What is the point of the Phalanx

[Kuciwalker]

I don't play Greece very often, so I've never thought much about it. It costs the same as the Axeman, requires an additional tech, and doesn't have a bonus against melee. It's not really any better than the base unit against horse - 8v4 or 8v5 is just as good as 10v4 or 10v5 really. So, what's the point?

[Qwertqwert]

It's a bad UU. The Aztecks Jaguars are even worse. Less attack and only a bonus 25% in the jungle.

[Pinchak]

The business end of his spear.

[Pinchak]

Joking aside, I like Phalanx. Sure it is no Prat, but here is why I regard it as a "good" UU.

1. In ancient levels of the game I consider mounted units a bigger threat then unmounted. Keisks, Immortals, plain horse archers, war chariots, and others can all wreck your empire almost from the start. Phalanx offers such a rude advantage that most civs employing these units don't even bother messing with Greece.

2. The additional strength point over regular spearmen may not seem like much, but keep in mind again the time of play they are used. A single point difference holds alot more weight early game then later. There are many instances where I will finish off an enemy unit with a Phal, where as I might not with a spear (think wounded axemen or swordsmen).

3. One of the nicest advantages that is probably overlooked is the fact that you can more easily get away with not upgrading Phalanx to Pikemen. This of course is largely situational, however if you are using them primarily for city defence, the 5 + 125% still offers quality defence against later mounted units such as elephants, and knights, where as I wouldn't rely on spearmen at that point.

The real "key" to why Phalanx rock is centered on the fact that with the 100% bonus against mounted, you are effectively getting 2 bonus strength points compaired to spearmen. This allows for the Phalanx to survive a counter attack when talking about targets ranging from only 4-6 strength, and is absolutely critical when talking about 10-12. It also allows for you to deal with meele/archery units in a pinch.


Jaguars are not as quality a UU IMO, but again the advantage is not as obvious as simple strength/bonus.

Jaguars assure you a level 5 unit. Play as the Aztecks and you never have to worry about being stuck without metal. Getting them to Woodsman 2 can also prove a huge advantage if terrain permits.

I would vote Fast Worker as one of the worst. An extra movement point for a non military unit? YIPPY!!!

Celtic Warrior is pretty lame too. The bonus for hills lends itself toward defence, of which it is hardly a defensive unit.

[Will9]

The only way you the phalanx is good is if you begin next to Carthage. Look at what Alexander did, the phalenx should have near Preat like status.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Pinchak
1. In ancient levels of the game I consider mounted units a bigger threat then unmounted. Keisks, Immortals, plain horse archers, war chariots, and others can all wreck your empire almost from the start. Phalanx offers such a rude advantage that most civs employing these units don't even bother messing with Greece.

Maybe I'm weird, but I shy away from Horse units as the bulk of my army because they're not really useful for taking cities. I'll have some chariots to kill archers and pillage, and a couple horse archers to pick off stragglers, but that's it. And at this point you do have Spearmen anyway, and they're plenty good at giving a stack coverage against horse units.

I take this back a little bit: if the enemy has Elephants, I'd love Phalanxes. That's pretty situational though.

2. The additional strength point over regular spearmen may not seem like much, but keep in mind again the time of play they are used. A single point difference holds alot more weight early game then later. There are many instances where I will finish off an enemy unit with a Phal, where as I might not with a spear (think wounded axemen or swordsmen).

The point difference isn't as important when you consider the +100% modifier. Strength 8 is already more than enough to ward off any potential horse attackers; strength 10 is overkill. Maybe I'd want one more Spear than Phal to guard a stack, but that's only a few extra shields (and I'd rather have a useful UU than save those few shields).

Re: attacking non-horse units: if I'm using my Phals or Spears to take on non-horse I probably didn't build enough Axes or Swords in the first place.

3. One of the nicest advantages that is probably overlooked is the fact that you can more easily get away with not upgrading Phalanx to Pikemen. This of course is largely situational, however if you are using them primarily for city defence, the 5 + 125% still offers quality defence against later mounted units such as elephants, and knights, where as I wouldn't rely on spearmen at that point.

This is a valid point.

The real "key" to why Phalanx rock is centered on the fact that with the 100% bonus against mounted, you are effectively getting 2 bonus strength points compaired to spearmen. This allows for the Phalanx to survive a counter attack when talking about targets ranging from only 4-6 strength, and is absolutely critical when talking about 10-12. It also allows for you to deal with meele/archery units in a pinch.

That same point makes it less useful, as I mention above. Spears are already so good against regular horse that 2 more strength isn't terribly important.

I would vote Fast Worker as one of the worst. An extra movement point for a non military unit? YIPPY!!!

The fast worker can be good if you use it properly.

