Phalanx strenght

[goolasso]

I think the factions owning phalanx are favored: I was able to finish all the games with a phalanx faction (pontos, baktria, epirus) at VH/VH. It was another thing when playing a non phalanx faction: with saka horse archers had problems to deal with seleucid phalanxes even taking them from behind (at VH/M there were few problems), the same with Armenia (poor infantry and the scythian horse archers were not so efficient). Is the phalanx too powerful?

[Foot]

We not here to balance the game out so that all factions are as easy as each other. There was a reason that Alexander was able to do what he did, the Macedonian Phalanx was the most powerful military machine until the age of the Roman Legionnaire. This game has never been balanced in the same way as Starcraft was balanced, we try to do our best, within the confines of the engine, to represent the war engines of those civilisations in that time-period. We are happy, for the most part, with our stat decisions.

I've always found phalanx armies relatively easy to defeat with the more cavalry orientated eastern armies, tactics need to be changed, but its not that difficult.

Foot

[Watchman]

Lots of fast missile troops, shock cav, and some close-combat infantry with enough spine to hold the pike-boys in place when needed seems to work well enough most of the time.

The phalanx was, after all, a terrific enough component in combined-arms tactics but had a tendency to run into problems but fast by its lonesome...

[Quilts]

Hi,

As you stated, you could win against the phalanx on VH/M. That's the battle difficulty that the stats were designed for.

By using VH battle difficulty you've completely 'unbalanced those balances '. Me speak goodly.....

I'd recommend sticking with VH/M for all campaigns.

Cheers,

Quilts

[goolasso]

Hi,

As you stated, you could win against the phalanx on VH/M. That's the battle difficulty that the stats were designed for.

By using VH battle difficulty you've completely 'unbalanced those balances '. Me speak goodly.....

I'd recommend sticking with VH/M for all campaigns.

Cheers,

Quilts

Yes, I know. It was only a remark: the phalanx VS phalanx/barbaric challenge worked for me at VH, but the barbaric/non phalanx VS phalanx was a nightmare at VH...

[bovi]

Actually, the shooter oriented factions should be easier on VH than melee oriented ones, as defence against missiles is not affected by difficulty level AFAIK. The enemy shooters will get a bonus to their attack though. On 0.74 I played Iberia on VH/VH and used nearly exclusively javelineers as they were cheap and my melee dudes were completely trounced by the carthaginian elite troops. I took Carthage but in the end stood little chance against the roman guys who all had tough armor.

The reason why your phalanx helps is probably that the enemy troops have a hard time getting through to actually start hitting your guys.

[Quilts]

Actually, the shooter oriented factions should be easier on VH than melee oriented ones, as defence against missiles is not affected by difficulty level AFAIK. The enemy shooters will get a bonus to their attack though. On 0.74 I played Iberia on VH/VH and used nearly exclusively javelineers as they were cheap and my melee dudes were completely trounced by the carthaginian elite troops. I took Carthage but in the end stood little chance against the roman guys who all had tough armor.

The reason why your phalanx helps is probably that the enemy troops have a hard time getting through to actually start hitting your guys.

You make a very good point that I overlooked in my 'changed the difficulty, changed the outcome' statement.

Hang-on, no.....he doesn't get the bonus, only the AI, so the status-quo remains when your the shooting faction, but once drawn into melee (as you probably will be to break the phalanx) then he'll get slaughtered and they will be 'protected' vs your charge by increased defence skill.

So ultimately the reasoning was sound.....but not for the right reasons

Cheers,

Quilts

[bovi]

I didn't feel compelled to enter melee with my javelineers, no. It would have been suicide. I simply threw all the ammo, killing some 1000-1300 enemies and losing some 300-400 myself, then the enemy tended to run away. If he didn't, I simply withdrew to get more ammo. Cowardly? Yes. Sensible? Yes. Necessary? Absolutely.

[blank]

i don't think the phalanxes are too strong, i think they have too high morale. Even low-level phalanxes don't even blink when a unit flanks them, they happily continue on until down to like 40-60 men

[Watchman]

By what I've seen of the EDU, even the elite phalanxes actually don't have all that high base morale values. But when you remember that they get those assorted morale bonuses from gov types, temples and so on on top of that...

