Warbands need a rebalance???

[MaxDamage]

Im not sure that they are overpowered at all. They are unmaneuverable and super expensive plus will chase down their foes. I think people need to adapt. If people could handle swiss pike in PS then these warbands are also doable perhaps. Maybe you need to do something else ie spread out your army so that it will be easier to exploit their unmaneuverable trait because the warbands literally cannot move.

If they are really too good which i doubt at least in comparison to phalanx, then drop them to 720 men and reduce price but the same should happen to phalanx. And if it happens to phalanxes , then we lose the 4th phalanx row bonuses from the game.

maybe instead of making superior warbands 480 just make all of them 720. But if they are 720 then unmaneuverable will hurt them too badly.

[Scutarii]

Well, warbands are with pike units the strongest heavy foot in game, specially warbands can rush over hoplites and similar heavy foot very reasy, only superior troops can have a chance VS them.

Part of the problem is that in FOG II the unit size is very important because bigger the unit bigger the combat power and smaller units suffer a lot VS them.

I think a first step could be test superior warbands with 480 soldiers, reduce their price in proportion... or reduce price a little less and made them trained and see how is their performance.

For regular warbands here i think reduce a little their size (8 figures to have 640 soldiers) and if is possible in lists add more variety like in old FOG and have same troops but trained-untrained with diferent prices, you can have more untrained warbands, less trained warbands or a mix of both.

Maybe untrained is problematic if you are more in defensive, in attack if you have iniciative and use an "ram" tactic you decide where, how and when and untrained is not very important on this area because you can use troops as support to be ready for enemy trained troops counters.

[Cumandante]

I think the problem may lie partly in Impact Foot's power. Not only does it provide a very strong 200 POAs, it also adds a -1 cohesion check modifier on defeats.

Impact foot units can very reliably disrupt other foot on impact. During the charge they easily match the much more fickle Pike's 200 POAs, and clearly best Offensive Spearmen's 100.

If disrupted, the odds change from 100vs200 in favor of Pikes, or from 50vs100 in favor of Spearmen to 100vs100 even fights.


I'm not claiming Impact Foot is unrealistically powerful, but perhaps it is worth considering.

[MikeC_81]

In my long experience of gaming, the fundamental truth is that it takes a long long time to actually find out if something is truly overpowered and many times what appears to be an imbalance is only caused by the fact that the player base has not yet formulated or mastered the appropriate techniques or counters to the given situation that is deemed to be "unbalanced".

Obviously. So that means that no one can discuss the topic until it has been gamed out by "experts" for months?

Yes, until it has been gamed out. Otherwise you are just commenting from a position of total ignorance. Why would we want to make any changes at all until we have accurate data?

Nor have you or anyone else thought about what this means with relations to Warbands and other heavy units like Pikes and Roman heavy foot. Would nerfing Warbands mean the balance between Warbands vis a vis Pikes and Romans now need to be revisited? When I am saying 'its too soon'.

I can't vouch for anyone else, but I have indeed thought about this--see the thread "Resilient Gauls". I'm not demanding a change. I'm not even saying that I'm sure a change is necessary. I'm saying that Gauls seem to play out differently than in FoG 1 and that to me, at this point, they seem awfully resilient and can absorb more damage over a more sustained period than I would have expected. [/quote ]

You and others have definitely advocated changes. Just because they behave differently from a previous iteration of the game is meaningless.

Change for change's sake is terrible for competive gaming

I am saying titling a thread "Warbands need a rebalance" without even a cursory examination of even some of the points I have listed is pretty irresponsible.

Irresponsible? I can't agree with that--"premature" is about the strongest word I would consider using, and I'm not sure it is appropriate either.

I am all for discussion but the signal to noise ratio is pretty bad sometimes.

Welcome to the interwebs...

Irresponsible is the right word here.

