Phalanxes replace Axemen WTF?

[G-Max]

In the real world, phalanxes used spears. In Civ IV and Warlords, phalanxes replace spearmen. Makes perfect sense, right? Why were phalanxes changed in BtS to replace axemen instead? Allowing the Greeks to build both phalanxes and spearmen, but not axes, is like allowing the French to build both Musketeers and Musketmen but not longbows.

 

[GGracchus]

Yeah, this is a ridiculous example of Firaxis logic(just like immortals replacing chariots). Phalanxes are macedonian, not greek, anyway. There are several mods that make them replace spearmen, like Dumanios's Ad Infinitum(phalanx is changed to hoplite and becomes a 5 strength spearman).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The real problem is that axes are a dominant ancient era unit in the first place. In reality, spears were THE military melee weapon of choice for most war prior to guns, where melee fell out of favor for somewhat obvious reasons (still happened, but not ideally, usually).

I do believe the original phalanx was a stronger unique. While unimpressive as a strict offensive UU, the current phalanx is only better when trying to defend against chariot attacks, and is actually no more effective attacking cities than a stock axe. Frequently it will be struggle more than a standard axe just because greek starting techs make an axe rush opening slow.

The original, however, was a 5 str spear, which picked up 100% vs mounted. This meant that even knights-era mounted struggled, and as part of a stack classical mounted attacking it were a joke. Its versatility meant it could be used better in an offensive role also, while still providing coverage against not only chariots but also horse archers. It wasn't a stellar unit, but it was an average-to-above one, whereas now it is average-to-below.

 

[noto2]

Why didn't Firaxis give Greece a str 6 melee unit at bronze working, instead of Sumeria??? That would fit Greece much better. As for Sumeria...hell, I don't know, they were the very first civilization in Mesopotamia, they pre-dated Babylon, I don't see why their UU can't be a warrior or archer

 

[Akbarthegreat]

Sorry.
I request a mod to delete this post.

 

[Akbarthegreat]

just like immortals replacing chariots

THAT was the most ridiculous. Good thing Rhye changed it[replaces spear; lesser hammers-even cheaper than an archer; and +100% vs archers].

Why didn't Firaxis give Greece a str 6 melee unit at bronze working, instead of Sumeria??? That would fit Greece much better. As for Sumeria...hell, I don't know, they were the very first civilization in Mesopotamia, they pre-dated Babylon, I don't see why their UU can't be a warrior or archer

 

[Rusty Edge]

Allowing the Greeks to build both phalanxes and spearmen, but not axes, is like allowing the French to build both Musketeers and Musketmen but not longbows.

Exactly. The French didn't use longbows, and the Greeks didn't use axes, although they did use various types of specialized spearmen.

 

[perhaps]

The idea was that the Greeks (all the Hellenic cultures) did make extensive use of spears, but were not renown for their use of the axe; having a Greek Civilization that runs about with armies of axemen is significantly less accurate than having the Greeks use two units armed with spear.

Phalanxes were designed to counter less dense formations (melee) and were the main type of warrior used in Hellenic warfare - much more accurate than axemen. Having them as the main offensive unit is better than their original use as hill-defending spears.

 

[GGracchus]

True, but it makes more sense for a phalanx to replace a spearman. Besides, there's more precedent in cIV for civs having ahistorical units: America with pre-gunpowder units? Aztecs with rifles+?

 

[Rusty Edge]

We've had this discussion before, on this forum and on Polycast, but I was unable to find it.

Perhaps I can summarize.

In the Warlords version you could march around the Mediterranean with Legions, but you couldn,t roll up Egypt, Persia and India with Phalanxes if you wanted to relive Alexander the Great. It wasn't exactly an offensive unit, it was best as a hill defender. There was a lot of grumbling from the gamers and historians alike.

Eventually I invited participants into a single thread to hash it out, and eventually a consensus was reached. Alexander's phalanxes were best described as anti-melee units with march promotions. A spear UU was wrong for it, because the counter to a Macedonian Phalanx was missile & flanking attacks, best described as horse-archers in Civ terms ( and spearmen were the only ancient units with a bonus against horse archers ) . Firaxis read the thread, but must have dropped the idea in play testing, because the civilopedia cites the march promo for phalanxes.

It must have proven too powerful( march promos retained as units upgraded), and they threw in that chariot bonus instead for reasons unknown. Also for reasons unknown, they swapped the graphics for the generic spearmen and macedonian phalanx so that they were wrong.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The idea was that the Greeks (all the Hellenic cultures) did make extensive use of spears, but were not renown for their use of the axe; having a Greek Civilization that runs about with armies of axemen is significantly less accurate than having the Greeks use two units armed with spear.

Phalanxes were designed to counter less dense formations (melee) and were the main type of warrior used in Hellenic warfare - much more accurate than axemen. Having them as the main offensive unit is better than their original use as hill-defending spears.

So....

Which competent historical army featured primarily axes?

 

[danjuno]

So....

Which competent historical army featured primarily axes?

Egypt

Bronze bladed axes began to appear in the infantry at this time. They were constructed with blade affixed into grooves on long handles. This was a weaker connection then the axes made by their contemporaries that feathered a hole through the axe head that the handle fit through, but it served their purpose of slashing unarmored troops and hacking through hide covered, wood framed shields. New infantry mercenary troops, called Maryannu, were hired from the Levant during the end of the Middle Kingdom.

