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

[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.

[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...

[Novellus]

I am reviving this "dead" thread because I can't find the answer I'm looking for.

I am very confused about why the Iphikratous Hoplitai lost their ability to form a phalanx. Their "short_pike" attribute seemed to match the information I've come across in the past (spears shorter than sarrisae but longer than traditional dory). Can an EB team member elaborate, please?

[Ludens]

I presume this is because Iphikrateans should be more mobile than the phalanx. With or without short pike, I always found them to be redundant. With short pike, they lacked the mobility of standard hoplites and made a mediocre phalanx unit, without they are just like standard hoplites only less well-armoured. If somebody can tell me how they should be used (with or without short pike), I would be very interested.

[Watchman]

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.

[Woreczko]

When they had a phalanx, they could act both as a capable line unit with an added bonus of being impervious to charges (phalanx on) and general purpose swordsmen useful for filling the gaps or flanking/flank defense (phalanx off). Now, they do their first job worse. Worse than classical hoplites, whom they are supposed to replace. They are better in killing cavalry in melee, true, but any dedicated melee infantry can do this well enough.

[Novellus]

It bothered me because historically, it seemed that the longer spears would make it a precursor to the Makedonian phalanx. That's why the phalanx formation seemed appropriate (without sarissae of course). And in terms of manuverability and flexibility, my interpretation was that the army was mobile in terms of being convertable to peltasts (which the RTW engine can't peform) and the lighter equipment meant that field battles would not fatigue soldiers as easily and running into position could be done. But I usually took my units out of phalanx mode, ran into position, then reformed. That was how I interpreted it. But please, if this is an ahistorical approach, enlighten me!

[Phalanx300]

Yeah, EB now shows them to be worse then Classical Hoplites.

Which makes me think, why change you Hoplites and make them worse? And Phillip got the idea of Phalangites from the Iphikratous like Hoplites I believe, so they would be fighting in a young version of the Macedonian Phalanx.

[Watchman]

From what I've read of it, Iphikrates' innovation seems to have been to devise a combination of kit (namely, longer spear) and training that allowed peltastai to be readily converted into close-order line infantry, ie. scratch hoplitai. So it wasn't about changing hoplites but peltasts - who were way more readily available. A way to create a "light hoplite" force on a budget, so to speak.

The attraction of this approach to the Macedonian kings is not difficult to see; they pretty much had no hoplites at all, but rather a quasi-feudal system which furnished them with lots of aristocratic cavalry on one hand and large numbers of psiloi levies on the other. There was an obvious shortage of line infantry capable of anchoring the line and creating a bulwark for the cavalry to operate around there, and it bit them in the ass often enough. Hence, Philip's further developement of the Iphikratean system to make lineholder pikemen out of psiloi skirmishers, which had the side bonus effect of allowing them to be deployed as light infantry with a simple equipement swap to boot...

[Novellus]

From what I've read of it, Iphikrates' innovation seems to have been to devise a combination of kit (namely, longer spear) and training that allowed peltastai to be readily converted into close-order line infantry, ie. scratch hoplitai. So it wasn't about changing hoplites but peltasts - who were way more readily available. A way to create a "light hoplite" force on a budget, so to speak.

Yes Watchman, that is what I understood from it too. What bothers me is that they seem a little misrepresented. It's true that they were not heavy infantry---they weren't designed to be that way. But one would think that they would use the longer spears in a formation different from their classical hoplitai brethren. And that is why the phalanx formation seemed to be a good representation.

I'm just confused about how they actually fought seeing that EB has represented them in two different ways with the first seeming to make the most sense, but the second one prevailing in the later version.

[antisocialmunky]

From what you guys are saying, it seems like we need to change the description as well.

[NeoSpartan]

Fellas...

if you search BACK enough to when EB 1.1 first came out (or right before it came out, can't remember) you find the answer. But anywho.... here is the jizt of it:

The Iphikrates, Alpines, Helvetii, Dacian, and Saka Iphikrates, were more versatile and mobile than the Macedonian Pikemen. Which is what really bothered the EB team, thats why they changed them.

With regards to Classical hoplites being better than the Iphikrates, I don't know, their stats don't differ too much. But, from my Mutliplayer expirience (which I haven't played in months now) the Iphikrates' moral was lower than the classical hoplites, as they routed easier.

But... don't mess with the Alpines, Helvetii, Dacian, or Thorakitai (KH's armored Iphikrates) version.

[Woreczko]

IMHO old ifikrateans were just as mobile and flexible as new ones - if you turned the phalanx off. Of course AI would not do this - perhaps this is the reason. The thing which bothers me most is that KH currently has 3 kinds of units, who act in a very similar manner - classical hoplites and it`s derivatives, ifikrateans+derivatives and thureophoroi + thorakitai.

Of course I`m in no position to call for changes just beacuse it seems more "right" to me. Thankfully RTW is easily moddable, so I just changed this units to my liking - classical hoplites come in largest possible unit sizes to simulate their inflexibility. Ifikrateans have their phalanx ability back (and you get 200 in unit on huge). Thureophoroi stay the same - by having smallest unit size + javelins, they offer most flexibility out of all three, but one needs to do some flanking or unit swapping to beat classicals with them, as one on one they will lose because of much smaller unit size. All units have been recosted to reflect new sizes - so thureophoroi are still around 1300, while classicals cost around 2000.

[Watchman]

AFAIK Neo's right on the money here. The problem with giving the assorted "spearwall" type units the "phalanx" formation ability was specifically how it turned them into the same kind of lumbering inconvenience as the pike phalanxes are, particularly in AI control because the damn thing's so bloody dumb. Which, obviously, they weren't really. So what you were left with was a bunch of half-assed pseudo-pikemen that weren't really all that good at too much anything. (Except maybe as target practice for missile troops...)

Ergo, it got ditched. The current versions are certainly far from fully satisficatory, but at least they have the mobility-flexibility part right.

With regards to Classical hoplites being better than the Iphikrates, I don't know, their stats don't differ too much.

Mainly the Classicals are more heavily equipped, which of course gives them an advantage one on one. (Of course, they're also that much more expensive...) Kind of like Hastati vs. Principes, when you think about it.

The thing witch bothers me most is that KH currently has 3 kinds of units, who act in a very similar manner - classical hoplites and it`s derivatives, ifikrateans+derivatives and thureophoroi + thorakitai.

This is arguably only appropriate from a historical perspective, redundancy nonwithstanding. Mediterranean infantry warfare was after all in something of a flux in the period, with all kinds of patterns and versions being tried all over the place plus the old stuff and its variations still puttering about too; especially for a faction as inherently heterogenous as the KH, a straight flush of generally similar but subtly and functionally different troops types seems quite fitting. (OT: had the Romans not sort of aborted the evolution, my bet's on the thureophoroi-thorakitai pattern to have emerged as the more-or-less dominant approach; they seem to be the most versatile "jeeps" of the bunch without requiring onerous socioeconomic arrangements or gimmicky specialist gear, "all in one" qualities that generally seem to have been the hallmarks of long-term success in these matters - as also witnessed in the way Roman infantry evolved. But I digress.)

From what you guys are saying, it seems like we need to change the description as well.

I'm under the impression the issue is hardly cut and dried, and that there are quite a few theories and interpretations around. I'm really just parroting the one given here (I've seen the roughly same reasoning elsewhere too, for what that matters), which seemed to me to be making a pretty good and lucid case.

[Woreczko]

Mainly the Classicals are more heavily equipped, which of course gives them an advantage one on one. (Of course, they're also that much more expensive...) Kind of like Hastati vs. Principes, when you think about it.

Well, 1367 mnai for classicals isn`t really "that much more" than 1337 for thureophoroi and 1275 for ifikrateans...

Anyway, our disagreement isn`t about Ifikratean hoplites as they were, but as to how implement them in a game engine. I`m happy with most of the design decisions EB has made, and those few I`m not happy with, I can easily mod in myself :).

[antisocialmunky]

I'm under the impression the issue is hardly cut and dried, and that there are quite a few theories and interpretations around. I'm really just parroting the one given here (I've seen the roughly same reasoning elsewhere too, for what that matters), which seemed to me to be making a pretty good and lucid case.

Well, all I'm saying is that the EB description seems to give the impression that it is a in between a hoplite and a phalangite and can serve in the main line. However, this doesn't work in practice and doesn't seem to match up all that well with history of being light hoplites on the cheap. Its jsut a little knit pick. I guess it would make sense to use them as flak guards against cavalry. :-\

[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."

[Watchman]

Well, all I'm saying is that the EB description seems to give the impression that it is a in between a hoplite and a phalangite and can serve in the main line. However, this doesn't work in practice and doesn't seem to match up all that well with history of being light hoplites on the cheap. Its jsut a little knit pick. I guess it would make sense to use them as flak guards against cavalry. :-\

Well, if one goes with the evolutionary arc Ueda-Sarson describes they indeed *are* a transitional type between the classic shieldwall hoplite and the Macedonian pikeman - as phases of developement go. And they serve well enough in the main line, depending on the opposition as usual with the lighter troop types; it's probably worth recalling that around the time the pattern developed hoplites didn't usually wear body armour (for the sake of mobility and tactical flexibility, and quite possibly also to expand the available manpower pool by reducing the expense of the required kit), being defended by their shields and helmets. So there wasn't originally much of a "weight" difference between the newfangled peltast-hoplites and the classic type; armour again became vogue thereafter, so...

It's really just the usual tradeoff between armour and mobility, really. The Iphikrateans are more mobile, the classicals more heavily armed and hence better suited for a straight-up slugging match. (Granted, the Ekdromoi are even faster and have the same total defense score as the Iphikrateans, but their formation is also looser and mass lighter.)

The idea of messing around with the soldier radius attribute that PraetorFigus floated has IIRC been occasionally offered up before, although nothing ever came out of it. Could be worth looking into if someone's willing to test different values and how they work out, if now only as an unofficial mod, as there's a fair number of such Artist Formerly Possessing Phalanx units that could use a bit of a tweak to bring their actual performance more in line with what it says on the tin and is supposed to be. (Iphikrateans, the Getic spearmen, the Celtic and Alpine quasi-phalanxes incl. the Arjos, the Indogreek hoplites, the Germanic elite spear-guys...)
Mind you, except for the ones with longswords or AP weapons the lot don't actually need their secondary weapons now that they don't have the phalanx formation; there's not much real performance difference between the xiphos/sica and the spear (save for the cavalry-related junk), and it just screws stuff up when they charge plus drives up the price...

[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.

[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.