Greek UU

[budweiser]

What if the legion is led by another God like Gaius Julius?

Alex was a true god, the oracle in egypt confirmed it.

Alex would still win. How many world's most powerful empires did Julius defeat? Just a bunch of Guals iirc.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

What if the legion is led by another God like Gaius Julius?

I actually think Caesar would win, if he was allowed to prepare the battlefield. Alexander was pretty arrogant and reckless once on the battlefield, whereas Caesar was more prudent(in terms of personal safety.) But I don't want to debate that...

 

[Breunor]

Gang,

Phalanx vs. Legion has been debated ad nauseum. Wargames have been developed to fight it out! We generally know the answer ..... (you should too!)

The Romans used a 'phalanx' (spear formation closely packed) until the Samnite Wars. Unfortunately, the hilly region around Rome, especially in Samnite country, made the use of a phalanx pretty impossible. Rome suffered one of its worst defeats ever at Caudine Forks (321 BC). Afterwards, they adopted a different panoply, better developed for loose formation. They used a series of maniples.

Later Romans wore heavy armor, had shields, and short, thrusting swords. Phalanxes used long spears, very long in Alexander's time. They also had heavy armor.

The power of a phalanx came from its momentum. During the 5th century, when there were non-professional Greek troops (with the obvious exception of the Spartans), the most experienced soldiers were placed in the rear, with the youngest and most fit up front. The rear ranks would 'push' forward, and try to break the enemy formation through power.

It's important to remember that with heavy infantry, with spears, formation was everything. Once the enemy formation broke, the winning side would defeat the enemy in detail, taking few casualties. We hear in the ancient world how terrifying it was to see the Spartans, with their bronze armor, long hair, glistening in the sun.

The legions, in maniples and later three lines, were flexible, looser formations.


So, what happens if a legion goes head on against a phalanx? The phalanx wins, there is no question. The direct power of a phalanx is far greater. But, the Romans wouldn't let that happen!


The three classic battles between Greek and Roman war machines were in the second century BC. Unfortunately for military historians, this was after the Greek prime, and before the Romans, clearly pre-Marian. But, despite the Phalanx power, the Romans won all three.


The battle of Magnesia was largely a confused affair (190 BC), and Rome's ally had a lot to do with it. So let's talk about the other two.

The most telling battle was Cynocephalae (197 BC). The Greek phalanx advanced, with its great power. The Romans were beaten back. However, the phalanx wasn't that well formed (it took a long time to 'set-up' a phalanx properly). A Roman formation, however, was easy to form.

Somewhere in the battle, some now unknown Roman officer managed to put together a line (showing the flexibility of Roman command), managed to get them under control, marched to the Macedonian right, flanked the Macedonians, and the inflexible phalanx couldn't turn. It was a complete Roman victory, and lead essentially to the beginning of Roman conquest of the east, with modern Turkey (Asia Minor/Anatolia) falling to Rome.

The other key battle was Pydna (168 BC). Here, the Romans tried to handle the phalanx power by chopping off the end of the spears, and trying to get in between gaps. It didn't work, and the Romans were being driven back. This time, however, the Greek advance moved onto hilly terrain. As they moved forward, gaps appeared, and again, the quick-thinking Romans moved into the gaps in the line. A phalangist out of formation, not supported by the guy next to him, was no match for the nimble Roman, and the Romans again won decisively.


So, straight on, most military historians view the Roman system as superior across the board as a 'universal' formation. And the Marian legion was far superior to its 2nd century BC counterpart.

So, what would have happened if Alexander met a super Roman general? Alas, we don't know. Why? Because Alexander almost certainly would have known that attacking with his phalanxes caused them to be vulnerable. He was too smart. Alexander broke through with his heavy cavalry (pretty much always.) The phalanx would 'pin' the enemy, not allowing them to break. And a phalanx in formation, stationary, was quite a formation. Alexander used combined arms, phalanxes, heavy cavalry, and hypaspists, which is why he was so brilliant and successful. So, Alexander would not have allowed the Roman legions to pick on his phalanxes alone.

The battle between a complete post Marian Roman army and a top notch Macedonian army is debated endlessly, and is the stuff of the wargame industry!

But there is a reason those Praetorians are 8's ......


Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[Breunor]

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?

Generally, no. Greeks warfare was based onthe power of formation. Take the hoplite out of formation and they were too slow and the spear was a vulnerable weapon, as someone can dart inside. In formation, 'inside' the spear meant you were impaled by the guy in the second or third rank. The basic idea is pretty simple! That is how the phalanx works. The key to fighting as a phalanx was moving and staying in formation, a difficult task.

For defense, they often fought with shields overlapping, making a 'shield wall'. Occasionally, they could fan the spears (or larissa or whatever weapon we are talking about) out somewhat, but it is very difficult then to keep shields overlapped. At Marathon, the Athenians broke tradition and adopted a wider front -- a rare case of Greek flexibility. But the Perisan 'armor' was made of wicker, and Miltiades and crew recognized that they would lose only if flanked, were in a swamp, so they needed to stay in formation but the formation could be wide.

(According to Richard Holmes, the key to the Greek victory in this and the other Persian campaigns was that the key battles wre fought using the advantages the Greeks had. Their cavalry did not participate at Marathon, fought in a swamp. During the great invasion, both Salamis and Plataea also highlighted Greek advatages.)

But, in general, the power of a phalanx was to stay with shields locked moving forward.

After the Pelopennesian war, Phalanxes are effective only if used with other troops that can solve their vulnerability to missle fire, skirmishers, and protect their rear against more mobile troops like cavalry.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[Innawerkz]

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.

Oddly enough, Alex can handle the legions in Civ 4.

5 + 50% Melee + 10% Combat 1 = 8 vs. 8 for the Praetorian

Add the cheap Barracks for Alexander and you will have Shock promoted Phalanx to deal with the Romans. Really, I fail to see how you can misplay the Greeks now. A unit with no real counter and there is a lot of negativity towards it?

I have played twice with Greece. Once as Alexander and once as Pericles. Alexander had no problem consuming two nearby empires before Siege
warfare - one of them Rome. I got to their Iron before they could generate more than 3 Praets, which my Shock units handled easily anyway. It was my maintenance that kept me in check, not the ineffectiveness of the unit.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

Oddly enough, Alex can handle the legions in Civ 4.

5 + 50% Melee + 10% Combat 1 = 8 vs. 8 for the Praetorian

Add the cheap Barracks for Alexander and you will have Shock promoted Phalanx to deal with the Romans. Really, I fail to see how you can misplay the Greeks now. A unit with no real counter and there is a lot of negativity towards it?

I have played twice with Greece. Once as Alexander and once as Pericles. Alexander had no problem consuming two nearby empires before Siege
warfare - one of them Rome. I got to their Iron before they could generate more than 3 Praets, which my Shock units handled easily anyway. It was my maintenance that kept me in check, not the ineffectiveness of the unit.

Possibly because it's not really much of a boost. It's only saving me hammers on a spearman or two, which is a drop in the bucket as far as axe rushes go(especially nowadays that the AI tends to defend with bigger armies sooner and copper being scarcer). And I'm going to want spears anyway because of horse archers, and because I'd like to keep enemy chariots from pillaging and I don't want the ~75% odds a phalanx has on offense screwing me out of my city raiders or a shock phalanx. Like I said before, they're Vanilla axemen, except they carry pikes. They aren't really any better than....BtS axemen, because...again, I'd much rather bring a spearman or two along(they don't need any boosting promotion to do their job either...hello Medic!) anyways, because, IIRC, enemy chariots still have ~25% of winning, and considering how often stuff like 10 and 5 come up, I'd rather not risk 25...

 

[MisterBarca]

Alex was a true god, the oracle in egypt confirmed it.

Alex would still win. How many world's most powerful empires did Julius defeat? Just a bunch of Guals iirc.

While I certainly do not want to get into a debate regarding military history, I think Caesar was 1) the superior commander; and 2) faced a far more formidable adversary.

Proving point #1 would take too long, but I don't think #2 is debatable.

You are over-estimating Persia for two reasons:

First, while Persia was a large empire, it was a shell of its former self at the time of Alexandrine conquests. It was led by a very weak ruler in the younger Darius, who was no military commander nor even a skilled politician. In fact, Darius repeatedly proved to be a coward who thought flight first--which proved decisive in at least one of the major battles.

Had a more energetic leader been leading Persia, Alexander may not have won. He certainly would not have won so easily.

Second, even during Persia at its peak, Persian arms proved time and again to be no match against Greek arms. The Persians had nothing to combat the Greek hoplites with in a head-to-head collision. This was proved at Marathon, Thermopylae (at least until the Persians were shown the backdoor), Plataea, and even during the March of the 10,000 mercenaries--which Xenophon led at the end and recounted in his famous book. In fact, in Anabasis, Cyrus the Younger (not to be confused with Cyrus the Great) said that he invited the Greek mercenaries, precisely because they were so superior to Greek arms.

The fact that the Greeks did not conquer Persia earlier was because they were divided, not because they were weaker than the Achemenid emperors and their forces. In fact, Phillip, Alexander's father, likely would have conquered Persia if he were not assassinated.

Now compare Caesar's opposition.

First, qualitatively speaking, the Gauls that Caesar faced were not inferior troops than the Persians that Alexander faced. Further, Caesar faced greater numerical odds.

Seconds, more important, Alexander never faced the quality of troops nor the commanders that Caesar faced in the Roman civil wars. Who is the Persian Pompey (dubbed "Great")? And when Caesar went up against Pompey in Pharsalus, Caesar was both badly outnumbered, and his troops were under-equipped and under-supplied compared to those of Pompey's veterans.

 

[Papa Smurf]

If the enemy doesn't have chariots, they are just axemen

that is the problem
their only good if u axe-rush ur enemy right away so they hav their only choice would be to counter with chariots but it doesnt work because of the bonus

once the rush is done...so long UU

 

[Papa Smurf]

ok i like the history lesson but do we like the change to the Greek UU
or wat should it be

 

[Proteus]

Gang,

The three classic battles between Greek and Roman war machines were in the second century BC. Unfortunately for military historians, this was after the Greek prime, and before the Romans, clearly pre-Marian. But, despite the Phalanx power, the Romans won all three.

Maybe you should also include the campaign of Pyrrhus (280-275 BC) into the list, as this might have been the first great clash between the roman and the greek world.

The romans lost 2 battles in italy against him (Heracleia, Ausculum) where they, despite losing the battles, were able to inflict heavy casualties on his troops (partly caused by his own war elephhants which, shortly before the end of the battle ran amok and moved aganst his own troops).
He then decided to move to sicily and defend the greek cities there against the carthaginans, probably a bad move as it gave the romans time to assemble a new army which finally defeated Pyrrhus at Beneventum, when he returned to italy.

Pyrrhus btw. was one of the leaders who didn´t neglect auxiliary troops. Aside from his hoplites he also had archers, slingers and cavalry in his army (and 20 indian war elephants).

 

[Innawerkz]

Possibly because it's not really much of a boost. It's only saving me hammers on a spearman or two, which is a drop in the bucket as far as axe rushes go(especially nowadays that the AI tends to defend with bigger armies sooner and copper being scarcer). And I'm going to want spears anyway because of horse archers, and because I'd like to keep enemy chariots from pillaging and I don't want the ~75% odds a phalanx has on offense screwing me out of my city raiders or a shock phalanx. Like I said before, they're Vanilla axemen, except they carry pikes. They aren't really any better than....BtS axemen, because...again, I'd much rather bring a spearman or two along(they don't need any boosting promotion to do their job either...hello Medic!) anyways, because, IIRC, enemy chariots still have ~25% of winning, and considering how often stuff like 10 and 5 come up, I'd rather not risk 25...

I acknowledge your points, LoL. Maybe I play too much multi-player to think about the AI that deeply. When I play against a human, I prefer to dictate the flow rather than play on the defensive. The Greeks let you do that more than any other Civilization (Copper assumed).

You play any Chariot/Horse Archer civ and you are hoping your speed will reach them before they can get their spears fully online, you play any of the axe replacements, you hope you get there before Chariots come online. You play as 'mighty' Rome, you pray for Iron and hope that you settle a city fast enough to get your Praets out before being overwhelmed.

