Slitherine

I just had a fight as the Greeks v. the Ptolemaic armies. I was in fairy flat terrain, but with some marshy and rocky ground between us. It was a randomly generated battle, I knew I was Greece but didn't know who my enemy was. My original plan had been to fold the flank and swing in as I usually do, but that plan evaporated as soon as I saw a solid like of pike coming at me.

By rushing forward to the last piece of flat ground before the rocky region, I was able to ensure that at least some of their pike were Disrupted whereas my line was all in open terrain. If it hadn't have been for this, my Hoplites would have lost the battle, I believe. Even as it was, they punched through my line in three places, and only some theurophoi in the reserve were able to keep those pike from turning and charging me in the rear. VERY close battle, and I think the only thing that saved me was that rocky ground and the slight advantage in armor that my right wing of Veteran Hoplites (against the Veteran Phalanx, dammit!) had.

So far, pikemen are definitely my favorite army core. They play perfectly into how I like to fight with infantry. And the Hoplites are OK, but they're just kind of..lame Pikemen.

Cheimison wrote:I just had a fight as the Greeks v. the Ptolemaic armies. I was in fairy flat terrain, but with some marshy and rocky ground between us. It was a randomly generated battle, I knew I was Greece but didn't know who my enemy was. My original plan had been to fold the flank and swing in as I usually do, but that plan evaporated as soon as I saw a solid like of pike coming at me.

By rushing forward to the last piece of flat ground before the rocky region, I was able to ensure that at least some of their pike were Disrupted whereas my line was all in open terrain. If it hadn't have been for this, my Hoplites would have lost the battle, I believe. Even as it was, they punched through my line in three places, and only some theurophoi in the reserve were able to keep those pike from turning and charging me in the rear. VERY close battle, and I think the only thing that saved me was that rocky ground and the slight advantage in armor that my right wing of Veteran Hoplites (against the Veteran Phalanx, dammit!) had.

So far, pikemen are definitely my favorite army core. They play perfectly into how I like to fight with infantry. And the Hoplites are OK, but they're just kind of..lame Pikemen.

This pretty much sounds as if taken from an historical account and feel realistic to me.

Scutarii wrote:Maybe pike units need a POA based in how well are covered their flanks by other pike units (as i suggest +25 per flank covered with pike units, -25 when is not covered by any type of heavy foot) that made pike units need fight in formation moving like one big unit, in compensation to cant suffer frontal attacks and lose, in attack they can push back enemy heavy foot or other unit type EXCEPT when terrain favour defender, with no heavy casualties for enemy infantry (unless they pass somekind of anarchy charge test, warbands are not suposed to be disciplinate) and cavalry simple can retreat (a little like in P&S) this made pike units strong defensive units with less value in attack... you need enemy enter in combat with you.

I do more test and the point is that pikes when are assaulted or assault warbands suffer more casualties and is possible they disrupt in attack if they fail, when arrive melee combat the core of results are draws for both sides with rare extreme results, more common here pike dealing a lot of damage with high chance to disrupt and push back enemy (if you have non raw pikes no pursuit) but is not imposible that warbands manage to deal big damage to.

For me is not very intuitive that pike units that need be the best defensive heavy foot suffer more when are attacked or when they attack while in melee VS swordsmen or offensive spears they have better results when was specially these the type of weapons that counter better the pike advantage.

I really want see how are the pike units in medieval armies... with more armor... maybe smaller units??? but i doubt.

In general now warbands are now the best heavy foot to place in battle, pikes can counter them but warbands at same time can place more warbands units... specially medium warbands that can roll over greek medium foot very easy apart they are bigger, have impact POAs and are swordsmen.

Warband units have a few other traits that make them problematic such as that they pursue the enemy when they run, this often put them into bad spots and will increase the time before they can be used for anything more useful again. You can also use this behavior against them. They are more unwieldy than most units, such as Hoplites. These things do matter and the game is not just about raw combat power. I also fail to see why pike units should be a defensive unit, I don't think pike units were considered defensive units historically by any means.

You also say that Pike only win melee against Warband occasionally... well this is just not simply true. After the initial impact Pike unit have 40-50% chance to WIN combat so it is not a small chance. The thing is that Pike wants to be the one that initiate combat since that give a very high chance for the pike formation to win.

JorgenCAB wrote: The thing is that Pike wants to be the one that initiate combat since that give a very high chance for the pike formation to win.

Which units is this true against? Honestly this has not been my experience; while they do seem to do better when they attack, that is only because they are often pretty roughly handled on defense. In my last game (Magnesia) two steady phalaxes were fragmented upon impact (IIRC defending), although that was admittedly worse than usual.

When attacking it is almost always a draw at best, and they disrupt on a fairly regular basis. All of this is vs Romans.

76mm wrote:

JorgenCAB wrote: The thing is that Pike wants to be the one that initiate combat since that give a very high chance for the pike formation to win.

Which units is this true against? Honestly this has not been my experience; while they do seem to do better when they attack, that is only because they are often pretty roughly handled on defense. In my last game (Magnesia) two steady phalaxes were fragmented upon impact (IIRC defending), although that was admittedly worse than usual.

When attacking it is almost always a draw at best, and they disrupt on a fairly regular basis. All of this is vs Romans.

It should not make any difference whether they attack or defend unless one of the units is in bad terrain, or they charge lancers.

I refer that pike units are or need be the strongest heavy foot unit VS attackers on their front (they need have flanks covered), in attack-impact need be effective with ability to force enemy retreat if have a very good attack but in melee they need be less capable to deal high damage to other heavy foot and here units with offensive spear and or sworkdmen ability can mantein or even inflict more casualties to pike units (pike units are less short time kill units compared with other foot units but are more capable to mantein the line if they are not flanked).

Thorakitai that is armored and average VS medium warband that is protected and average lose badly when is assaulted, in melee is more capable but not a lot, mantein combat but if you add the big chance to be disrupted with impact, hey have less troops that made medium infantry VS medium warbands suffer more for casualties in general you need 2 VS 1 in med to deal with medium warbands and if you see cost of units...

Pikes are more or less same in attack-defense VS warbands but a superior warband+commander can hit a full pike average unit and disrupt it pushing it back.

I dont say made warbands armies like in old FOG but as they are now they are simple to big and with a to high relation cost-effectivity compared with other heavy foot... specially compared with hoplite style units they are like steamrollers VS them, romans and pike units have better chances VS them but these are 2 armies that have to high cost units.

Scutarii wrote:I refer that pike units are or need be the strongest heavy foot unit VS attackers on their front (they need have flanks covered), in attack-impact need be effective with ability to force enemy retreat if have a very good attack but in melee they need be less capable to deal high damage to other heavy foot and here units with offensive spear and or sworkdmen ability can mantein or even inflict more casualties to pike units (pike units are less short time kill units compared with other foot units but are more capable to mantein the line if they are not flanked).

Thorakitai that is armored and average VS medium warband that is protected and average lose badly when is assaulted, in melee is more capable but not a lot, mantein combat but if you add the big chance to be disrupted with impact, hey have less troops that made medium infantry VS medium warbands suffer more for casualties in general you need 2 VS 1 in med to deal with medium warbands and if you see cost of units...

Pikes are more or less same in attack-defense VS warbands but a superior warband+commander can hit a full pike average unit and disrupt it pushing it back.

I dont say made warbands armies like in old FOG but as they are now they are simple to big and with a to high relation cost-effectivity compared with other heavy foot... specially compared with hoplite style units they are like steamrollers VS them, romans and pike units have better chances VS them but these are 2 armies that have to high cost units.

I don't see any case where Pike units should not be more powerful in Melee than ANY other unit as long as they are steady and have a deep formation. I for one think that Pike formation melee combat prowess is lost too fast. The 100POA from the forth rank is starting to erode from turn one.


Why wouldn't a Superior warband with a general have a good chance to disrupt an average pike formation, this is how the game mechanics work?

You might argue that generals have too much impact on unit combat but that is a completely different discussion I would happily engage in and probably agree with. But this is a highly subjective matter and I for one just need to respect the designer vision here, hard to come up with much fact on the impact of morale from an attached commander in a unit.

Warbands don't steamroll hoplites either, that is a complete exaggeration with no real merit, as long as they hold the initial charge they will do fairly well and give enough time for you to do your thing. Any warbands that push through your lines should be engaged in their flank by your reserves.

Warbands VS average hoplites can impact over them forcing a retreat of a fragmented or disrupted hoplite unit... only superior hoplites can survive this usually... and even if impact fails in melee the warbands have numbers+weapons to crack hoplites in 2-3 turns at best.

Pike units need be the WORST heavy foot to attack in frontal charges IF they are not disrupted or they are over non open terrain, other history is after impact how pike units perform VS heavy foot units armed with offensive spears or sword ability... in general pike units in melee need deal less damage than other heavy foot units but at same time receive less damage unless the other unit have better melee weapons.

I want know how training and have a general help units pass a pike perfect formation in open terrain... is like in a nap title have a heavy cavalry unit of high quality with a commander that can rush an infantry square... for certain formations the quality of attacker is irrelevant... you need defender not be in perfect status to be defeated, not when is in the best terrain, in perfect formation and with an enemy that impale over them... if the warband attack pikes frontally maybe attacker needs suffer heavy casualties in impact but with option to disrupt defender... not receive 15 casualties, nothing more, and pike unit be forced to retreat, disrupted after lose 50-60 soldiers.

Scutarii wrote:Warbands VS average hoplites can impact over them forcing a retreat of a fragmented or disrupted hoplite unit... only superior hoplites can survive this usually... and even if impact fails in melee the warbands have numbers+weapons to crack hoplites in 2-3 turns at best.

Pike units need be the WORST heavy foot to attack in frontal charges IF they are not disrupted or they are over non open terrain, other history is after impact how pike units perform VS heavy foot units armed with offensive spears or sword ability... in general pike units in melee need deal less damage than other heavy foot units but at same time receive less damage unless the other unit have better melee weapons.

I want know how training and have a general help units pass a pike perfect formation in open terrain... is like in a nap title have a heavy cavalry unit of high quality with a commander that can rush an infantry square... for certain formations the quality of attacker is irrelevant... you need defender not be in perfect status to be defeated, not when is in the best terrain, in perfect formation and with an enemy that impale over them... if the warband attack pikes frontally maybe attacker needs suffer heavy casualties in impact but with option to disrupt defender... not receive 15 casualties, nothing more, and pike unit be forced to retreat, disrupted after lose 50-60 soldiers.

But Pike formation IS the toughest unit to attack in the front in the game!?!

Pike units should be THE BEST unit in melee as long as it is steady and on open ground, which it is.

Warbands do NOT walk all over a Hoplite units. There is about roughly 40% chance to disrupt (or worse) the unit on a charge from an average Warband. After this the Hoplite have a better Melee ability, at least until depleted by losses. I will run some clean test on them as well an see how well they ACTUALLY do and not use gut feelings as you clearly are doing. It is important for the Hoplite to initiate combat for the same reason the Pikes need to, that is reducing the chances for impact attacks.

**EDIT**

After testing it seems more appropriate for Hoplite units to not charge and have the Warband charge them. You need a good reserve to deal with them or some form of other chock troops to blunt their charge on your lines. You can hold them off with a good reserve and exploiting their propensity for running after anyone who rout or just for the fact they follow up when the hoplites withdraws.

I might agree that Warband seem a bit too strong against a typical Hoplite phalanx type unit. Perhaps not point wise, but overall I think a Hoplite should perhaps be able to stand up against a warband a bit more than 40% of the time and even after that there are still a good chance they are the one to break first. Removing the -1 cohesion modifier might be something to look at from Impact Foot but I really don't know.

JorgenCAB wrote:It is important for the Hoplite to initiate combat for the same reason the Pikes need to, that is reducing the chances for impact attacks...After testing it seems more appropriate for Hoplite units to not charge and have the Warband charge them.

hmmm, could we clarify this somehow? Richard says above that it shouldn't make a difference who charges whom...

JorgenCAB wrote: You need a good reserve to deal with them or some form of other chock troops to blunt their charge on your lines. You can hold them off with a good reserve and exploiting their propensity for running after anyone who rout or just for the fact they follow up when the hoplites withdraws.

While I understand your appreciation for reserves, I'm not sure that needing to rely on them as the antidote to warbands should necessarily be anything but a stopgap solution, for two reasons:
1) keeping back a "good reserve" can create problems in other places along the line, especially if you are outnumbered; and
2) while I'm no expert on ancient warfare, I didn't think that reserves were a common feature of hoplite/phalanx warfare?

While I try to keep some kind of reserve, they tend to get sucked into the fight pretty quickly, so sooner or later I end up with no reserves again...

76mm wrote: 2) while I'm no expert on ancient warfare, I didn't think that reserves were a common feature of hoplite/phalanx warfare?
While I try to keep some kind of reserve, they tend to get sucked into the fight pretty quickly, so sooner or later I end up with no reserves again...

I believe that the Hellenes often had cavalry reserves, but not phalanx. It is obviously nearly impossible to move past a disordered phalanx to take his place in the line, it would be like a Black Friday at Best Buy - with spikes.

Romans used reserves a lot, infantry, skirmishers and cavalry; but Roman formations are much more open and flexible than the phalanx or hoplite. Roman warfare was much more reliant on good tactics, whereas the Hellenic armies put a lot of stock into the sheer hedgehog mass of their troops (not that tactics weren't used, for example getting flanked sucks).

76mm wrote:

JorgenCAB wrote:It is important for the Hoplite to initiate combat for the same reason the Pikes need to, that is reducing the chances for impact attacks...After testing it seems more appropriate for Hoplite units to not charge and have the Warband charge them.

hmmm, could we clarify this somehow? Richard says above that it shouldn't make a difference who charges whom...

JorgenCAB wrote: You need a good reserve to deal with them or some form of other chock troops to blunt their charge on your lines. You can hold them off with a good reserve and exploiting their propensity for running after anyone who rout or just for the fact they follow up when the hoplites withdraws.

While I understand your appreciation for reserves, I'm not sure that needing to rely on them as the antidote to warbands should necessarily be anything but a stopgap solution, for two reasons:
1) keeping back a "good reserve" can create problems in other places along the line, especially if you are outnumbered; and
2) while I'm no expert on ancient warfare, I didn't think that reserves were a common feature of hoplite/phalanx warfare?

While I try to keep some kind of reserve, they tend to get sucked into the fight pretty quickly, so sooner or later I end up with no reserves again...

If you talk about the Impact phase then no it does not matter who initiate the charge. That is not what I'm getting at. Who charges will have implication on what happens if either side win a combat round, that is what matter due to who initiated the combat. Different units behave differently.

Keeping troops in reserve have been a thing since war was invented for just these reasons, you NEVER want to put all your eggs in one basket. That is basically allowing fate to decide the outcome. I give you that out birds eye view of the battle make reserves slightly less important but it still is important. In my last battle against the AI I played the Seleucid against the Gauls (I know not a vert historical battle, but I was testing the Warband versus pike stuff debate) a large battle at hardest difficulty. This meant I was seriously outnumbered but I did have superiority of cavalry in one flank of which four cataphract units.

I basically rushed a small stream where I had some rough on my far right and cavalry was rushed to the far left. This way I was facing their right cavalry (five units) with most of the pikes and their entire army with my left most phalanxes plus two elephants just slanted behind my left flank. My left most phalanx was a veteran with a general attached and I basically put that one into a square. I had three medium spear units as reserve behind my line and they were instrumental to my success. They could move around and defend against cavalry who eventually ended up killing itself against my pikes since one spear was in the rough and the cavalry did not want to go there. I managed to pull of a phalanx from the right and move it up to support the left where the enemy had like close to 20 warband units against two elephants and my veteran pike phalanx. I charge the pikes in but it was repulsed (in disorder) by a superior warband. Since my elephants was staggered diagonally this exposed a flank on the warband one which my spermen could just turn and then attack, this attack killed an enemy general, caused a rout on the warband in question in the same turn and sent half the enemy front into disrupted status. Soon after a few more warbands was routed and that is when my cataphracts arrived and slammed into their flanks. Note here that the enemy had so many units I could not actually flank any units directly. I now used my right most spear units and moved into a flanking position on my left flank as the cataphract engaged the enemy unit turned and left flanks open. If it had not been for my reserves I would have been flanked by the cavalry and had a deep whole in my defensive line and a superior warband in my back with no one to engage it. I managed to hold of about 20 warband units with about 6 pike formations, 2 elephants and the medium spearmen. If Ihad placed the spearman in the line whey would not have done much good.
I did not manage to completely destroy their cavalry but my feint with the cataphract and the rest of the cavalry, skirmishers and light horse kept they left wing occupied long enough and gave my cataphracts enough space to come in and do the final blow. It was a 8% versus 41% victory.

