A thin line of spears

[Doug-Thompson]

Custom battle. Medium difficulty. Greek hoplites vs. Juliaii Haspati. Grassy flatlands. Human player deploys the Greeks. Large unit size.

1.Left the hoplites on default formation rank and file. Turned on phalanx. Turned off guard mode. Ordered an attack with one click. No other human intervention.

Phalanx won with 44 men remaining out of 81, including recovered wounded.

2. Put the hoplites in a formation only two ranks deep. Everything else the same. (Formation was slightly closer to enemy because it was put into its new formation slightly ahead of the starting position.)

Phalanx won with 71 men remaining, including recovered wounded.

Also of note: Phalanx drift to the right was serious in the default depth and negligible in the shallow depth. In fact, the shallow phalanx drifted to the left for quite a while after running out of Romans to kill on the right.

=========

Same thing only with the Romans having Equites.

1. Regular formation; Roman defeated. 71 hoplites left.

2. Thin formation. Romans defeated. No losses. Not even wounded.

Against the regular formation, the Romans charged, got beat, retreated, circled around a bit and charged again, hitting a corner. They only charged the thin formation once.

[Ziu]

Interesting. Does the thin formation wrap around the enemy lines?

[Orvis Tertia]

This is quite interesting indeed. I think it's pretty obvious that--in terms of realism and historical accuracy--the results should have been just the opposite.

[Sin Qua Non]

A thin line in front of several 8+ ranked lines works wonders against cavalry and sometimes even chariots. The first row screens the formation, distrupting the cavalry, while the heavy formation behind don't have the charge bonus to worry about.

[Doug-Thompson]

Interesting. Does the thin formation wrap around the enemy lines?

No. I tried switching off phalanx in the middle of one battle so it would, and the result was disaster.

Experience with lousy, non-phalanx spears (Eastern Infantry) does result in lapping around.


This is quite interesting indeed. I think it's pretty obvious that--in terms of realism and historical accuracy--the results should have been just the opposite.

I couldn't agree more. However, I repeated this little stunt four more times with the hastati tonight. The smallest number of phalanx survivors after five tries was 58 men. The largest was 78.

In order, the number of phalanx survivors were: 71, 58, 71(again), 66 and 78. This includes the healed wounded.

[Doug-Thompson]

A thin line in front of several 8+ ranked lines works wonders against cavalry and sometimes even chariots. The first row screens the formation, distrupting the cavalry, while the heavy formation behind don't have the charge bonus to worry about.

What about a thin line backed by another thin line?

[Red Harvest]

CA nerfed the formation depth effects in RTW, either that or they omitted them altogether. Missile units are another example of the problem (as your horse archer tests have shown, as well as my own tests of jav, slingers, and archers.)

I've been deploying my phalangites 4 deep because I quickly learned that deep phalanx formations were not of any use and were instead a liability.

There is one other aspect that is harder to judge: multiple units. I suspect that two multi-rank lines side by side will perform better than two thin lines one behind the other when facing two or more attackers. I suspect the thin line will suffer casualties quickly allowing the two to be defeated in detail. However, the two might behave differently if they "stack." Hmm, I'll have to try this.

I really hope the major problems can be fixed when the patch(es) arrive(s). Right now the fighting side of the engine pales in comparison to MTW. ~:mecry:

[Jeanne d'arc]

In default formation the hastati wraps around both left and right flank of the phalanx and maybe this is why there are more losses.
In a two rank deep formation the hastati have no chanche to make it to the flanks of the phalanx, they just get impaled by spears and cant even get close enough to make any casualties on the phalanx.

[GodsPetMonkey]

More interested in finding why its happening (although I had a few good ideas) then actually see it happen I decided to try it out.

Using pricepes rather then hastati vs normal hoplites, with the default 5 ranks, its pretty easy to spot the main problem, the pricepes work arround the hoplites, so whilst from the front, they get slaughted, the real fun in on the sides, and ultimately thats where the losses come from.
http://www.users.on.net/~roehr/flanked.jpg

But apart from that, it seems as if most of the time, the 2nd and 3rd rows never get to fight with their spears! http://www.users.on.net/~roehr/rows.jpg. The circles show that the red and blue (3rd and 2nd) rows all pretty much line up, whilst the green (1st) row are doing tho fighting, so while we do have the potential of more then one spear attacking a target at the same time, the target doesnt seem to get close enough for the other rows to be in range. Thus the 'new' rank bonus is negated by tubby romans unable to pass between the first row of spears!

Of course, this same problem happens with the thin ranks. What really gives thin ranks more power is the fact that the AI isnt smart enough to attack the flank. http://www.users.on.net/~roehr/thinrow.JPG, so they end up trying to push though the ranks of spears infront of them, a virtual date with Death.

[Doug-Thompson]

CA nerfed the formation depth effects in RTW, either that or they omitted them altogether.

Agreed --Which pretty much voids years of hard-won experience on how to fight with spears in the Total War series.



Missile units are another example of the problem (as your horse archer tests have shown, as well as my own tests of jav, slingers, and archers.)

Small correction here. You're giving me credit for tests by Frogbeastegg and Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe. I just applied their findings, as did other players.

I'm interested in the results of any "stacking," as you mention.


In default formation the hastati wraps around both left and right flank of the phalanx and maybe this is why there are more losses.
In a two rank deep formation the hastati have no chance to make it to the flanks of the phalanx, they just get impaled by spears and cant even get close enough to make any casualties on the phalanx.

That's very true, especially in the initial stages. By the time the phalanx drifts in the thin formation and there is some wrapping around the edge, there aren't enough hastati left to make a difference.

The bizzare thing, though, is that the thin line drifts to the left. It keeps doing this. It wasn't a fluke, as I thought.

Much seems to depend on whether the spears hit on-center or off, but that's just how it appears.

[Sin Qua Non]

What about a thin line backed by another thin line?

Yes, this also works, but sometimes cavalry can break through two thin lines. No real matter, since most barring cataphracts will be distrupted and cut down. I just like the full phalanx behind the thin line because I find it easier to reform the line as the battle dictates.

I've even been tinkering with stringing a thin line of archers in the open space between the pike points and the first rank of a phalanx, so that they are protected by the pikes, but don't distrupt the formation or cause friendly casualties. It's been mixed results. If the archers survive the initial charge (and don't run at the enemy like idiots), then they can cause significant casualties in the perfect section - the front row of the enemy's melee.

[Doug-Thompson]

What really gives thin ranks more power is the fact that the AI isnt smart enough to attack the flank ... so they end up trying to push though the ranks of spears infront of them, a virtual date with Death.

Undeniably so, GPM. I was going to argue that the thin rank also has more spear points in the front rank. Then I realized that doesn't matter -- 1 vs. 1, most of those extra points are wasted. They're poking the air because a phalanx doesn't wrap.

I'm no serious scholar of ancient history, but IIRC the spears in the 2nd and 3rd ranks were slightly longer to give more of a solid mass of points.

[Red Harvest]

Well, I tried to do some tests, but I've modded the unit size of those guys to give a wider frontage (120 men.) So they do too well vs. hastati one-on-one (but with more upkeep etc.) The AI did so many stupid random things with its hastati that I couldn't draw many conclusions...except that the AI is incredibly inept. It was standing there holding it's pila overhand while I was jabbing away for quite awhile. The AI even managed to lose 2 vs. 1...argggggggggghhhhh. (I've been thinking about slightly modding down the offensive stats of the newly enlarged phalangite units--I want them durable, hence the size, but not fast killers.) I went to the larger size after using the German spear warbands...that was a real eye opener as to the effect of unit size on phalanx power in the game.

The 2nd row of spears is fighting. The 3rd very, very rarely has anyone to stab at. In real life deep phalanx units achieved considerable pushing ability from what I have read. They generally were pushing troops back. And the ultra deep formations were there to add a lot of punch. The references and diagrams I'm looking at are indicating a single spear length, but I've seen mention of increasing spear length with rank position elsewhere. So I dunno. Macedonian sarissa were longer at about 19-22 ft ("long_pike") and 5 spear points would be in front of each file. They were two handed weapons held underhand. The greek hoplite spears were shorter (6-10 feet) and it appears they used them overhand/single handed in combat (?) but manouvered with them held at the waist (and charged that way apparently.) That's quite different than how they are shown in the game. Realistically no more than two ranks would be fighting with that style (although the rear ranks would help in shoving and filling any gaps.)

Sidelight:
Did some archer tests since I was on the "practice field". Again the AI was stupid. When I gave it vanilla roman archers vs. my 120 man greek hops, it marched them up to pila range. So I did a stationary test where they killed 19 (of 121) in phalanx with 10 volleys.

Next I took command of the archers and let them march to me once then marched to them and started firing on subsequent tests. I disabled skirmish mode partway there, since the shorter range on these guys made it tough to get in 10 volleys (should have used 6 or so :embarassed: ) Result: archery is HOSED. Everyone fires whether the archer line is 2 ranks deep, 6 ranks deep, or 16 (yes, 16) ranks deep. The only difference is that with 16 ranks, they don't fire as early because they have to wait for the rear guys to get in range. 2 ranks = 19 kills in 10 volleys (2% per volley) 6 ranks deep = 15 kills in 8 volleys, 16 ranks deep = 19 kills in 7 volleys. Very, very disappointing.

[econ21]

I think Total War has always given an edge to thin lines - which favours the smart human over the AI working with the default chunky formations. In STW, I think there were no rank bonuses. In MTW, spreading your swords or cav thinning was a killer.

Doug - I wonder what would happen with better cavalry than equites? Absorbing a cavalry charge seems to be the only reason I would go for a deeper formation.

It is regrettable as what little I know about pre-gunpowder warfare implies that some depth of formation was important. Partly it may be because fighting hand-to-hand in armour is so tiring (a TV programme showed a fit young man in armour being exhausted after a minute and a half of intensively fighting multiple adversaries). Having depth allows you to "rotate" your frontline, replacing exhausted troops with fresher ones. I always wondered about modding MTW to give rank bonuses to non-spears!

[Watchman]

AFAIK that rotation trick was a difficult one to pull off, and required the somewhat demanding combination of comparatively loose order and well-trained troops. The Roman infantry did it, and it gave them a major edge against the disorderly barbarian hordes who crowded thick against the Roman line and the individual warriors couldn't retreat out of the way no matter how wounded or tired they became. That sort of thing is prime breeding ground for anxiety and eventually panic, with well-known results.

Phalanxes were probably way too dense to allow for that sort of rotation, but then again I've read a phalangite's most important traits were considered to be stamina and discipline, so the formation kept together and steadily and (fairly) tirelessly mowed down anything before it.

But then, the historical Ancient phalanxes tended to be huge affairs of thousands of men in a single rectamgular block hundreds of meter wide and up to sixteen ranks deep. The ones in Rome don't exactly compare...

As a side note the fairly small six-man deep pikeman rectangles the Swedish introduced into the Thirty Years' war seemed to hold their ground quite well against the huge, deep tercios most others initially used. Even if you factor in the considerable organic fire support they had, it makes you wonder if formation depth really is all that important in the "push of pikes".

...anyone feel like testing how well a long, thin line of phalangites does against a deeper, narrower phalanx in a head-on clash...?

[The_Emperor]

The real problem we have with the Phalanx is the inability to create a solid unbroken line. The natural gaps between the units always makes things worse.

When a unit does its natural "wrap around" all it takes is for a couple of guys to get into that gap on the flanks and the Phalanx will start having trouble.

In a sense this "wrap around effect" is a real problem in the way the game works, its a cheap method of auto-flanking without taking the Pushback from deep formations into consideration... It was a problem before and it remains a problem now, but it probably can't be avoided until Rank Pushback is included.

[Sinner]

I've even been tinkering with stringing a thin line of archers in the open space between the pike points and the first rank of a phalanx, so that they are protected by the pikes, but don't distrupt the formation or cause friendly casualties. It's been mixed results. If the archers survive the initial charge (and don't run at the enemy like idiots), then they can cause significant casualties in the perfect section - the front row of the enemy's melee.

Which would potentially work very well with the Germans using their Chosen Archers and Spearband or the Egyptians with their Pharoh's Archers and Nile Spearmen. Both types of archer are better than average when it comes to melee, so they should hold up a lot better.

[Paul Peru]

One more finding in the "useful to know, slightly cheesy to exploit"-bag, then.
:dizzy2:



The bizzare thing, though, is that the thin line drifts to the left. It keeps doing this. It wasn't a fluke, as I thought.

Perhaps a medium depth can be found where they stay put?

[Fridge]

I find most battles are decided on who routs first, rather than simple killing ability (though obviously the two are intimately connected!), and therefore would be interested to know what effect unit depth had on morale - ie, would a thin, two rank phalanx be more likely to rout than a deep one?

If the computer calculates the morale of each soldier depending on how many allies they are in contact with, whether the whole unit is contiguous etc, it could have a major effect - in a two rank formation each soldier can only be in contact with a maximum of 5 allies, any greater depth and all troops except the front and back rank could potentially be in contact with 8. Also, a cavalry charge may be repelled by a two rank phalanx, but even so, the charge may make temporary gaps in the formation, even if they only last for a few seconds, it cold effectively split the unit into two or more seperate bodies of men - I'd guess this might make routing more likely?

[Fridge]

Though of course the lack of wrap around in the shallow formation would improve morale as well...

[jimmyM]

just a few notes...in the total realism mod there was an ability to form units into an unbroken "phalanx" line - i've since had to uninstall the modded install and i'm really missing that ability :embarassed: possibly contacting mods involved would yield a standalone "phalanx ability" mod
as for hoplites (with 6 meter spears) charging with their spears underarm...hmmm- not sure, i think this limited the effectiveness of their spear thrusts over the wall of shields (the impact of the charge could also cause you to maim the guy behind you with the butt spike of the spear), though to take cavalry charges they braced their spears into the ground underarm (sorry, nitpicking...)

[CBR]

as for hoplites (with 6 meter spears) charging with their spears underarm...hmmm- not sure, i think this limited the effectiveness of their spear thrusts over the wall of shields

Hoplites used spears of around 2-2.5 meters length and large shields. The phalangites used the long pikes (Sarissa) of about 6-7 meters length and smaller shields so they could use the pike in two hands.

Hoplites would use the spear overarm when in close order phalanx but underarm was also used as charging hoplites would become disordered and they had more room to fight.


CBR

[KyodaiSteeleye]

One thing in MTW - lots of peeps advocated the 'swordsmen in 2 ranks' theory. However, what i found was that there were two drawbacks to this:-

1) as troops get killed, and your second rank starts to empty, holes appear in the unit formation, and this did seem to lead to routs (either because formation was disrupted, or they were getting doubled more, not sure)
2) if you have all of your infantry in double rank formations, try manouvering them around the battlelines successfully! - thinner formations can exploit holes in the line much easier, and are far less likely to 'hit' enemy units by mistake, and so get embroiled in combats you don't want, or losing charge bonuses.

I agree however, that wider formations for phalanxes seem to make sense (in the game)- but what is their holding power in this formation? - does it give less time for your flanking forces to get engaged? Also - thin formations should theoretically be much more susceptable to heavy cavalry charges, as they should smash right through the 2 line formation and out the other side > rout.

[Doug-Thompson]

Red Harvest;

Yes, the archers and the phalanx are two results from the same cause: The complete disappearance of rank as a factor of its own. The only question now is, do you want a compact formation able to manuever (especially change facing quickly) or a thin one that can cover a lot of front?

I've been far less critical of R:TW than others, but this just isn't right.

=========

Simon Appleton;

I'll charge a bunch of cataphracts into some hoplites tonight.

[Doug-Thompson]

But then, the historical Ancient phalanxes tended to be huge affairs of thousands of men in a single rectangular block hundreds of meter wide and up to sixteen ranks deep. The ones in Rome don't exactly compare...

And


The real problem we have with the Phalanx is the inability to create a solid unbroken line. The natural gaps between the units always makes things worse.

The only way to get the proportions close to correct would be to link multiple units in an unbroken front, in my opinion.

The Macedonian Phalanx of Roman times was deeper and, frankly, less maneuverable than Alexander's

Say --quite arbitrarily -- that the typical hoplite formation of 80 (large unit size) is supposed to be part of the "classic," somewhat flexible phalanx a la Alexander, and that the 120-man unit is supposed to be part of the newer, more dense Macedonian model with longer pikes.

Alexander's phalanx was 16 ranks deep and 256 files wide. This gives a depth-to-front ratio of 1 to 16. This contained (at full strength) 4,096 troops.

Take five large unit-size hoplite formations at their default depth of five ranks. Put them end to end. This results in:

A group five ranks deep and 80 files wide, a perfect 1 to 16 depth-to-front ratio. It contains 400 men -- a 97.7 percent-pure little 1/10th scale model of the classic Alexandrian phalanx.

In my opinion, phalanx should not be a special ability for one group of 80 or so spear types but a special group formation, a "hard" grouping that only phalanx-type units can employ that eliminates the gaps between units. The hoplites can "ungroup" if they need to change facing rapidly, moving the individual units, and "regroup" when facing the desired direction. There should also be a rank bonus maximized for a depth-to-front ratio of about 1-to-16, or deeper in the case of longer pikes.

[Doug-Thompson]

One more finding in the "useful to know, slightly cheesy to exploit"-bag, then.
:dizzy2:

Guilty as charged, but at least my intentions were good. ~;) I wanted to give a simple, clear demonstration of what's wrong with spear units in R:TW. I think it worked.



Perhaps a medium depth can be found where they stay put?

Wondered that myself, but would bet that a three-rank formation would get wrapped again.

========

Fridge and KyodaiSteeleye;

I will soon know more about how brittle a thin line is when charged by cavalry. Beyond that, I just don't know how all this plays out in a real fight. These are not the type of questions that can really get answered in a simplistic custom-battle demonstration with only one human. I know that long, thin formations are much harder to maneuver and to change facing.

[CBR]

Alexander's phalanx was 16 ranks deep and 256 files wide. This gives a depth-to-front ratio of 1 to 16. This contained (at full strength) 4,096 troops

Where do you get that from? Some think his taxis were 1500 men and others believe they were 2000 men.

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/GranicusNotes.html argues for 2000 men taxis and seems very reasonable.


CBR

[Doug-Thompson]

CBR

That comes from Dupuy and Dupuy's "Encyclopedia of Military History," which includes an extensive section on Alexander's army. It has a unit breakdown within the phalanx too, which I'll post.

[Nelson]

The relative smallness of phalanx formations seems to be a problem.

In addition, something should be done about the way charging mounted troops can leap directly into the front of a phalanx and cause everyone nearby to draw their swords thus wrecking the entire formation.

[CBR]

I remove the space between each phalanx unit by using a double line. I draw out half my units in 3-4 ranks and then draw the other half directly over the first line just a few files off to one side. The result is a very compact formation that is hard to maneuver with but it does the job ~:)


CBR

[Red Harvest]

Depth was very important because the push back was used to destroy the enemy formation. Athenians used a base level of 8 deep, Spartans 12, Thebans 25 and the Macedonians up to nearly 50 in some situations (although 16 was normal and 32 "double depth.") These larger units were being used like human battering rams to destroy other hoplite phalanx units. The formations were already dense, so adding that much depth would have been made them into a streamroller. I really don't understand what kept the men in the first ranks from being crushed...unless of course, their opponent was pushed back.

The observation about MTW was on the money. If you used thin lines, they became weak after a few casualties. As a result each of us learned to use depths that provided an optimum of hitting power and durabitily (depending on play style and situation.)

I'm sure I'm still missing alot on the intricacies of ancient warfare but this is what I'm gathering at the moment: phalanx formations were typically quite large in full size armies: around 2 to 4,000 per wing was not uncommon although they did have smaller divisions within of 256 men, 1000, etc. They didn't have to operate as a block per wing, but it appears that they often did. A phalanx wing of 4,000 was more men than the entire hastati/principes/triarii of a single legion. It's an intersting comparison when you think about it. The Roman system is similarly deep...but in multiple lines, whereas the phalanx is a compact single line.

To make something like this in RTW you need to have individual phalanx components sort of welded together, but still breakable at the joints. The Romans exploited any breaks in the formation, so you still want phalangite sub units do be prone to getting disordered, taking too many casualties etc. However, the AI and the human need to be able to wield the phalangites more like a line. It's a tough balancing act: a hard, but brittle phalanx.

On the other hand, you can also see where the Roman system should work against the phalanx. The phalanx can't afford to push forward (or fall back) too much in any sectio or it creates a vulnerable gap, one the Roman infantry was designed to very effectively exploit. The phalangites also are prone to being disordered by any obstacles in their path or breaks in the terrain. So during melee, the phalangites are all stuck in their deep formation unable to rotate to rest. Meanwhile the Romans can attack in thin waves keeping a steady pressure, with the previous wave falling back to catch their breath (since their formations did not need to be rigid and deep.) It would be interesting to see how this drill was carried out.

The high kill rates of RTW (or any TW game) cause problems with the idea though. You can't effectively disengage sword infantry, and they take a lot of casualties fighting so they nearly always fight to the death. So you can't really pull back your hastati in sections, then advance princeps, etc. as the Romans apparently did. It would look kind of dull waiting for the phalangites to wear down and become disordered while your hastati get pushed back, then replaced by princeps, then perhaps hastati again, etc. until the phalanx wore down or became disordered or caused enough damage to your legion (or legion's position) to win.

[CBR]

I really don't understand what kept the men in the first ranks from being crushed...unless of course, their opponent was pushed back.

