You've Reincarnated Mega OP Into a Fantasy World And You Want To Abolish Injustice

[Vaerama]

When I watch my husband play through his Rome 2 (total war) battles, I believe I’ve grown over-fond of the phalanx supported by (light) cavalry, archers, and a few swordsmen on the flank.

Completely skipping the ‘skirmishing’ phase of a battle, just boxing and crushing from the flanks. It’s such a ruthlessly mighty system from a theory point of view, one where ‘when all numbers are equal’: it’s very hard to lose that fight.

That said, the swordsmen on the flank do actually turn it from a slow slog to a rapid collapse in morale (the real goal of the strategy). Part of me resists the idea that a bunch of guys with shortswords (of all things) should be able to somehow overcome the reach and formation of a phalanx...

But the Romans managed it somehow. What does it mean for me in particular? It means I have to research ‘how’ before I write chapter 20 xD Not because it’s important for a ‘battle’ (I don’t need traditional battles, but I absolutely do need to be able to believe the forces that are brought to bear).

I am guessing before I look any further into it that the dudes with shortswords also carried javelins, or that a gladius is so easy to carry that if a battle falls to such a range that it makes the long-spear carrying units rather devastating in an exchange that’s deteriorated on both sides (which isn’t unlikely, historically, given the losses among vanguard compared to the supporting force), or else war would be unsustainable, and it is usually decidedly not)).

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

When I watch my husband play through his Rome 2 (total war) battles, I believe I’ve grown over-fond of the phalanx supported by (light) cavalry, archers, and a few swordsmen on the flank.

Completely skipping the ‘skirmishing’ phase of a battle, just boxing and crushing from the flanks. It’s such a ruthlessly mighty system from a theory point of view, one where ‘when all numbers are equal’: it’s very hard to lose that fight.

That said, the swordsmen on the flank do actually turn it from a slow slog to a rapid collapse in morale (the real goal of the strategy). Part of me resists the idea that a bunch of guys with shortswords (of all things) should be able to somehow overcome the reach and formation of a phalanx...

But the Romans managed it somehow. What does it mean for me in particular? It means I have to research ‘how’ before I write chapter 20 xD Not because it’s important for a ‘battle’ (I don’t need traditional battles, but I absolutely do need to be able to believe the forces that are brought to bear).

I am guessing before I look any further into it that the dudes with shortswords also carried javelins, or that a gladius is so easy to carry that if a battle falls to such a range that it makes the long-spear carrying units rather devastating in an exchange that’s deteriorated on both sides (which isn’t unlikely, historically, given the losses among vanguard compared to the supporting force), or else war would be unsustainable, and it is usually decidedly not)).

Ah, Rome II. A lovely game that I played quite a lot in the past. Especially, multiplayer. Interestingly, I rarely met phalanxs there - and if then spaghetti line form -. They were mostly played by noobs and people who didn't know the game. Of course, I slaughtered them and their phalanx easily every time. ^^

Generally, if you wanted a challenge, you played Greeks. Not because they were good, but because you needed skill to win.

 

[Vaerama]

I think I figured it out, actually. It’s shields, carrying javelins, and being the only ones who kept such a large actual professional army at the time. Gladius’s are shite anyways, terrible metal, simply couldn’t go beyond a certain size.

Crusades. Those are way more fun. Metal absolutely everywhere.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

I think I figured it out, actually. It’s shields, carrying javelins, and being the only ones who kept such a large actual professional army at the time. Gladius’s are shite anyways, terrible metal, simply couldn’t go beyond a certain size.

Crusades. Those are way more fun. Metal absolutely everywhere.

I think otherwise. Diadochian armies were professional standing armies only with established officer corps. Look up the battle of Cynoscephalae, Pydna and Magnesia.

Battle of Magnesia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Battle of Pydna - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Battle of Cynoscephalae - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Moctemma]

His video is quite famous in fact as it produced some considerable backlash for him.

It took me quite some time. I had to read lots of comments and I now understand why you would discredit him.

 

[Vaerama]

Ah, Rome II. A lovely game that I played quite a lot in the past. Especially, multiplayer. Interestingly, I rarely met phalanxs there - and if then spaghetti line form -. They were mostly played by noobs and people who didn't know the game. Of course, I slaughtered them and their phalanx easily every time. ^^

Generally, if you wanted a challenge, you played Greeks. Not because they were good, but because you needed skill to win.

Egypt for my personal play. Double the generals means double the armies, even with the ‘let me always fight full armies’ mod. Focus fire from archers and cavalry cleanup does a lot if you can keep them safe. Breaking an army into pieces one unit at a time is a pleasure. Course, husband’s strategy is better... I just spent too much time with Warcraft 2 and Starcraft to purge the power of focused fire from my mind.

More seriouslilly: the phalanx of Alexander and papa is what changed the ancient world, spawned four huge dynasties, and paved the path forward once the Romans adopted it (absolutely worshiped Alexander, and who *wouldn’t*?).

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

It took me quite some time. I had to read lots of comments and I now understand why you would discredit him.

I have to admit, I am a bit biased in this regard. This was the first video from him I stumbled across. I didn't know about his medieval and other content until later. So you maybe understand why it left a very bad aftertaste for me.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Egypt for my personal play. Double the generals means double the armies, even with the ‘let me always fight full armies’ mod. Focus fire from archers and cavalry cleanup does a lot if you can keep them safe. Breaking an army into pieces one unit at a time is a pleasure. Course, husband’s strategy is better... I just spent too much time with Warcraft 2 and Starcraft to purge the power of focused fire from my mind.

More seriouslilly: the phalanx of Alexander and papa is what changed the ancient world, spawned four huge dynasties, and paved the path forward once the Romans adopted it (absolutely worshiped Alexander, and who *wouldn’t*?).

Heheheh, well against the ai everything works. Their most dangerous units are slingers anyway.

 

[Moctemma]

I have to admit, I am a bit biased in this regard. This was the first video from him I stumbled across. I didn't know about his medieval and other content until later. So you maybe understand why it left a very bad aftertaste for me.

Yes I understand. Still I think it's a great video because it isn't him talking about what he knows, but actual people fighting.

 

[ForestDweller]

That’s just a lack of creativity on the makers of that world. I’ve always found the whole ‘they cut bullets faster than you can fire them’ to be super weak as a storytelling device. June it is their fantasy, so they can pretend however makes them happy.

Bayonetta minus her guns? That’s just... depressing

It is excellent imagery though :) If you didn’t name her Delilah for her cutting hair, you should consider it

Already named her Sherry though, sorry.

Maybe I'll make her wield a fancy magic sword while her hair could be her spears.