Inaccurate phalanx

[Louis XXIV]

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.

It was true of Medieval Pikemen and Haldabiers.

The phalanx (and also spearman) were not anti-cavalry units, they were anti-infantry units.

True. In the ancient world, the best thing to combat mounted units were generally mounted units (who were placed on the flanks).

I have no problem with it in the game, though, since it makes the nice rock-paper-scissors balance.

 

[Loki cdn]

While it is plausable that Phalanx's would have had a significant advantage over calvary, I agree with General Failure that the bonuses given to the phalanx unit are inaccurate for the following reasons.

Cavalry of the period lacked two things, stirups and cantled saddles. Therefore they did not have the leverage necessary to use weaponary sufficient for a frontal charge on a deep phalanx. Cavalry's primary roles where Flanking, engaging the other side's cavalry and taking out the oppositions missile force.

A frontal charge onto a deep phalanx would have been suicide since no horseman would have been able to keep his seat on his horse as he crashed into the line. Therefore for the most part they where never used that way except in desperation. Although no significant battle of the period comes to mind where such a charge occurred.

Citing the example of various phalanx's ability to pivot (ie the Spartan's) is also not applicable since a flanking attack by Cavalry would always been accompanied by a frontal attack upon the phalanx to immobilize it.

The bonus vs mounted and for hill defence more accurately describe a Scottish schiltron or a Swiss Mercenary unit both of which where remarkably successful against horse on their own with suplimentary support.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

In ancient world cavalry was countered by cavalry, until the Romans showed up. They had a superior cavalry, which they used against infantry too, and that changed the ancient warfare.

 

[Underdawg]

Remember that the Greek Phalanx was different from the Macedonian Phalanx. In a Greek Phalanx, the weapon is a 8-12 foot spear while in the Macedonian Phalanx, it is a 18-22 feet pike. They fought differently. In the Macedonian fashion, the Phalanx line was merely supposed to keep the enemy in place while the cavalry flank and charge at the enemy (in this system, the cavalry is the offensive arm). In the Greek phalanx, the hoplites (the infantry) are the offensive arm with the cavalry being the support units (fending off flankers).

Just kinda annoyed me when people put the two fighting styles together in their posts.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

If you REALLY want to nitpick, here we go.

One of the most common misconceptions about pre-industrial warfare was how pointy sticks worked against horses. The key is, it's not the sticks, it's the people. See, horses are not predators, and even if you train them by trampling slaves, during and actual charge, riders do not actually like horses knocking soldiers head on, because a much better way to do it is to run *between* soldiers and knocking them off the sides, letting the riders behind to join in. Horses don't like hurting themselves, nor are they very aggressive to begin with, unless the rider is gone and they are caught in the middle of a group of soldiers.

In order to execute a charge, there must be some loosening of a formation. Most of the time footman ran, moved to the sides or pushed their way behind their peers, as a charging horse was a scary sight, the obvious instinct being move or die. Of course, this endangers the whole group, as horses are much more willing to trample men that are running away. But sometimes well-trained formations stood still, and the horses would end up slowing down, losing all their mobility, so one had to find ways to encourage formations to loosen up. Chariots used composite bows, Hittites used simple bows, Celts used darts, Baltic tribes used javilins, and so on, as missiles were also good at undoing a formation and demoralizing a group before melee combat began, morale being so important in the past.

Assuming you know what a phalanx is (as opposed to just a shield wall), you can see why cavalry didn't work very well. First of all, your shield didn't protect yourself, but the person next to you, and you are protected from arrows by the one to your right. The more darts thrown at this formation, the closer the men would huddle together. Pointy sticks also gave men confidence and a sense of security against anything in front, so as the infantry formation closed in and the cavalry had to charge, they would either run away faster, demoralizing their own infantry, or charge, and see their horses slow down and then get poked to "death a thousand spears". The aggressive Greek hoplite formations would make that decision for you.

Romans didn't even need the spears - their supreme discipline and courage was enough. The Romans, when facing charging horses, would stay slient, and then when the horses were close, suddenly let out a short war cry in unison, immediately followed by throwing the pilum. They would then slowly move forward, and the horses would run in fear. You could read about how the Armenians lost.

Do note that my argument only holds for spears and pikes. For other polearms such as bills, halbards or a dozen other types of polearms that the Chinese used (for a civ that fights horseman all the time, you'd expect them to have all sorts of polearms right?), it WAS the actual weapon that did the damage, so my argument doesn't hold there. But still, they needed to stay in formation first obviously.

