Stationary phalanx and Spear armed troops

[Stemak]

I’m a noob at this brilliant game. So some things are not making sense to me when taking into account my ‘Discovery Channel’ level of understanding of ancient warfare. Despite what I don’t understand I played for 6 hrs on my first play

1. I was playing a Carthaginian battle where I had a good cavalry advantage against the Romans but was outnumbered in infantry. So I decided to keep my line continuous and stationary holding the Romans in place until the cavalry had won. So no attacking forward as I just wanted to remain as a solid line. The Roman Velites did not hit my main infantry so I just had to absorb the legionaries charge. I was amazed that two units were pushed back on first contact, and within 4 or 5 turns my supposed line was a broken shambles. So they could not hold the Romans in place for any length of time. This was frontal destruction as my wings were pretty secure.

So was waiting for the Roman attack on my main line like this a big mistake? .... do I need to charge first even with a phalanx line and therefore run the risk of exposing a single unit that pushes the opposition back? I can’t imagine a block of say a Macedonian Phalanx doing this historically - but maybe there are examples. It feels like it should be a yes/no selection upon winning combat in the game.

2. Why do Cavalry allow themselves to run in to areas in pursuits over very long distances, even getting into areas that mean getting attacked from behind and in some cases destruction. It seems that this goes against a ‘self preservation’ thing that I would imagine would come into play before doing a headlong charge into a dangerously exposed situation. I do understand that over-commitment has cost some armies dearly - but over commitment seems a guarantee here in comparison. Almost a built-in mechanic that goes too far for cavalry.

So basically at points 1 and 2 I think self preservation is one thing that is kind of overlooked in the game when measured against my previously held ideas about what troops would do on a battlefield. The fear fracture is not there as I imagined.

[julianbarker]

1) It is oerfectly normal and historical for front lines to get disrupted in a battle like this. It is long time since I read Polybius (who fought in a pike phalanx), but I m pretty sure he mentions it.

Thanks to the wonder of the internet the text I was thinking of is found here in context -

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ,001:18:32

Now, whether the phalanx in its charge drives its opponents from their ground, or is itself driven back, in either case its peculiar order is dislocated; for whether in following the retiring, or flying from the advancing enemy, they quit the rest of their forces: and when this takes place, the enemy's reserves can occupy the space thus left, and the ground which the phalanx had just before been holding, and so no longer charge them face to face, but fall upon them on their flank and rear.

It matters not whether you charge or stand to receive, your line will be disrupted as soon as you or your enemy start to lose ground.

As Polybius mentions in the text that follows, the Romans are better at taking advantage of that than the pikes are.

That doesn't mean you can't win, but you need to chose your battles and have other units, such as lights and Thracians, to take the same sort of advantage of the Romans as the line breaks up.

2) This is a problem regarding cavalry throughout time. Once the enemy is retreating or routing in front of the it is hard to keep horse disciplined.

[rbodleyscott]

Thanks Julian. It is probably worth quoting the whole thing. Note particularly the last paragraph - contemporary Greeks also had difficulty comprehending how the supposedly invincible phalanx could be beaten frontally by Romans.

How the Romans Fight Against a Phalanx

For no speculation is any longer required to test the accuracy of what I am now saying: that can be done by referring to accomplished facts.

The Romans do not, then, attempt to extend their front to equal that of a phalanx, and then charge directly upon it with their whole force: but some of their divisions are kept in reserve, while others join battle with the enemy at close quarters. Now, whether the phalanx in its charge drives its opponents from their ground, or is itself driven back, in either case its peculiar order is dislocated; for whether in following the retiring, or flying from the advancing enemy, they quit the rest of their forces: and when this takes place, the enemy's reserves can occupy the space thus left, and the ground which the phalanx had just before been holding, and so no longer charge them face to face, but fall upon them on their flank and rear. If, then, it is easy to take precautions against the opportunities and peculiar advantages of the phalanx, but impossible to do so in the case of its disadvantages, must it not follow that in practice the difference between these two systems is enormous? Of course those generals who employ the phalanx must march over ground of every description, must pitch camps, occupy points of advantage, besiege, and be besieged, and meet with unexpected appearances of the enemy: for all these are part and parcel of war, and have an important and sometimes decisive influence on the ultimate victory. And in all these cases the Macedonian phalanx is difficult, and sometimes impossible to handle, because the men cannot act either in squads or separately.

The Roman order on the other hand is flexible: for every Roman, once armed and on the field, is equally well equipped for every place, time, or appearance of the enemy. He is, moreover, quite ready and needs to make no change, whether he is required to fight in the main body, or in a detachment, or in a single maniple, or even by himself. Therefore, as the individual members of the Roman force are so much more serviceable, their plans are also much more often attended by success than those of others.

I thought it necessary to discuss this subject at some length, because at the actual time of the occurrence many Greeks supposed when the Macedonians were beaten that it was incredible; and many will afterwards be at a loss to account for the inferiority of the phalanx to the Roman system of arming.

Note that this dislocation can be represented in the game on the macro scale by units routing or being pushed back. But it is also represented in the unit-vs-unit interaction where the greater flexibility of the Roman sub-units is partly responsible for the higher Roman quality rating and combat capability POAs. When a Roman unit disrupts a phalanx on impact, this represents the effects described by Polybios, but on the sub-unit scale.

[Stemak]

Thanks for the info guys. It’s good to know that my troops performing unwanted manoeuvres is more or less to be expected in certain situations. My concern was that maybe I was missing some mechanic that would allow me a tighter control.

I am waiting on the hardback book of the game to arrive - so no doubt these thing will become clearer when I read that.

The game is superbly tactical. It reminds me of the original turn-based combat mission games - like Barbarossa to Berlin. A totally different turn-based WEGO system, but as superbly tactical as those games. The more I think about it I would love to see that original Combat Mission engine/system used for an ancients game.

Thanks

[MikeC_81]

Also keep in mind most Roman lists are absurdly strong against almost all foot heavy armies in open terrain. Its not unusual for newer players to struggle against them if even a half competent commander is in charge of the Legions.

[vakarr]

Your best tactic when facing Romans is to retreat with your centre while you attack on the flanks. You can fall back one square each turn without turning without penalty if you are not in the enemy's charge reach. Alternatively, you can even deploy with your troops facing backwards and move away from the enemy that way (keep a careful eye on the charge distance - two squares - though). You will normally have more cavalry and light troops than the Romans, so you need to use the terrain to give you an advantage where possible, and destroy the flanking troops before your main line hits his. Once your main line hits, only veteran hoplites and pikes may be able to survive - if they are not disrupted in the first round, they fight better in hand-to-hand combat and should win in the end (there are exceptions though eg veteran armoured legionaries beat almost anything )

Remember the objective in Field of Glory is to pin an opponent with one unit, then charge that enemy in the flank with another unit.