thraikioi peltastai kill off hypaspistai? and other questions...

[F for Fragging]

Playing as the Makedonians I already knew that Thraikioi Peltastai are quite good, but in custom battles when I let them fight against Hypaspistai (head-on charge, no spear throwing, flat terrain) they manage to rout Hypaspistai after taking 60 casualties or so. AFAIK Thraikians were famed warriors, but aren't Hypaspistai supposed to be the uber-elite with the best equipment, and considering that they cost 2756 mnai and Thraikioi Peltastai cost 1387 mnai, shouldn't they be able to win versus Thraikioi Peltastai?

In general, I have the feeling that most of the Hellenic elite units are wussies compared to most other (elite) units. I tried a custom battle of Hypaspistai versus Casse Sword Masters, it wasn't a battle anymore, it was pure genocide. Same with Baktrion Agema. And the super-expensive Elephants in EB can be quite useful, they will be mown down if they receive a single volley of javelins from Akontistai. Is it just me, or does it seem that the unit balancing for expensive units is quite disadvantageous? A lot of the expensive/elite units seem to be a waste of money to me.



Some other questions, off-topic but so miscellaneous that asking them all in separate topics wouldn't be a good idea, I think

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Issus and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela Alexander the Great was outnumbered more that 2:1 in these battles. Now he probably managed to win because he had a better army, better tactics and such, but I'm wondering, why weren't the Persians able to surround him if they outnumbered him so much?

And I wonder, why not attack a phalanx-based army on the flanks only, without attacking the phalanx frontally? If the Persians with their huge numbers solely attacked the Makedonian flanks, while their center did not attack the Macedonian phalanx in the Makedonian center (sort of double envelopment), the Makedonian phalanx would have been ineffective at defending the flanks, because a phalanx is immobile, right? Then after the Makedonian flanks would have been destroyed, the phalanx would have been vulnerable because the flanks were undefended, and they would have been destroyed.

When I read about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pydna the phalanx lost because of gaps created in the phalanx by the terrain as the phalanx advanced. But on the drawing in that article I see the Roman and Makedonian lines were even and facing each other. Why didn't Romans just leave the center of their line empty and move everybody to the flanks (possibly forcing the phalanx to break upthe battle line, or force them to remain passive because the Romans wouldn't attack the phalanx frontally) destroy the Makedonian flanks and then destroy the phalanx?

So I don't really understand phalanx tactics? Why didn't battles happen according to the (seemingly effective) plan I suggest?



Another question, in EB all the civilized factions (Hellenic, Romans and Kart-Hadast) have soldiers which don't have pants, while Celtic factions and Persians do wear pants. Why didn't they wear pants, more specifically, why didn't their soldiers wear pants for protection in battle? Sometimes they have shin protectors, but a their upper legs are complely unprotected. Same goes for their arms, which are also bare in many cases. Seeing how it would be easy to hack off arms or injure the legs, disabling the soldier, why didn't they have armor for their arms or legs?



One more question concerning the description of the Liby-Phoenician Infantry/Dorki Leebi-Feenikim Mookdamim. In their description it says they can form a phalanx. But they do not seem to have the ability during battles. It seems to me that they have a passive ability to form a classical phalanx as decribed here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_formation - and not the Makedonian phalanx. This is confusing, because for units which are able to form a Makedonian phalanx, Phalangitai Deuteroi for example, it gives the same description "can form phalanx". Thus EB does not distinguish between the classical phalanx and the Makedonian phalanx. The first time I recruited the Dorki Leebi-Feenikim Mookdamim I expected them to be able to form a Makedonian phalanx, based on their description. Shouldn't this be fixed in the unit descriptions, giving a different description for units with a classical phalanx and units with a Makedonian phalanx?
Besides that, Libyan Spearmen/Aanatim Leebim and Liby-Phoenician Infantry/Dorki Leebi-Feenikim Mookdamim have nearly the same upkeep. The spearmen have shorter spears and have javelins, they are able to fight as skirmishers and in melee. The infantry has longer spears and slightly better stats, they are able to fight in melee only. However, in custom battles it seems to me that the melee performance of the infantry does not seem to be better than the spearmen. In short, what's the added value of the infantry versus the spearmen?

