Pike vs Spear

[David Kuijt]

IMHO one answer: The Pilum. The tossing of the pilum into the Pike or Spear block would disrupt the front ranks and further to the rear (its weight allowing it to penetrate through the defenders shield and either wounding or weighing down the shield so the soldier could not fight effectively). With this disorder, the Roman soldier would not have a solid wall of effective pikes facing him and give him time to traverse the short distance into the pike/spear block with his well trained sword arm and begin wreaking havoc on the block in close combat (with the pikeman trying to divest himself of his weighted down shield and prepare for close combat).

Okay, why are Vikings rated as Elite Foot? They didn't have any pila.

And the pilum has been strongly overstated by Romanophiles. The Franks used throwing axes similarly; the Byzantines used plumbata (lead-weighted throwing darts) -- and the bronze shields of the phalanx would be very resistant to the "stick in and weigh down" theory which was mostly based upon wicker and wood shields of the Gauls and similar.

Roman victories over the Phalanx are attributed to the difficulty of the Phalanx in rough terrain and when its flanks are exposed, not to any effectiveness of the pilum against bronze shields.

[David Kuijt]

[Pilum functionality removed for simplicity] This is why I see it valid to rate a good portion of the Roman units as "elite".

I appreciate that, but the reality of game design is much more simple. To the best of our understanding, troops are rated as Elite Foot based upon how they performed in battles. Arguments based upon weapons systems are necessarily shaky, and subject to reassessment as reconstructive archaeology and other new knowledge comes forward. The Spartans are rated as Elite Foot without any pila, because their enemies viewed them as the best. Large rafts of Roman foot are rated as Heavy Foot during the Polybian and Camillan period, independently from whether they had pila or not. Pila would not make bad troops into elite troops; lack of pila would not make elite troops into bad troops. More than anything else, morale and training count. Almost all Medieval and Ancient battles ended before 5-10% total casualties in an army -- because battle was rarely about weapons systems. I love talking about weapons systems -- every game designer and historical game player does. But the Mongols were using the same weapons systems as the previous thousand years of steppe warriors, and the same as the 600 years that followed. It wasn't the weapons systems that made them better. And the same is true for the Romans or almost any other army you can name when debating weapons systems.

[Lembit Tohver]

I do agree and acknowledge that there are a number of factors that go into assigning a troop type the "Elite" status (weapons [pilum, gladius & shield for the Romans], morale, training, ferocity, Leadership....). I am not a Romanophile but there was a program on the History channel where the participants did throw pilum at all the various types of shields that were used during the period and it demonstrated that pilum could and did penetrate the bronze shield used by the Greeks. So that is what I am basing my proposition on. Things to ponder about.

[Dekelia]

I agree that Pike as a troop type is usually disappointing, though I'm not sure what to do about it. I do a lot of Alexander era battles and I've run into the same issue where Hoplites just seem much better.

For this scale of a game, maybe Pike is an unnecessary distinction, at least for Alexander's army. Could just make them the same as Hoplites (Heavy Foot with support rule) and be done with it.

If you want to keep Pike as a type (I do like the look of them ranked up), I'd suggest letting them be a deep base (two ranks), cost 4, extra -2 if flanked (-3 total), 5/4. So they are strong as long as you keep their flanks protected.

[Rod]

Take a look at my video on Pike. They sort of are strong now, to the front when double ranked.

[Dekelia]

Take a look at my video on Pike. They sort of are strong now, to the front when double ranked.

I've watched it and I understand your point. I also understand that it is tough with an abstract system to fit all of these things. Against the Elite Foot in your video though, at best they are even with them except the Pike cost more (need two stands to equal one elite foot so 6 to 4), are forced to advance, fall apart when flanked or in many other situations where you can't get the support, are more difficult to move (everything is a group move), etc. When compared to Hoplites, they are basically only worse except against horse.

I know Pike issues have probably been discussed to death between this game and it's similar ancestors but they still don't really feel right. I think with +3 support that at least gives them a niche but I think combining into a single stand or just drop the type is probably a better answer.

[Rod]

What I have found in pike armies is they are powerful in mass to the front with secured flanks and the right terrain. If they loose on the flank they often lost the battle.

That is pretty much how they were historically. They do slightly better vs mounted, but they can win against heavy and elite foot also.

I would encourage you to try a few historical match ups and see what you think with pike armies in their element against historical opponents.

Try Alexander vs Later Persians or even Philip vs. Greeks.

[Dekelia]

I would encourage you to try a few historical match ups and see what you think with pike armies in their element against historical opponents.

Try Alexander vs Later Persians or even Philip vs. Greeks.

That is mostly what I play which is where I've seen the issue. It was interesting that the person who made this thread found the same thing. Hoplites are just better in that matchup, which feels kind of wrong (equal power massed to the front, better at operating on their own and when flanked). That being said, it doesn't matter that much, they still do their job, and as someone else pointed out, that isn't really how Alexander won most of his battles.

By the way, I don't want to give the wrong impression. I'm really loving Triumph. I started playing it a couple months ago. I'm a long time player of similar games and I think this is the best of it's kind. I really like your videos and your Hastings video inspired me to put together a Grand Triumph version of Issus that I'll post here at some point.