Are Hoplites just completely broken?

[Bob The Regular]

There is an extreme difference between units supposededly forming a 'phalanx' in Greek terminology - which just means any old formed line of troops with shields touching or over-lapping....

If I recall correctly terms like "hoplite" and "phalanx" were just generic terms used by the Greeks to refer to heavy infantry, regardless of equipment or origin. For example in the Anabasis Xenophon refers to the Egyptian heavy infantry armed with tower shields and pikes as hoplites. A hoplite gets his name from his "hopla" or his equipment thus making him an armed man. It has nothing to do with over-lapping shield since hoplites for the most part didn't fight that way, they fought via disorganized and frantic charges where the semi-organized formation would lose any cohesion and turn into a mad dash towards the enemy.

[IrishHitman]

Yeah, I've noticed that. But I tend to have strong reserves, so it's more like an exploit to me than a bug. They turn in my line, I quickly withdraw the affected unit and send another charging into the rear. Murderous.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

I wonder if there isn't a better way to represent hoplites?

I recall there being some Roman units that march with their shields up at all times, the same way units do in TOB. Perhaps it would be better to increase hoplite mass and have them march everywhere with their shields up, so that they are in formation?

I don't know. I like how they are now, where you can use them as heavy infantry or in formation, I just wish the formations weren't so buggy.

[Vardano]

Problem described in OP is probably most frustrating thing about battles. As others mentioned it, the biggest issue is that AI demolish your troops so fast after performing this sideways moves, yes, you can adjust to it but then you just playing game with broken (for real) element and it played by its own rules which have nothing to do with any kind of battle simulation.

Devs lately pretty active on official forums and respond to active threads and for sure they are reading it. I'm in a different country with my non gaming laptop, can someone record a video with this hoplite/pike behavior and post it on official forums and link it to DEI forums? They might do something about it or at least they will acknowledge the problem.

[arthazx]

the hoplite phalanx if it is strong because it uses the same formation as the pike phalanx which gives more relevance to some armies and does not leave them totally obsolete. I recommend using tactics against hoplita like javelins or peltasts if I charge with cavalry keep in mind that you attack a pike formation

if you only have a phalange, keep the formation of the unit that resists another phalanx and use troops to surround it without the formation so that they penetrate the line better and do more damage. but I do not recommend rigid armies unless they are pikes. I hope it works and please make a shorts pike phalanx for Carthage. Haha

[Maetharin]

If I recall correctly terms like "hoplite" and "phalanx" were just generic terms used by the Greeks to refer to heavy infantry, regardless of equipment or origin. For example in the Anabasis Xenophon refers to the Egyptian heavy infantry armed with tower shields and pikes as hoplites. A hoplite gets his name from his "hopla" or his equipment thus making him an armed man. It has nothing to do with over-lapping shield since hoplites for the most part didn't fight that way, they fought via disorganized and frantic charges where the semi-organized formation would lose any cohesion and turn into a mad dash towards the enemy.

It‘s still a matter for debate, and most likely will be forever, unless time machines will be built.
IMO the simple existence of viking era shield walls on its own validates the „Hoplite Phalanx as shield wall“ theory,
as people simply wanted to live and a mad dash without formation towards the enemy sounds rather stupid if you have the possibility to keep in formation.
I think the crucial point is what authors like Xenophon or Thukydides meant with the term “charge“.

[KAM 2150]

I wonder if there isn't a better way to represent hoplites?

I recall there being some Roman units that march with their shields up at all times, the same way units do in TOB. Perhaps it would be better to increase hoplite mass and have them march everywhere with their shields up, so that they are in formation?

I don't know. I like how they are now, where you can use them as heavy infantry or in formation, I just wish the formations weren't so buggy.

It used to work like that in DeI but people hated it. Changing mass has no impact on inf v inf combat. It only affects defence vs cav charge.

[popovic]

It used to work like that in DeI but people hated it.

People hated the "graphics" of it.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

KAM-Dresden pikes are broken too. Just fix them already.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

It used to work like that in DeI but people hated it. Changing mass has no impact on inf v inf combat. It only affects defence vs cav charge.

I liked it better personally, but I also really like the new system in theory.

I guess I really just wish CA had done better with hoplites from the start. I think shieldwall-on-shieldwall combat looks and feels a lot better in TOB, maybe there's something to use there?

[KAM 2150]

There is no shieldwall combat in ToB.

In ToB units only use ready animation while marching and standing, that is that. In combat they just fight like regular units in disorder.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

I didn't mean the formation in game terms, but in aesthetic terms. In my experience the lines tend to stay together better, and actually create battle lines, instead big bulges of AI just piling into seemingly random places on my battle line.

[KAM 2150]

Most likely a placebo effect. I've added actual working shieldwalls into ToB as base game does not have them, which allowed to finally have some formated lines there. Also CA took away most of matched combat in ToB so soldiers mostly stay where they, additionly CA decreased virtual soldier size so they walk on top of eachother, hence why they do not walk that much around the battle as they clip with their buddies. This add tons of other issues, hence why ToB battles are unplayable mess (along with dozens of other combat bugs I've found).

[Tiny]

Most likely a placebo effect. I've added actual working shieldwalls into ToB as base game does not have them, which allowed to finally have some formated lines there. Also CA took away most of matched combat in ToB so soldiers mostly stay where they, additionly CA decreased virtual soldier size so they walk on top of eachother, hence why they do not walk that much around the battle as they clip with their buddies. This add tons of other issues, hence why ToB battles are unplayable mess (along with dozens of other combat bugs I've found).

Sounds like CA still hasn't learned their lesson. That's depressing.

[BenSwolo]

Hoplite is one of the most pervasive unit in the base game, if doing that prevents game breaking behaviours from happening, then surely its at least its worth it as an option/submod, since some people(or is it just me) prefer Hoplites to work somewhat consistently.

It used to work like that in DeI but people hated it. Changing mass has no impact on inf v inf combat. It only affects defence vs cav charge.

Hoplite is one of the most pervasive unit in the base game, if doing that prevents game breaking behaviours from happening, then surely its at least its worth it as an option/submod, since some people(or is it just me) prefer Hoplites to work somewhat consistently.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Upon more playing, I just really don't think that Hoplites using the pike formation is working. I took a bunch of screenshots.

https://imgur.com/a/HHNqfPp

This is just every battle where the AI has hoplites. Im currently using KAM's experimental stats, just tried it for this one battle to see if it would help, but it doesn't appear to. They just spin themselves around and punch through the lines, and, for some reason, this actually makes them much, much deadlier.

You can see in one of those pictures where the enemy hoplite literally just walked right through. They touched my lines and didn't stop, just kept going until they were attacking me from behind, somehow.


Even when it's working correctly, I don't feel like it works. I had a unit of Early Principes with a single bronze chevron at "Very Tired" completely destroy a unit of Perioikoi hoplites with three silver chevrons, from the front, while in phalanx formation. I feel like that just shouldn't happen.


I think, on paper, this was a great idea to represent hoplites. But I simply don't think the AI can handle it.

[Bento]

Hmm, I play Massalia and Carthage a lot and I get extremely good results from hoplites. ( caveat : I'm not using the beta or its DEI patch ).
I've never seen this "turn sideways" behaviour.

But to play the part of the anvil, a line of hoplites is very effective.

[Icarus Smicarus]

Hmm, I play Massalia and Carthage a lot and I get extremely good results from hoplites. ( caveat : I'm not using the beta or its DEI patch ).
I've never seen this "turn sideways" behaviour.

But to play the part of the anvil, a line of hoplites is very effective.

It's an issue mostly affecting the AI's use of hoplites.

It frustrates me to the point of routinely abandoning R2 every year and returning to EB2, where the still numerous pike and hoplite problems at least don't break the game.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Well, I don't see how AI (sometimes) using hoplites diagonally will break your game tbh.

[KAM 2150]

It depends on battles Strategos, in some battles it happens all the time and just breaks everything in that battle, other times I won't see it for few battles.