Roman Manipular Formation

How do u usually form ur battle line with Pre-Marian troops?

I usually go with:

*** *** *** --- velites
------ ------ --- barb mercenaries/samnites
||| ||| ||| ||| --- hastatis
||| ||| ||| ---- princeps
|||| |||| -- triaries/more barb mercs or samnites
0 -- general

and I would generally have cavalries (preferably Gaulish mercs) and wardogs on my wings for flankin manouvers. I tend to stay away with archers cos they only add to friendly fires.

I like keeping barb mercs in the front, in long thin lines, to absorb/deliever charges. This way my hastatis would get the chance to throw their pilas without getting slobbered by massive amounts of screaming enemies. IIRC, their pilas do more damage then their actual attack. This kind of armies work well with barbarians, although against Phalanx they may not be worth it.

With Post Marian troops I keep the same formation only changing hastatis, princeps and triariies with Legionaries. Especially after the reform, retraining is hard when ur campaigining in less developed regions. I'm guessing I could've used Auxillias or Town Watches, but I like the merc's charge better.

I just wished there's an auto manipular formation setting. I know sometimes the AI form ur troops in maniple, but a lot of times its just one big line of troops and u had to move stuff around alot.

I tend to have my skirmisher types (velites) way out in front, my main infantry in a double line - weaker (hastati) in front, heavier (principes) slightly behind and on the wings. Spears (triarii) on the wings in the same line as the light line, but slightly away from the line - so that my archers/slingers/whatever can fire through the gap. Cavalry behind my archers.

A line of principes/hastati at the front, and archers in the middle. And either a second line of principes or ideally triarii at the rear. If I have any velites they shall be in a flank. My general and cavalry would start at the rear, and move up either of the flanks depending on where they're needed. If I have any cheap mercs, they will usually take the front line so I don't lose good Roman lives when I have cheap barbarian scum to die instead ~;) Decent melee mercs will usually be kept back as a reserve to protect my flanks.

That's my basic start formation, but they usually aren't in that formation when I meet the enemy.

as romans i usually don't use cavalry or missle troops, the army consists of general (x), and affordable roman infantry (chars)

AAAA BBBB CCCC DDDD EEEE FFFF GGGG
HH LLLL x MMMM JJ
I I KK

with fire at will on, the front line is stretched 2-3 ranks deep ( to make the army almost the same width as the enemy). 2 units on each flank 5-6 ranks deep. and if i have enough units i put a few stretched units as a second line.
general in the middle of the second line.

once ingaged i send the HH&II to flank the units that is fighting AAAA, and i send JJ&KK to flank the unit that is fightin GGGG. Once they rout I move on to help BBBB and FFFF and just keep on going towards the center.

////////////////////////// ^^^^

xxxxx lllll lllll lllll lllll xxxxx ^^^
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
kkkkk kkkkk kkkkk kkkkk



l=triarii
x=hastati
k=principes
/=veletis/archers,who fall back if charged.
^=cav,protecting the flanks

this formation works for me most times,
very early in the game i use town watch for triarii, & i find there not to bad as long as the flanks are protected.

sorry for ignorance - what is the manipular formation? - the chequerboard one, or the 3 lines?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KyodaiSteeleye

sorry for ignorance - what is the manipular formation? - the chequerboard one, or the 3 lines?

---

Both really...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KyodaiSteeleye

sorry for ignorance - what is the manipular formation? - the chequerboard one, or the 3 lines?

---

Post Marian reforms:

maniple = 2 centuries = 160 men

3 maniples = 1 cohort = 480 men

10 cohorts = 1 legion (minus horse and other auxiliaries) = 4800 men

cohorts organized themselves in rectangles.. The full 10 making a typical 'checkerboard' layout.. sometimes two lines of offset rectangles (5 and 5) , sometimes 3 (4/3/3). All this depends on circumstance and what they were facing.

Each rectangle (I believe.. I'm foggy on this part because its been so long since I read this..) was organized by maniples in lines.. so 1st maniple in front, 2nd behind, 3rd in rear. based on circumstance if the cohort was charged from behind the 3rd maniple could change facing and defend the cohort.. same for the leftmost centuries when attacked from the left, etc.

That reason alone made the roman army a very difficult thing to contend with.

If anyone is fresher on this, feel free to correct me..

And to stay on topic:

full 20 unit deployments for me:

3 units Equites + general for cav support
4 units either Velites or Archers
12 units Hastati.