When units bunched up, as they did sometimes, the front ranks were crushed with dead men still standing up. but that was extreme cases that didnt happen often. It was not good tactics to let rear ranks run up and push the front ranks that were fighting. But it could happen with badly trained and enthusiastic units during a charge or if front ranks were forced back (because of cavalry for example)

For pike units where the first 5 ranks were supposed to level their pikes it would have spelled disaster and total disorder if men came up from behind and started pushing. Close order and discipline was vital for such units but not too close heh.

Units need a certain depth so they will fight for some time and 6-8 ranks was considered minimum. The hellenistic system operated with one line only so more men were just added to make the line stronger. The Romans changed that by using multiple lines each of around 8 ranks (6-10 depending on era and losses)


CBR

[Cheetah]

I have read somewhere that in the greek system they did push. It is hard to imagine, Japanese underground comes to closest perhaps, or american football. I will find the reference.

[CBR]

Yes some believe pushing was important in Greek warfare. Victor Davis Hanson in his "Western way of War" argues for it but uses some sources taken out of context.

Its not that individual soldiers didnt try and push an enemy with his big shield but the idea of having lots of men behind the front rank push too is the recipe for disaster.

There was a reason why the best men were at the front and that was to fight and not to be pushed/crushed to death.


CBR

[Doug-Thompson]

Also - thin formations should theoretically be much more susceptable to heavy cavalry charges, as they should smash right through the 2 line formation and out the other side > rout.

and


In addition, something should be done about the way charging mounted troops can leap directly into the front of a phalanx and cause everyone nearby to draw their swords thus wrecking the entire formation.

Now that's the whole problem in a nutshell regarding cavalry.

As per Simon Appleton's request, I charged a unit of cataphracts at a unit of hoplites in phalanx -- over and over again.

It didn't matter if the hoplites were two ranks deep, five ranks deep or NINE ranks deep. Every time -- even in the instance of nine ranks -- at least one cataphract leapt all the way to the back of the line, formation was blown and the hoplites drew their swords. This instantly converted the phalanx from a wall of spears to a mediocre melee unit. Also, formations became more prone to getting wrapped the deeper they were.

============

After some more frustrating experiments, I got myself two 80-man vanilla Greek hoplite units (which cost the same as the one Parthian cataphract) and used Sin Qua Non's trick, slightly modified.

I put one hoplite phalanx two ranks deep. I left a space -- sorry, I can't say how wide. I was going by feel. Then I strung out another phalanx two ranks deep behind the first and the open space.

Medium difficulty. Grassy flatlands. Phalanx on. Guard mode off.

I stayed put until the cataphracts started charging, then hit one-click attack for both units. The cataphracts hit the first thin line of spears. The ones that leapt either landed on the first phalanx or in the space in between the two phalanxes. Either way, the flying cataphracts were back on the ground with no room to charge and facing a second fully formed, advancing unit of bristling spears.

The first try was a complete success. The 55-man cataphracts routed with 23 of their number left. There were 31 survivors left from my first phalanx and a negligible four losses from the second. Notably, some of the routing survivors of the first phalanx had gotten away by fleeing through the thin ranks of the second.

The next try put the two phalanxs a little closer together, but that did not work so well. The flying cataphacts were able to cause some disruption of the second phalanx, though not much. That battle eventually turned into a melee. I turned phalanx formation off after there were no spears left. I won but wound up with only 59 survivors out of 161 hoplites, but there were only 9 cataphracts left.

[Doug-Thompson]

As promised to CBR, here's what Dupuy has to say:


The organization of the phalanx was remarkably like that of a modern army: a platoon (tetrarchia) of 64 hoplites; company (taxiarchia) of 128; battalion (syntagma) of 256; regiment (chiliarchia) of 1,024; division (simple phalanx) of 4,096 hoplites. Like the modern division, the simple phalanx was a self-contained fighting unit of combined arms; in addition to the heavy infantry, it included (at theoretical full strength) 2,048 peltasts, 1,024 psiloi, and a cavalry regiment of 1,024 for a total of 8,192 men. The grand phalanx, composed of four simple phlanxes, could be likened to a small modern field army and had a strength of 32,000 men.All statements in parentheses are in the original -- D.Th.

There's more, but the most important point is that Dupuy agrees that the Macedonian phalanx of Alexander's time was 16 ranks deep.

Now, it's perfectly possible that Dupuy's "simple phalanx" was composed of two units of 2,048 men, each 16 ranks deep. There's not necessarily a big difference here.

[CBR]

Ok thanks thats what I thought it was.

Check out the link I gave as that mentions the sources that provides that organisation. I'll quote:


Hellenistic tactical manuals exist by Ailian, Arrian and Asklepiodotos that give us some insight into the organisation of Macedonian-style infantry phalanxes. Each is similar to the other, and they all probably derive from a lost manual of Polybios'. It has been greatly debated to what extent these manuals reflect Hellenistic military reality, and to what extent they are the workings of armchair philosophers; it is also debated to what extent they reflect later Hellenistic organisation, rather than that under Philip or Alexander. Ailian for instance claims (0.6) his work represents Macedonian formations under Alexander, but all the sources he cites are post-Alexandrian (1.2).

Its an interesting essay and worth the read IMO.


CBR

[Doug-Thompson]

Ok thanks thats what I thought it was.

Check out the link I gave as that mentions the sources that provides that organisation. I'll quote:



Its an interesting essay and worth the read IMO.


CBR

I neglected to mention that I did check out the link earlier, and was suitably impressed. In fact, that's why I refered to the agreement with Dupuy over being 16 ranks deep. To wit:


From Polybios (12.9) it is obvious that the Alexandrian file depth was either 8,16, or 32 men. We can probably discount 32, since this was the depth of the Seleucid phalanx at Magnesia, where it was said to be abnormally deep. A depth of 8 is possible, but this would mean it would have been shallower than most hoplite phalanxes: according to Xenophon (Hellenica, 4.2.18), the allies were 16 deep at Nemea (with the Thebans characteristically formed up much deeper still), the Spartans 12 deep at Leuctra (Hellenica, 4.4.12); the depth at Issus would perhaps be influenced by the river crossing. A depth of 16 men seems most likely, and this accords with the most basic unit formation given above; Ailian says that while files of 8 or 12 were recorded (4.2), he himself sticks to 16 (e.g. 8.3) just as Asklepiodotos and Arrian do.emphasis added

[CBR]

I neglected to mention that I did check out the link earlier, and was suitably impressed. In fact, that's why I refered to the agreement with Dupuy over being 16 ranks deep. To wit:

:bow:

I found this link (http://pages.eidosnet.co.uk/~nikgaukroger/battles/perg1/battle.htm) about the First Battle of Pergamum and it mentions how Antiochus put his Argyraspides in half depth. So I guess under special circumstances and with elite units they could use phalangites in 8 ranks.

As only 5 ranks had leveled their pikes and having good morale and training that would still be an ok depth if you didnt expect the unit the encounter a tough opponent.


CBR

[Doug-Thompson]

Thanks for the additional link, CBR. I'll check it out after giving the first one a closer read.

I guess somebody should acknowledge that none of the unit sizes in R:TW exactly fit the phalanx formations under discussion here.

I've never taken the animated "men" in the game literally anyway. I've always thought of them as an abstraction representing about 10 "real" men each.

By that thought, if you consider an 80-man phalanx unit to repersent an 800-man one, and if you figure the 800-man unit should be 16 men deep and 50 men wide. That would be a depth-to-front ratio of about 3 to 1. That would mean a formation of five ranks deep and 16 files wide -- which is just about exactly the default formation for R:TW.

So the proportions of R:TW are in the ballpark. The problem is, there's no advantage to keeping those proportions that I can find.

[CBR]

Yes I have always considered 1:10 ratio to be the best way of looking at it.

It is annoying that depth doesnt seem to be very important. Especially for a pike phalanx v legions. If they work fine at 4 ranks or less than legionary units would be 2 ranks only! But maybe I should just stop wanting history and accept its a (fantasy) game heh.


CBR

[Doug-Thompson]

Something should be done about spears, even from a pure gameplay standpoint. As it stands, there's simply no point of a spear unit if the unit is going to drop its spears and pick up swords ever time it gets charged by cavalry. I mean seriously. When's the least likely time a guy is going to drop his spear? When he's being charged by somebody on a horse. Even if he's alone in a pasture, he's going to use a spear if he has one.

[econ21]

Interesting stuff this, Doug. Even with the double unit trick, the hoplites are not doing that well against the cats. Sounds like something needs to be done to strengthen spears/phalanx against cavalry - I hope CA listens when making the patch.

BTW, sounds like this thread should be in the research sub-forum.

[Red Harvest]

The scale is about 10:1 for infantry and cav (although not general's units or elephants.) Of course you can't really scale ranks the same way or it doesn't look right (everyone is in one or two ranks.) A big problem with the scale is that the frontage is reduced by an order of magnitude. Battle lines might be a mile or two across, but we get a few hundred yards because of scaling.

Now it will really contort your brain matter when you try to consider movement speed with this scale. Whereas moving across the effective front should take several minutes or longer, we can do so in seconds. Units can turn faster, etc. This encourages the AI to do some very silly things like crossing the battlefront with multiple units as the lines close, turning phalanx units sideways, etc.

If you reduce movement speed by 10:1, then units are under archer/missile fire for an eternity before they close.

Then there is the clock. The battle moves in realtime and the game has a working date clock internally, but if the timer is on you get maybe 20 to 30 minutes for an engagement (or siege...) So the kill rate has been increased. But this means that you never see a sunrise or sunset. There is some nice capability concealed in there, but it might be impractical to let it see the light of day (bad pun.)

There are always compromises in scaling.

[Doug-Thompson]

Thanks, Simon Appleton

Red Harvest, my brain is contorted quite enough already, thank you.

Looking over all this, the thing that bothers me most is the "flying cataphract" thing. After all, that's why the infantry drop their spears and fight with swords. There are horses in the middle of their phalanx.

The horse, bless him, is not the smartest creature God in his wisdom placed upon the earth, but he is smarter than any rider who ordered him to charge a bunch of disciplined, trained men in good order who were pointing sharpies in his direction.

There are only two instances I ever heard of where cavalry could successfully charge a fixed formation of pikes/spears/bayonets frontally. The first doesn't count.

The first is Polish Hussars of the 17th century. They solved the problem by having lances that were longer than the infantry pikes. They accomplished this miracle by having lances that were hollow. It was built in scooped-out halves that were glued together, wound with string and covered with tar. It was longer but lighter than the solid-wood infantry pike. It would break upon impact but knock the target off his feet. Therefore, the horse was never really ordered to collide with a bunch of pointy sticks.

The second case was in the Napoleonic wars. A cavalryman was charging an infantry square, firing his carbine when somebody shot his horse. Dead but still striding forward, the horse kept going and hit the square, knocking some men down and creating an opening where other cavalry poured in.

[Colovion]

Oddly enough I did this same test a long time ago. I was having problems with Phalanxes and needed to figure out how the game wanted me to use them, not how they were used hiostorically.

