Pike Re-Balance Workshop

[rbodleyscott]

Hi guys. Before you get carried off into a world of theoretical fantasy about (usual) phalanx depths, may I suggest that you read

"Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars" by Duncan Head.

It is out of print, but can be found on the net as a .pdf.

[pompeytheflatulent]

I think everything (armor, POAs) needs to wait until the unit size gets hashed out, since outnumbering your opponent in melee confers a noticeable win % shift.

so 480? or, to account for the fact that they take up less width per man, then for one pike unit to have the same facing as one legionary unit (which they must given the grid system) then one pike unit should be larger than 480? but maybe just a bit larger to lend some extra staying power and ranged resistance?

if it is greater than 480, but much less than 960, then the options are perhaps 720 and 600? in keeping with the increment standards

edit: it looks like only 'poorly armed slaves' are 600, and 720 is like warband and pictish spearmen and raw spearmen

Hold your horses man. I'm taking cover until this shitstorm started by Geffalrus with his "phalangites fought 8 ranks deep" interpretation blows over.

[Geffalrus]

so 480? or, to account for the fact that they take up less width per man, then for one pike unit to have the same facing as one legionary unit (which they must given the grid system) then one pike unit should be larger than 480? but maybe just a bit larger to lend some extra staying power and ranged resistance?

if it is greater than 480, but much less than 960, then the options are perhaps 720 and 600? in keeping with the increment standards

edit: it looks like only 'poorly armed slaves' are 600, and 720 is like warband and pictish spearmen and raw spearmen

Can you try a series with 480, Above Average, Armored? I'm curious to see how they fare. You could also try a scenario where they face ranged attacks.

[Geffalrus]

Hi guys. Before you get carried off into a world of theoretical fantasy about (usual) phalanx depths, may I suggest that you read

"Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars" by Duncan Head.

It is out of print, but can be found on the net as a .pdf.

Similarly, I'd encourage everyone to check out "An Invincible Beast" by Christopher Matthew published in 2016. Does an excellent examination of the mechanics of a person using the phalangite kit individually and in formation. And if anyone wants to try things out physically, I have a cheap and easy recipe for a sarissa (if you have access to American Home Depot........and if there's not a pandemic). Helped me understand A LOT about what was involved with using the weapon. Obviously the ideal is the reenactor kit we've all seen on youtube, but those are expensive and take a lot of time.

Duncan Head's book is an awesome work, but it's fundamentally a generalist treatment of the subject since it covers so many military system. There's no deep dive into how the dense formations could have worked, something you do find in Matthew's work. You have this discussion of different densities.......without any investigation of - how - changing that density would happen. Everyone kinda just wiggle to the right until they're too close? That's frighteningly imprecise for a military machine. That's why my suggestion focuses on simple methods. The officers set up the spacing of the phalanx at deployment, and then the front rank officer (a key position) is in charge of leading his long line of phalangites forward. So long as everyone lines up properly behind him (and they'd be drilled to do so), the officer just has to keep his distance from the officers to his right and left. And then when closer density is needed, the officer at rank 9 marches between the files in front of him and stops once he reaches the front rank officers. Again, everyone just follows along in line. Simple technique, simple mechanics. All the tricky measurement happens back at deployment where things are safe.

He also mentions the "impetus" of the deep formation.......without any analysis of what that impetus - actually - is. Emotional? Physical? The physical idea is probably that big crowds push forward. But big crowds are chaotic and dangerous to people IN them. They can just as easily crush the people on your side as the others. In a hoplite phalanx it's possible due to the unique qualities of the aspis.......qualities the pelta lacks. Furthermore, the way you handle a sarissa makes it impossible for someone also holding one to push you forward. So those 15 ranks behind the first guy add - literally nothing - to his offensive potential via any sort of pushing. The - impetus - of the phalangite comes from his personal momentum. This is something I have - literally - tested myself. The most powerful strike I can do comes when I'm moving forward and using my legs. That's why the charge/impact of the phalanx is formidable. You're carrying a large heavy spear that is in motion. Your subsequent strikes are not as powerful because you have less momentum. That's the secret of the phalanx - it's not about the rear ranks pushing you. Rather, it's about the extreme reach of your weapon and the density of your formation. Ranks 2-5 are helpful if the enemy starts to get past the first sarissa point, but they are limited by their vision.

