Classic Hoplites and the Phalanx

[oudysseos]

Just wondering what the teams rationale was for the classic hoplite units and spartans not to have the phalanx ability. Clearly it was exactly these kind of military units that originally used the phalanx in the first place. Did you wish to draw a greater distinction between the modern sarissa phalanx and the older style hoplites like the spartans?
I'm not giving out to ye, just want to know why.
Oh, also, could anyone tell me how mod the units so they can do phalanx? Or even shield wall? I would find them more useful if I could. Why don't we say, 'Usefuller'? It has a nice ring to it. Off topic.

[Bava]

I thought in the "old style" phalanx spears were wielded overhand (reminds me of
a nice debate at the Hegemonia forums).

Oh, also, could anyone tell me how mod the units so they can do phalanx? Or even shield wall?

Go to the export_description_unit.txt file, search the unit you want to change and add "phalanx" (or shield_wall) in the formation line.

[-Praetor-]

Hopites fought in a densely packed formation, with their hoplons locked together as the scales of a giant fish, and their spears wielded overhand (still debated, but most historians go for the overhand, even though there are some that say that the hoplites wielded their lances underhand, that is, at waist level and with the palm facing downwards). It`s like a giant shieldwall, though the shieldwall obvious usage is as a defensive formation, and the hoplite phalanx, the classical one, was used as a ofensive formation, since the whole batallion would push forward in hope to break the enemy`s line.

The classic hoplite is a unit that represents the citizen-soldiers of old, not affected by Iphycrates`s reform, and that fight for the defense of their fatherland in a fashion that their ancestors used for hundred of years before them.

Phillip`s phalanx, the macedonian one, was introduced in hellas much later, by all accounts after the spartan hegemony in greece, and after the pelloponesian war. Some say that it was created in Thebes and that Phillip learned it in times of his youth (he spended some time in that polis), in hope to apply it in the future, which he did to great effect.

Go to the export_description_unit.txt file, search the unit you want to change and add "phalanx" (or shield_wall) in the formation line.

But you can add shieldwall only if you run EB from the BI.exe.

Cheers!!!

[oudysseos]

That's exactly my point- the classic hoplites in EB do not have the phalanx ability (at least not the ones that I can recruit in Megale Hellas in my Qarthadastim campaign), even thought they are exactly the units that originated the phalanx. I'm reasonable familiar with the history, just don't understand why in EB context the 'classic hoplite' units and the Spartans don't phalanx. I assume that the EB team has a good reason for this, just can't figure out what it might be. Is there evidence that the Spartan soldiers of 272 BC did not line up in a phalanx?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Well, "phalanx" when you refer to the RTW engine means "sarissa phalanx" really. I'm not aware that anyone has gotten the phalanx attribute to create a proper over-shield type of phalanx - they usually have the spears held up at an angle even if you do have them over the shield, and having the second and third and fourth rows of soldiers holding their spears up at angles (when you are talking about a classical phalanx) is just wrong. So we use the RTW "phalanx" attribute for the macedonian type sarissa-phalanx, and just make a closely packed formation for our classical hoplites.

[oudysseos]

Is there a significant difference in terms of stats? -I'm not really up on the esoteria of it all- does the phalanx confer a bonus in defending/attacking?

[adishee]

I think it would be pretty cool to have shieldwall formation.. would be good substitute for classical phalanx. I'll wait for 8.1 to try to mod it in!

[Kralizec]

THe classical hoplites are tightly packed, wich is hugely beneficial against troops using a more relaxed formation provided you use the guard mode - a benefit that can't be deduced by looking at the stats.

[QwertyMIDX]

We also give both formations stats tweaks to make them perform in a way that makes using them in their proper role more advantageous.

[oudysseos]

Thanks. As I suspected, EB had it all figured out.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well, "phalanx" when you refer to the RTW engine means "sarissa phalanx" really. I'm not aware that anyone has gotten the phalanx attribute to create a proper over-shield type of phalanx - they usually have the spears held up at an angle even if you do have them over the shield, and having the second and third and fourth rows of soldiers holding their spears up at angles (when you are talking about a classical phalanx) is just wrong. So we use the RTW "phalanx" attribute for the macedonian type sarissa-phalanx, and just make a closely packed formation for our classical hoplites.