[Cyclotron]

The fast worker generally shaves 1 turn off projects simply because you can get there and start working a little bit earlier. This isn't very useful on marathon and epic settings, where 1 turn out of 15 or 20 isn't too great, but it can be cumulatively more impressive in faster games where shaving a turn off can be a significant advantage. 3 movement means that they can traverse 2 "rough terrain" spots, like forest, every turn, where the normal worker can only traverse one, essentially doubling their movement in rough terrain. Likewise, it's no Praetorian, but especially in normal and quick games it demonstrates its utility.

[Pinchak]

Maybe I'm weird, but I shy away from Horse units as the bulk of my army because they're not really useful for taking cities.

All things being equal, I don't really use mounted units early on either. However, if you have Mongols, Persia, or Egypt as a neighboor... Phalanx is a godsend. There are some players who will rush with mounted as well (expecially on larger maps hoping to catch you off guard). In either of the above situations, you will learn very quickly why that extra point matters.

The point difference isn't as important when you consider the +100% modifier.

The extra point is helpful when you don't have the modifier, which of course is sometimes not your choice, (and of course for elephants and knights).

Re: attacking non-horse units: if I'm using my Phals or Spears to take on non-horse I probably didn't build enough Axes or Swords in the first place.

Well, having the perfect mix of units certainly aleaveates the need to use mismatched units, but in reality how many times do you find yourself in a situation where you could do some extra damage if you forgo perfect matchups? Prime example of this would be your city has 3 axemen and one Phalanx defending, you get attacked by 3 axemen and they all win but are now wounded. Instead of letting them run off to heal, you could use the Phalanx to kill one. A spearman in the same situation is more of a gamble.

The above situation is simply one instance of a phenomanon that often occures since spear based units often are mixed with meele.

The other side of the coin is when you just kill a mounted unit, but are now within range of another unit. All things being equal, the extra strength point will sometimes make your enemy think twice about a counterattack.

that 2 more strength isn't terribly important.

1 on 1 matchup between Phalanx and low level mounted... i agree. The extra 2 points come into play big time however when it is multiple mounted verses one Phalanx, or against units like knights or elephants.


I guess I like Phalanx as a UU because spearmen are usually a nessasary evil to deal with one specific type of threat. With Phalanx, you need fewer to address that threat, don't NEED to upgrade them to address that threat down the line, plus they are more of a "jack of all trades" as opposed to the narrow scope of spearmen.

[Thedrin]

Jaguars ... Getting them to Woodsman 2 can also prove a huge advantage if terrain permits.

...

Celtic Warrior is pretty lame too. The bonus for hills lends itself toward defence, of which it is hardly a defensive unit.

?

Why is the Jaguar's woodsman I praised as potentially a huge advantage while the Gallic Warrior's guerilla I is dismissed?

[Pinchak]

Hills tend to be sparatic, whereas forest/jungle tend to cover much ground.

I don't know... they both are very situational UUs... heavly dependent on map type. Overall though you are much more likely to be able to move toward a target using nothing but forest/jungle than you are by using nothing but hills.

[Kuciwalker]

The Jaguar's Woodsman I is useful because it can then get Woodsman II, giving it double moves in forest. And the Jag is a better rush unit than Swords, which have to bring along cats.

[Solver]

I like the Phalanx overall.

1. The extra strength point does matter. Not against Chariots, no. But against Horse Archers already, it does. It means that Phalanxes will likely take less damage than Spearmen in combat - which might just allow a Phalanx to beat 2 Horse Archers where a Spearman would be too damaged after the first one. Phalanx actually counters elephants, and defensively, can stand their ground against Knights.

2. At strength 5, Phalanxes can be used to help in attacking cities. Vs. Archers they're just as good as Axemen - you can certainly finish off the occasional Archer with a Phalanx. Or even promote them with City Raider to begin with, because they need no promotions to be effective vs. mounted units.

3. Ditto for combat in the field. Phalanxes can finish off wounded Swordsmen, or attack Catapults at even odds.

Overall, I'm like Pinchak - Spearmen are something you need. However, Phalanxes are better ot other things, making you not curse at them as useless units in your stack if the enemy runs out of mounted units.

[Tattila the Hun]

I rather like the Fast Worker, mainly, because it's good for the whole game. You benefit from it from start to finish, while something like Preatorian is useless/in need of upgrading pretty soon.

[Pinchak]

Considering your citys are connected by roads (hopefully), I find the fast workers bonus to be null most of the time.

With proper planning you shouldn't need an extra movement point.

Now if by "fast" it ment they could build faster, THAT would make them one of the best UUs.

[Xorbon]

I don't think the Gallic Swordsman's free promotion is bad at all. If I'm not mistaken, when the unit gets upgraded later, it retains that promotion for the rest of the game. So, you could pump out extra Gallic Warriors early on so that you can have a bunch of Guerrilla I infantry later in the game. I assume the same can be said about Jaguar Warriors and other UUs which have a free promotion.

Other units, which get simple additional strength/movement points or bonuses vs. unit-types, lose that benefit once they are upgraded.