Field of Glory II - Greece Lightning

Field of Glory II is a strategy game that takes a pleasingly realistic view of ancient warfare, allowing me to set up a little historic grudge match between the forces of Greece and Rome...
Field of Glory IIstore.steampowe...
Follow us on Twitter / manyatruenerd
Support us on Patreon / manyatruenerd
Join our Discord - / discord
Find us on Reddit / manyatruenerd
Find us on Facebook / manyatruenerd
Fanfare for Space, Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons...
Additional graphics from www.movietools....

[@jaketheberge1970]

"No one likes being hit up the ass". The Internet lied to me.

[@gargoyles9999]

Jake Theberge Field of Glory 2: Reem everything

[@Macantor13]

Oh my god its a game Jon hasnt had his eye on for a while. I never thought this day would come.

[@MostlyClueless]

I'm looking forward to Bomber Crew. It's like FTL but... and he's probably had his eye on it for a while.

[@EVERSMAN42]

I weird and never really got into FTL but I am so excited for Bomber Crew

[@MrVlogman101]

I love how Jon keeps talking about his general as if he didnt die in the first minute of the battle when Jon committed him into a fight where he got insta flanked.

[@EVERSMAN42]

I know right, I swear Jon is getting worse at games by the day

[@DFurlanete]

The human cannonball of our city's circus retired recently. We're not replacing him, though. It's hard to find a man of that caliber.

[@Pigmedog]

How many comment sections have you posted this on and how many times has it actually worked?

[@DFurlanete]

Worked? What? It's a pun, dude. It's just there to make people laugh.

[@muckednuts]

I h a v e N o M o u t h B u t I M u s t M e m e its a dying art. Not many people are built for it. The labour union crackdown of 88 crippled the industry. The few performers with their eardrums still intact have become trebuchetmen or gone into finance. I think op was just sharing his pain.

[@DFurlanete]

Exactly! It's sad to see an beautiful art form be shot out like that. So many performers fired since then...

[@muckednuts]

Danilo Furlanete Thats good to hear. At least they lost their jobs doing what they loved.

[@PetelliusCerialis]

I can't tell you how happy I am too see you cover this. I was given the code for it about a week back and I can't stop playing it. As someone who did their uni dissertation on the mechanics of Roman battles and how psychology and morale played a huge part in it, I can vouch for the high degree of accuracy. They also have an editor you should check out, as you can make your own battles and campaigns. They also have a MP, but it's only played a turn at a time.. bit odd, but it does make it easier for people who don't have 2 hours to play MP I guess

[@dpwellman]

Interesting point. But compared to physical board games., I'm struck by the amount of relative patience one has for physical medium versus virtual. So many unfinished games of Monopoly or Risk (classic)that began with such optimism of going all the way to the end.

[@PetelliusCerialis]

I think its easier when its virtual, on account of there being less to do to set it all up and take it all down. If you don't want to play for a few days its fine, there's no board game sat in the middle of your coffee table when you really want to eat pizza and watch tv with the gf.

[@silasstryder]

*I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS IS BUT IT HAS AN INTRO SCREEN LIKE ROME TOTAL WAR AND I AM SO HYPE*

[@DarthTrethon]

Sadly that's where the similarities end......unlike Rome or other Total War games this one is just trash without any redeeming qualities.....simply dumpster filler, waste or money, etc.

[@AgrippaMaxentius]

Well, that's quite a statement. Every game has redeeming qualities, some just prefer actual tactical combat like Field of Glory 2 as opposed to just "Pretty Graphics" as you see in Total War games. Empire and everything after it are total garbage, and fake representations of period combat. But hey, as long as you get your "Shiny Colors" who cares about gameplay right?

[@DarthTrethon]

Gameplay was EXACTLY what I was talking about when I said this game is total garbage.....where did you get the idea anything I said had anything to do with graphics?

[@AgrippaMaxentius]

Then you've completely lost the plot, the gameplay here is far more realistic, tactical and strategic than any TW game.

