Jury Ruling(s) Needed.

[IrishHitman]

http://www.mediafire.com/?1kyymuzczey

I need the jury to make a few rulings on one of antisocialmunkey's actions and unit rosters.
In case any of you think this is a personal thing because I lost, I'll concede defeat regardless of the judgement, although I'd like to fight munkey again if allowed.
My primary concern is the tournament.

- Is use of the "penetration" exploit allowed?
(Issuing move orders behind an enemy phalanx, and thus bypassing the pikes entirely.)

- Use of six Equites Extraordinarii.
The original cavalry cap was removed as "excessive cavalry spam isn't cost-effective."
Clearly, this battle shows that such spam IS cost-effective for Polybian Romans.

I ask for the reinstitution of the 4 cav max, as well as a mandatory Companion-Thessalian ratio of 1-1 when using the former, in line with Arrian's description of Alexander's cavalry, as four Companions are also overpowered and ahistorical.

- Inquiry about a possible max on elite shock infantry, Mak Peltasts, Hypaspists, Pedites Extraordinarii etc.
Particular with regard to the Romans, who receive them at much cheaper prices compared with the Greeks.

[antisocialmunky]

I'd say only 10% of your force can be cavalry like during the Macedonian Wars. I don't like having to spend 18000 on cavalry to defeat 18000 in cavalry.

As for breaking. Only the 3 pedites did from what I saw. The other principles were pushed back only Pedites are effective when the opponent counters by making his line deeper instead of trying to outwrap my line with phalangites. And to be sucessful, the pedites need to hit one point with as much mass as possible. Otherwise it fizzes out. We have a replay from a 2vs 2 bridge battle that shows jsut that. Its not even that hard to counter. The only problem was that I had 600 cavalry bearing down on his 400 and couldn't close that one hole.

Like I said in the phalanx vs legion thread. It can be countered and its not that hard to unless you're using levies. Heck, if the Greeks spent less on cavalry and more in infantry and actually have enough to support the phalanx, it would be an effective counter.

[Gabeed]

Antisocialmunky, are you allowed to use Camillan triarii for Polybian battle? I can't imagine that using outdated units would be an advantage, I was just wondering why you had them, and whether it was legit. Just out of curiosity, I don't want to seem like I'm nitpicking.

[antisocialmunky]

As far as I remember, yes. I find them better because they have more armor and have higher density.

[tsidneku]

Antisocialmunky, are you allowed to use Camillan triarii for Polybian battle? I can't imagine that using outdated units would be an advantage, I was just wondering why you had them, and whether it was legit. Just out of curiosity, I don't want to seem like I'm nitpicking.

The use of Camillan forces came up when the use of Accensi in my battle with Fluvius Camillus. The ruling was Camillan Era troops (aux. + main) are permitted in a Marian army.

Quote from the Legion vs. Phalanx thread --

Wait a second, I haven't watched the replay yet, but Imperial Archers are Imperial units, not Marian ones... Meaning that he wasn't allowed to use them...

About the Accensi: I think it was decided that players are allowed to use older units (though I don't really like that), meaning that there's no problem with Camillian units in a Polybian Marian army. Also I think that Accensi are still available for rome in the Polybian time frame in the campaign (not sure).


As for army composition, if you were to impose a limit of cavalry -- I think it's important to lower the amount of total mnai. With less cavalry and the same money, the Greek factions can focus on their more elite troops. I think the balance is alright at the moment, the battle depends largely on composition.

[Gabeed]

So why would Camillan units be allowed in a Marian army but not a Polybian one?

[tsidneku]

No clue. :)

[antisocialmunky]

The use of Camillan forces came up when the use of Accensi in my battle with Fluvius Camillus. The ruling was Camillan Era troops (aux. + main) are permitted in a Marian army.

Quote from the Legion vs. Phalanx thread --


As for army composition, if you were to impose a limit of cavalry -- I think it's important to lower the amount of total mnai. With less cavalry and the same money, the Greek factions can focus on their more elite troops. I think the balance is alright at the moment, the battle depends largely on composition.

Um, that was not editted the last time I saw it nor is it mentioned anywhere on the front page. :-\

I don't mind fighting the battle again but all that means is more Pedites. It is a little weird that you would allow Camillan in Marian and not in Polybian. So much for any realism.

[Tolg]

Um, that was not editted the last time I saw it nor is it mentioned anywhere on the front page. :-\

I don't mind fighting the battle again but all that means is more Pedites. It is a little weird that you would allow Camillan in Marian and not in Polybian. So much for any realism.

That's not it.

IIRC someone asked in the other thread if it was alright to use Velites in a Marian army as they don't have any skirmishers anymore. The only answer he got was that one could use all units from all previous reforms. (I don't even remember who said it, but I believe it was a jury member) I didn't agree with that for obvious reasons, but I didn't want to delay the tournament buy starting a discussion over what I believed to be only a minor matter. (Perhaps that was a failure on my part) When the discussion about the Accensi arose I said exactly this, just with a few words less.

I want to point out again, this is if I recall correctly.


If I'm right then atm Camillian units are allowed in Polybian armies, but I don't think that it should stay this way.

[antisocialmunky]

Marian Armies need spear support so you should give them atleast some Samnites.

[We shall fwee...Wodewick]

I know this is not the most appropriate place, but what are the rulings on auxilliaries, can I use Illyrian, samnites, Bruttians etc... to support my armies in Polybians?

[Tolg]

Should be in the original thread, but since it's too late anyway I might as well answer:

Alloed are the units listed here. (https://www.europabarbarorum.com/factions_romani_units.html)



As stated in the rules:



The Rulebook:
Unit limitation I Unit recruitment shall be limited to those units published on the EB website for each respective faction.
Check here (https://www.europabarbarorum.com/factions.html).

[miotas]

how do i watch the replay? the file is only about 200kb and in a format my computer cant read?

[Tolg]

We should add a note about this in the first post of the analysis thread...


The replays are saved as RTW replay files, you have to save the replay file in the [Rome:Total War]/EB/replays folder (you can create it if it isn't there yet), then start singleplayer EB, Load Game -> Load battle replay and select your replay.

[miotas]

excellent. thanks, ill watch it later, my laptop has internet but isnt powerful enough to play games and my desktop has no internet connection, so you can imagine the fun and games i have when i need to active a game online :wall:

[Phalanx300]

Irish I totally agree!


Also, Roman units should belong to their time frame! I don't think its accurate to see Camillan Romans fighting in Marian time. :clown:

Also, the Roman time frame should once again fit to their opponent. (like Camillan for Epeiros) Otherwise I suggest to let players choose their own time frame, which would be better then to do it semi-Historical, might aswell make it more fun then.