Head's book is a great overview, but it's not an in depth investigation of the mechanics of the sarissa phalanx.

[MVP7]

In my opinion the 960 man unit size gives the pikes character that really separates them from other units. Even if pike phalanx did form into shallower formation before contact (and that is very much an if), the 16x16 unit would still be the main maneuvering unit and that's a characteristic best portrayed by the deep unit even if it technically consists of several syntagma.

I really don't think the formation thickness is going to change so to keep the discussion more useful it might be better to consider 960 man unit size as constant.

---

I have written my personal more specific suggestion earlier but here are my more generic main concerns regarding any possible pike overhaul:

Personally I think the Pikes simply must have reduced overall POA, reduced unit cost and improved endurance. The extreme POA reduction from casualties needs to go as it completely defeats the point of large formation (that the pikes pay premium for) and makes no sense when comparing pikes to other units in the game (i.e. despite pikes being the unit type with most redundancy they are actually most sensitive to losses).

It would be great if the quality of raw and possibly average pikes could be increased while still reducing their cost (cost reduction takes priority though). Pikes are at least a full veterancy step (and armor step) below other units of similar cost. This means reduced CT modifier which has terrible synergy with the assumed role, high cost and large man man count of the pikes (it basically renders them into expensive rout-percentage pinatas). I'm not suggesting that pikes have the same veterancy (or armor) as other units of similar cost, just that they don't have as extreme handicap as they currently do.

I agree the impact of terrain on pikes should be highlighted and it's a good place to add weakness to them. I'd rather not see any too complicated rules in this area. I think even without changing CT modifiers just reducing and removing the Pike POAs with non-open/disruption/disorder and fragmentation/severe-disorder respectively would be enough to give them exploitable weakness.

---

I don't have extremely strong opinion about Square formation, but I think it is a bit out of place and unnecessary (as it is the only special formation that has not been abstracted or ignored):

There's historical case of Hellenic square in some form being used in open battle, but the same goes for Testudo for example. At Carrhae the Romans formed what was essentially a Testudo despite extreme proximity of Parthian cataphracts so it's not exclusively a siege formation and so it might have been used in other battles. Forming a 360 degree defensive formation also isn't inherently something that couldn't be done by most somewhat organized infantry forces, but for all other units any such actions are abstracted and assumed to be taken automatically when unit is engaged with multiple units.

I'm also somewhat skeptical about the speed and ease at which the FoG2 Hellenic pike unit can assume the square in response to imminent threat. If it was that fast and easy to cover every side of the pike formation then why would the flanks of Hellenic pike phalanx have ever been considered a weakness? This really seems something more characteristic of late medieval and early modern pikes.

Finally there's the issues of balance: the square mitigates one of the major weaknesses of Pike formation which further increases their unit cost. Personally I think leaving in that weakness and bringing the unit cost to more viable level would produce more interesting gameplay for all sides.

[TheGrayMouser]

I think pikes are well balanced and work quite well in the system. For me, the only outlier is the ability to form square. It’s not that I believe they couldn’t do it when needed, it’s the way players use the ability that seems a-historical.

If I was going to change one thing about pikes, it would be to only let them change to square when they have an actual rear or flank charge threat, and have none to change back.

[Mairtin]

Hope these articles help, all of them are probably worth reading in full; and while I can't vouch for the accuracy, there seems to be a consistent thread among them

Organization

The Macedonian phalanx was based on the sixteen-deep file, although the file leader’s title of dekarch attested to an earlier ten-deep organisation. Alexander’s phalanx fought eight deep; by Polybius’ time, perhaps as a result of Pyrrhus’ experiences against the Romans, the phalanx fought sixteen deep. For much of its existence, the phalanx was formed along the following lines. Four files (‘dekas’) each of 16 men formed the smallest unit, the semaia. Two semaia formed a 128-man lochos, commanded by a lochagos.

