The Ultimate Battle Turning Unit

[Ibrahim]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

yes, let your enemy smash your left flank

[Zett]

yes, let your enemy smash your left flank

Normally two units of Thorakitai are more then enough. Even if they sent their general in, cause at this point my cavalery is already behind him.

Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam

[satalexton]

one must provide the enemy a visible weakpoint, so that the foe strikes an anticipated point, and thus loses his control of the circumstances... Besides, thats an echlon(sp) formation! A fitting tactic of a spiritual heir of Alexandros!

[Elcmar]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'd tend to use a similar formation for most of my battles as AS or Makedonia, except with either peltastai or other sword+javelin infantry behind the thorakitai, and usually deploy the cavalry so it can support either side of the line if needed.

[Ibrahim]

Normally two units of Thorakitai are more then enough. Even if they sent their general in, cause at this point my cavalery is already behind him.

Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam

they can't run very fast y'know. and it is possible the enemy has more cavalry than you, so some will slow down your cavalry, then the rest would swing round the thorakitai and smash them phalanxes. all you have to do is put a single unit a cavalry to prevent this. I speak out of unfortunate experiance

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

one must provide the enemy a visible weakpoint, so that the foe strikes an anticipated point, and thus loses his control of the circumstances... Besides, thats an echlon(sp) formation! A fitting tactic of a spiritual heir of Alexandros!

see above

I have no problem with echelons in the makedonian manner, but I believe in some cavalry support on the left flank. Thorakitai can be out flanked.


and no I'm not taking the Artificial idiot into acount.

[Nachtmeister]

Checked and found my doubts about that "echelon formation" confirmed - should not one of the flanks be denied for it to be an echelon...?
They're supposed to be "diagonal" relative to the enemy line, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_formation

BTW, unless you are stretching those phalangitai to only three-deep lines, the cavalry will be easily able to move over to the left flank behind the phalanx long before any enemy flank attack can get there... But their very purpose in this setup is not to engage enemy flanks but to immediately move behind the enemy center and rout it in one massed charge. If enemy flanks refuse to be evaded, it is better to have all cavalry in one spot so as to task one of the units with distracting the enemy flank while the rest continue on their way. With cavalry distributed on both flanks, you may need not one but two units just to clear the path (and possibly take high casualties in the process).
Zett's line-up is a very offensive one; Ibrahim's cautioning advice is defense-oriented.
If the basic tactic behind the all-out offensive move works out, defense will not be necessary/flanks can be bolstered with units from the center where the enemy has already routed. If this works, the enemy is, depending upon where the cavalry gets sufficient manoeuvering space for a massed charge, gradually rolled up either from his left flank or his center. Center is to be preferred because it should create more enemy "flank-area" to be exploited. Once the first units are routing, the cavalry is free to aid in a more defensive role if need be. Thorakitai are tough enough to survive against most enemies until then.
Of course, if the enemy makes a Pahlavan catank charge with six units to your left flank, the entire formation must be re-deployed to a more defensive pattern. But then, one unit of h. xystophoroi would have only bought five seconds before routing anyway.
From my experience with KH, I can say that this formation usually *works*. Even without KH phalangitai (use hoplitai, thorakitai, thureophoroi instead).

[Ibrahim]

Checked and found my doubts about that "echelon formation" confirmed - should not one of the flanks be denied for it to be an echelon...?
They're supposed to be "diagonal" relative to the enemy line, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_formation

BTW, unless you are stretching those phalangitai to only three-deep lines, the cavalry will be easily able to move over to the left flank behind the phalanx long before any enemy flank attack can get there... But their very purpose in this setup is not to engage enemy flanks but to immediately move behind the enemy center and rout it in one massed charge. If enemy flanks refuse to be evaded, it is better to have all cavalry in one spot so as to task one of the units with distracting the enemy flank while the rest continue on their way. With cavalry distributed on both flanks, you may need not one but two units just to clear the path (and possibly take high casualties in the process).
Zett's line-up is a very offensive one; Ibrahim's cautioning advice is defense-oriented.
If the basic tactic behind the all-out offensive move works out, defense will not be necessary/flanks can be bolstered with units from the center where the enemy has already routed. If this works, the enemy is, depending upon where the cavalry gets sufficient manoeuvering space for a massed charge, gradually rolled up either from his left flank or his center. Center is to be preferred because it should create more enemy "flank-area" to be exploited. Once the first units are routing, the cavalry is free to aid in a more defensive role if need be. Thorakitai are tough enough to survive against most enemies until then.
Of course, if the enemy makes a Pahlavan catank charge with six units to your left flank, the entire formation must be re-deployed to a more defensive pattern. But then, one unit of h. xystophoroi would have only bought five seconds before routing anyway.
From my experience with KH, I can say that this formation usually *works*. Even without KH phalangitai (use hoplitai, thorakitai, thureophoroi instead).

interesting observations there. for ye.

that's basically where I got my advice from-when I played EB muliplayer (or vs. pahlava in SP), the offensive form was used to deal with other players, and often the opposing player would have cavalry on both flanks (in fact, I often ended up fighting pahlava-even thorakitai will struggle vs. griefpanvar). all too often the left flank would literally be run over, while my right flank is bogged down or even routed-since I can't focus on both flanks, leaving the center to be screwed; bear in mind, the enemy was not in echelon. I later had to fine tune the formations, so that the flanks cancel each other out, leaving the center to duke it out-it worked in my later games..one technique is to add cavalry to the left; another is attach fast moving troops that are good vs. cavalry.

[Cyclops]

Its all about the Elephants. I just finished Baktria 1.2 and the Royal Army with Kata-Phants and various small elite inf ran around Iran annihilating endless grey stacks. Sooooo satisfying. Of course they never even saw a HA, I sent a Merc General with Merc Alan Nobles to play with the Saka.

They really do turn a battle in a matter of seconds, and no other unit comes close for me. I have a dreadful inablity to utilise chariots, perhaps they are in the same class but I will never know.

Of course I see the beauty of Kataphractoi, I am a big fan of Armenia (its my current campaign) and there's a great thrill when my line begins to waver, the Caucasian spearmen I left in guard mode are crumbling (what was I thinking? should've ponied up for some Georgians) and then the horns ring out and the FL and FH smash in from the flanks, 180+ lances ploughing a bloody swathe across the battlefield. If the elephants are a volcano, then the Kataphracts are the flood.

Sometimes I just line up 4 FM's and go straight into the enemy line for the pure joy of it. I don't suicide on pikes or anything like that, my Arkah is bloodthirsty but not reckless. The massive blow really simplifies otherwise humdrum mopping up battles.

The stuff about pila, or frightening the enemy with your willy (not to mention slings and arrows!), well its no so much about being "battle turning" as part of a tactical build-up. I like the Lusotannan and german battles, with ambush, skirmish, strike and retreat, then a hard fight. Everyone plays their part, no-one really dominates. I play the Gauls a bit more up-front, but the presence of Gesaetae accelerates battle trends rather than transforms them.

If you have two balanced well-matched full stack armies facing one another and one of them has one unit arriving as a reinforcement, which unit would make the most difference? If you were fighting that battle, what enemy arrival would make you change your posture, your formation, your battle plans, your attitude to life, your underwear? I vote Elephantoi Kataphraktoi above all others.

[Cyclops]

Checked and found my doubts about that "echelon formation" confirmed - should not one of the flanks be denied for it to be an echelon...?
They're supposed to be "diagonal" relative to the enemy line, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_formation

...

Interesting point. Echelon has a number of meanings (inf and cav formations, also rear and forward echelons in the sense of staff and frontline components, also air and ground echelons in combined arms).

I seem to dimly recall it can refer to any "staggered" battle array, that is acies triplex is an "en echelon" formation. It can be used to describe an oblique order of battle (ie drawn up diagionally) but IIRC it means formations broken down into components with clear gaps between them.

