Pike Units: Worth the cost?

[kvnrthr]

I'm not sure if the units are priced in accordance with their individual capabilities only, or with the whole army lists in mind.

If the former is the case, I've been feeling that pike units are priced pretty high for what they offer. The deep pike capability is so vulnerable to being chipped away by skirmisher fire, or even just a few turns of combat. If they lose against impact foot at impact you get a -1 to cohesion roll, and for the same price your units will be lower quality than the enemies and less likely to survive that.

Worse of all, you might have everything go well until one push back lands you with an enemy at your flank. At this point, unless you can quickly ZOC the threatening unit you can kiss your unit goodbye.

Additionally the high price means that you will be on a narrower frontage than your enemy, hence weak to flanking. This is less of a problem for expensive heavy impact foot such as roman legionaries/hastati or superior warbands. They get +200 at impact no matter the casualties, with their better troop quality and -1 to cohesion, they can take a chance on knocking out a weak enemy unit in one turn. A pike unit is more likely to take its time, and your enemy will have plenty of chances to try and outflank it.

The saving grace in most pike army lists is of course the cavalry, and those can make up for the weaknesses of the pikes. But comparing it as one heavy foot unit to another it is not clear why they would cost more than heavy impact foot.

[Morbio]

I'm sure this has been debated before and I'm sure the cost setting for Pikes has been well thought out, but I tend to agree. High cost leads to narrow frontage, which makes flanking relatively easy and this leads to a swift death as once pikes are anything but steady they are very weak. Once one breaks the chain reaction can be horrendous. I don't know what the solution is but I think expensive units like pikes are just not worthwhile, which is a shame

[MVP7]

I agree, pikes feel barely worth the price and narrow frontage goes a long way to counter what advantages they have. Personally I would rather have cheaper pikes without square formation or maybe with capped max POA advantage.

[sIg3b]

Or perhaps increase their impact? I would see a Pike Phalanx as the quintessential impact unit.

[kvnrthr]

Or perhaps increase their impact? I would see a Pike Phalanx as the quintessential impact unit.

I think the design intention with pikes was to make them equal with impact foot at impact but superior in melee. However the POA differential is not high enough to justify the cost. +25 against veteran hastati/principes and +63 against regular hastati/principes, going lower and lower as you take hits to deep pike.

Maybe the swordsmen melee POA should be modified to +50 instead of +100 against pikes, just like it is against spearmen. I also saw an interesting recommendation that pike pushback should not happen too far away from foot units on your flank, as it does not seem that one section of a phalanx line would advance alone without regards to its neighbors.

[MVP7]

Or perhaps increase their impact? I would see a Pike Phalanx as the quintessential impact unit.

I think the design intention with pikes was to make them equal with impact foot at impact but superior in melee. However the POA differential is not high enough to justify the cost. +25 against veteran hastati/principes and +63 against regular hastati/principes, going lower and lower as you take hits to deep pike.

Maybe the swordsmen melee POA should be modified to +50 instead of +100 against pikes, just like it is against spearmen. I also saw an interesting recommendation that pike pushback should not happen too far away from foot units on your flank, as it does not seem that one section of a phalanx line would advance alone without regards to its neighbors.

I don't think pikes are supposed to match equally priced impact foot on impact and it wouldn't make much sense either. Impact foot uses javelins or other throwing weapons on impact which would cause damage and disruption to pike formation while the impact foot are presumably not running straight into the pikes and impaling themselves. Cheaper infantry will of course struggle against pikes even at impact.

Push-backs were already reduced significantly in 1.5.3 that came after the discussions you have probably read.

Pikes aren't really under-performing in combat either. If you put veteran pikes (96p) vs veteran legionaries (96p) the pikes have about 28% chance of losing on impact and legionaries have 21% chance of losing in melee. If pikes don't lose cohesion on impact they will usually win the melee by attrition. The odds are roughly similar for other pikes vs Romans comparisons as well [pikes (72p) vs legionaries (78p) and raw pikes(48p) vs mediocre legionaries (60p)]. Most other types of infantry are worse off against pikes and pikes obviously have pretty big advantage against cavalry as well so their performance can't really be increased or the price reduced.

