Printable View
I have been reading the discussion of the tourney where they plan to pit the romans vs the maks and since I can't play it online I would like to create a custom game in which I could fight a balanced phalanx army of about 14 units. I'm thinking they need,
1general,
1 cavalry,
4-6pikes,
2 skirmishers,
2 peltasts
2 flanking/flank protectors?
What do you think?
1 x General
1 x Hetairoi
1 x Hippeis Thessalikoi
1 x Prodromoi
2 x Argyraspides
4 x Pezhetairoi/Hysteroi Pezhetairoi
2 x Thureophoroi
2 x Hoplitai
2 x Sphendonetai Rhodioi
2 x Toxotai Kretikoi
2 x Random units of your choise
Next step is watching yourself getting bitch-slapped. At least I would if I was controlling this army against you :evilgrin:
Maion
Uhm... I don't think that came out the right way, Maion.
In any case, I'm usually pretty conservative when it comes to my army make-up. It's all pretty balanced. Unless I'm playing Makedonia or other successor states with good cavalry. I'm big on cavalry tactics.
Oh, and I'm a horse-archer fiend. But back on topic...
I take, for example, 4 phalanx units, 4 hoplitai in the rear, 4 peltastai/thureophoroi, 4 cavalry. If you want 14 then you can mix say 2 hoplitai and 2 thureophoroi, though I'd miss the Peltastai to tell you the truth. Very vluable units on the battlefield.
I usually go with a full 20-stack for full efficiency so I'd also have toxotai & sphendonetai.
If you want to win just take 11 Phalanxes plus 3 Cavallery...
I mean in EB theres nothing as hard as phalanx so I would count on them.
I would place the Elite on the flanks and two pantapoi Hoplitai as Reserve cause their AP Axes are pretty cool against heavy Cavallery the enemy will most likely throw at you..
But if you want to have fun I guess your army is pretty cool, just dont forget to use the thracian skirmishers instead of peltasts cause they ROCK :yes:
I think your mistaken as to what i was asking. I want to play the Romani and practice slaughtering the Maks. I will be putting the battle difficulty at hard, it should be pretty fair. and i plan to have a balanced roman army from the camillian era. That is why i wanted to have a balanced Phalanx army because whenever i play as a successor faction i created armies that are "efficient" not exactly balanced.
Oh.. Then if you want to have a hard time pick the Army with a lot of Phalangitai.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasiliyi
But your choise is realistic, yes. :juggle2:
That's a very, very unrealistic army composition and i'd leave the server before even starting the battle if you brought that into a game with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios
I'm very curious, Dayve... why?
I happen to find that unit roster very much to my liking.
Well to tell the truth i just tried the unit composition of both armies. The romans (whom i played as) had
1 General
1 Calvary (roman)
1 Pedites extrordinari
2 Trarii
3 Princepe
4 Hastati
2 Velite
The maks had
1 gen
1 calvary
2 Theruphoria
2 Peltasta
1 slinger
2 Akonkistai
4 Pezhetaroi
1 Asparygaros (the elite unit)
and the battle difficulty was on hard and i got my @ss handed to me... now im a romani fan, but it seemed to me like the phalanxes on hard were a bit overpowered. ill have to try the same composition on normal. (oh and im not a terrible infantry commander)
:balloon2: To the maks
Depending on which Equites you gave the Romans and Maks that should be a very winnable battle on M, which is what the stats are balanced for in any case.
Oh, and my thumb-up-butt self feels like saying its "cavalry", not "calvary".:embarassed:
Because unless you fought that army with Marian Roman troops you couldn't win, the Romans have no units like those to compete with their huge numbers, huge attack and defense and morale stats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burebista
In real life a republican Roman army could smash that to pieces on any given day, but not in this game because the units are far too superior, which would make the battle an unfair one, which defeats the object of this game.
Plus, these battles are supposed to be realistic. It's very unrealistic that the Makedonians would be using an army of nothing but nothing but the absolute elite of the elite. There isn't a single unit of levies in that army, of which Makedonia and Greece used more of than anything else.
