Spears, pikes and rank bonuses

Do spear and pike units still get the old MTW rank bonus? I have formed up units of both plain spearmen and phalanx using pike units and put them on guard, then let them receive a charge and fight it out in very good formation. I noticed that only phalanx units have more than the first rank fighting, they get the first two stabbing away. Unless there is a hidden bonus with no animation bulk and good formation no longer provides much of a bonus to spear and pike types. That means the only times more than three ranks will be useful is when taking a damaging charge, such as a cavalry charge. Well, ok four ranks is handy if you anticipate a lot of casualties and don't want to lose unit frontage too quickly.

The results were rather disappointing; I was expecting the first two ranks of spear units and the first three of pike phalanx units to fight. Still, the phalanx is a real meat grinder when in good order and attacked from the front. The piles of dead testing victims were quite large, and in a neat line too :gring:

i was wondering about this too. in particular, should one perform a counter charge w/ spear units (e.g. triarii) when being charged? i've kept my men stationary to receive charges before, and it's the only time that i have taken significant battle loses. would putting the spear units in hold formation help? i'm not even sure they receive a bonus to cavalry?

Bump. Without basic information like this the beginner's guide is going to be very lacking. I can't research everything myself ...

Anyone from CA able to give a quick answer on spears, pikes and rank bonuses? Are there any? If so how do they work. Please? :looks hopeful:

Failing that can anyone prod around in the stat files, research in game by running a few custom battles or something? I've got enough to do pulling all the scattered information together without having to do a lot of research as well.
:help:

I've found that pike men seem to do better in bigger ranks. They still do a lot of damage even if only lined 2 deep. But if you face a strong charge your line will buckle. If you line them in groups of 4 almost nothing gets passed.

I've been playing Brutii today on "very hard/very hard" to see if the Macedonians could put up a decent fight. Unfortunately, they can't. Their light cav did give me some trouble when I was outnumbered 2:1 in cav, but their phalanx units have been easily smashed. Equites are very effective at turning them to rout. I have been using some merc hoplites though to support my archer units when enemy cav charges. On either side (human or AI) I am often seeing heavy and light cav jumping over and into the phalanx *from frontal charges.* This disorders the phalanx and it will often rout as a result. This usually occurs in sieges. As with Carthage, I'm resorting to cav armies with a ranged unit and couple of infantry.

Anything, and I mean anything will completely disrupt a phalanx. It is the only unit moving at less than warp 5 and it gets disordered if someone farts within 100 yards of it. Once disordered or flanked it crumbles rapidly. And those cretan archers will shred most phalanx in just a few volleys at extreme range. (It is entertaining, but not historical.)

Some of what I think is needed to fix phalanx and spears is to give them stronger morale and make their formations tougher to break from the front (and slower to kill from side and rear.) The formation should be difficult to bust, right now it is fragile. Yes, if it busts it should get shredded. But right now it is made of glass... Having such a formation meant you were densely packed and supporting one another, that should not be fragile.

Going a little off-topic, but should a phalanx really be so slow? I mean, it is plausible if a bunch of blokes off the street were trying to do it, but I am sure I've read that Alexander and later the medieval Swiss used to attack at the run with the phalanx. Intuitively, one of those things rushing at you would be formiddable - one crawling at the rate we see in the game would be much less so.

A speed increase would help reduce the fragility of the phalanx, as it would be a little harder to flank. (Likewise toning down the run speed of other units - would-be flankers would help).

Just going off of my memory, what I read in "The Western Way of War" leads me to believe they did move slowly...albeit maybe not as slow as in RTW. Mostly because the Greeks, most notably the Spartans, felt it was worth the few extra casualties from ranged weapons as long as the formation held.

I'd like to see the phalanx formations not take as much damage from ranged attacks as they do. With a hoplon, helm, breastplate, and greaves, an armoured hoplite is going to be VERY hard to kill from point blank with an arrow. A javelin is a different story, but hearing of Cretan archers slaughtering a phalanx is very disappointing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

. Once disordered or flanked it crumbles rapidly.

---

As it should do.