Before anymore outlandish balance requests are put in, perhaps the advocates can answer these important questions I posed once already.

a) which army lists have large enough numbers of Warbands to make this an issue.
b) which hoplite heavy lists are negatively affected
c) whether these hoplite lists in question have enough access to enough support troops that could help mitigate the Warband threat
d) whether these Warband heavy lists have access to support troops which could negate a hoplite's army ability to compensate within its available resources
e) whether Warbands have negative traits which a Hoplite army could use to counter tactically

Or at the very least play a set of games and show us the turn sequences in video or pic format to demonstrate that your points have some validity

[Cumandante]

Before anymore outlandish balance requests are put in, perhaps the advocates can answer these important questions I posed once already.

a) which army lists have large enough numbers of Warbands to make this an issue.
b) which hoplite heavy lists are negatively affected
c) whether these hoplite lists in question have enough access to enough support troops that could help mitigate the Warband threat
d) whether these Warband heavy lists have access to support troops which could negate a hoplite's army ability to compensate within its available resources
e) whether Warbands have negative traits which a Hoplite army could use to counter tactically

Or at the very least play a set of games and show us the turn sequences in video or pic format to demonstrate that your points have some validity

Though I won't argue for or against balance changes in this case, I think you may be out-of-tune with the motivation behind most players' complaints.
From what I can gather, people are complaining because, as they see it, warbands are defeating units they would not defeat in real life. The armies as a whole may be balanced perfectly, but if the individual units are not interacting properly, the game isn't very faithful to history.

[Scutarii]

To be clear, my problem is not in warbands defeating other heavy foot, is in how they defeat it with no chance to counter them... hoplites simple are smashed by warbands and medium warbands are doing similar things to other medium foot.

If after a masive assault the defeated heavy foots can recover from it and in counter catch warbands with pants down... but problem is when in a game like this you dont see masive recover of broken units specially if enemy continue pushing... in the end the use of reserves in game is not common at all because if you do this you short to much the combat line and enemy can mass easier to hit in flanks with 2 VS 1 or more... maybe something that made heavy foots in formation with other heavy foots in flanks-rear help non warbands and non pikes... i suggest for pikes a bonus when they have flanks covered by other heavy pike units, if they have flank open negative POA and 0 POA if a heavy foot cover the flank... for other heavy foot non warbands maybe recover the old FOG rear support bonus... if you have a heavy foot in heavy foot rear front line has a POA bonus that help them VS impact foot, you cant form a full double line but you can have in rear heavy foots to support part of combat line.

[76mm]

Yes, until it has been gamed out. Otherwise you are just commenting from a position of total ignorance. Why would we want to make any changes at all until we have accurate data?[/quote ]
I see, so until the "experts" have carefully gamed out every single scenario for months, any other statements are based on "total ignorance"...really? Again, no one is asking for immediate changes, they are flagging issues by raising anecdotal evidence, as presented in these threads.

As a thought experiment, let's follow your extrapolate your logic a bit and suppose that in the game light horse was regularly found to defeat charging cataphracts. Obviously something would not be right... And yet, no one is permitted to raise an issue until it has played out for months by the so-called experts? Sorry, that is absurd.

You and others have definitely advocated changes. Just because they behave differently from a previous iteration of the game is meaningless.

Change for change's sake is terrible for competive gaming

"Advocated changes"--horrors! While I agree that differences from FoG I bear no particular weight, I asked whether there were differences and it turned out that had been. And no one is advocating "change for change's sake", but rather to look at issues to determine whether changes are warranted, not for "change's sake" but to fix possible issues with the game. As an aside, I could care less what is "terrible for competitive gaming"--making an immersive and--within reason--realistic game is most important to me.

Irresponsible is the right word here.

Before anymore outlandish balance requests are put in, perhaps the advocates can answer these important questions I posed once already.
[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Outlandish...OK...as Commante has noted, the primary issue is whether "warbands are defeating units they would not defeat in real life. The armies as a whole may be balanced perfectly, but if the individual units are not interacting properly, the game isn't very faithful to history." If it is determined that this is the case, in my opinion any such issues should be fixed, and to the extent that it is important, game balance can be adjusted in other ways.

Or at the very least play a set of games and show us the turn sequences in video or pic format to demonstrate that your points have some validity

Clearly that would be a next step, when/if a consensus has been formed about this is an issue worth reviewing more closely. I've probably played a dozen very large battles involving Gauls at this point, on both sides, and so far think that if there is an issue--not yet certain--it is that Gaullic warbands can absorb too much damage, meaning that in a sustained melee they are generally more than a match for most opponents.

