eric_
Emperor
Actually, maybe they should replace the axeman, since historically they were strong against melee units, but weak against mobile units (which would've been chariots at that time, which happen to have a bonus against axemen in CIV).
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
Inaccurate phalanx
- Thread starter General Failure
- Start date
Actually, maybe they should replace the axeman, since historically they were strong against melee units, but weak against mobile units (which would've been chariots at that time, which happen to have a bonus against axemen in CIV).
General Failure
Warlord
Yes, and that seems to leave the balance of the game intact, at first glance. I don't have the manual at hand, but it sounds correct. And it would put the phalanx formation in its proper niche of being an anti-melee unit.
I'd be curious to hear any objections to this from people who have these intricate relations and the game balance properly in their heads.
General Failure
I'd be curious to hear any objections to this from people who have these intricate relations and the game balance properly in their heads.
General Failure
Hitti-Litti
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 3,767
It wouldn't be pretty clever, after all they were spearmen. Greece didn't have axemen, though. Swordsmen they did have.
eric_
Emperor
Horse Archers are replaced by Numidian Cavalry (which have spears), Knights are replaced by Camel Archers, Archers are replaced by Skirmishers (spears), etc.
Since it's a unique unit, I think it'd be OK to replace axemen with a spear-wielding unit and then let them have regular spears, too (which may be the only drawback). Might have to make shields a prominent part of the graphic so they're easier to differentiate.
Since it's a unique unit, I think it'd be OK to replace axemen with a spear-wielding unit and then let them have regular spears, too (which may be the only drawback). Might have to make shields a prominent part of the graphic so they're easier to differentiate.
Skitters
Prince
General Failure said:
I think the crux of the problem is how do you simulate how a unit fought when combat is resolved by players taking turns, and then sending individual units in one at a time, rather than having the whole stack participate in combat?
Until such a time as Civ has a combined arms form of combat (I know there is a mod out there now), then there will likely always be a number of inaccuracies with how troops will be represented in order to balance the gameplay
Maybe the problem is that units only have 1 stat for combat that dictates EVERYTHING they do in combat
In previous civs they had Attack and Defense... though the bonuses help with that, I don't see any that specifically say all defense or all attack - it's usually only city attack or city defense
a +50% defense in general would make a str 4 unit be str 6 when attacked
In previous civs they had Attack and Defense... though the bonuses help with that, I don't see any that specifically say all defense or all attack - it's usually only city attack or city defense
a +50% defense in general would make a str 4 unit be str 6 when attacked
Eskel
Warlord
Just like Skitters noted, we cannot solve some nuissance tactics problems, as long as Civ would use unit vs unit combat system.
Then we should answer the question: do we want to have historical units, or playable units. The fact is hoplites formed in phalanx were an ultimate power in ancient times, they could stand successfully against all types of enemies, and Alexander the Great conquests werent coincidence.
If we would have sth like this in game, such unit should be almost invincible against all other ancient units with the only exception of legionnaries. This would allow Greek in almost every game to make rapid expansion. So, if we were playing Greeks it would be too easy, if AI - we would lose only because of unfortunate starting location.
I think giving additional melee bonus for hoplite is appropriate, but I am all the time worried whether it wouldnt broke the game. Needs playtesting.
If sombody wants to try, he can find related fragment from CIV4UnitInfos.xml below:
Then we should answer the question: do we want to have historical units, or playable units. The fact is hoplites formed in phalanx were an ultimate power in ancient times, they could stand successfully against all types of enemies, and Alexander the Great conquests werent coincidence.
If we would have sth like this in game, such unit should be almost invincible against all other ancient units with the only exception of legionnaries. This would allow Greek in almost every game to make rapid expansion. So, if we were playing Greeks it would be too easy, if AI - we would lose only because of unfortunate starting location.
I think giving additional melee bonus for hoplite is appropriate, but I am all the time worried whether it wouldnt broke the game. Needs playtesting.
