Alternative Gameplay Mod Tournament

[batesmotel]

First game: nyczar (Gallic) beat batesmotel (Macedonian) 44/18

Second game: batesmotel (Gallic) beat nyczar (Macedonian) 55/42

batesmotel: 18+(50+13) = 81
nyczar: (50+26)+ 42 = 118

Both of us found pikes to be underpowered. Hard to see how they were the battle winners for later Successor armies or live up to Polybius description of pikes as irresistable frontally in flat ground.

Chris

I think the argument is that the true battle winners for pike armies were the cavalry and that pike were there to hold the centre and reliably hold up to anything frontally. I think the mod does a good job of modelling this perspective. The alternative perspective people often take away from reading up on phalangites is that they destroyed everything in front of them, much like high quality heavy shock infantry but were more inflexible. The vanilla game I think aims to model this.

This interpretation of pikes feels closer to Phillip and Alexander's use of the phalanx and the earlier battles of the Diadochoi. Essentially they are more like improved hoplites in this period. The more powerful phalanax representation seems more appropriate for Raphia and the Macedonian/Seleucid vs Roman battles.

Chris

[Schweetness101]

I played two MP turns with new version of FOGII. Did not notice any errors or problems. I did have a question on anarchy. One of the factors preventing anarchy charges is "foot charging out of protective terrain." Is this for all foot, heavy and medium? I had a heavy warband charge out of rough terrain. Actually could have been woods. The charge was down hill. Are both of these considered "protective terrain"? Heavy foot, of course in disordered in this terrain, so does this matter?

no that's like if they are in a fort or city or behind a barricade, ie they won't abandon terrain that gives them the defensive bonus from being in it just to anarchy out of it. But it is for medium and heavy foot. Rough terrain is disordering but not protective.

[Schweetness101]

First game: nyczar (Gallic) beat batesmotel (Macedonian) 44/18

Second game: batesmotel (Gallic) beat nyczar (Macedonian) 55/42

batesmotel: 18+(50+13) = 81
nyczar: (50+26)+ 42 = 118

Both of us found pikes to be underpowered. Hard to see how they were the battle winners for later Successor armies or live up to Polybius description of pikes as irresistable frontally in flat ground.

Chris

I think the argument is that the true battle winners for pike armies were the cavalry and that pike were there to hold the centre and reliably hold up to anything frontally. I think the mod does a good job of modelling this perspective. The alternative perspective people often take away from reading up on phalangites is that they destroyed everything in front of them, much like high quality heavy shock infantry but were more inflexible. The vanilla game I think aims to model this.

This interpretation of pikes feels closer to Phillip and Alexander's use of the phalanx and the earlier battles of the Diadochoi. Essentially they are more like improved hoplites in this period. The more powerful phalanax representation seems more appropriate for Raphia and the Macedonian/Seleucid vs Roman battles.

Chris

that could be, although then we are talking about introducing an altogether new unit? like have one kind of phillipian phalanx that just holds for long periods while the cavalry gets around, and another later hellenistic era phalanx that wins the battles on its own?

[batesmotel]

I played two MP turns with new version of FOGII. Did not notice any errors or problems. I did have a question on anarchy. One of the factors preventing anarchy charges is "foot charging out of protective terrain." Is this for all foot, heavy and medium? I had a heavy warband charge out of rough terrain. Actually could have been woods. The charge was down hill. Are both of these considered "protective terrain"? Heavy foot, of course in disordered in this terrain, so does this matter?

no that's like if they are in a fort or city or behind a barricade, ie they won't abandon terrain that gives them the defensive bonus from being in it just to anarchy out of it. But it is for medium and heavy foot. Rough terrain is disordering but not protective.

In the original Fog PC, Medium foot wouldn't anarchy charge out of rough or difficult terrain into the open, so that's not an unreasonable expectation. In FoG I, they were more vulnerable to mounted than in FoG II, so rough/difficult terraina was even more protective there.

Chris

[batesmotel]

I think the argument is that the true battle winners for pike armies were the cavalry and that pike were there to hold the centre and reliably hold up to anything frontally. I think the mod does a good job of modelling this perspective. The alternative perspective people often take away from reading up on phalangites is that they destroyed everything in front of them, much like high quality heavy shock infantry but were more inflexible. The vanilla game I think aims to model this.

This interpretation of pikes feels closer to Phillip and Alexander's use of the phalanx and the earlier battles of the Diadochoi. Essentially they are more like improved hoplites in this period. The more powerful phalanax representation seems more appropriate for Raphia and the Macedonian/Seleucid vs Roman battles.

Chris

that could be, although then we are talking about introducing an altogether new unit? like have one kind of phillipian phalanx that just holds for long periods while the cavalry gets around, and another later hellenistic era phalanx that wins the battles on its own?

