BI: Hordes, Schlitrom (charging phalanx), etc...

[hellenes]

Since EB's primary goal is to come as close as possible to the geopolitical and cultural situation of 270bc I have a question:
Does the hordes in BI reflect the tribal nomadic nature of Sarmatians? Was the hellenistic phalanx running and charging like the schiltrom units out of formation or it was walking like the vanilla RTW phalanx?
On overall does the BI features worth a port to it?
IMO BI is a very solid base to port EB and the features apart from any "AI" benefits are worth it.

Hellenes

[GodEmperorLeto]

I'm simply a lowly MA candidate in Graeco-Roman History, but soon I'll be working on my PhD (soon meaning a year or two). That said, my understanding is that the phalanx (and the legion) for the most part maintained formation. When phalanxes collided, it was also a pushing-match between the two armies.

According to Bernard Bachrach, the Carolingian Franks used the same system (but this is highly debated), citing accounts of the press being so tight that the dead were trapped standing, unable to fall at the Battle of Tours. Many believe it was the same with phalanx warfare.

[O'ETAIPOS]

Well, levy phalanx of greek city states(esp. smaller) usually run away before contact .

[Ludens]

Does the hordes in BI reflect the tribal nomadic nature of Sarmatians?

Not really: a nomadic people would take their entire population with them. The BI hordes wait until the last city to form a horde whose size is independent of the actual size of the population.

Was the hellenistic phalanx running and charging like the schiltrom units out of formation or it was walking like the vanilla RTW phalanx?

Hoplites and early phalanx charged by my knowledge (which is admittedly not great), but I am not so sure the phalanxes of the later Diadochi had the discipline to do that. Also, they didn't form a schiltrom. On the other hand, since armies in TW are smaller than the real ones a schiltrom may be taken to represent a larger anti-cav formation, so my argument is not that strong. However, I understand that phalanx spearlengths are hard-coded, so BI may not allow for the sarissa.

On overall does the BI features worth a port to it?

Khelvan has stated they will first make a finished mod for vanilla R:TW, and only then will they work on a possible BI version. Personally, an BI-EB will be sufficient reason to buy BI, but we'll just have to see.

[GodEmperorLeto]

Spears and sarissas could be (and often were) set against cavalry (see Battle of Pharsalus with Caesar's 8 cohorts on his right flank) to devastating effect, but it was not the ideal use for them. This is before the stirrup, so lances cannot be couched and charges against dense infantry formations were riskier. As it often played out in battle, cavalry was usually used against cavalry, or to flank an enemy or exploit holes in the enemy's line, i.e. it wasn't shock as much as it was mobility that made cavalry so powerful. (NOTE: this is my opinion, and the subject of ongoing historical debate, by the way. Some may disagree with me.) The Macedonian sarissa was primarily an anti-infantry weapon, not an anti-cavarly weapon. That's why they might have been used one-handed (they'd be too light to be used against cavalry but light enough to be used against enemy infantry). We still aren't sure, no sarissas survive from ancient times, ancient artistic renditions are ambiguous, and experts are still debating (and probably will continue debating for years to come).

[QwertyMIDX]

While it's that the spear and sarissa were anti-infantry weapons as well, they were obviously an advantage when it came to repelling cavalry. Heavy infantry blocks, while able to repel cavalry charges, weren't as effective as spear or sarissa armed heavy infantry formations, which is why you see the romans devlop a specific anti-cavarly formation that made use of their pila.

[Djurre]

I know the RomeTotalRealism team chose to go with BI. partly because it allows a more mobile, and flexible phalanx. One might say that it is not historically acurate. but its inmobility makes it rather useless in the game, wich isn't enitrely acurate either.

It also allows fot "counter factions". that, and allot more.

btw, what do you guys think of rtr 6.3 ?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I don't know who has time to play other mods. Seriously. I haven't played any other mods or games since January 05. But then again, I'm insane.

[hellenes]

Not really: a nomadic people would take their entire population with them. The BI hordes wait until the last city to form a horde whose size is independent of the actual size of the population.

I meant if the Sarmatians START as a horde wouldnt that reflect better their nomadic nature? Having NO settlements?

Hoplites and early phalanx charged by my knowledge (which is admittedly not great), but I am not so sure the phalanxes of the later Diadochi had the discipline to do that. Also, they didn't form a schiltrom. On the other hand, since armies in TW are smaller than the real ones a schiltrom may be taken to represent a larger anti-cav formation, so my argument is not that strong. However, I understand that phalanx spearlengths are hard-coded, so BI may not allow for the sarissa.

The schiltrom can have long pikes, and I was talking about the schiltrom OUT of formation which is basically a runnin phalanx. Still Im not sure if the hellenistic phalanx charged or run.

Khelvan has stated they will first make a finished mod for vanilla R:TW, and only then will they work on a possible BI version. Personally, an BI-EB will be sufficient reason to buy BI, but we'll just have to see.

I was just wandering if the supposedly enchased P.O. (aka"AI") and the above features warrant a port?

Hellenes

[Keba]

Actually, the most useful in BI are the five-tier Barbarian cities, at least in my opinion. Night battles are nice. Loyalty is also nice, but counter-factions are useless, they are a waste of model space (and faction space for that matter). I heard the idea that the RTR team has, and while I believe it can work (with a lot of effort), they still have the same limits as the other teams, that is, they can have 500 units same as everyone else. I personally preffer the EB style of giving many local units for flavour. Do not misunderstand me, I will still play RTR, it's just that I think that the unlimited factions are somewhat ... pointless when you have limited units.

Admittedly, I only got BI a few weeks back, and I didn't have time to mess around the text files much, but that is the conclusion I reached.

[Ludens]

I meant if the Sarmatians START as a horde wouldnt that reflect better their nomadic nature? Having NO settlements?

A horde reflects a migrating people and this suggests the Sarmatians settled down in the mod's time frame, which isn't true. They were nomads, they just weren't migrating (by nomad standards anyway).

The schiltrom can have long pikes, and I was talking about the schiltrom OUT of formation which is basically a runnin phalanx.

I see. Good to know.

Still Im not sure if the hellenistic phalanx charged or run.

IIRC I read that Alexander's phalangelites charged into the Persian center at Gaugemela, but I am not sure if this is true. Also, just because Alex' men could do it does not mean all phalangelites could do it.

[Watchman]

First time ever I've heard of the Hellenic pike phalanx running. AFAIK the Swiss were the first ones to reach the level of drill required for that (they apparently tended to deliver charges at nearly full run whle still maintaining formation; at least one source I've seen theoretizes they developed marching in step to manage this), but then they had to - for most intents and purposes the pikemen were the end-all be-all of their offensive troops, whereas the Hellenics at least initially had good heavy cavalry to take care of that side of things. Hammer-and-anvil, right ?

[QwertyMIDX]

Phalangelites probably never managed a full run, but I believe that they did charge at a speed faster than a normal march.

[hellenes]

A horde reflects a migrating people and this suggests the Sarmatians settled down in the mod's time frame, which isn't true. They were nomads, they just weren't migrating (by nomad standards anyway).

What I meant was that if the Sarmatians are a horde they at the start of the campaign are FULLY nomadic it doesnt mean that they migrate or not, EB tries to set the table at 270bc and at that moment the Sarmatians were IIRC more closer to a horde than to the settled faction in RTW...Whether they settle or not that up to the player and the PO.

Hellenes

[vizigothe]

Well you need the cities for income, when I play as them I just garrison a general (especially if he has the settled trait) and some archers, the rest of my forces roam around causing general havoc and killing things