how to beat phalangites head on?

[HigoChumbo]

I wonder how the game will handle situtions like a short-ranged melee unit (like legionaries or hoplites) on a passive, holding defensive line when attacked by long-ranged melee units such as a sarissa phalanx.

I guess that if the player does not order his units to attack the phalanx they should get completelly wiped without killing a single phalangite, but i have my reserves about CA going with such a drastic approach.

[CDR Hurricane]

I wonder how the game will handle situtions like a short-ranged melee unit (like legionaries or hoplites) on a passive, holding defensive line when attacked by long-ranged melee units such as a sarissa phalanx.

I guess that if the player does not order his units to attack the phalanx they should get completelly wiped without killing a single phalangite, but i have my reserves about CA going with such a drastic approach.

In previous TW games, units would automatically respond to (and push forward against) units that attacked them unless they were in guard mode. In guard mode the unit would stand it's ground and maintain formation (allowing an attentive pike player to annihilate an enemy unit without losing any men against a defending non-pike unit in guard mode)

[Geuvesa]

The Yari spear wall system gives me a ton of confidence in the Macedonian phalanx in Rome 2, only when attacked in melee up close would a unit switch to sword, and if he won and there was not another enemy nearby he would switch back to his Yari and resume formation.

[daelin4]

Fighting a phalanx head-on means playing to their advantages, hardly an ideal position for the attacker, as it would rely much more upon the skill and bravery of your own forces, and also on the lack of skill and bravery of the phalanx itself.

One of the principle advantages that legonaries would have are of course their pila, which may be thrown at close range in hope to disrupt the formation through inflicting casualties and psychologically shaken the survivors, a small gap of opportunity to charge in and wreak havoc. That of course is much more of a gamble compared to flanking the formation for an attack on their rear, which presents virtually no means of defense.

So one of the principle means to defeat a phalanx head-on is to either wait for them to be disrupted, or of course not do it at all. Discretion is much more useful than throwing forces into the meat grinder.

So to summarize, engaging such an emey head-on will rely much upon their deficiencies and more on your own unit's quality, so it is gambling with minimal manipulation of circumstances to your favour. Definitely not something a real life commander or Rome2 player would want to do all the time.

[andrew2788]

Horse archers or horse skirmishers would be how I would do it, fire until out of ammo then time out the battle or leave it. If you want non-ranged options only things I can really thing of is A.) swordsmen on uneven terrain or B.) You're own phalanxes

[SamueleD]

Horse archers or horse skirmishers would be how I would do it, fire until out of ammo then time out the battle or leave it. If you want non-ranged options only things I can really thing of is A.) swordsmen on uneven terrain or B.) You're own phalanxes

I'd rather use catapults

[andrew2788]

Myeeees I forgot about artillery (I rarely use it except for my dedicated siege armies) but the hilarity would be worth it

[Leondias]

Sarissa phalanx was much much superior to anything anyone had at the time in a head on situation on flat, unbroken ground. The Sarissa had a surprising amount of thrusting power behind it and has been known to pierce through the legionary Scutum. Furthermore, on every instance, the Romans were first driven back by the phalanx before they won the battle because of tactical decisions. Whoever said Sarissa phalanx was defensive is wrong, it was a purely offensive weapon, it's a push weapon. You can't stand still otherwise you lose the momentum which forces the enemy back. It is one of the reasons where Alexander's phalanx was so successful. It was never used defensively. Always push forward. It was a meat grinder, slowly pushing the enemy back and whittling down their numbers until they broke or Alexander delivered the coup de grace. The way to beat a phalanx is to pin in with hastati and have the princeps execute a narrow flanking manovure once the phalanx is pinned and engaged. A heavy overbearing cavalry attack wouldn't go amiss either.

[Smiling Hetairoi]

As written my our dear friend Leondias the sarisa phalanx was a fearsome fighting force. The idea that they can't fight on uneven terrain is . If they were unable to do so how did they defeat the Thracians or mountain peoples in Afghanistan? And the idea that you can just push into it with a scutum and chop the sarisa is nonsense. The Sarisa was powerful enough to puncture the scutum and the man using it. The best way to defeat a successor army was to kill the general or take their baggage train/camp.
And the idea "Hurr attack from the rear! Hurr phalanx can't fight then", how many formations CAN fight if attack from the rear? Because that's what happened at Cannae eh?

