Pike Testing Workshop

[Schweetness101]

posting here with changes to pikes in a rebalance mod for them. Please discuss how POA, unit size, armour, quality, etc...ought to be altered.

This should be a working link to a drop box download. Please Click Download > Direct Download from the dropdown in the top right:

OLD LINK:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/zhdavefwfc43 ... 1Sr2a?dl=0

Pike Mod v1.0:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ppt8u0jqztuq ... HWPca?dl=0

PIke Mod v1.1:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ao622krfzsvd ... V7psa?dl=0

Pike Mod v1.2 (NEWEST LINK):
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ktbsxkycrw75 ... OoMba?dl=0

Then extract the file to:

C:\Users\YourName\Documents\My Games\FieldOfGlory2\CAMPAIGNS

to be able to launch the mod in custom battles

and if you copy the Pike_Mod folder over to:

C:\Users\Name\Documents\My Games\FieldOfGlory2\MULTIPLAYER

you should be able to use it in multiplayer games

Currently I have made these changes (This list updated as I make changes) in v1.0:

1) Pikes no longer lose POA from manpower losses
2) Pikes have 125 base impact and 100 base melee POAs
3) Pike Impact POA is reduced to 75 if disordered/disrupted and 0 if severely disordered/fragmented
4) Pike Melee POA is reduced to 50 if disordered/disrupted and 0 if severely disordered/fragmented
5) Offensive/Defensive spears have Melee POA reduced to 75 vs steady pikes but otherwise unchanged
6) Swordsmen have Melee POA reduced to 75 vs steady pikes
7) Impact Foot have Impact POA reduced by 100 vs steady pikes
8 ) Impact POA for Mounted Light Spear reduced to 0 from 50 vs steady Pikes
9) Elephant Impact POA reduced to 150, and Melee POA reduced to 50 vs steady Pikes
10) Pikes are 720 men, 3 rows, average quality (except veterans), undrilled heavy foot, protected if Raw and Some Armour otherwise
11) Casualties in infantry Melee vs steady pikes mutually mitigated by 25%
12) removed ability of Pikes to form square
13) Removed -1 to CT modifier for pikes when charged by impact foot
14) Added +1 to CT for average and above quality non-pike heavy foot vs pikes
15) Changed prices to 44, 58, and 76 for Raw, Normal, and Veteran pikes respectively. These are of course extremely tentative starting points.
16) added 25% casualty mitigation to ranged damage vs steady pikes (added in v1.0)
17) pikes are now severely disordered by rough terrain (like Cataphracts) (added in v1.0)

Army Changes (added in v1.0):
added a new 4th century bc macedonian army
edited most hellenistic armies to have more pikes, marked by an * at the end of their name

additional v1.1 changes:

1) Additional -1 CT modifier to medium foot (med foot, warriors, bowmen, light foot and mob) against steady pikes in the open
2) Additional -1 CT modifier to non-steady pikes. This would be on top of the -1 that everybody gets if disrupted, but would also occur if disordered by terrain as well.
3) Additional -1 CT modifier for pikes with threatened flank
4) Removed severe disorder to pikes from rough terrain from v1.0
5) Removed the ranged attack casualty mitigation vs steady pikes from v1.0
6) Somewhat lowered max pike cap from where it had been before, should now mostly be 8 normal pikes and 3 vet pikes on medium army size for most hellenistic lists
7) Reduced Heavy Weapon melee POA vs steady pikes by 25 points (so 75 or 85 for unarmored or armored heavy weapon respectively)

Additional v1.2 changes:

1) Pikes will now follow up/pushback as they should if they win (and are considered shock troops always regardless of losses)
2) Increased back to 960 man pikes
3) Lowered armor back to protected
4) removed +50 Lancer (light and heavy) poa vs steady pikes on impact that Lancers initiate (still 100 if pikes initiate)
5) removed the extra +50 swordsmen poa that cataphracts get vs pikes in melee
6) pikes get 100 poa when charging mounted shock troops if they are not disrupted or disordered at all (as opposed to 0 before),
but otherwise 0, this brings back their delta vs lancers to same as vanilla if they initiate charge while steady against lancers,
but lower if the pikes are disrupted

*still may alter or remove 4 and 5 above and do something else to rebalance pikes and lancers

there are quite a lot of complex implications of the above changes, so I'd like to thoroughly check and make sure they are relatively bug free, and then test in a lot of scenarios and see how the numbers should be adjusted.