 

[Eskel]

Macedonian phalanx was a response to Greek warfare - since there were no unit or formation that could beat them, Macedonians, who were fighting Greeks simply used the same formation, but with longer spears. So, it was phalanx conter-phalanx formation, yet less manoeuvrable than its predecessor.

BTW, lets look where we had gone: we got into very nuissance details, while combat in Civ 4 is very simple, and units ...its huge euphemism...non-historical . For example axemen - there was no such unit in the Mediterranean cultures, but in game there are. Moreover, weren't spears effective against infantry as well? At the end all medieval warfare tended into pikes and halberdiers, with support of cavalry and early gunpowder weapons. In fact, the biggest problem for greek and roman infantry were ranged opponents (look for example at Krassuss defeat), not axemen.
Paper-rock-scissors mechanics is very playable, but not ideal, nor exact. It cannot resemble some tactic flavours. We cannot have everything we want now, maybe Civ 5 will show sth more complex, yet not boring.

Hoplites should be str 5 unit, with +100% against mounted and from +25 to 50 against melee. Why?
25% will make them equal to axemen after fortification, but not in attack;
50% will make them much better in defence and equal in attack vs axemen, and a nice counter balance unit against Roman legionnaires (5*150% = 7,5 vs 8)
If somebody want to increase advantages of mounted unit from flanking, maybe should try to implement new promo for mounted: additional +25 against spears after flanking I (maybe flanikng II should have such extra bonus).
Wouldnt it be more "accurate"?

 

[Papa Lazarou]

if anyones unhappy about the phalanx not being called hoplite and the praetorian/legionary, have a look in my sig!

 

[aelf]

Why does the Phalanx need a bonus against melee? It is not a weak UU. It kills chariots and HAs without question, since it's stronger than a normal spear, and it's strong vs. anything except anti-melee when defending on hills. Don't forget it's actually a reliable counter to elephants. In fact, the Phalanx is one of the longest-living UUs in the game as they can still hold their own against knights two eras later. In the very early game in SP, a Phalanx = an axeman and can be used to rush neighbours with only archers. And they are not afraid of chariots.

Do you want/need clones of Praetorians for every civ or something?

 

[SpartanEvolved]

The phalanx is only strong before axemen. Which is only a few techs later. The phalanx was voted the 5th worst UU, so trying to say it is strong is arguing against the common opinion.

Nobody is saying make it a clone of the Praet, just make it more useful than the regular spearman!

 

[aelf]

The phalanx is only strong before axemen. Which is only a few techs later.

Err... How are you trying to use them? Are you looking to use them as the backbone of your army?

The phalanx was voted the 5th worst UU, so trying to say it is strong is arguing against the common opinion.

The common opinion is not always right. I would vote the Phalanx as one of the 5 best UUs. Anyway, using the unsubstantiated opinion of others as the basis of your argument does not prove you right.

Nobody is saying make it a clone of the Praet, just make it more useful than the regular spearman!

It is more useful than regular spearman. What are you talking about? What's the point of giving them bonus against melee anyway? You want them to beat axes and become broken? You want them to replace the role of axemen? You want to use them against other spearmen? It makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[General Failure]

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.

Hi UncleJJ,

You forced me to think again on my position, which is always very welcome, thanks!

You are absolutely right in saying that pikemen and such units were the defacto defence against horses, pretty much up to the invention of firearms. But the keyword here is defence. You can't use pikes against cavalry in an offensive way, unless you have some way of pinning the cavalry down and doing a pike-charge.
The way pikes were traditionally used was as a defensive shield against charging cavalry. They work very well in such a way, because no one would send his horses charging into a pike-wall, unless they had absolutely no other choice. If the pikes were supported by some form of missile troops, like archers, and the pikes could hold their formation, a frontal cavalry charge would be suicide. But the pikes were used in combination with other troops and their main purpose was to shield other troops from approaching cavalry, while other troops shielded the pikes from being flanked.
The use of pikes you are describing, fits better for medieval times though.