In my tests I only tested on Cavalry. I found that teh Cav would charge into the Pikes and through/over when in a deep formation but very very rarely was the time when the horses would charge into the huge wide/skinny formation. It shocked me and is part of the many reasons why I haven't played for a while.

[Watchman]

I've gotten the impression fully-armored heavy cavalry - say late-period knights - could make some impact on pike units by the virtue of their sheer comparative invulnerability. Of course, the mass of pikes tended to keep them from closing in even if it didn't actually hurt them and as a rule there were more pikemen immediately around than knights so it didn't help too much overall, but at least they didn't quite die like flies the way lighter cavalry did.

I doubt if horses are actually clever enough to realize the walls of spears are dangerous, heck, they might not even see them too well, but I've read they can brake awfully quick if they think they're about to hit something that looks like a solid and unmoving obstacle, such as a group of infantrymen who don't budge. And of course they will realize something is wrong when they hit the spears and will vainly try to do something about it, late as it is...

The Cataphracts are about the closest equivalent to knights in RTW, but I strongly suspect the scale barding on the horses isn't sufficiently protective to justify anything. And the very idea that a fully barded horse bearing a fully armored rider could engage in any impressive acrobatics (as the RTW ones seem to do) is obviously absurd. In any case it'd just hit the tilted pikes of the rear ranks and get skewered there...

Incidentally, has anyone else noticed something to the end that chariots seem to be quite capable of plowing right through the pike-hedge into the formation proper ? I perceived something of the sort when I played that Seleucid vs. Egypt historical battle...

[Doug-Thompson]

To make something like this in RTW you need to have individual phalanx components sort of welded together, but still breakable at the joints. The Romans exploited any breaks in the formation, so you still want phalangite sub units do be prone to getting disordered, taking too many casualties etc. However, the AI and the human need to be able to wield the phalangites more like a line. It's a tough balancing act: a hard, but brittle phalanx.

Exactly. That's why "phalanx" should be a formation only available to grouped hoplite and pike units, instead of a special tactic used by individual units.

That may not be possible. In that case, change this: Units in "phalanx" mode get a rank bonus a la M:TW.

[Doug-Thompson]

Oddly enough I did this same test a long time ago. I was having problems with Phalanxes and needed to figure out how the game wanted me to use them, not how they were used hiostorically.

In my tests I only tested on Cavalry. I found that teh Cav would charge into the Pikes and through/over when in a deep formation but very very rarely was the time when the horses would charge into the huge wide/skinny formation. It shocked me and is part of the many reasons why I haven't played for a while.

This doesn't surprize me at all. In fact, I would have been more surprized if this was anything new.

The idea that unit depth is supposed to help a spear unit is ingrained in everybody for a reason. It's in everything we've every played or read. The phrase "long, thin phalanx" is an oxymoron.

There's a logical limit to usable depth, of course. I haven't been able to find much out about why 16 men was considered the optimum by Philip of Macedon. The only passing reference I found was that a "sub leader" was in each file, leading the last eight ranks. In theory, the unit could thin its ranks to eight and double it's front before a battle, if needed.

My guess is that the formation size had a whole lot to do with the length of the weapon.

[CBR]

My guess is that the formation size had a whole lot to do with the length of the weapon.

Hoplites using shorter spears used 12-16 ranks.

My guess is that with 16 ranks you had a nice versatile system that could be used in the standard and solid 16 rank formation, but one could also let the rear half file move forward to either double the frontage and still maintain a 8 rank formation (that would work for a while or be good enough against lesser opponents if needed) or use same frontage but make a very compact and defensive 8 rank formation (about 1 1/2 feet frontage per man)


CBR

[Doug-Thompson]

CBR;

Turns out that Polybius has a lot to say on the subject:


Many arguments may convince us that nothing can resist the Phalanx in front, or withstand its onset, when possessed of all the advantages, that are peculiar to it. For each man, with his arms, when drawn up in order of battle, takes up three feet in depth; and their pikes, though originally sixteen cubits in length, are however in reality fourteen. Of these, four are taken up by the distance between his hands, and so much of the hinder part of the pike, as is necessary to balance the fore part, when presented to the enemy. This being so, it is plain that the pike, when grasped with both hands, and presented, must project ten cubits before each man....


... Of these sixteen ranks, those, that exceed the fifth, cannot contribute, with their pikes, to annoy the enemy; for which reason they do not present them, but each rank inclines them over the shoulders of that before it, in order to secure them from above, the pikes, by their closeness, defending them from the missile weapons, which might otherwise, by flying over the foremost ranks, fall upon those, who stand behind them. Besides, each of these ranks, pressing in file, with the whole weight of their body, the rank which immediately precedes, they not only strengthen the attack, but make it impossible for the foremost ranks to retreat. emphasis added.

So it seems that there are five ranks that do the fighting and, say, another 3 to fill in for those who die. There's a whole "reserve" phalanx behind the first who lances make a "canopy" against arrows with their pikes. I would also not be surprized if the "reserve" phalanx could "about face" and guard against sudden surprizes from the rear, although Polybius does not mention this. Finally, though, the dept of the formation gives the front ranks the courage of the trapped

Polybius goes on. It's interesting stuff, but I need to break it up into smaller parts.

[CBR]

Yes and Polybius even wrote a book just about the phalanx but its lost ~:mecry:

I think its mentioned by Vegitius that the best fighters were put in front and the second best at the rear to stop any from running heh.


CBR

[Cheetah]

Yes some believe pushing was important in Greek warfare. Victor Davis Hanson in his "Western way of War" argues for it but uses some sources taken out of context.

Its not that individual soldiers didnt try and push an enemy with his big shield but the idea of having lots of men behind the front rank push too is the recipe for disaster.

There was a reason why the best men were at the front and that was to fight and not to be pushed/crushed to death.


CBR

Hello CBR, visit the monastery, thx ~:)

push or not to push? (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=633962#post633962)

[Ziu]

I tried a few battles with Germanic phalanges vs Cataphracts. In all instances, with ranks of 5,4,3 and 2 deep, the Cataphracts were routed. Even through the horses managed to punch through the lines everytime.

Against legionares the phalanges were defeated everytime. Again with each line depth played. As Doug mentioned the leftward shuffle becomes quite pronounced the thinner the line. So much so that left to their own devices the phalanx will shuffle away from the enemy to present their two man flank. Picture a mace with the phalanx as the handle and the legionares as the head. They get chewed up quite quickly at this point. These were all 1:1 battles so the flanks were easily attacked.

[Doug-Thompson]

I tried a few battles with Germanic phalanges vs Cataphracts. In all instances, with ranks of 5,4,3 and 2 deep, the Cataphracts were routed. Even through the horses managed to punch through the lines everytime.

No doubt, Ziu, but the German spear warband has 120 men (large unit size) to the Greek hoplite's 80, and an attack of 9, charge of 8 and a defense of 11.

More important, though is the fact that the German warbands stats can't drop to a weaker alternative weapon because they don't have a sword.

The hoplite's stats are 7-6-16 WHEN the hoplites DON'T lose order and drop their spears. With swords, the stats go down to 5-2-16.

[Sid_Quibley]

Cav jumping spears/pikes annoyed me so much I tried to fix it by editing out the charge_jump cas in the animations pak.

Due to my newb technical abillity havent succeeded,but Vercingetorix the master :bow: has.

A small file fix is availiable Here (http://www.totalwar.org/Downloads/Rtw_Uploads/RTWupload/)

pike_jumping_cav_fix

I tested it using 8 macedonian phalanx units from levy up against 12 gallic cav(cpu attack).In a single line at standard depth the phalanx all used spear except at the flanks where swords were used.They dealt with the cav very easily with only 1 unit sustaining significant losses.

Definitely worth downloading.

[Ziu]

No doubt, Ziu, but the German spear warband has 120 men (large unit size) to the Greek hoplite's 80, and an attack of 9, charge of 8 and a defense of 11.

More important, though is the fact that the German warbands stats can't drop to a weaker alternative weapon because they don't have a sword.

The hoplite's stats are 7-6-16 WHEN the hoplites DON'T lose order and drop their spears. With swords, the stats go down to 5-2-16.

That's true. I just thought it might be interesting to compare with other phalanx units available in the game. Sorry if it was a irrelevant to the main thrust of the topic.

[Doug-Thompson]

Cav jumping spears/pikes annoyed me so much I tried to fix it by editing out the charge_jump cas in the animations pak.

Due to my newb technical abillity haven't succeeded, but Vercingetorix the master :bow: has.

I've played computer games since the 1980s. I have never, NEVER downloaded a "home remedy" from anyone.

Until tonight.

Tell Vercingetorix that the fix is fabulous. Cataphracts still beat Greek hoplites, but it took a long while -- quite long enough to have sent for reinforcements in a real battle -- while the Greeks were in a five-deep formation.

Sanity was restored -- the cataphracts blew right through the two-rank thin line like it was paper, routing the bunch in a few seconds.

Outstanding in every way. Highly recommended -- and I'm a die-hard Parthian cavalry guy.

Now if we can just find a solution for the infantry. (See Watchman quote below.)

=======

I've never seen the movie Pearl Harbor. I refused to go see it after watching the previews, which had Japanese planes at cropdusting altitude buzzing some lady in a field. There, I sneered, was a neat visual effect trumping all reason.

Same thing with flying cataphracts.

[Doug-Thompson]

That's true. I just thought it might be interesting to compare with other phalanx units available in the game. Sorry if it was a irrelevant to the main thrust of the topic.

Oops. My bad, Ziu. Yes, we should see how other units do. It's not irrelevant at all. Needs to be done. I got on the technical side and got tunnel vision. Recommend you download that "flying cataphract" fix mentioned above. The Germans will do even better.

[Doug-Thompson]

As a side note the fairly small six-man deep pikeman rectangles the Swedish introduced into the Thirty Years' war seemed to hold their ground quite well against the huge, deep tercios most others initially used. Even if you factor in the considerable organic fire support they had, it makes you wonder if formation depth really is all that important in the "push of pikes"?

Watchman, you may be on to something here.

Maybe Macedonian/Greek "thickening" of the phalanx after Alexander's time did help in Greek vs. Greek phalanx shoving matches. After all, most of the wars between Alexander's successor kingdoms were against each other.

Perhaps against the legions and the cavalry-poor Romans, Greeks should have gone back to thinner, more flexible formations with shorter pikes. Maybe Alexander would have doubled his frontage at the expense of depth if he had faced the legions in his time.

Maybe Doug's just trying to rationalize the relative success of thin formations against infantry in R:TW ... ~;)

[TEP]

Yes and Polybius even wrote a book just about the phalanx but its lost ~:mecry:

I think its mentioned by Vegitius that the best fighters were put in front and the second best at the rear to stop any from running heh.


CBR

I had understood that the younger, inexperienced men were in the front rank(s) of the phalanx, while older, more experienced men were behind them to steady them and keep them from breaking.

Seems to make more sense, too...

