Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

hoplites

2

Comments

  • Tyer032392Tyer032392 Senior Member FloridaRegistered Users Posts: 4,787
    edited July 2014
    Hoplites are just pointless... especially against sword infantry... whatever the quality.

    Sounds like people really aren't using them for their designated purpose, and that is holding units long enough for flank and rear attacks.
    Ready for Three Kingdom's TW: I5-6600k, EVGA Geforce GTX 1070SC, 16Gigs RAM, WD Blue PC SSD @ 500GB
  • Green JacketGreen Jacket Senior Member Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, EnglandRegistered Users Posts: 1,513
    edited July 2014
    Tyer032392 wrote: »
    Sounds like people really aren't using them for their designated purpose, and that is holding units long enough for flank and rear attacks.

    They cant even do that though :/
    "Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum"
    "Sometimes I get this urge to conquer large parts of Europe"
  • CauselessCauseless Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 364
    edited July 2014
    They cant even do that though :/

    Yes, they can. Look at this Heir of Carthage video - hoplites last absolutely ages when kept in hoplite wall.
  • ErminazErminaz Senior Member Las Vegas, Nevada, USARegistered Users Posts: 5,755
    edited July 2014
    Hoplites were citizen soldiers, not a professional military, they had to provide their gear themselves, so this isn't actually all that far from the truth.

    Yes, hoplites were pretty much a militia force but why would you spend the money on something that will add weight to you and help tire you out more quickly yet not train with it at all? Militias still held training session, they just didn't drill as regularly as professional soldiers did. In order to maintain a shield wall you have to have drilling or it will not stay together, a phalanx has interlocking shields so you are a bit closer and effect the line by not staying in step so again you need to be drilled to do this. They didn't just arm themselves and show up to the muster with no training at all saying, "hey lets go kill me some barbarians!"
    Tacitus Quotes:
    Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace.

    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.

    I found Rome a city of filth covered marble and left it a pile of rubble. - Me
  • bellerophontesbellerophontes Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 110
    edited July 2014
    Tyer032392 wrote: »
    Sounds like people really aren't using them for their designated purpose, and that is holding units long enough for flank and rear attacks.

    You know, there is a problem with that. I can get a row of royal peltasts or thorax swordsmen and do the same thing but actually kill the enemy. And again, the Greek states have nothing to take advantage of the extra time. Their cav is terrible and so you can't rear charge or flank. Also their skirmishers will usually be caught by superior cav before they could get a flank.
    Θουκυδίδης / Thucydides:

    "History is Philosophy teaching by examples."

    Πλούταρχος / Plutarch:

    "To be ignorant of the lives of the most celebrated men of antiquity is to continue in a state of childhood all our days."
  • OhdowsOhdows Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,160
    edited July 2014
    jupsto wrote: »
    main problem is the bug with hoplite phallanx

    http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php/130959-ancient-bug-Still-cannot-walk-attack-in-non-pike-phallanx

    and even then pike phallanx can tank AND spank

    unless they face a missile unit...

    The problem with pikes is that they are supposed to be unwieldy, but they react fast, moves fast, turns fast and get into formation super fast. They should take longer to get into formation, only be able to walk and not turn so quickly.
  • OhdowsOhdows Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,160
    edited July 2014
    You know, there is a problem with that. I can get a row of royal peltasts or thorax swordsmen and do the same thing but actually kill the enemy. And again, the Greek states have nothing to take advantage of the extra time. Their cav is terrible and so you can't rear charge or flank. Also their skirmishers will usually be caught by superior cav before they could get a flank.

    No you can't. Your row will be extremely short, as those units are expensive. And your royal peltasts will take ages to kill off the hoplites.

    Remember that Carthage gets hoplites and elephants, so they can really use their staying power to the max.
    The problem is you have to win the flank, as you can't win the main line.
  • OlekOlek Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,681
    edited July 2014
    shawn858 wrote: »
    Hopefully sometime in the future, somebody could implement a pushing feature in game, whether through mods or CA. A wall of hoplites pushing the enemy back is basically how hoplites won most battles.

    I'm not 100% sure, but isn't that what the unit weight or mass is used for?
    Darius rage quit at the battle of Gaugamela because Alexanders Phalanx were OP.
  • bellerophontesbellerophontes Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 110
    edited July 2014
    Ohdows wrote: »
    No you can't. Your row will be extremely short, as those units are expensive. And your royal peltasts will take ages to kill off the hoplites.