I beg to differ.
I don't think Alexander set out to conquer half the known world with an army of levies.
Look at the battle of Gaugamela, both sides used their elites. Darius recruited the best of his cavalry from the satrapies under his command, Indian elephants and the dreaded scythed chariots (well, we know what fate those had).
The macedonian army had its elite phalangites, 7000 [by some estimates] of Alexander's best cavalry (with some Thracian and Thessalian mercenary units) and the man himself leading his guards. Parmenion and his elites on the other side of his army.
Also, you have to keep in mind... some of those battles numbered 50 to 200 thousands on each side. In RTW you can have roughly 4000 for each. Not much room for levies and arrow fodder in this kind of an army.
And Vasiliyi, thanks for sharing that with the rest of us. Takes guts to admit a defeat like that (especially with Maion around to rubb it in your face later... don't mind him, he's just a kid with a crush on a whole faction =P).
Then Rome should use it's most elite forces, Marian legions and re-inlisted veterans so that their units are on par with the Macedonian units, stats wise. Also Rome should be given extra units to use, because Macedonian mainline infantry have 240 men per unit as opposed to Rome's 160, even though the Macedonians units have better stats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burebista
I should also point out that all Macedonia could ever throw at Rome were rabble, and were utterly brushed aside like a light sweat on ones forehead. So if you want to make this a realistic "once and for all" battle, your Macedonian army should reflect the fact that it has been at constant war with its every neighbour for half a millennium and was in a state of stagnation and decay in this period, and should thus be composed of mostly levies and led by incompetent drunkard who think that the phalanx is a practical offensive weapon without decent mobile infantry support.
Was I arguing that point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayve
And I should point out that this is neither the point of the game nor desirable in any way.Quote:
I should also point out that all Macedonia could ever throw at Rome were rabble, and were utterly brushed aside like a light sweat on ones forehead. So if you want to make this a realistic "once and for all" battle, your Macedonian army should reflect the fact that it has been at constant war with its every neighbour for half a millennium and was in a state of stagnation and decay in this period, and should thus be composed of mostly levies and led by incompetent drunkard who think that the phalanx is a practical offensive weapon without decent mobile infantry support.
The way I see it, you're simply fishing for arguments to make the Roman army invincible. Not to mention the fact that your last statement is horribly ignorant and insulting to a certain degree.
If you fancy yourself such a great Roman general that you think yourself in the position to insult greater men than you why don't you attempt a fight against a "general" of your par in an online tournament with the above Macedonian army and tell us how badly you got your arse whooped afterwards.
I'm not fishing for anything.
The point of this game is to settle the "Which army was better, Rome or Greece?" question. In history, we already know which one was better. In the game, it cannot be tested properly, because people will not use historical armies. The army posted a while ago with nothing but elites in it is simply not historical for the time this game is set in. A mix of any of those troops with a lot of levies is, but not a 100% elite army that never existed in this time frame.
Instead people should be picking individual battles between Rome and Greece/Macedonia/Seleukia and recreating those. That would be a much easier thing to test with the game.
Dayve has a point. He's not saying to convince but rather argue the point with exaggeration but don't let that get in the way. Phalangites in RTW are overpowered and Macedonia was gassed by all those wars and emigration of its people eastward. While they weren't 'pushed aside' or could 'only field rabble,' they weren't the crack troops of Alexander's army. At the end of the day, all he's saying is that the army compositions are too lavished for a realistic battle.
@Dayve. The Macedonian Army did manage to do well against the Romans in parts of battles. Usually they won part of the battle and lost somewhere else. Without heavy infantry support, the Macedonians couldn't check the Romans defeating part of the line while the Romans could move men to counter a breakthough.
One thing everyone needs to understand. Actually two things
1.) I am not denying Rome's (massive) impact on history, nor do I presume to deny their military prowess. Ave! They did a good job.
I am merely of the opinion that phalanx armies are superior.
2.) The most important thing one needs to understand is, as you stated in a way, Rome's victory over Macedonia was due to the fact that the Macedonians and the rest of the Greeks were tattered by so many wars among each other.
