An Invincible Beast - Book Review

[mceochaidh]

This is a deep look at the Pike Phalanx at war from the age of Philip II and Alexander until Rome conquered all. Written by Christopher Mathews. this Pen & Swords book has much of interest. There are entire chapters on the Sarissa, the Phalangite Panoply, Drill and much more. There are many illustrations and photos of kitted out phalangites. Over 400 pages of highly detailed information on how the sarissa was held, its probable length, how the body was oriented, organization of the phalanx, space occupied. Of great relevance are the chapters on drill and the phalanx in battle, including against the Romans.

The author quotes Arrian regarding the ability of the phalanx in 335 BC as "Alexander arranged his men in formation and then he gave the infantry the order to raise their pikes vertically then, at his command, to extend them for battle, and now by inclining to the right, closed up the spears, and then back again to the left. The whole phalanx moved smartly forward and then turned this way and that." There are about 10 pages of discussion regarding drill ( and further discussion in later chapters) that brings one to conclude that a drilled phalanx, made up of its sub units, could carry out highly intricate maneuvers. It was only when pikes were lowered by the first five ranks, that these abilities were impaired. Since the order to lower could be carried out quickly when closing on enemy, it appears that until that was required pikes were kept up and the ability to wheel and turn was not impeded. There is also a discussion in the chapter "The Pike Phalanx in Battle" , page 353: However, the literary evidence shows that the phalanx was capable of varied and detailed movements, both in the time of Alexander and the later Successors. Futhermore, it is clear that the use of the herald, the standard bearer, the aide-de-camp and the trumpeter as means of delivering instructions and to maintain the formation, allowed the commanders of the phalanx to carry out the details of any battle plan, adjust them when neccessary, and adapt the flexible units of the pike-phalanx to the changing naturs of the battlefield, both easily and with a certain level of sophistication."

There are also discussions of the grueling training of phalanx, both in marching and in constant use of weapons. Philip II, in particular, emphasized the need for fitness and strength, allowing his phalangites to outlast the enemy in combat. This indicates a high esprit de corps and above average quality. The battle record also reinforces the probable higher than average quality of the phanlangites in the armies of Philip, Alexander and the Successors.

The Roman versus Macedonian period discussion has some interesting information. In the author's analysis, "According to Polybius, the Romans formed their lines with an interval of three greek feet of free space on either side of each man. and from front to back, in order to provide him with enough room to fight." This is "open order" or twice the space occupied by files of the phalanx. This would allow greater width in the Roman force, allowing their depth to be used to flank the phalanx. As the phalanx was designed to be a holding force that also could slowly grind down opponents rather than a shock force, time for the lines of the phalanx to be become uneven would allow the Roman reserves to be used to flank or penetrate the line. By 200 BC, the Hellenistic armies had become more infantry weighted, which hindered the ability of its cavalry to flank enemy. However the phalanx with secure flanks, moving at a steady determined walk into combat struck fear into its enemies, so provided some psychological "shock."

The combination of Roman pila and gladius was deadly if the phalanx became disrupted by the pila. If this did not occur, the author states in closing "When strengthened by a united front, and with its wings protected, the phalanx was almost unstoppable as long as the cohesion of the line was retained. The use of semi-independent units and sub-units meant that, rather than being a solid, rigid line, the pike-phalanx possessed a level of tactical flexibility and adaptability which allowed it to perform on almost any terrrain. The formation's weaknesses lie in its inability to turn (when sarissas were leveled) and face new threats, the gaps that would form in the line and the inadequacy of the phalangite in individual combat (at close quarters) should those gaps be exploited.

How does the game represent, in particular, the legion versus phalanx confrontation, which in many ways has always been the most interesting era of ancient warfare? One must not forget that the phalanx dominated ancient warfare for about two hundred years. In my opinion, the game works fairly well. However, I would make the following suggestions for consideration:

1. The phalanx, if drilled, should be able to move and turn as well as drilled hoplites, as long as it was presumed to have its sarissas upright. Therefore I suggest that the free turn should be allowed to the drilled phalanx until they reach charge distance, at which point they would lose it. So perhaps at the beginning of each move, if there is no formed enemy foot within four squares the phalanx would get the free turn. It moves two squares, so it could then move these two squares up to the distance to charge the next turn or be charged by formed foot. I suggest that formed enemy cavalry would cause the test to be taken at six squares, with diagonal moves in each case counting as one square. I am sure there may be a more elegant way to achieve this but it would give the phalanx an ability it evidently had.