I don't think of classic hoplite and phalanx klines as echeloned: weren't they continuous lines and rather compact?

The use of echelon used in the wikipaedia article is extremely obscure: at times it confuses it with refusals and oblique orders of attack that you describe. It also mentions Hannibal using an echelon at Cannae, which is strictly the classic double envelopement, and also the Thebans vs Spartans (wtf? wasn't that a superdense hoplite battle?). A bit wikifuzzy if you ask me.

[DeathEmperor]

Even though I know how devastating elephants can be if properly used I chose cataphracts/cavalry.

A well times and well placed cavalry charge can break almost any enemy army, especially if the soldiers being charged are already busy fighting the rest of your army. They're also better at wiping out routing soldiers than elephants hehe.

[Megas Methuselah]

Even though I know how devastating elephants can be if properly used I chose cataphracts/cavalry.

A well times and well placed cavalry charge can break almost any enemy army, especially if the soldiers being charged are already busy fighting the rest of your army. They're also better at wiping out routing soldiers than elephants hehe.

Same. I also tend to avoid elephants mostly due to their cost and upkeep. Even in a large empire, they tend to pack quite a punch on the treasury. Might as well invest in a bunch of Celto-Hellenic Hoplites and their mothers rather than a single unit of easy-to-kill elephants.

[Zett]

If you have two balanced well-matched full stack armies facing one another and one of them has one unit arriving as a reinforcement, which unit would make the most difference? If you were fighting that battle, what enemy arrival would make you change your posture, your formation, your battle plans, your attitude to life, your underwear? I vote Elephantoi Kataphraktoi above all others.

"Ok, they have Elephnatoi, let's change our pants!"

Yes, Elephantoi Kataphraktoi are fearsome, but a well placed unit of Petastai is also "fearsome". The only faction that uses Elephantoi from time to time is Karthadastim. Never saw the AI using Elepantes Kataphraktoi in a campaign.

Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam

[Nachtmeister]

interesting observations there. for ye.

that's basically where I got my advice from-when I played EB muliplayer (or vs. pahlava in SP), the offensive form was used to deal with other players, and often the opposing player would have cavalry on both flanks (in fact, I often ended up fighting pahlava-even thorakitai will struggle vs. griefpanvar). all too often the left flank would literally be run over, while my right flank is bogged down or even routed-since I can't focus on both flanks, leaving the center to be screwed; bear in mind, the enemy was not in echelon. I later had to fine tune the formations, so that the flanks cancel each other out, leaving the center to duke it out-it worked in my later games..one technique is to add cavalry to the left; another is attach fast moving troops that are good vs. cavalry.

My thanks, Ibrahim!
If we are talking about multiplayer here, the entire army setup can be (depends on opposing unit roster) pretty much useless - far too expensive and easily countered as in the "stone, scissors, paper"-scheme in spite of some missile and cavalry units being present. Horse archers/lancers, elephants, cataphracts, more numerous but far cheaper AP infantry, possibly even siege weapons (never tried those in MP, are they even available at reasonable cost?) are the first that come to mind for a dedicated killer setup. At least if it is to be used in an offensive role or without a serious elevation advantage. Then again, KH fighting Pahlava is about as un-historic as it gets (only topped by KH vs. Saka) afaik. Zett's stack looks like it is intended for Rome-bashing or taking on Gauls, Thraikians, Qart Hadast or maybe even a diadochoi army in single player campaigns, mopping up the entire map without retraining...

