The Phalanx and Moral

[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'

[Weebeast]

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

Legolas and Gimli are also part of fellowship to Frodo. Where are you going with this? So phalangite are so scary that they need to be baby sitted? If all he had to do was to scare people with them so why bring companions? To much walking? Nope. He knew no [cavalry] flanking, no skirmisher support, etc means failure.

Also what scary to one individual is different for others so I'm not gonna touch that. For the most part though, war is scary. That is timeless.

[ARCHIPPOS]

Where are you going with this?

I think he meant that Alexander personally lead the cavalry charges ...

[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.

[abou]

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.

That wasn't what I was justifying. I was attempting to put things into perspective. We aren't going to be adding an intimidation trait to the pike phalanxes in EB.

[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)

[DaciaJC]

what ive been able to do in some of my battles was run right into a phalanx with low stat troops to pin them....

The phalanx is also able to turn around rather more quickly than was possible in reality. It is difficult to flank a phalanx in EB without having another unit "get pinned" and occupy the phalanx.

[ARCHIPPOS]

but for now i'd have to say that only the most disciplined (romans legions) or the most drugged (them naked buggers) 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)

You forgot to say that another way to counter a phallanx would be with another phallanx ...

[Mikhail Mengsk]

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)

And the phalanx should not reform so quickly, or to run so quickly (with formation disabled), and they should break in seconds when charged from flanks or rear...

[Apázlinemjó]

And the phalanx should not reform so quickly, or to run so quickly (with formation disabled), and they should break in seconds when charged from flanks or rear...

Well I doubt that the veterans would rout in seconds, but the levies would, I agree.