/k/ - Weapons

>>590468

Machine gun fire is just firing phalanx.

>>590464

>if horse archer, stand firm and loop rock and arrows at them until they die.

You've been playing shitty games, otherwise horse archers would ruin your formation.

>>590471

In actual reality, crossbowmen destroy mongol horse archer.

Horse archers are baiters, do take the bait.

Ultimate strategy if you're a rock paper scissors strategy game player

The Roman staggered formation of hastati and triarii rendered the phalanx obsolete

>>590474

oh please, the roman only win due to the fact they lure the phalanx to uneven terrain.

In open combat, nothing can break the phalanx frontal defense.

>>590475

And this is legionnaire, not hastati and triarii (who are frankly USELESS against phalanx).

>>590475

>In open combat, nothing can break the phalanx frontal defense.

Which is why you flank them with cavalry. There has never been an unbeatable weapon, formation, doctrine, or tactic - if there were then we'd still be using it a few thousand years after it was developed.

>unbeatable

Nothing is unbeatable

But when it comes to ancient infantry formations then it is the best one. The only way to counter it is with heavy cavalry, but if the enemy also has cavalry or other troops at the sides then you're eternally fucked

>>590475

>wait in uneven terrain for the to get you

>if they do they die

>if they don't just wait, they die from hunger

get fucked, bugperson

>>590486

I think this BR is trying to communicate

>>590480

Except that's where your cavalries come in. Your big bad heavy cavalries.

This is literally what Alexander used, phalanx supported by heavy pikemen, which were then re-introduced in late medieval/renaissance period.

>>590486

If you force the enemy to stay in one place, you already win.

>>590480

>There has never been an unbeatable weapon, formation, doctrine, or tactic - if there were then we'd still be using it a few thousand years after it was developed.

And we still use this hammer and anvil to this every day, support fire to suppressive enemy, assault move to flank and destroy enemy, repeat ad infinitum.

>>590512

>Bottom Pic

Is it just me or does the shaded portion look like the continental United States + Alaska?

>>590474

Well, he's a vidy strategist. Not many games give you anything deeper than rock, paper scissors.

>>590468

But the machine gunner will be weighed down by his first aid kit rendering him immobile, meanwhile the phalanx will flank him and kill him.

>>590464

Not quite unbeatable, what you need is some sort of shotgun mounted underneath each spear, that would be truly unbeatable. Henry VII knows whats up.

>>590530

See >>590475

And even then, Pyrrhus only lost because of logistics purpose, he cannot replace his troops unlike the romans who zerged him.

Rocks anon, you only need to throw rocks.

>>590471

Of course you're praising horse archers.

>>590574

That is why you have your own artillery.

>>590574

Don't they have shields to block them?

>>590474

The one major battle the Romans fought against macedon they brought war elephants kinda horse shit to say they beat the phalanx

>>590681

Should not elephants be particularly vulnerable to 20 foot iron spears?

>>590464

Out of interest what stops you just using plate armoured infantry (or other suitable heavy infantry) to simply push through until you're inside their minimum effective range? Assuming you aren't moving particularly quickly they won't be able to use your own momentum against you like with cavalry and I doubt even the strongest man can penetrate plate armour with a piercing weapon no matter how long it might be. Obviously this would not be so practical in ancient warfare but assume some time during the medieval period. This should be more effective the longer the enemy's weapon is.

>>590767

Uh yeah, a pike can penetrate plate armor, or at least it can push it away.

But just in case you get too close, that's where the shock infantries (hypaspists or halberdier or zweihander) come in to counter them.

>>590755

Pike is great in most TW games, as it should be.

Better hope no one brought a ballista to yout spear fight.

>>590809

Artillery dawg.

Also, the phalanx was never phased out.

Classical/antiquity: hoplite spearwall to Macedonian phalanx

Medieval: Viking age shieldwall to Scottish schiltron or just regular spearwall.

Renaissance: tercio/pike square.

Modern: infantry block.

By the way, why does Vietnam care about ancient Greek tactics so much

>>590830

Greek mythology was my shit and I really love to play hoplites in Rome Total War.

>>590468

>I'm positively sure that you could devastate a phalanx with a single machine gun.

I'm positively sure that you could devastate a machine gun pillbox with a single guy in energy shielded power armor with a railgun.

Machine guns eternally BTFO

>>590688

History says that yes 20 foot spears did fuck all to a war elephant

>>590681

>implying Macedonia was the only kingdom to use the phalanx

Nearly everybody in antiquity used the phalanx. It's not like it was an advanced technique. Rome used it for a while until they realized that the staggered formation exceeded the phalanx in the terrain they were in.

>>590475

Le ballista face

>>590865

And? The other large scale historical conflicts Rome got into where they faced the phalanx more often then not they got rekt. Remember Pyrrhus defeated the romans

>>590866

Oh yeah. He won so hard he had to retreat. Not to mention the phalanx wasn't the deciding factor for the battle, but the war elephants he brought with him. But he used the phalanx. So the phalanx is great, right?

Not to mention the maniple system had only been used to fight mountain tribes for decades. This was the first real army it had to face. With the backing of other Greek states and Egypt. A refined and drilled maniple system would destroy the (arguably) best phalanx users around at the battle of Pydna.

>>590476

I'm pretty sure that the Samnites, who inspired the roman Hastati and Principes, used rocky terrain a few times to beat Etruscan or Tarentine hoplite formations, though I'm not sure. I don't think you'd need Legionnaires to beat hoplites or pikemen up front, any infantry that can pull off legionnaire formations at decent speed and armed like Samnites could pull it off tbh.

>>590871

>mountain tribes for decades

Bullshit they were fighting the carthagianians and Syricus almost at the same time. He left not because defeat but because he had become unpopular in sicily and integrating them inyo his kingdom was no longer feasible.

Like most heavy infantry, they are good at withstanding cavalry attacks and operating within narrow spaces (Thermopylae). They are carrying too much gear to be good at maneuvering or skirmishing, are somewhat vulnerable to archers, particularly mounted archers.

>>590473

>In actual reality, crossbowmen destroy mongol horse archer.

Except crossbows take much longer to reload and it's incredibly difficult to hit moving targets. Which is why the horde of horse archers riding around your crossbowmen will rape them.

>>590882

>maniple system developed during the Samnite war (343 BC - 290 BC)

>first pyrrhic victory in 280 BC and Pyrrhus retreated 275 BC

>first punic war started in 264 BC

Unless you were talking about Pyrrhus fighting the Carthaginians and Syracuse at around the same time. But that was because he realized he couldn't defeat the romans and thought he could make some more money to fuel his war on Rome by helping Syracuse. And we're moving away from the original discussion on phalanxes. You failed to discredit that his phalanx was the cause of any of his pyrrhic victories as well. So from the original point, the phalanx is still ass and the maniple was superior.

>>590886

The negative of phalanx maneuvering isn't from equipment carried, but any kind of maneuvering must be in sync or you break the phalanx and create more flanks not protected by shock infantry or cavalry. You'll often find that veteran soldiers were in the back of phalanxes to hold back the newer soldiers in the front back from retreating. They were also often found on the outside flanks to stand strong against anybody to make it to the flanks. If the phalanx were to split in half, you'd find new soldiers on the flanks and they'd break and run causing a chain of retreats.

>>590888

That is not what history taught us, crossbowmen benefit from stabler position and easier tranning time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pydna

>The two centers engaged at about 3pm, with the Macedonians advancing on the Romans a short distance from the Roman camp. Paullus claimed later that the sight of the phalanx filled him with alarm and amazement. The Romans Allies tried to beat down the enemy pikes or hack off their points, but with little success. Roman Allies officers began to despair. One 'rent his garments' in impotent fury. Another seized his unit's standard and threw it among the enemy. His men made a desperate charge to recapture it, but were beaten back despite inflicting some casualties. Unable to get under the thick bristle of pikes, the Romans used a planned retreat over the rough ground.

>But as the phalanx pushed forward, the ground became more uneven as it moved into the foothills, and the line lost its cohesion, being forced over the rough terrain. Paullus now ordered the legions into the gaps, attacking the phalangites on their exposed flanks. At close quarters the longer Roman sword and heavier shield easily prevailed over the Macedonian Kopis and lighter armor of the Macedonians. They were soon joined by the Roman right, which had succeeded in routing the Macedonian left.

Yes, so literally because the macedonians got baited.

This is in 168BC so the legions were advanced and post Marian-reform while Macedon powers have waned.

>>590888

Issue is that a crossbow bolt is going to go clean through a horse. If 100 bolts fire, that's 100+ enemy horsemen dead. Either when the bolt hits the rider… or if the bolt hits the horse and the rider falls, causing obstacles for horses behind it which might trip too.

And then, often, the crossbowmen retreat behind their pavises, or there is some other method (pikes?) that prevents

>horde of horse archers riding around your crossbowmen

And it takes a lifetime to train a horse archer, a country can trade 100 crossbowmen for 100 horse archers and win every single time.

Reason why Mongols were successful had far more to do with politics and determination, than some kind of inherent superiority of a horse archer.

>>590535

The zerg rush and more mobile formations was the only way to beat the Phalanx and even then that was more down to getting lucky.

>>590815

The only real flaw is that a Phalanx requires a lot of cohesion and time to setup properly. So really the only legit tactics is to flank them or bumrush them before they get setup which has only happened a few times in history and most of that was down to fuck ups on the Phalanx part or sheer luck.

In theory you could beat it with artillery but if you are in a position to abuse that against the enemy they've seriously fucked up.

>>591120

Man, this is why I think the mongols are gonna be in a reckoning if they truly fight against the HRE (which were comprised of heavy infantries, heavy cavalries and crossbowmen militia/pike militia, as well as italian and various kind of german mercs), mongols only have numbers.

>>590957

>168BC

>post Marian-reform

Are you retarded?

>>591150

Never mind, still legionnaire either ways.

>>591157

That worked very well lol