[Watchman]

Well for starters the young greenhorns are more expendable. And I'm willing to bet the grim veterans had a lot better position to negotiate their job description from, too... ~;)

Anyway, I've read that close-order infantry in general, shieldwall spearmen in particular and phalangites above all quite literally pushed the front ranks onwards. There were naturally limits to how much pressure could be exterted from behinf before the front rankers suffocated or got crushed, but then again that's what drill and training are for - judging how much is necessary. One source observed the phalangites must have operated primarily by sense of touch - in the throng and crush of the formation, in the dust cloud it raised, and the noise of the fighting and clattering pike-shafts, not too many other senses worked too well anymore...

Heck, the Spartans had that one weird training-game where they tried to fell a small tree by a whole file pushing the front guy against it...

This naturally helps to keep the front ranks from being pushed back and helps them press the other side back, and seems to have been de rigueur whenever infantry (especially non-spear ones who couldn't play "let's make horse kebab") had to receive a cavalry charge. A horse may be a whole lot heavier than one human, but it starts having some serious trouble knocking people down when they're braced against the impact and the four to six guys behind them prop them up...

Naturally enough there's practical limits to how many ranks can help "push" before the effect becomes nonexistential or even counter-productive. I've read the deep tercio-style formations in a sense "wasted" a lot of the men available - most of the rear ranks never saw battle unless the square got surrounded and the unti had to start fighting in more than one directions (which it could do quite well). If the enemy broke under the pressure they were too far away and too bunched up to be able to contribute to the pursuit, and if their formation broke... well, routs tend to start at the rear when the guys at the back get anxious.

And they were for obvious reasons fairly clumsy and cumbersome to maneuver.

The Macedonian/Successor deployement method seems to have been to form a very wide, unbroken front of 8 to 16 ranks (this sort of organisation seems to have been used already by the Greek hoplites) which would have "wasted" less men but then again be even more of an utter pain to maneuver, especially in nonoptimal terrain. And three guesses if the Romans were prone to helpfully fighting on flat plains...?

I'm guessing the ranks after six or so were there mostly as reinforcements and moral support for the front ranks - phalanxes weren't totally immune to close-combat casualties even from the front, and there'd always be a few javelins, arrows and slingstones coming through, and the vacant niches had better be filled ASAP.

[zhuge]

Excellent thread! ~:cheers:
I was having trouble with that horse jumping/wraparound issue as well and always thought that more ranks would be better. D'oh!
Really like the discussion and there's also Vercingetorix's fix. Vote to get this stickied or at least indexed.

[Watchman]

D'oh, looks like most of my previous post should've gone into the Monastery instead. Bugger. Oh well, I'll just copy-paste the choice bits later.

[TEP]

The tercio was a counter to armoured cavalry and ended the rule of the knights on the battlefield. It was difficult to master, especially in maneuver, which meant that only professional soldiers could use it (Swiss mercenaries were legendary and later German mercenaries caught on). But it ruled the battlefield in its day.

A stationary precursor, the shiltrom(sp), was used by the Scots to great effect (Braveheart).

Later, as firearms were introduced, longer and thinner lines proved more efficient, because this increased their effect. The counter to this? A massed cavalry charge to break through the line.

Rock, scissors and stone. :dizzy2:


Class dismissed. :book:

[KyodaiSteeleye]

Yes, the Shiltron was used to good effect (except when it wasn't and they got wasted...) - this was a spear formation though. I beg to differ that Shiltron's had anything to do with what was portrayed in Braveheart.

[TEP]

Yes, the Shiltron was used to good effect (except when it wasn't and they got wasted...) - this was a spear formation though. I beg to differ that Shiltron's had anything to do with what was portrayed in Braveheart.

Well, you are right, except that it was used in the battles portrayed (hysterically historically incorrect) in the movie.

It just dawned on me (I'm dense) that there is another forum (the Monastery) for this kind of discussion. Sorry. :embarassed:

[Fridge]

Brilliant threads - both this and the one in the monastery.

Quick question - Vercingetorix's fix, can this be applied mid-campaign? My Seleucid war machine has just pacified the east, and I'm about to take on the Romans, and wouldn't mind fixing my phalanges before I go. Not that the Roman's have much cavalry to worry about, of course.

Also, is there a list of all these little fixes and files anywhere? A menu, if you will.

[CBR]

I had understood that the younger, inexperienced men were in the front rank(s) of the phalanx, while older, more experienced men were behind them to steady them and keep them from breaking.

Seems to make more sense, too...

Thats not what ancient sources say and from what we are told of how units were organisied the file leaders were at the front. The Centurions in the Roman Legions were also at the front (and had high casualty rate because of it) You needed men to give the orders and lead by example and with the best fighters at the front you could kill/wound/force back the enemy quicker to gain a faster victory.

In general casualty rates were not that high. For Classical Greek warfare its been calculated that the winner on average had 5% killed and the loser 14%. And that was for an era with limited cavalry and light troops. With more cavalry it became easier to pursue and kill routing men.

But the point is that units generally dont take that many losses before routing. Having the whole front rank killed would have been devastating for a unit. Men would start losing heart and pull back only to produce a moral ripple effect through the ranks to make the rear ranks start running.


CBR

[CBR]

Hello CBR, visit the monastery, thx ~:)

push or not to push? (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=633962#post633962)

I will have to go through some books, notes and websites but dont worry I will post there ~:)


CBR

[Sid_Quibley]

Quick question - Vercingetorix's fix, can this be applied mid-campaign?

Should work fine mid campaign as it doesnt alter any files relating to save game just negates the jump anim.

[Red Harvest]

One thing some folks might be missing in considering why a deep phalanx would be better than a shallow one (toe-to-toe) is that the deeper unit can survive considerably more disruption. The shallower unit is more likely to rupture somewhere along the line. Even if the shallower unit acheives a local advantage their depth won't allow them to follow up without risking a dangerous schism in their ranks. Plus it will be harder to actually push deeply enough to gain any meaningful advantage against the deeper unit. So with roughly equal training, a deeper phalanx has considerable potential to bust the shallower one via shoving or combat, while the shallower units chances of doing the same are greatly reduced. Negatives for the deeper unit are that it takes a lot of men (resources) and it is still vulnerable to flank attack and mobility issues.

Another aspect, if a deeper unit achieves breakthrough anywhere it will have vastly more men available to exploit the gap, rather than just a few.

[CrusaderMan]

A few remarks on the Greek and macedonian phalanx.


The greek hoplite of 450 bc had heavy armour, a tough bronze covered shield and a 2.5 m spear whose point was of dubious quality and couldnt penetrate the Hoplon shield. Therefore most of the times those spears broke in phx vs phx combat and the front ranks had to resort to pushing and fighting with the sword. Soldiers walked NEXT to each other (not with the huge gap in the game) and the hoplon shield covered only the left side of the user and the right side of his left companion, forcing the soldiers to stay in formation all the times ( the hoplon shield did not provide adequate cover for the soldier in 1vs1 combat but the hoplites armour made up for this). The combination of those was the reason why the greek phalanx contests develloped into a pushing match, it is doubtful that less disciplined vanilla spearmen would do the same. On the whole I picture the phalanx as a more compact and coherent version of the triarii (not hoplites with pikes).

The macedonian phalanx was a different story. The pikeman had a very long spear (5-7m) with a heavy counterweight near the grip on one end and a long and pointed edge of good steel on the other end (bear in mind the chronology). His pike was swung with both hands and with tremendous force and this was the basis of the macedonian phalanx, succesive ranks of phalangites skewering enemies from the front regardless of armour or shield, unlike the defense minded hoplite.

The phalanx was much more agressive and decisive from what is portrayed in the game, upon contact with the enemy hoplites would stab, skewer and push their way through their enemy while remaining in formation, unlike the flimsy embarasing shuffling we see. As for the macedonian phalanx, the enemy facing it from the front had two choices: fall back or impale himself.

A better modelling of the phalanx would involve morale differences between the citizents of the normal hoplite phalanx vs the elite of the profesional mercenary hoplites and the profesional pikemen in the macedonian phalanx. Because of them being profesionals, mercenaries and pikemen should change formation quickly and with minimal disruption, unlike vanilla hoplites which whould take more time but eventually manage to form up. Rotation should also be ordered and lines kept as much as possible, not what we see in the game. Hoplites should get a bonus in shield defence from the front when in formation and pikemen should have a weak defence skill (the shield was not held from their hands but strapped on their shoulder) and be weak in swordfighting. Pikemen should also weaken their formation when marching very long distances or when passing though uneven ground or fordings.
Hoplites should also have a competent sword skill like their roman citizent contemporaries, the hastati and principes but their formation should be less compact from what we see now and their spears should be the same with those of the triarii.

[Lonewarrior]

Interesting, very interesting :book:

[econ21]

Interesting discussion, but just to return to Doug's original points about RTW gameplay is there any truth in RTW that cavalry does much more damage to your infantry if it is caught "on the run"? For example, if you try to deploy your infantry to a new location and formation by dragging the mouse, and the AI cav catches you before you finish, you seem to get butchered. This is true even if you are facing the cav and seems to be because deploying opens up small gaps between the men in your formation that the cavalry exploit. I've encountered it often, trying to maneouvre around the last AI cav in a city forum. If true, it's a nice feature. It seems to somewhat contradict Doug's point about thin lines - maybe it's just saying you need a close formation, not a deep one.

[Doug-Thompson]

... is there any truth in RTW that cavalry does much more damage to your infantry if it is caught "on the run"? For example, if you try to deploy your infantry to a new location and formation by dragging the mouse, and the AI cav catches you before you finish, you seem to get butchered.

This is definitely one of those things I've seen but can't offer proof or a test. I've seen infantry get truly clobbered just because it raised spears and was in the middle of changing facing, much less moving to a new location or changing its formation.


It seems to somewhat contradict Doug's point about thin lines - maybe it's just saying you need a close formation, not a deep one.

Not necessarily -- the infantry needs to be in position and formed up., thick or thin. However, it is true that a long, thin lines take longer to get completely in position than a short, thick one.

I don't play with spear units much, but I always turn phalanx off and click the run button when repositioning them, even if it's just a change of facing.

[Mr Frost]

...
The hoplite's stats are 7-6-16 WHEN the hoplites DON'T lose order and drop their spears. With swords, the stats go down to 5-2-16.
Not in my game they don't : I modded the Hoplite units to have the same sword skill as spear skill {except for the militia hoplites ; I only consider them to be using daggers and they are supposed to suck somewhat} .
Combined with Vercingetorix' fix they chew up frontal cavalry nicely and don't look so silly when their silly sidestep dance lets an enemy unit wrap their flank .
I think I'll leave the pike units sword skills alone though .

