Pikemen?

[A.Saturnus]

Why should one use pikemen? They get torn apart by almost every inf unit, are vulnerable to ranged weapons and if their formation doesn`t hold, they even lose against heavy cav. Chiv-sgts do much better against cav, hold out longer against inf, are easier to produce and cost the same. Does anyone know a reason why I should build pikemen instead of sgts or are they just useless?

[Havok]

i agree.... they are pretty much useless. They are way to dam vulnerable to missle fire. now swiss pikeman on the other hand http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Lord Of Storms]

You said it Havok give me a well trained Swiss Pike unit against cav units I like to combine them with bill and halberds to make a medieval type cuisinart .Works every time P.S.Thanks to the Moderators for the Junior Member promo I appreciate it very much http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Swoosh So]

They are pretty useless check out swoosh replays and the 4v4 with me and amp to see pikemen getting whooped if i remember right on amps side he was outnumbered 3 armies to 2 alot of pikemen there too and still beat them with not too much fuss.

[Knight_Yellow]

well i sometimes use 3 max to sit back and patch/reinforce any part of my flanks that are wavering.

but realisticly there not as good as they should be.

[AcePylut]

Pike's and Halb's are GREAT for bridge crossings. Set them in a formation that's the width of the bridge and use them to assault across the bridge (after you send a couple peasant units to soak up arrows). Using them on a bridge ROCKS, because you get to take advantage of all those extra ranks, and you don't need to worry about getting flanked.

Once I 'discovered' their use in bridge crossings - my losses for bridges radically decreased, now, I never leave home without a pair or three...

[A.Saturnus]

Hmm, I have good experiences with sgts on bridges. Maybe pikemen are somewhat better there, but tough bridge battles are to rare to justify the extra costs.
I think pikemen should wear better armor. Historically, they where usually equipped with medium to heavy inf armor.

[BDC]

As a well supported battleline they are quite good, especially where their flanks are covered and the general is nearby to give extra morale. Not too good on their own though.

[pdoan8]

Without the shield, Pikemen die faster under arrow fire than Chiv/Feu Serg. By the time the enemy reach them, they are already 20-30 men under strenght. Expect some morale drop.

For me, there isn't any reason to train Pikemen. I only trained a handful of them just to experiment how effective they are on the battle field. Most of them died, the rest returned to garrison duty.

[Kongamato]

They werent good enough so I modded them so that they had 10 attack and 10 defense. They also throw guided exploding javelins.

[TheViking]

go down in the dessert and fight with Swiss pikemen or SAPs, or you can use the lighter pikemen.

It was a long time since i played a catholic faction, but when i was i used them to take over the dessert, and the dessert countrys dont have so good heavy cavs

[Herodotus]

I don't know, I reckon pikemen are pretty good. the success I get with them is usually dependent on how well I use them. I find that simply attacking enemy units doesn't work well, instead of clicking a single enemy unit, I prefer to tell them to form up beyond a mass of the enemy, they then march on through them in formation.

[Brutal DLX]

I agree, pikemen are vulnerable to missile fire, but so are halberdiers. Pikemen are really not a replacement for the medium spear infantry, although they can perform in that role when properly supported in a line of battle. The main thing pikemen do, is hold and kill any cavalry. And they excel at that. Furthermore it is very historically correct that pikemen will be crushed by swordsmen, so anyone who thinks they can be used to hold any kind shock infantry is mistaken. You might try Gothic seargents for that.
If you use pikemen the way they are intended to, you will be extremely pleased.

[A.Saturnus]

Don`t know, I charged chiv Knights frontal on pikes. The pikes won but lost heavily. Chiv sgts did much better.

[Brutal DLX]

It all depends on valour and the generals command stars. If that is about even the Knights will lose in no time.

[Havok]

Quote[/b] ]If you use pikemen the way they are intended to, you will be extremely pleased.

Why take up a slot in your army with a unit that is extremely vulnerable to missle fire and ONLY good against cav when there are plenty of units that are good vs cav and good vs other units as well.

And Halberdiers are somewhat vulberable to missle fire but they wear heavy armor which helps alot.

Bottom line is Pikeman suck http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Brutal DLX]

Well, that is just the bottom line of your post.
Whether or not one uses pikemen in his forces is entirely up to one's personal liking, however, they are NOT useless.

[LordKhaine]

I seem to recall Pikemen are cheap as well? Im certainly inclined to take a few units here and there... but I much prefer the Swiss versions http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Red Harvest]

I just started experimenting with the Swiss a few days ago. The Swiss have excellent heirs and they get a discount on basic pikemen, and they had been very effective in battle (and cost effective) with these conditions. So when I read the first post in this thread I thought, "bah, that can't be right." Then I tested some custom battles one on one...the lack of shield really costs the pikemen. I already knew from campaign battles that their achilles was archer fire. However, in custom battles I found they were indeed beaten by most other units even various sergeants. They do perform well vs. cav. My conclusion is that they are quite useful if you have Switzerland and happen to be able to build them there, but otherwise there are better units available. They are far from useless, but they are a bit weaker than one would believe by inspection.

