Greek UU

Papa Smurf

Chieftain
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
58
Location
MA
as most of us should know the Greek UU was changed
from...
replaced spearman - 5str 100% against horses and 25% on hills

now it is

replaced axeman - 5 str 50% melee and 100% def against charriots

the rumor before BTS was that it was goin to be changed but to
axeman with the march promotion

after cutting my wrist i returned to my game
i was hoping for the march promotion

thoughts
comments
concerns

dont get me wrong 100% def against charriots is good
but i would hav liked to see march
 
I assume that it was tried out in pre-release versions of BtS since my manual states that the phalanx has been changed to an axeman with the march promotion.
 
Godly unit with no real counter for many, many years.

In the hands of Alex with Aggressive promo and cheap barracks, you can build nothing but Axemen and conquer a large swaths of land very quickly. Akin to an earlier Praetorian!

Greeks were a long time favorite for me. These changes just made them a powerhouse! :) March alone would be nice, but this is certainly more effective at conquering.
 
My experience is that the Phalanx has a rough time against Axemen, so if you're going to try for a Phalanx rush, then you might want to go with Alexander vs. Pericles.

In a recent game on Monarch, I took out one neighbor, but could only seriously cripple another neighbor with the Phalanx rush...I should have stacked them with chariots...

Honestly, they should have a strength of 6...
 
Well the main use of any axemen is to do an axe-rush, and the phalanx has the advantage that if your victim suddenly gets horses theres no need to run for the hills. I liked the old phalanx so this isnt a huge improvement for me.
 
Having +50 Melee makes more sense than +25 on hills.

Phalanxes needed flat terrain. hilly terrain (like in italy) actualy decreased their performance.
 
The 100% def vs chariot is good, bad not good enough for a UU. I mean look at the Holly Roman UU: it has a bonus of 100% vs melle! not 100% def vs let's say maceman! Huge deference, isn' t it?

Look at the praet: +2 out of 6 (+33%) strength bonus. I think it should have a -20% vs melle penalty to be balanced (still very efective vs archery units).

For me for the Phalanx (as an axeman) the bonus should be +100% def vs mounted, or at least +100% vs chariot, not just +100% defence vs chariots bonus. Or maybe the march promo.

Ah, and Firaxis should not forget to change back the graphics between spearman and phalanx at next patch.
 
I do not like it at all with Pericles. I only played one game, but it was getting chewed up by Ragnars mixed stack. It made it almost useless in the game.
 
Also, as a defense against chariots counter attacking, if it was that big a concern, I would just mix in some spears with the stack. Now that does not help.
 
I wonder if Firaxis decided to change this unit as a more-badass axeman after seeing the movie '300'. :)
 
The 100% def vs chariot is good, bad not good enough for a UU. I mean look at the Holly Roman UU: it has a bonus of 100% vs melle! not 100% def vs let's say maceman! Huge deference, isn' t it?

Look at the praet: +2 out of 6 (+33%) strength bonus. I think it should have a -20% vs melle penalty to be balanced (still very efective vs archery units).

For me for the Phalanx (as an axeman) the bonus should be +100% def vs mounted, or at least +100% vs chariot, not just +100% defence vs chariots bonus. Or maybe the march promo.

agree completly
 
I find it very underwhelming. Before, it at least meant you didn't have to worry about Elephants: now it's just a vanilla axeman, basically. It's probably good playing as Alex, but everything's better for the AGG and CHM leaders, it's just axeman for Pericles. I'd remove the Chariot bonus, give it march, and give it +25% defense on grasslands and plains. All you need to ward off Chariots is a spearmen or two anyhow, and make it not get any bonus on hills or forests...
 
I like the way the Phalanx is represented mechanically, but I have one complaint... Axemen? Really? Axemen with giant spears?

Keeping them as Strength 5 Spearmen and adding "+50% versus Axemen" would have had effectively the same results and been more representative of the fact that they have SPEARS.
 
I like them, to be honest. Wished they'd kept them +100% vs. cavalry rather than only vs. chariots, but I'll take what I can get. They used to be downright worthless - if your enemy was using cavalry of any sort, and you had spearmen, you would win. 8 effective Str. vs. 4 (chariot) or 6 (horse archer) results in a victory for the spears. With the old phalanx you just won more overwhelmingly, which really didn't do much for me at all with a unique unit.
 
I like the way the Phalanx is represented mechanically, but I have one complaint... Axemen? Really? Axemen with giant spears?