2-4 units of hastatii held in reserve on both wings (either 1/1 or 2/2)... velites either set up on the wings or in front depending on presence of enemy cav... archers always behind if I have them.

the balance of Hastatii set up shoulder to shoulder 4 deep.

When engaged, I commit my reserves where my line beings to bow inwards. Horse are charged to flank enemy when the enemy has fully committed their flank units. Horse charges unit closest to end of my line until it routes, continues to next..

If I have Velites, once they have expended their ammunition I'll use them (sometimes) as flankers.. I only do this if all enemy units on the side I'm flanking are fully engaged.. otherwise they end up going toe to toe with something that can kill them easily.

And I follow the general rule of warfare practiced for centuries... I only close to melee if ranged attacks do not decide the engagement or the enemies ranged attackers will decide it for me if I don't close (chasing down routers being the exception to this rule, since there is little risk to your melee troops).

Finally, I don't use Triarii since I only get them JUST before Marian reforms.. and Principes are so similar to Hastati, and use of principes complicates logistics so much.. I just stick with Hastati.

Legend V=1 unit of velites, H=1 unit of hastati, P=1 unit of princepes, T=1 unit of triariii, A= 1 unit of roman archers, E=1 unit of equites, S= special troop unit, G= general,*=space filler.

***V***V
**H*H**H*H
E*P*P*S*P*P*E
*T*A*G*A*T

More or less like this. The special weapon slot can be filled by dogs a siege weapon or a really keen merc unit. Also the triarii slot can be filled by samnites or barbarian mercs if I haven't gotten to triarii level yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Legend V=1 unit of velites, H=1 unit of hastati, P=1 unit of princepes, T=1 unit of triariii, A= 1 unit of roman archers, E=1 unit of equites, S= special troop unit, G= general,*=space filler.

***V***V
**H*H**H*H
E*P*P*S*P*P*E
*T*A*G*A*T

More or less like this. The special weapon slot can be filled by dogs a siege weapon or a really keen merc unit. Also the triarii slot can be filled by samnites or barbarian mercs if I haven't gotten to triarii level yet.

---

Interesting.. I've come to a similar arrangement in Post Marian. I find that the AI likes to flank my archers/seige in the back if given half a chance, so I find myself replacing two rear reserve legionarres with 2 auxila for spear protection against cav charges on my rear units. This still leaves me 8 up front infantry and 2 infantry (generally very heavy.. urban cohorts or the like) in reserve for emergencies.

Duck, you have actually mixed up the good old Manipular formation with the Marian one (I only call it that since I don't know when it was introduced).

The Manipular formation was indeed made up of maniples (duh) cosisting of two centuries. But where it differs from your presentation is in the layout.
The Manipular formation was simple enough. The first line was the Velites out front (ahead you might say), the Hastati would then form up in maniples with openings one maniple wide between them. The maniples themselves were the two centuries behind each other. So if the centuries were 10 wide (only a hypothetical case here) and 8 deep the maniples would be 10 wide and 16 deep blocks. Behind the Hastati line would be the Principes in an equal setup (same width and depth) but in the openings of the Hastati. Thus the frontline was kind of toothed with big square teeth.
Behind the Principes the Triarii would form up in half the depth of the others, but agan in the openings of the Principes.
There would not be any cohorts really, these were invented to deal with situations that demanded a force lesser than a legion but bigger than a maniple (came about around the time Scipio Africanus got sent to Spain, some even credit him with this 'invention').

The layout you menion is from the professional marian legions. The three lines were a leftover from the old manipular formation. But this time the first line was the strongest with the first cohort in it and it being 4 cohorts strong while the others were 3 strong. An abandonment of the somewhat weaker Hastati frontline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Duck, you have actually mixed up the good old Manipular formation with the Marian one (I only call it that since I don't know when it was introduced).

The Manipular formation was indeed made up of maniples (duh) cosisting of two centuries. But where it differs from your presentation is in the layout.
The Manipular formation was simple enough. The first line was the Velites out front (ahead you might say), the Hastati would then form up in maniples with openings one maniple wide between them. The maniples themselves were the two centuries behind each other. So if the centuries were 10 wide (only a hypothetical case here) and 8 deep the maniples would be 10 wide and 16 deep blocks. Behind the Hastati line would be the Principes in an equal setup (same width and depth) but in the openings of the Hastati. Thus the frontline was kind of toothed with big square teeth.
Behind the Principes the Triarii would form up in half the depth of the others, but agan in the openings of the Principes.
There would not be any cohorts really, these were invented to deal with situations that demanded a force lesser than a legion but bigger than a maniple (came about around the time Scipio Africanus got sent to Spain, some even credit him with this 'invention').