And for Epeiros, I suggest that the 6 Phalangite limit will be removed, Epeiros relied more on a Infantry/Phalangite force supporting eachother. A 3 or 4 limit would be more Historical.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

While I'm not involved in this I can answer two historical questions.

1. The Camillian/Polybian Consular Army was 12.5% Cavaly, of which 1/4 were romani citizens and 1/4 extraordinarii, with the remaining 1/2 being Socii regulars. This is according to Polybias, the total Cavalry numbered 2,400, probably with 900 on each wing and 600 (extraordinarii) in reserve.

2. As far as the Roman "eras" go, there is evidence for cross-over with the immidiately previous era. Sulla used Velites in a reformed army when fighting Marius, for example. I would, however, say that Camillian units in a Marian army was historically absurd.

[antisocialmunky]

1.) That's about three and a half units of cavalry.(300ish)

[Βελισάριος]

We should add a note about this in the first post of the analysis thread...

Done.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

For reference the Infantry in the army were 12,000, (1200 extraordinarii) the Skirmishers (Velites) were 4,800

Total 19,200 (inc. cavalry).

[antisocialmunky]

1/3rd Velites, I don't think that's going to happen given how bullet proof the main line of phalangites is.

But 10% Extraordinarii would be fine by me(rounded to the nearest number that is). Honestly, I'd rather hear discussion on the breaching strategy. Whether or not people think it is fair or not.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Frankly, anyone who allows Roman infantry to punch through a pike line deserves everything he gets. If your pikes are in six ranks, as they should be, it flat out shouldn't be possible.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

I've tried breaching myself and it's a strategy that pays little for too much cost. I would rather have the legions on Guard Mode right in front of the pikes so they protect themselves with the shields and stand their ground, rather than impaling my men at such a venture.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

After testing this strategy again, I must say that I was terribly wrong. The best guys adept at "breaching" are the Dacian Falxmen and everyone with a high lethality rate (assault troops). I used a dense formation of Rhophaioroi and pointed it right to the front of the phalanx, periodically clicking behind the enemy to make sure they were infiltrating well, then clicking to attack. The result was a hole in the middle of the phalangites and ended up with them routing after prolongued close combat and astoningly little casualties. And they were ordinary six liner Phalanx formations, perhaps a warning for players to use denser ones in MP especially if the enemy has such nasty troops.

My casualty rate was usually 100% for the enemy and at best 50% with Romphaiaroi vs. Argyraspidai. Ordinary Drapanai obtain good results being used en masse at a single spot; since they are extremely cheap, their casualties won't matter as much. Versus an ordinary levy phalanx I had as little as 20% casualties with the Rhophaiaroi.

[Tolg]

Indeed, penetraition is very much effective if it is done right, everyone who's of an other oppinion should try playing ASM, I'm confidend he'll prove you wrong. (With normal roman units, not with kickass Thraikioi Rhomph.)


Now the question is, should it be allowed to click behind your enemy's phalanx to bypass the pikes?

I don't have much experience wih this tactic (I'll always prefer flanking anyway, it doesn't make your line so untidy) so I'll have to ask:

1) Is it even possible to penetrate a phalanx without clicking behind them?

2) What's the kill/losses ratio a) when clicking behind the phalanx b) without clicking behind the phalanx? (Until the Phalnx is entirely broken and all or most Phalangites at the penetrated part of the line are using their swords)

3) How much mass is needed for an successful breakthrough?

4) What can the Greek general do to prevent his enemies from breaking trough?

[Silence Hunter]

1) Is it even possible to penetrate a phalanx without clicking behind them?

Yes it is possible. Though it depends on the situation (quality of troops and numbers). However expect high losses (which is IMHO a realistic thing).


2) What's the kill/losses ratio a) when clicking behind the phalanx b) without clicking behind the phalanx? (Until the Phalnx is entirely broken and all or most Phalangites at the penetrated part of the line are using their swords)

a) I don't know as I, presonally, consider this as cheating.
b) losses are high. There is a high chance that phalanx will hold. However this depends on quality, mass and numbers of your and enemy troops.


3) How much mass is needed for an successful breakthroug?

If you are using the "click behind phalanx method" it can be done with the single unit. However if you just attack at least two units are needed to make a push strong enough (numbers also play their part in here as phalanx on huge is 240 men, while most infantry units only 160).


4) What can the Greek general do to prevent his enemies from breaking trough?

Charge reserves on the attacking foe. Once they engage retreat the phalanx and reform it. Then march it back into position. However you are likely to suffer large losses while retreating the phalanx, but it at least saves your line (most of the times and if countered properly).

[satalexton]

I still think the romans ought to have the advantages pitted for them, take it as our pity for the barbaroi, and an equalizer for the inferior beings.

Also, it makes every victory for the hellenes all the more justified, honourable and heroic.

ALL HAIL MAKEDONIA!!!!

[Novellus]

I have broken apart a phalanx in a frontal assault one time. It was an unusual circumstance.

The phalanx was arranged like this:

..................................................<
..............................>....................<
..................................................<


My unit was a lone unit of Spartiartai Hoplitai in guard mode. Oddly, the direction of the spears of the phalanx at the time was this way:


..................................................^
..............................>....................^
..................................................^

So I had a giant flank to attack. So I charged in. However, due to the RTW Engine, the phalanx simply changed the direction of the spears toward my forces. But before my soldiers were completely shoved back, I took my soldiers off of guard mode and left the soldiers as they were. I went off to fight the rest of the battle on the other side of the field as they were being overwhelmed by other forces.

When I came back, The enemy phalanx looked like this:


..................................................<
.......................................................><
..................................................<


What had essentially happened was that the hoplitai pushed through the pikes and shoved them apart in the left and right directions of the Syntagma. The hoplitai essentially became a wedge, which I did not think was possible with the RTW engine. The enemy phalanx consisted of Pezhetairoi, which were not pushovers by any means. It might have been an odd fluke, but that was one instance where a phalanx was in fact penetrated. In the end, the unit did not take very many casualties. Yes, the Spartiartai are considered elite, but the fact that hoplitai could break through might be a sign that even classical hoplitai can break through phalanxes as well. I will have to test this again.

[antisocialmunky]

The easiest way to counter it is to use a thick formation and good reserves. Hoplites in defense mode work or if you're feeling evil, run a unit of phalangites behind the one that gets hit. Its really hard to make it work twice after your men are tired. You can reasonable expect to get only 1 charge out of your guys unless you want them to suffer really high losses.

And you have to do it right or you end up with an Abu Simbel.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

I do not consider this particular tactic as cheating. The description for the Kluddolon clearly mentions they used similar tactics to break through Phalanxes, but since diving into the ground and crawling quickly to gut phalangites is not possible with the current engine, let's just say that in a real situation the Thraikioi employed a similar infiltration exploit with success.