If the pike melee POA was capped the price could be reduced a bit which would help with the narrow frontage and the pikes would be more like an anvil in melee rather than the killing machine it currently is (which is of course a big subject for debate).

[Geffalrus]

Except that nowhere in the historical record do we see a pike formation disrupted by javelins thrown before a charge. In fact, descriptions of the battles of Cynoscephalae and Magnesia talk about how futile it was to throw stuff into a pike formation. The Romans talked about how desperate they were to try and get into the pikes.........and yet they're weren't able to until: 1) they outflanked the line, 2) rough terrain at Pydna messed up the pikes, 3) they caused the elephants within the pike squares to go nuts.

So no, the relatively easy ability of Impact Infantry to disrupt more expensive pike units with a frontal charge is ludicrous. Just complete bonkers. I've literally seen 42 point scutari get lucky enough to do so against 72 point pikes on open terrain. It results in a situation where Romans have no problem crashing right into pike walls and carrying the day.

As far as the dynamic between impact and melee, that's also not quite matching the historical record. Sources, especially Polybius, speak at length about the irresistable charge of the pike phalanx. If anything, the pike should have a massive advantage over other units on impact, but then slow down in melee.

The "deep pike" bonus also doesn't make much sense since the back ranks of the syntagma have no ability to influence the melee or charge ability of the front ranks. They really don't. Anyone who's actually tried to line up in a Hellenistic pike block knows that the ability of people to push together forward is made impossible by the way you hold the pike - it twists your shoulders so that anyone pressing you from behind makes you fall at a diagonal, instead of forward into the person in front of you. If you read "Invincible Beast" by Chris Matthews, you will see a compelling argument for the idea that the front rank of the pike phalanx was the only one really able to do much attacking against the enemy. Ranks 2-5 were purely there for support, not attack.

I also have some issues with how morale values are assigned for pike units vs. legion units. The idea that the Romans get Elite quality, while the best that the Veteran pikes can do is Superior is also extremely odd, considering that Hellenistic Royal Guard units were professional forces that were in action year round. Regular pike units were composed of older people who - had - served in the Royal Guard when they were younger. If anything, the Pike units of the Seleucids and Macedonians should be the ones with "Above Average" morale. It's not like Principes were - more - experienced than the Bronze Shields of the Hellenistic Kingdoms.

[Geffalrus]

Pikes aren't really under-performing in combat either. If you put veteran pikes (96p) vs veteran legionaries (96p) the pikes have about 28% chance of losing on impact and legionaries have 21% chance of losing in melee. If pikes don't lose cohesion on impact they will usually win the melee by attrition. The odds are roughly similar for other pikes vs Romans comparisons as well [pikes (72p) vs legionaries (78p) and raw pikes(48p) vs mediocre legionaries (60p)]. Most other types of infantry are worse off against pikes and pikes obviously have pretty big advantage against cavalry as well so their performance can't really be increased or the price reduced.

For an equal price unit, the Veteran legions have Elite morale and an Armor advantage. Same thing with legions vs regular pikes. Morale advantage and an armor advantage. The pike prices are off it seems because they have such a huge unit size. The morale advantage makes them that much harder to break in combat, even if the pikes win a round of combat. But on Impact, the pikes are more likely to take a cohesion hit because of the penalty from receiving an impact charge. Fighting Romans frontally with pikes is utter torture.

[MVP7]

I think the deep pike bonus is more about maintaining the structure and cohesion of the formation than rear ranks actively participating in combat. I'm also a bit skeptical about only the front rank of pike formation contributing to fighting since pike formations have always been even deeper than the hoplite phalanx. I'm equally skeptical about the literal charge of pike formation being very deadly (especially if only the first row can use their weapons and the rest are just trying not to knock down the guy in front of them) rather than the following slow advance of the pike unit being unstoppable which would count as melee if FoG2.

In terms of gameplay, sure the Veteran Legionaries get morale and armour advantage and are better at impact but pikes have more men to lose and are better in melee and against cavalry. If you have legionaries fighting pikemen frontally the pikes will usually win in the end. If pikes get disrupted on impact they will lose but probability of them losing on impact against similarly priced unit is around 20-30% and the probability of fresh superior unit failing cohesion test is about 40%. In the following melee, which is rolled 2 times every turn, the pikes have about 20% win chance and elite troops have about 33% chance of failing cohesion test. For similarly priced units that's pretty balanced performance, there will of course always be some outlier cases like that scutarii-vs-pikes.

I still think legionaries are a superior unit, the advantage at impact which makes them more fast decisive and the better maneuverability work much better with their relatively small numbers while the unmaneuverable pikes are often stuck in melee for longer times, exposing their flanks to the enemy more easily. However, if the combat performance of pikes was increased their price would also have to go up and that would make their biggest weakness of small numbers even more profound and reduce the overall efficiency of pike armies even more.

[sIg3b]

As far as the dynamic between impact and melee, that's also not quite matching the historical record. Sources, especially Polybius, speak at length about the irresistable charge of the pike phalanx. If anything, the pike should have a massive advantage over other units on impact, but then slow down in melee.

I agree. In addition, I believe the same is -for different reasons- also true for the Warband. It should have high impact, but low resilience. Romans, otoh, would imo have low Impact/high resilience.

In other words, I think the melee relationship between Romans and their typical enemies is perhaps standing on its head.

[Geffalrus]

I think the deep pike bonus is more about maintaining the structure and cohesion of the formation than rear ranks actively participating in combat. I'm also a bit skeptical about only the front rank of pike formation contributing to fighting since pike formations have always been even deeper than the hoplite phalanx. I'm equally skeptical about the literal charge of pike formation being very deadly (especially if only the first row can use their weapons and the rest are just trying not to knock down the guy in front of them) rather than the following slow advance of the pike unit being unstoppable which would count as melee if FoG2.

In terms of gameplay, sure the Veteran Legionaries get morale and armour advantage and are better at impact but pikes have more men to lose and are better in melee and against cavalry. If you have legionaries fighting pikemen frontally the pikes will usually win in the end. If pikes get disrupted on impact they will lose but probability of them losing on impact against similarly priced unit is around 20-30% and the probability of fresh superior unit failing cohesion test is about 40%. In the following melee, which is rolled 2 times every turn, the pikes have about 20% win chance and elite troops have about 33% chance of failing cohesion test. For similarly priced units that's pretty balanced performance, there will of course always be some outlier cases like that scutarii-vs-pikes.

I still think legionaries are a superior unit, the advantage at impact which makes them more fast decisive and the better maneuverability work much better with their relatively small numbers while the unmaneuverable pikes are often stuck in melee for longer times, exposing their flanks to the enemy more easily. However, if the combat performance of pikes was increased their price would also have to go up and that would make their biggest weakness of small numbers even more profound and reduce the overall efficiency of pike armies even more.

One thing about formation depth that we don't fully know is whether it was during the approach to melee, or was it in the melee itself? The way the officers are structured within the pike syntagma, I have a theory that the phalanx actually fought at a depth of 8 men, not 16. 16 depth was used during the march with horizontal space in between the soldiers to make marching and maneuvering easier. Then, when they are closer to the enemy, the back 8 ranks step to the side, march forward, and fill in the empty spaces. This would maintain the formation's width, but increase it's density. This would also solve the math problem of how did the phalanx ever match the width of an opposing infantry formation if they used AT LEAST twice the numbers of men to occupy the same horizontal space. Anyway, that's my theory. It has not been proven yet.

