Evocati Cohort (Rome) VS Bronze Shields Pikemen (Pontus)

[JERUSALEM]

from two videos - battle of Nile and Pontus VS Parthia battle, we have seen two elite unites of Rome and Pontus, these are: Evocati Cohort (Rome) VS Bronze Shields Pikemen (Pontus).

Now let see their strength:

Evocati Cohort (Rome):

Number of Soldier - 160
Weapon Damage - 50
Melee Attack - 70
Charge Bonus - 30
Melee Defence - 75
Armour - 105


Bronze Shields Pikemen (Pontus):
Number of Soldier - 160
Weapon Damage - 35
Melee Attack - 40
Charge Bonus - 0
Melee Defence - 55
Armour - 60

As you see almost double advantage for the Roman side. Here are the source (videos) for this numbers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e27MtFbxK4k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEXBGOrh13I


So, my question is, how those two factions can compete if their elite units have such a huge difference in strength, Roman are too much powerful I think. So, what do u think?
battle of Nile video is a bit older and maybe something has already been changed, I do not know, let's discuss it here.







.

[CyberianK]

If Evocati are Swordmen/Legionaries/Pretorians while the Pikemen are some kind of Phalanx then it is OK. Because the massive advantages of weapon reach and phalanx formation are not represented in those trait numbers.

So for Swordmen to be actually able to compete with Pike Phalanx they will have to have insane stats and even then they might loose in a frontal assault.

[deadly21]

If Evocati are Swordmen/Legionaries/Pretorians while the Pikemen are some kind of Phalanx then it is OK. Because the massive advantages of weapon reach and phalanx formation are not represented in those trait numbers.

So for Swordmen to be actually able to compete with Pike Phalanx they will have to have insane stats and even then they might loose in a frontal assault.

Exactly, nothing more to add

[deadly21]

Maybe it is putting a salt into a wound but during the roman expansion the phalangas were outdated and therefore the romans won.
They changed the systems of manipuls (don't know if this is the right english translation from my language) to more flexible and battle-operationable cohort with centuries as basic military unit.
IMHO the CA wants to show the difference between up-to-date proffesional roman army and outdated (and later overwhelmed) phalangas formation.

If you realise that the phalangas were basically defensive formation it gives me a sense.

I still think that if the Evocati Cohort front-charge the Bronze Shield Pikemen they still get slaughtered as any unit attacking so silly.

This is just my opinion.

[Murfmurf]

Maybe it is putting a salt into a wound but during the roman expansion the phalangas were outdated and therefore the romans won.
They changed the systems of manipuls (don't know if this is the right english translation from my language) to more flexible and battle-operationable cohort with centuries as basic military unit.
IMHO the CA wants to show the difference between up-to-date proffesional roman army and outdated (and later overwhelmed) phalangas formation.

If you realise that the phalangas were basically defensive formation it gives me a sense.

I still think that if the Evocati Cohort front-charge the Bronze Shield Pikemen they still get slaughtered as any unit attacking so silly.

This is just my opinion.

Phalangites weren't outdated; the generals commanding them weren't on par with Alexander et al though, and they'd let other elements of the "hammer & anvil" combined arms tactic slip in quality/numbers, so by the time of Roman expansion Hellenic leaders didn't have all the necessary elements to replicate that way of war.

[deadly21]

Phalangites weren't outdated; the generals commanding them weren't on par with Alexander et al though, and they'd let other elements of the "hammer & anvil" combined arms tactic slip in quality/numbers, so by the time of Roman expansion Hellenic leaders didn't have all the necessary elements to replicate that way of war.

I claim they were outdated as a base unit. I don't mean pikes to be outdated or the formation itself. Romans had Manipuls and they were too large and inflexible for battle. So they invented a Cohort with Centuries as a base unit and they were flexible to outmaneouver the large and slow phalangites. Their warfare was based on tight combat as everyone knows and when you exceed the phalangite advantage of long pikes they are lost. That is why I said they were outdated in comparison to roman units.

[Murfmurf]

I claim they were outdated as a base unit. I don't mean pikes to be outdated or the formation itself. Romans had Manipuls and they were too large and inflexible for battle. So they invented a Cohort with Centuries as a base unit and they were flexible to outmaneouver the large and slow phalangites. Their warfare was based on tight combat as everyone knows and when you exceed the phalangite advantage of long pikes they are lost. That is why I said they were outdated in comparison to roman units.

Ah you're missing my point. Yes phalangites were based on tight combat and were inflexible, but they were supposed to be. The phalanx was only supposed to function properly with its supporting arms (in particular, elite heavy cavalry), and when these were missing, they weren't nearly as effective.

[deadly21]

Ah you're missing my point. Yes phalangites were based on tight combat and were inflexible, but they were supposed to be. The phalanx was only supposed to function properly with its supporting arms (in particular, elite heavy cavalry), and when these were missing, they weren't nearly as effective.

Ah, now we get to understand each other.

[vietanh797]

I claim they were outdated as a base unit. I don't mean pikes to be outdated or the formation itself. Romans had Manipuls and they were too large and inflexible for battle. So they invented a Cohort with Centuries as a base unit and they were flexible to outmaneouver the large and slow phalangites. Their warfare was based on tight combat as everyone knows and when you exceed the phalangite advantage of long pikes they are lost. That is why I said they were outdated in comparison to roman units.

you can't compare a swordman unit to a pikeman unit
Swordman more suit to extreme close combat so they should be organized in a smaller unit while pikeman isn't.

