Greek Hopolite too powerful?

[Brad]

Looking at the Greek special unit compared to the two other civ special units reveiwed already I think that the Hopolite is too powerful compared to them. The Hopolite has a defence of 3 right away in the game (they get bronze working as a free tech, and I think the Hopolite would be attached to that.) which is a big advantage. These wont become obselete for quite a while whereas the chariot and archer, with just an attack of 2 would become obselete very quickly (probably about horseback riding or polythesim) This means that early in the game the Greek cities will be very very tough to defeat...

[Tventano]

They get bronze working, but they still need to find bronze first before they can build these hoplites. These special units will play an essential role in the game. If you have in the beginning the choice attacking the greek and another civ, you will probably make peace with the greek and attack the other one. Giving the ability to the greek to use their scientific abilities.

[Footie Mad]

Yes and isn't that the whole point of unique units? You are supposed to get an advantage over the other civs, all of the civs get one and how could you possibly know if it is imbalanced before having played the game?

[Saint Marcus]

Historically it makes perfect sense too. The relativelly small greek city states held out against a much bigger Persian Empire. The Persians did invade several times, but were repelled every time...and the Persians where the worlds biggest and strongest empire in those days. When the romans did conquer the greeks, as the first empire in history, they were in awe of the power of the Hopolite...

[BeBMan]

I bet the Roman Legion has an Attack of 3 or 4, to relativate the advantage of the Greeks. And for me the Hoplites are powerful, yes, but I think from a historical point of view that makes sense - they were more powerful than ancient Egypt or Babylonian units.

[Saint Marcus]

BTW, this means the Pikeman has a defense of at least 3 or 4, since on Civ3.com it says that the Pikeman is superior in defense than the Hoplite. Interesting indeed.

[Fiil]

hoplite/pikemen

I never understood what the difference between hoplites and pikemen were. They were both infantry armed with 6 foot long spears/pikes.

Is the only difference the bronze or iron spearpoint?

What exactly makes the pikemen much stronger?

I once saw i picture of a hoplite thrusting the rear end of his spear into the ground to counter a cavalry charge just as pikemen did many years later.

Does anyone have an explanation?

[BeBMan]

Fiil, I think you speak about Theban or Macedonian Hoplites equipped with Sarissas (these are the long lances ) during the 4th century BC and later? However, "normal" Greek Hoplites, especially in the classical age were equipped with much shorter lances/spears.

[Fiil]

Originally posted by BeBro
Fiil, I think you speak about Theban or Macedonian Hoplites equipped with Sarissas (these are the long lances ) during the 4th century BC and later? However, "normal" Greek Hoplites, especially in the classical age were equipped with much shorter lances/spears.

Would you then classify the Theban/Macedonian hoplites as pikemen?
I was referring to the them because they are the only ones special enough to make a special unite. So I assume it is these theban/macedonian hoplites fireaxis call The Greek Hoplite.
The "normal" greek hoplites from the classical age are only spearmen in my eyes.

[Swissy]

Re: hoplite/pikemen

Originally posted by Fiil
I never understood what the difference between hoplites and pikemen were. They were both infantry armed with 6 foot long spears/pikes.

Is the only difference the bronze or iron spearpoint?

What exactly makes the pikemen much stronger?

I once saw i picture of a hoplite thrusting the rear end of his spear into the ground to counter a cavalry charge just as pikemen did many years later.

Does anyone have an explanation?

Pikeman had considerably longer weapons. Three to five ranks could have a direct impact at the point of contact. Hoplites were generaly individual fighters with but two ranks having a direct effect on the fighting.


As far as planting the spear to receive a cavalry charge, that was a tactic from chariot times. From the earliest of times it has always been a fools errand for mounted troops to charge formed well-ordered foot troops. Missles and manuever were used by the mounted troops to disorder the foot soldiers before a charge could be attempted.

[Fiil]

Maybe the "normal" hoplites as BeBro called them were like that but I always thought that the macedonian hoplites had just as long lances as the pikemen (in fact longer: 12 feet) and that they like the pikemen could have several lines in contact with the enemy at the same time.

But thanks for updating me on the "planting the spear" subject, I didn't know that for a fact - only assumed it would be something like that.

[Falconius]

Originally posted by BeBro
to relativate the advantage of the Greeks

Relativate?

[Inverse Icarus]

keep that hoplite long enough and my panzers will show you how powerful it is.

[Christantine The Great]

My Little Theory:
Spearman: 1 attack, 2 defence
Greek Hoplite: 1 attack, 3 defence
Pikeman: 1 attack, 3 defence*2 vs. 2 movement point units.

Viola, same as CivII Phalanx vs. Pikemen. I think that would make sense since they are just about the same thing. Maybe the pikeman will have the same defence points as a spearman plus the bonus, we'll just have to wait to find out.

[fred]

Just a tinsy bit of fred knowledge on the subject of Hopolites. If you feel it is wrong say so.

But the time of the Xerxes invasion, the 300 Spartan Elite Hopolites send to defend Thermopylea were equiped with "lances" that from the 2nd to the third row back were still efective. they would be i believe (for the americans) 12 ft long. The spartans used a sholder to shoulder technic. So your flank would be coverd by the man beside you's shield. Your shield would be used to cover the man beside you and down the line.

And Behind the frontline the line would be 8-10 people deep. If the front row droped the row behind would move up. Also when the combat became close the 8 in the back would use their strength to propel the front soldier forward. So if the lance did not kill the enemy and it became hand to hand almost, the frontline would trample and bash the enemy.

The Hopolites (spartan) would spend a lot of time training this over and over, im sure you know of this. But some things about the tactics and time seemed to be missing. The hopolite did have the long lances at Xerxes invasion time. Which they repealed the calvary, archers, and light spearmen of the middle east. But the combined allied army of 3000-5000 is hardly equal to 2 million (stated in Xerxes history logs[true?]) so Thermopylae was lost. after 5 days i believe. again facts are getting mixed up in my head. but 4-6 days a few thousand held the pass. and gave greece the time to prepare.

So the potencey of greek defense should be shown by the hopolite. and it is not like its an offensive wonder. They juts ensure a decent defense early. one could argue that the hopolite should have a higher attack rating, but that would unbalance it. They did well in giving the hopolite superiour defense.