[edb1815]

Clearly that would be a next step, when/if a consensus has been formed about this is an issue worth reviewing more closely. I've probably played a dozen very large battles involving Gauls at this point, on both sides, and so far think that if there is an issue--not yet certain--it is that Gaullic warbands can absorb too much damage, meaning that in a sustained melee they are generally more than a match for most opponents.

I can see Mike's point - coming from the table top world the speed at which the online gaming community starts the nerf/buff cycle is dizzying.

Having said that your last point is a good one - Gauls were not known for their staying power in a sustained melee. Their biggest advantage should be in impact. Looking at their most obvious historical opponent - Romans; should the Roman line hold at impact then the warband army should be at a disadvantage in a sustained melee. Going back to table top FOG this is the way it worked and in the initial version the Romans had skilled swordsman ability which really put the warband at a disadvantage in melee. (Post Marian Romans anyway). Of course the unit size did not matter as much nor if I recall correctly were their many superior warband units available.

[76mm]

I can see Mike's point - coming from the table top world the speed at which the online gaming community starts the nerf/buff cycle is dizzying.

Actually, I'm kind of impressed that players generally waited for the game to actually come out before making such suggestions, rather than making some already based on the demo YouTube videos! Obviously Richard is not going to make any changes unless there is some kind of consensus and evidence of an issue, but to claim that even discussing these topics is "irresponsible" comes across as an over-reaction in my book.

Having said that your last point is a good one - Gauls were not known for their staying power in a sustained melee. Their biggest advantage should be in impact. Looking at their most obvious historical opponent - Romans; should the Roman line hold at impact then the warband army should be at a disadvantage in a sustained melee.

Yeah, this was my thinking as well, but not really what I'm seeing with my limited data points so far. Hence the interest in discussing the topic on the forum, to see what other players think.

[Cheimison]

but to claim that even discussing these topics is "irresponsible" comes across as an over-reaction in my book.

It's actually an outright misuse of the word - since this gentleman literally is not responsible for the content of the game and does not have the means to alter it for anyone except himself it is tautological to claim he is 'irresponsible'.
This reminds me of when people claim to 'support X cause', when really what they mean is they ADVOCATE for it. Supporting means you actually do something to maintain and advance it, not aimlessly flapping your gums on your couch.

Going back to table top FOG this is the way it worked and in the initial version the Romans had skilled swordsman ability which really put the warband at a disadvantage in melee. (Post Marian Romans anyway). Of course the unit size did not matter as much nor if I recall correctly were their many superior warband units available.

I remembered this from the books - why were these attributes not integrated into the game? I would actually prefer a direct simulation of the tabletop game to a game vaguely like the TT game (same goes for Warhammer, the lore is NOT that interesting, the game is).

[edb1815]

I believe the Skilled Swordsman was removed in the 2nd Ed. because it made the Roman's OP. I do like the fact that the PC version allows for much more gradations in the POAs though. I think the difference from the TT version for warbands is the size factor which was not present there. A unit was a unit.

[JorgenCAB]

I think the problem may lie partly in Impact Foot's power. Not only does it provide a very strong 200 POAs, it also adds a -1 cohesion check modifier on defeats.

Impact foot units can very reliably disrupt other foot on impact. During the charge they easily match the much more fickle Pike's 200 POAs, and clearly best Offensive Spearmen's 100.

If disrupted, the odds change from 100vs200 in favor of Pikes, or from 50vs100 in favor of Spearmen to 100vs100 even fights.


I'm not claiming Impact Foot is unrealistically powerful, but perhaps it is worth considering.

Yes.. this is my feeling as well. On some level Impact Foot seem to be a bit too good at actually disrupting the opponent. I would either lower the POA of Impact Foot or remove the -1 cohesion modifier, probably the latter is the best option. And this has nothing to do with points, it has more to do with what I feel is right historically by these formations fighting.

[MikeC_81]

Yes, until it has been gamed out. Otherwise you are just commenting from a position of total ignorance. Why would we want to make any changes at all until we have accurate data?[/quote ]
I see, so until the "experts" have carefully gamed out every single scenario for months, any other statements are based on "total ignorance"...really? Again, no one is asking for immediate changes, they are flagging issues by raising anecdotal evidence, as presented in these threads.

As a thought experiment, let's follow your extrapolate your logic a bit and suppose that in the game light horse was regularly found to defeat charging cataphracts. Obviously something would not be right... And yet, no one is permitted to raise an issue until it has played out for months by the so-called experts? Sorry, that is absurd.

Except its a false comparison because we are not talking about anything that extreme or concrete. Certainly yes, if light horse defeated charging cataphracts consistently and it was widely reported then we have an issue. But the Warbands vs Hoplite issue is nothing that clear cut. In fact many have gone on record in this thread and in the Pike thread and found Warbands to be in the right place or maybe even under powered. So while there is no consensus, yes the correct answer is to give it time, not barrel headlong into discussing changes since we do not even know what magnitude of adjustment IF ANY, is warranted.

"Advocated changes"--horrors! While I agree that differences from FoG I bear no particular weight, I asked whether there were differences and it turned out that had been. And no one is advocating "change for change's sake", but rather to look at issues to determine whether changes are warranted, not for "change's sake" but to fix possible issues with the game. As an aside, I could care less what is "terrible for competitive gaming"--making an immersive and--within reason--realistic game is most important to me.

It always makes me chuckle when I hear players asking for balance changes for the sake of realism when they are playing an IGOUGO system where they have a birds eye view of the situation and orders are sent flawlessly and instantaneously. We have almost no accounts of the history of Celtic tribesman and their encounters with Hoplites. We know a very large force of Celts crushed a much smaller force of Roman legions fighting in the classical phalanx (not pikes) style at the battle of Allia. There are little to no tactical details however. We have the Roman historian Pausanias writing about the Celtic invasion of Macedonia and Greece in which occured around 279 BC. Writing in 2nd Century AD, his accounts tell also tell us next to nothing of the actual tactical situations other than the Celtic tribesman lost the battle of Thermopolae after crushing a disorganized Macedonia but subsequently went on to sack Delphi (although the Greeks disagreed and said that the gods inflicted their wrath on the invaders by sending a wild storm to allow the Greeks to win a victory). We are not even sure if the Greeks they fought in 279 were even armed in the classical hoplite phalanx tradition. There is solid evidence that the thureoi was introduced in and around this period and the Greeks moved towards a more open flexible formation. Whether it was adopted by Greeks after the lessons learned by Pyrrhus or as a direct response to the Celtic invasion that caused them to abandon the close order hoplite phalanx is totally unknown. If it was in response to the Celts, it could indicate that the Hoplite formation was unsuited to deal with Celtic tribesman. Who knows?

So what kind of realism are we talking about here? Just your standard tired tropes about Gauls/Celtic tribesman and your pure fantasy speculation on how that would have reacted if faced a classical hoplite army? That is what passes for realism? Give me a break.

Outlandish...OK...as Commante has noted, the primary issue is whether "warbands are defeating units they would not defeat in real life. The armies as a whole may be balanced perfectly, but if the individual units are not interacting properly, the game isn't very faithful to history." If it is determined that this is the case, in my opinion any such issues should be fixed, and to the extent that it is important, game balance can be adjusted in other ways.

As I have said here and in other places, we have little to know knowledge of what happened in ancient warfare beyond the roughest of sketches. Sometimes we are blessed with first hand accounts such as Caesar's writings but almost everything we have to go on are second hand sources written by men decades or centuries after these battles have occurred. Celtic tribesman vs Hoplites was simply not well recorded. We have them winning one instance and losing one instance (maybe) vs a classical hoplite formation. Which means nothing. Factors beyond the tactical capabilities of each tradition of fighting certainly played a much bigger role (like the celtic horde outnumbering the hoplite Romans at Allia or the fact that Thermopolyae has allowed the Greeks to hold vs invaders multiple times in their history).

Here is what is certain. Win or lose, both the Italians and the Greeks abandoned Hoplite warfare after meeting the Celts. You can speculate on why if you want. I won't bother for the purposes of this game.