Alongside the lochagos, other specialised soldiers also served alongside each lochos. There was the bugler – the salpingetes – who would relay messages with his bugle during the heat of battle. There was also a signalman – called the semeiphoros – who would give visual signals during the march with his standard, as well as an army herald – a stratokerux – who would shout out orders. There was also an aide – a hyperetes – who was to convey messages between units and do whatever the lochagos required, and finally a file closer – the ouragos – who would collect any stragglers from the phalanx.

Two lochoi formed a 256-man syntagma. Two syntagmai formed a 512-man pentakosiarchia and two pentakosiarchiai a 1,024-man chiliarchy. Two such chiliarchies formed a phalanx (or phalanx taxis) of 2,048 men.

Alexander’s phalanx (and hence Philip’s and any preceding phalanx) appears to have been organised somewhat differently, with three 512-man pentakosiarchiai per phalanx (phalanx taxis). Alexander appears to have reorganised them into 2,048-man phalanxes in 326 BC, setting the pattern for the Hellenistic era.

Hellenistic tactical manuals give three individual spacings for phalangites: march order, with each man taking up a space of 6’x6′; tactical order, with each man occupying 3’x3′ and finally combat order, each man having a frontage of 1.5′ and a depth of 3′.

Alexander customarily approached a likely battlefield with his army marching in order of battle. This saved deployment time and enabled him to launch an immediate attack, as at the Granicus, if an opportunity presented itself. The phalanx would march 32 deep with each man taking up 6’x6′ of space. Once the army came in sight of the enemy, the files would close up to 16 deep by inserting alternate files between their neighbours, so each man now occupied a space of 3’x3′. This formation allowed manoeuvring on the battlefield. When the phalanx was close to the enemy and would not require any further manoeuvres, just advancing straight ahead to contact, each half-file inserted itself between neighbouring files, so every man occupied a space of 1.5’x3′ and the phalanx was now eight deep. In this formation it would attack the enemy, presenting an impenetrable forest of sarissa points and being unbeatable on clear, reasonably level terrain by anything except another phalanx.

Battle Tactics

The phalanx was intended to be used as part of a combined-arms army. ...
https://kmhistories.wordpress.com/2018/ ... d-tactics/

...
Neither Philip nor Alexander actually used the phalanx as their arm of choice, but instead used it to hold the enemy in place while their heavy cavalry broke through their ranks.
...
Drawbacks
The armies of the early Hellenistic period were equipped and fought mainly in the same style as Alexander's. Towards the end, however, there was a general slide away from the combined arms approach back to using the phalanx itself as the arm of decision, having it charge into the enemy lines much like earlier hoplites had. This left the formation fairly vulnerable — though near invincible to frontal assault, phalanxes were susceptible to flanking, and tended to break formation when advancing quickly over rough ground. So long as everyone was using the same tactics these weaknesses were not immediately apparent, but with the advent of the Roman legion they proved fatal in every major engagement, the most famous being the Battle of Pydna, as the Romans were able to advance through gaps in the line and easily defeat the phalangites in close quarters.
...
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Macedonian_phalanx

...
Was the Macedonian phalanx, with their long spears and small shields, really more effective than the hoplites?

