Will the Phalanx ever be fixed?

[TheDarkKnight]

Multiple posts deleted for being off topic.

I would suggest keeping to the topic.

[Lionheart11]

Sounds like there is some confusion about offensive and defensive situations, the formation i have pictured would be a defensive situation only and shield from missiles as well as oncoming troops, i do agree they would break ranks to chase down the enemy if that is what Sx3 is trying to say.

Ca's phalanx really is pathetic looking against missiles.

[TheDarkKnight]

Enough.

If you wish to discuss hoplites on a historical basis, take it to the appropriate forum.

[Lionheart11]

ok enough history lessons, more animation diversity.

EDit ^ what Chris said.

[Friar Chris]

ok enough history lessons, more animation diversity.

EDit ^ what Chris said.

I was going to ask 'which Chris', then I realised that his post had replaced my practically identical post, and given the similar content of both our posts, it's really neither here nor there.


I've been testing these out, and even tried modding the unit spacing to make the rather draughty gaps between the shields smaller, but to no avail: even tightly packed units spread themselves out from their modded formation when entering the 'Hoplite Wall' mode...

Regardless of how they're made to look, I do think they need spacing much closer together when in 'Hoplite Wall' (apparently what CA renamed the Phalanx ability when they failed to fix its appearance) so that they do function as a compact heavy infantry block with few shield gaps, instead of just the 'woo I raised my shield to the enemy' mode they have now, which looks altogether unimpressive and gains no extra benefit from shield coverage.

[jamreal18]

I wish to see tighter phalanx formation.

Phalanx, loose formation... CA is joking...

[jamreal18]

Question:

Why did CA make the pikes disappear into air in the fist place?

Is it because CA doesnt have proper animations for pikemen when charging when not in phalanx formation? Is that why they became swordsmen because they share the same animations with swordsmen?...

Did projectiles still harm phalanx when they were in formation?

From what I know, phalanx should also be strong when missile units fire them at front. Its because some of their pikes can block those projectiles.

------------------------------------------------------------

I hope in future patches, phalanx will look like these:





Just take a look how compact their formation is... This is what you called phalanx!!!

[Mangalore]

Question:

Why did CA make the pikes disappear into air in the fist place?

Is it because CA doesnt have proper animations for pikemen when charging when not in phalanx formation? Is that why they became swordsmen because they share the same animations with swordsmen?...

It's because that's how phalangites would fight when discarding their pikes. They had pikes, in the heyday and when not militia/state equipped they had swords, they had shields when not used with a shoulder strap light and mobile enough => swordsmen.

You can whine that this mechanics is for noobs and you'd like a "discard pikes" button but the general idea is to offer you the ability to use your phalangites as weaker swordsmen but more mobile if necessary. They'll still rip militia and light inf a new one as swordsmen.

Did projectiles still harm phalanx when they were in formation?

From what I know, phalanx should also be strong when missile units fire them at front. Its because some of their pikes can block those projectiles.
...

the entangling effect of a phalanx would be difficult to model. They get certain defense boni.


And your screens are simply a unit enlargement mod which CA will never release for stability reasons. I do not really see much difference with the phalanx. Is it actually different? I guess CA patches loosened theirs up a bit which one can argue either way. It's not like there was only one way a phalanx deployed .

[jamreal18]

It's because that's how phalangites would fight when discarding their pikes. They had pikes, in the heyday and when not militia/state equipped they had swords, they had shields when not used with a shoulder strap light and mobile enough => swordsmen.

You can whine that this mechanics is for noobs and you'd like a "discard pikes" button but the general idea is to offer you the ability to use your phalangites as weaker swordsmen but more mobile if necessary. They'll still rip militia and light inf a new one as swordsmen.

I know they had swords as secondary weapon but hello? Pikes disappearing and appearing out of nowhere whenever they want?

And your screens are simply a unit enlargement mod which CA will never release for stability reasons. I do not really see much difference with the phalanx. Is it actually different? I guess CA patches loosened theirs up a bit which one can argue either way. It's not like there was only one way a phalanx deployed .

Make their formation tighter and no magic pikes atleast...

[PointOfViewGun]

Make their formation tighter and no magic pikes atleast...

Do you want phalanx soldiers to appear in the battlefield with their pikes from the start and an animation where they drop their pikes to the ground and then start using their swords and also the requirement for you to get the unit back to the spot they dropped their pikes to be able to start using phalanx formation again?

[jamreal18]

Do you want phalanx soldiers to appear in the battlefield with their pikes from the start and an animation where they drop their pikes to the ground and then start using their swords and also the requirement for you to get the unit back to the spot they dropped their pikes to be able to start using phalanx formation again?

How about just like in dismounting horses?
If you want them to charge with sword they will have to drop their pikes first like cavalry dismounting their horses if they dont want to charge with cav then come back again after?
Anyways, i like it Rome 1 where you can really call them pikemen because they carry their pikes wherever they go...

[Lionheart11]

Is that Rome 1?

[AngryTitusPullo]

Nope. ome 1 can only have clone armies.

[Tariq]

Phalanx are suppose to be anvil part of the hammer and anvil tactic, thus without hammer (cavalry) they should be easily defeated and offensively inept. Their job was to hold the wall and keep other side at bay , while their hammer encircled them and attack them from behind.

Their weakness was flanks and rear,but not front and they were very resistant to arrows and slingshots (again from the front only) due to neatly packed shield front.That's why they had Thureopoi /Agrarian infantry positioned at flanks as protection.

Offensively they should be able to push mass in front of them , but without much of the lethality, and on rough terrain their formation should break very easily, as all this was seen in Battle of Pydna 168 BC(example), where Macedons almost killed Romans , but lost due to complete lack of cavalry (Hammer). Without it their formation broke and they lost (battle and kingdom)

Saying all this, frontal assault against phalanx should be futile affair , and fighters with swords(pr whatever) shouldn't be able to penetrate their front with such easy that they do right now due to lack of some animations.We had all that in RTW1 , i don't see why not implement it in RTW2 now...

And one more thing ..in 3rd century BC there is distinctive difference between hoplites and Sarissa pikemen ,with the later being superior in this job, and hoplites being much more of the offensive treat.

[Swerg]

The phalanx's problems are more technical than in aesthetic. Since units can just walk through spears and all.

[SX3]

The phalanx's problems are more technical than in aesthetic. Since units can just walk through spears and all.

You are suggesting...? The hoplite formation was a wall of pikes and should work like this? http://www.g-unleashed.com/files/34_...ans_screen.jpg

I sincerely hope I am misinterpreting your post, because unemployed modders spent months of their lives getting rid of just that in RTW, and it would be such a waste.

[Roboute Guilliman]

You are suggesting...? The hoplite formation was a wall of pikes and should work like this? http://www.g-unleashed.com/files/34_...ans_screen.jpg

I sincerely hope I am misinterpreting your post, because unemployed modders spent months of their lives getting rid of just that in RTW, and it would be such a waste.

Blobbing is still a problem, it cant be ironed out by modders as it is an engine design flaw. The 1on1 duels and killmoves are the main reason for this.

[Friar Chris]

You are suggesting...? The hoplite formation was a wall of pikes and should work like this? http://www.g-unleashed.com/files/34_...ans_screen.jpg

I sincerely hope I am misinterpreting your post, because unemployed modders spent months of their lives getting rid of just that in RTW, and it would be such a waste.

You may have historical facts on your side, but man... It doesn't make your posts any less obnoxious, I'm afraid. It's a bit of a shame that nobody yet has presented some facts to stop your abuse and mockery of perfectly well-meaning members on these boards, but I guess it's better late than never. Particularly because you're imposing historical half-truths on these people and using the same half-truths basically just to insult these forum members.

So, here we go:


The term 'hoplite' may have come to mean any citizen soldier, but being an amateur student of classics, I'm under the impression that the term comes from the name of the round, curved shield that such soldiers typically carried, the hoplon; similarly the name 'Thureophoroi; from their Thureos shields and even what we call 'Peltasts' from the Pelte (or Pelta, from Latin Peltarion). The 'hoplites' we see in our games and media are not the only type of 'hoplites' to have ever existed, but they roughly correspond to the Hellenistic paradigm of heavy infantry from a certain era of classical history, and that's what the game is trying to represent. As such, it's really not a problem.

For a generalisation of classical equipment, particularly Hellenic, it's not unfair to therefore model a typical hoplite as at least carrying the hoplon, and employing tactics that would generally be accepted by scholars to be the tactics to which the use of swords/spears and the hoplon in combination was best adapted. This would, incidentally, for much of antiquity be what people now call the 'Phalanx' - whether correctly or not - and as such should be an available and recreate-able tactic in the game.


Now, concerning your ideas about the phalanx:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Your original point about the phalanx and infantry phalanges in general referring simply to a body of men is not wrong, but also not quite true either. Whilst ultimately in Greek and, later, some Roman literature and discourse it did become the norm to refer generally to infantry formations of the time as phalanges, it's once again a case of attributed and developed meaning; it did eventually refer to any infantry, but only after the word's original meaning had become synonymous with infantry formations. The Phalanx did originally refer to a tightly packed specific formation of men, similar to what we might over-glorify and abstract in media and video games today in that they'd close their ranks and overlap spears in order to form a cohesive infantry formation. As you say, this was not simply a matter of 'UHHH L33T FORMATION' or some magical way of making soldiers invulnerable, but was for a long time the typical fighting formation of heavy infantry. By no means the only one, no, but probably the most common for heavy infantry, especially those armed with spears and pikes who could maintain the formation whilst keeping their weapons sufficiently in combat on account of their length.

The original 'Phalanx', after which later bodies of infantry were named, was as much for protection as it was for unit cohesion. Spears are effective weapons, as they permit a soldier to maintain distance between him and an opponent whilst still posing a lethal threat; likewise when behind a shield he can largely remain so, not exposing himself but able to attack with the long reach of his weapon. However, if spears are packed too loosely, an advancing enemy can move between them with relative ease: in this circumstance a spear becomes disadvantageous, as an enemy who has safely advanced beyond the point can strike with impunity: you can no longer manoeuvre the killing point of your weapon to engage him, especially not in close combat or when fighting in a formation of men. As such, you must then give ground or allow him to strike you, neither of which is good in battle.

As such, the 'overlapping' of shields is not simply some defensive super-shield-wall (as ultimately, anything that could go over, under or around a normal shield wall could most certainly do the same to our 'phalanx' concept, which additionally by merit of the 'overlapping' concept would be less flexible to quickly adapt to a threat from a new direction) but to allow for an appropriate density of spears, and also an appropriate density of men: when push came to shove between two infantry forces in close combat, the force which had the momentum and stability advantage also had a battle advantage. A tightly packed and cohesive formation in this context of heavy infantry clashed was far better at maintaining their stability and also pushing an enemy back and breaking their lines.

Conclusions

It possibly, maybe even 'probably' didn't look like the glorified pictures we get from 300. It probably varied between armies, between battles and between times, but ultimately the classical phalanx was a formation, or at least a formation type, and it did serve a very particular function and was synergistically the formation of choice for the classical hoplon-shielded, spear-armed heavy infantryman. So what it boils down to is this: how are we to represent this to be represented in a video game that does not and cannot account for small variations between every tiny province, between every decade of the game's timescale and every minutia of battle and equipment?

Well, for the sake of everyone playing, it needs to be something that is functionally worthwhile. I honestly don't care if the visual appearance of the formation only matches one possible appearance or one particular known variant from a few or even one battle: what a video game needs is a plausible and generally authentic representation of a concept that was employed by these troops that represent a specific culture's heavy infantry from a specific era of history. And really, the popular image of the phalanx performs all these tasks quite well, so long as it can be made to function properly in the game, even if the actual nitty-gritty appearance and composition of this general formation principle of the general epoch isn't shown in complete detail. It's necessary to make that paradigm of infantry function correctly, so it needs to be there.




Right. Now that the bully has been stood up to on his own terms, perhaps we can progress in this thread...





-------


As for overhand/underhand: really, this is the most banal argument I see people having about Rome II, considering how much else is wrong.

To both 'sides': they almost undoubtedly used both, and just as the specifics of the formation varied over time, there was no one specific 'spear technique' that a soldier used in battle. Indeed, any practical sense would tell you that a soldier's grip and usage of his weapon would vary over the course of minutes in a battle, adapting to precisely what he was doing at the time.

To illustrate just the shallowest considerations of any battle in and against a shielded formation: an overhand grip is better for trying to score blows over a shield, or keeping your arm free from a formation, but it exposes your body more. An underhand grip is far less mobile and is at the enemy's shield level, but keeps your shoulder tucked in and your body concealed. There's no way you would stand an entire battle locked solely in either of them, and you'd use what was appropriate at any given time. Also, do try to lift say, a textbook (or something generally spear-weighted) over your shoulder, and hold it there. Sounds easy, right? But no, the human body isn't built for holding things like that indefinitely, and you'll see exactly why as it begins to burn after a few minutes or so and you eventually have to drop your arm down.

As for the sword-slashing direction argument... Well regardless of the sharpened edge of the kopis, you wouldn't ONLY perform overhead slashed with a kopis if you were fighting someone. Other than it making you predictable, opening an entire aspect of your torso with every slash and also being rather tiring, who seriously swordfights with just one blow? You'd use a spear in whatever way you needed to in a combat situation, just as with a sword you'd use numerous combinations of slashes, blows and stabs depending entirely on what your opponent(s) were doing at any given moment.

[Swerg]

I'm suggesting they should be stronger than they are, not nessecarily Rome I levels, but certainly hurling your men into a wall of pikes should not be the first option. Commanders who attempt an attrition battle against pikemen should suffer for it. Especially with unarmored infantry or horses.