The layout you menion is from the professional marian legions. The three lines were a leftover from the old manipular formation. But this time the first line was the strongest with the first cohort in it and it being 4 cohorts strong while the others were 3 strong. An abandonment of the somewhat weaker Hastati frontline.

---

Thank you! That clarifies things quite a bit.

I free admit my utter ignorance of pre-Marian legion composition.

And note I did say.. 'Post-Marian' in my post (since I know I'm WAY ignorant of the pre-Marian way of doing things) ~;)

Thanks again.. seriously rockin info!

And p.s.... this is why I like the ORG.. I can ask a general question on Military History and get an answer! !! :bow:

my favorite pre-marian formation is adapted (aka stolen) from scipio africanus's battle formation against a straight assault

p=pricipes
h=hastati
v=velites
t=triarii
c=cavalry

tttttttttt hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ttttttttttt
tttttttttt hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ttttttttttt
pppppp vvvvv pppppp vvvvvv pppppp vvvvvv
pppppp vvvvv pppppp vvvvvv pppppp vvvvvv
pppppp vvvvv pppppp vvvvvv pppppp vvvvvv


c c
cc cc
ccc ccc
cccc cccc


velies hit enemies from behind hastati. when hastati's formation crumples (it will...sissy bastads :furious3: ) then the enemy imediatly engage principes :duel: , velites still pounding them, and then (if all goes well) the triarii turn in to flank the enemy
cavalry mainly there to stop flanking of any formation also good to get around the enemies backs :charge:
this is best aganst enemies who outnumber you especially greek and carthaginians what do you think

HOLY CRAP THE COMP RUINED MY FORMATION OK OK OK disragard that last formation competely this is the real one
p=principes
h=hastati
v=velites
t=triarii
c=cavalry
.=empty space

......ttttttttttttt.................................................tttttttttttt...................
......ttttttttttttt.................................................tttttttttttt...................
.................................................................................................... ....
................hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...........................................hhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...........................................ppppppvvvvvvpppppppvvv vvvvpppppppvvvvv...........................................ppppppvvvvvvpppppppvvvvvvvpppppppvvvvv... ........................................ppppppvvvvvvpppppppvvvvvvvpppppppvvvvv...................... .....................ppppppvvvvvvpppppppvvvvvvvpppppppvvvvv......................................... ..ppppppvvvvvvpppppppvvvvvvvpppppppvvvvv............................................................ ..............................................................................c..................... ...........................................................c....................cc.................. .............................................................cc..................ccc................ ..............................................................ccc................cccc............... ..............................................................cccc.............ccccc................ ............................................................ccccc.........


blah blah blah look up and see the stuff i am to lazy to write again


-------------------------------------------------------------------------- weep not for the victorios dead but find vengence
any comment on how to get the real little message down here would be of much use :help: thanks

[SIZE=7]JESUS CHRIST IT SCREWED UP MY FORMATION AGAIN OH damn i give up forget i said anything :embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDuck

Thank you! That clarifies things quite a bit.

I free admit my utter ignorance of pre-Marian legion composition.

And note I did say.. 'Post-Marian' in my post (since I know I'm WAY ignorant of the pre-Marian way of doing things) ~;)

Thanks again.. seriously rockin info!

And p.s.... this is why I like the ORG.. I can ask a general question on Military History and get an answer! !! :bow:

---

Well, you are welcome, and should it be another time. ~:cheers:

But yeah I saw you mentioned that it was post marian, but you also mentioned manipular, so I figured you were perhaps a little confused? So it wasn't really a fullfledged correction, more of a little addon to your post to put it into perspective. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Well, you are welcome, and should it be another time. ~:cheers:

But yeah I saw you mentioned that it was post marian, but you also mentioned manipular, so I figured you were perhaps a little confused? So it wasn't really a fullfledged correction, more of a little addon to your post to put it into perspective. :book:

---

Ah, very good! I've learned something here today. I always thought 'manipular' referred to the cohort composition and its use of maniples to cover multiple directions.. It really refers to the 3 line setup and how it was used pre-Marian.

