Why aren't Heavy Weapon troops considered Shock?

[Schastny]

It gives Impact Foot the advantage: if impact foot is weaker in melee against Heavy Weapon troops, it will disengage and be able to charge again with its superior POA on the Impact phase. If it is stronger in Melee it just wins.

[SnuggleBunnies]

It gives Impact Foot the advantage: if impact foot is weaker in melee against Heavy Weapon troops, it will disengage and be able to charge again with its superior POA on the Impact phase. If it is stronger in Melee it just wins.

Why should they be considered shock troops? Impact Foot are troops who were known to engage in particularly fierce charges, often preceded by a shower of javelins. Yes, all other things being equal Impact Foot will generally defeat HW troops. But all other things are rarely equal - MF HW troops can do just fine against HF Impact Foot in terrain. More importantly, HW troops are good at things that Impact Foot are not - namely fighting more heavily armored troops in melee, and fighting against Steady Spearmen, who halve enemy infantry Swordsmen POAs. Armored+ HW infantry also get an additional 10POA. Furthermore, HW not pushing back is a disadvantage against Impact Foot, but can be an advantage in other situations - your opponent can set traps for your shock foot to cause automatic cohesion drops on them, but not on HW units.

Overall, in the Classical era they tend to act as somewhat situational specialist troops for terrain work, while in the Early Medieval they often are Superior Armored HF, very solid units that in any case almost never encounter Impact Foot.

[Schastny]

It gives Impact Foot the advantage: if impact foot is weaker in melee against Heavy Weapon troops, it will disengage and be able to charge again with its superior POA on the Impact phase. If it is stronger in Melee it just wins.

Why should they be considered shock troops? Impact Foot are troops who were known to engage in particularly fierce charges, often preceded by a shower of javelins. Yes, all other things being equal Impact Foot will generally defeat HW troops. But all other things are rarely equal - MF HW troops can do just fine against HF Impact Foot in terrain. More importantly, HW troops are good at things that Impact Foot are not - namely fighting more heavily armored troops in melee, and fighting against Steady Spearmen, who halve enemy infantry Swordsmen POAs. Armored+ HW infantry also get an additional 10POA. Furthermore, HW not pushing back is a disadvantage against Impact Foot, but can be an advantage in other situations - your opponent can set traps for your shock foot to cause automatic cohesion drops on them, but not on HW units.

Overall, in the Classical era they tend to act as somewhat situational specialist troops for terrain work, while in the Early Medieval they often are Superior Armored HF, very solid units that in any case almost never encounter Impact Foot.

The problem I see with HW troops not being Shock is that it allows Impact foot to use Cavalry-like tactics against them, i.e., charges and retreats until a charge disrupts the HW troops. It makes sense for cavalry to be able to employ this tactic because of its advantage in speed and maneuverability, but it doesn't make sense for heavily armored Gallic troops to be more maneuverable than unarmored, bare-chested Thracians. I also don't quite understand the logic behind classifying spearmen and even pikemen as Shock troops, while HW troops are not. I would expect the bare-chested warriors with giant sickles to pursue the enemy if they managed to push them back with their onslaught.

[SnuggleBunnies]

The problem I see with HW troops not being Shock is that it allows Impact foot to use Cavalry-like tactics against them, i.e., charges and retreats until a charge disrupts the HW troops.

This isn't really the case though. Cavalry will automatically fall back from foot if they don't fancy the odds. Impact Foot will only fall back after *losing* a combat, which means a Cohesion Test, something that many Impact Foot (MF, Warriors, to an extant Close Order Warbands) are not that great at.

It makes sense for cavalry to be able to employ this tactic because of its advantage in speed and maneuverability, but it doesn't make sense for heavily armored Gallic troops to be more maneuverable than unarmored, bare-chested Thracians.

Thracians and Warbands are both Protected, and only the Thracians are Maneuverable. You may be thinking about the Falxmen, who are Unprotected and Unmaneuverable. Protected is roughly, on average, men with large shields and head protection, or semi decent body armor with no or small shields. Warbands are Protected because, while the wealthier men may be wearing mail, many would lack any armor at all. The average of that being Protected.

Thracians are cheaper than Loose Order Warbands, and Maneuverable, and don't pursue. You can use all that to threaten flanks, or quickly occupy good terrain. Forests/Deep Stream can be good because they deaden the effect of Impact. Don't use HW Medium Foot to fight HF Impact Foot or Close Order Warbands in Open terrain. Falxmen aren't Maneuverable, but they are very cheap for being a Superior unit.

I also don't quite understand the logic behind classifying spearmen and even pikemen as Shock troops, while HW troops are not. I would expect the bare-chested warriors with giant sickles to pursue the enemy if they managed to push them back with their onslaught.

I don't know the dev's logic with this particular decision, but I my guess is either -
1) because the sources don't seem to imply such behavior from them (the lack of shields perhaps?) or
2) because making an exception for the Falxmen unit alone might be adding too many exceptions to a rule set that already contains a fair share of them

As a side note, Pikemen lose their Shock status once the fourth rank is lost to casualties.