Combat questions - Romani perspective

[applebreath]

I never used gaurd mode before because I always thought that having it off was better (I thought it was just another thing that the creators messed up on in coding). My reasoning was because I thought that with guard mode off, more of my men would try to attack whereas with it on, only the men being engaged will fight. Also, when I tested battles, the ones on guard mod always died. But I realize that's because the other unit would flank them.

After reading this thread and another, I'm starting to think that I'm wrong. I will start to use it much more. Especially for the front middle line infantry.


One thing that kind of stumps me is how did the Romans defeat a phalanx? Would the front middle line infantry just be on "guard-mode" with their shields up? Then the units on the flanks would do the actual engaging? So the only way they would win is by flanking them with infantry, which they could do because they were more maneuverable?

More questions. Should I charge with guard mode on or just absorb the enemies charge or it doesn't make a difference? Same question when cavalry attacks my infantry? Should I attack with guard mode on or only defend?

-Apple.

[JinandJuice]

One thing that kind of stumps me is how did the Romans defeat a phalanx? Would the front middle line infantry just be on "guard-mode" with their shields up? Then the units on the flanks would do the actual engaging? So the only way they would win is by flanking them with infantry, which they could do because they were more maneuverable?
-Apple.

The Romans would often exploit the gaps and rips of phalanxes as they advance through uneven terrain. Once the Roman infantry infiltrated through the sarissa, their superior melee skills would allow them to cut the phalangites to pieces.

The battle of Pydna is one of the best examples of the exploitation of the weakness of the phalanx. Lucius Aemilius Paulus originally had the whole Roman front engage Perseus's phalanx, but after being unable to penetrate the wall of pikes, and having the line pushing the Romans back, Aemilius saw that portions of the phalanx had clefts and intervals in it, and that some were hard pressed while others were pressing forward. Paulus therefore ordered the Romans to attack in small sections, disrupting the Macedonian line. Once the Romans got between the ranks, the phalangites would face a soldier trained for close combat, whilst having only a dagger and a small shield to protect himself.

The Romans won decisively, having killed ~25,000 while having lost ~100.

[seienchin]

The Romans would often exploit the gaps and rips of phalanxes as they advance through uneven terrain. Once the Roman infantry infiltrated through the sarissa, their superior melee skills would allow them to cut the phalangites to pieces.

The battle of Pydna is one of the best examples of the exploitation of the weakness of the phalanx. Lucius Aemilius Paulus originally had the whole Roman front engage Perseus's phalanx, but after being unable to penetrate the wall of pikes, and having the line pushing the Romans back, Aemilius saw that portions of the phalanx had clefts and intervals in it, and that some were hard pressed while others were pressing forward. Paulus therefore ordered the Romans to attack in small sections, disrupting the Macedonian line. Once the Romans got between the ranks, the phalangites would face a soldier trained for close combat, whilst having only a dagger and a small shield to protect himself.

The Romans won decisively, having killed ~25,000 while having lost ~100.

Propaganda...
But yes the roman way of fighting was superior to the makedonian one, but unfortunatly in Eb it isnt...