[jerby]

nice thread,

i've read 'alexander the great' by an itailan scientist and the book claimed that the phalanx units had different spear sizes so they could form a solid wall of spears to the enemy. is this do-able for rtw, to amke spear sizes differnet per unit?
also, in the alexander book, the macedonians had an elite foot-soldier, the schild-dragers( dutch) wich is free-translated for shield-barer, they had a large shield and a sword.

alexanders elite unit in wich he rode, called 'the point' ( another free translation) the were cav. and had two throwing spear, a shield and a lance for h2h combat.

if this were to be duable for an rtw mod, please let me know.

and a noob-question: how do you put units in deep formation?

PS: someone posted that deep-formed phalanxes had a lot of pushing power,
assuming this is true, then why is a phalanx alsways in defence when you start a battle? did anybody find an explenation for why they made it like that?
it couldn't have been an accident

[Kraxis]

nice thread,

i've read 'alexander the great' by an itailan scientist and the book claimed that the phalanx units had different spear sizes so they could form a solid wall of spears to the enemy. is this do-able for rtw, to amke spear sizes differnet per unit?
also, in the alexander book, the macedonians had an elite foot-soldier, the schild-dragers( dutch) wich is free-translated for shield-barer, they had a large shield and a sword.

alexanders elite unit in wich he rode, called 'the point' ( another free translation) the were cav. and had two throwing spear, a shield and a lance for h2h combat.

if this were to be duable for an rtw mod, please let me know.

and a noob-question: how do you put units in deep formation?

PS: someone posted that deep-formed phalanxes had a lot of pushing power,
assuming this is true, then why is a phalanx alsways in defence when you start a battle? did anybody find an explenation for why they made it like that?
it couldn't have been an accident

First of all, nothing is proven about the length of the pikes if we were to consider them of unequal length. It is entirely possible.
But various things talks against it. First of all, the points would indeed be close together, but they would also be very close to the front ranks (so they would have to be equiped much like hoplites to be fairly likely to survive a clash, but nothing speaks in that favour), a dangerous situation for them, and there would be another problem with the greater lethality for the front ranks, but I will get to that. Then there is the problem of the spearpoints breaking all the time, such was the reality of warfare. If the weapons were of varying length it would be much more demanding on logistics and production, especially on the march in enemy territory (which is where Alexander spent most of his time), it would be significantly easier to produce one length of pikes all the time.
Now back to the point of lethality being a problem besides the obvious. If the first man falls, or even one of those behind him (with projecting points) the entire formation would be disrupted. Suddenly the line would be broken up by various lengths of pikes, making evading the points or hacking them off much much easier, not to say opening the formation up for an attack. So if the pikes were of varying length the roman pilum would have had a very noticeable effect on the phalanx, but apparently it had no important effect.

The Macedonian elite unit you mention are the Hypaspists (shield bearers). They were equiped much like the hoplites and fought like them, they were just better. They were much more mobile and good fighters in close quarters (often the first to attack a fortress or a wall).
In the game they are represented by the Macedonian Royal Pikemen (read their description).

To put units in deep formations you have to drag them like if you want to make the formation thin. When the little arrows begin to pop up begin to move the other way, that way you make units deeper but with much smaller frontage.

[CBR]

The Macedonian elite unit you mention are the Hypaspists (shield bearers). They were equiped much like the hoplites and fought like them, they were just better. They were much more mobile and good fighters in close quarters (often the first to attack a fortress or a wall).
In the game they are represented by the Macedonian Royal Pikemen (read their description).


Hm I dont think there is any conclusive evidence for them being armed like Hoplites. Standard Phalangites were also used for mobile operations as well as sieges. AFAIK there are more evidence that points towards Shield Bearers to be armed just like the Phalangites but they were the elite part of the army.


CBR

[jerby]

and how in shallow/thin/wide formation?

[Kraxis]

Hm I dont think there is any conclusive evidence for them being armed like Hoplites. Standard Phalangites were also used for mobile operations as well as sieges. AFAIK there are more evidence that points towards Shield Bearers to be armed just like the Phalangites but they were the elite part of the army.


CBR

I think I mentioned in another thread that they certainly could act as phalangites if that was what was needed. But their name itself says a good deal about them. If their shield wasn't unusual for the Macedonians why would they get the name of Shield bearers? The other pikemen would be carrying an equal shield... A bigger more traditional shield (the Macedonians had also used hoplites prior to Phillip's reforms) would indeed be likely as there is evidence that the smaller shield of the pikemen was Illyrian, thus the name aspis only applies as a description of what it was, while aspis for those who considered themselves greeks was a bit more specific than just a shield (there was a name for the smaller Thracian shields as you know). It would be much like the Japanese and their names for swords, they too applied those names to foreign swords such as korean and chinese ones, but that was never the intention and was never a cultural fitting name.
The name would be even more fitting if most of the important infantry was equiped with smaller shields, as now the Hypaspists would be the only ones clinging on to the traditional way, very worthy of mentioning for the quite nostalgic greeks and macedonians.
So I'm saying that the Illyrian shield was only described (it performed the job the normal shield did) while the 'local' shield was named.
Then comes the interesting situation that the Hypaspists often led charges into cities and fortresses, facing heavy missile attacks. I don't think I would send in my elite troops to suffer heavy losses to archery and javelins if other troops had an equal chance of getting in. Thus something must have made the Hypaspists more suited to take the initial shower until they cleared a part of the walls for the other troops to exploit. A big 90cm shield would be very suited to cover the men as they advanced. The small Illyrian shield was not big enough to offer adequate protection from missiles and the pikeformations certainly got protection from the pikes (which weren't used in assaults). So big shields adds up, smaller ones doesn't add up as well.

[CBR]

But their name itself says a good deal about them. If their shield wasn't unusual for the Macedonians why would they get the name of Shield bearers?

In Ancient Greece Hypaspist was the term used for the esquires who carried a shield for someone else. Greek writers contemporary with Alexander mostly used the term Doruphori (which means bodyguard) when writing about the Hypaspists. Of the later historians Arrian is AFAIK the only one who actually use the word Hypaspist while others again used words that meant bodyguard/elite unit. Later Byzantines did use the term Hypaspist for Varangian guards so for them the meaning was more function than equipment.

If the Macedonians actually did call them Hypaspists it might very well mean just bodyguards/elite unit and nothing else. Doruphori apparently could mean mercenary units, used by some tyrants, so Philip used an older term for his own trusty "servants" or the term already had changed meaning in Macedonia by then.

Arrian also gives a description about Phalangite equipment but doesnt say anything about the Hypaspists. As he afterall is writing many years after Alexander the Great its strange he doesnt give any details if they were different as he couldnt expect readers to know about them, except if they were just the elite units but with similar equipment.



Macedonians had also used hoplites prior to Phillip's reforms.. *snip* The name would be even more fitting if most of the important infantry was equiped with smaller shields, as now the Hypaspists would be the only ones clinging on to the traditional way, very worthy of mentioning for the quite nostalgic greeks and macedonians.

IIRC they didnt have many if any hoplites before they turned to the Sarissa so they didnt have any real Hoplite tradition, nor would the name Hypaspist be nostalgic as it meant more of a servant than the good old Hoplites.



Then comes the interesting situation that the Hypaspists often led charges into cities and fortresses, facing heavy missile attacks. I don't think I would send in my elite troops to suffer heavy losses to archery and javelins if other troops had an equal chance of getting in.

The key is that other troops dont always have an equal chance of getting in. I dont know if they actually did lead most attacks on fortifications, have to check that, but if you are going to attack a tough spot and want to gain victory as quickly as possible, who do you send in? The elite units or the regular units?


CBR

[Kraxis]

While I haven't studied the issue about the Macedonians having hoplites I have heard others talk about it, also how could Phillip create a very disciplined infantryforce of local men who had no real close formation experience? They suddenly just came into being, being great at their jobs. Not likely if all they had been previously were something like peltasts or individual warriors. Remember that even the Cretans had hoplites, the Rhodians too (Xenophon's Anabasis mentions both). So despite the fact that their homeland wasn't suited for it and that they were experts at ranged combat they had their own hoplites.
Also the Macedonians while very cavalrylike would still have needed something to hold the ground and defend cities.
Arrian only did what everyone else did, you didn't mention what was wellknown, and hoplites were indeed wellknown. Polybius does it, and it is infuriating as we don't know it for sure.
So while in a more modern world what he doesn't write, does indicate that the Hypaspists were pikemen, it doesn't if we look at the way other write as well. In fact my personal experience is that it would rather have been an explaination of the phalangites then "and the Hypaspists were armed in a similar manner" than an exclusion.
Don't forget that we can't pull our conventions down onto ancient writers, just as we can't do the other as well.

That the word Hypaspist later meant 'elite guard, doesn't mean that it meant the same in earlier days. At some point the word and the meaning must have collided and it is certainly not unlikely that these guys were the ones to cause it. And that Arrian is the first to call them Hypaspists might indeed indicate their equipment, for what reason would he have for giving them the name of troops who were nothing special before, it certainly adds to the nondescriptive manner he lay at the door.

Ok using the wording 'equal chance of getting in' is perhaps not the best. What I was getting at was that if all the troops were equally equiped at getting into a defended position why risk heavy losses to your most unreplaceable troops? Honestly, in this instance we can actually make parallels to the TW games. I always sent Peasants or Spearmen to break down gates in MTW and I usually send in Eastern Mercenaries to do the same job in RTW. After that I use my quality troops. It works like a charm.
And it has in later years been like that too, regulars break open the enemy and the elite exploit it.
Even the Romans sent in the Hastati first from what I have read.

So obviously something made the Hypaspists more suited for such combat.

Btw, shouldn't this thread be in the Monestary by now?

[Legerdemain]

Cav jumping spears/pikes annoyed me so much I tried to fix it by editing out the charge_jump cas in the animations pak.

Due to my newb technical abillity havent succeeded,but Vercingetorix the master :bow: has.

A small file fix is availiable Here (http://www.totalwar.org/Downloads/Rtw_Uploads/RTWupload/)

pike_jumping_cav_fix

I tested it using 8 macedonian phalanx units from levy up against 12 gallic cav(cpu attack).In a single line at standard depth the phalanx all used spear except at the flanks where swords were used.They dealt with the cav very easily with only 1 unit sustaining significant losses.

Definitely worth downloading.

I checked there, and I didn't see it--has it moved, or am I doing something wrong?

[Kraxis]

Heh... Finally found something to prove the Macedonain hoplite was indeed there. I knew I had read about them somewhere, this isn't it but it merely substantiates my point.
Macedonian hoplite marching with Lakedaimonian and Cretan (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=311973)
This is from Osprey's "Warriors of Ancient Greece. They don't dabble in total speculation and normally back up their images with archeological, written or pictorial evidence. So in this case we might say that he didn't look like that, or that he wasn't there (with the Spartan and Cretan), but he existed, that much I'm sure of.

By the way, there are quite a few more scans here. You might find them interesting CBR. Lots of Osprey scans. (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=6617&st=180)

[CBR]

Thanks for the pics.


While I haven't studied the issue about the Macedonians having hoplites I have heard others talk about it, also how could Phillip create a very disciplined infantryforce of local men who had no real close formation experience?

I did a check on them and found that earlier kings had Hoplites from the southern Greek colonies. Alexander I (498-454) tried to hellenise his country and encouraged Greek settlements. Apparently several sources say he could field around 3000 Hoplites, all from the Greek settlements. The native infantry are assumed to be peltast like infantry.

There is more info from the times of Perdikkas III (454-413) but the Hoplites are not mentioned and the rest of the army seems to be the same as his father. In 428 BC he preferred to use only cavalry when facing an invasion and leave the infantry behind in fortifications. Allies like the Spartans sent him 1700 Hoplites in 424 BC so generally there was a lack of proper heavy infantry.

Archelaos (413-399) built many fortresses and roads and changed the recruitment system as well as supplying the equipment for the soldiers. But no info on any changes in the army.

Philip II is the one who did the massive changes to his army and he had to as his infantry was not up to the job Philip intended. Even in a battle in 353 BC the Macedonians are mentioned as fighting from a distance with missiles.

Even Alexander the Great had his problem when facing Greek mercs in his Persian Campaign so just because they were pikes didnt make them that much superior.

Archelaos had most likely started the changes in the recruitment system so the army had become more standardised and less chaotic and with Philips continued reforms he could form an acceptable infantry force that could act as heavy infantry.


That the word Hypaspist later meant 'elite guard, doesn't mean that it meant the same in earlier days. At some point the word and the meaning must have collided and it is certainly not unlikely that these guys were the ones to cause it

Yes the meaning did change and as I said Greek writers contempory with Alexander the Great called them bodyguards(Doruphori) So already by then the meaning had changed.


And that Arrian is the first to call them Hypaspists might indeed indicate their equipment, for what reason would he have for giving them the name of troops who were nothing special before, it certainly adds to the nondescriptive manner he lay at the door.

Read above


Honestly, in this instance we can actually make parallels to the TW games. I always sent Peasants or Spearmen to break down gates in MTW and I usually send in Eastern Mercenaries to do the same job in RTW. After that I use my quality troops. It works like a charm.

Hardly a good comparison is it? In MTW any type of unit does the same amount of damage to the gates so no need for elite units and same thing with a ram in RTW. Assaulting a wall using ladders, or even seigetowers, is a much better example: you have to gain control of the wall by defeating the defenders in melee and its a difficult task as your men come up one by one or in small groups. Sending in cheap units will only get them killed as well as it takes a lot of time, so the defender can bring in reinforcements. My velites works great manning the ram but I will always use my best troops for the ladders and towers if the enemy has any kind of melee units waiting for me.


So obviously something made the Hypaspists more suited for such combat.

Well first we have to establish that they actually were the preferred unit to attack first in sieges. And we would also have to add around 3000 extra shields in Alexander's armytrain as they would have to use smaller shields when using pikes and thats the first time I have read that ~:)

To bring it back to RTW then such a unit didnt exist anyway as they were now named Argyraspids and I havent seen anyone suggesting they had larger shields and used spears only. They were elite pikemen and should be pikemen in RTW.


CBR

[Kraxis]

Yes the meaning did change and as I said Greek writers contempory with Alexander the Great called them bodyguards(Doruphori) So already by then the meaning had changed.
Yes I have understood that much.
But somewhere along the lines Hypaspists = Doruphori. Now why would such a namechange happen? When names changes they are often initially logical. Especially if they come to mean something that was previously not considered good at all. So there has to be a reason as to why people suddenly began to call them Hypaspists, it didn't just come out of the sky I suppose.


And we would also have to add around 3000 extra shields in Alexander's armytrain as they would have to use smaller shields when using pikes and thats the first time I have read that ~:)
We know preciously little about what the trains actually carried or how big they were. I tend to believe Alexander's train was rather large. He was having quite serious problems with Memnon and his attacks in the mountains of Asia Minor, had he not died it could have been Alexander was forced to turn around (but that is personal speculation). Also pikes broke often and a lot in combat, so a ready supply of pikes had to carried, as well as large supplies of javelins, both for the javelineers but also for the phalangites when engaged in mountains or sieges, or anywhere it was better. 3000 shields would not be that much in the grand total.


To bring it back to RTW then such a unit didnt exist anyway as they were now named Argyraspids and I havent seen anyone suggesting they had larger shields and used spears only. They were elite pikemen and should be pikemen in RTW.


CBR

Agreed, in the time of RTW there were no Hypaspists left, and indeed the Argyraspists were pikemen. But just like the Sacred Band of Carthage it makes for a more interesting game to have them in, personally I think so.
The reason the Argyraspists now had pikes was simple enough, they faced mostly other pikemen, which would make it hard for speararmed troops to win against. So who would carry on with spears that would ultimately cost you your elite extreme losses every time? Sounds logical to me.

It could very well be that the Hypaspists were marching relic, but neither they nor their employers knew that. And that the pikemen had trouble facing hoplites only seems to indicate, that at least for a while did the Hypaspists have a legal right to carry spears rather than pikes.

Also we musn't forget that the Hypaspists were the guard of the king. Where is such a guard stationed? In the royal city and palace. Not places where a pike is of much use (as we already agree on), but spears on the other hand are much more handy and can still be used to great effect. Naturally in he hallways of the palace they would most likely not carry a spear, as even it would become too cumbersome.

[CBR]

Yes I have understood that much.
But somewhere along the lines Hypaspists = Doruphori. Now why would such a namechange happen? When names changes they are often initially logical. Especially if they come to mean something that was previously not considered good at all. So there has to be a reason as to why people suddenly began to call them Hypaspists, it didn't just come out of the sky I suppose.

We can only speculate why the Macedonians would use that name. If the Macedonians had used it in the original meaning at first, it wouldnt have been for servants in their peltast like levy but for either hoplites or the king's own group of men/nobles so they would already have had a higher status than the main army. And they might already have been much more active on the battlefield in the Macedonian army compared to southern Greek cities. A force recruited from the main population but still purely loyal to the king. To use a word like Hypaspist could indicate a special, and close, relationship to the king.

We dont have to look any further than to the Romans. Legio orginally meant levy/militia but longterm professionals in standing army formations kept that name. Marius and Augustus didnt see a need to change the name even though recruitment and social status of the soldiers was very different.

So I dont see why Hypaspist has to say anything about their equipment


The reason the Argyraspists now had pikes was simple enough, they faced mostly other pikemen, which would make it hard for speararmed troops to win against. So who would carry on with spears that would ultimately cost you your elite extreme losses every time? Sounds logical to me.

It could very well be that the Hypaspists were marching relic, but neither they nor their employers knew that. And that the pikemen had trouble facing hoplites only seems to indicate, that at least for a while did the Hypaspists have a legal right to carry spears rather than pikes.

IIRC Alexander changed the name late in his campaign. I guess he thought putting some silver on their shields would make them go forward a bit longer ~D
And they already used pikes so why would they be considered relics. They seem to be the perfect unit. Able to use javelins, spears and pikes as well as trained to use two types of shields ~;)


CBR

[Kraxis]

I argue about the namechange because you so ably have argued for the name Doruphori was used at their time. So they were a guard, which is logical enough.
But suddenly some historians begin to call them Hypaspists, seemingly not from a contemporary source. Interesting, I say. I wonder why they would begin to do that. The simple solution would be that Polybius used that name when he wrote his book on the phalanx (one has to assume he ventured into the realm of the Hypaspists), but another one would be that Arrian simply didn't know what they were called and named them himself. But what should they be called? For some reason he didn't call them guards. And I don't buy into that Hypaspist would be that positive a label to have on you. Why would they, and not the hoplites become the guards? The hoplites it seems were the better troops and more important ones as well as still tied to the king.

That they could fight with pikes is only understandable, they were after all an infantry elite. They trained often and hard, and were supposed to fight in any condition, be it forest, open plains or even hallways. They would most certainly not be the first nor the last elite guard that was multitrained. There is even a somewhat contemporary trooptype that was not even an elite that was multitrained. The Roman Legionary, he was trained with spear, javelin, sling and sword, some even with bow.
An elite is often the decisive factor on the battlefield, and in old days they were almost always on the right, which it had been learned (in Greece and Macedon) meant that they would often end up in a flanking position. In such as case I would most certainly want a more maneuverable force that could quickly swing in and beat the enemy than a force that had trouble getting the whole unit round. Thus spears would be a better choice.
Now, the pikephalanx didn't drift, but either that wasn't noticed or else it was considered that the enemy would still drift (the first fights with the Greeks would have taught hem that) and the flank would at times still be possible. That the enemy (Persians) didn't drift apparently hadn't been considered, but even there a fast moving effective force was still great. As they say: "If it ain't broken don't fix it." Thus they mainly retained their spears.

[CBR]

But suddenly some historians begin to call them Hypaspists, seemingly not from a contemporary source. Interesting, I say. I wonder why they would begin to do that.

Well it is likely that Arrian used Ptolemy as a source. The point as that a lot of writers didnt bother to use that specific term.


And I don't buy into that Hypaspist would be that positive a label to have on you. Why would they, and not the hoplites become the guards? The hoplites it seems were the better troops and more important ones as well as still tied to the king.

And might I ask what Hoplites? ~;) From what we know Macedonia only had Hoplites from its southern Greek colonies. The native population, that both foot companions and Hypaspist were recruited from, seems to be peltast like troops. He couldnt have had a guard coming from potientially unreliable cities.

And as we assume they did use Hypaspist as the name of their guard it must per definition have meant something positive, regardless of equipment, as the old meaning of the term would still be there. A rich/wealthy man's shield bearer would still be socially higher up compared to an illiterate peasant. IMO it would have been a positive term for the poor Macedonian peasant. In the same sense as we might look at squires in the middleages.


The Roman Legionary, he was trained with spear, javelin, sling and sword, some even with bow.

I know of one battle where the Triarii were put in front instead of the Hastati but I have never heard of them changing weapons. And elite is such a broad term. Compared to mass levies a later professional Legionary could be considered elite as he was a full time soldiers recruited for 25 years. But he wouldnt be elite compared to other units. Apart from slinging Roman soldiers kept to one type of main weapon AFAIK.



In such as case I would most certainly want a more maneuverable force that could quickly swing in and beat the enemy than a force that had trouble getting the whole unit round. Thus spears would be a better choice.

And all it takes is to raise the pikes and you can maneuver quickly. I dont see spears being that much better. What is more important is training and discipline and there the Hypaspist would have an advantage over regular foot companions.

But are you now suggesting that Hypaspist actually used spears and not pikes?


CBR

[Kraxis]

I know of one battle where the Triarii were put in front instead of the Hastati but I have never heard of them changing weapons. And elite is such a broad term. Compared to mass levies a later professional Legionary could be considered elite as he was a full time soldiers recruited for 25 years. But he wouldnt be elite compared to other units. Apart from slinging Roman soldiers kept to one type of main weapon AFAIK.