So I've actually tested using a replica sarissa, and the most interesting thing I found was that most of your power with the weapon comes from your legs. Especially when you're in motion. Using your arms shifts the balance of the heavy sarissa, putting much more strain on your muscles. Using your legs, however, is much more efficient. So with the charge, the inertial motion of your moving body generates a lot of energy that is then transferred into the sharp and weighty sarissa. The initial contact with the enemy infantry a lot of force behind the sarissa point; more than you can generate just by swinging your arms from a standing position. The momentum of a person "running" (light trot, really) with a sarissa is substantial. But then, once the melee is started, you don't have nearly as much space to move the weapon, so the force decreases a lot.

[Geffalrus]

From a gameplay perspective, I see Roman infantry as the metaphor of endurance over quick kills. Their infantry should be grinding out victories against enemy infantry due to their combat style, their armor, and their morale. They should have something of a vulnerability to powerful shock units like warbands, lancers, and redesigned pikes. If they can survive the impact, however, they should have the advantage due to their discipline and their equipment (scutum and gladius).

[MVP7]

As far as the dynamic between impact and melee, that's also not quite matching the historical record. Sources, especially Polybius, speak at length about the irresistable charge of the pike phalanx. If anything, the pike should have a massive advantage over other units on impact, but then slow down in melee.

I agree. In addition, I believe the same is -for different reasons- also true for the Warband. It should have high impact, but low resilience. Romans, otoh, would imo have low Impact/high resilience.

In other words, I think the melee relationship between Romans and their typical enemies is perhaps standing on its head.

Warbands I can agree on and that's pretty much how they are at the moment but how would the pikes be great on impact phase which consists of throwing weapons and the first few blows of melee combat. All I'm seeing is one, translated, fairly abstract quote from Polybius and that hardly seems like basis for overhauling the entire game balance. Unless the "charge" very clearly means just the initial impact of combat I'd suspect it means pikes pushing into the enemy formation during melee.

Is there any concrete description of how ancient pikes supposedly charge into battle and why would pikes be so inefficient in melee? If Romans are fighting a pike phalanx each Roman would have to get past or hack through about 10 pikes before even getting into stabbing range of the enemy and there are plenty of pikemen ready to replace losses.

[sIg3b]

From a gameplay perspective, I see Roman infantry as the metaphor of endurance over quick kills. Their infantry should be grinding out victories against enemy infantry due to their combat style, their armor, and their morale. They should have something of a vulnerability to powerful shock units like warbands, lancers, and redesigned pikes. If they can survive the impact, however, they should have the advantage due to their discipline and their equipment (scutum and gladius).

+1

[sIg3b]

As I see it, as long as the wood of Pikes is moving, it´s near unstoppable. But once the Phalanx comes to a halt, it becomes vulnerable.

If the Swordsmen survive the impact, their much higher agility will perhaps pay off.

[Geffalrus]

Warbands I can agree on and that's pretty much how they are at the moment but how would the pikes be great on impact phase which consists of throwing weapons and the first few blows of melee combat. All I'm seeing is one, translated, fairly abstract quote from Polybius and that hardly seems like basis for overhauling the entire game balance. Unless the "charge" very clearly means just the initial impact of combat I'd suspect it means pikes pushing into the enemy formation during melee.

Is there any concrete description of how ancient pikes supposedly charge into battle and why would pikes be so inefficient in melee? If Romans are fighting a pike phalanx each Roman would have to get past or hack through about 10 pikes before even getting into stabbing range of the enemy and there are plenty of pikemen ready to replace losses.

The same way that Lancers have an impact bonus despite the fact that they aren't throwing spears, either. Or Zealots, for that matter. Again, literally wielding a pike and running at the enemy gives a pretty solid physical impact since the spear translates a lot of the energy of the moving human + plus his armor into the point of the spear. Hence the talk we hear about sarissa penetrating shields and whatnot.

