Slitherine

Thanks - I un-read that

Just wanted to revisit this thread. In an ongoing game, I had a line of steady phalanx BGs on a hill (average, some with rear support), attacked by legions (average and superior). Within a few turns, almost the entire line of phalanxes had been ripped apart. It doesn't feel right...

Its just about the odds. Legionaries usually get better armour, impact weapon, swords and are often superior or even elite. Pikemen tend to be average and protected. Also as a pike unit takes casualties it tends to lose combat cohesion faster than a legion unit e.g. At 25% casualties it will lose a POA for lacking enough ranks of men at the back. Legions just have more staying power even though on raw factors the pike have the edge. Keith

Thanks for the explanation. I'm rather used to pikemen getting beat up, but thought that the hill would provide a greater advantage to my guys. In general I'm having a hard time understanding terrain effects (among other things)...

76mm wrote:Thanks for the explanation. I'm rather used to pikemen getting beat up, but thought that the hill would provide a greater advantage to my guys. In general I'm having a hard time understanding terrain effects (among other things)...

The hill will provide an advantage and on average should mean the pikes would beat the legionaries. But the pikes are more vulnerable to bad luck in that once the pikes lose cohesion or suffer casualties they drop in effectiveness faster than armoured legionaries, especially superior ones, due to the legionaries regaining the sword POA when the pikes are non steady in melee and to the loss of the additional pike POA when the pikes drop to 75% or below.

Chris