Printable View
I think this is the key problem for pikeman in m2tw now, especially with 1.02 shield bug fixed. (that sounds like Chinese Kung Fu while somebody hit the pike the power go through it and the pikeman holding it got killed instantly AAARRRH OMG!!!! :wall: )Quote:
Originally Posted by Thero
Lower rank or militia pike units just lost 20+ men after receiving the first charge and then being slaughtered in 10 sec is totally joke.
btw, should we put "fixing/balancing pike unit" into 1.2 buglist or 1.3 wishlist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mad cat mech
I'd like to see you try that against a real opponent online, maybe we can gt together sometime and I'll show you how to use pikemen of any variety and just why they're so overpowered in 1.1.
Even when attacking Pikemen can beat every other infantry unit. I read a thread over at the .com that said that to use pikes you had to do alot of micromanagement and on their own they're more or less crap, A view which alot of people over there seem to share. I must say that that is completely inaccurate as I can and have charged pikemen into DCK and won on quite a few occassions, with absolutely no micromanagement as I was too busy with cavalry on the flanks.
The fact of the matter is that if you think pikemen suck compared to how they were historically, or your personal opinion of how they should be then your using them wrong.
Luckily in 1.2 with the shield bug being fixed they're alot more realistic, the only problem being that swiss pikes and the other more elite ones are now a tad bit underpowered for my liking when facing infantry. The Scottish Highland Pikes/Pike Militia Are a little weakened against cavalry, however they perform better than I would expect 40 mounted french knights to perform against 60 peasants with 14 foot sticks in real life as to stop a cav charge it requires a far greater number comparative to the number of knights.
There is still the graphical problems of S&S killing pikemen at range, but apart from that pikemen look almost perfect to how I would lik them, and what they should be historically.
Pike squares should be superior to pretty much everything in melee. Within a certain degree of flexibility the game should progress through historically accurate stages and it should culminate with the greater part of Western European armies being pikemen. Factions that fail to adapt should die. Simple as that in my opinion. Frankly the fact that sword wielding infantry in Renaissance armies sometimes tipped the balance in a bad war in favour of one pike square isn't a very convincing historical basis for pikemen invariably being useless against infantry. The gameplay problems with the way pikes work (or rather, don't) right now are notorious, so in my opinion the status quo cannot be justified either on the basis of historical accuracy or gameplay expediency.
"These knights trained for all their lives just so they can let some pikemen try to poke them?"
If lifelong training counted for so much medieval men-at-arms would not have been replaced by the pike and shot army. But it didn't and they were.
Where are you getting your facts exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kronos
Currently, one on one pikes will take massive casualties against any swordsmen of halberd's. They simply aren't efficient in the campaign. They may be some-what decent in multi player but the heavy casualties pikes take each battle makes them simply not worth it in the campaign.
Massed "peasants armed with 14 foot sticks" when trained correctly by William Wallace and Robert the Bruce for example, absolutely devastated English knights. Wallace's army was untouchable until the English were able to mass enough long bowmen to defeat them.
That is how pikes should be defeated historically. The best compromise is to make pikes more expensive in multilayer and perhaps a bit more vulnerable to missiles. It works perfectly balance-wise as well. Pikes are already slow and vulnerable to missiles, why should they suck against swords and shield units to?
Unfortunately for you this isn't Renniasance Total war, this is Medeival total war, Where Men at Arms dominated the battlefield until high quality Gunpowder units rendered thier armour obsolete. If it wasn't for GOOD Gunpowder weapons the pikemen would of only been effective against cavalry. The reason they became effective against infantry as well is due to the decline of heavy armour.
Then why did they add Tercios, French pikemen and musketeers? Why add units from the pike and musket period if they didn't intend for them to work properly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kronos
Pikes could roll over infantry formations. The enemy would be held back by the pikes and the few stragglers that got past the pikes would be killed by swordsmen withinin the pike formation. Ca clearly intended to simulate this, what with pikes switching to swords and all. Unfortunately the pike formation in medieval 2 isn't capable of keeping most enemy infantry at bay, thus several enemy infantry will always get past the pikes as soon as combat begins and that forces pike men to draw their swords and get annihilated.
History as well as ALOT of experience at playing TW games. Where are you getting yours?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thero
Not worth what exactly? 150 base cost as well as a small upkeep fee, considering they can beat dismounted Conquistedors (with around 30 men remaining, not including healed men) which have a base cost of 690 as well as atleast double upkeep cost and are the best S&S unit in the game, I'd consider that *efficient* personally.Quote:
Currently, one on one pikes will take massive casualties against any swordsmen of halberd's. They simply aren't efficient in the campaign. They may be some-what decent in multi player but the heavy casualties pikes take each battle makes them simply not worth it in the campaign.
They were hardly untouchable, the reason for the defeats was solely due to terrain and bad commanding by the english, granted the pikemen are effective against cavalry, but thats it. Even then there's been quite a few occassions when cavalry as beaten pikemen. Here's what happened at Bannockburn: http://www.braveheart.co.uk/macbrave...uce/banseq.htmQuote:
Massed "peasants armed with 14 foot sticks" when trained correctly by William Wallace and Robert the Bruce for example, absolutely devastated English knights. Wallace's army was untouchable until the English were able to mass enough long bowmen to defeat them.
Historically pikes were defeated by S&S in combination with missiles, however S&S were capable of doing it on their own. Which is why pikes were mainly only used when the enemy force consisted of a large contingent of cavalry.Quote:
That is how pikes should be defeated historically. The best compromise is to make pikes more expensive in multilayer and perhaps a bit more vulnerable to missiles. It works perfectly balance-wise as well. Pikes are already slow and vulnerable to missiles, why should they suck against swords and shield units to?
Making pikes more expensive in multiplayer is not an option as the campaign prices are tied to the multiplayer prices and without the shield bug they're worth their cost anyway.
They're as vulnerable to missiles as a unit can be without giving them a negative bonus such as spears have against infantry, In multiplayer that wouldn't make any difference whatsoever anyhow as people don't just stand around getting shot like the AI. The slowness of pikes isn't actually slow when you know how to play so getting into melee with pikes against a human player is easy to do and you won't take much if any casualties from missile fire. The only reason SP people notice their vulnerability to missiles is because the AI is so inept so when single players decide to use a basic tactic like mass missiles that the most incompentent player could counter it's considered that thats the way pikes should be countered.
What seems clear for this is that Scotland is the problem due to its limited unit roster.
If Pikes are too good then they can beat anyone.
If they're not, the Scots are doomed.
Otherwise the only thing I'm not claar about is: What Pikes are we talking about here?
Is anyone saying pikes in vanilla or 1.0 are overpowered? They are blatantly not for what I can see (and I've played a campiagn with scots).
With Carl's pike fix - yes I suppose they are. But when you have poor archers and poor cav it only seems fair to have decent Infantry options. Make Pikes poor against other Inf and the scots are the weakest faction militarily in game. No other faction has poor choices in all 3!!!
Didnt the topic suggested? (Pikeman vs Sword & Shield head to head post 1.02?) :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Moah
I'm saying they are because for their cost you can just spam them and they'll beat the top infantry easily. Maybe not many of you have noticed it because against masses of peasants and other cheap infantry, both of them having the shield bug which is the cause of this deminishes the effects somewhat, however against a good army no infantry except other pikemen can match them unit ofr unit. Scotlan are meant to have a poor army anyway:laugh4:Quote:
Is anyone saying pikes in vanilla or 1.0 are overpowered? They are blatantly not for what I can see (and I've played a campiagn with scots).
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickooClan
Yes it did but we've sort of side tracked from that because some people beleive that in 1.0 and 1.1 they're were underpowered :gah:
Well back ontopic, I'm very pleased with the fixes to pikemen in 1.2, it would help if they made it so they didn't switch to sword so quickly for use against cavalry, as well as the minor graphical problem of swordsmen killing Pikemen from range, but these 2 are rather insignificant to me personally copared to the overall power of pikemen.
I've been testing the pikemen vs cavalry charges a bit (leaked 1.2), and it does seem a little odd. If your pikemen are not precisely as wide as the cavalry charge, or a little wider, they will be flanked upon the impact of the charge, and immedietly turn to their swords and die usually.
I'm at work now, but I'll see what else turns up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kronos
no way man, pike and polearm was the weapon that first shook the supremacy of men at arms/knights, and not by rendering armour obsolete.
gunpowder, in turn, made pike formations less viable over time.
btw. the pro-pike, if it can be called such, guys in here arent saying pike should always slaughter swords, nobody disagrees that sword and buckler could take on pike and win, denying that would be like denying roman legionaires eventually beat phalanxes, we are just saying that walking up to a row of sharp sticks, as much as four or five pointing at each swordsman, and then trying to get into sword range, is starting melee at a disadvantage.
also, remember that the sword and buckler man of the 1500s was something of a martial artist who, at least in the spanish tercio system, had a specialized task of disrupting pike formations. thats something else than a dismounted heavy knight( who of course also could have very good individual skills) and I refuse to believe that sword and buckler men routinely won over pikes, if so were, they would constitute much more than the 20% of a tercio they did when the adversaries so often were pike-heavy armies.
btw. it must be remarkes that the bane of swiss pike wasent only gunpowder, but repeat charges from heavy cavalry after artillery "softening"
ok boys, Im afraid we have to stop this discussion, a girl from work just walked in here, read the last posts in the thread, and asked us all to get a life..:beam:
To quote a friend of mineQuote:
Originally Posted by anders
"It's not that I don't have a life. It's just that the life of my character is so much better."
:embarassed:
I actually think it is perfectly fine which the engine will auto "wrap" and flank an pike unit if they are not wide enough, and it should be the way to beat them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lupiscanis
@Kronos
Yea, you r right the thread is a bit diverse now. But i think a discussion base on 1.02 will be much useful as it is likely what we are going to see and use for m2tw unless CA spot this issue and fix it. (Most of us will agree the upcoming patch likely be the last on m2tw)
Lol, i think the only way to stop the discussion is a begging of full release 1.02 from CA. I am sure at least 50% of the member on the forum will be disappeared, for a week at least. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by anders
well great sword and halberd units should break through a spear wall to give the game some balance but sword and shield infantry shouldnt be able to do it.
sword and shield infantry became obsolete long before halberds and bills did. mostly soldiers began wearing full or partial plate which made shield obsolete and gave him an extra hand to help produce enough force to splinter and damage a pole or damage another opponents armor.
pikes historically should not be beaten head on by shield units. and if they are it will be due to a wrap or a serious breach in the spear wall which currently it is breaking down before it is even breached. i would also tend to believe that even if a soldier or two breaks through and starts inflicting injuries to the pikemen that the pikemen would remain disciplined enough to know that they need to keep to their pikes or they are all doomed anyways.
and also the rear ranks could pull their swords out to stop the infiltrators. or the forward movement of the phalanx would just walk him over.
halberds would be a good option to use but they are more expesnive and their animations and walking speeds arent too good.
but i would have to assume that CA does want them to work the way they are. even though it is historically incorrect.
this is what a spear does to sword and shield infantryhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpfv_VMaynQ&mode=related&search=
Even if we assume it is not wrecking the historical aspect of the game, the notion that the current pike implementation is actually balanced somehow is still hotly contested in this thread: clearly no one has demonstrated that their current treatment lends balance to the game, nor that the various proposed changes would in any way imbalance the game. If you intend to allege that pikes should be the way they are in the game currently, you'll have to lay out more convincing evidence than has been presented in this thread thus far, to both of those ends. The consensus is that pikes are not operating correctly/optimally, which should mean their operation is brought in line with what people expect barring substantial reasons not to do so; reasons which I ask you (or anyone for that matter) to provide, explain, and adequately demonstrate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miracle
You are not agreeing with anything, you are expressing your opinion. Again I will reiterate: you are fabricating CA's viewpoint on this matter. They have not commented AT ALL on it. It is not safe to assume that everything in the game is the way CA wants it, as evidenced by the many things that are changing in updates, even things like spying mechanics which were not broken per se. Logic like yours would have led us to believe that the shield bug was intended by CA simply because it was in the game, which is obviously a load of bull. So please stop citing CA to back you up - all you are doing is making yourself look foolish by trying to conjure up credible support that you simply do not have.Quote:
...But they did not. Some swordsmen either cunning avoided the clumsy pikes or simply chopped them off. CA has decided to apply this to all S&S units in order to simplify things as well as give S&S a solid role.
I agree with them.
YUP! same as foz
If that were so, then what would S&S units be best at? Anything they could do, some other unit could do better:Quote:
Originally Posted by mad cat tech
Flanking action: Medium/Heavy Cavalry, Javelins, or Naffatun
Chasing light archers: Light/Medium Cavalry
Killing hybrid archers: Medium/Heavy Cavalry
Beating spearmen: Polearms/Axes
Absorbing missiles: Spearmen
General purpose front line "anvil": Spearmen
General purpose reserve unit: Javelin/Medium/Heavy Cavalry or Short Polearms/Axes
General purpose siege assault and defense: Polearms/Axes
So if most of the posters here had their way, S&S units would be useful in SP for only a short amount of time (about 20 turns or so) and nearly useless in MP. Given how expensive and ubiquitous S&S units are in-game and how historically important they were, this is not right.
I get the feeling you haven't carefully read over this thread enough. I have clearly demonstrated how over-improved pikemen would render S&S units nearly useless, and that the extra vulnerability of pikemen against flanking infantry is, in the hands of most players, insufficient to balance their otherwise overpowered frontal melee capabilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foz
I'm not. Stop trying to shove this strawman down my throat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foz
I have very explicitly stated that pikemen can and should be improved to fulfill their role as an anti-cavalry unit with greater proficiency, which would also inevitably result in better performance against infantry as well.
What I'm proposing is that they should not be improved to the extent that they can beat S&S units, which in my view would unbalance the game.
This is in no way like the shield bug. If you actually looked at the way S&S units are presented in-game you'd (probably) agree with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foz
Look at the description of Sword & Buckler Men in-game:
(Emphasis mine)Quote:
Originally Posted by CA
Now compare their stats to DFK's.
They have almost identical stats to DFK's, except they have less armor.
Now, do you think DFK's should perform the same role as these guys? After all, they have very similar stats, use swords and shields, and are an elite infantry unit.
If CA intended DFK's not to perform the same role as as SBM, don't you think their stats should be significantly different?
And if you think CA has made a mistake and somehow intended DFK's to perform another role, do you think they would have more easily caught that then the shield bug? After all, while you can look at stats and descriptions at-a-glance, spotting the shield bug requires a lot of battle testing and careful observation.
This is not a fabrication. This is not a conjuration. Much of my evidence comes from in-game descriptions written by CA, which by and large give the biggest hints as to what they intend a unit type to do.
Do you need more evidence, Foz, or do you still believe I'm some snake oil salesman? If not then stop with the ad hominem attacks and focus on the actual arguments instead.
I've proposed many times that pikes be made much more expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kronos
I was out of line there.Quote:
They were hardly untouchable, the reason for the defeats was solely due to terrain and bad commanding by the english, granted the pikemen are effective against cavalry, but thats it. Even then there's been quite a few occassions when cavalry as beaten pikemen. Here's what happened at Bannockburn: http://www.braveheart.co.uk/macbrave...uce/banseq.htm
However late pike formations were not vulnerable to swords & buckler men unless they were unorganized and fighting other pike men.
Historically, the downfall of S&S units was due to pikes being too organized. S&S units were only useful when the push of the pike occurred.Quote:
Historically pikes were defeated by S&S in combination with missiles, however S&S were capable of doing it on their own. Which is why pikes were mainly only used when the enemy force consisted of a large contingent of cavalry.
Here's a wiki article on Rodeleros (sword and buckler men): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodeleros
Now, the Tercio didn't fight with pikes alone, they had muskets and swordsmen in the formation as well as others. The game only simulates the pikes and swords. Rtw also did this. When an enemy swordsmen gets past the pikes, two or three of the pike-men switch to swords and kill the loner.
I'm fine with making them more expensive in the campaign.Quote:
Making pikes more expensive in multiplayer is not an option as the campaign prices are tied to the multiplayer prices and without the shield bug they're worth their cost anyway.
That's more a problem with units moving too fast than anything else. Similarly they also kill too fast. Things need to be slowed down.Quote:
They're as vulnerable to missiles as a unit can be without giving them a negative bonus such as spears have against infantry, In multiplayer that wouldn't make any difference whatsoever anyhow as people don't just stand around getting shot like the AI. The slowness of pikes isn't actually slow when you know how to play so getting into melee with pikes against a human player is easy to do and you won't take much if any casualties from missile fire. The only reason SP people notice their vulnerability to missiles is because the AI is so inept so when single players decide to use a basic tactic like mass missiles that the most incompentent player could counter it's considered that thats the way pikes should be countered.
What's your response to making them more expensive and slower? Or limiting the amount of pikes that can be used in multi player?Quote:
Originally Posted by Miracle
shield infantry is dominant in two eras of the game guys what more do you want. even in mp early and high era you have your sword and shield after 1.2 will be the dominant infantry on the battlefield.
but when late era comes around those units are obsolete. units such as halberdiers and pikes and two handed axemen dominate the scene. this is simple common sense.
its a fact that once the medieval era reached the late period shields were not used as often. but you often times find pictures showing bowmen and masses of pole arm phalanxes fighting it out.
i fail to understand your logic. you are trying to say that up until the rennaisance that sword and shield infantry and spearmen still dominated the battlefield.
i suppose we need to rewrite the history books.
if you dont want pikes and halberds play in the early and high periods. sheesh!
im getting convinced that the knight fights guys are the ones responsible for this and it is on whole not historically accurate. its a major warping of historical accuracy.
OK here is a mention on page 56 of the instruction manual under special abilities-spear wall formation=this ability allows a spear wielding unit to form up a deadly wall of spikes that makes them extremely[EXTREMELY] difficult to attack from the front. while in this formation, the unit cannot run and moves slowly.
First off, you begin under the false assumption that a unit must be best at something. It is not necessary at all. A unit that is very good at most things is quite acceptable, and sure to find a use in any army. I don't think it's disputable that S&S units fit that description. In fact, they are more well-rounded than most units in the game, and thus are quite easy to use well on the battlefield. As a result, they undoubtedly appeal and will continue to appeal to many players due to their simplicity and ease of use, not to mention utility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miracle
Second, I bolded the various claims you make that are simply not true. For absorbing missiles, clearly the higher defense values of the S&S units make them much better than spearmen in this regard: they simply are hit less often by the missiles as a result. The difference in defense between say an armored sergeant and a DFK is ~7 points, which if I recall discussion of the stat system correctly can be up to a 70% difference in how often they are hit by an attack. S&S units are almost certainly the best in this category because they have unrivaled defense values.
For anvil units again the valued stat is raw defense, so it is easy to see that S&S units are far better for this than spearmen: they hold longer, and will survive better too, not to mention being WAY better at actually killing enemy infantry they encounter, especially because spears take a penalty in combat vs infantry. There's simply no contest here, S&S are best in this respect too.
The last one, polearms may be good for defense because they kill quickly, but they are inferior for assaulting due to their low armor and especially their lack of shields. A great many of the losses during an assault are caused by the towers, which continue firing even into the melee on the walls. As a result high defense will save a ton of the assaulting men from destruction. I haven't done a side by side comparison (for obvious reasons), but I don't think it's possible that a unit that is vulnerable to missile fire can be the best choice for assaulting walls. I'm sure they can be good for rushing through breaches or opened gates, though. Perhaps that's what you had in mind in the first place.
Oh I've read the thread in its entirety, and carefully enough to understand the various viewpoints. You may think you've clearly demonstrated those things, but all you've done is make arguments that are less than airtight and far from compelling. There's not a single thing there that could be considered evidence, or actually indicative of what would happen if they were "over-improved," which is exactly why I asked for you to make better arguments that are more supported by information instead of speculation.Quote:
I get the feeling you haven't carefully read over this thread enough. I have clearly demonstrated how over-improved pikemen would render S&S units nearly useless, and that the extra vulnerability of pikemen against flanking infantry is, in the hands of most players, insufficient to balance their otherwise overpowered frontal melee capabilities.
As to balance, the extra vulnerability of pikemen against flanking infantry would of course be insufficient to balance their "otherwise overpowered frontal melee capabilities." You neglected to mention their horrific slowness, inability to turn quickly, and awful missile defense. That's a LOT more vulnerability. Any player who fails to recruit any missile units to cut them down or outmaneuver them at all with cavalry or infantry simply should lose to pikes. It would be like if a tank was coming at you and you refused to do anything except stand in front of it trying to attack it with your fists. You'd deserve to die, because that's the last thing you should be doing to attack a tank. The improved pikes would be beat by archers and literally any unit can kill them from any side except the front, plus they're as slow as molasses, which is plenty of drawbacks and limits in exchange for the ability to stand in one place and be very difficult to move or kill. It's an incredibly 1-dimensional unit, and at least has to be good at that 1 thing it actually is supposed to be able to do...
I don't know if they should beat them or not: I do think it should take a long time for anything to happen though. They both prevent what the other tries to do! Pikes have bad attacks against great S&S armor, while S&S must close to attack which pikes are designed to prevent. I'd honestly think it should just be horribly frustrating more than anything w/ very little getting accomplished.Quote:
I'm not. Stop trying to shove this strawman down my throat.
I have very explicitly stated that pikemen can and should be improved to fulfill their role as an anti-cavalry unit with greater proficiency, which would also inevitably result in better performance against infantry as well.
What I'm proposing is that they should not be improved to the extent that they can beat S&S units, which in my view would unbalance the game.
As I recall, the primary argument for SBM beating pikes is their ability to roll on the ground and basically outmaneuver the pikes with speed and agility. The DFK's higher armor is not only more protection, it is probably substantially less speed and agility. In order to protect the man better, the armor would typically have to be substantially heavier (b/c of being both thicker and having more area of the man covered) and also often more restrictive. It's unlikely that the more heavily armor-clad DFK's could perform such agile stunts to avoid pikes, and so no I do not think one should consider DFKs to perform the same role in this regard. I will agree that in the game they are similar in role, but you simply can't make the jump of saying DFKs should be good against pikes in the game because in history SBMs might have been. Nevermind that bucklers would not provide the same protection as large shields that DFK use either: the unit stats do not do the real life difference justice, SBM would be weaker defensively than the game represents.Quote:
Look at the description of Sword & Buckler Men in-game:
(Emphasis mine)
Now compare their stats to DFK's.
They have almost identical stats to DFK's, except they have less armor.
Now, do you think DFK's should perform the same role as these guys? After all, they have very similar stats, use swords and shields, and are an elite infantry unit.
If CA intended DFK's not to perform the same role as as SBM, don't you think their stats should be significantly different?
You just won't give up on the bad logic regarding CA! Something being "caught" and being "fixed" are a world apart. It's entirely possible and likely that CA is aware of the pike issues and has simply prioritized other more broken and important things ahead of it. That something is not changed does not illustrate that it is unnoticed or represents intended game behavior.Quote:
And if you think CA has made a mistake and somehow intended DFK's to perform another role, do you think they would have more easily caught that then the shield bug? After all, while you can look at stats and descriptions at-a-glance, spotting the shield bug requires a lot of battle testing and careful observation.
Snake oil salesman? Your term, not mine, lol. For the record, I have not once made a personal attack against you in this thread. I have, however, thrashed your ideas and methods. There is a world of difference, which I suggest you read about before using labels like "ad hominem."Quote:
Do you need more evidence, Foz, or do you still believe I'm some snake oil salesman? If not then stop with the ad hominem attacks and focus on the actual arguments instead.
Easy, guys. I think everyone would be doing themselves a favor is we all stopped and took a breath. Miracle, if you feel someone has personally insulted you, then you should use the "report post" icon -- that's what it's there for, after all. If the staff finds that it's in violation of the Org's rules, we'll deal with it accordingly.
That said, I honestly don't think it's the intention of Foz or anyone else to personally insult you. There's been one or two instances where both of you have neared that line; but you've managed to avoid actually doing so thus far, for which you're all to be commended.
So just consider this as a (mild) general warning to all: In any argument here on the forums, make sure you're attacking only the position, and not the person posting it. You guys have been having a thorough, spirited - yet civil - discussion & debate up to this point, and I would very much prefer to see it remain that way. :yes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foz
Just a small nit-pick but I believe that the defense stat is not used in defense against missiles, just armour and shield (from the front and right, as of 1.02)... Is that not correct?
Mind you foot knights tend to be the best armoured anyway so using them to absorb hits from non-AP missiles still works.
I believe defense skill only count in melee combat.
Just to throw my own two penath back in.
@ Miracle, your suggesting using medium heavy Cav for a HELL of a lot of things that IMHO they aren't really useful for when you get the spears up to a balanced power level, a unit in schiltrom on the end of the line and another unit or two behind it more or less leave Cav as opportunists, who's primary roles is to tackle any undefended or unsupported units. Generally this only happens after the battle lines have engaged when things become confused. they can be used in effect to turn a losing fight into a win or to achieve a victory faster.
In addition the schiltrom units on the end of a pike formation make it nearly impossibbile to use Cav in that role, (to mention nothing of the light Cav, any Cav coming too close will find itself tied up by the light Cav and mugged shortly after by the spears, any attempt to run away would result in them being run down by the light Cav and the spears will get them if they don't run).
Their are 3 basic ways of dealing with a schiltrom on the end of a line.
1. send in 2-handers
2. send in other spear.
3. send in a S&S unit
1. has the disadvantage that if the 2-hander walks their going to get shot to pieces, and if they run a spear unit cannot easily get between it and enemy Cav. Either way it's very risky to try, (although it has a huge payoff if it works).
2. Suffers from a slow kill rate, ties up a very valuable counter Cav unit of your own and will decimate your own spear unit.
3. Has few disadvantages beyond cost, it can walk inside protection distance of a spear unit, survive enemy missiles, and will kill the spears off fast with few losses
Lastly, as Foz noted, S&S units ARE all rounders, they aren't perfect at any one thing but they can do a lot of things at OK level.
Regarding not being able to flank because everyone has the same units.
Thats not really true, everybody is going to have different numbers of archers and Cav, as a result that means the number of "line" units, (most archers not being able to double as good melee units), is going to vary considerably between the two forces. Thus the length of the line will vary a lot making flanking easy.
In addition dealing with a pike line involves throwing cheap trash at the pikes and defensive blockers at one flank whilst every major offensive unit you have hits the other flank in an effort to collapse it before the pikes finish your trash and turn on your flank attacking forces. However the very overwhelming nature of most attacks on the flanks of a Pike formation often means that the flank guards of the formation simply won't ever make their value back, the pikes have to make their own value back AND that of the units that are protecting your flanks.
In a pike vs. non pike battle the pikes will often be equivalent of about 1/3 the total size of the enemy force and 1/10th the cost, but over the course of the battle will have to kill something like 3/4 the numbers of the enemy force and 9/10th the cost if your to actually win the fight.
The entire purpose behind a pike formation is to protect the pikes flanks long enough for them to grind pretty much the entire enemy force into dust.
Whilst the aim of anyone fighting a pike formation is to keep the enemy pikes occupied whilst you eliminates the rest of the enemy army with low losses, thus allowing you to hit the pikes from every direction at once and destroy them.
In theory perhaps but in practise that will never work. Here's an example of a scottish set up from High era: 6-8 Pike Militia ( I favour 7 personally although it's changeable depending on who your facing) As many cavalry as you can, usually 9 (dependant on rules) and then some archers to counter the opponents archers so say 4.Quote:
The entire purpose behind a pike formation is to protect the pikes flanks long enough for them to grind pretty much the entire enemy force into dust.
Whilst the aim of anyone fighting a pike formation is to keep the enemy pikes occupied whilst you eliminates the rest of the enemy army with low losses, thus allowing you to hit the pikes from every direction at once and destroy them.
The pikemen set up in a single line, cavalry on the flanks and archers up front.
You both advance into archer range at which point you run at them (Pikemen can do this as fast as other infantry when out of spearwall) because your archers suck as you spent all your money on good cavalry and upgrades for that cavalry. They won't be quick enough if you time it right to change their targets from your archers to pikes by the time you get to their lines. So they can either leave their archers to stand there and die, or withdraw them behind their main infantry line which they've just opened up to you. You can either engage them and win with pikemen (which is reality in 1.1 and even worse if the people who want pikes improved get their own way). Or just stand in front of them without engaging so they can't move their infantry to help their cavalry which by this point is getting ****ed on the flanks as yours is far superior due to more money. If they do try to move to help out their cavalry you can catch them in the rear so it's win/win.
While all this is going on their archers can't do anything without shooting thier own troops in the back so they're out of the equation for now. If they decided to move their cavalry behind their main infantry line so it doesn't get crushed by your superior cavalry then you send yours all the way round the back and engage them from that side, pin thier infantry with yours and hey started routing/fighting to the death as they're surrounded.
Thats the reality of it and there's only 1 thing the other guy can do about it due to the shield bug. That other thing would be to get the worst infantry they can like peasants so they can afford to upgrade and get better cavalry than you. A peasant unit with 1 chevron, 1 attack and 1 defense is a formidable unit with the shield bug, so now they can hold your pikes and even win in 1.1 as pikes are only effective themselves because of the shield bug, a mass of cheap infantry > pikemen who are better suited to killing smaller quantities of elite infantry.
That is the ONLY thing that can e done against pikemen currently and if the people who want pikemen improved further get their way it will completely ruin MP more than it currently is in 1.1.
As for increasing the price of pikemen thats even more historically inaccurate than supposedly having weak pikemen is and would require a substantial increase to even more than S&S units like dismounted conquistadors that cost 690 currently. So would u like peasants with long pointy sticks like the scottish pikemen have to be more expensive than CHIVALRIC KNIGHTS?
I don't however have a problem with keeping pikemen at their current level in late era such as Swiss Pikemen as long as there's a substantial increase in cost.
This is about MP btw as Carl seemed to be talking about player Vs player:2thumbsup:
Has anyone checked out this thread over at twcenter?
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=88483
In it the thread starter claims to have found a way to improve the unit's utilisation of the pike over the sword.
This is my experience of MP too and I am thrilled that CA listened to MP community and stopped the ungodly infidel scottish pike spamQuote:
Originally Posted by Kronos
So, Kronos, aren't you really complaining more about the shield bug then the pikes? Also, everyone else has archers with better range, and the English have cheap ones at that. What's stopping you from backing off your entire line to continue firing while your opponent sets up his spearwall?
You're also totally mincemeat to a HA army. They'll outnumber and cut up your cav, then wipe out your defenceless pikes.
So should the Turks be banned too?
if you cant defeat a pike spam army with a balanced army you need to practice more. you have to be prepared for anything within the ruleset. pike army can be beaten especially if they arent using "certian" methods to get around the bugs of the pike animations.
a person with a balanced army will keep their distance and rain arrows on them and pick off isolated and seperated units by overloading them with two or three cav units attacking from several directions.
they will also keep their melee infantry away from the pikes until they can find a weakness or isolated unit.
you cant expect every opponent you face to have the same unit clone build that you have. if you dont like it because a pike unit beats you than you need to learn how to defeat them. this has not been a problem for me, but i think out of the box and i win some games but not all my games because of it.
and i fail too understand how it is said by someone that CA has decided to put a stop to pike spam armies. as far as i know they have never made a comment one way or another yet.
:smg:
Well yes it is more about the shield bug in the 1.1 patch which is the reason pikes are so strong, but i'm also voicing my opinion of other peoples misconception that pikemen should be improved even further than what the shield bug accomplishes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Smith
As for backing up that may work against relatively new players and people who would use the same type of *noob rush* tactic with heavely upgraded urbs if any of you remember the 1.5 patch ( me and some of my clanmates actually started using a certain parthian tactic that was based solely on missile/cav to counter this which was very good at what it did and would almost guarantee us heroics:laugh4:, which then got copied and used by everyone else so we had to find a counter to that which turned out to revamp egypt which lead to it being remembered for the powerhouse it was back in 1.2 and before. But this is neither here nor there). But m2's different enough to allow for this to be easily countered. Most experienced players would use a similar tactic to what was used when you had a poor army to counter people using this type of thing in rtw but had phalanxes as your infantry (I can only actually recall from personal experience, seeing this used by two different people but i'm sure many more did, those 2 being myself and |Sith|Mel). This would go something along the lines of this:
You rush in like one would, but when they backpeddle you send in some if not all of your cav through your infantry lines if they're positioned behind infantry or in from the flanks and attack whatever units in front. It's usually archers, but with the Medieval cavalry charge if their infantry's infront then they're gone. So they have 2 options, either continue backpeddling and getting large chunks taken out of their infantry/archers if not all of it. This one being what only inexperienced players would do, so then it's easy when they're dead to consolidate your forces and shoot their cavalry until theyre all dead by archer fire or morel likely have had to attack your whole army alone and have been raped.
Or they're forced to send in cavalry to protect archers/infantry where it turns into one big pile in, but you'll win as you have pikemen as well as your cavalry to kill their cavalry. You can then either fight it out and most likely win, or withdraw your cavalry and flank/fight their cavalry on the flanks if they withdraw there's as well then flank. But no matter what you'll of taken out a large portion of their archers and/or Infantry and successfully got them to engage in melee with you, taking minimal casualties from Archer fire.
I shouldn't be telling you this really as these tactics are some of the top end stuff that separate the experts from the average in MP. However I'm sure this thread will get buried in this forum soon enough and not many serious MPers will get a chance to read it:verycool:
As for HA cavalry's limited to under 10 in almost every game (usually 8 or 9) and sometimes there's a max 4 HA rule aswell. But HA don't have the same quality they did in rtw and beating them is extremely easy comparatively. With a max on cav any HA you get just makes the other person have a greater melee cav advantage. Although saying that in 1.1 with the shield bug HA are effective Melee fighters compared to what they should be, but still not as good as standard melee cav.
It depends on your definition of "Pike spam", all my armies are more or less balanced, but if you mean spam as in 20 units of pikemen then I could defeat that with any army I've ever used in mtw2 without even trying. As far as i'm aware no one is even talking about pike spam except you though, I'm talking about how overpowered they are when used by someone who isn't a complete moron and overzealously gets far in excess of what a sane person would consider. However if you consider spam to mean 9 or under units then tell me your ingame name and I'll look out for you to give you a private demonstration of how easy almost any balanced army you could throw at me wouldn't stand a chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by mad cat mech
I'm unfamiliar with these *certain* methods, but maybe i just use them without thinking about it. Could you please elaborate on this. BTW Pikes work perfectly fine no matter how you use them, within reason.
Read my above post, that shows but one of a few ways to get around this easily. who in the hell has isolated units anyway? lolQuote:
a person with a balanced army will keep their distance and rain arrows on them and pick off isolated and seperated units by overloading them with two or three cav units attacking from several directions.
they will also keep their melee infantry away from the pikes until they can find a weakness or isolated unit.
Unless your trying to lose seperating units is a bad idea with a few exceptions.
No, just the competent ones who will have very similar armies. I don't get beat by pike units anymore and I know how to beat them with ease after a handful of attempts. If it hasn't been a problem for you then you've either been playing the wrong people or your using something similar to what I said or another coupel of tactics that can get the job done. I win most of the games against people I try to play with and all the games unless maybe if i'm trying something new against the type of people it sounds like you play with.Quote:
you cant expect every opponent you face to have the same unit clone build that you have. if you dont like it because a pike unit beats you than you need to learn how to defeat them. this has not been a problem for me, but i think out of the box and i win some games but not all my games because of it.
Actually I've heard rom people that know CA staff rather well of this and even in passing got that impression from a CA staff memberQuote:
and i fail too understand how it is said by someone that CA has decided to put a stop to pike spam armies. as far as i know they have never made a comment one way or another yet.
:smg:
Unlike RTS games where the developers are best off making games with a lousy single player and a quality multilayer, total war games focus on both (with the exception of Rome :skull: ).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kronos
Since both markets are equally valued, it's best to come to a compromise. I've suggested pike men being as good as they were historically, but much more expensive and perhaps slower (with or without spear wall on) to please those who fear other units being made useless.
Now pikes are fine if you think they should only be mobile stakes, but that's far from historical.
I haven't heard you or Miracle object to making pikes less likely to switch to swords (which would require making more ranks use their spears, that way the enemy could be kept at a distance, thus keeping pikes from switching to swords), and you in fact support ending the death-by-charge pike bug.
If these bugs were fixed, even without increasing a pikes attack pike men would dominate the battle-field infantry-wise. For balance, i suggest decreasing the amount of attack pikes have (perhaps cutting it in half?) and increasing their cost.
I will agree that as it is now pikes kill far too quickly. Normal infantry should be able to hold them off for a long amount of time, locked in a sort of stalemate. In fact, due to the lack of mobility the spear wall presents, S&S units should be able to enter and exit combat with pikes without losing more than a handful. However, though nearly immobile, pikes shouldn't take much more casualties than S&S's. Pikes should be a sort of mobile barrier.
Neither should be able to just frontally charge in and slaughter the other. It should take time.
the thing is though is that spears and pikes have a lot of killing power in them to inflict damaging wounds just as quickly as swords if not more so. especially with additional ranks. and the fact that the pike unit usually attacks at a slow trot, as is described was used by the the swiss pikemen in their many battles.
this ability was finally featured in the game over the past games which tended to portray spears as having a weak attack which is obviously not true.
the only massive deadlocks in the game involving pikes should be against other pikes, pole arm units or units who use some sort of shield wall. which thanks to a couple of highly opinionated consultants was left out of the game. in example spear or axe, and sword or shield infantry which can form a shield wall and form a deadlock [temporarily against the superior pike].
pikes and spears were superior to one handed swords. this is common sense.the only use for one handed swords was for a secondary weapon, an heirloom or someone obsolete enough to actually believe he can duel it out with a pike force.
swords and shield are for the early and high eras only. spears and shield may have still played a small role in the late era until gunpowder pretty much left cheap wood and leather shields obsolete and no army could afford to equip the huge numbers of lower infantry with steel shields to make up for it.
That's not what I've gotten out of this thread at all. Primarily, the discussion is post 1.2 according to the thread title. Therefore no one is talking about the shield bug at all: it is gone in 1.2. So no one thinks pikes should be more powerful than they are w/ the shield bug. We think they should be more powerful than they are without the shield bug. They fail to create the barrier effect that a pike formation should create, and without the ability to hit high armor units very often (note most shield units get a +12 armor boost from having their 6-point shields help instead of hurt), they are reduced to utter garbage in 1.2. I'd personally be fine if they had some difficulty hitting heavily armored units, but were at least able to hold them out of the pike formation for the most part. I guess it's possible that it could work to make them able to kill heavily armored units instead, but I really am most in favor of them dragging the speed of combat down substantially by keeping other units from being effective, instead of pikes being upped to the kill rates of other units. The effect I'm looking for might honestly be achieved w/ their current stats if CA simply made them stick to their pikes and not let the enemy unit breach their formation/kill them as easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kronos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob the Insane
Sorry for not being clearer. To me, "defense" is always the sum total of all defense values: armor + skill + shield. I generally say skill if I mean defense skill. I don't know how else to refer to the general defense of the unit than to call it simply "defense," which is why I do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickooClan
In this case, the S&S units actually have better armor than spears do, in addition to the better skill that you two have noted. For armor/skill/shield Armored Sergeants are 5/3/6 to the DFK's 7/8/6, so certainly the melee defense difference is far more than the missile defenses differ b/c the biggest DFK improvement is in the skill category, but DFK are still superior in both regards.
i thought the shield worked against missiles just not in melee in v1.1.
if you shoot straight into some shield bearing units with weapons it is not easy to bring them down. so i always try to get around at an angle to get around the shields.
Alright, this may sound like a stupid question, but do pikemen actually get a penalty agaisnt infantry? I know that standard spearmen and, to a lesser extent, town militias get an inherent penalty because of the "spear" attribute they have. Is there such penalty for the pikes "spear" attribute?
Well, pikes have the long_pike attribute that makes them "phalanx capable" according to the description. They also do have the "spear" attribute, which does mean they have a bonus versus cav and penalty versus infantry like other spear units have. It's really no wonder they're ineffective, all things considered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Smith
That's almost correct. The shield worked against missiles, but not only failed to work in melee, it actually showed a trend of working backwards. Obviously no one at CA will likely confirm exactly what it was doing, but it's for certain higher shields hurt the unit more in melee, and my assumption (and best guess) has always been that it worked exactly backwards, subtracting defense value instead of adding it in melee.Quote:
Originally Posted by mad cat mech
Wow 22 long posts since I last visited...
To keep things short and relevant I'm only going to discuss the most important issues.
In the Early era, yes, but not the High era for many factions. Once you can get DEK's or their clones you'd rather use them over swordsmen in many situations - except beating pikemen. It's true that factions without good DEK-like units would still make S&S a staple unit, but the utility of the unit class itself becomes much more limited in High and Late. If pikemen were over-improved then S&S would be nearly useless in High/Late as you'd much rather have another unit in one of your 20 slots (assuming DEK-like units are available).Quote:
Originally Posted by mad cat tech
Then why did CA bother to put Sword & Buckler Men in the game, if they will inevitably become obsolete?Quote:
but when late era comes around those units are obsolete.
The thing is that, if pikemen were over-improved, they won't be useful enough, even in a general all-around role, to justify their cost in High/Late. You'd still much rather have some other unit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foz
As you already know now only armor and shielding matters in missile defense. Plus, it's an absolute waste for an expensive unit like a DFK to absorb missiles when a gold-armoured spear militia can do the job just as well. (7 armour vs. 7 or 8 armour). The point of absorbing missiles is to minimize the economic damage enemy archers inflict on your army. Cheap but well armoured junk units like spear milita do this better than DFK's.Quote:
For absorbing missiles, clearly the higher defense values of the S&S units make them much better than spearmen in this regard
Raw defense AND anti-charge mechanisms. Even with 22 defense S&S can take 50%+ casualties from a single cavalry charge. Armoured Sergeants won't. The best anvil is the one that can reliably withstand all types of melee attacks for a reasonable amount of time. Plus, AS have a larger unit size, which helps to compensate for their lower defense skill.Quote:
For anvil units again the valued stat is raw defense,
By the time most polearms are available you'd have the siege artillery necessary to destroy towers, rendering this issue moot.Quote:
A great many of the losses during an assault are caused by the towers
Again, why assault defenders on walls when you can just blow apart the walls with artillery.Quote:
assaulting walls
Yes. Exactly.Quote:
I'm sure they can be good for rushing through breaches or opened gates, though. Perhaps that's what you had in mind in the first place.
