Pike Phalanx

[TimDee58]

really snuggles, I thought they did quite well against enemy pike in Italy, to be fair it is over 20 years since i read about them, I do recall however they were considered effective against pike..... maybe not, must reread.

[TimDee58]

"When the Spanish adopted the colunella (the first of the mixed pike and shot formations), they used small groups of sword and buckler men to break the deadlock of the push of pike, as the Swiss and Germans used halberdiers, comparable to the role of the German Doppelsöldner during the same period. At the Battle of Ravenna in 1512, they proved to be very effective with this tactic; however, when facing a fresh, well ordered pike square, they were vulnerable, as at the Battle of Seminara. They were also very vulnerable to attack by cavalry. As battlefield tactics evolved during the early 16th century, the Spanish ultimately concluded that the vulnerability of the rodeleros on the battlefield outweighed their strengths, and they were dropped as a troop type when the Spanish infantry were reorganized into tercios in the 1530s."

Seemingly, like all troops, they had good days.... and bad ones

[Morbio]

Speaking in terms of gameplay I think the biggest weakness of Pikes is their high price which results in a low number of individual units. The pike armies are almost always fighting against an enemy that can deploy a wider front and unlike similarly expensive Romans, they don't have the manoeuvrability to make up for it. I don't think the pikes are badly under-powered as it is but they aren't as good bang for the buck as Roman legionaries and veteran legionaries. Legionaries are both more manoeuvrable and have the advantage at charge (which is the most important roll of any melee). The biggest balance issue the pikes have is the too high chance to drop cohesion from receiving a frontal charge, which I think is also arguably unrealistic.

The Pikes could have some kind of additional cohesion check bonus when losing against a frontal charge so that they would work better as the anvil they historically were. They can handle the loss of men but the early loss of cohesion is a death sentence.

I agree with the cost of the pikes being high, particularly with higher than I'd expect cohesion drop rate for frontal charges. I rarely take optional pikes because having more units seems to be more beneficial, there's nothing worse than expensive pikes being outflanked and attacked in the sides and rear.

The changes I'd like to see are either;
* Slightly reduced cost
or, more preferably,
* A cohesion check bonus for frontal charges if steady... and possibly if more than 75% of original strength (percentage could be adjusted up or down as seems reasonable to all).

[SnuggleBunnies]

Like I said, and as your quote shows, the Spanish swordsmen were phased out relatively early in the 16th century. So it seems they had more bad days than good days.

[Witan]

or, more preferably,
* A cohesion check bonus for frontal charges if steady... and possibly if more than 75% of original strength (percentage could be adjusted up or down as seems reasonable to all).

I would agree with that, or something similar. Currently a pike phalanx that is attacked head-on ends up disrupted by some unit types far too easy.
However, I am against a cost reduction.

[MVP7]

I agree with the cost of the pikes being high, particularly with higher than I'd expect cohesion drop rate for frontal charges. I rarely take optional pikes because having more units seems to be more beneficial, there's nothing worse than expensive pikes being outflanked and attacked in the sides and rear.

The changes I'd like to see are either;
* Slightly reduced cost
or, more preferably,
* A cohesion check bonus for frontal charges if steady... and possibly if more than 75% of original strength (percentage could be adjusted up or down as seems reasonable to all).

Steady cohesion and at least 75% of men remaining would be excellent limits for cohesion test bonus. It would emphasize the importance of good organization and terrain for the pikes to work effectively.

I did little testing with Macedonian pikes and veteran pikes against the Roman legionaries and veteran legionaries (both units are similarly priced). In a 1v1 head on encounter veterans easily defeated a regular opponent both ways. Matching regular vs regular and veteran vs veteran the fights went one of two ways. Either the legionaries caused a cohesion drop on charge, which hugely tipped the fight in their favor and resulted in pikes routing a few turns later after very one sided fight. If the pikes did not drop cohesion on charge what followed was a fairly even fight of attrition going from fairly even to favoring the pikes until the legionaries routed/autorouted. Apart from the easy cohesion drops I think pikes work as expected, holding the line and leaving time for maneuvering for both sides.

[Kabill]

I've been following this thread without feeling like anything particularly needed to be done with pike phalanxes. I played them a lot in the digital league (mostly Antigonids) and found I really didn't like them, but mostly for reasons that feel fair in relation to their historical performance (i.e. they're fine, but their lack of mobility and number of units are major problems as they're easily outflanked and - more importantly - make for a very "brittle" army that feels the effect of losses very keenly due to low-unit count). I've also been feeling that buffing their combat power would be unwelcome, not just in terms of balance but in terms of gameplay (if pikes are impossible to assault with a frontal attack, what are non-pike armies supposed to do about them as you can't *just* attack their flanks).

However, the suggestion that they get some kind of cohesion check bonus is actually one I rather like, as it doesn't create the problem of making them unkillable but does give them more room for their strengths (and weaknesses) to come out. I.e. the "problem" that folks are reporting with pikes is ultimately their vulnerability to Impact Foot who can match or beat them on impact and therefore have not unreasonable odds of disrupting them on the charge. Giving them a cohesion check bonus means they're less likely to disrupt on charge, meaning there's more time for their numbers and combat power to shine post-impact (where even strong impact foot like Romans will be at a disadvantage) but also emphasise flanking attacks more, since you can't rely on even Impact Foot to disrupt pikes on the charge alone. Tying the bonus to the same conditions that pikes get their other bonuses (i.e. good terrain and steady) would emphasise flanking further, as this would take away both their both their fighting power and resilience and should see them collapse quickly in such circumstances.

I suspect it wouldn't be that hard to make a mod for this if anyone was interested in trying it out?

EDIT: Written before I saw MVP7's useful post above.

[TheGrayMouser]

I feel they are fine as is as well. Are players forgetting the square formation? This (somewhat Uber ability imho) makes any issues with vulnerable flanks somewhat moot. The weakness of ancient pike armies is you really need to take advantage of the combined arms available and not just depend on the pike to carry the day on their own.

[MVP7]

I feel they are fine as is as well. Are players forgetting the square formation? This (somewhat Uber ability imho) makes any issues with vulnerable flanks somewhat moot. The weakness of ancient pike armies is you really need to take advantage of the combined arms available and not just depend on the pike to carry the day on their own.

Square is purely defensive formation and of fairly little use in meeting battle. In any case, it's not their performance when flanked that is the issue but their highly unreliable nature when getting into a head on fight against an equal enemy which should be their main role and niche so that the rest of the combined arms can do their job.

[TheGrayMouser]

An adroit player can offensively maneveur then defend tactically by going into square. Such an ability by a single pike unit on the end of a battle line can thwart even a well developed flank attack, so it’s not some minor advantage.
I don’t agree with the unreliable take as the poa charts speak for themselves. if they are head on versus an “equal”enemy, shouldn’t they lose 50% of the time?

[Morbio]

An adroit player can offensively maneveur then defend tactically by going into square. Such an ability by a single pike unit on the end of a battle line can thwart even a well developed flank attack, so it’s not some minor advantage.
I don’t agree with the unreliable take as the poa charts speak for themselves. if they are head on versus an “equal”enemy, shouldn’t they lose 50% of the time?

I'm not questioning the benefit of being able to form square, it really can be useful. I think what most people are questioning is whether steady pikes in open terrain should lose so often on frontal impact. The POA may balance and so give a 50-50 result, but does that align with the result that one would expect? From my limited knowledge the Romans didn't beat the pike phalanx by charging it head on, they beat them because they were more manoeuvrable and so they could either flank them, or cause a cohesion drop because they couldn't react quickly enough and then the Romans charged. You only have to visualise a steady braced pike phalanx, with 5 or 6 rows of pikes facing you per person in the front rank (and there are many people in the front rank) then I'd be surprised if many warriors charged them and even more surprised if they got past the weapons to actually cause any damage, even with a large shield to protect them.

[MikeC_81]

An adroit player can offensively maneveur then defend tactically by going into square. Such an ability by a single pike unit on the end of a battle line can thwart even a well developed flank attack, so it’s not some minor advantage.
I don’t agree with the unreliable take as the poa charts speak for themselves. if they are head on versus an “equal”enemy, shouldn’t they lose 50% of the time?

I'm not questioning the benefit of being able to form square, it really can be useful. I think what most people are questioning is whether steady pikes in open terrain should lose so often on frontal impact. The POA may balance and so give a 50-50 result, but does that align with the result that one would expect? From my limited knowledge the Romans didn't beat the pike phalanx by charging it head on, they beat them because they were more manoeuvrable and so they could either flank them, or cause a cohesion drop because they couldn't react quickly enough and then the Romans charged. You only have to visualise a steady braced pike phalanx, with 5 or 6 rows of pikes facing you per person in the front rank (and there are many people in the front rank) then I'd be surprised if many warriors charged them and even more surprised if they got past the weapons to actually cause any damage, even with a large shield to protect them.

This is somewhat of an over-reported myth I think or is the result of the phenomenon described in the next paragraph. Regular Pikes vs Hastati/Principes are only slightly disadvantaged on Impact (20% to lose) but are very much heavy favourites in prolonged combat. Vet Hastati/Principes are dangerous to regular Pikes but even then its like 1 in 3 chance to win on Impact. The primary problem is that they are unmaneuverable so good armies like the Romans usually can get favourable matchups or get an echelon attack off to flank the Pike line. The Pikes are also obliged to move forward into contact since prolonged skirmishing has a deleterious effect on their PoA due to how the Deep Pikes works.

So often, an enemy can outmaneuver you, and set up flank that will take time for you to fix. While you are spending the time to divert resources to fix the potential problem, he is pecking away at your deep pike bonus. Going into form square won't save you from that. You don't even need to cause that many casualties before Deep Pikes is no longer that intimidating to other infantry and merely becomes an "ok" ability. Ex, if you can hit a typical pike unit with about 100 casualties, Hasati/Principes go from being a +25 PoA favourite into +65 PoA favourite at which point it gets very dangerous on Impact.

A good Roman player will try to find a Pike unit which has limited skirmisher support, try to drive a wedge using LH and some of the Velities to isolate that Pike from skirmisher support and send in one or two of them to start pelting the Pike block. At this point the Pike player can either sit and accept the damage while he tries to fix the skirmisher imbalance and cover the exposed unit or charge the Velities which now opens up the possibility of being flanked. If the Pike stays still, the Roman player can exploit better agility to get a Vet Hastati/Principes unit to matchup against the targetted Pike block and bulldoze through with around a +100 PoA edge on Impact before Generals are taken into account.

In general Pike players, because of the high cost of Pike units relative to everything else, now have to use fewer resources points-wise to solve a wide-ranging number of challenges an opponent can present. It can be done but it is hard and takes a lot of advanced planning before the lines come together. Given that skirmisher play and the ability to forecast multiple turns in advance are probably the more difficult aspects of FoG2, it is not surprising that players are struggling at times with Pike armies.

[Morbio]

An adroit player can offensively maneveur then defend tactically by going into square. Such an ability by a single pike unit on the end of a battle line can thwart even a well developed flank attack, so it’s not some minor advantage.
I don’t agree with the unreliable take as the poa charts speak for themselves. if they are head on versus an “equal”enemy, shouldn’t they lose 50% of the time?

I'm not questioning the benefit of being able to form square, it really can be useful. I think what most people are questioning is whether steady pikes in open terrain should lose so often on frontal impact. The POA may balance and so give a 50-50 result, but does that align with the result that one would expect? From my limited knowledge the Romans didn't beat the pike phalanx by charging it head on, they beat them because they were more manoeuvrable and so they could either flank them, or cause a cohesion drop because they couldn't react quickly enough and then the Romans charged. You only have to visualise a steady braced pike phalanx, with 5 or 6 rows of pikes facing you per person in the front rank (and there are many people in the front rank) then I'd be surprised if many warriors charged them and even more surprised if they got past the weapons to actually cause any damage, even with a large shield to protect them.

This is somewhat of an over-reported myth I think or is the result of the phenomenon described in the next paragraph. Regular Pikes vs Hastati/Principes are only slightly disadvantaged on Impact (20% to lose) but are very much heavy favourites in prolonged combat. Vet Hastati/Principes are dangerous to regular Pikes but even then its like 1 in 3 chance to win on Impact. The primary problem is that they are unmaneuverable so good armies like the Romans usually can get favourable matchups or get an echelon attack off to flank the Pike line. The Pikes are also obliged to move forward into contact since prolonged skirmishing has a deleterious effect on their PoA due to how the Deep Pikes works.

So often, an enemy can outmaneuver you, and set up flank that will take time for you to fix. While you are spending the time to divert resources to fix the potential problem, he is pecking away at your deep pike bonus. Going into form square won't save you from that. You don't even need to cause that many casualties before Deep Pikes is no longer that intimidating to other infantry and merely becomes an "ok" ability. Ex, if you can hit a typical pike unit with about 100 casualties, Hasati/Principes go from being a +25 PoA favourite into +65 PoA favourite at which point it gets very dangerous on Impact.

A good Roman player will try to find a Pike unit which has limited skirmisher support, try to drive a wedge using LH and some of the Velities to isolate that Pike from skirmisher support and send in one or two of them to start pelting the Pike block. At this point the Pike player can either sit and accept the damage while he tries to fix the skirmisher imbalance and cover the exposed unit or charge the Velities which now opens up the possibility of being flanked. If the Pike stays still, the Roman player can exploit better agility to get a Vet Hastati/Principes unit to matchup against the targetted Pike block and bulldoze through with around a +100 PoA edge on Impact before Generals are taken into account.

In general Pike players, because of the high cost of Pike units relative to everything else, now have to use fewer resources points-wise to solve a wide-ranging number of challenges an opponent can present. It can be done but it is hard and takes a lot of advanced planning before the lines come together. Given that skirmisher play and the ability to forecast multiple turns in advance are probably the more difficult aspects of FoG2, it is not surprising that players are struggling at times with Pike armies.

Nice insight, thank you

[TheGrayMouser]

So what you saying is pike armies struggle versus romans as the complicated combined arms approach and the brittle nature of the pike means terrain and good generalship are critical. Sounds about right historically. Pyrrhus did ok vs the average Roman generalship( and he was considered one of the foremost generals of the age, ) but what success did later pike armies have vs romans ?
I can’t quote polybius right now but he compares the two systems and notes that the pike, even when successfully attacking, open up gaps etc in their formation making then vulnerable to Roman squads and even individual soldiers. This is all represented at the abstract subunit level.

@ Morbio. There is nothing to suggest that the phalanx “braced” pikes to receive charges. ( a much much later tactic used to repel horse) This was always a formation that was meant to attack.

[Archaeologist1970]

Most sources talk about pikes as offensive units, not bracing units against charges. Technically, we as players should not be able to get them to even march in a straight line forward as they tended to drift right due to shield coverage. That being said, they should have some staying power if they survive being impacted. They are deep for a tactical reason, just like warbands. Do they currently get a bonus vs charging horse? because I have hard time seeing horse charging into a hedgehog of spears.

[MVP7]

The nuances of historical interaction between pikes and legionaries can be debated endlessly but in terms of gameplay and balance I think it's safe to say that most players are finding pike units at very least a bit underwhelming and at worst the very last choice when picking units.

Pikes are as expensive as legionaries but unlike legionaries they have a huge collection of (realistic and reasonable) weaknesses and limitations while the only thing they do better than legionaries is prolonged melee (and even that is just because they have more men to lose). Against weaker opponents the pikes perform adequately but they are still not good value for the points when compared to other units of similar cost. Frontal charge cohesion check bonus (whether attacking or defending) would improve the pikes' performance in very specific situations in a well justifiable way without making the overpowered in situations where they are already performing as they should be. The cohesion check bonus would not remove any characteristic weaknesses of the pikes, only highlight the historical strengths that are currently not that impressive.


And few points about the tired and somewhat redundant armchair general gambit of "pikes were actually offensive, not defensive". It's not like the concept of bracing a long sharp stick is something that took the humanity a millennia after the Macedonians to figure out. Furthermore bracing is hardly necessary against a human sized opponent. You can easily test this by making 6 meters long and 6 kg heavy shaft, attach a spearhead to one end, balance it on a table (be careful not to brace it against anything or the test is ruined), then charge/run at full speed into the spearhead and see if it still causes some harm.

Using pikes to effectively defend against charging infantry does no require bracing (it would most likely even make the pikewall more static and ineffective against infantry). It would take an active effort from the pikemen not to disrupt the attacking infantry with the multiple layers of tightly packed spearheads. It's not like the pikemen would just raise/drop their pikes when observing an attacking enemy and welcome the charge with open arms just because defending really isn't their thing.

[rbodleyscott]

Do they currently get a bonus vs charging horse? because I have hard time seeing horse charging into a hedgehog of spears.

Horse would have absolutely no chance charging into steady pikes.

[Morbio]

@ Morbio. There is nothing to suggest that the phalanx “braced” pikes to receive charges. ( a much much later tactic used to repel horse) This was always a formation that was meant to attack.

By bracing I meant the soldiers holding the pikes firm and being ready for the charge rather than bracing on the floor or by some other means. I expect this human bracing (as in 'brace yourself, here they come!') would be standard practice against a charging mass of warriors.

[TheGrayMouser]

My bad Morbio, when one hears brace pikes the image of grounding them comes to mind. That being said I can’t think of any authority indicating receiving a charge at a standstill offers any benefits whatsoever ( except when perhaps uphill and of course defending an obstacle.). In Hoplite battles it was assumed the side that charged first had an advantage. (Morale most likely)

@ mvp7. I cannot comment on the pike on the table experiment without knowing if it’s an IKEA table

[julianbarker]

There is a whole book on this subject (he does one on hoplite phalanx as well). Using historical record, archaeology and experimental archaeology he explores all this. This conclusion is that the pike phalanx was much more flexible and adaptable than often supposed, but was more of a pinning instrument than an offensive one. Its job is ensuring the enemy centre is kept busy whilst the other elements of your army do the important stuff. Just like the game works. Pike can't be ignored, and even Romans and Warbands have to concentrate significant forces to beat the phalanx. The can't ignore it, but they may beat it, usually taking some time to do so.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01GJE6E28/ ... TF8&btkr=1