Civ bts - Greek Phalanx Unit

bonafide11 said:

...Or I could just build one spearman to put in the stack of Phalanx and it'd do an even more efficient job against the chariots. Plus, that spearman would continue to protect my stack once the enemy discovers horseback riding, which the Phalanx would not.

Click to expand...

I thought you'd go down this road (BTW, I said stack of axemen... not phalanx). However, assuming that I'm understanding you correctly, then you are correct - you'd build a balanced military attack force, wouldn't you? Instead of attacking with 8 axemen, you throw in a spearmen to "balance" your military and protect against weaknesses. Now I have a couple of points to make:

1) You build 8 axemen and 1 spearmen. Your spearmen will likely not be attacking enemy cities because... well, it would get slaughtered. For the same production numbers, I build 9 phalanx. I have 9 city attackers.

2) Your spearmen will likely come out on top for the first few battles in which your opponent starts throwing chariots at you. If you should lose that one spearmen, your opponent has found a "breakpoint" in your stack, in which it is no longer balanced. Any remaining enemy chariots are going to have a field day with your axemen. With my 9 phalanx, I don't have that problem. If I should happen to lose a phalanx here or there, I will still maintain a balanced attack force. The lack of "breakpoints" in a phalanx stack makes them very strong - simply because there's no foreseeable weakness to exploit.

3) Horseback riding would provide the first unit with any type of counter to phalanx. However, it doesn't come early, it's expensive for an early game beeline, and it doesn't provide a huge advantage over phalanx. Combat I phalanx will still have almost 50% odds, not including defensive bonuses... which mounted units do not get. EDIT: Also, in a typical game, I'd have phalanx available long before you had access to horse archers.

bonafide11 said:

...Or I could just build one spearman to put in the stack of Phalanx and it'd do an even more efficient job against the chariots. Plus, that spearman would continue to protect my stack once the enemy discovers horseback riding, which the Phalanx would not.

Click to expand...

Spearman are more ideal once the AI goes for HA, however, the AI rarely beelines HA. Besides, phalanx can attack chariots and win just fine. Also, the commando promo on such an early unit would be quite insane as described above. And that March promotion for Navy SEALS isn't very useful when the most moving they do is from transport to city, and vice versa.

Well, the Commando promotion was just an idea, maybe it would be overpowered when it gets passed on.

But if you're only using Navy Seals from transport to city, then you're not using them right. Use them to attack cities and allow them to march from one city to the next without having to stop to heal.

I can't possibly see this as their strength. I'd much rather use tanks with sam infantry and gunships than have my SEALS going around on land. They are my coastal city strike force and will remain so forever! lol. I see what you're saying, but I keep them in the transports for the next victim. The coastal city raid is the only way in late game Domination rush.

blitzkrieg1980 said:

yatzee again! I really wish someone could make a valid and complete case against a particular UU. I can make a fair case against the Navy SEAL, but I'm sure other people can provide situations (common and rare) that the SEAL is a great UU. Basically, I feel like the Navy SEAL is barely an improvement over the regular marine unit. So they have 1-2 first strikes? big deal. IMHO, I don't send my marines in until my fighters and or artillery has sufficiently ruined the coastal city's defenders. March isn't that great for this unit, either, since I rarely move marines around anyway (besides from transport to city )

Click to expand...

You're missing out, Blitz. With battleships and air support, you can "ruin the coastal city's defenders" in the same turn you send in your Navy SEALs. And, with First Strike against weakened defenders, that means they survive with less damage. Next turn, you send in follow up transports with garrison units (Infantry or Machine Gunners), and load the SEALs back up in the transport.

Using this leap-frog technique, you can take a city with the same units every other turn. If you assemble two "task forces", you can use your battleships and air support every single turn, so you don't need to double that expense, just the transports and SEALs.

Even if you decided to "waste" a GG on a medic III unit, you don't even have to pause for one turn to heal... they keep rocking and rolling every single turn.

This is hugely powerful. With the First Strike and March, the SEALs simply rule any and all coastal cities anywhere you lay your eyes on.

Anyway this is all off topic.

Wodan

The question is if the new phalanx is BETTER than the old one.

The new one: axeman with +100% def bonus vs Chariots only.
The old one: spearman with str 5 vs str 4 (it is +25% vs ANYTHING..think abou it) AND +25% hill def bonus vs anything.

Now about the early rush mentioned at previous posts. What about a stack with 6 axes and 3 old phalanxes or maybe 7 axes and 2 phalaxes?
All of them promoted to CR1. No AI could counter this stack at an early rush,
and they could take citties as easy as 9 axemen.

With the old phalanx as your UU you would LOVE to start near Egypt, Persia, Mongolia, Carthage etc. I used to give them horses even for free if I was playing Greece and they were near me!

And don't forget that the old phalanx was the only unit Pre Engineering that could eat elephants (build with copper also not only iron like the pikeman).
The old phalanx could hold even against Knights!

Now, the new phalkax at 80% and maybe more of the games is like having a normal axeman. (the enemy has no horses or you pillage it or an early rush is not possible)

I definitely noticed that the AI in 3.13 builds more Chariots.

Lord Olleus said:

Commando promotion!!!!
Are you insane? Not only would that make them faster than attacking chariots/horse archers, but that promotion would be passed on!. Imagine hords of commando macemen/rifleman/infantry running straight into your cities and killing everything in a 10 tile radius in the very first turn. No, if there has ever been an overpowered idea, this is it.

I would make phalanxes:
str4, +100% vs melee, +50% attack against mounted units

My theory is that this unit would be the same as the dog soldier, only swapping the resourcelessness for a bonus attacking mounted units. I also think that it would be historicaly accurate. They were unbeatable by melee units but relatively weak against archers or massed artillery fire (catapults). The bonus against cavalry represents the fact that cavalry only stands a chance of beating them by flanking them; ie, when the phalanx is defending. Also, gamewise, it means that spears are still needed, but when you are fighting in your land you can use phalanx to destroy any enemy unit. A very strong unit, but not so much so than the dog soldier.

Click to expand...

There are 2 ways to stop a chop axe rush, chariots or your own axes, the Greek UU is strong because it removes the hardcounter way to stop an axe rush, while the unit you propose looks fine at first glance, how can someone stop you pillaging everything in site at the start an denying you the ability to expand or access resouces?, 100% on 4 is effectively 8 and simply by using forest which is plentiful you can outpoint chariots so the unit will top both axemen and chariots.

If it's the fact that the unit only counters chariots an not other mounted units (and i can see the point being made here) then having the unit automatically gain the formation promotion upon discovery of horseback riding, would solve that issue, without creating something thats to hard to counter at the start, problem solved

DemonHunter said:

The question is if the new phalanx is BETTER than the old one.

The new one: axeman with +100% def bonus vs Chariots only.
The old one: spearman with str 5 vs str 4 (it is +25% vs ANYTHING..think abou it) AND +25% hill def bonus vs anything.

Now about the early rush mentioned at previous posts. What about a stack with 6 axes and 3 old phalanxes or maybe 7 axes and 2 phalaxes?
All of them promoted to CR1. No AI could counter this stack at an early rush,
and they could take citties as easy as 9 axemen.

With the old phalanx as your UU you would LOVE to start near Egypt, Persia, Mongolia, Carthage etc. I used to give them horses even for free if I was playing Greece and they were near me!

And don't forget that the old phalanx was the only unit Pre Engineering that could eat elephants (build with copper also not only iron like the pikeman).
The old phalanx could hold even against Knights!

Now, the new phalkax at 80% and maybe more of the games is like having a normal axeman. (the enemy has no horses or you pillage it or an early rush is not possible)

Click to expand...

I think that the new phalanx are more historically accurate. That may not be important to everyone, but it's important to me.

