When some say the Phalanx is better in BTS, I think it might be better in Vanilla...

[Illusion13]

I mean, in Vanilla, its like buffed spearman, that is effective against mounted units, indeed. However, now having it replace axemen, and giving it counter against chariots, I dont find it as good. I mean, the old phalanx already has a bonus against mounted units...

 

[Civfan333]

I'm not sure, if you're the Greeks, now you get the spearmen anyway.

 

[Ace of Gold]

i used to play greece too. its far worse than vanilla. and its not historically accurate,

 

[AfterShafter]

Look at it this way... Prior to horse archers, you don't even need to think against spearmen now. I think the old phalanx had more longevity (who cares if you have pikemen - old phalanxes were even good enough to stop knights). Early to very early new phalanxes rock the boat, but later on old phalanxes were better. Overall I'd take the new ones though...

 

[King of Town]

I wish they had march like the manual says though, that'd be even better

 

[Nay]

i used to play greece too. its far worse than vanilla. and its not historically accurate,

It is now.
The Phalanx was not about fending off cavalry charges, as those were not used in ancient greek warfare.
Phalanxes were the most effective infantry formation of thate time, and its only enemywas other infantry. So basically it was all about having trained the Phalanx formation better than your opponent.

So a greek (spartan) Phalanx that holds its own against other melee infantry (due to being Axemen) is the much more accurate than cavalry-counter. The bonusversus chariots is a bit off, they should just get another 25% against melee.

 

[pi-r8]

Are you kidding? As it is now, there is NO counter to the phalanx in their time period. How can that not be good?

The old Phalanx was just overkill. Instead of having a unit that killed horse archers, it gave you a unit that could REALLY kill horse archers. Color me unimpressed.

 

[AfterShafter]

Are you kidding? As it is now, there is NO counter to the phalanx in their time period. How can that not be good?

The old Phalanx was just overkill. Instead of having a unit that killed horse archers, it gave you a unit that could REALLY kill horse archers. Color me unimpressed.

There's no counter, per say... Rather, it's just an axemen on axemen war.

 

[Tlalynet]

Of course, then you see that Mayans get a counter calvary unit and the idea of history goes out the window.

 

[Verge]

I'd rather have an axeman without the chariot vulnerability than a buffed-up spearman.

 

[Diamondeye]

Of course, then you see that Mayans get a counter calvary unit and the idea of history goes out the window.

GOOD point! t's right, Holkan is ridiculous (sp?). I liked the old Phalanx better, I don't think it should replace axes.

@whoevermentionedthehistoricalcorrectnessofthephalanx:
If phalanx was the best infantry formation of that time, why can't all civs have it, that'd make sense?

 

[troytheface]

Civ3 hoplite was a superior graphic and a better idea. A beefed up spear makes sense.

 

[DigitalBoy]

I miss the old Phalanx for its ability to tear up horse archers and even war elephants, but the new one is great as well. Scattered axemen are never vulnerable when you're Greek (at least, not until horse archers).

 

[Illusion13]

Phalanx most useful infantry formation of all time? I thought the Roman Legionairs were able to completely nullify the phalanx...

 

[Defiant47]

I mean, in Vanilla, its like buffed spearman, that is effective against mounted units, indeed. However, now having it replace axemen, and giving it counter against chariots, I dont find it as good. I mean, the old phalanx already has a bonus against mounted units...

Spearmen are already effective against mounted units (especially because mounted units get no defensive bonuses). The vanilla phalanx gave you something you already have. At least the BTS phalanx gives you something you don't have: complete supremacy (since they no longer have a counter).

 

[Stuck in Pi]

Illusion- Apparently you've never played Rome:Total War. Phalanxes (the good ones, not the ones that were around when Rome conquered Greece) rip apart Legions of Rome, and even if you play as Rome, it is very difficult to kill phalanxes. With anything.

Which leaves me saying Phalanxes are perfect now.

 

[Diamondeye]

Illusion- Apparently you've never played Rome:Total War. Phalanxes (the good ones, not the ones that were around when Rome conquered Greece) rip apart Legions of Rome, and even if you play as Rome, it is very difficult to kill phalanxes. With anything.

Which leaves me saying Phalanxes are perfect now.

Completely offtopic, phalanx aren't hard to beat in R:TW. They are probably some of the easiest professional infantry to deal with. 60 archers in 2 groups can take down 160 hoplites. Without using more than 2 arrows each (no, not due to shooting, due to rear attacking).
Not including spartans ofcourse, these guys are monsters.

 

[Ace of Gold]

Completely offtopic, phalanx aren't hard to beat in R:TW. They are probably some of the easiest professional infantry to deal with. 60 archers in 2 groups can take down 160 hoplites. Without using more than 2 arrows each (no, not due to shooting, due to rear attacking).
Not including spartans ofcourse, these guys are monsters.

oh no hoplites are definetly tough. trust me i know

 

[Gooblah]

SO, a historically accurate phalanx would be an axeman replacement with:
Strength 5, +75% vs melee, +100% attacking mounted, -25% vs archery.

Okay, based on this:
Phalanx
Strength: 5
Movement: 1
+75% bonus against Melee Units
+100% bonus against Mounted Units
-25% bonus against Archery Units
Replaces Axeman

Thus, when attacking Melee Units, it would receive 8.75 STR; When attacking Mounted Units, it would receive 10 STR; When attacking Archery Units, it would receive 3.75 STR.

When defending a city with no promotions, an Archer receives 4.5 STR. This gives it an inherent .75 STR advantage. Not much, and if you give a City Raider I promotion to this Phalanx, it receives only a -5% (-25% from unit +20% from promotion) discount, creating a Phalanx with 4.75 STR versus an unpromoted Archer defending a city with 4.5 STR.

Plus, when using Alexander (who's still Aggressive in BTS, right? Haven't used Greece much in BTS), it'll receive Combat I automatically, opening up the Cover and Shock promotions, as well as City Raider.

Thus, using Lord Olleus's historical model, we have an Aggressive Phalanx which can get Cover, negating the Archer deficit.

Not to be annoying, but that seems a tad overpowered.
Based on the analysis, I would propose a still slightly accurate Phalanx model:

Phalanx (Gooblah's Version)
Strength: 5
Movement: 1
+50% bonus when attacking Melee Units
+100% bonus when attacking Melee Units
-50% when defending or attacking Archery Units.

The last line forces the Phalanx down to 2.5 STR when an Archery Unit comes around, giving the Archer an advantage both in terms of Rushing and pure defense.

 

[Tlalynet]

Im pretty sure the whole sword\spear\axe weapon triangle, weather Fire Emblem or Civ, is just a game mechanic. When I spar with weapons I find that the beter technique and preception usually wins, whatever the weapon is. If anything the spear has the biggest tennency to an advantage becasue of its lenght, though unless you have spikes on the upper portion of the shaft that can be countered with a grab. Dual weapons get a pretty huge advantage unless they are small. A heavy Axe Vs a spear though? Spear has a huge advantage, a heavy weapon usually takes both hands to handle well, and has most its power in the downthrust. Its hard to deflect a spear with a downthrust without geting your leg slashed, and its harder to up or side swing something heavy. Something heavy only excells at smashing up weak weapons and armor. Dont get me started on a Pike Vs a Mace...

Its just game mechanics for entertainment. Dont start thinking video games are real now...