Pike Re-Balance Workshop

[Geffalrus]

Purpose: While pikes are currently decent units that have certain strengths, I personally feel that they're not quiiiiiiiite in line with how they functioned historically. And so, this thread is a place where we could talk a bit about how they - could - be redesigned a bit to better balance history and gameplay. If you have some ideas, feel free to share.

Notice: This thread will now only be used for historical discussion of what pikes were like in the Hellenistic Age and if that has implications for how they're represented in game. Schweetness has now started his own thread where he's actively testing different design features to see how suggested changes play out.

The current meta some of us are aiming for is one where pikes are - safer - on impact and less overpowering in melee. Currently, pikes when facing Roman-style impact foot are somewhat vulnerable on impact, but rather safe in melee. Against most other infantry, they are supreme in both impact and melee. As a result, they are expensive power units that can win battles all by themselves, making cavalry and other units secondary forces. Historically, my point of view is that cavalry was intended as the deciding arm, while the pikes were the holding force; good at melee and hard to overcome, but also not so powerful that hoplites and cohorts broke and ran under their assault.

Potential Areas of Change

- Adjust impact vs. impact foot units so that pikes can reliably engage infantry units directly.
- Adjust impact POA so that they're less overwhelming vs. hoplites and non-impact heavy infantry.
- Adjust melee POA so that pikes are less likely to steamroll all enemy infantry.
- Remove the Deep Pike POA relationship to unit casualties; the strength of the formation was the reach of the sarissa in the first 5 ranks, not the weight of the (11) ranks behind them.
- Adjust pike cost so that more points can be put into cavalry and other units to better reflect their importance in the Macedonian army, while not making the pike line so tiny that every enemy heavy infantry line overlaps them easily.
- Adjust number of ranks in pikes as a way to reduce pike costs and reflect a theory that they did not fight in a formation that was uniformly twice the depth of opposing heavy infantry.
- Adjust cohesion modifiers to make pikes less likely to break enemy heavy infantry directly unless facing other pikes, to reflect historical battle results a bit better (most cases of pikes routing enemy infantry directly were seen in pike vs pike contests, while pikes vs. Greeks and Romans were indecisive until one side gained an advantage elsewhere).

Ultimate Goals

- Pikes cost less.
- Pikes are reliable impact and melee units, but not overpowered.
- Pike armies have more points to put into cavalry, and more incentive to use it decisively.

[Athos1660]

My proposal : Make Pike and Shot gr...

(just a little joke)

[Geffalrus]

My proposal : Make Pike and Shot gr...

(just a little joke)

I'm not gonna waste my........shot

[GeneralKostas]

They are 3 pike units in the game. Raw Pike Phalanx, Pike Phalanx and Veteran Pike Phalanx.

I think, that the Raw Pike is unnecessary. Keep the other two pike units with better stats. My proposal is :

Pike Phalanx - Troop Quality: Above Average & Armour: Some Armour
Veteran Pike Phalanx - Armour: Some Armour

pike phalanx.png (65.38 KiB) Viewed 2541 times

veteran pike phalanx.png (65.82 KiB) Viewed 2540 times

[Geffalrus]

Alright, let's start by talking a bit about the historical record. From my reading of history, we have the following pieces of "data" to work with:

1) The most direct evidence we have of a pike phalanx being defeated head-on in open terrain, and driven from the field, are pike-on-pike battles in the various Wars of the Diadochi. The Machimoi at Raphia and the Alexandrian Silver Shields at Paracatene and Gabiene.

2) In those Wars of the Diadochi, however, as many if not more battles were decided by cavalry. Sometimes with single combat general vs. general like Craterus and Eumenes. Sometimes it was the lack of cavalry like when Leosthenes used Thessalian cavalry to outdo Antipater during the Lamian War. Sometimes it was superior cavalry numbers/quality doing a double envelopment, like at Panion with Antiochus the Great. A lot of times, it came to the phalanx deciding things - because - cavalry were indecisive.......like at Issus in 301BC when Demetrius was blocked by Seleucus's 400 elephants.