And while particularly anyone can do it the Getai are the best because of their super high lethality assault troops which are just perfect in close combat. Nothing beats Cordinau Orca doing this.

[IrishHitman]

Indeed, penetraition is very much effective if it is done right, everyone who's of an other oppinion should try playing ASM, I'm confidend he'll prove you wrong. (With normal roman units, not with kickass Thraikioi Rhomph.)


Now the question is, should it be allowed to click behind your enemy's phalanx to bypass the pikes?

I don't have much experience wih this tactic (I'll always prefer flanking anyway, it doesn't make your line so untidy) so I'll have to ask:

1) Is it even possible to penetrate a phalanx without clicking behind them?

2) What's the kill/losses ratio a) when clicking behind the phalanx b) without clicking behind the phalanx? (Until the Phalnx is entirely broken and all or most Phalangites at the penetrated part of the line are using their swords)

3) How much mass is needed for an successful breakthrough?

4) What can the Greek general do to prevent his enemies from breaking trough?

1. Yes, with high casualties. It takes great opportunism to do, and shock infantry is best at it. Flanking is a far more realistic and cost-effective tactic however.

2. a) Regular Roman infantry suffers heavy casualties trying to penetrate, but can achieve it against Pez and Levies. Pedites Extraordinarii can do it with light to medium casualties, and have a near 100% success rate against a six-man-deep Pez unit, and are successful against deeper formations or more capable units. As the Romans are far from short on cash, they can afford plentiful amounts of Pedites. Using this tactic with four Pedite units alone can cause a phalanx line to degenerate into an ahistorical slugging match that the Romans are bound to win.

b) Against the pikes, depending on what you're fighting and what you're using.
Elite or AP infantry can sometimes squeeze into the one-man-wide gaps between phalanx units, and cause considerable casualties. A good player can even manage to achieve this by attacking from a certain angle, although it happens anyway during the natural course of a non-guard-mode unit.
Falxmen work very nicely in this function.

3. A good amount of elite shock or AP infantry concentrated on a single unit, with the phalanx unable to envelop them due to area denial tactics. That means either a line of infantry covering them, a flanking cavalry threat, or both.

4. Envelop the enemy (potentially exposing flanks and rear) via attacking, send the cavalry around for a hammer-anvil attack, send his own shock infantry through the phalanx line to help (dodgy), reinforce the rear of his phalanx with a second (cost ineffective as a general tactic).


Frankly, anyone who allows Roman infantry to punch through a pike line deserves everything he gets. If your pikes are in six ranks, as they should be, it flat out shouldn't be possible.

Six deep is far too shallow to deal with Pedites.....
Play antisocial, unless you're using Agyraspides across the whole line, he'll get through if you're only 6 deep.


I do not consider this particular tactic as cheating. The description for the Kluddolon clearly mentions they used similar tactics to break through Phalanxes, but since diving into the ground and crawling quickly to gut phalangites is not possible with the current engine, let's just say that in a real situation the Thraikioi employed a similar infiltration exploit with success.

And while particularly anyone can do it the Getai are the best because of their super high lethality assault troops which are just perfect in close combat. Nothing beats Cordinau Orca doing this.

The success rate of the penetration exploit is far too high for that particular historical justification, nor are the Getai the opponents of the Greeks in this tournament. The same is true of the break-phalanx formations of the Roman army itself.


The easiest way to counter it is to use a thick formation and good reserves. Hoplites in defense mode work or if you're feeling evil, run a unit of phalangites behind the one that gets hit. Its really hard to make it work twice after your men are tired. You can reasonable expect to get only 1 charge out of your guys unless you want them to suffer really high losses.
Thick formations are easier to flank, and reinforcing your entire line with a second is unrealistically cost-ineffective.

[antisocialmunky]

You only have to reenforce in that one spot. The Romans use 2-3 units to punch a hole there. Why don't you have the reserves to defend yourself? Agrianians work pretty well against Pedites as in ridiculously good and don't cost very much for one of the best assault infantries in the game. Besides, if the new rules kick in, it would alot less feasible to slam 3 pedites into a single spot on the line and break through, 2 tops and I'm not sure if that would actually manage to break through a deep formation of phalangites.

Anyways you know what to expect. Don't expect to a fight on the flanks all the time.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Well, all I got to say is that phalanxes are immensely powerful, particularly in EB. Not only they are oversized but they can, due to RTW engine woes, turn their sarissas and maneuver around during combat in a way that no Phalanx realistically can. Thus penetration is not particularly unbalancing at all and can be countered with deeper ranks, which will not be easier to flank if you have a good cavalry or infantry arm to protect it.

Sorry, but a Phalanx alone can't win. Every fighting style has its particular advantages and disadvantages.

EDIT - And it's still damn hard to do it unless you have elite troops.

[Phalanx300]

While such a tactic might have existed, the way it is now it goes way to quick. Its a matter of seconds before the Phalanx is broken. If it was really this easy why wasn't it used in the Macedonian wars? :sweatdrop:

And Phalangite only armies can also still win, though when being outflanked they get in trouble.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

In battle there is a number of situations plausible and possible, one of them using elite troops to break through phalangites. Most of the time against the AI flanking suffices, and penetration itself is such a costly strategy that is better not used in less than desperate or just particular situations where the normally rare elites are available.

That said, it is not completely ahistorical, and then it's an engine fault. Engine faults distort a lot of things, and unfortunately there is nothing that can be done about it without further unbalancing the previously fine tuned structure in other areas.

[Phalanx300]

A costly strategy? I'd think that by now Anti has showed that it is in fact a very effective strategy. I personally see it as a bit of a exploit, as I don't think that a Phalanx could be so easilly broken in the front. And it isn't a system error or something, its just a player exploiting the system:whip:.

[Gabeed]

Though I haven't tried it yet myself, I wouldn't be surprised if exiting and quickly reentering phalanx mode would push the "penetrating" Romans out.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

But then, as I said before and reiterate, a Phalanx has an unrealistic level of maneuverability in this game. Not only Phalangites can magically twist their pikes 180º to face a threat from behind, they also can regroup and rout without losing their pikes in the process. A realistic phalanx would be more on the lines of taking many hours to redeploy, being decisively vulnerable from the rear and flanks, and if there's a rout, I would really like to see the guy who would get his sarissa with him instead of crapping in his pants and running away with as little weight as possible. Engine faults, that is.

[Phalanx300]

That would be a matter of house rules on Phalanx use. Like no turning Phalanx when attacked from behind etc.

[antisocialmunky]

I wish terrain and walking in general had a greater effect on phalangites. Also lowering the frontal armoring would be nice too. I can see deeply parabolic projectiles hitting the Sarissas and being deflected but flaming arrows and shallow arced javelins really shouldn't.