As far as which is better from a pure warmongering standpoint, I'll admit that the old phalanx weren't bad - it was a strong unit. You still face the issue of breakpoints though... simply put, old phalanx will get eaten alive by axemen and your axemen will get eaten alive by chariots (post Warlords). Yes, 6 axemen and 3 old phalanx would be a powerful early game stack, but it would suffer from breakpoints as it started to weaken... it would be possible to exploit a weakness.

That's the main advantage of the new phalanx that often gets overlooked... each unit represents a balanced stack. No exploitable weaknesses means no breakpoints. Being able to maintain a balanced stack with limited production in the early game is a huge military advantage.

peter450 said:

There are 2 ways to stop a chop axe rush, chariots or your own axes, the Greek UU is strong because it removes the hardcounter way to stop an axe rush, while the unit you propose looks fine at first glance, how can someone stop you pillaging everything in site at the start an denying you the ability to expand or access resouces?, 100% on 4 is effectively 8 and simply by using forest which is plentiful you can outpoint chariots so the unit will top both axemen and chariots.

If it's the fact that the unit only counters chariots an not other mounted units (and i can see the point being made here) then having the unit automatically gain the formation promotion upon discovery of horseback riding, would solve that issue, without creating something thats to hard to counter at the start, problem solved

Click to expand...

Actually just giving them a free Formation promotion (and say +75% defense v. Chariots) would make a lot of sense for the Phalanx [which was a 'Formation' after all]

i like almost all the new graphics of civ4 over civ3 except one ...the greek phalanx...the cool thing about that greek armor were those big round shields that were painted and the full body armor....
Civ3's Hoplite was a nice graphic- an eye on the shield i think -
but the Civ4 Phanalx thing has a non round shield, and gleemeth not.
(the Civ3 Conquistidor was good too now that i think back....)

AHAHAHA Guys Gallic warrior is like one of the best units for Multiplayer. That unit is just PURE ownage. Especially since most advance players actually build swords over axemen. They still have few axemen thou against certain civs.

bonafide11 said:

I absolutely hate the phalanx. It's the worst unit in the game in my opinion, which is just absolutely absurd for Greece...

Click to expand...

Ughh...they are almost completely uncounterable. I'd say they're one of the best UUs. Only axemen of your own can stop them, and with Alexander, even they might not be enough.

Krikkitone said:

Actually just giving them a free Formation promotion (and say +75% defense v. Chariots) would make a lot of sense for the Phalanx [which was a 'Formation' after all]

Click to expand...

Best idea I've heard yet. The Phalanx really should get the Formation promotion, it would greatly extend their utility and it wouldn't be overpowered.

Silence101 said:

I think that the new phalanx are more historically accurate. That may not be important to everyone, but it's important to me.

As far as which is better from a pure warmongering standpoint, I'll admit that the old phalanx weren't bad - it was a strong unit. You still face the issue of breakpoints though... simply put, old phalanx will get eaten alive by axemen and your axemen will get eaten alive by chariots (post Warlords). Yes, 6 axemen and 3 old phalanx would be a powerful early game stack, but it would suffer from breakpoints as it started to weaken... it would be possible to exploit a weakness.

That's the main advantage of the new phalanx that often gets overlooked... each unit represents a balanced stack. No exploitable weaknesses means no breakpoints. Being able to maintain a balanced stack with limited production in the early game is a huge military advantage.

Click to expand...

So the new one is more historical than origninal? The oringinal is better and more suitable. The New Spearman has the linen armor as i said, this armor is more tough and used in later periods. The New Phalanx is based on VERY early periods, yet it is stronger. Even if this game wants to emphasis the spartan hoplite as a UU, then atleast they should add the right Hoplon symbol and a red cape.

Hi, the new phalanx in bts is a typical early age Spartan hoplite. The hoplite representing Greek's UU should by the conventional hoplite which is more common. The inaccuracies i find in the hoplite is that, if they were trying to make a Spartan holite then why isn't there a scarlet cape? Another problem is that the shield is too small (chin to knee) and the symbol on it is inccorect ( < ). The new spearman is infact a version of the later hoplite with its linen armor, which is made in later periods. Yet it is weaker and is able to build in the same time with the phalanx ( which is earlier ). In my opion, the phalanx should represent the more typical hoplite in Greece. The design of the helmet is not relevent to any design. The greek hoplite never actually wear boots, they wear greaves and sandals (Spartans dont wear foot protection ). They didn't wear skirts that big and had little protection for the leg. They never wore gauntlets neither. Spear is quite small. The phalanx is a formation like, 'tortois formation' ( used by Roman legionare). So if the greeks were named by their formation then why aren't the Romans. The Hoplites unit has many names through every state and different periods. But it would be easier to just call them 'hoplites' wouldn't it? So what do you guys think about the phalanx, and if im wrong please correct me.

Hi, the new phalanx in bts is a typical early age Spartan hoplite. The hoplite representing Greek's UU should by the conventional hoplite which is more common. The inaccuracies i find in the hoplite is that, if they were trying to make a Spartan holite then why isn't there a scarlet cape? Another problem is that the shield is too small (chin to knee) and the symbol on it is inccorect ( < ). The new spearman is infact a version of the later hoplite with its linen armor, which is made in later periods. Yet it is weaker and is able to build in the same time with the phalanx ( which is earlier ). In my opion, the phalanx should represent the more typical hoplite in Greece. The design of the helmet is not relevent to any design. The greek hoplite never actually wear boots, they wear greaves and sandals (Spartans dont wear foot protection ). They didn't wear skirts that big and had little protection for the leg. They never wore gauntlets neither. Spear is quite small. The phalanx is a formation like, 'tortois formation' ( used by Roman legionare). So if the greeks were named by their formation then why aren't the Romans. The Hoplites unit has many names through every state and different periods. But it would be easier to just call them 'hoplites' wouldn't it? So what do you guys think about the phalanx, and if im wrong please correct me. Please talk about relevent to the topic of the thread also.

Wodan said:

You're missing out, Blitz. With battleships and air support, you can "ruin the coastal city's defenders" in the same turn you send in your Navy SEALs. And, with First Strike against weakened defenders, that means they survive with less damage. Next turn, you send in follow up transports with garrison units (Infantry or Machine Gunners), and load the SEALs back up in the transport.

Using this leap-frog technique, you can take a city with the same units every other turn. If you assemble two "task forces", you can use your battleships and air support every single turn, so you don't need to double that expense, just the transports and SEALs.

Even if you decided to "waste" a GG on a medic III unit, you don't even have to pause for one turn to heal... they keep rocking and rolling every single turn.

This is hugely powerful. With the First Strike and March, the SEALs simply rule any and all coastal cities anywhere you lay your eyes on.

Anyway this is all off topic.

Wodan

Click to expand...

No, I know, this is exactly my point. I enjoy sailing from port to port and taking what I want . However, the march upgrade is totally unnecessary for a unit intended to invade from transports, and 1 - 2 First strikes is hardly a great feature for a UU. SEALS are basically marines with 1-2 first strikes and the fairly unnecessary MARCH promo. I'd rather have a free commando promo and that's it (now seals are worth using for land battles)

bonafide11 said:

I absolutely hate the phalanx. It's the worst unit in the game in my opinion, which is just absolutely absurd for Greece...

Click to expand...

Totally disagree - Phalanx are now the Bronze-age equivalent of Praetorian - i.e. a unit with no obvious counters, so technically you could just spam them irrespective of what your enemy is fielding and run him over.

blitzkrieg1980 said:

However, the march upgrade is totally unnecessary for a unit intended to invade from transports

Click to expand...

How do you figure? When do you heal?

and 1 - 2 First strikes is hardly a great feature for a UU

Click to expand...

Well I disagree, as explained earlier.

SEALS are basically marines with 1-2 first strikes and the fairly unnecessary MARCH promo.

Click to expand...

Which is it, "totally" or "fairly" ?

I'd rather have a free commando promo and that's it (now seals are worth using for land battles)

Click to expand...

Hmm, maybe.

Wodan