Phalanxes in version 1.1

[Theodotos I]

A few curiosity questions about the phalanxes in 1.1: The Alpine phalanxes and the Greek Iphrikatous Hoplite Phalanx have lost their ability to form phalanx, even though they retain the name. I haven’t looked at the phalanxes available to the Getai, but I would assume they have suffered the same fate. Now, I’m neither questioning the historical accuracy of this, nor suggesting that you team members have lost your minds in doing it, but I did wonder, why the change? Is it because of new research since 1.0, or what? My only complaint at the present is that the Mori Gaesum tend to no longer be a “Sea of Spears”, but rather go to secondary weapons without orders and the moment they enter into combat. The loss of the “form phalanx” option seems to disable their ability to work properly. Anyhow, as always, my most sincere congratulations to the EB team on this masterpiece they have created. Any input on the reasons for this change would be deeply appreciated. Thanks and great work! :2thumbsup:

[Korlon]

It is to my understanding that the change was largely due to the phalanxes not working as well as the EB team wanted them to. Thus they were changed to something they believed to be better.

[konny]

My only complaint at the present is that the Mori Gaesum tend to no longer be a “Sea of Spears”, but rather go to secondary weapons without orders and the moment they enter into combat.

Units always charge with their secondary weapon. When they have entered combat order them to attack the enemy again (one click, not double click) and they will return to the pike, and use the secondary weapon only in close encounter.

[Belisarius12]

Iphikratous Hoplitai (Greek Hoplite Phalanx) what do they serve for now ? exept as overpriced spearmen or what there function is don't used them yet but i will

[Theodotos I]

Units always charge with their secondary weapon. When they have entered combat order them to attack the enemy again (one click, not double click) and they will return to the pike, and use the secondary weapon only in close encounter.

Yeah, but they change even when THEY are the ones being attacked. And not just one or two men. Almost all of them. No big deal, but it disturbs ME. :laugh4:

[Tellos Athenaios]

Iphikratous Hoplitai (Greek Hoplite Phalanx) what do they serve for now ? exept as overpriced spearmen or what there function is don't used them yet but i will

As a matter of fact I found them to be actually more effective against heavy cavarlry than I used too. Guard mode on a lil' micro management and they are excellent for disposing of the enemy heavy cavalry bodyguards. (In any case, my Ptolemaioi friends didn't really enjoy their encounter with my mercenary Iphikratous Hoplitai...)

[konny]

Iphikratous Hoplitai (Greek Hoplite Phalanx) what do they serve for now ? exept as overpriced spearmen or what there function is don't used them yet but i will

Well, what had they been good for before? They are an outdated version of the long pike phalanx and behaved very much that way in the former builds. Thureophoroi and Thorakitai are the state of the art in 272 for KH. Or, if you like it traditional, take classical Hoplites.

[beatoangelico]

Well, what had they been good for before? They are an outdated version of the long pike phalanx and behaved very much that way in the former builds. Thureophoroi and Thorakitai are the state of the art in 272 for KH. Or, if you like it traditional, take classical Hoplites.

actually the were very useful against non-successor armies

[Maion Maroneios]

I really wanted to ask this as well, but I just added the phalanx formation for every unit again. I tried to switch o the ''shieldwall'' ability (I play on bi.exe) and tried the units out, but I found them to behave better with the phalanx formation. Anyways, it's also a matter of personal taste...

[Novellus]

:bump:

I am reviving this "dead" thread because I can't find the answer I'm looking for.

I am very confused about why the Iphikratous Hoplitai lost their ability to form a phalanx. Their "short_pike" attribute seemed to match the information I've come across in the past (spears shorter than sarrisae but longer than traditional dory). Can an EB team member elaborate, please?

[Ludens]

I presume this is because Iphikrateans should be more mobile than the phalanx. With or without short pike, I always found them to be redundant. With short pike, they lacked the mobility of standard hoplites and made a mediocre phalanx unit, without they are just like standard hoplites only less well-armoured. If somebody can tell me how they should be used (with or without short pike), I would be very interested.

[Watchman]

They're quite cheap and fairly fast moving, have decent stamina, close ranks and enough "mass" not to get easily pushed out of formation ? I should think there were uses for such, say as flank guards or accompanying skirmishers so they don't get run over by cavalry...
Light gear also means they perform better in forest than heavier hoplites.

[Woreczko]

When they had a phalanx, they could act both as a capable line unit with an added bonus of being impervious to charges (phalanx on) and general purpose swordsmen useful for filling the gaps or flanking/flank defense (phalanx off). Now, they do their first job worse. Worse than classical hoplites, whom they are supposed to replace. They are better in killing cavalry in melee, true, but any dedicated melee infantry can do this well enough.

[Novellus]

It bothered me because historically, it seemed that the longer spears would make it a precursor to the Makedonian phalanx. That's why the phalanx formation seemed appropriate (without sarissae of course). And in terms of manuverability and flexibility, my interpretation was that the army was mobile in terms of being convertable to peltasts (which the RTW engine can't peform) and the lighter equipment meant that field battles would not fatigue soldiers as easily and running into position could be done. But I usually took my units out of phalanx mode, ran into position, then reformed. That was how I interpreted it. But please, if this is an ahistorical approach, enlighten me!:sweatdrop:

[Phalanx300]

Yeah, EB now shows them to be worse then Classical Hoplites.

Which makes me think, why change you Hoplites and make them worse?:inquisitive: And Phillip got the idea of Phalangites from the Iphikratous like Hoplites I believe, so they would be fighting in a young version of the Macedonian Phalanx. :sweatdrop:

[Watchman]

From what I've read of it, Iphikrates' innovation seems to have been to devise a combination of kit (namely, longer spear) and training that allowed peltastai to be readily converted into close-order line infantry, ie. scratch hoplitai. So it wasn't about changing hoplites but peltasts - who were way more readily available. A way to create a "light hoplite" force on a budget, so to speak.

The attraction of this approach to the Macedonian kings is not difficult to see; they pretty much had no hoplites at all, but rather a quasi-feudal system which furnished them with lots of aristocratic cavalry on one hand and large numbers of psiloi levies on the other. There was an obvious shortage of line infantry capable of anchoring the line and creating a bulwark for the cavalry to operate around there, and it bit them in the ass often enough. Hence, Philip's further developement of the Iphikratean system to make lineholder pikemen out of psiloi skirmishers, which had the side bonus effect of allowing them to be deployed as light infantry with a simple equipement swap to boot...

[Novellus]

From what I've read of it, Iphikrates' innovation seems to have been to devise a combination of kit (namely, longer spear) and training that allowed peltastai to be readily converted into close-order line infantry, ie. scratch hoplitai. So it wasn't about changing hoplites but peltasts - who were way more readily available. A way to create a "light hoplite" force on a budget, so to speak.

Yes Watchman, that is what I understood from it too. What bothers me is that they seem a little misrepresented. It's true that they were not heavy infantry---they weren't designed to be that way. But one would think that they would use the longer spears in a formation different from their classical hoplitai brethren. And that is why the phalanx formation seemed to be a good representation.

I'm just confused about how they actually fought seeing that EB has represented them in two different ways with the first seeming to make the most sense, but the second one prevailing in the later version.:inquisitive:

[antisocialmunky]

From what you guys are saying, it seems like we need to change the description as well.

[NeoSpartan]

Fellas...

if you search BACK enough :whip: to when EB 1.1 first came out (or right before it came out, can't remember) you find the answer. But anywho.... here is the jizt of it:

The Iphikrates, Alpines, Helvetii, Dacian, and Saka Iphikrates, were more versatile and mobile than the Macedonian Pikemen. Which is what really bothered the EB team, thats why they changed them.

With regards to Classical hoplites being better than the Iphikrates, I don't know, their stats don't differ too much. But, from my Mutliplayer expirience (which I haven't played in months now) the Iphikrates' moral was lower than the classical hoplites, as they routed easier.

But... don't mess with the Alpines, Helvetii, Dacian, or Thorakitai (KH's armored Iphikrates) version.

[Woreczko]

IMHO old ifikrateans were just as mobile and flexible as new ones - if you turned the phalanx off. Of course AI would not do this - perhaps this is the reason. The thing which bothers me most is that KH currently has 3 kinds of units, who act in a very similar manner - classical hoplites and it`s derivatives, ifikrateans+derivatives and thureophoroi + thorakitai.

Of course I`m in no position to call for changes just beacuse it seems more "right" to me. Thankfully RTW is easily moddable, so I just changed this units to my liking - classical hoplites come in largest possible unit sizes to simulate their inflexibility. Ifikrateans have their phalanx ability back (and you get 200 in unit on huge). Thureophoroi stay the same - by having smallest unit size + javelins, they offer most flexibility out of all three, but one needs to do some flanking or unit swapping to beat classicals with them, as one on one they will lose because of much smaller unit size. All units have been recosted to reflect new sizes - so thureophoroi are still around 1300, while classicals cost around 2000.

[Watchman]

AFAIK Neo's right on the money here. The problem with giving the assorted "spearwall" type units the "phalanx" formation ability was specifically how it turned them into the same kind of lumbering inconvenience as the pike phalanxes are, particularly in AI control because the damn thing's so bloody dumb. Which, obviously, they weren't really. So what you were left with was a bunch of half-assed pseudo-pikemen that weren't really all that good at too much anything. (Except maybe as target practice for missile troops...)

Ergo, it got ditched. The current versions are certainly far from fully satisficatory, but at least they have the mobility-flexibility part right.


With regards to Classical hoplites being better than the Iphikrates, I don't know, their stats don't differ too much.Mainly the Classicals are more heavily equipped, which of course gives them an advantage one on one. (Of course, they're also that much more expensive...) Kind of like Hastati vs. Principes, when you think about it.


The thing witch bothers me most is that KH currently has 3 kinds of units, who act in a very similar manner - classical hoplites and it`s derivatives, ifikrateans+derivatives and thureophoroi + thorakitai.This is arguably only appropriate from a historical perspective, redundancy nonwithstanding. Mediterranean infantry warfare was after all in something of a flux in the period, with all kinds of patterns and versions being tried all over the place plus the old stuff and its variations still puttering about too; especially for a faction as inherently heterogenous as the KH, a straight flush of generally similar but subtly and functionally different troops types seems quite fitting. (OT: had the Romans not sort of aborted the evolution, my bet's on the thureophoroi-thorakitai pattern to have emerged as the more-or-less dominant approach; they seem to be the most versatile "jeeps" of the bunch without requiring onerous socioeconomic arrangements or gimmicky specialist gear, "all in one" qualities that generally seem to have been the hallmarks of long-term success in these matters - as also witnessed in the way Roman infantry evolved. But I digress.)


From what you guys are saying, it seems like we need to change the description as well.:shrug: I'm under the impression the issue is hardly cut and dried, and that there are quite a few theories and interpretations around. I'm really just parroting the one given here (http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Iphikrates1.html) (I've seen the roughly same reasoning elsewhere too, for what that matters), which seemed to me to be making a pretty good and lucid case.

[Woreczko]

Mainly the Classicals are more heavily equipped, which of course gives them an advantage one on one. (Of course, they're also that much more expensive...) Kind of like Hastati vs. Principes, when you think about it.

Well, 1367 mnai for classicals isn`t really "that much more" than 1337 for thureophoroi and 1275 for ifikrateans...

Anyway, our disagreement isn`t about Ifikratean hoplites as they were, but as to how implement them in a game engine. I`m happy with most of the design decisions EB has made, and those few I`m not happy with, I can easily mod in myself :).

[antisocialmunky]

:shrug: I'm under the impression the issue is hardly cut and dried, and that there are quite a few theories and interpretations around. I'm really just parroting the one given here (http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Iphikrates1.html) (I've seen the roughly same reasoning elsewhere too, for what that matters), which seemed to me to be making a pretty good and lucid case.

Well, all I'm saying is that the EB description seems to give the impression that it is a in between a hoplite and a phalangite and can serve in the main line. However, this doesn't work in practice and doesn't seem to match up all that well with history of being light hoplites on the cheap. Its jsut a little knit pick. I guess it would make sense to use them as flak guards against cavalry. :-\

[PraetorFigus]

First Post! I am always playing EB, and fooling around with the text files to test things and I found something interesting.

In the EDU for a unit there is this line in the text

"soldier unit_model, soldiers, extras, mass (,radius, height)" (the last two attributes are hidden)

the default for radius, left blank, is (0.4), I tested with 0.2 for some units and they did not lose as many soldiers as usual in battles with other heavy infantry and improved the kill numbers for the unit, I used this on Rorarii, different Hoplitai and a few others I can't remember now.

What I would like to suggest is if the units that lost their phalanx ability are less effective in testing, they can be modded to a default guard mode and a radius smaller then 0.4, without the need to change the mass of the units, morale or have to use short_pike to group the units.

Aradan has a great guide here that has been a big help in figuring out RTW: forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=88859

Here is a quote from Aradan's guide, "[radius](may not be visible) : Hidden attribute radius of the unit. The default value is 0.4. It's the area surrounding each single soldier that he "occupies" as the engine perceives it (not visually that is). Small radius makes a unit fight better, in that it allows soldiers to fight more closely to each other, resulting in more men of the small-radius unit fighting against fewer of the enemy one's."

[Watchman]

Well, all I'm saying is that the EB description seems to give the impression that it is a in between a hoplite and a phalangite and can serve in the main line. However, this doesn't work in practice and doesn't seem to match up all that well with history of being light hoplites on the cheap. Its jsut a little knit pick. I guess it would make sense to use them as flak guards against cavalry. :-\Well, if one goes with the evolutionary arc Ueda-Sarson describes they indeed *are* a transitional type between the classic shieldwall hoplite and the Macedonian pikeman - as phases of developement go. And they serve well enough in the main line, depending on the opposition as usual with the lighter troop types; it's probably worth recalling that around the time the pattern developed hoplites didn't usually wear body armour (for the sake of mobility and tactical flexibility, and quite possibly also to expand the available manpower pool by reducing the expense of the required kit), being defended by their shields and helmets. So there wasn't originally much of a "weight" difference between the newfangled peltast-hoplites and the classic type; armour again became vogue thereafter, so...

It's really just the usual tradeoff between armour and mobility, really. The Iphikrateans are more mobile, the classicals more heavily armed and hence better suited for a straight-up slugging match. (Granted, the Ekdromoi are even faster and have the same total defense score as the Iphikrateans, but their formation is also looser and mass lighter.)

The idea of messing around with the soldier radius attribute that PraetorFigus floated has IIRC been occasionally offered up before, although nothing ever came out of it. Could be worth looking into if someone's willing to test different values and how they work out, if now only as an unofficial mod, as there's a fair number of such Artist Formerly Possessing Phalanx units that could use a bit of a tweak to bring their actual performance more in line with what it says on the tin and is supposed to be. (Iphikrateans, the Getic spearmen, the Celtic and Alpine quasi-phalanxes incl. the Arjos, the Indogreek hoplites, the Germanic elite spear-guys...)
Mind you, except for the ones with longswords or AP weapons the lot don't actually need their secondary weapons now that they don't have the phalanx formation; there's not much real performance difference between the xiphos/sica and the spear (save for the cavalry-related junk), and it just screws stuff up when they charge plus drives up the price...

[Woreczko]

First Post! I am always playing EB, and fooling around with the text files to test things and I found something interesting.

In the EDU for a unit there is this line in the text

"soldier unit_model, soldiers, extras, mass (,radius, height)" (the last two attributes are hidden)

the default for radius, left blank, is (0.4), I tested with 0.2 for some units and they did not lose as many soldiers as usual in battles with other heavy infantry and improved the kill numbers for the unit, I used this on Rorarii, different Hoplitai and a few others I can't remember now.

What I would like to suggest is if the units that lost their phalanx ability are less effective in testing, they can be modded to a default guard mode and a radius smaller then 0.4, without the need to change the mass of the units, morale or have to use short_pike to group the units.