Keeping them as Strength 5 Spearmen and adding "+50% versus Axemen" would have had effectively the same results and been more representative of the fact that they have SPEARS.

Perhaps, but from a mechanical standpoint, the Greek/Macedonian Phalanx was best on flat terrain and killed basically every other infantry type formation. Even Roman Legions wouldn't take on the straight-on power of a phalanx (Rome: Total War actually handles this quite well!)

They tended to perform poorly against cavalry on an open field since a phalanx was very vulnerable in the rear. So the bonus against chariots may be justified (since chariots are hard to maneuver, the Persian Scythed chariots performed poorly). Indeed, the Roman battles against the phalanxes used the ability of the legion to maneuver to the Greek rear (but we should remember this was 'past the prime' of the phalanxes). The phalanxes probably would have defeated heavy cavalry, had it been around, again because of the difficulty of maneuvering heavy cavalry.

But the more advanced light cavalry would likely give them trouble, and even tiny numbers of horsemen caused them great difficulty; Hanson talks about how small numbers of Athenian horsemen kept Sparta from destroying their local mines during the Peloponnesian War. The Greek victories over the Persians were largely from Persian inability to use their cavalry. In Alexander's campaigns, of course, he had other supporting arms; Alex broke through with his heavy cavalry and had the phalanxes 'pin' the enemy. (Also, Macedonian phalanxes were different from 5th century BC phalanxes, they used professionals with much longer pikes, etc.)

So, with the change, the Civ phalanx is strong in melee, can handle chariots, but is relatively weak against light cavalry. I think it's pretty accurate. I do, however, agree they maybe should have a little more strength. If the enemy doesn't have chariots, they are just axemen!


Best wishes,

Breunor
 
I like the way the Phalanx is represented mechanically, but I have one complaint... Axemen? Really? Axemen with giant spears?

Keeping them as Strength 5 Spearmen and adding "+50% versus Axemen" would have had effectively the same results and been more representative of the fact that they have SPEARS.


There were a number of discusions about this before, and there were more than one kind of phalanx formation. Most people think of Alexander's Macedonian version, it seems. ''Sparta '' probably changed that. I think the conclusion favored an ax replacement with a march promotion. It must have been upopular in testing. The current approach of a chariot resistant axman for the price of a spearman at least requires horsearchers or spears to accompany them to protect them from flank attacks by horsearchers, which was the weakness of the Macedonian phalanx.

Either way, 1) Greeks didn't use axes. 2) They still used seperate spearmen .
3) Phalanxes were primarily anti-melee units.
 
As a Greek, I am happy with the change because it is now more historically accurate. To be honest, playing as the Greeks (which, to the horror of many passionate Civ veterans I am sure, is about the ONLY civ I ever play) I never felt happy that I had to storm enemies using axemen. Axemen were never really a part of ancient Greek armies. The bonus vs. melee is now in the correct place, keeping in mind that the phalanx was the world's superior heavy infantry during its prime.

Breunor is right, the phalanx was never meant to counter cavalry. On the contrary, the presence of enemy cavalry in a battle often proved a huge hindrance, if there wasn't any friendly cavalry or a more flexible infantry to deal with it.
 
I've had some time to use this UU. I don't like it...the old UU was much more useful and on par with what the Romans get. I might just mod the Phalanx for my own uses. I'd make it a 6 STR Spearman with 50% vs. Melee, and get rid of the Axeman. Once again, Greece would rule the Ancient era...until they ran into Rome...

As for Macedonian formations...didn't they develope the "Hedge Hog" or "Box" formation? In this formation, the Phalanx would be positioned with the spears/pikes facing out in the four directions, with Peltasts and later Archers in the middle, firing over the pikes??? I believe the Hedge was a saw-like formation of foot lancers and pike with archers in the rear...

Am I correct?
 
Yeah the classic greek phalanx was just like a modern tank, and once it got started moving, was almost impossible to stop. It was the top melee unit of its day. I'm not sure they captured that essence with this BTS version. A chariot bonus seems all wrong.

And I think Alex could have handled a few Roman legions. Half the time it was some senator who was leading the legion not a god like Alex.
 
Yeah the classic greek phalanx was just like a modern tank, and once it got started moving, was almost impossible to stop. It was the top melee unit of its day. I'm not sure they captured that essence with this BTS version. A chariot bonus seems all wrong.

And I think Alex could have handled a few Roman legions. Half the time it was some senator who was leading the legion not a god like Alex.

What if the legion is led by another God like Gaius Julius? :king:
 
Top Bottom