Slitherine

Pikes in the seventeenth century were used as defense against cavalry, not as an offensive weapon like earlier keils. But I would think that in close combat a unit with pikes would have an advantage against a unit without them. Shouldn´t the rules allow a POA in those cases, maybe only in melee phases, or am I missing something in this interaction?

Regards,
Javier.

BGs with Pikes do have a number of advantages over infantry without. Specifically:

They count as Protected so, if steady, enemy with Sword or Heavy Weapon will not get a POA against them.

Because the BG contains Heavy Foot, an all MF BG (such as musketeers without pikes) will take an additional -1 in their CT if they lose combat to them.

Thank you Kevin. I am aware that mixed BGs have advantages like the ones you said. What I am specifically asking is why don´t they have melee advantage. After all, when things come face to face it is better to have pikes than unloaded muskets

I guess it's just one of those things that gets caught up in the abstraction that Fog applies to combat. Since the proportion of pikes reduced over the period it would be perverse to have the earlier formations being more effective. It's similar with bayonets, they don't give you an advantage over people that don't have them, but they can negate other factors.

Am not sure that Pike did present an advantage to foot over foot with an unloaded musket. I have read more than one account of musketeers giving pike armed infantry a heafty thwack on the bonce with the musket butt. (The QMG might not have been happy with an expensive firelock or doglock musket being used that way but...)