Printable View
They made enough of a difference in that they allowed what had until rather recently been psiloi skirmisher rabble to check and hold even elite hoplites, though... which in turn allowed the Maks' formidable cavalry to do their part which was more or less the whole point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
exactly!
The lengthy sarissae did make a difference as it was able to keep the enemy at a longer distance in a close combat situation. When it comes to weapons, there are different levels when it comes to manuverability and range. Swords are highly manuverable weapons, able to be wielded in different fashions and can change direction during a swing. They do however lack the range that spears do. Spears keep an enemy at a further distance, sacrificing manuverability (it is difficult to parry and block other attacks with a spear, let alone a lengthy sarissa). When the phalanx formation was used, it presented more spears to protect the wielders from close range attacks by swordsmen. One person with a sarissa can easily be killed by a skilled swordsman by dodging the spearpoint and charging past to the attacker. But when there are several ranks to pass through, success in engaging the spearman in close combat without injury becomes decreased.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
The sarissa was useful because it gave survivability to soldiers of the line. Enemies would be very preoccupied when encountering a phalanx because the spears would be a very tough defense to break through. And when the phalanx advanced, the opposing force would be put on a defensive, which in battle is a terrible thing to have happen. It is not as much the decisive element that you think of, but half of the "hammer and anvil" equation. The survivability allows the cavalry much more time to advance around the flanks and attack from the rear in comparison to other units. If you don't believe that the spear length was THAT important though, try the Makedonian campaign, but replace your Phalangatai Deuteroi with Hoplitai Haploi or Classical Greek Hoplitai. You'll notice the difference in the amount of time the lines last before breaking.
I think what he was getting at was the cavalry was the decisive arm of the Macedonian war machine. Without it you get what happened in the Macedonian Wars.
Well, yeah. But the point I at least tried to make that without the pikes or something to keep the hoplites preoccupied, the Mac horsemen would've been doing a fine imitation of Mr. Fly meeting Mr. Windshield.
There being a few good reasons why the Macs were the ones wont to get bossed around before they figured out how to make their peasant rabble genuinely useful.
True, but I was getting at the fact that the innovation of the pike helped soldiers survive on the battlefield longer in addition to preoccupying enemy infantry so that cavalry can be that decisive arm. So I was making the point that the invention of the sarissa WAS important.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Exactly what I was getting at. Troop survivability in addition to the low cost of the phalangite versus their hoplite counterpart made them effective units. Any unit would work to preoccupy enemy soldiers, even fielding a unit of Makedonian Hoplitai to hold the line. But the amount of time units can hold a line is crucial for the hammer and anvil tactics to work. That is why the lengthy sarissae became ideal as it protected the phalangites that held the enemy in one spot due to the length and mass of the phalanx.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
That is not entirely true: units in phalanx formation (in game I mean) gain longer spears (even without "long_pike") that actually have a great effect on the performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
You are right: until recently. But this means absolutely nothing, because since Philip II this so-called rabble are in fact highly trained professionists of war, like the fancy Spartans that everyone seems to admire so much (I really wonder why..but this is enirely another matter) ; the so-called elite hoplites, on the contrary, were often no more trained than the nasty barbarians they despised so much, or at best they had 2 years of ephebate, really nothing compared to the skill of the pezethairoiQuote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
The Iphikratean reformed hoplites were probably highly professional mercenaries (he had a lot of experience in commanding mercenaries and probably he was well aware of the importance of training, an awareness not so common in 4° BC greece)
Last thing to add: the heavy armor had largely disappeared in 4° BC greece even among classical hoplites
To reassume:
on one side we have classical amateur or little trained hoplites armed with a metal helmet, a big shield, light armor and a classic spear
On the other, firstly with Iphikratean, then with Pezethaeroi, we have highly trained professionist that had smaller shield but a longer weapon, more effective both in defending and in attacking. They were vulnerable to flanking? True, but no classical hoplite had enough training to outflank effectively without losing every resemblance of formation (that in RTW is negligible ; in RL IS VERY BAD)
Were pezethairoi superheroes and was the pike a bartix weapon? NO, but on average they were largely more effective than classical hoplites and their weapons.
If you still don't believe me, think on this: all the 3 greatest general of ancient greece (Iphikrates, Epaminondas, Philip II) increased the lenght of the spear of their soldiers: oh, but surely they were all dumb... (sorry for the tone but I had to be a bit sarcastic :dozey:)
EDIT: one last thing: the heavy (and in 4° BC this is debatable too...) makedonian cavalry was so important and effective in a pike vs. spear struggle that Antigonid kings, who largely faced hoplitic armies, regarded cavalry mainly as an auxiliary weapon, and still more often than not defeated greeks, giving Romans the excuse to land in greece to "free :laugh:" them. I think this is to take in account too.
Uh-huh.
Armour indeed went out of fashion among hoplites around the Peloponnesian War... and then came back into fashion. IIRC, in a somewhat heavier kit than previously too.
Around the same time hoplites (and other Greek soldiery) were also increasingly becoming full-time paid professionals if not outright mercenaries, and of course the elite formations (epilektoi) quite a few of the major communities had over the years - the most famous likely being the Theban Sacred Band - were naturally very well equipped and highly trained.
So meh.
I think that the successful Macedonian interventions in Greece proper was more due to organization an man power... I mean, look at the 3rd-4th century political alliances. You have the Aetolian League that was by itself. You have the Achean League that was allied with Macedon. You have Sparta that always tried to march north and attack the Achaeans. You have the later alliance of Athens, Sparta, and some other states funded by the Ptolemies. I mean, if you look at the records, usually the what happened was that many of the anti-Macedon groups had initial success but got plastered once the Macedonians or its allies organized and showed up in force.
