phalanx/anti-phalanx

**Ptah** · 12-23-2004, 04:58

Deploy your lines in an echelon formation, and start attack from one corner first. Never deploy it parallel to the enemy lines and have all your men start attacking/defending at the same time.

This is because as a single unit the armoured hoplites are one of the most reliable and cost-efficient units in the game, and they will rarely break when fighting against just one or two hastati or principes, even if you got them locally surrounded.

Assuming both the Greeks and Romans have 10 units each, to quickly rout powerful hoplites in defensive posture you need to pit at least 3~4 hastati/principes against one of their armoured hoplites all at once. However, if you try to flank the enemy from both left and right sides, that will effectively take 50% of your total units. That leaves only about 5~6 of your Roman units to defend the center against 8 hoplite units.

What typically happens is your center is shattered before your flanking forces get their job done. So your center routs, then each of your flanking forces are isolated and destroyed.

....................

So, if you want to avoid that and strengthen the center so they will hold long enough, that means you have less number of units to use to flank the hoplites - which of course, means that it's not gonna work at all.

Besides, even if you stregthen the center it's still about the same number of hoplite units vs Roman units. Pre-marian Roman infantry has no chance against hoplites from the front, so eventually, the center is gonna rout anyway.

....................

Therefore, this dilemma is solved by deploying your units in an echelon formation, where the wing that is protruded at front(forward wing) is stronger than the other wing that falls back(rear wing).

Advance to the enemy in that formation, and use all of your strongest units in the forward wing to hit one corner of the enemy first. The rear wing needs to be prepared to counter the movement of the rest of the phalange.

....................

* If the hoplites army breaks its battle line to go save that corner which is under attack from your forward wing, disengage your forward wing a little bit and form a new battle line there. At the same time, quickly move your rear wing, isolate the phalanx unit at the rear end, and hunt it down one by one.

....................

* If the hoplite army chooses to advance, retreat your rear wing so they avoid combat, and buy more time for your forward wing. Keep retreating, so that your battle line always stays in an echelon against their lines.

Since in this case the phalange chose to advance, the units consisting their right wing are now dissipated and routing. Reposition your forward wing units so they repeat the same attack again.

....................

* If the hoplite army chooses to respond in orderly fashion, retreat your forward wing and form a new battle line. Your Forward wing now becomes the new rear wing, and redeploy your rear wing so it becomes a new forward wing. In other words, the roles between forward and rear wings switch.

These series of tactics are known to be developed by Epaminondas. Since your troops aren't strong enough to to face all of the enemy troops at the same time, form an echelon, and always secure a local but huge numbers advantage over the enemy at one side, and "cut the corners" off one by one.

The problem is that TR mods are heavily influenced by "infantries are turtles" school of opinion among RTW gamers, and uses an overly penalizing unit terrain speed modifiers. So in TR mods where the units are all put in slow motion (so that ham-fisted people can meddle around during battle to make pretty formations and lines and think they are doing something 'tactical', instead of instantly react and respond to whatever is thrown to them on a dynamic scale) it is pretty hard to flank anything in the first place.

So personally, I recommend you restore your original "descr_battle_map_movement_modifiers.txt" file to use with TR4.0(it's possible). It makes a good experience with all the wonderful changes and kill rate reduction TR4.0 has to offer, combined with the dynamic tactical approach of original RTW.

**Red Harvest** · 12-23-2004, 07:29

While the echelon description is on, the ham-fisted comments are way off the mark. Last I checked it took more than a second or two to order a mass charge or completely reorder a line in real life. In fact, the actual front was often a mile or two or three across. It took hours just to deploy battle lines for major battles. Such battles would not be decided in seconds as in RTW. It took time for battles to play out, partially because of the distance (that and armed and armoured men in formation don't usually subdue one another in 3 seconds...but that's another matter.) Command lag was much, much longer, but units were more likely to follow some general group type commands such as advance/hold/flank/wheel. They wouldn't have to wait for micromanaging orders from the field commander before following some basic maneuvers.

