Printable View
It seems to me that phalanxes in the game are extremely weak when attacked from behind. A charge of infantry or cavalry into the rear, or even a volley of pila can easily rout a decent phalanx in a matter of seconds with very minimal causalties. It seems very unreal that they wouldn't even put up the slightest resistance.
You know...
It's normal. A unit attacked from behind especially by cavalry because of their thunderous charge, any unit will be decimated.
I suspect it is a game effect thing. Do you want the battle to last 3-4 hours?
At Cannae, the Romans fought on long after they had been enveloped and the results decided. Yeah they lost, but didn't just run skeered in 10 seconds from one charge.
On the other hand, the Union flank hammered by Jackson at Chancellorsville folded in mere moments.
Then again... the corp on the receiving end of Jackson's attack in Chancellorsville WAS the oft-maligned 11th corp, which did not exactly have a shining combat record throughout most of the Civil War. Not what I'd call a 100% fair comparison...
One of the problems of being enveloped is there's nowhere to run.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Yes, it does put a damper on the "run away" tactic. ~:) Not quite as bad as routing on a bridge by running to the enemy spears but...Quote:
Originally Posted by Afro Thunder
The Corps shattered at Chancellorsville had had problems before, and did again at Gettysburg. Weak morale does matter. What the original poster was objecting to was the tendency for a professional phalanx to crumble as that corps did even though it didn't have those problems. Town watch crumbling is one thing...
SF
The phalanx was very vulnerable from the flank or rear in real life. They should not be able to put up much resistance when attacked there.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
Perhaps there should be a higher likelyhood of "Fighting to the death" when surrounded?
In RTR6 I've noticed surrounded phalangites fighting to the death & then routing if I open a gap.
Yes very true. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Just imagine a Phalanx unit defending itself from say, a Roman Cohort. With all or most members of the phalanx thrusting their pikes forward to dispatch the enemy their would be little the rear or flank could do even if one rank did turn around to face the charging cavalry or whatever, and this is true with Rome: Total War.
Thanks ~:cheers:
But it's just strange when a phalanx has a unit of cavalry behind it and they take no notice of it whatsoever. You just wnat to shout out "he's behind you!".
I was fighting some gold chevron spartans, surrounded them with praetorian cohorts and they fought to the death.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoom
Fighting to the death is basically a routing unit finding it has nowhere to run to.
The major problem with the Phalanx is its inflexibility. Your talking about 100(dunno the actual number) guys with 15ft spears in close formation having to straighten up and pivot to the incoming danger which is incredibly difficult to do as they have to do it all at the same time and even so then they'll just expose another flank.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
It's basically a massacre if someone smashes into its flanks because technically they can't defend it without exposing another flank.
Quite possibly their (the phalanx members') perception is seriously hampered when involved in a melee battle. You know, they can't use their camera rotation/zoom button like us! They probably just wouldn't notice a cavalry charge from behind and be even more surprised, which might cause panic.
I'm not saying the whole phalanx should turn round, just the rear most ranks to face the threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless
The ENEMIES OF ROME by Philip Matyszak has a picture of a phalanx in here which I have, it notes a couple times that the long pikes and close formation made it impossible for the men to manoeuvre. And the Roman cohorts smashed the left wing of Philips army and broke it in which allowed them to fall on their flanks and rears.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
As for having individual men in the unit to rotate themselves to face a threat I'm not a contemporary military expert enough to answer that effectively, hopefully someone else here can. But as said before and time again, the Cohorts strength was its flexiblity, the phalanx had none.
BTW I've yet to see a phalanx group rout in the event of a volley of pila, though that was ONLY when 3-4 cohorts threw their pillas at one phalanx group.
uhhh yea they r weak. when a cav unit charges ur spears and the lead horse carves a line through ur center pushing ur guys back. gay.
I've seen a phalanx rout due to pila volleys. Had 3 hastatii throwing at one low tech phalanx - and they ran, like a whipped dog!
Phalanxes seem about right in RTR v6.0 (although I somewhat preferred the more powerful ones in v5.4). They will overcome Roman heavy infantry if left long enough, head to head, but will fall if subject to lots of javelin fire and/or being pinned then flanked. It's fun charging heavy cavalry into the rear of a withdrawing phalanx. Sometimes - if they are wavering - you'll get lucky and they'll break, but usually, they take the impact, then turn around and proceed to massacre your expensive cavalry. Generally not recommended. I'd never try a head-on cavalry charge (although the AI does and does not live to regret it). I agree phalanxes seem flawed against cav in vanilla (although CA has promised to correct this for BI).
I've noticed something like the behaviour the original poster complained about with non-phalanx formations. On a wall, a defender may turn to face one attacker and leave it's rear exposed to another attacker. The rear defending soldiers don't always seem to face their attackers in the way that commonsense would dictate. I suspect that this is deliberate programming by CA to make sure there is an advantage to flanking and to avoid the game degenerating into an RTS style mass scrummage. Think of it - like the small unit sizes - as a modelling abstraction rather than a literal representation and you might find it inoffensive.