3) In battles with non-Macedonians, the phalanx was a great holding force, but rarely the decisive blow. That honor went more to elephants (Pyrrhus and Antiochus Soter) or cavalry (Alexander the Great). The phalanx naturally struggled going up a slope, or across a stream, or in rough terrain.........most of which are already modeled in game with the heavy vs medium infantry dynamic. But in open terrain, the phalanx was hard to break.......but also didn't outright break most heavy infantry foes. The major battles against the Romans saw stalemates between the two formations until either rough ground was exploited, or cavalry/elephants decided the battle elsewhere. I haven't found any example of Roman cohorts breaking a phalanx with a frontal charge. And as far as Celts go.......the described battles aren't detailed enough to say one way or another.

So, in summary, my reading of the historical record is that the phalanx was hard/impossible to overcome frontally, but at the same time, was not designed or intended to be a frontal steamroller securing victory on its own. The best examples of the phalanx - deciding - the battle come from essentially mirror matches between very similar armies that did their best to neutralize the TRUE battle decider..............the cavalry.

--------

So how does this match up to the game? The issue in game is that the pike phalanx is A) super expensive and B) super powerful in melee. One of the most reliable strategies for a pike army is to get a bunch of pikes and throw them at the enemy infantry. Against hoplites and light spear infantry, you'll just absolutely clobber them. Against Impact Foot, however, things get a little dicey. Impact foot can easily generate more POA on Impact - and - they apply a penalty to cohesion checks when losing on impact. Impact Foot can Kool Aid Man through pikes some percentage of the time. And that's very dangerous for pike players because pikes are worth A LOT of points when routed. Pikes are few in number due to their expense, are worth a lot of points when routed, and are vulnerable to impact foot on the charge. A 42 point Scutari is equal to a 72 point pike on impact in terms of POA. Impact Foot that are closer to 72 points start having high morale values that give them an impact advantage and make them harder to break even when the pike starts winning the melee. And of course, once the pike takes any casualties, the impact phase becomes even more dangerous due to the Deep Pike POA decreasing with casualties.

The end result of all this is that pikes are a weirdly good hammer, able to bash most units to death in melee, but a poor pinning unit for Impact Foot, as they are vulnerable on the charge. In both cases, the cost of pikes uses up most of your points, relegating cavalry to a support role while the heavy infantry does all the work.

[pompeytheflatulent]

In order for pikes to function as they did historically, they would have to become something more akin to the heavy infantry version of Pictish spearmen with additional perks:

720 men in a unit
100 POA impact, 100 POA melee
If steady and in open ground: +50 additional impact POA, +1 CT modifier on top of heavy infantry bonus, ignore the -1 CT from impact foot and lancers.

At this point an average protected unit would cost upwards of 60+ point apiece, and will be more vulnerable to flanking since they can't kill what's in front of them fast enough.

[Geffalrus]

My Initial Suggestion

1) Pikes should be cheaper and less powerful in melee. This will make them less like a powerful hammer and more like a holding unit. Making them cheaper will free up points to be spent on cavalry and skirmishers - important elements in the Macedonian army.

2) Pikes should have one of the highest impact POA values, one that isn't dependent on the Deep Pike decreasing POA bonus. Unlike lancers, elephants, and impact foot, however, they should NOT apply an cohesion check penalty (this is how they are now). This will keep them somewhat dangerous vs. medium foot, but not all that threatening to heavy infantry. The goal of the high POA is to ensure that the pike does well in the impact phase and doesn't just get demolished by impact foot units frontally.

3) Pikes should have lower melee POA than they currently do. Currently, a unit trapped in melee with a pike is facing an eventual defeat. There is not much need for a cavalry flank attack since few units can stand up to a pike in melee.

4) Pikes should not be 4 ranks deep. While it looks aesthetically pleasing, and I get that the intent is to reflect a pike formation 16 ranks deep, I'm highly skeptical that the syntagma actually fought 16 ranks deep. Simply because most armies were relatively equal in size, and 16 ranks is easily double the depth of any other formation, resulting in an infantry line half the width of the enemy army. And there's no evidence I've seen that the ranks beyond 5 or 8 add much to the offensive power of the formation. Anyone who has handled the sarissa and pelta should recognize how the angling of your body minimizes any pushing momentum from the people behind you. And that's only if they're actually touching you. The physics are just different than what happens during hoplite phalanx othismos.

5) Pikes should get more of their POA from morale level, instead of weapon modifies. The complexity of the phalanx formation required more than your average amount of training. And after Alexander, the Diadochi phalanx was composed of miltiary settlers that spent their youth fighting in the Royal Guard. During wartime, the non- Royal Guard phalanx would be formed of the adult settlers, and thus would have a mixture of recent graduates and experienced soldiers. At the very least, that would be similar to the mixture of Hastati and Principes we see in the pre-Marian Roman list. The game result of this would be that the phalanx would be less likely to falter in head-on fights.

-------

That's all I have for now. But again, my end goal in this is to have a situation where pikes work less like expensive sledgehammers and more like improved holding units that leave more points around for cavalry and skirmishers.

(Edit: was writing mine while you were posting Pompety, lol)

[Geffalrus]

In order for pikes to function as they did historically, they would have to become something more akin to the heavy infantry version of Pictish spearmen with additional perks:

720 men in a unit
100 POA impact, 100 POA melee
If steady and in open ground: +50 additional impact POA, +1 CT modifier on top of heavy infantry bonus, ignore the -1 CT from impact foot and lancers.

At this point an average protected unit would cost upwards of 60+ point apiece, and will be more vulnerable to flanking since they can't kill what's in front of them fast enough.

Interesting. I'll need to think on that one - it might do the trick. My guess of stats was something like 200 impact, 100 melee, above average morale, 480 men, something in the 50-60 point range. No cohesion impact penalty, no square formation. My thinking was that above average morale would make them harder to break when combined with the normal heavy infantry bonus. And the high impact POA would help them deal with roving impact foot. Granted, they become very similar to impact foot after this, so it's clearly not perfect.

[pompeytheflatulent]

To be clear, I don't think my proposal is a viable solution. In order for pikes to do what you want them to do, their cost would need to be lowered to be substantially less than 60 points. I just don't see that happening with the current pricing system in place.

[Geffalrus]

To be clear, I don't think my proposal is a viable solution. In order for pikes to do what you want them to do, their cost would need to be lowered to be substantially less than 60 points. I just don't see that happening with the current pricing system in place.

That's why I think the third rank and square ability need to be ditched. Bringing down their cost by 10-20 points would make it much easier to afford non-pike units while still having a viable front line.

Edit: Maybe an interesting baseline would be starting with a heavy infantry version of Scutari. 42 points, high impact POA, low melee POA, heavy infantry bonus. Then alter things from there. No cohesion penalty on impact, increase morale to Above Average, make melee POA either 100 vs. everyone, or 50 vs. everyone but they get an armor boost instead. The point being, start with a familiar baseline and then build it/alter it from there.

[pompeytheflatulent]

That's why I think the third rank and square ability need to be ditched. Bringing down their cost by 10-20 points would make it much easier to afford non-pike units while still having a viable front line.

Having only two ranks would leave pikes vulnerable to be ground down through attrition by superior hoplites. As well as too vulnerable to cohesion tests from missile fire.

[Nosy_Rat]

You have to keep in mind how those new pikes would interact with other contemporary units and armies. If the pikes are to stand up to hastati/principi on a charge, how they should behave in melee? If they are evenly matched and priced to hastati, how would Romans fight them? Should pikes still overpower hoplites? What about pikes vs. Persians and Indians? At protected/480 men they would be pretty vulnerable to shooting.

[MVP7]

In my opinion the source of Pikes' balance issues is the excessively high Impact and Melee POA that forces their cripplingly high unit cost and is probably the reason why pikes get penalized extremely for casualties (which completely erases the already meager benefits of large unit size).

On impact I'd expect them to win most opponents and at least not get disrupted by high quality impact foot. I think the Pikes should win or at least be on equal ground in melee against other infantry types. Bad terrain and flank attacks should be the major weaknesses of pikes.

I think a good way to limit the POA of Pikes without making them too weak against certain units would be reducing the opponent's POA: The Impact POA of Impact Foot could be reduced to 100 against pikes (Macedonian pikes were said to be resilient to missiles), the Melee POA of Spearmen could be reduced to 50 vs Pikes (spear doesn't really offer much benefit in comparison so sword when facing pikes). This would allow the actual POA values of pikes to be relatively low so they wouldn't just blow every non-elite unit out of the water.