[Foot]

Playing as the Makedonians I already knew that Thraikioi Peltastai are quite good, but in custom battles when I let them fight against Hypaspistai (head-on charge, no spear throwing, flat terrain) they manage to rout Hypaspistai after taking 60 casualties or so. AFAIK Thraikians were famed warriors, but aren't Hypaspistai supposed to be the uber-elite with the best equipment, and considering that they cost 2756 mnai and Thraikioi Peltastai cost 1387 mnai, shouldn't they be able to win versus Thraikioi Peltastai?

In general, I have the feeling that most of the Hellenic elite units are wussies compared to most other (elite) units. I tried a custom battle of Hypaspistai versus Casse Sword Masters, it wasn't a battle anymore, it was pure genocide. Same with Baktrion Agema. And the super-expensive Elephants in EB can be quite useful, they will be mown down if they receive a single volley of javelins from Akontistai. Is it just me, or does it seem that the unit balancing for expensive units is quite disadvantageous? A lot of the expensive/elite units seem to be a waste of money to me.

I assume you have done extensive testing on even ground with all these units. I cannot really comment, but we are quite happy with our statting system, and we won't be changing things too much in the future. Also, don't the Thracians, in your first example, outnumber the Hypaspistai, and with the addition of the charge that will usually offer them the advantage. Please tell me you tested the Hypaspistai vs Thraikoi battle extensively with many different variations rather than coming to conclusions after only one!

Some other questions, off-topic but so miscellaneous that asking them all in separate topics wouldn't be a good idea, I think

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Issus and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela Alexander the Great was outnumbered more that 2:1 in these battles. Now he probably managed to win because he had a better army, better tactics and such, but I'm wondering, why weren't the Persians able to surround him if they outnumbered him so much?

And I wonder, why not attack a phalanx-based army on the flanks only, without attacking the phalanx frontally? If the Persians with their huge numbers solely attacked the Makedonian flanks, while their center did not attack the Macedonian phalanx in the Makedonian center (sort of double envelopment), the Makedonian phalanx would have been ineffective at defending the flanks, because a phalanx is immobile, right? Then after the Makedonian flanks would have been destroyed, the phalanx would have been vulnerable because the flanks were undefended, and they would have been destroyed.

When I read about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pydna the phalanx lost because of gaps created in the phalanx by the terrain as the phalanx advanced. But on the drawing in that article I see the Roman and Makedonian lines were even and facing each other. Why didn't Romans just leave the center of their line empty and move everybody to the flanks (possibly forcing the phalanx to break upthe battle line, or force them to remain passive because the Romans wouldn't attack the phalanx frontally) destroy the Makedonian flanks and then destroy the phalanx?

So I don't really understand phalanx tactics? Why didn't battles happen according to the (seemingly effective) plan I suggest?

Reforming an army and after it had deployed, before the development of wireless communication, was next to impossible. Your theory works fine in RTW, but how the hell are you going to lead your troops when you are just a single general with no direct communication with your troops. Battle plans were drawn up before a battle begun, changing them mid-battle was either very difficult or almost impossible. There are possibly other reasons, but those are a start.Oh and the phalanx wasn't immobile.

Another question, in EB all the civilized factions (Hellenic, Romans and Kart-Hadast) have soldiers which don't have pants, while Celtic factions and Persians do wear pants. Why didn't they wear pants, more specifically, why didn't their soldiers wear pants for protection in battle? Sometimes they have shin protectors, but a their upper legs are complely unprotected. Same goes for their arms, which are also bare in many cases. Seeing how it would be easy to hack off arms or injure the legs, disabling the soldier, why didn't they have armor for their arms or legs?

Your saying that eastern factions aren't civilized? The prevalence of trousers amongst the celts and germans and other "barbarian" peoples was likely to have been a fashion borne out of the need for better protection against the cold. Obviously it developed beyond that, and there may have been other reasons for why it continued when other practices and fashions saw the removing of some clothes.

Also leg protection was afforded by the shields people used. There is no point weighing down the legs when a large shield held in front offers ample protection against attacks from the front.

Foot

[Ludens]

In general, I have the feeling that most of the Hellenic elite units are wussies compared to most other (elite) units. I tried a custom battle of Hypaspistai versus Casse Sword Masters, it wasn't a battle anymore, it was pure genocide. Same with Baktrion Agema. And the super-expensive Elephants in EB can be quite useful, they will be mown down if they receive a single volley of javelins from Akontistai. Is it just me, or does it seem that the unit balancing for expensive units is quite disadvantageous? A lot of the expensive/elite units seem to be a waste of money to me.

