Greek Phalanxes- Fraxis ruined History

[Arkatsson]

The Greek's UU- The Phalanx makes no sense to replace the axemen. A slow moving formation of spears would not be effective when attacking. The Greek Phalanx instead of a bonus against melee they should replace the spearman, have +150% defense against horse units and +50% defense against melee units. If you look at Thermopolye ( 300 spartan place ) the Greeks weren't charging at the Persians, they held the breach. Make the phalanx a super defender not a super attacker.

 

[Greeneyedzombie]

But they would still be destroyed by horseman. And a phalanx on the move is very difficult to stop.

 

[King Jason]

Yet, historically speaking, Cavalry were one of the major weaknesses to the Phalanx formation.

The current version is more "historically accurate" than the previous version.

 

[r_rolo1]

Yeah , Phalanx being a axemen replacement is historically accurate

Phalanx was not vulnerable to mounted untis as that if used properly , like good ol'Alexander showed in Gaugamela ( using a double line and letting spaces to the mounted charges to pass through without doing any harm ). The big disavantage of phalanx was ironically the swordsmen , especially the roman legions, like even the greek Polibius recognized : a swordsmen could easily pass in the spaces between the sarissas and kill the lightly and not trained for close combat phalanx members..... IMHO that and the poor results that Phalanxes got over the Gaul axe helders that invaded Greece ( they won but just barely... ) makes me think that the pre-BtS version of Phalanx was more historically acurate than the BtS one.

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

Historically speaking,

why the hell is their UU named after a formation used by basically every other ancient army instead of the actual unit (Hoplites)?
It makes less sense to me than Praetorians over Legions...