If sombody wants to try, he can find related fragment from CIV4UnitInfos.xml below:
Spoiler :
General Failure said:
Rome actually had the worlds first police force. The vigiles. They were organised into cohorts in over 5 "stations" around the city. They were organised to stop any riots, murders and also put out fires as well as many other duties.
Also the Phalanx should not have a hill bonus really if we want to talk accuracy as they were actually terrible in hilly terrain. When Rome attacked Greece in one famed fight where the legions were losing, as they pushed the Greeks into the hills their phalanx lost formation on the hilly terrain and the more skilled more flexible Romans cut them to shreds.
Interesting discussion though.
General Failure
Warlord
Dominico said:
Yes, it is an interesting discussion. I've learned something from this thread. One of the reasons I play CIV is because I love history. I'm not really a history buff and I know CIV is not realistic, but it remains a fascinating game for me.
About vigiles: the main function of the vigiles was to serve as a fire brigade. They patrolled the city to watch for fires and put them out. In a city as large as Rome, there was a constant threat of fires, so that threat was taken very seriously. The vigiles also served as anti-riot units...however, they were not armed, except for their firefighting equipment.
About the battle: I think you are referring to the battle of Pydna, am I correct? That was a classic example of what happens when the phalanx looses formation. As soon as the troops can no longer keep their formation, and the enemy can get in between them, the phalanx is in deep, deep trouble, as is very well illustrated by the battle of Pydna.
General Failure
General Failure
Warlord
Khamul said:
Khamul, I owe you an apology. It seems you were correct. Augustus did create two new institutions for the city of Rome, to keep public order. One of them was the vigiles, which primarily had a firefighting function, but also served as night watchmen, patrolling the streets of Rome.
The other institution was that of the cohortes urbanae, or city guard. They were 2000 men, under direct order of the praefectus urbanae, or city prefect. This man was also a senator, hence the cohortes were under direct senate control. The cohortes urbanae were charged with keeping the peace in public places. However, they seem to have been largely ineffective and did not patrol the city of Rome, other than public areas. They also were not charged with solving crimes.
It appears Rome did have a police force, so you were correct. Thank you for bringing it up, which made me look into it a bit more closely.
General Failure
Eskel
Warlord
Back to the main topic: I was thinking about hill bonus matter, and finally come to conclusion that it should be removed. Hoplites (particularly early one) sometimes benefitted from terrain features, but in most cases lose.
So, hoplites could be str 5, +100% mounted, +50%melee. Removing hill bonus would balance this unit properly.
About battle of Pydna: I am not sure if the terrain was an only cause of Macedonian's defeat - I would point at terrible command of Perseus as most important reason. Note, that phalangites (sarissaphoroi to be exact) pushed Romans back when fighting 1 to 2, as almost half of the Macedon forces wasn't prepared for battle. Moreover, hoplites didnt simply lost their formation on hills, but advanced without flanks being protected, what Romans immediately used (and after that phalangites lost formation).
Romans were many times beaten by hellenistic type armies, e.g. Hannibal's or Pyrrhus'. Thus in my oppinnion their final success was rather an effect of strong resource and manpower base, then effectiveness of army or single formation only. Of course, legion organization was better than hellenistic army, but slightly - not that much as some people imagine.
So, hoplites could be str 5, +100% mounted, +50%melee. Removing hill bonus would balance this unit properly.
About battle of Pydna: I am not sure if the terrain was an only cause of Macedonian's defeat - I would point at terrible command of Perseus as most important reason. Note, that phalangites (sarissaphoroi to be exact) pushed Romans back when fighting 1 to 2, as almost half of the Macedon forces wasn't prepared for battle. Moreover, hoplites didnt simply lost their formation on hills, but advanced without flanks being protected, what Romans immediately used (and after that phalangites lost formation).
Romans were many times beaten by hellenistic type armies, e.g. Hannibal's or Pyrrhus'. Thus in my oppinnion their final success was rather an effect of strong resource and manpower base, then effectiveness of army or single formation only. Of course, legion organization was better than hellenistic army, but slightly - not that much as some people imagine.