    Remember that Carthage gets hoplites and elephants, so they can really use their staying power to the max.
    The problem is you have to win the flank, as you can't win the main line.

    A normal hoplite unit is 650 tallons, a thorax swordsmen is 710 tallons, not a big difference. And i'm really talking about the Greek states, as they are the ones that need the help. They can't win the flank as they don't have the cav to pull it off. It also makes no sense that hoplites should lose the frontal engagement. You're running straight into a shorter version of a pike phalanx, don't you think there should be similar results? If you get a flank on a hoplite than they break formation and should be screwed, but frontal assaults? no way.
    Θουκυδίδης / Thucydides:

    "History is Philosophy teaching by examples."

    Πλούταρχος / Plutarch:

    "To be ignorant of the lives of the most celebrated men of antiquity is to continue in a state of childhood all our days."
  • OhdowsOhdows Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,160
    edited July 2014
    A normal hoplite unit is 650 tallons, a thorax swordsmen is 710 tallons, not a big difference. And i'm really talking about the Greek states, as they are the ones that need the help. They can't win the flank as they don't have the cav to pull it off. It also makes no sense that hoplites should lose the frontal engagement. You're running straight into a shorter version of a pike phalanx, don't you think there should be similar results? If you get a flank on a hoplite than they break formation and should be screwed, but frontal assaults? no way.

    No, I really think this is better. If you want pikes, use pikes. Every Greek gets them. Even the Spartans.

    I really love the tanky feeling of the hoplites, and would really dislike if they gotmore killing power.
  • seienchinseienchin Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,572
    edited July 2014
    "Classical" hoplite warfare ended in rome 2s timeframe. They are pretty anachronistic. I think they are way too useful for that.
  • bellerophontesbellerophontes Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 110
    edited July 2014
    Ohdows wrote: »
    No, I really think this is better. If you want pikes, use pikes. Every Greek gets them. Even the Spartans.

    Ok, what will protect my flanks? Citizen cav? Hoplites are too slow for their supposed purpose (which isn't historically accurate) which is to kill cav. By the time you get close to a cav engagement or to the cav taking out your skirmishers they will either get out of their or already have killed everyone in that engagement. It's just blatantly unbalanced and needs to be reworked.
    Θουκυδίδης / Thucydides:

    "History is Philosophy teaching by examples."

    Πλούταρχος / Plutarch:

    "To be ignorant of the lives of the most celebrated men of antiquity is to continue in a state of childhood all our days."
  • Green JacketGreen Jacket Senior Member Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, EnglandRegistered Users Posts: 1,513
    edited July 2014
    Ok, what will protect my flanks? Citizen cav? Hoplites are too slow for their supposed purpose (which isn't historically accurate) which is to kill cav. By the time you get close to a cav engagement or to the cav taking out your skirmishers they will either get out of their or already have killed everyone in that engagement. It's just blatantly unbalanced and needs to be reworked.

    Well traditional hoplites would be too slow, not the later lighter hoplites who wore much less armour, which were more common during this era.

    That roles really more for the likes of Thureophoroi.
    "Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum"
    "Sometimes I get this urge to conquer large parts of Europe"
  • SetrusSetrus Senior Member SwedenRegistered Users Posts: 18,768
    edited July 2014
    Ok, what will protect my flanks? Citizen cav? Hoplites are too slow for their supposed purpose (which isn't historically accurate) which is to kill cav. By the time you get close to a cav engagement or to the cav taking out your skirmishers they will either get out of their or already have killed everyone in that engagement. It's just blatantly unbalanced and needs to be reworked.

    I generally keep my cav-supporters in the second line.

    So if we take sparta, for instance, and assume we're using a pike-line at the front. Then we have pikes at the centre of the first line, flanked by one or two hoplites on each flank who will HOLD that position no matter what. Their job is to ensure nothing flanks the pikemen, all else is secondary. As such, they take missiles, they take charges, they take insults, but as long as they stay there, they've done their job.
    Then in the second line I'll have my ranged units, whatever they might be, and on each flank of that line, if we still use the Spartan example, I'd put my perioikoi spears. Fairly swift light infantry that can swarm enemy cavalry, I might even take them off formation attack so they can better filter through the enemy ranks.
    I'll of course have cavalry on these flanks, citizen cavalry is nice and steady and can stick the enemy fast in combat and allow the perioikoi the time to reach the fight and settle things.

    Now if I had thorax swords instead of hoplites on the flank I GUESS it would work...I just don't like how they'd be more suspectible to cavalry though, and hoplite phalanx makes hoplites fairly capable of taking on swordsmen...in the end I prefer the versatility when it comes to defending the flanks of pikemen. :)
    Don't worry.
  • bellerophontesbellerophontes Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 110
    edited July 2014
    Well traditional hoplites would be too slow, not the later lighter hoplites who wore much less armour, which were more common during this era.

    That roles really more for the likes of Thureophoroi.

    Yes, we don't really have them in the game though. Thureos spears are fairly similar but are not effective enough to really capture what they were. In reality they were a cross between a peltast and a hoplite. They would skirmish and after using up their javelins would act as light / medium spear infantry. They were never used to specifically go after cav though.
    Θουκυδίδης / Thucydides:

    "History is Philosophy teaching by examples."

    Πλούταρχος / Plutarch:

    "To be ignorant of the lives of the most celebrated men of antiquity is to continue in a state of childhood all our days."
  • Dinosaur assault phalanxDinosaur assault phalanx Member Registered Users Posts: 48
    edited July 2014
    sigr wrote: »
    i really wish that they were this type of tank unit, spearmen that are weak when out of formation but very strong when in phalanx, so more of a defensive unit with high armour that excels when in phalanx but when caught out becomes weaker.
    Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that exactly the way hoplites currently work?
    Steamrolling our enemies with a wall of pikes
  • bellerophontesbellerophontes Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 110
    edited July 2014
    Setrus wrote: »
    I generally keep my cav-supporters in the second line.

    So if we take sparta, for instance, and assume we're using a pike-line at the front. Then we have pikes at the centre of the first line, flanked by one or two hoplites on each flank who will HOLD that position no matter what. Their job is to ensure nothing flanks the pikemen, all else is secondary. As such, they take missiles, they take charges, they take insults, but as long as they stay there, they've done their job.
    Then in the second line I'll have my ranged units, whatever they might be, and on each flank of that line, if we still use the Spartan example, I'd put my perioikoi spears. Fairly swift light infantry that can swarm enemy cavalry, I might even take them off formation attack so they can better filter through the enemy ranks.
    I'll of course have cavalry on these flanks, citizen cavalry is nice and steady and can stick the enemy fast in combat and allow the perioikoi the time to reach the fight and settle things.

    Now if I had thorax swords instead of hoplites on the flank I GUESS it would work...I just don't like how they'd be more suspectible to cavalry though, and hoplite phalanx makes hoplites fairly capable of taking on swordsmen...in the end I prefer the versatility when it comes to defending the flanks of pikemen. :)

    My question is why cant you have a main line of hoplites? Why must I be stuck with pikes for my main line? Why are they only useful for my flanks? My flanks should be secured with light infantry, not heavy hoplites! It doesn't make any sense.

    Also, citizen cav is still terrible. Any other faction has better cav to take it out. And as said, hoplites are still too heavy to get their in time. I wish they would add the thureophoroi as a unit. It would actually be a useful addition and would serve the purpose of supporting cav fights very well. As they were light infantry who were quick and could get to cav fights in time without much of an issue. Hoplites, however, were always meant as a main line unit. Alas, they get shredded by any sword unit. Even ones half their price.

    The plan you proposed is still just a very gimped version of a Macedonian or Epirote pike style army. The difference being Epirus has elephants and both Epirus and Macedon have decent mid tier and high tier cav. Sparta, Athens, Syracuse, and to some degree Epirus are all in need of some buff to hoplites to make them capable main line units. I'm sick of fielding thorax swordsmen, I hate seeing them. But pikes are extremely difficult to use and hoplites serve no purpose, so I have no choice.

    And I'll say it again, why are hoplites considered worse? What in the world is their reasoning behind that? There hasn't been a reasonable response to that yet. I wonder why...
    Θουκυδίδης / Thucydides:

    "History is Philosophy teaching by examples."

    Πλούταρχος / Plutarch:

    "To be ignorant of the lives of the most celebrated men of antiquity is to continue in a state of childhood all our days."
  • bellerophontesbellerophontes Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 110
    edited July 2014
    Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that exactly the way hoplites currently work?

    No, because they are weak in phalanx and out. They will be shredded by any infantry unit. All they do is serve a role they aren't supposed to serve. Light reserve infantry and cav was used to cover flanks, never heavy hoplites. All they do is serve as 650 talon and up wastes of money who just sit their and get killed.
    Θουκυδίδης / Thucydides:

    "History is Philosophy teaching by examples."