I think that would be more appropriate than replacing the original game version of pikes with the more defensive ones. (The increased vulnerability to flank attacks and such could still be approrpiate for both types of pikes. If you read Polybius' account of Raphia, Cynocephalae or Magnesia, and his general description of the phalanx, it seems closer to the original game version. Accounts of Alexander's battles seem much more like your interpretation. One thing Polybius mentions as different in the later phalanx is the use of a longer pike and deeper deployment than Alexander uses in Polybius' description of the deployment of the phalanx at Issos. While cavalry remains important for the later Successor battles, it is much less dominant thanit seems to have been in Alexander's battles where it's always the decisive arm.

Chris

[Schweetness101]

I played two MP turns with new version of FOGII. Did not notice any errors or problems. I did have a question on anarchy. One of the factors preventing anarchy charges is "foot charging out of protective terrain." Is this for all foot, heavy and medium? I had a heavy warband charge out of rough terrain. Actually could have been woods. The charge was down hill. Are both of these considered "protective terrain"? Heavy foot, of course in disordered in this terrain, so does this matter?

no that's like if they are in a fort or city or behind a barricade, ie they won't abandon terrain that gives them the defensive bonus from being in it just to anarchy out of it. But it is for medium and heavy foot. Rough terrain is disordering but not protective.

In the original Fog PC, Medium foot wouldn't anarchy charge out of rough or difficult terrain into the open, so that's not an unreasonable expectation. In FoG I, they were more vulnerable to mounted than in FoG II, so rough/difficult terraina was even more protective there.

Chris

medium foot will also not anarchy out of disordering terrain in the mod, and no foot will anarchy out of protective terrain

[Warg1]

Challenge1 beat warg1 42 - 11
Warg1 beat Challenge1 50 - 49

Net
Challenge scored 91 points
Warg1 scored 61

[Schweetness101]

Challenge1 beat warg1 42 - 11
Warg1 beat Challenge1 50 - 49

Net
Challenge scored 91 points
Warg1 scored 61

so this would be:
Challenge1: (50 + 31) and 49 = 130
Warg: 11 and (50 + 1) = 62

[kronenblatt]

no that's like if they are in a fort or city or behind a barricade, ie they won't abandon terrain that gives them the defensive bonus from being in it just to anarchy out of it. But it is for medium and heavy foot. Rough terrain is disordering but not protective.

In the original Fog PC, Medium foot wouldn't anarchy charge out of rough or difficult terrain into the open, so that's not an unreasonable expectation. In FoG I, they were more vulnerable to mounted than in FoG II, so rough/difficult terraina was even more protective there.

Chris

medium foot will also not anarchy out of disordering terrain in the mod, and no foot will anarchy out of protective terrain

Will medium foot still (á la vanilla) follow through out of disordering terrain if enemy unit loses close combat and falls back?

[Schweetness101]

In the original Fog PC, Medium foot wouldn't anarchy charge out of rough or difficult terrain into the open, so that's not an unreasonable expectation. In FoG I, they were more vulnerable to mounted than in FoG II, so rough/difficult terraina was even more protective there.

Chris

medium foot will also not anarchy out of disordering terrain in the mod, and no foot will anarchy out of protective terrain

Will medium foot still (á la vanilla) follow through out of disordering terrain if enemy unit loses close combat and falls back?

I haven't changed following up pushbacks so yes they should. Did they not in Fog1?

[Warg1]

Challenge1 beat warg1 42 - 11
Warg1 beat Challenge1 50 - 49

Net
Challenge scored 91 points
Warg1 scored 61

so this would be:
Challenge1: (50 + 31) and 49 = 130
Warg: 11 and (50 + 1) = 62

Could you please point me in the right direction so I could find the rules around the points as I didn't really understand that. How does (50 + 1) = 62 for example? Should it be (50 + 1) + 11? I'm guessing the points are 50 for each win plus the differential in you win plus the number of points scored in your loss?

[Schweetness101]

Challenge1 beat warg1 42 - 11
Warg1 beat Challenge1 50 - 49

Net
Challenge scored 91 points
Warg1 scored 61

so this would be:
Challenge1: (50 + 31) and 49 = 130
Warg: 11 and (50 + 1) = 62

Could you please point me in the right direction so I could find the rules around the points as I didn't really understand that. How does (50 + 1) = 62 for example? Should it be (50 + 1) + 11? I'm guessing the points are 50 for each win plus the differential in you win plus the number of points scored in your loss?

yes, I denoted that with 'and' instead of + to distinguish the two games, sorry if that was confusing. So, in the first game you got 11 points (lost but imposed 11% losses), and in the second you won and so got 50 + the score difference, which was 1, so it's 11 and 50+1 or 11 + 51 or 62 total points from the two games for you.

[mceochaidh]

If medium war bands in rough terrain are charged and win and enemy falls back, don’t the mediums stay put in the rough terrain per vanilla rules?

[Schweetness101]

If medium war bands in rough terrain are charged and win and enemy falls back, don’t the mediums stay put in the rough terrain per vanilla rules?

if that is the vanilla rules then yes they should, I don't think I've changed that

[Captainwaltersavage]

Sorry for the late finish - we were on different clocks so we only had one turn a day.

