The Phalanx and Moral

[Stycks]

Always wondered if phalangites should get that "scare enemy" type bonus....
i mean, of all the units that would scare me, a row of thousands of uberly long pikes pointed at me would scare me more than seeing a roman legion (at least them i can actually go man to man)

just a thought...
but yeah...
it would also make players reconsider ahistorically attacking phalanxes head on with units that have low morale (ive been doing the whole pin the phalanx with 99 cent store units and stabbing them in the back with my better units) :sweatdrop:

also, this would actually reinforce the fact that NO ONE (infantry or cavalry) would willingly charge into a wall of pikes without actually reconsidering their commanders decision (unless of course they also had long pointy sticks), even the romans never won against a phalanx head on. :wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

and finally, this would make the phalanx the lethal force it was! as is right now, its a mobile wall so ur other troops can attack the enemy from behind. but from what i remember reading, most of the diadochi armies had phalanx units in such numbers and other troops in almost negligible numbers (except dirt cheap skirmishers) that it was the phalanx that decided most battles.:wall:

once again...
just a thought :sweatdrop:

[DaciaJC]

and finally, this would make the phalanx the lethal force it was!

It's as powerful as it needs to be; some argue that is overpowered. Considering that many people use a large number (often constituting a majority) of phalangites in their armies, enemies could very well rout on first contact if the phalanx is given the scare bonus.

I'll leave others to debate the historical basis of phalanxes being "scary", which I think was simply not the case.

[Apázlinemjó]

If you check which units have the "scare" trait, you will find the elephants, chariots, drugged naked swordmen, naked spearmen and the mercenary half naked axemen. They are special units, not regular ones.

Now if you give this trait to the pikemen, then the well armored heavy cavalry and archers such as Cretans should get it too, because they were as much fearful as the phalanxes. Also the Imperial legionaries would have it too, because by the time the Augustan reforms happen, Rome is a superpower with her feared legions. And the whole game would need a rebalance too.

So I think it's a bad idea.

[Ca Putt]

as Phalanxes often have superior numbers it does occur that lesser units actually flee if they get too close. tho this has to be a pretty desperate situation I have to admit that it happened to me at least twice(I know this should not happen but it was part of my plan :laugh4::laugh4: )
apart from that this "fear aura" would also affect units flanking a phalanx, and well I think there are few things(for a melee fighter) that are less negative for moral than attacking a horde of guys that cant hit back because they have their sarrisas pointed in the opposite direction ;)

but if it would be implemented I would like to give phalanxes 2-3 shield :clown:

[ARCHIPPOS]

I can't complain either...

the other day i was playing against an AS halfstack army ravaging my Baktrian lands (hard battle difficulty)...those guys had 2 units of argyraspides with them + 2Xmercenary pezetairoi ... so i move my 3Xpantodapoi phalangites pinning battleline forth and my cavalry, skirmishers and mercenary axemen in flanking positions and guess what??? 10" after making contact with the AS argyraspides my pantodapoi pikemen rout!!! :oops:

[Megas Methuselah]

...but from what i remember reading, most of the diadochi armies had phalanx units in such numbers and other troops in almost negligible numbers (except dirt cheap skirmishers) that it was the phalanx that decided most battles.:wall:


Gathering from what I've read here in the EB Forums, it was this large ratio of phalanxes in diadochi armies that allowed their downfall on the battlefield.

[Macilrille]

Always wondered if phalangites should get that "scare enemy" type bonus....
i mean, of all the units that would scare me, a row of thousands of uberly long pikes pointed at me would scare me more than seeing a roman legion (at least them i can actually go man to man)

But would you want to?

Republican Romans were IMO the most brutal race of antiquity, now imagine facing them, knowing that they will slaughter your civilians and survivors if you loose.

-First volleys of Pila, which were very effective and had much longer range than a Sarrisa.

-Second your disorganised ranks (provided you survive the Pila meet a wall of men whose main tactic seem to be low stance covering behind a large shield, opening your shield with theirs and stabbing you in the gut. Gut wounds are the absolute worst injuries, they equalled slow, agonising death even in WWII.

You sure you want to go against these?

Give me a Phalanx opponent any day, at least you can outmaneuvre them.

