Printable View
Let me put that I still play EB and just love it, and I'm waiting impatiently for EBII. but one thing caught my eye in the previews....
in the video of phalangitai, I got the impression that they have only two rows of spears pointed to he enemy, when I was under the utter impression that it was supposed to be at least 4 rows, maybe 5...
thoughts?
Yes, such is the world of hardcodes. The game only allows for up to three ranks (when in guard mode) to use the "sarissas lowered" animation during a fight. We cannot change that. Hardcodes. If that ever changes, we will be the first to know.
Foot
Wow... How about turning the guard mode off?
Wasnt the phalangitai an aggressive formation anyway? I mean Alexander pushed through the enemies and at pydna the makedonians even pushed too far through the romans...
You might want to familiarise yourself with this tactic.
So, the first rank will sit down too? like the Medieval Pikemen?Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Better check the movie at the Gaza Announcement, the phalangitai look quite good there.
At least they won't be too impenetrable from the front.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Allready see the movie... well, that was too few spears, but with this engine, the Phalangitai finally couldn't turn arround their spears arround! :thumbsup:
But I didn't see really "idle" phalangitai yet? still wonders if the first man sit down or not...:smash:
I think you can mod that out. Its jsut an animation thing. I also like the fact taht the 'push of the pike' seems to be in.
What are you trying to tell me? That phalangitai waited for the enemy and than charged the cavallery in the back? Please even people in the antics werent that stupid to fall for such a plan :juggle2:Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
Just look at Alexanders battle plans. It wasnt that easy. And he always used the phalangitai aggresive and I do not know any battle were the phalangitai just waited for the enemy.
Sure they would march to meet the enemy but their job then was to hold the infantry (not an aggressive role) until the cavalry delivered the final blow to the rear, its the classic Alexandrian tactic.
It has been theorised that the loss of this combined arms tactic in favour of using the phalanx as the main aggressive force was one of the main reasons for Diadochi armies poor performance against the Roman Legions.
A decent explination of Macedonian army tactics can be found here.
The first man will not sit down. There are 2 ranks with spears lowered and if in Guard Mode, the 3rd rank will also lower the spears.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf
Can't understand the need for all this talk about the strategies used by macedon...
Philip used a more defensive role of the phalanx, Alexandros improved it by taking a more offensive role (he needed 'cause of the lack of man power that he had( a classical example is the battle of gaugamela)).
The point is that the phalanx never lost its importance, it did lost against the romans for a lack of better generals and poor amry rosters, but it stayed and we (with a very loose sense) see its use in todays world.
The classical phalanx was used by Sweden until the reformation of their armies in the late 19 century, and we can see that the tactics used by the tanks today are derived from that formation... summarizing Philip was and still is one of the most brilliant strategists, and his son took after his father.
Ps: albeit the discussion is the thing that I like in the .org and that it usually lacks in TWC (that is to my understanding)
Bravo... so we could say goodbye to pikemen-ish formations we see on previous videos!!! :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by JMRC
What pikemen-ish formations from previous videos? The animations haven't changed since you saw them in the macedon vs ptolemaioi video.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf
Foot
Is there a way to make it so units don't run into the pikes and continue hteir run animation?
http://www.manningimperial.com/item....g_id=1&c_id=14
That point doesn't look very defensive to me. :dizzy2:
The Phalanx was an offensive formation, not a battle winning force in most cases but the Diadochi wouldn't rely on them that much if they weren't an offensive formation.
there purpose was to hold not to kill, and without some from of infantry or cavalry back up were eventually overrun (as we see on the left flank in Gaugamela). That would explain the strategies of Pyrrhus when he split the phalanx with close-melee troops. But they were use to aggressively pin an enemy (the only defensive formation was that which fortified a position - all others had to be used aggressively lest the enemy simply flank).
You need to define your terms properly, before you begin to define things with them.
Foot
Well theory and practice can be very different...
He could be refering what the Macedonians were doing during the Macedonian War against Rome due to a shortage of elite horsemen.
Well all I'm saying is that the points on their spears weren't for show. :clown:
And from the way they were used they were to engage the enemy and eventually they became almost an independant force under the diadochi, if they truelly weren't used for the offensive then they wouldn't be massed like the Hoplites of the city states.
To engage
Verb
1. (transitive) To pledge, to put something at risk or on the line.
2. (intransitive) To guarantee or promise (to do something.)
3. (transitive) To bind through legal or moral obligation (to do something, especially to marry) (usually in passive)
4. (transitive) To engross or hold the attention of someone.
5. (transitive, archaic) To fascinate or win over someone.
6. (transitive) To employ or obtain the services of someone.
7. (transitive) To reserve or arrange the use of.
8. To mesh or interlock (of machinery, especially a clutch).
9. To cause to mesh or interlock.
10. (intransitive) To enter into (an activity), to participate (construed with in).
11. (transitive) To keep busy or occupied.
12. (transitive) To attract, to draw into conversation.
13. (transitive) To enter into conflict with (an enemy).
14. (intransitive) To enter into battle.
15. To bring together or prepare before fighting.
16. (military) In air defense, a fire control order used to direct or authorize units and/or weapon systems to fire on a designated target. (JP 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms).
17. (military) To bring the enemy under fire. (JP 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms).
I put the relevant meanings in bold.
To engage is thus a very broad term, and engaging the enemy does not necessarily mean an offense.
Pikes weren't meant to cause large casualties or break enemy formations. Certainly, one can use them for an offense, but they won't be as effective as more specialised offensive infantry, or cavalry. After all, a (sarissa) phalanx wasn't very mobile, which is a very useful trait for a force that's supposed to be able to attack the right spot in a battle line quickly. Agressive defense is perhaps a better term, as Foot said.
They need offensive support to be most effective.
Tanks are technically cavalry, they certainly don't hold a battleline, nor do they use a phalanx formation, or, honestly, a derivative of said formation. Tanks are not meant to hold a line, they are fast(er then infantry) and pack some firepower meant for an offense. Tanks have been used as a means of breakthrough, to destroy the enemy battleline and allow the infantry to exploit that gap, since WW2. Operation Supercharge at the second battle of El Alamein (the tank charge), or even the battle of Kursk are examples of what tanks were used for.
Also, Swedish pike charges were done in an era where wearing armour had become almost obsolete (certainly for infantry), making a wall of pikes far more dangerous to the enemy, since they didn't have any protection. It's a bit pointless to liken their use in the age of gunpowder with their use in classical times, due to SEVERELY different equipment (and thus, tactics).
Well, that's just my view of things. One CAN use a sarissa phalanx offensively, but as the few given examples point out, this was done out of dire need. They clearly weren't as effective at it, compared to others, and those times it was used are likely because a lack of support, not because they were good at it.
I am by no means a military expert, nor do I claim to. I could very well be wrong.
[QUOTE=Arkhis;2374388]
The point in here is that they were used for "charging" the enemy line and to hold (the terminology used by Foot is probably the best), and to charge in any military manual, count as an offensive movement, the attack of Parmenion an d Alexandros in the gaugamela batttle is a clear example.Quote:
They need offensive support to be most effective.
