Hypaspistai vs. Peltastai Makedonikoi

[Killzone_040]

Hello all,

I have a question regarding both of these units - Hypaspistai, Peltastai Makedonikoi. I've done some research and from what I understand, these peltasts weren't the ones you'd normally think of when you hear the word peltast. Instead of skirmishers they seemed to be an "elite" force, used to guard the flank of the phalangites. Doing so, they would assume the role of the hypaspists used in the armies of Alexander, some 50 odd years before the game takes place.

Seeing both of these units are depicted in the game, I'm not really sure if my assumption that one was the 'successor' to the other. Are the Peltastai supposed to be used as to complement the Hypaspistai - Hyp. support the phalanx and the Peltastai are used to, in turn, guard the Hyp. and seize flanking opportunities - or are they supposed to be used as skirmishers?

Many thanks for any answers !

[War lord]

Hypaspistai and Peltastai Makedonikoi are the same regiments in two different kits. The Hypaspistai wear traditional super heavy Hoplite gear and are armed with a Longsword and Hoplite Spear. They are meant to anchor the crucial Right flank of the Phalanx, protect the King and generally turn bad situations around. The Peltastai Makedonikoi wear Segmented armour have more open helmets and carry lighter shields, they're armed with two or three Celtic style Javelins and a Short Sword. In field battles they act as a mobile reserve, support for other units when exploiting gaps or flanking, and as protection for the Hypaspistai against light infantry. In Siege battles they make superb assault Infantry.

How exactly you want to use both of them is personal play style, used together they each cover the weaknesses of the other, and make up for the lack of Factional non-phalanx heavy infantry available to the Western Successors.

[Killzone_040]

Exactly what I was after! I guess the looser formation is an indicator as to what it is 'supposed' to do.
Many thanks and +rep

[Boriak]

Peltastai Makedonikoi are equivalent to Samnite Heavy Infantry and Iberian Assault Infantry. All three units are of that type that is my favourite. I never send these guys into the first line, they will have the vital role of turning a flank in case my cavalry gets tied up.

[Entropy Judge]

Peltastai Makedonikoi are equivalent to Samnite Heavy Infantry and Iberian Assault Infantry.

Except that SHI and IAI have AP swords (and the IAI have AP Pila as well), have more men, and are a good bit cheaper, meaning you can grind them against heavier troops or use them as shock infantry more easily. PM are extremely valuable, while SHI and IAI are useful, but not such a divergent unit type compared to the other troops those factions use.

[Killzone_040]

I guess it all has to do with the historical background of the faction itself as well, in the game that is. Not that my knowledge of Macedon's armies is great.., good ... or pretty much zero, I suppose they didn't use mercenaries for this role and the skill of these men in various situations wouldn't rely on AP weapons?
Although, the act of balancing the units in EB could explain this, too.

[War lord]

Historically Macedon abandoned the combined arms approach due to a shortage of Macedonian's. They needed every man they could find to make up the Sarissa pike Phalanx, which meant they couldn't field many Companions or Elite Heavy Infantry. The Phalanx heavy approach worked fine against the equally Phalanx heavy Greeks, but lead to a quick defeat against the Roman Legions more flexible approach.

[Killzone_040]

Sorry to gravedig the thread but, one last question that I'd like to pose;

Would both the Hypaspists and PMs have been around at the same time, or was it more of a thureophoroi/thorakitai type-a-thing regarding the evolution on the battlefield?
I ask this question because I'm intrigued by what the team put in their description with the Hypaspists: "Yet, despite their prowess, the Hypaspistai were either forced to evolve past the antiquated hoplite model as in the east or vanish with the fall of their kingdom as in the west."
Was the PM the evolution of the Hypaspist and so shouldn't be used from both an historical perspective + the fast that would be too many elite units in one army (read: right flank!). Hypaspist are mentioned as Alexander's elite bodyguard infantry, while PMs have been mentioned as Perseus' bodyguard infantry (at Pydna?).

Many thanks!

[Perdiccas]

hi,

one other comment...
i love playing the successor states, but for some reason I never have success with Hypaspists (or Agrianians). they're kill ratio's are awful...
I ususally use them as reserve and hit units about to waver or rush them in a critical area. but again, they die as much as they kill.

i have much better success with Thracian Peltasts as my battle saviours.

[War lord]

For the time period of EB they should be used in conjugation, I believe the description is referring to the period of Roman ascendency when the remaining Successor kingdoms had to rearm their Elite Infantry to compete with Roman Legionnaires, which is about 200 years after the start of EB. As I said before, Hypaspistai and PM are the same guards in different kit for different situations.

[Killzone_040]

I've been doing some 'testing' and it does seem that both units are just as good as one another. They do seem to excel at their specific roles, which is different for each. Still thinking wether or not I want to have both in the same army (might get a bit too powerful) but they would indeed complement eachother very well.
Thanks War Lord!