Greece's Battle tiles

[Celtic_Punk]

Now, I do admit, I've never been to Greece. I wont pretend it. However, why are 90% of the battle tiles in Greece so hilly? I know its famous for hills and uneven land (probably why they are not famous for cavalry...) I'm sure the country has some fields, especially since the main form of warfare is so dependent on flat land. Why in the world would armies be marching and battling in ridiculously hilly land thats covered in forests? Why would Makedonia be marching their phalangites through these forests, and choosing to engage me in them? Are there specific tiles, or areas that are "wargrounds" of some kind? or are these tiles randomly generated? Those of you who know me, know I dearly love this mod... But this has been eating at me for some time...

[Ludens]

The tiles are generated on the basis of the campaign map; AFAIK modders can't even influence them beyond changing the map.

Personally, I think R:TW's battle maps are a big step back from M1:TW. Even when they aren't a giant slope or a giant forest, they are still dominated by a single feature and that makes them bland. M2:TW is an improvement in that there are smaller and more subtle terrain features you can use. Sadly, I only played campaign in relatively flat, unforested areas so I do not know if the giant-slope/forest map is still there. I do recall one or two giant-slope maps, but these were still more interesting than in R:TW.

[Paltmull]

I've been thinking of this too; not with so much connection to RTW or EB though. Southern Greece is very mountainous. While it is true that such areas and landscapes historically have given birth to very warlike and fericious peoples (in this case the Spartans), these peoples have mostly made use of guerilla warfare - something that is quite understandable since guerilla warfare is best suited for that kind of terrain. Now, why on earth would Sparta employ traditional greek hoplite tactics? This seems very odd, since there is very little flat terrain in southern Greece. Or am i completely wrong?

[Randal]

The Greeks chose flat fields to hold their battles. Early hoplite battles, from what I recall, were rather ritualistic affairs where a time and a place were picked and care was taken not to cause too much destruction to fields and civilians.

This changed in the Peleponesian wars, where the parties started to use forts, ambushes, and all kinds of more specialised light troops types that would be good in hill-warfare like the Peltastai.

[Celtic_Punk]

war between two Greek polis were confined to fields usually, I've read the hoplites would form up, engage in battle for some time, then both parties would retreat, recuperate and then re-engage. To this end, it appears (Academics please correct me) that the two sides agreed to meet upon a certain field, neutral or non... Or that there were fields that were used many times as traditional battlegrounds, and armies would muster then march to these fields to do battle. This is mostly conjecture, it has been some time since I've picked up one of my Hellenic warfare books.

[V.T. Marvin]

You have raised an excellent point, Celtic Punk. I feel it similarly for a long time as well.

The battlefield maps represents a small fraction of the terain represented by that tile on the campaign map and presumably this was the particular spot where the two armies agreed to do battle, ergo should be the "best" available battlefield nearby. Therefore it will be great if all (or at least almost all) battle maps would have a relatively flat and open central area with various terrain features (forests, hills, etc.) around the edges to diferentiate various locations and allow for tactical elements (ambushes, taking of high ground, etc.). I am afraid though, that this is another limitation of the engine and there is little to be done with it. I would nonethess plead to the developers of EBII to have this concern in mind and to try - within the engine limitations - to minimize occurence of those infamous 75° slopes and completely forested battleFIELDS.

[Ludens]

The Greeks chose flat fields to hold their battles. Early hoplite battles, from what I recall, were rather ritualistic affairs where a time and a place were picked and care was taken not to cause too much destruction to fields and civilians.

This changed in the Peleponesian wars, where the parties started to use forts, ambushes, and all kinds of more specialised light troops types that would be good in hill-warfare like the Peltastai.

Early hoplite battles may have been ritualistic affairs, but Greek warfare was rarely just a pushing match between two hoplite forces. Greek art shows skirmishers fighting alongside hoplites during pretty much any age, even though the written record almost ignores them. Nor were "civilians" spared: as soon as cities start to appear in Greece, they were being sacked.

At least one expert, Hans van Wees, disagrees strongly with the notion that hoplite battles were ritualistic and fought by mutual consent. He believes that our view of hoplite warfare has been romanticised by selective reporting and nostalgia of Clasical historians, such as Polybius, who were horrified at the brutality of warfare in their own age. Not everyone agrees with Van Wees, but you can't discuss hoplite warfare at an academic level without having read his work "Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities" first. You may not agree, but it puts in perspective how much we know, and how much is speculation.

