Greek mercenaries/hoplites

[Zarax]

Despite being more or less just a slightly more attack oriented version of thorakitai and eastern heavy inf (better attack but lower defense) this unit is almost 20% more expensive and takes two turns to recruit if it's not a merc.

Does anyone feels that this makes them a bit underrated?

It's true that classical hoplites were dwindling in numbers and military usefulness, yet they were still better than many other grunts, especially in the east.

To rebalance them I propose 3 solutions:

1) Put the cost in line with other level 3 units, the two turns recruitment is already enough to limit their usefulness, in the actual balance I'd rather recruit them only as merc fodder or use alternatives available in most level 3 rosters (thorakitai, eastern heavy inf and lybians are all good/better main line alternatives and most other level 3 units are better as flank inf where you'd want something with a bigger blade usually)

2) Increase their size to at least 50(100) or 60(120) as those units historically were the main line themselves just like the later phalanx and so doesn't really make sense to have them at flank/assault numbers (same could be said for many other units).
The increased numbers would be pretty good to justify the higher cost and recruitment as they would be a pretty good alternative to the less flexible phalanx against most other units

3) Bring them to level 2 barracks as they are supposed to be more an heavy militia units than a professional one.
Early availability would justify cost and recruitment time, making them again a pretty useful alternative.
This solution however could present some issues for Carthage as it would make their level 3 barracks pretty useless again...

What do you think?

[RedFox]

I think the greeks could use an entirely new Hoplite, that is available from lvl 2 barracks, with some stats lowered and recruitment time 1. (just new skin and name)
Or make them exactly what the merc hoplites are at the moment and just make them available for the greeks, with 1 turn, but other non-greek factions have to recruit the 2 turn version.

[Internazionale]

I think its uneccesary to have 2 turns in Hoplite recruiting, since they are worse than the Hypaspists that only have 1 turn to recrout.

Hoplites Morale: Good
Hypaspists: Excellent

Got my point? btw, how can i fix this my self? i mean in turns

[Zarax]

Fixing that is easy, just change the first cost number from 2 to 1 in the export_description_units file with notepad, not word...

[Internazionale]

Fixing that is easy, just change the first cost number from 2 to 1 in the export_description_units file with notepad, not word...

Cant find the Hoplites in that file

[Zarax]

The unit line you're looking for is "merc greek hoplites", press ctrl+f and type that without brackets, it will show you the right unit.

[SpartansDon'tDie]

Best solution I think is changing the recruitment time from 2 to 1 turn. That's what I did.

[RedFox]

I think i'm going to go with the version where the greeks get hoplites with 1 turn and non-greeks get them with 2 turns. Would be better balance-wise. Though they should be available earlier and maybe even a little bit cheaper...
That will make them elites in the beginning, but as times change Hypaspists, or the newer sword elites will replace them...

[Zarax]

Well, they will be better integrated once thureophoroi and thorakitai will be changed to be more historically fitting...

[RedFox]

I believe we could keep the Thorakitai looks at the moment, but I can quickly change the looks of Thureophoroi... Suggestions? Comments?

[scannerfish]

Thureophoroi need a higher armor rating and maybe leather armor for there appearance.

[DimeBagHo]

I think the Hoplite recruitment is fine as it is for a couple of reasons.

(1) Hoplites are the best AOR infantry unit, and the best infantry unit available to some factions. Making it easier to recruit them would unbalance several factions that are not supposed to have great infantry (like Carthage and Parthia for example).

(2) Hoplites are not just a slightly different version of Thorakitai. Hoplites, and the elite Hoplite units that some factions get, have a combination of stats that make them quite different from other spear units or sword units.

Hoplites get no spear attribute, and a 0.9 lethality, like sword units, rather than the 0.64 of spear units. That means they are far more effective against infantry than regular spear units like Thorakitai (in a couple of tests I just ran they wiped the floor with Thorakitai and Libyans for example). They also get a high charge bonus, and a very high unit mass, and shield wall, which makes them uniquely effective for breaking into enemy formations.

If anything I would be inclined to make them more expensive or harder to recruit.

[Locky]

I think the Hoplite recruitment is fine as it is for a couple of reasons.

(1) Hoplites are the best AOR infantry unit, and the best infantry unit available to some factions. Making it easier to recruit them would unbalance several factions that are not supposed to have great infantry (like Carthage and Parthia for example).

(2) Hoplites are not just a slightly different version of Thorakitai. Hoplites, and the elite Hoplite units that some factions get, have a combination of stats that make them quite different from other spear units or sword units.

Hoplites get no spear attribute, and a 0.9 lethality, like sword units, rather than the 0.64 of spear units. That means they are far more effective against infantry than regular spear units like Thorakitai (in a couple of tests I just ran they wiped the floor with Thorakitai and Libyans for example). They also get a high charge bonus, and a very high unit mass, and shield wall, which makes them uniquely effective for breaking into enemy formations.

If anything I would be inclined to make them more expensive or harder to recruit.

Agreed. I find them very useful, and peopel forget that you can recruit them, and retrain them in your cities anyway. I tend to bring a few units along with my army.

[Agathon]

Returning momentarilly to the opinion that hypaspists in the 'Macedonian' sense were never used by the Greeks, perhaps the problem is not in the existence of such units but in what they were called...

Light armed but heavily armoured infantry appear as hoplites without spears in Thucydides' history usually in marine raiding parties and during protracted sieges - actually in places where one would prefer disciplined hoplites without the rigid phalanx formations and spears. For want of a better term, they are frequently called 'aspidephoroi' or shield bearers, not I believe because they were youths carrying shields for tried and proven warriors in the sense that medieval squiers acted as battlefield assistants for armoured knights, but because they were simply (armoured) warriors bearing (hoplite) shields without phalanx spears and spear formations.

If a rose were not called 'rose,' would it smell as sweet - or sting the devil out of the enemy with its venomous thorns?

[Zarax]

Err, do you realize that this way greek mercs are pretty much ahistorical?
I'm an hoplite fan as much as you are DBH but I also would like XGM to bring more historical accuracy where this gives diversity and fun in gameplay.

Hoplites are supposed to be pretty much what thorakitai are now, heavy inf able to hold a line in shield wall and resilient to most frontal attacks.
High mass and charge are a good thing but giving them such high lethality (I never looked into it, players just looks at game stats) is a bit too much.

From an historical accuracy perspective they are supposed to beat eastern inf and heavy inf at equal numbers, give a decent account of themselves against most level 3 units (level 3 phalanx should be able to beat them on equal numbers after a prolonged fight on unbroken terrain), be a mass inf (so 50-60 size) more mobile than phalanx but still in trouble against heavy peltasts and other mobile melee units as they are best in shield wall.

I do not mean to be rude but XGM shouldn't be anabasis: total war, should it?
Having historically accurate for the era hoplite mercs doesn't mean them to be ineffective as the way I described them would still make the unit very useful for many factions (aka for anything that has no access to professional phalanx or triarii) while the elite hoplite merc unit role could be taken by a spartan merc hoplite unit (plus sacred bands/basilikon agema) which can be kept to the mercenary role, with restricted recruitment area and low refill rate.

[DimeBagHo]

Agathon: Early in the game I always recruit any Hoplite mercenaries available, and I do retrain them, but I seldom train my own. A few times I've even found use for a Hoplite line. If you put a them into shieldwall formation they can be very effective for shoving lighter units around. The key to getting that tactic to work is, rather than ordering them to attack, just order them to move into the enemy.

Zarax: Historically Hoplites were an offensive unit. The way the Hoplite phalanx worked it had to continually drive forward, unless resisted by something of equal weight (usually the enemy phalanx). Unfortunately there is no way to model that well in RTW, but in any case they were good quality heavy infantry, who fought in a formation that combined the momentum of the individual Hoplites in a maner that could not be matched by any other type of heavy infantry. I've tried to model that with shieldwall and high unit mass.

As for Sparta, it was a popular recruiting center for mercenaries. It's even possible that some Spartan trained men who were too poor to maintain citizen status did hire themselves out as mercenaries. But occasions on which Spartan citizens worked as mercenaries were rare, and as I said above they were never simply for hire to anyone who was able to pay.