How do you measure "more effective"? In a 1-1 battle their isn't much reason to believe the Macedonian phalanx would outperform the more traditional Greek phalanx consistently, and even less reason to suspect it would do so on all terrains. The Macedonian phalanx unlike the traditional Greek Hoplite phalanx was not engineered to defeat its enemy all by itself. The Macedonian success was not due to their phalanx's superiority (with the sarissa pike). The Macedonian phalanx advantage was protection, but it had disadvantages. Although the larger spears required two hands to hold and reduced the size of the shield the Macedonian could wield, it's length also allowed five rows of spearmen to contribute to the defense of the formation. Any infantryman or rival phalanx attempting to battle such a formation would be out ranged and outnumbered by the spear tips of the Macedonian formation. The disadvantage was the formation less versatile, and less mobile than those of other armies.
...
https://history.stackexchange.com/quest ... n-hoplites

[Schweetness101]

So I'm prepared to test a pike unit with:

480 men
2 rows (8 models)
some armour (75) *Geffalrus you think they should go all the way up to armoured and not just some armour?
above average quality (150)
*made undrilled_heavy_foot so it stays unmaneuverable

200 POA Impact that does NOT degrade with losses but becomes 100 if moderately disordered or disrupted, and 0 if severely disordered or fragmented
100 POA Melee that does NOT degrade with losses but becomes +50 if moderately disordered or disrupted, and 0 if severely disordered or fragmented

and where offensive/defensive spearmen and swordsmen have their melee POA reduced to +50 from +100 against steady pikes only

What would you like to see me test this against?

***also related, can someone address this affect of the above I mentioned earlier:

Pikes vs Defensive Spearmen in Melee:

-spearmen have their melee poa reduced to 50 from 100 against steady pikes
-if steady spearmen is in melee with steady pike then the pikes have 100 POA and the spears have 50 POA, or net +50 for pikes.
-if the pikes are disrupted, they are no longer steady, and thus the defensive spearmen return to their full 100 POA, but also the pikes drop down to 50 melee POA from being disrupted, and now the situation reverses with a net +50 for defensive spears.
-it would be a net +100 for steady or even disrupted defensive spears if the pikes fragment.

Does that seem ok? or should pikes not be losing POA from losses to cohesion and order? or should they only lose it if severely disordered or fragmented?

[Schweetness101]

one thing I'm running into is that 200 POA seems a bit much for the impact POA vs offensive spearmen (hoplites). If we are trying to make Pikes a cheaper and more abundant unit then they probably shouldn't be able to just roflstomp hoplites on impact.

With the quality and armor boost, and the offensive spearmen melee POA halving vs steady pikes, the Pikes are also consistently winning in the melee vs spears. In a 10vs10 units test they beat armoured hoplites 10 to 0.

Perhaps they should have a more modest melee and much more modest impact POA advantage over offensive spears? Would their relative advantage against hoplites historically have been greater on impact or in extended melee?

Of course if the Pikes start winning and keep winning, and aren't outnumbered, and never disrupt or get flanked and lose POA, and the test map is all open terrain so there's no disorder POA penalty for the Pikes, and the units start facing each other and so maneuverability doesn't matter, then the test is maximizing advantages and minimizing disadvantages for the pikes and not necessarily reflective of what would happen in game with these changes.

[Mairtin]

I think when you are trying to balance the pikes you need to first compare them to hoplites. The first two ranks of hoplites would be able to thrust and were trying to disrupt the enemy formation. Pikes on the other hand had 5 ranks of pikes projecting and would be trying to pin the enemy so that cavalry or light troops could flank them. It seems that, at least early in the Hellenistic period, both pikes and hoplites would have the same depth of 8 ranks while fighting, although there are accounts of hoplites deploying in more depth. It's unlikely that hoplites pushed to win (there is an account of Athenians 8 deep, holding off Thebans 25 deep for half the battle at Delium 424 BCE), instead relying on disrupting the enemy to gain the advantage (again this is where depth would provide the advantage, with more troops able to fill any gaps). The pikes also had a spike on the end to assist in bracing them in the ground, although I'm unsure how often this would be used, or who it would be useful against. My interpretation is that the pikes should, rather than providing a high POA (if any) to the pikes, that they should negate the hoplites POA in good going. That should give a long drawn out fight that would be decided by flanking and/or disruption.

