Slitherine

I do not believe in bad luck.
I had thought that a supported phalanx line would be more likely than not to win against a hoplite line.
However playing the Late Alexandrian Macedonians in IF LoEG the phalanx keeps taking high casualties and collapsing.

It is highly likely I play them badly but I have now had this happen several times and am yet to put up an IF win with this army. A very different record to my SoA and RoR.

If you are prepared to read this and help the bemused (me) answers on a postcard please :-
What is the right way to handle a phalanx?
How would you fight this phalanx hoplite encounter?
Can you put a phalanx toe to toe with hoplites?

The example from an ongoing game
4 average phalanx – heavy, protected, pike in line. Clear terrain. No flanking possible. They are meant to hold up an advancing hoplite line.
Risk is taken and they are supported immediately behind by two more average phalanx, and 1 x medium hypaspists, protected, spear and sword, and 1 hoplite heavy, protected, offensive spear. It is a solid double line.

Attacked by Spartan Hoplites; superior, heavy, protected, offensive spear.

The Spartans have had very slight attrition, phalanx and support all untouched all 100%.

I choose not to attack the Spartans with the phalanx and wait attack with the support in place - (this decison is based on previous game were I did attack a hoplite line with the phalanx and immediately suffered three disruptions against their supported line).

Spartans advance to contact from left to right of phalanx line. Combats go as below casualties are those taken by Spartan/Macedonian

3/20 - phalanx disrupted
1/58
Both these attacks have no rear support - phalanx is supported.

A third hoplite moves in to support next attack then fourth hoplite unit attacks the second phalanx unit again.
12/60 – phalanx disrupted
last attack against a phalanx unit
4/26 – phalanx disrupted.

Phalanx front line is now from left to right disrupted, disrupted (61%), disrupted, steady.

Next turn phalanx is in melee phalanx and hoplites are supported. Attacks are from right to left.
Steady unit attacks 1 / 2
Disrupted unit 3 / 3
Choose to attack with disrupted unit on extreme left first 3/49 – phalanx fragmented.
Last attack with disrupted and weakened unit 7/51 – phalanx routs.
Adjacent units; on left fragment to rout. On right disrupt to fragment. At rear steady to disrupt and rout throughs fragment both.

In summary in clear terrain similar unit numbers and with hoplites picking first sequence of attacks :-

Phalanx average double line vs Hoplite, initially single line, in two turns has lost 269 casualties and 7 break points. and caused 34 casualties and no break points.

I've had similar experiences to yours. You aren't doing anything wrong, although I would not have a solid second rank, but deploy the second rank every other hex so the front rank has a gap to rout through.

If there is no bug in the programming, the only possiblity is sheer bad luck (whether you believe in it or not) The pikes are only at a +1 yes? Lots of room to lose on a D6 roll.

Honestly, I think you were victom of just subpar dice

I think your pikes in impact would be better and maybe only slightly better in melee(??) since the Spartans are superior (you did say they were protected right?)

You dont get combat support for impact combat so it would not have mattered if you waited for him to charge or charged him , regardles if he had second rank troopers...

basically , I think you got burned when he disrupted your 3 front units at impact (very good Rolling on his part!) and it was all down hill after that... (btw , did you have a leader backing your pikes? doesnt sound like it if you had a solid rear second line....)

I think a pike line more often than not, can stop a hoplite phalanx cold (sometimes though, there are a LOT of spartans!)

GM you are correct no general - he was supporting the other half of the phalanx who were also failing to make any impression on the spartan hoplites but did at least rout one unit before being rolled up after this lot collapsed.

TheGrayMouser wrote:Honestly, I think you were victom of just subpar dice

I'd agree.
Welcome to my world.

Without going into yet another diatribe about whether or not the game is too luck-dependant, this is the stuff I also gripe about.
It's hard to learn what kind of tactics work when formations that *should* win suddenly don't.
My advice is to keep a handful of real dice next to the computer when playing.
That way you have something to throw across the room in disgust.

Lars

CheerfullyInsane wrote:

TheGrayMouser wrote:Honestly, I think you were victom of just subpar dice

I'd agree.
Welcome to my world.

Without going into yet another diatribe about whether or not the game is too luck-dependant, this is the stuff I also gripe about.
It's hard to learn what kind of tactics work when formations that *should* win suddenly don't.
My advice is to keep a handful of real dice next to the computer when playing.
That way you have something to throw across the room in disgust.

Lars

The problem with the match up of average pikes versus superior offensive spear is that the pikes have only a slight edge in the fight due to the re-rolls that the superior hoplites get. (For TT play the general rule of thumb is that one grade better in quality is worth about 1/2 POA.) On top of this the superior hoplites are less likely to fail a cohesion test when they do lose and the pikes degrade in effectiveness faster than the hoplites do since they lose the POA advantage when they fall below 75%. So it is not unreasonable to expect a line of average pikes to be able to lock a line of hoplites for a while, it certainly isn't likely that you will win a game this way without a run of good luck and you probably have more points tied up than the opposing hoplites represent. The way to beat the Spartans with the Macedonians is to out maneuver the hoplites and to get a superior concentration of force at a point where you can overwhelm the opposing Spartans.

Chris

this is the game Triarius is talking about.

the mak phalanx was supported, but the superior spartan hoplites were supported too, and also had a general with them. there were some lucky dices too, but not so many as one would believe.

and the phalanx would have crumbled in short time anyway, due to the big gap between their left and the already pinned left cavalry wing which would have been promptly exploited by the HF+MF reserves

Superior Heavy hoplites eat up pike. They have more armor and better moral. I would be surprised if anything else happened.

Xiggy wrote:Superior Heavy hoplites eat up pike. They have more armor and better moral. I would be surprised if anything else happened.

The hoplites in the battle in question are rated as protected, the same as the pikes. They are not earlier armoured hoplites.

Chris

My mistake. I always wonder why successor armies do much better in most all ancient games, then alexanders?

Xiggy wrote:My mistake. I always wonder why successor armies do much better in most all ancient games, then alexanders?

Most gamers aren't at Alexander's (or Phillip's) skill level which was the biggest advantage his army had. In addition, Macedon at the end of Philip's reign and under Alexander (due to Phillip's efforts in unifying Greece under his control as well as in accumulating resources) had strategic advantages that the later Successor kingdoms didn't have. Those don't show up in tactical ancient games like FoG, but could show up in a campaign. The advantage that the Successor armies tend to have is that they have some troop types available that weren't available to Alexander, e.g. elephants and cataphracts, which may make them more powerful in terms of possible troop mixes they can field in a tactical game. On the other hand, Alexander's army may well have the best balance of mounted and foot capabilities compared to most of the successor armies. The secret of success with the Alexandrian Macedonian army is to use the foot and mounted together to win, not just the pikes or not just the Companions and Agema.

Chris

i think the biggest difference between alexander's and diadochi's armies may be explained in the way they were using their heavy cavalry and it's quality. which basically can be reduced to the different types of armies they had to fight against (in units types and quality, and lidership quality too).

Another reason for Alexander's greatness was that Phillip spent his whole life creating the army that Al would use against very less able opponents. Just as Freddy der Grosse inherited the Prussian army from his dad which he used against very less able opponents and Nopleon inherited the revolutionary army from Carnot which he used against very less abel opponents.

In each case, the heir was given a power vacuum and an excellent tool to exploit that so he could focus on strategic concerns rather than tactical minutia.

Deeter