Clearly that would be a next step, when/if a consensus has been formed about this is an issue worth reviewing more closely. I've probably played a dozen very large battles involving Gauls at this point, on both sides, and so far think that if there is an issue--not yet certain--it is that Gaullic warbands can absorb too much damage, meaning that in a sustained melee they are generally more than a match for most opponents.

No, this is the FIRST step if you actually suspect an imbalance. Once you have solid findings then you present it. If you have documented battles vs other players with these armies and can produce good evidence I am more than willing to hear it, but you and Scutarii have provided nothing other than repeating the same thing over and over and over again with no evidence to back it up. In any case if you were just posting as a fishing expedition, it has certainly been a mixed catch. The idea that Warbands are too strong has not even come close to reaching cencus

Having said that your last point is a good one - Gauls were not known for their staying power in a sustained melee. Their biggest advantage should be in impact.

They are among the scariest impact foot in the game with +200 PoA, Deep ranks, and a -1 morale check. They are outright pedestrian after that receiving only +50 PoA against Hoplites and their big numbers bonus while Hoplites get a straight up +100 PoA vs the Warbands if they don't get fragmented on the charge.

[GiveWarAchance]

I wonder what it would be like being a Gaul ordered to do a frontal assault on a pike phalanx? Most Gauls had no armor, often no clothes either just a shield and sword or small spear. Charging a phalanx is like one of us doing a running belly flop onto a porcupine and then continuing on in a melee combat with the spiky animal.

[76mm]

Except its a false comparison because we are not talking about anything that extreme or concrete...So while there is no consensus, yes the correct answer is to give it time, not barrel headlong into discussing changes since we do not even know what magnitude of adjustment IF ANY, is warranted.

This discussion is getting extremely tedious. I don't know why you seem fixated on warbands vs hoplites, the more general issue is whether warbands are overpowered--many seem to think that they MIGHT be. The point of these discussions is to determine whether there is a consensus, to make the issue worth exploring further.

It always makes me chuckle when I hear players asking for balance changes for the sake of realism when they are playing an IGOUGO system where they have a birds eye view of the situation and orders are sent flawlessly and instantaneously. We have almost no accounts of the history of Celtic tribesman and their encounters with Hoplites.

It always makes me chuckle when I hear players dismissing any attempts to increase "realism" in wargames because of the inherent limitations of the medium. As noted above, I don't know why you seem fixated on hoplites, in fact the discussion is broader, and generally there are many more literary sources for fighting against warbands than most of the other types of combat depicted in the game. And these give a generally consistent picture of their style of fighting.

So what kind of realism are we talking about here? Just your standard tired tropes about Gauls/Celtic tribesman and your pure fantasy speculation on how that would have reacted if faced a classical hoplite army? That is what passes for realism? Give me a break.

Yes, the same "tired tropes" that presumably formed the basis of all the research for the game. I'm sorry--genuinely--if you don't think some level historical accuracy is either achievable or desirable. I do.

As I have said here and in other places, we have little to know knowledge of what happened in ancient warfare beyond the roughest of sketches.

And? Maybe Richard should not have attempted to make the game, or now that he has, absolutely no one other than so-called experts should be able to comment on it? Wrong forum buddy.

No, this is the FIRST step if you actually suspect an imbalance. Once you have solid findings then you present it. If you have documented battles vs other players with these armies and can produce good evidence I am more than willing to hear it, but you and Scutarii have provided nothing other than repeating the same thing over and over and over again with no evidence to back it up. In any case if you were just posting as a fishing expedition, it has certainly been a mixed catch. The idea that Warbands are too strong has not even come close to reaching cencus

Above you say that there is no evidence of any sort for this argument, and that everything is based on fantasy...so what type of evidence specifically would you consider? As stated many times, my posts are intended to elicit the views of other players--call it a "fishing expedition" if you want, but if so there have been numerous bites.

I won't respond further to your points because your position is clear, and I do not agree with it at all.

[Cheimison]

I just had a test of this, with the later Macedonian army up against a Gallic army in the mountains.
I anchored my refused wing to a mountain, and put all my Veterans on the right wing, along with all my cavalry.
The enemy had tons of war bands, including a couple of Superior Warbands. These latter routinely won the Impact and pushed back my troops.
Other than that, however, the warbands got locked into melee and died. I won with only 9% losses against 42% by the last Gallic turn. I didn't even have a chance to use my veteran phalanx against their warbands, because they got drug off into some inane cavalry battle happening on the right flank.
They were scary for the first three rounds of combat, but once the Superior Warband fell they didn't stand a chance against my pikes.

[Scutarii]

Well, imagine now the battle with non pike units.... you think they can survive the initial 3 turns??? maybe roman units can do it thanks they are superior and better armored.

I dont see very normal to that phalanx be pushed back by the assault of units that simple dont have a combat formation... attack frontal area of a pike, specially if has other pike units as support in the line, needs be a suicide, yea, in time pike manage to defeat warbands but for me is another not very logical thing because the power of pike is in defense-attack, in melee the weapon is very inefective to deal damage, here i remember how in XVI and XVII century formations like tercios used soldiers with swords to move between the own pikes to kill enemies using only swords to kill pike guys because they cant selfdefense in melee from them.

For me pikes need:

-Stronger frontal defensive value, the anti impact foot unit.

-BUT they are less effective in melee dealing less damage at same time they suffer less damage in melee compared with other more melee orientated heavy foot (and maybe offensive spears and swordmen could deal more damage at same time they have bigger chance to receive it).

-A bonus to have flanks covered by other pike units, 0 bonus if only heavy foot cover their flanks and a penalty if they have non covered flanks,

-Sacrifice 1 square of movement when enemy is close (you can move 2 squares if you can use army movement).

-And be weaker VS flank attacks...

Other thing is that in square pike units need a reduced defensive effect, dealing lower damage compared with an enemy attack over the front of a pike with normal formation.

[JorgenCAB]

Well, imagine now the battle with non pike units.... you think they can survive the initial 3 turns??? maybe roman units can do it thanks they are superior and better armored.

I dont see very normal to that phalanx be pushed back by the assault of units that simple dont have a combat formation... attack frontal area of a pike, specially if has other pike units as support in the line, needs be a suicide, yea, in time pike manage to defeat warbands but for me is another not very logical thing because the power of pike is in defense-attack, in melee the weapon is very inefective to deal damage, here i remember how in XVI and XVII century formations like tercios used soldiers with swords to move between the own pikes to kill enemies using only swords to kill pike guys because they cant selfdefense in melee from them.

For me pikes need:

-Stronger frontal defensive value, the anti impact foot unit.

-BUT they are less effective in melee dealing less damage at same time they suffer less damage in melee compared with other more melee orientated heavy foot (and maybe offensive spears and swordmen could deal more damage at same time they have bigger chance to receive it).

-A bonus to have flanks covered by other pike units, 0 bonus if only heavy foot cover their flanks and a penalty if they have non covered flanks.

-Sacrifice 1 square of movement when enemy is close (you can move 2 squares if you can use army movement).

-And be weaker VS flank attacks...

Other thing is that in square pike units need a reduced defensive effect, dealing lower damage compared with an enemy attack over the front of a pike with normal formation.

I'm sorry but you have a strange view on pike warfare, pikes were awfully lethal in melee and the notion you can just dodge in an kill people in the front with swords very easily is completely bogus, anyone doing reenactment know how much bullshit that is for example. That is just not possible with any regularity. The Romans describe attacking Greek pike phalanxes as an impossible job. As far as we know the Romans never defeated a pike phalanx through direct assault only as a way to fix then into position but at horrendous loss of Roman lives.

No matter what you believe then pikes are the most lethal melee weapon on the battlefield, no questions asked. The only way to really defeat with is to lure them into bad terrain, getting into their flanks or use missile weapons. Pike phalanxes was NOT a defensive formation.

What you can do in a battle is move in between the phalanxes since there will be gaps between each individual phalanx, that is why you always had lighter troops supporting the phalanxes that filled the gaps. These lighter troops would be part of the unit in the game.

[nikgaukroger]

As far as we know the Romans never defeated a pike phalanx through direct assault only as a way to fix then into position but at horrendous loss of Roman lives.

