Pike Testing Workshop

[pompeytheflatulent]

I thought unit size had direct effect on melee POA values (and in 240 vs 960 it does by giving pikes about 60% bonus POA), but it looks like it might actually not directly impact the POA values in 960 vs 480 situation.

Anyways, the unit size affects the relative size of casualties in the unit so the speed at which the unit loses strength and accumulates CT penalties changes with the unit size.

There's the cut-off of 480. So normally pikes and warbands won't see a minus penalty until they are severely under-strength, while 480 sized units fighting something bigger will start melee with a -3% or -4% penalty due to losses from impact and gets progressively worse as they take losses. In a missile heavy environments it is not unusual for 480 sized units to be down to 80-85% strength between losses to shooting and impact by the time they get to the first round of melee.

[Cunningcairn]

thanks for any help!
[/quote]

It doesn't look like you need any

[MVP7]

I thought unit size had direct effect on melee POA values (and in 240 vs 960 it does by giving pikes about 60% bonus POA), but it looks like it might actually not directly impact the POA values in 960 vs 480 situation.

Anyways, the unit size affects the relative size of casualties in the unit so the speed at which the unit loses strength and accumulates CT penalties changes with the unit size.

There's the cut-off of 480. So normally pikes and warbands won't see a minus penalty until they are severely under-strength, while 480 sized units fighting something bigger will start melee with a -3% or -4% penalty due to losses from impact and gets progressively worse as they take losses. In a missile heavy environments it is not unusual for 480 sized units to be down to 80-85% strength between losses to shooting and impact by the time they get to the first round of melee.

Yeah I must have looked at the unit size modifier value backwards when I was comparing the predictions for 480 man (which was probably initially under strength) and pike unit.

Since with static base POA the melee POA of Pikes would remain virtually unchanged until they rout it would make sense to have a small part of the POA tied to losses so that there would be a small POA difference between fresh and worn pike units.

[Geffalrus]

Yeah I must have looked at the unit size modifier value backwards when I was comparing the predictions for 480 man (which was probably initially under strength) and pike unit.

Since with static base POA the melee POA of Pikes would remain virtually unchanged until they rout it would make sense to have a small part of the POA tied to losses so that there would be a small POA difference between fresh and worn pike units.

I can see the potential of that. Currently, the debuff of those losses takes pikes from 200 POA max down to 100 POA........on BOTH impact and melee. Restricting a minor debuff to only melee would be better, especially if the pike unit is less expensive and individually crucial.

[Neutrino_123]

I'd say that stead vs. non-steady pikes should have casualties mitigated. I imagine that without a solid wall, the disordered pikes will be backing up, trying to avoid the pike wall. They will still be disrupted, so they'd still lose combats a fair amount of the time, but I think steady pikes should be able to finish breaking them less quickly then a legion or warband, for example.

I'd also say that casualties should be mitigated on both sides for steady pike vs. disrupted non-pike. However, in both this situation and in steady pike vs. non-steady pike, I think that the disrupted unit should NOT get a cohesion bonus if they lose against the pikes (which normally happens, if I recall correctly). The pikes should thus still break what's left of their formation at a good rate, even if less quickly than other units.

Maybe tie disruption to pushback in some pike-related situations?

So only if either party is a steady pike then mitigate casualties, regardless of whether the other part is a steady or non-steady pike or not?

I haven't looked at pushback code but I've considered it (I thought maybe steady pikes shouldn't be able to be pushed back)

Yes, since anyone will be very cautious when moving against a pike wall.

I agree with no pushback for steady pikes against non-pike. If they are pushed back, they have been disrupted...

I also like the idea of not mitigating casualties on impact.

[Schweetness101]

anyone have any opinions on new unit rosters or pike changes?

[Cunningcairn]

anyone have any opinions on new unit rosters or pike changes?

Personally I'd like to try something you guys think is an appropriate change. I don't have strong feelings and think the only way to know is to try it.

