Recent content by FightingFirst

Meh graphics arent cutting edge but I never expected them to be. They are passable for me and I always think gameplay should come before graphics but that is purely an opinion.

Nordmann said:

I must admit that reading these posts about loose order Roman formations, fighting as individuals to show off their bravery and martial prowess, with their swords being poor thrusting weapons, has me wondering what history books these posters have been reading that I haven't!

Click to expand...

It was not me that mentioned the thrusting part or martial prowess but I did mention the loose formation and provided a source.

Neptune08640 said:

Maybe I have misunderstood, when you said fought loose i was thinking a single soldier going holliwood hero style in the middle of the enemies not the whole "army", yes their strenght was the ability to adapt and being flexible I agree, this and the learing from theri enemies .

In this game the shield wall doens't work for me, my soldiers are massacred in formations,theyperforme better if i charge them at the right moment

Click to expand...

I dont think you were replying to me in your original post. There are contemporary sources that state there was a 3 foot space between legionnaires. Now I am sure this would change depending upon a number of factors. When I say loose I mean you fight in formation but you are not shoulder to shoulder with the next guy. You would be a given distance apart. This gives each soldier space to operate but still has the support of the muckers around him.

Neptune08640 said:

The romans didn't fight loose XD, their main weapons was the gladius, a short sword ment to stab and thrust not swing/chop, their pila, javlin meant to make the enemy shield usless by sticking to it, and their big shield. They were one of the most organized army in the history lol with one of the most advanced formation of that time. The archaic Rome had some hoplite and phalanx but then they developed their own combat sistem which was similar to a shiled wall. Their superior tactics and organization allowed them to win against the macedon sarissa phalanx and the greek phalanx.
Romans fought loos lol

Click to expand...

There is evidence that suggests they did though, at least that is what contemporary sources such as Polybius state. There are quite a lot of reasons to fight in a loose formation if you are a well disciplined and trained force that relies on flexibility. Dont get me wrong, being the flexible force they are I presume they would alter the formation depending on the situation. Just like how Napoleonic infantry altered the formation depending on if they were facing cavalry or infantry.

Please no

SirStart said:

so wha kind o sources ye have to back yer claims, i would love to read em as most historians and sources seem to be wrong in the roman and greek warfare according to yer claims. and wha does the pre phalangite have to do with this? i said think o the spartans, and most medieval warfare where just this, phalanxes fighting each others or shieldwalls pushing each others untill one routed.

Click to expand...

Polybius XVIII,30,6-8 is one I believe off the top of my head. Conicidently that is how I was taught to fight in a riot. We were told to move away from the old technique of interlocking shields and fight with gaps between each other so you could swing and were much more flexible.
The formation is much more porous but anyone who ran to the side would get hit on the way in and then by the person behind - trust me once you tried that once you wouldnt do it again.

However, the issue is still largely contested over the actual distance. All I can say is 3 foot does work in a riot situation, how that would translate to an ancient battlefield I cannot say