Question about pike POA

[pompeytheflatulent]

So I noticed this unit of pike phalanx which suffered enough casualties to have lost the entire 4th rank and part of the 3rd rank. When I open up the unit details, it has lost all 100 deep pike POA, and down to 67/100 of it's base pike POA. Does this mean that a unit of pike phalanx at 50% casualties (losing two out of four ranks) will have ZERO impact and melee capabilities?

Screen_00000001.jpg (450.27 KiB) Viewed 4044 times

[sIg3b]

That will be your smallest problem, because at 50% casualties your pikes will auto-break.

[pompeytheflatulent]

I always assumed that pike POA loss due to casualties bottomed out at 100 POA. But this means that a pike block that has suffered even 30% losses will likely lose it's next fight against hoplites or swordsmen.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I always assumed that pike POA loss due to casualties bottomed out at 100 POA. But this means that a pike block that has suffered even 30% losses will likely lose it's next fight against hoplites or swordsmen.

It depends. If your pikes have taken that many casualties, it's probably late in the battle when everyone has taken heavy losses. Since the Combat Strength Modifer only kicks in when a non-light infantry unit falls under 480 men, your Pikemen will get that modifier in their favor against weakened enemy units, which can help mitigate the POA loss.

[MVP7]

Pikes get double taxed for casualties. In addition to the usual loss of POA from casualties they also rapidly lose the 100 deep pike bonus which, counter-intuitively, makes them one of the most casualty sensitive units in the game (presumably to make up for the excessive POA they start up with).

This subject has been debated in length on few occasions and I hope it's something that will be addressed before FoG2 reaches the late medieval resurgence of pikes.

[GamerMan]

Ummmm, what do you mean the usual loss of POA from casualties? Pikes losing POA due to casualties is almost totally unique to them (warbands have that tiny 10 POA thing that also goes away). If you are talking about combat effectiveness, they don't lose that until they fall under 480, so they take POA losses, but rarely (and only for veterans) ever take combat effectiveness losses.

That means, unlike every other unit, they become worse at impact due to casualties. But for melee combat effectiveness, it is more of a wash. The pikes lose about 2 POA for every 5 men who die, this is a very linear effect [and they lose no combat effectiveness until they fall below 480]. The marginal cost for a 480 man unit is roughly equivalent to 1 POA worth of melee combat effectiveness every 3 men, so it is very slightly higher for pikes initially.

however, if you lose 120 men, the marginal costs is still about 2 POA for every 5 men (0.41 POA/marginal death), but now it is slightly higher for the 480 man unit (0.43 POA/marginal death), so in melee combat, the 480 unit is more vulnerable to additional casualties. furthermore, the pike has already made up the difference, being down 50 real POA, but the 480 man unit is down 52 effective POA.

If you lose 240 men, well.... the pike is still functional and the other unit ran if they are both normal. but let's say the 480 unit is superior, the marignal cost is still the same for the pike, but the 480 unit is up to a marginal cost of 2 poa every 3 deaths (0.65), so the 480 unit is now vastly more vulnerable to more casualties while locked in melee. In addition, while the pike lost 100 POA, the 480 sized unit has lost 156 effective POA,

So yes, while impact POA's value compared to melee POA is up for debate, at the very least, the vulnerability to casualties is not as clear cut as people think it is. and a 480 man superior pike unit late in a battle, with 0 POA, will still dominate in melee against anything it makes it through impact phase with, probably by a large margin than when the battle begin

[MVP7]

@GamerMan
You can just look at OP and you can see that at 616/921 the Pike base POA for both impact and melee is at 67. I just tested the pikes to be sure and the base POA starts degrading around 727/979 or 75% strength, right after the deep pike POA is gone. Swordsmen on the other hand never lose the base POA.

A single 72 point Pike Phalanx unit fighting a 78 point Veteran Hastati/Principes will typically be disadvantaged on frontal impact against impact foot, then maintain slight advantage by combat strength modifier. Without CT failures (in which the pikes are relatively disadvantaged due to their low veterancy for the price range) the pikes will ultimately win by auto-breaking the opponent. The pike unit however, will be completely neutered by casualties half way through the melee and can't really do much in terms of combat afterwards.

