Phalanxes in version 1.1

[Aper]

I mean.... both have shieldwalls and lenth of the spear won't really make a big difference since they come in contact with shields.

What?
This is no different than assume that legionaries ONLY stab and NEVER cut, or similar obsolete myths about ancient warfare... from Thermopylae to the wars against the Maks the reach of the weapons made an HUGE difference in the wars of the Greeks... as common sense suggest.
Even if they are "hoplites", this doesn't mean that shield-push (that is actually a quite debated topic...) was their only form of fighting.

[antisocialmunky]

That's not true about how the engine handles combat. Length makes no difference ... neither does girth but that's a seperate discussion.

[Aper]

That's not true about how the engine handles combat. Length makes no difference ...

That is not entirely true: units in phalanx formation (in game I mean) gain longer spears (even without "long_pike") that actually have a great effect on the performance.

They made enough of a difference in that they allowed what had until rather recently been psiloi skirmisher rabble to check and hold even elite hoplites, though... which in turn allowed the Maks' formidable cavalry to do their part which was more or less the whole point.

You are right: until recently. But this means absolutely nothing, because since Philip II this so-called rabble are in fact highly trained professionists of war, like the fancy Spartans that everyone seems to admire so much (I really wonder why..but this is enirely another matter) ; the so-called elite hoplites, on the contrary, were often no more trained than the nasty barbarians they despised so much, or at best they had 2 years of ephebate, really nothing compared to the skill of the pezethairoi

The Iphikratean reformed hoplites were probably highly professional mercenaries (he had a lot of experience in commanding mercenaries and probably he was well aware of the importance of training, an awareness not so common in 4° BC greece)

Last thing to add: the heavy armor had largely disappeared in 4° BC greece even among classical hoplites

To reassume:

on one side we have classical amateur or little trained hoplites armed with a metal helmet, a big shield, light armor and a classic spear

On the other, firstly with Iphikratean, then with Pezethaeroi, we have highly trained professionist that had smaller shield but a longer weapon, more effective both in defending and in attacking. They were vulnerable to flanking? True, but no classical hoplite had enough training to outflank effectively without losing every resemblance of formation (that in RTW is negligible ; in RL IS VERY BAD)

Were pezethairoi superheroes and was the pike a bartix weapon? NO, but on average they were largely more effective than classical hoplites and their weapons.
If you still don't believe me, think on this: all the 3 greatest general of ancient greece (Iphikrates, Epaminondas, Philip II) increased the lenght of the spear of their soldiers: oh, but surely they were all dumb... (sorry for the tone but I had to be a bit sarcastic )

EDIT: one last thing: the heavy (and in 4° BC this is debatable too...) makedonian cavalry was so important and effective in a pike vs. spear struggle that Antigonid kings, who largely faced hoplitic armies, regarded cavalry mainly as an auxiliary weapon, and still more often than not defeated greeks, giving Romans the excuse to land in greece to "free " them. I think this is to take in account too.

[Watchman]

Uh-huh.
Armour indeed went out of fashion among hoplites around the Peloponnesian War... and then came back into fashion. IIRC, in a somewhat heavier kit than previously too.

Around the same time hoplites (and other Greek soldiery) were also increasingly becoming full-time paid professionals if not outright mercenaries, and of course the elite formations (epilektoi) quite a few of the major communities had over the years - the most famous likely being the Theban Sacred Band - were naturally very well equipped and highly trained.

So meh.

[antisocialmunky]

I think that the successful Macedonian interventions in Greece proper was more due to organization an man power... I mean, look at the 3rd-4th century political alliances. You have the Aetolian League that was by itself. You have the Achean League that was allied with Macedon. You have Sparta that always tried to march north and attack the Achaeans. You have the later alliance of Athens, Sparta, and some other states funded by the Ptolemies. I mean, if you look at the records, usually the what happened was that many of the anti-Macedon groups had initial success but got plastered once the Macedonians or its allies organized and showed up in force.

[Aper]

Uh-huh.
Armour indeed went out of fashion among hoplites around the Peloponnesian War... and then came back into fashion. IIRC, in a somewhat heavier kit than previously too.

Around the same time hoplites (and other Greek soldiery) were also increasingly becoming full-time paid professionals if not outright mercenaries, and of course the elite formations (epilektoi) quite a few of the major communities had over the years - the most famous likely being the Theban Sacred Band - were naturally very well equipped and highly trained.

So meh.

Heavier than the old fashioned full bronze armor? I'm a little skeptical about this...
I don't know much about classical hoplites of 3° BC, I thought they were largely disappeared from battlefields ; if you can tell me some sources on the matter I'll be glad to learn myself.
However, I don't remember any greek power in 4° and 3° BC that could deploy entire armies of well-armored and well-trained men... and few hundreds of epilektoi couldn't match the professional army of the Maks (who had their own elites anyway).
According to EB the greeks in 3° trained their men in the Makedonian manner, even the spartans, I can't think any better evidence of the superiority of the sarissa on the old glorious dory... even without the support of good cavalry,that in greece traditionally was scarce.

Back on topic, in my games I noticed only a slight advantage for tweaked units against vanilla ones : it seems strange to me that a little radius reduction makes a unit overpowered... I think it's better to test a little more, maybe giving units a radius reduction based on morale to portrait the different level of training, as I suggested. However, as you can probably imagine, I think Iphikratean should perform well against Classicals, not slaughter them, but winning more than not is in order IMO (obviously if they have similar protections and morale)

[antisocialmunky]

They would win if you could increase the effective range of Iphs. However, you can't do that short of phalanx mode on the TW engine....

EDIT

However, if you could use something that prevents enemies from attacking like knockback, that might work:

If you had a high attack unit with low lethality and fast attack, and you stick the unit in guard mode to keep formation then that might work. Really, that's actually pretty much what the phalanx is, fast attacking, low lethality pushing thing that uses knockback and mass.

It would probably be overpowered though.

[NeoSpartan]

....
However, if you could use something that prevents enemies from attacking like knockback, that might work:

If you had a high attack unit with low lethality and fast attack, and you stick the unit in guard mode to keep formation then that might work. Really, that's actually pretty much what the phalanx is, fast attacking, low lethality pushing thing that uses knockback and mass.

It would probably be overpowered though.

hum... you might be on to something there munky

[NeoSpartan]

What?
.... or similar obsolete myths about ancient warfare... from Thermopylae to the wars against the Maks the reach of the weapons made an HUGE difference in the wars of the Greeks... as common sense suggest.
...

I am no expert on ancient history, but from the very FEW things I've read.... the long pikes were not THE desisive element in winning battles in ancient Greece.

[Watchman]

They made enough of a difference in that they allowed what had until rather recently been psiloi skirmisher rabble to check and hold even elite hoplites, though... which in turn allowed the Maks' formidable cavalry to do their part which was more or less the whole point.

[NeoSpartan]

They made enough of a difference in that they allowed what had until rather recently been psiloi skirmisher rabble to check and hold even elite hoplites, though... which in turn allowed the Maks' formidable cavalry to do their part which was more or less the whole point.

exactly!

[Novellus]

I am no expert on ancient history, but from the very FEW things I've read.... the long pikes were not THE desisive element in winning battles in ancient Greece.

The lengthy sarissae did make a difference as it was able to keep the enemy at a longer distance in a close combat situation. When it comes to weapons, there are different levels when it comes to manuverability and range. Swords are highly manuverable weapons, able to be wielded in different fashions and can change direction during a swing. They do however lack the range that spears do. Spears keep an enemy at a further distance, sacrificing manuverability (it is difficult to parry and block other attacks with a spear, let alone a lengthy sarissa). When the phalanx formation was used, it presented more spears to protect the wielders from close range attacks by swordsmen. One person with a sarissa can easily be killed by a skilled swordsman by dodging the spearpoint and charging past to the attacker. But when there are several ranks to pass through, success in engaging the spearman in close combat without injury becomes decreased.

The sarissa was useful because it gave survivability to soldiers of the line. Enemies would be very preoccupied when encountering a phalanx because the spears would be a very tough defense to break through. And when the phalanx advanced, the opposing force would be put on a defensive, which in battle is a terrible thing to have happen. It is not as much the decisive element that you think of, but half of the "hammer and anvil" equation. The survivability allows the cavalry much more time to advance around the flanks and attack from the rear in comparison to other units. If you don't believe that the spear length was THAT important though, try the Makedonian campaign, but replace your Phalangatai Deuteroi with Hoplitai Haploi or Classical Greek Hoplitai. You'll notice the difference in the amount of time the lines last before breaking.

[antisocialmunky]

I think what he was getting at was the cavalry was the decisive arm of the Macedonian war machine. Without it you get what happened in the Macedonian Wars.

[Watchman]

Well, yeah. But the point I at least tried to make that without the pikes or something to keep the hoplites preoccupied, the Mac horsemen would've been doing a fine imitation of Mr. Fly meeting Mr. Windshield.

There being a few good reasons why the Macs were the ones wont to get bossed around before they figured out how to make their peasant rabble genuinely useful.

[Novellus]

I think what he was getting at was the cavalry was the decisive arm of the Macedonian war machine. Without it you get what happened in the Macedonian Wars.

True, but I was getting at the fact that the innovation of the pike helped soldiers survive on the battlefield longer in addition to preoccupying enemy infantry so that cavalry can be that decisive arm. So I was making the point that the invention of the sarissa WAS important.

Well, yeah. But the point I at least tried to make that without the pikes or something to keep the hoplites preoccupied, the Mac horsemen would've been doing a fine imitation of Mr. Fly meeting Mr. Windshield.

There being a few good reasons why the Macs were the ones wont to get bossed around before they figured out how to make their peasant rabble genuinely useful.

Exactly what I was getting at. Troop survivability in addition to the low cost of the phalangite versus their hoplite counterpart made them effective units. Any unit would work to preoccupy enemy soldiers, even fielding a unit of Makedonian Hoplitai to hold the line. But the amount of time units can hold a line is crucial for the hammer and anvil tactics to work. That is why the lengthy sarissae became ideal as it protected the phalangites that held the enemy in one spot due to the length and mass of the phalanx.

[NeoSpartan]

True, but I was getting at the fact that the innovation of the pike helped soldiers survive on the battlefield longer in addition to preoccupying enemy infantry so that cavalry can be that decisive arm. So I was making the point that the invention of the sarissa WAS important.



Exactly what I was getting at. Troop survivability in addition to the low cost of the phalangite versus their hoplite counterpart made them effective units. Any unit would work to preoccupy enemy soldiers, even fielding a unit of Makedonian Hoplitai to hold the line. But the amount of time units can hold a line is crucial for the hammer and anvil tactics to work. That is why the lengthy sarissae became ideal as it protected the phalangites that held the enemy in one spot due to the length and mass of the phalanx.

Fellas... I feel you but I was answering the following question by:
desert

Yes, but is it really realistic for Iphikrateans to slaughter Classical Hoplites like that?

So... from what you and I have posted so far I can safely conclude:

Iphikrateans/pikemen DID NOT slaugher Hoplites (or anyone else with a big enough shield, and decent armor) in their phalanx/shield wall. When both sides faced eachother in neat formation, ready to fight the approaching enemy line and no way to outflank/manouver.