Pikes vs Spears

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:15 pm

Just following on from my concerns about the double drop.....

A 6 BG of offensive spearmen in 2 ranks vs a 6 BF of pikes in 2 ranks will be on a + against the pikes -. 2 rank pikes against Light Spear would have a similar disadvantage.

Given the longer reach of the pikes why is that?

As it stands pikes have to add a 3rd rank to achieve parity with the spearmen/light spears - giving a greater cost per element frontage - and therefore a disadvantage. Surely 3 ranks of pike should be at an advantage against 2 ranks of spears?

Wouldn't it make more sense to give the pikes a POA for 2 ranks, with a further POA for a third rank? Although I guess wargamers are used to seeing pike 4 deep.

As it stands to add a 4th rank of pike is very expensive - it doesn't even help in the 1 HP3B calculation.

Or maybe drop the 1 AP cost of the pike?

Pete

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:24 pm

Points cost aside as that is a game balancing issue the rules need to incentivise pikemen to deploy in deep formations because that is what they did historically - and formations deeper than spearmen used to boot.

donm · Post by **donm** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:33 pm

A 6 BG of offensive spearmen in 2 ranks vs a 6 BF of pikes in 2 ranks will be on a + against the pikes -. 2 rank pikes against Light Spear would have a similar disadvantage.

Peter,

I am not sure why you would fight pikemen in only two ranks. I have been playing for more years than I want to remember and can't think of a set of rules were this would occur. If you use pikemen in deeper formations you should solve your problem.

Don M

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 9:57 am

I am not sure why you would fight pikemen in only two ranks.

I wouldn't normally - but that's essentially my point. Why aren't pike in 2 ranks as good as spears in 2 ranks?

I used to use them in 2 ranks in 7th as a cavalry hedge - but I guess that's that's irrelevant.

Nick's point about game balance is what I was driving at.

Pete

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:15 pm

OK lets look at the Makedonian phalanx which is the basic model for the ancient pikeblock.

These were raised by Phillip to be his hoplite force as Makedonia had no hoplite class worth talking about and so couldn't field the necessary hoplite formations needed. The phalanx was designed to meet the citizen hoplites, however, as Makedon had superiority in other arms such as cavalry the phalanx was not, IMO, designed to be the battle winning force - it only had to match the hoplites. The evidence we have is that the phalanx of Phillip was at least 10 ranks deep and was later deepened to 16 ranks both of which are deeper than the hoplite formations which, IIRC, tended to be more like 8 men deep. Therefore, we can conclude that the pike phalanx needed to be deeper than the spearmen to equal them.

Unfortunately there are few accounts of fighting between the pike phalanx and the traditional hoplite one, however, what there are such as Charoneia show a hard and relatively even fight.

Hence, IMO, pikemen need to be deeper to have equality with spearmen.

donm · Post by **donm** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:08 pm

I used to use them in 2 ranks in 7th as a cavalry hedge - but I guess that's that's irrelevant.

I never played 7th. However two ranks of pikemen will be OK against cavalry in the impact phase. You may suffer in the melee phase depending on the armour of your opponent. So no change from 7th.

Don M