Phalanxes in version 1.1

[Theodotos I]

A few curiosity questions about the phalanxes in 1.1: The Alpine phalanxes and the Greek Iphrikatous Hoplite Phalanx have lost their ability to form phalanx, even though they retain the name. I haven’t looked at the phalanxes available to the Getai, but I would assume they have suffered the same fate. Now, I’m neither questioning the historical accuracy of this, nor suggesting that you team members have lost your minds in doing it, but I did wonder, why the change? Is it because of new research since 1.0, or what? My only complaint at the present is that the Mori Gaesum tend to no longer be a “Sea of Spears”, but rather go to secondary weapons without orders and the moment they enter into combat. The loss of the “form phalanx” option seems to disable their ability to work properly. Anyhow, as always, my most sincere congratulations to the EB team on this masterpiece they have created. Any input on the reasons for this change would be deeply appreciated. Thanks and great work!

[Korlon]

It is to my understanding that the change was largely due to the phalanxes not working as well as the EB team wanted them to. Thus they were changed to something they believed to be better.

[konny]

My only complaint at the present is that the Mori Gaesum tend to no longer be a “Sea of Spears”, but rather go to secondary weapons without orders and the moment they enter into combat.

Units always charge with their secondary weapon. When they have entered combat order them to attack the enemy again (one click, not double click) and they will return to the pike, and use the secondary weapon only in close encounter.

[Belisarius12]

Iphikratous Hoplitai (Greek Hoplite Phalanx) what do they serve for now ? exept as overpriced spearmen or what there function is don't used them yet but i will

[Tellos Athenaios]

Iphikratous Hoplitai (Greek Hoplite Phalanx) what do they serve for now ? exept as overpriced spearmen or what there function is don't used them yet but i will

As a matter of fact I found them to be actually more effective against heavy cavarlry than I used too. Guard mode on a lil' micro management and they are excellent for disposing of the enemy heavy cavalry bodyguards. (In any case, my Ptolemaioi friends didn't really enjoy their encounter with my mercenary Iphikratous Hoplitai...)

[konny]

Iphikratous Hoplitai (Greek Hoplite Phalanx) what do they serve for now ? exept as overpriced spearmen or what there function is don't used them yet but i will

Well, what had they been good for before? They are an outdated version of the long pike phalanx and behaved very much that way in the former builds. Thureophoroi and Thorakitai are the state of the art in 272 for KH. Or, if you like it traditional, take classical Hoplites.

[beatoangelico]

Well, what had they been good for before? They are an outdated version of the long pike phalanx and behaved very much that way in the former builds. Thureophoroi and Thorakitai are the state of the art in 272 for KH. Or, if you like it traditional, take classical Hoplites.

actually the were very useful against non-successor armies

[Maion Maroneios]

I really wanted to ask this as well, but I just added the phalanx formation for every unit again. I tried to switch o the ''shieldwall'' ability (I play on bi.exe) and tried the units out, but I found them to behave better with the phalanx formation. Anyways, it's also a matter of personal taste...

[Theodotos I]

Units always charge with their secondary weapon. When they have entered combat order them to attack the enemy again (one click, not double click) and they will return to the pike, and use the secondary weapon only in close encounter.

Yeah, but they change even when THEY are the ones being attacked. And not just one or two men. Almost all of them. No big deal, but it disturbs ME.

[PraetorFigus]

First Post! I am always playing EB, and fooling around with the text files to test things and I found something interesting.

In the EDU for a unit there is this line in the text

"soldier unit_model, soldiers, extras, mass (,radius, height)" (the last two attributes are hidden)

the default for radius, left blank, is (0.4), I tested with 0.2 for some units and they did not lose as many soldiers as usual in battles with other heavy infantry and improved the kill numbers for the unit, I used this on Rorarii, different Hoplitai and a few others I can't remember now.

What I would like to suggest is if the units that lost their phalanx ability are less effective in testing, they can be modded to a default guard mode and a radius smaller then 0.4, without the need to change the mass of the units, morale or have to use short_pike to group the units.

Aradan has a great guide here that has been a big help in figuring out RTW: forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=88859

Here is a quote from Aradan's guide, "[radius](may not be visible) : Hidden attribute radius of the unit. The default value is 0.4. It's the area surrounding each single soldier that he "occupies" as the engine perceives it (not visually that is). Small radius makes a unit fight better, in that it allows soldiers to fight more closely to each other, resulting in more men of the small-radius unit fighting against fewer of the enemy one's."

[Woreczko]

First Post! I am always playing EB, and fooling around with the text files to test things and I found something interesting.

In the EDU for a unit there is this line in the text

"soldier unit_model, soldiers, extras, mass (,radius, height)" (the last two attributes are hidden)

the default for radius, left blank, is (0.4), I tested with 0.2 for some units and they did not lose as many soldiers as usual in battles with other heavy infantry and improved the kill numbers for the unit, I used this on Rorarii, different Hoplitai and a few others I can't remember now.