Aradan has a great guide here that has been a big help in figuring out RTW: forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=88859

Here is a quote from Aradan's guide, "[radius](may not be visible) : Hidden attribute radius of the unit. The default value is 0.4. It's the area surrounding each single soldier that he "occupies" as the engine perceives it (not visually that is). Small radius makes a unit fight better, in that it allows soldiers to fight more closely to each other, resulting in more men of the small-radius unit fighting against fewer of the enemy one's."

Small radius has one serious drawback. It makes men more resistant to missiles (as they are harder to hit). Units with 0.2 radius will be on average 2 times as hard to hit as "normal" soldiers. On the other hand, you cannot make everyone to have 0.2 radius, because it will make all units fight in an effective shieldwall.

[PraetorFigus]

Small radius has one serious drawback. It makes men more resistant to missiles (as they are harder to hit). Units with 0.2 radius will be on average 2 times as hard to hit as "normal" soldiers. On the other hand, you cannot make everyone to have 0.2 radius, because it will make all units fight in an effective shieldwall.

Point taken, we need to test how different values for radius affect unit ability in melee. And try units one on one in custom. I started with .2 because I'm not sure what the range of acceptable values there are to use, and if .285 is any different from .3 yet. I figured guard mode could mimic phalanx for units that had the ability removed with the smaller radius since the unit's soldiers will not spread out of formation.

I played KH, Makedonia, and SPQR so far with the changed values on EB 1.2.
I set no battle-time limit on medium battle difficulty.

I will need to keep track of battle statistics to be more definitive and perform controlled tests, but from my observations, Rorarii were still vulnerable to missile and would still rout easily against better units. I did not notice any difference from the hoplites either against slingers. I've been playing RTW since it came out and EB since 1.0, I love this mod! and I try to keep up on this forum.

It would seem that formation spacing, body armor and shields would account more for ranged weapons effectiveness then the radius an individual soldier in a unit uses to attack. Slingers and archers still made an impact in the battles I fought. Personally the experience that units get seemed more of an issue in my Makedonian campaign since my SS bodyguards for my FM's were tanks in melee and were able to rout the hoplites from behind as usual when exhausted and pinned by a phalanx.

As Makedonia I was still able to defeat the classical and KH bodyguard with phalanx and cavalry tactics. The formation spacing of the units stayed the same, ekodromoi(sp) hoplites still spread and surrounded phalanxes one on one but caused enough casualities anchoring the phalanx unit for a hoplitai haploi to circle round and attack from behind.

As Romani my legions were shredded pretty good for a change by KH and not just by their FMs, but superior numbers still won the day for me.

Using ifikrates hoplites and thorakitai hoplitai with the .2 radius helped them last longer, before the .2 test they'd be the first to rout and lost more then they killed, after the .2 they fought more like classical hoplites in terms of kills, but still taking as many losses as before, more or less. Lethality is fine according to my observations. the gaulish units still kicked major butt against me same for getai.

In sum, going back to the original thread, using a smaller radius should improve efficiency for the mobile phalanxes while making them different from other spearmen that did not fight in that sort of tight formation and keeps us from using short_pike that has it's own issues.

[russia almighty]

Iphrikatous Hoplite's, almost seem like jack of all trades, masters of none.

If we were to draw a "family tree". Is the Classical hoplite a dead end, or are the Theuros, and Thorakitai its children? Or, are they the children of the Peltasts who decided they want to get dirty like their hoplite family?

[Maion Maroneios]

I believe it's more like this:

Hoplitai (late) (1)
Peltastai (early) - Peltastai (late) (2)

Now (1)+(2) produced the Iphikratides, or Hoplitai (late) (3)

Then (3) gave birth to Phalangitai.

In any case, Peltasts seem to play a major rol in this game. It's really more confusing than you may think:yes:

Maion

[Novellus]

I was confused. I thought that historically, with the longer spears, the Iphikratous Hoplitai would have had "teeth" as the saying goes. It'd give them an edge over the classical hoplitai due to the longer spears (which I also wondered why the Syracusai Hoplitai didn't fare as well as their description let on). And no one would expect them to be "line infantry" because of their lighter armor. But the Iphikratous type would have better attack with the longer spear, so it balanced out in much the same as why the phalangites didn't normally wear heavy armor (cheaper to field, less fatigue, and long spears kept the enemy from getting too close anyway). Oh well. I'm sure that the EB team had good reason for what they did. I'm anxious to hear their imput on this.:yes:

[Woreczko]

Point taken, we need to test how different values for radius affect unit ability in melee. And try units one on one in custom. I started with .2 because I'm not sure what the range of acceptable values there are to use, and if .285 is any different from .3 yet. I figured guard mode could mimic phalanx for units that had the ability removed with the smaller radius since the unit's soldiers will not spread out of formation.

I played KH, Makedonia, and SPQR so far with the changed values on EB 1.2.
I set no battle-time limit on medium battle difficulty.

I will need to keep track of battle statistics to be more definitive and perform controlled tests, but from my observations, Rorarii were still vulnerable to missile and would still rout easily against better units. I did not notice any difference from the hoplites either against slingers. I've been playing RTW since it came out and EB since 1.0, I love this mod! and I try to keep up on this forum.

It would seem that formation spacing, body armor and shields would account more for ranged weapons effectiveness then the radius an individual soldier in a unit uses to attack. Slingers and archers still made an impact in the battles I fought. Personally the experience that units get seemed more of an issue in my Makedonian campaign since my SS bodyguards for my FM's were tanks in melee and were able to rout the hoplites from behind as usual when exhausted and pinned by a phalanx.

As Makedonia I was still able to defeat the classical and KH bodyguard with phalanx and cavalry tactics. The formation spacing of the units stayed the same, ekodromoi(sp) hoplites still spread and surrounded phalanxes one on one but caused enough casualities anchoring the phalanx unit for a hoplitai haploi to circle round and attack from behind.

As Romani my legions were shredded pretty good for a change by KH and not just by their FMs, but superior numbers still won the day for me.

Using ifikrates hoplites and thorakitai hoplitai with the .2 radius helped them last longer, before the .2 test they'd be the first to rout and lost more then they killed, after the .2 they fought more like classical hoplites in terms of kills, but still taking as many losses as before, more or less. Lethality is fine according to my observations. the gaulish units still kicked major butt against me same for getai.

In sum, going back to the original thread, using a smaller radius should improve efficiency for the mobile phalanxes while making them different from other spearmen that did not fight in that sort of tight formation and keeps us from using short_pike that has it's own issues.

First we need to sort out different things we are talking about.
1. How does "radius" affect melee combat
2. How does "radius" affect missile defense
3. Can we use this attribute to make gameplay better?
4. Can we use this attribute to simulate Ifikratean-style phalanx better?

Ad. 1)
a) Smaller radius does affect spacing of soldiers during melee AND WITH GUARD MODE OFF. Classicals hoplites with radius of 0.2 will not spread out during the fight. They will still envelop the enemy if given a chance and won`t have stupid problems with facing (common thing with guard on). However by staying close together they will hold formation better, than with the default radius. In general they will fight better and very much phalanx-like without the need to use guard mode. To do: test how much better will they fight.
b) Units with loose formation, like peltastai, if given 0.2 radius will do the same as hoplites. If they enter the fight, they will get close together and present a solid shieldwall to the enemy. They will keep their loose formation in guard mode though. This is definately not something we would like to see in the game.

Ad 2)
When I`ve done the tests earlier on, I got the impression, that units with small radius were more resistant to missile fire. But now after 2 custom battles I`m not so sure. This needs further testing.

Ad 3)
Radius attribute is something to consider for close order units, primarily classical hoplites. However we must ask ourselves, are they not good enough already (using the guard mode of course)? By giving them small radius we will prohibit them form using loose formation in combat (they will stick together in combat despite being in loose formation). And we will make them stronger overall.

Another thing, which needs testing is whether small radius will give units undeserved resistance to missiles. As already pointed out, we cant give small radius to all the units and it would be unfair if just some of them had "unnatural" resistance vs. missiles.