Pike inefficiency is based on the fact that you can't get a lot of force behind your sarissa from a standing position. In full contact with another infantry formation, you draw to a standstill as they can't reach you, but you have trouble doing much damage since you're still limited by the movement range of the human body. Romans certainly had difficulty getting past the pikes - at all stages of combat. It was only through other means (terrain, flanking, etc) that they historically triumphed. Against Pyrrhus, the legion and phalanx were pretty much deadlocked until Pyrrhus did something to change the balance.

Additionally, any pikeman beyond the first rank cannot effectively direct his pike at a target. It's there, but visibility for the wielder is much reduced.

[MVP7]

I find the idea of 16 ranks deep shoulder-to-shoulder formation of men carrying 18 feet pikes running towards the enemy at full speed, and somehow holding their formation in the process, very hard to believe. I also can't agree with pike becoming ineffective after the momentum of the supposed running speed has been spent. It might be slower and heavier to stab with a pike than a spear but it also has more momentum when hitting the enemy. If the force a man can put behind standing stab wasn't enough to cause damage then by that logic every stabbing weapon in the world would become useless after "charge".

And it's not like the pikes are bad at impact phase as it is, the only troop type that can outmatch them on impact is similarly priced impact foot. There's no way the dozens or hundreds of pila/spears being tossed into the tight formation of lightly armoured pikemen is doing nothing even if some are deflected by pikes.

[Morbio]

From a logic perspective it seems bizarre to me that any direct frontal charge against steady pikes has any reasonable chance of success (disruption). The front pike line would have some manoeuvrability with the pike and might be targeting a charger and then next few ranks wouldn't be targeting per se, but would simply be adding to mass of sharp points waiting to impale the charger. The Romans advantage would be their morale from the months on the practice field (and previous battles), their armour and their manoeuvrability from the months of training, performing set drills and responding quickly and efficiently to commands. As was mentioned above by Geffalrus, the big successes of the Romans versus pikes were due to their manoeuvrability and pike disruption because of poor terrain. One thing's for sure, pikes couldn't turn quickly to defend their flanks and this was their weak spot.

If the effectiveness of the pike unit is ever reviewed, then I'd suggest them being immune to impact on frontal charges if they are steady (maybe having a certain number of ranks too). This would seem to make individual units more worthwhile, although I still think pike armies may struggle against swarm armies because of the danger on the flanks. It would at least address some of the failings of pikes from a cost perspective.

[Geffalrus]

I find the idea of 16 ranks deep shoulder-to-shoulder formation of men carrying 18 feet pikes running towards the enemy at full speed, and somehow holding their formation in the process, very hard to believe. I also can't agree with pike becoming ineffective after the momentum of the supposed running speed has been spent. It might be slower and heavier to stab with a pike than a spear but it also has more momentum when hitting the enemy. If the force a man can put behind standing stab wasn't enough to cause damage then by that logic every stabbing weapon in the world would become useless after "charge".

And it's not like the pikes are bad at impact phase as it is, the only troop type that can outmatch them on impact is similarly priced impact foot. There's no way the dozens or hundreds of pila/spears being tossed into the tight formation of lightly armoured pikemen is doing nothing even if some are deflected by pikes.

No no no, they definitely didn't run at what we'd call full speed. I doubt most heavily armored infantry we think of as charging were capable of that. It's hard to explain, and something that can really only be understood properly when you actually do it yourself with a pike and a pelta strapped to your arm. I'll try again. The speed is something closer to twice the pace of what you'd do carrying the pike and pelta. Even that relatively minor increase in speed increases the force of the sarissa on impact with the opposing body/shield/etc.

Additionally, the 16 ranks don't matter for the impact because they have no normal way of increasing the for forward pressure of the formation. As I mentioned before, the way your body is positioned, rear ranks - cannot - effectively push forward, especially when they're focused on holding the long sarissa.