Given that pikes won most of those battles, they have a slight advantage, but they can lose if they are not lucky (as they did in Beneventum).

But Pikes did not win these battles - Elephants and cavalry did (and Pyrrhus was rated by Hannibal as one of the Great Captains as we know).
Given ...

Yeap, that is what I said: FoG does not cover it and it seems to me that in the overall the interaction is about right for the wrong reasons

So the basic question is whether this interaction is about right now even for the wrong reasons, as it seems that quite a few people believe that the ...

FoG does not cover the pushing effects, nor the disorder while pursuing or moving. If you want a really realistic depiction of what happened, you need a more powerful phalanx at impact and to some extent in melee, but there should be lots of more conditionants to the phalanx too like being more ...

...Therefore it may readily be understood that, as I said before, it is impossible to confront a charge of the phalanx, so long as it retains its proper formation and strength.

But: The Romans do not, then, attempt to extend their front to equal that of a phalanx, and then charge directly upon it ...

I think this is sort of subsumed into the offensive spear POAs, especially in that it cancels the swordsmen POA in melee as long as they remain steady (ie the shieldwall's integrity has been preserved). Impact foot/swordsmen are assumed not to be fighting in a proper shieldwall or at least that's ...

I'm fine with the current armour rules. Though benefits of being Superior or Elite may probably be increased.

The reduction of hoplite armour to me seems the effect of many factors rather than an economical choice.

And there is still no conclusive proof that this reduction was really significant. Helmets became generally lighter and metallic breastplates probably went out of use (though we can not be ...

I do not think that armour provides only defensive benefit to the troops. When soldiers believe that they have good protection against weapons available to their opponents or that they have better armour than hostile forces, they tend to act more aggressively and confidently. On the contrary, if ...

I know this was previously discussed in forum, don’t know to what conclusion, but anyway....my feeling is that ssw (namely Romans, but also Spanish sword and buckler) should beat pike and spearmen, after all it was one of their roles in battle.

I do not think that all sorts of swordsmen should ...

If it is merely to reflect the economics that dictated that some hoplites did use less or lighter armour then it would seem like at least some number of armoured hoplites should be allowed in later periods than 460 B.C.

I think that no one is going to argue that in Periclean Athens citizens had ...

Actually that's not quite true. Tissaphernes' wing at Cunaxa withdrew from the Greeks (who mistakenly believed they were fleeing but as the wing was a cohesive whole after the Greek advance, it's pretty clear they were just withdrawing. They weren't firing as they went, mind.

Our best source ...

I would suggest to add fog of war as an option, so the player would not be able to obtain exact information on chances of success, Quality, Armour etc. of the enemy units until they are engaged in hand-to-hand combat, while image of the unit in question and its name would serve as general hint.

This may no seem like a big difference, but considering the Romans have 5,000 mounted in an army of 26,000 in the game when historically they should have about 2,000 for an army that size, it makes it much tougher to win on the flanks before the Roman infantry punch through the center. Deeter ...