To get yourself an overhand phalanx, (not perfect, but enough to get the feel...), you could change the unit skeleton to that of an javelinman... Also: XGM used a different, custom made overhand skeleton (for it's thureophoroi & such), and if, you have permission of course, you could try that one too...

[Kralizec]

XGM uses SignifierOne's animations.

[Foot]

To get yourself an overhand phalanx, (not perfect, but enough to get the feel...), you could change the unit skeleton to that of an javelinman... Also: XGM used a different, custom made overhand skeleton (for it's thureophoroi & such), and if, you have permission of course, you could try that one too...

The problem with a phalanx to represent the hoplite formation is that the phalanx formation is far to defensive, whereas the hoplite formation could be held in a charge. 0.81 will see a huge leap forward in regards the hoplite formation. Aymar has taken the sword away from the hoplite units so that they hold the spear as their primary weapon instead of their secondary weapon. I think what we've currently got works really well, once we've ironed out all the kinks.

Foot

[BigTex]

Generally speaking in terms of game play, the super dense formation the hoplite has makes it more powerful then most other infantry unit. As long as they do not face a true sarrisa phalanx they will destroy other infantry even those of higher quality. Their dense formation forces in most situations a 2 on 1 fight between most other infantrymen. It also means that they are closer together and destroying their morale will be difficult. In terms of recieving a charge they are also more effective, a charge will be unable to crack them. They will also be able to move through a unit using the push method easier then other infantry units. I used to use the testudo for this express purpose as the romans, was nearly impossible to crack a legionary unit when they were so tightly packed.

Nice to see hoplite's not using sarrisa's though. Adds alot more flavor.

[Oleo]

I think it would be pretty cool to have shieldwall formation.. would be good substitute for classical phalanx. I'll wait for 8.1 to try to mod it in!

If you are playing through RTW-BI.exe, you can just give them the ability and then all you need to do is change the icon for the special ability, which is screwed up:



left: normal
right: shield wall

[adishee]

Will they properly stab down overhand? maybe I should just try

[BigTex]

Will they properly stab down overhand? maybe I should just try

In shield wall formation they do use their spear's in the overhand position and stab down. They'll even interlock their shield's in almost a fish scale pattern. Only problem is they become very powerful blocks like this. There already quite powerful but with the shield wall they are unmoveable. Any loose formation infantry will be massacred against them. But if their hit in the rear they will be utterly decimated, if they also fight any form of a sarrissa phalanx the results will be a massacre of the hoplites.

[adishee]

Only problem is they become very powerful blocks like this. There already quite powerful but with the shield wall they are unmoveable. Any loose formation infantry will be massacred against them. But if their hit in the rear they will be utterly decimated, if they also fight any form of a sarrissa phalanx the results will be a massacre of the hoplites.

Is this not correct?

[Kugutsu]

... they become very powerful blocks like this. There already quite powerful but with the shield wall they are unmoveable. Any loose formation infantry will be massacred against them...

This sounds exactly what hoplites should be like. They should also be able to carry the attack to the enemy and rout them. Classical hoplites were pretty hard to kill (at Cunaxa 2 were killed out of 10 000, one by being run over by a chariot and another by an arrow). Having said that, most casualties seem to have been inflicted after the battle, when the enemy were routed. The cavalry and peltasts then ran them down and slaughtered them. Melees seem to have rarely happened, as one side tended to break before the lines clashed. This is hoplite tactics long before EB though, and with more modern, professional opponents they may not have had the same effect.

[BigTex]

This sounds exactly what hoplites should be like. They should also be able to carry the attack to the enemy and rout them. Classical hoplites were pretty hard to kill (at Cunaxa 2 were killed out of 10 000, one by being run over by a chariot and another by an arrow). Having said that, most casualties seem to have been inflicted after the battle, when the enemy were routed. The cavalry and peltasts then ran them down and slaughtered them. Melees seem to have rarely happened, as one side tended to break before the lines clashed. This is hoplite tactics long before EB though, and with more modern, professional opponents they may not have had the same effect.

Aye this is completely how a hoplite should work. But for those who like to see their roman and other adversary's do more damage to them it's a downside. Using shield wall makes them a pretty good replica to them, and it also increases their weakness to more modern phalanxes. Against a alexandrian phalanx a hoplite with shield wall will be massacred and the sarrisa phalanx will more then likely recieve little to no casualties.

More so in this formation the unit seem's more prone to use the push while attacking. I've seen one of them push through a the center of a unit while being attacked. Very interesting, would be the perfect solution for hypaspatai.

[Sarcasm]

I need someone to tell me an instance in a battle when the macedonian phalanx was so superior to the hoplite phalanx...please. Really.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I need someone to tell me an instance in a battle when the macedonian phalanx was so superior to the hoplite phalanx...please. Really.

IMO the reverse may have been altogether more true: hoplites were soldiers who could afford anything from decent to top notch equipment, whereas the Macedonians who could afford such high quality equipment may have been drawn into the cavalry rather than the infantry...

Two things for sure: the hoplites gave better account of themselves in hand to hand combat, but the Macedonians had the advantage of a 'simpeler' task (they didn't have to break their opponents, simply holding them in place was enough).

But, to me it seems most likely that both types were just about equal in strength.

[Lovejoy]

Since me are speaking pf phalanxes I might as well ask..

Is the germen unit "heavy spears"(you know does dudes with big spears) supposed to be phalanxs? It is not.

[Sarcasm]

That's my assessment as well, they were just designed to do different things. Dunno why there's this idea that the Macedonic phalanx was so overwhelmingly superior to the classical hoplites.

Makedonia's phalanx did have some decisive advantages over heavy hoplites, namely a lighter, less expensive kit, less emphasis on individual training and armies that could stay in field for extended campaigns resulting in large numbers of veteran troops.

[Sarcasm]

Since me are speaking pf phalanxes I might as well ask..

Is the germen unit "heavy spears"(you know does dudes with big spears) supposed to be phalanxs? It is not.

I don't think it is. They're just armed with a pike and form a loose kind of shieldwall.

[Watchman]

The hoplites don't appear to have done too well when having to face the Macedonian phalanx head on though. Can't blame them.

[Sarcasm]

The hoplites don't appear to have done too well when having to face the Macedonian phalanx head on though. Can't blame them.

Support that with some sources, please. I'm genuinly curious on how are people comming to that same conclusion.

[Spoofa]

well, first off a hoplite carries a considerably shorter spear then the macedonian phalangite, which carried the Sarissa, 7 meter long, Lol i mean thats an incredibly long spear, which required two hands to hold and use correctly. the hoplite on the other hand was a MUCH more mobile infantry, using a shorter spear, larger shield, and better armor. the macedonian Phalanx was mainly used for the hammer and anvil tactic, made famous by Alexander the Great (my hero). So, i mean, honestly. Do you think a wall of 7 meter long spears in your face vs your tiny spear around 2.7 meters in length would stand a chance? its not a hard question to answer.

[Watchman]

What he said. By every single account, description and analysis of it I've ever seen pikemen are a nightmare to confront as long as their lines are good and cohesion holds. You need to get past something like three or four pike-tips just to reach the first guy, and that's assuming the files on the both sides are too busy to start making your life difficult as well...
Merry fun, no doubt.

I've seen it mentioned the phalangites were quickly in trouble if terrain, disjointed line or whatever allowed the hoplites (or any other close-combat infantry for that matter) to get around the pikes and start taking tearing at the soft sides and underbelly of the formation though.

[Spoofa]

yeah, rough terrain was extremely bad for phalangite formations, but they had mobile infantry to fill in the gaps during maneuverings to help prevent exploitation of their vaunerability.