It also seems that pikes were vulnerable, in the flank and rear, which needed to be protected by other troops; and when in rough terrain as at Pydna, 168 BCE. I haven't come across an account of them forming square to protect their flanks (this would seem to be more for a Scots schiltron type formation). At Pydna they were pushing the Romans back until they reached the low foothills (rough?), when they lost cohesion allowing the Romans to break through. The Romans were said to be impotent against the pikes trying to hack off their points with little success, until after the phalanx was disrupted when they could avoid the pikes. Roman casualties are reported to only be 1000 men, as opposed to the 30 000 Macedonians, most of whom were killed after the phalanx broke. I think this shows that while the pikes were good at pushing enemy back, they didn't necessarily deliver a killing blow. Again, maybe the pikes should negate the swordsmen POA when in good going. I'm not sure how push backs are decided in the game or if this is possible, but maybe they could be a function of using the deep formations at this time.

Hellenistic pikes should generally have lighter armour than hoplites, so the protected armour they currently have would seem correct. I've found no accounts of them wearing any heavier armour, and I think it would be unlikely that adding that much more weight while wielding a 16 foot pike would be practical.

For the medieval period, "some armour" would generally be the heaviest rating pikes should get, representing armoured nobles forming the front ranks of a scots schiltron, or richer burghers in the formations of the low countries. I'm not sure if later medieval pikes used more armour. But, I also think that this period needs a separate category from Hellenistic pikes, with the Scots at least being able to form "square"; but also because they weren't necessarily entirely pike armed, with a small number of other weapons being used by a portion of the formation.

[rbodleyscott]

Alexander customarily approached a likely battlefield with his army marching in order of battle. This saved deployment time and enabled him to launch an immediate attack, as at the Granicus, if an opportunity presented itself. The phalanx would march 32 deep with each man taking up 6’x6′ of space. Once the army came in sight of the enemy, the files would close up to 16 deep by inserting alternate files between their neighbours, so each man now occupied a space of 3’x3′. This formation allowed manoeuvring on the battlefield. When the phalanx was close to the enemy and would not require any further manoeuvres, just advancing straight ahead to contact, each half-file inserted itself between neighbouring files, so every man occupied a space of 1.5’x3′ and the phalanx was now eight deep.

What is the actual evidence for the last statement? (We know that the formation, known as synaspismos, existed, but it is usually said to have only been used when defending, because it was too dense to allow much movement).

But anyway, it does not alter the current 960 man unit, because even if it is true, the unit still contains the same number of men in a given frontage as they did when they were 16 ranks deep. It would just mean that the 8 rank formation would be twice as dense as an opposing Roman formation. Hence, even if this is what they did, it can be assumed to be abstracted in the game in the same way as the manoeuvres of the 4 maniples that make up a legionary unit.

Each 960 man unit represents a slightly under-strength taxis of 1024 men. The actual depth of all units in the game is completely out of scale anyway, to accommodate the models.

I am not saying that a better representation of close combat between pike phalanx and other unit types could not be achieved, but changing the size of the phalanx unit is not a historically justifiable answer.

[Mairtin]

...
What is the actual evidence for the last statement? (We know that the formation, known as synaspismos, existed, but it is usually said to have only been used when defending, because it was too dense to allow much movement).

But anyway, it does not alter the current 960 man unit, because even if it is true, the unit still contains the same number of men in a given frontage as they did when they were 16 ranks deep. It would just mean that the 8 rank formation would be twice as dense as an opposing Roman formation. Hence, even if this is what they did, it can be assumed to be abstracted in the game in the same way as the manoeuvres of the 4 maniples that make up a legionary unit.

Each 960 man unit represents a slightly under-strength taxis of 1024 men. The actual depth of all units in the game is completely out of scale anyway, to accommodate the models.

I am not saying that a better representation of close combat between phalanx and other unit types could not be achieved, but changing the size of the phalanx unit is not a historically justifiable answer.

I was quoting from an article. It doesn't give any specific references but has the following bibliography.

