Hoplites have been put at an unfair disadvantage because they can't form a phalanx...

I know it's historical that they fought overhand and whatnot, but since the phalanx formation has been removes, Greek hoplites take huge damage against archers, slingers and ESPECIALLY javelineers...

I just started my first campaign with a hoplite using faction, the Greeks, and i notice that my hoplites get torn up by the above mentioned missle units... Even Spartan hoplites!

Now, this may be historically accurate, as i understand large numbers of skirmishers became the order of the day in the later years due to the casualties they could inflict, but this is putting the Greeks at an unfair disadvantage against phalangites, which CAN form a phalanx.

Phalanx formation reduces missle damage so much that whole units of skirmishers can loose 10 volleys into them and not kill even 1 man, despite the phalangites being more lightly armoured and having smaller shields than hoplites...

A full unit of 160 Greek classical hoplites will get butchered by a unit of akontistai... If all volleys are thrown, the hoplites will take over 1/4 losses, sometimes more, even Spartans... Whereas a mediocre unit of phalangites, if all volleys are thrown, will take around 1/20 damage, if that... The better phalangites don't take any damage at all frontally from skirmishers, or if they do it's just one or two men.

Is there no way to make the phalangites weaker to missles while still retaining their current defence valued in hand to hand?

I wuv my hoplites and think that they are great units. I do agree that missiles can do alot of damage against them, but they are well balanced, all around good units. The thing that you have to keep in mind is that they shouldn't be compared to phalanxes like that. Just because the phalanx gets the additional frontal missile bonus doesn't put the greeks to a disadvantage, Just look at all the advantages of the phalanx, slow, bad when the formation loses cohesion, and nearly no missile defense from behind or to the sides.

I'd just include more skirmishers and outrunner hoplites to soak up damage and slingers to take out their slingers.

Greek hoplites are one of the best units in the game in terms of overall usefulness and cost-effectiveness for what they offer, if not the best unit on these terms.

Hoplites have a great defense, excelent morale, being able to sap, bonus against cavalry, and a good charge bonus (6). It costs 343 of upkeep per 1 unit of 160 men. The Galatian Heavy Spearman, for eg, a unit comparable to the hoplite greek statwise, needs +600 to upkeep.

They are a fine addition to any army, and I cannot simply see their "unfair disadvantage".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

A full unit of 160 Greek classical hoplites will get butchered by a unit of akontistai... If all volleys are thrown, the hoplites will take over 1/4 losses, sometimes more, even Spartans... Whereas a mediocre unit of phalangites, if all volleys are thrown, will take around 1/20 damage, if that... The better phalangites don't take any damage at all frontally from skirmishers, or if they do it's just one or two men.

Is there no way to make the phalangites weaker to missles while still retaining their current defence valued in hand to hand?

---

The bolded part is almost certainly an exaggeration. I've seen Akontisai cause some nasty casualties against armoured troops but that's a rare, random occurrence.

I agree that phalangites are a little to durable, most probably due to their high shield bonuses. Shield points are more effective against missiles then armour points, especially slingers. These shields would be pretty durable (I understand they're partly bronze, just like argive shields) but they're fairly small and only protect the torso.

Try editing the EDU and give phalangites -1 on the shield bonuses and hoplites +1, you'll see a noticable difference in missile casualties. If you want you can compensate this loss/gain with the armour or defense skill values.

the only time Ive seen casualties like that is if the missile units attack from the flank when the phalanx is engaged

personally, I think the phalangite pikemen are way over-armored.
They're suppose to be lightly armored soldiers with small shields...yet I can fire hundreds of rounds of arrows into them and only kill 3-4 soldiers.

I agree that the phalanx formation in .81/.81a version gives the phalangites a ridiculously high level of protection against missile weapons. I mean, how the hell are levy phalangites surviving cretan archer barages while my classical hoplites are getting torn to shreds?

The pikes had a habit of entangling projectiles, I understand. Imagine trying to fire an arrow through several successive fences and you should get the idea.

As for the Classicals, didn't they once adopt the technique of running the last hundred meters or so just to clear the "kill zone" of Persian archers ASAP ? And that was not during the Peloponnesian War period of leaving body armour off...

That's right. I have to counter the fact that phalangites wore little armor. they would be regularly equiped with a linen/leather cuirass and the shield was enough. Later, in medieval Europe, several people managed to achieve great results with pike formations without shields. the reformed phalanx of the Macedonians had chain mail to protect themselves thus gaining much more endurance than their predecessors. All in all, I don't think hoplites have such a disadvantage as I've never seen the casualties you've faced (not saying it can't happen but I guess the odds are pretty low).


Cheers...

^ if a metal arrowhead struck the wooden pike, wooden that splinter or shatter the pike? Pikes being able to stop/entagle arrows would also mean pikes getting damaged/destroyed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intranetusa

^ if a metal arrowhead struck the wooden pike, wooden that splinter or shatter the pike? Pikes being able to stop/entagle arrows would also mean pikes getting damaged/destroyed

---

The fun thing about wood is its ability bend/twist/absorb and diffuse force unlike stone. If an arrow hit a pike, the pike would bend and maybe the arrow would get lodged but it wouldn't snap. I would think that things used to stop horsemen and resist annoying little men trying to hack the tips off could survive a arrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

I know it's historical that they fought overhand and whatnot, but since the phalanx formation has been removes, Greek hoplites take huge damage against archers, slingers and ESPECIALLY javelineers...

I just started my first campaign with a hoplite using faction, the Greeks, and i notice that my hoplites get torn up by the above mentioned missle units... Even Spartan hoplites!

Now, this may be historically accurate, as i understand large numbers of skirmishers became the order of the day in the later years due to the casualties they could inflict, but this is putting the Greeks at an unfair disadvantage against phalangites, which CAN form a phalanx.

Phalanx formation reduces missle damage so much that whole units of skirmishers can loose 10 volleys into them and not kill even 1 man, despite the phalangites being more lightly armoured and having smaller shields than hoplites...

A full unit of 160 Greek classical hoplites will get butchered by a unit of akontistai... If all volleys are thrown, the hoplites will take over 1/4 losses, sometimes more, even Spartans... Whereas a mediocre unit of phalangites, if all volleys are thrown, will take around 1/20 damage, if that... The better phalangites don't take any damage at all frontally from skirmishers, or if they do it's just one or two men.

Is there no way to make the phalangites weaker to missles while still retaining their current defence valued in hand to hand?

---

I'v personally never seen that, most troops with hoplite level armour/shield or more take like zero missile damage unless I have like 4-5 slingers on them. But to be fair, it could happen, ask the spartans at the Battle of Lechaeum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

The fun thing about wood is its ability bend/twist/absorb and diffuse force unlike stone. If an arrow hit a pike, the pike would bend and maybe the arrow would get lodged but it wouldn't snap. I would think that things used to stop horsemen and resist annoying little men trying to hack the tips off could survive a arrow.

---

Plus the pike-shafts are thin, round, and at most inconvenient angles for achieving the kind of square hit that would allow most projectiles to do much beyond bounce off and leave a scrape. And a projectile trying to play flipper ball amongst serried ranks of pikes is pretty obviously going to run out of energy but fast, and certainly won't be the most dangerous object around for the pikemen.

As for Lechaeum, wasn't that during the period when hoplite armour was pretty much restricted to helmets for improved tactical mobility ? I've gotten the impression body armour for the heavy infantry only again became common some decades later, probably because the hoplites had started feeling really vulnerable to all these darn skirmishers, slingers and archers now running all around the place...

Actually I believe it was in the Tracian wars they ditched the armor so they could catch those darn peltast slingers and whatnot. But as the time flew by, they realised that in heavy infantry combat (like against persians and such) it was their armor that gave them so much staying power against other weapons (thermopilae) so they readopted it leaving only some squadrons lightly armored to serve as fast infantry.


Cheers...

I wonder about that. I seem to recall reading the first ones to drop armour on a large scale were the Spartans (who AFAIK didn't have too much contact with the Itchy Dwar- pesky Thracians), in the interests of tactical nimbleness of formation, a couple of decades before the Peloponnesian War broke out - and the hoplites still mainly fought each other in that one too, what now the cavalry and light infantry arms were making themselves increasingly (and, particularly in the case of the horsies, often bloodily) felt. So I rather doubt if they regarded the armour as such a primary consideration for heavy-infantry clashes all things considered.