2. The early phalanx until, I think, about 300 BC, was composed of highly trained, high morale warriors. I think these troops should be rated as Above Average quality.

3. The cost of the phalanx compared to Romans seems too high. Average pikes cost 72 points. Above average Hastati with some armour cost 61 points. These troops are also drilled. I think an equivalent cost for average pikes should be 60 points, the same as for Veteran Hoplites. If the pikes are given the free turn, I think the cost should be 64 points. Even so, the Hastati usually win against both the phalanx and the Veteran Hoplites, in my experience. I think the cost of Veteran (superior) Pikeman should be reduced to 88 points with free turn. Compare this to Veteran (superior) Romans with armour at 78 points. The Romans almost always win.

I am aware of the discussions regarding pike changes earlier and would like to hear other views on this as well.

[Schweetness101]

you mention

... that brings one to conclude that a drilled phalanx, made up of its sub units, could carry out highly intricate maneuvers. It was only when pikes were lowered by the first five ranks, that these abilities were impaired. Since the order to lower could be carried out quickly when closing on enemy, it appears that until that was required pikes were kept up and the ability to wheel and turn was not impeded.

which leads to your first suggestion of making pikes maneuverable, but having them lose their maneuverable status (or equivalent ap/turn) within a certain range of the enemy. I think this is an interesting suggestion. It would mean gameplay wise that pikes could advance towards a new position as fast as their contemporaries until they got within charge range about, ie so you could set them up pretty quickly on the more kind of operational level of war, but couldn't use them as well for flanking on the tactical level as more maneuverable infantry like legions. That would seem about right I guess.

In the author's analysis, "According to Polybius, the Romans formed their lines with an interval of three greek feet of free space on either side of each man. and from front to back, in order to provide him with enough room to fight." This is "open order" or twice the space occupied by files of the phalanx. This would allow greater width in the Roman force, allowing their depth to be used to flank the phalanx.

does he mention their depth? what do you think the unit size in total men should be for the in game pike units?

As the phalanx was designed to be a holding force that also could slowly grind down opponents rather than a shock force, time for the lines of the phalanx to be become uneven would allow the Roman reserves to be used to flank or penetrate the line.

what do you think about the changes in the pike mod that 1) reduce opponent POAs and 2) decrease mutual casualties between steady pikes and any other non light infantry, and improve CTs between them? does that seem to fit their historical role of slowly grinding down opponents? That was the idea anyway, to make them hold things up much longer.

"The combination of Roman pila and gladius was deadly if the phalanx became disrupted by the pila. If this did not occur, the author states in closing "When strengthened by a united front, and with its wings protected, the phalanx was almost unstoppable as long as the cohesion of the line was retained. The use of semi-independent units and sub-units meant that, rather than being a solid, rigid line, the pike-phalanx possessed a level of tactical flexibility and adaptability which allowed it to perform on almost any terrrain. The formation's weaknesses lie in its inability to turn (when sarissas were leveled) and face new threats, the gaps that would form in the line and the inadequacy of the phalangite in individual combat (at close quarters) should those gaps be exploited."

so perhaps Pikes should not be losing effectiveness from terrain disorder (any more than other heavy infantry that is)? Should we assume those gaps consist of both 1) flanks opening up as some pikes push forward or are pushed back/routed and/or b) assumed gaps within a pike unit once it is disrupted? That is, pikes should, relative to other heavy infantry, suffer more from flank attacks and from being disrupted?

I also agree they need to be lower cost than in vanilla, but to balance that they would need to be made weaker in some other respects of course. Higher quality in addition to their significant manpower advantage would make it very difficult to justify lowering their cost. What do you think about these changes from the pike mod:

1) +200 POA and -2 CT for 90 degree flanks against occupied pikes (instead of the +100 for everyone else explained in the flank angle bit)

2) Pikes no longer lose POA from manpower losses

3) Pike POAs:
Pikes have 125 base impact and 100 base melee POAs
Pikes get 100 poa when charging mounted shock troops if they are not disrupted or disordered at all (preserving previous vanilla POA balance in if they initiate charge while steady against lancers)
Pike Impact POA is reduced to 75 if disordered/disrupted and 0 if severely disordered/fragmented
Pike Melee POA is reduced to 50 if disordered/disrupted and 0 if severely disordered/fragmented