Ad 4)
If we are going to use (small) radius attribute, than definately classical hoplites, german warbands and other units fighting in a shieldwall-like formation should receive it too, besides the Ifikrateans (do we even have accounts of them fighting in a particularly close order?). That means, playing with radius attribute will do zilch to increase Ifikrateans performance in comparison to their more ancient brethren...
Other possibility is to give small radius to the traditional hoplites and leave Ifikrateans as is - they will be still able to hold close formation (with guard on) but unlike hoplites, will able to spread out too (to not get outflanked for example).

[Ludens]

They're quite cheap and fairly fast moving, have decent stamina, close ranks and enough "mass" not to get easily pushed out of formation ? I should think there were uses for such, say as flank guards or accompanying skirmishers so they don't get run over by cavalry...
Light gear also means they perform better in forest than heavier hoplites.

Thureophoroi are better at that job: same attack, more armour and IIRC a lower forest penalty and better stamina (at least, according to the old recruitment viewer). Not to mention a precursor weapon to use against missile cavalry. The only thing the Iphikrateans have going for them is a higher mass: there is almost no price difference.

[PraetorFigus]

With KH i am trying the ekodromoi, ifikratean and thorakitai hoplites with a radius of 0.2 and they are individually fighting better (not sure how de-synchronized animations affects unit performance), classical, KH bodyguard, thureophoroi, and thorakitai were left at default.

against phalanx, with peltast support, when out numbered the units with 0.2 radius got kills in the same range or higher then pure thorakitai and KH bodyguard. the formation spacing has a significant impact. with the classicals set with the tight formation and 0.2 in earlier tests were tanks on the field losing very few troops if any, at the default 0.4 radius setting they were dying as quickly as the other non-elite hoplites. also the defensive skill and armor and a +1 shield of the classical over ifikratean and helps a lot, in extended melee where both units get exhausted against missle and phalanxes.

also the thorakitai hoplitai with their high armor rating were racking up the kills while taking most losses from ranged units. one battle had them with over 200 kills alone.

I was able to keep ifikratean and thorakitai hopitai in the center of the line pinning phalangitai, then they held for a very long time trading kills at a respectable rate until they got surrounded by peltasts, but 0.2 seems too effective from initial tests against phalanx anyway

next I am going to test 0.3 to see how it affects these three troops who in my opinion have underperformed before against phalanx in the past with the default 0.4 radius setting.

Later I will continue tests of the default, 0.2 and 0.3 against non-phalanx units, including SPQR.

Woreczko, I agree with your concerns about keeping this balanced, the radius also seems to drain morale slower even when outnumbered 2 to 1 at battle start and then getting whipped bad by ranged fire during battle, before being surrounded. they took a long time to waver and get shaken against those odds then expected!

I started with KH since it seems more EB members that are on the forums have used or faced these units in battle and know how they have performed in battle, including me, :)

once I can get a bench mark on what radius is ideal and not too unbalanced, where ekodromoi can pin a phalanx suffering few losses from the phalanx but not be an unexpected tank, I will test others.

I am still not familiar with all of those that lost the phalanx ability. I know:

Mori Gaesum,
Alpine phalanx,
Helvetii,
German units (don't remember names)

but as Watchman said earlier some of these units may not require a change or improvement while others really do, also it seems that attack rating and lethality may need to be adjusted if radius is ultimately worth changing.

So far I have only tested units classified as spearmen, I have no idea yet how radius can affect heavy, light or cavalry units.

I also need to do some poking around so that I can post some screen shots, not sure if any of those programs work on XP 64bit Professional...

On a side note does MTW2 have radius? it might be worth a round of testing since lethality seems more for unit type infantry, missile, etc. then individual units like we have in RTW.

[Phalanx300]

I also use the 0.2 radius for the Hoplite and shieldwall/phalanx like units.

What I did first was to remove the KH of having guard mode all the time in descr ai formations. Then Hoplites fight very well and realistic. Basicly guard mode but then more mobile and stronger.

Also, Ekdromoi and Thureophoroi and Thorakitai I left as normal spear man since individual combat was more important for them I believe?

I strongly advise it for EB(and all other mods) to use it as it really makes the mod better, in looks and historical accuracy and gameplay.

[Watchman]

Eh, the Classicals are tough enough already if you ask me. Damn tough. *They* don't need tweaking with the radius, unlike the Artist Formerly Known As Phalanx lot.

[Novellus]

Eh, the Classicals are tough enough already if you ask me. Damn tough. *They* don't need tweaking with the radius, unlike the Artist Formerly Known As Phalanx lot.


Hey Watchman, what are your thoughts on how the units should be represented? I can't seem to find anything on the Iphikratous Hoplitai when it comes to how they actually fought. The only thing a bunch of us here in this thread could do was speculate.

[Phalanx300]

Eh, the Classicals are tough enough already if you ask me. Damn tough. *They* don't need tweaking with the radius, unlike the Artist Formerly Known As Phalanx lot.


Their strenght can be tweaked, I find their formation more important then the fear of making the Hoplites a bit stronger which can easilly be tweaked.:2thumbsup:

[Watchman]

As the guy whose job has been to check the unit stats actually adhere to the statting system used, I have some objections to that "easily tweaked"...

Moreover, if you start making such changes to the Classical Hoplites... where are you going to stop ? Because consistency is important and they're anything but the sole "shieldwall" troops around; heck, pretty much hald the Sweboz roster is shieldwalls.

Hence, best stick to the units that actually require such attention, ie. the Formerly Phalanx ones that appear to be underperforming a bit.

[Phalanx300]

As the guy whose job has been to check the unit stats actually adhere to the statting system used, I have some objections to that "easily tweaked"...

Moreover, if you start making such changes to the Classical Hoplites... where are you going to stop ? Because consistency is important and they're anything but the sole "shieldwall" troops around; heck, pretty much hald the Sweboz roster is shieldwalls.

Hence, best stick to the units that actually require such attention, ie. the Formerly Phalanx ones that appear to be underperforming a bit.

Units that actually require attention? We have units fighting unhistorically, Hoplites included. Now we have the means to change that for the biggest part and to make EB even better then it already is.

I don't really see why anyone would object to that to be honest.:inquisitive:

[NeoSpartan]

'cause if you start twicking some units your going to throw them off compared to the the other units in the game.

One thing about EB is that great care has been taking into the stats of units, if you pay attention to it (ei check out the unit cards in you folder) you will see what I mean. So if you "tweak" hoplites to make them fight "better", as in they can kill other guys faster, now u've given them an advantage when compared to the other units in the game. So now u got hoplites doing some unreal amount of ass kicking.
--you gotta understand the current stats given to hoplites reflect the way they fight in EB. For example, if you look at Pike units, they have a high shild value when compared to other other unit, but their armor is kinda low. Why? because phalanxes where historically weak on the rear, so by making their shield value stronger they are now stronger in the center, but weaker in the rear. It ain't perfect, but its the best that can be done with the RTW engine.

Then you gotta address similar units. Like watchman said, 1/2 of the Sweboz units fought in a shildwall/phalanx formation, and so did many other units.

[Watchman]

The phalangites are actually armoured entirely WYSIWYG - if the troopers wear the same kit as say the Thureophoroi, they get the same armour value. Basta. It's the shield, defense skill and weapon attack values (and to a degree the mass score) where special modifiers apply to all phalanx units.


We have units fighting unhistorically, Hoplites included.The Hops and other "standard" shieldwall types work well enough with the combination of relatively high mass values, very dense formation and judicious application of the guardmode which makes them actually *keep* that damn formation. And when it gets down to it, they're just spear- and swordsmen only in particularly close order, and should be treated accordingly.

The issue here is the "pseudo-phalanx" units that in essence were proto-pikemen. The phalanx special formation, which indeed did perform appropriately enough in straight combat, however also made them far too tactically cumbersome (dare we say "sitting ducks" ? I've myself made mincemeat out of AI Mori Gaesum with quite humble troops by exploiting that clumsiness) in a quite inappropriate fashion, especially when steered by the hapless AI.
Ergo, bye bye phalanx formation.
This restored the appropriate tactical maneuverability and flexibility, but duly created the current problem of how to represent their "spearwall" tactics and its certain benefits.