Quote:

---

and slower to kill from side and rear

---

Absolutely not. One small Roman unit that broke off and hit the Macedonian rear in the battle of Cynoscephalae routed the entire Macedonian line.

Besides, I have no idea what you're talking about, I had a unit of Poeni infantry completely surrounded by Principes and man it took a while for them to die, over 10 minutes. Infact it got pretty boring after a while. The problem isnt they're easy to kill, the problem is 90% of the AI generals suck and their units have extremely low moral, routing quickly.
Once they rout that's it, and as you can see from the battle of Cynoscephalae, that isnt exactly unrealsitic either.

Quote:

---

And those cretan archers will shred most phalanx in just a few volleys at extreme range. (It is entertaining, but not historical.)

---

Elite archers ripping up a slow moving unit of Phalanx's. Gee, how odd. I've had soooo much experiance with this, and usually the AI disrupts its line so you end up with 4 units of archers firing at one unit of Hoplites, which is no surprize.
But in a 1v1 situation one volly of arrows will kill 1-4 of them at best.
I've had one unit of Archer Auxulia pretty much waste all its ammo on one unit of Poeni Infantry (just sitting there mind you) and only killing about 10% of them - but when you gang up 4 units of elite archers onto one unit of hoplites though, literally peppering them with arrows, what do you expect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

Going a little off-topic, but should a phalanx really be so slow? I mean, it is plausible if a bunch of blokes off the street were trying to do it, but I am sure I've read that Alexander and later the medieval Swiss used to attack at the run with the phalanx. Intuitively, one of those things rushing at you would be formiddable - one crawling at the rate we see in the game would be much less so.

A speed increase would help reduce the fragility of the phalanx, as it would be a little harder to flank. (Likewise toning down the run speed of other units - would-be flankers would help).

---

That's what I've read too. They are carrying too much gear to be fast but they should be able to run up and switch formation rapidly. Right now, the only way to move them effectively is to switch out of phalanx. But somehow, enemy infantry and cav units can cover the ground faster than they can get back in formation. ~:confused: They were historically slow to turn, and that is what was exploited by the Roman system. I suspect the phalanx units should be about twice as wide as they are, but to do that would take a lot of men per unit. Of course, if the formation were not so easy to disorder they would be a lot tougher as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gith

Just going off of my memory, what I read in "The Western Way of War" leads me to believe they did move slowly...albeit maybe not as slow as in RTW. Mostly because the Greeks, most notably the Spartans, felt it was worth the few extra casualties from ranged weapons as long as the formation held.

I'd like to see the phalanx formations not take as much damage from ranged attacks as they do. With a hoplon, helm, breastplate, and greaves, an armoured hoplite is going to be VERY hard to kill from point blank with an arrow. A javelin is a different story, but hearing of Cretan archers slaughtering a phalanx is very disappointing.

---

They dont slaughter them, unless you have many cretin archers (which are very elite in their own right) ganging up on a small number of Hoplites, usually while the archers defending and the hoplites labouring up a hill, im sure you get the point.
They do take one hell of a pounding from arrows before routing, but there is only so much even the most armoured unit can take.

If the AI advanced its entire line as one this would not happen often, as even one unit of Cretin archers would be hard pressed to whittle down an armoured hoplite unit before reaching your lines.

I agree that at the moment Phalanx units are too easily disrupted from the front, especially from cavalry charges. Cavalry should REALLY get shredded when attacking a phalanx head on, or more of the unit (like at least half) should stop immediately before the wall of spears and throw their riders off. At the moment a frontal charge by cav versus phalanx is much too effective, and often comes close to winning (the phalanx usually manages to beat them off, but their formation is disrupted and the next unit that comes along kills it).

I've had cavalry jump the front of my phalanx but have yet to see it fold from a frontal assault from the AI. I have seen and made AI fold from the front. Usually for me they jump the front and the back 2 lines cut them down and then fall back into place. They do break very easily from the side or back. I broke a Greek line as soon as my 2nd man hit it from the side. I usually never use phalanx except as somebody else said to support and protect archers or other units. They are just too slow to move into position

Morindin,

Make up all the excuses you like. From what I've read, at Cynocephalae, 20 maniples (probably triarii) were sent to support the failing wing and broke Philip's attack because they hit his units in the rear. That is hardly a "handful." Or is ~4,000 men a handful? It was a rocky ridge not well suited for phalanx work but Philip was able to push back one wing of the Roman army. Things fell apart because his other wing didn't reach position in time and were disordered. The phalanx wing that was slaughtered had charged down the ridge to crush the romans on that side to buy time for the other wing. It is an example of the triarii doing what they were intended, saving the day. They were fresh and attacked a phalanx wing that had just been in hard fighting. It wasn't one unit flanking one other and causing a group rout. Kind of bursts that bubble doesn't it?

They shouldn't rout immediately. Continue to call the sky "pink", whatever, but the kill and rout rates don't make sense. Armed, armoured and trained men will fight a lot longer than a few seconds without dying. Naked men with blindfolds on would last longer. In real life, they would see they were in trouble, and might not be able to do much about it, but they wouldn't rout immediately, particularly the guys on the front who realize they need to hold as long as they can hoping that help can arrive, because they won't be able to get away even if they run. Also, the guys on the opposite side won't know what has happened for awhile... Historically, these units did not take many casualties at all, UNTIL they routed. That is the nature of a defensive formation.

I carry around a SINGLE cretian archer unit to mow down armoured hoplites at extreme range. Typically it will cut two or three units to 1/3rd of their original number...at max range if they stand there. If they attack I get to pick one unit apart and usually he is so depleted that he routs without making contact. I've got one unit of 41 men left that regulary wipes out 3 units per battle. The elite missile units are way overpowered. I wouldn't know about the non-elite archer units, I don't see them on the field much in SP. The "elites" are so common as to not be elite. And as always the infantry are on the short end of the stick, particularly the slowest.

Now why is it that the Persians didn't have more luck with their hordes of archers vs. those hoplites? The Greeks were able to accept the small amount of casualties they took from ranged units--and they did not appear to rate the ranged units very highly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Morindin,

Make up all the excuses you like. From what I've read, at Cynocephalae, 20 maniples (probably triarii) were sent to support the failing wing and broke Philip's attack because they hit his units in the rear. That is hardly a "handful." Or is ~4,000 men a handful? It was a rocky ridge not well suited for phalanx work but Philip was able to push back one wing of the Roman army. Things fell apart because his other wing didn't reach position in time and were disordered. The phalanx wing that was slaughtered had charged down the ridge to crush the romans on that side to buy time for the other wing. It is an example of the triarii doing what they were intended, saving the day. They were fresh and attacked a phalanx wing that had just been in hard fighting. It wasn't one unit flanking one other and causing a group rout. Kind of bursts that bubble doesn't it?

---

I know what happened in this battle. There was also no charging down or slaughtering of the disorganised Macedonian wing. The Romans actually WAITED for them to appear at the bottom of the hill, and seeing them not there at all still waited.
When things started to go wrong, Flaminius then ordered the waiting Roman wing up and met the disorganised Macedonian wing at the top of the hill.

That wing the Romans began to push the Macedonians back - they were only disorganised THERE. This then "fresh" wing as you call it, which I SERIOUSLY doubt was "fresh". A single military tribune on the Roman right now acted on his own. He broke away with a force of 20 maniples and swung them around into the rear of the Macedonian heavy infantry in the centre.
This decisive action caused chaos among the Macedonians. Their battle order fell apart, many fled, others simply surrendered.

Now you're proposing that we take away all that an make phalanxs stronger on all sides, not only does that fly in the face of history it would fly in the face of game balance too.

Quote:

---

They shouldn't rout immediately. Continue to call the sky "pink", whatever, but the kill and rout rates don't make sense. Armed, armoured and trained men will fight a lot longer than a few seconds without dying. Naked men with blindfolds on would last longer. In real life, they would see they were in trouble, and might not be able to do much about it, but they wouldn't rout immediately, particularly the guys on the front who realize they need to hold as long as they can hoping that help can arrive, because they won't be able to get away even if they run. Also, the guys on the opposite side won't know what has happened for awhile... Historically, these units did not take many casualties at all, UNTIL they routed. That is the nature of a defensive formation.

---

Your observations of the game are about as scewered as your observations of history. I had a proper battle last night against a Human opponent. I used a Pre-Marius army and they used an early Carthage army. Using proper tactics and supporting lines we had a 30 minute melee between a very small (historically) number of units. The Roman side could have gone on for a lot longer against a more balanced force, but the carthagian infantry is much weaker.
I might add that not only did the Poeni Infantry hold its own against Triarii and Principes, even after it got COMPLETELY surrounded it still put up one hell of a fight until down to around 1/3 its original size.
It actually got pretty boring after a while, with a replay (provided its in sync) as evidence.
The problem isnt in the speed, its with the AI doing a crappy job of protectings its flanks. When a unit gets flanked, it panics. The less experiance the unit has the quicker this happens. There have been heaps of battles in history where rag tag green armies have routed even before the battle has been engaged.

Quote:

---

I carry around a SINGLE cretian archer unit to mow down armoured hoplites at extreme range. Typically it will cut two or three units to 1/3rd of their original number...at max range if they stand there. If they attack I get to pick one unit apart and usually he is so depleted that he routs without making contact. I've got one unit of 41 men left that regulary wipes out 3 units per battle. The elite missile units are way overpowered. I wouldn't know about the non-elite archer units, I don't see them on the field much in SP. The "elites" are so common as to not be elite. And as always the infantry are on the short end of the stick, particularly the slowest.

---

Of course the infantry are in on the short end of the stick, and its more to do with YOU having archers and the enemy having a bunch of slow moving infantry. Its called a match-up.
Spears beat Cavalry beats Swords. Ranged beats NON ranged at range, and loses in melee. That's how the whole system works.
The matchup of an archer is cavalry, if archers mowed down cavalry as opposed to the SLOWEST INFANTRY UNIT IN THE GAME then yeah, it would be unbalanced.
So first of all cavalry is overpowered against their matchup, now archers are overpowered against theirs. What's next?
You know what? One unit of velites can usually rout an enemy unit of Hoplites too. That must mean velites are overpowered!

I regulary use FOUR units of archers in my army, including mercenary cretian archers. Ive wiped out the Macedonian, Carthagians, Spaniards, Britons, Gauls, Dacians, Thracians, Greeks, Pontus, Germans and there is NO WAY one group of archers is THAT powerful. NO way.
Hell it took me a good 5 minutes to whittle down one damn unit of Rebel Naked fanatics with my cretin archers once.

Bloody Pavase Arbalests are *way* more powerful in MTW than RTW archers, mowing down entire rows of enemy knights or infantry on one volly.
If you took them off skirmish mode they could withstand some knight charges and send the Knights routing, how unbalanced is that!
Longbows (especially on Huge unit sizes) usually rout enemy infantry before they even get close, and have a pretty fast ROF too.

And you know what else? The Romans initially had hoplites but abadoned them because they conducted wars on hills, using terrain to their advantage, unlike the Greeks who decided wars on open planes. The Phalanx was not flexible enough and far to unwieldy and slow-moving.
A lot of what Alexander had put together in terms of military tactics were later abadonded too, I might add. The main reason he had success was due to his effective use of cavalry and phalanx, which is something the Macedonians later threw away and the Romans exploited this.

You are always going to have uneven matchups with the AI, exploiting its weakness.
You dont seem a very big fan of multiplayer from previous discussions, so you obviously have no idea on how these units perform in a multiplayer enviroment.
They're pretty well balanced actually, if you have issues with them in your single player game, how about modding it? From the tone of the posts ive read on the multiplayer forums CA are actually getting a bit tired of rants from the users in this forum - and you know what, so I am, when there is a perfectly easy way to fix all your finniky little problems in a couple of txt files.

Infact, the time taken to make these changes to the txt file and make the game the way YOU want it is probably a lot less than the time it took you to write out these posts of yours.

I've decided to put many of these claims of yours Red Harvest to the test, and support my arguments with fact.

Test 1

Are Cretin Archers overpowered vs Armoured Hoplites?

Well for the hell of it, I put them against Macedonian Phalanx, which arnt the best hoplites, quite lightly armoured. Medium Difficulty, and take note that most of us play on Hard or higher which gives the AI an advantage in morale. 0 experiance all around.

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/avh1.jpg
And off they go.

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/avh2.jpg
50/120 left by the time they reach the infantry line. Havnt routed altho shaken. They eventually lose the melee after a boring wait. Some of the best archers in the game vs medium armoured average hoplites. No surprizes there.

No here's the doozy. Red Harvest claims his archers rip up armoured hoplites - not one, but THREE units. So this is the real test.

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/avh3.jpg
And off they go to their supposed doom.

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/avh4.jpg
Well after around 10 volleys, a massive 3 dead armoured hoplites. 3. Sure you didnt mean 3 men as opposed to 3 units Red Harvest?

Cavalry vs Hoplites next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Morindin,

Make up all the excuses you like. From what I've read, at Cynocephalae, 20 maniples (probably triarii) were sent to support the failing wing and broke Philip's attack because they hit his units in the rear. That is hardly a "handful." Or is ~4,000 men a handful? It was a rocky ridge not well suited for phalanx work but Philip was able to push back one wing of the Roman army. Things fell apart because his other wing didn't reach position in time and were disordered. The phalanx wing that was slaughtered had charged down the ridge to crush the romans on that side to buy time for the other wing. It is an example of the triarii doing what they were intended, saving the day. They were fresh and attacked a phalanx wing that had just been in hard fighting. It wasn't one unit flanking one other and causing a group rout. Kind of bursts that bubble doesn't it?

They shouldn't rout immediately. Continue to call the sky "pink", whatever, but the kill and rout rates don't make sense. Armed, armoured and trained men will fight a lot longer than a few seconds without dying. Naked men with blindfolds on would last longer. In real life, they would see they were in trouble, and might not be able to do much about it, but they wouldn't rout immediately, particularly the guys on the front who realize they need to hold as long as they can hoping that help can arrive, because they won't be able to get away even if they run. Also, the guys on the opposite side won't know what has happened for awhile... Historically, these units did not take many casualties at all, UNTIL they routed. That is the nature of a defensive formation.

I carry around a SINGLE cretian archer unit to mow down armoured hoplites at extreme range. Typically it will cut two or three units to 1/3rd of their original number...at max range if they stand there. If they attack I get to pick one unit apart and usually he is so depleted that he routs without making contact. I've got one unit of 41 men left that regulary wipes out 3 units per battle. The elite missile units are way overpowered. I wouldn't know about the non-elite archer units, I don't see them on the field much in SP. The "elites" are so common as to not be elite. And as always the infantry are on the short end of the stick, particularly the slowest.

Now why is it that the Persians didn't have more luck with their hordes of archers vs. those hoplites? The Greeks were able to accept the small amount of casualties they took from ranged units--and they did not appear to rate the ranged units very highly.

---

I'm not sure I agree with you. Servius Galba (leader of the 12th Legion during Julius Ceasar's campaign in Gaul in 56 BC) caused a massive rout after an Gaulish force (Seduni and Veragri) assaulted his understrength legion (short by 2 cohorts, about 960 men) in its winter fort for 6 hours, by simply doing the unexpected.

The Gauls numbered in the 30,000, Galba had a legion minus two cohorts ~5000 - 960. During the assault, when the front assaulting force of Gauls would tire, they would retire from the field to be replaced by fresh troops. After 6 exhausting hours for the legion the Prima Pila and the Military Tribune convinced Galba to sally forth from the fortification (rather than defend from the walls) to try to break the attack, and when they did the Gauls routed and ran (to be trapped against a river below the fort, and some 10,000 slaughtered before it was finished). The Gauls knew that Galba was outnumbered at least 8:1, and still they routed.

Yes, training accounts for a lot.. but reputation does too. And the Romans were known as bad-asses all over the ancient world by Julius Ceasar's time. That counts for a lot.

There are many things that I could point to in RTW that are different than my understanding of Roman Military history, but easy routes against the barbarian generals is in keeping of my understanding of many of them. I for one wish that the ability to route enemy generals was more difficult (since for me, game fun trumps historical accuracy in many many respects) ...