4) Imposed POA reductions:
Offensive/Defensive spears have Melee POA reduced to 75 vs steady pikes
Swordsmen have Melee POA reduced to 75 vs steady pikes
Impact Foot have Impact POA reduced by 100 vs steady pikes
Impact POA for Mounted Light Spear reduced to 0 from 50 vs steady Pikes
Elephant Impact POA reduced to 150, and Melee POA reduced to 50 vs steady Pikes
Reduced Heavy Weapon melee POA vs steady pikes by 25 points (so 75 or 85 for unarmored or armored heavy weapon respectively)
Removed +50 Lancer (light and heavy) poa vs steady pikes on impact that Lancers initiate (still 100 if pikes initiate)
Removed the extra +50 swordsmen poa that cataphracts get vs pikes in melee

5) Pikes are 720 men, 3 rows, average quality (except veterans), undrilled heavy foot, protected if Raw and Some Armour otherwise

6) Casualties in infantry Melee vs steady pikes mutually mitigated by 25%

7) Removed ability of Pikes to form square

8 ) Removed -1 to CT modifier for pikes when charged by impact foot

9) Added +1 to CT for average and above quality non-pike heavy foot vs pikes

10) Changed prices to 44, 58, and 76 for Raw, Normal, and Veteran pikes respectively.

11) Additional -1 CT modifier to medium foot (med foot, warriors, bowmen, light foot and mob) against steady pikes in the open

12) Additional -1 CT modifier to non-steady pikes. This would be on top of the -1 that everybody gets if disrupted, but would also occur if disordered by terrain as well.

13) Additional -1 CT modifier for pikes with threatened flank

I am aware of the discussions regarding pike changes earlier and would like to hear other views on this as well.

what do you think about one of the main controversies in that thread about the depth of the pike formation in combat vs while marching and what it should be in game?

[SimonLancaster]

This is a game and not always 100% historical, I think. You strike that balance between gameplay and historical accuracy. I think for me it must be 80-90% accurate although I am not an expert of the period.

I think pikes v Romans is about okay. Most pike armies do well in this game as they should. Against the Romans it is tougher but again - that is as it should be, I think. Yes, people could argue on this thread for tweaks and they may be correct.

[edb1815]

I am reading that book now. I read his earlier book on hoplite warfare, "A Storm of Spears". Very detailed and well researched. I would say that because of the great detail one has to suss out what would be applicable to a game the scale of FOGII. For example we already have units of pike as oppose to one big phalanx which could represent the division of the phalangities into maneuver units. Another example would be the ability of a pike unit and I am thinking of a higher level than the syntagmata (the name escapes me), to move while formed in hollow square. In game the pike unit cannot move, but should that be changed? When looked at relative to other units and the time scale possibly the movement is just too slow? I think for game purposes you have to look at the interaction between different unit types with different fighting styles.

[mceochaidh]

Schweetness said:

"does he mention their depth? what do you think the unit size in total men should be for the in game pike units?"

According to Livy and Polybius, Roman cohorts of the time were composed of maniples drawn up in 3 lines: triarii at the back 3 deep, principes in the middle 6 deep and hastati in front 6 deep. Velites were spread in front of hastati. Each man occupied 6 square feet, so total depth of the 3 main lines was about 90 feet. The principes lined up in the gap behind hastati. This would allow the hastati to fall back into the gap behind the principes if pressed. If the fight got to the Triari, so the saying went, there was real trouble for the Romans.

There was a long discussion of depth of phalanx in the book. 16 wide and 16 deep was the basic unit the syntagma. 4 of these made a chiliarchia of 1024 men. This is the size of a phalanx unit in the game. Due to the flexibility of the sub units the phalanx could form 32 deep move to 16 deep and then 8 deep. Alexander used an 8 deep formation to be wide enough to face the Persians, as did later generals. Although other depths were mentioned, such as 12 deep, the 16 deep formation seemed to provide the density required for the role the phalanx was intended to play. As the phalanx moved steadily forward, the sarissae heads would move slightly. From the view of enemy looking at this impressive force coming at it with moving blades, a sort of shock effect was projected. Even the Romans were in awe. It is said Polybius wrote his books to explain how the Romans could have possibly beat them!

I will answer you other questions soon, running short of time. Thanks for the response! I think you and Pete are doing great work.