[Leondias]

As written my our dear friend Leondias the sarisa phalanx was a fearsome fighting force. The idea that they can't fight on uneven terrain is . If they were unable to do so how did they defeat the Thracians or mountain peoples in Afghanistan? And the idea that you can just push into it with a scutum and chop the sarisa is nonsense. The Sarisa was powerful enough to puncture the scutum and the man using it. The best way to defeat a successor army was to kill the general or take their baggage train/camp.
And the idea "Hurr attack from the rear! Hurr phalanx can't fight then", how many formations CAN fight if attack from the rear? Because that's what happened at Cannae eh?

To be fair, the phalanx relied significantly on close unit cohesion which requires a lot of drill. Particularly when attacking a larger force. The phalanxes of Alexander were disciplined and amongst the finest soldiers of the Ancient world. Drilled and battle hardy hence their ability to maintain cohesion over broken ground. They struggled at Issus though, trying to get through the river (or stream) and breaking ranks which cost a significant number of lives. At Gaugamela the phalanx units split, the left and centre becoming disjointed but that was probably from dust and the strain on the left. I can't see it happening when numbers were more or less even rather then the monstrous line length of Darius.

Smiling Hetairoi, the army was re-equipped at the beginning of the Afghan campaign when Alexander realised traditional warfare is not what those crazy tribes do.

At Pydna (or at least off the top of my head it was) the phalanx was extremely poor, the recruits had inadequate training and poor leadership and they fought off the soldiers of the Republic in a frontal assault. Many of those veterans of Rome had faced and defeated Hannibal so it wasn't through lack of experience. The defeat came when they fought uphill and the ancient sources tell us that the phalanx used to lean slightly to the left and the incline plus the rocky ground resulted in 'clumps' being formed where the line was strung out. So the lower level of phalanx should break ranks easier and the upper tier less so. The more experience the harder it is to break cohesion.

[Smiling Hetairoi]

To be fair, the phalanx relied significantly on close unit cohesion which requires a lot of drill. Particularly when attacking a larger force. The phalanxes of Alexander were disciplined and amongst the finest soldiers of the Ancient world. Drilled and battle hardy hence their ability to maintain cohesion over broken ground. They struggled at Issus though, trying to get through the river (or stream) and breaking ranks which cost a significant number of lives. At Gaugamela the phalanx units split, the left and centre becoming disjointed but that was probably from dust and the strain on the left. I can't see it happening when numbers were more or less even rather then the monstrous line length of Darius.

Smiling Hetairoi, the army was re-equipped at the beginning of the Afghan campaign when Alexander realised traditional warfare is not what those crazy tribes do.

At Pydna (or at least off the top of my head it was) the phalanx was extremely poor, the recruits had inadequate training and poor leadership and they fought off the soldiers of the Republic in a frontal assault. Many of those veterans of Rome had faced and defeated Hannibal so it wasn't through lack of experience. The defeat came when they fought uphill and the ancient sources tell us that the phalanx used to lean slightly to the left and the incline plus the rocky ground resulted in 'clumps' being formed where the line was strung out. So the lower level of phalanx should break ranks easier and the upper tier less so. The more experience the harder it is to break cohesion.

I submit to your wisdom.

[sabaku_no_gaara]

In Rome 1 Just concentrate your javelin and ranged fire at 1 or 2 units in the line, when they break or are too few you rush the gap and poor your men in allowing you to engulf the entire phalanx, even if your opponent figures out what you are doing he'll have to start stretching his lines or reinforce them with his reserves either way he'll run out of reserves or he'll weaken his entire line if the phalanx is stretched too thin you should also be able to march through.

They are stationary targets really, all massed together. They shouldn't stand a chance to anyone who has the sense to bring lots of ranged weapons (which is something I typically do)

[GNU07]

With the new mechanic of throwing pila while running, we may as well employ Parthian shot tactics where legionaries can run away from the phalanx and throw their pila backwards just like the Parthian HAs did.

Seriously now, CA mentioned somewhere, that clicking the mouse button several times will force a unit to follow the order and move where designated. If this stands, clicking behind the phalanx several times will force the legionaries to move adjacent to their formation and slaughter them since they will be engaged in close combat.

[JaM]

With the new mechanic of throwing pila while running, we may as well employ Parthian shot tactics where legionaries can run away from the phalanx and throw their pila backwards just like the Parthian HAs did.

Seriously now, CA mentioned somewhere, that clicking the mouse button several times will force a unit to follow the order and move where designated. If this stands, clicking behind the phalanx several times will force the legionaries to move adjacent to their formation and slaughter them since they will be engaged in close combat.

Throwing javelin from short run is the most efficient way how to throw the javelin.. If you do it from stand still, javelin would have just about half the speed it would have if you done it with short run... and speed is everything with heavy javelin...

Btw, whay do you think Olympic javelin throwers throw them from the run?

What is not accurate about it, is the fact they are throwing it from closed tight formation and from all ranks... Roman centuria was 6-8 men deep formation with about 1m space between ranks. standard range of Pilla was 15-20m, so men in rear rank would practically throw their pilla too close in front of front rank, which together with them running might easilly result in deadly friendly fire... And even if unit was standing still, such throw was too dangerous (slow release speed = shorter range)

[JaM]

Also usually battle lines were about 1km long.. Romans often used tactics of variable resistance, where only part of Roman battle line would present a resistance, while others would give ground.. That would effectively force phalanx to slow down the advance where they experienced resistance, while other parts of formation would continue forward,effectively creating gaps that could be exploited by more flexible Roman Maniples. What many people dont realize is usual depth of Phalanx was 16ranks, while usual depth of Roman line was 6 ranks. this means Romans could deploy in two or three lines while having same frontage as much deeper phalanx.. That would effectively allow Romans to replace tired troops with fresh ones once they needed... If you add a broken terrain to the mix, you can imagine what happened during Second Macedonian War to Macedon, and why they were defeated..

[Eien]

Lob enough rocks at them and then charge?

[DogSoldierSPQR]

Just like Jack said, Phalangites are just pinning troops this time around. Don't expect them to do too much offensively, unless you have put them so they are locking down a street but even then they must high-ranking Phalangites.

Besides, Phalanx warfare is cowardly. To really balance it out, missiles and flanks should be extremely deadly against them to discourage overuse or make it very hard for people who completely rely on them. Also, since CA are putting more of an emphasis on terrain as we go along in the series, Phalangites should suffer penalties on uneven ground. Some factions, take Pontus for example, just take the juice, seriously. The amount they spam...

[CyberianK]

I predict that with streets in settlements and the new cliffs terrain features as well as limited boarding places for amphibious assaults on maps there will be alot of uses of them sealing off specific terrain bottlenecks.

[XLII]

Alright. For all types I would do:

• Lure them out of the defensive. Here the capture-point system makes for some challenge when using phalanxes, since your defense is good, but your offence will not be playing to your strengths. So you have to try and get into more battles with defensive objectives.
• Rough ground - forests, meadows, what have you.
• Missile attack

Cracking the elites (well trained, armoured, disciplined) must require flanking, imo. But in a pinch you can bury them in missiles and immediately charge afterwards with elite heavies.
Regulars should be both more vulnerable to disruption strategies and maybe frontal assualt by truly elite heavies - these taking rather nasty casualties in turn.
Levys will probably have paper armour, rendering them extremly vulnerable to missile fire. Even the javelin throw before the assualt by roman heavy infantry should be enough to disrupt the formation to enable closing with the ranks. I think this is fine, since those guys were literally given a pike, a shield and told "Stand in rank and file, level your pike."
In a little table:

[JaM]

DogSoldierSPQR : there is nothing cowardly about their battle tactics.. whole point of warfare is to win while taking minimal casualties. If you win by taking large casualties just because you want to fight fair, you are failing your own men.. War was never some kind of a sport, or a duel.. and it never will be.