Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 21 of 21

Thread: Aren't phalanxes overpowered?

  1. #21
    Mr Longbowman's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,927

    Default Re: Aren't phalanxes overpowered?

    I definitely agree with the sentiment that the truly overpowered units in Rome are the Urban Cohorts (and Rome's units in general). Phalanxes are actually arguable underpowered compared to their historical counterparts as their is no way that even an elite Roman legionary cohort would have been capable of breaking a phalanx from the front and break their formation such as the urban cohort. One of the most outrageous aspects of Rome is that a unit of Urban Cohorts can, even while sustaining great casualties, take on a Spartan Hoplite straight on and beat it. It's so outrageous it almost makes me laugh.

    As such, I'd only say phalanxes are unbeatable when they are put in a position were their flanks are covered, and they are able to strike an enemy unit from two directions (the infamous V-formation) - like in a bridge-battle or defensive siege. In those kind of battles, assuming no artillery or an outrageous disparity in missile capabilities, two phalanxes can practically take down ANY army. In so far as to beat them otherwise, I like the traditional Roman strategy of forcing the phalanxes to spread out. Historically this usually meant decreasing the depth of the phalanx making it less formidable, but in practice, at least with the AI, this often involves the opponent breaking the single line-formation. As such, it's easy for to flank them. I would just spread out my line beyond my enemy, flank them with cavalry/archers, and destroy them from the rear. With Greece, this is usually easy as their cavalry is the worst in the game. With Macedon, Carthage, or the Seleucid Empire this may be more difficult as their secondary forces are usually better - but with the long-pike phalanx I believe their shields are worse, making them more vulnerable to missile fire from the front, so it may not even be necessary to flank them.

    Carthage does not have this problem, as they fight in the more conventional Greek-style and have cavalry that, even if they are worse than they were in reality, are still heaps better than the Greeks. As such, Carthage was my go-to nation while playing multiplayer.

    I think the best example of why the phalanxes is overrated is the noob-box. A square of phalanxes without any open flanks, at least to hand-to-hand units. A lot of new players, myself included when I got started, love using the noob-box as it usually produces semi-decent results against inexperienced players, but to someone who knows what they are doing the noob-box is worthless. Even assuming a battle were the phalanx-box is not faced with superior fire-power and or artillery, a targeted large-scale attack on one of the 90 degree angle connections breaks it rather easily. This will in practice lead to a similar effect to them being flanked, and often leads to an opening of the entire box.

    That's all for now.
    Last edited by Mr Longbowman; September 04, 2016 at 03:56 PM.


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •