The recent Strategy Informer preview seemed to reflect a older version of the game. If its true that people can end up reporting on earlier version of the game then maybe the forbidden thread was also possibly reporting on outdated info. Maybe that is partially why it was forbidden. I hope it is because i think that the current phalanx is fine. No worser than the bowman. You just have to be smart with it. Plus i hate it when firaxis does non historical and non plausible unit and building replacements. They already got a horseback unit that replaces the chariot that is called the Immortal. The historical immortals were not mounted on horseback. Horseback units are not the same as chariot units. Horseback units could not plausably be available before the horseback riding tech. How moronic is that?!!!!! If firaxis does something similar with the phalanax i''m gona be seriously considering not buying this expansion. It can be ok to unhistorical sometimes but being unplausable is is unfun. A axeman is not a phalanx. If they wanna give the phanlanx some of the axeman's abillites fine. But at the very least they should be in seperate catagories so that there can at the very least be visual plausability.
I actually think thats the point of replacing units.
Im not sure how historically accurate this is, but didnt the greeks "not use" axes in battle? Weren't spears the primary weapon of choice for the ancient greeks? If that is so, wouldn't it make sense to take out the Axeman, a unit Greece probably didnt use, and replace it with its UU (Phalanx).
Seeing as how the Axemen is the primary offensive unit in Civ, replacing it with the Phalanx, the greek's primary offensive unit, makes a hellava lot of sense. Especially when you include the fact that historically, Hoplites (ive always just renamed the Phalanx to Hoplite), were exceptional fighters vs other Melee units, and particurally weak vs. horsemen. So for a Phalanx to replace a Spearman is pretty crazy, replacing an Axemen is much better. This remedies the fact that in the game Phalanx as a Spearman replacement, were weak vs Axemen and strong vs mounted.
Now they are Strong vs Spearman/Swordmen/Axemen and Weak vs Mounted, and are the Primary offensive unit for the Greek Empire, which is what they were in history.
The same can be done for the Mongal UU, the Keshik. Mongal's (and other Eurasian Steppe peoples) pretty much invented Horse Archery, its pretty rediculous that the Mongols, never get a Horse Archer Yea the Keshik replaces it, but the Keshik is armed with a Spear. Ive always thought the Keshik should replace the Chariot, since Mongal armies, didnt really use Chariots, the rocky terrain of their homeland would make chariot riding difficult.
Regarding the fact that with the Immortal, one can have a unit that rides a horse without horseback riding, I can honestly say, I never noticed that. As far as I know, Immortals, were unique in the sense they were very mobile and great fighters in close combat. I have no problem with them being a mounted unit since this would make them Mobile, However, I would have them be a replacement of the Horse Archer instead.
Its funny I actually did a lot of adjusting with these units in my own personal game.
else it would be op
; 1 