AFAIK, Ceasars troops used spears a few times in Gaul. I can't believe that he would equip them with a weapon they had no training in. And javelins... Well what do you call the pilum? It is a heavy javelin, so a legionary could certainly use a normal javelin as well, if that was needed, which it was during the various sieges.
About the bow, that might have been aux. troops, but the first Parthian incursion into Roman territory ended with a siege if I'm not totally wrong. There there was an attempt to take a tower but the romans responded with archery.



And all it takes is to raise the pikes and you can maneuver quickly. I dont see spears being that much better. What is more important is training and discipline and there the Hypaspist would have an advantage over regular foot companions.

But are you now suggesting that Hypaspist actually used spears and not pikes?


CBR

No, it wouldn't just need the raising of pikes. With the pike raised the unit would still be cumbersome as running men would have the pikes bumping into each other, some dropping them, ect ect. A spear on the other hand would never get into that problemm and such a swift change in direction could be achieved. If I'm not wrong the Silver Shields at Magnesia couldn't turn to face the Romans eventhough they had quite some time to do it. And I don't believe they were engaged at that point. But now Magnesia isn't my area so I might be wrong.

I have all the time been advocating that the Hypaspists were more like hoplites (not the same exactly but you get the drift) than phalangites. They could use pikes, as it seems they did at Gaugamela. But at Issus they were the first infatry across (during a hail of arrows), and it has been shown that pikemen simply couldn't have advanced over the embankment on the Persian side. It is/was too steep.

[jerby]

issus,
was this becuase of the spears or was it becuase of their superior training?

[Kraxis]

If you are climbing up an opposed incline where you occationally need to put down one hand to steady yourself, it becomes rather apparent that pulling along a pike is not optimal. A spear on the other hand is rather more nimble and you can even use it as a walkingstick (not fully but you can use the buttspike more readily than that of the pike). Of course they could have dropped their main weapon entirely, but I don't think so for two reasons. It is not mentioned that they did that (or were even armed different than normal) and since the enemy carried spears it would give them the edge in combat.

Issus was not won by means of infantry, but their role was important anyway. They needed to keep the Persian infantry occupied while Alexander and his Companions rolled up the Persian flank. In broard terms much the same as Gaugamela (but there are a lot of subtle differences, such as the echelon lineup of the Macdonians).

[angus]

Cav jumping spears/pikes annoyed me so much I tried to fix it by editing out the charge_jump cas in the animations pak.

Due to my newb technical abillity havent succeeded,but Vercingetorix the master :bow: has.

A small file fix is availiable Here (http://www.totalwar.org/Downloads/Rtw_Uploads/RTWupload/)

pike_jumping_cav_fix

I tested it using 8 macedonian phalanx units from levy up against 12 gallic cav(cpu attack).In a single line at standard depth the phalanx all used spear except at the flanks where swords were used.They dealt with the cav very easily with only 1 unit sustaining significant losses.

Definitely worth downloading.

Ive been suffering from my flax totally failing to stop a cav charge for ages and this fix sounds wonderfull but the link seems out of date is there anyway I can get my hands on it?
Thanx in advance

[Simetrical]

Up-to-date link (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=45&t=19041)

-Simetrical

[The Stranger]

Macedon also used Agrianos (light armoured but very well trained mountain peltast) to go into impasseble terrain for phalanx.

[jerby]

wasn't that a conquered tribe of mountain climbers accompaniing Alexander?

[Someone Stupid]

No delete button?

About phalanx pushing and changing unit mass since it still is about what is covered to some degree in this thread, here's the link to the one it should have wen into in the first place.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=713343&postcount=68

[jerby]

so hwo is guard mode affecting the push?

[Someone Stupid]

so hwo is guard mode affecting the push?

Gaurd will keep them stabbing a bit longer, sometimes all the way through. It will at least kill more of them before the AI tells them to spread out (like they are taking arrow fire) even if you have a unit which won't make it through. After they spread out, if your using a low morale pike unit, your going to route quickly if the target isn't mostly dead, gaurd mode or not. Base 4-6 morale units don't take to being flanked very well - and pushing through gets you flanked even with a single unit vs. another thanks to how dense a phalnx needs to be to be effective. Do a custom battle with militia hoplites vs. Hastati. You'll get routed nearly every time, but at least with gaurd mode on, you'll have a chance to kill more of them with a lot less supervision. Then try it with any decent unit (8 morale or so). I've played with it a bit more and I really can't discern any effect from raising the mass thanks to an AI bug making timing this impossible wihtout a lot of added runs and patience (I don't have the time or patience). Any unit that falls over then stands up in the pike mass behind the first row of pikes will not be pushed and seemingly doesn't take damage until attack is reclicked or one waits about 5 seconds (sometimes longer). Once that unit in the pikes does anything - it generally will die. That tells me the AI isn't immediately updating or has some built in delay when dealing with individual soldiers. With gaurd mode on, all the pikes will keep stabbing, although quite quickly, nobody will be in range except the stuck unit as they'll die. Without gaurd mode, they'll generally stop stabbing ecept for those pikes around the person standing up in the mass of them. The attacks don't do damage until you click to attack or wait for the AI to resolve the issue itself, but the animation is there. The whole problem with that unit standing up is that he doesn't get pushed at all until he does something. That takes a bit for that to happen due to AI behavior.

In short if you want pikes to push, it seems the best way of doing it is just to up their attack. If you don't want them to absolutely maul calvary (since they have a bonus or should), adding a negative bonus against calvary would offset that. They'll then just be a bit better at killing troops and as effective as normal against calvary. If you leave the sec stat the same as it normally is, it wouldn't effect flanking and the damage recieved after they drop their pikes from being flanked. Damage matters a lot more than mass. Higher damage means less of a chance of someone "waking up" between the pikes. Rarely happens with Spartans, happens often with Militia Hoplites (even if given the same stats for all but attack - so it is an issue with damage).

[Red Harvest]

If you want pikes to push, you need to increase their mass. Mass = push. Unfortunately, in my attempts to test formation depth, I never found depth directly influencing the push. Kill rate does, but it is not push, it is actually allowing displacement through attrition of the enemy. The last thing the game needs is higher kill rates. Formation type and depth does not seem to determine push. That is why the 1.3 and 1.5 mass units can push 1.0 mass phalanx units back. It is also how cavalry pushes them back. Unfortunately, you can only reduce the ratio with cav, rather than reverse it. However, if you want to make phalanx/hoplite units behave somewhat more realistically use the masses like: militia hops/levy pikes = 1.3 phalanx pike/standard hoplites = 1.6, elites all at 1.8. The one negative is that this carries over into secondary attack, but considering the disadvantages of the phalanx at the moment, it is just compensation.

Guard mode results in phalangites/hoplites losing more rapidly in most tests I have run and most tests that others have reported. The only use I can find for it is in keeping the unit from pursuing a unit that is routing or to try to reduce formation shift. I doubt that guard mode will result in much push even with higher mass, but I haven't tested it much because guard mode loses.

Don't use VH for push tests, the kill rates are much too high. Medium is better. If anything, try reducing the lethality entry of the test units (rather than attack), so that you can distinguish better between kills and pushes.

[Someone Stupid]

I really didn't think much of the difficulty at the time. I don't intend on testing again since it appears mass does help. I only ran the test as some were wondering how to get them to push. I figured mass would help. Was hard to tell how I was testing (mainly difficulty). Also the random stopping of the majority of the line attacking or the fallen soldier deal made me decide it wasn't worth figuring this out anymore than I had.

As for raising the push on Militia and Levy, I wouldn't do that - esp for Militia Hoplites as it would cripple the AI immensely since it would only help them get flanked and when they get flanked they route quickly because of their whoopping 4 moral and next to no armor. Anytime you'd get into a battle and the unit doesn't have flanking protection it's gonna route a lot quicker. Most of the time the AI does get sloppy with it's units as it likes to match counter unit to counter unit more so than the unit in the best position to offset the attack. I can't count the times I've seen pikemen go clear across the battlefield in response to me sending an advanced calvary unit to a side to flank when it wouldh ave been better suited to leaving that unit there and responding with a couple less capable cav counters that would have been attacked by the flanking unit anyhow - just they don't let it get behind them.

Still, the openness of the code for much of the game is something I don't think many appreciate when talking about bugs and such. A lot of minor things can be readily addressed that normally you'd need a patch to fix. Though seeing what is wrong in "code" often makes it more obvious thus more will mention it. At least CA is releasing decent patches. I remember the last games I bought that was somewhat open (Alpha Centauri), I remember actual programmers and the lead of QA (Jeff Morris, Firaxis) even saying that it was our problem, so deal with it. A bug was either non-existant, our fault, or not an issue and we should try to work around it in how we play the game. I remember there was quite a huge group that sent in repeatable problems and they said they couldn't get it to repeat when we could on each others machines. If it was one of the few things which was .txt editable, they'd tell us to fix it. After 4 or 5 patches, it still had issues which the first patch said it fixed, completely broken. That's why I now refuse to buy any product that comes out of Firaxis or BigHugeGames (some dev staff from Firaxis went there). Also MS is known to have held back patches - I remember with AoE 2 there were many bugs which the staff said they had fixed but couldn't release a patch for because MS was against patches at the time (wanted to release only a couple large ones and even then, only after beening pressed on it for a LONG time). MS probably has changed that policy, not to mention they actual seem to provide decent QA for most their releases compared to EA and the like. I mention these only because I did just harp a bit about some rather idiotic bugs and have seen others complain about CA's patches. IMO CA has done fairly well in regards to fixes given the scope of the game and how others handle it. Also they could be hamstrung by the publisher - deals don't just include the game, but also can include who has the rights in regards to patches (and thus publishing them). There is only so much that is easily identifiable and cost effective to fix - CA probably has gotten most of those out the way. Though I'd think the siege reset would be an easy one to fix - then again, I can't look at the entire backend to say. I don't demand a bug free game if it is complex as RTW, though I'd like the bugs minimized - and that is what they've done - even the first release didn't have anything the was truly gamebreaking or truly annoying in my book. Now if I'm playing an FPS, I expect no bugs as there aren't nearly as many AI calculations going on - at least those that are going on are more apparent as to their results. Complexity determines what I expect and CA didn't disapoint.

[The Stranger]

wasn't that a conquered tribe of mountain climbers accompaniing Alexander?

yes it was, but they used a trowing spear

[jerby]

yes it was, but they used a trowing spear
they were climbers right? oh btw, it capitAl

[Craterus]

~:cool: alexanders agrinian troops were from mountain ranges and they were very experienced mountain climbers that did indeed use throwing spears..
(i know a bit about alexander the great) ~:cool: ~D ~:cool: ~D

[jerby]

with how much where they in alexanders army?

[therother]

The game mechanics research of this thread, along with frogbeastegg's Step two three, shuffle two three, dance two three : the big phalanx question (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=38342), have been merged into the new Investigation of the Phalanx formation (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=45334) thread.