[Weebeast]

I think scariness in reality should not be translated directly into the one we have in game. It's just there for varieties and allow options. If you look at all scary units, they have a weakness that is dying too quick from missiles or whatever it is the obvious counter. Phalangites are just too tough to be scary. That's like having an elephant unit of 25 and not vulnerable to missiles. Alexander the Great had to do more than just scare people with pezhetairoi. He had to lead many cavalry charges. Well he didn't have to personally but you catch my drift. Also in game one may isolate the phalanx from the bulk of army but that's more of AI issue, not phalanx. You can't do that against human.

[satalexton]

Republican Romans were IMO the most brutal race of antiquity


:clown:

Phalangitai are either greeks or hellenized people. Only the barbaric/insane/intoxicated should get the "scare enemy unit" trait. For that I propose that the Roman units to have such trait instead.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

If you check which units have the "scare" trait, you will find the elephants, chariots, drugged naked swordmen, naked spearmen and the mercenary half naked axemen. They are special units, not regular ones.

Now if you give this trait to the pikemen, then the well armored heavy cavalry and archers such as Cretans should get it too, because they were as much fearful as the phalanxes. Also the Imperial legionaries would have it too, because by the time the Augustan reforms happen, Rome is a superpower with her feared legions. And the whole game would need a rebalance too.

So I think it's a bad idea.

totally agree

[antisocialmunky]

Scary is way overpowered. Its range is ridiculous. Yes, 1 unit of naked spearmen scare the whole enemy army unless you're playing 2vs2 HUGE. -_-'

[abou]

The effect of the phalanx on the enemy was really quite pronounced. If you analyze the battles of Rome against the other Hellenistic powers you see a number of things come to light.

We know that after Pydna, L. Aemilius Paulus was stated to have nightmares of pikes and Livius' description of the battle gives the impression of much higher casualties than he actually reported.

At Magnesia, it doesn't even seem as though the Roman infantry came into contact with the pike phalanx, which had rather quickly formed itself into a block realizing it's left flank was compromised. It was the Romans' ability to frighten the elephants that did the trick. Even then, it seems that the Argyraspides on the right might have been successful against the Romans there.

At Thermopylai, the phalanx held off Roman advances time and time again until the rear guard of Aitolians ran from their emplacements allowing Cato the Elder to appear in the rear.

The fighting at Kynoskephalai is another example. The Makedonian right was putting up a tough fight, which would likely have resulted in victory if not for a Roman assault on the flank. But, those Roman forces didn't suddenly appear because of superior mobility: they managed to assault an unprepared Makedonian left wing and chase them off. Any enemy would buckle at an attack from the flank regardless of perceived flexibility (i.e. Pharsalus).

The point is that when met head-on the phalanx could usually push an enemy back. For the Romans, they were given a number of opportunities, but would do their best to avoid the phalanx straight on unless such opportunities presented themselves (e.g. routing of the Seleukid cavalry at Magnesia, rough ground at Pydna).

And as to Roman brutality, lets not sell the Makedonians short either.

[The General]

Gathering from what I've read here in the EB Forums, it was this large ratio of phalanxes in diadochi armies that allowed their downfall on the battlefield.

Indeed; it's very expensive to wield heavy cavalry and infantry units such as Hetairoi and Hypaspists, not even talk about Cataphracts and elephants, whereas a pike is relatively cheap to produce. Now, imagine over a hundred years' worth of almost continual conflicts and their toll on the national coffers.

[antisocialmunky]

The effect of the phalanx on the enemy was really quite pronounced. If you analyze the battles of Rome against the other Hellenistic powers you see a number of things come to light.

We know that after Pydna, L. Aemilius Paulus was stated to have nightmares of pikes and Livius' description of the battle gives the impression of much higher casualties than he actually reported.

At Magnesia, it doesn't even seem as though the Roman infantry came into contact with the pike phalanx, which had rather quickly formed itself into a block realizing it's left flank was compromised. It was the Romans' ability to frighten the elephants that did the trick. Even then, it seems that the Argyraspides on the right might have been successful against the Romans there.

At Thermopylai, the phalanx held off Roman advances time and time again until the rear guard of Aitolians ran from their emplacements allowing Cato the Elder to appear in the rear.