[mceochaidh]

In answer to the general questions from Schweetness, this is my overall view of the phalanx when confronting Romans:

First of all, the pike unit portrayed in the game is is the chiliarchia of 1024 composed of 4 syntagmas of 256 men 16 deep and 16 wide. Total width would be 64 men, each man in intermediate order of 96cm or about 1 meter, so total width would be 64 meters. The game uses a square of 60 meters, so this is about right for a width of 64 men. Depth for phalanx of 16 deep was about 16 meters to 20 meters, so about 1/3 of the square in game. The Romans facing them were 32 men as they occupied twice the space. As the combatants approached, according to Livy, multiple attacks by Romans using pila could ensue. Referring to the battle of Pydna, Livy says these multiple attacks caused the Macedonians to "meet the repeated charges of maniples with their front dislocated in many places." It is assumed that the Romans advanced the Hastati, who all threw pila, then retired behind the Principes, who threw their pila and retired until the phalanx was drawn onto rough terrain of the foothills and gaps in the phalanx started to develop, which the Romans exploited. Then Livy also says "if the whole line had made a general charge against the phalanx while still unbroken, as the Paeligni did at the beginning of the action against the Royal Guard, they would have spitted themselves upon their spears and been powerless against their massed attack." I think this may answer two of your questions. First, the phalanx could be disrupted along the line during the initial confrontation. If charged in flank while engaged to the front, they would almost certainly be disrupted or fragmented. However, if the pila attack did not disrupt the phalanx or cause an advance into rough ground, then the mele phase should probably be won by the phalanx. This also answers the question of the phalanx and rough terrain. In the book by Mathews, he discusses the phalanx being able to fight very well on uneven terrain, such as slopes. However, I don't think he would include rough terrain which would cause more difficulties.

Before considering your changes, do the existing rules portray all of this? At impact, a Roman Hastati unit, above average, with some armour at 61 points has a combat strength of 480 men. Their impact POA is 200 and receive, I think plus 25 for quality. The average pikes at 72 points have a combat strength of 480 men and get 100 for 3 ranks plus 100 for 4th rank. Slight advantage for Hastati. According to the tool tip, the pikes win 7% and lose 18% of the time. If they lose, they take a cohesion test and need to roll a simulated "6" to pass. Because they lost to impact foot, they have -1 and if lost big (greater than 5%) another -1. If this occurs, they have an even chance to fail test and become disrupted. Since the Romans don't have the additional -1 for losing to impact foot, advantage Romans in impact. I think that extra -1 may cause the pikes to have more double drops against Romans as well. However, I think the end result tallies with the account by Livy above. If the multiple pila attacks create an opening that can be exploited in the line, disruption will result. I also think the treatment in rough terrain is accurate.

So I think the result after the impact could be as follows: Assume 10 pike units at 72 points costing 720 points against 10 Hastati at 61 points or 610 points. The Romans have 110 extra points to put Triarii or Italian foot behind their line. Assume after impact 2 pike units are disrupted and fall back or pushed back and two further pikes are just pushed back or fall back. One Hastati is disrupted and pushed back and one further Hastati is just pushed back. The line now has gaps and this creates lots of opportunity for Triaii or Italians to get into position to flank charge. This seems like what occurred at Pydna, although evidently at Pydna, some broken terrain also disordered the phalanx.

I plan to do some further play testing using vanilla game and then take up what happens in melee.

[mceochaidh]

I think a bit more detail would be helpful regarding the impact phase of phalanx versus legion, particularly as regards the use of the famous "quincunx" or checkerboard formation. Duncan Head, in his very excellent "Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars", explains that "The chief purpose of the intervals was to allow one line to be relieved in combat by the troops behind...if the hastati were defeated they would disengage they would retire between the gaps between the maniples of the principes. Likewise the principes would retire between the gaps of the triarii." Head then adds: "It is highly unlikely, however, that the maniples normally fought with these intervals between them, as the danger of small units being outflanked and swamped must have been great. Livy indeed says that when the triarii entered battle they closed up and fought as a solid line, and no doubt the others did too." Head also surmises that, due to the division of maniples into two centuries, called prior and posterior, that they may have formed with the prior century formed in from of the posterior century "but when they advanced to fight (in close combat) the posterior centuries would move up in line with the prior, filling the gaps and presenting a solid front. When a line withdrew, the posterior centuries would break off first and resume their rear position, allowing the maniples to retire through the gaps in the line behind.