Cyclops, you are right about the "rather accelerate existing trend than turn battle" point.
The battle between Thebes and Sparta you are referring to did involve an echelon formation on the Theban side however - denied right flank and most of the center and applied a literal weight-advantage of staggering proportions on the left flank. It was not just a simple echelon, however - the center and right flank were severely thinned out to bring up the men needed for the left flank.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The image is an understatement of how many troops were moved from the main battle line to support the column on the left flank. Also, the entire line would have been diagonal except for the column on the left, not only the outer right flank. This would not have been obvious to the spartans as they had no bird's eye view of the battlefield, thus denying them the opportunity to adapt their formation accordingly. All this of course under the assumption that what I read about the "canon" on the way the battle went is correct.
After some typical Spartan heroics, the 80-men-deep column is supposed to have literally bulldozed the Spartan elites (who would have been maybe something like six to ten men deep, maybe even twenty but by far not enough to hold against the push of eighty), trampling and stabbing those who were toppled and causing the Spartan right flank to rout or simply obliterating it, then turning on the remaining, now severely outnumbered and disoriented Spartans.

[EDIT] I should sleep sufficiently before posting - went right past your point... Well if the echelon strictly refers to formations with distinct spaces between individual units then the battle of Sparta and Thebes was not fought with echelon formations.
I was always under the impression that "echelon" does not require spacing but rather just a relative displacement. Can't turn to any written sources on this - so I stand corrected. [/EDIT]

[Maion Maroneios]

LOL, thanks ;-)

But I would like to know how to best use Hellene armies, they are far too immobile for my taste. How do you Hellene Lovers most effectively employ the grinding force of the Phalanx? Just pin the enemy (literally) and flank them with cavalry? What about your skirmishers? Archers?

Hmmm, I believe this requires a seperate thread. There are tons of tricks and aces a Hellenistic Strategos can deploy, depending on the enemy each time he has to face. I'd be more than happy to share my experience with you, or anyone else for that matter

Maion

[Mediterraneo]

I voted massed levies.

Not because of their actual superiority, just because I can do more with a full stack (of anything, but I'm thinking of pantodapoi phalangitai, peltastai, hippakontistai, a couple of archers and a AS general) than with a single unit of elephants.
For the very same 23000 $ and roughly the same 6000 in upkeep.

Multiplayer may be very different, but with a 23000 $ (or £ or €...) stack of "levies" you can rout anything the AI can field, conquer Asia, and bring the guys back home for Christmas, or whatever.

With 23000 $ of elephants, i can fear 2 units of uphill javelins.

[Nachtmeister]

I voted massed levies.

Not because of their actual superiority, just because I can do more with a full stack (of anything, but I'm thinking of pantodapoi phalangitai, peltastai, hippakontistai, a couple of archers and a AS general) than with a single unit of elephants.
For the very same 23000 $ and roughly the same 6000 in upkeep.

Multiplayer may be very different, but with a 23000 $ (or £ or €...) stack of "levies" you can rout anything the AI can field, conquer Asia, and bring the guys back home for Christmas, or whatever.

With 23000 $ of elephants, i can fear 2 units of uphill javelins.

I agree with you as long as short-term campaigns are concerned... But a raid deep into enemy territory without reinforcements/retraining...? Levies die faster than professionals, and thus either you are a very superior battlefield tactician for being able to rout the enemy without much of a melee engagement - or you play very defensively, expanding slowly.
But for any single campaign battle, you are right. Also, every man helps keep up public order in settlements before and after the battle...

[antisocialmunky]

I've seen a charge by 20 Baktrian Late Bodyguards rout a whole Saba Army in the desert in an online match. Levies aren't that great.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I've seen a charge by 20 Baktrian Late Bodyguards rout a whole Saba Army in the desert in an online match. Levies aren't that great.

It would be a difficult feat to perform against AI, much less human being. Tell me where you have seen that, and maybe I will believe you. Your post is an obvious exaggeration. The BGs could not have done it alone. I mean sure, if that Saba army was already facing some Baktrian infantry, then yes, a charge in the back could rout them all, but otherwise, no.

[Cyclops]

...
[EDIT] I should sleep sufficiently before posting - went right past your point... Well if the echelon strictly refers to formations with distinct spaces between individual units then the battle of Sparta and Thebes was not fought with echelon formations.
I was always under the impression that "echelon" does not require spacing but rather just a relative displacement. Can't turn to any written sources on this - so I stand corrected. [/EDIT]

I don't know if you do stand corrected.