If you really want to see which faction could have been greater or is in the game, you need to pit each factions elite against the other's. It's the only way to settle this matter.
And the army posted above is not a-historical, let's get our semantics straight, it is, I will be the first to admit, anachronistic. But that is a different issue.
Now, antisocialmunky put it very well, the Macedonians that the Romans faced were no rabble, nor were they Alexander's finest.
On a sidenote (and back on topic). Maion's army is defeatable even with Polybian units, as the following experiment will show. 40.000 Mnai was the price. I was left with 3.000 and the AI, 300, and they had a 19-stack. 3200 Macedonians vs. 3000 Romans, roughly. Hard difficulty.
And the successor army was shamefully slaughtered. But hey, I think it was you Dayve who was quoted as saying "You're fighting the AI, how could you NOT win?"
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I didn't even need the Accensi, bloody useless. It was the Triarii that won the battle.
My first battle with the Romani, by the way... only noticed this after it was over.
Hellenic warfare would beat Roman warfare any day frankly. As it did.Quote:
I'm not fishing for anything.
The point of this game is to settle the "Which army was better, Rome or Greece?" question. In history, we already know which one was better. In the game, it cannot be tested properly, because people will not use historical armies. The army posted a while ago with nothing but elites in it is simply not historical for the time this game is set in. A mix of any of those troops with a lot of levies is, but not a 100% elite army that never existed in this time frame.
Instead people should be picking individual battles between Rome and Greece/Macedonia/Seleukia and recreating those. That would be a much easier thing to test with the game.
Of course Rome won in the end due to sheer overwhelming numbers. How many times did Rome get their armies totaly destroyed, and still managed to raise new ones?
You can easily confirm what i am saying just by seeing what hapened to Pyrrhus and to Carthage. And you can of course say that Rome could beat Macedonia any day as it did, but, by the time they actually beated Macedonia, Greek warfare had returned to the stone age, for it was mostly only a clash of phalanx.
Against the KH or Macedonia? A grand total of none.Quote:
Originally Posted by BurningEGO
Pyrrhus had some success and so did Carthage, but a little success is worthless if you still eventually get conquered and don't see independence for another 1,400 years.
"Some sucesses"? He never got defeated by the romans! (Pyrrhus)
The results arent the point. The point is, that the roman war machine wasnt that "awesome". After all their warfare was based on what? Sending wave after wave. Overwhelming numbers over and over again instead of using their brain.Quote:
little success is worthless if you still eventually get conquered and don't see independence for another 1,400 years.
Even despite the countless fiascos Rome suffered, for example, during the 2nd Punic war, they managed to win in the end. That just shows how big their manpower pool/economy was. And that yes, was Rome's greatest strength.
Whenever facing someone who used some sort of "hellenic warfare", in equal grounds (and sometimes even with a vast superiority), they lost. Rome always lacked proper cavalry, and given the fact that heavy infantry units are slow, their enemies always exploited that weakness to deliver a blow either on the flanks or in the rear.
You can easily see that in Cannae, for example. Although in that battle the carthaginian infantry also had an important role.
A typical diadochi/ macedonian army would be fairly large and heavily reliant on infantry and cavalry.
the composition of my seleucid AAR army is comprised of....