Well, Casse Swordsmen are meant to be deadly against heavily-armoured units like the Hypaspistai, but I admit that I never was very impressed by them either. However, I do think it is historical that elite units have a comparatively lower cost-efficiency ratio. They weren't that much more powerful than normal, they were mainly more reliable, so they could do critical tasks like holding the flank or exploiting a gap.

And I wonder, why not attack a phalanx-based army on the flanks only, without attacking the phalanx frontally? If the Persians with their huge numbers solely attacked the Makedonian flanks, while their center did not attack the Macedonian phalanx in the Makedonian center (sort of double envelopment), the Makedonian phalanx would have been ineffective at defending the flanks, because a phalanx is immobile, right? Then after the Makedonian flanks would have been destroyed, the phalanx would have been vulnerable because the flanks were undefended, and they would have been destroyed.

The phalanx is hardly immobile: any formation that relies on the enemy throwing itself head-on on spearpoints, rather than walking around and attacking the flank, is not going to have that much use, does it? Alexander used his phalanx in a very aggressive, proactive way. In fact, I am under the impression that it was under his successors that the phalanx became unwieldy and relatively, presumably because they were mainly fighting identically-equiped troops (i.e. each other), so things like longer spears and heavier armour became important. But I am hardly an expert.

Incidentally, at Gaugemela the Persian army did attempt to envelop the Macedonians (at Issos they lacked the space to do that) but Alexander had anticipated that and deployed a second line of hoplites. Nonetheles the Macedonian left was hard pressed and Alexander had to abandon the pursuit in order to rescue them.

[mAIOR]

Great post Ludens. Allow me to add just this; the successors main failure in phalanx warfare was (in my opinion read it in some book and agree with it) the investment in the "exotic" part of the army (namely elephnts and chariots) and not using so well the combined arms tactics (hammer and anvil with some missile support) which was the key element to alexander success. The successors were more "each branch to his own" (take Raphia). I believe the last great master in the combined arms of the successors was Phyrrus as he adopted a strategy more in line with Alexander.


CHeers...

[abou]

I could not disagree more, mAIOR. Pyrrhos was an idiot. The only reason why he beat the Romans is because their use of tactics were even worse than his in the 270s.

Antiochos used elephants successfully in every battle they were used except Magnesia - where he was outnumbered (yes, Livy altered the numbers drastically for his panegyrical account). There were other events that conspired to his failure. Granted, not all his choices were the best choices, but the discipline in all Hellenistic armies were a considerable problem in this era. We see it at Thermopylai and we saw it at Raphia. Should Antiochos have not concerned himself with killing Ptolemaios? Of course, but if his phalanx had held out as it certainly could have, he would have turned around and won the battle.

In armies the size of the major Diadochoi engagements it is hard to do anything other than what you were ordered to do before the battle began. Plus, it is incredibly difficult to stop a cavalry pursuit and turn around. Especially so if you are in the middle of a mob of 10,000 routing Romans as what happened at Magnesia.

Chariots... eh, you have a point, but Antiochos used them only once. He wanted to use them against the Roman cavalry, which probably would have worked well if it weren't for the missile fire from the Roman light troops. That would have meant that the Seleukid cavalry would be free to circumvent the Roman line and hit them from the rear. Would it have been better not to use them. Of course, but I see what Antiochos was intending.

[mAIOR]

I can't agree with Pyrrus being an idiot. I forgot about Antiochus. Ok he was a very good Comander but I prefer the 3rd by that name as he along with Baktria almost Anialated Parthia.

Well, In Gaugamella, Alexander managed to stop his cavalry and turn around to save the day. He was an expert in combined arms.

To most units in an ancient army, this was the rule. you were told to press/hold/charge/etc... and you stuck to it till the end of the battle.

That's my point he relied on the charits elephants and lowered the standards for his infantry/cavalry.

The romans managed to use combined arms better. I guess.

Cheers...

[blank]

When I read about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pydna the phalanx lost because of gaps created in the phalanx by the terrain as the phalanx advanced. But on the drawing in that article I see the Roman and Makedonian lines were even and facing each other. Why didn't Romans just leave the center of their line empty and move everybody to the flanks (possibly forcing the phalanx to break upthe battle line, or force them to remain passive because the Romans wouldn't attack the phalanx frontally) destroy the Makedonian flanks and then destroy the phalanx?

