Will the Phalanx ever be fixed?

[Lionheart11]

Will it ever be reworked, modded or even corrected by CA, its small things like this that make up the epic overall fail imo. Is it even modable with the new tools now?.

[Noif de Bodemloze]

Will it ever be reworked, modded or even corrected by CA, its small things like this that make up the epic overall fail imo. Is it even modable with the new tools now?.

If I remember that there is a mod in steam workshop where hoplites got spear like that. Even I know that CA's one look very silly.

[SX3]

Another parrot of the "hoplite phalanx is wrong" crowd. It would be nice if you knew how to spell phalanx first.

I will tear down all the sham arguments once and for all. So besides not knowing how to spell Phalanx, it is you Lionheart11 whose lack of knowledge on the subject needs to be fixed.

Common criticisms and why they are wrong:

1. Phalanx was the name of a formation, the Hoplite means someone dressed like Leonidas in 300

Wrong on both counts. Phalanx used in the classical sense simply means the body of infantry. A Roman legion may be referred to as a phalanx, a persian infantry formation may be referred to as a phalanx, the Macedonian pike formation is a phalanx, etc. The Hoplite was a citizen soldier who fought as a body of infantry, nothing more, nothing less. There is no evidence the "classical" hoplite panoply (itself having evolved dramatically from the Persian Wars to the Macedonian Hegemony) was ever used in any significant way after the battle of Chaeronea (338 BC).

2. The picture the OP posted is an accurate depiction of a Greek infantry force in the 3th century BC.

Wrong. Corinthian helmets, wrong, these fell out of use during the Peloponnesian War over 100 years before the start of the period. Aspis shield, wrong, the Thureos shield replaced the Aspis in the 270s for the few independent Greek leagues. The Hoplites depicted in the OP's picture would be anachronistic even 100 years before the start of the game during the Corinthian War as even then reforms (see Iphicrates) had lengthened the spear, lightened the armor, and reduced the shield size for viable infantry forces.

3. It is known for sure that the classical Hoplite Phalanx from the 5th century BC fought in a tight infantry formation with shields overlapping and overhanded grip.

Wrong. Neither of these assumptions are supported by anything other than some vase art and some vague indirect passages and are the subject of scholarly debate at the highest level (not between gamer A and gamer B, but historians). These will raise the biggest roar of anger from the amateur gamers who "just know hoplites fought that way", so here's my support:

http://oyc.yale.edu/classics/clcv-205/lecture-6#ch5 (15:15, 66:50)

If you don't know who Donald Kagan is, you shouldn't even have an opinion on the topic.

Furthermore, OP's picture is showing the same underhand grip as the hoplites in the game.

4. Hoplites never charged and always stayed in a rigid wall never breaking formation.

Wrong. Example 1. Marathon. Example 2. Delium. Example 3. Chaeronea

In summary: the Hoplite Phalanx is largely irrelevant if not completely anachronistic for the game's time period, it never played a significant role in any battle. The OP's idea of what a Hoplite Phalanx would have looked like for the period closest to the start of the game is part anachronistic and part conjecture so for that to be some standard of truth is just ludicrous.

[Modestus]

Another parrot of the "hoplite phalanx is wrong" crowd. It would be nice if you knew how to spell phalanx first.

I will tear down all the sham arguments once and for all. So besides not knowing how to spell Phalanx, it is you Lionheart11 whose lack of knowledge on the subject needs to be fixed.

Common criticisms and why they are wrong:

1. Phalanx was the name of a formation, the Hoplite means someone dressed like Leonidas in 300

Wrong on both counts. Phalanx used in the classical sense simply means the body of infantry. A Roman legion may be referred to as a phalanx, a persian infantry formation may be referred to as a phalanx, the Macedonian pike formation is a phalanx, etc. The Hoplite was a citizen soldier who fought as a body of infantry, nothing more, nothing less. There is no evidence the "classical" hoplite panoply (itself having evolved dramatically from the Persian Wars to the Macedonian Hegemony) was ever used in any significant way after the battle of Chaeronea (338 BC).

2. The picture the OP posted is an accurate depiction of a Greek infantry force in the 3th century BC.

Wrong. Corinthian helmets, wrong, these fell out of use during the Peloponnesian War over 100 years before the start of the period. Aspis shield, wrong, the Thureos shield replaced the Aspis in the 270s for the few independent Greek leagues. The Hoplites depicted in the OP's picture would be anachronistic even 100 years before the start of the game during the Corinthian War as even then reforms (see Iphicrates) had lengthened the spear, lightened the armor, and reduced the shield size for viable infantry forces.

3. It is known for sure that the classical Hoplite Phalanx from the 5th century BC fought in a tight infantry formation with shields overlapping and overhanded grip.

Wrong. Neither of these assumptions are supported by anything other than some vase art and some vague indirect passages and are the subject of scholarly debate at the highest level (not between gamer A and gamer B, but historians). These will raise the biggest roar of anger from the amateur gamers who "just know hoplites fought that way", so here's my support:

http://oyc.yale.edu/classics/clcv-205/lecture-6#ch5 (15:15, 66:50)

If you don't know who Donald Kagan is, you shouldn't even have an opinion on the topic.

Furthermore, OP's picture is showing the same underhand grip as the hoplites in the game.

4. Hoplites never charged and always stayed in a rigid wall never breaking formation.

Wrong. Example 1. Marathon. Example 2. Delium. Example 3. Chaeronea

In summary: the Hoplite Phalanx is largely irrelevant if not completely anachronistic for the game's time period, it never played a significant role in any battle. The OP's idea of what a Hoplite Phalanx would have looked like for the period closest to the start of the game is part anachronistic and part conjecture so for that to be some standard of truth is just ludicrous.

Its heartening to see someone win an argument with themselves and to be so modest about it.

[WhooLong]

+100

Give that man a cookie! For more information, I advise you guys to find a map of the battle of Pydna, macedonians against romans. All of the historians I've read, use the word Phalanx to describe the entirety of the macedonians army, as you would call a roman army a Legion. The only troops in that battle on the side of the macedonians to have a "formation", were the royal guard/agema, the bronze shields/chalcaspides, and the white shields/leucaspides. And you know what they all say about their formation? It was a LINE OF BATTLE, plain and simple as that...

[ptoss1]

Another parrot of the "hoplite phalanx is wrong" crowd. It would be nice if you knew how to spell phalanx first.

I will tear down all the sham arguments once and for all. So besides not knowing how to spell Phalanx, it is you Lionheart11 whose lack of knowledge on the subject needs to be fixed.

Common criticisms and why they are wrong:

1. Phalanx was the name of a formation, the Hoplite means someone dressed like Leonidas in 300

Wrong on both counts. Phalanx used in the classical sense simply means the body of infantry. A Roman legion may be referred to as a phalanx, a persian infantry formation may be referred to as a phalanx, the Macedonian pike formation is a phalanx, etc. The Hoplite was a citizen soldier who fought as a body of infantry, nothing more, nothing less. There is no evidence the "classical" hoplite panoply (itself having evolved dramatically from the Persian Wars to the Macedonian Hegemony) was ever used in any significant way after the battle of Chaeronea (338 BC).

2. The picture the OP posted is an accurate depiction of a Greek infantry force in the 3th century BC.

Wrong. Corinthian helmets, wrong, these fell out of use during the Peloponnesian War over 100 years before the start of the period. Aspis shield, wrong, the Thureos shield replaced the Aspis in the 270s for the few independent Greek leagues. The Hoplites depicted in the OP's picture would be anachronistic even 100 years before the start of the game during the Corinthian War as even then reforms (see Iphicrates) had lengthened the spear, lightened the armor, and reduced the shield size for viable infantry forces.

3. It is known for sure that the classical Hoplite Phalanx from the 5th century BC fought in a tight infantry formation with shields overlapping and overhanded grip.