*considering:
-1 CT to pikes vs other pikes in melee, as per Geffalrus suggestion
-removing casualty mitigation for pikes vs pikes
-remove casualty mitigation vs medium foot?
-editing odds to pushback, fallback, or be pushed back for pikes
-greatly increase chance of fallback of non-pike heavy or medium infantry against steady pikes, seems like that was common historically?
-editing impact POAs for light spear infantry and heavy infantry vs steady pikes (so impact foot and spears have some relative advantage still vs hvy weapon and light spear against steady pikes)
-putting back in some small loss to poa for pikes from manpower losses, like if fall below 480 perhaps start a scaled per man loss to melee poa
-get rid of changes to lancer and mounted swordsmen poa vs pikes and instead do some across the board malus to mounted poa vs pikes in impact and melee

*note that I've been careful to update the logs as well so you should see the above changes in the combat log hopefully while playing a game

welcome to all suggestions

[Schweetness101]

so in a 10 vs 10, 480 man pikes, average and protected, and with above other changes, vs mercenary hoplites, the pikes win:

10% - 60%

and it took 7 turns

of 9 remaining pikes, 2 were fragmented and one disordered.
Of 4 remaining hoplites, 1 was disordered

however, this was with permitting flanks to happen as some units routed and opened up flanks, should I do it in the hotseat and just let it play out as 10 1v1s with out moving anything in to flank or double up?

[Geffalrus]

Great work man, this is excellent.

Can you edit your original post with the POA balance vs. impact foot as well? Just so we keep track of it.

I'd be interested to see if people have any thoughts on the merit of various penalties/buffs to cohesion tests for other units in combat with pikes.

For example, pikes fighting pikes could suffer a -1 cohesion penalty to represent the how prone the Macedonian phalanx was to surrendering to other Diadochi. Could also replicate how our best examples of pikes breaking in the open in head-to-head fights are from pike vs. pike contests.

Similarly, non-pike heavy infantry could maybe get a +1 to cohesion in combat with pikes to represent how pikes don't have a great record of breaking other heavy infantry directly. That way, even if the pikes have the POA to win open fights, they are less likely to break a line all by themselves.

Edit: Yes, I think hotseat would be good to cut down on the flank attacks speeding things up. Goal is to see simple head-on combat.

[Schweetness101]

Great work man, this is excellent.

Can you edit your original post with the POA balance vs. impact foot as well? Just so we keep track of it.

I actually haven't edited the impact foot Impact POA yet. There is a section that reduces it to 100 vs mounted enemies and elephants, and to 0 vs mounted shock troops that the impact foot are initiating the charge against. I could add pikes into that initial filter so that impact foot is 100 vs pikes, or I can make it 125 or 150 or whatever vs pikes.

I could/should/would also make sure deep impact foot are still getting their extra +10 on impact vs pikes?

[Geffalrus]

I actually haven't edited the impact foot Impact POA yet. There is a section that reduces it to 100 vs mounted enemies and elephants, and to 0 vs mounted shock troops that the impact foot are initiating the charge against. I could add pikes into that initial filter so that impact foot is 100 vs pikes, or I can make it 125 or 150 or whatever vs pikes.

I could/should/would also make sure deep impact foot are still getting their extra +10 on impact vs pikes?

Gotcha. Let's start with 100 vs. pikes. Most Roman foot has better morale at the moment, so I don't want to overdo it.

Let's leave the +10 for warband deep impact in for now.

[Schweetness101]

I actually haven't edited the impact foot Impact POA yet. There is a section that reduces it to 100 vs mounted enemies and elephants, and to 0 vs mounted shock troops that the impact foot are initiating the charge against. I could add pikes into that initial filter so that impact foot is 100 vs pikes, or I can make it 125 or 150 or whatever vs pikes.

I could/should/would also make sure deep impact foot are still getting their extra +10 on impact vs pikes?

Gotcha. Let's start with 100 vs. pikes. Most Roman foot has better morale at the moment, so I don't want to overdo it.

Let's leave the +10 for warband deep impact in for now.

so give impact foot +100 total impact POA vs steady Pike +125? for a net pikes +25 in open/steady?

what I'm doing currently is reducing impact foot POA on impact by 75 if they are charging steady pikes, so assuming no other POAs from quality, armour, etc...:
*and remember of course this is with pikes losing POA for being disrupted/disordered on impact.
*Edited these numbers because transcribed wrong first time

ON IMPACT Pikes vs impact foot, with varying levels of disorder for Pikes(impact foot POAs are not affected by terrain/disruption):

Impact Foot Vs Steady Pikes
+200 base impact foot -75 POA for attacking steady pikes vs +125 pikes = +0 net

Impact Foot Vs Moderately Disordered/Disrupted Pikes:
full +200 base impact foot for attacking non-steady pikes vs +75 pikes for disordered pikes = +125 net for impact foot

Impact Foot Vs Severely Disordered/Fragmented Pikes:
full +200 base impact foot for attacking non-steady pikes vs +0 impact POA for severely disordered pikes = +225 net for impact foot (reduced to max +200)

this gives impact foot a definitive advantage when charging fragmented or even disrupted pikes, but no net advantage for charging steady pikes, and then a disadvantage in the subsequent melee against steady pikes where their melee POA is reduced to 50 vs 100 for steady pikes. But, in that melee if the pikes are disrupted then the Pike POA goes down to 50 and the swordsmen POA back up to 100.



how does that look?

[Schweetness101]

so I just did a test 10v hastati vs pikes with these numbers, in the hotseat so no flanking just a straight fight

on Impact Hastati are +200 impact foot +25 Troop quality - 75 charging steady pikes, and pikes are base +125 impact, for a net +25 favoring Hastati
In the melee Hastati are +50 swords vs steady pikes, +25 troop quality and +12 armor, and pikes are +100 base melee, for a net +13 favoring Pikes

That's assuming no pikes were disrupted (which they weren't)

The first hastati broke on turn 8 (Red turn 8, where red are the pikes)
and it was over on Red turn 9 with 4 Hastati broken, 1 disrupted, and 1 pike broken, 2 pikes disrupted.

So that was all in open terrain, and starting facing one another where hastati can't realize their mobility advantage or relative advantage in rough terrain (because they wouldn't lose POA there and pikes would lose it massively), so this was basically a test of ideal conditions favoring Pikes.

thoughts on this outcome? it is nice that the melee lasted 8-9 turns I think? normally it doesn't last that long between these units? not sure.

I'm also not sure yet where the cohesion test bits of the code there, but I would like to potentially modify those modifiers as well

[Schweetness101]

did a second 10vs10 hastati vs pikes and in the initial impacts 1 Hastati and 3 pikes disrupted and 1 pike fragmented, so a very different outcome from the above.

2 Pikes broke on blue turn 2, and 1 hastati on blue turn 3, and hastati had won by turn 4 with 4 pikes and 1 hastati routed. How can I change scenario win conditions so it doesn't stop though?

[Geffalrus]

Let's talk out melee. Both legions and hoplites have large shields and are held at bay by the length of the sarissa. The dory and the gladius perform the same here, in that neither can reach. Due to their training and armor, the legions might be better at working their way past the pike points. So at 50 POA vs. 100 POA, theoretical protected impact foot are in trouble. Those would be 42 point Scutari. Superior impact foot now have 100 POA in melee, which is Vet Hastati, Marian Legions, and Samnite Elites. That's dead even. Then factor in armor and Samnites and Marians have a slight edge. Elite legions then have a solid POA advantage. But that seems a bit like pikes are too good against swords in extended melee.

Hmmmmm. Maybe 50 is a bit steep? Making it 100 would give superior impact foot a 50 POA bonus and then armor. However, how would that work when you factor in the large unit size of the 720 and/or 960 pike versions? Would 100 POA swords have enough power to counteract the larger size?

-----

My gut instinct on impact is that Hastati having +25 on impact is still a bit too high. If the aim is to balance pikes closer in price to hastati and have them safe on impact and slightly vulnerable in melee. I don't want us to mess with the cohesion penalty to impact foot winning on impact. I'd rather scale pike vs impact foot POA so that pikes are a little less likely to lose the impact. But if they do, it makes sense that they'd have cohesion problems since that indicates a big problem for the formation. Maybe adjust impact POA so that Hastati are +0, superior impact foot types are +25, and elite impact foot are +75. That's a moderate improvement over current where pikes are -25 vs. hastati at max deep pike POA. That's why to balance this more we need to buff sword melee a bit vs. pikes.

[Schweetness101]

Let's talk out melee. Both legions and hoplites have large shields and are held at bay by the length of the sarissa. The dory and the gladius perform the same here, in that neither can reach. Due to their training and armor, the legions might be better at working their way past the pike points. So at 50 POA vs. 100 POA, theoretical protected impact foot are in trouble. Those would be 42 point Scutari. Superior impact foot now have 100 POA in melee, which is Vet Hastati, Marian Legions, and Samnite Elites. That's dead even. Then factor in armor and Samnites and Marians have a slight edge. Elite legions then have a solid POA advantage. But that seems a bit like pikes are too good against swords in extended melee.

Hmmmmm. Maybe 50 is a bit steep? Making it 100 would give superior impact foot a 50 POA bonus and then armor. However, how would that work when you factor in the large unit size of the 720 and/or 960 pike versions? Would 100 POA swords have enough power to counteract the larger size?

-----

My gut instinct on impact is that Hastati having +25 on impact is still a bit too high. If the aim is to balance pikes closer in price to hastati and have them safe on impact and slightly vulnerable in melee. I don't want us to mess with the cohesion penalty to impact foot winning on impact. I'd rather scale pike vs impact foot POA so that pikes are a little less likely to lose the impact. But if they do, it makes sense that they'd have cohesion problems since that indicates a big problem for the formation. Maybe adjust impact POA so that Hastati are +0, superior impact foot types are +25, and elite impact foot are +75. That's a moderate improvement over current where pikes are -25 vs. hastati at max deep pike POA. That's why to balance this more we need to buff sword melee a bit vs. pikes.

sorry I got a bit confused here. 50 is steep for which number? the disparity between steady pike and swordsmen melee POA?

So I should have:

Impact:
1) Hastati vs steady pikes be even on Impact, rather than Hastati at +25 (because of troop quality); that is the impact foot impact POA reduction vs steady pikes should be 100 and not 75. Leading to the following calculus:
Hastati: +200 Impact Foot, +25 Troop Quality, -100 Charging Steady Pikes = +125
Pikes: +125 Base Steady Pike Impact POA = +125
Net POA: +0
For average quality scutarii the pikes would be favored on impact +25, and for superior quality veteran hastati the veteran hastati would be favored on impact +25

Melee:
2) Hastati (above average, some armor) Swordsmen having slight advantage in Melee vs Pikes
Hastati: +75 Swordsmen vs steady pikes, +25 troop quality and +12 armor = +112
Pikes: +100 Base Steady Pike Melee = +100
Net POA: +12 favoring Hastati

2b) If it were average quality, protected impact foot/swordsmen like Scutarii that would mean:
Scutarii: +75 Swordsmen vs steady pikes (no quality or armor advantage) = +75
Net: +25 favoring Pikes

2c) If it were superior quality, armoured Veteran Hastati then we'd have
Hastati: +75 Swordsmen vs steady pikes, +50 troop quality and +25 armor = +150
Net POA: +50 favoring Veteran Hastati

and that's all vs steady pikes in open terrain, not forgetting that pikes lose POA now in all non-steady circumstances, making them heavily disadvantaged vs impact foot swordsmen on impact or in melee. That is, we can't just balance best case scenario for pikes POA vs hastati, but take into account that Pikes will be harder to manuever and much more badly harmed by terrain, cohesion loss and flanks etc...so if Pikes can do better than you might otherwise expect against more veteran and better armored legions when steady in the open that might still be balanced on the whole.