Macedon lost in Pydna because Perseus wasn't much of a commander. Sure, he won some small victories earlier, but in Pydna he was just idiotic.
Firstly, letting the phalanx chase the Romans onto rugged terrain? The only thing you shouldn't do with phalanxes? Not only that, but he didn't even have any reserve units behind the phalanx to stop a possible Roman breakthrough.
Then, after apparently being astonished by the phalanx's inability to fight effectively on uneven surface, he routed with the entire Macedonian cavalry force with him, without committing it once. Just brilliant

[DeathEmperor]

@ abou: I would love to read or know about an unbiased account of Magnesia. All of the ones I've read so far have had unbelievable casualty ratios (The Romans lost only 300 while the Seleucids lost 40,000?! ) I'm a fanatic when it comes to learning more about the Seleucids so I would be eternally grateful if you posted your sources


Alright back on-topic: The reason that the Macedonian-phalanx wasn't out maneuvered and outflanked more often really gets down to two things: one) the difficulty of communicating with the rest of the army especially if they're already in battle and two) the misunderstanding that it was a ponderous and inflexible formation.

The second one is really the fault of the later Successors (not really a fault more of an adaptation to warfare as they knew it). They had been fighting each other for so long and with such similar forces that the only way they could improve their 'ways of war' in their eyes was to equip their forces with heavier and what appeared to be better arms and armour. Against other pike phalanxes this did give the "improved" phalanx an edge, not only in their equipment but also giving the seemingly better equipped phalangites more of a moral and psychological raise feeling more confidant in their "new toys".

I'd like to post some more but I'm stretched for time at the moment so i'll post again later.

[abou]

No problem, DE. This book is the one you want to get. As you can see it is prohibitively expensive, and so your best chance is to go through your library system. I've contemplated purchasing it, but I just don't have the cash for that... yet.

Regardless, it is a good read. But, I can go into more details about the battle if you want.

[NeoSpartan]

One thing that I would like to point out about Alexander is that he was at the head of the Companion Cavalry. In other words he was in control of the "Hammer" in the Hammer & Anvil tactic. That is why he was able to manouver the cavalry to were it was needed the most.


A second point... Roman armies operated in a different manner to Hellenic or other armies. In that individual Officers where able to "improvise" on the ground and manouver thier respective soldiers without direct orders from the General. As it happened in the The Battle of Cynoscephalae.
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cynoscephalae.html

[paullus]

the key to the revisionist interpretation of magnesia is a careful reading of the earlier narration concerning the roman army in greece. livy mentions a number of contingents leading up to the battle, totaling about 10 thousand men if I remember correctly, but then conveniently leaves them out from the battle itself. There is little reason to doubt they would have gone to the field (especially if they had any idea of the size of Antiochos' army--its not like the Roman liked being outnumbered on the battlefield) based on the rest of the Livian narrative. Also, in reporting casualties, he only gives Roman casualties, thus allowing him to avoid reporting Italian casualties.

It is, however, also worth noting that most of the Roman casualties would have been on their left wing, which Antiochos routed. The rest of the Roman army either swept aside the weak Seleukid left, or surrounded the Seleukid phalanx and pummeled it with missiles until it caved. Neither of those actions would have resulted in many casualties.

[Watchman]

I'm under the impression it was the standard practice of Hellenic commanders in general and monarchs in particular to head the heavy "strike" cavalry wing - although given that unlike Alex they mostly fought enemies with by and large the exact same general army lineup, how the cavalry was divided between the right and left wing was anything but a foregone conclusion (Alex ended up just putting the heavies on his right, and leaving the left with lighter horse on the defensive). After all that way they had immediate control of the (hopefully) decisive "hammer blow" units, and the pike line could presumably do its primary job - holding the enemy infantry center in place - without close supervision well enough. Unlike the Romans the Hellenics tended not have staggered reserve lines of heavy infantry whose committing needed sound senior judgement, after all, although one would assume the assorted lighter infantry used for pre-contact skirmishing etc. would be retired behind the phalanxes and formed a de facto emergency reserve pool.