The reduced peak POA values would allow the draconian POA loss from casualties to be toned down. Pikes could have 100 base POA in melee and on impact. That base POA should be lost when disordered or disrupted to highlight the terrain sensitive and highly organized nature of pikes. There could then be additional 50 POA (or even less) that is lost with the two rear ranks.

The POA changes would reduce the odds of pikes being disrupted early in frontal fight and the unit cost could be brought down a little which would help with their greatest balance issues. The pike phalanx would be less devastating and more durable which I think would better reflect its historical role in Hellenic armies.

The weapon POA values of Pikes could be lowered even more than this in which case the quality of pike units could be upgraded so that Raw pikes become Average and Average pikes become Above Average. This would help with the pike's relatively low CT-modifier compared to other units of similar cost which really doesn't have good synergy with their role.

[Geffalrus]

That's why I think the third rank and square ability need to be ditched. Bringing down their cost by 10-20 points would make it much easier to afford non-pike units while still having a viable front line.

Having only two ranks would leave pikes vulnerable to be ground down through attrition by superior hoplites. As well as too vulnerable to cohesion tests from missile fire.

Well, that would be a compelling reason for the Macedonian player to make good use of their superior cavalry to flank the Greeks before the grounding down happens. Additionally, Superior Hoplites may be found in multiple armies, but they rarely come in large quantities. Top quality hoplites like the Theban Sacred Band and Memnon's mercenaries were able to give the Macedonian phalanx some issues in a direct confrontation, and were only overcome when the cavalry battle was decided. Early Medieval armies do have higher amounts of Superior Off Spears.......but those are anachronistic matches. And even then, the Macedonian player should be able to use other tools to win. I'm mostly fine with the grind down vulnerability so to speak, because I think it pushes the player towards a more historical end state where the phalanx holds the enemy, but can't hold them forever, necessitating outside intervention. Rather than currently, where they can handle the melee just fine by themselves and cavalry is a secondary concern.

The missile vulnerability is a good point, though missile fire is - already - an issue for pikes. Yes, they can't really be killed by it, but they lose impact POA when taking missile fire unlike most other units. A potential solution would be to have their melee POA come from morale + armor. Alternatively, depending on the price, the danger of missile fire would be mitigated by more points to spend on the skirmisher screen or cavalry.

[Geffalrus]

In my opinion the source of Pikes' balance issues is the excessively high Impact and Melee POA that forces their cripplingly high unit cost and is probably the reason why pikes get penalized extremely for casualties (which completely erases the already meager benefits of large unit size).

On impact I'd expect them to win most opponents and at least not get disrupted by high quality impact foot. I think the Pikes should win or at least be on equal ground in melee against other infantry types. Bad terrain and flank attacks should be the major weaknesses of pikes.

I think a good way to limit the POA of Pikes without making them too weak against certain units would be reducing the opponent's POA: The Impact POA of Impact Foot could be reduced to 100 against pikes (Macedonian pikes were said to be resilient to missiles), the Melee POA of Spearmen could be reduced to 50 vs Pikes (spear doesn't really offer much benefit in comparison so sword when facing pikes). This would allow the actual POA values of pikes to be relatively low so they wouldn't just blow every non-elite unit out of the water.

The reduced peak POA values would allow the draconian POA loss from casualties to be toned down. Pikes could have 100 base POA in melee and on impact. That base POA should be lost when disordered or disrupted to highlight the terrain sensitive and highly organized nature of pikes. There could then be additional 50 POA (or even less) that is lost with the two rear ranks.

The POA changes would reduce the odds of pikes being disrupted early in frontal fight and the unit cost could be brought down a little which would help with their greatest balance issues. The pike phalanx would be less devastating and more durable which I think would better reflect its historical role in Hellenic armies.

The weapon POA values of Pikes could be lowered even more than this in which case the quality of pike units could be upgraded so that Raw pikes become Average and Average pikes become Above Average. This would help with the pike's relatively low CT-modifier compared to other units of similar cost which really doesn't have good synergy with their role.