[deadly21]

you can't compare a swordman unit to a pikeman unit
Swordman more suit to extreme close combat so they should be organized in a smaller unit while pikeman isn't.

Agree.
OP comparing these unit in the fist time that is why I tried to explain why the stats are as they are, nothing more
We should compare the core units of the factions though

[General Grievous]

Phalangites weren't outdated; the generals commanding them weren't on par with Alexander et al though, and they'd let other elements of the "hammer & anvil" combined arms tactic slip in quality/numbers, so by the time of Roman expansion Hellenic leaders didn't have all the necessary elements to replicate that way of war.

True.

By the way, i don't understand why evocati Cohort has better armor than any other greek infantry units.
That's just not true.

[Dan113112]

Phalangites weren't outdated; the generals commanding them weren't on par with Alexander et al though, and they'd let other elements of the "hammer & anvil" combined arms tactic slip in quality/numbers, so by the time of Roman expansion Hellenic leaders didn't have all the necessary elements to replicate that way of war.

Ah you're missing my point. Yes phalangites were based on tight combat and were inflexible, but they were supposed to be. The phalanx was only supposed to function properly with its supporting arms (in particular, elite heavy cavalry), and when these were missing, they weren't nearly as effective.

Agreed. Phalangites were only meant to pin the enemy while cavalry and more mobile infantry attacked the enemy's flanks and rear. If a general didn't have sufficient cavalry they should have at least had good quality supporting heavy infantry guarding the phalanx's rear and flanks. They really didn't do either by the time the Romans came along.

I think my strategy in this video was sound: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KhePj5M5-Y

The Pikemen have lwoer stats than the Evocati Cohort because they're pikemen. They have 3 ranks of soldiers who can attack when in Pike Phalanx, they don't need high stats to be effective.

Thanks for explaining things, Jack.

[Cell7]

They changed the systems of manipuls...to more flexible and battle-operationable cohort with centuries as basic military unit...IMHO the CA wants to show the difference between up-to-date professional roman army and outdated (and later overwhelmed) phalangas formation.

I couldn't agree more!

[Jester]

i do agree..... the Evocati stats are way too low

it s like CA isnt even trying anymore. no historical accuracy at all D:

[Rittsy]

Cost? Upkeep cost? Research required? Limit on numbers? Just to add to what's already been said...

[GoTW Kubee]

It's because Roman infantry since the original RTW has always been designed to counter phalanxes and other heavy infantry. The strength of the phalanx is its large bonus when fighting cavalry, chariots, elephants and camels. Pontus will be able to compete with Rome by making the most of it powerful cavalry.

[vietanh797]

Honestly why people keep talking about crap thing like Phalangites anti cavalry?
It was invented by Philips II to be the main army of Macedon to fight the Illyrians and Greeks when he rise to power. And both Illyrians and Greek use army in Heavy infantry based. Saying something like they only good at fighting light armor Persian or cavalry make you guys look like a retard Roman fanboy

[GoTW Kubee]

Honestly why people keep talking about crap thing like Phalangites anti cavalry?
It was invented by Philips II to be the main army of Macedon to fight the Illyrians and Greeks when he rise to power. And both Illyrians and Greek use army in Heavy infantry based. Saying something like they only good at fighting light armor Persian or cavalry make you guys look like a retard Roman fanboy

Retarded Roman fanboy? If you'd actually bothered to read my post and weren't a noob then you'd probably gather that I'm not 'fanboy' of any faction.

I'm talking about phalanxes in terms of gameplay, not history. Again, elite Roman infantry is (or at least was in the original RTW) effective at taking out phalanx units because of their pila and high defense, which allows them to get close to the pikemen without taking too many casualties. As I already said, this is balanced out by Roman infantry being more vulnerable to cavalry attacks than the pikemen, as the pikemen get a bonus vs. cavalry. If you didn't already understand this then you shouldn't be commenting.

[Dan113112]

Retarded Roman fanboy? If you'd actually bothered to read my post and weren't a noob then you'd probably gather that I'm not 'fanboy' of any faction.

I'm talking about phalanxes in terms of gameplay, not history. Again, elite Roman infantry is (or at least was in the original RTW) effective at taking out phalanx units because of their pila and high defense, which allows them to get close to the pikemen without taking too many casualties. As I already said, this is balanced out by Roman infantry being more vulnerable to cavalry attacks than the pikemen, as the pikemen get a bonus vs. cavalry. If you didn't already understand this then you shouldn't be commenting.

Pilae don't seem to have the great effect people on TWC imagine they had in history. At least not against a Macedonian phalanx. Even after discharging their pilae, Roman soldiers still had a really tough time fighting a phalanx from the front. So the balancing isn't that realistic.

[achilles-91]

Honestly why people keep talking about crap thing like Phalangites anti cavalry?
It was invented by Philips II to be the main army of Macedon to fight the Illyrians and Greeks when he rise to power. And both Illyrians and Greek use army in Heavy infantry based. Saying something like they only good at fighting light armor Persian or cavalry make you guys look like a retard Roman fanboy

friend, thank you very much for saying what's on my mind.