Yes they are.Quote:
Tanks are technically cavalry
yes they do, the basic strategy developed for the tanks in the 1WW was that it would disrupt the enemy formations, mainly that of the trenches. In WW2 that role clearly suffered a transformation, it's pretty easy to see the changes made by the designers, tanks as a disruptive force were outlasted by the support role that they made to infantry, it's clear that you're not familiarized with modern day tactics as in that you pin the enemy than you outmaneuver and kill him, supressing fire is the basic point in those formations, and it was firstly realised by Hitler, than the frenchs, and finally for the americans (albeit perceived in WW2 it was only fully deployed in the pacific theatre (for the lack of a heavy tank for the japanese), further development only came in with the M1A1), the russians well that's for another day.Quote:
, they certainly don't hold a battleline
Of course the tactics couldn't be translated as an actual phalanx, that died in the middle ages, the tanks were used as the spearhead to pin the enemy and to the infantry maneuver and kill the enemy, actually those examples that you cited operation supercharge and the battle of kursk were extremes, as they relied heavily in the firepower of those tanks, and as such the britsh and the soviet tanks were, kindly putting, armored cars compared to the germans panzer IV and tiger, gently putting, if they couldn't outsmart and outmaneuver they were dead, most of their shots didn't penetrate the heavy armor, and as such the only options was to advance and send the infantry to flank, which we could consider being the main purpose of the phalanx, advance pin down, and let someone do the killing, this behaviour could be perceived in both battles (which are considered the two major tanks battle of the war, therefore extremes), and such if this behaviour could be perceived in those examples, imagine a more common type of battle, in which a panzer division utilized infantry and tanks combined. The tactics is as follow:
1 - pin/disrupt enemy formations
2 - send rapid deployment teams to flank
3 - let the tanks advance use the offensive abilities to pin down and defensive abilities to soak fire
4 - let infantry kill
BTW, if you see the westpoint or another military academy they clearly specify the phalanx as an inspirational for modern day fighting and tank deployment
yes tactics change over time, but let's say that that Alexandros was fighting an army based with a lot of ranged troops, and let's say that the great weakness of the phalanx was that they could be outmaneuvered and hence be destroyed, if you have a prevalent army of ranged units that actually fought too much for the hollywood likening in close range, as in hand to hand combat the phalanx could and was still used to pin down and to let the others units do the killing, they could kill more because of the lack of armor? Sure why not? they could kill less? that's not impossible..Quote:
Also, Swedish pike charges were done in an era where wearing armour had become almost obsolete (certainly for infantry), making a wall of pikes far more dangerous to the enemy, since they didn't have any protection. It's a bit pointless to liken their use in the age of gunpowder with their use in classical times, due to SEVERELY different equipment (and thus, tactics).
The point that I was trying to make is, the phalanx was a great formation and that it was more adaptable than we like to see it. Hammer and Anvil? sure! it's derivations were used throughout the time, yes it was. Was there any need to adapt those tactics to the new ways of killing, yes there was. The core of the tactics was maintained? we could say that.
PS: it's just my opinion, and yes it's my professional opinion:book:
[QUOTE=Seila;2374546]"Charging"? I don't think that the Macedon-style phalanxes really charged, I mean you have a 6m long spear, it clearly makes the running quite hard and you have to try to keep the close formation too, because it's one of the most important point of the phalanx. So a forced march is more likely in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkhis
Have you served in the military?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seila
Suppressing fire is not the same as phalanx. Seriously. If you think tanks are meant to sit on their asses and fire suppressing fire while infantry crawls to the enemy and fires at the opponent's side/rear... :dizzy2:
Also, I can't understand why some thing that phalanxes would not have been fielded en masse if they were defensive in nature. How does "defensive" equal "worthless", hm? Phalanxes engaged enemy to pin them down (defensive does not mean 'stationary'), but their role was not to break the enemy. That was the hammer's, that being heavy cavalry, job. They could be used offensively to "push" the enemy, however, the usage of this tactic seems to correlate with the diminishing numbers of heavy cavalry fielded in battles.
Also, someone mentioned Pydna as an example of offensive use of phalanxes; in Pydna, Romans started withdrawing as they saw that frontal charge was useless and behind them was rougher ground which would disturb the phalanx formations. Phalanxes were essentially lured into advancing too far, opening gaps in the formation for Roman legionaries to exploit.
Yes I did serve in the military, and I am a military "expert" in the international relations world.
BTW I never said that pinning down today was equal as yesterday, but surely you caught the spirit of what I said (or tried for that matter) the "myth" of the phalanx as an static formation is not feasible anymore, as in you have too much development in new ways of killing people ( we surely evolved in that matter) and the manouverability that was implemented in the hellenic period and diadochai. Let's go one by one
By charge I mean this:
[noun] a impetuous rush toward someone or something; "the wrestler's charge carried him past his adversary"; "the battle began with a cavalry charge"
it doesn't mean that you go with a great URAAAAAA and skewer the enemy with your almost too heavy 6m spear. It does mean that you rushed to the enemy and to present him the impenetrable wall of spears, in my opinion that is a charge, that's what Alexandros did in gaugamelahttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_decisive.gif
I consider this an ofensive use of what was a great holding the line formation.
