Combat is atrocious and needs completely reworked

[Riekopo]

So basically Land Combat is the same as all the other Paradox games except is entirely missing 1/3 to 1/2 of the mechanics it seems. I literally cannot find anyone who understands and can explain how land combat works and how to compose an Army or Navy. The game literally explains nothing. Combat width doesn't seem to exist. The Wiki has nothing about Army and Navy composition.

I've got to say the combat in Imperator is extremely lacking and disappointing and definitely the worst in any Paradox game I've played. It does a really really bad job at modeling ancient combat. Tactics sounded like a good idea but in reality they way they've implemented them is a joke. It seems like you just pick a tactic and hope you randomly run into an enemy that chose a bad tactic. Is that what Paradox considers strategy? That's a terrible design. It's incredibly lazy. The way Tactics are handled is completely nonsensical and unrealistic. Combat tactics are not an arbitrary random thing you choose for your nation's Armies long before a battle or even war happens. They are something which are decided when you enter a battlefield and see the conditions of the battle - the types of soldiers you have, your General's personality and ideas, the terrain of the battlefield, etc. I'm amazed at how wrong Paradox has gotten this especially when they've done it much better in all their other games.

Combat width doesn't exist apparently or is at least completely hidden. Why they would remove combat width from a game set in the ancient world which was mainly about melee combat of tight formations of men is beyond me. Makes absolutely no sense. Apparently flanks are a thing and you can choose a flank size but the game doesn't explain the setting at all. Have no idea what it actually controls or does. Ok I can choose a 'preferred' flank size. But what does that actually control and do? How is that strategy?

They have like 10 different generic unit types that have different stats yet an explanation on how to compose your Army of the different unit types available is nowhere to be found. Does it even matter? What are the ratios that you should be using? Do certain units need the support of other units? Do certain units protect other units? Is there even a rock-paper-scissors system? Apparently the Romans don't have access to their famous Legionnaires? The Greeks don't have access to their famous Hoplites? The Macedonians don't have access to their famous Phalangites? It's just all generic units that everyone has.

The ancient world empires all had unique types of soldiers. That is one of the coolest things about ancient combat. Now this is really bizarre, it seems like in battles all the soldiers are simply randomly assorted into a single line of men. Apparently there's no middle or rear line of men? Everyone is just randomly thrown into a single line. And there are no phases? That's just...unbelievable and completely irrational and nonsensical. Have the developers of this game never played another Paradox game?

This combat system is so bad I don't even know what to say. It's pathetic. It's extremely poorly designed and unintuitive and unrealistic. Formations were a HUGE deal in ancient combat. Like one of the most important factors. Imperator doesn't even try to model that. A Greek phalanx head on was deadly and very hard to break. Especially in a tight space. The Macedonian phalanx was even more deadly and harder to break head on. As long as they could get into position and the terrain allowed it. The Romans originally used the Greek Phalanx but reformed later into a 3 line combat formation that was more maneuverable. Ambushes of marching armies was a big deal and led to many defeats. Sieges of armies inside cities and forts was a big deal and happened a lot.

Paradox really needs to start playing other RTS and turn based strategy games. All of them do combat better. They're just recycling the same old crappy thing again and again. Paradox needs to read some history and think about all the ancient battles that happened. And design a combat system that actually makes sense in the context of ancient world combat. And not just copy and paste their one old combat design from their old games over into Imperator. The armies of a Celtic tribe should be completely different from the armies of a Greek city-state and Roman Republic.

The one good thing is the Army and Navy controls. That's the one area where Imperator combat is actually good and an improvement on their previous games. But the combat itself is atrocious. And naval combat appears to be broken with some kind of serious bug and just as bad as land combat.

Here's what you need to do Paradox:

Add Formations. Including culturally unique ones like the Roman Acies Triplex, the common Greek Phalanx, the Macedonian Phalanx, etc. And no, I don't mean incredibly lazy small number modifiers.

Add rows. There should at the very least be two rows of battle lines. Probably 3 or even more. Formations could affect this possibly.

Add Phases to combat. Skirmishing before melee combat was very common.

Add culturally unique units. And no, not just lazy tiny number modifiers. Roman melee infantry had a couple spears they could throw for example before melee. Roman troops are a lot different than Greek phalangites for example.

Add multiple types of projectile troops/skirmishers. Archers, Slingers, Javelins, Peltasts, Velites, Stone throwers. Greeks & Romans barely used Archers but used other skirmishers for example.

Add ambushes. Think of Hannibal.

Add Positioning. Important for Formations and Ambushes. A Macedonian Phalanx being attacked while not in correct position/formation is in big trouble.

Add sieges of Armies inside their camps or city. You could even have double sieges like the Battle of Alessia.

Add Artillery. Yes, the ancient world powers used artillery. Especially the Greeks and Romans.

Add Siege Weapons. Sieges could be much more interactive and interesting.

Add ammunition. For artillery and projectile troops.

There are a lot of ancient wargames. Study them. You need to step up your combat game design.

Hellenistic armies - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ancient Greek warfare - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Roman infantry tactics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Skirmisher - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ancient Macedonian army - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Spearton95]

A greater degree of explanations wouldn't ruin the game at all, there are way too many things to figured out by each own.

That being said, every other point you made is quite subjective.
In CK2 every culture has its special unit; but what are these? The same generic units with different buffs and tactics.
Europa Universalis only has three types of units, representing everything from spear-armed Mayans to Swedish line infantry with camp mortars, or armoured knights and dragoons. Only difference is on where pips are located and modifiers from ideas and stuff.
Unit types represent in abstract a certain set of tools and roles of soldiers equipped in a certain way. And that's it. Imperator Rome follows the same ideas as the previous titles. Phalangites, legionnaires, hoplites, cataphracts are represented in the game by some inventions and especially traditions.

In Imperator Rome you pick the tactic before, and it makes sense, because certain armies try to fight in a certain way. You can change tactic at any time by the way, even before a battle, but of course you can't change your composition.
Ambushes are represented by tactics and modifiers. Again, it's in an abstract form, but it's there.
There literally is the very tactic used by Hannibal and it's quite useful.
Positioning is fundamental in order not to get terrain penalties, just like in any other Paradox game.
I like this combat system.

"Sieging" of armies by cutting off supplies could be cool. I haven't played 1.4 yet so I don't know if it's there, now that there are supply wagons.

By the way, artillery is quite un-historical, since it's a siege equipment and there's no magical flaming napalm-thing like you may see in movies and video games.
Yes, Romans and Greeks used a small amount of field artillery, which is represented in the game by some inventions and traditions, but it's not like a different kind of unit. It's not modern artillery. Even at the start date of Europa Universalis, when there already were siege bombards, it's not a military unit yet since it's not effective nor numerous enough at the time to be a different unit, but it was indeed embedded among infantry ranks.
I'm sorry if I look tedious, but as an history enthusiast it's something I'm quite tired of. Artillery prior to Modern Age is just not a thing.

Also, despite what others war games may imply, ammunitions don't matter at all, on the large scale of events. Paradox battles last days, weeks even, like it actually used to be, not a few dozen minutes. These are not skirmishes. Armies carried a lot of ammunition, and they even had a lot of time to craft more.

Beside the history lesson, I personally don't miss at all such mechanics.

 

[Efimer]

1. About land combat and army composition, I think it's fairly sensible and intuitive (but the confusion between skirmishers and archers, a renaming of the unit and a skirmish phase are needed, imo). Naval combat is a mess, but it doesn't matter unless you're an insular nation. I'd set 3 types of ships, light, medium and heavy, with well defined roles in battle and I'd make megapoliremes an hellenistic special unit (they were an eccentricity of the successors kings).

2. Limited combat width is missed, but I'd only use it at mountains, hill and river-close terrains, so terrain modifiers for unit types could play a role in battles, too (and H. Inf. & H. Cav. don't become overpowered).

3. Flanks actually work in a very sensible way, but like skirmish battleline, it's poorly showed in the battle window and you have to investigate a bit to understand how they work.

4. I agree with the OP about combat tactics.

5. The 9 generic land unit types are fine, imo, but the military traditions should allow you to customize or specialize them and fail to do it.
Legions and phalanx are in the game... but in the pdx style

6. Walled cities are missed in the game.

Add Formations. Including culturally unique ones like the Roman Acies Triplex, the common Greek Phalanx, the Macedonian Phalanx, etc. And no, I don't mean incredibly lazy small number modifiers

I agree about the game abusing of numeric modifiers but, how would you introduce formations in the game?

Add culturally unique units. And no, not just lazy tiny number modifiers. Roman melee infantry had a couple spears they could throw for example before melee. Roman troops are a lot different than Greek phalangites for example.

I disagree. I prefer a balanced and customizable system

Add ambushes. Think of Hannibal.

Fog of war should be more extensive and army movement could be locked from the first day (or allow to change it at a cost)

Add Artillery. Yes, the ancient world powers used artillery. Especially the Greeks and Romans.

First news... source?

In Imperator Rome you pick the tactic before, and it makes sense, because certain armies try to fight in a certain way. You can change tactic at any time by the way, even before a battle, but of course you can't change your composition.
Ambushes are represented by tactics and modifiers. Again, it's in an abstract form, but it's there.
There literally is the very tactic used by Hannibal and it's quite useful.
Positioning is fundamental in order not to get terrain penalties, just like in any other Paradox game.

1. Combat tactics don't make sense for me: if you pick the tactic, how certain armies fight in a certain way?
2. I'm afraid that It's so abstracted that I lose the meaning.
3. Not every general should be able to command as Hannibal did. The combat tactics mechanic doesn't show this right.
4. Positioning = getting there first. This mechanic doesn't work well in SP.

Since the introduction of supply wagons I've never lost a man to attrition, I'm becoming suspicious that this isn't WAI (nor realistic)

Paradox battles last days, weeks even, like it actually used to be, not a few dozen minutes

Ammunition is represented by "morale", I think this is common for pdx games...

 

[Herennius]

First news... source?

I guess he is refering to Ballistas and Catapults:

Greek and Roman artillery - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dan the cynical barbarian]

I would say Artillery did saw widespread use in the battlefield at least by the Roman empire:

Roman Artillery

Roman artillery weapons were instrumental in the successes of the Roman army over centuries and were especially used in siege warfare, both for offence and defence. Principally used in fixed positions...

www.ancient.eu

>As technologies improved, by the beginning of the 2nd century CE artillery did become increasingly mobile, adding a new and lethal dimension to ancient warfare. Trajan's Column in Rome provides relief sculptures showing cart-mounted carroballista bolt-firing weapons. These were an improvement on older catapults as their spring mechanisms were set wider apart giving the weapon greater firing accuracy. In addition, the all iron frame not only made the whole apparatus lighter and more mobile but allowed the arm to be pulled back even further, giving 25% more power. Vegetius states that each legion was equipped with 55 carroballista and, indeed, every legion had its own dedicated specialists in artillery who not only fired the weapons but also made, repaired and improved them.

 

[Hendreforgan]

Not one thing wrong with your thoughts, when it comes down to actual combat despite the finesse you've put into your overall strategy you feel that all you're left watching is dice being thrown. Yet if PDX, or others, were to give you awesome control over each battle would they not have to write a "sub-game" to run inside the original software? Other games titles, especially those based around WW2 combat, have a much more streamlined overall game instead concentrating on the individual soldier or tank . . . if we were to expect I:R to give each "General" the same dominance then just imagine how big the software may need to be to permit the game engine to "pull out of the hat" any battle with the hundreds of starting nations giving millions of possible outcomes?

But, like so many others, I am very - VERY - interested to what the forthcoming "Autumn of War" will bring.

 

[Samitte]

I would say Artillery did saw widespread use in the battlefield at least by the Roman empire:

Roman Artillery

Roman artillery weapons were instrumental in the successes of the Roman army over centuries and were especially used in siege warfare, both for offence and defence. Principally used in fixed positions...

www.ancient.eu

>As technologies improved, by the beginning of the 2nd century CE artillery did become increasingly mobile, adding a new and lethal dimension to ancient warfare. Trajan's Column in Rome provides relief sculptures showing cart-mounted carroballista bolt-firing weapons. These were an improvement on older catapults as their spring mechanisms were set wider apart giving the weapon greater firing accuracy. In addition, the all iron frame not only made the whole apparatus lighter and more mobile but allowed the arm to be pulled back even further, giving 25% more power. Vegetius states that each legion was equipped with 55 carroballista and, indeed, every legion had its own dedicated specialists in artillery who not only fired the weapons but also made, repaired and improved them.

Most artillery was extremely rare before the Imperial period, and even after that some types stayed that way for a long time. They were dangerous tools that could seriously harm the users and would do so occasionally. We don't really know much about how much, and what kind of artillery was used. We have a few mentions like Vegetius, and the occasional onager here, or ballistae there (note these usually fired stones in this period, not bolts).

They should not be a unit type, just modifiers, especially since almost all artillery in this period was built on or near the site of battle. And there were no special artillery units within armies. The mobile carroballista we do not have any mentions off before Vegetius, other then a likely depiction on Trajans column, so this was likely a post-game invention, so the only close candidate is out as well.

 

[Spearton95]

3. Not every general should be able to command as Hannibal did. The combat tactics mechanic doesn't show this right.

Hannibal didn't invent the wheel, he just used it right.

 

[Quimera]

@Riekopo even if I agree that there is room to improve in the combat and warfare mechanics, I believe this is the third more deep PDG´s game combat after HOI4 and CK2. You should read it:

Steam Community :: Guide :: Army Composition Guide for 2.0 (Partially Updated)

This guide shows the unit composition that each Tradition group uses and how to counter it. Each culture group uses a unique unit composition to reflect their historical roots....

steamcommunity.com

But I agree that Phalangites shouldn't be "Heavy infantry" they were light infantry and they shouldn't switch to be good fighters in mountains due to Phalangites in real life were dead men without cavalry support or in not plain terrain, how it work that because you switch the tactic these men are no longer phalangites or legionaries? and not due to the training or the equipment??

 

[Riekopo]

@Riekopo even if I agree that there is room to improve in the combat and warfare mechanics, I believe this is the third more deep PDG´s game combat after HOI4 and CK2. You should read it:

Steam Community :: Guide :: Army Composition Guide for 2.0 (Partially Updated)

This guide shows the unit composition that each Tradition group uses and how to counter it. Each culture group uses a unique unit composition to reflect their historical roots....

steamcommunity.com

But I agree that Phalangites shouldn't be "Heavy infantry" they were light infantry and they shouldn't switch to be good fighters in mountains due to Phalangites in real life were dead men without cavalry support or in not plain terrain, how it work that because you switch the tactic these men are no longer phalangites or legionaries? and not due to the training or the equipment??

Please tell me how you think Imperator combat is deep? They literally bragged about simplifying and 'streamlining' it in the Dev Diaries and what that clearly really means is dumbed down. The combat is extremely dumbed down in Imperator. It's so dumbed down that there's basically no actual strategy and they removed half of the normal Paradox combat mechanics. Extremely basic things like Rows and Phases and Ranged combat are completely missing.

That guide doesn't really tell you anything really. All it does is tell you units are better against other units which is something we already know. Actually, that guide perfectly demonstrates how simplistic and lacking the so called 'combat' is in the game. He recommends you only use 3 or even just 2 unit types in your armies lol. Which is because of how crappy the combat system is.

Edit: Yes, downvote basic facts lol.

 

[Harlehus]

But I agree that Phalangites shouldn't be "Heavy infantry" they were light infantry

Wait, what?

 

[Spearton95]

Please tell me how you think Imperator combat is deep? They literally bragged about simplifying and 'streamlining' it in the Dev Diaries and what that clearly really means is dumbed down. The combat is extremely dumbed down in Imperator. It's so dumbed down that there's basically no actual strategy and they removed half of the normal Paradox combat mechanics. Extremely basic things like Rows and Phases and Ranged combat are completely missing.

That guide doesn't really tell you anything really. All it does is tell you units are better against other units which is something we already know. Actually, that guide perfectly demonstrates how simplistic and lacking the so called 'combat' is in the game. He recommends you only use 3 or even just 2 unit types in your armies lol. Which is because of how crappy the combat system is.

What about CK2, where retinue composition should be of ONE single type entirely, and where levies are garbage exactly because they're mixed?
I'm not saying it's perfect, I'm saying it has its flaws, and in some ways this is better than CK2, and certainly better than any EU.
Also, devs are working on it.
I don't really get your points. This is grand strategy, not an RTS. As a player I want to focus on managing the empire, building cities, engaging in diplomacy, addressing population's problems and trading (and that's why the game was and still is bad, and that's what the developers are working on <3), not handle every single battle like I would do in a Total War, it would be just exhausting. I want a good combat system which should be challenging, but not demanding. I:R does exactly that, it can and it should improve in that sense.
But that's a personal view on things.

 

[Quimera]

Wait, what?

In real life, when Phillips of Macedon, Alexander´s father, he knew that Macedonia land was poor to give armours and the heavy and expensive hoplite´s gears to his troops, so which was his idea? he gives them a more "bigger stick" so the heavily armoured hoplites couldn't afford to touch his troops. I had been clear?? Check the wiki.

 

[Harlehus]

In real life, when Phillips of Macedon, Alexander´s father, he knew that Macedonia land was poor to give armours and the heavy and expensive hoplite´s gears to his troops, so which was his idea? he gives them a more "bigger stick" so the heavily armoured hoplites couldn't afford to touch his troops. I had been clear?? Check the wiki.

What are you talking about?

Macedonian phalangites were heavy infantry. They were less heavily armoured than their greek hoplite counterparts. This was not only because the poorer Macedonian peasants couldn't afford the more expensive bronze armour, but also because the much heavier sarissa(12-14,5 pounds compared to the hoplites spear weighing arround 2 pounds) demanded lighter armour so that the Macedonian soldiers wouldn't be bogged down and still somewhat mobile on the battlefield. Furthermore the tighter formation of the Macedonian phalanx with the long sarrisas pointing upwards meant greater protection from arrows and so less of a need for protective armour.
The armaments of the Macedonian phalangite weighed arround 25-30 pounds compared to the 30-35 pounds of a greek hoplite.

You should read the book "Combined Arms Warfare in Ancient Greece: From Homer to Alexander the Great and his Successors" by Graham Wrightson on the matter for more information.

 

[Efimer]

In real life, when Phillips of Macedon, Alexander´s father, he knew that Macedonia land was poor to give armours and the heavy and expensive hoplite´s gears to his troops, so which was his idea? he gives them a more "bigger stick" so the heavily armoured hoplites couldn't afford to touch his troops. I had been clear?? Check the wiki.

Ah! That's another common misunderstanding. The concept "heavy infantry" doesn't mean necessarily that the soldiers wear heavy armours, it means the soldiers fight in thick and large formations, so a phalanx is a heavy infantry unit type.

 

[TheWorstPro]

Please tell me how you think Imperator combat is deep? They literally bragged about simplifying and 'streamlining' it in the Dev Diaries and what that clearly really means is dumbed down. The combat is extremely dumbed down in Imperator. It's so dumbed down that there's basically no actual strategy and they removed half of the normal Paradox combat mechanics. Extremely basic things like Rows and Phases and Ranged combat are completely missing.

That guide doesn't really tell you anything really. All it does is tell you units are better against other units which is something we already know. Actually, that guide perfectly demonstrates how simplistic and lacking the so called 'combat' is in the game. He recommends you only use 3 or even just 2 unit types in your armies lol. Which is because of how crappy the combat system is.

I think that when you try to claim a combat system as "deep" you run into issues with defining it. Does a "deeper" combat system involve more player input? Is it more automated? How complex is a "deep" combat system and can you have a "deep" system without much complexity? Furthermore, does it involve strictly tactics, strategy, or a mix of both?

For instance, let's take CK2. On the tactical level, CK2 is quite complex, at least compared to other paradox games. There's 3 seperate flanks, battle phases, and tactics that are impacted by the composition of your units. There's all sorts of extra modifiers as well (religious enemies, leading the center, morale damage etc.) that affect the combat effectiveness of your troops. Even the traits of your commanders affects what kind of tactics your troops might use. However, on the strategic side CK2 is mostly lacking. The siege mechanics are relatively simple (just have more troops than the garrison) and outside of a couple modifiers and assaulting there's not much else you can do except walking around racking up war score.

Then there's Vic2. I'd argue that this is probably one of the more simplistic games when it comes to tactics. Despite having a fairly large variety of units, you'll only ever use maybe 4 through the whole game (2 of those units being purely for support and siege purposes). The battles are also somewhat lackluster and usually just boil down to better tech (gas in the late game), and having more/better artillery. On the strategic side, it's a little more interesting. Since the economy is a core element of the game and is tightly integrated with warfare, there tends to be a lot of different factors that are different from other games. If you don't produce enough food yourself, you'll either end up spending huge amount of money on imports or your soldiers will start performing worse. If your country gets blockaded, your economy will suffer (which will then lead into other problems), provinces that are occupied generate militancy and stop giving you the goods from there (so if you lose all your rubber-producing provinces and can't import any, then you can no longer produce airplanes, tanks, cars, etc.). Additionally, states that are occupied will also no longer allow you to recieve resources from the factories there, so if you lose your only steel factory then your whole production line is ruined. Maintaining a frontline late game is crucial for ensuring that your armies don't get outflanked or your country doesn't get overrun. On top of all that, casualties result in the actual death of your POPs, and mobilization takes your POPs out of your farms and factories, reducing your general output overall, and makes prolonged warfare particularly costly.

Now if you compare this all to hoi4, often considered the most "in depth" combat system you might see why the definitions of "deep" are subjective and/or dubious. While the ability to design your own divisions and ships is definitely a unique aspect to hoi4, this is pretty much the only major thing that Hoi4 does arguably better than other pdx games. While naval warfare is probably better than any other pdx game (personally speaking), this is due to it being mostly automated. In terms of general strategy, hoi4 has a very detailed map, but the general side-effects of warfare (economy, population, social unrest etc.) are lacking. Losing a bunch of land is arguably less severe than in vic2, since you can still produce guns even if xyz province is taken. Even on the tactical level, hoi4 is relatively basic. Despite having things like tactics and air superiority, these are mostly just modifiers and at the end of the day combat becomes 100% reliant on a stats contest and having bigger better divisions(just a few heavy tank divisions can carry a war). I'm not really factoring in air superiority here though simply on the basis that this is the only game which has it. In this way it can be argued that CK2 has a more "in depth" tactical combat system and vic2 that a more "in depth" strategic combat system. Depending on your emphasis, any one of these games could be the "deepest."

Now is I:R's combat system the best of all the pdx games? No, probably not, though this is still subjective. Could it be improved? Of course. But to say that the combat system isn't "deep" is a little strange, especially when you don't even take the time to explain what factors lead to your conclusion. I:R certainly has many aspects of warfare that the other games don't, which help differentiate it and make it unique.

Edit: grammar

 

[Wethospu]

I think the combat is quite good. The rock-paper-scissor unit types make it that no single unit composition is the best (when balanced properly). Of course some things should be improved and a couple of new mechanics wouldn't also hurt. But it's a good start.

I have played both HOI4 and EU4. While HOI4 allows you to customize and tweak many things, I often use only like 3 templates (infantry, tank and motorized). And for EU4 the only decision pretty much is when to add artillery.

 

[Olden Weiss]

In real life, when Phillips of Macedon, Alexander´s father, he knew that Macedonia land was poor to give armours and the heavy and expensive hoplite´s gears to his troops, so which was his idea? he gives them a more "bigger stick" so the heavily armoured hoplites couldn't afford to touch his troops. I had been clear?? Check the wiki.

I'm just weighing in on this several days after the fact. I suspect the misleading line in the Wikipedia article is this one:

All of the armor and weaponry a phalangite would carry totaled about 40 pounds, which was close to 10 pounds less than the weight of Greek hoplite equipment.[1]

There are a few things to understand about this statement.

1. Not all of the equipment difference was in armor. For instance, hoplites once carried throwing spears which were done away with when the phalanx became the standard, as throwing a javelin wasn't in line with the tight quarters a phalanx required.
2. The armor Philip II's phalangites wore was equivalent to that of early hoplites. It was only the shield which was reduced in size. After all, the sarissa made the shield largely unnecessary. They still wore bronze helmets and greaves, they simply swapped the bronze breastplate for the linothorax.
3. Lighter does not necessarily mean "lighter". Military vehicles today are getting both lighter and stronger. In point of fact, the linothorax has tested stronger in modern tests against weapons such as broadhead arrows. Where the "soft" bronze cuirass tends to penetrate easily, woven linen dissipates the energy for the arrow more effectively.

Comparatively, the actual light infantry of Philip II wore no body armor. They wore bronze caps, bronze greaves, and tunics. This leads to my final and most important point: "Heavy infantry" is a designation of role. Heavy infantry is more about behavior than equipage. Does heavy armor facilitate the role of heavy infantry? Absolutely. However, the hastati of Republican Rome, despite wearing little to no protection, still classify as "heavy infantry" by role. Likewise, the tactics of the Gauls and Britons essentially made every footman into light infantry, but many of them wore iron cuirasses.

The role of the phalanx was undeniably that of heavy infantry: Men whose job it is to anchor the battle line and meet the enemy head-on. They could have gone into battle naked, as far as I'm concerned. If they fight like phalangites, they are heavy infantry by definition. Indeed, here's another line from Wikipedia:

Heavy infantry were critical to many ancient armies, such as the Greek hoplites, Macedonian phalangites, and Roman legionaries.

 

[Harlehus]

This leads to my final and most important point: "Heavy infantry" is a designation of role. Heavy infantry is more about behavior than equipage. Does heavy armor facilitate the role of heavy infantry? Absolutely. However, the hastati of Republican Rome, despite wearing little to no protection, still classify as "heavy infantry" by role. Likewise, the tactics of the Gauls and Britons essentially made every footman into light infantry, but many of them wore iron cuirasses.

The role of the phalanx was undeniably that of heavy infantry: Men whose job it is to anchor the battle line and meet the enemy head-on. They could have gone into battle naked, as far as I'm concerned. If they fight like phalangites, they are heavy infantry by definition. Indeed, here's another line from Wikipedia:

I disagree with this notion that role and formation precedes the importance of equipment. I see it the other way round. The reason the Hastati was used in the front line in an orderly formation in the thick of the figthing was because their heavy equipment (the scutum itself weighing 22 pounds) made them useless as skirmishing light infantry. Heavy infantry behaved like heavy infantry because of their heavy equipment. The less standardized armies of Gauls and Britons i would argue were a mix of light and heavy infantry dependant on equipment deployed mostly in skirmishing tactics.

I would also argue that naked phalangites would not be heavy infantry because they would be very vulnerable from projectiles and arrows. They would not be able to function as heavy infantry as they would be too vulnerable and so break formation very quick. They wouldn't be able to fight in a formation like that with light equipment, it wouldn't work so it wouldn't happen.

To me what defines heavy infantry or any category of unit for that matter is a mixture of equipment, formation, fighting style and role on the battlefield.

 

[Olden Weiss]

I disagree with this notion that role and formation precedes the importance of equipment. I see it the other way round. The reason the Hastati was used in the front line in an orderly formation in the thick of the figthing was because their heavy equipment (the scutum itself weighing 22 pounds) made them useless as skirmishing light infantry. Heavy infantry behaved like heavy infantry because of their heavy equipment. The less standardized armies of Gauls and Britons i would argue were a mix of light and heavy infantry dependant on equipment deployed mostly in skirmishing tactics.

I would also argue that naked phalangites would not be heavy infantry because they would be very vulnerable from projectiles and arrows. They would not be able to function as heavy infantry as they would be too vulnerable and so break formation very quick. They wouldn't be able to fight in a formation like that with light equipment, it wouldn't work so it wouldn't happen.

To me what defines heavy infantry or any category of unit for that matter is a mixture of equipment, formation, fighting style and role on the battlefield.

This is generally true, but doesn't explain why Britons clad in iron functioned as light infantry engaging in hit-and-run strategies as a matter of course. As I said, there's often overlap between equipment and role. The vast majority of "heavy" troops have been outfitted in the heaviest armor available to them at the time. I'm merely saying this isn't the only truth. Early medieval knights, for example, functioned as heavy cavalry but often wore brigandine, despite hauberks being available. The hastati did have heavy shields, but then Phillip's phalangites had heavy pikes to protect them (weighing upwards of 14 pounds, which is monumentally heavy for a weapon).

To debate any further, let us define "heavy infantry". I'll use several sources to see if we can't agree upon a good middle ground.

Wikipedia definition: Heavy infantry refers to heavily armed and armoured infantrymen that were trained to mount frontal assaults and/or anchor the defensive center of a battle line. This differentiated them from light infantry which are relatively mobile and lightly armoured skirmisher troops intended for screening, scouting, and other roles unsuited to the heavier soldiers.

This definition does mention arms and armor. However, notice that the distiction with light infantry mentions intention: those intended to screen, scout, and perform "other roles unsuited to heavier soldiers". Regardless of the armor they wore, phalangites were undeniably unsuited to any of those roles thanks to the weight and length of their primary weapon. Frontal assaults, on the other hand, were literally what they were designed for.​

Military Wiki definition: The term heavy infantry refers to heavily armed infantry and strong defenses. The term is opposed to light infantry, also composed of foot soldiers with weapons but relatively minor.

Though ridden with typos, this site suggests that heavy armament (which does not specify armor alone) and strong defenses are indicative of heavy infantry. I believe we can all agree that the defense of a phalanx was incredibly strong, at least against frontal assaults.​

Definitions.net provides no definitions for heavy infantry, but does provide the following five definitions for light infantry, from which we might draw distinction:

Wiktionary definition (LI): Ground combat soldiers who are not mechanized, and whose role is harass the enemy in front of the main body of infantry.