[Geffalrus]

sorry I got a bit confused here. 50 is steep for which number? the disparity between steady pike and swordsmen melee POA?

So I should have:

Impact:
1) Hastati vs steady pikes be even on Impact, rather than Hastati at +25 (because of troop quality); that is the impact foot impact POA reduction vs steady pikes should be 100 and not 75. Leading to the following calculus:
Hastati: +200 Impact Foot, +25 Troop Quality, -100 Charging Steady Pikes = +125
Pikes: +125 Base Steady Pike Impact POA = +125
Net POA: +0
For average quality scutarii the pikes would be favored on impact +25, and for superior quality veteran hastati the veteran hastati would be favored on impact +25

Melee:
2) Hastati (above average, some armor) Swordsmen having slight advantage in Melee vs Pikes
Hastati: +75 Swordsmen vs steady pikes, +25 troop quality and +12 armor = +112
Pikes: +100 Base Steady Pike Melee = +100
Net POA: +12 favoring Hastati

2b) If it were average quality, protected impact foot/swordsmen like Scutarii that would mean:
Scutarii: +75 Swordsmen vs steady pikes (no quality or armor advantage) = +75
Net: +25 favoring Pikes

2c) If it were superior quality, armoured Veteran Hastati then we'd have
Hastati: +75 Swordsmen vs steady pikes, +50 troop quality and +25 armor = +150
Net POA: +50 favoring Veteran Hastati

and that's all vs steady pikes in open terrain, not forgetting that pikes lose POA now in all non-steady circumstances, making them heavily disadvantaged vs impact foot swordsmen on impact or in melee. That is, we can't just balance best case scenario for pikes POA vs hastati, but take into account that Pikes will be harder to manuever and much more badly harmed by terrain, cohesion loss and flanks etc...so if Pikes can do better than you might otherwise expect against more veteran and better armored legions when steady in the open that might still be balanced on the whole.

I see what you're saying. Those are some good points. I still think it's more important to buff pikes a little bit on impact since that's the main danger of impact foot due to the cohesion penalty that is appropriate. Failing melee cohesion tests doesn't have the same penalty. Granted, a melee vulnerability in the long run has more chances to happen since melee fights are more frequent than impacts.

When does the size advantage of the 720/960 pikes kick in vs. the impact foot? My concern with buffing swords melee vs pikes was that pikes - already - were getting an advantage due to the size bonus in melee. One of those things where I have a rough understanding of the mechanics, but not quite a scientific one.

[Schweetness101]

I see what you're saying. Those are some good points. I still think it's more important to buff pikes a little bit on impact since that's the main danger of impact foot due to the cohesion penalty that is appropriate. Failing melee cohesion tests doesn't have the same penalty. Granted, a melee vulnerability in the long run has more chances to happen since melee fights are more frequent than impacts.

When does the size advantage of the 720/960 pikes kick in vs. the impact foot? My concern with buffing swords melee vs pikes was that pikes - already - were getting an advantage due to the size bonus in melee. One of those things where I have a rough understanding of the mechanics, but not quite a scientific one.

by buff a little on impact do you mean to a point where they are equal to normal hastati on impact when steady in the open?

currently I've been testing the above at 480 for the pikes. Perhaps I should try at 720 now?

One thing we need to get straight though is what is the desired outcome in a qualitative sense, before we move on to trying to approximate that quantitatively.