If you guys really want to play me as a Roman and try it and I will show you how to beat it.

[IrishHitman]

Though I haven't tried it yet myself, I wouldn't be surprised if exiting and quickly reentering phalanx mode would push the "penetrating" Romans out.

No, that just gives the Romans free kills.
I've tried it..


Well, all I got to say is that phalanxes are immensely powerful, particularly in EB. Not only they are oversized but they can, due to RTW engine woes, turn their sarissas and maneuver around during combat in a way that no Phalanx realistically can. Thus penetration is not particularly unbalancing at all and can be countered with deeper ranks, which will not be easier to flank if you have a good cavalry or infantry arm to protect it.

Sorry, but a Phalanx alone can't win. Every fighting style has its particular advantages and disadvantages.

EDIT - And it's still damn hard to do it unless you have elite troops.
Today 21:14

There is a historical precedent for quick turns of phalanxes.
Alexander once executed a quick series of turns and phalanx manoeuvres in front of an enemy, whom subsequently surrendered. While under attack, such moves sacrifice quite a few men.
That is in line with what happens in EB if the enemy is competent.

That said, I would limit how we could use such turns, as Phalanx300 suggested.

The penetration exploit on the other hand, has a success rate far beyond what quick phalanx manoeuvres can accomplish. An unrealistic and ahistoric success rate. Furthermore, a good cavalry arm and infantry wing is useless when your opponent outnumbers you, and such forces are impossible to obtain when you have to spend more cash to increase the quality of your phalanx to survive the exploit anyway.

Medium and levy phalanxes cannot compete in hand to hand with Pedites up close, and you are forgetting the rest of the Roman forces. The preliminary attack by the Pedites breaks the line, which is wedged further apart by the rest of the forces. The Romans can even exploit the lack of flanking forces and run down the line with their own flank infantry.


But then, as I said before and reiterate, a Phalanx has an unrealistic level of maneuverability in this game. Not only Phalangites can magically twist their pikes 180º to face a threat from behind, they also can regroup and rout without losing their pikes in the process. A realistic phalanx would be more on the lines of taking many hours to redeploy, being decisively vulnerable from the rear and flanks, and if there's a rout, I would really like to see the guy who would get his sarissa with him instead of crapping in his pants and running away with as little weight as possible. Engine faults, that is.

Ok, now I know you're talking BS, go read Arrian for your "many hours to redeploy"....
Furthermore, the Macedonians did just that when they ran away against the Romans...

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

"Quick turns", really? Do you mean quick turns while during maneuver or when it was being attacked by both sides? I would love to see evidence that Phalanxes were magically able to zap! their sarissas in unisson to face a threat from the flanks or rear while already engaged, as they do now.

Phalanxes were difficult to deploy and took time for it. Just read the battle of Cynoscephalae for it: one of the Macedonian wings was still deploying when it got attacked by Romans. It's definetely not easy neither quick to put all these pikes in orderly fashion and formation while during maneuver.


Furthermore, the Macedonians did just that when they ran away against the Romans...

Do you really believe routing Phalangites would take their poles with them so they could use them in case they were able to redeploy? Routing means life first, everything else second.

[desert]

Routing hoplites usually threw down their shields when fleeing, and sometimes even their breastplates and spears! And you expect someone to try to flee while carrying a weighty 20-ft pole? Would the point be to try to swing it around in an arc as an attempt to knock down nearby pursuers?

[antisocialmunky]

Well, those phalangites at Cynoscephalae got like 20 elephants shoved down their throats while they were in marching formation. That battle was such a mess.

@Irish - I think you're overstating the problem. I mean, I've used it against you once if oyu don't count that rather strange battle we had.

[Βελισάριος]

As for quick phalanx manouvres, I direct you gentlemen's attention to the battle of Gaugamela (that's starting to be my favourite battle in history), where Alexander used his Phalangites to trap the scythed charriots.

If that's not quick manoeuvring then I don't know what is.

On the other hand, phalanx penetration was, indeed, possible, albeit at a high cost.
It'll be up to the jury to decide if this "exploit" is balanced, or, should I say, fair.

Your posts will be taken into consideration and I must say, it's been an interesting debate so far.
Keep it gentlemanly, aye?

[antisocialmunky]

Well we're talking about turning them aorund on a dime. You can really pretty much negate the mobility disadvantage of phalangites by pulling them out of phalanx, turning them and then turning it back on. Its pretty easy and costs very little even then they are engaged. Doesn't really do anything if you're already surrounded though so if you run behind some phalangites and start stabbing them, well I'll just turn them around and negate your work.

[Phalanx300]

"Quick turns", really? Do you mean quick turns while during maneuver or when it was being attacked by both sides? I would love to see evidence that Phalanxes were magically able to zap! their sarissas in unisson to face a threat from the flanks or rear while already engaged, as they do now.

As I said we can think of some house rules to take care of that for the tourney.:yes:

However that wedge formation seems to be extremely effective and able to penetrate the Phalanx in a matter of seconds. I doubt its Historical accuracy, I mean Hoplites relied on pushing and weren't able to completely destroy a Macedonian Phalanx from the front. While they certainly were effective against Phalangites as seen by Persian Mercenary Hoplites bringing havoc on the Macedonian Phalangites and at Charonea, I mean if the front was so strong why even do that splitting the line move.

But yeah, this penetration formation seems to Historical incorrect to me, especially the rate of which it goes.:whip:


Phalanxes were difficult to deploy and took time for it. Just read the battle of Cynoscephalae for it: one of the Macedonian wings was still deploying when it got attacked by Romans. It's definetely not easy neither quick to put all these pikes in orderly fashion and formation while during maneuver.

A entire Phalanx line is, however if you have fighting blocks as Alexander had then they do become more mobile. Then you could see them as Cohorts, though less mobile.

And at Cynoschephelae, it took long to deploy the line, not to do actions with the line already deployed. (and the Phalangites were mostly levies)


Do you really believe routing Phalangites would take their poles with them so they could use them in case they were able to redeploy? Routing means life first, everything else second.

Apparantly they did, when a Phalangite raised his spear it was a sign of surrender. I gues at those times when 1 side surrendered the battle was over. Those Romani Barbaroi though take advantage of it to kill the routers!:whip:

Go Spartans :idea2:.

[IrishHitman]

As I said we can think of some house rules to take care of that for the tourney.:yes:

However that wedge formation seems to be extremely effective and able to penetrate the Phalanx in a matter of seconds. I doubt its Historical accuracy, I mean Hoplites relied on pushing and weren't able to completely destroy a Macedonian Phalanx from the front. While they certainly were effective against Phalangites as seen by Persian Mercenary Hoplites bringing havoc on the Macedonian Phalangites and at Charonea, I mean if the front was so strong why even do that splitting the line move.