• Polybius. The Histories.
• Connolly, Peter: The Greek Armies
• The Macedonian War Machine by David Karunanithy
• Great Battles of the Hellenistic World by Joseph Pietrykowski
• The Army of Alexander the Great by Stephen English

I've seen lots of numbers suggested in this thread, with no context as to how these numbers were arrived at. This is the first time I've ever found a reference to fighting 8 deep as someone else had mentioned earlier, so I included it. The same article also says that the later Hellenistic phalanx fought 16 deep, after the experience of Phyrus fighting Rome, but it only describes the formation of the phalanx under Alexander in detail.

480 is currently being tested as far as I can tell. To me that seems far too low, which is why I earlier gave the comparison of a Galation warband at 720, to me 960 men feels correct as well, especially as by the time they were fighting Rome the usual practice was to fight 16 deep.

[Geffalrus]

one thing I'm running into is that 200 POA seems a bit much for the impact POA vs offensive spearmen (hoplites). If we are trying to make Pikes a cheaper and more abundant unit then they probably shouldn't be able to just roflstomp hoplites on impact.

With the quality and armor boost, and the offensive spearmen melee POA halving vs steady pikes, the Pikes are also consistently winning in the melee vs spears. In a 10vs10 units test they beat armoured hoplites 10 to 0.

Perhaps they should have a more modest melee and much more modest impact POA advantage over offensive spears? Would their relative advantage against hoplites historically have been greater on impact or in extended melee?

Of course if the Pikes start winning and keep winning, and aren't outnumbered, and never disrupt or get flanked and lose POA, and the test map is all open terrain so there's no disorder POA penalty for the Pikes, and the units start facing each other and so maneuverability doesn't matter, then the test is maximizing advantages and minimizing disadvantages for the pikes and not necessarily reflective of what would happen in game with these changes.

You're absolutely right about 200 POA being too much vs. Off spears. 200 POA was a starting point to keep them on par with impact foot. I think the - ideal - end point is a dynamic impact POA where they have 100 POA and instead reduce the impact POA of impact foot instead. It was suggested earlier in the thread. I assumed it was harder to mod, so I didn't push you doing it yet. But that's something to look at for future tests.

Armor should only be included if we end up dropping 960 men to 480 men. If we don't, then I don't think armored is necessary. At most, I'd view pikes as having a very slight advantage vs. off spears. That way it's unlikely that the off spears defeat them in melee, but not so much that they reliably stomp hoplites. And if you wanted to hold up Superior Off Spears, you need to match them with your own Superior Pikes. If we do keep 960, then we need to look closely at how the larger unit size melee advantage plays out in testing.

Good point about the testing ground reflecting ideal pike circumstances. For now that's good, but yeah, we can think about changing that later.

[Geffalrus]

Okay - I still haven't seen anyone offer any sort of argument for how the extra 8 ranks of the syntagma added anything to the combat effectiveness of the formation. You can't - JUST - cite older scholarly works that repeat the number 16 or 32 or the dekad. Just because Polybius wrote that the syntagma was 16x16 doesn't mean that's the final word. Polybius wasn't writing in a time period when scientific accuracy or precision was important. He wasn't writing in a time period when academic rigor demanded that you explain every piece of background information. He wrote for other military practitioners who would know all the basics. Basics that - WE - don't know. Basics like you maneuver at 16 deep but fight at 8 deep.

16 ranks deep has important implications, because - again - if your infantry is twice as deep as the enemy infantry, you're using - LITERALLY - twice the number of men to cover the same frontage. No one bases a military formation on the idea that you NEED to outnumber the enemy for basic effectiveness. The current 960 pike unit is a reflection of this. An equal line of 8 pikes and 8 legions, regardless of cost, has the pike line using twice the number of models. And this has game implications, because the pike units generate more % when routed.

The Macedonian phalanx developed in a Greek world where 8 ranks was the common depth for hoplites in combat. The Macedonian phalanx doesn't - need - 8 extra ranks because the length of the sarissa - already - gives it a solid advantage over the hoplite. The front rank phalangite can already strike the hoplite from well out of his reach. 8 ranks beyond the 7 already behind him don't add anything.

[Schweetness101]

I think the - ideal - end point is a dynamic impact POA where they have 100 POA and instead reduce the impact POA of impact foot instead. It was suggested earlier in the thread. I assumed it was harder to mod, so I didn't push you doing it yet. But that's something to look at for future tests.

It's actually pretty straightforward to do, in fact I could add all kinds of situation specific POA changes, so go ahead and suggest whatever on that front. In fact, suggest anything and I can look into whether it's easy. Programming is weird sometimes where seemingly simple changes are a gargantuan task, and seemingly complex and difficult changes involve a single, simple edit.

Armor should only be included if we end up dropping 960 men to 480 men. If we don't, then I don't think armored is necessary.

what about if we drop them to 720? or even 600? those are pretty much the other two options between 480 and 960 as far as existing in game precedent goes.

As far as the historical accuracy with the numbers discussion, is it more important that the unit size is accurate, or that the actual use and performance of the unit is accurate? I would think the latter. That is, regardless of if a pike phalanx had 1024 or 960 or whatever men per syntagma, or fought 16 or 32 or 8 deep, if imitating those numbers exactly leads to unrealistic outcomes in the simulation then then we shouldn't do that. What other units in the game have realistic numbers anyway, other than roman legions/hastati/principes?

At most, I'd view pikes as having a very slight advantage vs. off spears. That way it's unlikely that the off spears defeat them in melee, but not so much that they reliably stomp hoplites. And if you wanted to hold up Superior Off Spears, you need to match them with your own Superior Pikes. If we do keep 960, then we need to look closely at how the larger unit size melee advantage plays out in testing.

Ok let's hash it out exactly though. Let's just take offensive spears (say mercenary hoplite unit) vs pikes for now.

Armour: both protected by default. Keep it that way for now?
Quality: both average by default. Keep it that way for now?
Hoplites are maneuverable and pikes are not
Pikes should probably have some manpower advantage, but perhaps not quite 960 vs 480. Maybe I'll just pick 720 and 12 models (3 ranks) as a nice intermediate with lots of in game precedent (only one obscure unit has 600 men, slave something)

POA
current in mod (heavily favors above average, some armour, 480 man, pikes in open):
Hoplites lose all of their POA if fragmented or severely disordered, but otherwise have 100 POA base stat in impact and melee
Pikes lose half their impact and melee POA if disordered or disrupted (that's a mod not default), and all of it if fragmented/severely disordered (forgot if that was default or only modded in), but otherwise have base stat of 200 Impact and 100 melee now in the mod
The mod is also reducing hoplite melee only (not impact) POA to 50 vs steady pikes

proposed:
bring pikes up to 720 men, but reduce back to average quality and protected.
Reduce their Impact POA perhaps to 125? So impact is pikes 125 vs offensive spears 100 on impact? And how should pike impact be affected by disorder and disruption? same as melee?
And in the melee, perhaps offensive spear POA could be only reduced to 75 vs steady pikes, while pike POA stays at 100. In this case if both units are steady in the open then pikes have +25 POA and a manpower advantage, but if pikes are disrupted or disordered then they are reduced to 50 POA vs the hoplite 75? And if pikes are fragmented/severely disordered, and the spears aren't, then pikes are 0 vs 75. And, if both units are moderately disordered it's still 50 pike vs 75 hoplite, and if both severely disordered it's 0 vs 0.

[Schweetness101]

quick note: in the above proposal armoured hoplites and pikes would have the same melee poa and pikes would have a +25 advantage on impact, for what it's worth as an example

edit: just did a 10vs10 pikes vs armoured hoplites with pikes at 720 men, protected, average, and the above POA changes, and they still routed every hoplite and with 7 pikes left on the field, if that's useful to you

Another way to come at this is, how badly should X units of hoplites lose to X units of pikes in an open field?
Or, what should the affordability ratio of pikes to hoplites be? would you expect hoplites to always have say 10% more units? 20% more?

