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?
Bookmarks