Results 1 to 30 of 104

Thread: Phalanxes in version 1.1

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #12
    Member Member Woreczko's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    deep province in Masovia
    Posts
    121

    Default Re: Phalanxes in version 1.1

    Quote Originally Posted by PraetorFigus View Post
    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).
    Last edited by Woreczko; 12-30-2008 at 13:17.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO