Slitherine

But shouldn't heavily armoured knights move slower than armoured knights Richard?

Not materially.

Richard, I knew that - was just being provocative. In game terms the economics do not seem to add up - I have never seen a player take protected Hoplites a second time. Not saying it is not done, just I have never seen it (and would not do it myself either).

timmy1 wrote:Richard, I knew that - was just being provocative. In game terms the economics do not seem to add up - I have never seen a player take protected Hoplites a second time. Not saying it is not done, just I have never seen it (and would not do it myself either).

Spear are more fragile relative to other troop types when things go wrong. The armoured/protected POA difference increases the likelyhood things will go wrong.

(Frankly, I think the fact that the armour POA confers a greater advantage than quality is a major flaw in the rules, but I better not start on that...)

rbodleyscott wrote:

timmy1 wrote:On this foot speed thing, I think that armoured/HA foot should move slower than unarmoured/protected. That way one would perhaps see why later Greek Hopiltes were unarmoured....

But that isn't why later Greek Hoplites were Protected. It was for economic reasons.

And here I thought they were rated as protected as a top down design to give pikes a better chance against the hoplites . If it is merely to reflect the economics that dictated that some hoplites did use less or lighter armour then it would seem like at least some number of armoured hoplites should be allowed in later periods than 460 B.C. especially since I am not aware of anything in the sources that indicates that hoplites generally became less effective as the dominant heavy foot in battle until the introduction of the pike phalanx by Philip and Alexander.

Chris

While not about Pikes but a comment on armoured spear.
In a current game I was using my Later Crusaders with armoured defensive spear against a Roman army (from the Cartho wars) I am not sure which one. The legionaries were a mixture of armoured and protected BGs. One the protected Legionnaires charged my armoured spear and my thought was here we go again slice and dice time based on other rules systems. Fortunately my spearmen did not get disrupted on impact so in the melee phase I found I was ++ POA, the surprise at the POA advantage and the end result of legionnaires got turned into spit roasts almost make of decades of super Romans. Despite the Roman's where superior against average spearmen all it meant was the Romans hang on longer before the end, they did not Rout from failed CT but I had to kill them off one base at a time.

BlackPrince wrote:While not about Pikes but a comment on armoured spear.
In a current game I was using my Later Crusaders with armoured defensive spear against a Roman army (from the Cartho wars) I am not sure which one. The legionaries were a mixture of armoured and protected BGs. One the protected Legionnaires charged my armoured spear and my thought was here we go again slice and dice time based on other rules systems. Fortunately my spearmen did not get disrupted on impact so in the melee phase I found I was ++ POA, the surprise at the POA advantage and the end result of legionnaires got turned into spit roasts almost make of decades of super Romans. Despite the Roman's where superior against average spearmen all it meant was the Romans hang on longer before the end, they did not Rout from failed CT but I had to kill them off one base at a time.

That is not an unlike event. There are examples of Romans charging steady pikes (and on that respect spears could be the same) frontally and having failed the initial charge, they got beaten. In the 3rd Macedonian war against Perseus twice. Once in a siege, they tried to pass through a breached wall only to be crashingly defeated by a pike unit of Lefkaspides waiting inside the wall. The other was in the battle of Pydna where the Pelingians charged frontally the coming phalanx only to be quickly broken and routed.
So yes IMO the PoAs do a good job in simulating the Legionaries - Pikemen interaction.

If it is merely to reflect the economics that dictated that some hoplites did use less or lighter armour then it would seem like at least some number of armoured hoplites should be allowed in later periods than 460 B.C.

I think that no one is going to argue that in Periclean Athens citizens had less funds than their grandfathers and could not afford good armour. I think that the Greek player should be allowed to choose between armoured and protected hoplites at least untill the end of the Sicilian expidition and probably even later.