So was this the original hoplite phalanx?

[cowbell kid]

With the way units fight in combat I guess this wouldn't have worked and is why it is labeled "Work in Progress". But it looks awesome and they even overlap their shields.

How do you guys think they could improve both phalanx formations? Should a new animation be made or increase the size of the hoplons? And to what extent if any can modders fix the phalanx?

[red_locust]

Don't think it's an important part of the game for CA to spend time on, on account of the old hoplite phalanx was outdated at the time of the game's start. It's all about the Macedonian pike phalanx and the Roman legions at this point in time. But this wouldn't be the first time this was discussed on the forum...

[GussieFinkNottle]

You can see that the formation in the picture was a mock-up for promotion purposes only, it wouldn't work or look right from anything except this perspective. Look a bit closer: the spears of the front rank clip through the shields of the second rank, and there's no way they could wield them. The overlapping shields would also clip through each other every time a hoplite did a fight animation. The hoplite phalanx was never going to look like this, and never will.

[perifanosEllinas]

So was this the original hoplite phalanx?

No.That was just marketing propaganda.This was the original hoplite phalanx in Rome 2:

Should a new animation be made or increase the size of the hoplons?

Yes and yes.

How do you guys think they could improve both phalanx formations?

I will just copy/paste an older post of mine:

"Hoplite phalanx

looks: It looks nothing like a hoplite phalanx.In fact it looks like any generic barbarian unit.No shield walls of interlocking shields.No dorys walls.No dorys pointed towards the enemy.Only the first line gets in battle stance while the rest lines just stand there watching the scenery.While fighting it looks like any generic barbarian unit too.There is no formation,no lines and every hoplite fights individually as if he is not part of a unit.Really poor representation.

function: They engage with only 1 line of dorys,there is no shield wall,they abandon formation when they engage in battle or when ordered to,they deal casualties at a very slow rate and take casualties at a very high rate.But their most stupid and annoying issue is the restriction to the length of their front.This causes them to always be surrounded and easily defeated.It's anti-historical and immersion breaking.

This is how they are supposed to be like: They should engage with 3 lines of dorys,they should form multiple layers of shield walls,they should always fight in formation and never abandon it unless the player orders them to,they should cause casualties at a very high rate (they are attacking with 3 lines of dorys),they should take casualties at a very slow rate (they are protected by a wall of brass/bronze from head to toe,including the armour and the shield wall) and they should definitely be able to widen their front as much as they want,even to the level of 2 men deep.This is how they fought historically in most of the times anyway,with wide front and reasonable depth,not the opposite.

role on the battlefield: In TWR2 they are a defensive unit and a very underpowered one actually.In reality they were an aggressive unit,designed to cause massive casualties to the enemy while taking the minimum casualties possible.Of course they could also operate as a defensive unit,as for example did the Athenian center in Marathon,but the main purpose of the formation was attack and this needs to be fixed in the game.

Sarissa phalanx

It's not as bad as the hoplite phalanx,but it's still quite bad and after the patch changes it's actually even way worse than it used to be on release.

looks: It doesn't look like it's supposed to either.No sarissa walls,huge gaps between the men,huge gaps between the lines,wrong deployment within the unit.It looks quite bad.

function: They only engage with 3 lines of sarissas,there are no sarissa walls as there are huge gaps between them,they cannot hold the enemy at distance,their enemies ignore the sarissas and pass right through,they can run while in formation and they cause casualties at a high rate.

This is how they are supposed to be like: They should engage with 5 lines of sarissas,they should fight in a very tight and dense formation so that there are no gaps between the sarissas and sarissa walls are shaped,they should be able to hold the enemy at a distance and for a very long time actually,their enemies should struggle to get through the sarissa walls,they should not be able to run while in formation and they should cause casualties at a rate according to their level,for example levie pikemen low rate casualties,normal pikemen normal rate casualties,elite pikemen high rate casualties etc.

role on the battlefield: In TWR2 they are an aggressive unit that causes massive casualties to the enemy.While in reality they were a defensive unit that was designed to keep the enemy at distance for a very long time to give the necessary time to the flanks to act.Its role was to pin and delay the enemy for as much as possible and not annihilate the enemy unit as the sarissa phalanx currently is in the game."

After all that said,just keep in mind that I haven't played patch 9 yet,because it made my copy unplayable and I can't test it.All these are true at least until patch 8.1

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

It doesn't even look like a barbarian units since barbarians also had interlocking shields for their shield walls. Otherwise you are right that it does not look like a hoplite phalanx though...

Making the pike phalanx proper 5 rows feels more important though to be honest.

[Durnaug]

There is no agreement on what is the correct stance or combat style for a Classical Hoplite phalanx. But there's some brilliant research out there.

[Dwarven Berserker]

You could argue a lot about how the hoplite phalanx was historically used and how it functioned exactly, but one thing is certain, it doesn't work properly in this game. While the sarissa phalanx, though the unit spacing is way too big which makes it look bad, is mosly funcional (it's not very responsive, bot other than that it works as you would expect a pike phalanx to work).

The hoplite phalanx, on the other hand doesn't really serve a lot of purpose in this game. It's just a button you can click somtimes go get a little defence bonus, and worst of all, the unit disengages the formation when you click an attack order, making it so hoplites almost never fight in a phalanx. Which is very strange as the hoplite phalanx was basically the only way a hoplite unit would fight well (as far as I know anyway, but I'm by no means a historian or anything), and a unit of hoplites should be significally weaker when out of formation. This is not really represented in the game, and I'd like to see it otherwise.

If I could change anything about the hoplite phalanx, I'd think about something like this:
-Make it so hoplites don't go out of phalanx after clicking an attack order. This should already make the ability a lot more viable. Also it just doesn't make any sense that it isn't that way now.
-Hoplite phalanx now gives a more significant increase in melee defence (and maybe shield strengh?), as well as a bonus vs infantry (a small one for basic hoplites, but a larger one for elite hoplites like sacred band and royal spartans, in order to make these more viable)
-All hoplite units in general get a slight nerf to their overall melee defence stats (in order to compensate for the bigger bonus while in phalanx, as well as making the unit more vulnerable while out of formation)
-Make units in hoplite phalanx able to spread in a wider formation, as this is one of the main reasons hoplite phalanx is so unpractical.
-Increased outflanking penalty for units in hoplite phalanx, making them more vulnerable to attacks from the rear. Makes sense as the phalanx is only strong from the front. This makes the formation a little less flexible to compensate for the increase of combat effectiveness.

Overall, I think that should make hoplites more like they are supposed to be. Strong while in formation, and able to stand their ground against infantry, as well as having a bonus vs cavalry and being very resistant to missile fire. They should, however, not be quite as cost-effective against infantry as other infantry (except for elite hoplite units maybe)

We'll see if CA is really going to change anything about hoplites, but personally... I have my doubts

[alQamar]

With the way units fight in combat I guess this wouldn't have worked and is why it is labeled "Work in Progress". But it looks awesome and they even overlap their shields.

How do you guys think they could improve both phalanx formations? Should a new animation be made or increase the size of the hoplons? And to what extent if any can modders fix the phalanx?

Err which game is that please? I am definitely irritated now.

[daelin4]

To cite CA's new rebuttal: It's a promotional image, and therefore not representative of the final product.

For those that don't know, that's bait-and-switch. In the UK this is illegal.

[Templar Knight]

To cite CA's new rebuttal: It's a promotional image, and therefore not representative of the final product.

For those that don't know, that's bait-and-switch. In the UK this is illegal.

You Brits should sue em them, especially since CA is based in the UK. haha

[AgentGB]

No.That was just marketing propaganda.This was the original hoplite phalanx in Rome 2:









Yes and yes.



I will just copy/paste an older post of mine:

"Hoplite phalanx

looks: It looks nothing like a hoplite phalanx.In fact it looks like any generic barbarian unit.No shield walls of interlocking shields.No dorys walls.No dorys pointed towards the enemy.Only the first line gets in battle stance while the rest lines just stand there watching the scenery.While fighting it looks like any generic barbarian unit too.There is no formation,no lines and every hoplite fights individually as if he is not part of a unit.Really poor representation.

function: They engage with only 1 line of dorys,there is no shield wall,they abandon formation when they engage in battle or when ordered to,they deal casualties at a very slow rate and take casualties at a very high rate.But their most stupid and annoying issue is the restriction to the length of their front.This causes them to always be surrounded and easily defeated.It's anti-historical and immersion breaking.

This is how they are supposed to be like: They should engage with 3 lines of dorys,they should form multiple layers of shield walls,they should always fight in formation and never abandon it unless the player orders them to,they should cause casualties at a very high rate (they are attacking with 3 lines of dorys),they should take casualties at a very slow rate (they are protected by a wall of brass/bronze from head to toe,including the armour and the shield wall) and they should definitely be able to widen their front as much as they want,even to the level of 2 men deep.This is how they fought historically in most of the times anyway,with wide front and reasonable depth,not the opposite.

role on the battlefield: In TWR2 they are a defensive unit and a very underpowered one actually.In reality they were an aggressive unit,designed to cause massive casualties to the enemy while taking the minimum casualties possible.Of course they could also operate as a defensive unit,as for example did the Athenian center in Marathon,but the main purpose of the formation was attack and this needs to be fixed in the game.

Sarissa phalanx

It's not as bad as the hoplite phalanx,but it's still quite bad and after the patch changes it's actually even way worse than it used to be on release.

looks: It doesn't look like it's supposed to either.No sarissa walls,huge gaps between the men,huge gaps between the lines,wrong deployment within the unit.It looks quite bad.

function: They only engage with 3 lines of sarissas,there are no sarissa walls as there are huge gaps between them,they cannot hold the enemy at distance,their enemies ignore the sarissas and pass right through,they can run while in formation and they cause casualties at a high rate.

This is how they are supposed to be like: They should engage with 5 lines of sarissas,they should fight in a very tight and dense formation so that there are no gaps between the sarissas and sarissa walls are shaped,they should be able to hold the enemy at a distance and for a very long time actually,their enemies should struggle to get through the sarissa walls,they should not be able to run while in formation and they should cause casualties at a rate according to their level,for example levie pikemen low rate casualties,normal pikemen normal rate casualties,elite pikemen high rate casualties etc.

role on the battlefield: In TWR2 they are an aggressive unit that causes massive casualties to the enemy.While in reality they were a defensive unit that was designed to keep the enemy at distance for a very long time to give the necessary time to the flanks to act.Its role was to pin and delay the enemy for as much as possible and not annihilate the enemy unit as the sarissa phalanx currently is in the game."

After all that said,just keep in mind that I haven't played patch 9 yet,because it made my copy unplayable and I can't test it.All these are true at least until patch 8.1

Patch 9, hoplites phalanx and spear phalanx works better now, since its factors more on depth, stretching units into two lines thin ranks as never looked realistic, just looks gamey and stupid. The phalanx weakness as always been the flanks, being able to stretch your units defeat this as a viable weakness. Both at thermopylae and marathon were flanks secured by a mountain range. The phalange/sarissa phalanx operated being 16 ranks deep, with the first 5 ranks being useful in combat.

As for there appearence, they shouldn't have a spear that magically disappears, a bonus that counts when not using the formation, and perhaps the overlapping shields. But how it works is far better then the gamey tactic of stetching your 1 unit into a two line deep unit. They are now forced to rely on depth in patch 9, which is an improvement compared to how it was below here. You can still stretch your units thin if you wish, but they more effective in a deeper formation, like how it should be, like how they planned to have different weights for each unit, but didn't affect phalanx units up until patch 9. Also if you run with said unit it will cancel the formation, if you force attack on a unit it will cancel the formation, you need to click behind the unit your attacking in walk mode for your phalanx to be most effective. Best way is to lock group said units, and march then from point A-B with the enemy in between, they will kill anything in between.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ing&highlight=
here is how they could be used in a non historical way, and in order to game people and the AI, which isn't possible now.

[cowbell kid]

I used PFM to increase the armor, melee defense, and missile block chance of the hoplite phalanx. I also did the same to the pike phalanx. They seem to work a lot better but they are far from perfect. I also use Radious Total War Mod.

[Toho]

call me crazy but that looks like the animation from the defensive testudo for the roman Triarii...

[walterbarrett]

To cite CA's new rebuttal: It's a promotional image, and therefore not representative of the final product.

For those that don't know, that's bait-and-switch. In the UK this is illegal.

I would love to see this lawsuit. The People vs Creative Assembly on the issue of the shields not being closer together and the spears being held underhanded.

You people are ing insane.

Please ban my account so I can no longer comment on this (hilarious) ridiculousness.

[jamreal18]

Actually for pike phalanx, i want the animation to be improved.

Some attacking units shall use their shield to block the first row of pikes in order for others penetrate and they shall still be killed by second and third row of pikes. Most attacking units dont use their shields and die on first row of pikes.

[RedGuard]

I would love to see this lawsuit. The People vs Creative Assembly on the issue of the shields not being closer together and the spears being held underhanded.

You people are ing insane.

Please ban my account so I can no longer comment on this (hilarious) ridiculousness.

not as ridiculous as a lady spilling coffee on herself and suing mcdonalds for millions here in the states

[Arcaian]

not as ridiculous as a lady spilling coffee on herself and suing mcdonalds for millions here in the states

Ehm, she got 3rd degree burns? I don't know about you, but I don't suffer any permanent physical problems after playing Rome 2, nothing like 3rd degree burns

[RedGuard]

however there was a warning label on the cup saying "contents are hot and can cause burns etc..." where as no such warning label comes with Rome 2 and its consistently misleads the consumer even in the newest trailer using a elephant animation that has never existed. That is plenty of reason for a suit.

it may seem like totally different ballparks but to a lawyer it is the same thing

[daelin4]

I would love to see this lawsuit. The People vs Creative Assembly on the issue of the shields not being closer together and the spears being held underhanded.

You people are ing insane.

Please ban my account so I can no longer comment on this (hilarious) ridiculousness.

So what, you're saying it's OK to do this because it's not a life or death situation, or physical trauma occurs? Or X amount of money was/was not lost?
Defrauding someone with something ridiculous like animations or units in a videogame may be ridiculous, but it is still fraud, isn't it?

[Sheridan]

Out of curiosity, what do you guys think about a hoplite phalanx looking more like this?