Pikes vs spears

[clivevaughan]

What is the rationale behind 3 ranks of pikes = 2 ranks of spears (eg hoplites)? Surely the former have a longer sharp pointed stick that ought to give them a combat advantage? If spears were better, why then were they superceded historically by less effective pike tactics?

[hammy]

If pike are the same as spear in 2 ranks then everyone will use them in ahistorically thin formations.

4 ranks of pike are significantly better on an even frontage than 2 ranks of spear.

[clivevaughan]

4 ranks of pikes are 1 POA better than 2 ranks of spears - hardly significantly better. 12 pikes vs 12 spear will result in at least one overlap in melee therefore pikes get 6 dice while the spear get 8 or 10.

[rbodleyscott]

4 ranks of pikes are 1 POA better than 2 ranks of spears - hardly significantly better. 12 pikes vs 12 spear will result in at least one overlap in melee therefore pikes get 6 dice while the spear get 8 or 10.

Try it and see Clive. Protected spears really have no hope at all if the pikes are in a battle line.

[hammy]

4 ranks of average protected drilled pike cost 28 points, 2 ranks of average protected drilled spear cost 18. A whole POA is a significant benefit but seen in isolation you can argue that on equal points 6 spear are about the same as 8 pike.

Look at DBM, 4 ranks of Pike are at factor 5 vs 2 ranks of spear at factor 4. If the spear have an overlap it is an even fight. 4 ranks of DBM pike cost 16, 2 ranks of DBM spear cost 10.

If you can make the combat density of your pike pay you will beat spears hands down, if you let the spears use their numbers then you could well lose.

[neilhammond]

Let me put some context around this. Clive had a block of 12 pike and I had 2 BGs of 8 hoplites. I'd routed a flanking unit protecting the pike so the pike were somewhat exposed.

Clive's choice was go 4 deep which gave 6 dice at +1 POA vs my 10 dice at -1 POA (I had overlaps on each side). The alternative was to go 3 deep which gave 8 dice at 0 POA vs my 10 dice at 0 POA (I still had an overlap). Clive chose to go 3 deep and gain more dice.

However, Clive felt that 3 ranks of pike should still have an advantage against 2 ranks of spear because of the better weapons reach of the pike. So the debate we had centred around whether 3 ranks of pike "generated" the same level of fighting power as 2 ranks of spear?

Neil

[rbodleyscott]

However, Clive felt that 3 ranks of pike should still have an advantage against 2 ranks of spear because of the better weapons reach of the pike. So the debate we had centred around whether 3 ranks of pike "generated" the same level of fighting power as 2 ranks of spear?

The pikes have longer reach but generally worse defensive equipment than hoplites. (Smaller shields for a start). Game balance requires that they should need to be in 4 ranks to have the advantage.

YMMV but we are convinced on this.

[hammy]

Let me put some context around this. Clive had a block of 12 pike and I had 2 BGs of 8 hoplites. I'd routed a flanking unit protecting the pike so the pike were somewhat exposed.

Clive's choice was go 4 deep which gave 6 dice at +1 POA vs my 10 dice at -1 POA (I had overlaps on each side). The alternative was to go 3 deep which gave 8 dice at 0 POA vs my 10 dice at 0 POA (I still had an overlap). Clive chose to go 3 deep and gain more dice.

However, Clive felt that 3 ranks of pike should still have an advantage against 2 ranks of spear because of the better weapons reach of the pike. So the debate we had centred around whether 3 ranks of pike "generated" the same level of fighting power as 2 ranks of spear?

Neil

Why? There are plenty of other systems where 3 ranks of pike have no advantage over 2 ranks of spear, DBM for a starter.

FWIW 3 files of 4 would IMO have been far better, especially if all three files could get into one spear block.

6 dice on 4 against 10 on 5 is not that different, 8 dice at 4 vs 10 at 4 is worse. Also by going deeper the pike have a better chance of beating one of the two spear BG's (if they are all fighting the same BG it will actually be a much better chance of beating it) and if they beat the spear then there are bigger chances of disrupting and causing base losses.

[caliban66]

Well, I played in Jaen last september. As Achaemenid player, I had a BG of 8 teban armoured hoplites, and in a game against Macedonians, my spears had to deal with four ranked pikes. I first got surprised because we fought in equal terms (off. spears+better armour vs 4 ranked of protected pikes).. Hoplites became a very dangerous opponent, and only the charge of allied greek hoplites of my enemy brought me problems, but they stood quite well. I think this interaction is quite realistic. After all, Alexander´s worst enemy in Asia was Memnon and his mercenary hoplites, whose skills proved to be as good as pikes. In Granicus, e.g., I read that front rank hoplites used to attack with their swords, breaking the pikes while advancing. Pikes victories over hoplites weren´t easy at all.
Protected spears are in disadvantage, though, since if they loose one base, they loose their POA, while protected 4 ranked pikes can loose a rank and still count a POA over hoplites.

[neilhammond]

However, Clive felt that 3 ranks of pike should still have an advantage against 2 ranks of spear because of the better weapons reach of the pike. So the debate we had centred around whether 3 ranks of pike "generated" the same level of fighting power as 2 ranks of spear?

The pikes have longer reach but generally worse defensive equipment than hoplites. (Smaller shields for a start). Game balance requires that they should need to be in 4 ranks to have the advantage.

I'm comfortable with this explanation.

In 2 base deep vs 2 bases deep (i.e. 8 ranks deep each) the hoplites should have an edge because of better defensive equipment - generally the hoplite phalanx historically seemed to be optimised at 8 deep. The pikes seemed to be historically optimised at 16 ranks deep, and in deep formation should have an edge over hoplites (armour & morale being equal). Therefore logic says "equivalence" is reached when the pikes are deeper than 8 but shallower than 16. So 12 ranks (i.e.e 3 bases deep) would make sense.

Clive, your views?

[hazelbark]

Protected spears are in disadvantage, though, since if they loose one base, they loose their POA, while protected 4 ranked pikes can loose a rank and still count a POA over hoplites.

I thought Spears get 1 POA for 2 ranks. Pikes get one POA for 3 ranks and a 2nd POA fo 4th rank?

This means whoever gets the first kill in, starts to shift significantly.

[dave_r]

This means whoever gets the first kill in, starts to shift significantly

That depends. Following lessons learned with spearmen I never* have them only in two ranks. If I have a BG of 8 spearmen, then I have a frontage of three which gives two spare bases for casualties without impacting the units fighting ability.

Obviously pike could go the same route but it is more difficult for them. Looking at Hammy's points analysis this means that for a three frontage the spear cost 72 and the pikes cost 84. If the pike take the first casualty then they can get themselves in a world of pain, but they are a POA up unless the spear are armoured - in which case the spear are much more expensive.

* Obviously never is a strong word, but every time I have them in 2 ranks I tend to suffer, so....

[clivevaughan]

In phalanx fighting there are two key mechanisms:
1. length of spear
2. depth of formation

FOG simulates the second for pikes with a POA advantage for 4 ranks vs spear in two ranks. BUT spear in deeper formations also ought to beat spear in swallower ranks (Leuctra). Length of spear is an advantage allowing a phalangite to operate without hot & cumbersome heavy panoply. It is a fine judgement call to have 3 ranks of lighter armoured Pike = 2 ranks of spear and I'm happy to accept it otherwise pikes would be uber-troops and we don't want that!! Without the panoply they are cheaper than hoplites.

[rbodleyscott]

In phalanx fighting there are two key mechanisms:
1. length of spear
2. depth of formation

FOG simulates the second for pikes with a POA advantage for 4 ranks vs spear in two ranks. BUT spear in deeper formations also ought to beat spear in swallower ranks (Leuctra). Length of spear is an advantage allowing a phalangite to operate without hot & cumbersome heavy panoply. It is a fine judgement call to have 3 ranks of lighter armoured Pike = 2 ranks of spear and I'm happy to accept it otherwise pikes would be uber-troops and we don't want that!! Without the panoply they are cheaper than hoplites.

What you have to bear in mind is that, despite what some people may think, FOG is not a bottom-up set of rules. The POAs (although they may appear to be bottom up) have been chosen to give the right effect as determined from the top-down approach. There is little point, therefore, in getting into detailed theoretical considerations of the effects of length of spear, size of shield etc., because what matters is the overall interaction.

So as you say, 3 ranks of pikes = 2 ranks of spear "otherwise pikes would be uber-troops", and the historical interactions would not work correctly.

[sagji]

In phalanx fighting there are two key mechanisms:
1. length of spear
2. depth of formation

FOG simulates the second for pikes with a POA advantage for 4 ranks vs spear in two ranks. BUT spear in deeper formations also ought to beat spear in swallower ranks (Leuctra).

But it does - if the 2 deep spear loose a base then they loose a dice and a POA, whereas the 3 deep spear have a spare base to reinforce with. They also have a slightly higher chance of avoiding the 1HP3B modifier if they do loose a combat.

[clivevaughan]

This true, but the fact remains that the deeper spear formation is fighting at no POA in both the impact & melee phases - not great odds. When he assembled his 50 rank-deep formation at Leuctra, Epaminondas did so as a tactic that he knew would win the battle - suggesting that 3 ranks of spear should be a POA against 2 ranks

[rbodleyscott]

This true, but the fact remains that the deeper spear formation is fighting at no POA in both the impact & melee phases - not great odds. When he assembled his 50 rank-deep formation at Leuctra, Epaminondas did so as a tactic that he knew would win the battle - suggesting that 3 ranks of spear should be a POA against 2 ranks

Leuctra is a problem that besets all Ancient wargames rules designs. A simplistic approach (giving extra deep hoplites an extra factor) does not work because by making 1 historical battle work correctly, you will make the vast majority of historical battles work incorrectly.

If you give such a definite advantage for deep formations, all wargamers will form up their hoplites extra deep all the time to get this benefit. This would not be realistic.

In fact FoG does reward the deep formation, for the reasons stated above, but also because additional BGs placed behind the front battle groups will provide rear support and thus further enhance the prospect of victory against a 2-deep enemy.

And it is not true that Epaminondas knew that his tactic would win the battle - not having a set of wargames rules to work from, there was no way he could know this until he tried it. He hoped it would win, and in the event it did. However, even in the light of the historical battle result we don't know that it was a guaranteed winner. Unfortunately, if rules make it a guaranteed winner, wargamers will do it all the time, which would not be a realistic representation of typical hoplite warfare.

[rogerg]

The extra rank to absorb casualties and the possibility of avoiding the -1 on the CT are sufficient. These are significant advantages. Enough so that the deep formation has odds in its favour, but allowing room for tactical factors such as generals and overlaps to be important. If you repesent the 'deep' formation by another BG behind, there is also a rear support CT factor.

The fact that the deep formation won historically should not guarantee that it is a certainty. One of the major problems with DBM was that even one extra factor was enough to virtually guarantee success. The historical outcome never happened on the table because the player with the one factor against his elements avoided combat.

We may come to this in FoG. However, at the moment I believe that the balance is working well. You have to play to get generals in combat, rear support, extra ranks and overlaps. This is much better (well, I enjoy it more) than looking at 'certain win', 'certain loss' situations. Rather than 'fencing' to avoid combat, our games have been more about delivering a compact organised battle line.