No swords for Hoplites?

[DogSoldierSPQR]

At this point in time, the Hoplites are pretty much useless. You can't rely on their Phalanx because missile units rip it apart, javelins wreak havoc and the enemy charge breaks it anyway. However, I figured that I could use these guys as multi-purpose troops, as they were. I tried to do Alt-attack but I never saw no swords...

In the intro, you saw a Spartan Hoplite wield a sword. Royal Peltasts who are essentially spear-less Hoplites have swords but the Hoplites don't. There's no design reason for this because Royal Peltasts have the same model as Hoplites and they have a sword. I would just like some confirmation. Do Hoplites have swords then in Rome 2? I really want Hoplites to have them as I cannot be bothered to keep forking out for Thorax swordsmen or Celtic swordsmen who are pretty and cost way more than they are worth.

[Mixxer5]

In the intro, you saw a Spartan Hoplite wield a sword.

And before release we saw huge Carthage siege... I'm sorry- game is a mess, some units are indeed useless, some overpowered. I can't say why it's that way- before release, we've seen near-perfect game, now we see that was merely a distraction.Unless... We were supposed to get beta access for new CA moba game. We did It's called Rome 2

[Moonhoplite]

If hoplite phalanx was like a real phalanx, there probably would be swords. But atm they act as an immobile shield wall, and don't hold formation/proper spear stances in combat and can't charge (while pikeman can).I seriously don't understand why I haven't read any complaints about all hoplites (even the rear ranks) having the underarm stance while in combat in the community. I dont care about overarm/underarm, but if every rank held their spears underarm they would stab into each other very easily. It's basic logic. Am I missing something here, why hasn't anyone cared, it's a pretty big issue for immersion/realism? WTH?

[RandomRoman]

[Oplitis]

This is the officer of every Spartan regiment he is always carring a sword.

[Oplitis]

Double.

[Zamina Mina Zangalewa]

I'm reading " A Storm of swords," mostly because I too was interested in how CA depict them in R2:TW.

http://www.amazon.com/STORM-OF-SPEAR.../dp/161200119X

I recommend it. In summary, underarm for the hoplite, overarm for the javelins.

[Revan The Great]

That's likely the officer, who does use a sword.

[Menumorut]

CA finished budget right before they could finish the hoplite swords

[Grimbold]

Man screw that, the strength of the phalanx, be it hoplite or sarissa, gets torn apart by javelin type troops. No wonder i meet all these barbarian armies where almost 50% of their armies are javelin skirmishers.

[Eofor]

Disappointing.

[VektorT]

First: Yes, hoplitai used to have a sword, the xiphos and also the kopi. I can understand that levy hoplitai won't, but It would be cool if the more professional one have and use it especially when the formation broke or if ordered specifically to do so, like alt+click. It would be such a nice touch to the game

Second: Phalanx, pike or hoplitai, utterly sucks. I think they are broken. My hoplitai goes out of phalanx formation all of the time, anyone can dismantle then and they get crushed easily by any sword helding infantry. With the pikes, even militia goes through the pikes and melee attack the soldier holding it face-to-face.

Third: I can believe the put hoplitai with a underarm spear hold... That just laziness. Every one imagine a hoplitai with overarm hold, one of most popular mods in Rome1 was to do so, technical experiments show us that a overarm thrust is much more stronger than an underarm, good sense says they would be stabbing each other while underarm in phalanx formation and, more than that, historical evidences clearly suggest the overarm guard. Doing it in underarm was just... laziness and indifference to create a new animation set.

Dont call then hoplitai... call then all spearmans, a regular one, 'cause it that what they reallly are in the game. Underarm guard, no xyphos and no effective phalanx = spearman, not hoplite.

[Sanzo Hidochi]

Second: Phalanx, pike or hoplitai, utterly sucks. I think they are broken. My hoplitai goes out of phalanx formation all of the time, anyone can dismantle then and they get crushed easily by any sword helding infantry. With the pikes, even militia goes through the pikes and melee attack the soldier holding it face-to-face.

The Phalanx only falls apart if you attack. Phalanx is a defensive formation in this game, it will not fall apart if you use it defensively. Further, Sacred Band in Phalanx are actually really deadly opponents. Hoplites, when in phalanx, are actually fairly effective (though less so than swordsmen). They're the perfect balance between swordsmen and pikemen. The mobility of swordsmen + the defensive capabilities of pikemen and a strong bonus against cav. But, how could you expect them to do well in a match against swordsmen when they're better in every other way? That just doesn't make sense.

Seriously guys, go to custom battle, make yourself the defender, make the enemy the Gauls and give them an Oathsworn and make yourself the Spartans and give yourself the Royal Spartans, or Carthage and give yourself a general unit and a Sacred Band. Then, let the computer charge you, while you keep your general (if you have a second unit) in reserve so as to make the fight balanced. Remember to use the general's buffs, because the CPU will as well. I have done this many times, and Mercenary Veteran Hoplites, Sacred Band, and Royal Spartans can all hold their own against the best sword infantry in the game.

[Puerkl8r]

Seriously guys, go to custom battle, make yourself the defender, make the enemy the Gauls and give them an Oathsworn and make yourself the Spartans and give yourself the Royal Spartans, or Carthage and give yourself a general unit and a Sacred Band. Then, let the computer charge you, while you keep your general (if you have a second unit) in reserve so as to make the fight balanced. Remember to use the general's buffs, because the CPU will as well. I have done this many times, and Mercenary Veteran Hoplites, Sacred Band, and Royal Spartans can all hold their own against the best sword infantry in the game.

I have tested exactly this, Royal Spartans vs Suebi Noble Spearmen.

