Oh my bad, i dont know why, but i for some odd reason thought ap doubled attack vs very heavily armoured units. Actually cuts their armour in half. What a plonker i am!Wait a minute, 34 attack? I don't think there is a unit in EB with more than 20 armour, how did you obtain that number?
TBH I have no idea why phalanxes should be ap, it's nonsense. This will be changed for sure in the next version.
I recall a while back, on a an EB forum, people talking about how sarissa's had the ability to penetrate armour, such as mail. Perhaps the EB team thought this, and decided to give it the ap attribute. Whatever the rationale, its ridiculous. Other spears can pierce through armour likew that too, but people would think it absurd to give them the ap stat. And more importantly, it makes phalanxes even more broken. The fact that there stats where already insane in eb 1.2, and then they added ap, is crazy to me!
Remember that the current EB team is different from the original one, which has migrated to EB 2 and the M2:TW engine instead since the times of EB 1.2. At some point the new team probably decided it was adequate to add ap to the sarissa (I don't know why, maybe because of the discussions you mention), but it will be removed.
One thing I would like to add is that we should consider the overall design philosophy of this mod, historical accuracy. The team have prioritized historical accuracy over balanced gameplay in many ways - like how crazy expensive it is to maintain a strong fleet, for example. It's not far-fetched to suggest that they prioritized historical accuracy in making the phalanx the strongest infantry unit type in the game, over balancing units for gameplay reasons.
The Macedonian phalanx was supposed to be brutally strong, certainly far superior in comparison to any infantry the Greeks or the Asian factions could field - including Spartan hoplites. The sources we have for the period EB is set in make that very clear. One can consider for example what Polybius wrote about Aemilius Paulus at the battle of Pydna against the Macedonians in 168, where the Roman consul is supposed to have trembled in terror at the sight of a Macedonian phalanx, which he had never seen before - and this, Polybius writes, even though Paulus had extensive command experience and was not a man you would expect to be frightened or intimidated by the arms of an enemy.
We should also look at his comparison between the Roman and Macedonian military systems, he says that in theory the Macedonians should win every time because of how strong the phalanx is, but in practice they didn't beat the Romans because war doesn't happen in perfect conditions. You won't always get a nice flat open plain with plenty of hours before the enemy attacks to perfectly set up your phalanx. Sometimes you have to fight on a muddy, uneven hill where it's hard to get a strong foothold on the ground. Sometimes you get surprised and don't have enough time to set up properly. When that happens, Polybius says, the phalanx is at a significant disadvantage to Roman legions because the formation needs ideal conditions to work properly:
I thought it necessary to discuss this subject at some length, because at the actual time of the occurrence many Greeks supposed when the Macedonians were beaten that it was incredible; and many will afterwards be at a loss to account for the inferiority of the phalanx to the Roman system of arming.Many considerations may easily convince us that, if only the phalanx has its proper formation and strength, nothing can resist it face to face or withstand its charge.Now, a Roman soldier in full armour also requires a space of three square feet. But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man—because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing,—it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear, if he is to do his duty with any effect. The result of this will be that each Roman soldier will face two of the front rank of a phalanx, so that he has to encounter and fight against ten spears, which one man cannot find time even to cut away, when once the two lines are engaged, nor force his way through easily—seeing that the Roman front ranks are not supported by the rear ranks, either by way of adding weight to their charge, or vigour to the use of their swords. Therefore it may readily be understood that, as I said before, it is impossible to confront a charge of the phalanx, so long as it retains its proper formation and strength.Why is it then that the Romans conquer? And what is it that brings disaster on those who employ the phalanx? Why, just because war is full of uncertainties both as to time and place; whereas there is but one time and one kind of ground in which a phalanx can fully work. If, then, there were anything to compel the enemy to accommodate himself to the time and place of the phalanx, when about to fight a general engagement, it would be but natural to expect that those who employed the phalanx would always carry off the victory. But if the enemy finds it possible, and even easy, to avoid its attack, what becomes of its formidable character? Again, no one denies that for its employment it is indispensable to have a country flat, bare, and without such impediments as ditches, cavities, depressions, steep banks, or beds of rivers: for all such obstacles are sufficient to hinder and dislocate this particular formation.
I think the developers of the mod have sought to reflect the esteem that the Macedonian phalanx was held in by its observers and by those who had to fight against it. This is probably why they are so strong in-game. The sources are clear that the only way to beat a Macedonian phalanx is to engage it on rough ground, take it by surprise before the formation has time to get set up, or to avoid attacking it front-on and instead hit the flanks. And I think that the game reflects that assessment reasonably well, you can't send any unit up against a phalanx head on and expect to come out on top. At best you can send one unit to lock it down in head on combat, then send a couple of units around the phalanx's flank. It's the only way the Romans could do it after all!
The question of historical accuracy vs balance is an interesting one. Personally, i think there is a fine line between the two. For me, the biggest danger is when a historical accuracy justification, that makes sense in theory, does not work in the practical reality of RTW, and ironically makes things less historically accurate.
For example, you said in your missile comparison thread, that all siege weapons are basically useless, because of how expensive they are. I can see why the old EB team, made siege weapons so costly. Its done to simulate how these where for their time, high tech devices, that required careful maintenance and skill to build and maintain. Unfortunately, this huge cost and upkeep, makes them more a liabilty, than an asset for the player. Why purchase a siege weapon, that costs a fortune to buy, and maintain, that takes up a slot in your army, and slows it down, when you can use rams, siege towers, sappers, and ladders, all for free? The answer is that you dont, and so a human player never uses them. They are also far to expensive for the ai too, so the result is that you will never see nor use torsion siege engines, which where used and effective in the actual time period. Its a great example of where a good historical justification, fails to actually create historical accuracy in game.
This problem exists for phalangites as well. For example a barrage of roman pila was historically, very effective against the front of a phalanx. The iron shank of the pila could pierce the pelte, going straight into the phlangists arm. Even if it didnt do that, the shank would be unable to remove, and cause the shield to be unwieldy to carry. The phalangist would have to drop it, making him far more vulnerable, from other projectiles, and in melee. Put simply, from a historical standpoint, a legionary's pila barrage should be quite effective against the front of a phalanx.
Except in EB it isnt, because the phalanx has such a massive shield value. The shield value is so high to (in theory) represent how projectiles would bounce of the long sarrissa, keeping the formation protected. However, in the reality of RTW, this is unnecessary, because as ive already shown, the phalanx mode already gives a frontal shield buff. Instead of being resistant to incoming missile fire, the phalanx is practically immune to it. It is once again, another example where a good theoretical historical justification, make the game less balanced, and less historically accurate in practice.
While i can agree that the macedonian phalanx was superior to the infantry of its asian counterparts, it being 'far superior' against the infantry of the Greeks is debatable. While no longer the juggernaut it once was, the hoplite still remained an effective force on the battlefield, even giving a fierce account of themselves during the battle of the Granicus, where the greek mercenaries held very well against Alexanders phalanx. Even the vast superiority of the Macedonian Phalanx against the spartan hoplite is debatable, considering how Pyrrhus failed to break them during the siege of sparta in 272. If we are also to talk about the infantry of greeks, it should be kept in mind that, that includes Thureophoroi. This style of combat was first introduced during the Celtic invasion of the Balkans in 279, where the Gauls utterly crushed the macedonian king Ptolemy Keraunos's phalanx. Recognising the effectiveness of the style of war the gauls used, the Hellenes would copy it, and develop thureos bearers which many successor states would utilise, or in the case of Ptolemaic Egypt, accept as their main style of fighting.The Macedonian phalanx was supposed to be brutally strong, certainly far superior in comparison to any infantry the Greeks or the Asian factions could field - including Spartan hoplites. The sources we have for the period EB is set in make that very clear. One can consider for example what Polybius wrote about Aemilius Paulus at the battle of Pydna against the Macedonians in 168, where the Roman consul is supposed to have trembled in terror at the sight of a Macedonian phalanx, which he had never seen before - and this, Polybius writes, even though Paulus had extensive command experience and was not a man you would expect to be frightened or intimidated by the arms of an enemy.
There is one big problem with this point. The RTW engine is not great at simulating the rigidness, inflexibility, and difficulty with rough terrain that the phalanx suffered from. If it did, then id be more accepting of the very high attack stat, as it would come at the cost of them being easily destroyed by a smart general who could exploit these weaknesses and flank them. You cannot do this in EB with the RTW engine. If you flank a phalanx, they just easily turn there spears around, and quickly begin to annihilate the flanker. Therefore, you are forced to have one unit 'lock' the phalanx in place, as the other flanks. The problem with this, is that the 'lock' unit is going to always take heavy casualties, due to immense power of the pike line. To further add to this, historically, most phalanxes would crumble quickly once they where flanked and surrounded. Yet in eb, because you MUST 'lock' the phalanx in place from the front, they will inflict casualties so quickly that it keeps there morale up, meaning they can hold on far longer than even many elites. Let me quote again what i said in the original thread:he sources are clear that the only way to beat a Macedonian phalanx is to engage it on rough ground, take it by surprise before the formation has time to get set up, or to avoid attacking it front-on and instead hit the flanks. And I think that the game reflects that assessment reasonably well, you can't send any unit up against a phalanx head on and expect to come out on top. At best you can send one unit to lock it down in head on combat, then send a couple of units around the phalanx's flank. It's the only way the Romans could do it after all!
I can appreciate the many historical justifications that can be made about the phalanxes stats, and in many cases, i can see what was being aimed for. But that doesnt change the fundamental fact that in the practical reality of the game, these do not work, and actually cause things to be less historical. You cannot give the phalanx its legendary frontal attack power, in an engine that does not simulate its vulnerability to rough terrain, and flanking. When you do, it gives the phalanx its historical strengths, without its historical weaknesses, therefore making it both historically inaccurate and overpowered.Anything that hits the front of a phalanx will rapidly suffer from massive casualties, irregardless of the quality of the unit. In theory, one could argue that you shouldn't attack the phalanx from the front, but because of the limitations of the RTW engine, phalanxes have to be pinned in place with infantry from the front, while another unit hits them from behind. If you try to have one unit flank, without another unit pinning the phalanx, it will turn around instantly, and quickly begin unleashing its massive attack and lethality onto the flanker. They only way to try and avoid this is to have your units deliberately run through the phalanxes spears, and mosh into there formation. But this is a cheap, exploitative tactic, abusing the limitations of the engine. As unfair as it is though, its one of the only ways to tackle a phalanx in melee without taking heavy casualties
This high attack has further knock on effects on the morale too. If a unit is killing many enemies, very quickly, its own morale will stay up. I recall a time when an enemy unit of Galatikoi Klerouchoi was hit from both the front and rear and the unit quickly panicked and routed. Yet in the same battle i did the same thing to a Pezhetairoi, a unit that has the same morale as the galatians, and it held on for a gruellingly long time. Why? Because the Pezhetairoi attack meant that the unit pinning it for the flankers, was taking massive casualties, keeping its morale up. This created a cycle, because as it held on, it continued killing my men rapidly, and so its morale remained high, keeping it holding, and so killing more men! Only once most of the unit was destroyed did its killing power falter, and the unit finally break.
If you're interested, I recorded a short video to demonstrate how to deal with phalanxes without losing an entire unit. Note that if you place more armoured men in front of the phalanx and/or act quicker than I did in the video (which is very likely, as I purposefully waited five minutes before flanking), you're going to cut those losses down by a large number.
Last edited by mephiston; June 12, 2020 at 03:23 AM.
Thanks for the video! I wonder why the phalanx seems to have so much trouble with loose formation units. It still seems kinda cheesy strategy to use, but with no other way to flank phalanxes without taking heavy casualties, ill give it a try in my next campaign. It will be interesting to see how the tactic works, in a battle where the phalanx is supported by other infantry, that will perform better against the loose units.