Phalanx formation

[anubis88]

Hi! I was wondering why is the phalanx formation when you start a battle so long an so shallow? the AI puts the like 3 man deep! and that is just ubsured... The phalanx fightin at this point is really ridicolous since the phalanx behaves very strangely if so long and if you play in an historycal formation it just gives really wierd battles with phalanxes attempting flanking manouvers and such. This make playin a successor against successor very wierd..

What do you guys think?

[Tretii]

Just how deep of formation you want?

[anubis88]

i don't know... at least 9 man deep

[MindLich]

I don't think you have enough men to pull that out. Maybe if you have lots of phalanx units and you use Huge unit sizes.

[anubis88]

well i use them... i play on huge unit size and have from 5 to 6 phalanxes in an army... but the AI has sometimes more than 10 and that's where the problem is

[Miles Sueborum]

Hm - I think 3-4 man deep is very reasonable since it means that all (or at least almost all) soldiers in the unit are able to fight at the same time - or am I wrong?

If you put them so into shape that their lines are 9 man deep - 5-4 lines of the unit wont fight and so be quite useless. If they'd be 5 man deep you could with only three phalanx-units hold a front as long as that you held with 5...

But there'd be two spaces more in the army you could fill with supporting troops...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They need to be AT LEAST six ranks deep because five ranks fight, 8 ranks is better.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I don't see this much, if ever (unless a unit is down to its last few men). Even if there was a big problem, I'm not sure we can alter it, given that we are talking about the phalanx button.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

They fight better in a deeper formation. I prefer them to be 8 men deep.

[Artificer]

I too find it strange that my Successor battles end up with me in a very compact positon with my square formations of pezhetairoi facing a drawn out and unweildy opponent with very similar army composition.

Is there a way to have the AI's phalangites automatically form up into the even square formation as was actually used historically? While I realize that the actual unit size limit is somewhere around two hundred and fifty units, and that a perfect sixteen by sixteen phalanx is impossible, making squares out of units is still do-able.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Hi,
I'm not too sure if this may resolve your problem, however, may I suggest that right click and dragging prior to the battle start can allow you to re-shape your phalanx formation into the size and style of what you desire it to be. You can also do it in the middle of a battle to change a unit's shape, facing or depth then. Hope this helps you, sorry if this is not the information you require, cheers!

[Artificer]

Hi,
I'm not too sure if this may resolve your problem, however, may I suggest that right click and dragging prior to the battle start can allow you to re-shape your phalanx formation into the size and style of what you desire it to be. You can also do it in the middle of a battle to change a unit's shape, facing or depth then. Hope this helps you, sorry if this is not the information you require, cheers!

Thanks Omanes, but I was referring to the AI's unfortunate habit of forming thin phalanxes rather than any trouble I have with my own formations.

[Watchman]

Might be an issue with the AI formation file. Dunno if the EDU formation values play a part as well.

[paullus]

odd that i dont think i've ever seen that happen myself. aren't most full size, AI phalanx units about 8 ranks deep?

[Tristrem]

i agree that a deeper formation is better, especially on a choke point like a bride. If the deeper unit get rushed, the first ranks will switch to swords, while the men behind them still poke their sticks, and you cannot do this reasonably unless you have at least 8 ranks

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

odd that i dont think i've ever seen that happen myself. aren't most full size, AI phalanx units about 8 ranks deep?

No, they are 6 ranks deep. The only exception is when the enemy sallies forth, than pike units come out in a quadrat formation.

[anubis88]

well they should be modded if they can...

[JMRC]

Hi.

In the EDU, the 5th number in the "formation" line is the "default number of ranks for the unit".

Checking at EDU, the "phalanx"-capable units with 6 ranks deep are :

- Aanatim Aloopim
- Chaonion Agema
- Klerouchikoi Phalangitai
- Phalangitai Deuteroi
- Pezhetairoi
- Misthophoroi Phalangitai
- Kleruchoi Agema
- Machimoi Phalangitai
- Pantodapoi Phalangitai
- Chalkaspidai
- Argyraspidai
- Hysteroi Pezhetairoi

All the others are 4 ranks deep.

The reason why there are only 6 ranks, is because RTW was made to be played with units in "Normal Size". Most phalanx units have 60 men, so putting more than 6 ranks would not be effective.

But if you usually play with "Large Size" units (as EB is meant to be played), then you have 120 men, and can put 8 ranks of 15 men.

So, all you have to do is edit EDU and change that 5th number to a more suitable value.

I hope that I have helped you.

I also noticed in EDU that the default ranks 4 is for units with 40 men while the default 6 ranks are for units with 60 men. This gives a line of 10 men in "Normal Size" units, 20 in "Large Size" or 40 in "Huge Size". That's why you have weird results when playing in "Huge Size" units. If you always play in "Huge Size", then change the default numbers to 7 (units with 40 men) and 10 (units with 60 men). This should give a 20x7 and 24x10 phalanx combinations.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually Vanilla long_pike units use an 8 rank formation while EB uses 6.