[Schweetness101]

added an updated v1.0 for pike mod that adds severe disorder for pikes in rough terrain, some ranged casualty mitigation vs steady pikes, a new macedonian army made for the mod, and edits to most of the hellenistic lists just to give them more pikes

[Schweetness101]

tentative v1.1 change list (on top of v1.0 changes from op) after testing and discussing with SnuggleBunnies
*this version not available for download yet just airing the changes first

1) added an additional -1 CT modifier to medium foot (med foot, warriors, bowmen, light foot and mob) against steady pikes in the open
-must be open terrain so does not happen if medium foot charge steady pikes in the open from non open terrain, because as per game rules that counts as not open
-note that in OP heavy foot are already getting a +1 to CT vs pikes that medium foot do not get, and now are going 1 in the other direction, so all else being equal there would now be a 2pt CT delta between medium and heavy foot in the open vs steady pikes, which may or may not be too much
-the reasoning here is that if casualties are mitigated in infantry combat between steady pikes and other infantry then medium foot can last a really long time vs pikes and a massed medium foot spam army would defeat pikes easily because their mainline would last long enough against the pikes to enable a huge flank of mediums all over the place. Dunno if it really works out that way though.

2) Additional -1 CT modifier to non-steady pikes. This would be on top of the -1 that everybody gets if disrupted, but would also occur if disordered by terrain as well. Pikes are already losing POA if disordered or disrupted, and everybody loses CT if disrupted, so this would really be packing on the negative modifiers for a pike unit that is not steady, but could be used further to justify lower cost and seems somewhat historical. It needs to be tested and may or may not be a useful or necessary change.

3) Additional -1 CT modifier for pikes with threatened flank
-seems historical like cases of pikes surrendering once they see they are about to be flanked? Something like at Pydna maybe the Macedonians pikes put their sarissas straight up in the air as a sign up surrender once they saw the romans had flanked them (romans ignored it and attacked them anyway...also might have been a different battle)

This would mean that potentially if a pike is flanked, and also another enemy
is in position to flank and thus imposing threatened flank, then the impact round after the auto flank
drop could be -1 each from:

disrupted
threatened flank
pikes with threatened flank
pikes not steady
lots of casualties
lost close combat badly

for a whopping -6 total in worst case scenario

4) Removed severe disorder to pikes from rough terrain. It might have been a bit historical, but with pikes already losing poa from moderate disorder and extra CT loss from disorder it seems unnecessary, and would make pikes vulnerable to light foot in rough ground, which seems wrong.

5) somewhat lowered max pike cap from where it had been before, should now mostly be 8 normal pikes and 3 vet pikes on medium army size for most hellenistic lists

still considering but haven't done yet
1) altering pike vs pike combat
-could remove casualty mitigation (in all conditions?)
-could add another -1 to CT in pike vs pike
2) how does this change the role and cost of impact foot now that they are not as capable against pikes in a frontal charge (but more so in rough terrain and in melee against disrupted pikes and with flanks etc...)
3)further changes to point costs for pikes
4)consider removing ranged damage casualty mitigation vs steady pikes. I'm not sure if that's really necessary.
5) altering casualty mitigation against medium foot in some way, perhaps in addition to or instead of the other vs medium foot changes.
6) reduce foot light spear and heavy weapon impact poa vs steady pikes? They are both currently 100 vs pikes 125 if steady. That might be ok not sure
7) alter heavy weapon melee poa vs pikes (currently 100 vs 100 steady pikes, whereas spears and swords only get 75), but I think maybe it's ok for heavy weapons to match pikes in melee poa, perhaps heavy weapons can kind of hold off pikes by hacking at the pike shaft behind the tips, I dunno. They already do badly vs pikes in the open because of above

[Neutrino_123]

Seems mostly good, but I'd avoid penalizing medium foot against pikes more than they would be penalized against normal heavy infantry. I imagine that historically, they would be good at backing out of the way of pikes, and with a less ordered formation anyway, they probably would suffer from this less than well-ordered heavy infantry trying to avoid the pikes. If pikes are too weak now after trying to make them more realistic, the best solution would probably be to reduce their cost somewhat or take a more balanced selection of other units.

[Cunningcairn]

tentative v1.1 change list (on top of v1.0 changes from op) after testing and discussing with SnuggleBunnies
*this version not available for download yet just airing the changes first

1) added an additional -1 CT modifier to medium foot (med foot, warriors, bowmen, light foot and mob) against steady pikes in the open
-must be open terrain so does not happen if medium foot charge steady pikes in the open from non open terrain, because as per game rules that counts as not open
-note that in OP heavy foot are already getting a +1 to CT vs pikes that medium foot do not get, and now are going 1 in the other direction, so all else being equal there would now be a 2pt CT delta between medium and heavy foot in the open vs steady pikes, which may or may not be too much
-the reasoning here is that if casualties are mitigated in infantry combat between steady pikes and other infantry then medium foot can last a really long time vs pikes and a massed medium foot spam army would defeat pikes easily because their mainline would last long enough against the pikes to enable a huge flank of mediums all over the place. Dunno if it really works out that way though.