The pikes cost a premium for large unit size and high maximum POA, even though both of those advantages are effectively neutralized by special rules. Now, if you consider just the Pike Phalanx (72p) versus Veteran Hastati/Principes (78p) match-up, the end result isn't that far off: one unit routed and another most likely combat inefficient. I'd imagine this match-up was pretty much the basis for current pike pricing and balance.

The problems start when the units aren't at full strength at the start of combat. If Veteran Hastati/Principes takes 10% losses from missiles before combat, its performance in melee suffers a bit (less than 10% I think) but on impact it remains fully effective. Meanwhile 10% losses to Pikes will lower both their impact and melee POA by 20%! Combat strength modifier from Pike's large size doesn't do anything unless the enemy is under strength. This means that Pikes are indeed extremely sensitive to casualties, more so than any other unit type in the game. This is extremely counter-intuitive as pikes should have a large amount of internal reserves and 25% losses wouldn't technically even begin to effect the fighting depth of the formation which is 5 front ranks out of 8 or 16 (this is of course not the only real effect of casualties but still important to consider).

That's just on top of Pikes being unmaneuverable, having low veterancy modifier (for a 70+ point unit) for CT, and suffering casualties from missiles fairly easily due to their low armor (for a 70+ point unit). They are extremely terrain sensitive for infantry. Pikes do get the square formation (which is a bit questionable ability considering there are no other formations in the game) but that does little more than puts a band-aid on the fatal flaw of low unit numbers that the pikes suffer from due to their high unit cost. With the exception of Raw Pike Phalanx, they simply aren't that good or well balanced unit outside full strength 1-vs-1 "in vitro" experiments.

[GeneralKostas]

@GamerMan
You can just look at OP and you can see that at 616/921 the Pike base POA for both impact and melee is at 67. I just tested the pikes to be sure and the base POA starts degrading around 727/979 or 75% strength, right after the deep pike POA is gone. Swordsmen on the other hand never lose the base POA.

A single 72 point Pike Phalanx unit fighting a 78 point Veteran Hastati/Principes will typically be disadvantaged on frontal impact against impact foot, then maintain slight advantage by combat strength modifier. Without CT failures (in which the pikes are relatively disadvantaged due to their low veterancy for the price range) the pikes will ultimately win by auto-breaking the opponent. The pike unit however, will be completely neutered by casualties half way through the melee and can't really do much in terms of combat afterwards.

The pikes cost a premium for large unit size and high maximum POA, even though both of those advantages are effectively neutralized by special rules. Now, if you consider just the Pike Phalanx (72p) versus Veteran Hastati/Principes (78p) match-up, the end result isn't that far off: one unit routed and another most likely combat inefficient. I'd imagine this match-up was pretty much the basis for current pike pricing and balance.

The problems start when the units aren't at full strength at the start of combat. If Veteran Hastati/Principes takes 10% losses from missiles before combat, its performance in melee suffers a bit (less than 10% I think) but on impact it remains fully effective. Meanwhile 10% losses to Pikes will lower both their impact and melee POA by 20%! Combat strength modifier from Pike's large size doesn't do anything unless the enemy is under strength. This means that Pikes are indeed extremely sensitive to casualties, more so than any other unit type in the game. This is extremely counter-intuitive as pikes should have a large amount of internal reserves and 25% losses wouldn't technically even begin to effect the fighting depth of the formation which is 5 front ranks out of 8 or 16 (this is of course not the only real effect of casualties but still important to consider).

That's just on top of Pikes being unmaneuverable, having low veterancy modifier (for a 70+ point unit) for CT, and suffering casualties from missiles fairly easily due to their low armor (for a 70+ point unit). They are extremely terrain sensitive for infantry. Pikes do get the square formation (which is a bit questionable ability considering there are no other formations in the game) but that does little more than puts a band-aid on the fatal flaw of low unit numbers that the pikes suffer from due to their high unit cost. With the exception of Raw Pike Phalanx, they simply aren't that good or well balanced unit outside full strength 1-vs-1 "in vitro" experiments.