The fighting at Kynoskephalai is another example. The Makedonian right was putting up a tough fight, which would likely have resulted in victory if not for a Roman assault on the flank. But, those Roman forces didn't suddenly appear because of superior mobility: they managed to assault an unprepared Makedonian left wing and chase them off. Any enemy would buckle at an attack from the flank regardless of perceived flexibility (i.e. Pharsalus).

The point is that when met head-on the phalanx could usually push an enemy back. For the Romans, they were given a number of opportunities, but would do their best to avoid the phalanx straight on unless such opportunities presented themselves (e.g. routing of the Seleukid cavalry at Magnesia, rough ground at Pydna).

And as to Roman brutality, lets not sell the Makedonians short either.

That doesn't justify the fear trait rather that people don't run straight into pikes and pikes can push units by their wall of spear points. They can do this quite well as it is.

[keiskander]

I would say it takes more courage to stand fast against cavalry that charges at you in full speed then facing a phalanx unit or a cohort. The impact is more sevear then an infantry clash some people just ran away when full heavy cavalry made a charge against their lines. "Ofcourse ellies aswell"

[abou]

That doesn't justify the fear trait rather that people don't run straight into pikes and pikes can push units by their wall of spear points. They can do this quite well as it is.

That wasn't what I was justifying. I was attempting to put things into perspective. We aren't going to be adding an intimidation trait to the pike phalanxes in EB.

[Phalanx300]

I would say it takes more courage to stand fast against cavalry that charges at you in full speed then facing a phalanx unit or a cohort. The impact is more sevear then an infantry clash some people just ran away when full heavy cavalry made a charge against their lines. "Ofcourse ellies aswell"

I agree, I've seen a Horse running towards me once and it was already intimidating, let alone adding someone with a lance on top of that. :skull:


And yes the Romans and the Makedonians were both brutal, can't say so much about the spartans though :clown:.

First they sacrifice a goat and start marching towards you with what seems like unison of the entire line with their men singing their warcries and flutes and drumes playing. (this was apparantly very intimidating to see)

If you decide to face them the battle will be hard, if you run however you can run they wont persue.

I think that was important psycological warfare, since their enemies knew that if they would run they would live, yet if they would stand they could very well die (considering the reputation of the Spartans as well).

[gamegeek2]

I agree, I've seen a Horse running towards me once and it was already intimidating, let alone adding someone with a lance on top of that.

I'm sure with a large spear or pike you feel much more secure. Levies, though, would no doubt be terrified, especially skirmishers.

[ARCHIPPOS]

If you decide to face them the battle will be hard, if you run however you can run they wont persue.

I think that was important psycological warfare, since their enemies knew that if they would run they would live, yet if they would stand they could very well die (considering the reputation of the Spartans as well).

Yep and not only Spartans employed this psychological warfare :beam:

"-Iphicrates never allowed his lines to be broken in the heat of the pursuit. He continually called out to his light-armed troops to beware of ambushes. He also had a general rule, never to press the enemy too hard when they had been routed, if there were any narrow passes or rivers behind them; for if they are hemmed in, they are often forced by desperation to rally and fight again.
-When Iphicrates had forced a fleeing enemy into a narrow pass, he always tried to open a way for them, and give them a chance to escape, without making it necessary for them to force their way out by fighting. He said that there was no reason to compel an enemy to be brave."
(Polyaenus: Stratagems/BOOK 3)

of course you have to remember that Spartan omoioi (=equals) were always very few compared to the manpower of other city-states such as Athens,Thebes and so on... having a demographicaly declining pool of hoplites with which to secure the Lacedaemonian homeland from the helot threat and implement Spartan hegemony throughout Greece ... forces you to drasticaly economise on your forces shall we say???

[Stycks]

The effect of the phalanx on the enemy was really quite pronounced. If you analyze the battles of Rome against the other Hellenistic powers you see a number of things come to light.

We know that after Pydna, L. Aemilius Paulus was stated to have nightmares of pikes and Livius' description of the battle gives the impression of much higher casualties than he actually reported.

At Magnesia, it doesn't even seem as though the Roman infantry came into contact with the pike phalanx, which had rather quickly formed itself into a block realizing it's left flank was compromised. It was the Romans' ability to frighten the elephants that did the trick. Even then, it seems that the Argyraspides on the right might have been successful against the Romans there.

At Thermopylai, the phalanx held off Roman advances time and time again until the rear guard of Aitolians ran from their emplacements allowing Cato the Elder to appear in the rear.

The fighting at Kynoskephalai is another example. The Makedonian right was putting up a tough fight, which would likely have resulted in victory if not for a Roman assault on the flank. But, those Roman forces didn't suddenly appear because of superior mobility: they managed to assault an unprepared Makedonian left wing and chase them off. Any enemy would buckle at an attack from the flank regardless of perceived flexibility (i.e. Pharsalus).

The point is that when met head-on the phalanx could usually push an enemy back. For the Romans, they were given a number of opportunities, but would do their best to avoid the phalanx straight on unless such opportunities presented themselves (e.g. routing of the Seleukid cavalry at Magnesia, rough ground at Pydna).

And as to Roman brutality, lets not sell the Makedonians short either.

My point exactly!:yes:
When facing a phalanx army, most enemy armies would try to outmaneuver them and not attack head on lest they risk facing substantial casualties...
what ive been able to do in some of my battles was run right into a phalanx with low stat troops to pin them....
and this seems very a historical (i tend to use loopholes in the game if it seems taht im loosing)
now, i dont know about the whole programing and in depth stuff, but if theres a way to limit the scare factor then sure i'll stick it on (prob we can add that in EB II)

but for now i'd have to say that only the most disciplined (romans legions) or the most drugged (them naked :daisy: ) should be (and i think historically were) the only ones who can attack a phalanx head on and expect results, not some 99 cent skirmisher unit who wouldnt even charge into one head on (remember most skirmishers were levied and therefore not proffesional disciplined fighters):sweatdrop:

[DaciaJC]

what ive been able to do in some of my battles was run right into a phalanx with low stat troops to pin them....


The phalanx is also able to turn around rather more quickly than was possible in reality. It is difficult to flank a phalanx in EB without having another unit "get pinned" and occupy the phalanx.

[ARCHIPPOS]

but for now i'd have to say that only the most disciplined (romans legions) or the most drugged (them naked buggers) should be (and i think historically were) the only ones who can attack a phalanx head on and expect results, not some 99 cent skirmisher unit who wouldnt even charge into one head on (remember most skirmishers were levied and therefore not proffesional disciplined fighters):sweatdrop:

You forgot to say that another way to counter a phallanx would be with another phallanx :beam: ...

[Ca Putt]

well he certainly was good at avoiding enemies fighting to the death :D

engaging a phalanx head on is already rewarded with loosing your units(and then they flee) and it's not like it's part of any abusing tactic to charge leives into a phalanx head on. off course people(and animals) want to avoid running into a wall of pointy sticks but so do Generals. most generals try to win with the smallest possible casualties thus only very few qwould actually try to charge non elite troops into a phalanx head on. it's a bit like damageing troops over time that stand at a stupid location or texturing a large bullseye on city walls to indicate where to attack, thus extra effort to avoid players(and the AI) acting stupid which have unwanted side effects.

Edit: ok pinning phalanxes with Haploi or the like is sort of abuseing but it's not like they kill the phalanx they rather stand there and attract agression^^. standing in front of a phalanx and trying not to get killed(provided you have a large shield) does take much less courage than actually trying to kill them.

I think we all agree with you that Phalanxes are scary yet imho this would have more negative side effects than It would make gameplay or accuracy better.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

My point exactly!:yes:
When facing a phalanx army, most enemy armies would try to outmaneuver them and not attack head on lest they risk facing substantial casualties...
what ive been able to do in some of my battles was run right into a phalanx with low stat troops to pin them....
and this seems very a historical (i tend to use loopholes in the game if it seems taht im loosing)
now, i dont know about the whole programing and in depth stuff, but if theres a way to limit the scare factor then sure i'll stick it on (prob we can add that in EB II)

but for now i'd have to say that only the most disciplined (romans legions) or the most drugged (them naked :daisy: ) should be (and i think historically were) the only ones who can attack a phalanx head on and expect results, not some 99 cent skirmisher unit who wouldnt even charge into one head on (remember most skirmishers were levied and therefore not proffesional disciplined fighters):sweatdrop:

And the phalanx should not reform so quickly, or to run so quickly (with formation disabled), and they should break in seconds when charged from flanks or rear...