Greece: What can you do? No matter who they face, they are ready. And they have copper or iron to make it work. Lovely unit, indeed.
It never is countered. Always has a use. Is never vulnerable. Sounds like strength to me.

 

[Breunor]

Maybe you should also include the campaign of Pyrrhus (280-275 BC) into the list, as this might have been the first great clash between the roman and the greek world.

The romans lost 2 battles in italy against him (Heracleia, Ausculum) where they, despite losing the battles, were able to inflict heavy casualties on his troops (partly caused by his own war elephhants which, shortly before the end of the battle ran amok and moved aganst his own troops).
He then decided to move to sicily and defend the greek cities there against the carthaginans, probably a bad move as it gave the romans time to assemble a new army which finally defeated Pyrrhus at Beneventum, when he returned to italy.

Pyrrhus btw. was one of the leaders who didn´t neglect auxiliary troops. Aside from his hoplites he also had archers, slingers and cavalry in his army (and 20 indian war elephants).

Yes, these were important battles. While the Greeks had one of their best generals, the Romans inthe early third century weren't as good as they were in the second; yet the Romans essentially won (or lost the 'Pyrric' defeats) anyway. These are good examples.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[Slaughter]

I'm playing with the Greeks right now, and this, indeed, is SPAAAAARTAAAAAA!
I'm conquering the portuguese right now. Their Chariots were destroyed and they have no Axemen or Swordman, since I began my ofensive by cutting their Iron. This unit is just like the Praetorian: Strong, and with no effective counter. I wonder what would have happened if I started with the romans near...

 

[Seidrik_The_Gray]

It all comes down to speed. I've played through three games on the Terra Map setting (Most fun map for BtS IMHO) with the Greeks. At there best, you can rush two civs (2 games on Monarch, one on Emperor) with a good stack of Phalanxes (Under Alexander). I have yet to start a game where 3 civs were close enough to all be rushed prior to one or two of them pumping Axemen and Chariots at me.

My vote is that their STR should be 6. Also, give it +25% vs. Archer and Melee, and keep the defensive bonus vs. Chariots. This puts them in their rightful place during the Ancient Era, prior to Horse Archers, which would still counter them fairly well.

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

I wish they gave Phalanxs march, too. Ya, it'd be pretty overpowered, but sooo fun to play with!

 

[Seidrik_The_Gray]

As to the debate...Tactics...leadership...that is what you should all really be talking about. Pyrrhus and Alexander were excellent Greek military tacticians, that fought with the best technology and military techniques of the time. Unfortunately, for Pyrrhus, he made a Strategic blunder perhaps, complicated by the complexities of the Geo-political situation of his time and poor Strategic decisions made in Athens, considering Military spending and colonial support, etc...

I am not going to debate the flexibility and training and professionalism of the Roman Legions. For their time, they reigned supreme.

However, the Romans were also blessed by a deep supply of military leaders. Let's not forget that Rome was blessed with many Greek Institutions, not to mention what they learned from the Greeks in terms of warfare. Roman, built on this wealth and invested in it heavily. They took it to new heights.

However, mixed unit tactics and combined arms, when properly coordinated have huge synergies on the battlefied. Alexander understood that (and I disagree that he was overly aggressive or wreckless...) Just imagine what Alexander could have done with Praetorians, supported by Horse Archers and Catapults ???

It's hard to strip the leader from the tools used to handle the situation at hand. Additionally, you have to somehow strip the elements of the battle from the situation also...

Alexander was aggressive, because that suited the times. Bold and powerful moves were rewarded with routed enemies. Men looked to their leaders for inspiration, and Alexander provided that by again, being unflappable in the face of great odds and by acting as if he were invincible...and eventually believing that he was immortal.

Julius Ceasar was a Philosophical and Annalytical student of war. Roman organization can be argued to be the real strength of the Roman empire, even more so than the legions themselves, and I believe that the great Emperors were the ones who best personified this trait. Augustus, Julius...and a few others, whose names escape me atm...all were extremely organized.

When faced by a huge Cavalry charge, the legions didn't panic, they didn't run, they fell into formation. They maximized the use of terrain to their benefit...they ground you to a bloody and quivering mass, because at their finest, the legions were extremely well-trained, and battle tested, and their commanders were war-hardened veterans, well educated in the manner of war. They pulled apart your strategies and found every fault in your formation and in your maneuvers. They were immobile like a mountain or flowing like an ocean...whatever best suited the battle at hand.

The finest Roman Legion with the finest Roman Commander vs. the Finest Spartan Phalanx under the finest Greek Commander would ve won by the Romans simply because the Roman Legion represented a technical revolution in warfare tactics that was far advanced from the Phalanx, which was itself far advanced for its day.

Phalanx vs. Legion is not a debate...it's like comparing apples to oranges.

What you want to look at is Alexander vs. Julius Ceasar. I think these two men would be evenly matched if they both had the Roman Legions at their disposal. This is a worthy comparison.

 

[Seidrik_The_Gray]

I wish they gave Phalanxs march, too. Ya, it'd be pretty overpowered, but sooo fun to play with!

Fun, yes, but silly, lol.

I think I'm just going to mod my phalanx as I said and be done with it. I don't like flavor UUs. I like UUs that have a direct effect on the battlefield.

 

[Rusty Edge]

There are units such as the phalanx, legion, keshik , and redcoat that dominated the world they knew in their day. I expect to have a shot at doing just that when I'm using one of those units. If they have a higher base strength, so be it.

I'm quite pleased that the phalanx is now an ax replacement.

A march promotion was an idea to more accurately represent what Alexander's phalanxes achieved. I imagine the problem in gameplay testing was the surviving units being upgraded and retaining that edge until the modern era.

I'm currently playing as Alexander in the phalanx window, conquering my neighbor. The A.I. is countering with axmen. It doesn't really feel like I'm using a UU so much as an ax rush with a make-over. Granted, they are cheaper than regular axes, but it seems like the advantages come from the promotions( Alexander's aggressive trait ) rather than the unit itself.


I think it needs another tweak.

 

[Seidrik_The_Gray]

There are units such as the phalanx, legion, keshik , and redcoat that dominated the world they knew in their day. I expect to have a shot at doing just that when I'm using one of those units. If they have a higher base strength, so be it.

I'm quite pleased that the phalanx is now an ax replacement.

A march promotion was an idea to more accurately represent what Alexander's phalanxes achieved. I imagine the problem in gameplay testing was the surviving units being upgraded and retaining that edge until the modern era.

I'm currently playing as Alexander in the phalanx window, conquering my neighbor. The A.I. is countering with axmen. It doesn't really feel like I'm using a UU so much as an ax rush with a make-over. Granted, they are cheaper than regular axes, but it seems like the advantages come from the promotions( Alexander's aggressive trait ) rather than the unit itself.


I think it needs another tweak.

I'm with you and I wish I knew how to mod the unit. (I am looking over the guide to see if I can muck my way through it.)

I think the tricky part is giving the Phalanx some real power, while not making the Swordsman redundant for the Greeks. If I kept the Phalanx at 5 and added a free cover promotion, and a free shock promotion, in addition to what it already has in BtS, that makes it 6.25 vs. Archers and 6.25 vs. Axemen without any other promotions. This still leaves a potential role for Swordsmen.

Thoughts???

 

[Proteus]

I don´t think the Phalanx should receive Boni vs. Archers.

Phalanxes might have been good protected against arrows, but archers in their light armor were very flexible.
With the Phalanx lacking any far reaching ranged weapons the archers could play anice game of cats and mouse, shooting arrows and taking care to stay out of the range of the hoplites spears.
The hoplites would have to run slower (to keep formation and because of the weight of the armor) and would also get exhausted earlier than the archers and might therefore even outflank the hoplites.
As long as it is just a normal field battle and there is not a narrow passage which the archrs have to storm (like in the Thermopylae) I would seee the advantage with the archers.
What I would give them instead would be City Garrison I. Cities and fortresses with narrow passageways seem to be good terrain for Phalanxes if the enemy cannot outflank their positions and has to attack the phalanx frontal.