Org Mobile Site
Thread: A thin line of spears
Custom battle. Medium difficulty. Greek hoplites vs. Juliaii Haspati. Grassy flatlands. Human player deploys the Greeks. Large unit size.
1.Left the hoplites on default formation rank and file. Turned on phalanx. Turned off guard mode. Ordered an attack with one click. No other human intervention.
Phalanx won with 44 men remaining out of 81, including recovered wounded.
2. Put the hoplites in a formation only two ranks deep. Everything else the same. (Formation was slightly closer to enemy because it was put into its new formation slightly ahead of the starting position.)
Phalanx won with 71 men remaining, including recovered wounded.
Also of note: Phalanx drift to the right was serious in the default depth and negligible in the shallow depth. In fact, the shallow phalanx drifted to the left for quite a while after running out of Romans to kill on the right.
=========
Same thing only with the Romans having Equites.
1. Regular formation; Roman defeated. 71 hoplites left.
2. Thin formation. Romans defeated. No losses. Not even wounded.
Against the regular formation, the Romans charged, got beat, retreated, circled around a bit and charged again, hitting a corner. They only charged the thin formation once.
1.Left the hoplites on default formation rank and file. Turned on phalanx. Turned off guard mode. Ordered an attack with one click. No other human intervention.
Phalanx won with 44 men remaining out of 81, including recovered wounded.
2. Put the hoplites in a formation only two ranks deep. Everything else the same. (Formation was slightly closer to enemy because it was put into its new formation slightly ahead of the starting position.)
Phalanx won with 71 men remaining, including recovered wounded.
Also of note: Phalanx drift to the right was serious in the default depth and negligible in the shallow depth. In fact, the shallow phalanx drifted to the left for quite a while after running out of Romans to kill on the right.
=========
Same thing only with the Romans having Equites.
1. Regular formation; Roman defeated. 71 hoplites left.
2. Thin formation. Romans defeated. No losses. Not even wounded.
Against the regular formation, the Romans charged, got beat, retreated, circled around a bit and charged again, hitting a corner. They only charged the thin formation once.
Interesting. Does the thin formation wrap around the enemy lines?
This is quite interesting indeed. I think it's pretty obvious that--in terms of realism and historical accuracy--the results should have been just the opposite.
A thin line in front of several 8+ ranked lines works wonders against cavalry and sometimes even chariots. The first row screens the formation, distrupting the cavalry, while the heavy formation behind don't have the charge bonus to worry about.
Originally Posted by Ziu:
Interesting. Does the thin formation wrap around the enemy lines?
No. I tried switching off phalanx in the middle of one battle so it would, and the result was disaster.Interesting. Does the thin formation wrap around the enemy lines?
Experience with lousy, non-phalanx spears (Eastern Infantry) does result in lapping around.
Originally Posted by Orvis Tertia:
This is quite interesting indeed. I think it's pretty obvious that--in terms of realism and historical accuracy--the results should have been just the opposite.
I couldn't agree more. However, I repeated this little stunt four more times with the hastati tonight. The smallest number of phalanx survivors after five tries was 58 men. The largest was 78. This is quite interesting indeed. I think it's pretty obvious that--in terms of realism and historical accuracy--the results should have been just the opposite.
In order, the number of phalanx survivors were: 71, 58, 71(again), 66 and 78. This includes the healed wounded.
Originally Posted by Sin Qua Non:
A thin line in front of several 8+ ranked lines works wonders against cavalry and sometimes even chariots. The first row screens the formation, distrupting the cavalry, while the heavy formation behind don't have the charge bonus to worry about.
What about a thin line backed by another thin line?A thin line in front of several 8+ ranked lines works wonders against cavalry and sometimes even chariots. The first row screens the formation, distrupting the cavalry, while the heavy formation behind don't have the charge bonus to worry about.
CA nerfed the formation depth effects in RTW, either that or they omitted them altogether. Missile units are another example of the problem (as your horse archer tests have shown, as well as my own tests of jav, slingers, and archers.)
I've been deploying my phalangites 4 deep because I quickly learned that deep phalanx formations were not of any use and were instead a liability.
There is one other aspect that is harder to judge: multiple units. I suspect that two multi-rank lines side by side will perform better than two thin lines one behind the other when facing two or more attackers. I suspect the thin line will suffer casualties quickly allowing the two to be defeated in detail. However, the two might behave differently if they "stack." Hmm, I'll have to try this.
I really hope the major problems can be fixed when the patch(es) arrive(s). Right now the fighting side of the engine pales in comparison to MTW.
I've been deploying my phalangites 4 deep because I quickly learned that deep phalanx formations were not of any use and were instead a liability.
There is one other aspect that is harder to judge: multiple units. I suspect that two multi-rank lines side by side will perform better than two thin lines one behind the other when facing two or more attackers. I suspect the thin line will suffer casualties quickly allowing the two to be defeated in detail. However, the two might behave differently if they "stack." Hmm, I'll have to try this.
I really hope the major problems can be fixed when the patch(es) arrive(s). Right now the fighting side of the engine pales in comparison to MTW.
In default formation the hastati wraps around both left and right flank of the phalanx and maybe this is why there are more losses.
In a two rank deep formation the hastati have no chanche to make it to the flanks of the phalanx, they just get impaled by spears and cant even get close enough to make any casualties on the phalanx.
In a two rank deep formation the hastati have no chanche to make it to the flanks of the phalanx, they just get impaled by spears and cant even get close enough to make any casualties on the phalanx.
More interested in finding why its happening (although I had a few good ideas) then actually see it happen I decided to try it out.
Using pricepes rather then hastati vs normal hoplites, with the default 5 ranks, its pretty easy to spot the main problem, the pricepes work arround the hoplites, so whilst from the front, they get slaughted, the real fun in on the sides, and ultimately thats where the losses come from.
http://www.users.on.net/~roehr/flanked.jpg
But apart from that, it seems as if most of the time, the 2nd and 3rd rows never get to fight with their spears! http://www.users.on.net/~roehr/rows.jpg. The circles show that the red and blue (3rd and 2nd) rows all pretty much line up, whilst the green (1st) row are doing tho fighting, so while we do have the potential of more then one spear attacking a target at the same time, the target doesnt seem to get close enough for the other rows to be in range. Thus the 'new' rank bonus is negated by tubby romans unable to pass between the first row of spears!
Of course, this same problem happens with the thin ranks. What really gives thin ranks more power is the fact that the AI isnt smart enough to attack the flank. http://www.users.on.net/~roehr/thinrow.JPG, so they end up trying to push though the ranks of spears infront of them, a virtual date with Death.
Using pricepes rather then hastati vs normal hoplites, with the default 5 ranks, its pretty easy to spot the main problem, the pricepes work arround the hoplites, so whilst from the front, they get slaughted, the real fun in on the sides, and ultimately thats where the losses come from.
http://www.users.on.net/~roehr/flanked.jpg
But apart from that, it seems as if most of the time, the 2nd and 3rd rows never get to fight with their spears! http://www.users.on.net/~roehr/rows.jpg. The circles show that the red and blue (3rd and 2nd) rows all pretty much line up, whilst the green (1st) row are doing tho fighting, so while we do have the potential of more then one spear attacking a target at the same time, the target doesnt seem to get close enough for the other rows to be in range. Thus the 'new' rank bonus is negated by tubby romans unable to pass between the first row of spears!
Of course, this same problem happens with the thin ranks. What really gives thin ranks more power is the fact that the AI isnt smart enough to attack the flank. http://www.users.on.net/~roehr/thinrow.JPG, so they end up trying to push though the ranks of spears infront of them, a virtual date with Death.
Originally Posted by Red Harvest:
CA nerfed the formation depth effects in RTW, either that or they omitted them altogether.
Agreed --Which pretty much voids years of hard-won experience on how to fight with spears in the Total War series.CA nerfed the formation depth effects in RTW, either that or they omitted them altogether.
Originally Posted by :
Missile units are another example of the problem (as your horse archer tests have shown, as well as my own tests of jav, slingers, and archers.)
Small correction here. You're giving me credit for tests by Frogbeastegg and Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe. I just applied their findings, as did other players.Missile units are another example of the problem (as your horse archer tests have shown, as well as my own tests of jav, slingers, and archers.)
I'm interested in the results of any "stacking," as you mention.
Originally Posted by Jeanne d'arc:
In default formation the hastati wraps around both left and right flank of the phalanx and maybe this is why there are more losses.
In a two rank deep formation the hastati have no chance to make it to the flanks of the phalanx, they just get impaled by spears and cant even get close enough to make any casualties on the phalanx.
That's very true, especially in the initial stages. By the time the phalanx drifts in the thin formation and there is some wrapping around the edge, there aren't enough hastati left to make a difference.In default formation the hastati wraps around both left and right flank of the phalanx and maybe this is why there are more losses.
In a two rank deep formation the hastati have no chance to make it to the flanks of the phalanx, they just get impaled by spears and cant even get close enough to make any casualties on the phalanx.
The bizzare thing, though, is that the thin line drifts to the left. It keeps doing this. It wasn't a fluke, as I thought.
Much seems to depend on whether the spears hit on-center or off, but that's just how it appears.
Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson:
What about a thin line backed by another thin line?
Yes, this also works, but sometimes cavalry can break through two thin lines. No real matter, since most barring cataphracts will be distrupted and cut down. I just like the full phalanx behind the thin line because I find it easier to reform the line as the battle dictates. What about a thin line backed by another thin line?
I've even been tinkering with stringing a thin line of archers in the open space between the pike points and the first rank of a phalanx, so that they are protected by the pikes, but don't distrupt the formation or cause friendly casualties. It's been mixed results. If the archers survive the initial charge (and don't run at the enemy like idiots), then they can cause significant casualties in the perfect section - the front row of the enemy's melee.
Originally Posted by GodsPetMonkey:
What really gives thin ranks more power is the fact that the AI isnt smart enough to attack the flank ... so they end up trying to push though the ranks of spears infront of them, a virtual date with Death.
Undeniably so, GPM. I was going to argue that the thin rank also has more spear points in the front rank. Then I realized that doesn't matter -- 1 vs. 1, most of those extra points are wasted. They're poking the air because a phalanx doesn't wrap.What really gives thin ranks more power is the fact that the AI isnt smart enough to attack the flank ... so they end up trying to push though the ranks of spears infront of them, a virtual date with Death.
I'm no serious scholar of ancient history, but IIRC the spears in the 2nd and 3rd ranks were slightly longer to give more of a solid mass of points.
Well, I tried to do some tests, but I've modded the unit size of those guys to give a wider frontage (120 men.) So they do too well vs. hastati one-on-one (but with more upkeep etc.) The AI did so many stupid random things with its hastati that I couldn't draw many conclusions...except that the AI is incredibly inept. It was standing there holding it's pila overhand while I was jabbing away for quite awhile. The AI even managed to lose 2 vs. 1...argggggggggghhhhh. (I've been thinking about slightly modding down the offensive stats of the newly enlarged phalangite units--I want them durable, hence the size, but not fast killers.) I went to the larger size after using the German spear warbands...that was a real eye opener as to the effect of unit size on phalanx power in the game.
The 2nd row of spears is fighting. The 3rd very, very rarely has anyone to stab at. In real life deep phalanx units achieved considerable pushing ability from what I have read. They generally were pushing troops back. And the ultra deep formations were there to add a lot of punch. The references and diagrams I'm looking at are indicating a single spear length, but I've seen mention of increasing spear length with rank position elsewhere. So I dunno. Macedonian sarissa were longer at about 19-22 ft ("long_pike") and 5 spear points would be in front of each file. They were two handed weapons held underhand. The greek hoplite spears were shorter (6-10 feet) and it appears they used them overhand/single handed in combat (?) but manouvered with them held at the waist (and charged that way apparently.) That's quite different than how they are shown in the game. Realistically no more than two ranks would be fighting with that style (although the rear ranks would help in shoving and filling any gaps.)
Sidelight:
Did some archer tests since I was on the "practice field". Again the AI was stupid. When I gave it vanilla roman archers vs. my 120 man greek hops, it marched them up to pila range. So I did a stationary test where they killed 19 (of 121) in phalanx with 10 volleys.
Next I took command of the archers and let them march to me once then marched to them and started firing on subsequent tests. I disabled skirmish mode partway there, since the shorter range on these guys made it tough to get in 10 volleys (should have used 6 or so
) Result: archery is HOSED. Everyone fires whether the archer line is 2 ranks deep, 6 ranks deep, or 16 (yes, 16) ranks deep. The only difference is that with 16 ranks, they don't fire as early because they have to wait for the rear guys to get in range. 2 ranks = 19 kills in 10 volleys (2% per volley) 6 ranks deep = 15 kills in 8 volleys, 16 ranks deep = 19 kills in 7 volleys. Very, very disappointing.
The 2nd row of spears is fighting. The 3rd very, very rarely has anyone to stab at. In real life deep phalanx units achieved considerable pushing ability from what I have read. They generally were pushing troops back. And the ultra deep formations were there to add a lot of punch. The references and diagrams I'm looking at are indicating a single spear length, but I've seen mention of increasing spear length with rank position elsewhere. So I dunno. Macedonian sarissa were longer at about 19-22 ft ("long_pike") and 5 spear points would be in front of each file. They were two handed weapons held underhand. The greek hoplite spears were shorter (6-10 feet) and it appears they used them overhand/single handed in combat (?) but manouvered with them held at the waist (and charged that way apparently.) That's quite different than how they are shown in the game. Realistically no more than two ranks would be fighting with that style (although the rear ranks would help in shoving and filling any gaps.)
Sidelight:
Did some archer tests since I was on the "practice field". Again the AI was stupid. When I gave it vanilla roman archers vs. my 120 man greek hops, it marched them up to pila range. So I did a stationary test where they killed 19 (of 121) in phalanx with 10 volleys.
Next I took command of the archers and let them march to me once then marched to them and started firing on subsequent tests. I disabled skirmish mode partway there, since the shorter range on these guys made it tough to get in 10 volleys (should have used 6 or so
) Result: archery is HOSED. Everyone fires whether the archer line is 2 ranks deep, 6 ranks deep, or 16 (yes, 16) ranks deep. The only difference is that with 16 ranks, they don't fire as early because they have to wait for the rear guys to get in range. 2 ranks = 19 kills in 10 volleys (2% per volley) 6 ranks deep = 15 kills in 8 volleys, 16 ranks deep = 19 kills in 7 volleys. Very, very disappointing.I think Total War has always given an edge to thin lines - which favours the smart human over the AI working with the default chunky formations. In STW, I think there were no rank bonuses. In MTW, spreading your swords or cav thinning was a killer.
Doug - I wonder what would happen with better cavalry than equites? Absorbing a cavalry charge seems to be the only reason I would go for a deeper formation.
It is regrettable as what little I know about pre-gunpowder warfare implies that some depth of formation was important. Partly it may be because fighting hand-to-hand in armour is so tiring (a TV programme showed a fit young man in armour being exhausted after a minute and a half of intensively fighting multiple adversaries). Having depth allows you to "rotate" your frontline, replacing exhausted troops with fresher ones. I always wondered about modding MTW to give rank bonuses to non-spears!
Doug - I wonder what would happen with better cavalry than equites? Absorbing a cavalry charge seems to be the only reason I would go for a deeper formation.
It is regrettable as what little I know about pre-gunpowder warfare implies that some depth of formation was important. Partly it may be because fighting hand-to-hand in armour is so tiring (a TV programme showed a fit young man in armour being exhausted after a minute and a half of intensively fighting multiple adversaries). Having depth allows you to "rotate" your frontline, replacing exhausted troops with fresher ones. I always wondered about modding MTW to give rank bonuses to non-spears!
AFAIK that rotation trick was a difficult one to pull off, and required the somewhat demanding combination of comparatively loose order and well-trained troops. The Roman infantry did it, and it gave them a major edge against the disorderly barbarian hordes who crowded thick against the Roman line and the individual warriors couldn't retreat out of the way no matter how wounded or tired they became. That sort of thing is prime breeding ground for anxiety and eventually panic, with well-known results.
Phalanxes were probably way too dense to allow for that sort of rotation, but then again I've read a phalangite's most important traits were considered to be stamina and discipline, so the formation kept together and steadily and (fairly) tirelessly mowed down anything before it.
But then, the historical Ancient phalanxes tended to be huge affairs of thousands of men in a single rectamgular block hundreds of meter wide and up to sixteen ranks deep. The ones in Rome don't exactly compare...
As a side note the fairly small six-man deep pikeman rectangles the Swedish introduced into the Thirty Years' war seemed to hold their ground quite well against the huge, deep tercios most others initially used. Even if you factor in the considerable organic fire support they had, it makes you wonder if formation depth really is all that important in the "push of pikes".
...anyone feel like testing how well a long, thin line of phalangites does against a deeper, narrower phalanx in a head-on clash...?
Phalanxes were probably way too dense to allow for that sort of rotation, but then again I've read a phalangite's most important traits were considered to be stamina and discipline, so the formation kept together and steadily and (fairly) tirelessly mowed down anything before it.
But then, the historical Ancient phalanxes tended to be huge affairs of thousands of men in a single rectamgular block hundreds of meter wide and up to sixteen ranks deep. The ones in Rome don't exactly compare...
As a side note the fairly small six-man deep pikeman rectangles the Swedish introduced into the Thirty Years' war seemed to hold their ground quite well against the huge, deep tercios most others initially used. Even if you factor in the considerable organic fire support they had, it makes you wonder if formation depth really is all that important in the "push of pikes".
...anyone feel like testing how well a long, thin line of phalangites does against a deeper, narrower phalanx in a head-on clash...?
The real problem we have with the Phalanx is the inability to create a solid unbroken line. The natural gaps between the units always makes things worse.
When a unit does its natural "wrap around" all it takes is for a couple of guys to get into that gap on the flanks and the Phalanx will start having trouble.
In a sense this "wrap around effect" is a real problem in the way the game works, its a cheap method of auto-flanking without taking the Pushback from deep formations into consideration... It was a problem before and it remains a problem now, but it probably can't be avoided until Rank Pushback is included.
When a unit does its natural "wrap around" all it takes is for a couple of guys to get into that gap on the flanks and the Phalanx will start having trouble.
In a sense this "wrap around effect" is a real problem in the way the game works, its a cheap method of auto-flanking without taking the Pushback from deep formations into consideration... It was a problem before and it remains a problem now, but it probably can't be avoided until Rank Pushback is included.
Originally Posted by Sin Qua Non:
I've even been tinkering with stringing a thin line of archers in the open space between the pike points and the first rank of a phalanx, so that they are protected by the pikes, but don't distrupt the formation or cause friendly casualties. It's been mixed results. If the archers survive the initial charge (and don't run at the enemy like idiots), then they can cause significant casualties in the perfect section - the front row of the enemy's melee.
Which would potentially work very well with the Germans using their Chosen Archers and Spearband or the Egyptians with their Pharoh's Archers and Nile Spearmen. Both types of archer are better than average when it comes to melee, so they should hold up a lot better.I've even been tinkering with stringing a thin line of archers in the open space between the pike points and the first rank of a phalanx, so that they are protected by the pikes, but don't distrupt the formation or cause friendly casualties. It's been mixed results. If the archers survive the initial charge (and don't run at the enemy like idiots), then they can cause significant casualties in the perfect section - the front row of the enemy's melee.
One more finding in the "useful to know, slightly cheesy to exploit"-bag, then.
Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson:
The bizzare thing, though, is that the thin line drifts to the left. It keeps doing this. It wasn't a fluke, as I thought.
Perhaps a medium depth can be found where they stay put?The bizzare thing, though, is that the thin line drifts to the left. It keeps doing this. It wasn't a fluke, as I thought.
I find most battles are decided on who routs first, rather than simple killing ability (though obviously the two are intimately connected!), and therefore would be interested to know what effect unit depth had on morale - ie, would a thin, two rank phalanx be more likely to rout than a deep one?
If the computer calculates the morale of each soldier depending on how many allies they are in contact with, whether the whole unit is contiguous etc, it could have a major effect - in a two rank formation each soldier can only be in contact with a maximum of 5 allies, any greater depth and all troops except the front and back rank could potentially be in contact with 8. Also, a cavalry charge may be repelled by a two rank phalanx, but even so, the charge may make temporary gaps in the formation, even if they only last for a few seconds, it cold effectively split the unit into two or more seperate bodies of men - I'd guess this might make routing more likely?
If the computer calculates the morale of each soldier depending on how many allies they are in contact with, whether the whole unit is contiguous etc, it could have a major effect - in a two rank formation each soldier can only be in contact with a maximum of 5 allies, any greater depth and all troops except the front and back rank could potentially be in contact with 8. Also, a cavalry charge may be repelled by a two rank phalanx, but even so, the charge may make temporary gaps in the formation, even if they only last for a few seconds, it cold effectively split the unit into two or more seperate bodies of men - I'd guess this might make routing more likely?