That is, I don't actually know who should be winning in the following circumstances (lets compare hastati to pikes):

On Impact
Both Steady
Every inter-combination of disruption/disorder for both units

In Melee
Both Steady
Every inter-combination of disruption/disorder for both units

Basically, could you fill this out for me with net POA outcomes for the winning party:

Impact
Pikes/Hastati Steady Disrupted/Moderately Disordered Fragmented/Severe Disordered
Steady
Disrupted/Moderately Disordered
Fragmented/Severe Disordered

Melee
Pikes/Hastati Steady Disrupted/Moderately Disordered Fragmented/Severe Disordered
Steady
Disrupted/Moderately Disordered
Fragmented/Severe Disordered

*not sure how to paste in a spreadsheet, here's what I meant: https://imgur.com/g8if0kG

[Schweetness101]

and one other thing to note is how this will be upsetting the balance of pikes charged by or caught in melee with cavalry. Dunno if perhaps cavalry light spear and lancer poas should be reduced if attacking pikes?

Heavy Lancer, Light Lancer, Scythed Chariot, and Heavy Chariot Impact POAs are already cancelled if charging steady pikes, but now they would be at greater advantage if charging at all disordered pikes so not sure how that balances yet, e.g. Mounted Light Spear 100 impact POA is at net +25 vs Moderately Disordered Pike 75 Impact POA, and Heavy Lancer 200 impact POA is at a whopping net +125 vs Moderately Disordered Pike 75 Impact POA. Perhaps their Impact POAs should be cancelled against steady OR Moderately Disrupted Pikes?

Heavy Chariot and Scythed Chariot melee POAs are already cancelled against steady pikes. Mounted Swordsmen Melee POA is also already cancelled against steady pikes, but is still 100 vs non steady pikes. Disrupted Pikes in melee with Mounted Swordsmen would now only have 50 POA to the Mounted Swordsmen's 100. Does that seem ok? Would mounted swordsmen be at advantage against moderately disordered pikes in extended melee? I would kind of think not, but not sure on that one. I could alter the above losses to POA for pikes when disrupted/fragmented to occur ONLY when facing enemy foot. OR, I could do it from the other end and degrade/cancel Mounted Swordsmen melee POA against both steady and disrupted, but not fragmented, pikes.

Elephants impact POA is NOT cancelled by charging pikes though, so now we've got 250 Elephant vs 125 Pike on impact, as contrasted with the old 250 vs 200, so probably that should be reduced somewhat? I dunno if elephants should be able to roll over pikes on the charge? Or should they? I'm just not aware of the historical precedent. With the changes so far Pikes 125 would still be a bit better than spears 100 if being charged by ele (but not if they are moderately disordered).

And elephant 100 melee POA is not cancelled against pikes, so steady pikes would be on even footing against steady elephants now, but at disadvantage if not steady. Dunno if that seems right either. I think maybe elephants should have melee POA halved or cancelled vs Pikes in melee?

[MVP7]

I don't think disrupted/disordered pikes being vulnerable to cavalry and elephants is an issue. Pikes really need some clear weaknesses to allow more steady performance and price reduction a the same time.

Schweetness, have you been running the tests with 480 or 960 men? The unit size probably won't change unless you happen to locate some lost scrolls from Library of Alexandria that happen to establish the pikes moving and fighting in shallow formations. Raw POA can be adjusted so that the final level matches the tested values but having the correct unit size is important when considering the impact of losses in fighting between the pikes and other units.

[Geffalrus]

Ach, yeah, I had forgotten we were still dealing with 480 size pikes.

Here's my breakdown for 480 size pikes:

- Above Average +25 POA impact and melee.
- Slightly armored for a +12 POA in melee and reduction of missile damage
<(While Steady in Open)>
- 100 POA on Impact and Melee.
- Decreases Impact Foot to 100 POA before morale is added.
- (Tentative) Cavalry reduced to 0 POA on impact before morale.
- (Tentative) Elephants reduced to 150 POA on impact.
- (Tentative) Cavalry Sword reduced to 50 POA.

Vs. Hastati
- Even on impact
- Even on melee
- Hastati have cohesion penalty to apply to infantry on impact.
- Hastati have higher impact POA vs. most infantry.
- Hastati are maneuverable.
- Pikes are better against cavalry.
- Pikes are slightly better vs. hoplites in melee.

Vs. Hoplites (average)
- Pikes +25 on impact and +37 in melee.
- Hoplites cheaper 42 vs. 56(tentative).
- Pikes more resistant to missile damage.

vs. Warband (average)
- Pikes +15 on impact and +37 in melee.
- Warband gets the advantage of 3 ranks.
- Pikes have heavy infantry cohesion bonus.
- Pikes better vs. cavalry while warbands better on impact vs. infantry.

<(When Disrupted or Fragmented)>
- PIkes lose their 100 POA on impact/melee and have to rely only on Above Average and Slightly Armored.
- Same for when disordered by rough terrain.
- Maybe only 50 POA when in a stream?

How's that? Did I miss anything? Been a bit busy today, so this has taken hours of intermittent work.

[Geffalrus]

I don't think disrupted/disordered pikes being vulnerable to cavalry and elephants is an issue. Pikes really need some clear weaknesses to allow more steady performance and price reduction a the same time.

Schweetness, have you been running the tests with 480 or 960 men? The unit size probably won't change unless you happen to locate some lost scrolls from Library of Alexandria that happen to establish the pikes moving and fighting in shallow formations. Raw POA can be adjusted so that the final level matches the tested values but having the correct unit size is important when considering the impact of losses in fighting between the pikes and other units.

Gonna sidestep the 960 vs 480 discussion because this isn't the place for it.

I've been toying with the idea of changing various cohesion bonuses so that pikes are less likely to inflict cohesion losses. Make pikes less effective at breaking units even if they have decent combat stats. That way both units stick around for a while unless someone gets extra bad luck. Thoughts?

[Schweetness101]

I don't think disrupted/disordered pikes being vulnerable to cavalry and elephants is an issue. Pikes really need some clear weaknesses to allow more steady performance and price reduction a the same time.

Schweetness, have you been running the tests with 480 or 960 men? The unit size probably won't change unless you happen to locate some lost scrolls from Library of Alexandria that happen to establish the pikes moving and fighting in shallow formations. Raw POA can be adjusted so that the final level matches the tested values but having the correct unit size is important when considering the impact of losses in fighting between the pikes and other units.

Gonna sidestep the 960 vs 480 discussion because this isn't the place for it.

I've been toying with the idea of changing various cohesion bonuses so that pikes are less likely to inflict cohesion losses. Make pikes less effective at breaking units even if they have decent combat stats. That way both units stick around for a while unless someone gets extra bad luck. Thoughts?

I think this is a good idea, I've gotten some info from rbodleyscott on where changes to cohesion modifiers take place so if you have exact ideas let me know.

[Schweetness101]

Ach, yeah, I had forgotten we were still dealing with 480 size pikes.

Here's my breakdown for 480 size pikes:

...

how would it be different for 720 or 960 pikes?

[Mairtin]

Gonna sidestep the 960 vs 480 discussion because this isn't the place for it.

Where is then? Continuing with 480 will give different results to 960.

...
But anyway, it does not alter the current 960 man unit, because even if it is true, the unit still contains the same number of men in a given frontage as they did when they were 16 ranks deep. It would just mean that the 8 rank formation would be twice as dense as an opposing Roman formation. Hence, even if this is what they did, it can be assumed to be abstracted in the game in the same way as the manoeuvres of the 4 maniples that make up a legionary unit.

Each 960 man unit represents a slightly under-strength taxis of 1024 men. The actual depth of all units in the game is completely out of scale anyway, to accommodate the models.

I am not saying that a better representation of close combat between pike phalanx and other unit types could not be achieved, but changing the size of the phalanx unit is not a historically justifiable answer.
viewtopic.php?f=477&t=97931&start=100

I'm not saying I don't agree with the need to adjust how pikes work. I don't think they should be the steam roller they currently seem to be, but should rather be good at pinning the enemy until friends can arrive to roll up the flanks, and neither side (at least against romans) should be taking many casualties if in good order.

[MVP7]

I thought unit size had direct effect on melee POA values (and in 240 vs 960 it does by giving pikes about 60% bonus POA), but it looks like it might actually not directly impact the POA values in 960 vs 480 situation.

Anyways, the unit size affects the relative size of casualties in the unit so the speed at which the unit loses strength and accumulates CT penalties changes with the unit size.