IMO the real major problem that plagued post-Alexander Hellenic armies was their general inability to rein in their heavy strike cavalry when the horse fight at the wings was won. The phalanx was formidable, but essentially a specialized linear attack formation and one that got into major problems in rough country and when its line got ragged (as almost invariable happened - didn't an entire darn Persian cavalry squadron slip through a gap in the line at Gaugamela ?) and generally not very good at winning a battle on its own, especially against enemy phalanxes. If the heavy horse went merrily off in pursuit of their defeated mounted opponents and did not remember to reform and come back in time, it could well happen that the phalanx might get routed by its peers, rolled up from the side if better-controlled enemy horse was victorious at the other wing, or something similarly undesirable.

Now granted, it was never easy to get cavalry to break off pursuit and reform after winning a horse fight. But if it wasn't achieved the hideously expensive heavy horse might well essentially neutralize itself from the battle simply by not being there, and more importanly would not be there to act as the "hammer" the Alexandrian combined-arms tactics pretty much required. This can only be characterized as unacceptably poor discipline that by and large defeats the entire purpose of the formations involved; Prince Rupert's heavy cavalry in the English Civil Wars, although by all accounts quite formidable as shock troops, had the same problem with ultimately disastrous effects. Comparable issues are known from other contexts as well; there was for example one Medieval battle where one side's knight smashed the militia infantry opposing them, and then duly scattered far and wide in pursuit - in the meantime the enemy's other "battles" were victorious and routed the rest of the army, leaving the knights looking mighty silly when they finally came back.

[DeathEmperor]

@ abou: Thank you very much! Wow that book really is expensive, even more than B. Bar-Kochva's but no price is too high for a history nut like me Will take me awhile to save up enough spare money to get that book though.

@ Watchman: Indeed stripped of its cavalry wings the phalanx was incredibly vulnerable. The scenario you described in your second paragraph did indeed happen to Antiochus the Great at Raphia in 217. While he and his victorious cavalry/elephant force on hsi right wing persued the broken Ptolemaic left, his own left flank was outmaneuvered and driven from the field by the Ptolemaic right wing. Stripped of their wings it became for lack of a better phrase a 'slugging match' between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic phalanxes, and with superior numbers and the personal leadership and urgings of Ptolemy VI the Ptolemaic phalanx defeated the Seleucid one.


Antiochus III the Great did make a lot of bad decisions in his war with Rome, but otherwise he was an incredible general and ruler. I think he just has a bad reputation because of Livy's lopsided and perhaps biased writings. Personally he's my favourite Successor king after Seleucus I Nicator

[Thaatu]

I could not disagree more, mAIOR. Pyrrhos was an idiot. The only reason why he beat the Romans is because their use of tactics were even worse than his in the 270s.

Yeah, his victories over Macedonia and Carthage were also just pure luck.

[F for Fragging]

I assume you have done extensive testing on even ground with all these units. I cannot really comment, but we are quite happy with our statting system, and we won't be changing things too much in the future. Also, don't the Thracians, in your first example, outnumber the Hypaspistai, and with the addition of the charge that will usually offer them the advantage. Please tell me you tested the Hypaspistai vs Thraikoi battle extensively with many different variations rather than coming to conclusions after only one!

Yes, the Thraikioi Peltastai number 160 and the Hypaspistai number 120. Even without the charge the Thraikioi Peltastai still win. I used the "Samos" map for testing the custom battles, which is very flat. I tried about five times and the Thraikioi Peltastai always won, which seems extensive enough to me?

Battle plans were drawn up before a battle begun, changing them mid-battle was either very difficult or almost impossible. There are possibly other reasons, but those are a start. Oh and the phalanx wasn't immobile.

But what if such a plan I suggested was implemented before the battle begun? I probably meant that the phalanx was inflexible.

Your saying that eastern factions aren't civilized?

Also leg protection was afforded by the shields people used. There is no point weighing down the legs when a large shield held in front offers ample protection against attacks from the front.

Well, of course after the Hellenic eastern factions the Hayasdan and the Sabaeans are civilized too, but the Saka and the Sarmatians aren't if you ask me, they're just nomads.
Large shields for protecting the legs make sense, but what about phalangites? They use smaller shields to protect their torso, but wouldn't their bare legs be vulnerable to arrows or javelins?



Everybody else, thank for your explanations.

[Ludens]

But what if such a plan I suggested was implemented before the battle begun? I probably meant that the phalanx was inflexible.