[@DarthTrethon]

Yes.....because everyone waited nicely for everyone else to take their turns and mountains were totally flat for strategic reasons....totally realistic....practically indistinguishable from real life. :D :D :D

[@hugosequeira1810]

that a shot everytime Jon says "These guys"

[@lynnohlsten9420]

Hugo Sequeira Take a shot every time Jon says "right"

[@Ishoam]

I passed out after 10 minutes.

[@lynnohlsten9420]

This video made me realize that in total war rome2 that I've been useing skirmishers as archers. I am such a fucking idiot.

[@mudcrab3420]

This game is published by Slitherine, who are the same mob responsible for the Fields of Glory tabletop set of rules. My guess is that the tabletop set was FoG One and this computer version is FoG Two. There does seem to be a lot of carry over in concepts and maybe even mechanics from the tabletop rules. For starters? Turns. There also seems to be Impact and Melee phases which was a core mechanic of the tabletop rules and there is the fact that your tool tips show the win/draw/lose chances as a percentage. Basically there is a LOT screaming to me that this is a tabletop set with all the dice rolling and factors hidden behind the animation. Now, what makes this all interesting is the current state of Ancient Gaming in the greater wargaming community. (yes, it's a thing) and for that you need a short - and possibly boring - history of Ancient Wargaming lesson. Now way back in the day there was a thing called WRG - Wargames Research Group - who made ancient rules. They existed in the pre-desktop publishing era back when physically getting something published was quite hard. They were old school with factors and average dice and casualties per figure and Romans were a super army because Phil Barker slept in Lorica Segmentata pjs. They were popular because in the land of the blind... Then mid 80s some time came out a set called DBM. These were VERY different and fast play. Rather than having masses of figures in each unit and counting them all and checking a table and taking away the number you first thought of you just lined up your stand of figures against his stand of figues, rolled one dice each, added some mods and the highest side won. To be honest these were a relatively fun set of rules. You could finish games and you didn't have to wank around with massive charts and tables remembering factors and casualties. On the down side they were pretty much a 'game' and in abstracting things there were some weird quirks. The rules also encouraged you to play to the games strength rather than attempting to re-use successful historical tactics and the rule set was not universally popular. People who liked it, played it. People who didn't like it put their ancient figures back in the cupboard and started painting tanks. Then came FoG about 10 years ago. Now FoG was supported by Osprey Publishing so the production standards were great. Quality rule and army list books with lots of full colour artwork. The rules went away from some of the abstract concepts in DBM and many ancient wargamers latched onto these rules in excitement. The rules were... okay... They meant well. There were quirks due to the way the dice system worked in that a six stand unit was always more powerful than 2 four stand units, combat could be grindy and games seemed to take forever to finish. There was still the impression that they were better than DBM and this set became the most popular for Comp Gaming (yes, that's a thing. There are ranking tables and everything). Now all this is English Language wargaming. In France there was a rules set called L'art de la Guerre that had been out for some ten years or something and was finally converted to English a few years ago. It's different again, appeared in the English speaking gaming community and in the space of two years has UTTERLY replaced FoG as the go to convention gaming set. Now this is the really interesting thing. Normally wargamers get stuck in their ways as re-basing an army of physical lead figures is a pain and simply building the army in the first place is a big investment in time and money. So people linger, play their old favourites in their own little social gaming circles and loudly point out what they don't like about the new rules while leaning over the gaming table of someone who does. L'art de la Guerre on the other hand has nearly 100% replaced FoG within two years! So, where am I getting at with all this and how does it relate to computers? Well tabletop FoG was replaced so quickly that it can't just have been 'these new rules are better' unless there was also a strong lingering feeling that deep down people were only really tolerating FoG. And why were they only tolerating FoG? Well possible because the feeling from 100s of ancient warfare buffs was that it wasn't a very good representation of pre-gunpowder warfare, had clunky or quirky mechanics, took too long to finish a game or ALL OF THE ABOVE. So? FoG II, our brand new computer game, might not actually have very good parents and might not be a good choice to breed from. Or not. Just saying :P

[@silverswordsmith5424]

I just thought of something. I actually have a book on wars and battles of the ancient world. Since there is a mechanic of forces getting pushed back, you could arrange your men so that the weaker are in the center and the tougher are on the edges. That way, the center gets pushed in while the edges hold firm. Then, you have some other units, like cavalry, to flank around and envelope them in. I believe this tactic was first used by Hannibal against the Romans and it completely destroyed them. The entire army was either killed or taken prisoner. Since then, the tactic was used in countless battles afterwards, even by the Romans.

[@TheCreaturesfan1]

I'm starting to think Jon might like the Romans....

[@donkeydawejr8902]

TheRoboticRonin hmmm I don't know

[@Ishoam]

What makes you say that? He's only got a degree in classics, conquered the ancient world as the Brutii, and named his Stellaris empire "Pax Romana".

[@brianmcgloughlin7799]

I would like to see Jon finish off the campaign that he's started.

[@Mankorra_Gomorrah]

This was very historical having both armies focus their strength on the right and then fight a holding action on the left until the actual soldiers could come and relieve them.

[@minscandboo9749]

Many a true Cheer for Many a true History of Many a true Classics with Many a true Nerd! *Many a true Squeak!*

[@marcusl8602]

I have multiplied chills about this video.

[@cory6266]

It took 53 seconds after this was uploaded for me to get a notification. That is unacceptable, youtube!

[@basztiancooper]

29 minutes ....

[@toaofpi]

If you ever return to this game, I'm quite curious how the massive end battle would have shaped up. Thanks for the video!

[@djordjeubimalog8406]

for those not sure, this game is not an arcade, its highly realistic represenation of ancient battles (IN comparison to total war)

[@johnnyjohnson4214]

Sid Meier's Pirates battles as a full game. I love it

[@josephdedrick9337]

Sorta cool the first romans tried a triplex acies, with 3 lines, with hastati/pricipe in front with the triali as the reserve force and javs as a screen unti.

[@Syl2r]

When I saw that this game was being released by slitherine games I instantly thought of you Jon.

[@boringmanager9559]

I just started to watch, but I know it's gonna be great show.

[@EmperorsChildren]

More of this please! Loved it :)

[@cheetarah9199]

You 'might' do some more classical strategy games. Might? Oh Jon. We know this would be your entire channel if you could find enough good ones (with a sprinkling of FO)! And when you do find them, we will sit back and enjoy the history lesson.

[@ryanlorenzo5003]

I guess Classical Jon just gets his General killed willy nilly, ignores it, and thinks everything is perfectly fine. But then again he did say he wanted to be realistic so he definitely missed that giant notification.

[@TripleEye_Josh]

"This is more realistic than Rome: Total War" Throws hundreds of arrows and spears at a single group of men, none of them die.

[@gargoyles9999]

Josh Griffiths -1 perception

[@josephdedrick9337]

check the number by the ap, it shows the men in each unit, aka they do die, just the graphic representation of the unit doesnt like to die.

[@atekin99]

its just sprites, in reality hundreds die within the unit

[@konstantingr5928]

love it how people cant spot sarcasm

[@oWallis]

Wow earliest I've ever been here

[@dave1927p]

Paradox interactive should purchase these guys and incorporate into Europa Universalis Rome 2

[@thewhiskysmokers3117]

I want too se more of this! So fun!

[@ham_the_spam4423]

Yay I'm early for a MATN video!

[@mudcrab3420]

Republican era Rome fielding both pre-reform Principes Hastati Triarii AND post reform Legionaries? WORSE. GAME. EVER!

[@Elephantstonica]

Roman cavalry wasn't bad. Look at Telamon (Gauls) Heraclea against Pyyrhus' Thessalian Cav, Magnesia (Seleucids). The bad reputation comes from the defeats at Trebia and Cannae, which was predominantly due to superior numbers of more manoeuvrable Cavalry. At Zama the 1,500 heavy horse did their work. After the republic Roman-Italian horse were generally replaced with foreign auxiliaries when on campaign, due to the majority of it being conducted outside Italy. Equites were generally regarded of superior station and rank, compared to infantry.

[@TheSunderingSea]

Didn't the Seleucid Cavalry smash the Roman Socii cavalry at Magnesia? Antiochus did have Cataphracts and his Companion cavalry with him, and if I recall correctly the Roman cavalry was smashed.

[@Elephantstonica]

Podcast_Anon Antiochus lined up on the banks of the River Phrygius, with his phalanx in the centre and cavalry and light troops on each flank. He took personal command of the cavalry on the right, next to the river. The Romans arranged their army with their entire cavalry force (bar a few) on their right, furthest away from the river, in an attempt to prevent Antiochus from outflanking. On the right Scipio placed the allied Pergamene army under Eumenes and the Achaean peltasts, 3,000 in all to cover the flank of the legions. Next to them he placed his cavalry, nearly 3,000 strong, 800 of them Pergamenes, the rest legionary cavalry. According to Livy, in the extreme right he posted the Trallian and Cretan horsemen, each body numbering 500 troopers, but most probably, these are the light troops and archers named by Appian to be intermingled among the cavalry. Livy hey?!😉 Both Antiochus and the Romans were successful on their right. Antiochus led his cavalry in an attack which broke the Roman infantry on the left, closest to the river, and threatened to reach the Roman camp but failed to do so. On the Roman right Eumenes was equally successful, breaking through the Syrian chariots and light troops, then charging and defeating 3,000 heavy cataphracts. Antiochus’ phalanx was suddenly vulnerable. The final act is straight from Wikipedia, seems close enough though; Forming squares facing all sides in good order, the phallangitai tried to march off the battlefield. The Roman legionnaires threw their pila at the Seleucid infantry, but the sarissas of the deeper rows, held vertically, deflected the projectiles and minimized their damage. Eumenes then decided to fire all his arrows, slings and javelins at the elephants. This tactic was very successful. The elephants, inside the pike square started to panic and charged through their own lines, disorganizing the square formation. The Roman legions charged the Seleucids, caused panic to spread, and defeated them piecemeal as their formations began to fragment. So there you go, predominately Legionary cavalry nailing cataphracts.

[@TheSunderingSea]

1. That wasn't Roman cavalry, it was Pergemonese 2. The Chariots broke up the formation of the Cataphracts on the right, who couldn't charge, and anyway the Roman left of both Cavalry and infantry was routed by the Cataphracts on the Right, so it has nothing to do with the effectiveness of Roman cavalry.

[@Elephantstonica]

Podcast_Anon Hang on, firstly you said the Roman cavalry was smashed. That didn't happen. Disrupted still by the chariots yes, but you are forgetting they were fully mailed horse. The cavalry and peltasts were placed on the right to protect the flank away from the river, the equites did more than this and were used effectively, this then allowed the missile troops to throw all at the elephants. This counterattack was made by 3,000 Roman Cavalry and only 800 Pergamenes. Of course if you had equal numbers of cataphracti V equites in a head on charge, the Romans lose. Though this didn't happen. This engagement is solid evidence (as far as the two historians provide) to help illustrate that the Roman cavalry weren't all bad. Methinks you got it wrong originally, didn't check your numbers or facts and now you're trying to defend your error, by being picky and snide. Don't get childish on me la.

[@TheSunderingSea]

Whoah pal, way too take things way too personally, and second, Appian (The same source both of us are citing) cites the specific attack of the Pergemonese king and his cavalry as the charge that broke Antiochus's cavalry on the left. Roman cavalry was not that bad (Which I never disagreed with from the start) and they could do well, but Magnesia produced a specific set of circumstances (including the use of foreign/allied cavalry and the disruption of the Seleucid formation) that allowed for the break of Antiochus's left. There is a reason that the Romans resorted to using Foreigners for their cavalry until 200 A.D

[@oliversmith6011]

hey jon, what do you think about trying the game receiver? pretty interesting thing to play. Cheers

[@acuerdox]

you know the phalanx vs legionary thing was resolved in one battle. the romans didnt give the macedonian a chance to recuperate. so maybe in other circunstances the phalanx would win against the legion.

[@Limeonal]

More MORE MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOREEEEE

[@cosmicthing2]

I lost track of the number of times you said 'these guys'.