In the case of:
You answered yourself, holding the line doesn't mean static all the way, you may need some elements to counterpush to make the line hold, to attract more firepower to one place and relief the other. A line is not static in anyway, never was. And yes I did not expect the tanks to survive if they're supposed to stay static in the battlefield, the infantry is highly maneuverable, and so it can surely outmaneuveur a tank and flank and you know the drill. So yes never meant the tanks to stay put, they are there to soak the fire, but they are there to survive as wellQuote:
Suppressing fire is not the same as phalanx. Seriously. If you think tanks are meant to sit on their asses and fire suppressing fire while infantry crawls to the enemy and fires at the opponent's side/rear...
Also, I can't understand why some thing that phalanxes would not have been fielded en masse if they were defensive in nature. How does "defensive" equal "worthless", hm? Phalanxes engaged enemy to pin them down (defensive does not mean 'stationary'), but their role was not to break the enemy. That was the hammer's, that being heavy cavalry, job. They could be used offensively to "push" the enemy, however, the usage of this tactic seems to correlate with the diminishing numbers of heavy cavalry fielded in battles.
I understand charge to mean a violent, fast-paced attack, as defined here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seila
Such a maneuver, I'd think, is nigh-impossible if you want to maintain cohesion of your phalanx unit, and that cohesion was very, very important for phalanxes. Advance, yes, attack, aye, but charge? Don't think so.Quote:
"to attack by rushing violently against: The cavalry charged the enemy."
I don't think anyone here has said that phalanxes were immobile blobs of infantry, waiting their enemies to run themselves into their pikes. They could certainly move and maneuver, to an extent, and as many have mentioned here, their primary task was to pin down the enemy. This implies an active role in the battlefield, in that they needed to keep the enemy there. If they simply approached the enemy and presented them with a pikewall, the enemy would've been free to maneuver still (and counter cavalry attacks and whatnot).
(Also, Gaugamela was quite a special battle in that Alexander was heavily outnumbered, had he used his phalanxes defensively he simply would've been flanked by swarms of enemies, he had to bring the enemy in contact with his phalanxes quickly to be able to strike at the enemy flank [/gap between Bessus and infantry] before getting outflanked/swarmed. In Diadochi Wars I would think the numbers would've been more equal.)
I must say, you have an interesting concept of modern warfare in that you put such importance on defensive abilities of MBTs and the concept of defensive lines. I suppose my training in a highly (counter/-)offensive mechanized battalion has struck the "strike, strike, STRIKE!" mentality in my backbone. :beam:
However, that would be a subject for another topic, I'm afraid, we're risking incurring Ludens's wrath if we continue talking about armoured warfare here. :laugh4:
Then mecanized warfare talks shall be done as you say. But let me ask you this (last one on this subject) Apparently you were in the army, and so were are you from? and yes this is cheating I have the notions of a need for more defensive strategies, principally in the urban warfare, such as attacks in one town well lead me to reinforce people there and to do active incursions on some other towns definitely enabling me to cut some structure from the guerrilla there, and to occupy with lower casualties, for both sides. A attack focus strategy in urban and modern warfare I think it's wrong, it let you focus on some things, but in the end you had to abandon so much ground just to make the offensive that your middle, as in middle of your territory will be filled of your enemies that could get away in your checkpoints. (sorry if its kind of hard to understand, tried to make as clear as possible (non native english)
But in the matter of gaugamela being a different battle, as in Alexandros being outnumbered, I can't agree with that, almost all of his battles he was outnumbered, maybe in not such fashion (we can't take the account of historians of the period as a truthful and having always the right view of the things, ahhh the anal school just love the guys).
and not putting that the I haven't realised that you people put that the phalanx is maneuverable it's just that I think it's more than that you asserted, the phalanx is not just a formation is a kind of warfare, you have to have the army entirely devoted to that matter, ensuring this you can guarantee that your pike based units are much more maneuverable than that 6m almost to heavy pike let us think.
ps: If Hannah Arendt wasn't dead just could mary her, love discussions.
Haven't been in the military but isn't the tanks = cavalry argument in modern warfare is kinda off. Its the airpower that provides the analogous shock and speed of cavalry.
AFVs are more analoguous to formation fighting heavy infantry that provide anchors in a line and a position for light troops to fall back to. They are powerful force that can engage in slugging matches while they can be taken out by bad terrain and inproper support.
Infantry in this analogy would fall into a skirmisher role providing support for a tank and provide the eyes and ears for the armor and air power as well as fighting where the armor cannot.
Under this analogy, Pydna would resemble the time the British in North Africa brilliantly tricked the German Tanks into the soft sand where they became ineffective.
Likewise, Gaugamella would have resembled something similar to the Soviets rolling through the Fulda Gap. The NATO forces would have to hold against the numerically superior Soviets long enough for Western air superiority so they could bog down and destroy the Soviet advance.
Something like that...
*flees before Ludens shows up*
Bye little bird go with your friends were the sun is great, the women are cheap and the economic recession didn't kill us, go with the wind!!Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
altough I agree with you, on the mecanized part, it's just that historically the tanks were an evolution to the cavalry, and thus named after that, although much of their tactics retain the role of heavy infantry style, their role is to support, we don't have a lot of tank battles in fact they were rare and still are.
Well, Gulf War 1 had some fairly large armored engagements. Other than that its usually people with MBTs fighting people without MBTs and finding out that MBTs aren't as cost effective in these sorts of asymmetrical conflicts. Look at the Israelis in the Sinai, Israelis in the recent Lebenon Conflict, and just the ridiculously one sided Second Battle of Grozny.
I'm from Finland (-> "Winland"), and so urban warfare wasn't our number one priority (we just have too much forests, swamps and countryside here :laugh4:).Quote:
Originally Posted by Seila
Modern estimates seem to put Darius's army to 50,000-120,000 at Gaugamela (I'm leaning towards 100,000 because such a big fuss wouldn't probably have been made if the Persian army barely outnumbered Alexander's). The only other battle he was outnumbered was Issus and possibly Hydaspes (iirc!).
And none of this is really relevant; Alexander was famously aggresive in his battles. However, I really don't think that Phalanxes were able to charge, otherwise that would've been mentioned surely somewhere. It might just be, but I can't recall any mention that phalanxes would've charged at the double at their enemies or taken them by surprise, rather they advanced upon them.
It's not just that their had a 6-7 meter long pike, they had five rows of them pointing at the enemy and three to thirteen rows of men behind them. To their sides they would've had their companions as close as possible so as not to present any gaps within the formation. I just don't think it would have been feasible to have several, dozens even units of 256 men running out on the field in good enough synchrony not to disturb the formations, while possibly being peppered by arrows and javelins and certainly while under the watchful eye of their opponent.
If phalanxes were as maneuverable as you think, why is it that their biggest weakness is consired to be the inability to maintain formation on uneven ground and respond to flanking and rear attacks?
Meh, where are the experts of hellenistic warfare when you need them!?
What? In Gaugamela there was a huge gap between the phalangitai and the hetairoi. But hey think a little bit critical. Off course nobody today knows what really happened at gaugamela.
Anyway lets not forget that the phalangitai were an evolution of the hoplites, who were an aggressive atacking unit, but still pinned the enemy down (Which infantry except skirmishers doesnt?):book:
Ludens is far to interested in reading to considering being wrathful. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by The General
Yes, we have moved off-topic but unless someone wants to continue about the original question about pike animations, I have no problem with discussing the battlefield role of tanks/phalangites.
Hoplites phalanx was essentially a Greek variation of the familiar shieldwall, as far as I know, and not really comparable to Makedonian phalanxes. Also I don't think hoplites were meant to pin the enemy down but break it. In traditional Greek warfare battles were decided by phalanx formations after the initial skirmish phase was over - both sides engaged, pushed, and the one that broke, lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by seienchin
Phalanxes were far too rigid to my understanding to be considered an aggressive attack unit designed to break the enemy upon contact - if it were, why would there have been need for heavy cavalry, "the hammer"? Obviously when dealing with almost identical armies phalanxes could operate without heavy cavalry support (their opponent wouldn't have such either) and things could be decided by what could be called push of pike. However when they encountered opponents such as Romans with notably different tactics and troops the unsupported phalanxes were at trouble.
