Punch through the center, yao

[Parallel Pain]

Is it just me or is the entire game too focused on flanking? What happened to the ever-useful punching through the center?

[Spartan198]

I do both... and cause countless mass routs.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Flanking is the best way for you win a battle, no matter the time period...

[Parallel Pain]

Not true. It's half-half, between flanking and punching, see who gets to do it first.

[chenkai11]

The AI sometimes can punch a hole into my pike phalanx formation with their cavalry, then the phalanx formation will break, no reserves to fill the gap, then you will lose the battle.

To punch a hole in the formation line, you cannot do it by attacking the enemy but to force them march or run through the line after the attack. (Must use heavy armoured cavalry)

I use that tactic with the elephants. If the charge was not a success, then I will let them run through the enemy lines and you will see the enemy formation will break, then your infantry can move in. (disable the guard mode)

[NeoSpartan]

Not true. It's half-half, between flanking and punching, see who gets to do it first.

ur talking game wise or RL????

[Parallel Pain]

RL duh, I was answer MAA

Besides this is a tacitcal simulation. I would prefer it to be as real as possible, especially on the level of tactical decisions.

Thanks chenkai11, I'll check it out.

[barabinni]

Well... Mostly my center is very strong. But you can have situations where you have heavy elites just slaughtering their way through some medium infantry and creating lots of havoc. Just so seldom that the enemy attacks me head-on. Most often just go on one side of my line and i can then envelope them with my pretty pretty killing-machines.

[QuintusSertorius]

It's rarely efficient to punch through the centre, since at the very heart of the line tends to be the toughest troops of all. Worse still if they're pikemen.

But it is possible, in a recent battle (see the second one) I routed the units either side of the tough bastards in the very middle, then fell on their flanks to rout them. But that was at the same time as flanking them on both sides as well as aiming to punch through their centre.

[Gaivs]

Look at Marathon. The Persians punched through the centre yet still got slaughtered.

[Parallel Pain]

The Persians did not punch through, the Greeks did a tactical fall back, prove being there isn't much Greek casualties.

As for where punching worked, off the top of my head:
Issus
Gaugamela
Mikatagahara (actually probably 2/5 of all Sengoku Jidai field battles)
Australiz

Looking at Hannibal's double-evenlopment it's the same
If at Trebia the Romans had punched through the Carthaginian center before their own flanks collapsed, the Romans would have won.
At Cannae, if we trust Goldsworthy, then Hannibal had to specify his reserves to seal the breach. If we take conventional, then it is still the same as if the Cavalry did not do their job fast enough it would have been a Roman victory.

That's how the punch and the flanking worked in history. Often one side would try to outflank his opponent while the other goes for the punch. The flanking side focus his troops on one or both flanks and the punching side focus his troops much nearer to the center, wherever he suspect he can punch through. It then comes down to who's can achieve his goal first.

Game-wise, when the AI puts its units in one single long line, it's easy to punch. But now I use darth formation so I can't really punch until much later (though can't flank either) and so I haven't really tried.

[chenkai11]

Look at Marathon. The Persians punched through the centre yet still got slaughtered.

Punching a hole in the center is only use when you can't outflank the enemy, at the same time you got some heavy tanker, like cataphracts and elephants. The main purpose of punching a hole is to disrupt the formation line then you need infantry to do the rest.

[QuintusSertorius]

According to Goldsworthy, at Cannae the Romans did punch through the centre - that's how a large body of survivors was able to exit the battle afterwards. But they weren't confident enough to wheel on the now-exposed flanks of the Carthaginian wings and possibly change the course of the battle. They'd given up the battle as lost.

[Parallel Pain]

No according to Goldsworthy the African came in and attacked the troops that came through the center from two sides, effectively containing the breech and at the same time outflanking the Romans. Mago and Hannibal were then able to rally the Gauls and throw them back into the fight, surrounding the Romans that had broken through on three sides.

But remember Hannibal had left reserves to this purpose.

[chenkai11]

No according to Goldsworthy the African came in and attacked the troops that came through the center from two sides, effectively containing the breech and at the same time outflanking the Romans. Mago and Hannibal were then able to rally the Gauls and throw them back into the fight, surrounding the Romans that had broken through on three sides.

But remember Hannibal had left reserves to this purpose.

Yeah, and the poor Roman general thought that he can smash a human wall with human bodies. But if he did manage to protect his flank, may be, just may be the Roman legions could win that battle.

[QuintusSertorius]

Hmmm, I checked back and stand corrected. Now it's bugging me which battle featured a breakthrough where the troops in the centre just marched away.

[duncan.gill]

Gaugamela: did a "punch through" actually occur? From memory didn't some of the Persians actually break through Alexander's lines but then ran off to loot the baggage train, leaving a gap in their own lines which Alexander exploited by directly charging Darius?

[Parallel Pain]

At Gaugamela Bessus' flank move on the Persian left created a weakness where his detachment joined with Darius at the center, a weakness Alexander exploited by punching through it.