Wrong. Neither of these assumptions are supported by anything other than some vase art and some vague indirect passages and are the subject of scholarly debate at the highest level (not between gamer A and gamer B, but historians). These will raise the biggest roar of anger from the amateur gamers who "just know hoplites fought that way", so here's my support:

http://oyc.yale.edu/classics/clcv-205/lecture-6#ch5 (15:15, 66:50)

If you don't know who Donald Kagan is, you shouldn't even have an opinion on the topic.

Furthermore, OP's picture is showing the same underhand grip as the hoplites in the game.

4. Hoplites never charged and always stayed in a rigid wall never breaking formation.

Wrong. Example 1. Marathon. Example 2. Delium. Example 3. Chaeronea

In summary: the Hoplite Phalanx is largely irrelevant if not completely anachronistic for the game's time period, it never played a significant role in any battle. The OP's idea of what a Hoplite Phalanx would have looked like for the period closest to the start of the game is part anachronistic and part conjecture so for that to be some standard of truth is just ludicrous.

I love you.

[Durnaug]

3. It is known for sure that the classical Hoplite Phalanx from the 5th century BC fought in a tight infantry formation with shields overlapping and overhanded grip.

Wrong. Neither of these assumptions are supported by anything other than some vase art and some vague indirect passages

I thought Thucydides makes an explicit reference to locked shields at the Battle of Mantinea in 418 BC? I think he writes about each man trying to find shelter behind his neighbour's shield. I'll copy and paste from the Gutenberg Project...

"All armies are alike in this: on going into action they get forced out rather on their right wing, and one and the other overlap with this adversary's left; because fear makes each man do his best to shelter his unarmed side with the shield of the man next him on the right, thinking that the closer the shields are locked together the better will he be protected."

Is that not a description of overlapping shields? I know I'm off topic talking about a 5th Century description but there tis

[kujirakira]

Another parrot of the "hoplite phalanx is wrong" crowd. It would be nice if you knew how to spell phalanx first.

I will tear down all the sham arguments once and for all. So besides not knowing how to spell Phalanx, it is you Lionheart11 whose lack of knowledge on the subject needs to be fixed.

Common criticisms and why they are wrong:

1. Phalanx was the name of a formation, the Hoplite means someone dressed like Leonidas in 300

Wrong on both counts. Phalanx used in the classical sense simply means the body of infantry. A Roman legion may be referred to as a phalanx, a persian infantry formation may be referred to as a phalanx, the Macedonian pike formation is a phalanx, etc. The Hoplite was a citizen soldier who fought as a body of infantry, nothing more, nothing less. There is no evidence the "classical" hoplite panoply (itself having evolved dramatically from the Persian Wars to the Macedonian Hegemony) was ever used in any significant way after the battle of Chaeronea (338 BC).

2. The picture the OP posted is an accurate depiction of a Greek infantry force in the 3th century BC.

Wrong. Corinthian helmets, wrong, these fell out of use during the Peloponnesian War over 100 years before the start of the period. Aspis shield, wrong, the Thureos shield replaced the Aspis in the 270s for the few independent Greek leagues. The Hoplites depicted in the OP's picture would be anachronistic even 100 years before the start of the game during the Corinthian War as even then reforms (see Iphicrates) had lengthened the spear, lightened the armor, and reduced the shield size for viable infantry forces.

3. It is known for sure that the classical Hoplite Phalanx from the 5th century BC fought in a tight infantry formation with shields overlapping and overhanded grip.

Wrong. Neither of these assumptions are supported by anything other than some vase art and some vague indirect passages and are the subject of scholarly debate at the highest level (not between gamer A and gamer B, but historians). These will raise the biggest roar of anger from the amateur gamers who "just know hoplites fought that way", so here's my support:

http://oyc.yale.edu/classics/clcv-205/lecture-6#ch5 (15:15, 66:50)

If you don't know who Donald Kagan is, you shouldn't even have an opinion on the topic.

Furthermore, OP's picture is showing the same underhand grip as the hoplites in the game.

