Will the Phalanx ever be fixed?

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

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?

"You lot"? I am more than one person now, apparently.

And yes, I know how you must use hoplites in phalanx formation, but that is not a very suitable way to do it. The same applies to shield wall, again. You lose out on any charge bonuses.

And, on top of this, when you do use hoplites in this manner, as you must if you want to attack with them, they do NOT lower their shields until they have literally made contact with the enemy. Then every man in the unit abruptly jumps into an attacking pose. It looks silly. Far more silly than if the unit had just braced the entire time, like the pike units do.

[SX3]

"You lot"? I am more than one person now, apparently.

And yes, I know how you must use hoplites in phalanx formation, but that is not a very suitable way to do it. The same applies to shield wall, again. You lose out on any charge bonuses.

And, on top of this, when you do use hoplites in this manner, as you must if you want to attack with them, they do NOT lower their shields until they have literally made contact with the enemy. Then every man in the unit abruptly jumps into an attacking pose. It looks silly. Far more silly than if the unit had just braced the entire time, like the pike units do.

Okay I'll address this and then it's off to bed for me. Why is there a bonus to a unit in a shieldwall vs a unit not in a shieldwall? The tight and cohesive front line leaves very few gaps between men for the enemy to strike. By necessity you cannot charge in a shieldwall without weakening or breaking its cohesion, this is common sense, see Battle of Hastings. Once your unit has collided with the hostiles, it is absurd to think you could somehow line back up in a neat row again. So, if the right click command is a charge when in range command, then it makes complete sense the unit ordered to charge will not keep its shield wall / hoplite phalanx bonus.

What you're actually asking for is a command to slowly and in good order, walk your shield wall / hoplite phalanx into the enemy. CA can either introduce a new command or change the right click command for a unit with shieldwall / hoplite phalanx activated to walk into the target. I don't see how that would hurt gameplay, but for me it is trivial and inconsequential because like we've discussed, you can already walk your shield wall / hoplite phalanx into a target.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Okay I'll address this and then it's off to bed for me. Why is there a bonus to a unit in a shieldwall vs a unit not in a shieldwall? The tight and cohesive front line leaves very few gaps between men for the enemy to strike. By necessity you cannot charge in a shieldwall without weakening or breaking its cohesion, this is common sense, see Battle of Hastings. Once your unit has collided with the hostiles, it is absurd to think you could somehow line back up in a neat row again. So, if the right click command is a charge when in range command, then it makes complete sense the unit ordered to charge will not keep its shield wall / hoplite phalanx bonus.

What you're actually asking for is a command to slowly and in good order, walk your shield wall / hoplite phalanx into the enemy. CA can either introduce a new command or change the right click command for a unit with shieldwall / hoplite phalanx activated to walk into the target. I don't see how that would hurt gameplay, but for me it is trivial and inconsequential because like we've discussed, you can already walk your shield wall / hoplite phalanx into a target.

No, I am thinking something more like a Cataphract charge. Or, rather, "Charge."

Something like a slow trot, or gait, that sacrifices speed for the greater mass of a tight phalanx. Like you could in M2TW or Rome 1 (Minus the part where you throw the enemy unit into the air. Ugh.)

But as I said, the current method does not work very well. While you can walk your hoplites into the enemy, once you are engaged, you cannot change targets or direction, which is the same problem you have with pikes. If you attempt to click for them to march in a different direction, they will either stop completely and act confused, or if you click multiple times, they will disengage entirely and get slaughtered by the enemy. And if you click to attack, then, obviously, you lose the phalanx formation entirely. Or, in the case of pikes, they just switch to swords and start attacking like infantry.

Phalanx and shield wall would both work better if they worked similar to how they did Pre-Warscape. And, for that matter, I believe that spear wall worked better in Shogun 2 as well. At least, I do not remember any of these particular issues.

[Lionheart11]

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




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?

who are you again?, mate I don't care what that cross eyed Yale guppy thinks or is he 1400 years old lol. Infact I dont really care for your history lessons either(no offence).

Im pretty sure they crossed shields because you will notice there is a notch in the shield for a spear to be locked into the shield next to it.

Al I wish is the formation was tighter than CA represents it.

[Pontic Pontus]

Patch nine improved phalanxes a lot, now they act more as barriers and less as super-spearmen destroying everything in their path

[daelin4]

A question worth asking one's self is whether the Hoplite Phalanx works well* or looks well.

*works meaning performs as expected, which tends to fall into the subjective category.

IMO the term hoplite phalanx is category encompassing numerous possible approaches, which might explain why there's such a hubub between fans about what it should be doing and what it looks like.

Not saying the current formation in the game fulfills anyone's views, of course. Which is ironic: it's almost like CA knew that and just chose the most unrealistic version to rile everyone up

[daelin4]

Wow this one tops them all. "I can't make a good case for what a correct period appropriate hoplite formation should look like, so it's really a subjective reality and we shouldn't talk about it. But still CA screwed it all up. On purpose. To make me mad." About as sensible as the complaints I hear from my 14 year old niece.

No. that's not what I am saying. I advise you to read it again, and ask questions if you are unsure.

And where I come from, most 14-year olds don't even act like this.

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

No offense, but that should have been the first thing you said, rather than the utter vagueness assisted with a rather out-of-context illustration.

In that case, having looked closely at hoplite units in the game, their shields look like they could be englared a tad bit. Combined with placeing the soldiers closer when the formation is toggled, it would look a lot more like the classic phalanx we expect out of a hoplite unit.

As for historicity, what do contemporary sources say on the matter? And when I say contemporary, I don't mean classical period or during Alexander's time. I'm talking 237BC at the earliest. Last time I checked, there isn't much mention about how a hoplite phalanx looked like, given that Roman and Macedonian varieties of formation were predominant during that period.

[ptoss1]

So, why don't people like the phalanx in this game?

I personally know nothing of Greek warfare so I had nothing to compare the one in this game to.

I am so clueless.

[Hoplite of Ilis]

The Hoplite Phalanx was for pushing in, and you must definitely have spears overhand. The Kopis swords that the Greeks have in R2 are for downward chops - same way a butcher chops meat. The Makedonian Phalanx was for pinning down. The best way to know is to hold these weapons yourself. You would immediately understand.

[Demetrios of Messene]

1. It is very clear from the title thread that the OP is interested in the phalanx units used in the game Rome 2: Total War. The OP's picture further clarified that he is asking about the "classical" phalanx and not the "macedonian" one. Any academic discussion on the term is much appreaciated (at least by me), but not really necessary for the purpose of the question raised. The same academic discussion can be made on other terms as well, including legion and peltast, since the classical sources (or copies of those sources to be accurate) quite frequently mix up terms.

2. Regarding the anachronism of the use of the stereotypical classical phalanx, my own view is that, while it is probably truth (we cannot be 100% sure due to lack of clear evidence), it is a rather welcome anachronism for gameplay reasons and certainly not the only one or most striking one in the game's timeframe. The same goes for the helmets and armour used by the units in-game.

3. Some observations on the classical phalanx in-game:

• The shield is small. This was acknowledged by the developers as intentional decision due to cropping issues (please search J. Lusted's threads if you are interested in citation)
• The so called argive grip is modeled but the soldiers only use the central grip as if holding a light fencer shield. It is simple logic that you cannot hold a heavy shield in such way for prolonged time. I can only assume this was decided in order to save video memory for animations.
• It is expected that at least the second rank can engage the enemy with spears. I cannot see that this is the case in-game and I don't understand why. Maybe because the devs also shortened the effective ranks of the macedonian phalanx so they decided a similar approach for the classical phalanx or for overall balance purposes? I really don't know.
• A move command is not the same as an attack command. Right click should order the unit to attack in formation. Double right click should order the unit to charge (breaking formation entirely or partially I don't care).
• Individuals breaking ranks to fight macho one on one duels is not fitting to a unit designed to stay in formation. This gets absurd when some individuals end up at the middle or back of the enemy unit.
• The hold formation buttom (or whatever is called) is bugged since it penalises the unit.
• Add here any other general combat related issue shared by all units in game.

All these thing add up to the classical phalanx in-game being poorly designed, bugged and in all probability unlikely to be fixed, to answer the OP.

[Dago Red]

1. It is very clear from the title thread that the OP is interested in the phalanx units used in the game Rome 2: Total War. The OP's picture further clarified that he is asking about the "classical" phalanx and not the "macedonian" one. Any academic discussion on the term is much appreaciated (at least by me), but not really necessary for the purpose of the question raised. The same academic discussion can be made on other terms as well, including legion and peltast, since the classical sources (or copies of those sources to be accurate) quite frequently mix up terms.

2. Regarding the anachronism of the use of the stereotypical classical phalanx, my own view is that, while it is probably truth (we cannot be 100% sure due to lack of clear evidence), it is a rather welcome anachronism for gameplay reasons and certainly not the only one or most striking one in the game's timeframe. The same goes for the helmets and armour used by the units in-game.

3. Some observations on the classical phalanx in-game:

• The shield is small. This was acknowledged by the developers as intentional decision due to cropping issues (please search J. Lusted's threads if you are interested in citation)
• The so called argive grip is modeled but the soldiers only use the central grip as if holding a light fencer shield. It is simple logic that you cannot hold a heavy shield in such way for prolonged time. I can only assume this was decided in order to save video memory for animations.
• It is expected that at least the second rank can engage the enemy with spears. I cannot see that this is the case in-game and I don't understand why. Maybe because the devs also shortened the effective ranks of the macedonian phalanx so they decided a similar approach for the classical phalanx or for overall balance purposes? I really don't know.
• A move command is not the same as an attack command. Right click should order the unit to attack in formation. Double right click should order the unit to charge (breaking formation entirely or partially I don't care).
• Individuals breaking ranks to fight macho one on one duels is not fitting to a unit designed to stay in formation. This gets absurd when some individuals end up at the middle or back of the enemy unit.
• The hold formation buttom (or whatever is called) is bugged since it penalises the unit.
• Add here any other general combat related issue shared by all units in game.

All these thing add up to the classical phalanx in-game being poorly designed, bugged and in all probability unlikely to be fixed, to answer the OP.

Thanks for this post. The "holier than thou" screed being praised in this thread was too exhausting to read. This was much better. And I bold faced the part he just didn't seem to grasp, and the part many of us are clamoring for. It makes sense. And this is the way the games used to function.

[alQamar]

And we should not forget about the bugged visuals of Phalanx units in Rome 2. You cannot see the pikes from a distance like in Rome 1, which is annoying for multiplayer games. Also when they lower the pikes they are there out of a sudden.

Oh wait there is something itching in my pocket... ahh a 5 meter long pike...

[Zwirbaum]

And we should not forget about the bugged visuals of Phalanx units in Rome 2. You cannot see the pikes from a distance like in Rome 1, which is annoying for multiplayer games. Also when they lower the pikes they are there out of a sudden.

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.

[alQamar]

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.

The banner won't tell you if your enemy has it's pikes raised or lowered, or did they change that?

[ProtoBo]

So, here we go:

Now here's the post this thread needed. An interesting thread overall, but the 'aggressive academic' approach doesn't really fit well when discussing a game.

In my view, as someone else said, the constant use of highly mobile 'kill moves' is causing the problems people see in phalanxes. The men at the front are eager to drop their pikes and go slashing into the enemy ranks, unable to be killed because of the 1vs1 limitation of the engine. It might be the case that simply limiting the animations available to men in a tight phalanx (as is done in Shogun 2 for men in Spearwall formation) might stop the loss of formation.

I strongly suspect that the answers to all questions regarding simplifications are oversights are: they didn't have time or believe our systems could handle xyz complication, or suffered a heavy design philosophy of simplification.

[ProtoBo]

"Charging at Pikemen now consistently selects the correct matched combat animation, keeping pikemen in line more effectively."

From patch 9 notes. I guess they have attempted to address the animation issue then.

[Tr0tskY]

Pikes in Rome 2 are terrible, they really don't work. 90% of the men in the first 3 rows will just stand there doing nothing as men run straight through the line of pikes....it's really unrealistic. Pike combat needs to be slowed down a lot and it needs to be much more of a "fixing" type thing. Sure, they should butcher units but in a fairly slow way.

RE all the arguments about the classic hoplite phalanx, I have a few pictures I am uploading to Imgur which may help the discussion. Frankly I am not impressed by SX3's extremely obnoxious tone at all.

[Tr0tskY]

Not really, if you read his posts he's just trying to show how much he knows and how he knows better than you. He doesn't offer anything himself though.
If you stand side on then you need to hold the fore-arm at a right angle to the upper arm, bending it inwards. This means that the hoplite has to step into any thrust with a spear, thus breaking the line with any real attack. This is a really atypical description of pretty much any classical hoplite formation from around 5BC.

"One of the great problems of the phalanx was this tendency to close up towards the right. After the end of the 6th century, probably as a result of the Persian invasions and the increase in the use of light armed troops armed with missiles, a leather curtain was sometimes attached to the bottom fo the shield to protect the warrior's legs from darts and arrows" P. Connolly Greece and Rome at War pg 53

"We know only that the system was fully developed by the time of the 7th century Spartan poet Tyrtaeus, who describes a warrior's duty as standing shoulder to shoudler with his comrades and avoiding individual acts of heroism that would disrupt the formation. The SPartans criticised Aristodemus at the battle of Platea because his outstanding bravery jeopardised the lives of his comrades." P. Connolly Greece and Rome at War pg 37.

[Sir Pignans]

Not really, if you read his posts he's just trying to show how much he knows and how he knows better than you. He doesn't offer anything himself though.

I'd rather let him respond to me himself thanks, he hasn't done anything to me yet.

[karamazovmm]

Not really, if you read his posts he's just trying to show how much he knows and how he knows better than you. He doesn't offer anything himself though.
If you stand side on then you need to hold the fore-arm at a right angle to the upper arm, bending it inwards. This means that the hoplite has to step into any thrust with a spear, thus breaking the line with any real attack. This is a really atypical description of pretty much any classical hoplite formation from around 5BC.

"One of the great problems of the phalanx was this tendency to close up towards the right. After the end of the 6th century, probably as a result of the Persian invasions and the increase in the use of light armed troops armed with missiles, a leather curtain was sometimes attached to the bottom fo the shield to protect the warrior's legs from darts and arrows" P. Connolly Greece and Rome at War pg 53

"We know only that the system was fully developed by the time of the 7th century Spartan poet Tyrtaeus, who describes a warrior's duty as standing shoulder to shoudler with his comrades and avoiding individual acts of heroism that would disrupt the formation. The SPartans criticised Aristodemus at the battle of Platea because his outstanding bravery jeopardised the lives of his comrades." P. Connolly Greece and Rome at War pg 37.

so one author = typical?