Will the Phalanx ever be fixed?

[Lionheart11]

Will it ever be reworked, modded or even corrected by CA, its small things like this that make up the epic overall fail imo. Is it even modable with the new tools now?.

[Noif de Bodemloze]

Will it ever be reworked, modded or even corrected by CA, its small things like this that make up the epic overall fail imo. Is it even modable with the new tools now?.

If I remember that there is a mod in steam workshop where hoplites got spear like that. Even I know that CA's one look very silly.

[SX3]

Another parrot of the "hoplite phalanx is wrong" crowd. It would be nice if you knew how to spell phalanx first.

I will tear down all the sham arguments once and for all. So besides not knowing how to spell Phalanx, it is you Lionheart11 whose lack of knowledge on the subject needs to be fixed.

Common criticisms and why they are wrong:

1. Phalanx was the name of a formation, the Hoplite means someone dressed like Leonidas in 300

Wrong on both counts. Phalanx used in the classical sense simply means the body of infantry. A Roman legion may be referred to as a phalanx, a persian infantry formation may be referred to as a phalanx, the Macedonian pike formation is a phalanx, etc. The Hoplite was a citizen soldier who fought as a body of infantry, nothing more, nothing less. There is no evidence the "classical" hoplite panoply (itself having evolved dramatically from the Persian Wars to the Macedonian Hegemony) was ever used in any significant way after the battle of Chaeronea (338 BC).

2. The picture the OP posted is an accurate depiction of a Greek infantry force in the 3th century BC.

Wrong. Corinthian helmets, wrong, these fell out of use during the Peloponnesian War over 100 years before the start of the period. Aspis shield, wrong, the Thureos shield replaced the Aspis in the 270s for the few independent Greek leagues. The Hoplites depicted in the OP's picture would be anachronistic even 100 years before the start of the game during the Corinthian War as even then reforms (see Iphicrates) had lengthened the spear, lightened the armor, and reduced the shield size for viable infantry forces.

3. It is known for sure that the classical Hoplite Phalanx from the 5th century BC fought in a tight infantry formation with shields overlapping and overhanded grip.

Wrong. Neither of these assumptions are supported by anything other than some vase art and some vague indirect passages and are the subject of scholarly debate at the highest level (not between gamer A and gamer B, but historians). These will raise the biggest roar of anger from the amateur gamers who "just know hoplites fought that way", so here's my support:

http://oyc.yale.edu/classics/clcv-205/lecture-6#ch5 (15:15, 66:50)

If you don't know who Donald Kagan is, you shouldn't even have an opinion on the topic.

Furthermore, OP's picture is showing the same underhand grip as the hoplites in the game.

4. Hoplites never charged and always stayed in a rigid wall never breaking formation.

Wrong. Example 1. Marathon. Example 2. Delium. Example 3. Chaeronea

In summary: the Hoplite Phalanx is largely irrelevant if not completely anachronistic for the game's time period, it never played a significant role in any battle. The OP's idea of what a Hoplite Phalanx would have looked like for the period closest to the start of the game is part anachronistic and part conjecture so for that to be some standard of truth is just ludicrous.

[Yuko]

I wish I could rep SX3 a thousand times for that post.

[Modestus]

Another parrot of the "hoplite phalanx is wrong" crowd. It would be nice if you knew how to spell phalanx first.

I will tear down all the sham arguments once and for all. So besides not knowing how to spell Phalanx, it is you Lionheart11 whose lack of knowledge on the subject needs to be fixed.

Common criticisms and why they are wrong:

1. Phalanx was the name of a formation, the Hoplite means someone dressed like Leonidas in 300

Wrong on both counts. Phalanx used in the classical sense simply means the body of infantry. A Roman legion may be referred to as a phalanx, a persian infantry formation may be referred to as a phalanx, the Macedonian pike formation is a phalanx, etc. The Hoplite was a citizen soldier who fought as a body of infantry, nothing more, nothing less. There is no evidence the "classical" hoplite panoply (itself having evolved dramatically from the Persian Wars to the Macedonian Hegemony) was ever used in any significant way after the battle of Chaeronea (338 BC).

2. The picture the OP posted is an accurate depiction of a Greek infantry force in the 3th century BC.

Wrong. Corinthian helmets, wrong, these fell out of use during the Peloponnesian War over 100 years before the start of the period. Aspis shield, wrong, the Thureos shield replaced the Aspis in the 270s for the few independent Greek leagues. The Hoplites depicted in the OP's picture would be anachronistic even 100 years before the start of the game during the Corinthian War as even then reforms (see Iphicrates) had lengthened the spear, lightened the armor, and reduced the shield size for viable infantry forces.