[gran_guitarra]

I play on normal (don't want to strain my six year old computer), and I've noticed that the phalanx always has 4 ranks in 40 man units, and 6 ranks in 60 man units, and that if Spearwall formation the phalanxes cannot be readjusted (at least I cannot do it, and I know how), and that in the game only the first three ranks lower their pikes to fight.

My only beef with phalanxes is that they somehow cannot stop a cavalry charge from the front (I've seen AI generals break through my poor phalanx's pikes without taking a single loss), and that they all switch to swords instead of just the first rank (and for some reason they cannot stop from getting flanked in a tight city street).

[Barigos]

I always thought that a phalanx unit represents a whole "taxeis" and not this 16*16 group.So it is not correct to make square units,because "taxeis" weren't square!I also think that the number of ranks in game should be even smaller!I beleive most whole army's formations weren't deep or square-the front line was about several kilometers long, but only few hundreds meters deep(correct me if I'm wrong,I don't know exact numbers).So we should represent a "width:depth ratio" rather than real numbers.

[Foot]

I always thought that a phalanx unit represents a whole "taxeis" and not this 16*16 group.So it is not correct to make square units,because "taxeis" weren't square!I also think that the number of ranks in game should be even smaller!I beleive most whole army's formations weren't deep or square-the front line was about several kilometers long, but only few hundreds meters deep(correct me if I'm wrong,I don't know exact numbers).So we should represent a "width:depth ratio" rather than real numbers.

But at the same time, the phalanx's ability is greatly reduced when their depth is reduced. They lose mass, I think.

Foot

[Barigos]

But at the same time, the phalanx's ability is greatly reduced when their depth is reduced. They lose mass, I think.

Foot

Yeah, but there are opinions that the RTW phalanx formation is already overpowered . I tried to set 4 ranks for phalangites, and they became quite vulnerable even from the front(however levy infantry still dying hopelessly in front of the phalanx's spears).Maybe 5 would be better...

I don't know much about mass.But I understand that we have to balance between some historical parameters and RTW engine features.

[Southern Hunter]

I always thought that a phalanx unit represents a whole "taxeis" and not this 16*16 group.So it is not correct to make square units,because "taxeis" weren't square!I also think that the number of ranks in game should be even smaller!I beleive most whole army's formations weren't deep or square-the front line was about several kilometers long, but only few hundreds meters deep(correct me if I'm wrong,I don't know exact numbers).So we should represent a "width:depth ratio" rather than real numbers.

This is correct. On some occasions, several kilometres long, and about 20 metres deep. Should look like this:

----------

The normal formation was 16 men deep, but occasionally less, say 12.

Of course, one has to understand what the RTW units 'represent'? Are they 240 men, or are they representing a taxeis of 1500 men? If there is a scaling (see my Realistic Troop Numbers Mod for an example, 1:6), then that tells you how many ranks they should be in.

At my preferred 1:6 scale, representing 3 men wide in 2 ranks, 16 ranks becomes 8 deep in game. The less deep 12 ranks becomes 6.

Without an agreed scaling, there is no 'proper' answer to how many ranks they should be. Just pick one, anybodys choice is as good as anyone elses. If it is literally 1:1, then I guess it has to be 16.

I find 'practically' that a 6 deep formation actually works quite well in showing the length of a phalanx to be much greater than the depth. Say 6 taxeis side by side, and you have a very considerable battle line (Especially with my ground scaling making movement much slower).

Hunter

[Barigos]

I agree: 6 ranks work well.And what are your thoughts about other infantry?
Now I use the following numbers of ranks:

3-normal infantry(spear or sword);
4-classic hoplites and normal spear phalanx;
5-Sarissa phalangites;
2-missile&skirmishers.
Now my(and Ai ) front is much wider.It is harder to control flanks and perform maneuvers,especially with phalanx lines.Now the enemy quite often breaks my line, so I have to worry about filling gaps with soldiers from second line which I never used before changes!!!

[Danest]

I wasn't aware that deep ranks fought in the game... thought it was a problem hard coded by rtw... I thought they just sat there until an enemy threatened them. I guess I'll have to take another look? No wonder my Phalanxes never seemed very effective. But it seems like 9 deep really would leave a lot of men sitting around doing nothing, while making it very, very easy to surround such a narrow formation.

[Quilts]

Deep formations are really not a problem, as long as units conform to a 'standard' frontage and are scaled for this in the base EDU. For the 'balance' to work however, the mod HAS to specify a 'for use with 'blah' scale'. For instance-

If using Huge scale and you have a 240 man phalanx, plus officers, deployed 12 ranks deep, they will cover a frontage of '21 men'. Opposing them you have a unit of Roman 'troops' with 120 men, plus officers, deployed 6 ranks deep. They too cover a frontage of '21 men'.

So the phalanx can fight in it's deep formation with it's inherant advantages, and the Roman had better hope it looses formation at some stage so troops can 'get into the breach', aka.....well most battles where the Romans defeated the Phalanx really

Now the Roman unit may seem very small for Huge scale but I do this to my own EDU so I can field full stack 'Consular' armies and still have a hard fight (usually heavily outnumbered) from an incomplete AI stack.

Cheers,

Quilts