[@davidquezada50]

Didn't notice this is a sequel... Wonder how's the first one .. probably has all it's content in one vanilla game and isn't dlc cut content heavy

[@gramursowanfaborden5820]

>turn based battles >realistic hmm.

[@sakesaurus]

It is and you don't always need a real-time combat for it to convey the real strategic principles. Really, I think that real-time battles came as a bit of disadvantage for Total War series in regards to realism

[@sakesaurus]

Indeed

[@CommissarMitch]

Will Jon ever return to Fictorum? We don't know. And now, the sport.

[@zackc3767]

It melts my cold heart when the Roman legions deploy in checkerboard position. :D

[@jayxeno]

Was Roman Calvary considered bad?

[@ManyATrueNerd]

It was never their strong-point - in general, they did a lot better when they out-sourced their cavalry and just let other nations (like the Numidians) provide their cavalry for them as required.

[@adelaide2511]

It performed better than its modern reputation suggests. Cavalry positions were considered highly and required status. But yeah. Their foreign regiments like the Equites Cataphractii were historically more useful (as to why; numbers, distance from Rome et cetera)

[@jayxeno]

Many A True Nerd Need some good Eastern Roman Empire cataphracts!

[@PetelliusCerialis]

Many A True Nerd it wasn't so much they were bad, though they weren't great, but that they were picked from a very small social class. So essentially, they're wasn't too many of them. Though the allied Italian cavalry tended to be pretty good

[@SaintDaisley]

They had the same problem Napoleonic-era British cavalry had - zero discipline. For whatever merits the class that provided cavalrymen had as individual warriors and horsemen, they had all the discipline to be expected of a crowd of entitled upper classmen with no particular unit based training for the job, and consequently were incredibly unreliable, being quite happy to bugger off and do what they wanted instead of what would have been preferred by literally everyone else on their side. The Roman system was set up to shit out highly disciplined medium/heavy infantry endlessly. Cavalry was an afterthought by comparison and consisted of richer people who could equip themselves accordingly and were put together in ad-hoc cavalry groups. The result was...eeeeeeeeeh. Their record speaks for itself. Medieval heavy cavalry got away with being so undisciplined because they were also ludicrously heavily armoured shock cavalry who could obliterate an army in a single action (and when it didn't work, oh my God it REALLY didn't work). Roman cavalry didn't exactly have other attributes to make up for the lack of discipline.

[@craigcollings5568]

OK this is FoG clearly following up on the success PIKE & SHOT. P&S is one of my all-time favourite games - tactical complexity with a wicked AI. The visual style however needs a pivot. I understand the attempt to improve on the unit block style of P&S, but four figures per unit, seriously? It blows an opportunity to capture the drama of ancient battles to end up looking like the worst sort of 1980's WRG game.

[@thebullshooter9180]

I didn't see an ad before this. Now that I think of it, I think it's been a while since I've seen an ad before Jon's videos. Does this apply to just me?

[@VampireofEmotion]

The Bullshooter KZbin is being twatty and ranking loads of his videos as unsuitable for ads because violence and cooking knives and stuff

[@thebullshooter9180]

I am aware of the adpocolypse, but c'mon, MATN might be the most "family-friendly" channel I am subbed to.

[@quimble2177]

Wasn’t it a Pre-Marian armies that fought it Greece?

[@leonardogontijo2850]

I like this game

[@PanzerIVAE]

It's not completely accurate to say that the Roman Legion Style is superior to the Greek Phalanx Style In a proper fight with equal commanders, soldiers and their tactics being followed properly then the Greeks will mop the floor with any Pre-Marian Army of Rome Of course IRL this wasn't the case, Rome at the time had much better and well trained commanders and soldiers while Greece has been in decline and weakening for quite some time now. There's also the fact that the late Diadochi were just bad at trying to follow the tactics and forgot what was needed to actually make their style of fighting as effective as Alexander.

[@Koboldbard]

If only this game was on hexagons

[@Darthvegeta8000]

It's actually based on the Field of Glory miniatures game. And from what I recall not using hexagons was a purposeful choice. Don't remember the reason though.

