The Phalanx and Moral

[Stycks]

Always wondered if phalangites should get that "scare enemy" type bonus....
i mean, of all the units that would scare me, a row of thousands of uberly long pikes pointed at me would scare me more than seeing a roman legion (at least them i can actually go man to man)

just a thought...
but yeah...
it would also make players reconsider ahistorically attacking phalanxes head on with units that have low morale (ive been doing the whole pin the phalanx with 99 cent store units and stabbing them in the back with my better units)

also, this would actually reinforce the fact that NO ONE (infantry or cavalry) would willingly charge into a wall of pikes without actually reconsidering their commanders decision (unless of course they also had long pointy sticks), even the romans never won against a phalanx head on.

and finally, this would make the phalanx the lethal force it was! as is right now, its a mobile wall so ur other troops can attack the enemy from behind. but from what i remember reading, most of the diadochi armies had phalanx units in such numbers and other troops in almost negligible numbers (except dirt cheap skirmishers) that it was the phalanx that decided most battles.

once again...
just a thought

[DaciaJC]

and finally, this would make the phalanx the lethal force it was!

It's as powerful as it needs to be; some argue that is overpowered. Considering that many people use a large number (often constituting a majority) of phalangites in their armies, enemies could very well rout on first contact if the phalanx is given the scare bonus.

I'll leave others to debate the historical basis of phalanxes being "scary", which I think was simply not the case.

[Apázlinemjó]

If you check which units have the "scare" trait, you will find the elephants, chariots, drugged naked swordmen, naked spearmen and the mercenary half naked axemen. They are special units, not regular ones.

Now if you give this trait to the pikemen, then the well armored heavy cavalry and archers such as Cretans should get it too, because they were as much fearful as the phalanxes. Also the Imperial legionaries would have it too, because by the time the Augustan reforms happen, Rome is a superpower with her feared legions. And the whole game would need a rebalance too.

So I think it's a bad idea.

[Ca Putt]

as Phalanxes often have superior numbers it does occur that lesser units actually flee if they get too close. tho this has to be a pretty desperate situation I have to admit that it happened to me at least twice(I know this should not happen but it was part of my plan )
apart from that this "fear aura" would also affect units flanking a phalanx, and well I think there are few things(for a melee fighter) that are less negative for moral than attacking a horde of guys that cant hit back because they have their sarrisas pointed in the opposite direction ;)

but if it would be implemented I would like to give phalanxes 2-3 shield

[ARCHIPPOS]

I can't complain either...

the other day i was playing against an AS halfstack army ravaging my Baktrian lands (hard battle difficulty)...those guys had 2 units of argyraspides with them + 2Xmercenary pezetairoi ... so i move my 3Xpantodapoi phalangites pinning battleline forth and my cavalry, skirmishers and mercenary axemen in flanking positions and guess what??? 10" after making contact with the AS argyraspides my pantodapoi pikemen rout!!!

[Weebeast]

I think scariness in reality should not be translated directly into the one we have in game. It's just there for varieties and allow options. If you look at all scary units, they have a weakness that is dying too quick from missiles or whatever it is the obvious counter. Phalangites are just too tough to be scary. That's like having an elephant unit of 25 and not vulnerable to missiles. Alexander the Great had to do more than just scare people with pezhetairoi. He had to lead many cavalry charges. Well he didn't have to personally but you catch my drift. Also in game one may isolate the phalanx from the bulk of army but that's more of AI issue, not phalanx. You can't do that against human.

[king of thracia]

Alexander the Great had to do more than just scare people with pezhetairoi. He had to lead many cavalry charges. Well he didn't have to personally but you catch my drift.

Actually, that's exactly what he did. That's why the Makedon cavalry are called the 'Companions'

[Mikhail Mengsk]

If you check which units have the "scare" trait, you will find the elephants, chariots, drugged naked swordmen, naked spearmen and the mercenary half naked axemen. They are special units, not regular ones.

Now if you give this trait to the pikemen, then the well armored heavy cavalry and archers such as Cretans should get it too, because they were as much fearful as the phalanxes. Also the Imperial legionaries would have it too, because by the time the Augustan reforms happen, Rome is a superpower with her feared legions. And the whole game would need a rebalance too.

So I think it's a bad idea.

totally agree

[antisocialmunky]

Scary is way overpowered. Its range is ridiculous. Yes, 1 unit of naked spearmen scare the whole enemy army unless you're playing 2vs2 HUGE. -_-'

[abou]

The effect of the phalanx on the enemy was really quite pronounced. If you analyze the battles of Rome against the other Hellenistic powers you see a number of things come to light.

We know that after Pydna, L. Aemilius Paulus was stated to have nightmares of pikes and Livius' description of the battle gives the impression of much higher casualties than he actually reported.

At Magnesia, it doesn't even seem as though the Roman infantry came into contact with the pike phalanx, which had rather quickly formed itself into a block realizing it's left flank was compromised. It was the Romans' ability to frighten the elephants that did the trick. Even then, it seems that the Argyraspides on the right might have been successful against the Romans there.

At Thermopylai, the phalanx held off Roman advances time and time again until the rear guard of Aitolians ran from their emplacements allowing Cato the Elder to appear in the rear.

The fighting at Kynoskephalai is another example. The Makedonian right was putting up a tough fight, which would likely have resulted in victory if not for a Roman assault on the flank. But, those Roman forces didn't suddenly appear because of superior mobility: they managed to assault an unprepared Makedonian left wing and chase them off. Any enemy would buckle at an attack from the flank regardless of perceived flexibility (i.e. Pharsalus).

The point is that when met head-on the phalanx could usually push an enemy back. For the Romans, they were given a number of opportunities, but would do their best to avoid the phalanx straight on unless such opportunities presented themselves (e.g. routing of the Seleukid cavalry at Magnesia, rough ground at Pydna).

And as to Roman brutality, lets not sell the Makedonians short either.

[antisocialmunky]

The effect of the phalanx on the enemy was really quite pronounced. If you analyze the battles of Rome against the other Hellenistic powers you see a number of things come to light.

We know that after Pydna, L. Aemilius Paulus was stated to have nightmares of pikes and Livius' description of the battle gives the impression of much higher casualties than he actually reported.

At Magnesia, it doesn't even seem as though the Roman infantry came into contact with the pike phalanx, which had rather quickly formed itself into a block realizing it's left flank was compromised. It was the Romans' ability to frighten the elephants that did the trick. Even then, it seems that the Argyraspides on the right might have been successful against the Romans there.

At Thermopylai, the phalanx held off Roman advances time and time again until the rear guard of Aitolians ran from their emplacements allowing Cato the Elder to appear in the rear.

The fighting at Kynoskephalai is another example. The Makedonian right was putting up a tough fight, which would likely have resulted in victory if not for a Roman assault on the flank. But, those Roman forces didn't suddenly appear because of superior mobility: they managed to assault an unprepared Makedonian left wing and chase them off. Any enemy would buckle at an attack from the flank regardless of perceived flexibility (i.e. Pharsalus).

The point is that when met head-on the phalanx could usually push an enemy back. For the Romans, they were given a number of opportunities, but would do their best to avoid the phalanx straight on unless such opportunities presented themselves (e.g. routing of the Seleukid cavalry at Magnesia, rough ground at Pydna).

And as to Roman brutality, lets not sell the Makedonians short either.

That doesn't justify the fear trait rather that people don't run straight into pikes and pikes can push units by their wall of spear points. They can do this quite well as it is.

[Stycks]

The effect of the phalanx on the enemy was really quite pronounced. If you analyze the battles of Rome against the other Hellenistic powers you see a number of things come to light.

We know that after Pydna, L. Aemilius Paulus was stated to have nightmares of pikes and Livius' description of the battle gives the impression of much higher casualties than he actually reported.

At Magnesia, it doesn't even seem as though the Roman infantry came into contact with the pike phalanx, which had rather quickly formed itself into a block realizing it's left flank was compromised. It was the Romans' ability to frighten the elephants that did the trick. Even then, it seems that the Argyraspides on the right might have been successful against the Romans there.

At Thermopylai, the phalanx held off Roman advances time and time again until the rear guard of Aitolians ran from their emplacements allowing Cato the Elder to appear in the rear.

The fighting at Kynoskephalai is another example. The Makedonian right was putting up a tough fight, which would likely have resulted in victory if not for a Roman assault on the flank. But, those Roman forces didn't suddenly appear because of superior mobility: they managed to assault an unprepared Makedonian left wing and chase them off. Any enemy would buckle at an attack from the flank regardless of perceived flexibility (i.e. Pharsalus).

The point is that when met head-on the phalanx could usually push an enemy back. For the Romans, they were given a number of opportunities, but would do their best to avoid the phalanx straight on unless such opportunities presented themselves (e.g. routing of the Seleukid cavalry at Magnesia, rough ground at Pydna).

And as to Roman brutality, lets not sell the Makedonians short either.

My point exactly!
When facing a phalanx army, most enemy armies would try to outmaneuver them and not attack head on lest they risk facing substantial casualties...
what ive been able to do in some of my battles was run right into a phalanx with low stat troops to pin them....
and this seems very a historical (i tend to use loopholes in the game if it seems taht im loosing)
now, i dont know about the whole programing and in depth stuff, but if theres a way to limit the scare factor then sure i'll stick it on (prob we can add that in EB II)

but for now i'd have to say that only the most disciplined (romans legions) or the most drugged (them naked ) should be (and i think historically were) the only ones who can attack a phalanx head on and expect results, not some 99 cent skirmisher unit who wouldnt even charge into one head on (remember most skirmishers were levied and therefore not proffesional disciplined fighters)

[Megas Methuselah]

...but from what i remember reading, most of the diadochi armies had phalanx units in such numbers and other troops in almost negligible numbers (except dirt cheap skirmishers) that it was the phalanx that decided most battles.

Gathering from what I've read here in the EB Forums, it was this large ratio of phalanxes in diadochi armies that allowed their downfall on the battlefield.

[The General]

Gathering from what I've read here in the EB Forums, it was this large ratio of phalanxes in diadochi armies that allowed their downfall on the battlefield.

Indeed; it's very expensive to wield heavy cavalry and infantry units such as Hetairoi and Hypaspists, not even talk about Cataphracts and elephants, whereas a pike is relatively cheap to produce. Now, imagine over a hundred years' worth of almost continual conflicts and their toll on the national coffers.

[keiskander]

I would say it takes more courage to stand fast against cavalry that charges at you in full speed then facing a phalanx unit or a cohort. The impact is more sevear then an infantry clash some people just ran away when full heavy cavalry made a charge against their lines. "Ofcourse ellies aswell"

[Phalanx300]

I would say it takes more courage to stand fast against cavalry that charges at you in full speed then facing a phalanx unit or a cohort. The impact is more sevear then an infantry clash some people just ran away when full heavy cavalry made a charge against their lines. "Ofcourse ellies aswell"

I agree, I've seen a Horse running towards me once and it was already intimidating, let alone adding someone with a lance on top of that.


And yes the Romans and the Makedonians were both brutal, can't say so much about the spartans though .

First they sacrifice a goat and start marching towards you with what seems like unison of the entire line with their men singing their warcries and flutes and drumes playing. (this was apparantly very intimidating to see)

If you decide to face them the battle will be hard, if you run however you can run they wont persue.

I think that was important psycological warfare, since their enemies knew that if they would run they would live, yet if they would stand they could very well die (considering the reputation of the Spartans as well).

[gamegeek2]

I agree, I've seen a Horse running towards me once and it was already intimidating, let alone adding someone with a lance on top of that.

I'm sure with a large spear or pike you feel much more secure. Levies, though, would no doubt be terrified, especially skirmishers.

[ARCHIPPOS]

If you decide to face them the battle will be hard, if you run however you can run they wont persue.

I think that was important psycological warfare, since their enemies knew that if they would run they would live, yet if they would stand they could very well die (considering the reputation of the Spartans as well).

Yep and not only Spartans employed this psychological warfare

"-Iphicrates never allowed his lines to be broken in the heat of the pursuit. He continually called out to his light-armed troops to beware of ambushes. He also had a general rule, never to press the enemy too hard when they had been routed, if there were any narrow passes or rivers behind them; for if they are hemmed in, they are often forced by desperation to rally and fight again.
-When Iphicrates had forced a fleeing enemy into a narrow pass, he always tried to open a way for them, and give them a chance to escape, without making it necessary for them to force their way out by fighting. He said that there was no reason to compel an enemy to be brave."
(Polyaenus: Stratagems/BOOK 3)

of course you have to remember that Spartan omoioi (=equals) were always very few compared to the manpower of other city-states such as Athens,Thebes and so on... having a demographicaly declining pool of hoplites with which to secure the Lacedaemonian homeland from the helot threat and implement Spartan hegemony throughout Greece ... forces you to drasticaly economise on your forces shall we say???

[Macilrille]

Always wondered if phalangites should get that "scare enemy" type bonus....
i mean, of all the units that would scare me, a row of thousands of uberly long pikes pointed at me would scare me more than seeing a roman legion (at least them i can actually go man to man)

But would you want to?

Republican Romans were IMO the most brutal race of antiquity, now imagine facing them, knowing that they will slaughter your civilians and survivors if you loose.

-First volleys of Pila, which were very effective and had much longer range than a Sarrisa.

-Second your disorganised ranks (provided you survive the Pila meet a wall of men whose main tactic seem to be low stance covering behind a large shield, opening your shield with theirs and stabbing you in the gut. Gut wounds are the absolute worst injuries, they equalled slow, agonising death even in WWII.

You sure you want to go against these?

Give me a Phalanx opponent any day, at least you can outmaneuvre them.

[satalexton]

Republican Romans were IMO the most brutal race of antiquity

Phalangitai are either greeks or hellenized people. Only the barbaric/insane/intoxicated should get the "scare enemy unit" trait. For that I propose that the Roman units to have such trait instead.

[Duguntz]

T othat question, i must post my personal opinion, wich i oblige nobody to take... But phalangite are surely very impressive. now are they scary? not. What was scary, for the time, is naked religious fanatics, their body painted pitched black, shouting the names of their 100'ds gods when they jumped in ambuhs in the night, bitting their shield and running ahed no matter what were the chances to die because anyway they were druged and felt no pain... that was scary. do not confond scary AND impressive!

that was only the opinion of a Sweboz dedicated fan!

[seienchin]

I modified the units in Eb a little bit. Especially the phalanx. They are easier to kill, but also kill more enemies , which also causes a little bit more fear. Why dont you try it out?