Thoughts and questions...

I have been playing EB since it's release months ago, and I have come to enjoy the game's historical accuracy, and real challenge, especially that of Arche Seleukeia.:balloon2: :balloon2:

But I have a problem with recruiting in Arche Seleukeia:how to balance it's army for best results on the battlefield, and at the same time the royal treasury. right now in a full 20 unit stack (I have two: one in the east and one in the west) I use 1 General, 2 hetairoi/ Kataphraktoi, 1 prodromoi, 1 elephant units (always armoured), 1 hypaspist, 1 pheraspidai, 1 Thorakitai Basilikou agemata, 1 Argyraspidai, 6 Pezhetairoi/ Klerouchikoi phalangites, 2 thorakitai/thureophoroi, 2 toxotai syriakoi, and a catapult, or if unavailable auxiliary cav(usually heavy cavalry). I put the cav on the wings, the elephats and archers in the rear, infantry in the center with flanking troops protecting the gaps plus the obvious flanks. I don't recruit any levy units for anything save garrisoning, not counting the ioudaioi taxeis.

Does this army work, or is there a way to improve it and garrisoning, without wasting money?:help:

feel free to experiment with this army and post any comments or recommendations on improving it, and cutting down costs while adding efficiency.:help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

But I have a problem with recruiting in Arche Seleukeia:how to balance it's army for best results on the battlefield, and at the same time the royal treasury. right now in a full 20 unit stack (I have two: one in the east and one in the west) I use 1 General, 2 hetairoi/ Kataphraktoi, 3 prodromoi, 1 elephant units (always armoured), 1 hypaspist, 1 pheraspidai, 1 Thorakitai Basilikou agemata, 2 Argyraspidai, 6 Pezhetairoi/ Klerouchikoi phalangites, 2 thorakitai/thureophoroi, 2 toxotai syriakoi, and a catapult, or if unavailable auxiliary cav(usually heavy light/archer cavalry).

---

That should be closer to what your minister of the treasury will like.

Quote:

---

I put the cav on the wings, the elephats and archers in the rear, infantry in the center with flanking troops protecting the gaps plus the obvious flanks.

---

Elephants behind the Phalanx? And then what? Charge right through your own lines?

Deployement:

Center:

Flankers (spear)
Flankers (sword/axe)
Phalanx
Phalanx
Phalanx
Phalanx
Phalanx
Phalanx
Flankers (sword/axe)
Flankers (spear)

Refused Wing:

Light Cavalry
Light or medium infantry (spear/sword mix if possible)
Archers/Slingers

Assault wing:

Heavy/Medium cavalry
General
Heavy infantry

Forgot:embarassed: I rarely use the elephant, and only if it's desperate, so they never run over the phalanxes or anyone else
sorry I forgot to say that

Playing also for AS, this therad of yours made me wonder how did AS battle formation looked in reality? If anyone knows I would like to know. If there was something like standartizied formation.

One thing that I dont understand is why were archers on the wing? (assuming that they were placed there) I personally keep them rather in safety behind my phlanax line.

Given the massive size of the AS and the diversity in both geography and inhabitants it ruled over, nevermind now enemies, one suspects that in practice their formations were pretty ad hoc according to what troops the commander had at his disposal and what the adversary and battlefield were like.

The big set-piece battles with the other Diadochi and the Romans seem to AFAIK have generally stuck to the classic "Alexandrian" pikes-flanked-with-horse paradigm, though. But those would have been a rather small fraction of the engagements they fought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bactron

Playing also for AS, this therad of yours made me wonder how did AS battle formation looked in reality? If anyone knows I would like to know. If there was something like standartizied formation.

One thing that I dont understand is why were archers on the wing? (assuming that they were placed there) I personally keep them rather in safety behind my phlanax line.

---

They were there for suppressing fire against flank attacks including cavalry.RTW can't do this. I like CNC 3 because units have a suppression meter where they move slower but have higher defense when shot at too many times. In front I don't know. Lots of armies put their cavalry and missles all in front and wings. It is weird.

That suppression-o-meter sucks, then, except for the slowing down bit. Humans instinctively bunch together under fire, but that's actually the exact wrong thing to do - dense masses are only that much easier to hit. The correct solution is to open ranks instead; more of the projectiles will meet empty space between the warriors, each individual has more room to duck out of the way, and the whole bunch can move faster to get to grips with the ranged troops. (There's a reason the Athenians ran for the last circa hundred meters at Marathon.)

Of course, opening ranks is suicide if there's heavy cavalry in strike range which is specifically one reason the nomads liked their cataphracts - the heavies forced enemy infantry to keep close order, making the archery that much more effective.

Something of an exception is a testudo-style "shield fortress"; it requires rather large (and preferably rectangular; smaller shields simply don't give enough cover) shields and highly drilled troops to pull off, doubly so if the unit is to be able to maneuver effectively nevermind now go to the offensive. But then, that sort of thing is specialised formation designed for missile protection rather than the reflexive and counter-productive bunching up troops are prone to anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Decimus Attius Arbiter

They were there for suppressing fire against flank attacks including cavalry.RTW can't do this. I like CNC 3 because units have a suppression meter where they move slower but have higher defense when shot at too many times. In front I don't know. Lots of armies put their cavalry and missles all in front and wings. It is weird.

---

I've used the cavalry in front when defending sometimes: you can use it to lure a few enemy units away or to smash the weak points before they come in contact with your infantry; when the "true battle" begins, the enemy lines will be incomplete (or shorter, if they took time to reorganize). Best used in conjunction with some hidden troops to damage the enemy formation more.

When they make contact you can easily flank their isolated units, or their shorter line. And when your cavalry is done with the units the enemy kept back, you can use it as a normal "hammer".

Extremely useful when the enemy attacks you with a very small army; you can even rout it completely without using your infantry. And, maybe, prepare yourself for enemy reinforcements (they rarely attack you with small armies if they don't have reinforcements :P).

About the archers on the flanks, I guess you could still get an advantage: you would be able to hit the flanks of the enemy troops during the melee. However, you must find a way to protect your archers effectively. Never used them that way however, just guessing.

your opinions are very good, and I appretiate the creative thinking involved. If anyone likes to know more, check out that thread on tactics used by individual members.:yes: :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bactron

One thing that I dont understand is why were archers on the wing? (assuming that they were placed there) I personally keep them rather in safety behind my phlanax line.

---

Fighting phalanx archers don't do any damage when shooting on the front of the enemy. The best angle would be (appart from behind) shooting into the right flank of the enemy (no shields!). And for that they are best placed on your left wing. In EB Syrian and Cretian archers are also of some use in melee, so they can fall on the enemy's wing after spending all their missles.

Thanks for explanation guys, It makes sense. And I will change my formation when fighting against other phalanx armies by placing my archers on the left wing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

Fighting phalanx archers don't do any damage when shooting on the front of the enemy. The best angle would be (appart from behind) shooting into the right flank of the enemy (no shields!). And for that they are best placed on your left wing. In EB Syrian and Cretian archers are also of some use in melee, so they can fall on the enemy's wing after spending all their missles.

---

and of course that's why cavalry was often used on the wings also - to chase down skirmishers, and generally secure the flanks more quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zooeyglass

and of course that's why cavalry was often used on the wings also - to chase down skirmishers, and generally secure the flanks more quickly.

---

When talking of a phalanx army there is basically no other room for non-phalanx units than on the wings. The phalanx itself should be a wall of pikes and do not permitt units (either friend or foe) to pass through it. In fact, the only army that was able to let units pass thorugh the main line on a larger scale was the Roman army - thanks to the open order it was deployed in before actually attacking.

In EB, on the other hand, it is no problem to move say 200 archers and 400 skirmisher right thorugh the middle of your 1,000 men phalanx several times without throwing the entire formation into disorder.

In relation to this, I remember (i think from reading Polybius), that successor armies often weren't so much one straight line of phalangites, but more a line with joints. IIRC it was in the Magnesia description (could be wrong here though, it's been some time...), that e.g. some elephants were placed in between sections of the phalanx as well as on the flanks. Same with missile troops and mobile inf.
Now, was this common for successor armies or was it a rather innovative (and failing) approach, possibly developed on macedonians vs. romans experiences?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I of the Storm

In relation to this, I remember (i think from reading Polybius), that successor armies often weren't so much one straight line of phalangites, but more a line with joints. IIRC it was in the Magnesia description (could be wrong here though, it's been some time...), that e.g. some elephants were placed in between sections of the phalanx as well as on the flanks. Same with missile troops and mobile inf.
Now, was this common for successor armies or was it a rather innovative (and failing) approach, possibly developed on macedonians vs. romans experiences?

---

Elephants right between the phalanxes? I hope they don't run amok! :scared:

However, that formation with melee infantry to protect the flanks of the various "phalanx sections" seems intersting... but I guess the next "evolution2 would be to divide the line in the various sections, making them independent; you wuold obtain a few short phalanx lines with protected flanks that can act indipentently or be placed in a single line with "joints", as you said.

Thoughts?

No, i don't believe that was common for the Diadochi armys.
This experiment of Antiochos failed, this army arrangement was one of the main reasons for losing the battle. The elephants fled, and the phalanx suddenly had giant holes in it.
The Romans did great damage to the phalanx just with their pillas, but after the elephants broke the battle was lost

That was my suspicion too, thanks. Technically, with the creation of these joints between phalanx you also create possibilities for gaps, thus additional flanks. It was probably worth a try though.:laugh4: Although the following peace treaty was rather devastating...

Pyrrhos is said to have used a "light phalanx", that is phalanx mixed with Thureophoroi and the like. In another post I had compared that to the Spanish Tercios of the 15th - 17th Century, even thought the Tercios (or better their pike formations) did not act as a single line but more as moving fortresses on the battlefield. In consequence the musqueteers attached to it were called "garrisons".

Well the major problem with the pike phalanx even on level ground tended to be that because different sections pushed back the enemy at different speeds, the sub-units became decoupled from one another and the line became ragged.

Pyrrhus' "mixed order" was presumably an attempt to get around this by accepting the disjointing as inevitable (especially given that the Romans pretty much flat out refused to fight the phalanx on level ground), and providing the pike line with organic lighter-infantry support to guard the sub-units' flanks.

Pretty sure the main problem of the Seleucids at Magnesia was that they lost the flank battles, though. On their right wing the Roman skirmishers drove the scythed chariots right back into the Seleucid horse, and a massed charge by the Pergamene and Roman cavalry did the rest. On the other wing the massed Seleucid catas apparently pretty much stomped flat everything before them, but then instead of turning on the Roman center inadvisably tried to pursue their defeated initial opponents with the end result of becoming exhausted and hopelessly disordered, so the Roman counterattack drove them out of the field.

Which sort of left the pike phalanx in the center hung high and dry, and the Romans mainly just surrounded it and let their missile troops shoot it to bits before the heavy infantry mopped up the remnants.