What I would like to suggest is if the units that lost their phalanx ability are less effective in testing, they can be modded to a default guard mode and a radius smaller then 0.4, without the need to change the mass of the units, morale or have to use short_pike to group the units.

Aradan has a great guide here that has been a big help in figuring out RTW: forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=88859

Here is a quote from Aradan's guide, "[radius](may not be visible) : Hidden attribute radius of the unit. The default value is 0.4. It's the area surrounding each single soldier that he "occupies" as the engine perceives it (not visually that is). Small radius makes a unit fight better, in that it allows soldiers to fight more closely to each other, resulting in more men of the small-radius unit fighting against fewer of the enemy one's."

Small radius has one serious drawback. It makes men more resistant to missiles (as they are harder to hit). Units with 0.2 radius will be on average 2 times as hard to hit as "normal" soldiers. On the other hand, you cannot make everyone to have 0.2 radius, because it will make all units fight in an effective shieldwall.

[PraetorFigus]

Small radius has one serious drawback. It makes men more resistant to missiles (as they are harder to hit). Units with 0.2 radius will be on average 2 times as hard to hit as "normal" soldiers. On the other hand, you cannot make everyone to have 0.2 radius, because it will make all units fight in an effective shieldwall.

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.

[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).

[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.

[russia almighty]

Iphrikatous Hoplite's, almost seem like jack of all trades, masters of none.

If we were to draw a "family tree". Is the Classical hoplite a dead end, or are the Theuros, and Thorakitai its children? Or, are they the children of the Peltasts who decided they want to get dirty like their hoplite family?

[Maion Maroneios]

I believe it's more like this:

Hoplitai (late) (1)
Peltastai (early) - Peltastai (late) (2)

Now (1)+(2) produced the Iphikratides, or Hoplitai (late) (3)

Then (3) gave birth to Phalangitai.

In any case, Peltasts seem to play a major rol in this game. It's really more confusing than you may think

Maion

[Novellus]

I was confused. I thought that historically, with the longer spears, the Iphikratous Hoplitai would have had "teeth" as the saying goes. It'd give them an edge over the classical hoplitai due to the longer spears (which I also wondered why the Syracusai Hoplitai didn't fare as well as their description let on). And no one would expect them to be "line infantry" because of their lighter armor. But the Iphikratous type would have better attack with the longer spear, so it balanced out in much the same as why the phalangites didn't normally wear heavy armor (cheaper to field, less fatigue, and long spears kept the enemy from getting too close anyway). Oh well. I'm sure that the EB team had good reason for what they did. I'm anxious to hear their imput on this.

[Prussian to the Iron]

so, how can i get all of the koinon hellenon hoplite units to do a phalanx in eb 1.2?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Phalanx mod in minimod sub forum?

[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?

[Watchman]

Good question.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, they wouldn't if you modified both. My gut feeling is no in 1 to 1 because the Iphs are more flexible units that rely on being able to move quickly and exploit opportunity while the Classicals are equipped to do one job very well.

[Watchman]

Then again, the originals were apparently able to beat some of the better Old Skool hoplites around by the virtue of their formation and longer spears, with war gear being essentially equal (ie. shields, helmets, no body armour or greaves AFAIK).

Given that we'd actually be looking for roughly phalanx-equivalent results without actually having the formation on the unit... well, I figure the Classicals would 1-to-1 do rather worse against even the lower-grade pikes like say Klerouchikoi, no ? The Iphikrateans at least always lose around half their head count or more with the 0.2 radius.

[NeoSpartan]

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

well granted that there is no ability to outflank the fight would most likely stay as static draw until one line for some reason breaks.

I mean.... both have shieldwalls and lenth of the spear won't really make a big difference since they come in contact with shields.
--If my memory serves me right... When Philip of Macedon invaded Greece the Hoplite armies of Athens and Thebes formed a solid line in between 2 mountain ranges (I think), thus the cavarly was not able to flank. The fight was a basically a draw till Phillip had his pikemen walk backwards, the Thebans walked forward pressing against the pike while the Athenians stayed, young Alexander then charged the gap.... and thats all she wrote.

A similar thing happen in a battle against Sparta and ....(can't remember what Macedonian king). The pike were unable to break through, yet later for some reason the Spartans left their protected position and advanced opening their flanks to attack.

For the Iphikrateans to slaughter C. Hoplites, I think it would be if both break formation and a sword fight breaks out. Even under those circusmtances is hard to tell, as troop expireince & endurance would the main factor since the equipment and armor is not that different. (C.H. heavier shield more armor, Iph. longer swords, shield roughly as big, but ligher armor)

[Aper]

I mean.... both have shieldwalls and lenth of the spear won't really make a big difference since they come in contact with shields.

What?
This is no different than assume that legionaries ONLY stab and NEVER cut, or similar obsolete myths about ancient warfare... from Thermopylae to the wars against the Maks the reach of the weapons made an HUGE difference in the wars of the Greeks... as common sense suggest.
Even if they are "hoplites", this doesn't mean that shield-push (that is actually a quite debated topic...) was their only form of fighting.