How to use Phalanx units?

[Basileus]

Maybe someone should try to advance through the enemy with an unbroken solid line of grouped Phalanx troops rather than targeting the enemy and see what happens.

Ive tryed that sometimes it works sometimes not, the problem is in large battles you´ll have a hard time micromanaging your units , i myself never use the pause button so it makes it hard.

[Red Harvest]

Speed is king in RTW (along with charge bonuses.) Cav have both of those in spades. Any proper use of cav will flank the phalanx and the phalanx units will collapse in seconds. Frontal attack can be used to pin the phalanx so that another cav can crush it. It is not the preferred method, but it works. After a few hoplites are gone, the rest are easy to contend with.

Against a cav army, the phalanx army can only circle its wagons. If they bring some cav, the cav army can still crush it so only the phalanx portion is left to contend with. This makes it a defensive army, that cannot attack, because it will lose by sitting there in defense.

Did I mention that hoplites are easy prey for missile units? Balearics will chew them up rapidly.

[Akka]

Exactly, on medium yes try playing on very hard and you´ll see your phalanx armies collapse from what ever army is charging them heh (almost)

Well, yes, but if the enemy receive plenty of bonuses that makes it able to withstand the punishment of a wall of spikes, then I'm not overly surprised if they can break through it.

[kataphraktoi]

experimented by clicking the space behind the intended enemy target and........cha ching, the phalanxes walked into the enemy with pikes bristling through the enemy and started engaging very deep into the enemy's own formation.

clicking on the enemy target isn't as effective.

Like MTW, it somestimes works to get ur unit to run through rather than charge through.

[Red Harvest]

Exactly, on medium yes try playing on very hard and you´ll see your phalanx armies collapse from what ever army is charging them heh (almost)

This is a good point. As has been noted, the charge bonuses are very powerful in this game when coupled with the high kill rate. I suppose that a lot of killing is done during the charge, so if the kill rate is high, it amplifies the charge. Haven't done "scientific" test of this yet, just seat of the pants so far, kills pile up very rapidly during charges. I've wanted to finish a campaign or two without adjusting kill speed.

Since the non-phalanx units are the ones benefitting from the charge bonus, the phalanx is taking a steep penalty that seems a bit non-historic.

And I still contend that many of the phalanx units are much too narrow. They should have about twice as many men to illustrate their ungainly nature on the one hand (negative), but also to make them more resilient to frontal attack, to have some staying power, and to make it harder for infantry to flank them.

[SpencerH]

Speed is king in RTW (along with charge bonuses.) Cav have both of those in spades. Any proper use of cav will flank the phalanx and the phalanx units will collapse in seconds. Frontal attack can be used to pin the phalanx so that another cav can crush it. It is not the preferred method, but it works. After a few hoplites are gone, the rest are easy to contend with.

Against a cav army, the phalanx army can only circle its wagons. If they bring some cav, the cav army can still crush it so only the phalanx portion is left to contend with. This makes it a defensive army, that cannot attack, because it will lose by sitting there in defense.

Did I mention that hoplites are easy prey for missile units? Balearics will chew them up rapidly.

Missiles should chew up phlanx units.

It seems to me that the problem is the speed with which a phlanx should change its facing. How long would it take for a unit to swing their pikes from front to back? I would think that well trained units (at least) could do it quickly enough to defend against attacks from the rear or sides (assuming they weren't already engaged). Swiss pikemen were not carved up by knights for just that reason (effective cannon ended the Swiss dominance of the battlefield). It's not reasonable to me to assume that the men in a phlanx could not respond effectively to a foe coming from the flank or rear (which is what happens in the game).

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Missiles should chew up phlanx units.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Historically, that is not true. Where did you hear that?

Although I agree that leadshot-armed slingers and javelin armed troops would bring a lot of difficulties into a Phalanx formation, because of the sheer impact and penetrative capabilities of the projectiles, archers wouldn't be able to pierce the Phalanx's armour (Remeber Thermopylae or Alexander's campaigns? Only javeliners and slingers were in any way effective.) In fact, it is well known that the pikes in the back of the first four rows, would serve as a deflecting shield for most projectiles. So, in History, the Phalanx had not a lot to fear from archers.

It seems to me that the problem is the speed with which a phlanx should change its facing. How long would it take for a unit to swing their pikes from front to back? I would think that well trained units (at least) could do it quickly enough to defend against attacks from the rear or sides (assuming they weren't already engaged). Swiss pikemen were not carved up by knights for just that reason (effective cannon ended the Swiss dominance of the battlefield). It's not reasonable to me to assume that the men in a phlanx could not respond effectively to a foe coming from the flank or rear (which is what happens in the game).

IMHO, the speed of reaction is correct. The problem is that every other unit (specially cav and light troops) is soooo much faster in running and charging, that the Phalanx's slower motion seems a slow-motion movie. But the real problem is the teleporting cav and the bionic-enhanced-olympic-sprinter light units...

[Count Fudgula]

A link to an article was posted on here about a week ago which mentioned the Spartans having perfected a feint retreat with the phalanx formation. They would start marching up to an enemy, look like they were worried, turn and start moving away quickly as if in flight. When the enemy had taken the bait and run out of their own formations to try and cut down the "fleeing" Spartans, the Spartans would spin on their heels and instantly reform their phalanx which would grind up the onrushing disorganised pursuers. Obviously being trained from birth (or close enough to birth) to do this kind of thing would help, but wouldn't it be nice if there was some funky version of a heavy hoplite phalanx unit which could change direction and organise itself very quickly? Or would that change the balance of the game? You would still have the vulnerability to missile units...

[Red Harvest]

Missiles should chew up phlanx units.

I don't think so. Many of these hoplite units had big shields and greaves and helmets. Unshielded yes they were very vulnerable since they were massed.

Historically, missile units alone weren't very successful vs. phalanx in this time period. They could frustrate the phalanx because of the lumbering speed of the unit meant it couldn't engage, but they could not kill it very effectively. They needed help.

Infantry got the short end of the stick in RTW. And the heaviest and slowest got the shortest end of all.

There was a screen shot showing a low level phalanx killed off on a bridge assault by horse archers on the opposite bank. (Not sure how many units those archers killed.) The units hit were the militia hoplites with small shields, and little armour, so it might make sense for those units. However, heavier hoplites with large shields should be able to march on across--shot up a bit, yes.

A problem I see is that casualties pile up too fast in hoplite units, whether from sword armed infantry, cavalry, missiles, etc. Historically, they did not suffer much until the formation actually broke (when they were slaughtered.) I think some of this is unit size: both morale and effective frontage. But other things, like missile effects and charge bonuses seem to be amplified. So the phalanx suffers from being both slow in a historic sense, and vulnerable in a non-historic way.

[SpencerH]

Sorry, but you're wrong. Historically, that is not true. Where did you hear that?

Missiles includes slingers and javelins, but your point wrt bowmen is well taken.

Only javeliners and slingers were in any way effective.)

Which suggests that it was the (lack of) power of the bows that limited their use against the phlanx. The Romans also carried large shields etc but they were repeatedly carved up by what I guess were recurve bows carried by the eastern horse cav. Good recurve bows deliver the same power as a longbow which can easily punch through early (or even late) armour.

[Nelson]

Clearly there can be no accounting for unexpected tactical outcomes when the AI is not on medium. Either the player's or the AI's units are pumped up too high on any other setting and this is bound to create anomalies.

On medium difficulty I have found phalanxes to resist stoutly so long their flanks are secure.

[Red Harvest]

Did some tests on medium with base level Poeni vs. Hastati and Triarii. The Poeni have a slight edge against both. The Poeni take a lot of casualties though--not a good representation of a phalanx defensive characteristics. And this is best case--frontal. I have seen only a few battles in the game where the battle lines met in uniform cohesive manner. There is little chance to dress your lines. That amplifies the flanking problems. If one unit of a phalanx army gets hit by two, even without flanking, it is going to crumple rapidly, resulting in a general rout as the others are flanked from the hole. This gets back to the kill rates and rapid routing fouling up the character of the rest of the game...sigh.

I imagine the Hellenistic types with long spears are quite effective, although I've not tried them vs. Romans yet. I need to try Brutii and unlock those Macedonians.

[Spino]

Missiles should chew up phlanx units.

Well, that depends. Barring teched up Weapon ratings and high Valor most missiles except javelins and pilae versus Hoplites should be an exercise in futility. When clad in armor hoplites were extremely tough to take down with missiles, especially arrows. Phalangites were another story. True, a fully armored a phalangite is also a tough nut to crack. However while the size of the shields wielded by phalangites varied in size they were substantially smaller than a hoplon shield. Furthermore phalangite shields were slung from the left shoulder instead of being carried by the left arm which meant they could not be raised or lowered effectively in order to block missiles approaching from different angles. The percentage of missiles that actually reached an exposed area on a phalangite's body must have been greater.

It is also debatable as to the effectiveness of the raised sarissas versus incoming missiles. Their overall surface area was simply too small to offer any meaningful protection against missiles. I'm sure numerous missiles were deflected by the sarissas in the rear ranks but those instances paled in comparison to the actual numbers that reached the phalangites below. Don't believe me? Try using a wire cage to keep something from getting wet during a rainshower...

It seems to me that the problem is the speed with which a phlanx should change its facing. How long would it take for a unit to swing their pikes from front to back? I would think that well trained units (at least) could do it quickly enough to defend against attacks from the rear or sides (assuming they weren't already engaged). Swiss pikemen were not carved up by knights for just that reason (effective cannon ended the Swiss dominance of the battlefield). It's not reasonable to me to assume that the men in a phlanx could not respond effectively to a foe coming from the flank or rear (which is what happens in the game).

It makes alot of sense to me that unengaged phalangites react so poorly to rear attacks. It also counters their nearly irresistable pike wall to the front. A 22 foot spear is not something you can simply flip or swing about with ease. I'm sure there were some crack units who could reverse direction without much problem but the average phalangite wasn't that well trained and unlike legionaries were not very adaptable on an individual level. Furthermore the least experienced, least armored men were often stationed in the rear ranks of a macedonian-style phalanx so for them to easily assume the front ranks is asking a bit much.

[Red Harvest]

I agree with that Spino. The rear ranks were not well equipped for that change of facing. I suspect that any disciplined types had some limited abilities to hold for a time (probably more than what we see in the game.)

Also, units like the Poeni have the large curved rectangular shields that some other lighter phlangites lack. I don't want to give the wrong impression, this is not a single unit type issue: Balearics and most of the missile units are a bit too efficient when dealing with these big shields whether it is a Roman, a Spaniard, a Greek, or a Carthaginian. I think they are a bit too deadly period at long range. There is some lack of distance attenuation apparent. I could understand them being moderately dangerous up close, but I've been surprised that many have a hard time killing the heavy cav up close or at distance. While they can take down Roman infantry with big shields at a the limit of their range. Accuracy and penetration should fall rapidly at this range.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Missiles includes slingers and javelins, but your point wrt bowmen is well taken.

Yes, I know they include them, but distinction must be made.

Which suggests that it was the (lack of) power of the bows that limited their use against the phlanx. The Romans also carried large shields etc but they were repeatedly carved up by what I guess were recurve bows carried by the eastern horse cav. Good recurve bows deliver the same power as a longbow which can easily punch through early (or even late) armour.

Yes. I agree. However, as I've said earlier, there are some reasons why arrows would offer less of an advantage against the Phalanx, in regard to the Romans Legions:

-The raised pikes, in the back ranks, offered protection because they deflected the arrows. One has to remember that most of the time bowmen, as a formation, only shoot into formations using their ballistic trajectory, not using a direct shot. As such, the arrow's trajectory would impact downwards above the heads of the Phalangites, having to cross a wall of pikes. Some would be deflected, some would be deflected by their armour.

-The heavier armoured Phalangites would have much less problems than lightly armoured ones, so, effectivelly, there would be a great degree of variance in regard to imperviousness to arrow fire.

You must, however, agree that such troops would fare much better than any other light infantry. So, we can say that "Missiles should chew up phlanx units." is an incorrect comment.

[Kraxis]

However while the size of the shields wielded by phalangites varied in size they were substantially smaller than a hoplon shield. Furthermore phalangite shields were slung from the left shoulder instead of being carried by the left arm which meant they could not be raised or lowered effectively in order to block missiles approaching from different angles. The percentage of missiles that actually reached an exposed area on a phalangite's body must have been greater.

You seem to misunderstand something. Yes the shield had a strap that was attached to the left shoulder/neck, but that was in support of the forearm. The shield was worn much like a buckler on the forearm with the hand free. While this is certainly not a very maneuverable fashion, it has more to do with the twohanded wielding of the pike rather than the inherent unmaneuverable ability of the shieldsetup. If the pike was lost or dropped the shield would be nearly as effective as any other shield of comparable size.
The setup of the combined strap and forearm adds another layer to the wellthought complexity of the phalanx. The left arm carried a a good deal of the weight (the pikes were weighter and even slimmer towards the point), and this with the forearm at about 90 degrees to the upper arm, add to this the strain of continually having to adjust the pike and thrust (granted the right arm would do the majority of that)... left arm gets tired quite fast and the pike might begin to droop. But the shoulderstrap avoids this, the weight the left arm carries is transferred to the shoulder and back making the phalangite much more durable.

It is also debatable as to the effectiveness of the raised sarissas versus incoming missiles. Their overall surface area was simply too small to offer any meaningful protection against missiles. I'm sure numerous missiles were deflected by the sarissas in the rear ranks but those instances paled in comparison to the actual numbers that reached the phalangites below. Don't believe me? Try using a wire cage to keep something from getting wet during a rainshower...

Have done that... Well unintentionally of course.
Simple small lines do not do much, that is obvious, and something I have long wondered about when people and books have mentioned the fabled pikeshield. I never found out myself, but some guy here really made a good point about it (I'm not sure it was his own point though).
Have you tried to hold a very long rather thin stick? Just try your average gardenbamboo, not impressive. Then waggle it and suddenly it fills a very respectable area. The pike did that too and not only that it actually stroke arrows and javelins (pila included) in the side so they fall like flat sticks rather than lethal weapons. How much training would this take? Hardly any, the troops would soon know from trial and error on the training fields how far they could waggle the pike without breaking it, smashing the other pikes and cover themselves enough.
This goes far to explain howcome the usually quite effective pilum was so ineffective against the phalanx.

[The_Emperor]

In my Greek cities campaign I have found the Phalanx to be the meatgrinder we all expect when used right.

With proper Hoplites it takes some real concentrated missile fire to kill them from the front, given I have only just teched up to Armoured Hoplites in Sparta the bulk of my armies are still made up of Hoplites and Militia Hoplites.

Militia hoplites (the cheapest and most common one the AI trains) are unarmoured, and as expected suffer against missiles but they do last a little while.

I had a field battle against a Roman army, which was filled with Hastati Merc Hoplites and Velites and the like, they didn't get off too many Pila volleys before the middle of a very long line of Hoplites hit them... The Hoplites were ordered to walk through the enemy, and that they did. The central line was engaged while the Hoplites on the flanks walked past, then they turned to face the rear of the enemy and once again were ordered to march through the enemy...

The end result was lots Romans & Mercs caught between two walls of Spear points! (even the enemy Velites got sucked into the fight)

My General came in to mop up the routers (the only Cavalry unit I had at the time) and victory was total.

But when you think about it the Phalanx was only best used WITH Cavalry. Alexander conquered so much, not because he used the Pahalnx on its own, but because he used great cavalry on the flanks to prevent the enemy from flanking the Pahalanx... Then his Cavalry would flank and charge home into the enemy.

A Phalanx without cavalry support is a vulnerable thing, with good heavy cavalry support it can be deadly.

[Basileus]

The_Emperor sure thing you need cav, the greek have the worst cav in the game though

[SpencerH]

Yes, I know they include them, but distinction must be made.

see last comment

Yes. I agree. However, as I've said earlier, there are some reasons why arrows would offer less of an advantage against the Phalanx, in regard to the Romans Legions:

-The raised pikes, in the back ranks, offered protection because they deflected the arrows. One has to remember that most of the time bowmen, as a formation, only shoot into formations using their ballistic trajectory, not using a direct shot. As such, the arrow's trajectory would impact downwards above the heads of the Phalangites, having to cross a wall of pikes. Some would be deflected, some would be deflected by their armour.

I did a little research after this comment (along with Kraxis bamboo analogy). From what I can tell, the possibility that the pikes deflected arrows comes from the Polybius' desciption of the phalanx. Unlike Kraxis' analogy, however, the sarissa was not bamboo but a 15-20 foot (depending on era and author)length of wood and metal that weighed 18 lbs or so i.e. not something that could be whipped back and forth with any speed. I'm not doubting that some arrows and javelins could be deflected, I just doubt that this was a truly effective tactic.

-The heavier armoured Phalangites would have much less problems than lightly armoured ones, so, effectivelly, there would be a great degree of variance in regard to imperviousness to arrow fire.

You must, however, agree that such troops would fare much better than any other light infantry. So, we can say that "Missiles should chew up phlanx units." is an incorrect comment.

Scythian horsearchers (with recurved bows) defeated Alexander in their first encounter and carved up another Macedonian army (without the presence of Alexander) at Samarkand. Therefore, it seems unlikely that arrows were ineffective against the massed soldiers of a phalanx per se. Western bows were relatively weak compared to the recurve bows and I think its more likely that the tactics used by western archers against the phalanx was poor. Given the amazing effectiveness of the English longbow against knights in plate armour at Agincourt and Crecy its not hard to imagine that a slow moving mass of troops would have been fodder to properly utilized missile units (including archers).

So, despite the possibilty of some arrows being deflected, missiles should chew up phalanx units. The lack of historical evidence where that happened in the west doesnt mean it couldnt happen.