Anyway, to return to the "radius" issue, reducing it from 0.4 to 0.2 would seem like a potentially rather major modification - 50%, after all. But, on the other hand, would the effects of 0.3 be too subtle to be meaningful ?

I've also been doing some hard staring at the modifiers that used to be applied to these "spear phalanxes" before they lost that formation. Without going into excessive detail, they used to have a more noticeable bonus to the attack score and a higher lethality than regular spears gave, and OTOH added rather a lot more noticeably to the unit cost too. Something could probably be made out of that, but how exactly to do it without doing something indecent to unit balance is another question.

And then there's the issue of secondary weapons. Not a big deal with the xiphos/sica guys (whose sec weapons can be deleted out of hand and only good things can come out of it - the same was done with the short swords of the Speutagardaz, and the result was found good), but the longsword/axe types are a bit bigger headache. Then again, it's the engine; you just have to live with its quirks.

[Phalanx300]

Guard mode is far from a good solution.

It makes your units fight worse then that they are supposed though, I tested it quite alot. Without it I always got better results, its only good for letting your men be alive a little longer, however its just a matter of time before they loose.

And what is even more annoying is that only a part of the army is using Guardmode :inquisitive:. Using radius will also make a end to that problem, and it makes the units fight better and more realistic then in guard mode. Guard mode are just static blocks of men, far from a shieldwall formation.

And may I remind you, Hoplites aren't just ordinary spear or sword units. Shieldwall is quite a different formation the usual individual combat. Its like saying the Phalangites are just ordinary spearmen as well. They weren't and didn't fight as such.

And if Hoplites get stronger if given a smaller radius(which is Historical since the second row could strike at the front, it wasn't just the first soldier on its own against a enemy) then it doesn't mean all other units have to be changed, the Hoplites can be given a weaker attack or a lower morale.



Also, any news on a future change on the lenght of the Hoplite spear(half of the units have the wrong lenght)?

[antisocialmunky]

Guard mode is better for the main line IMHO. You want to A) not die and B) weaken the enemy. If you don't order them to attack in guard, they lose little stamina per unit time.

[Novellus]

I realized today how useful the Thorakitai Hoplitai are with their kopis swords and the AP that comes with them. The missing length on the spears were a hinderance when it came to holding a battle line. But when I used their secondary swords as weapons rather than the default spear, I noticed that they were in a sense more effective than the Thorakitai Hellenic Spearmen. They were excellent flankers and were surprisingly useful as swordsmen, especially since the Hellenes lack any assault-type units.

The thing that bothered me though was how much weaker the Iphikratous Hoplitai fared. As mentioned earlier, they fared decently against cavalry units and managed to hold the line to a degree. But their spears still don't show any advancement in offense as a compensation for a lack of armor in comparison to the Classical Hoplitai they were meant to replace.

If I can find a way to give the units back their "pseudo-phalanxes", I'll probably stop complaining.:wall:

Still, it'd be nice to have some sort of reason from the EB team as to why the changes were made.

[NeoSpartan]

hoplites were simple sword and spear guys... just like a whole bunch of others who fought the same way.
(btw... C. Hopites used to have swords back when .8 came out, but it was taken away in .81x as they were always switching to swords and it just didn't represent the "C. Hoplite" description well. But for guys like Hypaspistai the swords were left on)

As for why C. Hoplites in EB are stronger than Iphikratous Hoplitai, it was just explanied here that the Iphikratous Hoplitai have lighter equipment. Thus cheaper to make and allowing for more people to be armed and put to fight.
--You gotta remember, Hoplites (as well as many others) provided their own gear, so the more gear a soldier is wearing is because he has more $$$. And in EB Classical Hoplites represent rather well off citizens who armed themselves and fought in the usual Greek way of fighting (ei: hoplite phalanx).

In addition, it was already explained that Iphikratous Hoplitai, Aplines, Helvetti, etc were a more flexible fighting force than Pezetaroi and other pikemen. And unfortunatly the RTW engine only has one phalanx animation, which represents pikemen decently well, but other units like Iphikratous, hoplites, and others who made shieldwall type formations are not represented so well.

[mcantu]

After discussing this with Aradan, I have begun using 0.2 radius for all hoplites/phalangites in upcoming RTR mods. My suggestion to EB would be to do the same for those types of units but also remove the artificial +4 attack added to spear units since the attribute that gives the spear unit attack penalty was removed prior to 1.0

[Phalanx300]

A good choice, its really the best option.

Its either vanilla Phalanx which is unhistorical.

Guard mode, which has to many bad side effects.

Short_Pike, which also has to many bad side effect.

Smaller radius, like 0.2 for Hoplites. Which basicly has no side effect I can think off, other then Hoplites fight better then ordinary spearmen, but seeing that they fought in a shieldwall its quite logical.

Anyways, I really hope that EB will also use it as all other mods. :2thumbsup:

[NeoSpartan]

ok I am going to be a pain in the a** right now....


...
..
Guard mode, which has to many bad side effects.
...
:

such as?????

[Decimus Attius Arbiter]

I haven't had bad side effects from guard mode. I have bad side effects from not using guard mode with spear using troops like hoplites. They die faster even while killing enemies faster.

I think that iphikratous hoplitai could be more useful for its cost if it was very hardy and had more defensive skill to account for the lighter kit. I'm thinking 10 or 12 instead of 8. I'm arguing only on paper so I don't know if it would make a difference in the game. I think they'd be more durable that way.

[satalexton]

i find them better w/o the phalanx, nice and versitile like the peltasts. 'sides, they're peltasts with spears standing in close formation, what DO you expect them to do?

[antisocialmunky]

In the end, I think that they are a lighter more flexible hoplite. From doing a few tests in 1.2, they are alot better than they used to be. Still a little redundant though.

I think the scale goes:

Militia Hoplitai
Outrunners(Really Fast)
Iphikratous Hoplitai(Fast)
Classical Hoplitai
Thorakitai Hoplitai

They are an intermediary between outrunners and classicals. You should keep them on the flank to kill horsies and the classicals in the main line to not die. They also have a sword unlike the classicals so they are actually more efficient against infantry. So I guess in the end, use them as flankers, to support your cavalry, kill their cavalry, and switch to swords to flank their main line.

[Watchman]

*casts Animate Thread*

Say Figus, you mentioned the 0.3 radius didn't have meaningful effects when it came to battle results, but how about unit behaviour ? The way the soldiers keep spreading out more or less regardless of the formation density values when not in guardmode is pretty annoying, and I was wondering if that value could be used to at least lessen the effect even if it doesn't have much "mechanical" effect - altering the behaviour but not the performance, if you see what I mean.

[PraetorFigus]

*casts Animate Thread*

Say Figus, you mentioned the 0.3 radius didn't have meaningful effects when it came to battle results, but how about unit behaviour ? The way the soldiers keep spreading out more or less regardless of the formation density values when not in guardmode is pretty annoying, and I was wondering if that value could be used to at least lessen the effect even if it doesn't have much "mechanical" effect - altering the behaviour but not the performance, if you see what I mean.

I need to run more tests, but it could have an effect on unit cohesion. I was also testing .25 along with .3 before RL and sickness kicked me in the bud :dizzy2:

from what I observed those two values are not as dramatic as 0.2 which also helps a unit when flanked to stay closer together. when surrounded morale level, discipline and level of training are still very important for how long a unit lasts before routing from what I saw.
so instead of continually flattening out against the enemy, the units seemed to retain a bit more rank depth and get a lot more kills,

Here are a few examples, but I need to do more testing and get screenshots! :wall:
in a siege battle against defending gauls with no time limit, the rorarii, tested with 0.2, were more effective but still routed with 30-40 troops left, the difference in my tests is that they actually killed some gauls before routing with 0.2 radius, they kept their ranks without guardmode better

in another siege battle this time against Germans no time limit again, I had a single stack of Polybian Principes defeat three full stacks of German mixed units of spearmen, I don't know the names of individual German units. I barely lost 4 troops per Principe unit which was shocking to me, I expected a crushing defeat, but got a Heroic Victory.

in another one-on-one test, the ekodromoi still surround a real phalanx head-on but seemed to take less losses and inflict more on the phalanx, but the unit was phalangitai deuteroi that I was testing against.

the good news is that the radius should do what your talking about Watchman with the units, but to what extent needs more testing.

has anyone else done testing with unit radius to confirm or deny that a smaller radius will keep units from spreading out? :feedback:

I've finally figured out how to get screenshots online so once I get a way to take multiple screen shots I will post more definitive findings! :smash:

[mcantu]

unit cohesion is the sole reason i am including this in RTR; but only for hoplite and phalangite units

[Watchman]

Why ?