**Mouzafphaerre** · 12-23-2004, 07:48

-
Hey Ptah,

Any Pharaoh or CotN connection?

-

**Ptah** · 12-23-2004, 08:05

Nope, sorry to disappoint. No affiliations.

**Ptah** · 12-23-2004, 08:21

Last I checked it took more than a second or two to order a mass charge or completely reorder a line in real life. In fact, the actual front was often a mile or two or three across. It took hours just to deploy battle lines for major battles. Such battles would not be decided in seconds as in RTW. It took time for battles to play out, partially because of the distance (that and armed and armoured men in formation don't usually subdue one another in 3 seconds...but that's another matter.) Command lag was much, much longer, but units were more likely to follow some general group type commands such as advance/hold/flank/wheel. They wouldn't have to wait for micromanaging orders from the field commander before following some basic maneuvers.

In real life one did not have a birds-eye view of the battlefield with mouse-pointers giving out 'winning' or 'losing' info neither. As fast the pace of the battle within the game is, it is correspondingly easy to make tactical judgements from the info which is instantly obtained. Not to mention issuing orders are done with a mere movement of a hand and a finger, in the game. These opposite factors effectively cancel each other out and thus have no real relevancy when in discussing a validity of how an abstract depiction of a battle is done within a game.

Messing with the movement modifiers was flat-out bad judgement with poor reasoning. The reasoning behind it was that the game was too fast paced to make 'tactical judgements', which basically only showed that some people's of grasp of 'tactics' would suit a construction of a Maginot line rather than an open-field battle where everything is dynamic.

The complaints about the kill rate and its effect on gameplay I fully agree with. But essentially this has nothing to do with the movement speed of the troops. Thus, when the kill rate was dropped to a manageable level so a commander would have enough time to analyze the results of his action that was OK. Messing with the movement speeds is a step too far with a reason too wrong.

**Red Harvest** · 12-23-2004, 18:02

Originally Posted by Ptah

Messing with the movement modifiers was flat-out bad judgement with poor reasoning. The reasoning behind it was that the game was too fast paced to make 'tactical judgements', which basically only showed that some people's of grasp of 'tactics' would suit a construction of a Maginot line rather than an open-field battle where everything is dynamic.

Messing with the movement speeds is a step too far with a reason too wrong.

While I have not adjusted movement speeds myself, I can't say that the reasoning for doing so is bad. Part of the reasoning for doing so is spot on. The player is forced to micromanage (as the AI is doing--only the orders given often are nonsensical). You can't give generic orders and have groups respond independently. So arguments about viewing the whole field are moot. Friendly fire really shows the level of micromanagement required and how much speed effects it. Slowing down movement speed is one way to get some control. It is better than using pause all the time.

Scale is a major factor. Units could not turn so rapidly in real life. That is another reason it took so long to deploy. The speed with which units zip about, particularly cavalry is crazy. Schooling fish has been an apt description. Since the human is stuck micromanaging 20 units independently (since there is no option for the AI to do so) and the distance scale of the lines is and order of magnitude less than actual because of unit size (resulting in faster resolution speed) the movement speed doesn't fit well with the game engine. I'm not at all certain how much it should be detuned. MTW's speed seemed about right as a compromise, so I can understand why folks have wanted to go back to that.

Actually, hoplite battles were single line affairs--moving Maginot lines. The "open field" comment does not fit the dynamics of that. The reason for the single line was that they were more "closed" positions (borrowing chess terminology.) When gaps opened, resulting in open field dynamics, bad things happened to the hoplites. This was the strength of the duplex acies and maniple system used by the Samnites against the Romans, and later adopted and modified by Rome into the triplex acies.

Most of the desire to adjust movement speed probably has to do with what happens when you try to engage the enemy line in a straight forward fight. You order your units to charge the unit across from them--simple enough. Then watch in dismay as your line criss crosses if the AI pivots its units at all. So you have to pause and alter orders. In reality this would be a general "advance and engage" order rather than being unit vs. unit every time. But RTW doesn't give you these kind of options, so "lead computing" results in a completely ridiculous mess as your units try to plot intercepts. The AI units do the same and utter chaos results. Adjusting movement speed is again a way to try to fix some fundamental flaws in the battle/command and control engine.

I am not saying that adjusting movement speed is the best way to confront RTW's shortcomings, but I can see why it is being done and agree with elements of it.

**Ptah** · 12-23-2004, 23:58

It basically comes down to how much of 'management' we players can take as 'fun', and how much we take as 'burden'. Given an objective analysis, the amount of 'management' needed in RTW does not exceed MTW with any kind of significance. The unit roster size per army has seen an increase from 16 units total to 20, but if we recall what the players have been wanting so much in the MTW days(more unit spaces, larger armies, more variety of action..etc.) an increase of just four more units space per army cannot be anything serious.

The overall requirements for managing remains the same, but the workload has increased a bit due to the fast pace of battle. However, if management was so troubling enough to ruin gameplay itself(in that one cannot manage his army to win) people would not be asking for a better AI(not just about the suicidal generals..) behavior on battlefield, or make a habit of playing on VH/VH settings. Most people already view the AI as 'easy opponents'.

It is only when they are pit against a superior AI army of some sort, that they come down to the forums and start a complaint on how the game is too fast paced for one to adapt. Empirically, it can be seen that most of the posts on this very issue (where people complain how some enemy movement is too fast for them to cope with) are assuming conditions where the enemy forces are superior to their own, and a certain need for advanced tactical maneuvering on the battle field arises.

The question is this: if people have no problems in dealing with AI armies of roughly simular prowess to their own, but they do have problems with dealing with superior enemies because they cannot force faster judgement and response in controlling the units.... how much of it can be faulted to the troublesome micro-management, and how much of it is faulted to individual incompetency?

...

One thing I have learned about gamers is usually, they have a tendency of vastly overestimating their personal skill in that game. Every judgement they make about the game is based on their own personal account, and basically bears no objective quality at all. Since they themselves cannot be 'poor in skill', they tend to assume that it is the system and the game that is wrong.

Ofcourse, this attitude is more often than not immediately subdued, when they enter multiplayer games and see what kind of things other people can do. Such experience is not all that unfamiliar to me, since I also play a lot of MP games of all sorts. It becomes pretty clear that some people, obviously really can do things which others have previously stated was impossible. In the MP games it never ceases to amaze me how good some people can manage their soldiers with precision, like some chess piece on a board.

Ofcourse, not everybody can do that. Not everybody can become a super-jock in a certain game. However, there is no denying that the people who can do that, are truly skilled.

So, it comes down to this.

If the precision skills required to accurately manage an army, is to be considered a burden rather than fun, and if we remove that burden from the game by slowing the pace so everybody regardless of personal skill, experience, practice, is given enough time to think through everything before making their move, then why bother creating a real-time tactical simulation at all? Why not just make it a turn-based tactical sim with 3D graphics?

Slowing the game down is basically removing the all of the positive traits (think fast, make bold judgements, immediately carry out what needs to be done, and do it effectively by commanding each units to utmost precision)that would make a good 'virtual general' out of the game.

These very traits are what makes the difference between a 'good general' and a 'bad general' in multiplayer games. Needless to say, the problems of 'micromanagement' is non-existant in the MP games since the conditions are equal for each of the adversaries.

Ofcourse, we are talking about the single player campaign modes. However, the MP experience gives us a profound view on what exactly is possible, and impossible in the game. It is obviously very possible, to manage an army exactly the way one wants. These people who can do that, went through the time and trouble of trying to perfect what needs to be perfected.

For instance, when somebody having trouble with the phalanxes as stated in the initial post, sees the Echelon formation and its tactical maneuvering, he will soon find out that it's actually very hard to control the Roman infantry in that manner. A slip of concentration or slow judgement(not to mention a slow hand) will ruin the maneuvering and get the hastati and principes isolated and routed. But ofcourse, it is very possible. I've given it enough practice to beat 20-unit full army of Armoured Hoplites with just Roman infantry and no cavalry at all.