Btw all: lovely posts. Just the fact that there are so many that understand ancient history makes me glad to be part of this wonderful community.

Froggy, re: your original question... I did about a dozen battles this evening with 2v2 phalanxes. Greek Hoplites with bonuses to bring them up to an equal 9/18 rating with Cartaginian Poeni.

I tried disordering via running and rotating, charging, stretching out to two ranks versus five ranks, etc etc.

It doesn't appear that there any any bonuses for multiple ranks. In fact, in the two battles I did with my Hoplites stretched out to two ranks, they actually did better than their Poeni counterparts who were in a standard five-rank phalanx.

However, it does appear that there is an "ordered" bonus for the phalanx formation. Disordered spearmen consistently lost versus an ordered phalanx, though by small margins until the disordered phalanx was down to 20 or less men.

So I think you're right -- the depth only helps when taking cavalry charges. The formation itself is a slight bonus, though.

Same settings as last time (all things being equal).

Armoured Hoplites vs Macedonian Cavalry.

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/avh5.jpg
The cavalry just jumps right through the armoured hoplites ranks without even taking any casualties.

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/avh6.jpg
A long fight then proceeds where the armoured hoplites win EVENTUALLY, but actually sustain MORE casualties.
This is clearly not right.

However, I've always harped on about how Triarii kick Cavalrys butt so I put them to the test

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/avh7.jpg
Deployed in three man deep formation and countercharging they basically halt the cavalry in its tracks. What surprized me is the AI withdraw and countercharged.
It did this a few times. Ive never really seen it do this in single player. This shot is of the AI withdrawing its cavalry getting ready for a new charge.

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/avh8.jpg
In the end, a comfortable victory for the Triarii. Really these two scenarios should be the other way around. The hoplites should have a comfortable victory stopping the cavalry short, whereas the Triarii should have their formation broken up but eventually overcome the horses in melee.

Morindin, you just get more amusing each time. 20 maniples, the triarii. They were not fighting until this, while the others were engaged. They were not needed on the other wing because it was doing well. That is what the triarii are there for, a *fresh* reserve. They were pulled off of the wing that was doing well, and attacked to help the other wing that was being hard pressed. Of course it was the center they turned, the phalanx had advanced on the other side, exposing a gap in the center.

Your talk of long melee is irrelevant. It isn't happening in the SP campaign game. I can get some melee time with one on one fights or more, if I carefully set up flat fields and control the action carefully. It doesn't work with mixed armies vs. the AI. So you might be able to create it in the lab, but it isn't happening on the SP field.

But thanks for proving the point with cavalry. No way that cav should be able to do what it did. Even the "comfortable victory" for the triarii isn't very comfortable. Losing 1/3rd of an ideal counter force is not exactly comfortable (especially since you used a charge to get the bonus.) The triarii do better because they are not so formation dependent. So again, thanks for proving my point and the original posters point. Spears are not beating cav, sometimes they win, sometimes they lose in the best case--head on. In every other case the cav is likely to administer a beating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tamur

Froggy, re: your original question... I did about a dozen battles this evening with 2v2 phalanxes. Greek Hoplites with bonuses to bring them up to an equal 9/18 rating with Cartaginian Poeni.

I tried disordering via running and rotating, charging, stretching out to two ranks versus five ranks, etc etc.

It doesn't appear that there any any bonuses for multiple ranks. In fact, in the two battles I did with my Hoplites stretched out to two ranks, they actually did better than their Poeni counterparts who were in a standard five-rank phalanx.

However, it does appear that there is an "ordered" bonus for the phalanx formation. Disordered spearmen consistently lost versus an ordered phalanx, though by small margins until the disordered phalanx was down to 20 or less men.

So I think you're right -- the depth only helps when taking cavalry charges. The formation itself is a slight bonus, though.

---

Thank you, that is very helpful and the kind of thing I was hoping for when I posted this topic. Also thanks to Indylavi for his contribution. ~:wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg

Thank you, that is very helpful and the kind of thing I was hoping for when I posted this topic. Also thanks to Indylavi for his contribution. ~:wave:

---

Frogbeastegg (interesting name :), unless a rank bonus is hard coded based on unit class (i.e. spearmen) or hard coded based on the formation, it does not exist. The unit stats file has nothing to that effect in it. Which is not to say it does not exist -anywhere-; there are areas of the code which are not exposed, and it could be hidden there.