I have run battles using a Macedonian army against the Gauls. Repeatedly the Gaul's Warbands hit a fresh formed Macedonian Phalanx (from the front on open ground), caused heavy casualties and drove the Phalanx back. The Macedonian phalanx was all but invulnerable when attacked from the front on open ground. Their fatal weakness was losing their formation on broken ground and attacks from flank or rear. Overall I like this game, but, the Phalanx unit is not represented in this game in an accurate way. The Phalanx could be and were defeated, but not by confronting them from the front (at least not on open ground). The Macedonian type Phalanx was very formidable, but also brittle. Field of Glory II appears to treat the Macedonian Phalanx like just another heavy infantry unit. That was just not the case. I hope this can be addressed. As I stated, I do like this game, except for this problem with the Phalanx.

You can wait and play the Phalanx in Immortal Fire. During this era, they are the king of the battlefield even without tweaking the rule. Since they have less impact foot opponents. I believe this just shows that they are obsolete by the time of Rise of Rome and armies have formed a viable counter tactic against the unit, not just terrain.

I see Impact Foot as a tactic that can actually defeat the Phalanx. They don’t just charge head-on. They throw javelin at the Phalanx beyond the range of the pikes. This may put the Phalanx in disarray before actual impact. Same as during Renaissance where pistols are used against the pike blocks before melee. The pikemen in close formation are sitting ducks.

You are taking about just the impact phase right? Warbands don’t have the cohesion bonus anymore. When the Phalanx holds well during impact phase, the warbands will eventually lose cohesion faster in the succeeding melee rounds.

Well, there were some differences between the early Phalanx of Alexander and the later ones facing the Romans. I have read that the Phalanx under Alexander was not as vulnerable to being flanked. It was said that they could change facing without trouble, whereas the Phalanx units facing the Romans were not quite so nimble (You flanked them, they were done). Also, the later Phalanx units were more heavily armored that those of Alexander, but, less maneuverable. The Romans defeated the Phalanx by either drawing them into broken ground (making the Phalanx lose it's very strict formation), like at Pydna, or by flanking them. The Roman formations were just more nimble/maneuverable. That was what made the Phalanx obsolete. In a number of battles Phalanx armies did defeat the Romans, but, the writing was on the wall. I am just saying that on open ground, from the front, sword wielding opponents just could not beat back a Phalanx giving it heavy casualties. As for arrows and javelins (gunpowder projectiles are another matter), the formation of the Phalanx mitigated such damage. The rear ranks of the phalanx would have their sarissas over the front ranks, thus protecting the forward ranks to some degree. Anyway, if the programing of the game makes it impossible to fix this, well, it can't be helped. I still like the play of the game in general, and It is not clunky like it's predecessor. But for me this is a big drawback.

JaM2013 wrote:One thing i noticed with pikemen is the fact they are quite resistant to flank or rear charges.. I think they need to be quite penalized for any such charge a lot more than ordinary units as their main weapons were only presented to the front, while pikemen themselves were only carrying daggers or shortswords, which was their doom in battles against Romans when Legionaries finally managed to outflank the pikemen. Pike syntagma was nowhere as flexible as maniple or cohort. it couldnt adjust on threat to the sides, which was main reason why these units were deployed in single line, with specialized troops (hipaspists or thorakitai) to protect their vulnerable flanks. On its own, pike phalanx was completely defenseless.