So, the whole gameplay mechanics of Pike units are unfair. Maybe it's time for a serious rebalancing of Pike units in a future update in order to stand better and be more competitive on the battlefield.

[SimonLancaster]

I don't think pike units are at a disadvantage as things stand. 10% casualties would be about 92 men and that is a fair number that would take a few turns to get to. 72 is also a very reasonable cost considering that the Veteran Hastati cost 78 which pikes are being compared to.

The units that pikes are often fighting only have 460-480 men.. quite a difference in size. If the Veteran Spearmen and Veteran Hastati cost 78 then the pike units would seem to have an advantage.. not to mention all the regular spear and hastati that cost 62-65.

[MVP7]

I don't think pike units are at a disadvantage as things stand. 10% casualties would be about 92 men and that is a fair number that would take a few turns to get to. 72 is also a very reasonable cost considering that the Veteran Hastati cost 78 which pikes are being compared to.

The units that pikes are often fighting only have 460-480 men.. quite a difference in size. If the Veteran Spearmen and Veteran Hastati cost 78 then the pike units would seem to have an advantage.. not to mention all the regular spear and hastati that cost 62-65.

Pikes take those casualties surprisingly fast, especially from ranged fire since they are only Protected while other units of similar cost are usually Armoured. The numbers don't really do the pikes much good as there are several mechanics that I already described that effectively negate any benefits the unit size could give them.

Pikes work fine if they are fighting at full strength, or if they are fighting unit that's not at full strength but if they face full strength enemy while not at full strength themselves their performance tends to be abysmal compared to what other units of similar cost would have with similar proportion of losses.

[SimonLancaster]

I think ‘abysmal’ is a bit too much. They are strong units in general (going by my battlefield experience). Yes, they are good targets for artillery and skirmishers. But, given the size of the units at over 900 men they pack a punch and hold positions very well.

As someone said, when you are talking about pike units at nearly 50% losses or without the 4th rank then you are probably talking about near the end of the game. How many casualties have they already inflicted?

[Gaznak]

Having played through a Pyrrhus v Romans campaign recently, my experience with fielding large numbers of regular and raw pikes reminds me of Zapp Brannigan from Futurama shouting "stop exploding you cowards!" as his army is obliterated.

[SimonLancaster]

Having played through a Pyrrhus v Romans campaign recently, my experience with fielding large numbers of regular and raw pikes reminds me of Zapp Brannigan from Futurama shouting "stop exploding you cowards!" as his army is obliterated.

Yes, Raw Pikes aren't very good.. best to use them as support.

[GamerMan]

@GamerMan
You can just look at OP and you can see that at 616/921 the Pike base POA for both impact and melee is at 67. I just tested the pikes to be sure and the base POA starts degrading around 727/979 or 75% strength, right after the deep pike POA is gone. Swordsmen on the other hand never lose the base POA.

A single 72 point Pike Phalanx unit fighting a 78 point Veteran Hastati/Principes will typically be disadvantaged on frontal impact against impact foot, then maintain slight advantage by combat strength modifier. Without CT failures (in which the pikes are relatively disadvantaged due to their low veterancy for the price range) the pikes will ultimately win by auto-breaking the opponent. The pike unit however, will be completely neutered by casualties half way through the melee and can't really do much in terms of combat afterwards.

The pikes cost a premium for large unit size and high maximum POA, even though both of those advantages are effectively neutralized by special rules. Now, if you consider just the Pike Phalanx (72p) versus Veteran Hastati/Principes (78p) match-up, the end result isn't that far off: one unit routed and another most likely combat inefficient. I'd imagine this match-up was pretty much the basis for current pike pricing and balance.

The problems start when the units aren't at full strength at the start of combat. If Veteran Hastati/Principes takes 10% losses from missiles before combat, its performance in melee suffers a bit (less than 10% I think) but on impact it remains fully effective. Meanwhile 10% losses to Pikes will lower both their impact and melee POA by 20%! Combat strength modifier from Pike's large size doesn't do anything unless the enemy is under strength. This means that Pikes are indeed extremely sensitive to casualties, more so than any other unit type in the game. This is extremely counter-intuitive as pikes should have a large amount of internal reserves and 25% losses wouldn't technically even begin to effect the fighting depth of the formation which is 5 front ranks out of 8 or 16 (this is of course not the only real effect of casualties but still important to consider).