In that case any decent general would have simply manouvred his army to attack one flank, while occupying the other with missile troops and cavalry. If you spread out your army, you risk part of it being isolated.

Mind you, the tactic you describe was used with great success by Hannibal and Scipio against non-phalanx based armies. In either case, however, they didn't spread out their army, but just placed their strongest units on the flanks.

Large shields for protecting the legs make sense, but what about phalangites? They use smaller shields to protect their torso, but wouldn't their bare legs be vulnerable to arrows or javelins?

True, both so would be the face and the right arm. All-body protection is prohibitively expensive.

[Sakkura]

Well, of course after the Hellenic eastern factions the Hayasdan and the Sabaeans are civilized too, but the Saka and the Sarmatians aren't if you ask me, they're just nomads.
Large shields for protecting the legs make sense, but what about phalangites? They use smaller shields to protect their torso, but wouldn't their bare legs be vulnerable to arrows or javelins?

Well phalangites would rely on their long spears to keep the enemy out of melee range. Their legs might have been somewhat vulnerable to missile fire, but phalanx spears did give some protection against arrows and after all, legs aren't huge targets. Also, the close formation of the phalanx would give extra protection for the legs of all but the front rank or two, simply by the bodies of the guys in front blocking anything that might be heading for the legs.

[Foot]

Well phalangites would rely on their long spears to keep the enemy out of melee range. Their legs might have been somewhat vulnerable to missile fire, but phalanx spears did give some protection against arrows and after all, legs aren't huge targets. Also, the close formation of the phalanx would give extra protection for the legs of all but the front rank or two, simply by the bodies of the guys in front blocking anything that might be heading for the legs.

Also didn't some phalangites wear greaves on their leading leg (left leg).

Foot

[paullus]

Yeah, but that wouldn't help their thighs. Thigh armor passed out of general use among the Greeks in the Archaic period. Why did greaves survive when the thigh armor didnt? Mobility perhaps? Shield coverage? Those are both probably pretty good reasons, especially since the pteryges of many cuirasses could cover a good bit of the thigh.

With the thraikioi peltastai v hypaspistai, I'm wondering if making any modifications to the hypaspist formation can change anything: they have two different formations you can put them in, and you can take them in and out of hold formation, and you can tell them to use their swords or to use their spears. That's a lot of variability, and it wouldn't surprise me if one or more of the variables gave them the edge. Even so, they should consistently have the edge, not vice versa, so we may need to take a look at stats.

[Pharnakes]

My problem with the eb stating system is the lack of differntiation from elites and leves, A unti like Hypaspistai should cut up a unit of akontistai with zero casuaties, not 10-15 (huge scale).

[Foot]

My problem with the eb stating system is the lack of differntiation from elites and leves, A unti like Hypaspistai should cut up a unit of akontistai with zero casuaties, not 10-15 (huge scale).

Really? Wow!

Foot

[The Wicked]

@ abou: All of the ones I've read so far have had unbelievable casualty ratios (The Romans lost only 300 while the Seleucids lost 40,000?! )

Well regarding the casualty ratios i believe that the winner creates them. That goes for both Hellenes during the Persian Wars and the Macedonian campaing of Alexander and Romans during their wars with Cartage and later the with the Hellenic kingdoms. A hard fought battle without godlike-perfect win would be more ''real'' but our ancestors liked to enlarge their victories and not to mention to the effect that the losses would have to the people so a little ''BC propaganda'' took place imo...

[abou]

Yeah, his victories over Macedonia and Carthage were also just pure luck.

That's the thing. Makedon had recently been savaged by the Galatians and Carthage was even worse in tactics than Rome. The only exceptions were the Barcas. For being a nation with the best navy at the time, they certainly didn't know how to use their ships in the 1st Punic war, let alone their inefficiencies on land.

[tk-421]

Yes, the Thraikioi Peltastai number 160 and the Hypaspistai number 120. Even without the charge the Thraikioi Peltastai still win. I used the "Samos" map for testing the custom battles, which is very flat. I tried about five times and the Thraikioi Peltastai always won, which seems extensive enough to me?

I just played several battles between Thracian peltasts and hypaspists on huge unit settings on Samos. The hypaspists won every time. They took significant casualties, but they should - they were largely outnumbered and the Thracian peltasts really aren't bad soldiers.

