Printable View
Is it just me or are phalanx units ahistoricaly resilient against arrows? i mean i had 3 units of caucasian archers shooting at some pantodapoi phalangitai and they'd only take 1 casualty every 5 volleys or so :s. Those tiny shields cant block that many arrows can they?
Phalanx units as in 4.5-7.5 metres of spear obstracles, more shields than you can count, and decent armour?
Yes: they will probably be somewhat more resilient in RTW than they were in real life; then again many missile units don't seem to suffer quite as much from realistic real life conditions either. If you try to soften a phalanx up from the front, you must use at least javelins or *many* archers/slingers: don't expect miracles though. After all you are playing according to the rules the phalanx unit likes best, attacking it head on. :shrug:
It's more the fact that they where tightly grouped together with their pikes warding off missiles, but indeed I think it's a bit unrealistic fyself. What I do know, is that this is hardcoded and cannot be changed withou major consequences.
Maion
when my cities are attacked by large phalanx contingents I usually order my archers to fire at evrything apart from the phalanx to prevent them from wasting arrows and if they don't have any armored troops(who could get dangerous on the walls) I task my slingers to fire at them, they don't do much more damage but It seemd to me that they are a bit more efficient than archers. in all other cases I try to get behind a phalanx before i fire
Yeh its pretty weird how silver cheveron elite units die more often to missile fire than levy phalanx units do D:
Slingers will do best against them, especially if you can get some behind them.
Yeah, but we're talking about the front and how unrealistically strong they (phalangites) are against frontal missile fire. Anangryelitist didn't ask for tips against phalangites with missile units...
Maion
I read about phalanxes that they was very vunerable to arrows, becouse of small shields and tight formation
I've heard this before, but is there really any evidence that phalanx formation provides additional defence from arrows? In EB, phalanx units have increased shield values and reduced defence to indicate their reliance on formation. Because shield values count double against arrows, this has the additional effect of making them more missile proof. However, this does make sense historically, since the phalanx did very well in the missile-fond east.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios
I never really got, how that warding off missles with pikes is supposed to work. I mean a pike has a rather small surface/silhouette and it's not like there were only 10 cm between them. It would actually be harder to hit the pike than the man it's supposed to be protecting.
Oh, but we're talking about a forest of pikes. The only problem is that the front rows do not really get any protection from pikes. Only the middle and back rows do. The pike phalanx has one of the rows holding the pikes at a 45-degree angle and then many more holding pikes at 90-degrees. These pikes can block the majority of missiles, but as I've said before, not everyone benefits from the protection. In RTW as Ludens aid, the only reason the phalanx is so resilient against missiles is because the phalanxes have 5 or 6 shield in comparison to the normal 3 or 4.Quote:
Originally Posted by machinor
yes the phalanxes in EB are way to resilent against missile fire. but I think to change it would mess up alot of the other stats. but it's not like the phalanxes are invulnerable to missiles completely, so I can live with it. For an example of how effective missiles are against phalanxes, just watch the movie "Alexander" and watch what happens when the Persians release a volley of arrows on the makedonians in begining of Guagemala.
I'm sorry, but how is Alexander proof of a phalanxes resiliance against missile fire. And I think that people have been throwing around opinions as if they were facts based on personal experience.
Foot
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Well in the movie "Alexander" by Oliver Stone, when the makedonians get hit by a volley of Persian arrows many of the makedonians get killed or wounded. I know many of you don't like the movie but i think alot of you agreed that it accurately portrayed the makedonian phalanx (there was a recent post about the movie on this forum). And yes of course this is just my opinion. But then again the whole point of this forum is to discuss EB, history, speak our minds, and say our opinions. And when necessary, correct false opinons.
I don't think that scene in Alexander acturately portrayed anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
well that's your opinion. and mine is that it did portray how phalanxes can easily be damaged by misslie fire. of course many of you are going to agree with Mr. abou here because you don't like the movie, thus you will do everything to make it appear 100% wrong.
Phalanx units get a boost to defense against missiles when in phalanx and their shield bonus is doubled. So try to fire at them from behind or when out of phalanx for best results. Firing from the front rarely accomplishes anything.
Well, the high vulnerability of pike phalanxes to missile fire seems to be common sense/logical conclusion to me. They are a tightly packed group of men with small, fixed shields after all. However, I would never, ever judge something based on a movie. A Hollywood movie is the last source you would want to cite. Hollywood in general has a long history of exaggerating the effectiveness of arrow fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pontius Pilate
Although it would seem to me that missiles were highly effective against a phalanx, history seems to suggest otherwise. The Persian armies were overwhelmingly composed of missile troops. Just about everyone had bows or javelins, even the heavy cavalry and the elite infantry - the Immortals, who were a missile force btw. The bulk of the army consisted of foot archers. The main formation was the so-called "archer phalanx" with a line of low depth of spearmen in the front, a lot of archers in the middle, and with possibly the officers and overseers (to prevent the main force from routing) in the back (although the last part is debatable).
Based on all this, the Persians blackened the sky with arrows, which should have decimated the Makedonian phalanx. But they didn't. The Macedonians won every battle, and the arrow fire did not seem to be a decisive factor. Even with the superb generalship of Alexander, the Makedonians should have had a hard time against the archers, if the arrows were truly deadly to a phalanx. The fact that the Makedonians did not have such problems suggests that the phalanx was not vulnerable to arrow fire as you have said. This conclusion seems illogical, even to me, but history seems to support it.