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

i don't think the phalanxes are too strong, i think they have too high morale. Even low-level phalanxes don't even blink when a unit flanks them, they happily continue on until down to like 40-60 men

Second.

[LennStar]

I think most of the moral comes from the phalanx formation itself. You can try it in custom battle: If you deactivate the phalanx in the middle of the battle, they fast begin to flee.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's very true, also, they can be broken from the front. Drive two heavy infantry units straight for the centre line, If you can force the switch to swords then you've basically won.

It's bloody, but that's historical.

[Spoofa]

That's very true, also, they can be broken from the front. Drive two heavy infantry units straight for the centre line, If you can force the switch to swords then you've basically won.

It's bloody, but that's historical.

a pyrrhic victory ehh?

[NeoSpartan]

Well.... phalanx based factions have a slighter easier going in VH/VH, than non-phalanx factions. BUT, the relative difficulty non-phalax based factions have compared to phalanx based factions has to do with the starting position. For example, nearly all phalanx based factions have an easier time getting thier economy up. That is because those factions already have an economic infrastructure in place. While, on the other hand, most non-phalanx factions have to build up thier economic infrascture from scrath. Now, once you add this up to the fact that you take more casulaties in VH battles than in M battles, the AI $ bonuses, etc, it becomes more difficult to non-phalanx factions.
For example: As the KH, in a few turns you get your a + income, and don't get me started with Ptolemoi and Carthege. BUT when you play with the Aedui/Arverni, you have to kill the other faction ASAP, and then by 268BC the Romani start pushing north. All the while you have build up economy, and your MICs.

One thing I would also like to point out, in vh/vh battles in all comes down to cleverness on the part of the human player. The way you play in vh/m IS NOT the way you play in vh/vh.

[mAIOR]

I agree with you Neo. The reason I stoped playing Vh/Vh was because of sieges. Having 900 of your units outflancking in the town square 300 units and see them die and rout is just not funny. But in medium, I believe battles are more realistic. All in all, in Vh battles you have to use more missiles than in Medium... and anything short of polybian Princeps is futile one on one against even Hoplitai haploi...
On the Phalanx matter, I think their quite good. Remember, the romans only defeated the Phalanxes because they were able to flank them and the Macedonian cavalry was but a mere shadow of it's former self...


Cheers...

[NeoSpartan]

I agree with you Neo. The reason I stoped playing Vh/Vh was because of sieges. Having 900 of your units outflancking in the town square 300 units and see them die and rout is just not funny. But in medium, I believe battles are more realistic. All in all, in Vh battles you have to use more missiles than in Medium... and anything short of polybian Princeps is futile one on one against even Hoplitai haploi...
On the Phalanx matter, I think their quite good. Remember, the romans only defeated the Phalanxes because they were able to flank them and the Macedonian cavalry was but a mere shadow of it's former self...


Cheers...

Or loosing 160 units against 80 units trying to take a wall.



p.s.personaly I am finding VH/M too easy.... in my next campaing I'll make it H/H, or H/VH. (I hate it when rebels seige my towns, with 3 crappy units and then I have to go free that town and waist 20min of my game time OR take severe casualties on the autocalc )

[Pharnakes]

use auto win attacker when you know you're going to win.

Keeps causuailties down to about 10%

[mAIOR]

Yeah. Since I discovered auto_win I've been making a lot of progress... I usually keep auto_win battles to those where at I have at least 2:1 odds and enjoy numerical superiority...
For taking rebels (brigands not full armies) it's a given.


Cheers...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I enjoy watching Seleukid armies die on my pikes, personnally.

The worst thing is when two little armies come at you. I had one like that today, my army of 2900 vs 1000 on on the sally and 500 odd reinforcements.

A sure win you say, well, yes, but if I hadn't dealt with the three levy phalanx units in short order I wouldn't have been able to swing the line in time and then my cav and my right flank would have been mauled. The next battle I fought would have been more costly without the Companions to rout the enemy and before you know it my field army is in tatters and I have enemy stacks all over the shop.