3. It is known for sure that the classical Hoplite Phalanx from the 5th century BC fought in a tight infantry formation with shields overlapping and overhanded grip.

Wrong. Neither of these assumptions are supported by anything other than some vase art and some vague indirect passages and are the subject of scholarly debate at the highest level (not between gamer A and gamer B, but historians). These will raise the biggest roar of anger from the amateur gamers who "just know hoplites fought that way", so here's my support:

http://oyc.yale.edu/classics/clcv-205/lecture-6#ch5 (15:15, 66:50)

If you don't know who Donald Kagan is, you shouldn't even have an opinion on the topic.

Furthermore, OP's picture is showing the same underhand grip as the hoplites in the game.

4. Hoplites never charged and always stayed in a rigid wall never breaking formation.

Wrong. Example 1. Marathon. Example 2. Delium. Example 3. Chaeronea

In summary: the Hoplite Phalanx is largely irrelevant if not completely anachronistic for the game's time period, it never played a significant role in any battle. The OP's idea of what a Hoplite Phalanx would have looked like for the period closest to the start of the game is part anachronistic and part conjecture so for that to be some standard of truth is just ludicrous.

Its heartening to see someone win an argument with themselves and to be so modest about it.

[WhooLong]

+100

Give that man a cookie! For more information, I advise you guys to find a map of the battle of Pydna, macedonians against romans. All of the historians I've read, use the word Phalanx to describe the entirety of the macedonians army, as you would call a roman army a Legion. The only troops in that battle on the side of the macedonians to have a "formation", were the royal guard/agema, the bronze shields/chalcaspides, and the white shields/leucaspides. And you know what they all say about their formation? It was a LINE OF BATTLE, plain and simple as that...

[Swerg]

The phalanx's problems are more technical than in aesthetic. Since units can just walk through spears and all.

[SX3]

The phalanx's problems are more technical than in aesthetic. Since units can just walk through spears and all.

You are suggesting...? The hoplite formation was a wall of pikes and should work like this? http://www.g-unleashed.com/files/34_...ans_screen.jpg

I sincerely hope I am misinterpreting your post, because unemployed modders spent months of their lives getting rid of just that in RTW, and it would be such a waste.

[Lionheart11]

My point is main directed to overlapping of shields not 300 movies.

[Lionheart11]

Mainly** Phalanx*** It appears i can no longer edit my posts for some reason.

[SX3]

*Sigh, okay I will entertain this non-intellectual opinion with an academic answer:

Okay so how can I put this clearly...

1. Hans Van Wees: if the hoplite stands sideways like a fencer, the Aspis shield is completely adequate to protect the body without the shield of the man to the right. The Aspis shield was in use prior to the development of the tight hoplite block and remained in use (possibly) after its disappearance. If it is unnecessary, why do you assume the hoplite phalanx requires overlapping shields? Overlapping shields means immobile, and hoplites, if they existed in this period, were not and could not be immobile.

2. The game starts in year 272 BC, the battle of Chaeronea was 338 BC. Lets assume the Greek mercenaries in Persian service during Alexander's campaign were armed as traditional hoplites (what this means relative to the Persian War hoplite is debatable, I tend to believe and the evidence suggest constant innovation in the 150 years of constant warfare), lets assume Agis III vs Antipater at the battle of Megalopolis 331 BC was fought by a hoplite army. Lets assume the Lamian War and the Battle of Crannon (322 BC) involved hoplite infantry. Can you point to any definitive hoplite battle in the 3rd century BC? Any example would suffice.

Undoubtably the main armament of Greek infantry remained the spear and large shield, but it's clear the hoplite phalanx as a dense immobile heavy infantry force was entirely obsolete by the 3rd century BC. Locking shields in frontal assault on a flat plain and not breaking rank seems like a pretty dumb idea when threat 1,2,3 and 4 in your immediate neighborhood all use a wall of pikes. It is clear that almost immediately after Chaeronea the infantry of the city states sought to fight on broken ground (where the advantage of the Pike phalanx can't be brought to bear) see Battle of Crannon where the Athenian infantry took a hill. In the 3rd and 2nd century you'll see references to Greek auxiliaries, peltasts, thureophoroi, all of which were said to be able to skirmish and fight in the phalanx (main body of infantry). Likewise, elite units like the Hypaspists which may have used spear and Aspis type shield (classic hoplite armament) were called "lightest armed" and "most nimble" and used to assault fortifications and expand the gap created by cavalry, a role completely antithetical to the "correct hoplite phalanx" which people keep harping about. What does this mean? If your theoretical fighting style is incompatible with the role these troops actually filled (how do you lock shields when running after cavalry?) it's a fair bet your theory is wrong. There is no classic hoplite phalanx formation in use when the game starts.