6-9 Pikemen
4 cavalry usually medium
2 skirmishers
1-2 archers
1 general
this was a more common "field" army makeup of the time
something you will have to accept though is that Rome developed a strategy that EB cant replicate. when roman legions where faced with Hellenic/Macedonian style warfare they tossed their pila and well see for your self...Quote:
Originally Posted by BurningEGO
http://warandgame.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/sarcf.jpg
http://warandgame.files.wordpress.co.../09/scaff5.jpg
The Phalanx was not an all terrain battle formation either unless you were on flat level ground the following happens.... the image and excerpt below or from the website http://warandgame.wordpress.com/2008...-pike-phalanx/
Regarding the causes of the Roman victories, Polybius wrote in his classical comment on Macedonian and Roman tactics that nothing could withstand the frontal charge of the phalanx as long as it preserved its characteristic formation.22 However, ‘ … it is acknowledged that the phalanx requires level and clear ground with no obstacles such as ditches, clefts, clumps of trees, ridges and water courses, all of which are sufficient to impede and break up such a formation …. the Romans do not make their line equal in force to the enemy and expose all the legions to a frontal attack by the phalanx, but part of their forces remain in reserve and the rest engage the enemy. Afterwards whether the phalanx drives back by its charge the force opposed to it or is repulsed by this force, its own peculiar formation is broken up. For either in following a retreating foe or in flying before an attacking foe, they leave behind the other parts of their own army, upon which the enemy’s reserve have room enough in the space formerly held by the phalanx to attack no longer in front but appearing by a lateral movement on the flank and rear of the phalanx …. the Macedonian formation is at times of little use and at times of no use at all, because the phalanx soldier can be of service neither in detachments nor singly, while the Roman formation is efficient. For every Roman soldier, once he is armed and sets about his business, can adapt himself equally well to every place and time and can meet attack from every quarter . He is likewise equally prepared and equally in condition whether he has to fight together with the whole army or with a part of it or in maniples or singly
In this way Polybius clearly presented what was most likely to happen in every encounter between phalanx and legion.
The point is that the Phalanx was not flexible and its soldiers when forced into man on man combat where inferior to better trained roman legionaries. the Phalanx was great but the problem was that you had to be on flat ground with out any stumps large rocks or any other formation to screw up the formation. and more often than not you are fighting in or on terrain not favorable to this formation. Great Generals like alexander and phillip made this formation work only because on top of being geniuses they wouldn't let their men chase retreating troops and chose their battlefields and didn't let their men leave the area for fear of exposing or breaking up the formation. so in the end the phalanx was out dated by a style of warfare that was more flexible and could be executed in almost any terrain. sory for the long post guys lol
I love how you're forgetting to mention the battles where Rome fought against Hellenic enemies with vastly superior armies and won with little casualties.Quote:
Originally Posted by BurningEGO
"2.) The most important thing one needs to understand is, as you stated in a way, Rome's victory over Macedonia was due to the fact that the Macedonians and the rest of the Greeks were tattered by so many wars among each other."
And Rome was not by the 2nd Punic when they took on Macedonia and defeated them in 2nd macedonian? Have you any idea how much Italy had suffered from the Punic wars? If not Brunt's "Italian manpower" will give you a good idea.
Edit, I have some musings on legion Vs Phalanx in this thread, I simply am too lazy to repost something debated 2 weeks ago ;-) sorry for that https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...25#post2123625
Thing is, i am not speaking of Phalanx to Legion battles. But hellenic warfare as a whole - which means, that infantry has a defensive role, and will hold the enemy, while cavalry or some other elite troops will conduct deadly flank/rear attacks. In a short resume, the cavalry or whatever elite troops used to perform such actions were the real killers.
Roman warfare was the opposite - infantry was the main killer while cavalry had a supportive role. Whenever these 2 type of warfares collided, Rome was usually badly beaten.
I already said - when Rome fought any greeks or macedonia, the greeks or the macedons obviously were badly beaten because they limited themselves in using only phalanx formations. That is not Hellenic warfare. Or at least not the latest form of it.Quote:
I love how you're forgetting to mention the battles where Rome fought against Hellenic enemies with vastly superior armies and won with little casualties.
If you check Cynoscephalae or Pydna, you will see that Macedonia barely even bothered using cavalry.
I have to point out that in most historical cases of cavalry vs heavy infantry the heavy infantry has prevailed. And again to my other post, further I sort of feel obliged to point out too that Pyrrhus was beat by the Romans at Beneventum. Not overwhelmingly, but then again the victories you Hellene lovers gloat over from him were hardly convincing either. The phrase Pyrrhic Victory comes from somewhere. And in both instances when he defeated the Romans, it was the elephants that was the decisive factor, at Beneventum the Romans countered the elephants and won...