Head also adds interesting detail regarding the phalanx versus legion discussion: "Against the Macedonian phalanx volleys of pila usually failed to disrupt the formation...This was the typical result if legion met phalanx head on with intact formations. The Romans would try to cut their way through the hedge of pikes with swords, or force the pike points aside with their shields or their bare hands, but they would generally not succeed because of the sheer number of pikes facing them - five points projecting in front of each file of Macedonians - any many pikes would become firmly embedded in Roman shields, keeping the legionaries out of sword reach. A shoving match would result, to the advantage of the deep phalanx formation. Rome's victories over Phalanx armies were won because the phalanx became disordered and then the greater flexibility of the small Roman units and the heavier armament of the Roman swordsman gained the victory."

Now to some testing.

[Schweetness101]

In answer to the general questions from Schweetness...

Ok thanks for the reply.

when you say that:

It is assumed that the Romans advanced the Hastati, who all threw pila, then retired behind the Principes, who threw their pila and retired until the phalanx was drawn onto rough terrain of the foothills and gaps in the phalanx started to develop, which the Romans exploited. Then Livy also says "if the whole line had made a general charge against the phalanx while still unbroken, as the Paeligni did at the beginning of the action against the Royal Guard, they would have spitted themselves upon their spears and been powerless against their massed attack."

It seems in that brief description that the Hastati/Principes behavior in that instance was more like the Velite/light javelinmen behavior in game? IE throw pila and then retire, passing through the ranks behind you, as contrasted with in-game where Hastati throwing pila is part of their impact foot ability, that is it is always tied to charging, and not an independent javelin throwing ability (in game Hastati cannot throw spears and then retire without charging of course). It also sounds like it took more than a single volley to break up a pike line? That is, the in game equivalent of the above historical description would be to use velites to disrupt a few pike units with volley after volley, and then charge them with Hastati/Principes, as contrasted with just relying on the hastati charge. It could be interesting to see some hastati unit implementation that allowed them to throw javelins without charging, and then when charged to back away, but I don't see that happening and I think that sort of thing is supposed to be abstracted away and/or relegated to dedicated javelin units.

In the vanilla game you are typically dependent instead (as Rome against pikes) on getting impact disruptions, and the idea being that those are like mixed pilum throwing and charging in, and if you get an in game disruption on impact that is supposed to indicate that the pilae successfully disrupted the pike line I guess. But that doesn't really reflect the historical description of the hastati throwing pilae and then retiring repeatedly. I guess in real life the flexibility of the hastati was a bit greater than in game, and they could adopt a looser formation for throwing pilae and retiring (ie skirmishing) when needed, but in game you cannot have hastati throw without charging, or retire in the face of pikes when within throwing distance the way light infantry can. Hastati in game are also usually not "powerless against their [pike] massed attack", and instead even if there is no initial disruption they just stay in combat and stick it out awhile doing ok-ish because of their greater quality and armor. Maybe there should be some much greater incidence of falling back from pike units if an impact fails to disrupt them? that would nerf pikes pretty hard though by giving impact foot repeated opportunities to charge. I guess the abstraction is supposed to be including little micro fallbacks within the melee itself without showing it, I think someone mentioned that before.

Part of what I'm getting at is that the vanilla game incentivizes straight attacking a pike line with hastati, hoping for a disruption somewhere, but that does not really reflect the real life tactics well as far as I can tell. It also means that to prevent pikes from being ahistorically defeated by impact foot with frontal charges in open terrain, and to make sure they generally win ensuing melees over time with impact foot/swords, the pikes need really high impact (and melee) POAs at +200 each, which, when combined with their high unit count, necessitate making them way too expensive to be able to match your opponents frontage. It also means that they are ultra powerful against non impact foot infantry. It also means that they lose their POAs from casualties rather than from being disordered or disrupted, which I think is also not quite right (part of the idea of having so many men in a pike unit in the first place is that there are ready replacements in further back ranks who can step forward to ensure that there are 5ish ranks of Sarissas out front at all times)

The result I find is that instead of using pikes as a wide pinning force of reliable professional infantry who hold out a long time so that elite Macedonian/Thesallian cavalry can get around, they are instead a narrow elite wrecking ball used for charging and breaking the enemy line themselves. And I also find in vanilla that as Rome you are incentivized to just attack pikes straight out in open terrain and hope for a disruption, rather than using masses of javelinmen to disrupt pikes or to draw them into rough ground. IE, the in game result is almost like the opposite of what it seems like it should be historically.

