Divinus Arma's Illustrated Guide to Basic Tactics

ok, the two front units standing behind each other. those two are youre best untis. they will try and open up the line. the one on the left side ( fig 8) will get flanked. so teh question is: would it not be better if they were back to back? one phalanx pushing to teh elft side and one pushing to teh right side? that woudl open up even faster/further.

btw. the example of echlon with 4 phalnx+ 1 cav vs 5 phalnx is crap since the enemy always keep the gen in reserve.. you can just as easily take the far left out of phalanx to do an infatry flank from teh left..

The unit size and amount of units within the army is for illustrative purposes only. This is a basic guide with some useful historically accurate tactics; this is NOT "Divinus Arma's advanced guide on tactics guaranteed to win every battle because DA is the best player in the world".

I am just another player throwing out some basic info because I can. Some may find it useful, others may not. At the very minimum I hope some will find it interesting.

Thanks for the comments Jerbs.


As for the back-to-back, I will give it a go. As the guide said:

Quote:

---

Figure 7 shows one option for creating the gap in your enemy’s line. I am sure I will get some flack for this one. It is just one option of many; the key is to break your enemy’s unity by separating two plates to expose a seam.

---

Thus, your suggestion is every bit as valid is mine. If it works better, I will replace my suggestion with yours and credit you for the update.

DA

If I understand what he suggested clearly. If you have two phalanxes go at opposing sides of a unit, that could result in unpredictable facing of your units that the enemy could do a reverse trap on you. With this manouver you're trying to end up flanking and attacking from the front simultaneously while exposing a seam for faster troops to exploit. It's easier to manage if both units are facing the same direction(i.e the left if using a rightward slant) A variation of my own that I've just started experimenting is taking the two main attacking units and narrowing them until they're the width of one unit. It's kind of ghetto since you're not able to merge units on the battle map. Now with these two deeper units you attack one unit. I don't know if it's more effective than what's been said so far, yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Maxentius

If I understand what he suggested clearly. If you have two phalanxes go at opposing sides of a unit, that could result in unpredictable facing of your units that the enemy could do a reverse trap on you. With this manouver you're trying to end up flanking and attacking from the front simultaneously while exposing a seam for faster troops to exploit. It's easier to manage if both units are facing the same direction(i.e the left if using a rightward slant) A variation of my own that I've just started experimenting is taking the two main attacking units and narrowing them until they're the width of one unit. It's kind of ghetto since you're not able to merge units on the battle map. Now with these two deeper units you attack one unit. I don't know if it's more effective than what's been said so far, yet.

---

Congrats on your upgrade to member status, Marcus.

The important point of the EGE tactic is to seperate two units and expose a hole for your cavalry to charge through. I 'll try and post new screenies with a larger unit size when I get a chance. I'd like o get Part II posted first.

Part II will tend to focus on tactics used by early Republic Roman Armies: the maniple and its resultant flexibility; more important for us is how maniple tactics were historically used and how these tactics can be applied to RTW.

Roman tactics?

Cool i'm looking forward to it already.

Heya DA, I'm finding this quickly becoming my favourite thread in the forum. Well, it's a pity I don't have any pictures I can post, my Macedonian campaign was some time in the past. All I've got are my memories. Well, I suppose heavy infantry is useful for the flank guard of the gap exploiter units, but then, if we're doing a phalanx/phalanx fight heavy infantry would be pure folly, since they'd die on the spears of the hoplites, while a hoplite flank guard would be rather too unmanoeuvrable (I'm playing on huge scale so wheeling phalanxes around is considerably more difficult), and ranged missile troops can delay the enemy and wear him down much earlier than heavy, who must rely on shock combat.

Ah well. I suppose enough's been said on gap exploitation, so I shall leave off... If I have time (doubtful since exams are coming up) I will create a guide to how a balanced, no-HA army can beat a scythian HA army :-) Go Macedon! I won two memorable battles with those tactics, once. Tough, but bet you never knew phalanxes could do nasty things to HA :-)

I want to see that for sure!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pezhetairoi

Heya DA, I'm finding this quickly becoming my favourite thread in the forum. Well, it's a pity I don't have any pictures I can post, my Macedonian campaign was some time in the past. All I've got are my memories. Well, I suppose heavy infantry is useful for the flank guard of the gap exploiter units, but then, if we're doing a phalanx/phalanx fight heavy infantry would be pure folly, since they'd die on the spears of the hoplites, while a hoplite flank guard would be rather too unmanoeuvrable (I'm playing on huge scale so wheeling phalanxes around is considerably more difficult), and ranged missile troops can delay the enemy and wear him down much earlier than heavy, who must rely on shock combat.