[FriendlyFire]

Early hoplite battles may have been ritualistic affairs, but Greek warfare was rarely just a pushing match between two hoplite forces. Greek art shows skirmishers fighting alongside hoplites during pretty much any age, even though the written record almost ignores them. Nor were "civilians" spared: as soon as cities start to appear in Greece, they were being sacked.

At least one expert, Hans van Wees, disagrees strongly with the notion that hoplite battles were ritualistic and fought by mutual consent. He believes that our view of hoplite warfare has been romanticised by selective reporting and nostalgia of Clasical historians, such as Polybius, who were horrified at the brutality of warfare in their own age. Not everyone agrees with Van Wees, but you can't discuss hoplite warfare at an academic level without having read his work "Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities" first. You may not agree, but it puts in perspective how much we know, and how much is speculation.

Out of interest, how does he square the reported casualty figures for many hoplite battles (which were relatively low, iirc typically on the order of 2-5% for the victors, 5-10% for the losers) with the use of light troops? I would imagine that skirmishers would be deadly to the losers in the rout, and would bump up their casualties considerably. [So far I've read Victor Davis Hanson's work, in particular "A War Like No Other" and "The Western Way of War". ]

[Rahwana]

A bit in game campaign advice: Keep your army rested along the shore (if you didn't attack anything), and only attack enemies in relatively flat portion of the map.

If you journey along the shore, there should be beach-battle, and beaches is usually flat in RTW engine maps... that way, you can do battles comfortably.

and if you consider Supplies, rations, water, and foraging, army marches along the shores is pretty logical way.

[Arjos]

I'd like to answer with a question, what other fighting style would you think was better suited for the terrain?
I think that given the resources available, the limited time to engage in battle and the "hellenic honour's code" during the classical period hoplite class greeks decided to meet in the few flat fields...
I don't think that it was ritualized, but given the athletic aspect of the ancient greek life, facing in fair field for both parts to determine the superior side was the norm...
Afterall few casualties were made in the proper battle, it was a struggle for the control of the terrain (trope and such)...

[Ludens]

Out of interest, how does he square the reported casualty figures for many hoplite battles (which were relatively low, iirc typically on the order of 2-5% for the victors, 5-10% for the losers) with the use of light troops? I would imagine that skirmishers would be deadly to the losers in the rout, and would bump up their casualties considerably.

I don't recall him addressing it; but he does cite instances of fleeing armies finding their escape blocked and being slaughtered.

[GenosseGeneral]

M2:TW is an improvement in that there are smaller and more subtle terrain features you can use. Sadly, I only played campaign in relatively flat, unforested areas so I do not know if the giant-slope/forest map is still there. I do recall one or two giant-slope maps, but these were still more interesting than in R:TW.

I played MTW2 quite some time (before finding EB) and from my experience I can say that at least the tree problem is not as bad anymore.
But however, I can still remember 1 or 2 "heroic victories" due to the combination of longbows and, no not hill but true mountains. So there are still unsuited battlefields and I am not sure whether EBII wont have to face the tree problem, too since Vanilla Rome is also much less struck by all trees maps.

[Captain Trek]

Heh, I personally love finding ways around the problems associated with the infamous "all forest" maps... What I've found is that, almost invariably, there is clearing in which I can plonk down my army. Of course, this relies on my being the defender, but these days if I find myself in a heavily forested area on the campaign map I set my army up in such a way that, unless the AI attacks me, there won't be a battle at all...

Indeed, in this way I was able to win a battle as the Sauromatae against an attacking Getic army in a forest so bloody thick that it was completely impossible to see a unit through the canopy. I found a clearing, set my HAs up along its rear edge and proceeded to murder the Getic forces with minimal losses as they came streaming out from the treeline...

But as for the Greek battlefields, I'd agree that shoreline battles are probably you're best bet, as I too have found the terrain for these to be unusually flat...

[Geticus]

Athens in particular is crazy, the west side of it has a huge upslope that dwarfs the large walls and makes sallies vs. besieging armies extremely tedious.

[The_Blacksmith]

Sparta and Athens have, around the same terrain, you start in a valley, and in the middle of the battle field is there a huge hill...

that is if you are getting attacked while besieging Athens and Sparta (Athens from the NW, Sparta from the N)

[Fluvius Camillus]

Athens in particular is crazy, the west side of it has a huge upslope that dwarfs the large walls and makes sallies vs. besieging armies extremely tedious.

I think this is a map bug, this was already the case in RTW, I guess Athenai should be on top of the hill. Early greek cities (like Argos) were founded on hilltops for protection.