Part of what the mod does is make the pikes decrease opponent POAs, especially impact POAs, instead of having a high POA themselves (if steady) and decrease mutual casualties (if steady), and decrease their unit size, so that they can be cheaper and more plausibly disruptable with ranged fire, and in greater number (of units not men per unit) to match the frontage of their contemporaries, so they can serve a pinning rather than winning role, so long as they remain steady (in the mod, relative to other units, pikes are much more vulnerable to disruption and terrain disorder because it reduces their POAs/imposedPOA reductions, and they receive more CT negative modifiers for being flanked/flank threatened/non-steady). That's the idea anyway, and I've found it basically works out in single and multiplayer games. I've found that in playing games with the mod, the Pikes really do work well as a pinning force on open terrain, and can hold out for more than long enough for cavalry flanks to get around, but don't beat the enemy infantry themselves unless things drag out a very long time, and if you mess up and let one of the pikes get flanked or drawn into rough terrain or disrupted with ranged fire, and a gap in your line opens up then, you are in serious trouble because of the ensuing POA/CT loss from being non steady.

On another point, does the author mention the Pike/Hellenistic armies being able to match the frontage/width of the Roman armies specifcally? I know you mentioned generally that

Alexander used an 8 deep formation to be wide enough to face the Persians, as did later generals. Although other depths were mentioned, such as 12 deep, the 16 deep formation seemed to provide the density required for the role the phalanx was intended to play

So, if an historical Chiliarchia covers 64 meters of frontage with 1024 men (64 wide and 16 deep if I understood correctly), but a Roman Maniple or whatever was both half as densely spread (32 men in the first row across 64 meters of frontage, instead of 64 men in first row across the same frontage?), and also less deep (right?), then how could the Macedonians ever hope to match the Roman frontage? Does he mention the Macedonians transitioning to being 8 men deep and 128 wide for melee against Romans?

I guess the in game 480 man infantry hastati unit is meant to be 4x120 man maniples, each of which is supposed to be 40x3 ranks? arranged in a square ie 2x2 maniples? I'm just not sure, but if so that would mean the roman 480 man in game hastati units are 6 deep and 80 wide as a whole? I'm confusing myself a bit with the numbers and comparing the historical to in game ones (the in game pikes are 960 so close-ish to 1024), but it seems like if the Macedonians wanted to fight 16 deep, and with half the frontage per man, in real life against the Romans, then they would need an enormous demographic advantage to match frontage? That seems sort of implausible? That's the big controversy from the old pike discussion that was never really resolved. The result is that it's kind of difficult to know what unit size to translate a real life chiliarchia into in-game. The game seems to use a Roman unit of 4x120 man maniples or 480 men as the standard non light infantry unit size, but what percent of a chiliarchia would match that frontage and thus be one in-game unit as well? if the 480 man Roman unit is two maniples deep, each of which are 3 men deep, and thus 6 men deep total, then it should be 80 men wide? If the pikes need twice as many men to cover the same frontage as the Romans, then they should be 160 men wide to match them, but a 960 man in game pike unit divided by 160 men is only 6 men deep. If the 960 man unit is supposed to be fighting 16 men deep then it is only 60 men wide, which would be the same width as only 30 Hastati, which means less than half the width of the in game unit. You see my confusion here?

If we have take the 960 man pike unit in the vanilla game, but now assume it is fighting 8 men deep, then it is 120 men across or the same frontage as 60 Romans, and thus more plausibly matching their frontage, but then the in game unit size would seem to be representing fighting 8 men deep? because they match the same frontage in game (one grid square) as the 480 man Roman unit. Is the twice the frontage per man of the Romans the correct multiple?

Ultimately though, what matters is that the simulation approximates real life by motivating the right tactical behavior, and I don't find that the vanilla game does that for the pikes vs hastati matchup. That is more important than having the exact right unit sizes. Really, other than hastati/legions, what other historical unit does 480 men represent? but it is used for most non-light infantry, my point being that not only should we not be married to the exact right unit size, but that most of the vanilla game isn't either. 720 man unit sizes for warband and 480 man unit sizes for breton foot etc...are more or less arbitrary. The right tactical outcome on the whole is what matters. That's why I used 720 man pike units for the mod, because it gets the right outcome that I was going for when combined with everything else.