[mcantu]

because those are the units for which propper employment depends the most on maintaining unit cohesion

[Watchman]

And that's different from other shieldwalls how ?

[Fluvius Camillus]

All shortspear phalanxes from 1.0 changed to spearwarriors in 1.1.

These include:
- Alpine Phalanx
- Getai phalanx
- Ptolemaic royal Guard
- Iphokratous (something like that) greek phalanx

Probably more but cant think of them all just now

Also the sweboz pikemen fight out of the phalanx formation with just long spears.

Hope this helps!

[Watchman]

Huh. I went and ran a series of tests on the radius attribute, and it certainly makes a difference. (Unit-vs-unit custom battles on the conveniently flat "Irish Marshlands" map, if you want to know the circumstances.) Turned out that with radius set to 0.2 the Iphikrateans (whose secondary sword I'd disabled) can reliably whup ass on the Classical hoplites, only losing about half their number or thereabouts; ditto with Thureophoroi. (Heavier examples of the same types of troops, say Camillian Triarii or Heavy Libyans, gave them varying degrees of beatdown though. And both sorts of Hastati turned out to be plain nasty and to a greater or lesser degree summarily slaughtered them.) And this even if the redius of the hoplite-types was set to 0.3, which incidentally indeed makes them hold formation noticeably better*.

Conversely the Getic light phalanx reliably got killed by the Classicals (although the latter inevitably suffered severely in the process) - almost certainly because they have zero unit officers to the Iphikrateans' and Classicals' two.

Trying it on some others, I gave it to other "protophalanx" units like the Mori Gaesum and the Sweboz Speutagardaz and then tested them against the Arverni Arjos (who are the same base quality grade but better armed, and whom I'd given 0.3 radius as they're also "shieldwall" troops). The Mori ate them for breakfast; the rather lighter Speutas had rather more trouble at it, and I suspect the AI's habitual tactical idiocy rather played a part in it, but I was able to give them a whipping with those too.

So, in conclusion, tweaking the radius attribute indeed rather noticeably impacts the unit's combat performance, at least if it's in very close order to begin with (ie. base rank spacing value under 1). Definitely worth looking more into, methinks.

*-no meaningul effect if the unit's base rank spacing number is 1 or more, though, as those don't really spread out to begin with.

[desert]

Yes, but is it really realistic for Iphikrateans to slaughter Classical Hoplites like that?

[Watchman]

Good question.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, they wouldn't if you modified both. My gut feeling is no in 1 to 1 because the Iphs are more flexible units that rely on being able to move quickly and exploit opportunity while the Classicals are equipped to do one job very well.

[Watchman]

Then again, the originals were apparently able to beat some of the better Old Skool hoplites around by the virtue of their formation and longer spears, with war gear being essentially equal (ie. shields, helmets, no body armour or greaves AFAIK).

Given that we'd actually be looking for roughly phalanx-equivalent results without actually having the formation on the unit... well, I figure the Classicals would 1-to-1 do rather worse against even the lower-grade pikes like say Klerouchikoi, no ? The Iphikrateans at least always lose around half their head count or more with the 0.2 radius.

[desert]

But what about everything else? The barbarians'll get massacred!

Also, Watchman, the link to the FSM graph is defunct, and has been so for some weeks (AFAICT).

[Watchman]

Most of the barbarians I tried the Iphs against actually massacred them. Any of the base-50 man units just swamp them, and all the reasonably well-equipped mid-grade units hack them to bits. Much like the Hastati reliably did, actually. The overabundance of thrown pointy things also contributes, as the Iphs aren't the most missile-resistant infantry around.

'Course, it could also be that I didn't flatten out the basic 4-rank depth which of course made getting "wrapped around" by looser-order units - nevermind more numerous ones - something of a foregone conclusion. But, then again, you don't want something like that happening with pikes either do you ?

[desert]

Maybe a few before and after pics?

[Aper]

Very interesting thread, guys.

In the Paeninsula Italica mod (I work on the EDU) I'm using this very simple model : 0.4 - (MORALE/100)

So the Spartiatai, for example, will have a radius of : 0.4 - 0.17 = 0.23 that is very close to the optimum. Less drilled units will have a looser formation, and levy hoplites will fight in a manner only slightly more tight than non-hoplites units.

I suggest give this feature to all units that have the first value in the formation line inferior than 1.

About the discussion about Iphikratous, IMHO the decision of the EB team is senseless. The fast cavalry catchers are:
1. for old style hoplites, the Ekdromoi.
2. for reformed hoplites, the Thureophoroi.
The only point in the existence of such a unit as Iphikratous hoplitai is to portrait the advantage of new hoplites in spear lenght, and the only way to achieve this is through the phalanx formation. Again, IMHO.

Cheers :2thumbsup:

EDIT: I don't remember if already posted, anyway, original discussion here http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=188651

[Watchman]

Maybe a few before and after pics?Meh. Pain in the a... rear to upload and all. Do your own experiments you lazy git! :beadyeyes2:


The fast cavalry catchers are:
1. for old style hoplites, the Ekdromoi.
2. for reformed hoplites, the Thureophoroi.Yeah well, the EB Thureophoroi aren't all that fast (partly because of relatively heavy equipement, partly because of model-sharing issues with the heavier Thorakitai)... they're more like a hoplite/legionary crossbreed really.

[desert]

You think I've got the time for that? >_<

[antisocialmunky]

What ever happened to the out runner hoplite's fast attribute. They kinda blow without it as they can't catch anything.

As for Iphs, I usually use a three man deep formation against infantry. I also usually guard mode up until the enemy is exhausted and only then switch to attack.

[Watchman]

What ever happened to the out runner hoplite's fast attribute.:book: They had it the last I checked... (like twenty seconds ago...) ...why ?

[antisocialmunky]

https://img407.imageshack.us/img407/4937/whatthedealioil4.jpg

EB1.2 on ALEX with Better Boats Mod, did not touch any stats. Right now, they are just better stamina Militia Hoplites.

[NeoSpartan]

Yes, but is it really realistic for Iphikrateans to slaughter Classical Hoplites like that?

well granted that there is no ability to outflank the fight would most likely stay as static draw until one line for some reason breaks.

I mean.... both have shieldwalls and lenth of the spear won't really make a big difference since they come in contact with shields.
--If my memory serves me right... When Philip of Macedon invaded Greece the Hoplite armies of Athens and Thebes formed a solid line in between 2 mountain ranges (I think), thus the cavarly was not able to flank. The fight was a basically a draw till Phillip had his pikemen walk backwards, the Thebans walked forward pressing against the pike while the Athenians stayed, young Alexander then charged the gap.... and thats all she wrote.

A similar thing happen in a battle against Sparta and ....(can't remember what Macedonian king). The pike were unable to break through, yet later for some reason the Spartans left their protected position and advanced opening their flanks to attack.