There are multiple meanings for any word, and my (unsourced,dimly recollected) definition is of the 18th century "horse and musket" sense, as is my use of oblique OOB and refusing the flank etc. IIRC there's a fabulous book about "Battle Tactics of Napoleon and his chief opponents".

A little googling shows that the term echelon is used for a diagonal formations (eg aircraft), so it my be that my definition was overly narrow.

Gee its agreat little thread this, lots of interesting technical points about suitable stack constitution.

At that Spartan Theban battle (I always forget, was it Manitnaea, or Leuctra or Tegea?), wasn't the Theban steamroller aided by some inopportune Spartan lollygagging? The Theban Sacred Band lined up on the left , so the Spartans crossed over to counter and got a little tangled and were engaged whilst in disorder? Certainly my impression was there was some manoueveruing difficulties, which suggested the Spartans were not as disciplined (as well as not nearly as numerous) as at Plataea.

[Maion Maroneios]

I voted massed levies.

Not because of their actual superiority, just because I can do more with a full stack (of anything, but I'm thinking of pantodapoi phalangitai, peltastai, hippakontistai, a couple of archers and a AS general) than with a single unit of elephants.
For the very same 23000 $ and roughly the same 6000 in upkeep.

Multiplayer may be very different, but with a 23000 $ (or £ or €...) stack of "levies" you can rout anything the AI can field, conquer Asia, and bring the guys back home for Christmas, or whatever.

With 23000 $ of elephants, i can fear 2 units of uphill javelins.

Yet again guys, you fail to understand the question of this poll. It doesn't ask what is the most effective unit you've used in your campaigns in terms of cost-effectiveness, rather what do you believe is the ultimate battle-turning unit. Have you ever tried to compare the devastation caused by each of the poll options to see which is the most effective in turning the tide during a battle?

Maion

[sedlacekj]

I voted Sarissa. I use HUGE settings and I like hvy phalanx armies backed up with some jav and 1-2 mounted archer.

However, I use many different options depending on what nation I am using. If I have cataphracts or elephants...those are nice, but I like destroying both of these also. I really love fighting enemies who enter my battlefield with too much cavalry as I have no problem defending my flanks or my rear. (I actually invite a calvalry charge to my rear!)

I like Ca Putt's option on the first page. Archer Cav has a better speed to run down routers before they leave the map. Usually I have some archer cav in my mix, whether I'm using Phalanx or other infantry, so I usually wait until the enemy commits their cavalry, flank w/ archer cav, then smash the rear of the infantry. Added bonus is actually being able to kill at many times 100% of the enemy before they rout off the map. ( I usually get "bummed out" when 2 or 3 survive.) Light cavalry is best for this role, but useless until the end unless they also have archers.

[Cute Wolf]

Eng... Maion... You're right, but they're right too...

I post this pool to see how peoples are appreciating an unit as an ultimate, battle turning unit.... For some men, using massive levies as their battle turning unit is a really valid option, although I still prefer frightening men to do their jobs (if I ware barbaroi), I really get used to use amassed levies (hint: gaeroas, curoas, botroas, and even rorarii) because when I play saby'n, hai, any barbarians, or another "backyard faction" that will be very poor... the most effective way to tackle a big bad Arche is amassed local troops to raid enemy settlements, and flood their walls and push with certain recklesness... when its done, the pantodapoi horde (or kavakaza sparabara horde) is a valid battle turning unit on its own right... And even middle class units can become a very frightening one... (look at my iudaioi taxeis tactic... they got their experience with smashing AS stack, and even they can smash argyraspidai quite hard, and made them javelin cushion...

thanks for your appreciation Maion....

[Phalanx300]

Well Elephants are the ultimate battle turning unit. Followed by Catapracts, one of those Baktrian Cathapract Hetairoi are the ultimate killing machine .