Fellas... I feel you but I was answering the following question by:Quote:
Originally Posted by Novellus
desert
Yes, but is it really realistic for Iphikrateans to slaughter Classical Hoplites like that?
So... from what you and I have posted so far I can safely conclude:
Iphikrateans/pikemen DID NOT slaugher Hoplites (or anyone else with a big enough shield, and decent armor) in their phalanx/shield wall. When both sides faced eachother in neat formation, ready to fight the approaching enemy line and no way to outflank/manouver.
You know, I can't dig it up right now but the wikipedia entry on the Achaean League cites Plutarch as saying that the Thureos's narrowness was a disadvantage in close combat. Granted if this paraphrase is accurate, Plutarch was a little late to the scene.
However it might just end up being a wash because Iphikratean hoplites had longer spears.
OTOH the thureos would have been a fair bit lighter and more versatile than the somehwat cumbersome and specialised aspis...
Anyway, NS, I'm pretty sure you're overlooking the little issue that Iphikrates' originals proved to be quite capable of taking on old-style hoplites in a straight-up frontal engagement, no ?
Heavier than the old fashioned full bronze armor? I'm a little skeptical about this...Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I don't know much about classical hoplites of 3° BC, I thought they were largely disappeared from battlefields ; if you can tell me some sources on the matter I'll be glad to learn myself.
However, I don't remember any greek power in 4° and 3° BC that could deploy entire armies of well-armored and well-trained men... and few hundreds of epilektoi couldn't match the professional army of the Maks (who had their own elites anyway).
According to EB the greeks in 3° trained their men in the Makedonian manner, even the spartans, I can't think any better evidence of the superiority of the sarissa on the old glorious dory... even without the support of good cavalry,that in greece traditionally was scarce.
Back on topic, in my games I noticed only a slight advantage for tweaked units against vanilla ones : it seems strange to me that a little radius reduction makes a unit overpowered... I think it's better to test a little more, maybe giving units a radius reduction based on morale to portrait the different level of training, as I suggested. However, as you can probably imagine, I think Iphikratean should perform well against Classicals, not slaughter them, but winning more than not is in order IMO (obviously if they have similar protections and morale)
They would win if you could increase the effective range of Iphs. However, you can't do that short of phalanx mode on the TW engine....
EDIT
However, if you could use something that prevents enemies from attacking like knockback, that might work:
If you had a high attack unit with low lethality and fast attack, and you stick the unit in guard mode to keep formation then that might work. Really, that's actually pretty much what the phalanx is, fast attacking, low lethality pushing thing that uses knockback and mass.
It would probably be overpowered though.
hum... you might be on to something there munky :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Faster attacks are a "no can do", at least without going to mess around with the animations which I sure don't know how to do. I can test the knockback idea, although I expect the results to be right strange...
oh.... forgot about the animations. Yah I take that back. It would look and sound wierd too. :thumbsdown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Well, knockback, low lethality, and high attack rating might work. I think others have done it before and it makes things a little OP/weird.
In the mean time, while people are experimenting with the radii of units, does anyone know how to return the phalanx ability?
I take the chance to ask (you are a member of EB team IIRC) something that puzzles me a bit : why don't you use the attack delay feature to portray the differences in weapon speed and in warriors' skill?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Why you use it only for lances and ranged weapons?
I'm taking care of the Paeninsula Italica EDU during the mod leader absence, and I found attack delay great in resolving balance issues, but I'm inexperienced as a modder, and this question haunts me costantly.
Thanks in advance.
There's not really too much difference in the overall "attack speed" of most melee weapons, and such as there are are mainly subsumed into the modifier they impose on the warriors' attack skill value. Dunno about the missiles - when I came on board the stat system had been established a long time ago so I'm not privy to the reasonings that went into it, my job's mainly "error-checking" the values in the EDU - but in any case I know the diverse lances have that nasty delay to counterbalance their very high lethality values and to help simulate the fact they're rather cumbersome and unwieldy weapons designed for the charge rather than the ensuing melee.
Side note: from the testing I've been doing with modified radius values on various units, I'll have to say that hot damn it's looking promising. Big thumbs-up for everybody who suggested and contributed to the idea (PraetorFigus and anybody else I may not be remembering ATM) - as the Soldier says in Team Fortress 2, "You deserve a medal!" :bow:
Are you going to try a little bit of this for MIITW as well?
No idea, I'm not involved with EBII statting (yet, anyway) - only recently having bought M2TW and still only planning to purchase Kingdoms has a fair bit to do with that. But if it works out well for EB1, and the M2TW engine doesn't have any fundamental differences that disallowed it, I would assume it's going to at the very least get tested.
Bump? :embarassed:
Uggh, I got caught up with RL...
With the pseudo-phalanxes I'm thinking of posting a modified edu in the EB UMP section when I get time to work on it, I want that to be soon, :whip: :dizzy2:
unless someone else has started already, then I'll contribute to your work. :yes:
I expect to leave most stats alone with mods in the unit radius, formation spacing, defensive skill and lethality (maybe troop numbers also), open to modding others attributes for balancing if necessary.
I'll be open to any suggestions for any units and have been considering doing some things that were suggested about making hoplites fight more with pushing and less lethality, for example also.
The goal for the hoplites is trying to mimic the "shield-wall" effect that some of those units seem better suited for with their style of shield then how they work now as other spearmen that spread out against an enemy front without guard mode. But the planned mod is primarily for the pseudo-phalanxes.
Feel free to PM me.