For the Iphikrateans to slaughter C. Hoplites, I think it would be if both break formation and a sword fight breaks out. Even under those circusmtances is hard to tell, as troop expireince & endurance would the main factor since the equipment and armor is not that different. (C.H. heavier shield more armor, Iph. longer swords, shield roughly as big, but ligher armor)

[Watchman]

EB1.2 on ALEX with Better Boats Mod, did not touch any stats. Right now, they are just better stamina Militia Hoplites.:shrug:
; Hellenistic infantry - Ekdromoi Hoplitai / Red Sea Hoplites

type hellenistic_infantry_ekdromoihoplitai_redseahoplites
skeleton fs_fast_o_f_spearmanThat's what my 1.2 DMB says, and what the engine actually uses. None of my business if it doesn't show up in the unit purchase interface. :blank2:

[antisocialmunky]

; Hellenistic infantry - Iphikratous Hoplitai / Misthophoroi Hoplitai / Indo Hellenikoi Hoplitai

type hellenistic_infantry_iphikratoushoplitai_misthophoroihoplitai_indohellenikoihoplitai
skeleton fs_semi_fast_spearman, fs_semi_fast_swordsman


Must be Alex then. Thanks.

[Prussian to the Iron]

so, how can i get all of the koinon hellenon hoplite units to do a phalanx in eb 1.2?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Phalanx mod in minimod sub forum?

[Aper]

I mean.... both have shieldwalls and lenth of the spear won't really make a big difference since they come in contact with shields.


What? :stunned:
This is no different than assume that legionaries ONLY stab and NEVER cut, or similar obsolete myths about ancient warfare... from Thermopylae to the wars against the Maks the reach of the weapons made an HUGE difference in the wars of the Greeks... as common sense suggest.
Even if they are "hoplites", this doesn't mean that shield-push (that is actually a quite debated topic...) was their only form of fighting.

[antisocialmunky]

That's not true about how the engine handles combat. Length makes no difference ... neither does girth but that's a seperate discussion.

[NeoSpartan]

What? :stunned:
.... or similar obsolete myths about ancient warfare... from Thermopylae to the wars against the Maks the reach of the weapons made an HUGE difference in the wars of the Greeks... as common sense suggest.
...

I am no expert on ancient history, but from the very FEW things I've read.... the long pikes were not THE desisive element in winning battles in ancient Greece.

[Watchman]

They made enough of a difference in that they allowed what had until rather recently been psiloi skirmisher rabble to check and hold even elite hoplites, though... which in turn allowed the Maks' formidable cavalry to do their part which was more or less the whole point.

[NeoSpartan]

They made enough of a difference in that they allowed what had until rather recently been psiloi skirmisher rabble to check and hold even elite hoplites, though... which in turn allowed the Maks' formidable cavalry to do their part which was more or less the whole point.


exactly!

[Novellus]

I am no expert on ancient history, but from the very FEW things I've read.... the long pikes were not THE desisive element in winning battles in ancient Greece.

The lengthy sarissae did make a difference as it was able to keep the enemy at a longer distance in a close combat situation. When it comes to weapons, there are different levels when it comes to manuverability and range. Swords are highly manuverable weapons, able to be wielded in different fashions and can change direction during a swing. They do however lack the range that spears do. Spears keep an enemy at a further distance, sacrificing manuverability (it is difficult to parry and block other attacks with a spear, let alone a lengthy sarissa). When the phalanx formation was used, it presented more spears to protect the wielders from close range attacks by swordsmen. One person with a sarissa can easily be killed by a skilled swordsman by dodging the spearpoint and charging past to the attacker. But when there are several ranks to pass through, success in engaging the spearman in close combat without injury becomes decreased.

The sarissa was useful because it gave survivability to soldiers of the line. Enemies would be very preoccupied when encountering a phalanx because the spears would be a very tough defense to break through. And when the phalanx advanced, the opposing force would be put on a defensive, which in battle is a terrible thing to have happen. It is not as much the decisive element that you think of, but half of the "hammer and anvil" equation. The survivability allows the cavalry much more time to advance around the flanks and attack from the rear in comparison to other units. If you don't believe that the spear length was THAT important though, try the Makedonian campaign, but replace your Phalangatai Deuteroi with Hoplitai Haploi or Classical Greek Hoplitai. You'll notice the difference in the amount of time the lines last before breaking.

[antisocialmunky]

I think what he was getting at was the cavalry was the decisive arm of the Macedonian war machine. Without it you get what happened in the Macedonian Wars.

[Watchman]

Well, yeah. But the point I at least tried to make that without the pikes or something to keep the hoplites preoccupied, the Mac horsemen would've been doing a fine imitation of Mr. Fly meeting Mr. Windshield.

There being a few good reasons why the Macs were the ones wont to get bossed around before they figured out how to make their peasant rabble genuinely useful.

[Novellus]

I think what he was getting at was the cavalry was the decisive arm of the Macedonian war machine. Without it you get what happened in the Macedonian Wars.

True, but I was getting at the fact that the innovation of the pike helped soldiers survive on the battlefield longer in addition to preoccupying enemy infantry so that cavalry can be that decisive arm. So I was making the point that the invention of the sarissa WAS important.


Well, yeah. But the point I at least tried to make that without the pikes or something to keep the hoplites preoccupied, the Mac horsemen would've been doing a fine imitation of Mr. Fly meeting Mr. Windshield.

There being a few good reasons why the Macs were the ones wont to get bossed around before they figured out how to make their peasant rabble genuinely useful.

Exactly what I was getting at. Troop survivability in addition to the low cost of the phalangite versus their hoplite counterpart made them effective units. Any unit would work to preoccupy enemy soldiers, even fielding a unit of Makedonian Hoplitai to hold the line. But the amount of time units can hold a line is crucial for the hammer and anvil tactics to work. That is why the lengthy sarissae became ideal as it protected the phalangites that held the enemy in one spot due to the length and mass of the phalanx.

[Aper]

That's not true about how the engine handles combat. Length makes no difference ...

That is not entirely true: units in phalanx formation (in game I mean) gain longer spears (even without "long_pike") that actually have a great effect on the performance.


They made enough of a difference in that they allowed what had until rather recently been psiloi skirmisher rabble to check and hold even elite hoplites, though... which in turn allowed the Maks' formidable cavalry to do their part which was more or less the whole point.

You are right: until recently. But this means absolutely nothing, because since Philip II this so-called rabble are in fact highly trained professionists of war, like the fancy Spartans that everyone seems to admire so much (I really wonder why..but this is enirely another matter) ; the so-called elite hoplites, on the contrary, were often no more trained than the nasty barbarians they despised so much, or at best they had 2 years of ephebate, really nothing compared to the skill of the pezethairoi

The Iphikratean reformed hoplites were probably highly professional mercenaries (he had a lot of experience in commanding mercenaries and probably he was well aware of the importance of training, an awareness not so common in 4° BC greece)

Last thing to add: the heavy armor had largely disappeared in 4° BC greece even among classical hoplites

To reassume:

on one side we have classical amateur or little trained hoplites armed with a metal helmet, a big shield, light armor and a classic spear

On the other, firstly with Iphikratean, then with Pezethaeroi, we have highly trained professionist that had smaller shield but a longer weapon, more effective both in defending and in attacking. They were vulnerable to flanking? True, but no classical hoplite had enough training to outflank effectively without losing every resemblance of formation (that in RTW is negligible ; in RL IS VERY BAD)

Were pezethairoi superheroes and was the pike a bartix weapon? NO, but on average they were largely more effective than classical hoplites and their weapons.
If you still don't believe me, think on this: all the 3 greatest general of ancient greece (Iphikrates, Epaminondas, Philip II) increased the lenght of the spear of their soldiers: oh, but surely they were all dumb... (sorry for the tone but I had to be a bit sarcastic :dozey:)

EDIT: one last thing: the heavy (and in 4° BC this is debatable too...) makedonian cavalry was so important and effective in a pike vs. spear struggle that Antigonid kings, who largely faced hoplitic armies, regarded cavalry mainly as an auxiliary weapon, and still more often than not defeated greeks, giving Romans the excuse to land in greece to "free :laugh:" them. I think this is to take in account too.

[Watchman]

Uh-huh.
Armour indeed went out of fashion among hoplites around the Peloponnesian War... and then came back into fashion. IIRC, in a somewhat heavier kit than previously too.

Around the same time hoplites (and other Greek soldiery) were also increasingly becoming full-time paid professionals if not outright mercenaries, and of course the elite formations (epilektoi) quite a few of the major communities had over the years - the most famous likely being the Theban Sacred Band - were naturally very well equipped and highly trained.

So meh.

[antisocialmunky]

I think that the successful Macedonian interventions in Greece proper was more due to organization an man power... I mean, look at the 3rd-4th century political alliances. You have the Aetolian League that was by itself. You have the Achean League that was allied with Macedon. You have Sparta that always tried to march north and attack the Achaeans. You have the later alliance of Athens, Sparta, and some other states funded by the Ptolemies. I mean, if you look at the records, usually the what happened was that many of the anti-Macedon groups had initial success but got plastered once the Macedonians or its allies organized and showed up in force.

[NeoSpartan]

True, but I was getting at the fact that the innovation of the pike helped soldiers survive on the battlefield longer in addition to preoccupying enemy infantry so that cavalry can be that decisive arm. So I was making the point that the invention of the sarissa WAS important.



Exactly what I was getting at. Troop survivability in addition to the low cost of the phalangite versus their hoplite counterpart made them effective units. Any unit would work to preoccupy enemy soldiers, even fielding a unit of Makedonian Hoplitai to hold the line. But the amount of time units can hold a line is crucial for the hammer and anvil tactics to work. That is why the lengthy sarissae became ideal as it protected the phalangites that held the enemy in one spot due to the length and mass of the phalanx.

Fellas... I feel you but I was answering the following question by:
desert

Yes, but is it really realistic for Iphikrateans to slaughter Classical Hoplites like that?

So... from what you and I have posted so far I can safely conclude:

Iphikrateans/pikemen DID NOT slaugher Hoplites (or anyone else with a big enough shield, and decent armor) in their phalanx/shield wall. When both sides faced eachother in neat formation, ready to fight the approaching enemy line and no way to outflank/manouver.

[antisocialmunky]

You know, I can't dig it up right now but the wikipedia entry on the Achaean League cites Plutarch as saying that the Thureos's narrowness was a disadvantage in close combat. Granted if this paraphrase is accurate, Plutarch was a little late to the scene.

However it might just end up being a wash because Iphikratean hoplites had longer spears.

[Watchman]

OTOH the thureos would have been a fair bit lighter and more versatile than the somehwat cumbersome and specialised aspis...

Anyway, NS, I'm pretty sure you're overlooking the little issue that Iphikrates' originals proved to be quite capable of taking on old-style hoplites in a straight-up frontal engagement, no ?

[Aper]

Uh-huh.
Armour indeed went out of fashion among hoplites around the Peloponnesian War... and then came back into fashion. IIRC, in a somewhat heavier kit than previously too.

Around the same time hoplites (and other Greek soldiery) were also increasingly becoming full-time paid professionals if not outright mercenaries, and of course the elite formations (epilektoi) quite a few of the major communities had over the years - the most famous likely being the Theban Sacred Band - were naturally very well equipped and highly trained.

So meh.

Heavier than the old fashioned full bronze armor? I'm a little skeptical about this...
I don't know much about classical hoplites of 3° BC, I thought they were largely disappeared from battlefields ; if you can tell me some sources on the matter I'll be glad to learn myself.
However, I don't remember any greek power in 4° and 3° BC that could deploy entire armies of well-armored and well-trained men... and few hundreds of epilektoi couldn't match the professional army of the Maks (who had their own elites anyway).
According to EB the greeks in 3° trained their men in the Makedonian manner, even the spartans, I can't think any better evidence of the superiority of the sarissa on the old glorious dory... even without the support of good cavalry,that in greece traditionally was scarce.

Back on topic, in my games I noticed only a slight advantage for tweaked units against vanilla ones : it seems strange to me that a little radius reduction makes a unit overpowered... I think it's better to test a little more, maybe giving units a radius reduction based on morale to portrait the different level of training, as I suggested. However, as you can probably imagine, I think Iphikratean should perform well against Classicals, not slaughter them, but winning more than not is in order IMO (obviously if they have similar protections and morale)

[antisocialmunky]

They would win if you could increase the effective range of Iphs. However, you can't do that short of phalanx mode on the TW engine....

EDIT

However, if you could use something that prevents enemies from attacking like knockback, that might work:

If you had a high attack unit with low lethality and fast attack, and you stick the unit in guard mode to keep formation then that might work. Really, that's actually pretty much what the phalanx is, fast attacking, low lethality pushing thing that uses knockback and mass.

It would probably be overpowered though.

[NeoSpartan]

....
However, if you could use something that prevents enemies from attacking like knockback, that might work:

If you had a high attack unit with low lethality and fast attack, and you stick the unit in guard mode to keep formation then that might work. Really, that's actually pretty much what the phalanx is, fast attacking, low lethality pushing thing that uses knockback and mass.

It would probably be overpowered though.

hum... you might be on to something there munky :book:

[Watchman]

Faster attacks are a "no can do", at least without going to mess around with the animations which I sure don't know how to do. I can test the knockback idea, although I expect the results to be right strange...

[NeoSpartan]

Faster attacks are a "no can do", at least without going to mess around with the animations which I sure don't know how to do....

oh.... forgot about the animations. Yah I take that back. It would look and sound wierd too. :thumbsdown:

[antisocialmunky]

Well, knockback, low lethality, and high attack rating might work. I think others have done it before and it makes things a little OP/weird.

[Novellus]

In the mean time, while people are experimenting with the radii of units, does anyone know how to return the phalanx ability?

[Aper]

Faster attacks are a "no can do", at least without going to mess around with the animations which I sure don't know how to do. I can test the knockback idea, although I expect the results to be right strange...

I take the chance to ask (you are a member of EB team IIRC) something that puzzles me a bit : why don't you use the attack delay feature to portray the differences in weapon speed and in warriors' skill?
Why you use it only for lances and ranged weapons?

I'm taking care of the Paeninsula Italica EDU during the mod leader absence, and I found attack delay great in resolving balance issues, but I'm inexperienced as a modder, and this question haunts me costantly.

Thanks in advance.

[Watchman]

There's not really too much difference in the overall "attack speed" of most melee weapons, and such as there are are mainly subsumed into the modifier they impose on the warriors' attack skill value. Dunno about the missiles - when I came on board the stat system had been established a long time ago so I'm not privy to the reasonings that went into it, my job's mainly "error-checking" the values in the EDU - but in any case I know the diverse lances have that nasty delay to counterbalance their very high lethality values and to help simulate the fact they're rather cumbersome and unwieldy weapons designed for the charge rather than the ensuing melee.

Side note: from the testing I've been doing with modified radius values on various units, I'll have to say that hot damn it's looking promising. Big thumbs-up for everybody who suggested and contributed to the idea (PraetorFigus and anybody else I may not be remembering ATM) - as the Soldier says in Team Fortress 2, "You deserve a medal!" :bow:

[antisocialmunky]

Are you going to try a little bit of this for MIITW as well?

[Watchman]

No idea, I'm not involved with EBII statting (yet, anyway) - only recently having bought M2TW and still only planning to purchase Kingdoms has a fair bit to do with that. But if it works out well for EB1, and the M2TW engine doesn't have any fundamental differences that disallowed it, I would assume it's going to at the very least get tested.

[PraetorFigus]

Bump? :embarassed:


Uggh, I got caught up with RL...

With the pseudo-phalanxes I'm thinking of posting a modified edu in the EB UMP section when I get time to work on it, I want that to be soon, :whip: :dizzy2:

unless someone else has started already, then I'll contribute to your work. :yes:

I expect to leave most stats alone with mods in the unit radius, formation spacing, defensive skill and lethality (maybe troop numbers also), open to modding others attributes for balancing if necessary.

I'll be open to any suggestions for any units and have been considering doing some things that were suggested about making hoplites fight more with pushing and less lethality, for example also.

The goal for the hoplites is trying to mimic the "shield-wall" effect that some of those units seem better suited for with their style of shield then how they work now as other spearmen that spread out against an enemy front without guard mode. But the planned mod is primarily for the pseudo-phalanxes.

Feel free to PM me.