Ah well. I suppose enough's been said on gap exploitation, so I shall leave off... If I have time (doubtful since exams are coming up) I will create a guide to how a balanced, no-HA army can beat a scythian HA army :-) Go Macedon! I won two memorable battles with those tactics, once. Tough, but bet you never knew phalanxes could do nasty things to HA :-)

---

Sounds interesting.

Perhaps you could post it in this thread, so as to make this a general database for tactics, as well as not to clutter the Colosseum with many threads on as many tactics?

Unless DA doesn't want that, of course (not sure about my post on alternative phalanx tactics either; it was more of an impulsive post).



~Wiz

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Congrats on your upgrade to member status, Marcus.

---

Thanks a lot. I'm just happy that I can actually EDIT my posts now. ~:confused:

This is a great idea for a post. I really like recreating history at the same time as winning a game. I'm kinda disappointed there aren't more historical battles or campaign feature.

For post-marian tactics, I really hope to see how to carry out the seven formations described by Vegetius. I've been testing those out to some good effect.

Hey all,

I am grateful to see such an enthusiastic response to this thread. For those of you that would like to contribute tactics, please send me a PM and we can discuss that. You will be credited for your contribution, of course.

For those waiting for the next installment, please be patient. I work 50 hrs a week and I carry 18 credits a semester in business school. That means I am slammed! As soon as I have the time, I promise a good posting. The Org is my favorite site, after all.

Thank you again for the kudos and discussion.

Warmest Regards,

DA

p.s. way to go on the upgrade to member, Lt. Moley

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

p.s. way to go on the upgrade to member, Lt. Moley

---

Yes its great being able to edit posts, and i can go into the backroom( but its a bit scary there).

As for the next part to the guide, i would love to see how the roman's used their cavalry effectively. My cav, the faction leader no less, just charges into the enemy, stands for a sec then falls over. No matter if i get them on the flank front or rear. He just dies. But then i dont think the romans were famous for the cav.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarunTaiwan

I want to see that for sure!

---

See what, exactly?

Update coming tonight 18 April 2005. USA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

See what, exactly?

---

See my tactic manual on how a Macedonian no-HA army beats one with HA. (we are, of course, not assuming full-stack scythian armies, since there is no such thing with the AI.) :-D

Looking forward to your updates, let's make this a shared thread if others have tactics to contribute, yeah?

Oh, and, um... *embarrassed* how do you take screenshots in the game?

And... Marcus, I can edit my posts even if I'm only junior member... o_O

alright, not here, but in some other threads. Hmm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pezhetairoi

See my tactic manual on how a Macedonian no-HA army beats one with HA. (we are, of course, not assuming full-stack scythian armies, since there is no such thing with the AI.) :-D

---

The purpose of this guide is to provide basic tactics that are applicable across faction lines. Although I am showing the roman perspective at this time, the reason is to be historically relevant and RTW applicable. A "faction1 vs faction2" type of guide is not really what I am going for here. There is a guides forum with advice on how to play each individual faction. I think that would probably be a more appropriate spot for your recommendations. Not to say that your tactics aren't good, just that this is not what I am going for exactly. However, if you would like to PM me your tactics, I'll be happy to look at them and include them in this guide if they fit my scope of purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pezhetairoi

Looking forward to your updates, let's make this a shared thread if others have tactics to contribute, yeah?

---

Again, the guide portion is for basic tactics that are historically applicable and relevant to RTW. I am more than happy to see this thread engaged in healthy discussion and debate. Beyond the opening "Guide", which I intend to edit and expand upon, you are of course free to post anything you see fit. If you would like your specific tactics included in the opening guide, please PM me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pezhetairoi

Oh, and, um... *embarrassed* how do you take screenshots in the game?

---

I'll post the information again:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

In the entrance hall, check out this thread:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=45193
and this thread:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=45748

---

Regards,

DA

i always wondered why people would talk about boldly attacking the centre. it seemed mad. Now i understand.

actually, it's pretty humbling to know what i called the "hammer and anvil" was exactly what was used back then...it's amazing such an effective tactic was seen as an "ingame exploit" when it is exactly that which makes Sun Tzu and everyone else so famous.

And the echelon to wedge the centre. never thought of that when outnumbered - heck, never thought i'd be able to visualize how the CENTER would be vulnerable. sounds BRILLIANT! good ol' alex.


to the creator of thread: thank you. very nicely done. though, please PLEASE edit the title to say "part1" or ":Alexander"

18 April, 2005

First component of Part II added. Please review the opening post for these changes.

DA

Changes made again. Most of Part II posted. Some text chnages and disclaimers added to disuade the fervor.

Fantastic guide DA.

I totally agree with the current part 2 conclusions. So far the only sure fire anti phalanx roman formation ive found is the double flanking with skirmishers in the centre suggested by hexagon.

I, for one, hate how quickly phalanxes can respond to your maneuvers. It defeats the whole point of roman tactics.

Keep up the good work!

I can see how the tactic of sending the cohort to threaten the phalanx line's flank would work against a pure phalanx-based army, but it seems that it'd be calling for trouble if the enemy is also fielding cavalry. Especially if their cavalry is superior to yours. Separated from the main body of your army, the lone cohort would be vulnerable to being surrounded and charged by cavalry, even with the triarii unit there to protect it.

thanks for this,

i like trying to use the orginal tactics in the campaign... adds a challenge to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conqueror

I can see how the tactic of sending the cohort to threaten the phalanx line's flank would work against a pure phalanx-based army, but it seems that it'd be calling for trouble if the enemy is also fielding cavalry. Especially if their cavalry is superior to yours. Separated from the main body of your army, the lone cohort would be vulnerable to being surrounded and charged by cavalry, even with the triarii unit there to protect it.

---

When using this tactics against armies full of companion cavalry this tactic will probably fail as you suggest. However in all but the most extreme cases If you separate your army in two and assault either end of the enemy line you can generally:
a) have enough concentrated infantry to defeat most cavalry
b) locally overwhelm the Phalanx units
c) force the phalanxes to open their formation in response to your maneuvers, creating flanking opportunities.

Generally i place velites in the centre supported by cavalry to draw the enemy centre onwards, however opposition heavy cavalry concentrations have a field day with your centre if your not careful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ginger

Fantastic guide, DA!
I, for one, hate how quickly phalanxes can respond to your maneuvers. It defeats the whole point of roman tactics.

Keep up the good work!

---

It's because the computer knows what your doing immediately after your order the action or movement. I encountered the same thing with enemy phalanxes realigning themselves with me. I think you've got to mask your movements, more so than in real life. I've been thinking of adding cavalry or skirmisher manouvers to screen my phalanx when it goes into echelon.

Of course you can exploit this to create mass confusion in the enemy. Divide your advance, by issuing orders to different groups rather than for the whole army. The enemy will scatter to counter each order seperately, instead of seeing them as a part of a much larger whole.

It wouldn't prevent these tactics from being used, I think. It might slow it down, seeing as you have to deal with taking out the cav, before the phalanx. The Roman Republican legion is a big box of infantry which is a nightmare for cavalry. Keep in mind that you can still field cavalry of your own too. And you can still attack the phalanx with pila while dealing with the cav.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Maxentius

Divide your advance, by issuing orders to different groups rather than for the whole army. The enemy will scatter to counter each order seperately, instead of seeing them as a part of a much larger whole.

---

Nice idea, ill give it a try

Yeah, see if it works. I dunno, the AI has been acting pretty unpredictable lately.

...I am in awe. Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pezhetairoi

...I am in awe. Period.

---

In Awe of what?

From a PM with Marcus Maxentius:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Maxentius

Check out the diagram on this site talking about the Roman Legions. It shows the organization of the roman phalanx, manipular legion, and cohortal legion. It's got drawings of the soldiers too. It's interesting that the early phalanx has hastati, principes, and triariis all with hastas and square shields. I think it might add some polish to your guide. It's up to you if you want to use it or not.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/legion.htm

---

Marcus,
Thanks for the PM!
Two points on this:
(1) The phalanx is brought up in my guide precisely for this reason. Prior to the Servian constitution, Romans fought in the phalanx, since the italian peninsula and Sicily were primarily influenced by Greek military tactics.
(2)There were no phalanx of Hastati, Principes, and Traiarii. The Triarii were the only ones who fought in phalanx, and they did so with the Hasta.

An additional point on the Hasta: Prior to the Spanish campaign in the punic wars against Carthage, The hastati primarily used the Hasta (From where they derive their name). It was after the spanish Campaign that Hastati and Principes took the Gladius as their primary weapon in addition to the Pila.

I'll throw the reference in the discussion, though. The site is good, although Roman legions initially had a variety of animal standards before the eagle became the one used for all legions.

Thanks again,

DA