Personally I think MF are too strong in the open and would like to try this option.

2) Additional -1 CT modifier to non-steady pikes. This would be on top of the -1 that everybody gets if disrupted, but would also occur if disordered by terrain as well. Pikes are already losing POA if disordered or disrupted, and everybody loses CT if disrupted, so this would really be packing on the negative modifiers for a pike unit that is not steady, but could be used further to justify lower cost and seems somewhat historical. It needs to be tested and may or may not be a useful or necessary change.

I haven't played enough with the current changes to have an opinion on this. Sounds like a good idea though.

3) Additional -1 CT modifier for pikes with threatened flank
-seems historical like cases of pikes surrendering once they see they are about to be flanked? Something like at Pydna maybe the Macedonians pikes put their sarissas straight up in the air as a sign up surrender once they saw the romans had flanked them (romans ignored it and attacked them anyway...also might have been a different battle)

This would mean that potentially if a pike is flanked, and also another enemy
is in position to flank and thus imposing threatened flank, then the impact round after the auto flank
drop could be -1 each from:

disrupted
threatened flank
pikes with threatened flank
pikes not steady
lots of casualties
lost close combat badly

for a whopping -6 total in worst case scenario

Yeah that seems a bit harsh

4) Removed severe disorder to pikes from rough terrain. It might have been a bit historical, but with pikes already losing poa from moderate disorder and extra CT loss from disorder it seems unnecessary, and would make pikes vulnerable to light foot in rough ground, which seems wrong.

That makes perfect sense to me

5) somewhat lowered max pike cap from where it had been before, should now mostly be 8 normal pikes and 3 vet pikes on medium army size for most hellenistic lists

Sounds ok for 1200 point armies

still considering but haven't done yet
1) altering pike vs pike combat
-could remove casualty mitigation (in all conditions?)
-could add another -1 to CT in pike vs pike

I haven't played that many games with the mod but those that I have played did not have prolonged battles between pikes frontally engaged. It felt about right as it is.

2) how does this change the role and cost of impact foot now that they are not as capable against pikes in a frontal charge (but more so in rough terrain and in melee against disrupted pikes and with flanks etc...)
Not sure

3)further changes to point costs for pikes

The current changes seem ok but have not tested against Romans yet.

4)consider removing ranged damage casualty mitigation vs steady pikes. I'm not sure if that's really necessary.

To me it is fine as it is

5) altering casualty mitigation against medium foot in some way, perhaps in addition to or instead of the other vs medium foot changes.

Not sure

6) reduce foot light spear and heavy weapon impact poa vs steady pikes? They are both currently 100 vs pikes 125 if steady. That might be ok not sure

I think light spear and heavy weapon should have a lower impact poa than impact foot against pike just because of the nature of the beasts.

7) alter heavy weapon melee poa vs pikes (currently 100 vs 100 steady pikes, whereas spears and swords only get 75), but I think maybe it's ok for heavy weapons to match pikes in melee poa, perhaps heavy weapons can kind of hold off pikes by hacking at the pike shaft behind the tips, I dunno. They already do badly vs pikes in the open because of above

A heavy weapon should not do well in a "scrum like" melee. You need room to use a heavy weapon effectively so I can't see why they should be better than sword or spear. Later heavy weapon troops will have better armour than the pikes which will help.

[Schweetness101]

thank you very much for the feedback! I'm moving right now but I'll be back to working on this in a day or two

[Cunningcairn]

thank you very much for the feedback! I'm moving right now but I'll be back to working on this in a day or two

It's a pleasure you are doing a great job. I answered each point above but somehow it looks like I've only answered the last point.

[Schweetness101]

thank you very much for the feedback! I'm moving right now but I'll be back to working on this in a day or two

It's a pleasure you are doing a great job. I answered each point above but somehow it looks like I've only answered the last point.

thanks! I can see your responses fine.