General Failure
Warlord
Khamul said:Yeah, cohortes urbanae was mentioned in book called Emperors of Rome (in finnish). I couldn't check it when I writing about it, but good to know I was right.
Yep, credit where credit is due!
General Failure
Warlord
Eskel said:
I agree, it is incorrect. The problem with hills is that they make the phalanx loose formation. As soon as that happens, the hoplites are in trouble. It's very hard to defend yourself with an 18 ft. spear, when your enemy is 3 ft. away with a short sword.
If there is a whole line of guys with an 18 ft. spear, plus 4 guys behind that who are also carrying an 18 ft. spear, it's quite a different story.
General Failure
aelf
Ashen One
I think the hill defense bonus is a nod to either Thermopylae or the Greek concept of acropolis. Maybe both.
Skitters
Prince
General Failure said:
As a defensive bonus, I guess the implication is that the phalanx has effectively chosen where the battle is to take place and that as such would have had the opportunity to choose a suitable spot where they can hold formation.
If the phalanx has positioned itself on the brow of a hill - which the enemy unit must charge up to engage - then those 18 foot spears from multiple ranks are not exactly going to be easy to bypass in order to get within three feet.
Olleus
Deity
Eskel said:
Hanibals army was made up mostly of mercenaries and barbarians, and very few of those thought in a hellenistic formation. I also don't think you can say that pyrhus really beat the romans, it was more of a draw.
Also, the advantage the legions had was there ability to attack flanks quickly. It is that advantage which makes them supperior, as during a battle the probability that one of the huge phalanxes will show its flank is very high. It just shows that movement > strength.
General Failure
Warlord
Skitters said:
Definitely, that's true for pretty much any army. If you pick the spot where to fight, you are at a tactical advantage. Look at the 300 Spartans, who managed to hold off a much larger Persian force, simply because they chose a spot that could be easily defended. Napolean was also a master at choosing the right spot to fight, where his army could be most effective and/or where his enemy was at a serious disadvantage.
I have no problem with a defensive bonus.
General Failure
Eskel
Warlord
Lord Olleus said:
It wasnt so simple. The opposition phalanx-easy to outflank vs manoevroable legion is a kind of school's truth. Simplification made to quickly explain problem.
First, there were at least two kinds of phalanx - original greek from V-IV century, armed with 3-3,6m spear, armour, large shield and sword, but more universal and flexible, and macedonian sarissaphoroi (or pedzetairoi), armed with 5-6m spear, light armour, small shield and dagger alike sword.
Sarissaphoroi were very specialized unit, excellent to stop enemy and engage him in fight, but depending on other units which should in the meantime protect their flanks and conduct flanking attack. They could be effective only in well coordinated and trained army, that successfully implemented combined arms doctrine.
Second, good commanders like Philip, Alexander, Hannibal or Pyrrhus could use (and used!) them quite flexible and covered weak points with lighter troops with ease. You say, Hannibal's army consisted of barbarians - but for Romans every nation but theirs was barbarian. Iberians, Libyans, Celts, latin allies were all as civilized as Romans that time. Moreover, his army was organized in Hellenistic pattern, and great victory at the Cannaes was achieved much in the way of hellenistic combined arms.
Third, Pyrrhus - we shouldnt follow roman historians' lies about him, as they wanted to diminish his greatness. He won at Ausculum and Heraclea, and most probably at Beneventum - though Romans said it was their victory, it could be such only in strategical sense as Pyrrhus couldnt continue his campaign. The fact is, that Romans were so scared of him they didnt even try to take Tarentum until his death. Why he lose? Well, he had to fight for power since his childhood, and having initially nothing, he became one of the most important Greek leaders. Because of continuous wars and very little resource base, he had been short on money and men for almost all the time. To get what he needed, he fought successfully against Romans, Carthaginians and Antigonos in Greece. He could still win, but had just bad luck and got incidentally killed at Argos.