In short, in the above case the tactical maneuvering as suggested is effective only when you have the basic skills to accurately control the army precisely in the formation required.

So, is taking the time to aquire that much skill supposed to be a 'burden', or 'fun'? If it is considered a burden, and my troops are consequentially slowed down to the rate that they'd be practically travelling at 2m/sec on a full charge speed(so other people who obviously don't seem to want to adjust to the learning curve can take leisurely time in thinking through stuff), how the heck is anyone supposed to be doing anything 'tactical' with it?

**Ptah** · 12-24-2004, 00:21

"You see a small gap forming in the enemy lines. Driving a cavalry charge into that gap will have a devastating effect. You muster the horsemen and charge.. except these guys are travelling so slow, that by the time the cavalry approaches the enemy lines the gap is already closed. The enemy general noticed the cavalry move, took enough time to think over it, and then decided to move some more spears to close the gap.

And thus, under the slow movement modifiers, Alexander and his companions are rounded up and destroyed. Darius 3rd wins the battle of Gaugamella."

A funny story? Actually this is precisely the kind of 'tactics' some people want from the game. The very drive to victory Alexander achieved that day, was that he found a gap and made the first move on what to do with it. Charged full speed into the gap with his companions before Darius could react, and routed the entire central command. You don't wait and see what the enemy is gonna do. The moment a general sees enemy cavalry movement is when he should react, not after watching where they go and how they move. By the time a cavalry has reached a flank it is already to late, and that's how it should be.

The comparison between MTW and RTW can be readily stated as a comparison between 'stagnant' and 'dynamic'. The changes of RTW has brought speed and aggressiveness onto the battlefield that was yet unseen in the TW series. STW and MTW alike, was a battle of formations. One stagnant defensive line pitted against the other. In the above mentioned situation, in STW and MTW you could wait and see all you like, what the enemy was doing, and then decide on the final moment whether to send spears to stop the cavalry or not. It doesn't work that way in RTW. It doesn't work that way in real life either.

The real deal is this:

1) People didn't like the way that their 'fail-proof' formations were crumbling, when they found out the guy who takes the first initiative will hit the flanks or rear with lightning speed. In MTW or STW, there was no such thing as an unexpected hit from unexpected direction, since everything was so slow that nothing was unexpectable.

2) The 'tactics' these people were used to, were about making solid lines of defensive formations, and passively waiting for the enemy to make a move so one could counter it. In RTW, things don't work out that way.

3) In short, their grasp of 'tactics' are limited to something akin to WW2 generals thinking about WW1 style trench-hold warfare, when the Germans were already blitzing everywhere. Basically they are thinking the same things as Greek commanders and their phalangites were thinking, when they were crushed by the Roman legion system which specifically emphasizes speed and maneuverability.

4) Since they don't like this change, they revert the game to the old status, where 'tactics' once again meant passiveness. Obviously it never came into their minds the tactical geniuses of military history were always the ones who made the first move, relentlessly repositioning and managing their units to maximum efficiency, instead of make a 'standard army formation' and keep their units that way.

Ofcourse, some of the complaints and requests do make sense. There should have been made a difference between 'breath' and 'overall endurance'. As it is, infantry could move at full speed over huge distances as long as they are not fatigued. However, fatigue itself acts differently in a real battle. It was possible for the soldiers to charge full speed upto some 400m upon account, but they would be out of breath when done so. The momentary burden of fatigue, as opposed to overall fatigue, should have been modelled in the game, so the overall fatigue level slowly rises over time, but momentary fatigue quickly fills up and just as much quickly relieved.

The various bugs and issues concerning the game which increases the burden of immediate action upon requirements, is also a reasonable pointer.

However, none of these reasons are powerful enough to justify a slowing down in the movement of troops to such penalizing degree. Under such conditions not even Alexander, Hannibal, or Scipio would have achieved uch great success in their campaigns. These generals make it a habit of moving quickly and precisely, and passive defenders were usually the people who fought them and lost.

Basically the whole deal's a sham. The decrease in movement speeds were requested out of personal gratification, not out of reason.