As a sidenote, I read this again in my search for confirmation for my speculation, it's a quick but interesting read, I find. And seriously, I'm no expert on Hellenic or Hellenistic warfare, I've just read tids and bits here and there, a book every now often, use these forums and played EB. :beam:
sure the sarissa phalanx advanced and even charged every now and then, but even at Gaugamella they nearly payed sorely for this. there was (or so it seams) no way to maintain formation by doing so. Pidna is the best example of this. even at Cynoscephalae, in order to keep up the advance one flank had to drop their sarissa making them an easy target for the legions. can this actually be moded, to drop the sarissas altogether if you want to make the phalanx run?
remember what I described as the meaning of charge in the sentence? it doesn't contemplate the contact, it only contemplates the running, and sincerely a unit that was trained most probably by phillip, that is combat experienced, and most of all fought together for a long time? I can't see that they could really do that, you saw that picture, and you know that alexandros was pretty agressive in his batttles, and let's not forget that pyrros inovated, by interlacing the support into the phalanx.
And yes the phalanx was a evolution of the hoplite concept, and their style of warfare is pretty much what led to this "evolution", they fought in a agressive/defensive manner, their shields would be the integral part of the attack and defense, how?
1- advance as a unit
2 - block the enemy with your shields
3 - attack behind your shields
4 - if it fails, use your shield to push ty enemy to create a gap
5 - if it fails, slash ty enemy
repeat until done
the innovation was that by adding a longer spear you could avoid many of the casualties resulted by the attack of the swords. And tell me what other highly trained and cohesive (as in maintain formation) formation just doesn't perform at peak efficiency in uneven terrain?
Oh antisocialmunky, it was in Lebanon that the israelis noticed that you need an mbt in city combat, the merkava tank was the most successful tank in that war, the need for an mbt is as follows:
1 - give protection to the soldiers in the ground
2 - give close high power support
3 - intimidate
and I can assure you losing only four tanks in the entire war? incredible! since the streets were filled with rpg-7 and sa-7, most of the tanks were repaired and back to duty!
and since the infantry is very mobile, it will kill the enemy in the flanks
ps: I'm currently looking for information on phillips tactics, especially in the third sacred war, since I'm going to make an article about it, if anyone has something I would be indebted and very thankful
Noone here is claiming that Merkavas aren't great tanks but it still demonstrated their vulnerabilities to mass ATGM attacks when improperly supported.
As to the casualties:
40+ were hit, and 22 received pentrations.
5 tanks recieved catastrophic damage and of those 2 were destroyed by IEDs while the other 3 were repaired.
It still doesn't change the fact that one tank is worth many missiles and that its less than ideal to use them as just SPGs to support infantry.
I'm not saying that you forgot about the merkavas, but hey, the decrease in casualties since the first lebanon war when they were deployed, is too great to be forgotten, and let's remember that those mbt were developed to be tank destroyers, but there primary role now is to fight in the cities, and as such they are much more susceptible to missile attack, and yes the IDF is the only army that is in constant atriction that can still say the excuse that the troops were not familiar to the equipment, for god sakes!Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
and even with all those tanks getting hit, only ten soldiers died.
but let me ask you one thing,
"AFVs are more analoguous to formation fighting heavy infantry that provide anchors in a line and a position for light troops to fall back to. They are powerful force that can engage in slugging matches while they can be taken out by bad terrain and inproper support."
why do you think that the AFV and not the mbt should be considered the heavy infantry? since their armor is just too thin? and yes I know they were variations for the concept of infantry killers... but let's remember that they're primary purpose is to carry the infantry, maybe you're correlating the development of the bradley (which was for the matter crazy) to the role of the panzer I to III in the WW2
Definitely we moved off-topic. What most are not considering is the MTW2 engine itself. We have implemented the changes there and the AI will do what was programmed to do. Basically:
- when the AI controls the phalanx, it keeps moving towards the enemy and then pushes through their formation until reaching sword length. This happens even if we remove the swords, so we've decided to keep them for the melee. We haven't tested in defensive battles, where they were supposed to hold the line and not move forward.
- when the player controls the phalanx, he can decide to be defensive or offensive:
--- if he uses in defense, the phalanx will hold for a while, but eventually the enemy may slowly walk through the pikes. The casualties will be high, though, so it's safer to envelop with other troops and get them from flanks or rear.
--- if he uses in offensive, the phalanx will have the same behavior as the AI controlled, because the "attack" order is the same. however, the player can be intelligent and do things that the AI can't do like pushing back the enemy formation and then become static. This actively pins down the enemy formation and makes it highly vulnerable to a rear attack, specially if cavalry. Unfortunately, the AI is not smart enough to take advantage of this tactic...
I hope this explains better what can and cannot be done with the MTW2 phalanx. In many ways it's better than the RTW one, but in the AI hands, it has several important flaws. We are always searching for ways to improve it, by using the models' boundingspheres, the unit mass and the animations, but I gave you the current "status report".
It seems like we can't agree upon the term "charge". You seem to perceive it as a synonym for "engage" or "close upon enemy". In my opinion charge specifically refers to attacking enemy at a rapid pace, usually to break, penetrate or disturb the enemy formation (like Celts with their famous mass charge).Quote:
Originally Posted by Seila
Like *cough* Wikipedia explains: "A charge is a maneuver in battle in which soldiers advance towards their enemy at their best speed to engage in close combat. The charge is the dominant shock attack and has been the key tactic and decisive moment of most battles in history." Advancing at full speed and maintaining phalanx formation would seem rather hard, even on even ground, as sarissas were rather clumsy, even with training.
As far as I know, (traditional) hoplite mêlée was not decided by spears but the push factor (which is why Thebans crushed Spartan elite at Leuctra). The longer spears made it possible to field lighter, more mobile and nimbler units of Hoplites. Iphikrates started his reforms in the navy where longer spears were simply advantageous. I don't think swords were much of a factor behind his reforms, however, if you have sources, I'd be more than happy to educate myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seila
As far as I know, Philip, inspired by Iphikrates and Epaminondas, reformed his army from an noble cavalry - peasant rabble (skirmishers and other light infantry) force into a force capable of defeating organized opponents in pitched battles. While he retained the noble cavalry element, he employed his infantry with sarissas, spears even longer than what Iphikrates (and his imitators) used to further compensate for his infantry soldiers' poor armament (Makedonian citizens were to a large degree farmers and could not pay for an expensive hoplite outfit; Philip had to pay for their armaments himself) - if his enemies couldn't reach his soldiers with their spears, the lack of (heavy/any) armour didn't matter (... if phalanxes were not flanked/disturbed at which point they'd get into mêlée...).
There's a difference in my book between not performing at peak efficiency and losing enough cohesion to disturb and break the formation (what happened at Pydna).Quote:
Originally Posted by Seila
Also thanks for JMRC for the update. It's a shame that AI phalanxes will turn from sometime nigh-impregnable formations (EBI) to ones that will break certainly, given some time... From one bad alternative to another (though perhaps not as bad as before).
Thanks for the up, JMRC, as you can see we're not going off topic, and these are not he droids you're looking for.
And has someone tried to import the code for the phalanx animation from other TW title, like empire? if this works it could help you all with the formation problem (it's just a suggestion I might add, that I'm a terrible modder) And thanks for the up!
This might sound rude, and I'm sure it will be. RUDE!
Now after this, I can say that the why I put the meaning of charge that I utilize was for clarification purposes, because I knew you would say that charge is an attack, well so let's put it a different way, it's rapid deployment. (and not that i give a rats ass to what wiki says).
Done with this, it's impractical with the length of the lances that the hoplitai utilised to be "only" a matter of shield push (as I stated in my previous post) it's more of a matter of dinamics, you can't pierce someone with your lance if your're bashing shields with him.
Well for me the difference is there, but statistically doesn't count in this type of formation, when you loose some of that efficiency you can have a loss of cohesion and therefore you will break formationQuote:
There's a difference in my book between not performing at peak efficiency and losing enough cohesion to disturb and break the formation (what happened at Pydna).
And lastly we cannot argue about pydna, yes it was an important battle, but its almost as obscure as was the wars that I'm currently researching, see above post.