Fourth - Romans' army wasnt that far from phalanx as many people thinks. Initially it fought in typical combined arms order with phalanx formation. They changed it however after many fights with Iberians, who used guerilla tactics against them. It wasnt opposition to greek phalanx and combined arms though, I would even say it was more logical evolution of original idea. They simple put more attention to the heavy infantry, armed with swords and well protected with armour and large shield as much more capable in close combat and less vulnerable to ambush. They didnt resign of spearman though - armed with long hastae triarii still played vital role in Roman warfare. Similarily to hellenistic armies, success of the whole army heavily depended on collaboration between units. The main advantages of Romans were morale, manpower and cheap yet well trained citizen army. Even if they lose several times - as was in Hannibal's and Pyrrhus' cases - they could replace each lost soldier with two new ones, while their enemies not. I would also add, that Hannibal and Pyrrhus were great personalities and functional scheme of their armies were an effect of individual military genius. In Rome, army organization was a matter of state, so great leaders died, but army organization stayed for centuries.
A few things i disagree with in here, Beneventum was a victory for the Romans since Pyruss had to retreat and then return to Greece.
The battle of Beneventum was in 275BCE, Tarantum was captured before the end of the year by Rome. Pyruss died 272BCE three years after the defeat and capture of Tarantum so the Romans did not wait "Scared" until he died. Pyruss' strongest asset had been his elephants. He also was paid well enough and had enough support to press pretty large armies pretty quickly. He managed to get 70,000 together for the battle of Asculum!!! He had few manpower issues. The Romans were just a strong people who would not buckle. Even after losses in a battle their will to fight was not diminished as other kingdoms were, this was their advantage.
Celts, iberians etc could not be said to be as civilized as the Romans or Greeks in the common usage of civilized. They were not lesser people, but didnt have the same standards of life, wine, baths, and the architecture of Rome and Greece etc all of which are "civilized" things. So, for the time they were "barbaric".
There was absolutely NOTHING "hellenistic" about the battle of Cannae, troops, formation or actions of the battle. Lightly armoured Iberians and Celts in the centre, africans infantry in the flanks, and Hannibals battle winning cavalry on the wing. A formation designed to buckle in the middle under the pressure from the romans, but he was gambling that they would hold long enough for his flank troops to enclose them and his own cavalry to finish with the other cavalry.
It was an amazingly perfect encircling manouver which is taught today in military schools as one of the most brilliant pieces of generalship. Wish i was as good in wargames lol.
The battle of Beneventum was in 275BCE, Tarantum was captured before the end of the year by Rome. Pyruss died 272BCE three years after the defeat and capture of Tarantum so the Romans did not wait "Scared" until he died. Pyruss' strongest asset had been his elephants. He also was paid well enough and had enough support to press pretty large armies pretty quickly. He managed to get 70,000 together for the battle of Asculum!!! He had few manpower issues. The Romans were just a strong people who would not buckle. Even after losses in a battle their will to fight was not diminished as other kingdoms were, this was their advantage.
Celts, iberians etc could not be said to be as civilized as the Romans or Greeks in the common usage of civilized. They were not lesser people, but didnt have the same standards of life, wine, baths, and the architecture of Rome and Greece etc all of which are "civilized" things. So, for the time they were "barbaric".
There was absolutely NOTHING "hellenistic" about the battle of Cannae, troops, formation or actions of the battle. Lightly armoured Iberians and Celts in the centre, africans infantry in the flanks, and Hannibals battle winning cavalry on the wing. A formation designed to buckle in the middle under the pressure from the romans, but he was gambling that they would hold long enough for his flank troops to enclose them and his own cavalry to finish with the other cavalry.
It was an amazingly perfect encircling manouver which is taught today in military schools as one of the most brilliant pieces of generalship. Wish i was as good in wargames lol.
Similar threads
