Investigation of the Phalanx formation

[Paul Peru]

One more finding in the "useful to know, slightly cheesy to exploit"-bag, then.

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?

[Doug-Thompson]

One more finding in the "useful to know, slightly cheesy to exploit"-bag, then.

Guilty as charged, but at least my intentions were good. I wanted to give a simple, clear demonstration of what's wrong with spear units in R:TW. I think it worked.

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.

========

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.

[Red Harvest]

Depth was very important because the push back was used to destroy the enemy formation. Athenians used a base level of 8 deep, Spartans 12, Thebans 25 and the Macedonians up to nearly 50 in some situations (although 16 was normal and 32 "double depth.") These larger units were being used like human battering rams to destroy other hoplite phalanx units. The formations were already dense, so adding that much depth would have been made them into a streamroller. I really don't understand what kept the men in the first ranks from being crushed...unless of course, their opponent was pushed back.

The observation about MTW was on the money. If you used thin lines, they became weak after a few casualties. As a result each of us learned to use depths that provided an optimum of hitting power and durabitily (depending on play style and situation.)

I'm sure I'm still missing alot on the intricacies of ancient warfare but this is what I'm gathering at the moment: phalanx formations were typically quite large in full size armies: around 2 to 4,000 per wing was not uncommon although they did have smaller divisions within of 256 men, 1000, etc. They didn't have to operate as a block per wing, but it appears that they often did. A phalanx wing of 4,000 was more men than the entire hastati/principes/triarii of a single legion. It's an intersting comparison when you think about it. The Roman system is similarly deep...but in multiple lines, whereas the phalanx is a compact single line.

To make something like this in RTW you need to have individual phalanx components sort of welded together, but still breakable at the joints. The Romans exploited any breaks in the formation, so you still want phalangite sub units do be prone to getting disordered, taking too many casualties etc. However, the AI and the human need to be able to wield the phalangites more like a line. It's a tough balancing act: a hard, but brittle phalanx.

On the other hand, you can also see where the Roman system should work against the phalanx. The phalanx can't afford to push forward (or fall back) too much in any sectio or it creates a vulnerable gap, one the Roman infantry was designed to very effectively exploit. The phalangites also are prone to being disordered by any obstacles in their path or breaks in the terrain. So during melee, the phalangites are all stuck in their deep formation unable to rotate to rest. Meanwhile the Romans can attack in thin waves keeping a steady pressure, with the previous wave falling back to catch their breath (since their formations did not need to be rigid and deep.) It would be interesting to see how this drill was carried out.

The high kill rates of RTW (or any TW game) cause problems with the idea though. You can't effectively disengage sword infantry, and they take a lot of casualties fighting so they nearly always fight to the death. So you can't really pull back your hastati in sections, then advance princeps, etc. as the Romans apparently did. It would look kind of dull waiting for the phalangites to wear down and become disordered while your hastati get pushed back, then replaced by princeps, then perhaps hastati again, etc. until the phalanx wore down or became disordered or caused enough damage to your legion (or legion's position) to win.

[CBR]

I really don't understand what kept the men in the first ranks from being crushed...unless of course, their opponent was pushed back.

When units bunched up, as they did sometimes, the front ranks were crushed with dead men still standing up. but that was extreme cases that didnt happen often. It was not good tactics to let rear ranks run up and push the front ranks that were fighting. But it could happen with badly trained and enthusiastic units during a charge or if front ranks were forced back (because of cavalry for example)

For pike units where the first 5 ranks were supposed to level their pikes it would have spelled disaster and total disorder if men came up from behind and started pushing. Close order and discipline was vital for such units but not too close heh.

Units need a certain depth so they will fight for some time and 6-8 ranks was considered minimum. The hellenistic system operated with one line only so more men were just added to make the line stronger. The Romans changed that by using multiple lines each of around 8 ranks (6-10 depending on era and losses)


CBR

[Cheetah]

I have read somewhere that in the greek system they did push. It is hard to imagine, Japanese underground comes to closest perhaps, or american football. I will find the reference.

[Ziu]

I tried a few battles with Germanic phalanges vs Cataphracts. In all instances, with ranks of 5,4,3 and 2 deep, the Cataphracts were routed. Even through the horses managed to punch through the lines everytime.

Against legionares the phalanges were defeated everytime. Again with each line depth played. As Doug mentioned the leftward shuffle becomes quite pronounced the thinner the line. So much so that left to their own devices the phalanx will shuffle away from the enemy to present their two man flank. Picture a mace with the phalanx as the handle and the legionares as the head. They get chewed up quite quickly at this point. These were all 1:1 battles so the flanks were easily attacked.

[Doug-Thompson]

I tried a few battles with Germanic phalanges vs Cataphracts. In all instances, with ranks of 5,4,3 and 2 deep, the Cataphracts were routed. Even through the horses managed to punch through the lines everytime.

No doubt, Ziu, but the German spear warband has 120 men (large unit size) to the Greek hoplite's 80, and an attack of 9, charge of 8 and a defense of 11.

More important, though is the fact that the German warbands stats can't drop to a weaker alternative weapon because they don't have a sword.

The hoplite's stats are 7-6-16 WHEN the hoplites DON'T lose order and drop their spears. With swords, the stats go down to 5-2-16.

[Sid_Quibley]

Cav jumping spears/pikes annoyed me so much I tried to fix it by editing out the charge_jump cas in the animations pak.

Due to my newb technical abillity havent succeeded,but Vercingetorix the master has.

A small file fix is availiable Here

pike_jumping_cav_fix

I tested it using 8 macedonian phalanx units from levy up against 12 gallic cav(cpu attack).In a single line at standard depth the phalanx all used spear except at the flanks where swords were used.They dealt with the cav very easily with only 1 unit sustaining significant losses.

Definitely worth downloading.