I didn't understand that.. so thank you EVER so much! :)

heh heh.. I was confused (but being ignorant of all the facts, didn't even know it!)!

so... just to stay off topic - what was the function of having a maniple-sized hole between each maniple? ~:)

Kyodai, I assume, using the mighty powers of logic, that the maniple-sized hole was exactly the width the unit behind or before would have. The units would set up behind the gaps left by the units before them, in that way creating a perfect checkerboard. ~:)

nothing new here, but I go this basic form:

v a v v

h p h p h
x e e e



I lose missile troops (a,v) as they do not all run away fast enough from the bad guys - and then swing cav (e) wide to sweep in.

i dont get the pre-marian thing, aren't the hastati in a solid front line? if somebody could post a picture or do something in paint it would be greatly Apriciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aw89

i dont get the pre-marian thing, aren't the hastati in a solid front line? if somebody could post a picture or do something in paint it would be greatly Apriciated.

---

Well, there is a great dispute about this really. Peter Connolly takes the solid line theory, while Adrian Goldsworthy keeps to the open line theory.
Basically the solid line theory is based on the assumption that the maniples would line up and all that. Then before combat is joined, the back century would march out and fill the gap, creating a solid line. Then when/if the Hastati can't break the enemy they would in one of the lulls fall back behind the first century again and the Principes could now march up. Whether the Hastati vould have time to pull out completely or they would have fight another round is uncertain, but in any event the frontline has been strengthened. The Principes then mirrors the Hastati. If they to are getting nowhere they would fall back behind the Triarii (who would have moved up close behind the Principes. The Triarii would then also close the gaps and do a fighting retreat, or at least see off the initial enemy attacks. Possibly the Hastati would now have rested enough to join battle again, and the entire circle restarts.
The problem lies in the rotation of the lines and the fallback, it simply takes too long.

The open lines theory is a little more complex. It relies on the enemy to not file into the gaps for several reasons. Firstly most enemies would engage the Romans in formation, not as a mob, so the open lines are of little risk there, it might in fact break up phalanx style formations. Even the barbarians formed up in formations. Further, if some enemies did flank the Hastati the Principes would be close at hand to help them out.
The Hastati tires a bit and the Principes moves up and fills the gaps. Now the whole line is suddenly much more powerful, while the enemy has been gradually weakened by the Hastati.
The problem lies in the fact that at the end the Hastati would be utterly exhausted but still at the front.

I'm not sure I buy either Peter Connolly's or Adrian Goldsworthy's theories.

Having gaps in a battle line is a potentially lethal flaw, while rank changes which open such gaps is equally dangerous.

Multiple battle lines were used by a great many armies through out history, to replace or relieve exhausted or broken front lines. I imagine the Romans were no different and replaced Hastati with Principes as and when a lull in the fighting gave them a chance to do so, or to quickly fill gaps created by broken Hastati maniples.

I think i'm with the solid line, it could work like this:

H H H H
H H H H
H H H H
H H H H

P P P P
P P P P
P P P P
P P P P

when they are supposed to change, the principes move forward to the back of the hastati and change the line by line

H H H H
H H H H
H H H H
P P P P
P P P P
P P P P
P P P P
H H H H

to

H H H H
P P P P
P P P P
P P P P
P P P P
H H H H
H H H H
H H H H

and when they get to the last line they sound the horn/flag for front change and the pricipes are at the front, this ends with this:

P P P P
P P P P
P P P P
P P P P

H H H H
H H H H
H H H H
H H H H

Get it, or should i explain better?

Pre-marian, I would tend to think that 'solid lines' were used, post-Marian.. checkerboard. The common use of tactical reinforcements was introduced by Scipio Africanus, which I (believe) lead to the use of checkerboard arrangements during maneuver up to contact with the enemy.

As such, here are my comments on 'checkerboard' formations, which I only think came into common use in the years after Marian's reforms (and Scipio's victories).

I would also like to stress (as before) that my comments below only apply to Legions that existed in 100BC and after (i.e. post-Marian).

This may be a case of maneuver vs. 'joined battle'.

The real problem of any battlefield is deciding where to commit reserves and then actually getting them there. What is clear about all battlefields until very recently is that communication was tough, and local control was key.

Julius Ceasar in his 'Gallic Wars' makes many references to local cohort commanders making key decisions without the Legion commanders input that helped win large battles, which further emphasizes this.

My belief has always been that gaps were indeed left in the line by the front (post-Marian) cohorts to allow for reinforcement as necessary (since you could see what was coming much better and speed of even the fastest unit (cav.) was not all that fast.) Once battle was joined things would 'even up' to fill the gaps.

That 'evening up' could take two different forms: If the rear cohorts were reoriented to different places in the line due to more pressing needs somewhere else, you could fill in the gaps with rear maniples from the front line cohorts. If things were particularly hot there, the rear cohorts would step into the gap.

And note.. a tactical reserve to be used as reinforcements was introduced by Scipio Africanus, and in common use by 100BC.

The great power of roman formations (at least IMO), is the vanilla structure that allows this to be done. Since the 3 maniples of a post-marian cohort work as cooperating and cohesive teams inside the framework of a larger cohort, then can all assume front line duties as the needs arise.

This in many ways is matched by modern military organization, which stresses flexibility of role for infantry, and has as its heart the idea of quick reinforcement at points in the line that are being hit the hardest.

I do believe there are arguments to be made for a 'cohesive line' being presented to the enemy.. these are just my thoughts as a long time student of Military History (both modern and ancient).

And something to note about all of this.. Ancient soldiers and modern soldiers use very different technology in their work, but the problems they face on the battlefield have never changed.

Surprise, deception, flanking, courage in the face of death, timely and accurate communication, good and quick decision making in local situations, all these elements are faced by all soldiers past and present. I tend to take Adrian G.'s broader point of view. Ancient soldiers had more in common with modern soldiers than some folks like to think. The same basic human issues remain on the battlefield, and the solutions to them in ancient times varied more due to technology than anything else. If Adrian G. also suggests that the checkerboard pattern saw use before Scipio Africanus, I tend to disagree, since I think that those ideas grew out of a desire for more battlefield flexibility based on the idea of using tactical reserves on the battlefield.. but I could be wrong!

D.

Interesting stuff Duck, thanks.

Span.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KyodaiSteeleye

Interesting stuff Duck, thanks.

Span.

---

You're welcome! History and Gaming, two fascinating hobbies!

Interesting, you tried to pluralize "triarii".

Yes, very interesting read, Duck.

I have always wondered about the advantage of the checkerboard formation. Didn't seem to make sense to leave gabs in your front line where one "unit" would potentially have its flanks exposed.

So if I read you right, the checkerboard was only for maneuver before battle (closing the front as battle was joined). And perhaps an open checkerboard behind the closed front line allowed quick and effective allocation of reserves to lokal hotspots where help was needed.

Makes much more snse now.
Has anyone tried this in RTW ?

Good information on Roman manipular formation here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nigel

Yes, very interesting read, Duck.

I have always wondered about the advantage of the checkerboard formation. Didn't seem to make sense to leave gabs in your front line where one "unit" would potentially have its flanks exposed.

So if I read you right, the checkerboard was only for maneuver before battle (closing the front as battle was joined). And perhaps an open checkerboard behind the closed front line allowed quick and effective allocation of reserves to lokal hotspots where help was needed.

Makes much more snse now.
Has anyone tried this in RTW ?

---

Thanks!

This is both a) my take and b) based on commentary by some modern military historians who where actually in the modern military.

Remember that the ancient historical record is very short on detail on these matters, since the things of importance to historians living in ancient times had very little to do with military tactics, and the level of consistent military leadership just didn't exist as it does today.

Adrian Goldsworthy comes under some criticism as being 'too theoretical' by academic historians, but is generally well respected by military historians that have an understanding of modern military science. This is why I tend to think the way I do about the checkerboard, but am also careful to say 'its my take'. Its based on a lot of reading/homework by me and all the historians I've read, but nothing said about military matters in ancient times can be said to be truly 'accurate'.. the detailed record is just too vague.

And finally, yes.. you understood my points correctly. Even with my understanding, I don't do this in RTW since a) Its just too much micro to hold a checkerboard; and b) at the unrealistically fast speeds of the cav units, and the generally close quarters that the fights occur in (distance wise vs. speed), most battles start 'at the point of joining' where I believe a legion would be transitioning to a cohesive frontal line anyway.

I do maintain a 2-4 unit reserve behind the line (in keeping with what I believe are good, if ancient tactics) so that I can reinforce where things are 'hottest'. I do this even pre-Marian, even though the common use of a tactical reserve didn't come into common play until after Scipio's victories against the Carthaginians. It might not be historically accurate, but I'm playing to WIN, not be accurate. ~;)

Another important point is that RTW doesn't penalize you for having two infantry units fighting 'in the same space', which is actually a severe departure from reality (but one which I like, since the game is more fun that way). One aspect of melee fighting by Roman cohorts that is important to keep in mind is that room is required for fighting.. and the idea of 2 cohorts occupying the same space during fighting just didn't happen. In the modern military one of the most dangerous things you can do is pass one unit through another.. too many opportunities for friendly fire mistakes during a heated battle. The same goes for ancient times.

When the god of chaos visits the battlefield, consistency and simplicity are the best ways to manage that chaos. And the god of chaos always visits.

And yet another thing that occurred to me.. the idea of a 'cohesive front line' is not something that has been abandoned in modern times! It carries forward to today! Breaks in modern lines of combat result in just the types of problems you might expect.. flanking/envelopment issues and the like. The speeds of this happening are faster, but the concepts are exactly the same.. And that is yet another reason I tend to think of the checkerboard the way I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacque Schtrapp

Good information on Roman manipular formation here

---

Wikipedia rocks. It also has good basic information on government magistrate positions and basic government institutions in use by Rome during late Republican and early Imperial times. Good info there for sure!

Good starting point for magistrate info in wikiPedia

A good starting point on the different goverment assemblies in Rome..

I have one formation for attacking and one for defending.
Legend:
V= Velites
H= Hastati
P= Princepes
T= Triariii
E= Equites
G= General
WD= War dogs

Defending formation:

...............H........H........H........H.........H.....................
E.......T.....V.......WD.......V.......WD.......V.........T........E
....................P..........P........P.........P.........................
....................................T.........................................
....................................G..........................................


In most cases the fights will go like this:
Enemy line closes.
I am sending both WD to slow the enemy down in the center at the point where my Hastati can hit them with the pila. Good timing needed indeed. After releasing the dogs, I always withdraw manually both units.
Hastati on Fire at will use the pila and then absorb the initial charge.
Velites on hold ground hitting the enemy in front from behind Hastati. When ammunition is finished, I send them back behind Princepes.
Meanwhile Equites charged around the enemy flanks.
If enemy trying to flank with cavalry, I send Triarii to make a short work on them.
Princepes will go in as needed to support the first line.
Equites charged in the rear or flank from both sides.
Usually at this point the enemy starting to rout and I send my general in to cut some ears.
Chasing all over the place with cavalry units and dogs.

Result in most cases: 1000+ dead enemies with less than 100 losses on my side.
I am playing on VH… ~:eek:

[QUOTE=TheDuck]Thanks!



Another important point is that RTW doesn't penalize you for having two infantry units fighting 'in the same space', which is actually a severe departure from reality (but one which I like, since the game is more fun that way). One aspect of melee fighting by Roman cohorts that is important to keep in mind is that room is required for fighting.. and the idea of 2 cohorts occupying the same space during fighting just didn't happen. In the modern military one of the most dangerous things you can do is pass one unit through another.. too many opportunities for friendly fire mistakes during a heated battle. The same goes for ancient times.


Is this really so? - in MTW (and STW i think) you got quite nasty problems stacking units on top of one another - especially with spears, as their formations were disrupted - but i think there was a general morale penalty for overlapping units as well. Bit of a bugger if this is another feature that has been taken out as part of a mickeymousisation process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KyodaiSteeleye

mickeymousisation process.

---

LOL nice word! And yes, I think its true. I haven't noticed any penalty for doing it (that said, I haven't specifically tested it either..). It certainly doesn't result in more friendly casualties, which is what I would expect in the real world.

Also note that if a unit is already engaged, I don't think you can pass one through another.. but if they are already intermixed, then they can fight together. At least this is how I normally see things happening.

You guys have it all wrong... even though I only played this game for 2 weeks I have figured out the best formations. Here it is,

/////////////// //////////////////

xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PPPPPPPP PPPPP PPPPPPPP
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$


Then I hit control A then clickee on the enemy unit and "ATtack!! :charge: !" Just like Command & Conquer. ~D

I love the manipular formation, I even use it as the Byzantines in M2TW!

I tend to vary the formation depending on where I am fighting. If I am fighting against a phalanx army, I will put the Velites in the front line, as they should have enough time to shower the enemy with javelins before they reach them. If I am fighting against barbarians, I put Velites in between the infantry in the first line, as it makes it much easier for them to retreat, and even if they get caught there will be two units of infantry flanking the enemy attacking them. When I do this, I sometimes hire Illyrian or Spanish mercenaries since their tighter formations make them easier to fit between the units of the front line.

Behind the Hastati of the main first line, I put some Principes. And in the third line I put any Triarii I have (which tends to be that one unit the Julii start with), plus some more mercs or Principes. I like to keep some cavalry at the flanks, and maybe keep some Wardogs behind the back line to charge in if I think their morale damage will rout the enemy.

After the reforms I tend to replace the Velites with Archer Auxilia rather than Light Auxilia. Hastati are replaced by Early Legionary Cohorts, Principes by Legionary Cohorts, and Triarii are replaced by Praeorian/Urban Cohorts.

I've used the manipular formation, but I've never really even been able to locate its effectiveness. I'm probably doing it wrong, but I've always preferred a classical long straight line of infantry with, depending upon the size of enemy forces, a couple of re-enforcements behind for in case things get a little on the risky side. The advantage of the straight line is mainly the way that it can close around a small force, and can make it more difficult for a large force to successfully flank due to the larger area a long line can cover.

~:)

I find the manipular formation provides my pila units with plently of time to unleash their javelins with a relatively clear line of sight to the enemy. Plus the protection it offers to skirmishers is excellent. Its also ideal for routing enemies, since the gaps in your line mean you basically flank every enemy unit, and you can choose when to send in the fresh reinforcements from the second or third lines to cause that chain rout.

I'll just add that I've seen Roman infantry units, automatically partially refuse a flank, so soldiers on the side are effectively fighting, in a way that spear phalanx cannot.

The whole point of using the chequer board is for manoeuvre, the gaps mean flexibility, and allow skirmishing style troops to retreat, and fresh troops to charge in, with maximum effectiveness, whilst the enemy troops are being held by a broken front line. Flanking by enemy is less of an issue as the squarer formations, can turn quickly to directly face those who attempt to engage after a long march around side.

Any front infiltrating opposition troops (often cavalry in practice attempting to hit archers or similar, can be held by basic units, and then counter attacked), face a huge problem as they are surrounded on 3 sides, with only a small exit gap as during fighting, inter unit gaps naturally tend to reduce after contact, so if routing few escape to regroup.

hi i must say there seems to be a fault with both the solid line formation and the one with gaps. for example if you a fighting an equally matched army and you and your enemy both have 6 units of infantry and you set up in a double line and the enemy sets up in a single line like he always does. the enemy will have 3 units engages and he will flank your formation. he will also kill your cavalry unless you respond with some infrantry in your second line. can someone plz explain how the double line works in this situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites

I've used the manipular formation, but I've never really even been able to locate its effectiveness. I'm probably doing it wrong, but I've always preferred a classical long straight line of infantry with, depending upon the size of enemy forces, a couple of re-enforcements behind for in case things get a little on the risky side. The advantage of the straight line is mainly the way that it can close around a small force, and can make it more difficult for a large force to successfully flank due to the larger area a long line can cover.

~:)

---

You're not doing it wrong, it's more so that the game engine doesn't really support doing it right. I've always found that "Total War" formations work better than historical ones. Trying to apply historical formations to a strategy game doesn't necessarily work. The main issue is that in RTW Triarii are represented as spearmen which means they would be more useful nearer to the front of the formation. The Principes and Hastati are really the same thing and could have been better represented as one unit allowing the player to pick his own front and second rank according to unit valour. IMHO a straight and unbroken front line of Hastati and Principes with a second line of Triarii is best, with Velites skirmishing up front, a bank rank of archers and cavalry on the flanks. This way you can hit your enemy with a punishing javelin volley once the enemy are in range by taking the formation off fire at will.

This is roughly the type of formation I use for pre-marian legions:

-----------V---V---V---V-------

-----P---H---H---H---H---P-------E--E
-----------T---T---T---T---------
--------------A---A---A----------
--------------G---WD------------

You have to sort out things, so the spearmen can counter enemy cavalry. Having them back but near enough to centre if a gap may be attacked by enemy, or wings is vital.

The whole point of chequer board, is so you don't have your troops committed statically, I frequently will retreat units, and fight in mobile way with heavy use of javelins, pila and arrows.

It is possible to do it, you just have to be quick on the controls.

i dont mean to be annoying or anything but i would really aprreciate if someone would help me with my problem as posted earlier in this thread

X X X
X X
X - Reserves

If enemy units are 6 str8 across, then they won't all be in contact, and you can manoeuvre 2nd / 3rd line units about. But using such armies, you're not actually having forces really suitable for chequer board, part of the reason for gaps is to allow skirmishers to fall back, and then re-engage.

what army should the manipular formation be used for?

The point is to have a balanced army. That means :

MIssile troops - Javelins, Archers and slingers operate at a distance
Front line Infantry - Hold and fix enemy, swords better against enemy infantry, spearmen for enemy cavalry
Cavalry - harass enemy, take opportunities to charge rear/flank of engaged enemy, fight opposition cavalry

Reserve Infantry - deployed during battle to maximum effect, possibly flanking, or a trap for enemy cavalry, baited by a retreating unit, counter-attacks against infiltrating enemy etc etc

The lines held back, put enemy units that attempt to engage in a box, because the Romans have pila, they may also have opportunities to attack from range, and then charge in on tiring enemy units, who are close enough to be fatigueing due to stress, but not effectively engaged.