Match 2 Captain Savage (Gallic) defeated Nijis (Macedon) 54:49. Extremely close game and the final stage had the phalanxes chasing the warbands across the board. Winning the cavalry battle was key to victory here as my cav managed to hit the back of enough units to edge the break. I spent most of the battle trying to avoid fighting the phalanxes by sitting on hills and attacking everything else. Lots of anarchy charges and refuse orders felt like a real general trying to keep a lid on the chaos of the battlefield.

Both great games thanks Nijis.

Points Captain Savage 50 + 5 = 55

Points Nijis 49

[edb1815]

This interpretation of pikes feels closer to Phillip and Alexander's use of the phalanx and the earlier battles of the Diadochoi. Essentially they are more like improved hoplites in this period. The more powerful phalanax representation seems more appropriate for Raphia and the Macedonian/Seleucid vs Roman battles.

Chris

that could be, although then we are talking about introducing an altogether new unit? like have one kind of phillipian phalanx that just holds for long periods while the cavalry gets around, and another later hellenistic era phalanx that wins the battles on its own?

I think that would be more appropriate than replacing the original game version of pikes with the more defensive ones. (The increased vulnerability to flank attacks and such could still be approrpiate for both types of pikes. If you read Polybius' account of Raphia, Cynocephalae or Magnesia, and his general description of the phalanx, it seems closer to the original game version. Accounts of Alexander's battles seem much more like your interpretation. One thing Polybius mentions as different in the later phalanx is the use of a longer pike and deeper deployment than Alexander uses in Polybius' description of the deployment of the phalanx at Issos. While cavalry remains important for the later Successor battles, it is much less dominant thanit seems to have been in Alexander's battles where it's always the decisive arm.

Chris

Chris:
I just finished reading "An Invincible Beast" a really excellent and very detailed look at phalanx warfare by Christopher Matthews. It looks at the individual file structure up to the maneuvers of multiple units and the role of the phalanx. He addresses the eclipse of the pike armed phalangite by the Roman legionary as well.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01GJ ... tkin_p1_i2

[edb1815]

edb1815 (Gallic) defeated random27 (Macedonian) 56% - 26%

If I have the points correctly that is:

edb1815 = 80
random27 = 26

We are still battling in the second game which is still very close with 10 turns remaining.

[mceochaidh]

"Invincible Beast", the book mentioned above, has great information pertinent to the discussion regarding the need for two different phalanx types. It is possible that Philip started with a 10 rank formation and a slightly longer version of the Iphicratean spear, which was an elongated version of the hoplite spear. Mathews has a table of sarissa length that starts at potentially around 500cm to probably 576cm by Early Hellenistic (350-320 BC) to as long as 768cm by 300 BC, then back to 672cm until the end of the phalanx era in 168 BC. Based on his information, including many pages on the actual "impact" of the phalanx, it seems that casualties caused by impact could be high compared to the melee. At impact, enemy troops charging into the phalanx impaled themselves due to the combination of their momentum and that of the phalanx. There is an entire chapter on the power of the sarissa head to penetrate the typical armour in use, even metal armour.

The detailed information leads me to believe that there would be no real change in the phalanx or its ability from the time of Alexander until 168 BC. The earliest version of Philip II may have had 10 ranks and could warrant a different version.
Also, Alexander and others used an 8 rank unit if the situation required it. However, this did not seem to be the norm. What did change was the loss of cavalry, which was as much as 15 to 20% of armies until say 300 BC and thereafter dwindled to 5 to 10%. The phalanx became the dominant force and that caused the probable experimentation with longer sarissas. Phalanx fought phalanx in the Hellenistic world until the ascent of Rome. Did the longer sarisssa make the phalanx less mobile? Possibly it did, but only when the phalanx was forced to turn. Until the formation reached a certain distance from the enemy, the sarissa was held aloft and there are quotes by the ancient authors that demonstrate the ability of the individual units to change direction and testify to their high level of training. It is also clear that a phalanx in good order was almost impossible to defeat frontally.

How does the mod reflect this view of the phalanx? I think it does it fairly well. It may be that a 25% reduction in casualties for melee is a bit too much. Did enemy charge in and then, after failing to penetrate, fall back locally and then try again? There are quotes referencing enemy throwing its standard into the phalanx formation and charging in, failing and moving back to try again. Here I am talking about a fallback of a few yards that would be covered by the game as a continuing melee, not to the fall back of 60 meters which the game already reflects when there is a significant adverse result. I am thinking perhaps a 20% reduction in casualties would reflect this local move back out of sarissa range and re-contact. However, I think that by and large, the mod does a good job simulating phalanx combat.

[ulysisgrunt]

How do you suppose they marched with a 700cm pike?

[ulysisgrunt]

How do you suppose they marched with a 700cm sarissa?