What about the phalanx?

[Revolting Friendship]

Excuse me beforehand if this has already been brought up and covered in another post, I've skimmed through this sub-forum but found nothing handling the subject.

To the point. There are a few issues in RTW that seriously ruins the feeling of it all, one of the major buggers is the phalanx, mainly it's mechanics, but also the AI's inability to operate or fight it in a decent manner. I don't know how and if this can be resolved in any way, one issue of it all is how troops don't deliberately try to break through the phalanx to it's front, the only way this will happen is either if you order your troops to run straight through the phalanx and then order them to engage again when they have slipped in between the pikes. Another way is to apply preasure with cavalry, in which case your troops will be forced in beyond the pikes by the sheer mass. I think you all know that when it comes to attacking phalanxes from the front, cavalry is redicoulosly enough more effective than infantry, since they litterally fly over the pikes to engage in close quarter, while their mass also forces the phalanx formation to break.

Can issues such as these be adressed to fix the phalanx? Because if not, I just won't be able to play factions using phalanx units, since if used properly they are way too overpowering against the AI. When playing a human opponent or AI using phalanx units yourself, you can as beforementioned force your units into the phalanx and thus break it up, but the AI simply does not do this, and fighting them with phalanxes is just frustrating to watch.

Well, not to mention what I call the smorgasbord-formation often employed by the AI, where it dips the flank of it's phalanxes into your lines to get slaugthered, even if they are not engaging another unit in their frontal direction. Such scenes and many other phalanx-related are a frequent cause for cutting a game-session short with immidate effect. Therefore I very much hope not to see any of the sort in EB, since I'm much looking forward to a great gaming-experience with this mod, freed from the shortcomings of the original game.

Thank you for reading.

[Reverend Joe]

No. I can tell you now, even without an EB response, those are hardcoded.

[Revolting Friendship]

That is really a shame, because this is really one of those things that completely pushes the game around in the mud. I guess it was a budget thing but sometimes I can't help but ask myself what CA was thinking when they implemented the phalanx formation in it's current state....

Oh well, I had loved to play with the greeks or the macedonians, but now I guess it will be all about persians and sarmatians. :\

[Oaty]

Actually IMO EB should have phalanxes working much better than vanilla. If Rome Total Realism has them working much better, I'm sure EB has done the same.

Now the only cheese factor might be you still can stack to break a phalanx. But that's all on how you play, now if the A.I. does that to you that just means you should have enough time to keep those units pinned and do some nasty tricks on the A.I.

In RTR a head on into phalanx is suicidal and usually cavalry route before they even break the formation of a phalanx. Now if the phalanx is pinned, cavalry are pretty nasty wich is how it should work. Also hitting a pinned phalanx with a loser unit does magic too.

Now EB and RTR are 2 completely different mods. But I'm sure some things will be similar and others completely differnent.

[Geoffrey S]

The phlanx in RTW is horrible, agreed. Quite where along the line the phalanx system got screwed up in a game about a period in which phalanxes were widespread is anyone's guess. The phalanxes themselves are badly balanced, and the AI simply can't keep a solid line.
Hopefully EB can do something about the balancing, but unfortunately getting the AI to use them properly is probably out of bounds.

[Wishazu]

I believe they Stated in a Q&A session about the forthcoming BI that all these Phalanx issues have been dealt with. heres hoping...

[Revolting Friendship]

Oaty:

The stacking to break a phalanx is the only thing I still actually like about the whole thing, since it gives you the rare possibility to attack a phalanx head on(for sure at great cost of men on both sides, but that's only reasonable). The only thing that bothers me about it is that the AI doesn't use this tactics, at least not intentionally. If they had, I could actually have lived with the phalanx's as it is now, apart from how the AI handles it in general that is, plus some other things but don't get me started.

I know when I've played the AI with phalanx units and had them overlapping all along the line, plus outflanking the enemy, given they then had no missile units, the only casualties they would score on me would be from those flying horses. Technically speaking, it's therefore possible to win a battle completely unscratched with phalanx units, if the conditions are right. That just is completely unreasonable, so either the front of a phalanxs needs to get forcable by default, or the AI has to learn to do the stacking thing too, or to force-move their units through the pikes.

Wishazu:

That's sweet music to my ears, now we can only hope and pray.

[jerby]

well, i think the Macedonian pahalanx is portraited reasonable..except there's no charge. and i think the macedonian phalanx wasn't all tht breakable up front.
the greek-phalanx is indeed crap. wrong animation, wrong positioning, wrong desenity, no pushing-forward. no bowling over of enemies(even if they could, CA's style would be men flying 3m up).

but i dont agree with you on breakablility: the Macedonion phalanx was just such a wood of pikes it was practically invincable up front(sp?). and the greek phalanx (overhead, heavy armored one) was dense enough to keep everyting out.

My issues with the pahalnx are mainly the: Lifting of spears when orders are given and the weird shit the AI is doing with it( not keeping a line, lifting up)

[Revolting Friendship]

Jerby:

Virtually impenetrable I could've handled, but not impenetrable proper, even when it comes to the macedonian phalanx, it's still too unreasonable. But I agree with you that the macedonian phalanx should be extremely strong, at least on level ground, and I could've handled this if;
1. The AI would respond properly when fighting against it.
2. If the AI would itself employ the phalanx correctly.

Since it does neither, it still becomes nothing but an ugly nuisance.

[jerby]

yes, that's right. but i think this problem lies with teh AI, and not with the nature of a phalanx.

the phalanx wasnt, of course, completly invinceble up front. but when loose-formationed infantry can penetrate it up front: what would be teh point of a phalanx?

and another point you said rises: the phalanx is too effective on unequal ground. and the only sort of 'unquel ground' are the trees, and the HUGE rocks. and weirdly enough: they walk 5m around it! that's very tedious to watch..

[Revolting Friendship]

Jerby:

I would imagine that flexible light infantry should actually be most effective going upfront against a phalanx? I don't know to much about the subject thought, I do know however that the romans finally broke the macedonian phalanx by drawing them out on uneven terrain, then sending small units of legionnaries into the gaps created in the spear-wall to hack the phalangites down in close quarter fighting.

Something struck me thought, when you fight down on phalanx units going uphill, your infantry may close in behind the pikes without problem, sometimes it seems like the phalangites doesn't even use their pikes when fighting uphill, althought I can hardly imagine this is intentional, probably just another flaw in the game.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Excuse me beforehand if this has already been brought up and covered in another post, I've skimmed through this sub-forum but found nothing handling the subject.

To the point. There are a few issues in RTW that seriously ruins the feeling of it all, one of the major buggers is the phalanx, mainly it's mechanics, but also the AI's inability to operate or fight it in a decent manner. I don't know how and if this can be resolved in any way, one issue of it all is how troops don't deliberately try to break through the phalanx to it's front, the only way this will happen is either if you order your troops to run straight through the phalanx and then order them to engage again when they have slipped in between the pikes. Another way is to apply preasure with cavalry, in which case your troops will be forced in beyond the pikes by the sheer mass. I think you all know that when it comes to attacking phalanxes from the front, cavalry is redicoulosly enough more effective than infantry, since they litterally fly over the pikes to engage in close quarter, while their mass also forces the phalanx formation to break.

Can issues such as these be adressed to fix the phalanx? Because if not, I just won't be able to play factions using phalanx units, since if used properly they are way too overpowering against the AI. When playing a human opponent or AI using phalanx units yourself, you can as beforementioned force your units into the phalanx and thus break it up, but the AI simply does not do this, and fighting them with phalanxes is just frustrating to watch.

Well, not to mention what I call the smorgasbord-formation often employed by the AI, where it dips the flank of it's phalanxes into your lines to get slaugthered, even if they are not engaging another unit in their frontal direction. Such scenes and many other phalanx-related are a frequent cause for cutting a game-session short with immidate effect. Therefore I very much hope not to see any of the sort in EB, since I'm much looking forward to a great gaming-experience with this mod, freed from the shortcomings of the original game.

Thank you for reading.

I can assure you that the phalanxes will be realistic in regard to their behaviour in battle.

However, in regard to the AI and it's less than stellar behaviour, even with our improvements of formations (that make most of the times the AI be a tighter less cahotic opponent) it will be very impossible to simulate a human player in battle and it's tactical inteligence, so you cannot expect a solution to the problem. Call it a band aid...

[Revolting Friendship]

Aymar:

Thank you for the anwser, I feel a bit comforted and look forward to experience these improvements personally.

[Reverend Joe]

By "less than stellar behavior", do you mean the Phalanxes still break their lines, but they perform better individually? Or what? This is interesting.

[QwertyMIDX]

The AI seems to be using them better in groups thanks to our new formations, but it still doesn't handle them in a way that maximizes their effectiveness...but it least the formations seem to be helping the AI support it's phalanx units with other phalanx and its more flexible infantry.

[Reverend Joe]

All right- far ****ing out! When EB comes out, it will be the first time I have played RTW since last May- and it'll be worth it!

[Ano2]

Phalanx's are awful mainly for one reason. When the A.I. advances towards your line all phalanx's, at the last moment will turn about 45 degrees and attempt to attack the flank of the unit next to yours. This is basic shitty A.I. coding that is hardcoded. No matter what nice formations you set up for the phalanx, you can never get around this issue.

One on One, phalanx's behave fine, however once a second unit is next to one of yours, the A.I. uses the phalanx incorrectly.

Believe me if the A.I.'s phalanxs attacked head on, then Darth's Phalanx formations would be extremely good.

[jerby]

well, to be honest: I'm an EB-fanatic..i like/love it, and i'll definatly play it. but as hard as they work, and as much as they do, there will always be traces of RTW. and the phalanx behavior is on of em

[Revolting Friendship]

Ano2:

You just had to go ruin my expectations like that didn't you!

Well, if that is the case, let's just hope CA holds the words brought by wishazu, if not, I'm doing a fantasy-mod without a trace of phalanx-units in it.

Btw, is it possible to make other units than phalanxes attack in ranks, or was that another great feature from M:TW they killed completely?

[Ano2]

Well other units can attack in ranks, they just aren't so rigid. There is a way to start all units with guard mode on, which makes them attack in ranks but I'm not sure how its done.

And yes, I love crushing dreams

[Revolting Friendship]

Ano2: Ah, sorry for my poor formulation, what I meant was, is it possible to make other units apart from phalanxes attack in depth, like both the 1st and 2nd rank may reach in with their weapons? Because with that and the new shield-wall formation from BI, you got prospects to decently recreate the classical hoplite phalanx, that would be rather exciting, but if soldiers other than phalanxes can't be made to attack over eachothers shoulders, it's rather useless anyway.

Or maybe it's a false assumption that the two first ranks of a hoplite phalanx fought with their spears? The antique era isn't really my specialty.

It would still be neat if units could for other purposes anyway, I can't remember that I've ever seen a unit do this in RTW.

[Kralizec]

Like suggested above, maybe hoplites should get the shield wall ability from BI. That'll make them very strong up front, allows them to charge too...but unlike what we see now, they won't come out totally unscratched (wich is stupid) when swordsmen charge them head on.

As for the Macedonian pike phalanxes...I think they should keep the same phalanx ability they have in RTW. However, I'd increase the spacing between the soldiers. From what I know the Macedonian phalanx was pretty loose, not nearly as tight as a hoplite formation.
I've tested this myself, and I like the results. I increased the horizontal and vertical spacing from 0.9 and 1 respecitvely to 1.5 and 1.6
I then charged a unit of galatian swordsmen (using RTR) into the loose, more historicly correct formation of pikemen. What happens is that some of the men are still halted at pike lenght, but some others manage to run between them and reach the phalangites.
The results in all tests were still victory for the phalanx, with some casualties.

[GoreBag]

I've tested this myself, and I like the results. I increased the horizontal and vertical spacing from 0.9 and 1 respecitvely to 1.5 and 1.6

Vertical spacing?

[Revolting Friendship]

Germaanse Strijder:

Nice, I'll have to try that. To bad I don't have the patience to edit all phalanx units in the game thought, text editing really isn't my cup of tea.

[Sheep]

Vertical spacing?

You know, a historically correct Macedonian double-decker phalanx.

[GoreBag]

Vertical spacing?

[Revolting Friendship]

Yeah it was an odd choice of words. Should be more like width and depth spacing, not horisontal and vertical, but he got the point through thought.

[GoreBag]

Ohh, depth. Mmkay.

[jerby]

what did you expect? hoplites standing on each others shoulder?
men climbing in pikes?

[GoreBag]

what did you expect? hoplites standing on each others shoulder?
men climbing in pikes?

I didn't expect anything - I didn't understand. He did say "vertical", after all.