Hoplite & Phalanx Balance

[Ganossa]

I played alot now with sparta, egypt and all their surrounding factions to come to a conclusion.

->Phalanx units are worth much more than Hoplites.

->It basically takes hours to kill a unit (even archers) with hoplites and they themself still die as fast as others.

->Phalanx units cannot be broken, from what ever direction you charge them they will always hold their spikes and turn in circles if they need to

::The only way I found to "break" phalanx is either heavy infantry (not hoplites!) or heavy ranged units

Though I have tried several times to build on hoplites (even recruiting the more expensive ones) they just dont do the job. Maybe later ones but I never get there.

Any ideas on that?

[Leggy]

I beat two-three Spartan stacks with five pike units earlier as Macedon.

[Troubleshooter]

With phalanx units you mean pike phalanx, as opposed to the hoplite phalanx?

[Gaios]

Hoplites are fine(although a upkeep reduction would be welcome, they are quite expensive), if you use hoplite phalanx they can do their job of holding the line and even wining depending on the enemie the problem is with the pike phalanx, they simple do not break and can do some mad moviments while in pike formation so even if you attack them from behind they can just turn their spear and you are facing their death wall again (in my opinion they should loose their formation if any unit attacked their rear I would make a submod with it if I knew how to do it).Another fact for pike inf is even without their formation they have good stats and can hold their ground. In 0.85 to compensate for the damage increase of many units they increased all units hp(even skirmishers) and since spears got almost no buff they are killing things even slower now.

[krunsh]

What did they change about Hoplites and pikes in the last patch? They were pretty vague about it and I have yet to find time to try for myself.

[tomFoolery]

I think keeping them at their current effectiveness would be okay, so long as basic hoplites are quite a bit cheaper. Proper balance of upkeep and recruitment costs should be coming before 1.0.

[Matmannen]

The problem with the pike units isn't really their staying power, because they are supposed to be that hard to beat from the front. The problem is how CA implemented the pikes, at their current state they are way to flexible, as Gaios wrote, if you attack them in the rear, they can easily just rotate, no sweat... Now, the DeI devs have been working on the issue, this latest patch for example made the phalanxes easier to beat from the back. CA has done so many blunders when it comes to formations; for example did you know that if a unit is in phalanx formation, thusly getting a huge boost in vs large, this bonus is applied to the entire unit, everywhere. So if you flank a formation with cav you are still going to suffer heavy casulties due to the bonus the formation has.

Anyhow, coming to the issue of hoplite & pike balance, well there shouldn't be a balance. Seriously, there is a reason why greek nations adopted the pike phalanx in favor of the hoplite phalanx. Now, this doesn't mean that beating a pike based army with a hoplite based army should be totally impossible, but if you pit a hoplite phalanx vs a pike phalanx, just those two, the pike phalanx should always win or something is wrong (this is based on the assumtion that both the units will meant front end to front end, in other words the hoplites will face the tips of the sarissas).

EDIT: Just want to add that in what I wrote about pike vs hoplite, I was also assuming that both of the unts would be the same tier.

[SD_Man]

Theres this story (cant remember the source) where an army of Spartans was able to beat a numerically superior army of pikemen by doing the unthinkable: they dropped their spears and heavy armour, and grabbed onto those long pikes. The Spartans slowly advanced, each soldier grabbing onto the next preceding spear until eventually there were no more spears to grab onto. Thats when the signal was given, the Spartans unsheathe their swords, and unleashed fury on their stunned enemies, too horrified to react (not that they could). The defenseless men were in such panic and confusion that they all routed, surrendering their city to the Spartans .......................... or something like that.

The Spartans wouldnt be the only ones to do this as the Romans would do the same in their battles against Macedon. The point of this story is not to undermine pikemen but rather to raise awareness for their true purpose on the battlefield. They are not killing-machines as people think, they are meant to hold the line. True to this, the pikes of Alexander would have never beat the Persians was it not for his auxiliary troops. Even in a pike v pike battle, I can assure you it wouldnt be a quick fight.

[LawL_LawL]

Hoplites are fine(although a upkeep reduction would be welcome, they are quite expensive), if you use hoplite phalanx they can do their job of holding the line and even wining depending on the enemie the problem is with the pike phalanx, they simple do not break and can do some mad moviments while in pike formation so even if you attack them from behind they can just turn their spear and you are facing their death wall again (in my opinion they should loose their formation if any unit attacked their rear I would make a submod with it if I knew how to do it).Another fact for pike inf is even without their formation they have good stats and can hold their ground. In 0.85 to compensate for the damage increase of many units they increased all units hp(even skirmishers) and since spears got almost no buff they are killing things even slower now.

I don't think it was so much spears getting buffed as spears being made less effective. For the longest time spears were the go-to because there was no point in not choosing spear units as they were superior to similar tier sword units unless you're playing Rome, and even then swords struggle against spears unless they have a noticeable stat advantage (ie quality).

As for upkeep, I wouldn't mind seeing the hoplite and pikemen upkeep increased further to be honest. From a purely balance based perspective they carry more than their weight in terms of cost and upkeep and all could see higher costs to lessen the ease of Hellenic factions. For realism however at the very least non-professional units should have increased upkeep and reduced recruitment costs, where as professional forces should be the opposite.

Theres this story (cant remember the source) where an army of Spartans was able to beat a numerically superior army of pikemen by doing the unthinkable: they dropped their spears and heavy armour, and grabbed onto those long pikes. The Spartans slowly advanced, each soldier grabbing onto the next preceding spear until eventually there were no more spears to grab onto. Thats when the signal was given, the Spartans unsheathe their swords, and unleashed fury on their stunned enemies, too horrified to react (not that they could). The defenseless men were in such panic and confusion that they all routed, surrendering their city to the Spartans .......................... or something like that.

The Spartans wouldnt be the only ones to do this as the Romans would do the same in their battles against Macedon. The point of this story is not to undermine pikemen but rather to raise awareness for their true purpose on the battlefield. They are not killing-machines as people think, they are meant to hold the line. True to this, the pikes of Alexander would have never beat the Persians was it not for his auxiliary troops. Even in a pike v pike battle, I can assure you it wouldnt be a quick fight.

I would love to see where this story is sourced from, as that is precisely what it sounds like. A story. A work of fiction in which unarmed and unarmoured men assail a phalanx of pikemen head-on and rely on short swords to win the ensuing melee, after somehow navigating a wall of sarissa points.

As for the true purpose of pikemen though, I would agree. I do believe I've stated a lot of times myself something to the degree that pikemen are a battlefield buzzsaw that never stops spinning. Even when exhausted they simply do not suffer the same magnitude of debuffs as other units purely because the way their weapons function in pike-phalanx maintains the impenetrable frontage. What I'm really curious about, however, is whether this is actually perhaps historically plausible. To keep a sarissa raised with both hands gripping the pike and the butt-spike anchored in the ground, perhaps with one's foot to further keep it held down and weighted in place, doesn't seem like it would actually take a lot of effort from someone even if they were physically very tired. The problem is the lethality of the pikemen even as they do this is still immensely high.

--------

Now onto points from the OP.

1. (Pike) Phalanx units worth more than Hoplites? 100% agreed. It's literally irrefutable in this regard as pikemen are probably one of the most effective units in the game at the moment, and although hoplites can perform very well in their own right, they don't possess what makes pikes go over the edge in performance. This is something that could probably be worked on simply by better implementation of distinguishing between standing armies and levies/civic armies as the Hellenistic armies tended to sport large quantities of semi-professional civic troops that were, by military academia's standards, not exactly standing armies in the exact sense.

Hoplites are almost exclusively civic soldiers and provide their own equipment on campaign, as well as undergoing relatively little training in comparison to standing troops. This should make their resulting recruitment costs comparatively lower than other units of similar quality. With civic armies there's, almost as a rule, much less available infrastructure for army logistics as there is a lack of significant centralization of military operations and military command structure, which should lead to higher upkeep costs attributed to inefficient requisition and supply methods as well as a lack of standardization in every regard.

2. Takes hours (long time) to kill a unit with hoplites or anything for that matter? Well for the most part frontally attacking units will grant them full bonuses for shields, where as at least with missile troops I'm certain you avoid much of the defensive potential of units with flanking or rear fire. As for hoplites killing foes, I think this should be the case as before the issue with hoplites and elite units in general was that they could both massacre enemies whilst being nearly invulnerable. Now things have been tweaked quite a bit, and although I haven't played much on 0.85 it's not looking bad from a stat perspective. I rather like the on-paper stats and from the couple battles I've played spear units are still entirely superior in their defensive roles, enough to keep them at least on par if not superior to sword units. Overall the mod seems to avoid making any unit frenzied killers without some sort of catch, with pikemen being the only unit without this catch that is necessary for keeping things in line.

3. (Pike) Phalanxes cannot be broken? Arguable. Many were pretty vocal about that point in regards to just normal hoplite phalanxes. The issue is purely that both units are pretty absurdly powerful frontally, and while it could see some toning down, the onus is on the player to make use of multi-directional attacks on any sort of phalanx in order to minimize losses and aim for a victory. Frontally attacking a phalanx with elite troops is simply not even worth doing. Their elite stats don't make them better suited to attacking phalanxes besides that they're more durable and take a few more stumbling animations from being repulsed by pikes before each one dies. Much better to use garbage levies or other such units lacking in value to hold the phalanx in place and take the force of the pikes while your elite troops hit the flanks or rear of the pikemen and actually make it into melee range. This is definitely the case if your elite troops possess precursor projectiles as rear-shots ignore shield armour values and are likely to nearly kill whatever they hit if that soldier in question is completely uninjured.

[Harnis]

I haven't noticed pikemen being super invincible, the only problem is that flanking them doesn't really do much. But that's CA's fault. And I know DeI is trying to adjust for that. I mean, realistically, if heavy cav charge into the side or rear of pikemen, they are charging into soldiers who are generally lightly armed and armored, and should slaughter them.

And yes, the role of the phalanx is the archetypal anvil. Your pikemen hold the line while your cav and skirmishers flank or do whatever to try and break the enemy. steel wall from the front, but easily broken if flanked or if the formation splits apart.

[Tariq]

I haven't noticed pikemen being super invincible, the only problem is that flanking them doesn't really do much. But that's CA's fault. And I know DeI is trying to adjust for that. I mean, realistically, if heavy cav charge into the side or rear of pikemen, they are charging into soldiers who are generally lightly armed and armored, and should slaughter them.

And yes, the role of the phalanx is the archetypal anvil. Your pikemen hold the line while your cav and skirmishers flank or do whatever to try and break the enemy. steel wall from the front, but easily broken if flanked or if the formation splits apart.

Battle of Pydna ..as long phalanx was cohesive Macedons were beating Romans handily, then few units got on their sides(plus rough terrain) and formation fell apart.end result Macedonia became Roman province(in a way)

[Xaero.xiii]

I havent played 0.85 yet (still downloading), and ive yet to see the balance changes to hoplites vs pikes to see if they need further balancing. However, i do agree that hoplites take far too long in killing units, atleast from the front it should be faster if only by a small margin. From what i remember, hoplites are more costly to recruit because of the training and experiences required to be in a hoplite unit whereas a pike unit is cheaper because drafted men need necessarily be experienced and require training to use a sarissa and equipment is cheaper to produce than the latter. I think that is the justification of the DEI team with their pricess on the pikes and hoplites right now. Not so sure though.

[Selea]

->Phalanx units are worth much more than Hoplites.

The Phalanx replaced Hoplites just for this.

->It basically takes hours to kill a unit (even archers) with hoplites and they themself still die as fast as others.

Hoplite units are defensive units, not attacking ones. They should hardly kill anything. They are meant to hold the front line, a thing they do very well if you put them in Hoplite Phalanx (outside of it, they sucks, as they should).

->Phalanx units cannot be broken, from what ever direction you charge them they will always hold their spikes and turn in circles if they need to

Not true at all. If you attack them from flanks or rear they get beaten and missiles get short work of them. There are some engine problems that are difficult to overcome for what it concerns flank and rear bonuses sadly, but Pike units can be beaten if you use strategy.

::The only way I found to "break" phalanx is either heavy infantry (not hoplites!) or heavy ranged units

And that's perfectly fine. You cannot break a Pike Phalanx with an long spear unit, as you cannot with a defensive unit as Hoplites.
I don't see what's wrong with this, actually I think it's perfectly good realism.

[Ganossa]

The Phalanx replaced Hoplites just for this.



Hoplite units are defensive units, not attacking ones. They should hardly kill anything. They are meant to hold the front line, a thing they do very well if you put them in Hoplite Phalanx (outside of it, they sucks, as they should).



Not true at all. If you attack them from flanks or rear they get beaten and missiles get short work of them. There are some engine problems that are difficult to overcome for what it concerns flank and rear bonuses sadly, but Pike units can be beaten if you use strategy.



And that's perfectly fine. You cannot break a Pike Phalanx with an long spear unit, as you cannot with a defensive unit as Hoplites.
I don't see what's wrong with this, actually I think it's perfectly good realism.

Thanks for clearing it up and I didn't really have a problem with the mechanic it was only my finding from playing quiet a while with them.
I also think its fine that heavy infantry can break through them and am always surprised to see that, especially roman legionairs which makes it feel very realistic.

The only problem that I have it that they definitly do not break if attacking them from behind or flanks. With breaking I didnt mean routing actually but break their formation and get them out of phalanx mode. It definitly might not be related to DeI but the vanilla mechanics.
In previous patches/versions once I had physical contact with a pike phalanx that was not in formation it could not get in formation anymore. This seems not to be true anymore, at least as far as I can tell from watching the AI.
When charging the phalanx from behind or flanks with units (also infantry) will not break their formation. It will only may or may not make them turn around to whatever side.

I do not know if any of that is possible to fix anyway just wanted to ask who else experienced this and what your thoughts are.

[Selea]

The only problem that I have it that they definitly do not break if attacking them from behind or flanks. With breaking I didnt mean routing actually but break their formation and get them out of phalanx mode. It definitly might not be related to DeI but the vanilla mechanics.

Yes, the formation gets not broken if you attack it from the flank.
There's nothing to do about it, since these things are hard-coded.

In previous patches/versions once I had physical contact with a pike phalanx that was not in formation it could not get in formation anymore. This seems not to be true anymore, at least as far as I can tell from watching the AI.

It never did. The formation never broke if you attacked it. It works like this: if the formation is not enabled before melee contact then you cannot enable it anymore (and in this case it will effectively get disabled), but if the formation was already enabled then it will be enabled forever, no matter if it is "disabled" as it concerns the button.

This is one of the absurd things of the engine. An ability can get disabled, yes, but if it was already enabled before the "disabling" is just visual. The stats/improvements of the ability will remain, also if it is "disabled".

When charging the phalanx from behind or flanks with units (also infantry) will not break their formation. It will only may or may not make them turn around to whatever side.

Also this is a thing that sadly we cannot put. There's a way to have an unit not be able to turn, but this parameter cannot be tied to a formation and it is tied to an entity in its totality. This means that, let's say, you put the parameter to all pike units then they will not be able to turn anymore no matter if in a Phalanx or not.

[Ganossa]

Yes, the formation gets not broken if you attack it from the flank.
There's nothing to do about it, since these things are hard-coded.



It never did. The formation never broke if you attacked it. It works like this: if the formation is not enabled before melee contact then you cannot enable it anymore (and in this case it will effectively get disabled), but if the formation was already enabled then it will be enabled forever, no matter if it is "disabled" as it concerns the button.

This is one of the absurd things of the engine. An ability can get disabled, yes, but if it was already enabled before the "disabling" is just visual. The stats/improvements of the ability will remain, also if it is "disabled".



Also this is a thing that sadly we cannot put. There's a way to have an unit not be able to turn, but this parameter cannot be tied to a formation and it is tied to an entity in its totality. This means that, let's say, you put the parameter to all pike units then they will not be able to turn anymore no matter if in a Phalanx or not.

Well I like what you did to the heavy infantry though. It really feels like rock scissor paper mechanic.
Also the pikes give reason to recruit archers or other ranged units if you do not have heavy infantry to recruit what I also like.

As you said before I do use the hoplites currently only to keep the enemy in battle. From custom battles I do know that higher tier hoplites can deal some damage but low tier has kind of the tank role

Maybe CA will fix their mechanic in the future so you guys have a better base to work with

[zonks40]

Hoplites were not defensive units, just because the formation they used offered good protection it does not mean they were defensive in nature, in any battle hoplites were used offensively.
The Hoplite was just a soldier with a round shield, a spear and most of the time a sword, much like most other spearmen, however it was the formation and discipline that made them more effective than other spear units, the idea that Hoplites are defensive is a myth.

[Selea]

Hoplites were not defensive units, just because the formation they used offered good protection it does not mean they were defensive in nature, in any battle hoplites were used offensively.
The Hoplite was just a soldier with a round shield, a spear and most of the time a sword, much like most other spearmen, however it was the formation and discipline that made them more effective than other spear units, the idea that Hoplites are defensive is a myth.

Sure, you are true.

All the books that write about the fact that the Hoplite Phalanx was not used to cause casualties but to pressure the lines are wrong and even common physics are wrong.

Hoplite units fought in formation and they always try to keep it. They didn't go fighting outside of their formation (if not at the appropriate moments when the opposite line already collapsed for fatigue or fear) and to think that in a Phalanx formation with shield interlocked and so little space you can have high hit chance is absurd.

You can see this even today with police tactics using a sort of "Phalanx" with their shields. It's obviously not an attacking formation but a pressure one.

As for the name it's true that Hoplite just means soldier in the broad scope but in the context it's obvious that it represents a well defined role.

[LawL_LawL]

If one is looking at hoplites as defensive or offensive troops, these two classifications are too black and white. Far too clear cut and general to accurately apply to hoplites, or really any ancient troops. In fact the points being tossed around about troops examine them to the point where the criteria doesn't actually permit defensive troops to exist. Infantry equipped for melee in the ancient world will inevitably be capable of fulfilling an offensive role, this is true even for phalangitai, pikes and all. A phalanx of any sort doesn't dictate function of a force of troops, it merely changes the manner in which the troops will operate. Thus pikemen can be called upon for the offensive role on a battlefield, as this would merely be to advance with the intent of engaging the enemy with their sarissas as opposed to standing and receiving enemy attackers.

Though to break things down in a more specific manner, defensive troops are a broad term that certainly can include hoplites. Realistically hoplites were defensive in nature due to fighting style on the individual and group levels, being troops that did not aggressively engage the enemy as shock-troops but maintained disciplined, closed ranks for protection. They were certainly more defensive than other infantry such as any manner of barbarian warriors, though as previously stated no force could possibly be purely defensive unless their equipment required a complete lack of mobility; something the ancient world likely saw little to none of in troops.

A very similar example of defensive infantry can be seen to a different extent in legionnaries. As sword-armed infantry in an army lacking troop diversity they were not defensive troops in the sense that they could only defend, but they were defensive to the degree that on a personal level the legionnary fighting style was protective to the extreme, with aggression optimally limited to attacks of opportunity while maintaining individual safety. Of course legionnaries were employed more often than not in an aggressive manner on the battlefield, but this is merely on the tactical or macro level where all troops have the potential to be used offensively. Most of the time the defining traits for defensive infantry, better identified as passive infantry as this terminology can still be appended on offensive troops, are techniques and styles of combat as opposed to actual usage of the troops restricted to defensive purposes.



As for formations, I just wish CA made it so that morale, fatigue, and movement actually affected a "unit cohesion" variable that could break a formation. Too bad this is like asking a deaf person to listen intently on your demands.

[zonks40]

All the books that write about the fact that the Hoplite Phalanx was not used to cause casualties but to pressure the lines are wrong and even common physics are wrong.

I'll take it that this is sarcasm?
If we want to look at the Hoplite and the way they were used, then lets look at a few of the most famous battles hoplites were used in, Thermopylae, Marathon and Plataea, in both Marathon and Plataea the hoplites were used offensively, and at Thermopylae even in a defensive position still caused terrible losses on the enemy.

You need to separate your thinking of Hoplite and phalanx, one is a troop type, the other a formation they can adopt, and it is the formation that gives it it's defensive advantage, what you are imagining is purely Phalanx vs Phalanx, and basing the unit on that only.