[Apázlinemjó]

And the phalanx should not reform so quickly, or to run so quickly (with formation disabled), and they should break in seconds when charged from flanks or rear...

Well I doubt that the veterans would rout in seconds, but the levies would, I agree.

[GenosseGeneral]

i think all kind of army would be scary, especially for us from today who are not used to it. i mean how many fought at raphia? 70000? just think about thesse sheer masses! a cavalry charge is in EB already impressive, with maybe 400 men charging but think about the charge in real! the thunder, i think you dont just see it but you feel it, you that there are coming hundreds of horses to you... WHO WOULDNT BE SCARED???:dizzy2::dizzy2::dizzy2:

[Apázlinemjó]

i think all kind of army would be scary, especially for us from today who are not used to it. i mean how many fought at raphia? 70000? just think about thesse sheer masses! a cavalry charge is in EB already impressive, with maybe 400 men charging but think about the charge in real! the thunder, i think you dont just see it but you feel it, you that there are coming hundreds of horses to you... WHO WOULDNT BE SCARED???:dizzy2::dizzy2::dizzy2:

And Cannae? Around 120-130 thousand men... it's hard to imagine.

[antisocialmunky]

I have to say that 7000 Seleukid Cataphracts at Magnesia getting run over by their scythed chariots would have been hilarious. I bet the veterans there got a good chuckle out of that and then some.

[antisocialmunky]

OT: I know I shouldn't act like a MOD but this has been really iritating me lately...

Can we stop turning random threads into Spartan wankfests already? They were interesting dudes, we get it.

If you're going to bring them up, atleast keep it on topic. We're talking about Phalanxes and psychological warfare, not about the reasons why military socialism declined in Greece.

< Now back to your regularly scheduled programming >

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Why would the phalanx in EB need the scaring-attribute? The opponent already throws himself brainlessly against the sarissai, dies and routs, so the phalanx basically serves its purpose. Also I think about how difficult it is to get two lines of phalanxes fight each other instead of interrupting senselessly. If two phalanxes with the scaring-attribute meat each other head on, I can imagine guys like Pantodapoi Phalangitai rout after two seconds just because one side's general blows the trumpet. That would be ridiculous. I think phalanxes are quite balanced in EB.

If anything, the height advantage effect should be (drastically) reduced. I'm quite fed up with my Argyraspides getting torn apart by Pantodapoi Phalangitai.

[antisocialmunky]

Height advantage is broken and unmoddable. In those cases, get out of phalanx mode and run for the high ground.

[torongill]

I'm cheating, but against the pezhtaroi all I need to do is form the triarii/spartans in shieldwall , line them 3 deep and plunge in the forest of spears. They take it from there. I know this is cheating, but the problem is that the engine is not very good on pushing. So I use hoplites against them. Maybe against silvershields or the egema, the hoplites would do a poor job. Though it works for the armored hoplites only and only for the shieldwall formation. I wonder what are the bonii of the shieldwall?

[Ludens]

OT: I know I shouldn't act like a MOD but this has been really iritating me lately...

Can we stop turning random threads into Spartan wankfests already? They were interesting dudes, we get it.

If you're going to bring them up, atleast keep it on topic. We're talking about Phalanxes and psychological warfare, not about the reasons why military socialism declined in Greece.

We don't enforce a strict on-topic policy because often spin-off discussions can be just as interesting as the original (unless they are spam, off course). However, if the participants wish it, I can move posts relating to the decline of Sparta to a new thread.

[antisocialmunky]

We don't enforce a strict on-topic policy because often spin-off discussions can be just as interesting as the original (unless they are spam, off course). However, if the participants wish it, I can move posts relating to the decline of Sparta to a new thread.

Well I wasn't intimating that you were, but as you may or mayn ot have noticed, this is like the second or third thread that has meandered this direction of specifics of the late Spartan state.