Analogy:

Waaaahh why does Battlefield 4 not have Panzers???? NOT HISTORICALLY ACCURATE PEOPLE USED PANZERS

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

I don't think any of that has anything to do with the game.

Whether it was historical or not, the Phalanx formation is in the game, and currently does not work well. It cannot be used on the offensive at all, as ordering the unit to attack immediately breaks the formation. Very annoying.

On top of that, it looks rather silly. When you order them to assume the formation, only the very first line lowers their shields and braces. Everyone behind them just stands there looking weirdly bored for people about to fight for their lives.

But, this is not a problem with just the Phalanx formation. Shield Wall also has this same issue.

In one of the screenshots marketing this game, it shows a unit of Sacred Band (I think) who are in a shield wall. It looks much better than the one currently in game, as more than just the first rank have braced themselves.

It would be like if you ordered your pikes into a phalanx, and only the ones in front lowered their pikes, while the rest just sat there with pikes raised. It looks horrible.

[SX3]

Haha it didn't take long for you lot to give up on the historicity angle. I'll address both your points:

1. If you want to attack in hoplite formation, walk your unit in hoplite formation into the enemy. If you right click, it is a charge when in range command. Whether this is the best possible control design, I don't know, I haven't thought about it enough. It is certainly true that hoplites charged the opposing line often, and I have no problems with getting my units to do what I want, having mastered the controls.

2. You realize when hostiles actually get close to your line the entire unit regardless of whether they're in hoplite phalanx or not, lowers their spears right?

Does this picture look like what you described? http://i.imgur.com/g79mmEp.jpg

No?

Oh you want them to stand there entire unit bracing when the enemy is halfway across the map? You know what looks more silly than a single row lowering shields and bracing? That.

Also look again at the OP's picture. Only one rank bracing there too? Has the entire internet gone insane?

[Pontic Pontus]

Patch nine improved phalanxes a lot, now they act more as barriers and less as super-spearmen destroying everything in their path

[daelin4]

A question worth asking one's self is whether the Hoplite Phalanx works well* or looks well.

*works meaning performs as expected, which tends to fall into the subjective category.

IMO the term hoplite phalanx is category encompassing numerous possible approaches, which might explain why there's such a hubub between fans about what it should be doing and what it looks like.

Not saying the current formation in the game fulfills anyone's views, of course. Which is ironic: it's almost like CA knew that and just chose the most unrealistic version to rile everyone up

[ptoss1]

Another parrot of the "hoplite phalanx is wrong" crowd. It would be nice if you knew how to spell phalanx first.

I will tear down all the sham arguments once and for all. So besides not knowing how to spell Phalanx, it is you Lionheart11 whose lack of knowledge on the subject needs to be fixed.

Common criticisms and why they are wrong:

1. Phalanx was the name of a formation, the Hoplite means someone dressed like Leonidas in 300

Wrong on both counts. Phalanx used in the classical sense simply means the body of infantry. A Roman legion may be referred to as a phalanx, a persian infantry formation may be referred to as a phalanx, the Macedonian pike formation is a phalanx, etc. The Hoplite was a citizen soldier who fought as a body of infantry, nothing more, nothing less. There is no evidence the "classical" hoplite panoply (itself having evolved dramatically from the Persian Wars to the Macedonian Hegemony) was ever used in any significant way after the battle of Chaeronea (338 BC).

2. The picture the OP posted is an accurate depiction of a Greek infantry force in the 3th century BC.

Wrong. Corinthian helmets, wrong, these fell out of use during the Peloponnesian War over 100 years before the start of the period. Aspis shield, wrong, the Thureos shield replaced the Aspis in the 270s for the few independent Greek leagues. The Hoplites depicted in the OP's picture would be anachronistic even 100 years before the start of the game during the Corinthian War as even then reforms (see Iphicrates) had lengthened the spear, lightened the armor, and reduced the shield size for viable infantry forces.

3. It is known for sure that the classical Hoplite Phalanx from the 5th century BC fought in a tight infantry formation with shields overlapping and overhanded grip.

Wrong. Neither of these assumptions are supported by anything other than some vase art and some vague indirect passages and are the subject of scholarly debate at the highest level (not between gamer A and gamer B, but historians). These will raise the biggest roar of anger from the amateur gamers who "just know hoplites fought that way", so here's my support:

http://oyc.yale.edu/classics/clcv-205/lecture-6#ch5 (15:15, 66:50)

If you don't know who Donald Kagan is, you shouldn't even have an opinion on the topic.

Furthermore, OP's picture is showing the same underhand grip as the hoplites in the game.

4. Hoplites never charged and always stayed in a rigid wall never breaking formation.

Wrong. Example 1. Marathon. Example 2. Delium. Example 3. Chaeronea

In summary: the Hoplite Phalanx is largely irrelevant if not completely anachronistic for the game's time period, it never played a significant role in any battle. The OP's idea of what a Hoplite Phalanx would have looked like for the period closest to the start of the game is part anachronistic and part conjecture so for that to be some standard of truth is just ludicrous.

I love you.

[Roboute Guilliman]

You are suggesting...? The hoplite formation was a wall of pikes and should work like this? http://www.g-unleashed.com/files/34_...ans_screen.jpg

I sincerely hope I am misinterpreting your post, because unemployed modders spent months of their lives getting rid of just that in RTW, and it would be such a waste.

Blobbing is still a problem, it cant be ironed out by modders as it is an engine design flaw. The 1on1 duels and killmoves are the main reason for this.

[ptoss1]

So, why don't people like the phalanx in this game?

I personally know nothing of Greek warfare so I had nothing to compare the one in this game to.

I am so clueless.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Haha it didn't take long for you lot to give up on the historicity angle. I'll address both your points:

1. If you want to attack in hoplite formation, walk your unit in hoplite formation into the enemy. If you right click, it is a charge when in range command. Whether this is the best possible control design, I don't know, I haven't thought about it enough. It is certainly true that hoplites charged the opposing line often, and I have no problems with getting my units to do what I want, having mastered the controls.

2. You realize when hostiles actually get close to your line the entire unit regardless of, whether they're in hoplite phalanx or not, lowers their spears right?

Does this picture look like what you described? http://i.imgur.com/g79mmEp.jpg

No?

Oh you want them to stand there entire unit bracing when the enemy is halfway across the map? You know what looks more silly than a single row lowering shields and bracing? That.

Also look again at the OP's picture. Only one rank bracing there too? Has the entire internet gone insane?

"You lot"? I am more than one person now, apparently.

And yes, I know how you must use hoplites in phalanx formation, but that is not a very suitable way to do it. The same applies to shield wall, again. You lose out on any charge bonuses.

And, on top of this, when you do use hoplites in this manner, as you must if you want to attack with them, they do NOT lower their shields until they have literally made contact with the enemy. Then every man in the unit abruptly jumps into an attacking pose. It looks silly. Far more silly than if the unit had just braced the entire time, like the pike units do.

[SX3]

"You lot"? I am more than one person now, apparently.

And yes, I know how you must use hoplites in phalanx formation, but that is not a very suitable way to do it. The same applies to shield wall, again. You lose out on any charge bonuses.

And, on top of this, when you do use hoplites in this manner, as you must if you want to attack with them, they do NOT lower their shields until they have literally made contact with the enemy. Then every man in the unit abruptly jumps into an attacking pose. It looks silly. Far more silly than if the unit had just braced the entire time, like the pike units do.

Okay I'll address this and then it's off to bed for me. Why is there a bonus to a unit in a shieldwall vs a unit not in a shieldwall? The tight and cohesive front line leaves very few gaps between men for the enemy to strike. By necessity you cannot charge in a shieldwall without weakening or breaking its cohesion, this is common sense, see Battle of Hastings. Once your unit has collided with the hostiles, it is absurd to think you could somehow line back up in a neat row again. So, if the right click command is a charge when in range command, then it makes complete sense the unit ordered to charge will not keep its shield wall / hoplite phalanx bonus.

What you're actually asking for is a command to slowly and in good order, walk your shield wall / hoplite phalanx into the enemy. CA can either introduce a new command or change the right click command for a unit with shieldwall / hoplite phalanx activated to walk into the target. I don't see how that would hurt gameplay, but for me it is trivial and inconsequential because like we've discussed, you can already walk your shield wall / hoplite phalanx into a target.