This is a insulting! For what %#!@( reason spartans have no swords? Only this "almost-sarissa" noob-spears.
Printable View
This is a insulting! For what %#!@( reason spartans have no swords? Only this "almost-sarissa" noob-spears.
Because if they had swords, they would swap whilst fighting and lose thier advantage as a phalanx.
They have phalanx? It is a just simple spearmen formation, that will surely loose against swords. Sword better than spear without phalanx attribute in EDU! It is a rule.
When I say phalanx, I mean the classical hoplite phalanx as opposed to the macedonian sarissa phalanx. If used properly, with guard mode on, good troops to guard the flanks and shield wall if you've got bi, I'm sure that classical hoplites could beat many sword units.
Easy on the X man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge
That's an imbalance if you use bi and enable shield wall some unit stat tweaking will be necessary in order to stop the hoplites from becoming an unrealistic unbreakable mass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Admetos
Can you imagine fighting as spearmen with 4-meter spear against swordsmen, who stand in 1 meter in front of you? Spearmen can do no damage to opponent, while he kill him after two stabs. Spear's advantage in distance. But this cannot be emulated by current engine... I'm comletely disagreed with EB unit makers about elite (!) hoplites, which cannot fight with swords.Quote:
Originally Posted by Admetos
Also from short time playing as romans I noticed that most powerful roman unit is... Hastati, beginners in warfare beats "veterans" principes and "elite" triarii :laugh4: ...Why? Swords.
BTW, advantages of shield wall/guard mode are very questionable...
It is usually due to the "short spear attribute", which SHOULD NOT BE THERE, so u delet it. This thing gives bonuses vs cavarly but gives a penalty vs infantry which is wrong.
I think it won't be present in the next release.
It's an harcoded problem, not an EB option. Without phalanx attribute ALL units charge with swords and then switch to spear in hand-to-hand combat. That is totally a-historical. Spartans and most hoplites charged with spear, fought in a tight formation with spear and only when the formation was broken would they use their backup sword, the xyphos. So, you can disagree all you can because it won't change a thing. If you want changes go complain to CA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge
I have just done some test on hoplites with/without guard mode and shield wall. The units I used were Classical Hoplites and Camillian Hastati and I used the Grassy Flatland. In the first test, hoplites without guard mode or shield wall, it was a close fight, with the hoplites eventualy edging it with 18 men left against the hastati's 13 when the Romans routed. The second and third tests, hoplites with guard mode and with guard mode and shield wall respectivly, the hastati won quite comforatbly, although this I can explain. With guard mode and shield wall the hoplites stay in formation pushing through the center of the hastati, what follows is the hoplites getting surronded and beaten rather easily, kind of what happened at Cannae, this time only with two units. This goes back to what I said oringinally, about using hoplites properly. If you have them in guard mode, with of without shield wall if you consider that that unbalanced the units, with troops to protect the flanks, the hoplites will win, as we can see that they can beat hastati one on one without advantages or disadvantages to either side from the first test. The same is true in city streets, where they can't be flanked. Thus if used properly like described above, hoplites are an extremely effective force.
Charge - As for saying that the hoplite phalanx is ineffective, just look at Thermopylae :2thumbsup:
Eh, they kinda lost Thermopylae you know. I'd rather refer to Marathon or Plataea instead, also because those weren't virtually siege battles.
Anyway, sounds to me like guardmode and/or shieldwall combined with secure flanks simulates the frontal combat proficiency of the hoplite phalanx quite well.
I know but I'm referring to facing a hoplite phalanx front on and in equal numbers, they lost because Xerxes found out the way around the pass to attack them from behind, and they were massivly outnumbered. Im just using Thermopylae as an example of the success of the phalanx, the Persians had no chance of breaking the Greeks from the front.Quote:
Eh, they kinda lost Thermopylae you know
Granted, so long as they could make use of the geographical chokepoint the hoplites had a relatively smooth sailing. (That pass was apparently pretty popular for really frustrating armies coming in from the north, as the Persian Wars weren't the only instance it was specifically chose as a point of resistance.) Still, they also had the benefit of at least rudimentary fortifications.
Marathon was similarly a favourable battleground for the frontal hoplite tactics (given the surrounding obstacles), but not as grossly so I figured it'd really have been a better example. Plataea was kinda funky, what with the weird shuffling and confusion on both sides when the showdown came, but did AFAIK well demonstrate the ability of the hoplite phalanx to handle frontal assaults even in open country.
True, But I was using Thermopylae as it is the most widely know example, and to be honest, I don't know too much about Marathon and Plataea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plataea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon
In general, judging the strength of historical units is quite difficult. First, there's the problem of estimating the true numbers of the Greeks and Persians. The ancient figures are by modern consensus taken to be extremely incorrect, for instance. After that, even if the general consensus on numbers is accurate, it's difficult to guess how many "troops" on each side that were in fact just more or less inactive support troops, supply train and so on. The things that speak in favor of the spartans being skilled fighers, apart from what archaeology can reveal, are their long training and their battle record in the Peloponnesian war were the estimates on numbers for both sides are probably more accurate than in the wars with the Persians. But it's nearly impossible to, for instance, say with certainty which were better fighters: the gaesatae or the spartan hoplites... Not to mention that EB has to adapt unit stats to the damage model of RTW, which (by necessity) is a simplified model that can't take into account making all possible matches of units 100% correct. Converting historical data to unit stats in a game is not a trivial task, and I think EB has done a great job on this. The way of judging the amount of success should not be to compare unit stats of different units, but to see in practise how they perform in a battle, when used in a (semi-)historical manner.
Just started a KH campaign a few days ago. Those 60 spartans you start with have so far killed somewhere around 400 soldiers(mostly militia hoplites and levy pikemen but still). My spartans have only had 5 casualties.
Don't forget to take Kersonesos. Upgrade the local MIC to get the powerful Skythian Noble cavalry. They are almost on par or better than the hetairoi IMHO.