    Πλούταρχος / Plutarch:

    "To be ignorant of the lives of the most celebrated men of antiquity is to continue in a state of childhood all our days."
  • LiandrosLiandros Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 278
    edited July 2014
    Erminaz wrote: »
    Did you actually just say that?

    Hoplite 1: What are you doing?
    Hoplite 2: Well I saw this sword at the market place and thought, that would go so well with my breast plate and just had to have it. Although I have no idea how to use it I think it just makes the outfit.
    Ahem...at the agora, mind you, not market place.
  • ErminazErminaz Senior Member Las Vegas, Nevada, USARegistered Users Posts: 5,755
    edited July 2014
    Liandro wrote: »
    Ahem...at the agora, mind you, not market place.

    You are absolutely correct, my apologies. :)
    Tacitus Quotes:
    Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace.

    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.

    I found Rome a city of filth covered marble and left it a pile of rubble. - Me
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,909
    edited July 2014
    Some hoplites must kill swordsmen and some swordsmen must also kill hoplites... not all swordsmen shall defeat hoplite like in their current situation in the game, hoplite was also a formation used to kill infantry...

    They were both melee infantry and CA must disregard the "sword > spear" mechanic.

    CA must look into the unit itself and not the weapon they were using. Its unfair to say that all men using spear should always lose to those who are using swords.

    CA, please look at the units themselves!
  • bellerophontesbellerophontes Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 110
    edited July 2014
    jamreal18 wrote: »
    Some hoplites must kill swordsmen and some swordsmen must also kill hoplites...

    They were both melee infantry and CA must disregard the "sword > spear" mechanic.

    CA must look into the unit itself and not the weapon they were using. Its unfair to say that men using spear always lose to those who are using swords.

    Exactly, here is a video I found on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-6x8H9yI6c I hope this link works. The video proves the sword beats spear idea is complete nonsense. In fact, it's the opposite way around!
    Θουκυδίδης / Thucydides:

    "History is Philosophy teaching by examples."

    Πλούταρχος / Plutarch:

    "To be ignorant of the lives of the most celebrated men of antiquity is to continue in a state of childhood all our days."
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,909
    edited July 2014
    It must depend on who is using the weapon.

    Effectiveness of weapon depends how skilled the handler.
  • mk32usmcmk32usmc Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 147
    edited July 2014
    Well at this time period, hoplites or greek soldiers became very ineffective espiacally agaisnt roman troops. Once they lost their great leader, the greeks were useless in battle. So, CA did nicely in not making elite. They are basically a holding force, nothing more, nothing less.
  • ErminazErminaz Senior Member Las Vegas, Nevada, USARegistered Users Posts: 5,755
    edited July 2014
    MK32USMC wrote: »
    Well at this time period, hoplites or greek soldiers became very ineffective espiacally agaisnt roman troops. Once they lost their great leader, the greeks were useless in battle. So, CA did nicely in not making elite. They are basically a holding force, nothing more, nothing less.

    I take it you don't actually read history much. If that was the case why did Xanthippus' reforming of the Carthaginians into the Macedonian style bring victory over the Romans? Why did they lose to Pyrrhus? What about Hannibal? Your statement shows ignorance and an over simplification of history.

    Note: It should also be noted that 2 of the three people I listed were Hellenic, Pyrrhus of Epirus and Xanthippus was a Spartan Mercenary. All three of the men I listed where good Generals as well.
    Tacitus Quotes:
    Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace.

    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.

    I found Rome a city of filth covered marble and left it a pile of rubble. - Me
  • mk32usmcmk32usmc Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 147
    edited July 2014
    Erminaz wrote: »
    I take it you don't actually read history much. If that was the case why did Xanthippus' reforming of the Carthaginians into the Macedonian style bring victory over the Romans? Why did they lose to Pyrrhus? What about Hannibal? Your statement shows ignorance and an over simplification of history.