Sumeria

A carved conch plate shows the king of Ur armed with a socket axe. The development of the bronze socket axe remains one of Sumer's major military innovations, one that conferred a significant military advantage. Ancient axe makers had difficulty in affixing the axeblade to the shaft with sufficient strength so as to allow it to remain attached when striking a heavy blow. The use of the cast bronze socket, which slipped over the head of the shaft and could be secured with rivets, allowed a much stronger attachment of the blade to the shaft. It is likely that the need for a stronger axe arose in response to the development of some type of body armor that made the cutting axe less effective as a killing instrument. Further, Sumerian axes by 2500 B.C. clearly show a change in design. The most significant change was a narrowing of the blade so as to reduce the impact area and bring the blade to more of a point. The development marks the beginning of the penetrating axe, whose narrow blade and strong socket made it capable of piercing bronze plate armor. The result was the introduction of one of the most devastating weapons of the ancient world, a weapon that remained in use for two thousand years.

 

[Old Hippy]

So....

Which competent historical army featured primarily axes?

Harold at Hastings.... competent you say well ... they were 3 days before at Stanford Bridge

 

[The_Reckoning]

I think we should all come together and design a much better tech tree. There's loads of things which are just silly in Civ4's. I need to play some Rhye's and see if he fixed all the things which annoy me.

Ancient armies should have lots of spearmen and a few axes/swords as shock units, cavalry for open field battles, infantry to assault cities.

This is how I feel it should work in all eras:

Outside the city walls:

Horseman > Archer
Archer > Spearman
Spearman > Horseman
All > Catapult

Defending the city walls

Archer > Horseman/Spearman
Catapult > Archer
Horseman > Catapult

Here's the most annoying things:

Chariots fighting across rivers and in forests
Axemen being the dominant ancient/classical unit
Immortals -> Chariots
Phalanxes -> Axemen
Longbowmen everywhere for defending cities
Near-useless Ironclads but not Dreadnoughts
Archers/Longbows purely defensive units
Catapults die on the attack
Everyone builds Oxford University, Wall Street etc. instead of something generic like 'National University' or 'Financial District'

 

[Akbarthegreat]

Cannons with steel, you are just a tech away from artillery. They played a very important part IRL, but in game they are almost useless. Another good thing RFC fixed.

 

[HorribleHarald]

Cannons from steel is an another big joke from Firaxis. Traditionally they were build from bronze or iron. It would be better if we could get cannons just reaching gunpowder tech or (new) metallurgy tech between engineering and steel with gunpowder. Perhaps this would be too close to trebuchet and then trebuchets are short-lived like cannons now.
Just wonder these things like phalanxes are axemen and immortals are riders instead of heavy infantry.

 

[Um the Muse]

On catapults losing to everything in the open field, does that really make sense historically? I thought that there were various anti-troop siege weapons? Onagers, ballista, that sort of thing. Then again, maybe it's a matter of scale. The animation for CR promoted units shows siege towers.

On bronze cannon, yeah, bronze is far better for cannon than iron, iIrc. But didn't steel step it up a notch? Speaking of bronze, it would make sense for it to require both copper and tin. From what I remember, bronze was actually stronger than iron at the time (depending on what alloys were in the iron), but was much less used due to the sheer inavailability of copper and tin.

There are a lot of other historical inaccuracies unrelated to warfare, too. At the end of the day, you just have to remember that it's just a game.

 

[yuchai]

I am ignorant about the historical application of cannons, but in the game I think they are used pretty extensively and have a good shelf life. Getting steel early is often game winning.

People saying they are just a tech away from artillery are assuming that rifling is available, which is probably untrue if going early steel.

 

[Ataxerxes]

On catapults losing to everything in the open field, does that really make sense historically? I thought that there were various anti-troop siege weapons? Onagers, ballista, that sort of thing. Then again, maybe it's a matter of scale. The animation for CR promoted units shows siege towers.

On bronze cannon, yeah, bronze is far better for cannon than iron, iIrc. But didn't steel step it up a notch? Speaking of bronze, it would make sense for it to require both copper and tin. From what I remember, bronze was actually stronger than iron at the time (depending on what alloys were in the iron), but was much less used due to the sheer inavailability of copper and tin.

There are a lot of other historical inaccuracies unrelated to warfare, too. At the end of the day, you just have to remember that it's just a game.

Agree with most. It is just a game (admittedly a great one) and not everything will be perfect. However, most catapults could attack from range but were dead meat up close unless they had protection, especially from mounted units (CivIV partially reflects this). I think that, for the most part, it makes sense. In CivIII they were just captured.

 

[em jay]

Yeah, this is a ridiculous example of Firaxis logic(just like immortals replacing chariots). Phalanxes are macedonian, not greek, anyway. There are several mods that make them replace spearmen, like Dumanios's Ad Infinitum(phalanx is changed to hoplite and becomes a 5 strength spearman).

The phalanx was a Greek innovation, around 650 BC iIrc, Phillip II/Alexander just ramped it up a notch with longer spears, better cohesion and cavalry support.

em jay