Position of the troops

**Killzone_040** · January 08, 2014, 11:48 AM

Hello everyone,

I'm trying to figure out if the main battleline would have been (historically speaking) composed of primarily spearmen/hoplites or if swordsmen were used for this purpose. In short, which of the two types would have the advantages to hold a line, but also be able to carry a battle when on the attack? And thus which type would have been used to flank.
I am aware that this would not have been a rule per se, seeing every battle is a collection of different circumstances and army compositions, but would ancient commanders have had a preference?

I've searched the web and the forums but it is hard to find reliable information for a novice, so maybe a discussion can prove decisive!

**Marly** · January 08, 2014, 12:23 PM

There are so many factors that would decide on something like this. Most cultures fought in the manner of their forefathers, tactics honed over centuries of warfare. Others with more literary cultures had recorded and developed more rigid doctrines for deploying their armies (e.g. Diodachi states, Rome) commanders would have learned in a more formal manner. The things that would contribute to a fighting style are so many its impossible to list. Just a few include: local terrain, the martial culture of the region, economics, who the enemy are...the list goes on.

For instance a Roman may form his core of troops armed with swords, a Macedonian with pikes, a Greek with spears and so on.

Why? A couple of easy to understand factors spring to mind as good examples:

Hilly Italian terrain favours the mobility of a swordsman in a looser formation, the flatlands and valleys of Greece tight formations of spearmen.

Some cultures revered certain weapons and would give prize of place to the finest fighting men available who would typically wield these weapons. In EB, think Celtic naked fanatics with their broadswords or Thracian Falxmen. Outside of the semi-professional forces in an army, most men would simply fight with what they had. Farmers would fight with spears, shepherds with slings, woodsmen with axes...

An army would be formed from whatever made tactical sense for the terrain they were in...from men whose weaponry would vary depending on the environment they were from...in a manner that would counter those factors in the enemy. It is a complex subject!

**athanaric** · January 08, 2014, 12:57 PM

Think of it this way: your main battle line needs to resist missile fire, cavalry charges, and the clash with the enemy's infantry battle line. So you need units that are able of doing this. They should have a shield (which counts twice against arrows and sling stones), some armour, good discipline and training, and relatively stable morale. The flanks of the main battle line should be guarded by heavy infantry, preferrably elite units.

Generally speaking, I would put spearmen in the frontline, but only those types that have a shield (preferrably a hield value of 3 or higher) and armour, if available. This is tactically sound and historically accurate. Spears have a longer reach than swords, axes, or clubs, and thus they are good for fending off attackers.
Classical Hoplites are a very good choice, because they have a lot of armour and staying power as well as a big shield. For factions that can recruit phalanx pikemen, those are the obvious candidate for the main battle line line (deploying them anywhere else wouldn't make a lot of sense). I like to deploy pikemen in deep formations, which is historically accurate and also better when you're facing shock cavalry, or potential flank attacks by ambushing infantry. But most of the time, three or four men deep will be enough.

Some factions also have swordsmen or axemen that can make decent front line troops.

Unit types that should not be part of the main battle line, unless your army is lying in ambush and you want to charge the enemy before they can hurl their javelins:
- Celtic or Germanic naked spearmen. strong morale, but very vulnerable to missiles
- Falxmen of any kind. See above
- light skirmishers (duh)
- cavalry, unless your army is all mounted
- elephants. The AI will shoot burning arrows at them, which is annoying.
- expensive, lightly armoured elite troops like for example Worgozez or Balearic light infantry. They are super effective, but a well placed cavalry charge or missile barrage can halve their unit size very quickly.
- unarmoured axemen or clubmen. See above.

**Killzone_040** · January 08, 2014, 01:10 PM

@Marly
I hadn't thought of some of the things you mentioned, like the overall terrain in a nation's vicinity, that does indeed make a lot of sense when you think about it. And as you said a lot of people that were levied wouldn't be, as some other factions, equipped with armour and weapons. You've been very helpful from an historical perspective.

@Athanaric
So it would basically depend on the individual units you have at hand, rather than the type of units available? If both units would be similar in stats but one being armed with a spear and one with a sword, I would indeed put the spears in the frontline/middle of the line and the swordsmen at the flanks/reserve. It, for some reason, makes more sense.

**locoace3** · January 08, 2014, 01:17 PM

It all depends on the faction, it should be easy to find the main line infantry. Like Hastati for Rome, Pikes for Makedon, Hoplites for Greek, etc.

I personally prefer spears on the front line, pikes are cool but you need a lot of support troops since pikes are really static.

**Frtigern** · January 08, 2014, 09:27 PM

I'm not a big fan of hoplites. They aren't very fast and can tire too quickly. For stationary defense they are fine but for maneuver they suck. I also like units that have a good primary or secondary weapon, especially AP javelins or axes.

Here is a list of spearmen that are up to the task.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

**Entropy Judge** · January 10, 2014, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by Frtigern

I'm not a big fan of hoplites. They aren't very fast and can tire too quickly. For stationary defense they are fine but for maneuver they suck.

On the other hand, for how common they are and how well-protected, they still make good solid infantry for almost any purpose. Compared to some of the units you have (Galatian and Babylonian Heavy Spearmen), cost and ease of recruitment might be a bigger factor than other things - particularly for main front-line infantry.

**Ownager** · January 10, 2014, 10:49 PM

I never use them as anything more than supporting infantry. Never. I never played as KH for more than 5 turns, but I only used them once as Carthage to supplement the line. It was a nightmare.

**locoace3** · January 10, 2014, 10:56 PM

As a static, reactive type fighter, i find hoplites great, i love the carthage ones, though it's been a while since

**Boriak** · January 11, 2014, 02:37 AM

Use hoplites for what they're good for and they will not let you down. They're good for creating a portable fortification (read: main line) around which my whole engagement plays out. Cavalry and mobile infantry are there to do anything else but stand in place. Everyone has a part to play.

**Killzone_040** · January 11, 2014, 05:33 AM

Hoplites are in my opinion a more than sufficient option once you go relatively far away from your homeland regions with any faction. Ofcourse this doesn't necessarily count for KH, haven't really played them long enough. Then again, they're only there to form a part of the main line and I use them as an easy way to bulk up the frontline, not to make my army out of them.
That said, I usually just put them in guard mode when i'm on the defense. In offensive battles I tend to use them as support/flankers.

**athanaric** · January 11, 2014, 05:43 AM

Saka Hoplites are great because they give that faction an entirely new tactical option (and they're great at taking out cavalry). They're also recruitable in regions far away from your homeland.

**Marly** · January 11, 2014, 02:22 PM

Classical Hoplites are my favourite unit in the whole of EB...its funny how people can have such different opinions!!

Their AOR is huge, they're heavy enough to hold most units at bay...Get some experience and a blacksmith and you've got a seriously good unit for less than 400 a turn.

**Ownager** · January 11, 2014, 03:28 PM

My problem is that classical hoplites are both ahistorical to use in such huge numbers, and too roman like. I don't want all my infantry to be of one composition, no matter how easy it makes the game. I always focus on the fun part over the practical part. Plus, hoplites in that fashion were not used much, especially with Makedonian phalangites being dominant. Besides KH, I can't see any other faction using them as main line infantry.

**athanaric** · January 11, 2014, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Ownager

Plus, hoplites in that fashion were not used much, especially with Makedonian phalangites being dominant.

Seeing as that's a specific historical claim, you had better back that up.

Besides KH, I can't see any other faction using them as main line infantry.

Any faction campaigning in the Eastern Med that can't recruit phalanx pikemen (only 11 factions can) will be happy to have them as main line troops. If you do a migration campaign with Sweboz, for example (not as ahistorical as you may think)...

**locoace3** · January 11, 2014, 04:23 PM

i believe he was talking of the old fashioned hoplites, since i know Thorakitai were still dominant among greeks

**Marly** · January 11, 2014, 06:00 PM

Besides KH, I can't see any other faction using them as main line infantry.

They are far and away the best infantry the Sauromatae can recruit in the early game, Hoplitai from Taras are also a great addition to Camillian Legions for the Romani. They're excellent for Pontus and Hayasdan also. Even the Hoplitai Haploi units up around Marakanda are superior to much of the infantry around that region for the factions in the far east too.

especially with Makedonian phalangites being dominant

They are undoubtedly powerful but I find it very hard to effectively engage the enemy...usually end up killing them with my 'flanking' troops and cavalry whilst my phalanx advance painfully slowly and the enemy just run around them!

**athanaric** · January 11, 2014, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Marly

They are far and away the best infantry the Sauromatae can recruit in the early game, Hoplitai from Taras are also a great addition to Camillian Legions for the Romani. They're excellent for Pontus and Hayasdan also. Even the Hoplitai Haploi units up around Marakanda are superior to much of the infantry around that region for the factions in the far east too.

Indeed. Though one may argue that the Germanic Swordsmen from Bastarnolandam and the Slavic (fear!) Spearmen from Budinije and Neurije are just as useful. Unfortunately, it's impossible for Sauromatae/Saka to construct auxiliary MICs in Bastarnolandam and the Crimean provinces without resorting to exploits, due to some oversight on behalf of the devs.

They are undoubtedly powerful but I find it very hard to effectively engage the enemy...usually end up killing them with my 'flanking' troops and cavalry whilst my phalanx advance painfully slowly and the enemy just run around them!

That's a common problem with phalanxes. That's why I deploy them in deep formation (~10x10) and frequently have them lift up their pikes and shift position.