I think it might make sense to increase the number and variety of mercenaries recruitable in Sparta, or even to increase their experience to reflect the higher quality of the troops available there. But I dodn't think it makes sense to make Spartan citizen units available as mercenaries. Can you imagine if the Romans or Macedonians hired Spartan citizens and then used them to invade Sparta? It's unthinkable.

[Zarax]

Agathon: Early in the game I always recruit any Hoplite mercenaries available, and I do retrain them, but I seldom train my own. A few times I've even found use for a Hoplite line. If you put a them into shieldwall formation they can be very effective for shoving lighter units around. The key to getting that tactic to work is, rather than ordering them to attack, just order them to move into the enemy.

Zarax: Historically Hoplites were an offensive unit. The way the Hoplite phalanx worked it had to continually drive forward, unless resisted by something of equal weight (usually the enemy phalanx). Unfortunately there is no way to model that well in RTW, but in any case they were good quality heavy infantry, who fought in a formation that combined the momentum of the individual Hoplites in a maner that could not be matched by any other type of heavy infantry. I've tried to model that with shieldwall and high unit mass.

As for Sparta, it was a popular recruiting center for mercenaries. It's even possible that some Spartan trained men who were too poor to maintain citizen status did hire themselves out as mercenaries. But occasions on which Spartan citizens worked as mercenaries were rare, and as I said above they were never simply for hire to anyone who was able to pay.

I think it might make sense to increase the number and variety of mercenaries recruitable in Sparta, or even to increase their experience to reflect the higher quality of the troops available there. But I dodn't think it makes sense to make Spartan citizen units available as mercenaries. Can you imagine if the Romans or Macedonians hired Spartan citizens and then used them to invade Sparta? It's unthinkable.

Yes, hoplites were an offensive unit but in the same way macedonians used their phalanx, not as flanking infantry as they are not hypaspists (and even those were not exactly designed for that).

By 280BC hoplites had two uses: either as main line heavy infantry (aka phalangites replacement) in shield wall or at the sides of a phalanx, defending its flanks. They were not as flexible as you might think.

The flank offensive was taken either by heavy cav when available (but greeks used that in a more defensive role) or by more mobile troops like heavy peltasts, thureophoroi and thorakitai or sometimes hypaspists (but more rarely as successors preferred heavy cav for that role).

So, summing up yes they should have a more offensive role than a phalanx but they are supposed to be mass troops able to smash the enemy center by their heavy charge or grind them down with the shield wall without anymore inherent lethality than many other spears.

Imho by getting a 60 unit number, spear attribute and reducing their lethality to what other spear units have you can obtain a realistic hoplite phalanx effect (able to smash any light unit and duke it out against most other level 3 heavy inf) without making them something they are not.

[DimeBagHo]

Yes, hoplites were an offensive unit but in the same way macedonians used their phalanx, not as flanking infantry as they are not hypaspists (and even those were not exactly designed for that).

I don't think this is right. Because of their equipment phalangites were ill suited to fighting out of phalanx formation, but that was not the case with Hoplites. Also, one common view of Hypaspists is that they were simply traditional Hoplites. My own view is that they started out as Hoplites in Philip's time, and gradually evolved into a more Legionary style unit over time, making less use of the phalanx formation as that role was taken over by phalangites. (A common view of Thorakitai is likewise that they were just Hoplites with cheaper equipment who had abandoned the use of the phalanx entirely).

By 280BC hoplites had two uses: either as main line heavy infantry (aka phalangites replacement) in shield wall or at the sides of a phalanx, defending its flanks. They were not as flexible as you might think.

The phalanx formation, even the Hoplite version, was relatively inflexible. Once it got going it was only going to go in one direction. But Hoplites themselves were well equiped and trained for fighting out of the phalanx formation.

[hacon]

By the XGM time period I believe the day of the hoplite citizen soldier was coming to an end. The 3rd century BC in the Greek world was a period of economic depression of rising costs (Hoplites had to provide their own panoply) but declining incomes. Citizens of the hoplite class were increasingly feeling the economic pinch as well as feeling a declining patriotic feeling towards the polis. For example when Athens made ephebic training voluntary the recruitment numbers rapidly dropped off. So much so that by the time of the Galatian invasions she could only provide 1000 citizens to go to the defense of Greece.
After the Galatian invasions the hoplite in citizen and mercenary forms was increasingly replaced by the Galatian inspired thureophoroi as a cheaper alternative available to less wealthy citizens.

As for Hypaspists, their role and equipment is still a source of controversy among scholars. My own view is that in Philip II time as their name suggests they were shield bearers, armed as Hoplites, by the end of Alexanders time they had been rearmed as phalangites and were known as Silver Shields or Argyraspides. After his defeat of Eumenes, Antigonos One-Eye broke up the treacherous unit into garrisons and never again employed them in the field. In the 3rd century the Seleucids revived them as a phalanx unit and In the 2nd century BC converted some to imitation legionnaries.

The Lacedaemonians unlike the other Greek states did not replace their hoplites with Thureophoroi and then pike but made the transition from Hoplite to Pike in 225 BC under Cleomenes III.
By the period of XGM the number of Spartan citizens was probably reduced to less than 1000 of which perhaps 100-200 held kleros and other land.
Spartans who had lost their citizen rights by economic or other reasons (Hypomeiones) were reduced to taking up a trade or increasingly drawn towards mercenary service. Also some of the Spartan citizens at the lower end of the economic scale were also inclined to the mercenary life.
It was not only the poorer citizens who took the mercenary 'shilling', there are many examples of royal and well to do Spartans who hired themselves out as condottiere for patriotic or selfish reasons from the middle of the 4th C BC. Agesilaus II died while returning from mercenary service having earned 230 talents for the Spartan treasury. Archidamus his son is said to have died on the day of Chaeronea in Italy. Others include Acrotatus, Cleonymus , Areus and the famous Xanthippus who in Carthaginian service defeated the Romans.

Taenarum in Laconia was the famous recruiting ground for Mercenaries in this period first mentioned in 333 BC when Agis III sent money obtained from Persia to his brother to recruit mercenaries for his war with Alexander . The Lacedaemonians then settled the mercenaries that Alexander had released here. In 315 BC Antigonus with Spartan permission was allowed to recruit 8000 mercenaries there.
Perhaps for XGM purposes all factions would be able to recruit with Spartan permission.

[Zarax]

I don't think this is right. Because of their equipment phalangites were ill suited to fighting out of phalanx formation, but that was not the case with Hoplites. Also, one common view of Hypaspists is that they were simply traditional Hoplites. My own view is that they started out as Hoplites in Philip's time, and gradually evolved into a more Legionary style unit over time, making less use of the phalanx formation as that role was taken over by phalangites. (A common view of Thorakitai is likewise that they were just Hoplites with cheaper equipment who had abandoned the use of the phalanx entirely).

The phalanx formation, even the Hoplite version, was relatively inflexible. Once it got going it was only going to go in one direction. But Hoplites themselves were well equiped and trained for fighting out of the phalanx formation.

Well, I disagree with your view of thorakitai as cheaper hoplites, they were elite units in the hellenistic world.
Classical style hoplites in my vision of 3rd-2nd century BC were just citizens/mercenaries who bought or inherited older panoplies and fought with them in older tactics that were common and widespread at the time.
After all, it's easier to train levies to just stay shoulder to shoulder and push than to keep a pike phalanx together and there is plenty of historical examples of ill trained phalangites causing disasters (raphia being one of the most famous).

Hoplites were decent swordsmen but still not an offensive unit in the same style as hypaspists (who under alexander were armed lighter than hoplites as they were supposed to keep a link between phalanx and cavalry even though they shared part of the panoply) as they lacked the training and they were still too heavy to do flanking manouvers (the argive shield, while offering good protection was not exactly light and also pretty much mostly designed for phalanx purposes).

In any case, what I'm trying to say is that hoplites are designed to be main line infantry and should be represented that way in the game.
Having them 60 in number with spear attribute together with high mass and shield wall would still make them an excellent unit and more accurate in my opinion while we could better flesh out thureophoroi and thorakitai for the flank rule leaving another unit (ekdromoi maybe) to the garrison/light infantry purpose.