But yeah, this penetration formation seems to Historical incorrect to me, especially the rate of which it goes.:whip:



A entire Phalanx line is, however if you have fighting blocks as Alexander had then they do become more mobile. Then you could see them as Cohorts, though less mobile.

And at Cynoschephelae, it took long to deploy the line, not to do actions with the line already deployed. (and the Phalangites were mostly levies)



Apparantly they did, when a Phalangite raised his spear it was a sign of surrender. I gues at those times when 1 side surrendered the battle was over. Those Romani Barbaroi though take advantage of it to kill the routers!:whip:

Go Spartans :idea2:.

Well said.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

"Quick turns", really? Do you mean quick turns while during maneuver or when it was being attacked by both sides? I would love to see evidence that Phalanxes were magically able to zap! their sarissas in unisson to face a threat from the flanks or rear while already engaged, as they do now.

Phalanxes were difficult to deploy and took time for it. Just read the battle of Cynoscephalae for it: one of the Macedonian wings was still deploying when it got attacked by Romans. It's definetely not easy neither quick to put all these pikes in orderly fashion and formation while during maneuver.



Do you really believe routing Phalangites would take their poles with them so they could use them in case they were able to redeploy? Routing means life first, everything else second.

I back this statment. There´s no way any phalanks can reform when already engaged in both sides [there´s a post in EBII where they say that the phlanks will not be able to reform when already engaged (unfortuntely in RomeTW they can reform)] . AFAIK a flank phalanks is a dead phalanks. Nevertheless, i believe a well trained phalanks can perform some maneuver as they did in Gaugamela but not if already engaged.

As for the routing phalanks, i don´t think that a fleing man will run with a 6m long pike.

Now, the penetration maneuver is indeed overpowered but in Total war almost none of the phalanks
problems are represented.

[IrishHitman]

I back this statment. There´s no way any phalanks can reform when already engaged in both sides [there´s a post in EBII where they say that the phlanks will not be able to reform when already engaged (unfortuntely in RomeTW they can reform)] . AFAIK a flank phalanks is a dead phalanks. Nevertheless, i believe a well trained phalanks can perform some maneuver as they did in Gaugamela but not if already engaged.

As for the routing phalanks, i don´t think that a fleing man will run with a 6m long pike.

Now, the penetration maneuver is indeed overpowered but in Total war almost none of the phalanks
problems are represented.

Again, I have no problem implimenting rules against unrealistic phalanx manoeuvres when under direct attack. In fact, I'd back them provided that the penetration exploit is removed as well.

[Phalanx300]

I back this statment. There´s no way any phalanks can reform when already engaged in both sides [there´s a post in EBII where they say that the phlanks will not be able to reform when already engaged (unfortuntely in RomeTW they can reform)] . AFAIK a flank phalanks is a dead phalanks. Nevertheless, i believe a well trained phalanks can perform some maneuver as they did in Gaugamela but not if already engaged.

As for the routing phalanks, i don´t think that a fleing man will run with a 6m long pike.


I totally agree on that first part.

As for routing Phalangites, I personally think that it was that way against other Hellenic powers, some sort of battle code. Though it would be a little bit clumpsy to run away with a 6m long pike if you´re being hunted. Though when the enemy is not persuing I see no reason to drop the pike.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

I love the Romani precisely because they killed the routers. We Romani are men and not women who think they can disengage, turn tail and run from battle easily and with impunity like a bunch of surrender monkeys. There are no rules in battle for a true warrior! :smash:

:P

But well, yes I agree with most of the statements here.

[Phalanx300]

Well what is more cowardly, running from battle or killing cowards?:sweatdrop:

At least the Spartans had some respect for their enemies :clown:.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

Well what is more cowardly, running from battle or killing cowards?:sweatdrop:

At least the Spartans had some respect for their enemies :clown:.

The romans have respect for the enemy as well. Fas et ab hoste doceri.
Or that history about the roman general who cried when Sparta was destroyed, his cry was for the end of such a great city... Or at least they had respect towards the greeks

[Phalanx300]

They thought of Greek culture to be inferior to the Roman one, at least so I've heard. And they were a fan of Sparta that is true(the only good thing about a Roman:clown:). Yet them totally destroying Corinth if proof enough for me of their disrespect towards their enemies. And then we also have Carthage:sweatdrop:.

I can't think of a Spartan army totally destroying the city of their enemies(they had enough chances to do so).:whip:

[Nachtmeister]

Oh come on --- I emotionally side with the Hellenes here (as always), but putting up "lack of respect" against the Romans... They would not have built an empire that, counting east and west, lasted for roughly a thousand years if they had not been evil, unforgiving, relentless, shameless, gruesome and oppressive to the ultimate possible extent of these characteristics. Not speaking of the individual "Romans" but of the overall exterior behaviour of the political entity, of course. To roman legionaries, it would have been stupid not to kill the enemy when they had the chance to do so; they could simply not afford to allow them to fight another day. If they had let the Samnites do that some time before the Makedonian wars, Italy might have never dominated all of the then known world. Maybe they even did it - *once*, to learn better from the experience.

The penetration maneuvre is, to me, an example of what happens when the opponent is suddenly not an AI player any more. I would resent such a move in a multiplayer match that was carried out really only for the fun. But this is a tournament that apparently is not just for fun; Both opponents here sound rather ambitious, and a penetration move is an ambitious move not made to make the game more entertaining but to make it shorter by means of winning quickly.

This (the point of ambition vs fun) is the only valid point for debate here in my humble opinion.
If we (you, really as I claim no authority here but that would somehow sound impolite) try imposing rules (thus limiting the possible exploits and in turn enabling counter-exploits of the disabled exploits), things quickly get very, very un-clear and it could happen that suddenly everyone who loses a match starts claiming enemy moves were an exploit. Take note of the word "enemy".
Therefore, I think you should decide whether you wish to maintain this as a honor-code bound just-for-fun tournament or as an "I am a better player than you" tournament.
The former would be much more fun to play but it would also exclude some players as some people just can't "switch off" their competitive urges.
The latter would be much less fun to play but I believe it would also be a very good institution to test EB units for *real* balancing. This is something most mods do not have... And as EB II is currently under development, it will at some point want for an established tournament base for final stat-adjustments. In fact, maybe even EB 1.2 could receive some final re-tuning as a result of this tournament if the EB team is inclined towards this. Not that I doubt that they multiplayer-tested all units - but a large scale tournament is probably more effective at this kind of thing...

So, I must argue for "free-for-all-deathmatch" base rules (meaning none at all apart from unit rosters), even if this proves the Hellenes as not superior and the Romans as unbalanced.