One in-game issue with relying on pushbacks you mentioned is that I think they only happen once per close combat (impact+melee), and they need to happen twice to open up a flank if you are starting from a straight line. I think they used to happen more often, leading to somewhat more historical behavior for hastati vs pikes matchups, but also leading to other drawbacks that saw that feature removed (it was before my time).

[Schweetness101]

sorry that turned into a much longer and more repetitive essay than I had intended

[mceochaidh]

Lets look at this from the perspective of a chiliarchiae of the phalanx moving up to confront a Mid-Republican Roman cohort, composed of perhaps 2 maniples of hastati each of 120 men, 2 maniples of principes of 120 men, 2 maniples of triarii of 60 men and 240 velites. The phalanx units would be proceeded by light skirmish troops, covering its 60 meter front, say 200 of them with the usual javelins or slings. The Romans had been approaching and stopped to plant their standards some distance away and the velites of about 200 men went forward. to confront the Macedonian lights. In all probability, the velites would win this fight. Behind the velites would be the prior century of 60 Hastati in open order, 10 files wide 6 deep. Behind the prior century would be the posterior century of the hastati also 60 men in open order 6 deep. These are lined up in the gaps of the 6 foot wide areas occupied by the prior century to allow the flow of men to the rear. So the width of the formation is also about 60 yards. Assume it matches up to the width of the phalanx. Some distance behind the hastati formation but if using the quincunx formation for the legion would be the two centuries of the principes maniple arrayed in the same manner. and behind them, lined up behind the hastati would be the single century of the triarii. So the Roman formation of one of its maniples would look like this:

TTTT - Triarii, 6 men deep and 10 wide in close order
P P P P - Principes posterior century, initially 36 feet deep and 60 feet wide to allow troops to withdraw through them
P P P P - Principes prior century, initially 36 feet deep also ( 6 men deep and 10 wide)

H H H H - Hastati posterior century, initially 36 feet deep and 60 feet wide to allow troops to withdraw through them.
H H H H - Hastati prior century, initially 36 feet deep also (6 men deep and 10 wide).

V V V V V V V V V

Lets assume the velites drive off the Macedonian lights prompting the phalanx to advance against the velites that remain. These snipe at the phalanx and then withdraw through hastati. If the phalanx moves up slowly, the proir century may send picked troops to throw pila at the phalanx, then withdraw. This could be followed by more picked hastati throwing pila. These "impulses" may continue until the phalanx approaches. If all goes as planned for the Romans, the prior century has now moved behind the posterior century, which has now probably closed up to give the prior century time to close up and then formed to the side of them in close order. Some damage has been done to phalanx units, but now the beast approaches and the Romans must fight hand to hand. The Roman formation perhaps would now look like this (once again for just one maniple.)

TTTT
PPPP PPPP HHHH HHHH- now all Romans in close order, as principes have formed and moved up to align with hastati. Formation for this one maniple now 40 men wide by 6 deep with a width of 120 feet or 40 yards.

As the phalanx approaches, final pila are thrown and close combat ensues. This is the point when due to the top down approach of the game, impact results are calculated, taking into account the previous activity of the Roman pila impluses to assess results. Regarding your comment on pushbacks, the change, in my opinion was a good one (and one that both Pete and I were in favor of). Without it, units tended to get pushed out of the combat zone periodically and the battle zone did not look right. Also, the change takes into account the depth of a square, which was what Richard finally concluded was important.

Your other points regarding the phalanx are valid. I am not sure I have my brain around all of them and I have been away from the game for quite a while (your mod, especially the work of the phalanx and command and control have made me interested again). I want to continue testing the vanilla game a while and then download your mod and try it. I actually tried once before to do the download but for some reason, 7-zip only wants to move individual files to the campaign folder and not the whole file, so the mod does not show up. I am going to try using dropbox, which I have downloaded to see if this allows the transfer of the entire file.

I did have one thought regarding the phalanx. That is to have a -1 on cohesion tests when the phalanx is already disrupted or fragmented AND in close combat. Not having played your mod, I do not know how the many changes work out but it seems that there are many -1 modifiers to pikes, along with the point decrease and some other benefits. Anyway, it always seemed to me that rallying while in close combat was a stretch, unless perhaps when a general was close to the unit. Even then, how does a phalanx unit regain order when in hand to hand combat? It would seem very difficult unless it fell back. I also think forming square may be difficult with enemy close. I think that my suggestion regarding the free turn could also be used for forming square. In other words, I suggest that pike units more than 4 squares from formed enemy could have the free turn, if in command range, and also be able to form square. I think because it was an historical formation, it should be kept with the limitation I suggested.

I will reply to your other changes once I have tested a bit more.

[Schweetness101]

thanks for the reply! I will read it over again later. As for installing the mod, you may be clicking on the folder in 7 zip and then unzipping the contents of the folder without the main folder itself, not sure. May try 'extract here' and then dragging the folder from downloads into the right FOG2 folder

[Schweetness101]

Lets look at this from the perspective of a chiliarchiae of the phalanx moving up to confront a Mid-Republican Roman cohort, composed of perhaps 2 maniples of hastati each of 120 men, 2 maniples of principes of 120 men, 2 maniples of triarii of 60 men and 240 velites.

so in-game that's just 1 unit of hastati/principes, 1 unit of Triarii, and 1 unit of velites? because of course in game does not have the granular level of movement/organization for the manipular formation that you are describing, so it's just 3 units:

Triarii
Hastati/Principes
Velites

and 60 feet wide on the frontage you are saying at first? but then after throwing spears, retiring and lining up in close order the hastati/principes unit is 120 feet or 40 men across? Just the single hastati/principes unit is that wide? But 40 men wide by 6 deep is only 240 men, so is it 80 men wide across the principes and hastati in close order? IE are these 480 men like this:

PPPP PPPP HHHH HHHH

are supposed to be 80 men across?


If it's 40 men wide and 3 feet per man for Romans (across 120 feet then), and it's supposed to be 1.5 feet per man for pikes, that would mean 80 pikemen wide to match the frontage of the 40 man/120 foot hastati/principe unit. The in game vanilla 960 man pike unit divided by 80 is 12 deep, or twice as deep as the Roman formation. But, if it's 80 Romans across then its 160 pikemen across and the pikes are 6 deep, so I'm confused here about how many Romans are supposed to match a given frontage that corresponds to one in game grid.

I guess the issue is that the game is so much more abstracted than real life. The whole process of various lines of hastati and then principes throwing spears and then falling back behind one another to throw again, and then once out of ammo forming a solid line etc...is all wrapped up in the 'impact' phase on a single turn, and it ends up feeling qualitatively different from the historical description, especially because it happens all at once, but the historical description seems to be taking place over a much longer period of skirmishing and retiring.

I think the pushback change is good too, I'm just mentioning it because in game it's not always the case that a pushback will open up a flank, so that one aspect is not necessarily a pike weakness in game as much as it might be irl.

Yes rallying in close combat is a bit of a stretch and I had thought about maybe only permitting rallying for units that are not in combat, but that would be such a huge nerf to the rallying ability that I did not include it. Perhaps in combat units should only be rallied by an in combat general? and in such a case in the mod that would mean only if they are adjacent to the general in combat or in the same unit as the general, and it is their general. That would also add more degrees of complexity though, which is kind of the constant push/pull of modding where I don't want to add more complexity than is needed to motivate the correct tactics. I thought I would see how the already numerous rallying changes go for now, and then adjust rallying further if it seems necessary.

In the mod I've removed forming square altogether from pikes to help justify the price decrease, which may or may not be justified. It's not really a hill I'm willing to die on either way, and perhaps forming square should stay in but with some limitations like you mention.

[mceochaidh]

The chart I attempted to show the quincunx did not translate like it was on my screen. The TTTT or triarii should have been to the right of the the PPPP or principes and the HHHH or hastati also to the right of PPPP. This chart shows only half of the formation, so you are right that the 2 maniples in the ultimate close order would be 80 wide and 6 deep, not counting the triarii, The chiliarchia would be 64 wide and 16 deep, so the Roman formation would actually spill over and be opposed to the next chilicharchia, assuming both Romans and Macedonians used about 3 feet per man. According to Mathews, this was the usual width for a phalanx per man when moving into combat. The closer formation of 1.5 feet was for receiving a cavalry charge. He has a very long explanation of why 3 feet was necessary. It is also possible that the Romans deployed 8 deep, making their close order formation 60 men wide.

Mac