Dunno why people keep saying that Hellenic warfare was superior to Roman, who won and created an empire?
Oh yes, "the greeks or the macedons obviously were badly beaten because they limited themselves...", there is always an excuse is there not?
Its true that Roman legionaries had a good chance of repelling cavalry attacks... provided they were organized properly against such. There are countless examples where a good general managed to beat cavalry forces with heavy infantry. In fact, Rome did rather well even when facing Parthian-Persian-Armenian Cataphracts.Quote:
most historical cases of cavalry vs heavy infantry the heavy infantry has prevailed
Making use of tight formations (to soften the enemy charge), firing at the enemy (sometimes legions were even given slingers), exchanging the Pilum with heavy thrusting spears, using terrain to their advantage, creating some very loud noise by yelling and/or beating their shields or even using caltrops, were just some things the Romans would do against cavalry forces.
And, cavalry forces were not that powerful as in the middle ages since their charges were not as devastating.
But did i say that Cavalry was better then Heavy Infantry? What i said is that the combined arms, the way, for example, Hannibal used was far more devastating then the old Roman strategy of "throw at them all we have got". A cavalry charge in the enemy rear would cause devastating casualties. Suposing, they werent expecting such (otherwise the legionaries would be able to repel such an attack like Caesar did in Pharsalus).
First of, Pyrrhus' army had been drained due to his struggles in Sicily and due to his other Pyrric Victories. Secondly, he didnt loose. In fact, the battle was inconclusive to each side, but he did afterwards decide to abandon Italy for good. He didnt have the means to beat the Romans as everyone should know (in fact, few had).Quote:
I sort of feel obliged to point out too that Pyrrhus was beat by the Romans at Beneventum.
Of course, the Romans had an almost infinite reserve of manpower. Despite all their looses they always managed to bolster their ranks again and throw at Pyrrhus everything they had. If Pyrrhus had the same resources as Rome, he would have definetely win. The Romans only managed to annex Magna Graecia because they were experts at fighting wars of atrition. Hannibal couldnt defeat them, and Pyrrhus was no exception either. Although Hannibal had a lot of conspiracies going on against him.Quote:
The phrase Pyrrhic Victory comes from somewhere.
Its a fact that the romans managed to snatch such big victories from Macedonia due to the incompetence of certain leaders, like Perseus. Macedonia was not what it was, either. The army was just a shadow of its former self.Quote:
Oh yes, "the greeks or the macedons obviously were badly beaten because they limited themselves...", there is always an excuse is there not?
By the time of the third macedonian war, everything was in favour of Rome. Had Rome faced a Macedonia so strong as the one of Alexander The Great (prior to his conquest of Persia), for example, things would have been absurdly different.
Beating a nation when that same nation is at its weakest, doesnt really show any kind of superiority.
Ancient Rome had little, if any, enemies (they actually had many, but few that could actually match their finances and manpower). Only real threat to Roman existance was Carthage, but due to internal intrigues Hannibal was limited. All of its neighbours were, far inferior, and didnt have the means to challenge Rome. Even great leaders like Pyrrhus were unable to defeat Rome due to lack of resources.Quote:
Dunno why people keep saying that Hellenic warfare was superior to Roman, who won and created an empire?
Again, just because of sheer weight, brute force and a vast economy, it doesnt properly mean that Roman warfare was superior to Hellenic wafare.
How many times did Rome actually manage to win a battle against a force using some sort of Hellenic warfare? And how many times did they loose against such a style? I dont know the exact numbers, but its rather obvious that their defeats under such circunstances were far bigger then their victories.
I am just stating the obvious. If you "Roman lovers" are unable to see it due to your blind love, your problem. And dont call me Hellene lover, bud. My first name starts with a R, and its closely related to Rome. Its a very famous name, and if you discover it, i will give you a cookie. :verycool:Quote:
you Hellene lovers
Romulus? Remus?Quote:
Originally Posted by BurningEGO
Fail. It's Romeo
Rex?
Ricimer?