In the 0.8x edu their were many units that were mistakingly given the "spear" attribute. Open your export_descr_unit.txt, found in the EB/Data folder, find the Hypaspistai enty, and see if they have the spear attribute. If they do, replace it with the word "no". If there is no spear attribute, I'd say that there are some very weird factors at play or you are making this all up.

My problem with the eb stating system is the lack of differntiation from elites and leves, A unti like Hypaspistai should cut up a unit of akontistai with zero casuaties, not 10-15 (huge scale).

I have to disagree.

[BigTex]

I just played several battles between Thracian peltasts and hypaspists on huge unit settings on Samos. The hypaspists won every time. They took significant casualties, but they should - they were largely outnumbered and the Thracian peltasts really aren't bad soldiers.

In the 0.8x edu their were many units that were mistakingly given the "spear" attribute. Open your export_descr_unit.txt, found in the EB/Data folder, find the Hypaspistai enty, and see if they have the spear attribute. If they do, replace it with the word "no". If there is no spear attribute, I'd say that there are some very weird factors at play or you are making this all up.



I have to disagree.

The main problem is the Thraikio peltasts secondary weapon is ap. So they have javelins and an ap sword which makes them a very lethal combination. I've never seen them go through a hypatists unit, there's probably other factors at work there.

I've found cheap galatian or other low armored infantry will cut up thriakio peltasts very quickly. They are solid troops so don't underestimate them.

[NeoSpartan]

Next time have your Hypaspistai (sp) in HOLD. Hoplites preform MUCH better in "Hold", the difference is like night and day.

And another thing thraikioi peltastai are NOT levy troops, they are NOT average troops, they are They are "...well trained and among the fiercest and most feared warriors in the entire world...". And that one handed falx they use is a REALLY powerful weapon. Just ask the Romans in the Dacian Wars.

So yes, they SHOULD and WILL kick a**.

[Pharnakes]

Rhomphia. And yes I love my Thraikoi peltastai. Best shock troops in the game. Or certinately are on a value for money basis.


@tk-421, well, ok maybe not zero casualties, but I still think that they take to many casualties.

[Watchman]

Yeah, but that wouldn't help their thighs. Thigh armor passed out of general use among the Greeks in the Archaic period. Why did greaves survive when the thigh armor didnt? Mobility perhaps? Shield coverage? Those are both probably pretty good reasons, especially since the pteryges of many cuirasses could cover a good bit of the thigh.

I'd say the thighs are way easier to protect with a shield and weapon than the rather, shall we say, further removed lower legs. The thighs (and groin for that matter) are kind of... inside the "defended area" of a warrior's shield and weapon, if you see what I mean. conversely the knee and below of the "leading" leg tend to by default be a tad exposed to enemy attacks so...

Moreover the thighs were, as mentioned, fairly easy to partially protect with various extensions of whatever body armour was worn.

As for the phalangites and missiles, there's the fact that unless they're fired virtually point blank most missiles will hit in a descending arc - and in the case of a pike-brandishing phalangite, it's more than likely that the little shield and/or pike-shaft get in the way on the route to the upper leg.

I would imagine they tended to suffer a fair few arm wounds though.

[QwertyMIDX]

The main problem is the Thraikio peltasts secondary weapon is ap.

This is the key factor here, though its not a problem. The Thracians are armed to take out heavy infantry, and they excel at that role. Don't throw your heavy infantry against them, while you might still win it will be costly and that's because your not fighting smart. Use a unit that nullifies the ap advantage of the Thracians.

The beauty of the EB stats system in my mind is that it doesn't create a strict hierarchy of unit a is better than b which is better than c. Its more of a rock,paper,scissors thing and you have use the troops that are good for the particular role you need rather than just loading on one super unit.

[abou]

@tk-421, well, ok maybe not zero casualties, but I still think that they take to many casualties.

Well, that's the thing, Pharnakes. A unit that is twice the size of an elite unit can basically swarm and overwhelm them. A unit of Prodromoi would work much better for the task.

It's funny because one of my friends told me about a book or article or something where a man basically reasoned out how many 9 year-olds he could take on before loosing the fight. I think it was somewhere around twelve, because after the first three little kids had gone down in a straight one-on-one the rest would start to think tactically. The tactic would be to just swarm all at once, which is just how Akontistai would fight Hypaspistai.

Personally, I think I could take out at least fifteen 9 year-olds. I might have to try this experiment myself.