4. Hoplites never charged and always stayed in a rigid wall never breaking formation.

Wrong. Example 1. Marathon. Example 2. Delium. Example 3. Chaeronea

In summary: the Hoplite Phalanx is largely irrelevant if not completely anachronistic for the game's time period, it never played a significant role in any battle. The OP's idea of what a Hoplite Phalanx would have looked like for the period closest to the start of the game is part anachronistic and part conjecture so for that to be some standard of truth is just ludicrous.

Going off topic, but what I find most interesting with that video (and thank you for posting it), is the connection he makes at the end. His "oversight" that he "almost forgot to mention" (paraphrasing).
That is, the organization of militaries in relation to the organization of their governments. That cavalry-centric militaries lead to equestrian aristocracies. Naval-centric militaries lead to a wider encompassing democracy where the lower classes have some representation. And hoplite-centric militaries lead to a middle ground with a limited democracy of land owners.
It's somewhat self-evident in hindsight, but not something I would have thought about if not for his mentioning it... and the implications for a mod in game that could actually give this political clusterpumpkin some relevance.

[RGA]

Going off topic, but what I find most interesting with that video (and thank you for posting it), is the connection he makes at the end. His "oversight" that he "almost forgot to mention" (paraphrasing).
That is, the organization of militaries in relation to the organization of their governments. That cavalry-centric militaries lead to equestrian aristocracies. Naval-centric militaries lead to a wider encompassing democracy where the lower classes have some representation. And hoplite-centric militaries lead to a middle ground with a limited democracy of land owners.
It's somewhat self-evident in hindsight, but not something I would have thought about if not for his mentioning it... and the implications for a mod in game that could actually give this political clusterpumpkin some relevance.

Political system is only of any importance in Ancient Greek scenario (Peloponnesian wars). If a new Peloponnesian expansion is released one day, either through DLC or mods, I would expect the political system to replace the current culture system. More straighforward, easier to manage than the current in-game political system.

[kujirakira]

Political system is only of any importance in Ancient Greek scenario (Peloponnesian wars). If a new Peloponnesian expansion is released one day, either through DLC or mods, I would expect the political system to replace the current culture system. More straighforward, easier to manage than the current in-game political system.

Only of any importance in what sense? You seem to be pushing your subjective opinion as fact there.
The devs thought it important enough to make a broken political system.
As far as I'm concerned, they'd do themselves a service by simply deleting it entirely; nonetheless it exists as a glaring issue in the game that highlights another half-[xxxx] idea that they failed to deliver. Another large chasm between the marketing material and what actually exists.
Regardless I assume the bones of that infrastructure can and will be used by modders for various purposes.

[SX3]

Going off topic, but what I find most interesting with that video (and thank you for posting it), is the connection he makes at the end. His "oversight" that he "almost forgot to mention" (paraphrasing).
That is, the organization of militaries in relation to the organization of their governments. That cavalry-centric militaries lead to equestrian aristocracies. Naval-centric militaries lead to a wider encompassing democracy where the lower classes have some representation. And hoplite-centric militaries lead to a middle ground with a limited democracy of land owners.
It's somewhat self-evident in hindsight, but not something I would have thought about if not for his mentioning it... and the implications for a mod in game that could actually give this political clusterpumpkin some relevance.

That is actually Aristotle iirc? An extension of that may be the economic organization of the society. In the same course there was a lecture on the rise of the hoplite farmer. Independent farmers -> middle class which could afford armor -> hoplites or heavy infantry. Large estates -> aristocracy who could afford horses -> cavalry nobility. Large cities -> unemployed poor for becoming rowers (you don't join the navy if you have a choice since losing a naval battle = certain death, losing a land battle = you're probably still alive) -> naval power.

[Sun Jetzu]

Another parrot of the "hoplite phalanx is wrong" crowd. It would be nice if you knew how to spell phalanx first.

I will tear down all the sham arguments once and for all. So besides not knowing how to spell Phalanx, it is you Lionheart11 whose lack of knowledge on the subject needs to be fixed.

Common criticisms and why they are wrong:

1. Phalanx was the name of a formation, the Hoplite means someone dressed like Leonidas in 300

Wrong on both counts. Phalanx used in the classical sense simply means the body of infantry. A Roman legion may be referred to as a phalanx, a persian infantry formation may be referred to as a phalanx, the Macedonian pike formation is a phalanx, etc. The Hoplite was a citizen soldier who fought as a body of infantry, nothing more, nothing less. There is no evidence the "classical" hoplite panoply (itself having evolved dramatically from the Persian Wars to the Macedonian Hegemony) was ever used in any significant way after the battle of Chaeronea (338 BC).

2. The picture the OP posted is an accurate depiction of a Greek infantry force in the 3th century BC.

Wrong. Corinthian helmets, wrong, these fell out of use during the Peloponnesian War over 100 years before the start of the period. Aspis shield, wrong, the Thureos shield replaced the Aspis in the 270s for the few independent Greek leagues. The Hoplites depicted in the OP's picture would be anachronistic even 100 years before the start of the game during the Corinthian War as even then reforms (see Iphicrates) had lengthened the spear, lightened the armor, and reduced the shield size for viable infantry forces.

3. It is known for sure that the classical Hoplite Phalanx from the 5th century BC fought in a tight infantry formation with shields overlapping and overhanded grip.

Wrong. Neither of these assumptions are supported by anything other than some vase art and some vague indirect passages and are the subject of scholarly debate at the highest level (not between gamer A and gamer B, but historians). These will raise the biggest roar of anger from the amateur gamers who "just know hoplites fought that way", so here's my support:

http://oyc.yale.edu/classics/clcv-205/lecture-6#ch5 (15:15, 66:50)

If you don't know who Donald Kagan is, you shouldn't even have an opinion on the topic.

Furthermore, OP's picture is showing the same underhand grip as the hoplites in the game.

4. Hoplites never charged and always stayed in a rigid wall never breaking formation.

Wrong. Example 1. Marathon. Example 2. Delium. Example 3. Chaeronea

In summary: the Hoplite Phalanx is largely irrelevant if not completely anachronistic for the game's time period, it never played a significant role in any battle. The OP's idea of what a Hoplite Phalanx would have looked like for the period closest to the start of the game is part anachronistic and part conjecture so for that to be some standard of truth is just ludicrous.

I honestly feel the phalanx needs to be stronger.
Also its a low blow to make fun of someones spelling and grammar on the internet. shame on you.

[jamreal18]

I honestly feel the phalanx needs to be stronger.

Agree! Phalanx should be stronger!

Just look at the banner of the pikemen. If they are in pike formation there is yellow/green (I don't remember exactly - though I think it is yellow) circle at the right side of the banner.

We dont need those notification. We just need need to see if they actually lower their pikes if they are in phalanx formation. Pikes must not disappear out of nowhere. We dont need magic pikes.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Is it better?, i have not had the patience to load up Rome 2 again since the patch.

Still loose...

[Yuko]

I wish I could rep SX3 a thousand times for that post.

[Lionheart11]

My point is main directed to overlapping of shields not 300 movies.

[SX3]

*Sigh, okay I will entertain this non-intellectual opinion with an academic answer:

Okay so how can I put this clearly...

1. Hans Van Wees: if the hoplite stands sideways like a fencer, the Aspis shield is completely adequate to protect the body without the shield of the man to the right. The Aspis shield was in use prior to the development of the tight hoplite block and remained in use (possibly) after its disappearance. If it is unnecessary, why do you assume the hoplite phalanx requires overlapping shields? Overlapping shields means immobile, and hoplites, if they existed in this period, were not and could not be immobile.

2. The game starts in year 272 BC, the battle of Chaeronea was 338 BC. Lets assume the Greek mercenaries in Persian service during Alexander's campaign were armed as traditional hoplites (what this means relative to the Persian War hoplite is debatable, I tend to believe and the evidence suggest constant innovation in the 150 years of constant warfare), lets assume Agis III vs Antipater at the battle of Megalopolis 331 BC was fought by a hoplite army. Lets assume the Lamian War and the Battle of Crannon (322 BC) involved hoplite infantry. Can you point to any definitive hoplite battle in the 3rd century BC? Any example would suffice.

Undoubtably the main armament of Greek infantry remained the spear and large shield, but it's clear the hoplite phalanx as a dense immobile heavy infantry force was entirely obsolete by the 3rd century BC. Locking shields in frontal assault on a flat plain and not breaking rank seems like a pretty dumb idea when threat 1,2,3 and 4 in your immediate neighborhood all use a wall of pikes. It is clear that almost immediately after Chaeronea the infantry of the city states sought to fight on broken ground (where the advantage of the Pike phalanx can't be brought to bear) see Battle of Crannon where the Athenian infantry took a hill. In the 3rd and 2nd century you'll see references to Greek auxiliaries, peltasts, thureophoroi, all of which were said to be able to skirmish and fight in the phalanx (main body of infantry). Likewise, elite units like the Hypaspists which may have used spear and Aspis type shield (classic hoplite armament) were called "lightest armed" and "most nimble" and used to assault fortifications and expand the gap created by cavalry, a role completely antithetical to the "correct hoplite phalanx" which people keep harping about. What does this mean? If your theoretical fighting style is incompatible with the role these troops actually filled (how do you lock shields when running after cavalry?) it's a fair bet your theory is wrong. There is no classic hoplite phalanx formation in use when the game starts.

Analogy:

Waaaahh why does Battlefield 4 not have Panzers???? NOT HISTORICALLY ACCURATE PEOPLE USED PANZERS

[Sir Pignans]

1. Hans Van Wees: if the hoplite stands sideways like a fencer, the Aspis shield is completely adequate to protect the body without the shield of the man to the right. The Aspis shield was in use prior to the development of the tight hoplite block and remained in use (possibly) after its disappearance. If it is unnecessary, why do you assume the hoplite phalanx requires overlapping shields? Overlapping shields means immobile, and hoplites, if they existed in this period, were not and could not be immobile.

Are you suggesting that the hoplite didn't overlap his shield? But instead used the method proposed by Hans Van Wees?

[Lionheart11]

Mainly** Phalanx*** It appears i can no longer edit my posts for some reason.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

I don't think any of that has anything to do with the game.

Whether it was historical or not, the Phalanx formation is in the game, and currently does not work well. It cannot be used on the offensive at all, as ordering the unit to attack immediately breaks the formation. Very annoying.

On top of that, it looks rather silly. When you order them to assume the formation, only the very first line lowers their shields and braces. Everyone behind them just stands there looking weirdly bored for people about to fight for their lives.

But, this is not a problem with just the Phalanx formation. Shield Wall also has this same issue.

In one of the screenshots marketing this game, it shows a unit of Sacred Band (I think) who are in a shield wall. It looks much better than the one currently in game, as more than just the first rank have braced themselves.

It would be like if you ordered your pikes into a phalanx, and only the ones in front lowered their pikes, while the rest just sat there with pikes raised. It looks horrible.

[SX3]

Haha it didn't take long for you lot to give up on the historicity angle. I'll address both your points:

1. If you want to attack in hoplite formation, walk your unit in hoplite formation into the enemy. If you right click, it is a charge when in range command. Whether this is the best possible control design, I don't know, I haven't thought about it enough. It is certainly true that hoplites charged the opposing line often, and I have no problems with getting my units to do what I want, having mastered the controls.

2. You realize when hostiles actually get close to your line the entire unit regardless of whether they're in hoplite phalanx or not, lowers their spears right?

Does this picture look like what you described? http://i.imgur.com/g79mmEp.jpg

No?

Oh you want them to stand there entire unit bracing when the enemy is halfway across the map? You know what looks more silly than a single row lowering shields and bracing? That.

Also look again at the OP's picture. Only one rank bracing there too? Has the entire internet gone insane?