That's just on top of Pikes being unmaneuverable, having low veterancy modifier (for a 70+ point unit) for CT, and suffering casualties from missiles fairly easily due to their low armor (for a 70+ point unit). They are extremely terrain sensitive for infantry. Pikes do get the square formation (which is a bit questionable ability considering there are no other formations in the game) but that does little more than puts a band-aid on the fatal flaw of low unit numbers that the pikes suffer from due to their high unit cost. With the exception of Raw Pike Phalanx, they simply aren't that good or well balanced unit outside full strength 1-vs-1 "in vitro" experiments.

First, yes, like i said, pikes lose POA for both impact and melee. However, these are pikes in melee, so it isn't clear how they are being "double taxed". If you just meant that they lose out on impact combat results, then fine, but likely by this point they are being far more helped by the parabolic nature of melee loses most troops suffer than they are hurt by their linear loss of impact POA.

Second, your claims that a pike unit fighting a VHP will be neutered half way through the combat with the VHP is not backed up by the data. If the VHP has lost 30% of its units, and the pike has lost a similar number of men, then the VHP lost about 140 men, and the pike likewise has lost 140 men. Assuming they were the standard initial size, the pike has lost 58 POA, translating to a loss of 19% melee bonus. (technically, it loses its 8% bonus, and gives the VHP an 11% bonus). however, it gets a bonus due to VHP not being at full strength, aka combat effectiveness due to size difference. this bonus gives the pikes a +21% bonus, therefore actually increasing its advantage against VHP.

Third, which large size advantages are being neutralized by special rules? I am unfamiliar with any large size rules being neutralized, just the POA advantage declining (without which, pikes would, in most battles, be the only unit that never gets less effective, since every other unit takes very harsh penalties for size disadvantages that the pikes are virtually immune to.)

Finally the arrow combat, if both the VHP and pikes take 10% losses from arrows, first that would be more arrows fired at the pikes on average than the VHP (despite the arrow advantage being armoured gives, it doesn't quite add up to cutting losses in half vs protected). Second, you are comparing number sizes here. Combat strength and POA advantages do not translate 1 to 1, so saying VHP took less than 10% combat strength drop, but Pikes lost 20% POA is only saying that the Pike losses are more damaging to you psychologically, and says nothing about combat effectiveness. And you don't even have to compare two entirely different values, because pikes in your scenario are taking roughly 1/3 more arrows, so you can already paint a pretty anti-pike picture by translating this into combat effectiveness (VHP gives up a 5.55% size differential bonus, in trade for pikes losing their 8% combat effectiveness and giving a 4.8% advantage to the VHP. though, even with this small advantage to the pikes in melee, the parabolic effects of combat effectiveness would start kicking in pretty quickly, and the pikes would pull ahead as they trade even numbers of units lost.)

I'm not even saying pikes are properly costed, or well balanced. All I'm saying is that "pikes lose POA due to losing units" does not, by itself, support claims that they are more casualty sensitive than other units, or that they are over costed or under powered.

if you want good data to show pikes are under-powered [above and beyond your inherently valuable personal experience using pikes and fighting against pikes], you will need to either show that the impact losses (the things they uniquely lose), are not offset by the combat effectiveness gains in melee (which are non linear, so you'd need to factor in value of performance relative to battle condition), or that armies using pikes are under performing compared to a range of armies when tested in randomized (not self selected) trials, or if you can account for the player differentials in the Digital League (for example, by using a slightly modified version of sports-reference's SRS methodology to try to separate out the effects of army performance due to relative player performance, vs due to relative army performance) .

[MVP7]

@GamerMan I have don't get your point or what kind of "good data" you are demanding, as far as I know pike based armies have never done particularly well in tournaments and few people seem to actually enjoy using the units. Outside the full health 1-vs-1 match-up with VHP, the Pikes are more sensitive to casualties when compared to other unit types of similar cost:

Yes, Protected vs Armoured against missiles doesn't quite mean that Pikes take double losses but even still they take enough losses to lose more POA per shot than VHP for example.