The Spartans lose every time, and I have tried:
loose attacking
phalanx attacking (you can only actually do this if you put your units in phalanx and have them walk into the enemy, not clicking attack on the enemy)
loose defending
phalanx defending

The only time it was even a close fight was phalanx attacking because when defending, the noble spearmen have the spear-throw charge which immediately takes out 10-20 men even in phalanx formation.

I'm actually starting to wonder if Phalanx even does anything at all or if its just plain bugged and does nothing. I have been doing alright in my Sparta campaign but i also just realized I have pretty much only been fighting weak units and nothing elite other than the 1 general in each army and i have even almost lost a few battles against those when they are massed using mostly spartan hoplite. Another thing that makes me not notice is the fact that I can basically win any siege battle by just bringing tons of archers and some ballistas. I get the feeling though, that if the AI ever got fixed and started fielding better units, I would be in big trouble, because hoplite seem fairly gimped to me.

[Goutlard]

Agreed, they SHOULD have swords. Really seriously, and the phalanx should be fixed, that's not a phalanx, were is the cohesion ?

[[N2]Kami]

The Hoplite is broken.They utterly useless in combat.Roman Legionary rip them apart. Even with pikeman too. AI always charging pikeman like normal infantry unit, ie run like the wind and do not keep pike formation.
This game is broken, unless you don't play as Hellenic state.

[Josh Knight]

From an overarm position, you can only stab down, which is easily blocked as you know it's coming. Can't even reach the lower legs without exposing yourself. With underarm, you can stab down, level, or up, making yourself much more unpredictable.

Also, using underarm, you can easily stab up to two rows to either side of you with no issue, without leaving formation(as you have longer reach). With overarm, you can only reach the man directly to the right or left of you. Parrying is also easier holding it underarm. You can just sweep from side to side as opposed to having to stab at the spear to parry overarm.

What I'm saying is that I think in most cases the spear would have been held underarm, as it seems to be the clearly easier, more effective method.

Hoplites should have swords though.

Finally, if you hold it overarm, you risk poking the guy behind you in the face as opposed to in the legs if somebody knocks your spear back.

[Revan The Great]

Finally, if you hold it overarm, you risk poking the guy behind you in the face, unless you angle your spear point downward, so the butt points into the air at an angle. As opposed to in the balls if somebody knocks your spear back.

Fixed.

Otherwise, good points.

[VektorT]

From an overarm position, you can only stab down, which is easily blocked as you know it's coming. Can't even reach the lower legs without exposing yourself. With underarm, you can stab down, level, or up, making yourself much more unpredictable.

Also, using underarm, you can easily stab up to two rows to either side of you with no issue, without leaving formation(as you have longer reach). With overarm, you can only reach the man directly to the right or left of you. Parrying is also easier holding it underarm. You can just sweep from side to side as opposed to having to stab at the spear to parry overarm.

What I'm saying is that I think in most cases the spear would have been held underarm, as it seems to be the clearly easier, more effective method.

Hoplites should have swords though.

Finally, if you hold it overarm, you risk poking the guy behind you in the face as opposed to in the legs if somebody knocks your spear back.

I wont argue with you since you know better than the greeks how a phalanx should fight. They fought with overhand for centuries and mostly all of the archaeological clues show that. Arguing about it the same that arguing that romans didn't fought in legions. Simple dont worth the effort.

But, anyway, in fact they may had used both. The first rank use underhand with very limited stabs to dont open the guard, so they dont expose themselfs and totally break the phalanx logic while stabing their friends in the balls with the butt spike of their spear, the dorus. The ones behind then user overhand to stab the enemies over the first rank, being the main way they used to kill enemies. So if you are to lazy to do the right formation, the overhand one still is much more accurate, simple 'cause they used it to thrust from above their shield, dont opening their defences and, like I said, destroing the phalanx purposes and stabing however is behind them in the balls. Also the underhand first rank is a theory, as far as I now, and mainstream thought is only overhand. Also the overhand thrust, while shorter than the underhand, is far more stronger and more able to penetrate enemy armor and cause a serious wound.

[Josh Knight]

I wont argue with you since you know better than the greeks how a phalanx should fight. They fought with overhand for centuries and mostly all of the archaeological clues show that. Arguing about it the same that arguing that romans didn't fought in legions. Simple dont worth the effort.

But, anyway, in fact they may had used both. The first rank use underhand with very limited stabs to dont open the guard, so they dont expose themselfs and totally break the phalanx logic while stabing their friends in the balls with the butt spike of their spear, the dorus. The ones behind then user overhand to stab the enemies over the first rank, being the main way they used to kill enemies. So if you are to lazy to do the right formation, the overhand one still is much more accurate, simple 'cause they used it to thrust from above their shield, dont opening their defences and, like I said, destroing the phalanx purposes and stabing however is behind them in the balls. Also the underhand first rank is a theory, as far as I now, and mainstream thought is only overhand. Also the overhand thrust, while shorter than the underhand, is far more stronger and more able to penetrate enemy armor and cause a serious wound.

I won't argue with you as you are clearly a greek hoplite and I am not. I've seen many vases that show an overarm style. I've also seen many vases that show an underarm style. So how are we to know which one was likely? You can't ask a greek. No hoplite was buried holding a spear. Does it not make sense to logically think about which would be easier to use? And as kenios said, it would be incredibly tiring to hold a spear overarm for very long at all.

Again, I'm not saying underarm was used exclusively. Certainly it was not. There is vase art that shows both. My opinion is that underarm, being more practical, would be used more. Then again, some will tell you hoplite battles were just shoving matches where one side magically won by pushing the enemy until they ran away, even though if you have an entire phalanx pushing into your back and an entire phalanx pushing into your front you'll suffer some serious damage anyway. Spears probably wouldn't have been much use then I suppose.(Note I don't think they were pushing matches. Seems ridiculous.)