This has been a trend lately on the EB fora that the same people drag the same topic over multiple threads. So you had a naturally developping thread until someone mentioned "Spartans were known for ....", "Hoplites did....", or even "Romans." Then the thread would be turned into "I believe that the glory days of Sparta ended with those last 8000-9000 Spartan phalangites", "Hoplites did not do that", "Rome sucks, Macedon Rules" etc regardless of previous topic. This is not natural progression of the coversation, its dragging the baggage from a previous thread and pitching camp in a new thread all to the loss of the OP's topic. While this is certainly fine in threads where the conversation has ended, its frustrating when the thread is still going or trying to go on topic but people won't let the original conversation resume.

Of course you're opinion may differ and I'm not commenting on your modding abilities which have been quite good so far.:smash:

EDIT: Nvm, it doesn't seem to be as wide spread as I got the impression that it did. So I guess my intent was to nip this in the bud before it got to Hoplites and Rome Sucks levels. Just ignore my over reaction then.

[Marcus Ulpius]

Phalanx is already a lethal weapon against the clueless AI. I'm in the middle of my Seleucid campaign and I fight wars on every border. As I can't send equal forces against each enemy, I have to play defensively in many places. That means defending towns with cheap Pantodapoi Palangitai and it works wonders. I had I full stack of Catas and armored HA's being sent home packing by 4 nooby phalanx units, some light support and a mercenary general. Giving phalanxes "intimidate" factor would instantly rout most enemies.

Of course it would be fine that the tactic of pinning down the phalanx with some cheap cannon fodder and flanking with heavies would be rendered less effective. After all, I can't believe that poorly trained, undisciplined and unarmored peasants could be forced to throw themselves onto the pikes to allow professional troops to go round the phalanx and do their job. But I don't know how you can make that "intimidation" factor work only on levies and not on professional well equipped units.

[Ludens]

Posts discussing the decline of the Spartans have been moved to this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=121187). Posts responding to those without relating to either topic have been deleted.


EDIT: Nvm, it doesn't seem to be as wide spread as I got the impression that it did. So I guess my intent was to nip this in the bud before it got to Hoplites and Rome Sucks levels. Just ignore my over reaction then.

Judging by several of the deleted posts a few forum members share your opinion, at least on the recurring Spartans. I don't particularly want to enforce strict on-topic rules: that also inhibits potentially interesting discussions. However, if participants let me know when they think an off-topic discussion is taking over a thread that is still in use for the original discussion, I can split the thread.

[king of thracia]

Alexander the Great had to do more than just scare people with pezhetairoi. He had to lead many cavalry charges. Well he didn't have to personally but you catch my drift.

Actually, that's exactly what he did. That's why the Makedon cavalry are called the 'Companions'

[Weebeast]

Actually, that's exactly what he did. That's why the Makedon cavalry are called the 'Companions'

Legolas and Gimli are also part of fellowship to Frodo. Where are you going with this? So phalangite are so scary that they need to be baby sitted? If all he had to do was to scare people with them so why bring companions? To much walking? Nope. He knew no [cavalry] flanking, no skirmisher support, etc means failure.

Also what scary to one individual is different for others so I'm not gonna touch that. For the most part though, war is scary. That is timeless.

[ARCHIPPOS]

Where are you going with this?

I think he meant that Alexander personally lead the cavalry charges ... :yes:

[A Very Super Market]

To be honest a phalanx would only be scary if you were ordered to actually attack it. If you were simply standing around it, I doubt you would feel anything other than a generic fear of battle. Sure, they have long pointy things, but long pointy things aren't exactly exotic. It isn't as if they're riding elephants or swinging both their swords around in circles.

Does there even need to be a "scare factor" added to phalanxes? Attacking them head-on would be pretty scary, and it's exactly the case in EB. Levies will be ineffectual and run, while elites will simply be ineffectual (Unless you do some exploitation).

[Duguntz]

T othat question, i must post my personal opinion, wich i oblige nobody to take... But phalangite are surely very impressive. now are they scary? not. What was scary, for the time, is naked religious fanatics, their body painted pitched black, shouting the names of their 100'ds gods when they jumped in ambuhs in the night, bitting their shield and running ahed no matter what were the chances to die because anyway they were druged and felt no pain... that was scary. do not confond scary AND impressive!

that was only the opinion of a Sweboz dedicated fan! :2thumbsup:

[seienchin]

I modified the units in Eb a little bit. Especially the phalanx. They are easier to kill, but also kill more enemies , which also causes a little bit more fear. Why dont you try it out?