Slitherine

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 4:57 pm I second this reasoning very strongly. I think pikes need to be overhauled from the way they are so that Hellenistic armies feel and fight in a more historical way. My understanding (which is pretty limited lol) is that the pikes were basically cheap levies armed with extremely long Sarissas and drilled hard to compensate for the fact that they were otherwise poorly armored peasants, and that they used the phalangite to hold their opponents in place while the elite cavalry units struck the decisive blow. They were effective because of combined arms with elite lancers, light cavalry, and skirmishers, but not because they could defeat enemies single handed

*later pikes after becoming more experienced were much more than mere peasant levies of course.

Instead, in FOG2 the pikes steamroll the enemy army while whatever paltry cavalry and light foot you can afford after paying for pikes desperately hold off flanks.

Also, did Macedonian pikes form square like they can in the game? I thought that was also a renaissance or Scottish thing.

Not sure I'd term them cheap levies, but otherwise, I think you're on the right track. To expand a bit........they were state armed troops of a generally good quality, though this did vary a bit between states. The original Macedonian pikes were lower class members of society who were equipped by the king/state and drilled extensively to fight in formation. They - had - to be extensively drilled as the sarissa is a very unique weapon that is largely useless when not in the specific formation. The Greek dory, for example, was a decent personal weapon for individual use, while the sarissa was NOT. So that was the original way that pikes were created, and probably how the Spartans and Achaean Leagues made their pikes. After Alexander, however, pikes were a bit more........self-sufficient, so to speak. The Diadochi Kingdoms relied extensively on military settlers, Macedonian and Greek citizens of the kingdoms who were given land of their own in exchange for service in the pike phalanx. Those settlers provided more of their equipment, and were trained via the following system (as seen in the Seleucids):

The children of the military settlers were required to serve the king personally when they reached a certain age. They did this as part of the Silver Shield Corps. They'd be centrally equipped and trained, be ready for immediate action, and would theoretically become loyal to the king via close contact. After a few years in the Corps, they'd go back home to tend the family lands. In the event of a war, the adult family members would be called up to serve as Bronze Shields. They'd provide most of their kit outside of the sarissa and shield, go through a short period of training, and then be ready for action. Generally, the Royal Guard phalanx was of a high quality, while the Reservists (Bronze Shields) would vary quite a bit. The Ptolemaic Reservists declined steadily over time, while the Seleucids maintained effectiveness due to the constant threat of invasion.

*historical detour done*

But yes, we really don't have any historical evidence for the idea that the phalanx would steamroll the opposition in the way it does in FoG2. Cavalry was the crucial winner of battle, while the phalanx was an excellent holding mechanic. The times where you - do - see the phalanx "win" are during the wars of the Diadochi. At Paratacene and Gabiene, the Original Silver Shields supposedly steamrolled the Antigonid phalanx and secured victory by themselves. At Raphia, the Ptolemaic Machimoi phalanx overcame the outnumbered Seleucid phalanx. So head to head phalanx clashes could be decided by the pikes alone, though that was partly due to situations where the cavalry had not already won the battle. In non-mirror matches, the cavalry was still the determinant. Pyrrhus's phalanx was indecisive against the Romans until he sent in the elephants. At Cynoscephalae, the Macedonian Royal Guard pushed the Romans down the hill, but didn't rout them. At Pydna, the phalanx pushed the Romans back, but didn't rout them. At Chaeronea, Philip II and Alexander utilized infantry maneuvers to open up space in the Greek line to exploit with cavalry. They didn't just send the pikes forward to stomp the hoplites like you can do now in FoG2.

Gaznak wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:20 pm Appian describes the Seleucid pikemen forming a square after their support was destroyed. The Romans declined to charge them and just showered them with missiles.

True, but those squares contained elephants within them, making less like the dense squares we have in FoG2, and more like a "thin" line of pikes surrounding a group of elephants. And it should be noted that pikes in the historical record are described as fairly impervious to missile attack, Magnesia included. It was only when the elephants within the square were hit by missiles, that the squares failed. In FoG2, however, pikes are VERY vulnerable to missiles, because they lose Impact AND Melee POA as they take losses. The impact POA loss in particular is very problematic for pikes, and makes them incredibly vulnerable to Impact Foot attack.

One instance, however, where we do know that pikes were countered by missiles was during the Third Sacred War when Onomarchos, the strategos of tiny Phocis, defeated Philip II by using torsion engines placed on the flanks of the phalanx to disrupt the dense formation. That is something that is currently in the game, to be fair.

do you think then that classical antiquity pikes should lose their square ability and be made a bit cheaper? How would you rebalance them in terms of costs and poas etc...

Losing the square ability alone wouldn't reduce the Pikes' cost that much but I wouldn't really mind losing it in addition to other cost reduction measures (like overhauling the pike POA system).

Proposal:

Reduce the size of the phalanx unit by one row.
Remove the square ability.
Eliminate bonus of both rear rows for POA and roll these bonuses into the base unit.
If the phalanx does not lose a battle, halve casualties for both sides, proportionately reducing the chance that the opponent "loses" the battle, while preserving the reduced chance that units fighting a phalanx will lose cohesion if they take a test based on combat with the phalanx.
Point reduction to offset these.

This will make the phalanx more resilient to damage and cheaper, with less men to cover a particular frontage, but also a less effective "shock" unit than the later pike units in history. They will still win battles against most enemy infantry, but they'll do it very slowly, making success on the flank (for either side) more important.

How about I start a new thread in this forum where people can workshop a bit how a pike re-balance could work? Seeing some good ideas already, but we're definitely (my included) wandering a bit from the original purpose of this post.

Geffalrus wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:15 pm How about I start a new thread in this forum where people can workshop a bit how a pike re-balance could work? Seeing some good ideas already, but we're definitely (my included) wandering a bit from the original purpose of this post.

Get out and drag this dead horse back out with you.