Why Do Romans Deploy Checkerboard?

[Cheimison]

I noticed that the AI always deploys Roman troops in a checkerboard fashion. Now this would let ranged units shoot through the lines, but I velites are mostly out front or on the wings, and can't shoot at enemies in melee anyway. I don't understand why they wouldn't prefer a solid line that reduces frontage.

[jomni]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_i ... mnpl-1.png

[JorgenCAB]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_i ... mnpl-1.png

There are not that much point in doing this in the game since there are no real drawbacks moving units in a cohesive line. I bet that in reality it was really hard to get an extended line of troops to move as one entity. The Romans used this method so they could more easily move over the terrain on the battlefield in a speedy manner. They could also use it to shift forces around before the two sides met. They would obviously close these gaps and form solid lines in order to fight the enemy.

Alexanders phalanxes also moved in smaller sections and there considerable gaps between phalanxes in order to have them march quickly on the battlefield in loose order. In close order the gaps was generally filled with lighter infantry who would harass the enemy and protect the integrity of the phalanxes. The pike phalanx did not really fight like Hoplites in a shield wall, that actually made pike phalanxes easier to maneuver as they approached the enemy.

In the game a Phalanx or Hoplite gain as much or as little advantage from moving in this fashion as a Roman unit.

Many table top games give bonuses to morale rolls if you have friendly units in contact with your flanks, Field of Glory don't do that as far as I know. Some will also give movement penalties or at least make it problematic to move entire lines in unison. Not every game tries to do all these things but some do.

In general you would often read from historical battles where one side of an army act while the other just don't do much, this is often not a conscious decision by the general either.

[Cheimison]

There are not that much point in doing this in the game since there are no real drawbacks moving units in a cohesive line.

Yeah, this was the impression I got. I was playing an army mixed of medium hoplites and pikes, and all the weird formation did was shorten the Roman line and allow me to hing my entire left flank over and box their army in.
If the Romans did it historically I am sure they had their reasons, but those reasons don't seem to exist in this game.

Also I feel like the Triarii are relatively sucky in this game. They were like the most hardened veterans with the most ridiculous amount of armor, and they don't do so well in game.

[TheGrayMouser]

There are not that much point in doing this in the game since there are no real drawbacks moving units in a cohesive line.

Yeah, this was the impression I got. I was playing an army mixed of medium hoplites and pikes, and all the weird formation did was shorten the Roman line and allow me to hing my entire left flank over and box their army in.
If the Romans did it historically I am sure they had their reasons, but those reasons don't seem to exist in this game.

Also I feel like the Triarii are relatively sucky in this game. They were like the most hardened veterans with the most ridiculous amount of armor, and they don't do so well in game.

Checkerboard give more depth which should thwart most flank attacks. Your second line you can to some degree chose where to strengthen and make your main effort on the ist line, and where not too. With one contiguous line, even units not engaged really cant maneuver elsewhere ( unless you use fall back which is risk) I'm stumped how triarii seem like weak units to you. They are elite, almost never lose cohesion ( and thus don't die until auto break). They are (if you keep them as reserves) usually fresh and any unit that gets to them late game I usually in some sorry shape already . Now if you putting em in the front lines to square off vs fresh pikes/warbands....

[Cheimison]

I try to use them against cavalry. They do OK but I get better results from pike phalanx. Typically I place them on my refused wing.

[ShaiHulud]

The Roman army evolved and developed over several hundred years of combat against their Italian neighbors and Gallic invasions. Over time they discarded spears for swords and freely borrowed weapon and armor tech from those they faced. For a long time their wars were fought relatively near Rome and were not specifically for expansion. They frequently merely raided other Italian tribes. Their weapon was typically the spear and armor was far from common. Their tactic was simply a mass formation.

As they expanded and developed as a larger community they were confronted by other war-like tribes that were at least their equal, like the Samnites, some even superior. like the Etruscans. Their tenacity and perseverance eventually would wear down these and others. But, again, their military tactics had not evolved beyond basic phalanxes. The major impetus for change was a Gallic invasion that handily defeated them in battle and then sacked Rome, itself. Thereafter, there came a continual honing of tactical formations and weaponry, and command.

As to why they use the 'checkerboard' deployment, well, because it worked! They were able to meet their various enemies successfully without regard for their formations. Like the advantage of steel over iron, their formation provided a flexibility and stamina that gave them the margin of victory. It developed to sustain itself against hordes with their individual tactics, against elephants, against experienced infighters like the Spaniards, great horsemen, et al. They just kept refining it when confronted by something unexpected. It was simply the superior formation for their citizen armies. Backed by their continual reformation of weaponry, armor, and training, its only weakness would be in its commanders.

[vakarr]

You see the advantage of the Roman formation when your troops push back and follow up a Roman unit, only to find themselves isolated and surrounded by Roman units. The AI does a good job of using the checkerboard formation to decide where to attack since the units in the second line have a choice of three enemy units to attack when they charge, and can reinforce success. Overall there's nothing to complain about if you are the Roman player in this game, the Romans steamroll over everything regardless of terrain or troop type. I think the most obvious reason for the checkerboard formation is the encounter with warband troops who either follow through deep into the enemy formation or get pursued the other way - and in both cases the checkerboard formation helps. Seeing a Roman army advance on you in checkerboard formation is also somewhat intimidating, they look like soo many more troops!! In real life I think the checkerboard formation was used to compensate for idiot to average Roman generals who were elected to the job without necessarily having any aptitude for it. With these rules the dumb Roman generals also have the Gods on their side saying that battles like Carrhae must quietly be forgotten and light troops must not be allowed to do slippery things or attack Roman infantry!!!!

[vakarr]

Well I think that one of the strengths of these rules is that it is worthwhile deploying in a checkerboard fashion. It allows a lot of flexibility in your response to situations as the troops in the second line don't have to charge the unit directly to their front but can choose between any of the three units in front of them. It also benefits you when troops follow up the unit in front of them, as you can fill the gaps this creates. With the Armenian army I found another way it was useful, whereby every second unit deployed across the front could be a massed archer unit but not have it destroyed by the first charging enemy unit. Also I got to shoot up to three times with the archers before contact. The archers are deployed in the second line as shown below. As the rules allow the units on either side to charge the enemy in front of the archers, they are safe as long as you can arrange it so that you are three spaces from the Roman infantry in the final turn before they charge. I also deployed my line way out of range of the Roman artillery and a long way back, allowing more time to work on the Roman flanks before the Roman infantry hit me thus:

Advantage of checkerboard formation

Armenian formation.png (1.2 MiB) Viewed 3198 times

The AI co-operated by marching the Romans most of the way across the battlefield to meet me, and I got the best result yet against them, despite some awful things like pikes charging into the legionaries and immediately becoming fragmented and bouncing off. The AI helps also by sometimes just sitting there with some units and allowing them to be shot at, turn after turn - his elephant was got at that way, though maybe it couldn't charge the imitation legionaries straight ahead because I had another imitation legionary unit directly on its flank at 90 degrees to it. Having the bows in the second line worked a treat then, as they poured shot after shot into the elephants through the gaps in the line. There was one occasion when legionaries did charge the bowmen - they did huge damage, over 100 casualties but the bows managed to not break on the first round!