A VHP with 30% losses has 100 Melee POA from swordsmen, 50 for being Veteran and 25 from armour. Let's say they take 30% penalty fighting against full strength unit and they are still left with about 120 POA. A pike with 30% losses has about 80 melee POA left which is less than any other heavy/medium infantry unit in the game. That's just for the melee, for impact calculations the VHP is still considered to have the full 250 POA while the Pikes would be (uniquely) down to 80 POA which is the lowest for any heavy/medium infantry other than attacking Defensive spearmen.

If you match up 30% losses pikes with 30% losses VHP, the Pikes are not going to catch up (and 30% is far from being the turning point). And again, outside the 1-vs-1 comparison, in actual battle the wounded VHP remain a powerful and valuable unit in late game while the similarly wounded Pikes are fully neutered and are nothing but a liability. They have miserable POA and lower veterancy which leaves them even more vulnerable to cohesion tests. The pikes routing will also contribute more towards rout percentage than a regular sized unit. It might require more effort to cause same percentage of losses to Pikes than VHP, but it still takes much less effort to render Pikes combat ineffective. So yeah, maybe they are being 1.5x taxed rather than double taxed for casualties but in any case, they suffer more from losses.

That is why I say that any advantage of large unit size gets neutralized by special rules. The only advantage that large unit size has in FoG2 is the internal reserve that would give the unit a combat strength advantage against smaller opponent. The normal combat strength rule proposes that if unit is larger than the regular 480 man formation, it has reserves that don't provide immediate advantage but will buffer their losses giving a long term advantage. However the pikes have a special rule: they lose all of their 200 base POA over 50% casualties, both melee and impact. In 1-vs-1 comparison this means pikes will usually win prolonged melee thanks to the combat strength modifier. When that fight is over and they face a unit (that isn't highly damaged), they are far worse off than any regular 480 man unit would be in the same situation. In other words, Pikes pay full price for their extra unit size but all of the benefit and then some that it could provide them is erased by the special POA rules that only affect pikes.

I never said pikes are under-powered. They are actually exceedingly powerful at full strength impact and at near full strength melee, that's what drives their unit cost so high and with current Pike rules it really can't be lowered. What I said is that Pikes aren't good, the game in general favors large numbers of cheaper units and Pikes in particular aren't durable, reliable of flexible despite being such high cost units. I said pikes aren't well balanced as their nature makes their performance for cost ratio really warped: Raw pikemen aren't that expensive and they hit really hard for their cost thanks to the exceedingly high base POA, I think they are pretty good for their cost. Average Pikes are underwhelming for their cost as they are often single use unit and far more likely to break early than other similarly priced units. Veteran Pikes have the same weaknesses as Average Pikes but more so.

What I consider to be the biggest issues with pikes are that their performance against smaller full strength and damaged units is anomalous, and their POA behavior makes no sense from historical point of view. They have devastating initial impact and melee (which, I guess is based on "unstoppable charge" mentioned in one historical source) but they rabidly turn into mush after any losses. They certainly don't work in any anvil-esque role in the Hellenic armies, being pretty much glass cannons instead. There's just no explanation for them being this sensitive to relatively light casualties compared to every single other unit type in the game. The pikes could be more viable and arguably historical unit if they had better long term performance and lower peak performance which might allow for slightly lower unit cost as well.

[GamerMan]

I don't mean to say that you need to bring in good data, but that if you are going to bring in data, the data itself should be complete. If you bring in POA, but then hand wave the combat strength, then your data is bringing in a lot of noise, but very little signal, because combat strength is very important. But i think your scenarios might be illustrative, so i'll bring them in.

For reference, if POAs are even, and a damaged unit is fighting a full strength 480 man unit, we can translate combat strength to what melee POA would be required to get the same results.
414 men = 25POA
364 men = 50POA
324 men = 75POA
293 men = 100POA
267 men = 125POA
245 men = 150POA
226 men = 175POA
211 men = 200POA

So, let's line up some scenarios and see how the POA vs combat strength looks between VHP vs pike.
for reference, at full, pikes are -50POA, +25 Melee POA, for a combat strength of +16% VHP impact, +8% pikes melee.
Also for reference, at 30% losses (pikes lose 288 men) pikes are now at a massive 170POA disadvantage in impact [this seems to be a pretty big number to lose pre contact, though]

both lose 30% (i think you can get this if both take only artillery shots)
VHP +95 POA = 30% Combat modifier. Pikes +21% combat modifier from size. VHP has an advantage equivalent to somewhere between 23 and 28 POA (both sides having an advantage doesn't translate cleanly back into POA, but a range of POAs can be produced). The marginal cost of losing 10 more men, however, hurts pikes by about 4 POA, but would hurt VHP about 7 POA.

pikes lose 30% (288 men), VHP lose 40% (192 men). (this is what taking pre combat arrows would look like)
VHP +95 POA = 30% Combat modifier. Pikes +33% combat modifier from size. Pike has an advantage equivalent to somewhere between 7 POA and 9 POA. The marginal cost of losing 10 more men hurts pikes by about 4 POA, but would hurt VHP about 9 POA.

pikes lose 15% (144 men), VHP lose 30% (144 men). (this is what pre combat crossbows or a melee standstill would look like)
VHP +35 POA = 11% Combat modifier. Pikes +21% combat modifier from size. Pike has an advantage equivalent to somewhere between 29 POA and 32 POA. The marginal cost of losing 10 more men hurts pikes by about 4 POA, but would hurt VHP about 7 POA.

pikes lose 30% (288 men), VHP lose 60% (192 men). (this is what pre combat crossbows or a melee standstill would look like)
VHP +95 POA = 30% Combat modifier. Pikes +75% combat modifier from size. Pike has an advantage equivalent to somewhere between 107 POA and 139 POA. The marginal cost of losing 10 more men hurts pikes by about 4 POA, but probably breaks the VHP.

So while pikes are pretty much forced to get into combat as soon as possible to avoid impact POA problems, they do well if they make it through combat even against arrows.

In the scenario where the pike or VHP breaks the enemy and are then met by a full strength reserve unit (we will go with a citizen hoplite as our example).

we will say that the pike/VHP lost 120 men.
Pikes +50 Impact, +50 melee POA, +16% combat strength.
VHP +150 impact, +75 melee POA, +24% combat strength, vs hoplites +17% combat strength from numbers: resulting in a 20 to 23 effective melee POA advantage to VHP.

pike/VHP lost 240 men.
Pikes 0 Impact, 0 melee POA, even (if the battle remains even, the pikes will have a very very slight disadvantage [peaking at 2POA advantage for hoplites] after some losses, then switch to a growing advantage with additional losses. the 2nd break even point coming between 52 and 53 losses)
VHP +150 impact, +75 melee POA, +24% combat strength, vs hoplites +50% combat strength from numbers: resulting in a 66 to 81 effective melee POA advantage to hoplites.

Now, i think the numbers paint a more grey picture of the comparison of VHP vs pikes, though perhaps still slightly worse for pikes. Perhaps pikes being capped at losing 100 impact POA, or pikes losing impact POA at half the rate of their melee POA would be worth testing if there is in fact an overall problem, but i think this shows that losing melee POA isn't really a problem, and that any changes should be targeted to impact POAs.

[MVP7]

Sorry, I don't understand what men and what POA exactly the first list is referring to.

There are some factors your sample data doesn't really take into account:

---

1) Pikes and VHP in FoG2 Ancients don't really ever face crossbows so equal amount of pre-combat shooting will always cause more casualties to the Pikes. Any amount of pre-melee losses will also very quickly turn the impact odds further against the Pikes and even if losing impact doesn't disrupt them, it can shave further 40-50 men off the pike unit (~5%).

The Pikes(30%)-vs-VHP(40%) sample case would have a high chance of VHP winning the impact and the cases with even number of lost men would require about 50% extra shots against the VHP and/or that the impact was indecisive.

---

2) VHP are more likely to win fast and with fewer losses. They always have advantage on impact and if they win they have relatively high chance of disrupting the (relatively low veterancy) Pikes outright. Pikes also suffer more from disruption than swordsmen as on top of the normal loss of fighting power from disruption, they also lose the 100 deep pike POA outright (which in itself is a good depiction of pikes being sensitive to the formation being disrupted). As a result, some VHP in battle line are likely to rout the pike they are fighting in just couple turns.

In the melee on the other hand, the fight is likely to last for a long time. The melee odds will only shift significantly in Pike's favor after many turns and even then the VHP have pretty good odds of not getting disrupted. In the few test fights I ran the melees between Average Pikes and VHP usually lasted about 10 turns, often ending in auto-rout by the VHP. Any early wins were by VHP which in real battle would be ready to rejoin the battle and quickly snowball the fight for Romans.

For comparison, a VHP unit that routed a Pike (thanks to impact disruption) did so with 417/465 men left (about 10% losses) while a Pike unit that won against VHP by auto-rout (no cohesion loss despite couple wins near the end) had 648/979 men left (about 33% losses). The odds are 76% win chance on impact and 43% win chance in melee for the VHP. This is of course just a single example and it is possible that pikes get really lucky and break a VHP early in battle but on average it favors the VHP.

---

3) Every subsequent Impact increasingly favors the VHP. If VHP initiates the combat and loses during melee there's a good chance they fall back. With the VHP impact POA untouched and Pike impact POA diminished the VHP now has good chance to either disrupt or at least shave off a good chunk of men in the following impact. To avoid this (and any unnecessary missile damage) the pikes are effectively forced to be on the offensive whenever possible. That means they have to do an unfavorable impact and if they lose it they are likely to fall back, exposing themselves to impact by the VHP. Even when Pikes successfully get into melee they still risk pushing back the VHP which can easily put them into situation where enemy reserve unit can join the fight (which is uniquely dangerous for the pikes due to their diminishing impact POA).

---

So I still maintain that Pikes get the short end of the stick rather severely. There are way more ways for things to go wrong for the Pikes than there are for the VHP and and even the favorable outcome is usually a long grind and effective 1-to-1 trade off as the surviving pike units is often combat ineffective by the time it wins.

The loss of Impact POA is definitely more impactful (no pun intended) but the loss of melee POA is also irregularly severe considering how likely they are to suffer significant amount of losses in any "even" fight they win. Gameplay-wise the Pike POA loss is inconsistent with every other unit, and from historical and practical point of view it's the polar opposite of what I would expect from such large unit with a great number of internal reserves.

[kronenblatt]

This is a very interesting discussion from which I've learned a lot: thanks guys!

I don't have a problem that a unit such as the Pike has gameplay-wise inconsistencies with other units. On the contrary, I think it's fun that not all units have the same dynamics but instead differ greatly. More variety and perspectives to take into account.

However, I agree that Pikes are not as strong or resilient as I'd expect them to be, often breaking earlier than I've expected. But that's just a feature that I've come to accept and one that I can live with.

One problem though in my view arises from that they very often rally (due to breaking early with many men left), back to fragmented and then disrupted far away on the map, which I don't view as particularly realistic since it's a unit so highly dependent on its formation so what are the chances of these pikemen coming together again after having routed and reforming for battle. But then again, it's part of the game and just something that needs to be taken into account and deal with. (I've not played FoG2 long enough to fully realise its flaws and imbalances; I merely see them as game design. )

[Schweetness101]

If it's of any interest, there have been a few past threads discussing pikes. A few I participated in:

1) discussing a book on pike armies and it's relation to in game pikes: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 7&t=100249
2) discussing re-balancing pikes: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 77&t=97931
3) testing out pike changes in a dedicated mod: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 77&t=98056

and a whole alt gameplay mod I made that incorporates pike changes: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 92&t=99967

[Schweetness101]

One problem though in my view arises from that they very often rally (due to breaking early with many men left), back to fragmented and then disrupted far away on the map, which I don't view as particularly realistic since it's a unit so highly dependent on its formation so what are the chances of these pikemen coming together again after having routed and reforming for battle.

alt mod addresses this directly, affecting odds to rally, and rally chances below a certain casualty level, and rallying inside of commander's radius only etc...