Phalanxes are weak from the rear. A classic syntagma deployed its 256 men 16 deep and 16 broad. You needed at least 5 ranks to fight at full hedgehog effectiveness, since about 5 spearpoints stick out ahead of the front rank. Theoretically, turning the rear 5 ranks to face a threat would be feasible, since they carried their pikes raised and could 'about-face'. It wouldn't have the resilience of the front of a full syntagma, though, as its true fighting depth is too shallow to resist, say, a heavy cavalry charge, and once broken into, the hosrsemen would be attacking the rear of the front 10 or so ranks.
All that aside, R:TW units *do* just stand there and ignore threats to their rear unless you do something about it. How many times have idle cavalry been done a mischief from behind by infantry. It's nothing to do with what would happen in real life.
That's right. You the player are supposed to counter the threats by maneuvering your units; playing both defensively and offensively at the same time. You are the commander of each individual unit which is why the gameplay has to be slow enough so you have enough time to actually perform the task for all 20 units.Quote:
Originally Posted by womble
They have pointy things stuck in formation! ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
Takes some micro managing if fighting on more sides. :bow:
Some times press stop/halt, some times remove from phalanx formation better if facing more units. :balloon2:
Turning formation with ., keys some times is good idea if you see charge coming. ~:handball:
But when charge hits from behind of phalanx, it shall be very nasty for phalangites. :charge:
That's true but at that point the cavalry is too close and the phalanx would switch to their weaker swords and usually when I have a cavalry unit do this the Phalanx would already be fighting a cohort or something else so it makes things worse for the Phalanx to turn around. Cavalry has to be done right as in the texts most battles were won due to the Cavalry which mainly just smashed the enemy's rear and flanks and collapse it.Quote:
but usually, they take the impact, then turn around and proceed to massacre your expensive cavalry.
Yes, pinning is the trick. I think that's related to the point I made about units seeming to have to face a certain direction and not fully adapt to enemies at both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless
But the situation I was referring to was when the AI realises early on in a battle that it is outgunned and tries to high tail it off the map. Sometimes I can't resist trying to catch them with my cavalry. It's usually a costly decision (although in RTR 5.4, it worked like a dream with companions).
That's interesting - if it is true, then it makes me feel better about the historical accuracy of RTW. Pinning with infantry and charging into the rear with cav is a killer - perhaps the killer - SP tactic in TW games.Quote:
Cavalry has to be done right as in the texts most battles were won due to the Cavalry which mainly just smashed the enemy's rear and flanks and collapse it.
Flanking with infantry or cavalry was decisive against a phalanx battleline in the battles I've read about. Later generations forgot the lessons of Alexander which was to use combined arms and protect the flanks of the phalanx with other kinds of troops. I think this is the case in RTW, but, given the weakness of the phalanx flanks, it should be better to the front. Historically, it was very good to the front and could fight for a long time, and I don't think that capability is reflected properly in RTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless
Perhaps that weakness is due to phalanx/cavalry charge interactions that CA has said it will patch for BI?Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Against, infantry, the frontal phalanx seems pretty strong in RTW. I recall in a PBM German, my spear warbands could wipe out whole stacks of AI hastati with virtually no loss just by marching through them.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/simon.a...1/Germany6.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/simon.a...1/Germany7.jpg
For more, see:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=44997
I know what you mean, although when I try this it's usually the infantry which starts routing. Maybe this is due to the charge bug but heavy cav charging in the back of a retreating phalanx is quite reliable in my experience. If you want to seal their rout, use two units...and pray they don't turn around and re-group right before the charge hits them. In RTW phalanx units are remarkably quick in turning on and off phalanx formation, which makes them rather strong and not nearly as unmaneuverable as they must have been in reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
As nameless has stated, phalanxes tend to switch to swords anyway once they are charged in their flanks/rear and subsequently pose not much of a threat even if they won't rout.
At least in RTR 6.0, there is an exception: Never ever use the bodyguard of an average family member to chase retreating units. Since their size has been halved roughly, even plain javelinmen will easily finish off the unit after its charge has burned out. To achieve good results (=the desired rout) one has to use full-strength units.
Good advice, but I suspect there is some wierd bug with skirmishers against cavalry. I often find I charge heavy cavalry into retreating skirmishers and the little blighters turn around and kill about a third of my men very quickly. It's like the cavalry stop charging when among the skirmishers stop running. The cavalry do very little damage and seem much more vulnerable than if they have waded into a compact formation of heavy infantry. I don't know how to explain it, but it has made me very cautious of unleashing cavalry on skirmishers (which I did with abandon in MTW).Quote:
Originally Posted by Deus ret.
....that's a darn good explanation. Actually heavy infantry seems to be a lot more vulnerable to chasing cavalry than skirmishers. Some of them (Berbers) get a bonus vs cav; this does not sufficiently account for combat losses though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
Another bug to report! hooray! :charge:
I was checking RTR stats recently and saw several skirmishers having the spear atribute which is bad for cav. I think that explains why cav sometimes gets slaughtered against something that is supposed to be easy to kill heh.
In general I find cavalry too weak and expensive in RTR. I see no point in buying expensive heavy cav when all I can use them for is chasing routers.
CBR