Hoplitai too weak ?

[ARCHIPPOS]

OK...
some interesting oppinions...
1)In a head-on phallangites-vs-hoplites collision phalangites prevailed piking hoplites at greater range bc of their longer spears ...
2)However if hoplites managed to hit the pike phallanx from the flanks, things turned more interesting...the reason being that once hoplites get really close with their spears and swords ,pikes became useless... also phallangites were not highly manouvareuble troops...in the time needed for them to redeploy facing the enemy,lower their pikes and form the pike wall they would be stabbed and cut in droves...

the idea of hoplites AND phallangites though is that they should be used as TIME-BUYERS... they hold the enemy pinned for a while ,so you can manouveur and outflank your opponent...

[Watchman]

AFAIK it was actually quite impossible for a block of phalangites to "change facing" to bring their pikes to bear against an enemy gnawing at the flank - ie. they had to drop pikes and pull sidearms to defend themselves, or get killed with impunity. And their backup gear and training wasn't quite the best around for regular hand-to-hand fighting...

[Satyros]

1) Phalangites are supposed to beat Hoplitai
2) Hoplitai are way more flexible than phalangites
3) Hoplitai in guard mode are tanks and can withstand a pike phalanx forever
4) Hoplitai are very cost effective
5) Hoplitai have excellent defense and morale
6) They are not made to withstand heavy/elite/AP infantry
7) Spartiatai and Epilektoi are expensive because they are elite hoplites
8) The phalanx formation has a very specific role: Break the enemy through attrition, not kill them fast

Maion

Friend ,

what about the "push" effect of the hoplite phalanx formation that is supposed to break enemy lines ? i beleive that this is supposed to be their main offensive capability and we don't get to see much of it in EB . (Just a statement , *not* nagging about it as I understand that the team does its best within certain engine limitations )

This can't be achieved with the guard button .

They are quite good as an anvil tactics-wise , only I believe that this should be a part of their possible tactical role in a battle , the other being the push/break formations effect . I hate seeing my hoplites being pushed around .

Otherwise all above statements are true .

Satyros

[ARCHIPPOS]

AFAIK it was actually quite impossible for a block of phalangites to "change facing" to bring their pikes to bear against an enemy gnawing at the flank - ie. they had to drop pikes and pull sidearms to defend themselves, or get killed with impunity. And their backup gear and training wasn't quite the best around for regular hand-to-hand fighting...

good point... so once the hoplites made contact from the flanks Phallangites where done for... which i suppose made securing the flanks with some decent hoplites/thyreoforoi/thorakitai ever the more important...

[Watchman]

what about the "push" effect of the hoplite phalanx formation that is supposed to break enemy lines ?

Hoplite-type troops have an uncommonly high soldier mass score for their weight of arms to represent their pushing tactics.

good point... so once the hoplites made contact from the flanks Phallangites where done for... which i suppose made securing the flanks with some decent hoplites/thyreoforoi/thorakitai ever the more important...

Well not really "done for", but certainly disadvantaged and in trouble. AFAIK it's been theorised Pyrrhus experimented with putting more mobile types of infantry (thureophoroi-types and assorted Italian allies such as Samnites) between the phalanx sub-units as a way of dealing with the "disjointing" issue; in effect, accepting the existence of the problem and trying to counter it from the get go.

[Maion Maroneios]

Friend ,

what about the "push" effect of the hoplite phalanx formation that is supposed to break enemy lines ? i beleive that this is supposed to be their main offensive capability and we don't get to see much of it in EB . (Just a statement , *not* nagging about it as I understand that the team does its best within certain engine limitations )

This can't be achieved with the guard button .

They are quite good as an anvil tactics-wise , only I believe that this should be a part of their possible tactical role in a battle , the other being the push/break formations effect . I hate seeing my hoplites being pushed around .

Otherwise all above statements are true .

Satyros

Indeed, the "pushing" effect cannot be achieved with EB's "pseudoshieldwall". The real shieldwall now, that gives the desired effect but comes with other disadvatages and bonuses that were not taken in mind by the EB team, thus overpowering units with the shieldwall. At least that is what many members say, I personally make use of both shieldwall and guard mode depending on the situation (I play on BI executable).

Maion

[Mediteran]

Friend ,

what about the "push" effect of the hoplite phalanx formation that is supposed to break enemy lines ? i beleive that this is supposed to be their main offensive capability and we don't get to see much of it in EB .

Satyros

i dont see how they could push a phalanx? except from the flanks or rear, but thats not the issue here

[Satyros]

No no not a phalanx .

Other formations I had in mind .

I have agreed that hoplites should lose to a phalanx .

Satyros

[Watchman]

From what I gather hoplite phalanxes didn't do all that well against the Celtic approach to offensive infantry combat, you know...
The Romans could probably tell you a bit about that.

[Satyros]

Well , my point isn't exactly that the hoplite phalanx should beat any and all infantry formations just that we don't get to see them push much as already mentioned earlier .

If enveloped , they would be cut down I suppose , since they would have to use shortswords against ferocious longsword wielding Celts .

Satyros

[Maion Maroneios]

Indeed, but not man-to-man. It was rather against the flexibility of offensive infantry combat that they lost to, I believe. When a hoplite formation with some serious amount of body armour gets surrounded, their armour becomes a deathtrap. Same happaned during the battle of Cannae, were the Romaioi were promptly surrounded and butchered by the thousands. Closely packed heavy infantry formations, especially disciplined ones, had the tendency to be very vulrenable when outflanked and surrounded.

Maion

[Watchman]

*shrug* As mentioned, their soldier-mass values are relatively high plus then there's the "push effect" of the light_spear weapon attribute. I'd also remind you that AFAIK back during the Persian Wars the hoplites in practice had to "push" into the Persian infantry arrays by the crude expedient of killing their way through...

The "pushing match" of hoplite clashes came really more from the same reason as in all shieldwall clashes - the relative difficulty of meaningfully hurting foemen protected by overlapping shields. Ergo it became rather important to try to distrupt their mutually supporting formation by physically forcing it apart, something easiest and safest accomplished by putting the weight of several ranks behind the front-rankers shields and pushing...

[Satyros]

Indeed, the "pushing" effect cannot be achieved with EB's "pseudoshieldwall". The real shieldwall now, that gives the desired effect but comes with other disadvatages and bonuses that were not taken in mind by the EB team, thus overpowering units with the shieldwall. At least that is what many members say, I personally make use of both shieldwall and guard mode depending on the situation (I play on BI executable).

Maion

Does the shieldwall ability enables them to charge as a solid unit , or are the disruptions in unit cohesion some kind of bug in the RTW engine ?

I would suppose that you use the shieldwall offensively and the guard button ( just stating the obvious here ) defensively . Am I right ?

Satyros

[Watchman]

ANY infantry - or for that matter cavalry - that get "crushed" too closely together (ie. to the point where they can no longer wield their weapons effectively) become little more than sitting ducks, irrespective of who exactly does the pressing and what against. Heavier equipement just makes them more troublesome and difficult to kill, whereas lightly armed men can be massacred with relative ease - no need to hack and stab through body armour, no ?

[Maion Maroneios]

Does the shieldwall ability enables them to charge as a solid unit , or are the disruptions in unit cohesion some kind of bug in the RTW engine ?

I would suppose that you use the shieldwall offensively and the guard button ( just stating the obvious here ) defensively . Am I right ?

Satyros

Yes, they charge as a solid unit as far as I remember. I don't use it very often, only during sieges to protect narrow passages, or when I want to attack an enemy formation. And even then, I prefer guard mode because your men tire much slower.

ANY infantry - or for that matter cavalry - that get "crushed" too closely together (ie. to the point where they can no longer wield their weapons effectively) become little more than sitting ducks, irrespective of who exactly does the pressing and what against. Heavier equipement just makes them more troublesome and difficult to kill, whereas lightly armed men can be massacred with relative ease - no need to hack and stab through body armour, no ?

Yes, I was just giving emphasis about Hoplites.

Maion

[Watchman]

Yes, they charge as a solid unit as far as I remember.

My memory seems to speak of an annoying tendency for the first row to charge alone and the rest of the unit to snail-pace into the combat over the next half a minute or so using the careful "combat stalk" animation, though...

Although granted, that's a reasonably commonly occurring flaw in the engine AFAIK.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

@Mikhail Mengsk

My english isnt the best but what i wanted to say was that in real Phalangits were way more flexible than normal hoplitai, and anybody asserted the opposite of this which is totaly false. :)

Here a picture. The reason why the hoplitai formation was so inflexible is that the whole formation was a long line, if this line breaks on one part, the whole battle was almost lost. The macedonian phalanx was quite flexible because they phalangits where subdivided in many squares. But after the dead of alexander the phalangits got more armor and they formed back to more like a line like the classical hoplitais which made them almost as unflexible.

Phalanxes could be placed in many squares, but each square is totally inflexible. A phalanx formation coudn't turn fast, because it have to highen the long pikes, turn around and lower the pikes again. And it has to do it in perfect formation.

Every movement in the phalanx has to be made in formation, elsewhere the whole "block" would collapse, and the phalanx ceased to be a wall of pikes, and become a pack of vulnerable soldiers who can't use their long pikes. Phalangites couldn't stand a melee because of poor equipment and poor training.

A hoplitai line could turn, or split into smaller formations if needed. Phalanxes risks to broke their formation even when marching, if the terrain is not plain.

[seienchin]

I think your problem is that you believe you should use your Hoplitai offensively, which is obviously wrong. I have played quite a few battles on-line, and many times it was my trustworthy Hoplitai that held out long enough for me to hammer the enemy line.

Maion

Hoplites were atack troops. They charged each other and pushed and clubbed till one side lost formation. In EB they are the best Defense troops there is against many types of armies, including the romans, but that isnt what they are supposed to be.
And there is one fact that bothers me: As strong as the Hoplites are against many enemies, they suck against light infantry with AP weapons.

[Watchman]

An axe to the head is rarely good news to anyone. Anyway, to repeat myself, the hoplites were the southern Greeks' main offensive arm *once upon a time* - but things change. As did Greek armies and their challengers. For straight linear offense on level ground the Macedonian-style pikemen were far more potent, whereas the more flexible "barbarian"-Italic-thureophoroi style "jeep" infantry was on the whole better for all-around offensive use especially in rough terrain.

It's as the unit description says; the classic hoplite pattern was getting a bit long on the tooth, but were still perfectly capable heavy spearmen.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

Anyway, to repeat myself, the hoplites were the southern Greeks' main offensive arm *once upon a time* - but things change. As did Greek armies and their challengers. For straight linear offense on level ground the Macedonian-style pikemen were far more potent, whereas the more flexible "barbarian"-Italic-thureophoroi style "jeep" infantry was on the whole better for all-around offensive use especially in rough terrain.

It's as the unit description says; the classic hoplite pattern was getting a bit long on the tooth, but were still perfectly capable heavy spearmen.

Totally agree.

An axe to the head is rarely good news to anyone.

hahah sure!

[vartan]

Pyrrhus experimented with putting more mobile types of infantry (thureophoroi-types and assorted Italian allies such as Samnites) between the phalanx sub-units as a way of dealing with the "disjointing" issue; in effect, accepting the existence of the problem and trying to counter it from the get go.

And how did that turn out? Did Pyrrhus' idea work or fail (on average)?

[Zarax]

It worked but he epically failed to understand the caliber of his enemy...

[vartan]

It worked but he epically failed to understand the caliber of his enemy...

What was the caliber of his enemy that he so failed to understand?

[Zarax]

He was successfull tactically but he fought a loosing struggle strategically.
In a prologue of the 2nd punic war, romans worse his forces out and ultimately defeated him.

Of course it didn't help that Phyrrus wasn't able to focus on a single plan.

[antisocialmunky]

He was successfull tactically but he fought a loosing struggle strategically.
In a prologue of the 2nd punic war, romans worse his forces out and ultimately defeated him.

Of course it didn't help that Phyrrus wasn't able to focus on a single plan.

You just made no sense right there.

[Dutchhoplite]

It worked but he epically failed to understand the character of his enemy...

That's better ;)

[vartan]

That's better ;)

The character that was his enemy.

[Celtic_Punk]

No, calibre does work.

[Zarax]

jeez, let me explain.
Phyrrus formation worked in battle pretty well, allowing him to win under conditions that would have resulted in defeat for more conventional successor armies.

Unfortunately for him roman tenacity and the unability to focus on one front resulted ultimately in utter defeat.
Also, let us remember that the same army, even after the heavy losses against the romans managed to mop the floor with the carthaginians in sicily, not exactly pushovers themselves.

[Watchman]

Eh, when you get down to it the Romans were just playing their usual We Have Reserves card. They had the manpower base to outlast Pyrrhus in a war of attrition, and he probably realised it too at some point.