Problem with Phalanx?

[Oskar_GD]

Then read his report again. He stated that it only worked because those hoplites are elite of elite and have very high stats. He even highlighted why those kills you posted as misguiding, so you completly missed his point. Please read his report again, he stated how long it took hoplites to lose same amount of guys in and out of formation. You just take stuff out of context to prove your point, even if the the context you take it from is proving the opposite in very specific detail.

I read his report. Yeas, you suffer most losses in short time but it does not matter if you win battle in much short time and suffer less losses finally. In this particular case you must use hoplites in out of phalanx. KYREAPER noted cases when you must use out of phalanx and there are a lot of such cases in DEI. Phalanx formation is often not nessesary and worse for hoplit! Its absurd and not historically, imho.

[KYREAPER]

I read his report. Yeas, you suffer most losses in short time but it does not matter if you win battle in much short time and suffer less losses finally. In this particular case you must use hoplites in out of phalanx. KYREAPER noted cases when you must use out of phalanx and there are a lot of such cases in DEI. Phalanx formation is often not nessesary and worse for hoplit! Its absurd and not historically, imho.

"but it does not matter if you win battle in much short time and suffer less losses finally." - Oskar_GD

Once again, read the entire study.

You are wrong in this quotation. You say if you win the battle and suffer less losses finally...
-That wont happen. You will not suffer less losses in the end. The OUT-of-Phalanx hoplites lost 40 guys in only 6 minutes.... sure they won THAT fight in a 1v1.... But in a real battle, they will need to go kill OTHER units too... and being 40 guys down and have their armor and stamina depleted will mean they will loser MORE than 40 guys in 6 more minutes(I bet they even route of used out of phalanx again).
-And if you arent going to fight another unit... and just stop after 1 win vs an enemy unit... then you just lost 40 guys to that unit alone... where as if you would have stayed in phalanx, you would have won the fight and only took 10-15 losses in 6 minutes(maybe less) and gotten help from another unit.

You say "but it does not matter if you win battle in much short time and suffer less losses finally." - Oskar_GD
-Well it does matter... if you want to KEEP YOUR MEN ALIVE... if you have TWO stacks of enemy forces nearby and you need to save as many men as you CAN for the fights to come... if you dont have the TIME to replenish for a couple turns before the next conflict.

If you only want to steamroll the current battle and you plan to have time to replenish for 3-4 turns, then sure, you could perhaps use them out of phalanx to make the battle quicker... but ull lose more men and have to wait longer before they can fight again...

--and these were ELITE hoplites... Any other hoplites would not kill this much... additionally, the 100+ kills was only because the Romans tried to run/retreat before routing... but they were going to lose anyways, so it doesn't muddle the findings. If they would NOT have tried to retreat before routing, the Spartans probably would only have gotten 60-70 kills or so by the time the battle official ended(assuming you dont continue and give chase).

You will suffer MORE losses in the end fighting out of phalanx


Again, using regular hoplites OUT of Phalanx would get destroyed. I will make a test showing this when I get off work.


Additionally: The phalanx was created to PRESERVE men... the idea was to keep soldiers alive longer and ensure that each soldier had multiple kills before dying, by minimizing the chances of dying(being super tightly packed with huge shields and keeping everything in front of them). So its designed to keep men alive... why? because the Greeks didnt have huge masses of population to recruit from since they didnt expand and conquer tons of the world. They needed to preserve their men as long as they could or they would lose each war by attrition.

Consider it like a K/D ratio....
If you get 100 kills... but die 50 times... you are 2:1 ratio...
If you get 50 kills.... but die only 10 times... you have a 5:1 ratio...

Sure, you killed half as much.. but you lost 5x LESS troops... and if we evened out the kills...
You would have 100 kills and only 20 deaths.... Thats the phalanx... its going to give you an overall better kill per soldier ratio than being OUT of phalanx, at the expense of time.

The phalanx will take longer, but me safer.
Being OUT of phalanx will be faster in eliminating the enemy faster(unless the enemy is just better - then you messed up and lost).


As far as using the Spear goes.... the sword is always the better killing weapon. Why? Cant you train to use a spear expertly? yes, but in a phalanx, you only have 2 possible strikes...
1. A completely 100% frontal lunge, everytime..
2. A completely 100% frontal lunge, using the edge of the spearblade to pull backward and open up a shield, and a follow up lunge to an unprotected area...

Thats it... theres no lateral attacks with a spear... a simple shield makes a spear strike harder to land and very limited...
A sword allows for lateral strikes, vertical strikes, frontal strikes, hidden strikes(from behind your own shield), faster strikes, AND allows you to get closer to the enemy(inside the range of their spear/pike, effectively neutralizing it) and you can stab over someones shield into their neck from point blank(cant do that with a spear).

So the sword is a more versatile weapon... and has much more options and predictability to its ability to kill.. its harder to block a sword because it can come at you many different ways....
A spear in a tight formation has only one direction to go... so its easy to predict...Thats why the Tug-and-pull method was invented (#2 above). It helped to reduce the effectiveness of shields.

A master of a sword has the potential to be greater than a master of a spear, due to the limitations of a spear in general...
A spear is a DEFENSIVE weapon.... thats why it was used to hunt bigger animals and take down horses... its designed to keep something bigger than you away.. which is defensive strategy...

You dont rush a boar or buffalo with a sword... you dont want to get that close to it..
Sure, you might kill the buffalo in 6 minutes... but you may lose 5 guys trying to kill it.... 5 friends.
If you use a spear, it may take 15 minutes... but you may all escape since the buffalo never got close enough since you can skirmish it from distance, giving you more time to dodge and prevent getting hurt yourself.


Because of this, it makes perfect sense for ELITE hoplites to be able to kill better with a sword than a spear.
They may be trained more in the use of a spear, but since the sword has more natural killing potential, they dont need as much training with it to achieve lots of kills using it...
If they tried to use a sword in the phalanx(instead of spears) they would reduce their range and lose the main defensive benefit of the phalanx... and suffer more losses...

[KAM 2150]

I will reply after work because this need a bigger post because you still miss the point of kill/loss ratio and time passed.


Gaela, they beat them because there is 300 of them.

[geala]

Ok, I see. I don't like 1:1 tests but I presumably will try some hoplites against Romans this evening. Although actually I'm fine with the game as it is.

If I could make changes in theory (without regard of game mechanic limitations) I would like to make normal hoplites rather weak out of phalanx (except epilektoi) and would give the ekdromoi hoplites more weight. They were the youngest and fittest, they should have phalanx mode (for the non-pike Greek factions) and be so-so good with the sword out-of phalanx and they should have a campaign and army cap. When I think about it, why would I not do it myself and keep quiet?

[KAM 2150]

If I sound rude or like that please keep in mind that I write in a hurry as I am in work and I've comitted REALLY big amount of time on pikes and hoplites in past 2 years so I understand the issues and solutions from under the hood, that might not be visible on the surface or in the smaller picture. I also got nice tip from one of our isers few days ago so there might be some improvements to how AI handles them, we'll see how it goes.

[Tenerife_Boy]

I also got nice tip from one of our isers few days ago so there might be some improvements to how AI handles them, we'll see how it goes.

:O :O :O you hidding me info?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Damn you !

[Geffalrus]

I agree very much with what Kyreaper is saying. Here's something else to buttress his point:

Replacing the casualties on something like a Spartan Hippeis (Elite Bodyguard), Hiera Ille, or Molosson Agema is actually rather difficult. Bodyguards and their elite counterparts are all drawing from the 1st Class population pool, the smallest in your empire. Over the long run, you could theoretically spread elite recruitment across multiple settlements so as not to overly drain one pool via recruitment. Such a system would be very micro/macro intensive, however. In the early game, however, you generally have only one or two pools of the elite class, each one usually of 800-1,000 members. On largest settings, that's about 2-3 elite infantry units or 5-8 elite cavalry units. And that's if you want to completely drain the pool with little possibility for additional recruitment or replenishment of losses. Suffice it to say, the 1st class population pool is a very scarce resource, making damage to your elite units and bodyguards actually rather serious.

So to tie it back to KYREAPER's point, taking a lot of losses to an elite unit in a short space of time just to kill one enemy unit is not the negligible cost it used to be in earlier versions. You might win one battle with that tactic, but subsequent battles will force you to carry around that weakened elite unit until it heals.......very......slowly. That's a big reason why you want to make use of the defensive powers of the hoplite formation. Just because your Spartans can kill quicker out of formation, doesn't mean it's a good idea. KYREAPER showed you why in the context of battle math; I'm just adding the larger strategic implications of wasting elite soldiers in DeI 1.2.

[geala]

Kyreaper, I mostly concur with you, except for the sword - spear question. The relation of the weapons depends on the situation and the other equipment.

A man with a sword alone is in dire straits against a man with a spear alone. His chances are meagre. The spear has more reach and is very fast at the tip and can easily cover several areas and heights. It is impossible to block reliably fast spear up-down stab attacks with a sword. It's a bit like any sword against a rapier, only worse.

A man with a sword and (big) shield is mostly equal, partly superior to a man with spear and shield. Of course with a sword you can make all fancy moves and use several directions. However you have to battle the range advantage. A stab is the fastest way to use a weapon. Fancy sword has a hard time because the shield does not cover the entire body and a stab with a spear is very fast. If you can deflect the spear with the shield and come near, the spear user got problems. Against a phalanx you had of course to take care against spears from the second line.

Armor changes many things. Armor foremost allows for closing the distance to where the spear user has the disadvantage. A sword is a bad weapon against armor but there were always body areas without armor or gaps in the armor.

There is a reason why spears were the most common weapons of war during most of history. Swords were secondary weapons, beloved personal sidearms to which you could build a relation, symbols for richness and power. You have so many treatises for sword use because you can have one with you all the time and defend with it. Or duell. Only a combination of a sword with a big massive shield is a good way of fighting in battles (the Romans did it) but after it fell out of use in the 4th century AD (the Romans used more spear based phalanx combat) it never got such an importance again.

Spears have a big disadvantage of course, they are not as sexy as swords and few modern heroes use them.

[Uljas]

Here's some cases of an epistratoi hoplitai defeating a cohors praetoria. Lithobolos is there only to goad the Romans into advancing. General's unit and lithobolos are deployed far away and take no part.

[KYREAPER]

Here's some cases of an epistratoi hoplitai defeating a cohors praetoria. Lithobolos is there only to goad the Romans into advancing. General's unit and lithobolos are deployed far away and take no part.

I could literally never get this to replicate through 8 trials of attempting it.. the Epistratoi Hoplitai got destroyed each time. And i mean... youve got the pictures to support it.. i just have no idea how in the world that happened for you lol.

The Romans ended with 64 kills... the epistratoi hoplitai had 6 kills in phalanx.

[Geffalrus]

@geala: Don't forget that a spear is cheaper than a sword (I'm sure you didn't, but I just want to make it part of the discussion). The metal cost difference alone is substantial.

One tactical thing to mention in favor of the sword is that it's very, very easy to carry as a backup weapon. With a sword and shield, you can - AND SHOULD - carry a bunch of small javelins to throw. If you carry a spear, that basically takes up a lot of your carrying capacity. It's not impossible to carry javelins and a big spear, but it is not as easy or efficient. Usually the trade-off is that your shield would be smaller......as seen in the Iphicratean Peltast.

[KYREAPER]

A sword alone vs a spear, yeah a spear will probably win.

But a sword\shield vs a spear\shield... a sword shield always has the upper hand.

Sure, a spearman can kill a swordsman.. it can come down to many factors.. like experience, troop quality, etc..but the swordsman has many more different angles of attack he can use to get around the spearmans shield. The spearman basically only had a thrust.. which comes from the same direction almost every time. The sword can be hidden by the shield and can come from many angles. And is better at point blank range. With a spear, once someone gets right in your face, the spears effectiveness drops significantly. And with a shield, the swordsman can easily close the distance rendering the spear much less effective.