Though of course the lack of wrap around in the shallow formation would improve morale as well...
just a few notes...in the total realism mod there was an ability to form units into an unbroken "phalanx" line - i've since had to uninstall the modded install and i'm really missing that ability possibly contacting mods involved would yield a standalone "phalanx ability" mod
as for hoplites (with 6 meter spears) charging with their spears underarm...hmmm- not sure, i think this limited the effectiveness of their spear thrusts over the wall of shields (the impact of the charge could also cause you to maim the guy behind you with the butt spike of the spear), though to take cavalry charges they braced their spears into the ground underarm (sorry, nitpicking...)
possibly contacting mods involved would yield a standalone "phalanx ability" modas for hoplites (with 6 meter spears) charging with their spears underarm...hmmm- not sure, i think this limited the effectiveness of their spear thrusts over the wall of shields (the impact of the charge could also cause you to maim the guy behind you with the butt spike of the spear), though to take cavalry charges they braced their spears into the ground underarm (sorry, nitpicking...)
Originally Posted by :
as for hoplites (with 6 meter spears) charging with their spears underarm...hmmm- not sure, i think this limited the effectiveness of their spear thrusts over the wall of shields
Hoplites used spears of around 2-2.5 meters length and large shields. The phalangites used the long pikes (Sarissa) of about 6-7 meters length and smaller shields so they could use the pike in two hands.as for hoplites (with 6 meter spears) charging with their spears underarm...hmmm- not sure, i think this limited the effectiveness of their spear thrusts over the wall of shields
Hoplites would use the spear overarm when in close order phalanx but underarm was also used as charging hoplites would become disordered and they had more room to fight.
CBR
One thing in MTW - lots of peeps advocated the 'swordsmen in 2 ranks' theory. However, what i found was that there were two drawbacks to this:-
1) as troops get killed, and your second rank starts to empty, holes appear in the unit formation, and this did seem to lead to routs (either because formation was disrupted, or they were getting doubled more, not sure)
2) if you have all of your infantry in double rank formations, try manouvering them around the battlelines successfully! - thinner formations can exploit holes in the line much easier, and are far less likely to 'hit' enemy units by mistake, and so get embroiled in combats you don't want, or losing charge bonuses.
I agree however, that wider formations for phalanxes seem to make sense (in the game)- but what is their holding power in this formation? - does it give less time for your flanking forces to get engaged? Also - thin formations should theoretically be much more susceptable to heavy cavalry charges, as they should smash right through the 2 line formation and out the other side > rout.
1) as troops get killed, and your second rank starts to empty, holes appear in the unit formation, and this did seem to lead to routs (either because formation was disrupted, or they were getting doubled more, not sure)
2) if you have all of your infantry in double rank formations, try manouvering them around the battlelines successfully! - thinner formations can exploit holes in the line much easier, and are far less likely to 'hit' enemy units by mistake, and so get embroiled in combats you don't want, or losing charge bonuses.
I agree however, that wider formations for phalanxes seem to make sense (in the game)- but what is their holding power in this formation? - does it give less time for your flanking forces to get engaged? Also - thin formations should theoretically be much more susceptable to heavy cavalry charges, as they should smash right through the 2 line formation and out the other side > rout.
Red Harvest;
Yes, the archers and the phalanx are two results from the same cause: The complete disappearance of rank as a factor of its own. The only question now is, do you want a compact formation able to manuever (especially change facing quickly) or a thin one that can cover a lot of front?
I've been far less critical of R:TW than others, but this just isn't right.
=========
Simon Appleton;
I'll charge a bunch of cataphracts into some hoplites tonight.
Yes, the archers and the phalanx are two results from the same cause: The complete disappearance of rank as a factor of its own. The only question now is, do you want a compact formation able to manuever (especially change facing quickly) or a thin one that can cover a lot of front?
I've been far less critical of R:TW than others, but this just isn't right.
=========
Simon Appleton;
I'll charge a bunch of cataphracts into some hoplites tonight.
Originally Posted by Watchman :
But then, the historical Ancient phalanxes tended to be huge affairs of thousands of men in a single rectangular block hundreds of meter wide and up to sixteen ranks deep. The ones in Rome don't exactly compare...
AndBut then, the historical Ancient phalanxes tended to be huge affairs of thousands of men in a single rectangular block hundreds of meter wide and up to sixteen ranks deep. The ones in Rome don't exactly compare...
Originally Posted by The_Emperor:
The real problem we have with the Phalanx is the inability to create a solid unbroken line. The natural gaps between the units always makes things worse.
The only way to get the proportions close to correct would be to link multiple units in an unbroken front, in my opinion.The real problem we have with the Phalanx is the inability to create a solid unbroken line. The natural gaps between the units always makes things worse.
The Macedonian Phalanx of Roman times was deeper and, frankly, less maneuverable than Alexander's
Say --quite arbitrarily -- that the typical hoplite formation of 80 (large unit size) is supposed to be part of the "classic," somewhat flexible phalanx a la Alexander, and that the 120-man unit is supposed to be part of the newer, more dense Macedonian model with longer pikes.
Alexander's phalanx was 16 ranks deep and 256 files wide. This gives a depth-to-front ratio of 1 to 16. This contained (at full strength) 4,096 troops.
Take five large unit-size hoplite formations at their default depth of five ranks. Put them end to end. This results in:
A group five ranks deep and 80 files wide, a perfect 1 to 16 depth-to-front ratio. It contains 400 men -- a 97.7 percent-pure little 1/10th scale model of the classic Alexandrian phalanx.
In my opinion, phalanx should not be a special ability for one group of 80 or so spear types but a special group formation, a "hard" grouping that only phalanx-type units can employ that eliminates the gaps between units. The hoplites can "ungroup" if they need to change facing rapidly, moving the individual units, and "regroup" when facing the desired direction. There should also be a rank bonus maximized for a depth-to-front ratio of about 1-to-16, or deeper in the case of longer pikes.
Originally Posted by Paul Peru:
One more finding in the "useful to know, slightly cheesy to exploit"-bag, then.
Guilty as charged, but at least my intentions were good. One more finding in the "useful to know, slightly cheesy to exploit"-bag, then.
I wanted to give a simple, clear demonstration of what's wrong with spear units in R:TW. I think it worked.Originally Posted by :
Perhaps a medium depth can be found where they stay put?
Wondered that myself, but would bet that a three-rank formation would get wrapped again.Perhaps a medium depth can be found where they stay put?
========
Fridge and KyodaiSteeleye;
I will soon know more about how brittle a thin line is when charged by cavalry. Beyond that, I just don't know how all this plays out in a real fight. These are not the type of questions that can really get answered in a simplistic custom-battle demonstration with only one human. I know that long, thin formations are much harder to maneuver and to change facing.
Originally Posted by :
Alexander's phalanx was 16 ranks deep and 256 files wide. This gives a depth-to-front ratio of 1 to 16. This contained (at full strength) 4,096 troops
Where do you get that from? Some think his taxis were 1500 men and others believe they were 2000 men. Alexander's phalanx was 16 ranks deep and 256 files wide. This gives a depth-to-front ratio of 1 to 16. This contained (at full strength) 4,096 troops
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sar...icusNotes.html argues for 2000 men taxis and seems very reasonable.
CBR
CBR
That comes from Dupuy and Dupuy's "Encyclopedia of Military History," which includes an extensive section on Alexander's army. It has a unit breakdown within the phalanx too, which I'll post.
That comes from Dupuy and Dupuy's "Encyclopedia of Military History," which includes an extensive section on Alexander's army. It has a unit breakdown within the phalanx too, which I'll post.
The relative smallness of phalanx formations seems to be a problem.
In addition, something should be done about the way charging mounted troops can leap directly into the front of a phalanx and cause everyone nearby to draw their swords thus wrecking the entire formation.
In addition, something should be done about the way charging mounted troops can leap directly into the front of a phalanx and cause everyone nearby to draw their swords thus wrecking the entire formation.
I remove the space between each phalanx unit by using a double line. I draw out half my units in 3-4 ranks and then draw the other half directly over the first line just a few files off to one side. The result is a very compact formation that is hard to maneuver with but it does the job 
CBR
CBR
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO