Phalanxes in version 1.1

[Woreczko]

Point taken, we need to test how different values for radius affect unit ability in melee. And try units one on one in custom. I started with .2 because I'm not sure what the range of acceptable values there are to use, and if .285 is any different from .3 yet. I figured guard mode could mimic phalanx for units that had the ability removed with the smaller radius since the unit's soldiers will not spread out of formation.

I played KH, Makedonia, and SPQR so far with the changed values on EB 1.2.
I set no battle-time limit on medium battle difficulty.

I will need to keep track of battle statistics to be more definitive and perform controlled tests, but from my observations, Rorarii were still vulnerable to missile and would still rout easily against better units. I did not notice any difference from the hoplites either against slingers. I've been playing RTW since it came out and EB since 1.0, I love this mod! and I try to keep up on this forum.

It would seem that formation spacing, body armor and shields would account more for ranged weapons effectiveness then the radius an individual soldier in a unit uses to attack. Slingers and archers still made an impact in the battles I fought. Personally the experience that units get seemed more of an issue in my Makedonian campaign since my SS bodyguards for my FM's were tanks in melee and were able to rout the hoplites from behind as usual when exhausted and pinned by a phalanx.

As Makedonia I was still able to defeat the classical and KH bodyguard with phalanx and cavalry tactics. The formation spacing of the units stayed the same, ekodromoi(sp) hoplites still spread and surrounded phalanxes one on one but caused enough casualities anchoring the phalanx unit for a hoplitai haploi to circle round and attack from behind.

As Romani my legions were shredded pretty good for a change by KH and not just by their FMs, but superior numbers still won the day for me.

Using ifikrates hoplites and thorakitai hoplitai with the .2 radius helped them last longer, before the .2 test they'd be the first to rout and lost more then they killed, after the .2 they fought more like classical hoplites in terms of kills, but still taking as many losses as before, more or less. Lethality is fine according to my observations. the gaulish units still kicked major butt against me same for getai.

In sum, going back to the original thread, using a smaller radius should improve efficiency for the mobile phalanxes while making them different from other spearmen that did not fight in that sort of tight formation and keeps us from using short_pike that has it's own issues.

First we need to sort out different things we are talking about.
1. How does "radius" affect melee combat
2. How does "radius" affect missile defense
3. Can we use this attribute to make gameplay better?
4. Can we use this attribute to simulate Ifikratean-style phalanx better?

Ad. 1)
a) Smaller radius does affect spacing of soldiers during melee AND WITH GUARD MODE OFF. Classicals hoplites with radius of 0.2 will not spread out during the fight. They will still envelop the enemy if given a chance and won`t have stupid problems with facing (common thing with guard on). However by staying close together they will hold formation better, than with the default radius. In general they will fight better and very much phalanx-like without the need to use guard mode. To do: test how much better will they fight.
b) Units with loose formation, like peltastai, if given 0.2 radius will do the same as hoplites. If they enter the fight, they will get close together and present a solid shieldwall to the enemy. They will keep their loose formation in guard mode though. This is definately not something we would like to see in the game.

Ad 2)
When I`ve done the tests earlier on, I got the impression, that units with small radius were more resistant to missile fire. But now after 2 custom battles I`m not so sure. This needs further testing.

Ad 3)
Radius attribute is something to consider for close order units, primarily classical hoplites. However we must ask ourselves, are they not good enough already (using the guard mode of course)? By giving them small radius we will prohibit them form using loose formation in combat (they will stick together in combat despite being in loose formation). And we will make them stronger overall.

Another thing, which needs testing is whether small radius will give units undeserved resistance to missiles. As already pointed out, we cant give small radius to all the units and it would be unfair if just some of them had "unnatural" resistance vs. missiles.

Ad 4)
If we are going to use (small) radius attribute, than definately classical hoplites, german warbands and other units fighting in a shieldwall-like formation should receive it too, besides the Ifikrateans (do we even have accounts of them fighting in a particularly close order?). That means, playing with radius attribute will do zilch to increase Ifikrateans performance in comparison to their more ancient brethren...
Other possibility is to give small radius to the traditional hoplites and leave Ifikrateans as is - they will be still able to hold close formation (with guard on) but unlike hoplites, will able to spread out too (to not get outflanked for example).

[Ludens]

They're quite cheap and fairly fast moving, have decent stamina, close ranks and enough "mass" not to get easily pushed out of formation ? I should think there were uses for such, say as flank guards or accompanying skirmishers so they don't get run over by cavalry...
Light gear also means they perform better in forest than heavier hoplites.

Thureophoroi are better at that job: same attack, more armour and IIRC a lower forest penalty and better stamina (at least, according to the old recruitment viewer). Not to mention a precursor weapon to use against missile cavalry. The only thing the Iphikrateans have going for them is a higher mass: there is almost no price difference.

[PraetorFigus]

With KH i am trying the ekodromoi, ifikratean and thorakitai hoplites with a radius of 0.2 and they are individually fighting better (not sure how de-synchronized animations affects unit performance), classical, KH bodyguard, thureophoroi, and thorakitai were left at default.

against phalanx, with peltast support, when out numbered the units with 0.2 radius got kills in the same range or higher then pure thorakitai and KH bodyguard. the formation spacing has a significant impact. with the classicals set with the tight formation and 0.2 in earlier tests were tanks on the field losing very few troops if any, at the default 0.4 radius setting they were dying as quickly as the other non-elite hoplites. also the defensive skill and armor and a +1 shield of the classical over ifikratean and helps a lot, in extended melee where both units get exhausted against missle and phalanxes.

also the thorakitai hoplitai with their high armor rating were racking up the kills while taking most losses from ranged units. one battle had them with over 200 kills alone.

I was able to keep ifikratean and thorakitai hopitai in the center of the line pinning phalangitai, then they held for a very long time trading kills at a respectable rate until they got surrounded by peltasts, but 0.2 seems too effective from initial tests against phalanx anyway

next I am going to test 0.3 to see how it affects these three troops who in my opinion have underperformed before against phalanx in the past with the default 0.4 radius setting.

Later I will continue tests of the default, 0.2 and 0.3 against non-phalanx units, including SPQR.

Woreczko, I agree with your concerns about keeping this balanced, the radius also seems to drain morale slower even when outnumbered 2 to 1 at battle start and then getting whipped bad by ranged fire during battle, before being surrounded. they took a long time to waver and get shaken against those odds then expected!

I started with KH since it seems more EB members that are on the forums have used or faced these units in battle and know how they have performed in battle, including me, :)

once I can get a bench mark on what radius is ideal and not too unbalanced, where ekodromoi can pin a phalanx suffering few losses from the phalanx but not be an unexpected tank, I will test others.

I am still not familiar with all of those that lost the phalanx ability. I know:

Mori Gaesum,
Alpine phalanx,
Helvetii,
German units (don't remember names)

but as Watchman said earlier some of these units may not require a change or improvement while others really do, also it seems that attack rating and lethality may need to be adjusted if radius is ultimately worth changing.

So far I have only tested units classified as spearmen, I have no idea yet how radius can affect heavy, light or cavalry units.

I also need to do some poking around so that I can post some screen shots, not sure if any of those programs work on XP 64bit Professional...

On a side note does MTW2 have radius? it might be worth a round of testing since lethality seems more for unit type infantry, missile, etc. then individual units like we have in RTW.

[Phalanx300]

I also use the 0.2 radius for the Hoplite and shieldwall/phalanx like units.

What I did first was to remove the KH of having guard mode all the time in descr ai formations. Then Hoplites fight very well and realistic. Basicly guard mode but then more mobile and stronger.

Also, Ekdromoi and Thureophoroi and Thorakitai I left as normal spear man since individual combat was more important for them I believe?

I strongly advise it for EB(and all other mods) to use it as it really makes the mod better, in looks and historical accuracy and gameplay.

[Watchman]

Eh, the Classicals are tough enough already if you ask me. Damn tough. *They* don't need tweaking with the radius, unlike the Artist Formerly Known As Phalanx lot.

[Novellus]

Eh, the Classicals are tough enough already if you ask me. Damn tough. *They* don't need tweaking with the radius, unlike the Artist Formerly Known As Phalanx lot.

Hey Watchman, what are your thoughts on how the units should be represented? I can't seem to find anything on the Iphikratous Hoplitai when it comes to how they actually fought. The only thing a bunch of us here in this thread could do was speculate.

[Phalanx300]

Eh, the Classicals are tough enough already if you ask me. Damn tough. *They* don't need tweaking with the radius, unlike the Artist Formerly Known As Phalanx lot.

Their strenght can be tweaked, I find their formation more important then the fear of making the Hoplites a bit stronger which can easilly be tweaked.

[Watchman]

As the guy whose job has been to check the unit stats actually adhere to the statting system used, I have some objections to that "easily tweaked"...

Moreover, if you start making such changes to the Classical Hoplites... where are you going to stop ? Because consistency is important and they're anything but the sole "shieldwall" troops around; heck, pretty much hald the Sweboz roster is shieldwalls.

Hence, best stick to the units that actually require such attention, ie. the Formerly Phalanx ones that appear to be underperforming a bit.

[Phalanx300]

As the guy whose job has been to check the unit stats actually adhere to the statting system used, I have some objections to that "easily tweaked"...

Moreover, if you start making such changes to the Classical Hoplites... where are you going to stop ? Because consistency is important and they're anything but the sole "shieldwall" troops around; heck, pretty much hald the Sweboz roster is shieldwalls.

Hence, best stick to the units that actually require such attention, ie. the Formerly Phalanx ones that appear to be underperforming a bit.

Units that actually require attention? We have units fighting unhistorically, Hoplites included. Now we have the means to change that for the biggest part and to make EB even better then it already is.

I don't really see why anyone would object to that to be honest.

[NeoSpartan]

'cause if you start twicking some units your going to throw them off compared to the the other units in the game.

One thing about EB is that great care has been taking into the stats of units, if you pay attention to it (ei check out the unit cards in you folder) you will see what I mean. So if you "tweak" hoplites to make them fight "better", as in they can kill other guys faster, now u've given them an advantage when compared to the other units in the game. So now u got hoplites doing some unreal amount of ass kicking.
--you gotta understand the current stats given to hoplites reflect the way they fight in EB. For example, if you look at Pike units, they have a high shild value when compared to other other unit, but their armor is kinda low. Why? because phalanxes where historically weak on the rear, so by making their shield value stronger they are now stronger in the center, but weaker in the rear. It ain't perfect, but its the best that can be done with the RTW engine.

Then you gotta address similar units. Like watchman said, 1/2 of the Sweboz units fought in a shildwall/phalanx formation, and so did many other units.

[Watchman]

The phalangites are actually armoured entirely WYSIWYG - if the troopers wear the same kit as say the Thureophoroi, they get the same armour value. Basta. It's the shield, defense skill and weapon attack values (and to a degree the mass score) where special modifiers apply to all phalanx units.

We have units fighting unhistorically, Hoplites included.

The Hops and other "standard" shieldwall types work well enough with the combination of relatively high mass values, very dense formation and judicious application of the guardmode which makes them actually *keep* that damn formation. And when it gets down to it, they're just spear- and swordsmen only in particularly close order, and should be treated accordingly.

The issue here is the "pseudo-phalanx" units that in essence were proto-pikemen. The phalanx special formation, which indeed did perform appropriately enough in straight combat, however also made them far too tactically cumbersome (dare we say "sitting ducks" ? I've myself made mincemeat out of AI Mori Gaesum with quite humble troops by exploiting that clumsiness) in a quite inappropriate fashion, especially when steered by the hapless AI.
Ergo, bye bye phalanx formation.
This restored the appropriate tactical maneuverability and flexibility, but duly created the current problem of how to represent their "spearwall" tactics and its certain benefits.

Anyway, to return to the "radius" issue, reducing it from 0.4 to 0.2 would seem like a potentially rather major modification - 50%, after all. But, on the other hand, would the effects of 0.3 be too subtle to be meaningful ?

I've also been doing some hard staring at the modifiers that used to be applied to these "spear phalanxes" before they lost that formation. Without going into excessive detail, they used to have a more noticeable bonus to the attack score and a higher lethality than regular spears gave, and OTOH added rather a lot more noticeably to the unit cost too. Something could probably be made out of that, but how exactly to do it without doing something indecent to unit balance is another question.

And then there's the issue of secondary weapons. Not a big deal with the xiphos/sica guys (whose sec weapons can be deleted out of hand and only good things can come out of it - the same was done with the short swords of the Speutagardaz, and the result was found good), but the longsword/axe types are a bit bigger headache. Then again, it's the engine; you just have to live with its quirks.

[Phalanx300]

Guard mode is far from a good solution.

It makes your units fight worse then that they are supposed though, I tested it quite alot. Without it I always got better results, its only good for letting your men be alive a little longer, however its just a matter of time before they loose.

And what is even more annoying is that only a part of the army is using Guardmode . Using radius will also make a end to that problem, and it makes the units fight better and more realistic then in guard mode. Guard mode are just static blocks of men, far from a shieldwall formation.

And may I remind you, Hoplites aren't just ordinary spear or sword units. Shieldwall is quite a different formation the usual individual combat. Its like saying the Phalangites are just ordinary spearmen as well. They weren't and didn't fight as such.

And if Hoplites get stronger if given a smaller radius(which is Historical since the second row could strike at the front, it wasn't just the first soldier on its own against a enemy) then it doesn't mean all other units have to be changed, the Hoplites can be given a weaker attack or a lower morale.



Also, any news on a future change on the lenght of the Hoplite spear(half of the units have the wrong lenght)?

[antisocialmunky]

Guard mode is better for the main line IMHO. You want to A) not die and B) weaken the enemy. If you don't order them to attack in guard, they lose little stamina per unit time.

[Novellus]

I realized today how useful the Thorakitai Hoplitai are with their kopis swords and the AP that comes with them. The missing length on the spears were a hinderance when it came to holding a battle line. But when I used their secondary swords as weapons rather than the default spear, I noticed that they were in a sense more effective than the Thorakitai Hellenic Spearmen. They were excellent flankers and were surprisingly useful as swordsmen, especially since the Hellenes lack any assault-type units.

The thing that bothered me though was how much weaker the Iphikratous Hoplitai fared. As mentioned earlier, they fared decently against cavalry units and managed to hold the line to a degree. But their spears still don't show any advancement in offense as a compensation for a lack of armor in comparison to the Classical Hoplitai they were meant to replace.

If I can find a way to give the units back their "pseudo-phalanxes", I'll probably stop complaining.

Still, it'd be nice to have some sort of reason from the EB team as to why the changes were made.

[NeoSpartan]

hoplites were simple sword and spear guys... just like a whole bunch of others who fought the same way.
(btw... C. Hopites used to have swords back when .8 came out, but it was taken away in .81x as they were always switching to swords and it just didn't represent the "C. Hoplite" description well. But for guys like Hypaspistai the swords were left on)

As for why C. Hoplites in EB are stronger than Iphikratous Hoplitai, it was just explanied here that the Iphikratous Hoplitai have lighter equipment. Thus cheaper to make and allowing for more people to be armed and put to fight.
--You gotta remember, Hoplites (as well as many others) provided their own gear, so the more gear a soldier is wearing is because he has more $$$. And in EB Classical Hoplites represent rather well off citizens who armed themselves and fought in the usual Greek way of fighting (ei: hoplite phalanx).

In addition, it was already explained that Iphikratous Hoplitai, Aplines, Helvetti, etc were a more flexible fighting force than Pezetaroi and other pikemen. And unfortunatly the RTW engine only has one phalanx animation, which represents pikemen decently well, but other units like Iphikratous, hoplites, and others who made shieldwall type formations are not represented so well.

[mcantu]

After discussing this with Aradan, I have begun using 0.2 radius for all hoplites/phalangites in upcoming RTR mods. My suggestion to EB would be to do the same for those types of units but also remove the artificial +4 attack added to spear units since the attribute that gives the spear unit attack penalty was removed prior to 1.0

[Phalanx300]

A good choice, its really the best option.

Its either vanilla Phalanx which is unhistorical.

Guard mode, which has to many bad side effects.

Short_Pike, which also has to many bad side effect.

Smaller radius, like 0.2 for Hoplites. Which basicly has no side effect I can think off, other then Hoplites fight better then ordinary spearmen, but seeing that they fought in a shieldwall its quite logical.

Anyways, I really hope that EB will also use it as all other mods.

[NeoSpartan]

ok I am going to be a pain in the a** right now....

...
..
Guard mode, which has to many bad side effects.
...
:

such as?????

[Decimus Attius Arbiter]

I haven't had bad side effects from guard mode. I have bad side effects from not using guard mode with spear using troops like hoplites. They die faster even while killing enemies faster.

I think that iphikratous hoplitai could be more useful for its cost if it was very hardy and had more defensive skill to account for the lighter kit. I'm thinking 10 or 12 instead of 8. I'm arguing only on paper so I don't know if it would make a difference in the game. I think they'd be more durable that way.

[satalexton]

i find them better w/o the phalanx, nice and versitile like the peltasts. 'sides, they're peltasts with spears standing in close formation, what DO you expect them to do?

[antisocialmunky]

In the end, I think that they are a lighter more flexible hoplite. From doing a few tests in 1.2, they are alot better than they used to be. Still a little redundant though.

I think the scale goes:

Militia Hoplitai
Outrunners(Really Fast)
Iphikratous Hoplitai(Fast)
Classical Hoplitai
Thorakitai Hoplitai

They are an intermediary between outrunners and classicals. You should keep them on the flank to kill horsies and the classicals in the main line to not die. They also have a sword unlike the classicals so they are actually more efficient against infantry. So I guess in the end, use them as flankers, to support your cavalry, kill their cavalry, and switch to swords to flank their main line.

[Watchman]

*casts Animate Thread*

Say Figus, you mentioned the 0.3 radius didn't have meaningful effects when it came to battle results, but how about unit behaviour ? The way the soldiers keep spreading out more or less regardless of the formation density values when not in guardmode is pretty annoying, and I was wondering if that value could be used to at least lessen the effect even if it doesn't have much "mechanical" effect - altering the behaviour but not the performance, if you see what I mean.

[PraetorFigus]

*casts Animate Thread*

Say Figus, you mentioned the 0.3 radius didn't have meaningful effects when it came to battle results, but how about unit behaviour ? The way the soldiers keep spreading out more or less regardless of the formation density values when not in guardmode is pretty annoying, and I was wondering if that value could be used to at least lessen the effect even if it doesn't have much "mechanical" effect - altering the behaviour but not the performance, if you see what I mean.

I need to run more tests, but it could have an effect on unit cohesion. I was also testing .25 along with .3 before RL and sickness kicked me in the bud

from what I observed those two values are not as dramatic as 0.2 which also helps a unit when flanked to stay closer together. when surrounded morale level, discipline and level of training are still very important for how long a unit lasts before routing from what I saw.
so instead of continually flattening out against the enemy, the units seemed to retain a bit more rank depth and get a lot more kills,

Here are a few examples, but I need to do more testing and get screenshots!

in a siege battle against defending gauls with no time limit, the rorarii, tested with 0.2, were more effective but still routed with 30-40 troops left, the difference in my tests is that they actually killed some gauls before routing with 0.2 radius, they kept their ranks without guardmode better

in another siege battle this time against Germans no time limit again, I had a single stack of Polybian Principes defeat three full stacks of German mixed units of spearmen, I don't know the names of individual German units. I barely lost 4 troops per Principe unit which was shocking to me, I expected a crushing defeat, but got a Heroic Victory.

in another one-on-one test, the ekodromoi still surround a real phalanx head-on but seemed to take less losses and inflict more on the phalanx, but the unit was phalangitai deuteroi that I was testing against.

the good news is that the radius should do what your talking about Watchman with the units, but to what extent needs more testing.

has anyone else done testing with unit radius to confirm or deny that a smaller radius will keep units from spreading out?

I've finally figured out how to get screenshots online so once I get a way to take multiple screen shots I will post more definitive findings!

[mcantu]

unit cohesion is the sole reason i am including this in RTR; but only for hoplite and phalangite units

[Watchman]

Why ?

[mcantu]

because those are the units for which propper employment depends the most on maintaining unit cohesion

[Watchman]

And that's different from other shieldwalls how ?

[Fluvius Camillus]

All shortspear phalanxes from 1.0 changed to spearwarriors in 1.1.

These include:
- Alpine Phalanx
- Getai phalanx
- Ptolemaic royal Guard
- Iphokratous (something like that) greek phalanx

Probably more but cant think of them all just now

Also the sweboz pikemen fight out of the phalanx formation with just long spears.

Hope this helps!

[Watchman]

Huh. I went and ran a series of tests on the radius attribute, and it certainly makes a difference. (Unit-vs-unit custom battles on the conveniently flat "Irish Marshlands" map, if you want to know the circumstances.) Turned out that with radius set to 0.2 the Iphikrateans (whose secondary sword I'd disabled) can reliably whup ass on the Classical hoplites, only losing about half their number or thereabouts; ditto with Thureophoroi. (Heavier examples of the same types of troops, say Camillian Triarii or Heavy Libyans, gave them varying degrees of beatdown though. And both sorts of Hastati turned out to be plain nasty and to a greater or lesser degree summarily slaughtered them.) And this even if the redius of the hoplite-types was set to 0.3, which incidentally indeed makes them hold formation noticeably better*.

Conversely the Getic light phalanx reliably got killed by the Classicals (although the latter inevitably suffered severely in the process) - almost certainly because they have zero unit officers to the Iphikrateans' and Classicals' two.

Trying it on some others, I gave it to other "protophalanx" units like the Mori Gaesum and the Sweboz Speutagardaz and then tested them against the Arverni Arjos (who are the same base quality grade but better armed, and whom I'd given 0.3 radius as they're also "shieldwall" troops). The Mori ate them for breakfast; the rather lighter Speutas had rather more trouble at it, and I suspect the AI's habitual tactical idiocy rather played a part in it, but I was able to give them a whipping with those too.

So, in conclusion, tweaking the radius attribute indeed rather noticeably impacts the unit's combat performance, at least if it's in very close order to begin with (ie. base rank spacing value under 1). Definitely worth looking more into, methinks.

*-no meaningul effect if the unit's base rank spacing number is 1 or more, though, as those don't really spread out to begin with.

[desert]

Yes, but is it really realistic for Iphikrateans to slaughter Classical Hoplites like that?