Thats just the facts, its not really debatable unless someone is a fanboy of the spear and isnt willing to accept the pro's and con's of the weapon. The reason the phalanx is so strong is because it solves the problem of the spear only having one attack... it locks armor tightly against the front with shields and keeps distance, and uses the spears range to attack through that distance. But in open field and not in formation, the sword is the better weapon for open field combat, or 1v1(if both men have a shield).

The big advantage of having a spear unit is that it doesnt have to be afraid of cavalry... whereas a sword unit may dominate melee warfare, but is weak to cavalry.

So spear units are more balanced at the expense of being slightly less effective in melee.. the sword sacrifices security from cavalry to do its one job(melee) better than other weapons.

[geala]

I tried a bit, just a quick test, not as exact and careful as Kyreaper on page 1. I only used generals to have just one unit on the field, which limits the choices, no phalanx mode, single click for attack:

1. Athenian Logades against Roman Cohors Praetoria: Cohors broke at 112 left (and was at 89 soon), Logades had 165 left.

2. Athenian hoplites against Roman Cohors Praetoria: Cohors suffered a lot in the beginning (a bit strange) but overtook later (as to be expected), hoplites broke at 115 left, Cohors had 121 left and was waving.

Not exactly what I expected. Hoplites out of phalanx seem to me to be a bit too good indeed. Although one test is not enough for stark conclusions.


Edit: @ Kyreaper, I'm not sure about the spear - sword question. There are very few manuals for spear combat to try to learn the old techniques. Although spear fighting is easier to learn as sword fighting I think. In an 1:1 the sword may have the advantage, but in group fights with at least a bit of organisation on the side of the spear guys? I doubt it. Let's agree to not agree.

Here you see a 1:1 spear against sword, sword is better but the spear guy is not very well versed with the weapon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni-h8SH1yUw

Here a small group fight, watch the difference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UybEdUDdxM

[KYREAPER]

I tried a bit, just a quick test, not as exact and careful as Kyreaper on page 1. I only used generals to have just one unit on the field, which limits the choices, no phalanx mode, single click for attack:

1. Athenian Logades against Roman Cohors Praetoria: Cohors broke at 112 left (and was at 89 soon), Logades had 165 left.

2. Athenian hoplites against Roman Cohors Praetoria: Cohors suffered a lot in the beginning (a bit strange) but overtook later (as to be expected), hoplites broke at 115 left, Cohors had 121 left and was waving.

Not exactly what I expected. Hoplites out of phalanx seem to me to be a bit too good indeed. Although one test is not enough for stark conclusions.


Edit: @ Kyreaper, I'm not sure about the spear - sword question. There are very few manuals for spear combat to try to learn the old techniques. Although spear fighting is easier to learn as sword fighting I think. In an 1:1 the sword may have the advantage, but in group fights with at least a bit of organisation on the side of the spear guys? I doubt it. Let's agree to not agree.

Here you see a 1:1 spear against sword, sword is better but the spear guy is not very well versed with the weapon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni-h8SH1yUw

Here a small group fight, watch the difference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UybEdUDdxM

That is surprising with the athenian hoplite. Ill test more today.

On the sword - spear debate...
The first video is negligible for that its a 1v1 duel. While we are debating which would be better in a 1v1, im not talking about a 1v1 by themselves, alone, with nothing going on. Im talking about a clash with hundreds, thousands of fighters swarming in a battle... in a scenario where if you overextend, the enemy's neighbor/buddy nearby would capitalize and kill you. In recreated duels, like the first video, there is no penalty for overextending aside from the main opponent capitalizing. In a open field battle with many 1v1's taking place, you have to end the fight quickly to avoid someone else coming at you from the side and ending your life while you are already engaged... And its easier to fit a shorter sword into a person than trying to get a longer spear angled just right, just in time, thrusting in one direction. Also in the case of using thureos shields and aspis shields, the entire left side of the body is basically immune to a spear...
-Using smaller shields like pike shields(in the video) or some basic bucklers, the sword becomes less effective.
-The SHIELD is the main counter to the spear, not the sword. The sword is a better offensive complement to the shield.. whereas the spear is a better DEFENSIVE complement to a shield.
A big ancient-styled shield allows the swordsman to basically protect the entire side from a spear... but a sword is short enough that it can stab from many angles to get around the shield.. whereas the spear is much too long to be plunged at a sharp enough angle to JUST circumvent a shield. Thats the way it works. Thats the benefit to a sword/shield combo over a spear/shield combo.

The SECOND video is a very very GOOD representation of how in a close formation, the shield forms a wall and the spear is long enough to kite enemies away and negate the enemy's sword.
The sword in a tightly packed formation is not as good as a shield in a tightly pact formation when it comes to defense.
The only reason that tight roman formations beat phalanxes was due to their flexibility and mobility. But as a purely defensive/frontal formation, the phalanx is far superior.
But the sword allows for more flexibility, and formation can be loosened to be more offensive and remain effective.. whereas a loose phalanx fails entirely.

-The fact is that if you take two people with 100% equal levels of skill with their weapon, one has a sword/shield, the other has a spear/shield... the sword has a massive advantage in 1v1.

In a tight group fight, the spear has the advantage.

In an open field barbarian-style fight, the sword wins(unless its an average set of swordsmen against a more elite set of spearmen).


History has proven this, with the entire creation of the phalanx.

When a nation outfits its troops and decides what soldiers it wants to use... it decides based upon:
-Spearmen are chosen as a balanced force, able to fight pretty good in melee, and still be protected against cavalry.
-Swordsmen are chosen to kill other types of infantry(spearmen, other swordsmen, axemen, clubmen, etc). This was because the sword was a flexible weapon that has multiple attacking angles that the spear does not have.. so its harder to defend against, and mastery of a sword equals more killing power than mastery of a spear. In an equal fight, sword beats spear(when shields are included). But a sword unit gets beat by cavalry due to no way to protect a charge from range.. basically the horse will guaranteed slam into a typical swordsman causing serious injuries.. and it cant be braced to stop such mass.
-Phalanx unit(hoplites) are chosen to beat swordsmen in a face2face fight... by getting rid of the main weakness a spear has... close range versatility..
The phalanx keeps the enemy at range by locking shields and putting a longer weapon out in front. The swordsman basically has no place to attack, but the spears of the phalanx can pick and choose and assist each other from different angles to injure and finally kill skilled swordsmen... Skill is nothing if you cant touch your opponent.
-The weakness of the phalanx is that since its using a worst melee weapon(spears) it HAS to stay close and tightly packed together to beat swords.... And because of this, the flexible sword unit has the freedom of being able to disengage and flank and run circles around a phalanx unit that cant turn or reposition as fast(for fear of breaking the entire formation and creating gaps).

Historically, once this was found out... due to more flexible sword units exploiting it... the phalanx became obsolete.
Once again, this is not debatable.. this is proven, historical fact based on what happened in ancient warfare during greek/roman times. Not crusades era, not viking era, not medieval era.

[Magas of Cyrene]

After playing the latest version I really LOVE the new pike phalanx mechanics, I think @KAM 2150 tuned them to perfection. First of all, pike phalanx is impenetrable from the front, but has rather moderate killing power. What I've noticed too is that they absolutely slaughter hoplites - which I think is exactly how it should be.

Great work!

[geala]

Jup. I don't see a problem with the phalanx. Maybe at most there is a problem out of phalanx. Some hoplites (and pikemen?) might be too strong with swords.

However, tuning them down might not be possible due to interrelations of the mechanics (KAM can surely judge it, he has the overview, I haven't). And it has to be taken into account that the phalanx ability is switched off automatically in some urban areas (otherwise it might be too strong, I think), so hoplites out of phalanx should still have some power, otherwise they would be garbage during sieges.