Well armour was being dropped from the eighth century onwards. Vambraces and thigh,/bicep protection was pretty much gone by the Persian Wars and by the start of the Peloponesian Wars Linthorax had mostly replaced bronze. As always this had a lot to do with cost, and lowering the requirements so you could have more Hoplites.

Armour really reached a low ebb during the Peloponesian War though, the Spartans basically got down to a wool cap. The Peloponesian War basically bankrupted everyone and losing armour is a good way to reduce the cost of your soldiers.

There's also the problem that if you get killed someone tends to take grandad's armour off your corpse.

I have to recheck my sources on that. But, it's geting late and I need to sleep as tomorow I've got to study hard so probably after monday I can give you some input.


Cheers...

Well, whatever the specific motivation the relevant practical side effect is pretty obvious - Arrows Hurt. ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Linthorax had mostly replaced bronze.

---

What is Linthorax?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intranetusa

^ if a metal arrowhead struck the wooden pike, wooden that splinter or shatter the pike? Pikes being able to stop/entagle arrows would also mean pikes getting damaged/destroyed

---

If a pike shaft broke just from an arrow hitting it, how would it be expected to stand up to the force of sticking into a charging horse??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan_Grr

Greek hoplites are one of the best units in the game in terms of overall usefulness and cost-effectiveness for what they offer, if not the best unit on these terms.

Hoplites have a great defense, excelent morale, being able to sap, bonus against cavalry, and a good charge bonus (6). It costs 343 of upkeep per 1 unit of 160 men. The Galatian Heavy Spearman, for eg, a unit comparable to the hoplite greek statwise, needs +600 to upkeep.

They are a fine addition to any army, and I cannot simply see their "unfair disadvantage".

---

I agree with Dan on this one. At first, in my current Mak campaign I didn't bother recruiting them since the Macedonian phalanx is, of course, the preferred core of their forces.

But on a whim I substituted them for Theuroporoi and used them to anchor the flank of my pike line. Usually setting them on guard mode. They did a great job securing the flank and their performance was on par with the theuroporoi.

I've found they are also capable troops when assaulting/defending stone walls. As a result, I now include them in almost all of my armies. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xehh II

What is Linthorax?

---

Teh Wiki is often decent for basic data.

^ besides, I dont think the thin spears can really stop much arrows...
Phalangites have way to much frontal defense/armor/shield and are way to resistant against arrows.
>_<

The sarissa was not exactly thin. Realistically they would take pretty serious casualties from the rear but you can't have everything. The sarissa was so big it wiggled as you carried it, so that made it significantly more unlikely that an arrow would get through- it was mostly flexible woods like birch where available (let's avoid a wood debate please), so the arrows sort of glanced if they hit directly and were knocked off course (significantly reducing their velocity) if swept from the side as the spears flexed. One in four/six probably got through, but there's no guarantee then that those arrows would hit or be fatal, they had shields and leather is a better guard than one might expect. Even still one barely has to look at the armor donated to temples in Greece after battles to understand why arrows were always a big concern for hoplites (quite the bold statement that one about fighting in the shade eh?).

Quote:

---

What is Linthorax?

---

A typo...

Anyway, I agree with general tone of the thread, Classical Hoplites are while not spectacular, solid general purpose heavy infantry.

Personaly I reduce phalignites frontal resistance to missils by taking down their shield bonuses and uppin their defense skill to compensate and keep them vulerable to the flanks and rear.

it's still strange to picture spears blocking arrows... :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

Shield points are more effective against missiles then armour points, especially slingers.

---

This is entirely wrong. It is the opposite. Shield points 7/8th effective as armour points vs missiles.

That's odd. I figured that since slingers are "Effective Against Armour", armor points would be less effective than shield points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intranetusa

it's still strange to picture spears blocking arrows... :/

---

For a quick-and-dirty way to test the basic principle, find a tree with lots of branches. Try to throw a meter-long stick through them a couple of times.

The concept of "entanglement" should be rather concrete after this. :beam:

My neighbor would probably think I'm insane, and his daughter will stop oogling me if I did this!

lols