[Phalanx300]

Oh come on --- I emotionally side with the Hellenes here (as always), but putting up "lack of respect" against the Romans... They would not have built an empire that, counting east and west, lasted for roughly a thousand years if they had not been evil, unforgiving, relentless, shameless, gruesome and oppressive to the ultimate possible extent of these characteristics. Not speaking of the individual "Romans" but of the overall exterior behaviour of the political entity, of course. To roman legionaries, it would have been stupid not to kill the enemy when they had the chance to do so; they could simply not afford to allow them to fight another day. If they had let the Samnites do that some time before the Makedonian wars, Italy might have never dominated all of the then known world. Maybe they even did it - *once*, to learn better from the experience.

Stupid to let routing enemies alive? Hellenic warfare was basicly centered around this(at least at earlier times), just one big battle to decide the war. Hunting after routing enemy is barbaric :whip:, and alot of Greek agreed on that, though some did it themselves.


And yeah lack of respect, look at Syracuse, Carthage, Corinth and many other cities(and not just Hellenic ones). Is this how you treat your worthy enemies? :skull:


The penetration maneuvre is, to me, an example of what happens when the opponent is suddenly not an AI player any more. I would resent such a move in a multiplayer match that was carried out really only for the fun. But this is a tournament that apparently is not just for fun; Both opponents here sound rather ambitious, and a penetration move is an ambitious move not made to make the game more entertaining but to make it shorter by means of winning quickly.

Yes, a tournament of Europa Barbarorum. As you probably know, a historically accurate mod. I see no point using unhistorical ways of fighting and basicly exploiting the system when I'm playing EB.:yes:

Maybe others like fighting in such a way but you wont see me playing EB that way.



This (the point of ambition vs fun) is the only valid point for debate here in my humble opinion.
If we (you, really as I claim no authority here but that would somehow sound impolite) try imposing rules (thus limiting the possible exploits and in turn enabling counter-exploits of the disabled exploits), things quickly get very, very un-clear and it could happen that suddenly everyone who loses a match starts claiming enemy moves were an exploit. Take note of the word "enemy".
Therefore, I think you should decide whether you wish to maintain this as a honor-code bound just-for-fun tournament or as an "I am a better player than you" tournament.
The former would be much more fun to play but it would also exclude some players as some people just can't "switch off" their competitive urges.
The latter would be much less fun to play but I believe it would also be a very good institution to test EB units for *real* balancing. This is something most mods do not have... And as EB II is currently under development, it will at some point want for an established tournament base for final stat-adjustments. In fact, maybe even EB 1.2 could receive some final re-tuning as a result of this tournament if the EB team is inclined towards this. Not that I doubt that they multiplayer-tested all units - but a large scale tournament is probably more effective at this kind of thing...

So, I must argue for "free-for-all-deathmatch" base rules (meaning none at all apart from unit rosters), even if this proves the Hellenes as not superior and the Romans as unbalanced.

So basicly when people don't like unhistorical tactics, and basicly exploits of the game then it just means that they think that they are a better player and don't play to have fun?:inquisitive:

[desert]

Stupid to let routing enemies alive? Hellenic warfare was basicly centered around this(at least at earlier times), just one big battle to decide the war. Hunting after routing enemy is barbaric , and alot of Greek agreed on that, though some did it themselves.

Technically, it was more because it is very difficult to chase after an enemy who has thrown off his panoply when you are carrying 60 lbs of bronze armour, shield included.

[Phalanx300]

Ask the Thebans :sweatdrop:.

But yeah, all in all I´m really a fan of Sparta and the way she did things.:idea2:

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

They thought of Greek culture to be inferior to the Roman one, at least so I've heard. And they were a fan of Sparta that is true(the only good thing about a Roman:clown:). Yet them totally destroying Corinth if proof enough for me of their disrespect towards their enemies. And then we also have Carthage:sweatdrop:.

I can't think of a Spartan army totally destroying the city of their enemies(they had enough chances to do so).:whip:

Phalanx300 even Alexander megas raised cities to the ground. I´ve just finished to read the book Graeco-Roman empire(Paul Veyne) where he points that there was never much of an opposition between the romans and Greeks but transculturation and miscigenation. Take for instance the eastern roman empire, it was rather greek than roman in character but yet they called themselves Basileo ton Romeo and as Paul Veyne pointed in the book they thought themselves as the lasting Romans.
Other point that i think it´s cool is the fact when the greeks received their roman citizienship they usually started their letters like this "XXX roman and Athenian".


As for the spartans, the messenians will beg to differ. The spartans controled their territory with an iron fist and even enslaved free greeks.

[desert]

The Spartans lost so many wars it's not even funny.

[Nachtmeister]

(1)Stupid to let routing enemies alive? Hellenic warfare was basicly centered around this(at least at earlier times), just one big battle to decide the war. Hunting after routing enemy is barbaric :whip:, and alot of Greek agreed on that, though some did it themselves.

(2)And yeah lack of respect, look at Syracuse, Carthage, Corinth and many other cities(and not just Hellenic ones). Is this how you treat your worthy enemies? :skull:

(3)Yes, a tournament of Europa Barbarorum. As you probably know, a historically accurate mod. I see no point using unhistorical ways of fighting and basicly exploiting the system when I'm playing EB.:yes:

(4)Maybe others like fighting in such a way but you wont see me playing EB that way.

(5)So basicly when people don't like unhistorical tactics, and basicly exploits of the game then it just means that they think that they are a better player and don't play to have fun?:inquisitive:

(1) *Sigh* Look at what you cited from my post, then look at your reply. I am stating what I consider Roman perspective on the matter in the context of their experience with prior wars (with less "honorable" enemies) and pointing this out explicitly. You are flaming as though I had insulted Hellenic warfare as a whole. And I am nowhere saying that I favour the concept of butchering routing enemies in real life.

(2) Same thing there - they butchered many people who were (no longer) putting up resistance. Your point?

(3) I was trying to point out that at this time you can only have historical accuracy with a code of honour - a thing very very difficult to impose upon tournament participants due to the problems outlined in my last post. And in the long term it will be better to adapt stats to plug such "exploitable holes" in the system wherever possible rather than setting up rules that require constant jury attention (another session of changing phalanx density or warping front armor up to the stars so the PE charge doesn't cut it anymore maybe - or you could fiddle around with the weight/push factor... pro-Roman side, lower phalanx "turn rate" considerably, etc etc).

(4) Probably me neither - at least not on a regular basis as I play EB for infotainment, not glory and oversize genetalia. But that was explicitly not my point in the post you are refering to.

