phalangitai... too few spears?

[Karamazovmm]

Let me put that I still play EB and just love it, and I'm waiting impatiently for EBII. but one thing caught my eye in the previews....

in the video of phalangitai, I got the impression that they have only two rows of spears pointed to he enemy, when I was under the utter impression that it was supposed to be at least 4 rows, maybe 5...

thoughts?

[Foot]

Yes, such is the world of hardcodes. The game only allows for up to three ranks (when in guard mode) to use the "sarissas lowered" animation during a fight. We cannot change that. Hardcodes. If that ever changes, we will be the first to know.

Foot

[seienchin]

Wow... How about turning the guard mode off?
Wasnt the phalangitai an aggressive formation anyway? I mean Alexander pushed through the enemies and at pydna the makedonians even pushed too far through the romans...

[bobbin]

You might want to familiarise yourself with this tactic.

[Cute Wolf]

Yes, such is the world of hardcodes. The game only allows for up to three ranks (when in guard mode) to use the "sarissas lowered" animation during a fight. We cannot change that. Hardcodes. If that ever changes, we will be the first to know.

Foot

So, the first rank will sit down too? like the Medieval Pikemen?

[Skullheadhq]

Better check the movie at the Gaza Announcement, the phalangitai look quite good there.

[Apázlinemjó]

Yes, such is the world of hardcodes. The game only allows for up to three ranks (when in guard mode) to use the "sarissas lowered" animation during a fight. We cannot change that. Hardcodes. If that ever changes, we will be the first to know.

Foot

At least they won't be too impenetrable from the front.

[Cute Wolf]

Allready see the movie... well, that was too few spears, but with this engine, the Phalangitai finally couldn't turn arround their spears arround!

But I didn't see really "idle" phalangitai yet? still wonders if the first man sit down or not...

[antisocialmunky]

I think you can mod that out. Its jsut an animation thing. I also like the fact taht the 'push of the pike' seems to be in.

[seienchin]

You might want to familiarise yourself with this tactic.

What are you trying to tell me? That phalangitai waited for the enemy and than charged the cavallery in the back? Please even people in the antics werent that stupid to fall for such a plan
Just look at Alexanders battle plans. It wasnt that easy. And he always used the phalangitai aggresive and I do not know any battle were the phalangitai just waited for the enemy.

[bobbin]

Sure they would march to meet the enemy but their job then was to hold the infantry (not an aggressive role) until the cavalry delivered the final blow to the rear, its the classic Alexandrian tactic.
It has been theorised that the loss of this combined arms tactic in favour of using the phalanx as the main aggressive force was one of the main reasons for Diadochi armies poor performance against the Roman Legions.
A decent explination of Macedonian army tactics can be found here.

[JMRC]

But I didn't see really "idle" phalangitai yet? still wonders if the first man sit down or not...

The first man will not sit down. There are 2 ranks with spears lowered and if in Guard Mode, the 3rd rank will also lower the spears.

[Karamazovmm]

Can't understand the need for all this talk about the strategies used by macedon...
Philip used a more defensive role of the phalanx, Alexandros improved it by taking a more offensive role (he needed 'cause of the lack of man power that he had( a classical example is the battle of gaugamela)).
The point is that the phalanx never lost its importance, it did lost against the romans for a lack of better generals and poor amry rosters, but it stayed and we (with a very loose sense) see its use in todays world.

The classical phalanx was used by Sweden until the reformation of their armies in the late 19 century, and we can see that the tactics used by the tanks today are derived from that formation... summarizing Philip was and still is one of the most brilliant strategists, and his son took after his father.

Ps: albeit the discussion is the thing that I like in the .org and that it usually lacks in TWC (that is to my understanding)

[Cute Wolf]

The first man will not sit down. There are 2 ranks with spears lowered and if in Guard Mode, the 3rd rank will also lower the spears.

Bravo... so we could say goodbye to pikemen-ish formations we see on previous videos!!!

[Foot]

Bravo... so we could say goodbye to pikemen-ish formations we see on previous videos!!!

What pikemen-ish formations from previous videos? The animations haven't changed since you saw them in the macedon vs ptolemaioi video.

Foot

[antisocialmunky]

Is there a way to make it so units don't run into the pikes and continue hteir run animation?

[Phalanx300]

http://www.manningimperial.com/item....g_id=1&c_id=14

That point doesn't look very defensive to me.

The Phalanx was an offensive formation, not a battle winning force in most cases but the Diadochi wouldn't rely on them that much if they weren't an offensive formation.

[Foot]

there purpose was to hold not to kill, and without some from of infantry or cavalry back up were eventually overrun (as we see on the left flank in Gaugamela). That would explain the strategies of Pyrrhus when he split the phalanx with close-melee troops. But they were use to aggressively pin an enemy (the only defensive formation was that which fortified a position - all others had to be used aggressively lest the enemy simply flank).

You need to define your terms properly, before you begin to define things with them.

Foot

[antisocialmunky]

Well theory and practice can be very different...

He could be refering what the Macedonians were doing during the Macedonian War against Rome due to a shortage of elite horsemen.

[Phalanx300]

Well all I'm saying is that the points on their spears weren't for show.

And from the way they were used they were to engage the enemy and eventually they became almost an independant force under the diadochi, if they truelly weren't used for the offensive then they wouldn't be massed like the Hoplites of the city states.

[Arkhis]

To engage

Verb

1. (transitive) To pledge, to put something at risk or on the line.
2. (intransitive) To guarantee or promise (to do something.)
3. (transitive) To bind through legal or moral obligation (to do something, especially to marry) (usually in passive)
4. (transitive) To engross or hold the attention of someone.
5. (transitive, archaic) To fascinate or win over someone.
6. (transitive) To employ or obtain the services of someone.
7. (transitive) To reserve or arrange the use of.
8. To mesh or interlock (of machinery, especially a clutch).
9. To cause to mesh or interlock.
10. (intransitive) To enter into (an activity), to participate (construed with in).
11. (transitive) To keep busy or occupied.
12. (transitive) To attract, to draw into conversation.
13. (transitive) To enter into conflict with (an enemy).
14. (intransitive) To enter into battle.
15. To bring together or prepare before fighting.
16. (military) In air defense, a fire control order used to direct or authorize units and/or weapon systems to fire on a designated target. (JP 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms).
17. (military) To bring the enemy under fire. (JP 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms).

I put the relevant meanings in bold.

To engage is thus a very broad term, and engaging the enemy does not necessarily mean an offense.

Pikes weren't meant to cause large casualties or break enemy formations. Certainly, one can use them for an offense, but they won't be as effective as more specialised offensive infantry, or cavalry. After all, a (sarissa) phalanx wasn't very mobile, which is a very useful trait for a force that's supposed to be able to attack the right spot in a battle line quickly. Agressive defense is perhaps a better term, as Foot said.

They need offensive support to be most effective.

Tanks are technically cavalry, they certainly don't hold a battleline, nor do they use a phalanx formation, or, honestly, a derivative of said formation. Tanks are not meant to hold a line, they are fast(er then infantry) and pack some firepower meant for an offense. Tanks have been used as a means of breakthrough, to destroy the enemy battleline and allow the infantry to exploit that gap, since WW2. Operation Supercharge at the second battle of El Alamein (the tank charge), or even the battle of Kursk are examples of what tanks were used for.

Also, Swedish pike charges were done in an era where wearing armour had become almost obsolete (certainly for infantry), making a wall of pikes far more dangerous to the enemy, since they didn't have any protection. It's a bit pointless to liken their use in the age of gunpowder with their use in classical times, due to SEVERELY different equipment (and thus, tactics).

Well, that's just my view of things. One CAN use a sarissa phalanx offensively, but as the few given examples point out, this was done out of dire need. They clearly weren't as effective at it, compared to others, and those times it was used are likely because a lack of support, not because they were good at it.

I am by no means a military expert, nor do I claim to. I could very well be wrong.

[Karamazovmm]

[QUOTE=Arkhis;2374388]

They need offensive support to be most effective.

The point in here is that they were used for "charging" the enemy line and to hold (the terminology used by Foot is probably the best), and to charge in any military manual, count as an offensive movement, the attack of Parmenion an d Alexandros in the gaugamela batttle is a clear example.

Tanks are technically cavalry

Yes they are.

, they certainly don't hold a battleline

yes they do, the basic strategy developed for the tanks in the 1WW was that it would disrupt the enemy formations, mainly that of the trenches. In WW2 that role clearly suffered a transformation, it's pretty easy to see the changes made by the designers, tanks as a disruptive force were outlasted by the support role that they made to infantry, it's clear that you're not familiarized with modern day tactics as in that you pin the enemy than you outmaneuver and kill him, supressing fire is the basic point in those formations, and it was firstly realised by Hitler, than the frenchs, and finally for the americans (albeit perceived in WW2 it was only fully deployed in the pacific theatre (for the lack of a heavy tank for the japanese), further development only came in with the M1A1), the russians well that's for another day.
Of course the tactics couldn't be translated as an actual phalanx, that died in the middle ages, the tanks were used as the spearhead to pin the enemy and to the infantry maneuver and kill the enemy, actually those examples that you cited operation supercharge and the battle of kursk were extremes, as they relied heavily in the firepower of those tanks, and as such the britsh and the soviet tanks were, kindly putting, armored cars compared to the germans panzer IV and tiger, gently putting, if they couldn't outsmart and outmaneuver they were dead, most of their shots didn't penetrate the heavy armor, and as such the only options was to advance and send the infantry to flank, which we could consider being the main purpose of the phalanx, advance pin down, and let someone do the killing, this behaviour could be perceived in both battles (which are considered the two major tanks battle of the war, therefore extremes), and such if this behaviour could be perceived in those examples, imagine a more common type of battle, in which a panzer division utilized infantry and tanks combined. The tactics is as follow:
1 - pin/disrupt enemy formations
2 - send rapid deployment teams to flank
3 - let the tanks advance use the offensive abilities to pin down and defensive abilities to soak fire
4 - let infantry kill
BTW, if you see the westpoint or another military academy they clearly specify the phalanx as an inspirational for modern day fighting and tank deployment

Also, Swedish pike charges were done in an era where wearing armour had become almost obsolete (certainly for infantry), making a wall of pikes far more dangerous to the enemy, since they didn't have any protection. It's a bit pointless to liken their use in the age of gunpowder with their use in classical times, due to SEVERELY different equipment (and thus, tactics).

yes tactics change over time, but let's say that that Alexandros was fighting an army based with a lot of ranged troops, and let's say that the great weakness of the phalanx was that they could be outmaneuvered and hence be destroyed, if you have a prevalent army of ranged units that actually fought too much for the hollywood likening in close range, as in hand to hand combat the phalanx could and was still used to pin down and to let the others units do the killing, they could kill more because of the lack of armor? Sure why not? they could kill less? that's not impossible..

The point that I was trying to make is, the phalanx was a great formation and that it was more adaptable than we like to see it. Hammer and Anvil? sure! it's derivations were used throughout the time, yes it was. Was there any need to adapt those tactics to the new ways of killing, yes there was. The core of the tactics was maintained? we could say that.

PS: it's just my opinion, and yes it's my professional opinion

[Apázlinemjó]

[QUOTE=Seila;2374546]

The point in here is that they were used for "charging" the enemy line and to hold (the terminology used by Foot is probably the best), and to charge in any military manual, count as an offensive movement, the attack of Parmenion an d Alexandros in the gaugamela batttle is a clear example.

"Charging"? I don't think that the Macedon-style phalanxes really charged, I mean you have a 6m long spear, it clearly makes the running quite hard and you have to try to keep the close formation too, because it's one of the most important point of the phalanx. So a forced march is more likely in my opinion.

[The General]

PS: it's just my opinion, and yes it's my professional opinion

Have you served in the military?

Suppressing fire is not the same as phalanx. Seriously. If you think tanks are meant to sit on their asses and fire suppressing fire while infantry crawls to the enemy and fires at the opponent's side/rear...

Also, I can't understand why some thing that phalanxes would not have been fielded en masse if they were defensive in nature. How does "defensive" equal "worthless", hm? Phalanxes engaged enemy to pin them down (defensive does not mean 'stationary'), but their role was not to break the enemy. That was the hammer's, that being heavy cavalry, job. They could be used offensively to "push" the enemy, however, the usage of this tactic seems to correlate with the diminishing numbers of heavy cavalry fielded in battles.

Also, someone mentioned Pydna as an example of offensive use of phalanxes; in Pydna, Romans started withdrawing as they saw that frontal charge was useless and behind them was rougher ground which would disturb the phalanx formations. Phalanxes were essentially lured into advancing too far, opening gaps in the formation for Roman legionaries to exploit.

[Karamazovmm]

Yes I did serve in the military, and I am a military "expert" in the international relations world.
BTW I never said that pinning down today was equal as yesterday, but surely you caught the spirit of what I said (or tried for that matter) the "myth" of the phalanx as an static formation is not feasible anymore, as in you have too much development in new ways of killing people ( we surely evolved in that matter) and the manouverability that was implemented in the hellenic period and diadochai. Let's go one by one

By charge I mean this:

[noun] a impetuous rush toward someone or something; "the wrestler's charge carried him past his adversary"; "the battle began with a cavalry charge"

it doesn't mean that you go with a great URAAAAAA and skewer the enemy with your almost too heavy 6m spear. It does mean that you rushed to the enemy and to present him the impenetrable wall of spears, in my opinion that is a charge, that's what Alexandros did in gaugamela

I consider this an ofensive use of what was a great holding the line formation.

In the case of:

Suppressing fire is not the same as phalanx. Seriously. If you think tanks are meant to sit on their asses and fire suppressing fire while infantry crawls to the enemy and fires at the opponent's side/rear...

Also, I can't understand why some thing that phalanxes would not have been fielded en masse if they were defensive in nature. How does "defensive" equal "worthless", hm? Phalanxes engaged enemy to pin them down (defensive does not mean 'stationary'), but their role was not to break the enemy. That was the hammer's, that being heavy cavalry, job. They could be used offensively to "push" the enemy, however, the usage of this tactic seems to correlate with the diminishing numbers of heavy cavalry fielded in battles.

You answered yourself, holding the line doesn't mean static all the way, you may need some elements to counterpush to make the line hold, to attract more firepower to one place and relief the other. A line is not static in anyway, never was. And yes I did not expect the tanks to survive if they're supposed to stay static in the battlefield, the infantry is highly maneuverable, and so it can surely outmaneuveur a tank and flank and you know the drill. So yes never meant the tanks to stay put, they are there to soak the fire, but they are there to survive as well

[The General]

Yes I did serve in the military, and I am a military "expert" in the international relations world...

I understand charge to mean a violent, fast-paced attack, as defined here:

"to attack by rushing violently against: The cavalry charged the enemy."

Such a maneuver, I'd think, is nigh-impossible if you want to maintain cohesion of your phalanx unit, and that cohesion was very, very important for phalanxes. Advance, yes, attack, aye, but charge? Don't think so.

I don't think anyone here has said that phalanxes were immobile blobs of infantry, waiting their enemies to run themselves into their pikes. They could certainly move and maneuver, to an extent, and as many have mentioned here, their primary task was to pin down the enemy. This implies an active role in the battlefield, in that they needed to keep the enemy there. If they simply approached the enemy and presented them with a pikewall, the enemy would've been free to maneuver still (and counter cavalry attacks and whatnot).

(Also, Gaugamela was quite a special battle in that Alexander was heavily outnumbered, had he used his phalanxes defensively he simply would've been flanked by swarms of enemies, he had to bring the enemy in contact with his phalanxes quickly to be able to strike at the enemy flank [/gap between Bessus and infantry] before getting outflanked/swarmed. In Diadochi Wars I would think the numbers would've been more equal.)

I must say, you have an interesting concept of modern warfare in that you put such importance on defensive abilities of MBTs and the concept of defensive lines. I suppose my training in a highly (counter/-)offensive mechanized battalion has struck the "strike, strike, STRIKE!" mentality in my backbone.

However, that would be a subject for another topic, I'm afraid, we're risking incurring Ludens's wrath if we continue talking about armoured warfare here.

[Karamazovmm]

Then mecanized warfare talks shall be done as you say. But let me ask you this (last one on this subject) Apparently you were in the army, and so were are you from? and yes this is cheating I have the notions of a need for more defensive strategies, principally in the urban warfare, such as attacks in one town well lead me to reinforce people there and to do active incursions on some other towns definitely enabling me to cut some structure from the guerrilla there, and to occupy with lower casualties, for both sides. A attack focus strategy in urban and modern warfare I think it's wrong, it let you focus on some things, but in the end you had to abandon so much ground just to make the offensive that your middle, as in middle of your territory will be filled of your enemies that could get away in your checkpoints. (sorry if its kind of hard to understand, tried to make as clear as possible (non native english)

But in the matter of gaugamela being a different battle, as in Alexandros being outnumbered, I can't agree with that, almost all of his battles he was outnumbered, maybe in not such fashion (we can't take the account of historians of the period as a truthful and having always the right view of the things, ahhh the anal school just love the guys).

and not putting that the I haven't realised that you people put that the phalanx is maneuverable it's just that I think it's more than that you asserted, the phalanx is not just a formation is a kind of warfare, you have to have the army entirely devoted to that matter, ensuring this you can guarantee that your pike based units are much more maneuverable than that 6m almost to heavy pike let us think.

ps: If Hannah Arendt wasn't dead just could mary her, love discussions.

[antisocialmunky]

Haven't been in the military but isn't the tanks = cavalry argument in modern warfare is kinda off. Its the airpower that provides the analogous shock and speed of cavalry.

AFVs are more analoguous to formation fighting heavy infantry that provide anchors in a line and a position for light troops to fall back to. They are powerful force that can engage in slugging matches while they can be taken out by bad terrain and inproper support.

Infantry in this analogy would fall into a skirmisher role providing support for a tank and provide the eyes and ears for the armor and air power as well as fighting where the armor cannot.

Under this analogy, Pydna would resemble the time the British in North Africa brilliantly tricked the German Tanks into the soft sand where they became ineffective.

Likewise, Gaugamella would have resembled something similar to the Soviets rolling through the Fulda Gap. The NATO forces would have to hold against the numerically superior Soviets long enough for Western air superiority so they could bog down and destroy the Soviet advance.

Something like that...

*flees before Ludens shows up*

[Karamazovmm]

*flees before Ludens shows up*

Bye little bird go with your friends were the sun is great, the women are cheap and the economic recession didn't kill us, go with the wind!!

altough I agree with you, on the mecanized part, it's just that historically the tanks were an evolution to the cavalry, and thus named after that, although much of their tactics retain the role of heavy infantry style, their role is to support, we don't have a lot of tank battles in fact they were rare and still are.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, Gulf War 1 had some fairly large armored engagements. Other than that its usually people with MBTs fighting people without MBTs and finding out that MBTs aren't as cost effective in these sorts of asymmetrical conflicts. Look at the Israelis in the Sinai, Israelis in the recent Lebenon Conflict, and just the ridiculously one sided Second Battle of Grozny.