I guess I lose my credibility if I state that the first source I learned this from was Empire Earth....~D

~Fluvius

[Blxz]

I think this is a map bug, this was already the case in RTW, I guess Athenai should be on top of the hill. Early greek cities (like Argos) were founded on hilltops for protection.

I guess I lose my credibility if I state that the first source I learned this from was Empire Earth....~D

~Fluvius

That was still my favourite Empire Earth Campaign though =)

But weren't many cities of the early era's built on hills? Rome was built on hills, some greek cities were. I have nothing to cite but I would think many others around the world were also built on hills or in the cases of the aztecs...in the middle of a lake. Either a city had to be near certain natural resources or it had to be defensible; preferably both.

[Geticus]

Yeah the word Akropolis means the high point (akros) of the polis, akros= extremus/summus furthest or highest. So the fortress of a polis was generically established at a high point. The Romans likewise fortified their hills, and before that the Latin hegemonic city Alba Longa (the high white city) was recollected to have been situated in the mountains. This is pretty common. One might also bear in mind that from the classical standpoint, supreme power comes from the sky rather than the earth, and descends downward among men, spatially a very top down conception of supreme power.

[Celtic_Punk]

Emain Marcha, was built on a hill, if you go there today, (My home county of Armagh) you can see for miles in every direction. Quite a beautiful place and view.

[Zarax]

It is possible to create custom tiles and even have historical battlefields on the campaign map but it's a long and CTD prone process.
IIRC this is used in EB for the battlefield wonders and little else, however if anyone is good with the RTW battle editor I can explain how to do that.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

At least one expert, Hans van Wees, disagrees strongly with the notion that hoplite battles were ritualistic and fought by mutual consent. He believes that our view of hoplite warfare has been romanticised by selective reporting and nostalgia of Clasical historians, such as Polybius, who were horrified at the brutality of warfare in their own age. Not everyone agrees with Van Wees, but you can't discuss hoplite warfare at an academic level without having read his work "Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities" first. You may not agree, but it puts in perspective how much we know, and how much is speculation.

Good post, but I think there must have been some ritual to it. Look at it logically.

Point 1: Greek hoplites (Spartans excepted) were levies. Citizen soldiers. They had civilian jobs to do back home, farming, whatever. So they didn't want to be away from home too long, they're losing time and money. They want the battle as quickly as possible.

Point 2: Greece is hilly. Being on a hill was a defensive advantage, particularly for light skirmishers. So if you have two armies, one stands on one hill, one stands on another hill nearby - and neither wants to move first. So they sit there for days or even weeks on end looking at each other. The soldiers get fed up waiting, become grumpy and mutinous, and want to go home, if there's not going to be a battle. Plus food, water, and sanitation becomes a serious problem.

So both the opposing commanders would want a battle to happen, because fighting a battle is better and easier than dealing with a mutiny in their own army, which could result in disaster for the commander personally. It would make logical sense to send a parley to the enemy and arrange for both armies to descend to the plain and fight it out on level ground.

If one commander really didn't want to fight a battle at all....the best thing for him to do would be to not take the army out of the city in the first place, just stay behind the walls and prepare for a seige. So a Greek army wouldn't be in the field at all if the commander didn't want to fight.

[Randal]

Good points.

It was true for all ancient armies that battles were almost always only fought by mutual consent, because attacking a well-positioned enemy camp was tantamount to suicide.

And the point of militia armies actually matches up with early Roman warfare too, according to Goldsworthy. Their militia-legions generally sought out confrontations immediately, always aggressively forcing battle. Of course, when faced with more subtle generals in the Hellenistic tradition this sometimes bit them in the arse. Hannibal was the final nail in the coffin of these simplistic Roman tactics, or lack thereof.

Anyway, my point is that the pattern holds whether it's Greece or Italy. Professional armies can carefully manoeuvre and jockey for position to fight at the most advantageous terms possible. Militia armies (or tribal armies) must seek battle quickly or be forced to disband to collect their own harvest.

[Ludens]

Good post, but I think there must have been some ritual to it. Look at it logically.

Actually Van Wees agrees with your points, and uses them to argue that it was limitations to the Greek way of war, rather than ritual, that restrained in Greek warfare*. He cites examples of armies doing just what you say and sitting on hill waiting for the enemy to attack, or go away. This was not always possible, and although retreating behind the walls was an option, the destruction of farms (hoplites were often farmers or landowners) and the loss of prestige were strong incentives to drive the enemy rather than wait for him to go.

* Van Wees does admit to some ritual constraints, particularly religious truces and omens: but even here he mentions examples of these being blatantly manipulated and/or ignored.

[Celtic_Punk]

such as an all hellenon truce when the olympics were held.