Mmmmm, this is really good.

[Neutrino_123]

Proposal:

Reduce the size of the phalanx unit by one row.
Remove the square ability.
Eliminate bonus of both rear rows for POA and roll these bonuses into the base unit.
If the phalanx does not lose a battle, halve casualties for both sides, proportionately reducing the chance that the opponent "loses" the battle, while preserving the reduced chance that units fighting a phalanx will lose cohesion if they take a test based on combat with the phalanx.
Point reduction to offset these.

This will make the phalanx more resilient to damage and cheaper, with less men to cover a particular frontage, but also a less effective "shock" unit than the later pike units in history. They will still win battles against most enemy infantry, but they'll do it very slowly, making success on the flank (for either side) more important.

[Nosy_Rat]

In my opinion the source of Pikes' balance issues is the excessively high Impact and Melee POA that forces their cripplingly high unit cost and is probably the reason why pikes get penalized extremely for casualties (which completely erases the already meager benefits of large unit size).

On impact I'd expect them to win most opponents and at least not get disrupted by high quality impact foot. I think the Pikes should win or at least be on equal ground in melee against other infantry types. Bad terrain and flank attacks should be the major weaknesses of pikes.

I think a good way to limit the POA of Pikes without making them too weak against certain units would be reducing the opponent's POA: The Impact POA of Impact Foot could be reduced to 100 against pikes (Macedonian pikes were said to be resilient to missiles), the Melee POA of Spearmen could be reduced to 50 vs Pikes (spear doesn't really offer much benefit in comparison so sword when facing pikes). This would allow the actual POA values of pikes to be relatively low so they wouldn't just blow every non-elite unit out of the water.

The reduced peak POA values would allow the draconian POA loss from casualties to be toned down. Pikes could have 100 base POA in melee and on impact. That base POA should be lost when disordered or disrupted to highlight the terrain sensitive and highly organized nature of pikes. There could then be additional 50 POA (or even less) that is lost with the two rear ranks.

The POA changes would reduce the odds of pikes being disrupted early in frontal fight and the unit cost could be brought down a little which would help with their greatest balance issues. The pike phalanx would be less devastating and more durable which I think would better reflect its historical role in Hellenic armies.

The weapon POA values of Pikes could be lowered even more than this in which case the quality of pike units could be upgraded so that Raw pikes become Average and Average pikes become Above Average. This would help with the pike's relatively low CT-modifier compared to other units of similar cost which really doesn't have good synergy with their role.

So the actual unit stats would be something like this:
- Heavy foot, Above Average, Protected, Unmaneuverable, 480 (or 960?) men
- Impact: 100 POA, reduces impact foot POA (only when defending or always?), reduces cavalry POA (I assume?) - no other interaction with light spears or spearmen on impact?
- Melee: 100 POA, reduces swordsmen, spearmen, cavalry POA (so basically anything other than heavy weapons?)

How would you price such a unit?
Compared to other contemporary units it would have:
- vs Hastati/Principi, 56 points (I think?) - evenly matched on impact, pikes have +38 POA in melee
- vs Veteran Hastati/Principi, 78 points - pikes have -25 POA on impact, evenly matched in melee
- vs Citizen hoplites, 42 points - pikes have +25 on impact, +75 in melee
- vs Veteran hoplites, 54 points - pikes have -25 on impact, +25 in melee

[Geffalrus]

So the actual unit stats would be something like this:
- Heavy foot, Above Average, Protected, Unmaneuverable, 480 (or 960?) men
- Impact: 100 POA, reduces impact foot POA (only when defending or always?), reduces cavalry POA (I assume?) - no other interaction with light spears or spearmen on impact?
- Melee: 100 POA, reduces swordsmen, spearmen, cavalry POA (so basically anything other than heavy weapons?)

How would you price such a unit?
Compared to other contemporary units it would have:
- vs Hastati/Principi, 56 points (I think?) - evenly matched on impact, pikes have +38 POA in melee
- vs Veteran Hastati/Principi, 78 points - pikes have -25 POA on impact, evenly matched in melee
- vs Citizen hoplites, 42 points - pikes have +25 on impact, +75 in melee
- vs Veteran hoplites, 54 points - pikes have -25 on impact, +25 in melee

Those stats seem pretty close to right for Bronze Shields aka the Average Pikes for most Hellenistic factions. 480 men. I'd say that impact foot, light spears, and off spears should all be held to 100 POA, which would actually decrease the power of pikes on impact vs. hoplites, and only really change much for impact foot. Against cavalry, you'd want a similar effect to off spears where the impact POA of horse units is decreased.

My initial thought was that pikes would not have much of an advantage in melee, if any. It's hard to model a situation where Romans and Greeks can't really get close to the phalangites because the sarissas are locked against their shields.............while simultaneously, the pikes aren't really killing the Romans and Greeks that much BECAUSE of those large shields. That's my interpretation of how the combat worked, at least. Having roughly even POA values so that it's 70% odds for an indecisive result kind of works I guess.

56 points being in line with normal Hastati/Principes feels right to me. And then 78 points for Veteran pikes with the superior trait. And then maybe a 96 point Elite Silver Shield option (max 2 units) for the 328-321 Macedonian list that represents the best of Alexander's Veterans.

[MVP7]

...

So the actual unit stats would be something like this:
- Heavy foot, Above Average, Protected, Unmaneuverable, 480 men
- Impact: 100 POA, reduces impact foot POA (only when defending or always?), reduces cavalry POA (I assume?) - no other interaction with light spears or spearmen on impact?
- Melee: 100 POA, reduces swordsmen, spearmen, cavalry POA (so basically anything other than heavy weapons?)

How would you price such a unit?
Compared to other contemporary units it would have:
- vs Hastati/Principi, 56 points (I think?) - evenly matched on impact, pikes have +38 POA in melee
- vs Veteran Hastati/Principi, 78 points - pikes have -25 POA on impact, evenly matched in melee
- vs Citizen hoplites, 42 points - pikes have +25 on impact, +75 in melee
- vs Veteran hoplites, 54 points - pikes have -25 on impact, +25 in melee

The values I suggested weren't that exact, rather the basic idea of how pike POA could work. Even lower POA values would be better if the Raw and Average pike veterancy was increased (and they really could use that extra cohesion). I still think the pikes should remain fairly expensive, just not as extremely expensive as they currently are for their veterancy.

- The pike unit size would still be 960 men. I have never seen any historical indications of pikes regularly fighting in thinner formation (and it's unlikely that hoplite combat was simple reverse-tug-of-war so whether or not pikemen could push each other isn't decisive).
- The only POAs that really require new penalties vs pikes would be the Impact Foot Impact and Spearmen melee. Cavalry already loses most of its POA vs spikes. With around 100-150 impact and melee POA plus size modifiers the pikes would do just fine against cavalry without any additional POA penalties.
- Spearmen POA vs pikes should be the same as swordsmen. Cavalry POA doesn't really require further changes as they would not be a significant threat to pikes even with the reduced Pike POA.

Without getting into specific POA values, I think a pike unit should have slight POA advantage in the open against maneuverable Heavy Infantry unit of similar cost (the similarly priced heavy infantry would still have better armor and/or veterancy than the pike but not by as much as it currently would). In rough ground these pikes would be at severe disadvantage against any heavy or medium infantry. The slight advantage should also be lost* with fairly mild casualties to the pikes but I think after that the Pikes should still remain pretty even with their opponents rather than plummet in POA as they currently do.

I think my suggestion wouldn't require any new mechanics or unique rules and they would actually bring the behavior of pikes closer to the other units in the game.

* edit. The non-base POA (the part that would be lost with casualties) could also be lost in non-open terrain.

[Neutrino_123]

I like the impact advantage of impact foot vs. pikes. This could represent the impact foot taking advantage of minor imperfections in the pike formation or rough patches below the scale of entire tiles.

I'm not sure if bronze shield reservests should have a higher quality rating than average, though. Silver shields should definitely be above average, but "superior" should then be for really dedicated long-term professional units.

I support a reduction in the size of pike units, though. In some battles, the pike army was similar size to the opponents army, but they didn't seem to have an overly high worry of being outflanked (without some unique even occuring), which I believe is strong evidence that the pikes would occasionally fight in less deep formations.