(5) No, it means what I wrote. Honor code / rules = what you and I consider a fun, historically accurate game. In theory at least, for it requires all participants to have the same perception of history.
No honor code / no rules = free-for-all deathmatch, the player with the quicker reflexes and/or the raw stat-wise better army composition wins the game and winning/being the better player is what it's all about when you are playing without rules.

Look, I'm just trying to contribute what I consider sound reasoning for a concept that *works*...
And if in the battle that started this actually three or four units of PE were needed to break one phalanx - then I'd say that by unit ratios it would not even be really unbalanced. Or do three units of PE cost less than one phalanx...? In that case, in order to prevent PE-spamming, the Roman unit Roster could be expanded to include locals from the area owned by Rome by the time of the Makedonian wars?

Desert's point about chasing routers is fairly accurately represented by the game imho - infantry is basically useless at it ('cept unarmored psiloi, but they don't chuck up kills - and Spartans ^^).

[Βελισάριος]

Alright, that's enough!

Any more of this Romans were barbarians with no respect for their enemies/ Hellenes were shield-tossing cowards nonsense is liable to get someone banned from the tournament.

If you want to have an argument, take it outside.

For now, Nachtmeister, danke for your input on the matter of the "penetration" exploit, I think you phrased it better than anyone else so far.
And, by my reasoning, this tournament is rather competitive, but also -and primarily- for fun. Which is why I am now inclined to vote against this exploit.

Once again, thank you, and everyone else, get back on topic with some constructive arguments or else let the jury do their business :whip:

[antisocialmunky]

The Roman Infantry are about 66% of what they should actually cost. Pedites Extraordinary should cost about 3K if they were Greek. In 1 on 1 against any phalangite close to that cost they will lose. However, when I pile 9K in Greek money on a unit that costs anywhere from 2K-4K, well then. I've been throwing 6K(closer to 7.5K with the wedge tip of Principles) of Roman money at a 2K unit. Why don't you spend some money and effort to defeat that rather than expecting a normal unit that is outnumbered by about 3 to fend for itself? I'm throwing literally 1/6rd of my money at 1/20th of your money.

If the new rules kick in I'll only be able to use a max of 2. That makes it more than possible to block a breaching attempt with some Agrianians. Reduce your frontage and increase your thickness and buy some Agrianians to reenforce. However, if we do the new rules with the new restrictions we've been playing around with, its not really feasable to do something like this since you won't be able to have crack troops and elite infantry. And while the Greeks will be fielding levies they will have some extra money left over for some infantry elites.

Have you guys actually bothered playing this online and trying to counter it or are you sicking Pedites on the poor AI? :-p

Hey if you want to see an exploit. Marian Cohorts + Defense Mode + Walk behind phalangites is priceless.

BTW- I'm onboard for this if we enact the new ruleset with the 35k limit, unit type ratios, Italian allied legions, and people can't do any type of run through unless they are trying to retreat horses away. The other day, someone tried to run a whole Roman legion through 3 of my hoplites so I had to do the frowned upon Macedonian Gymastics and polevaulting.

[satalexton]

Romans ARE barbarians. Spartans are warlike civilized people theat LIKE to KILL barbarians.

[IrishHitman]

The Roman Infantry are about 66% of what they should actually cost. Pedites Extraordinary should cost about 3K if they were Greek. In 1 on 1 against any phalangite close to that cost they will lose. However, when I pile 9K in Greek money on a unit that costs anywhere from 2K-4K, well then. I've been throwing 6K(closer to 7.5K with the wedge tip of Principles) of Roman money at a 2K unit. Why don't you spend some money and effort to defeat that rather than expecting a normal unit that is outnumbered by about 3 to fend for itself? I'm throwing literally 1/6rd of my money at 1/20th of your money.

If the new rules kick in I'll only be able to use a max of 2. That makes it more than possible to block a breaching attempt with some Agrianians. Reduce your frontage and increase your thickness and buy some Agrianians to reenforce. However, if we do the new rules with the new restrictions we've been playing around with, its not really feasable to do something like this since you won't be able to have crack troops and elite infantry. And while the Greeks will be fielding levies they will have some extra money left over for some infantry elites.

Have you guys actually bothered playing this online and trying to counter it or are you sicking Pedites on the poor AI? :-p

Hey if you want to see an exploit. Marian Cohorts + Defense Mode + Walk behind phalangites is priceless.

BTW- I'm onboard for this if we enact the new ruleset with the 35k limit, unit type ratios, Italian allied legions, and people can't do any type of run through unless they are trying to retreat horses away. The other day, someone tried to run a whole Roman legion through 3 of my hoplites so I had to do the frowned upon Macedonian Gymastics and polevaulting.

It's not that I can't counter the penetration exploit.
The problem is that it is ahistoric, counteracting it means more expense when the Greeks are already strapped for cash, and its success rate even with countermeasures is still very high.

[Phalanx300]

Phalanx300 even Alexander megas raised cities to the ground. I´ve just finished to read the book Graeco-Roman empire(Paul Veyne) where he points that there was never much of an opposition between the romans and Greeks but transculturation and miscigenation. Take for instance the eastern roman empire, it was rather greek than roman in character but yet they called themselves Basileo ton Romeo and as Paul Veyne pointed in the book they thought themselves as the lasting Romans.
Other point that i think it´s cool is the fact when the greeks received their roman citizienship they usually started their letters like this "XXX roman and Athenian".

Yes, and thats the reason that I don't like Alexander.


As for the spartans, the messenians will beg to differ. The spartans controled their territory with an iron fist and even enslaved free greeks.

Yes, and afterwards they were acting as the keepers of freedom in Greece, attacking states with tyrants.

And it are the same Messenians who would rise to arms to defend Sparta, as weird as it may seems many would still choose to fight for Sparta if it were there own choice.


The Spartans lost so many wars it's not even funny.

And I gues the Romans won all there wars and battles?:clown:




(1) *Sigh* Look at what you cited from my post, then look at your reply. I am stating what I consider Roman perspective on the matter in the context of their experience with prior wars (with less "honorable" enemies) and pointing this out explicitly. You are flaming as though I had insulted Hellenic warfare as a whole. And I am nowhere saying that I favour the concept of butchering routing enemies in real life.

I'm not flaming at all.


(2) Same thing there - they butchered many people who were (no longer) putting up resistance. Your point?

That it isn't the way to treat your enemies?


(3) I was trying to point out that at this time you can only have historical accuracy with a code of honour - a thing very very difficult to impose upon tournament participants due to the problems outlined in my last post. And in the long term it will be better to adapt stats to plug such "exploitable holes" in the system wherever possible rather than setting up rules that require constant jury attention (another session of changing phalanx density or warping front armor up to the stars so the PE charge doesn't cut it anymore maybe - or you could fiddle around with the weight/push factor... pro-Roman side, lower phalanx "turn rate" considerably, etc etc).