[Schweetness101]

and while we're at it, let's propose changes to impact foot/swordsmen POA vs pikes with the above qualities.

With above changes hastati are stomping pikes pretty well, winning without any losses in a 10vs10. In that 10 vs 10 line on impact it's:
hastati: +200 impact foot + 25 troop quality
pike: +125

leading to, in a 10 vs 10 line, 2 fragmentations and 1 disruption across all impacts for the pikes, which then opened 3 pike flanks 2 turns later and it was all over.

So maybe reduce impact foot impact POA to +100 vs pikes specifically with these other changes?

in melee, the steady pikes were getting +100 pike vs +50 sword (reduced in melee vs pike now), +25 quality and +12 armour for hastati, favoring pikes +13.
But, with disruption POA loss, the disrupted pikes were net -87 in melee, having had pike reduced to +50 AND enemy swordsmen back up at 100 (because not against steady pikes anymore). Perhaps swords should be reduced to 50 against both steady and disrupted, but not fragmented, pikes?

[Geffalrus]

Ok let's hash it out exactly though. Let's just take offensive spears (say mercenary hoplite unit) vs pikes for now.

Excellent idea.

My main concern about unit size beyond historical interpretation, is that it affects cost, per the discussion on raw spears in another thread. Balancing capabilities at the same unit size of hoplites and legions seems much easier to do than when the pikes are larger size. Still, I'm willing to try alternates.

Let's see how 720, Average, and Protected works. That by itself should be cheaper than current pikes.

POA vs. average hoplites, I agree with your proposal:

- On impact, +25 POA for pikes
- In melee, +25 POA for pikes

That way pikes have a slight advantage while ordered in the open. Hills can counteract that pretty quick.

Disrupted and Fragmented should be very dangerous for pikes, representing a breakdown in their ability to present a solid wall of spear points. I'm fuzzy on the exact values currently for those states, so I'll defer to the suggestions of others.

[Athos1660]

You can't - JUST - cite older scholarly works that repeat the number 16 or 32 or the dekad. Just because Polybius wrote that the syntagma was 16x16 doesn't mean that's the final word. Polybius wasn't writing in a time period when scientific accuracy or precision was important. He wasn't writing in a time period when academic rigor demanded that you explain every piece of background information. He wrote for other military practitioners who would know all the basics. Basics that - WE - don't know.

If you discard the Ancient authors, what remains as evidence ?
Even if they are gappy, unclear, incomplete or even wrong, there is no other 'primary' source, isn't there ? No archaeological evidence of tactics (apart from the equipment and weapons) to put them to the test, right ?

Everything else is only hypotheses.

Hypotheses are nice, sometimes interesting ; some can certainly be enjoyable in a game but are only hypotheses.

[Schweetness101]

one thing is because pikes both impose a POA loss on offensive spears, but only when steady, and also suffer themselves a POA loss when not steady, there is a very large swing in net POA when you go from steady pike vs steady offensive spears to disrupted pikes vs steady or disrupted offensive spears, perhaps too much?

Melee:
Steady Pikes (100 base) vs steady spears (100 base -25 vs steady pikes, or 75) for a net +25 for pikes
Disrupted Pikes (100 base reduced to 50 because of disruption) vs steady spears (100 base and no longer vs steady spears so not reduced) for a net +50 to spears

is that too much? should it not be getting burnt from both ends as it were in that way? Maybe disruptions/disorderings for pikes should reduce them in Melee from 100 to 75 to 50 instead of from 100 to 50 to 0?

Edit: although even with the above 10 pikes are defeating 10 armoured hoplites with ease, losing only 2 units and hoplites losing 7

Edit 2: and that seems to be due in large part to 720 men still getting a really good combat strength modifier vs 480 men