Civ bts - Greek Phalanx Unit

[peter450]

Drill work's off str though, the total str after all combat modifiers both postive (your unit) an negative (there unit) have been applied, the bigger the str disparity after these modifiers, the bigger the dmg differance from recieving and dealing out blows, as the disparity increases further not only is the dmg dished out larger but also the chance to score a hit in the first place, so drills str increases with the str disparity

A unit with 6 str vs a unit with 6 str will deal an recieve dmg at somthing like 20 hp per blow with an equal chance to land a blow

A unit of 9 vs 6 will deal out a 3rd more an recieve a 3rd less, which roughly translates to around 24 hp dealt an 16 recieved with an increased chance of landing a blow

Drills on units with high disparity combat have a higher chance to score a hit, so high str disparity an lots of drills = high chance of combat being over in the First strike phase with no dmg to you.

The bigger the str disparity between units, the bigger the bonus you get from drills, because a bigger number of your FS hit, an they do more damage when they do

 

[Elite Hoplite]

Well that's because the Greek civilisation in the game represents all of Greece, not just the Spartans.

In response to your point about the animations, I'd have thought it was pretty obvious that the graphics in Civ IV are symbolic rather than realistic- each unit has one, two or three people to represent would would otherwise be a whole cohort. As you're not complaining that the people are far too tall and the armies far too small with oversimplified combat (i.e. one man hits other man, man falls over), I assume you accept this to be the case. And as you can't make a phalanx out of three units, you can't really expect them to have accurate animations.

However, I do agree that, instead, the unit should be called a Hoplite, as a phalanx is a formation, but that's a simple change to the XML. Also, the spear should be much longer- pike size- as the spears the unit currently holds aren't going to keep the enemy very far away.

The group of the hoplite is called a mora (biggest) ... a cohort is 48x8 Roman legionarie..... lol

 

[Elite Hoplite]

You're focussing on the graphical look of the unit, instead of the stats, which is what everyone else is talking about in reference to historical accuracy.

The stats are... fine since theres much stats you can add on a unit. Very basic strengh and promotion. There isn't much promotion relevent to the hoplite. March is i guess alright, since they travel with supplies in a steady formation. Shock is a must. Cover too. Greek hoplite maybe needs 6 strenght. Peltasts should be made and MAYBE a few light calvary like sciritae and hippeis. You know stuff like that. Phalanx should be special ability. Also they should have a reatreat bonus (as most hoplites who lost ran away, but barely survives when the enemy has light calvary or light infantry). The thrusting formation is correct up and down. In the second phase of a battle short sword should be drawn to kill enemies who retreated.

 

[Elite Hoplite]

If civ4 wants to call the hoplite in groups then call them lochos or lochei, yeah?

 

[Elite Hoplite]

the helmet seems to refer that the hoplite is an elite spartan, cos his cresent is sideways.

 

[Elite Hoplite]

wat also intrigues me is that the spearman is the ealier unit in the game. But the spearman has linen armor which is used in the late ages. But the hoplite ALSO has a dipylon shield which is used in the 1200 BC period or earlier. This a mixed use of military technology. The original phalanx now seems to originate a hoplite before the phalanx was ever invented. The smallest phalanx consists of 100 men (1 lochos). Yet in this game they represent a phalanx as 3 hoplites. I think that civ4 didn't get real historians to make this game, I think that cid mier's himself did all the research and did poorly on it.

 

[Uberfrog]

wat also intrigues me is that the spearman is the ealier unit in the game.

That's debatable. On balance, I'd actually say the axeman came earlier, as it only needs BW, whereas the spearman needs hunting and BW. But as you probably have hunting before BW anyway, they essentially come together.

 

[Elite Hoplite]

This game is called civilization, not hoplitisation.

Great idea of a name for a game. Thanks kid. be ready for Elite Hoplite's hoplitalisation . So you like Rome? I like Rome to, they had the best tactical and organised military.

 

[Elite Hoplite]

That's debatable. On balance, I'd actually say the axeman came earlier, as it only needs BW, whereas the spearman needs hunting and BW. But as you probably have hunting before BW anyway, they essentially come together.

Yeah but they should still be in different periods. The dyplon shield with lythorax armor? lol thats so funny. What else is funny is that its availability is very early. Lochos or enomotiai would be names for groups of hoplites in Xenophon's time. lochos is more prferable as they were the smallest proper group to form the tactic phalanx. So if cid mier can get away with these inacuracies then why won't he make the hoplite have an axe or gun? lol sriously i don't actually know much about military culture about greece, they of my least attention.

 

[Uberfrog]

Yeah but they should still be in different periods. The dyplon shield with lythorax armor? lol thats so funny. What else is funny is that its availability is very early. Lochos or enomotiai would be names for groups of hoplites in Xenophon's time. lochos is more prferable as they were the smallest proper group to form the tactic phalanx. So if cid mier can get away with these inacuracies then why won't he make the hoplite have an axe or gun? lol sriously i don't actually know much about military culture about greece, they of my least attention.

To me it sounds like you know quite a bit of the details of ancient Greek phalanxes, which is fine, but I think it is too easy to be hung up on details. The phalanx is but one unit in the game, and there's really no point working on it to such a degree. Most people don't notice or even care that the little computerised soldier has a dyplon shield with lythorax armour. Most people (me included) have no idea what they even are.

The unit represents Greece, and looks to most people like a fairly good representation of an Ancient Greek soldier, much like the Praetorian symbolises Rome; the Jaguar does for the Aztecs and the Keshik does for Mongolia.

This debate is essentially purely aesthetic- I suggest you make what you believe to be a historically accurate phalangist/hoplite and mod it into the game yourself, and let the rest of us get on with our minor inaccuracies (yes, they are minor) in peace.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

an equal chance to land a blow... increased chance of landing a blow... high chance of combat being over in the First strike phase with no dmg to you...

I'm pretty sure the chance is only for Drill I. You're guaranteed a FS with Drill II+, with Drill III you have a guaranteed FS with a chance for 2 more. and with Drill IV, you're guaranteed 3 FS, a chance for 3 more (totaling 6). Feel free to correct if wrong.

 

[peter450]

I'm pretty sure the chance is only for Drill I. You're guaranteed a FS with Drill II+, with Drill III you have a guaranteed FS with a chance for 2 more. and with Drill IV, you're guaranteed 3 FS, a chance for 3 more (totaling 6). Feel free to correct if wrong.

Drill 1 gives you a first strike chance, so you may or may not get a FS out of it.
Drill 2 gives you a FS so unlike Drill 1 you definately get a FS, however just because you have a FS does not mean it will score a hit, an cause dmg, a FS can miss.

FS are better than FS chances simply because you are guaranteed a FS.
You FS may not score a hit, but there's more of a chance to score a hit since the chance of getting the chance to score the hit is guranteed in a full FS, so 1 FS is worth roughly 2 FS chances, as the chance of a FS chance becoming a FS is 50%, i'm even starting to confuse myself now, but thats the basic lowdown of FS

So Drill 1 adds 1 chance
Drill 2 reads as 1 - 2 FS as you have 1 full and a chance of a second
Drill 3 reads 1 - 4 as another 2 chances are added to 1 - 2
Drill 4 adds 2 full FS so it now reads 3 - 6 as you now have 3 full FS an the chance of another 3.
So thats 3 minimum with a total max possible of 6 depending on how many of the 3 chances get converted into a FS so if you really lucky you can get up to 6 FS in that round, as to if they score a hit or not, thats a whole load of other calculations, but with a big STR disparity there's a very high chance a FS will be converted into a damaging blow

 

[Scaramanga]

I think all spearmen (which the hoplite/phalanx should then replace) should have the 50% bonus vs. melee units since they made up more of ancient armies than axemen, which everyone is so fond of rushing. Their shields and long staves are better for holding a position than an axe IMO. Axeman could then do collateral damage or something to melee units in a stack.

 

[Soneji]

This game is called civilization, not hoplitisation.

lol! You win funniest post of the week in my view!

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

I think all spearmen (which the hoplite/phalanx should then replace) should have the 50% bonus vs. melee units since they made up more of ancient armies than axemen, which everyone is so fond of rushing. Their shields and long staves are better for holding a position than an axe IMO. Axeman could then do collateral damage or something to melee units in a stack.

The problem with this is that sword-wielding infantry is generally superior when placed against spear-wielding infantry. The only reason spears were used over swords was cost. Axemen are a rather...well, odd choice, as they weren't used heavily as battlefield weapons.

As for the phalanx: the in-game spearmen appear to be an abstraction of light, short-spear-wielding infantry designed to deal with cavalry, which, incidentally, was the bane of the phalanx and hoplite alike. Mechanically, it makes zero sense for them to replace that unit, even if it makes more sense aesthetically.

This problem arises from being perhaps too abstract....and also neglecting the other important element of ancient warfare: javelin-armed skirmishers. These were employed throughout the world, in various capacities. Really, we ought to have spears(cheap, early infantry with a small advantage against cavalry), swordsmen(heavier, more expensive unit that messes up the poorly equipped spears), skirmishers(that can pick on the heavy swords who have trouble chasing them down), cavalry of some sort(that can chase down and kill the skirms) and archers do what they've always done, except maybe they work well on skirms because they out-range them and the skirm's armor isn't good enough to stop an arrow.

 

[Wodan]

Axemen are a rather...well, odd choice, as they weren't used heavily as battlefield weapons.

That's an argument I don't buy. CIV is about what could have happened, not what did happen. On my planet (game), perhaps there was an ancient-era nation or two that did use axes heavily.

If a nation was to arm the farmers, what would be required would be the training techniques to turn someone with the mentality of a farmer into someone with the mentality to stand firm and be able to kill another human. On Earth, those psychological techniques weren't developed (not back then), but they could have been. And, if they were, the logical weapon is the axe. An axe has big advantages vs a spear or sword in melee combat, and more importantly, a farmer already knows how to use it. It takes months and years to train someone to use a spear or sword properly.

also neglecting the other important element of ancient warfare: javelin-armed skirmishers.

I agree.

In addition, several nations used them as single-shots, such as the Roman pilum, after which the legion would charge and use their gladius. I wouldn't call them skirmishers for that reason.

Wodan

 

[Terrance888]

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.

It is like having the animation showing 2 axmen with a spear on the front.

 

[bonafide11]

This thread has gone in a really odd direction.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

So, essantialy, you want to keep everything as it is; but replace axemen with spear-throwers/velites/skirmishers, with roughly the same stats (or maybe str4 +100% vs melee)?

No. I'll frame it better.
Spearman(comes with Hunting) 3 str. +100% vs. mounted
Skirmisher(also comes with Hunting) 3 str. +100% vs. Swordsmen, +100% vs. Elephants, +25% withdrawal
Archer(with Archery) 3 str. +25% vs. Skirmishers
Swordsmen(with Bronze) 5 str. +25% vs. melee, +10% city attack

Iron Working would increase the power of Spearmen and Swordsmen by 1. Naturally, despite the aesthetic idiosynchrasy, phalanx would replace swords, as both the Greek hoplitai and the latter Makedonian phalanx both served the role of heavy infantry, and later on were often supported by lighter infantry in addition to skirmishers and cavalry. This is the norm not just among the Hellenes, but also among Celts, and further east in China.

Oh, and keep in mind that is all just off the top of my head, and would probably need some tweaking.

 

[Silence101]

It is like having the animation showing 2 axmen with a spear on the front.

Umm... I don't understand what you're talking about.