Hope this helps, and let me know if I can be of further service.

Cheers,

-khel

Yes, thanks khelvan. That does narrow things down a litle. I think the spear rank bonus in MTW was hardcoded to the spear class units, and then a slightly different version hardcoded to the pike class. Maybe one of our MTW modders can supply an answer to that?

Ignoring the phalanx units for a minute, spears are classed as good against cavalry. Why? If we assume there is no rank bonus then there must be an attack or defence bonus. MTW gave spears both rank and attack bonuses. Can anyone find evidence of this bonus in RTW, and what exactly it is? Given that RTW works quite differently on the battlefield the effectiveness could be as simple as a naturally solid, bulky formation to stop the charge and then pick the stationary cav to bits. But ... any decent infantry can use a deep formation with a simple redrag into four or more ranks. A stat bonus of some kind when fighting cavalry does seem the most likely option, but without detail I can't really say anything in the guide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg

Yes, thanks khelvan. That does narrow things down a litle. I think the spear rank bonus in MTW was hardcoded to the spear class units, and then a slightly different version hardcoded to the pike class. Maybe one of our MTW modders can supply an answer to that?

Ignoring the phalanx units for a minute, spears are classed as good against cavalry. Why? If we assume there is no rank bonus then there must be an attack or defence bonus. MTW gave spears both rank and attack bonuses. Can anyone find evidence of this bonus in RTW, and what exactly it is? Given that RTW works quite differently on the battlefield the effectiveness could be as simple as a naturally solid, bulky formation to stop the charge and then pick the stationary cav to bits. But ... any decent infantry can use a deep formation with a simple redrag into four or more ranks. A stat bonus of some kind when fighting cavalry does seem the most likely option, but without detail I can't really say anything in the guide.

---

Rank bonuses were NOT hardcoded in MTW. That is, they are are not hardcoded in the sense you can change them, in crusader_prod_11(or whatever), there is a column for supporting ranks, and can vary from unit to unit(not all "pike" or "spear" units have to have the same supporting ranks). I know this because in the HTW, they modded it so that the Macedonian Phalanx had 10 supporting ranks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg

Yes, thanks khelvan. That does narrow things down a litle. I think the spear rank bonus in MTW was hardcoded to the spear class units, and then a slightly different version hardcoded to the pike class. Maybe one of our MTW modders can supply an answer to that?

Ignoring the phalanx units for a minute, spears are classed as good against cavalry. Why? If we assume there is no rank bonus then there must be an attack or defence bonus. MTW gave spears both rank and attack bonuses. Can anyone find evidence of this bonus in RTW, and what exactly it is? Given that RTW works quite differently on the battlefield the effectiveness could be as simple as a naturally solid, bulky formation to stop the charge and then pick the stationary cav to bits. But ... any decent infantry can use a deep formation with a simple redrag into four or more ranks. A stat bonus of some kind when fighting cavalry does seem the most likely option, but without detail I can't really say anything in the guide.

---

I think its more a fact that cavalry suck in melee than spears getting any sort of bonus against them - as any unit tends to do well (apart from Phalanxs!) but ill do some digging.
Spears after all especially in the Roman army was more a cheap primary weapon than an actual anti-cavalry weapon, it was quite a while before the Romans developed an effective anti-cavalry formation, which ended up involving their pilum over any form of spear.

It would be a shame if there were no supporting ranks in RTW, since we finally get to see the Pike pushing animations with multiple pikes per person in the front rank. It makes little sense to take away the ACTUAL rank bonus but improve the ANIMATION, making it a "just for show" feature.

The main problem with this Phalanx debate from what i can see is this whole Jumping Cavalry thing... A Hoplite Phalanx tends to have at least 3 rows of spears pointing forwards (and the others that are pointing at an angle), Horses would not be able to jump into that, and in reality they would flatly refuse to charge it!