Now if we look at the way the phalanx formation was used in ancient Greece and the way cavalry was used in ancient Greece, we see a major difference.
I think we've already established that the hoplites were anti-infantry units, not anti-cavalry units. The reason why the Greeks (and other ancient civilizations) did not need pikes against horses, was because cavalry in those days fought differently from the way cavalry fought in later times. As someone has already said in this thread, cavalry did not perform direct charges into enemy formations, because of the lack of stirrups and a proper saddle for this purpose. So cavaly performed flanking attacks, harassing other units with spears and bows. They also performed charges at enemy cavalry or skirmishers.

You will see now why the phalanx formation is pretty much powerless against this type of flanking attack. They can not turn fast enough to face the horses, so their shields do not protect them. I agree with you that if the cavalry would do a frontal charge into the phalanx, it would probably be a different story. If the ancient cavalry could flank the phalanx and get close enough to use bows and spears, they'd probably have easy targets, wreaking havoc in the rear lines of the phalanx.

Of course then we get down to this: how do you imagine your army, represented by the unit in the game, actually looks? If the Greek phalanx unit actually represents that, a phalanx unit, then I do not agree with the bonus against horses. However, if you imagine that the phalanx unit actually represents a phalanx with auxillary forces (archers, cavalry, skirmishers), then the situation looks different. Maybe I've been thinking about the unit too literally, as just a phalanx unit.

I'm still not convinced that a phalanx could hold its own against flanking cavalry, though. The formation was much too rigid to do that.

General Failure

 

[DevilJin]

Phalanx is a great UU because he can beat war elephants and even knights(not 100%, but can) with the help of the aggresive trait of alexander , so you don't really need Pikemen with greece.

 

[General Failure]

One of the most common misconceptions about pre-industrial warfare was how pointy sticks worked against horses. The key is, it's not the sticks, it's the people.

What you are saying is quite true. The pointy sticks only work if the people handling them will stay in formation. This however, is my point exactly.
Because a phalanx has to stay in formation, it is in serious trouble when it is flanked by another unit, be it horses or something else.

Ancient cavalry did not perform direct charges into phalanx formations. They were used to harrass phalanx formations from the side or rear. In medieval times, yes, you are absolutely correct. In ancient times (before the stirrup), cavalry fought very differently.

General Failure

 

[Eskel]

About hoplites and horses:
The fundamental single operation unit of phalanx was syntagma - 256 men fighting in square 16 x 16 rows. They were able to turn quickly and took out horsemen, especially original greek hoplites from V-IV century b.c, as they carried heavier armor and bigger shields than macedon phalangites, and were more versatile and universal unit, thus more capable in hand to hand combat.
The excellent example of this is the march of 10 thousands (anabasis) by Xenofont. The unit of 10,000 men, mainly hoplites, during their march home from Persia (over 1000 miles!) survived for 8 months continous attacks of much more numerous enemy. Persians had at their side many different formations, including archers and cavalry.

 

[Khamul]

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.

That is not true. There were police force in Rome, public kohorts (or something like that). Augustus founded them. They were lightly armed soldiers, who keep peace in the city.

 

[General Failure]

That is not true. There were police force in Rome, public kohorts (or something like that). Augustus founded them. They were lightly armed soldiers, who keep peace in the city.

I think you are referring to the three cohorts of the Praetorian Guard, created by Augustus. They were assigned to the city to act as a police force. They were called the city cohorts (cohortes urbanae). However, they being Praetorians, they were military, not police officials.

I suggest you take a look at this book: http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521383277

General Failure

 

[Khamul]

I think you are referring to the three cohorts of the Praetorian Guard, created by Augustus. They were assigned to the city to act as a police force.

So? Like you said: "to act as a police force."

Even today in many countries there are no clear differences between police and military.

 

[General Failure]

So? Like you said: "to act as a police force."

Even today in many countries there are no clear differences between police and military.

"Act as" is not the same as "is"

 

[JrK]

I'll just point out that if you give the spearman or phalanx a significant bonus to melee it will lose any counters.

 

[the_elf]

If you're looking at one unit of phalanx versus one unit of mounted troops, the mounted troops are screwed.

If you look at the scales involved, the game says nothing about how many troops are involved with each unit. It is plausable that a unit of phalanx could maneuver well enough to handle a unit of mounted troops.

Where phalanx suffers is when it has to face two units of mounted troops. They can track and keep up with one bunch of horses, but not two.

If anything, you typically think of a phalanx as a defending unit, not an attacking unit. I find more fault with a phalanx getting +100% versus mounted when attacking mounted than anything else. If you wanted to revise it, make it +100% defending mounted.