[sedlacekj]

Yet again guys, you fail to understand the question of this poll. It doesn't ask what is the most effective unit you've used in your campaigns in terms of cost-effectiveness, rather what do you believe is the ultimate battle-turning unit. Have you ever tried to compare the devastation caused by each of the poll options to see which is the most effective in turning the tide during a battle?

Maion

I agree with Maion. However the situation may change what one does. It probably depends on what matters more...winning the economic war, or the immediate battle. For the individual battle, cost does matter but winning matters even more. If cheap units are winning, keep cheap units...if not, winning matters most...so upgrade.

It is usually best to win at whatever monetary cost, then disband some units to offset the cost. Another form of "cost" is the lives that are lost. If one's tactic costs the army too many soldiers, one will have to withdraw, refit, or lose the next fight. If having a higher "cost" (monetary) army in the field prevents a higher "cost" (people)... It may just be well worth it financially to have more "costly" units over the long haul.

[antisocialmunky]

It would be a difficult feat to perform against AI, much less human being. Tell me where you have seen that, and maybe I will believe you. Your post is an obvious exaggeration. The BGs could not have done it alone. I mean sure, if that Saba army was already facing some Baktrian infantry, then yes, a charge in the back could rout them all, but otherwise, no.

I meant to imply a chain rout. But yeah, I looked back on it and I guess I mis-remembered it a little bit. The unti that made the charge was a unit of Hellenic Kataphracts and they didn't actually chain rout them. Hmmm, I guess my memory just blurred together several battles.

...

On the other hand, my 40 strong bodyguard was actually holding off the entire Sabean cavalry wing by itself including a unit of elephants which is equally as epic. I have so many replays of Baktrian bodyguards doing crazy things.

http://files.filefront.com/Elephail2.../fileinfo.html

[Andronikos]

It would instead be interesting to know how you Hellene Lovers fight the various barbarians.

I believe this is no problem. If you can protect your flanks, hellenic army can defeat any army based on non-phalanx infantry (without ahistorical number of elites).
But leading barbarians against helenes is a royal pain in ass. It requires a lot of micromanage, you have to break enemy formation, isolate and outnumber enemy phalanxes, here scary heavy infantry with powerful weapons such as longswords comes handy. You have to attract the phalanx so that your unit can approach from back without fear that the phalanx turns. Elite phalangites fight to the last man. And the unit which is on the sharp end of sarissa tends to rout. I remember fighting Romans who spammed makedonian-phalanx-triarii back in 0.8 as Celts. When Karthadastim and Epeiros become your enemies only then the party begins.

[mosedavid]

I think if one is relying on one battle winning unit then one's tactics are bad. Against the AI tactics win battles not individual units. Every unit has a weakness and a work around. Paper scissors stone.

[antisocialmunky]

Depending on the case its beating a rock with a 50% bigger rock.

[Ibrahim]

I meant to imply a chain rout. But yeah, I looked back on it and I guess I mis-remembered it a little bit. The unti that made the charge was a unit of Hellenic Kataphracts and they didn't actually chain rout them. Hmmm, I guess my memory just blurred together several battles.

...

On the other hand, my 40 strong bodyguard was actually holding off the entire Sabean cavalry wing by itself including a unit of elephants which is equally as epic. I have so many replays of Baktrian bodyguards doing crazy things.

http://files.filefront.com/Elephail2.../fileinfo.html

I just saw the replay-the scene reminded me of this demotivational poster for some reason:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

citing fair use

the idea is similar: a surreal disaster as it is being made

so what happened after the recording halted? did you recoup your fortunes, or did you lose for good?

[Nachtmeister]

I just saw the replay-the scene reminded me of this demotivational poster for some reason:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

citing fair use

the idea is similar: a surreal disaster as it is being made

so what happened after the recording halted? did you recoup your fortunes, or did you lose for good?

14000lbs of pure AWESOME!!
I nearly fell off my chair laughing after looking at that pic - the sharp comment amplified the effect.
Honors and a balloon are due for the best wit I've ever seen on an internet forum. -
Congratulations - and keep them coming!