Realistic Army Formations

So I was on the Japanese Wikipedia page, reading about the army formations used in the Sengoku era and something struck me.

How about using real life formations in the game?
Anyone does that? We're discounting the simple line.

I know a lot of people use the roman triple line checkers right?

What about others?

Epaminondas's echelon
Alexander's echelon refused left (or right) flank

And now to name a few Sengoku Era foramtions:
Note: Usually if the general dies the fight is lost then and there.

Fish Scale: Basically a giant wedge. The difference is the general unit is placed at the centre of the base, unlike Alexander's wedge. We don't want to loose our generals after all.

Crane's Wings: V formation. At the point is placed the general. As the general is out in the open, it's to lure the enemy to attack the general unit, in which case the others would envelop. Because the general is in a dangerous position using himself as bait, often it's a Y instead. According to Wiki this formation often results either in total victory or total defeat (or in the game's case, heroic victory or crushing defeat)

Arrow: <---- formation. The general is at the centre of the shaft. Much better penetration ability than the Fish Scale but much more dangerous to being flanked and enveloped, to which its defenses are also much weaker.

Circle: Face outword with general in centre. For safety to prevent surprise attack from all sides. As troops is spread out evenly, once a concentrated attack comes the formation need to quickly be changed to prevent the circle being pierced (according to Japanese Wikipedia anyway, but makes sense). Also it is completely useless in attack.

Wheel spoke: A circle but the troops walk nonstop around the general. One part is send out to attack, and then pulled back into the circle to rest (while marching) while another is send out. So I guess good at a fight of attrition.

There's 4 more but it seems their uses are debanted over the internet on various sites.

LOL not a single post.

Here, copied from my post on the TW forum:

Quote:

---

Those who studied east asian warfare knows there are 8~10 standard army formations. Some are concrete, but others I'm not so sure about strengths and weakness of others so I need some help.

I'm making up their names based on their shape as each one had different names in different eras and different places. Again these are not unit formation like the testudo or a cavalry wedge, but formation for the entire army.

Ones I have some idea. But I want some input or someone point out some possible mistakes.

1) Triangle:
Basically a giant wedge. Seems that the general unit would be at the centre of the base instead of the tip as Alexander's was.

2) Arrow:
Small wedge with a column behind. General unit supposedly at the centre of the shaft. Supposedly even better than triangle at penetration (better speed and power), but with a much higher risk of being enveloped.

3) V: General unit at the point. For envelopment. As general is in the open and vulnerable it's often a Y instead. Supposedly quite weak against the arrow (probably the arrow takes out the general before anyone can do anything). Supposedly you should be outnumbering the enemy if you use this formation. Makes sense. And supposedly this is the formation Tokugawa Ieyasu put at Mikatagahara and Takeda Shingen, outnumbering him 2:1 or 3:1, just formed triangle and plowed through it.

4) Circle/Square: General unit at centre to direct I guess. No attack power, no mobility. Purely defence. Good for camping to guarding against night attack or a surprise attack. Supposedly because the troops are spread out evenly, it's not good for defending against a concentrated attack from one direction either. But this formation also have the advantage of being relatively easy to change into other formations (supposedly).


Right now the ones I have questions about:

5) Wheel/Whirlpool: General unit at centre. The other troops are placed around it like a whirlwind, or multi-layer circle. Supposedly can be used as circle for defense (so why not throw out the circle all together and just use this?), but has a special offensive property: The wheel/whirlpool can turn, then send out a part of the wheel to fight, and after awhile the fighting unit will return to the circle and to march while the next unit charge out to fight, and so on. This gives each unit time to rest, so I guess it's good in an attrition fight. Also it is supposedly useful in winter as the walking keeps the troops warmer (wouldn't it tire them out too?).

6) Column: High speed. Should only be used in battle in terrains such as a pass, bridge, valley, and such narrow places. How's its penetration compared to arrow? How vulnerable would it be to being attacked from the sides, or in other words would the troops be able to react fast enough to turn and change into another formation? Where should the general unit go, front, centre, or rear?

7) Half Circle: General unit at centre, or base of the curve. Other than that absolutely no idea. Don't know how curved it is, or if it's curvature changes as it spreads out. It might even be more of a V than a half circle. Don't know if it's suppose to be convex (general charging ahead, or just another penetration with the general leading it, thereby increase attack power and morale but risk the general's life) or concave (envelopment formation, don't know how that would differ from the V than, though supposedly it would still be as vulnerable to the arrow)

8) Double Column: Two columns side by side. I guess...no I don't know.

9) Echelon: Same as Epaminondas' echelon. Is it suppose to move faster than the others? (discounting the columns)

Suggestions? Strengths? Weakness? Speed? Limitation by terrain? By numbers? Which is strong against which and weak against which?

Or even other formations I missed?

---

Now go and try them out when you get the chance. I'll try them too myself.

And tell me other formations you uses.

Does anybody have a screenshot of the Roman triple checkers so I can try that formation too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kολοσσός

Does anybody have a screenshot of the Roman triple checkers so I can try that formation too?

---

rent spartacus (the original)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kολοσσός

Does anybody have a screenshot of the Roman triple checkers so I can try that formation too?

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_infantry_tactics

Ya know, whenever referencing one of Alexander's formations, we should remember that he used what worked for that specific set piece battle.

...which said, all the three big pitched battles in Persia actually used pretty much the exact same basic plan. No wonder by Gaugamela Dareios was massing all of his heaviest close-combat cavalry on his left...

damn formatting...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

...which said, all the three big pitched battles in Persia actually used pretty much the exact same basic plan. No wonder by Gaugamela Dareios was massing all of his heaviest close-combat cavalry on his left...

---

... but some people get a strange idea that the refused flank with a heavy cavalry wing on the right is the best phalanx strategy ever.... which is bad and wrong since every situation needs to be sized up according to its context so you can figure out the most efficient way to incapacitate your foe.

Well, obviously. Alex just seems to have - correctly as it turned out - judged the right wing to be where the corps de rupture were best placed.

The Diadochi apparently spent quite a bit of energy trying to second-guess each others' cavalry-deployement scheme in any major pitched battle...

It's argued that Alex's refused left flank is more of an advanced right flank, because of Alex's tremendous energy and the fact that he was leading from the front and setting the pace, the proof being the complete dislocation of the Makedonian left and right during Gaugamela because the right was going so fast they could not maintain connection. And anyhow, the mass de rupture would have done just as well on the left as on the right, because either way Darius was at the centre, and both cavalry wings had departed to envelop the Makedonian box formation. So there would have been gaps on -either- side of Darius.

Recall also that at Chaeronea Philip's order of battle (and we do not deny that Alex got his war schooling from good ol' dad) placed Alex on the left.

I think Alex always took the right wing mainly because in ancient armies, that was always the weaker wing (recall elite-troop placements on the right).

Aye, there was no doubt a fair bit of "king must be on the right and lead from the front" thing in it too. Basically feudal cavalry and all. The other cavalry wing's job was defensive anyway, usually also with the Diadochi AFAIK although they were more flexible about where the monarch and shock troops went.