The AI does not really cause too many problems flanking, also I've found against British chariots, a deeper formation, heavy with Javellins works far more effetively, with shallower formations they'd chew up one wing, and rout many units, sometimes changing outcome of battle.

Quote:

---

he cohorts were further sub-divided into three maniples, which in turn were split into two centuries of about 60-100 men each
***
the 'posterior' century would march to the left and then forward so that they presented a solid line, creating a solid line of soldiers.

---

So that's the checkerboard theory in practice when it came to "what happens on the FRONT line then?" question. Kinda difficult to do with RTW because i read a rumor on these forums somewhere about 5 ranks being perfect for boosting morale (which is apparently waaaay more important than fatigue) - although i can see widening the formation an equivalent version i've never tried...i just tended to pick a formation type before battle and went with it throughout.

hmmmm...oh, and my current pick for legionary armies is checkerboard.

<-----SS-----> (single line, loose & hold)
V...L...L...L...V
..U...L...L...U..
<---AAAA---> (single line)
C..G...*...G..C

2Spear Auxiliaries
2Velites
5Legionaries
2Urban cohorts
2Cavalry (legionary)
4Archers
2Gladiators

I still believe in the Cannae tactic working just fine. If the archers don't deal with it, and the front legionaries with velite flankers fail to break the enemy, i depend on the second line being able to crumple just enough so the superior urban cohorts envelope the enemy. Personally, if i'm in that sort of situation it's pretty desperate and my cavalry are definitely needed to help attack the rear of the enemy while engaged.

LOOSE and HOLD with pila enabled only when the unit is itself engaged is key to dealing with Phalanx...otherwise i think loose and hold is counterproductive for legionaries. Although for my spear auxiliaries it's the name of the game for them at the front (i swear by them especially when they have temple of Ares morale boosts)

--------------
a while ago i swore by a blobbed formation in the center using hoplites, arcani and peasants for dealing with cavalry charges that had a tendency to break up the hoplites...worked great! except, well, we're talking about legionaries here aren't we? lol...so enough about me and my hoplite, cretan mercenaries and those yummy merc elephants

Hi, I did a little research into this a few years ago. The maniple was divided into two along the lines of it's century each actually eighty strong, these were prior front and posterior (unfortunate name) which meant rear. When lining for battle one was placed behind the other, but they would close together for combat Posterior moving forward to fill the gap. The reason for the formation was to allow other troops to pass quickly through the line. Either skirmishing Veletes or other Legionaries. In the time of the mid-republic when it operated, it was normally lined up 12, deep 1200 strong for Hatati and Princepes, and 6 and 600 for the Triaria, who in theory, were the older men and were to cover a retreat, for the younger and less likely to have had a family members of the legion. So three lines of equal width. The three Legionary lines were in a chequer board? formation with the preceding line facing the gap in the line in front. Though they were used in other ways as commanders thought fit. It could be used as a tactical unit, but normally it's function was as above.

The common misconception was that each line had large gaps when closed for combat, which would lead to tragic consequences. in fact it presented a single battle-line and stems from omitting the function of the Centuries, Prior and Posterior in to an analysis of things. And it was a system designed to allow movement through the lines rather than to fight with gaps in the line. It was used tactical occasionally but infrequently, it's main effect was as above.

It started to fall out of use during the later republic when the Cohort (Originally a recruiting unit, which had little relevance on the battlefield) came to the fore. Truncating initially the Hastata. Princepes and the Triaria into the same unit, though they remained defined as part of the Cohort system but within the same battlefield unit. This took place round about the time of the Marian reforms, actually predating it in effect by some years. The Velites were eventualy incorporated in the same way, but lingered on for a few more decades after, because they were A. The Legions main source of light troops and B. Their training was different and more difficult to incorporate into a single unit.

In terms of RTW, perhaps, two lines of 6 deep Hastata and Princepes, with a 3 deep line of Triaria, Veletes out front, Cavalry on the flank. There were battles where the Maniple acted independently, but I think this would be difficult to represent in the game, effectively the game only allows 20 units, which would have to be very small. The only other thing, I could think might work was if it was done as a formation thing, the units lined up in small groups behind each other, then hit a formation change button and they start to form a single line with the forward of the two groups.

But as general comment lining the Roman's up in multiple lines works a treat anyway and is close to the way the Legion of the Maniple system worked. So the game is pretty fair anyway.

Big Bear

PS excuse the spellings if wrong a case of dyslexia rules KO