Freebase definition (LI): Traditionally light infantry were soldiers whose job was to provide a skirmishing screen ahead of the main body of infantry, harassing and delaying the enemy advance. Light infantry was distinct from medium, heavy or line infantry. Heavy infantry were dedicated primarily to fighting in tight formations that were the core of large battles. Light infantry often fought in close co-ordination with heavy infantry, where they could screen the heavy infantry from harassing fire, and the heavy infantry could intervene to protect the light infantry from attacks of enemy heavy infantry or cavalry. Heavy infantry originally had heavier arms and more armour than light infantry, but this distinction was lost as the use of armour declined and gunpowder weapons became standardized.

Dictionary of Nautical Terms definition (LI): Troops specially trained to the extended and rapid movements necessary to cover the manœuvres of the main body.

Military Dictionary and Gazetteer definition (LI)*: A body of armed men selected and trained for rapid evolutions; often employed to cover and assist other troops. See Infantry, Light.
*excludes one definition referring specifically to officially designated "light infantry" after the mid-17th century

From these five, we can see immediately that all of them share a trait in common: They primarily use role to classify light infantry. Specifically, that role involves harassment, skirmishing, screening, and generally covering and assisting the main body of the army. Additionally, the Freebase definition briefly defines the contrasting role of heavy infantry as being that of "fighting in tight formations" and designates them as the core of large battles.​

Quora definition (provided by a 28-year USMC veteran): Heavy infantry used to be the guys in heavy armor, advancing in tight formation, to assault an enemy position. Examples would be the Greek Phalanx or the Roman Legions. Their defining feature is heavy armor. This is contrasted with regular/medium infantry and skirmishers/light infantry. Typically, medium infantry would have the same basic weapons as the heavies, but wear lighter armor and make up the wings of a formation. Skirmishers carried light weapons and often bows, slings, or javelins, and little to no armor. These distinctions have everything to do with tactics, and armies didn’t always have all types. Keep in mind, heavy and medium infantry are almost always pre-gunpowder. The terms for their later equivalents changed with technology and tactics.

Again, we see mention of "heavy armor"... but we also see phalangites classified as heavy infantry. (Keep in mind, the only equipment that distinguished the Macedonian phalangites from the Greek hoplites of the time was the pelta vs. the hoplon, which was counteracted - and indeed necessitated - by the use of the sarissa, and the body being covered by linothorax instead of a brass cuirass. All other armor was identical.) Additionally, he suggests as many other definitions that the distinction between light, heavy, and a medium classification he adds to the conversation, "... have everything to do with tactics."​

​

Obviously, Quora answers are provided by users and though this man may be a veteran of a modern military force, it doesn't necessarily make him a military historian. I had to take definitions where I could get them, however, as this was never an official designation. It's a modern affectation applied retroactively when looking at historical tactics. Thus, the majority of definitions I'm able to find are defining the role in various video games.​

​

So can we agree that the purpose of light infantry was to screen for the main force? Can we also agree that heavy infantry at least refers as much to battlefield role as it does to equipment? We've also already agreed that Rome's hastati do indeed classify as heavy infantry.

Well, discerning according to definitions found above... We can certainly say that phalangites were not skirmishers or screening troops. They were the backbone of Phillip's armies, purpose-built to fight in tight formations and form the battle line of the Macedonian advance. The skirmishing troops were peltasts and similar, who were a measure lighter in armament to the phalangites.

You raise the point that the hastati carried scuta, which themselves were essentially heavy pieces of armor. However, this is distinct from the principes, who wore lorica hamata. Is this different from the downgrade from bronze to linothorax when one jumpes from hoplite to phalangite? Like these two, both hastati and principes wore near identical head and leg armor, yet the hastati were clad in only a small bronze plate for upper body protection. I daresay phalangites had more armor than this, considering the difference in coverage.

What is it, then, that makes the hastati a heavy infantry force? Is it merely their great shields... or is it the fact that those shields allowed them to engage in frontal assaults and hold a battle line? The sarissa did the same for the phalangites. In fact, in a one-on-one fight, a Roman maniple showed inferior strength to that of a taxeis. It was only their weakness on uneven ground and their inferior tactical flexibility that saw the phalanx overtaken by the manipular system.

For all these reasons, I continue to assert that phalangites were indeed heavy infantry. This got rather more lengthy than I'd anticipated, and I apologize. At least I've an hour less to wait for CK3 now.