Pikes over priced?

[batesmotel]

Moved these quoes from an older thread on pikes in combat:

Yeah, I am not sure how they are doing it for pikemen neither - on the Table top version you get a bonuse for depth which was one of the strengths fo the phalanx. Cannot really do that with the PC version because of the way the game is designed but they are at 50% of the size at what is represented on the table top game (4 units on the table top = 2 units in the PC version).

As I read the help file and understanding the TT rules:

Pikes get +1 POA for having pike in both impact and melee (unless charging shock mounted, i.e. lancers or HCh)
Pikes get a second +1 POA for having a fourth rank on the TT and for being above 75% strength in the PC version. So pikes with a skull never get the second POA.

Overall it make sense for pikes to cost more than they do in the TT rules but they should not cost double since they die at effectively twice the rate they do on the TT, e.g. losing 25% in a PC BG would be the equivalent of losing 2 stands out of an 8 strong BG on the TT. Most BGs int he PC game are the equivalent of 4 stand BGs in the TT game so a 25% loss there would only be one stand. Probably a factor of about 1.5 from the TT should be about right.

Chris

They're already costed at 50% higher than normal units

The current price for superior pikes, e.g. Seleucid Argyraspides, is 15 points in FoG PC versus 8 points in FoG TT. This is definitely more than 1.5 times the cost and I think 12 points would more appropriately reflect their capabilites. For comparison, superior Impact foot skilled swordsmen, e.g. Argyraspides, are 14 points in both FoG PC and TT.
For average pikes the price differential is 11 points for the PC versus 6 for the TT. This looks like doubling the cost minus 1 point rather than 1.5 times which I think would more effectively reflect how well pikes work in FoG PC.

Chris

[IainMcNeil]

Sounds like a bug then - moved to tech support.

[rbodleyscott]

Sounds like a bug then - moved to tech support.

I don't agree that this is a bug, I think they are correctly costed at present and making them cheaper would make them too effective.

Thinking in terms of unit frontage rather the number of TT bases represented, the cost of an Average 2 base frontage Protected pike unit in FOG TT if scaled to the FOG PC points system would be 12 points, so 11 points is pretty good value.

Because pikes get better POAs than anything else, making them cheaper would definitely make them too cost-effective, and wall to wall pikes would be very hard for some armies to have any chance against.

Note that it is not true that pikes have to lose 2 bases in FOG TT before they lose combat power. They will lose the POA on one of the two files as soon as they lose 1 base.

[76mm]

...wall to wall pikes would be very hard for some armies to have any chance against.

You say that like it's a bad thing?

[rbodleyscott]

...wall to wall pikes would be very hard for some armies to have any chance against.

You say that like it's a bad thing?

From a game balance point of view, it is. (Perhaps not from a Pontic point of view, but I have my game design hat on here, and I like to see things balanced correctly).

[pantherboy]

Currently I love pikes in the game. I haven't experienced the problems others have had. For 11 pts it is a powerful unit. It matches the legions on impact unless versus superior but then takes over with the POA after. It stops mounted dead in their tracks with most people fielding superior armoured cavalry which out costs the pike. You get 3 pike to 2 cavalry and I find the drilled pike to be plenty maneuverable. When you have a long line of pike you did get odd situations with wild casualty numbers but if you take into regard every combat rather than focusing your attention on the poor combat you'll see they perform very well. Don't decrease costs and allow a wall of them as it will ruin the game.

Cheers,

Steve

[TheGrayMouser]

I like the cost of pikes as they are now, if you want more pikes in your army then you can always ditch some of those cats or armoured lancers!

[76mm]

Actually I don't think that the cost of pikes will affect the number of pikes on the battlefield very much, at least for me--I usually max out on heavy cav, then pikes, then see how many points I have to spend on everything else...if anything more expensive pikes would result in fewer medium spearmen, etc.

[batesmotel]

Sounds like a bug then - moved to tech support.

I don't agree that this is a bug, I think they are correctly costed at present and making them cheaper would make them too effective.

Thinking in terms of unit frontage rather the number of TT bases represented, the cost of an Average 2 base frontage Protected pike unit in FOG TT if scaled to the FOG PC points system would be 12 points, so 11 points is pretty good value.

Because pikes get better POAs than anything else, making them cheaper would definitely make them too cost-effective, and wall to wall pikes would be very hard for some armies to have any chance against.

Note that it is not true that pikes have to lose 2 bases in FOG TT before they lose combat power. They will lose the POA on one of the two files as soon as they lose 1 base.

But pikes also effectively degrade twice as quickly in combat effectiveness against missile fire as well as from losses in combat.

A superior armoured, drilled impact foot swordsmen currently costs 14 points. How many points less would you want to pay for one that had exactly the same combat characteristics but automatically took double % losses every time? I think that taking double losses would make the unit worth less than 13 points.

Chris

[petergarnett]

I think the pikes deteriorate too quickly - I'd like to see the POA advantage linked to being 75% strength or higher changed to say 65%. The lines of pikes break too fast IMO against comparable legionaries in open terrain.