Help with Modding Phalanxes

[Cultist]

Results are in,
Phalangitai can handle principes with ease, they can beat comites socii in medium era but are destroyed by pedites extraordinarii after a long fight.
In late era they are destroyed by any cohors with ease, in a short fight.
Pedites and late cohors absolutely destroy my formation
I haven't forgotten about the iliarian phalanx but why 0.3? are they peasants?
I gave them 0,25, they suffer anyway from having short pike.

[Hellenikon]

I messed with the unit density values a few versions ago, before the new animations, and didn't see any effect on it. Now i have tested it again, giving phalangites 0.2 and they performed exactly the same. I see no discernible difference in unit density either, as in the sarissas are at the same distance of each other for the default unit and the modded (0.2) one. In short: it doesn't make the sarissa wall tighter.

About Unit height, in my opinion i think it is only used for projectile hitboxes, or not at all.

I have tested your proposed changes and still see no significant difference. I still maintain the principal factor in phalanxes losing their formation is infantry units being in the "attacking" (charging) stance, which allow them to bypass the spear wall. This is compounded because the charging period seems bugged, it sometimes extends far longer than it should - i have seen it with cavalry and infantry.

https://imgur.com/a/UV6yM

Screenshots 1-7 are of seleucid phalangites being charged by polybian principes, their formation is broken so long as the principes are charging (the only reason it isn't outright, is becaue the principes bugged and only the front rank actually moved). By screen 5 the rear ones moved forward, but notice how they're no longer in "charging" stance, this charge lasted well above 3min. When being in "fighting" stance, entities have a much harder time bypassing the spearwall, they still do it, like you can see on the flanks, and as the phalanx formation breaks more and more principes pour in.

Screenshot 8 shows a pontic phalanx agaisnt principes who were modded to not charge (charge distance 0). This allows for the phalanx formation to hold for a lot longer. Eventually the polybians won because the formation slowly broke up, and they couldn't be held back anymore. It was similar to the previous scenario starting from screen 5, just without any interlopers already messing up the phalanx formation from the inside/rear.

[Cultist]

And i know for a fact from other users that unit radius (and not density..) does in fact affect the damage inflicted on enemy units (aka the enemy sustains more casualties).
And the unit height, no significant difference? What are you talking about lol.
Check your end game casualties.
If you don't believe it affects anything give them a height of 1 and see the differences.
I hate it when people are so sure of themselves and come up with crap proof..

[Cultist]

By the way, your phalanxes seem to NOT BE in guard mode, please read my mod post again..

[Cultist]

QuintusSertorius there might be a limit to mass and desired effects, we might actually need to decrease masses for some units compared to the phalanx.
It might be that any unit over 1.3 or thereabouts will be able to walk over an 1.9 phalanx but i need to test this quick.
Cheers!

[Cultist]

I don't know what tests you performed but you obtained very different results from what i got..

[Hellenikon]

I don't know what tests you performed but you obtained very different results from what i got..

I described and make screenshots of them.

And i know for a fact from other users that unit radius (and not density..) does in fact affect the damage inflicted on enemy units (aka the enemy sustains more casualties).

You claim to have second hand knowledge, why you don't use it to back up your claim?
Unit radious is a different value than density, if you don't believe me then check it yourself. There are different places in the EDU where each goes.
http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...nd-0-2-density

I never claimed anything about unit density improving a unit performance, so i don't know why you brought that up. What i said is that the phalanx performance was nearly the same. I agree that for non-phalanxes, like hoplites, a tighter formation improves their perfomance (ex. sacred band - ambaktoi), simply because the soldiers can reach the enemy better, instead of hanging back.

And the unit height, no significant difference? What are you talking about lol.
Check your end game casualties.
If you don't believe it affects anything give them a height of 1 and see the differences.

Did you even read my post, or just skimmed through it? I said i think this stat has no effect on combat, but i'm not completely sure, i have never seen any test that proves your claim. I did not say "unit height makes no significant difference", you just made that up. I'm not going to bother responding to you if you keep at it.

I hate it when people are so sure of themselves and come up with crap proof..

Then you must hate everyone with a modicum of confidence. Also if you don't like my "crap proof" then go ahead and post your own tests.

By the way, your phalanxes seem to NOT BE in guard mode, please read my mod post again..

In all tests they were in guard mode, you just don't see it because i was selecting the general's unit. I guess you skimmed through the screens too.


I think i'm done here, as I have already given out my opinion on the issue.

[Cultist]

Hellenikon

..

You claim to have second hand knowledge, why you don't use it to back up your claim?
Unit radious is a different value than density, if you don't believe me then check it yourself. There are different places in the EDU where each goes.
http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...nd-0-2-density

I never claimed anything about unit density improving a unit performance, so i don't know why you brought that up. What i said is that the phalanx performance was nearly the same. I agree that for non-phalanxes, like hoplites, a tighter formation improves their perfomance (ex. sacred band - ambaktoi), simply because the soldiers can reach the enemy better, instead of hanging back.

Yeah i know perfectly well what unit radius does.

You claim to have second hand knowledge, why you don't use it to back up your claim?
Unit radious is a different value than density, if you don't believe me then check it yourself. There are different places in the EDU where each goes.
http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...nd-0-2-density

I never claimed anything about unit density improving a unit performance, so i don't know why you brought that up. What i said is that the phalanx performance was nearly the same. I agree that for non-phalanxes, like hoplites, a tighter formation improves their perfomance (ex. sacred band - ambaktoi), simply because the soldiers can reach the enemy better, instead of hanging back.

Now you are just being a hypocrite in search for a fast insult.
It was you who said yourself in the previous post:

About Unit height, in my opinion i think it is only used for projectile hitboxes, or not at all.
I have tested your proposed changes and still see no significant difference. I still maintain the principal factor in phalanxes losing their formation is infantry units being in the "attacking" (charging) stance, which allow them to bypass the spear wall. This is compounded because the charging period seems bugged, it sometimes extends far longer than it should - i have seen it with cavalry and infantry.

And there goes your logic.
As you say, if you were talking about unit density and not unit radius in your previous post, and were only speculating on the unit height but not actually tested it as you say now that you did, then what exactly did you test

I have tested your proposed changes and still see no significant difference.

from what i actually proposed you hypocrite? I don't know who is actually skimming posts here..
BTW you tested 1v1 with generals i tested 3v3 with generals..

All this is beside the point anyway.
We both agree that the units are able to bypass the spear wall because of the charge bug and there is nothing we can do unless we work on another file than EDU.

But still, in order to emulate the end result that we want (say that we think that agema phalangitai for example should win vs pedites extraordinarii, we can adjust the unit height to have fewer casualties of our own (if you're still skeptical about this, give your unit 1 height, not 1.55 that we proposed, you will see how height affects dodge rate) and decrease unit radius from standard (0.4) to obtain faster enemy casualties while not modifying the damage value itself. Even if they lose, they will make more enemy casualties. That is the difference between 0.2 and 0.4 (fewer ones).
That was the point of my original post.

Cheers mate!

[Pooploop]

Cultist and Quintus, your mods really give me hope that the phalanx will be fixed. Also, I second the notion that unit mass matters. In my more recent tests, close combat infantry that are lightly equipped CAN'T penetrate the phalanx. Guys who are of "levy spearman" level actually treat the sarissa points and shafts as an actual OBSTACLE to getting close to the phalangites. Roman maniples however...huhhh. Maybe the phalangites should be given greater weight? I really think that the mass is crucial to fixing the fact that the pikes don't keep men away or push them away. This is of course a secondary solution to the all important animation issue.

On the historical side of things, Quintus, this is was what I was hoping would be covered in my old "What did the Swiss have that the Macedonians didn't?". As the sarissas and the pikes of the 16th century were pretty identical, how the heck did the Swiss make the pike block an OFFENSIVE weapon? Sure, they had halberds, but it was a pretty clear trend that as the decades rolled by, pikes were the majority weapon among the mercenaries and they could steamroll OFFENSIVELY any force, whether it be cavalry or infantry, even if those foes were heavily armored. The Japanese also used long pikes to great effect, and this they did in swift, OFFENSIVE maneuvers, usually intricately linked with their arquebus, sword-wielding and bow-wielding compatriots. The Swedes still kept the pike past the late 1600's, even as the other nations switched to bayonet, and it was made pretty clear that the pikemen were to be used to rush in melee and break formations via close combat after rapid marching and the initial volleys of muskets (The Swedes were renowned for their aggressive doctrine). Quintus are you telling me these three nations above had some secret Pike-jutsu that the Macedonians didn't as they could and often used pikes as offensive weapons? Or were the Macedonians just inept at the usage of their sarissas? Or were they similar in prowess to the above three back in Alexander's day but really regressed to their 2.3 portrayed pathetic selves? Quintus, I'll also have to remind you of the existence of a wide variety of fencing treatises that included pikes in their one-on-one repertoire.

P.S. Oh yeah Quintus, the Chinese also had pikes, try to check out the 15th century wars of the Ming vs the Wokou Pirates of Japan (and renegade Chinese). The Generals of the dynasty wrote manuals based on their experiences there, and commented a lot on long spear (oh yeah when the Chinese mean long spear, they mean LOONNNNGGG) vs long spear and other weapons in formation. You'd really notice that a lot of their tactics include aggressive charges and countercharges, not just to passively wait it out prodding their 18 foot shafts. So, like I said, is there some sort of secret pike-fu that all these nations had (oh yeah the English veterans of their civil war were noted for their ferocity in assault with the usage of pikes....ok I'll stop) that the Macedonians didn't?

[Cultist]

Pooploop from what i understand, swiss pikes/halberds as the rest of the medieval "reinventions" were quite static, more so then the phalangites were.
From what i remember the pikes were actually held above their faces with both hands in a more impractical but more defensive manner than the "underhand" phalangite.
But yeah, i do believe them to work as Quintus hinted at, they created an interdicted space, luring ignorant foes to think that they could override them.
The real fight was done by more mobile units on the flanks and javelin throwers/other ranged units.
Btw look up the pike and shot concept of king Gustav Adolf, and you will see that they were quite static and not to be employed actively in melee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_and_shot

[Sar1n]

Pooploop from what i understand, swiss pikes/halberds as the rest of the medieval "reinventions" were quite static, more so then the phalangites were.
From what i remember the pikes were actually held above their faces with both hands in a more impractical but more defensive manner than the "underhand" phalangite.
But yeah, i do believe them to work as Quintus hinted at, they created an interdicted space, luring ignorant foes to think that they could override them.
The real fight was done by more mobile units on the flanks and javelin throwers/other ranged units.
Btw look up the pike and shot concept of king Gustav Adolf, and you will see that they were quite static and not to be employed actively in melee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_and_shot

You're mixing distinctly different periods here. Initially, Swiss drills were developed to turn pikemen into offensive infantry. Swiss style pikemen were drilled for variety of situations, including rapid march, pike push, recieving charge, defensive square, and most importantly, actual pike charge. This flexibility led to the pike heyday in fifteenth and early sixteenth century, when pikemen and halberdiers formed backbone of most armies, as they were able to adapt to any kind of situation on battlefield and any opponent. However, those on recieving end of pikes had to find a counter, and emerging firearms were just that. Gradually, the ratio of musketeers or arquebusiers to pikemen increased as technology and firearms tactics progressed, and they gradually replaced pikemen as offensive arm of infantry. With it, the drills and tactics of pike infantry changed, with more focus on defensive part, but pike charge remained the decisive point of battle. Gustav II Adolf's reforms were basically the point at which guns and cannons became primary offensive arm, but that's early seventeenth century. Very soon after, inventions of bayonet and flintlock mechanism demoted pikes to backup weapons when insufficient number of firearms was available. They did keep decent drill though, bcause bayonet drills were very similar to pike drills.

By the way, you do remember wrong. Pike above shoulders, held level or point down is charge stance. It maximizes thrust power and keeps the butt of the pike out of the way of other soldiers while charging. Defensive "recieve charge" stance is more similar to phalangite's grip, with butt braced against the ground, point upwards.

[QuintusSertorius]

EB1 isn't the goal, phalanxes were ridiculously overpowered (along with horse archers). I think we're going to have to treat 1.2 as the cap on mass, there are only a handful of units with 1.3. I'm not about to restat every single infantry unit.

[Cultist]

I totally understand you Quintus, i can barely see after a few edits and tests lol
1.1 weight is not that ideal or overpowered as it was in EB1 either, after some time they will infiltrate the formation and the phalangitai still lose the battle But at least i managed to hold them at pike length for some precious moments
It's the aesthetic principle of it

[Pooploop]

Cultist I...uh...am very passionate about your findings now. Pikes might have REACH now!! Oh yeah, Cultist check out the Battle of Nancy and the Battle of Novara (1513) for the Swiss usage of pikes and polearms. From what I understand the Swiss were anything BUT static. They always formed these separate deep columns that attacked from multiple directions, aiming to crush and envelop offensively through the center and flanks of the foe.

[Cultist]

Thank you Pooploop, i will check it out

[QuintusSertorius]

There's no need for insults to get your point across, that's enough.

[YourMadDoc]

That's ugly. I tested very hard 30 min battle, 4 Phalangitai not moving on guard mode in 8 line, formation without gaps vs 4 Hyperaspistai charging. Generals are harmless Toxotai.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

original EDU


soldier Phalangitai, 96, 0, 1.7, 0.25, 1.55

I restarted it :

Considering margin of error there is no difference in the result of line battle after 30 minutes of fighting. Only my formation had more breaches and my guess is it will be just worse from there. If it looks different in one on one infinite fight with generals, that fine but it won't help in battle line. In all tests I killed 240 and lost 400. So I agree with Hellenikon that this doesn't change anything and it doesn't solve the problem with phalanx. I must say I dont see much problems with phalanx when I'm commanding them as I can order them to guard and cover their flanks. AI is another topic, that's where attention should be.

There is one thing I don't understand - Phalanx have huge penalties in rough terrain, up to -5 in snow and forest I think, but they have only 3 attack. Why so much?

[QuintusSertorius]

Why test on VH? That gives the enemy bonuses to morale and stamina, bonuses to a unit that already has high morale and hardy.

[Aper]

Sorry for necroing, but i find this thread very interesting and I think I can add something to the discussion.
I ran some test battles and I found that mass difference is indeed the most important factor influencing the behaviour of phalanxes versus other units: the mod may benefit from some tweaks in this area.
Another interesting and unexpected result is that adding the "prec" attribute improves a lot the charging behaviour of javelin infantry, namely they don't penetrate the phalanx all the way to the rear with some man while others watch and do nothing anymore; instead, they throw their weapons and charge all together, stopping some at sarissa lenght and some at shield distance (this is inluenced by mass). If anyone can confirm this I'd appreciate, thanks.
My 2 cents.
EDIT I think I should mention my changes: I gave Phalangitai 1.9 mass and I upped a bit their attack and defense to 6 each (because right now they have the stats of levies). I accordingly upped the Agema to 9 attack and 9 defense and 1.95 mass. You can tell I disagree with the idea that phalanxes were just mobile walls meant to stop enemies passively 'cause this doesn't make a whole lot of sense IMHO. Now they also kill, albeit slowly.
I tested them 3 vs. 3 against pedites extraordinarii or principes mainly, with useless toxotai generals, and IMO they perform fine, winning slowly and with many casualties in frontal clashes (phyrric victories, you may say).

[Kull]

Another interesting and unexpected result is that adding the "prec" attribute improves a lot the charging behaviour of javelin infantry, namely they don't penetrate the phalanx all the way to the rear with some man while others watch and do nothing anymore; instead, they throw their weapons and charge all together, stopping some at sarissa lenght and some at shield distance (this is inluenced by mass). If anyone can confirm this I'd appreciate, thanks.

This was a VERY valuable insight, thanks for posting! Quintus and I spent all day testing out variations on the javelin unit stats, and in the process we may very well have solved the "broken prec" problem AND the broken phalanx. As a result, there's a good chance that battlefield activity will be significantly improved in v2.35