Inaccurate phalanx

Hey everyone,

Just wondering, am I the only one who is slightly annoyed by the Greek UU, the phalanx? It just seems inaccurate to me.

First of all, the phalanx was certainly not unique to the Greek city states. It was used by many ancient armies, even the early Roman army. If you wish to refer to the Greek phalanx, it might be better to use the word "hoplite", since that's what the Greeks called the soldiers who fought in phalanx formation.

But that's just words and not the real annoyance I have with the Greek UU. It's the "+100% vs. mounted units" that I find hard to swallow. The phalanx should not get a bonus against mounted units, it should get a severe penalty. The main problem with the phalanx was, that it was too inflexible as a formation. Troops in the phalanx moved together with shields forming a wall at the front to protect the advancing unit. Each man protected the man to his left with his shield (I'd hate to be the guy on the far right).
This was all well and good if the phalanx was moving forward, especially moving towards another phalanx, doing the same kind of advance. That's how the phalanx was used: against other troops in phalanx formation.

It was a whole different story however, if the phalanx was facing lighter and/or more mobile forces. Especially mounted units could flank the phalanx quite easily due to their greater mobility. For the phalanx to mount an effective defence, the whole unit would have to turn, to have the shield wall and spears facing the enemy again. If anything, this would make the phalanx less effective against mounted units, not more effective. One of the main reasons why the phalanx formation largely fell into disuse, is because of this vulnerability when facing mobile forces.

Now I realise that since the phalanx replaces the spearman for the Greeks, it has this bonus. It just sort of annoys me that this is very inaccurate...

Insert standard remarks that CIV is not a simulation...

General Failure

I agree! What do you think of this idea that, maybe could fix the problem, the Phalanx/Hoplite could replace the swordsman or some other unit.

Am I crazy?

I read your post, and you souldn't complain about the greek Phalanx only(or Hoplite if you like it) , you could say generally that Spearmen isn't effective againts mounted units.

1. The greeks were one of the nations of used the phalanx to its full potentiol.
2. The concept of first using it was made in Greece.
3. The Roman UU is more innacurate, pratorians barely even engaged in battle, they were more like the senates police.
4. It's just a name, if you change it to Spartan then bravo.
5. So what are you suggesting, Romans use the phalanx? Celtic tribes also used the phalanx are you suggesting they use it to? And also, Carthages Numidian Cavlary wasnt even carthaginian, it was numidian.

Good point, but the praetorian was a leigionary who was picked to guard the emperor.

Zebra 9 said:

Good point, but the praetorian was a leigionary who was picked to guard the emperor.

Click to expand...

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with raiding cities. I watched this Rome thing on the history channel and was all excited that I knew what a praetorian was. Then they said that they were basically high level bodygaurds... They showed another type of soldier which seemed to fit the "Cuty Raider" decription much better, but I can't remember what it was...

Another question about phalanx is this: why do they get defense bonus for hills? They excelled in flatland where their formation is least disturbed, so if anything, shouldn't they recieve combat bonus on flat grounds?

Kartik said:

1. The greeks were one of the nations of used the phalanx to its full potentiol.
2. The concept of first using it was made in Greece.
3. The Roman UU is more innacurate, pratorians barely even engaged in battle, they were more like the senates police.
4. It's just a name, if you change it to Spartan then bravo.
5. So what are you suggesting, Romans use the phalanx? Celtic tribes also used the phalanx are you suggesting they use it to? And also, Carthages Numidian Cavlary wasnt even carthaginian, it was numidian.

Click to expand...

1) True

2) False, the earliest known depiction of a phalanx comes from Sumeria, so it is a good deal older than the Greek city states. Pretty much all ancient armies used it.

3) True, it should be called legion. Although praetorians were not the senate's police, they were the emperor's bodyguard. As strange as it sounds, Rome never actually had such a thing as a police force.

4) I'm not so irritated about the name. I'm irritated about the bonus which it receives.

5) No, no and yes, that's why they are called Numidian cavalry. Carthage mainly used mercenaries to fight its wars. If you read my post, you'll see that I am not suggesting anything. I'm saying that the bonuses which the phalanx receives are not historically accurate. I understand why it has these bonuses in the game, because it replaces spearmen for Greece and Firaxis put a counter for every unit in the game to balance it out.

I just think it is a pity, because the phalanx didn't work that way. I wonder where this idea of "long, pointed sticks are good against horses" comes from. The phalanx (and also spearman) were not anti-cavalry units, they were anti-infantry units.

General Failure

Gaizokubanou said:

Another question about phalanx is this: why do they get defense bonus for hills? They excelled in flatland where their formation is least disturbed, so if anything, shouldn't they recieve combat bonus on flat grounds?

Click to expand...

Yes, very true. They should suffer a penalty in hills too.

DevilJin said:

I read your post, and you souldn't complain about the greek Phalanx only(or Hoplite if you like it) , you could say generally that Spearmen isn't effective againts mounted units.

Click to expand...

You are right. The reason the phalanx bugs me most is that it is a unique unit for Greece. Well, if so, at least make it accurate. The current implementation isn't accurate.

Spearmen don't bother me as much, because I would guess they would be more effective against horses than a phalanx in formation. Spearmen generally throw their spears and horses are a bigger target than men. Also, spearmen have a loose formation, allowing them to turn much faster or even open the formation, to let the horses pass through. The phalanx is a rigid formation, which can not turn fast at all and the concept of a phalanx is to keep a closed formation.

But you are correct. The concept of "pointed sticks are good against horses" isn't accurate in general.

General Failure

Let's start nitpicking on details.

So we got a phalanx. With what kind of spears and what kind of armor? A doru or sarissa or what? Bronze breastplate and all that or hardened and stiffened linen with only a shield?

I'd say 16f spears are pretty effective against any melee unit and I wouldn't be too happy about those spears when mounted. For your information, a phalanx armed with those long spears can wheel 90 degrees in a second and something. You can train any group of civilians within a few hours to do this, was fun watching a historian training a group of Australian rugby players ..

Anyways, a spear is always deadly versus cavalry, mobility or not - we all know that the spear is a cavalry killer.

fugazi said:

Let's start nitpicking on details.

Click to expand...

Yes, let's.

fugazi said:

So we got a phalanx. With what kind of spears and what kind of armor? A doru or sarissa or what? Bronze breastplate and all that or hardened and stiffened linen with only a shield?

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter for the game, does it? Does the game say anything about how long the sword of the swordsman is? What kind of gun the marine has? No, it doesn't. Why you bring this up is beyond me.

fugazi said:

I'd say 16f spears are pretty effective against any melee unit and I wouldn't be too happy about those spears when mounted. For your information, a phalanx armed with those long spears can wheel 90 degrees in a second and something. You can train any group of civilians within a few hours to do this, was fun watching a historian training a group of Australian rugby players ..

Click to expand...

We are not discussing melee units. Only mounted units.
The phalanx formation fell into disuse because it proved to be inflexible if faced with lighter, more mobile forces or cavalry. If the phalanx was not supported by other light troops, such as skirmishers or cavalry, it was doomed. Especially troops equipped with the sarissa were very immobile. The Macedonians used their cavalry for outflanking them.
Your argument above, only works if the phalanx were deployed in a square or near square formation. In reality, it was not. The phalanx was at least 4 rows deep, but could be many men wide, say 40. I agree that if the formation was 40 by 40, the men would just have to turn 90 degrees to face a different direction. If they are 40 x 4, this would make it rather pointless to for each individual to turn 90 degrees, because you'd only have a 4 man wide formation. So the whole formation would have to turn 90 degrees, which takes considerably longer than seconds. Long enough for men on horseback to outflank them.

fugazi said:

Anyways, a spear is always deadly versus cavalry, mobility or not - we all know that the spear is a cavalry killer.

Click to expand...

This is just wrong. It really depends on the formation the spears are deployed in and if they were supported by other units. If the horses would perform a frontal assault, I would agree with this. However, no commander worth his salt would order horses to charge headlong into a spear-and-shield wall. Cavalry has typically been used as a flanking unit, due to their greater speed and mobility. If a phalanx would be outflanked and attacked from the side or the rear, it would be in very serious trouble.

General Failure

General Failure said:

This is just wrong. It really depends on the formation the spears are deployed in and if they were supported by other units. If the horses would perform a frontal assault, I would agree with this. However, no commander worth his salt would order horses to charge headlong into a spear-and-shield wall. Cavalry has typically been used as a flanking unit, due to their greater speed and mobility. If a phalanx would be outflanked and attacked from the side or the rear, it would be in very serious trouble.

General Failure

Click to expand...

OK so you need to tell what do you want instead of complaining. To delete the 100%(of the spearman and phalanx) againts mounted units and make them overpowerd in the ancient era? or you forgot that mounted units have the flanking promotion

He's not suggesting anything of the sort. He's just talking about the historical accuracy.

I was a little disappointed when I found they were called Phalanx instead of Hoplites, same for Praetorians.

General Failure, you seem to know history well. What if the Hoplites were NOT using a phalanx formation? Would it make any sense to think they could take on cavalry then? Or was it their only formation.

If I remember right, hoplites had a small sword and a spear, so if they fif not use a spear they used a sword.

Actually, the phalanx was easily flanked on open terrain, so the hill bonus is understandable. If they didnt have the hill bonus, then what would you suggest in its place?

Also, the point of when I said "Carthage's UU is numidian also, not carthaginian" that was meant to counter your arguement about the phalanx not being unique to greece. Also some of you are saying to make the greek UU hoplites, hoplites were just average greek soldiers, sort of basic infantry. Nothing unique about them.

Just to add something else, a phalanx is a formation. It's not the name of a unit. IMO, a Spartan UU for greece would have made a little more sense, just a matter of changing its name for historical accuracy.

General Failure said:

But that's just words and not the real annoyance I have with the Greek UU. It's the "+100% vs. mounted units" that I find hard to swallow. The phalanx should not get a bonus against mounted units, it should get a severe penalty. The main problem with the phalanx was, that it was too inflexible as a formation. Troops in the phalanx moved together with shields forming a wall at the front to protect the advancing unit. Each man protected the man to his left with his shield (I'd hate to be the guy on the far right).

Click to expand...

I have no problem with Spears and Pikemen having the +100% Vs mounted troops and hence the Phalanx also since it is a UU replacing the Spear and corresponds to the Macedonian Phalangite armed with a sarissa (an ancient pike). Until the invention of the bayonet in around 1670AD pikes and spears were recognised as being the best defence against mounted shock troops such as heavy cavalry, cataphractoi and knights since the invention of cavalry and chariots.

While spear and pike armed troops might have a disadvantage against other forms of close order infantry (and they were frequently beaten by them) they never had a problem with mounted troops in any ancient or medieval battle account I have ever read. I'd be interested in why you think they have a weakness and don't deserve a bonus, especially as it runs counter to ancient practice.

What other troops would you give an anti-mounted bonus to in Civ 4? I think the game needs one type of troops resistant to mounted troops given their greater speed.

Dark Myrmidon said:

He's not suggesting anything of the sort. He's just talking about the historical accuracy.

I was a little disappointed when I found they were called Phalanx instead of Hoplites, same for Praetorians.

General Failure, you seem to know history well. What if the Hoplites were NOT using a phalanx formation? Would it make any sense to think they could take on cavalry then? Or was it their only formation.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Dark Myrmidon. You're right, I am not suggesting anything and I'm not just complaining either. Like I said before, I understand why it was implemented this way. I am just dissappointed that it is not historically accurate. I'm just curious what other people think about this, that's all.

I'm no real expert on history or something like that. I did study history as a student and the classical period has always been my favorite. As far as I know, hoplites only fought in formation. Their main role was to fight other hoplites in phalanx formation. They really weren't meant for much else. If they would not be in a phalanx formation, I would imagine this would render them less effective. Mainly because of their long spears, something along the lines of 12 to 18 feet. Such a long weapon is pretty difficult to handle and is too large to be thrown effectively. If they'd form a circle, with spears pointing in every direction, they would of course be able to keep the horses at a distance, but naturally their combat effectiveness would be greatly reduced.

Of course the Greeks did experiment with their phalanx units, to maximize effectiveness or to match a different opponent. But most experimentation was along the lines of longer spears, more men in the phalanx, more men on one side of the phalanx, etc. They never really let go of the phalanx principle. I think this is mainly because they had no real reason too. If two Greek city states went to war, both would appear on the battlefield with units in phalanx formation, supported by lighter skirmishers, archers and perhaps cavalry. The skirmishers, archers and cavalry would harrass the phalanx formations, but the main battle would consist of the two phalanxes clashing into eachother at a slow run, after which it generally became a "pushing contest". Only the front three or four ranks would actually be able to hurt or kill the enemy with their spears. The rest of the unit pushed from behind or filled openings which formed in the front ranks.

As far as suggesting anything to fix this in the game, I don't really know. Someone suggested having the phalanx replace the swordsman for Greece, but then you'd have a spearman unit and a phalanx, which seems like too many spears. Plus, neither deserves the bonus against mounted units. Generally, I'm okay with the rock-scissors-paper principle in CIV. I don't really see an easy fix for this. If someone sees one, please go ahead and reply. I'd be curious.

General Failure

Few points:
1. Hoplites fighting in phalanx formation are most renowned unit in Greek military; I agree that UU is named incorrectly as it should be hoplite, but it should stay spearmen replacement anyway. Macedon Companion Cavalry is also very famous because of use Alexander the Great made of it, but please note that his conquests were possible thanks to hoplites fighting in phalanx formation as well.
2. Hoplites were armed with both spear and sword. As a defensive gear they wore shield and breastplate. Important thing was that they were equipped at their own cost, so their armaments varied, even the spears lengths. On basis of personal wealth (thus armament they could afford), they were assigned to different formations: from light skirmishers throwing their spears at enemy, to heavy armed soldiers in phalanx. In fact, one of the main advantages of Greek army was combined arms doctrine they implemented (use of different types of infantry, cavalry, siege machines and war elephants).
3. In fact it was this organization (or formation), not weaponry, that gave hoplites advantage. Moreover, such organized army was much better than anything Greeks encountered (including both foot and mounted enemies) until they clashed with Romans.
4. Roman legions were built very similar to Greek army: legionnaires were divided into several different classes based on armament type (depending on material census as well) and took use of cavalry support.
5. We cannot simply say that legionnaires were better than hoplites. Romans suffered heavy losses in fight with Greeks; but had better logistics, organization and discipline. Greeks were politically divided and weakened by persistent wars. In my opinnion Romans just hit them hard in good moment.
6. Stating that outnumbered, flanked or hit in the back unit will lose, is just thruism. Every single unit would alway do the same.
7. Phalanx formation ulimate weakness was manoeuvrability. But it is too nuissance to be included in game.
8. In Thermopylae Spartan hoplites used advantageus topographical feature to stand many hours against much more numerous enemy. So, they were even more valuable in hilly terrain than in flatland, because terrain features could give them additional protection on flanks or limit opponent manoeuvrability.

Conclusion:
-Mounted combat bonus is ok.
-Hill combat bonus is ok
-There could be melee bonus added in fact
-I agree there could be second UU for Greeks: Macedon Companion Cavalry.

I think the Phalanx is almost useless, outside of its role as anti-mounted. Which regular Spearmen do just fine. Axemen are too strong when fighting them.

Giving Phalanxes a bonus vs melee is the only real option to extend their lifespans, so they can fight axemen. Maybe this would work.

Phalanx- 5 strength
10% vs melee
100% vs mounted

With this setup, they would easily be able to fight, but not overwhelm, axemen. It would basically be a 7.5 str to 5.5 str battle.

But, Alexander is Agg, so it would be 7.5 to 6.05 str, but with a shock promotion the phalanx would stand a chance. Of course, axemen with shock would own them...

I dunno, my plan isn't that good for fixing them. Does anyone have a good idea on how to? The problem is axemen come too close after spearmen,