Besides even if Cavalry could jump into a Phalanx wouldn't they get caught by the Spears and Pikes that are at an angle pointing forwards?

As Morindin has pointed out, a Phalanx can survive under fire. Armoured hoplites even more so. The problem comes from this Cavalry jumping ability that seems to nullify any advantage a Phalanx has by having most of the front row of a cavalry unit jump over the spear points and disrupt the formation (which can be fatal to a Phalanx), while Triarii on the other hand are more effective as they do not need to maintain their formation so if cavalry jump into them, they simply turn and stab them with their spears.

"I had a unit of Poeni infantry completely surrounded by Principes and man it took a while for them to die, over 10 minutes."

Goodness! That's great :) Were you using any kill speed/movement mods?

Froggy: the big unit file does not appear to have rank bonuses listed for spears/pikes etc. I assume these would have to be hard coded.

What is listed is various 'mount_effect' bonuses - bonuses you get vs people riding different animals.

triarri, for example, get +4 to horse, camel, and chariot

type roman triarii
dictionary roman_triarii ; Triarii
category infantry
class spearmen
voice_type Medium_1
soldier roman_triarii, 40, 0, 1
officer roman_early_centurion
officer roman_early_standard
mount_effect horse +4, chariot +4, camel +4
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_sap
formation 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 7, 7, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 25 ,0.73
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, no, no, none, 25 ,1
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 7, 5, 5, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 4
stat_ground 2, 0, 0, 0
stat_mental 10, disciplined, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 500, 210, 50, 80, 500
ownership romans julii,romans brutii,romans scipii,romans senate

Greek armored hoplites, do not get any such bonus, which may explains morindiins results above, especially if you consider that spear rank bonuses may not be working

type greek hoplite elite
dictionary greek_hoplite_elite ; Armoured Hoplites
category infantry
class spearmen
voice_type Heavy_1
soldier greek_armoured_hoplite, 40, 0, 1.3
officer greek_standard
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_sap, hardy
formation 1, 1, 2, 2, 5, square, phalanx
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 9, 7, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 25 ,1
stat_pri_attr spear
stat_sec 7, 3, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, sword, 25 ,1
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 11, 6, 5, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 4
stat_ground 2, 0, 0, 0
stat_mental 8, normal, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 640, 210, 70, 100, 640
ownership greek_cities

Do spears and pikes still negate cavalry charge bonuses? I'm guessing they still do, but has anyone tried any experiments of spears and non-spears with similar stats facing cavalry?

I guess the rankbonus is gone.
Mostly because I believe that the bonus was 'merely' a placeholder for the fact that several ranks could fight the enemy. Now the phalanxunits can do that.
If it had been because the spears got a special bonus from having guys in the back, then why don't the other units get it too? See my point.
Anyway it kind of sucks that the phalanxunits don't get a bonus against cavalry and such. But I guess it is because of their secondary weapon should get the bonus as well.

I haven't tried stretching out long phalanx lines. It would be super silly for that to work. The formation is supposed to rely on depth...so if it indeed functions better long and thin, then the phalanx portion of the game engine is even worse than I thought. What the engine should be trying to simulate is some sort of offense stat & defense stat per frontage. A long thin line of long spears might have decent attack per man at the clash, but its defense would be lousy, and its attack would drop to zero once a sword unit reached the shields (that would be rather easy versus a very sparse field of overly long spears.) The formation should fall apart quickly when long and thin.

There appears to be a lot hidden in the engine, perhaps it is based on weapon class (spear) or formation type (phalanx.) It isn't transparent...

As for the "under fire" test. I've had no trouble killing those guys with Cretan archers. As I said, I can mow them down when stationary. When moving I deplete them enough that the unit is shot before it hits the lines, and if often routs just as my opposing infantry unit starts their charge at it. Hit the forward most, then repeat. Morindin distorted what was said (nothing new for him, he always does.) I put the archers in front of the lines too...to extend the killing range, and to avoid friendly fire, plus line of sight kills were supposed to be more likely in the TW engine. Say what you want, but I mow down the hoplites on "very hard." These guys should be hard to take down with archery. Historically they were. Those hordes of Persian archers didn't have an easy time of it.