Phalanx were really OP in Rome 1. for example; Sacred Band of Carthage can easily take Urban Cohort of Rome. I don't even speak about Spartan "immortal" Hoplites.
In the Renaissance compare Swiss pikes to French pikes. Which is why you never hear about French pikes, they were complete .
Shut Up! I don't have to listen to you! You're not my real dad!
Not under the patronage of Jom. I don't even think he likes me.
to be honest i dont think celtic swords where anywhere near as disadvantages as roman sources make them out to be. swords of that length seemed to do fine in close ranked viking style shieldwall combat. and really that arn't that much longer. some examples go up to 1 meter in length but the average is about 85cm which isn't that much bigger than a gladius. infact the best preserved iron age celtic sword, the kirkburn sword is only 71cm in lenght which is on par with a gladius. most likely the longer swords were more for cavalry and chariot based combat similar to how roman cavalry swords are longer than infantry swordsThe Romans used short swords and Gauls and Germans used longer swords which were at a disadvantage in close combat. They should still show pretty good resistance when facing Romans, though.
although im sure it was up to the particular warriors preference rather than that of an enforced standard
Last edited by Daily; August 19, 2013 at 10:15 AM.
Swords could be used a similar manner to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64qDtI5JDqo
Last edited by Dan113112; August 19, 2013 at 06:32 AM.
I can also remember some problems with the phalanx in RTW 1, but they should be careful not to change the things they got right.
The first problem was with the AI, especially in sieges. One could set up a phalanx in an inverse wedge at a breach in the wall and the AI would send his whole army into the meatgrinder.
Secondly, I always found it odd that the Germanic basic infantry used the phalanx and because phalanxes in general were extremely effective head on, they were overpowered against anything other than another phalanx. Seriously, why give this formation to the faction famous for living in dense forest?
Like most people on these forums, I am not an expert and have no real experience of what it is like fighting with and against a phalanx (I still can't get my head around how anyone could fight effectively with such a long pole) but my gut instinct is that they were a little too good in RTW 1 since from what I remember the units usually didn't suffer any attrition at all! However any change would requite the scalpel rather than the sledge hammer.
By now I am thinking the game is more or less done and it is too late for change so lets see what we are given!
Dominion of Dust. A city of sand. Built your world of nothing. So how long did it stand?
A 100 years? Now wasn't it grand? Built your world of nothing. How long did it stand?
What did you think would happen? When did you think it would all fall down?
Domain of dust in a land of sand. Did yourself right, so let's feel grand.
Domain of dust in a land of sand. Now there's nowhere left to stand.
For me, the Phalanx wasn't hard to beat...was just annoying as fudge!
I could flank it, which was the only way I attacked it, but they would just swing those sticks around and start attacking at the rear. The way I countered this is to flank them with light crappy infantry, when they turned their pikes, I attacked with heavy infantry at their newly exposed rear. They will only turn their pikes once. They won't turn them again if they are still engaging the first flankers.
What annoys me is that they still took a while to kill even in a situation like this. A big thank you to Jack for showing that this is not the case anymore.
I personally invite you to check out my complete combat overhaul which will give you a completely new Rome 2 experience:
If you rep me, leave that beautiful name of yours so I know who you are
That a salesperson at my door? Where my Gladius at??
An empire always fails because it never sees the potential in the individual. The smaller state never fails because it has no choice but to... - DogSoldierSPQR
The problem i have with phalanxes in Rome 1 is that there's no real way to disrupt them. If you charge a phalanx from behind with cavalry, there are a few possible outcomes:
1. Phalanx takes heavy damage/routs
2. -Your- cavalry dies on impact despite them coming from behind, your cavalry then routs, and you're now down 1 unit of cav.
3. "The sweeper" - this is the most annoying one. You think you've sucessfully broken up the phalanx, but nope - they pick up their pikes again and when they try to get back into formation, their pikes become laser beams and cut down your units as the soldiers carrying them spin around. Kinda difficult to explain but extremely annoying and broken as hell.
So essentially, the phalanx is OP in Rome because of bugs/glitches.
Also, phalanx vs phalanx is really wierd in Rome 1. It seems like there's an element of randomness to it - i played against a friend once and we decided to test this out. I picked 1 Royal Pikemen, he picked 1 Silver Shield Pikemen. Now, the Royal Pikemen should win this - not only do they have better stats, they also have much larger shields. We then lined up and at the exact same moment attacked eachother. Out of 6 battles, i won 3 and he won 3. The battles were over in around 10 seconds - that's how long it takes for the "winning" phalanx to kill 70-80% of the opposing phalanx.
I dont know if it is relate to this thread or not but i say.
Every body who say that the phalanxes were easy to defeat i should say i think that Bravery or Strength or equipment will not change anything when you confront a massive wall of long spears ready to impale you.The worst thing for you at confrontation with phalanx style units is that you can not decide who is the man you should engage or see who was the man who struck you!!!!
You just see a massive line of men in close formation and far from your reach and only work that you can do is hide behind your shield(if you have any)or throwing your weapon at them(if you can decide who is your target then in the best case you just can take one of them)and still they stand before you and will not let you pass through.
And you will be pushed hard by the rear lines to advance(because they can not see what the mess you dropped at) and at this very moment you just think that your time has come
Our great god AHURA MAZDA demands:
"Good thoughts of the mind, Good deeds of the hand, and Good words of the tongue"
Wrong again.I don't even speak about Spartan "immortal" Hoplites.
No need to argue, just playtest for yourself some 1 unit battles in multiplayer or vs the AI in normal difficulty.
To the OP: It is best if you specify whether you are talking about single player or multiplayer, these are two different worlds. In R:TW the focus was on Rome. Every other faction was really underpowered one way or the other, the "barbarians" much more notably so, especially in multiplayer.
From what we've seen already, Rome 2 will be much more balanced and "barbarian" flavoured.
|Patience is a virtue. Indecision is a vice.|
Anyone who watches the video can tell you that CA showed a levy(weakest unit in the game) as a demonstration so clearly they would have low stats and wouldn't last long in a fight if they get flanked or go against an actual elite unit. Not to mention the whole thing was sped up because not everyone is going to be interested in watching a 10 minute pushing match.
Why is that so hard to understand?
We've seen elite hoplite units hold out longer than 5 - 10 minutes against Roman legions so why should the Phalanx be any different?
In any case though we've seen Pikes get beaten when attacked in the rear which is how it happened anyways. The Pike's main weakeness was it's inflexbility.
If you got issues with people forming pike circles then do what the English did to the Scottish, use archers.
Last edited by nameless; August 19, 2013 at 10:21 AM.