Syracusan Hoplites

[dragoon47]

I was wondering about the animation for the Syracusan hoplites. It says in the description that they used their longer spears in an underhand fashion which I would see as similar to the Roman spear auxilia in vanilla Rome. Am I understanding the description wrong, engine limitations, or was there a less obvious reason for the overhand spear animation?

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

It may be that the plan changed while the unit was begin fixed. Or it could be that the unit shares a model with a Carthaginian unit that uses the overhand animation and therefore would also have to use that animation.

[Watchman]

They modelshare with the Liby-Phoenicians IIRC.

[dragoon47]

Ahh, ok thanks for the help guys.

[abou]

To be honest, the Syracusan Hoplites will not be appearing in EB2 they way they did in EB1 - assuming they will be in the game at all.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Never noticed the problem with their animation - Most likely because I rarely ever field or encounter them at all.

[antisocialmunky]

To be honest, the Syracusan Hoplites will not be appearing in EB2 they way they did in EB1.

I hope that you fix all the hoplites so they act like hoplites instead of backpedalling legionaires that take forever to kill.

[vartan]

To be honest, the Syracusan Hoplites will not be appearing in EB2 they way they did in EB1 - assuming they will be in the game at all.

Why would Syrakousai Hoplitai not appear in EBII? That's sad to hear; I love the unit. :sad:

[Celtic_Punk]

same. I love classical hoplites in general, they look so cool formed up in my gigantic armies of thousands of them. :smash: love em

[abou]

The unit was originally conceived by a member of the team who is no longer active. He's a very respected former member so at the time we took his word for it, but we haven't been able to verify much in the way of evidence for the unit as conceived and he did not provide any at the time. As far as we can tell, there isn't any overt difference from the way the hoplites of Syracuse fought compared to, say, the hoplites of Athens.

[athanaric]

And that is why historians always have to provide evidence for the stuff they do...
It is a pity though. I hope the Syracusan hoplites' beautiful models (particularly the shields) will be reused in some way for some other hoplite type in EB II.

[Phalanx300]

The unit was originally conceived by a member of the team who is no longer active. He's a very respected former member so at the time we took his word for it, but we haven't been able to verify much in the way of evidence for the unit as conceived and he did not provide any at the time. As far as we can tell, there isn't any overt difference from the way the hoplites of Syracuse fought compared to, say, the hoplites of Athens.

I gues we can conclude from that that Syracuse wont be a faction? :shame: Really looks that way when we see alot of EB members saying they wont stay the same or wont be there at all which wouldn't be said if it would be a confirmed faction for you guys. :skull:

[bobbin]

I gues we can conclude from that that Syracuse wont be a faction? :shame: Really looks that way when we see alot of EB members saying they wont stay the same or wont be there at all which wouldn't be said if it would be a confirmed faction for you guys. :skull:

Don't know how your getting that idea, they're talking about a specific unit which seems to have some issues with its sources not a whole faction.

That said I have never believed Syrakousai would be a faction so I wouldn't be too bothered if it was absent.

[Phalanx300]

Don't know how your getting that idea, they're talking about a specific unit which seems to have some issues with its sources not a whole faction.

That said I have never believed Syrakousai would be a faction so I wouldn't be too bothered if it was absent.

Syracuse faction - Syracusian Hoplites.

See my point? :inquisitive:

[Watchman]

Syracuse faction - Syracusian Hoplites.

See my point? :inquisitive:wat

[Bucefalo]

There could be a Syrakousai faction that uses the same Hoplites as of the koinon hellenon.

[Phalanx300]

There could be a Syrakousai faction that uses the same Hoplites as of the koinon hellenon.

Would be weird to have a rebel people with more unique units then a new faction right? :inquisitive:

[bobbin]

Syracuse faction - Syracusian Hoplites.

See my point? :inquisitive:

I do but i don't think you see mine, no Syracusian hoplites doesnt mean no Syracuse it just means that particular unit might not be in (due to the problems with the sources for it).

[moonburn]

so the skin would still remain they would just tweak the unit into a regular hoplite

altough i believe a syracuse massillian alliance would rock with permanent stone forts to show that neither massillia nor syrace controled their regions but only their city´s and to have effective control of the region either bribe the rebels in the psf or conquer them :juggle2:

this reminds me can psf rebel ?? i mean seriously if they are to depict smaller cities they should be able to rebel to your cause :X

ofc one would have to have 2 bars about public order one in the main city and one in the surrounding area (region)

[Phalanx300]

I do but i don't think you see mine, no Syracusian hoplites doesnt mean no Syracuse it just means that particular unit might not be in (due to the problems with the sources for it).

I understand that. But thats like having a Spartan faction without having Spartan Hoplites.

[abou]

Dude, it's a Greek city state; what do you expect? The standard hoplite wouldn't be any different from any other. Do you think the Successors should have different standard phalangites just because they're different states?

[antisocialmunky]

They do have different 'standard' phalangites... the only one they all share are the Pezheteroi which are rather highend units. Bad example?

But yeah the point is that the Greek City hoplites were very similar and differed only in name only. I rather get a realistic pushing hoplite phalanx rather than work on an underhanded hoplite spear animation.

[abou]

I think underhand will probably very quickly disappear from the majority of units still using it in EB1. I posted this a while back for those of you who haven't seen it: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=116254

[antisocialmunky]

What underhand spears are there besides those for the ('pseudo) phalanx units like Phalangites, Iph. Hoplites, Alpine Phalanx, German Phalanx, and other units like those are in EB1?

[abou]

Last I checked there were a couple - some of the levies for the Celts too. It's been a while since I've actually played the game so I can't remember them all off hand. Why, don't you play the game?

[antisocialmunky]

I do, I've just never used them I guess :-p.

[athanaric]

Many Arab, Alpine, Germanic and Celtic units use underhand spears in EB I. Generally speaking, alll tribal militia units and spear-equipped skirmishers use underhand spears.

[Watchman]

As do the majority of "middleweight" spear-carrying types all over the map, from assorted Celts and Africans to assorted Easterners and Arabs to assorted Indians.

[Phalanx300]

Many Arab, Alpine, Germanic and Celtic units use underhand spears in EB I. Generally speaking, alll tribal militia units and spear-equipped skirmishers use underhand spears.

Yes, only exception for the Germanics is the Gaut spearmen from Scandinavia and the Celtic-Germanic spearmen.

Would make sense for all spearmen to go overhand (except those who clearly didn't like pikemen and speude Phalanxes) if it clearly overs an advantage with underhand. In one on one combat I'm a bit unsure what would give you an advantage, seems to me that both would be usefull.

[Watchman]

In one-on-one and diverse special situations (countering cavalry springs to mind) warriors doubtless switched between the two as needed, but for overall mass combat in close order one would assume overhand was by and large preferred - if only because it rather cut down on accidentally broken noses and poked eyes in the rear ranks. AFAIK in thin lines the rear-rankers can use the underhand style, held quite high at around shoulder level, to stab quite effectively past and between the front-rankers, but obviously even trying to depict this kind of situation-dependent detail under the various limitations of the engine is a *rather* stillborn idea...

BTW, don't the infantry of both sides mainly wield their spears overarm in the Bayeux Tapestry ? Not really all *that* relevant as such, but shieldwall is shieldwall...

[Aulus_Hirtius]

In one-on-one and diverse special situations (countering cavalry springs to mind) warriors doubtless switched between the two as needed, but for overall mass combat in close order one would assume overhand was by and large preferred - if only because it rather cut down on accidentally broken noses and poked eyes in the rear ranks. AFAIK in thin lines the rear-rankers can use the underhand style, held quite high at around shoulder level, to stab quite effectively past and between the front-rankers

I'm not quite sure that I follow this from a practicality standpoint. It seems rather ineffective to hold a spear underhanded at shoulder level since it would be unstable and has limited range of motion. Also, wouldn't the underhanded spear be the style that reduced upper body friendly casualties?

[Watchman]

I'm not quite sure that I follow this from a practicality standpoint. It seems rather ineffective to hold a spear underhanded at shoulder level since it would be unstable and has limited range of motion.Your "angles of attack" are pretty darn limited if you're stabbing past your mate from the second rank anyway, making the point somewhat moot. From what I've read of Viking re-enactors and such, in thin (two-rank) shieldwall formations at least shoulder-height horizontal thrusts with an underhand grip work plenty well.

Also, wouldn't the underhanded spear be the style that reduced upper body friendly casualties?How so ? Depending on the exact height you're wielding your spear in, with the underhand there's kind of an obvious risk of jabbing the guy behind you anywhere from the groin to the face with the spear-butt. Which is particularly inadvisable if you have one of those pointy metal butt-ferrules, nevermind now the big sorts that can double as spare spearheads in a pinch like the hoplites had.
Overhand by and large avoids this as the spear is held fairly high and with the tip "hanging", so the butt points at the sky in a vector passing safely above your mates' noggins.

[antisocialmunky]

In one-on-one and diverse special situations (countering cavalry springs to mind) warriors doubtless switched between the two as needed, but for overall mass combat in close order one would assume overhand was by and large preferred - if only because it rather cut down on accidentally broken noses and poked eyes in the rear ranks. AFAIK in thin lines the rear-rankers can use the underhand style, held quite high at around shoulder level, to stab quite effectively past and between the front-rankers, but obviously even trying to depict this kind of situation-dependent detail under the various limitations of the engine is a *rather* stillborn idea...

BTW, don't the infantry of both sides mainly wield their spears overarm in the Bayeux Tapestry ? Not really all *that* relevant as such, but shieldwall is shieldwall...

Does the MII shield wall animation allow you to modify the animations for the first couple ranks like pikewall or no?

[Aulus_Hirtius]

It was your remark about stabbing that threw me off since as you later clarified it would seem to be more of an underhanded thrust. I agree on the second point about the elevation and angle of the spear and clearly the overhand style would be preferable for minimizing accidents overall, though unlike a low elevation underhand style such accidents would be on the upper part of the body (though I admittedly don't have any sources for this.)

[Phalanx300]

I found this interesting video of some people portraying Gallic one on one combat with the shield and spear, very interesting how they do it and they also show that with overhand sparring is possible. This kind of fighting would also apply for Germanics and Hoplites (though Hoplites with the Butt point to make a deadlier spear) and others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY3GtNoxAdM&feature=channel_page

[bobbin]

On watching that video one of the benefits of the overhand position i hadn't thought of becomes clear, your more likely to land a hit as the spear is coming down along the length of the body so there's a still a chance of hitting the legs of your opponent if you miss the upper body and the thrust is harder to evade. If the underhand postion is used the spear is striking perpendicular to the opponents body and so is much easier to dodge.

[keravnos]

I found this interesting video of some people portraying Gallic one on one combat with the shield and spear, very interesting how they do it and they also show that with overhand sparring is possible. This kind of fighting would also apply for Germanics and Hoplites (though Hoplites with the Butt point to make a deadlier spear) and others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY3GtNoxAdM&feature=channel_page

Great find! Thank you Phallanx300! :2thumbsup:

[darius_d]

If any conclusions could be made from this interesting video, then both overhand and underhand gripss were applicable in a free fighting mode (edit: not when in shieldwall, etc).

As you can see when they fight with shields, they use underhand from above a head equally often as overhand.

Perhaps this is the answer - at least about Gallic / tribal warfare with a spear - animation shall include both type of grip.

[Watchman]

...except AFAIK those guys usually fought in a shieldwall, or something very close to it, too. It's a pretty natural tactic with massed spears, especially for low-end warriors who definitely need the whole "mutual support" aspect.

[tls5669]

Dude, it's a Greek city state; what do you expect? The standard hoplite wouldn't be any different from any other. Do you think the Successors should have different standard phalangites just because they're different states?



What about Massilia?