IIRC the fight against the Pontic phalanx was a frontal one which the Romans won despite the phalanx fighting well. Of course at this time the legionarii can plausibly be pretty much all classified as high quality whilst in the clashes against Pyhrros (for example) they were far more average.

What you can do in a battle is move in between the phalanxes since there will be gaps between each individual phalanx, that is why you always had lighter troops supporting the phalanxes that filled the gaps.

You know, the only recollection I have of lighter troops in amongst the phalanx is Pyhrros mixing Italian (or Illyrian or similar) units/troops between the phalanx units (on one occasion?). All the rest appear to have been a solid line of phalanx units only (although I'm sure there would be small gaps between taxeis to allow for some manoeuvre ability) - well until Antichos III screwed it up with nellies between the units.

[Scutarii]

Well, imagine now the battle with non pike units.... you think they can survive the initial 3 turns??? maybe roman units can do it thanks they are superior and better armored.

I dont see very normal to that phalanx be pushed back by the assault of units that simple dont have a combat formation... attack frontal area of a pike, specially if has other pike units as support in the line, needs be a suicide, yea, in time pike manage to defeat warbands but for me is another not very logical thing because the power of pike is in defense-attack, in melee the weapon is very inefective to deal damage, here i remember how in XVI and XVII century formations like tercios used soldiers with swords to move between the own pikes to kill enemies using only swords to kill pike guys because they cant selfdefense in melee from them.

For me pikes need:

-Stronger frontal defensive value, the anti impact foot unit.

-BUT they are less effective in melee dealing less damage at same time they suffer less damage in melee compared with other more melee orientated heavy foot (and maybe offensive spears and swordmen could deal more damage at same time they have bigger chance to receive it).

-A bonus to have flanks covered by other pike units, 0 bonus if only heavy foot cover their flanks and a penalty if they have non covered flanks.

-Sacrifice 1 square of movement when enemy is close (you can move 2 squares if you can use army movement).

-And be weaker VS flank attacks...

Other thing is that in square pike units need a reduced defensive effect, dealing lower damage compared with an enemy attack over the front of a pike with normal formation.

I'm sorry but you have a strange view on pike warfare, pikes were awfully lethal in melee and the notion you can just dodge in an kill people in the front with swords very easily is completely bogus, anyone doing reenactment know how much bullshit that is for example. That is just not possible with any regularity. The Romans describe attacking Greek pike phalanxes as an impossible job. As far as we know the Romans never defeated a pike phalanx through direct assault only as a way to fix then into position but at horrendous loss of Roman lives.

No matter what you believe then pikes are the most lethal melee weapon on the battlefield, no questions asked. The only way to really defeat with is to lure them into bad terrain, getting into their flanks or use missile weapons. Pike phalanxes was NOT a defensive formation.

What you can do in a battle is move in between the phalanxes since there will be gaps between each individual phalanx, that is why you always had lighter troops supporting the phalanxes that filled the gaps. These lighter troops would be part of the unit in the game.

I said oposite, pike units are the less letal units in battlefield because they use a bad weapon to deal high damage in short time like spears or swords can do when they are in active combat... pikes deal small damage and need a lot of time to made enemy units have noticiable casualties because pikes are very hard to use weapons when you need hit a specific target fast.

BUT pikes are assasins when enemy impale over them because the impact from attacker made pikes maximize the effectivity, is like in martial arts, the enemy power is used against him... maybe this is why the best pike combats were VS enemies that simple "assault" them wasting forces in suicide charges and when enemy is weak pike units simple push enemy back.

Pike is the best weapon VS an enemy that base his combat power in impact BUT when combat become a melee here pikes best option is mantein enemy far from their position but not deal a lot damage to enemy units... at same time if enemy armed with smaller and more usable weapons in melee like swords or spears can move between pikes and try deal damage to pike units... of course this means that in melee pike units and his enemies enter in a type of combat where none of them is going to suffer high casualties.

Terrain impact in phalanx is based in the disruption of formation that open gaps that an attacker can exploit... the first charge sure deal a lot damage to attacker but after impact they can infiltrate troops in the holes and start destroying formation..