Swiss armoured pikemen were quite deadly. With equal stats on open, level ground they killed Kats with not a single casualty While Varangians beat them decisively, it was not an easy win. The SAP's tore up Jannissary heavies if memory serves... The large unit size is probably a big factor in SAP effectiveness. How many truly "elite" units are ~100 men strong?

[A.Saturnus]

I tested Pikemen in custom battles, so valour wasn`t the question. Chiv-sgts simple perform better, even against cav.
The reason why SAP are so good is probably the combination of their stats and the rank bonus. SAP have 2 attack and 5 defence, makes 7 melee-rating. That`s already only 1 lower than JHI. Then add to that the rank bonus. Against cav they have additional 2 attack and 6 defence, makes melee-rating 15.

[bosdur]

They are great anti-cav unit, for some factions who only have chivalric foot knight pikemen expands your option. It's not a great shock unit unlike chiv foot knight, but it can run as fast as the foot knight. In a desert situation you'd like to use these guys compared to a cfk.

[malkuth]

Swiss are the best. other then that Billmen are better.

[Kraxis]

Well considering the Pikemen cost 200 florins I think you should compare them to Feudal Sergeants instead.

[Michael the Great]

Pikemen have 4 supporting rank bonus,while those Chivalric Sargents have 2 supporting ranks.
Sargents are heavier armoured and have a shield so can withsand arrows better.
But,frontally,pikemen SHOULD be better at holding off enemyes(even infantry,coz they will slaughter cav).

[Cousin Zoidfarb]

I agree pikemen, should be much more effective than spearmen especially against cavalry.

[Elrich of Gaul]

Pikemen, bah, arrow fodder...

[7Bear7Polar]

they only as good as the general that commands them http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[Sephiroth]

Pikemen are good..nobosy uses them right.offensively they may be dodgy but dont use them that way.if you are attacking use the whoe 'impeteuos charge' against your enemy by luring his horses onto your archers wih pikes behind.thenwhile his horses are getting mangled swing in units like UM or CMAA and hold off any possible 'relief force;. Rain archer fire on his rear units and ta-da army broken.THey are xcellent at defending and attacking across bridges but they are not a one unti army, they MUST be used in conjunction with other units...any general would know this..for example..a tank company is only good if they air is covered and it has a compliment of troops too

[A.Saturnus]

Quote[/b] ]
offensively they may be dodgy but dont use them that way.if you are attacking use the whoe 'impeteuos charge' against your enemy by luring his horses onto your archers wih pikes behind.thenwhile his horses are getting mangled swing in units like UM or CMAA and hold off any possible 'relief force;. Rain archer fire on his rear units and ta-da army broken


Wouldn`t this work for chiv-sgts as well or even better? I don`t say that pikemen can`t fight against anything. True, they are good against cav, but to my knowing, everything they can, advanced spearmen can better, except maybe defending bridges, didn`t test that. It may be that someone has good experience with pikemen, but I`m looking for a reason to choose them over spears.

[Michael the Great]

I'm asking historically,which were more often used on thy battlefield,spear units like Chivalric Sargents or Pikemen?

[econ21]

Michael the Great - I think the spear was the dominant Medieval weapon. However, by the late period of MTW, it was evolving into the pike or into polearms like the halberd. Later on, we move to the pike and musket era.

I'd be interested to know what spurred the evolution of spear to pike; and indeed the earlier "de-evolution" from the Macedonian pike. One theory would be the pike requires more discipline and training, but I am not sure I buy that (the Romans were not undisciplined and the lack of discipline in Medieval armies is probably exaggerated). Another theory would be that it was to counter the knight, but again I have my doubts - the pike emerges when it has become more common for troops to dismount and the armoured cavalry is arguably losing some of its supremacy. A third explanation is the one I would incline towards - that missile weapons become more important (arbalests, longbows, handguns, cannon) and so need a stronger defensive protection. Maybe all three factors are important to some degree. (I guess I am more interested in the widespread adoption of the pike outside of the Swiss; they probably have their own special circumstances and the Swiss probably used the pike more offensively than others).

[A.Saturnus]

I would say it had social reasons that pikes weren`t used. The knights were a fighting elite and individualists that certainly refused to fight in a compact battalion the pike requires. Since the knights dominated the battlefields, the pike might eventually have been forgotten in most parts. The idea of drill was unexistent for most non-nobles and so discipline was very weak. Also the soldiers had to buy their own equipment and a spear is cheaper than a pike. The Swiss had very few knights and needed a weapon that was able to defeat heavy cav (or inf). After they vanquished Charles the Brave of Burgundy, everyone was impressed by their weapons and fighting style and it was soon copied by the German Landsknechts. Swiss and Landsknechts soon were active as mercenaries all over Europe and the knighthood declined. The pike and the halberds started to dominate the battlefields as much as the knights had before, but then guns became more and more effective and the time of their domination began.