of is definitely a large factor but I just think you are picturing it wrong, as I said.

Matt

[Vanya]

I agree. Deeper formations should be more effective. To prepare for this, I have now added Philosophy 101 to my Basic Training program.

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/confused.gif

[theforce]

When the Romans attacked Greece, Greece was in a bad shape. As you know Greek states faught among them.
In a phalanx each man would push in front giving a big push to the receiving end. The phalanx was amazing if you ask me. It's V shape that was used by alexander with 5m spears would send any form to cav to oblivion.

------------------
Don't use only honour, use theforce, too.

[Vanya]

But the problem with the Phalanx was cohesion due to its rigid nature. Variances in the terrain or marching speed could cause disastrous breaks/gaps in the line. The Legion is thus far superior because it incorporated gaps into the formation. And the Legion only presented a Phalanx to the enemy at the moment of contact. Flexibility, baby!

Under the name LinkSlice, I used a Legion formation to win a ton of battles. The formation alone would beat over half the opponents I faced back then... Tactics only became necessary against more wily opponents...

Ah! The good ole days!



[This message has been edited by Vanya (edited 03-27-2002).]

[Cheetah]

John Keegan writes about hoplite warfare in his book the „History of Warfare”:

„Crossing a no man’s land perhaps 150 yards wide at a clumsy run, under the weight of armour and weapons of seventy pounds, the ranks drove straight into each other. Each individual would have chosen an other as his target at the moment of contact, thrusting his spear point at some gap between shield and shield, and seeking to hit a patch of flesh not covered by armour – throat, armpit or groin. The chance was fleeting. As the second and subsequent ranks were brought up short by the stop in front, the phalanx concertinaed, throwing the weight of seven man on to the back of the warriors engaged with the enemy. Under this impact, some man inevitably went down at once, dead, wounded, or overborne from the rear. That might create a breach in the shield wall. Those in the second and third ranks strove to open it wider with their spears thrusting and jabbing from their relatively protected position at whoever they could reach. If it widened, there followed the othismos, “push with shield”, to widen it further and to win room into with swords, the hoplite’s secondary weapon, might be drawn and used to slash the enemy’s legs. The othismos was the more certain method, however: it could lead to the pararrexis or “breaking”, when those most heavily beset by the enemy’s pressure began to feel the impulse to flight, and either broke away from the rear ranks or, more shamefully, struggled backward from the point of killing to infect their comrades with panic also.”

[Vanya]

Its nice that they had hope... too bad it was Hope Lite.

[Khan7]

Yes, perhaps I should have been more specific, Cheetah, I was not disagreeing with any of that, but simply pointing out that since 8 ranks deep = 7 men push on 1 50 ranks deep doesn't mean 50 ranks push on 1. There are certain very evident physical limitations to the backward reach of such a pushing effect.

And I think one could argue the point as to whether the pushing from the back is necessarily the decisive feature in such deep formations. We can also note the Legionaires, who have been mentioned several times in this thread, would generally (IIRC) form only about 5 ranks to a maniple (or cohort, depending on the epoch).

Matt

[Cheetah]

Quote Its nice that they had hope... too bad it was Hope Lite.[/QUOTE]

LOL!

[theforce]

I like Roman formations BUT ow would they stuck up against MHC ? ....... :P

------------------
Don't use only honour, use theforce, too.

[Krasturak]

Gah!

Krast has seen many references in historical study of the feature of weights of men pushing to gain tactical advantage.

It should be a feature.

[grayd0]

Actually if you use any of the the mongol spearmen in 8 deep formation on hold position and attack at will they will be able to rout a japanese army with the same amount of units that include yari, archers and cavalry. even when the cavalry flank your army you will still win

[Papewaio]

Quote Originally posted by Khan7:
Yes, perhaps I should have been more specific, Cheetah, I was not disagreeing with any of that, but simply pointing out that since 8 ranks deep = 7 men push on 1 50 ranks deep doesn't mean 50 ranks push on 1. There are certain very evident physical limitations to the backward reach of such a pushing effect.

And I think one could argue the point as to whether the pushing from the back is necessarily the decisive feature in such deep formations. We can also note the Legionaires, who have been mentioned several times in this thread, would generally (IIRC) form only about 5 ranks to a maniple (or cohort, depending on the epoch).

Matt[/QUOTE]

Matt I can see what you are saying. However it did happen.

I think you are missing some of the visualisation. If you have ever seen a rugby scrum you may be able to see how this could have been achieved, using locked shields and spears instead of locked arms.

50 deep can have an effect if it is a similar width. 50 deep and ten wide would probably split at the sides but the wider the formation the deeper it can get. Think of mobs of people pressing against police lines... watch the next world trade summit for many examples http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Hirosito]

lol but your example of the rugby scrum is very correct

------------------
Hirosito Mori

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.