[kvnrthr]

Haven't tried this mod yet, but how are the Romans doing against these revised pikes?
From what I see the Roman infantry will be only matching the Pikes in melee for the same price (eventually Combat Strength Modifier works to the Pike's favor), but now the Pike units are able to cover a wider frontage. They'll have to rely on a lucky pushback or disruption to win straight up. Meanwhile the Pike armies have the advantage of a variety of quality cavalry to win the flank battle. What methods can the Romans use to win in this case?

[Cunningcairn]

Haven't tried this mod yet, but how are the Romans doing against these revised pikes?
From what I see the Roman infantry will be only matching the Pikes in melee for the same price (eventually Combat Strength Modifier works to the Pike's favor), but now the Pike units are able to cover a wider frontage. They'll have to rely on a lucky pushback or disruption to win straight up. Meanwhile the Pike armies have the advantage of a variety of quality cavalry to win the flank battle. What methods can the Romans use to win in this case?

The Romans are ok but possibly the pikes are a teeny, weeny bit too strong at the moment. It appears the cost of the pike blocks is correct as when the number of Roman legionaries and opposing Pike are equal there are not enough points left over to give the Pike army any advantage in numbers to overwhelm flanks. The Romans also have the Triarri which are very capable of protecting their main line against mounted. It is difficult to determine unless more people play and give their feedback. Would you like to try a test game against me?

[Schweetness101]

ok back working on this:

1) for heavy weapon melee poa vs steady pikes: I've reduced it by 25, instead of to 75, because it is being reduced from 100 or 110 depending on if hvy weapon is armored as per v1.5.22 changes, e.g. armored heavy weapons will have 85 melee poa vs pikes and unarmored 75 melee poa vs pikes. Should I do that, or just reduce them both to 75?

2) I'm not sure exactly what I should do to light spear infantry and hvy weapon on impact poa vs pikes. Currently impact foot impact poa is reduced by 100 to 100, vs stdy pikes 125, and offensive spears is not reduced, so they are also 100 vs steady pikes 125 on impact. Should light spear and heavy weapon also only be 100 vs pikes 125 on impact? like everyone is just equally out of reach and unable to effectually charge steady pikes in the open? Or, should offensive spears, defending defensive spears, and impact foot have some advantage over light spear and hvy weapon in impact vs pikes? E.g. should light spear and heavy weapon be reduced to 75 poa on impact? 85?

Anything else I should throw in before rolling out v1.1?

[Cunningcairn]

I have posted 2 challenges with Macedonian pikes against warband and hoplite armies using the latest pike mod. Anyone interested in playing? Both are open challenges without PW.

[Schweetness101]

I have posted 2 challenges with Macedonian pikes against warband and hoplite armies using the latest pike mod. Anyone interested in playing? Both are open challenges without PW.

yes! although I have just updated the op with a v1.1 download link and associated change list. Shall we test the newest version?

I will also need feedback on testing to make sure the changes have actually taken effect and are not failing in edge cases. I tested a bit and I think they are fine, but I want to make sure that there aren't any issues with - or + CT modifiers happening or not happening in the wrong circumstances, e.g. against non steady pikes or not against steady pikes or whatever. Also that there are no disparities between combat log messages and the actualy net poa or disruption or ct modifier results. I've tested but there are potentially so many edge cases with this many changes it would be good for everyone to keep an eye out for bugs.

thanks!

[Cunningcairn]

I have posted 2 challenges with Macedonian pikes against warband and hoplite armies using the latest pike mod. Anyone interested in playing? Both are open challenges without PW.

yes! although I have just updated the op with a v1.1 download link and associated change list. Shall we test the newest version?

I will also need feedback on testing to make sure the changes have actually taken effect and are not failing in edge cases. I tested a bit and I think they are fine, but I want to make sure that there aren't any issues with - or + CT modifiers happening or not happening in the wrong circumstances, e.g. against non steady pikes or not against steady pikes or whatever. Also that there are no disparities between combat log messages and the actualy net poa or disruption or ct modifier results. I've tested but there are potentially so many edge cases with this many changes it would be good for everyone to keep an eye out for bugs.

thanks!

Sounds like a good idea. I will download the latest version and re-issue the challenges. Unfortunately I won't be able to do until later today.