Summarizing, discussing ancient warfare is great, just love it (much better than to watch a 12 year old boy eating a pulsating heart that he, with the help of others, cut out of a recently captured prisoner, seriously it's loads of fun compared to this, nevermind the gang rapes, the cutting of limbs, the eating/insertion of potato mashers or IEDs). and not arguing that they were more humane back then. I strayed again, I apologize, but we can't be sure of anything, I'm not history channel to tell what conversation happened before the battle, the morale of the troops, the training or lack of thereof, we can't, and I can assure you mostly of what we know today and consider truth from a battle perspective is something of boderline bogus, not trying to diminish any historians or archaeologists, but we don't have the manual of the drills utilized for most of the units that happen to be in this mod,for the most part we don't and mostly can't trust the ancient historians, because of their exaggerated accounts in many situations, and so a considerable part of the knowledge that we have doesn't conform to be hardcore of a theory, they're suppositions.
ps: when I get home I'll take a look at the sources for this, but most are unpublished studies, I will see if I can get my hands on then for you
Are you referring to the translation error by Livy when he misread Polybius who meant that they lowered their pikes?Quote:
Originally Posted by tarem
Yes Merkavas are nice if only to give your side a threat that forces the enemy to respond by focusing the enemy to target it or withdraw if that's what you're getting at. Its worth mentioning that heavy infantry also forced a withdraw of a weaker enemy, a set piece battle which they would win, or some nasty romp through the woods.:smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seila
As for your other comment...
AFVs are a very broad group of things with various specializations. You have MBTs, troop carriers, recon, tank killers, anti-aircraft etc. I think you thought I was refering to specifically to IFVs.
The reason I refered to all types of AFVs is that they impart a considerable advantage vs infantry at the cost of maneuverability and stealth. So unless something like a Maurader suit shows up, I don't think there's a too much of a need to partition it further just as you can partition line infantry of the past up as much as you want.
To be quite honest the analogy I made begins to break apart when you look at it that closely. Its meant to be very general :-p
I mean where do Helicopters, Cruise Missiles, A-10s, and Air Fuel Bombs fall under?:smash:
no not lowered (as in deployed for combat). the text i read said they actually dropped them to the ground and fought with swords instead. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindaros
over ty enemy!Quote:
Air Fuel Bombs fall under
and about the afvs, yes I got that wrong, sorry about that!
and yes it's pretty general, your and my assertion about the modernity use of the "phalanx", because in our time we have different vehicles for doing the same job, and each one has its strengths and weaknesses and you have to balance it (captain obvious reporting to bridge!)
nevermind that, the general I'm currently searching for a enciclopedia of battles that I have in pdf at my pc, current status not found and really pissed about it. Probably I can up for you to see, the other texts, well they are going to published by a college of mine, and as such he didn't give me the permission to pass to you, when it's realesed you can go to muse and download it, while you're there go and search battles+ancient+greek, but if you want some of my work (may not be in there database, but worth a try) Resource Wars and its Impacts over Human Rights: Study Case of the Liberia Civil War (1989-2003)
Yes, but was the text written by Polybius or by Livy?Quote:
Originally Posted by tarem
i've been searching through the bibliography and i'm still not sure. the author uses Badian E. as a refference who in turn mentiones Polybius, but can't tell if it's direct translation or an interpretation from another hystorian :help:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindaros
The solution for having too few sarrisas? Two words.
Dual. Wield.
The source would be useful to know, since iirc it is in that battle that Livy makes the translation error.Quote:
Originally Posted by tarem
Why so eager to have godlike phalanxes? Loosen up...no pun intended :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by The General
IIRC, didn't the babylonians record the fact that Darius only quit the battle after the army routed before him?:clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by seienchin
if that's the case, then we do know what happened. what we need are details.
speaking of loose phalanxes: why not reduce the area of ground a soldier occupies? I know that in Rome total war, you can make soldiers stand shoulder to shoulder. I ought to know-I'm apparently the first person to figure it out.
(yes, I'm Gen.JamesWolfe on TWcenter. and yes, I'm a hardcore SYW unifrom geek, as well as a paleontology student)
What I tried to say that the situation would develop from one bad situation into another, different kind of 'bad' situation. This is why I added the part after the ellipsis, because the first part implied I liked undefeatable phalanxes, which is certainly not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
i finally located the source used in the book on the net:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindaros
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20948552/B...oscephalae-197
and
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Livy33.html
it seams you were right, it looks like the translation you mentioned