Also, don't forget that an arrow doesn't have to be completely stopped -- a glance off the side of a sarissa will slow it down and/or cause it to tumble, reducing its damage potential.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius PaulusOh, but we're talking about a forest of pikes. The only problem is that the front rows do not really get any protection from pikes. Only the middle and back rows do. The pike phalanx has one of the rows holding the pikes at a 45-degree angle and then many more holding pikes at 90-degrees. These pikes can block the majority of missiles, but as I've said before, not everyone benefits from the protection. In RTW as Ludens aid, the only reason the phalanx is so resilient against missiles is because the phalanxes have 5 or 6 shield in comparison to the normal 3 or 4.Quote:
Originally Posted by machinor
-Glee
Fine. What do I know anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pontius Pilate
Why don't you just reduce the shield stats of phalanx units and compensate them with extra defensive skill? It's not a very difficult solution.
An arrow falling from a volley does not have nearly as much impact as straight shots do, and one glance off of anything makes it lose most of its effectiveness, as Aemilius says. Also, think of the helmets. An arrow falling gets blocked by a helmet much of the time, and the shoulder pads are reinforced. The most likely chance is to fall at about a 45 degree angle and hope that it can penetrate the linothorax. Also, the Persian bows were made of cheap, lower quality wood that was readily available to the massive peasantry of the Empire, and this reduced the firing power of the bow, which allowed Greek troops to time and time again ward off Persian arrows with superior armour.
Also I'd like to point out that, in movies, armour almost has no effect whatsoever, and a peasant with a crude weapon is often easily able to kill a prepared man in armour. This is easily explainable with an axe or similar weapon, but not with a crudely fashioned spear.
Compensating with defense skill sound like a good solution, but (WARNING!) it is kind of ahistorical; phalanxes didn't rely on defensive skill as much as the support of your comrades; training for individual combat was probably minimized in favour of discipline and practice in quickly forming ranks or the formation itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
really?? this is your response? well um, okay.
EDIT: ohh, I get it now, sarcasm.
well if you do the maths say 200 arrows are fired at 200 pikemen and say that 50% of them glance off the spears 10% gets blocked by shields (im under the impression that they dont actively try to block arrows with their shields) and 35% doesn't pierce the armour. Thats still about 10 casualties a volley. That being said discovering that this is all because of the shield bonus what i just said is kinda useless :D
How is that a useful post? Where did you get thos numbers from? Those numbers could be replaced with almost any others and we would all be none the wiser.
F0ot
maybe you should just sacrifice some friends who from a phalanx with 6-meter broomsticks and cardboard-shields and helmets and then shoot at them with bows and arrows
Good idea Swiss. Any takers? Remember, its in the name of historical accuracy!:grin:
I have to agree with Foot (for once) on this, why is everyone throwing random numbers and "facts" (i.e. their own opinion) and then disagree with EB team members, who might just know a bit more then any of us...
What is not clearly evident is a common mistake, I used to make myself.
Do NOT compare the heavy mongol and turkic bows of Medieval times to the scythian bow that the archers at EB are using. The hunnic bow, which itself is inferior to the Mongol/Turkic bow was only beginning to be used in the steppes over China.
In reality with the bows that Achaimenid Persians had they would have to approach very close to be able to do any real damage in which case the psiloi/akontistai/sphendonetai would make short work of them. If they would be used from further on, they wouldn't have much of an impact, ESPECIALLY ON A PIKE PHALLANX. Let me see, Bronze helmet with facemask, Linothorax (which tests have shown to be VERY arrow resistant), pteruges, and greaves. Add to that the sarissai pike wall. Which part of the body exactly is prone to arrows? Just the hand holding the pike.
Sphendonetai/slingers could outshoot the bow. Any hit would count as it would cause blunt damage. This is accurately translated to EB as well. Foot archers have another disadvantage. The number of bows they carry is smaller than the lead shots that the sphendonetai did.
Surena managed to destroy the Romans because he had extra arrows carried on nearby camels. Any units whose arrows were depleted, would return, refill their gorytoi/bow+arrows combined case and head back to the front with arrow supply replenished. The Pahlavan HA were shooting arrows at the Romans from midday until the last light of day. According to Tarn, this was a revolutionary development, and one for which Surena isn't given enough credit.
Take all these into account you will find why the favorite Achaimenid Persian missile weapon was the heavy javelin, NOT the arrow. Pahlavan, as they were Nomads were of course more arrow friendly than the sedentary Achaimenid Persians.
I agree with keravnos. Good sound logic there ^^Quote:
Originally Posted by keravnos
If you could get close to a Phalanx and shoot a flat trajectory then you could do some damage but in reality this would hardly have happened. Thats what light cavalry and other missile troops are for, to keep the enemies missile troops away. It would be very rare (and stupid) to have just a phalanx in battle with no support.
From a far distance the bowmen would be firing in a parabolic trajectory to reach the phalanx while keeping their distance from the other missile troops. This greatly decreases the stopping power of an arrow and also gives more of a chance to be hit by a pike/helmet/shoulder guards (as keravnos stated). From such a distance even with a direct hit the arrow may, as a result of the reduced stopping power, not even be able to penetrate linothrax or metal cuirass (sp).
anyway my 2c
So the conclusion is that western & Persian bows just sucked and lacked the power of the later
recurve-composite bows that came from Central & East Asia...
:yes:yes. that pretty much sums up the whole argument on this thread, or at least the latter part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
Were these types of javelins still being used in EB's timeframe? if yes I havent seen any type of heavy javelin used in the east (by Armenians, or mercenaries of the east)Quote:
Originally Posted by keravnos
I think he means any big javelin, not necessarily a pilum type, or soliferum. and from what I know about Achaemenid warfare, they did indeed prefer javelins, at least in the cavalry arm.Quote:
Originally Posted by artavazd
Yes, but were these big javelins being used in EB's timeframe? and if yes will they be javelins with like an ap attribute?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim