No they didn't.They had formal ways to start battles.But they wouldn't wait to shot at each other in turns once the battle started.They didn't fight in 1vs1 duels either.
Yes, they did have a tradition of opening arrow shots at the start of pitched battles, but plenty of the battles were still ambushes, night raids, and other formal actions like that where it didn't occur.
Well I said it happened, not that it happened all the time.
I don't know what exactly is the problem here, anon.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Probably wasn't you, but someone else in the thread was pointing to the opening arrow exchange as evidence that pre-Sengoku Japanese battles were rigid and formalistic like a turn-based videogame.
9 months ago
Anonymous
It was me.
I was just replying to an anon who posted "did past Black folk really wait in line to shoot at each other?" that pre-Sengoku japs used to do something alike. I was not at all implying that whole engagements where like that, or that their way of making warfare was like that.
What the frick is your problem. Can't you fricking read?
its based off of old tabletop wargame rulesets, they are designed to be as accurate as possible. The end result is pretty good at depicting ancient strategies and tactics. Much much better than total war at least.
I prefer TW-style over turn-based battles, but I agree, the overall accuracy and troop types are much better decipted in Field of Glory. Sometimes I use those wargame army lists to make historically accurate-ish armies in TW, it's pretty fun
Peak moron. If the input and output are correct then it is more realistic. There's nothing more hilariously missinformed than RTS. Look at Total War if you want a laugh. Look at accurate recreations of old battles both in the ancient and medieval worlds. They are nothing like anything you will find in TW or any other RTS for that matter. A complete and utter fricking joke.
are the tactical battles actually realistic in that? from what I heard the AI does some wacky stuff
9 months ago
Anonymous
It is ok; the AI is unpredictable because it depends of commander characteristics; rarely it made some really morons; but still it is limited as every AI.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Eh, it's fine and luckily many civil war commanders were actually quite moronic, so I can gaslight myself and pretend the AI is larping as one of them.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Ultimate admiral AI was worse than Total War by several yards.
Those battles are not "simulated" like in Total War where each musket ball ends up somewhere, but more abstracted like in Fields of Glory. It just happens to be real-time.
The casualty counts are also unrealistically high, like in Total War.
Brother, do you think Field of Glory is concerned with recreating the vietnam war or the combined arm fronts of WWII? It's very specifically a troop based game. FoGII/Medi/P&S cover the best eras of war and the rest barely matter - and would also have entirely different mechanics to represent in game.
In terms of mechanics? Absolutely. Look at the casualty rates in other strat games, especially real time ones. The morale system alone makes it better than all other tactics games.
Simply post something more accurate. Where's the tactics game with field engineering?
how hard is to get into those games? i got free steam version but if its another eu4 situation im out
Very easy to start with. The specifics get a bit esoteric until it clicks but nothing is stopping you to pick up and play. >if you attack a unit with another unit they are static on the board until one side or the other wins and therefore disengages >engaged units roll combat once per each player's turn >all units have a orientation, which defaults to the direction of an engagement if it is engaged >if you engage a unit that is already engaged at a 90 or 180 orientation they take major morale damage (the most important kind) >skirmisher units can retreat if you try to attack them assuming they have sufficient movement points >certain units get penalties on certain terrain
True, and it's a good game too, even without exporting your battles to FOG2. And definitely less pointless bullshit than EU4, really the only system that takes more than a moment to understand is decadence, and maybe the trade bonus good system.
It's a tactics game concerned with tactics. You are all but complaining about Chess not letting you pick your own army composition. >base game
Empires is it's own game and certainly not some exploitative DLC or withheld content for a double dip. FoG has existed for a very long time. FoGII has existed for a very long time. Empires is relatively recent and made to bring that same level of historical zeal, realism and approachable abstraction to the strat elements. They can be played together but given the crunch of FoGII, I usually end up autoresolving after enough time and as my number of fronts/fielded armies increase.
A good FOGII player will demolish the autoresolve results/projections, of course.
>phalanx pikes charged by hastati while uphill >lose combat, disrupted, pushed back >repeat >superior lancers and armored cavalry charge roman medium cavalry >lose melee, hastati charge the flanks and cav is broken
this game is great until you realize the only army worth a shit is rome, every other faction just plain sucks
also skirmishers are just as fast as light cavalry in this game. it's complete nonsense that javelinmen can just casually turn around and fire a volley of javelins while they're running for their lives from pursuing cavalry. and if you try running away from skirmishers with light cavalry they will always catch up with you somehow. cavalry altogether is fricking useless and the ai always manages to tie them up somewhere on the map no matter how good or fast they are.
also skirmishers are just as fast as light cavalry in this game. it's complete nonsense that javelinmen can just casually turn around and fire a volley of javelins while they're running for their lives from pursuing cavalry. and if you try running away from skirmishers with light cavalry they will always catch up with you somehow. cavalry altogether is fricking useless and the ai always manages to tie them up somewhere on the map no matter how good or fast they are.
Your crucial mistake was expecting the Greek phalanx to have any chance against roman infantry. When fighting against Rome in FOG:2 you have to stretch your tactics muscles to their limits as you simply cannot engage roman infantry in a standup slugfest. IRL Roman Infantry was essentially the rock to the Greek Phalanx's scissors, once the Roman front line gets past the sarissa's tip, it's literally all over, even if they are marching uphill. Furthermore, I think you just got some dog shit rolls, as your cavalry should not have lost that cavalry engagement but also the AI had the right idea. Next time, use your Cavalry to bait their Cavalry into a position where you can engage with infantry as they did to you. Even if this detracts from your main infantry formation, the cav engagement will be done before the main battle is decided so you can take your Cavalry and the separated infantry back to the main battle to flank or hammer their anvil. Cavalry pretty much only acts as the hammer in FOG 2 and granted, sometimes hitting a hammer with a hammer can work, but its much better utilized against the anvil.
Another way to beat Rome is to build your army around skirmishers and exploiting cascading morale drops. For example, even if you have half the infantry your enemy does, if the rest of your army is skirmishers you can focus 1-3 of their infantry units and just absolutely frick up their morale so that when the engagement occurs, you can exploit the weak links to cause exponential morale failures. Then again, this all requires good rolls.
Just like in real life, FOG2 makes no pretense of having armies be balanced, it reflects the real world advantages and disadvantages of different nation's units. If you are going to step against the king, you best make sure you have a plan... because his plan is to bum rush you with (historically) overpowered infantry and that's never going to end well for you.
>IRL Roman Infantry was essentially the rock to the Greek Phalanx's scissors, once the Roman front line gets past the sarissa's tip, it's literally all over, even if they are marching uphill.
Lol, lmao. Roman maniples beat the phalanx because they were more flexible and mobile and because they mamaged to fight on uneven terrain. Did you really think the romans beat the phalanx because they discovered CROUCHING? lmao
Almost nothing of this is in the game, this game is poop regarding historical accuracy. Who says otherwise should try to read about battles like Ilipa and Zama and try to recreate them following historical accounts. You can't.
As far as I know there is no recorded example of a pitched battle on flat, even terrain where roman infantry broke a formed macedonian phalanx on a frontal attack. Heraclea, Pydna, Cynocephali, Malaventum, Thermopylae...
The roman legion defeated the hellenistic way of warfare because it was more flexible from a strategical and tactical point of view (higher manpower and superior equipement, better delegation of command, capability of mantaining several armies in campaign etc), not because roman hastati were actually capable of breaking a phalanx in a charge.
Alexander won all his battle with cavalry front charge
Yeah, but he didn't charge at heavy infantry. He looked for the weak point of the enemy line, usually light infantry or a flank. For example at Chaeronea he charged the gap between the Athenian and Theban armies. In Gaugamela he charged the light armored kardakes etc
He's not wrong, the Macedonians used mounted wedge formations armed with sarissai that managed to crush the Sacred Band and rout the Cardaces which were heavily-armoured btw. But I dunno if that's the case for all Alex's battles
Also iirc Antiochus III broke legions with his heavy cavalry charge
>managed to crush the Sacred Band
Attacking the gaps while the Thebans engaged the macedonian infantry, aka they were flanked. Arrian says so. >rout the Cardaces which were heavily-armoured
The equipement of the cardaces is disputed by historians, many believe that they acted like light infantry. And in any case it was a flanking manouver too, Alexander charged at the gap between the center and one of the flanks after distracting the persian cavalry.
Alexander did not make medieval style frontal charges on heavy infantry. >Antiochus III broke legions with his heavy cavalry charge
Antiochus had cathaphracts. Alexander did not.
Agreed on both points. That said - people here are conflating Alex's phalanxes with other phalanxes when both his training, equipment and tactics differed even from Philip let alone the successor states and Gr**ks.
I fricking hate Romaboos. There's no denying their discipline and skill was perhaps the highest but they weren't invincible murder machines. They got their shit rocked fairly routinely and their victories were largely due to their logistics and, as you say, strategic versatility both in that they could fight in a variety of terrain but also in their on the spot fortifications and other field engineering.
Where Alexander mastered battles, they mastered operations. Both excelled at campaigns.
Speaking frankly, outside of a flank the phalanx should be extremely difficult to take out. They should be one of the most terrifying units in the game - assuming you're forced to engage. With the caveat that they don't engage well or maneuver effectively. I think FoG manages to capture this to some extent but everyone else is right in saying R*me is buffed because devs are homosexuals.
phalanxes are better than legions 1v1 what are you morons talking about?
The problem is phalanxes are too few and not as flexible. It's easier to exploit and out maneuver phalanxes, either by shooting them up, retreating to bad terrain, out numbering them or wearing them down.
In the end the battle will always come down to who reads the field and battle better and out maneuvers the other. Romans are not necessarily better, they are just more consistent and forgiving, they have plenty of their own weaknesses.
Really? I've never delved too deep into the stats but my go-to is to just skirmish and bait their line into advancing on my pre-planned terrain, only ever seriously maneuvering if their infantry quality outclasses mine. Even playing this strat as Macedon with ample armored phalanxes, legions blow my back out without concerted maneuvering. Then again, I could have just been getting horrid rolls and taking the outlier for the average. Also my baiting them into advancing through skirmish tends to lead to their battle line breaking and their units bunching up in clumps/advancing in waves so maybe it's this lack of pure 1v1 line vs line that is tipping the scales. Of course, this is all assuming you aren't moronic.
phalanx have deep pike modifier so fresh and in open terrain they get +100 POA advantage over legions in melee, disregarding troop quality/armour or generals.
I'm guessing you play against AI, what i say is in reference to high level multiplayer play. Since the AI isn't as good as a human, itgets more either/both more points or better quality troops, which forces you to use only asymmetrical tactics against it, and they will always work because the AI will never adapt. It's a completely difference game from multiplayer and not really comparable at all.
And yes even tho pikes are the kings of melee, it doesn't mean you can't get really really unlucky rolls. You can see the odds before combat by changing the tooltip detail setting.
That would be either Pharaoh or Emperor, depends on how you measure their accuracy, But consider this: both are qualified as teaching aids for history lessons across EU.
War in the East (1) is up there in terms of historical accuracy. Very overrated in terms of learning curve. If you’re here talking strategy games you can handle it. If the only strategy game you’ve played is company of heroes not for you
I don't know, I haven't played it.
how the frick can a turn based game be historically accurate? did past Black folk really wait in line to shoot at each other?
You might think it sounds dumb but the japanese did something like that before the Sengoku Jidai.
No they didn't.They had formal ways to start battles.But they wouldn't wait to shot at each other in turns once the battle started.They didn't fight in 1vs1 duels either.
They had a ritualistic tradition of exchaging arrow volleys before the start of the proper battle.
Yes, they did have a tradition of opening arrow shots at the start of pitched battles, but plenty of the battles were still ambushes, night raids, and other formal actions like that where it didn't occur.
Well I said it happened, not that it happened all the time.
I don't know what exactly is the problem here, anon.
Probably wasn't you, but someone else in the thread was pointing to the opening arrow exchange as evidence that pre-Sengoku Japanese battles were rigid and formalistic like a turn-based videogame.
It was me.
I was just replying to an anon who posted "did past Black folk really wait in line to shoot at each other?" that pre-Sengoku japs used to do something alike. I was not at all implying that whole engagements where like that, or that their way of making warfare was like that.
What the frick is your problem. Can't you fricking read?
its based off of old tabletop wargame rulesets, they are designed to be as accurate as possible. The end result is pretty good at depicting ancient strategies and tactics. Much much better than total war at least.
I prefer TW-style over turn-based battles, but I agree, the overall accuracy and troop types are much better decipted in Field of Glory. Sometimes I use those wargame army lists to make historically accurate-ish armies in TW, it's pretty fun
by approximating the result of a battle without physically simulating it, dingus
>instead of simulating something just make it up, lmao.
turn based homies
Peak moron. If the input and output are correct then it is more realistic. There's nothing more hilariously missinformed than RTS. Look at Total War if you want a laugh. Look at accurate recreations of old battles both in the ancient and medieval worlds. They are nothing like anything you will find in TW or any other RTS for that matter. A complete and utter fricking joke.
Counterpoint: "Grand Tactician; The Civil War"
are the tactical battles actually realistic in that? from what I heard the AI does some wacky stuff
It is ok; the AI is unpredictable because it depends of commander characteristics; rarely it made some really morons; but still it is limited as every AI.
Eh, it's fine and luckily many civil war commanders were actually quite moronic, so I can gaslight myself and pretend the AI is larping as one of them.
Ultimate admiral AI was worse than Total War by several yards.
Those battles are not "simulated" like in Total War where each musket ball ends up somewhere, but more abstracted like in Fields of Glory. It just happens to be real-time.
The casualty counts are also unrealistically high, like in Total War.
Unless you only meant ancient & medieval battles, in which case I agree.
Brother, do you think Field of Glory is concerned with recreating the vietnam war or the combined arm fronts of WWII? It's very specifically a troop based game. FoGII/Medi/P&S cover the best eras of war and the rest barely matter - and would also have entirely different mechanics to represent in game.
Until the time we have something like graviteam or combat mission in ancient times, the answer must be no.
In terms of mechanics? Absolutely. Look at the casualty rates in other strat games, especially real time ones. The morale system alone makes it better than all other tactics games.
>field of skirmishers
>historically accurate
Simply post something more accurate. Where's the tactics game with field engineering?
Very easy to start with. The specifics get a bit esoteric until it clicks but nothing is stopping you to pick up and play.
>if you attack a unit with another unit they are static on the board until one side or the other wins and therefore disengages
>engaged units roll combat once per each player's turn
>all units have a orientation, which defaults to the direction of an engagement if it is engaged
>if you engage a unit that is already engaged at a 90 or 180 orientation they take major morale damage (the most important kind)
>skirmisher units can retreat if you try to attack them assuming they have sufficient movement points
>certain units get penalties on certain terrain
Simple as.
how hard is to get into those games? i got free steam version but if its another eu4 situation im out
it's just a tactics game so there's no eu4 grand strategy sliders to fiddle around with
There IS Empires if you want a strategic level.
True, and it's a good game too, even without exporting your battles to FOG2. And definitely less pointless bullshit than EU4, really the only system that takes more than a moment to understand is decadence, and maybe the trade bonus good system.
so theres no strategic map and empire building in base game only combat scenarios? meh
It's a tactics game concerned with tactics. You are all but complaining about Chess not letting you pick your own army composition.
>base game
Empires is it's own game and certainly not some exploitative DLC or withheld content for a double dip. FoG has existed for a very long time. FoGII has existed for a very long time. Empires is relatively recent and made to bring that same level of historical zeal, realism and approachable abstraction to the strat elements. They can be played together but given the crunch of FoGII, I usually end up autoresolving after enough time and as my number of fronts/fielded armies increase.
A good FOGII player will demolish the autoresolve results/projections, of course.
I love these games. Skirmisher-heavy armies tongue my anus and may the Osmans suffer painful death under a charger's hooves.