If this is not the issue in the game, some Greek units practically lose their main tactical purpose.. why i'm mentioning this? Because in youtube battles some player are using phalanx unit as part of quincunx formation which is something that would just never work... pike phalanx was not renaissance pike square..

Pike phalanx has its advantages over pike square - where pike square had only 2-3 lines of pikemen presenting their pikes, pike phalanx had 5 ranks, which made it extremely hard to defeat frontally.. but sides or rear, that was exactly the opposite, and pike phalanx couldnt defend themselves with 5m long pike in their hands.. once enemy is close, all they could do, is to throw the pike away and fight with their shortswords..

I just came across this an I am absolutely no expert on this subject but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Pelium#Opening seems to indicate that Pikes were not as rigid as you would make them out to be. I have no idea where the source for this comes from, who the original source documents were but it all seems quite incredible.

In his book "Invincible Beast", Chris Matthew argues that the phalanx was actually a rather flexible tactical unit:
https://www.amazon.com/Invincible-Beast ... lanx+beast

No way of really knowing of course, but the book is a good (if fairly dense) read in any event.

76mm wrote:In his book "Invincible Beast", Chris Matthew argues that the phalanx was actually a rather flexible tactical unit:
https://www.amazon.com/Invincible-Beast ... lanx+beast

No way of really knowing of course, but the book is a good (if fairly dense) read in any event.

Well, as I stated, that was true under Alexander, but, under the Successors (and lets not forget Pyrrhus), much less so. The Phalanx armies the Romans faced were much more brittle. You flanked them and they were in deep trouble. But, late, or early, the Macedonian phalanx was unassailable (on flat open ground) from the front by sword wielding units. Put the Phalanx up against another Phalanx, it turned into a sort of shoving match. I think the game needs to reflect all of this, which it does not at this time.

HudsonGame wrote:

76mm wrote:In his book "Invincible Beast", Chris Matthew argues that the phalanx was actually a rather flexible tactical unit:
https://www.amazon.com/Invincible-Beast ... lanx+beast

No way of really knowing of course, but the book is a good (if fairly dense) read in any event.

Well, as I stated, that was true under Alexander, but, under the Successors (and lets not forget Pyrrhus), much less so. The Phalanx armies the Romans faced were much more brittle. You flanked them and they were in deep trouble. But, late, or early, the Macedonian phalanx was unassailable (on flat open ground) from the front by sword wielding units. Put the Phalanx up against another Phalanx, it turned into a sort of shoving match. I think the game needs to reflect all of this, which it does not at this time.

We have only the Roman point of view of those battles. The phalanx was to be used in conjunction with cavalry, anvil and hammer, the Roman armies of the period always sought to get cavalry from allies, Aetolains at Kynoskephale, Pergamenes at Magnesia...

Aryaman wrote:

HudsonGame wrote:

76mm wrote:In his book "Invincible Beast", Chris Matthew argues that the phalanx was actually a rather flexible tactical unit:
https://www.amazon.com/Invincible-Beast ... lanx+beast

No way of really knowing of course, but the book is a good (if fairly dense) read in any event.

Well, as I stated, that was true under Alexander, but, under the Successors (and lets not forget Pyrrhus), much less so. The Phalanx armies the Romans faced were much more brittle. You flanked them and they were in deep trouble. But, late, or early, the Macedonian phalanx was unassailable (on flat open ground) from the front by sword wielding units. Put the Phalanx up against another Phalanx, it turned into a sort of shoving match. I think the game needs to reflect all of this, which it does not at this time.

We have only the Roman point of view of those battles. The phalanx was to be used in conjunction with cavalry, anvil and hammer, the Roman armies of the period always sought to get cavalry from allies, Aetolains at Kynoskephale, Pergamenes at Magnesia...

Well, your point is largely true, but, my point is that the reason the Phalanx could be used as an anvil, was because it was unassailable from the front (on open terrain) by the typical sword wielding unit. The Phalanx could hold this type of infantry in place while the cavalry did their flanking thing. As I have stated before, the game does not reflect this. The Phalanx in this game is treated just like any other homogeneous infantry unit. It would be nice if this error could be addressed.