[@robertjolley7056]

Jon please play age of empires 2

[@gramursowanfaborden5820]

WOLOLOOOOOO

[@HoosierBallz]

Empire Earth as well. In particular the campaigns.

[@jrad2223]

Yes yes yes

[@davidmorris8781]

I notice the first Field of Glory isn't on Steam. Does it even exist?

[@gramursowanfaborden5820]

it's very old, check GOG

[@mudcrab3420]

FoG II is published by Slitherine. Now if you are a tabletop wargamer you would know this company as being the same people who brought out the Field of Glory tabletop rules in partnership with Osprey publishing. I *THINK* this is FoG II because FoG I was their tabletop ruleset. Not completely sure yet.

[@stephenwithav9171]

This looks like the exact kind of thing I love, but only have my decent-ish laptop to run it on. Anyone with a bit of experience with the game, can you tell me if it'd run well enough in your opinion? (Its a few year old laptop that can run pretty big Stellaris campaigns provided graphics aren't too high) Cheers!

[@pepsiipep7842]

Check the game's specs and compare them to your laptop's.

[@PetelliusCerialis]

StephenWithAV ' obviously it would depend on the laptop but the specs aren't that high for this game

[@stephenwithav9171]

Petellius Cerialis Thanks for the advice, looking forward to the release. That said, Jon does very little for my wallet over the years...worth it though,

[@PetelliusCerialis]

StephenWithAV ' yeah, on my higher end PC I tried a battle with around 600 units in it, no problem with the engine or PC handling it, but it did take a while xD

[@matthewloser7567]

historical xcom kinda? will we see xcom on the channel?

[@madhatter3737]

MATN - If you haven't yet you should checkout 0AD, it's similar to Age of Empires, it's Open Source and it's FREE.!, looks very similar to this game and I'd love to hear your opinion on that game.

[@freshfresh5205]

Why is this not WEGO with physics by now? I hate seeing this stylised one at a time with dice rolls.

[@vaeastra]

What’s up Jon?

[@smonkey001]

Let javelin be the front line, get charged and die immediately.

[@CtrlAltGiveUp]

You know what I'd love to see? Jon playing a proper game of Warhammer Fantasy. I imagine High Elves would suit Jon's playstyle very nicely.

[@jamiemitchell3636]

Please okay mount and blade war and before the second one comes out

[@shadyrecords4386]

I need to sleep Jon😱😨

[@alejandromartin8863]

hello John

[@JacobEllinger]

encore?

[@jesusffinpricei5035]

Wait first time ever I’m early

[@nathanielsmith5976]

Jon, no. No, the Romans armies were not superior to the Greeks. What caused the Greeks to fall was a lack of unity and having a ton of very powerful neighbors that also wanted their stuff.

[@netheniahscrim2787]

I would say that the maniple system was also big fctor. There was a reason the Romans abandoned the phalanx - it is slow, requires absolute cohesion and, when forced to fight on multiple fronts, collapses. There were many reasons for Rome's trouncing of the Greeks, but military superiority was most definitely a big one.

[@TNTNinja2]

Nathaniel Smith And also bronze vs iron

[@TNTNinja2]

NetheniahScrim Not really. Rome used shield walls, which were essentially modified phalanxes for troops with swords, or they used testudo, which was great against missile fire, but gave only minor benefits in actual melee. Also, Rome ignored skirmish troops and cavalry, which hindered them against enemies like the Huns who had highly mobile troops who were well trained with missile weapons, although Rome probably would have won had they not had massive problems with rebellions, corruption, and enemies on all fronts.

[@nathanielsmith5976]

No, the difference wasn't superior armies. The Greeks had better armies with more advanced technology and more depth of tactics, having slingers, proper light and heavy cavalry, better ships, and more varied infantry. And elephants. Can't forget the elephants. What happened was that the Greek culture itself failed. The city state system kept them disunited, their ruling classes put Game of Thrones to shame with vicious pettiness, most of Greece was bitter about the fact that they were a conquered people under the Macedonians at the time, and again, their neighbors were eyeing them up for a round of "bash the asshole". They...weren't terribly popular with just about anyone they knew. Add all of that together and the will to fight Rome was weak at best and non-existent at worst. Hell, it wasn't unknown for an army to be bribed to lose by their own leaders so that a rival city-state could be conquered! Terribly short-sighted of course, but that's what happens when you allow your upper-class to get clogged with idiots and opportunists.

[@nathanielsmith5976]

No, Greece had plenty of iron. Many of their island settlements were primarily mining towns for iron.

[@SaintDaisley]

The Roman style was NOT 'very, very much the superior'. The Romans consistently had the worst of any head-on fight with a pike phalanx. It has to be understood that the Roman system succeeded only against a highly debased form of the pike phalanx made famous by Alexander, which was part of a combined arms formation. A pike phalanx was always supported and protected on the flanks by skirmishers and hypaspists, while cavalry would sweep away enemy cavalry and conclude the battle with attacks on enemies engaged by the pike. By the time of the Romans, the pike phalanx was being used inelegantly without the surfeit of supporting forces, instead having stopgap measures like articulated companies between formations to protect the flanks, or just nothing at all. It also had to make do with lesser soldiers, as the pikemen of Alexanders army were terrifyingly mobile, being able to maneuver and advance just as well, if not better, than the far later and more well-known Swiss pikemen did. Later Grecian pikemen simply didn't have the same mobility and discipline they should have had, instead being smashed into enemies like a club and used as the arm of decision in combat as the pre-pike phalanx would have done. The Romans were still entirely unable to face these devolved pike formations head-on, and achieved victory only through their system of centurions, essentially a modern day NCO, capable of taking forces and responding to battlefield opportunities independently, outflanking or taking advantage of available opportunities. But those men could have done such a thing with any kind of formation. Even so, a fight with a pike phalanx was an ugly one the Romans knew they couldn't really win head-on.....that was the entire advantage of such a formation, it will obliterate anything that's in front of it. Misconceptions and misinformation about the campaigns between Greece and Rome, both deliberate or not, give rise to the idea that the Roman system was somehow highly maneuverable and versatile......it largely wasn't, it just was compared to pike blocks being used like unwieldly bludgeons instead of properly as Alexander and his father had introduced and used them. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that Alexander or his father would have crushed Rome's armies like an eggshell. Instead, the Romans stepped into a world that was, militarily speaking in comparison to Alexander, post-apocalyptic.

[@ruurdf693]

Michael Daisley false

[@SaintDaisley]

That's a response so worthless on so many levels that it has fractal depths of pointlessness the rest of us can't even conceive of. It is a microuniverse of pure, meaningless void that sustains existence through a tortured paradox of deriving worth from being utterly worthless. Any sapient life in it would fart out of existence immediately, because upon achieving thought it would suddenly have actual value and meaning, which cannot exist in the void you created.

[@joeyfife6994]

Michael Daisley Ironic that your ‘I’ve read and written a few creative writing pieces in high school, I’m smart guys’ response, is equally, if not more so, worthless.

[@FrancoisRoy]

Eww. Feels like a mobile, watered down port of a much better game.

[@sanich3010]

унылая игра

[@sciuresci1403]

This game is shit.

[@tremoctopus]

Jon, please play other games. I find all this total war and similar super boring. Stellaris and FTL were entertaining though.

[@DarthTrethon]

What is this turn based garbage? Literally everything from the animations to the lack of context and story simply spells Trash. And let's not even talk about the flipping terrain.

[@Crime_Meat]

Roman victory proved the importance of superior numbers, money, and only fighting one front at a time. The Greek way of war lasted, and dominated, about as long as melee infantry did, culminating in the pike block which lasted through to the 17th century.

[@TNTNinja2]

Dylan Kostman Yeah, also Greece would have held better, although probably not won, against Rome if they had iron weapons and armor instead of bronze

[@Crime_Meat]

Bronze is actually very underrated. Tests have shown that hardened bronze is pretty durable and can be very sharp. It took quite a while for metallurgy to advance to the point where iron based weapons were better than bronze. It wasn't just a straight transition where as soon as they had iron weapons they were immediately better than bronze.

[@eatmywords]

lol the weakest part of civilization :D