Not really, it would be a matter of house rules.


(4) Probably me neither - at least not on a regular basis as I play EB for infotainment, not glory and oversize genetalia. But that was explicitly not my point in the post you are refering to.

Exactly, for entertainment. And if things aren't Historical and we don't like those things I think we're free to speak right?


(5) No, it means what I wrote. Honor code / rules = what you and I consider a fun, historically accurate game. In theory at least, for it requires all participants to have the same perception of history.
No honor code / no rules = free-for-all deathmatch, the player with the quicker reflexes and/or the raw stat-wise better army composition wins the game and winning/being the better player is what it's all about when you are playing without rules.

So you are impying that such a oversuccesfull formation was actually practical and used?


and Spartans ^^.

Then its to bad that there laws forbade them to do so.:beam:



Romans ARE barbarians. Spartans are warlike civilized people theat LIKE to KILL barbarians.

Indeed:2thumbsup:.

[miotas]

We should add a note about this in the first post of the analysis thread...


The replays are saved as RTW replay files, you have to save the replay file in the [Rome:Total War]/EB/replays folder (you can create it if it isn't there yet), then start singleplayer EB, Load Game -> Load battle replay and select your replay.

sorry to get a bit off topic here but i would just like to point out that it is a folder called "replays" not a folder called "replays folder", might seem obvious to some but it caught me out for a minute 'till i figured it out.

[Dutchhoplite]

The best thing is that the Macedonians were considered barbarians themselves :)

[Phalanx300]

The best thing is that the Macedonians were considered barbarians themselves :)

Yes they were, though it was ment more as a insult then as a hard fact. I mean who would want barbarians to participate in the Olympic games?:2thumbsup:

[IrishHitman]

Yes they were, though it was ment more as a insult then as a hard fact. I mean who would want barbarians to participate in the Olympic games?:2thumbsup:

1. Are you on twcenter?
2. Do you want to play a game?

[miotas]

I'm not anything close to an expert on the subject but wouldn't a more realistic army composition be, well, more realistic. Weren't roman armies basically 50-50 romans and allied soldiers, plus a few skirmishers and much less horsemen, I mean munky had 7 princepes and 4 triarii and your worried about about the realism of a penetration maneuver? I doubt would have been as effective if his entire army hadn't been heavy infantry. Maybe with more allies some skirmisher units and trading out some of his heavy infantry for light infantry there would be a more realistic battle.

Just my 2 cents. I just watched the replay, sorry to be so slow.

Also, is there a way to have the ui in a battle replay, it would have been easier to follow with a minimap

[Tolg]

sorry to get a bit off topic here but i would just like to point out that it is a folder called "replays" not a folder called "replays folder", might seem obvious to some but it caught me out for a minute 'till i figured it out.

Perhaps I should have said
"[Rome: Total War]/EB/replays" folder. Though the way I phrased it was actually clear as well.


The replays are saved as RTW replay files, you have to save the replay file in the "[Rome:Total War]/EB/replays folder"

doesn't make any sense after all.

_____________________________________________________________

On Topic:

In fact most rules are more part of a "code of honour" than real rules. That is because the jury has no way to determine if - for example - illegal weapon upgrades were used (unless there's someone out there who can decode .rpy files for us (the replays aren't videos but lists which exact information on the orders give by both players. the engine then fights a battle with both players being AI controlled and doing exactly what you did in the original battle.)). All we can do is check the battle for illegal units and plausibility (a unit of Akontistai massacring a unit of Cohors Reformata in melee would indicate illegal upgrades) for everything else we have to rely on the player's sportsmanship.

[Nachtmeister]

@Phalanx300:
(1)Ok, so you're not flaming, then I misread your first quoting reply to my post.
(2)Never said it wasn't so.
(3)I see that we concede each other's points where we are not "talking past each other's arguments". Somehow we are not really getting the thing about competitive vs fun play straight, but never mind. You want house rules, go house rules. Great if it works out.
(4)Did I ever say something infringing your freedom of speech/writing?! If so, I was certainly misunderstood.
(5)ARGH. No again; "oversuccessful" is an interesting word-combination though. I mean that depending on what you know about history you have a different perception of what sort of manoeuvres are feasible and what sort of manoeuvres are not. For instance, someone with no idea about phalanxes would also think that about-facing should not be difficult at all.
What I am saying is that the "historical accuracy" issue can theoretically be pursued ad absurdum. It will be as soon as two players disagree about history because they have different educational backgrounds. I hope this is now clarified.

@miotas:
I totally agree with you on this. The roster on the EB site alone is insufficient and unrealistic for Polybians and Camillans. In fact the Roman armies would become less unrealistically "cheap" if they were rule-bound to have a realistic component of *non-roman-native* allies.

[Tolg]

I totally agree with you on this. The roster on the EB site alone is insufficient and unrealistic for Polybians and Camillans. In fact the Roman armies would become less unrealistically "cheap" if they were rule-bound to have a realistic component of *non-roman-native* allies.

Feel free to make an improved unit list, of course this would have to be done for all factions (or at least all factions would have to be rechecked), than we can decide whether to use it or not.

[Cambyses]

They thought of Greek culture to be inferior to the Roman one, at least so I've heard. And they were a fan of Sparta that is true(the only good thing about a Roman:clown:). Yet them totally destroying Corinth if proof enough for me of their disrespect towards their enemies. And then we also have Carthage:sweatdrop:.

I can't think of a Spartan army totally destroying the city of their enemies(they had enough chances to do so).:whip:


The fall of Plataea?

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Greek and Roman cultures were essentially the same. Even the Greeks, when most of them were subjugated peacefully (with the exception of Corinth and a few other incidents) saw the Romans as saviours from Makedonian tyranny, and would rather be ruled by anything else other than them. Of course, Rome was a powerful Republic with a capable army, so they thought better protectin would be given to them if they submitted to the Romans.

[antisocialmunky]

Well they changed their minds a few years later and tried to ask the Seleucids to kick the Romans out. This resulted in the Romans sailing across the sea and doing ungood things to them.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

Well they changed their minds a few years later and tried to ask the Seleucids to kick the Romans out. This resulted in the Romans sailing across the sea and doing ungood things to them.

True. But later the greeks felt like part of the roman empire. For most historians this happened after the II a.d for other at the III a.d. I´ve just read a book (Graeco-Roman empire) that says that in Greece people begin to think that the roman empire was going to spread hellenism for all over the world. But mostly this book points that there was no Rome x Greece rather Rome and Greece. As you can see i love both romans and greeks and their civilization.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

The Roman Empire did spread Hellenism over the whole world. This is a fact, and the Greeks were right.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

The Roman Empire did spread Hellenism over the whole world. This is a fact, and the Greeks were right.

Indeed they are