    Note: It should also be noted that 2 of the three people I listed were Hellenic, Pyrrhus of Epirus and Xanthippus was a Spartan Mercenary. All three of the men I listed where good Generals as well.
    Dude plz i know alot about history. How many examples r u giving me? 3, 4 Wow! thats alot dude. Xanthippus had a massive advantage in cav force and had around 100 elephants, thus having the clear advantage but who won the punic wars? Rome.
    Next. The battles against Pyrrhus were won by the romans, he had 1 victory the rest he lost. Battle of Beneventum was won by rome.
    Next. Hannibal mainly used mercenaries of iberia not hoplites, so nice try. Yes Hannibal may have won a few times against Rome but who won the main battles when everything counted? Rome for example the Battle of Zama. Who won the war? Rome. So plz check ur sources. Nothing could have stopped Rome.
    Look up at the macedonian wars. In the battle of Pydna, Macedon had 44,000 soldiers against 29,000 roman forces. Macedon lost around 25,000 soldiers while rome lost around 1,000 soldiers. How so? The greeks fought in their usual formation but still lost that many men? Impossible u say but we all know Roman soldiers were possibly the best foot soldiers of the ancient world asides possibly the knights of medievel ages.
    Almost all wars and battles against Rome resulted in defeats for greeks.
    Battle of the Nile, for example, the egyptians (greeks at that time) fought in the greek style, the phalanx. Both had around 20, 000 soldiers. Who won? Caeser enjoyed a decisive victory. Just a few examples I can think of right now.
    Again nice try and have a good day
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,909
    edited July 2014
    Its not nice seeing elite hoplites losing to mid-tier swordsmen just because they are using spear.
  • madwapitimadwapiti Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 602
    edited July 2014
    While I might not agree with the tone of the last few responses, I think you also have to think about the lives of the soldiers at the time period. The Roman empire had professional soldiers. These men didn't take a day off, or skip a battle. Many nations used levee systems, where troops would be called to action in defense of their realm, or for expansion under a king. These men would be called to face a legion of troops whose sole occupation was warfare, who never rested and trained for combat constantly.

    Ultimately (while it has been stated many times on this forum and elsewhere) more experienced army's should beat less experienced ones, but in lieu of that, lets allow CA to manage battles however they want to. Its just a game after all...
  • mk32usmcmk32usmc Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 147
    edited July 2014
    While I might not agree with the tone of the last few responses, I think you also have to think about the lives of the soldiers at the time period. The Roman empire had professional soldiers. These men didn't take a day off, or skip a battle. Many nations used levee systems, where troops would be called to action in defense of their realm, or for expansion under a king. These men would be called to face a legion of troops whose sole occupation was warfare, who never rested and trained for combat constantly.

    Ultimately (while it has been stated many times on this forum and elsewhere) more experienced army's should beat less experienced ones, but in lieu of that, lets allow CA to manage battles however they want to. Its just a game after all...
    Well the same does go for Rome when they occasionally used new recruits for battles they thought they had no chance of losing.
  • ErminazErminaz Senior Member Las Vegas, Nevada, USARegistered Users Posts: 5,755
    edited July 2014
    @MK32USMC: I mentioned Hoplites no where in my post, my comment was partaining mostly to this: "Once they lost their great leader, the greeks were useless in battle."

    According to you the Hellenic factions couldn't win against Rome after the death of I presume Alexander. So I take it that your claim is that Xanthippus only won because of the presence of the Elphants, if Elephant were all that was needed the Carthaginians would not have had problems prior to his reforms as they always had the Elephant advantage. The Elephants where nothing new to the Romans either, they had faced them when they fought Pyrrhus. If Roman soldiers were these unstoppable war machines that you seem to be claiming they were the Romans would not have had any defeats.

    Pyrrhus. Battle of Beneventum was not won by Rome, it was a indecisive victory for Pyrrhus (thus the term Pyrrhic Victory) that won the Romans the War in the sense that Pyrrhus was no longer in a position to continue his invasion.

    Pydna was not a failure of the troops but a failure of the commander who picked a very poor location to fight the Romans. I wonder how much different the Macedonian Wars would have been if Hellas was united instead of fragmented with in fighting.

    Zama only happened do to political suicide on the parts of Carthage. If they had supported Hannibal in his desire to sack Rome the war would have ended differently.

    War are also not only won on the battle field. Politics and money come into play and the Romans were great warmongers with expansionistic ideals and a willingness to dump more money into those wars than just about any other nation. A unifying desire of their political leaders for the possibility of expanded personal wealth from pillage and destruction brought the Romans their victories time and time again. A Roman army was destroyed a new one was raised to replace it, a fleet sunk an new one was built until their enemies decided to capitulate.

    Edit: I'm taking this to far off topic so any further comments on my part will be in PMs.
    Tacitus Quotes:
    Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace.

    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.

    I found Rome a city of filth covered marble and left it a pile of rubble. - Me
Sign In or Register to comment.