And yes a Persian detachment did run through the Macedonian center and go loot the baggage train. If they instead swung right or left to hit Parmenion or Alexander in the rear, which was the entire point of punching through, who knows if history would have turned out different. But they didn't.

Quintus I think you're talking about Trebia, where the Roman center, after both flanks collapsed, broke the Carthaginian center. But with both Carthaginian flanks now free to pick new targets, there's no way the Roman center could have exploited the hole they created. So before getting surrounded, they marched forward on the double and escaped.

[chenkai11]

Check out the 1st formation.

[QuintusSertorius]

Quintus I think you're talking about Trebia, where the Roman center, after both flanks collapsed, broke the Carthaginian center. But with both Carthaginian flanks now free to pick new targets, there's no way the Roman center could have exploited the hole they created. So before getting surrounded, they marched forward on the double and escaped.

Sounds like what I was thinking of. For some reason I attributed it to Cannae in my mind.

[General Appo]

Yeah, and the poor Roman general thought that he can smash a human wall with human bodies. But if he did manage to protect his flank, may be, just may be the Roman legions could win that battle.

Not true, Hannibal came very close to losing. If only the Gauls and Iberians hadn´t hold out for so long or would have completely broken not the Romans would likely have won the battle.

[LorDBulA]

Is it just me or is the entire game too focused on flanking? What happened to the ever-useful punching through the center?

Cavalry, flanking all the time. You just cant punch through thick inf line head on.
If I dont have heavy cavalry hammer I punch through enemy line head on with infantry ( no always through center, you have to find weakest point in the line )

[Tancredii]

Is it just me or is the entire game too focused on flanking? What happened to the ever-useful punching through the center?

It's just flanking on four sides..............

Gotta flank, gotta flank (gotta remember to pronounce that carefully)

[chenkai11]

Not true, Hannibal came very close to losing. If only the Gauls and Iberians hadn´t hold out for so long or would have completely broken not the Romans would likely have won the battle.

But the center line was intentionally thinned by Hannibal, with his season veterans of libyan infantry on the flank.

Hannibal intentionally set a trap for Romans to strike hard at the center.

[Apgad]

If you punch through the centre then you end up fighting in 3 directions. Flanking lets you concentrate 2 or 3 units on 1 of the enemy, and pick them off 1 by 1. It produces very good local superiority, which is why it's often a winning formula.

[QuintusSertorius]

But the center line was intentionally thinned by Hannibal, with his season veterans of libyan infantry on the flank.

Hannibal intentionally set a trap for Romans to strike hard at the center.

Point is if that intentionally weakened centre hadn't held for so long, the Romans might still have managed to break through and not end up exhausted when the Libyans engaged.

[chenkai11]

Point is if that intentionally weakened centre hadn't held for so long, the Romans might still have managed to break through and not end up exhausted when the Libyans engaged.

That is why timing is important, and Hannibal actual gamble on that strategy.

If he decided to reinforce his center, he will be outflank by the numbers of Romans.

[Cartaphilus]

All that I read about Cannae (ancient texts mainly) appoints to an intentional weak centre.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well back to the game: funnily enough the units themselves, one by one, each try to 'punch' through their opponent. But if you see a phalanx or similar resilient infantry on both sides then Punching isn't much good at all as it'll prove a very costly, tiring and painful excersise. A sure way of getting slaughtered yourself basically; because the opposing units will eventually envelop your 'fist'. Ouch.

Punching itself, however is again best done by such resilient infantry against a weaker oponent; but you shouldn't attack as much of the raw 'punch' will get lost. Instead you should march right through the enemy infantry; something people have called to 'ram'. And it's a well known tactic for phalanx-based armies: everything that doesn't get out of the way fast get's trampled. Follow up with some heavy close combat infantry such as Kuarothoroi and you'll have your punch.

Similar tactics can be used with Belgae Milnaht or Spearmen who should run through; and be 'unleashed' when they are *inside* the enemy formation. You'll need to do this to compensate for whatever weird RTW physics is going on that makes only 5 men fight and the rest of them do a funny walk somewhere 10 m's away from the actual battle; pretending to be very heroic.

[konny]

As for where punching worked, off the top of my head:
Issus
Gaugamela

In both cases a flanking manouver was the decisive move.

Mikatagahara (actually probably 2/5 of all Sengoku Jidai field battles)

Don't know.

Australiz

You mean Austerlitz? The French attack actualy hit what was the allied right wing because most of the allied forces had allready moved SW where they were pinned by Davout between Pratzen and Satschan. Examples for frontal engagements from the Napoleonic Wars would be Waterloo, Borodino, Lingy and the like.

Nevertheless, frontal assaults do work in EB because the AI is hardly fielding any reserves and often has all the better units on the flanks. Once you have punched through the line you are able to envelope both his wings and have your cavalry rushing through the gap to finish his light troops and move at will behind the enemy's line. This very usefull when you are outnumbered but have the better quality troops.