I don't get your point. Phalanx should be very susceptible from the rear or the flank (much more than it currently is in EB1) and they don't always collapse because it helps the AI tremendously, especially if it's not outnumbered.The AI is incapable of utilizing that though. They also can't do bridge battles or fight up hills.
AFAIK nothing could be done about the bridge battles in EB1. Small fords were much better, but unfortunately when roads improved, so did the fords and they became the bridges...
N/c about fighting uphill.
We must see what the EB team will achieve in MTW2, with new combat system being developed. However, I don't think that heavy cavalry will be made completely useless when attacking heavy infantry from the front and giving bonuses to single units (e.g. legionnaries) are not justified unless they are really needed because of limitations of the engine. As pointed out by some people in this thread, when you give a bonus to one unit, you must consider other untis, too. Otherwise, one must state why legionnaries should be better or worse at repelling heavy cavalry than other heavy infantry in the first place. Why not give skirmishers bonuses against cavalry? They have pointy sticks, too.
I think that a much more interesting topic is the one of giving all units which should have "third weapon" or working secondary weapon certain bonuses in order to better depict them, e.g. hoplites or cataphracts. That would be an interesting topic, indeed.
Bookmarks