>phalanx pikes charged by hastati while uphill
>lose combat, disrupted, pushed back
>repeat
>superior lancers and armored cavalry charge roman medium cavalry
>lose melee, hastati charge the flanks and cav is broken
this game is great until you realize the only army worth a shit is rome, every other faction just plain sucks
working as intended frick gr**ks
also skirmishers are just as fast as light cavalry in this game. it's complete nonsense that javelinmen can just casually turn around and fire a volley of javelins while they're running for their lives from pursuing cavalry. and if you try running away from skirmishers with light cavalry they will always catch up with you somehow. cavalry altogether is fricking useless and the ai always manages to tie them up somewhere on the map no matter how good or fast they are.
? light cav are literally faster than skirmishers, and have a high chance to catch and rout them if you start a charge adjacent to them
skill issue
git gud
there's no issue with skill, if you want to win just pick the romans and spam legions
try it in a multiplayer match against a good opponent. they will beat you even with trash warrior band armies 100% of the time.
Your crucial mistake was expecting the Greek phalanx to have any chance against roman infantry. When fighting against Rome in FOG:2 you have to stretch your tactics muscles to their limits as you simply cannot engage roman infantry in a standup slugfest. IRL Roman Infantry was essentially the rock to the Greek Phalanx's scissors, once the Roman front line gets past the sarissa's tip, it's literally all over, even if they are marching uphill. Furthermore, I think you just got some dog shit rolls, as your cavalry should not have lost that cavalry engagement but also the AI had the right idea. Next time, use your Cavalry to bait their Cavalry into a position where you can engage with infantry as they did to you. Even if this detracts from your main infantry formation, the cav engagement will be done before the main battle is decided so you can take your Cavalry and the separated infantry back to the main battle to flank or hammer their anvil. Cavalry pretty much only acts as the hammer in FOG 2 and granted, sometimes hitting a hammer with a hammer can work, but its much better utilized against the anvil.
Another way to beat Rome is to build your army around skirmishers and exploiting cascading morale drops. For example, even if you have half the infantry your enemy does, if the rest of your army is skirmishers you can focus 1-3 of their infantry units and just absolutely frick up their morale so that when the engagement occurs, you can exploit the weak links to cause exponential morale failures. Then again, this all requires good rolls.
Just like in real life, FOG2 makes no pretense of having armies be balanced, it reflects the real world advantages and disadvantages of different nation's units. If you are going to step against the king, you best make sure you have a plan... because his plan is to bum rush you with (historically) overpowered infantry and that's never going to end well for you.
>IRL Roman Infantry was essentially the rock to the Greek Phalanx's scissors, once the Roman front line gets past the sarissa's tip, it's literally all over, even if they are marching uphill.
Lol, lmao. Roman maniples beat the phalanx because they were more flexible and mobile and because they mamaged to fight on uneven terrain. Did you really think the romans beat the phalanx because they discovered CROUCHING? lmao
Almost nothing of this is in the game, this game is poop regarding historical accuracy. Who says otherwise should try to read about battles like Ilipa and Zama and try to recreate them following historical accounts. You can't.
legions being more flexible than phalanxes in uneven terrain is absolutely in the game. phalanx lose their poa if disrupted, legions dont
Good. Now try a pinching infantry maneuver like what happened at Cynoscephale. Again, you can not. Unironically read a history book.
As far as I know there is no recorded example of a pitched battle on flat, even terrain where roman infantry broke a formed macedonian phalanx on a frontal attack. Heraclea, Pydna, Cynocephali, Malaventum, Thermopylae...
The roman legion defeated the hellenistic way of warfare because it was more flexible from a strategical and tactical point of view (higher manpower and superior equipement, better delegation of command, capability of mantaining several armies in campaign etc), not because roman hastati were actually capable of breaking a phalanx in a charge.
Yeah, but he didn't charge at heavy infantry. He looked for the weak point of the enemy line, usually light infantry or a flank. For example at Chaeronea he charged the gap between the Athenian and Theban armies. In Gaugamela he charged the light armored kardakes etc
>Yeah, but he didn't charge at heavy infantry.
Yeah, he did. Stop getting your history from Total War.
He's not wrong, the Macedonians used mounted wedge formations armed with sarissai that managed to crush the Sacred Band and rout the Cardaces which were heavily-armoured btw. But I dunno if that's the case for all Alex's battles
Also iirc Antiochus III broke legions with his heavy cavalry charge
>managed to crush the Sacred Band
Attacking the gaps while the Thebans engaged the macedonian infantry, aka they were flanked. Arrian says so.
>rout the Cardaces which were heavily-armoured
The equipement of the cardaces is disputed by historians, many believe that they acted like light infantry. And in any case it was a flanking manouver too, Alexander charged at the gap between the center and one of the flanks after distracting the persian cavalry.
Alexander did not make medieval style frontal charges on heavy infantry.
>Antiochus III broke legions with his heavy cavalry charge
Antiochus had cathaphracts. Alexander did not.
Agreed on both points. That said - people here are conflating Alex's phalanxes with other phalanxes when both his training, equipment and tactics differed even from Philip let alone the successor states and Gr**ks.
I fricking hate Romaboos. There's no denying their discipline and skill was perhaps the highest but they weren't invincible murder machines. They got their shit rocked fairly routinely and their victories were largely due to their logistics and, as you say, strategic versatility both in that they could fight in a variety of terrain but also in their on the spot fortifications and other field engineering.
Where Alexander mastered battles, they mastered operations. Both excelled at campaigns.
Speaking frankly, outside of a flank the phalanx should be extremely difficult to take out. They should be one of the most terrifying units in the game - assuming you're forced to engage. With the caveat that they don't engage well or maneuver effectively. I think FoG manages to capture this to some extent but everyone else is right in saying R*me is buffed because devs are homosexuals.
homie I ain't clicking all those units: the game
phalanxes are better than legions 1v1 what are you morons talking about?
The problem is phalanxes are too few and not as flexible. It's easier to exploit and out maneuver phalanxes, either by shooting them up, retreating to bad terrain, out numbering them or wearing them down.
In the end the battle will always come down to who reads the field and battle better and out maneuvers the other. Romans are not necessarily better, they are just more consistent and forgiving, they have plenty of their own weaknesses.
Really? I've never delved too deep into the stats but my go-to is to just skirmish and bait their line into advancing on my pre-planned terrain, only ever seriously maneuvering if their infantry quality outclasses mine. Even playing this strat as Macedon with ample armored phalanxes, legions blow my back out without concerted maneuvering. Then again, I could have just been getting horrid rolls and taking the outlier for the average. Also my baiting them into advancing through skirmish tends to lead to their battle line breaking and their units bunching up in clumps/advancing in waves so maybe it's this lack of pure 1v1 line vs line that is tipping the scales. Of course, this is all assuming you aren't moronic.
phalanx have deep pike modifier so fresh and in open terrain they get +100 POA advantage over legions in melee, disregarding troop quality/armour or generals.
I'm guessing you play against AI, what i say is in reference to high level multiplayer play. Since the AI isn't as good as a human, itgets more either/both more points or better quality troops, which forces you to use only asymmetrical tactics against it, and they will always work because the AI will never adapt. It's a completely difference game from multiplayer and not really comparable at all.
And yes even tho pikes are the kings of melee, it doesn't mean you can't get really really unlucky rolls. You can see the odds before combat by changing the tooltip detail setting.
>charge my cavalry into some infantry on flat terrain
>the cavalry loses
Not realistic in the slightest. Another victim of the flanking meme.
>Another victim of the knightly lancer meme
Ancient cav couldnt do that, dunce.
Yes they could, and they did.
wrong
Alexander won all his battle with cavalry front charge
Did he? I think there were more complex maneuvers on both sides before the charge
moron
That would be either Pharaoh or Emperor, depends on how you measure their accuracy, But consider this: both are qualified as teaching aids for history lessons across EU.
War in the East (1) is up there in terms of historical accuracy. Very overrated in terms of learning curve. If you’re here talking strategy games you can handle it. If the only strategy game you’ve played is company of heroes not for you
It's probbaly gotta be like Vanilla hoi3 or some spreadsheet simulator.
if you don't know why what you said is dumb im not even going to bother trying to engage with you. certainly won't be giving you any more (you)s