1a. They can run if you turn off spearwall, and can quickly get back in standing spearwall with a quick "F+Backspace."Quote:
You neglected to mention their horrific slowness, inability to turn quickly, and awful missile defense.
1b. Spearwall polearms are even slower. Why aren't they getting a whole thread devoted to them?
2. If you micromanage toggling running/spearwall, they can turn fairly quickly, although this is not easy. Point otherwise taken
3. All other shieldless units have the same problem
Perfectly agreeable as long as the S&S unit will eventually get the bulk of their men in and start the butcher's work.Quote:
I do think it should take a long time for anything to happen though
...But of course CA can't model this into the game; they have to use stats to represent this ability. And if DFK's are given practically the same stats and equipment, CA most likely intended these guys to perform the same role. Also, M2TW doesn't accurately portray the weight of increased armor in the game; Armoured Swordsmen can run as fast as unarmored Sudanese Tribesmen and have the same animation to boot.Quote:
As I recall, the primary argument for SBM beating pikes is their ability to roll on the ground and basically outmaneuver the pikes with speed and agility.
Changing the stats of DFK's, DCK's and their like (to differentiate it from SBM) should be quite easy - easy enough that CA could have squeezed it in 1.2 or even 1.1. The fact that they didn't, and that it isn't acknowledged as a bug anywhere at all by anyone most likely means that CA and the rest of the community is fine with it.Quote:
It's entirely possible and likely that CA is aware of the pike issues and has simply prioritized other more broken and important things ahead of it.
That would be my definition of "flanking action." Schiltroms cannot be "outflanked" and I wouldn't call charging them flanking them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
But in addition, cavalry can frontally charge any infantry units without the "spear" attribute, and after the charge they can withdraw and recharge.
Two vs. One. What if another cavalry unit charged the flank of your now schiltrom-less spearmen? The plan falls apart.Quote:
to mention nothing of the light Cav, any Cav coming too close will find itself tied up by the light Cav and mugged shortly after by the spears
How about avoiding them until all the enemy cavalry have been occupied or dealt with, then running polearms/axes up to them and chopping them up.Quote:
Their are 3 basic ways of dealing with a schiltrom on the end of a line.
What if the enemy commander allocates his flanking forces accordingly, and reinforces this flank in order to prevent collapse? Neither commander will be able to outflank the other, and what results is frontal combat everywhere for the duration of the battle. If pikemen were over-improved to have superior frontal combat abilities against any melee unit, they'd dominate most battles, leading to an imbalance.Quote:
every major offensive unit you have hits the other flank in an effort to collapse it
You might say that the AI won't be able to intelligently respond to such strategies, and you're right. But MP matters too, and battle AI can always be improved.
Yes, it should take time, but in the end, S&S should win - that's all I'm asking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thero
quoted from miracle
[1b. Spearwall polearms are even slower. Why aren't they getting a whole thread devoted to them?]
i started a thread on polearm units in both this forum and discussing its affect in mp games as it pertains to marching speeds being too slow. it seems most people dont seem to care too much about the issue but as for myself it would solve some of the discontent pertaining to pikes ineffectiveness.
if polearms were faster marching like the pikes then i would choose pole arm units over pikes despite their being more expensive. pole arms act in melee more like i would expect from pikes. namely that the deeper the formation the more effective they are. it seems a narrow deep collumn of spearwalled pole arms can actually drive a wedge into a pikemen line as well as handle wrapping of its by opposing infantry.
plus a major argument in my opinion is that if pikes were expected to only stop a cav charge and nothing else than it is odd that the entire formation has pikes. what use would the pikes do the rear ranks if they never got to use them.
more than likely in a battle as many ranks as possible that could be projected forward past the men in the front rank were. also pikemen were able to lower the pikes to prevent some one from rolling under. the tercios successful use of sword and buckler involved occupying the opposing pike block with a bad war against their own pikemen and then slip under the spearwall.
sword and buckler infantry if one notes have a smaller steel shield instead of a wooden/leather shield. this is what made the buckler still usable after the firearm came onto the field. albeit it didnt really contribute much. it was lighter and could still be used as it forebears and was still effective versus mechanically driven missiles.
you simply did not drive your infantry into these guys. even in the rennaisance era, the battle of recroi both sides used extensive use of pikes over any other infantry unit. they were simply better.
I tried it, and maybe I'm using the pikes differently, but I found that the changes mentioned in that thread had no effect on weapon switching. True, they kill more with their pikes, but this is to be expected when you set the delay to 0 and have a much better compensation factor for pikes than for swords.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jambo
I also for the first time tried removing the secondary weapon for pikes, and found it to be a horrible way to bypass the problems with the pikemen. Flanking resistance aside, by switching both guard mode and phalanx formation off you can get such a ridiculously powerful charge with the pikemen that it's definitely better to leave the swords in.
I still cant understand the whole: "Roll under the pike" thingy...It sounds kinda overblown...How on earth can you "roll" on the ground at the battlefield and not risk to be trampled to death? :dizzy2:
Well, you know there's a clear 8 feet of space between the pointy bit and the first pikeman's foot!
Someone here previously posted a link to a youtube clip from some spanish film (captain alatriste I think) which had that very thing in a battle scene (the whole tercio thing).
2 armies, pikemen going pokey pokey poke (with no one getting very hurt I recall), people with swords rolling under then doing all the maiming and killing.
Can't remmeber who it was though..
[Edit]
Found it - here's the post (note the warning if you don't want to know the end!)
FROM A VER EST
Just a curiosity, here you have a cut from the film "Capitan alatriste" of the battle of Rocroi. You can see a Tercio unit (with pikes, arquebusiers and sword man) fighting.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=je-c81wwrpA
If you don't want to see the film end do not watch the link
I am not sure if the scene is historically accurate, comments are welcome.
__________________
I think that the scene should dispel the myth that you could just run up and hack the spear point off with a sword at your liesure. Those shafts were thick!Quote:
Originally Posted by Moah
Double entendre (sp) aside, the tercio unit was INCREDIBLY slow, if I remember my history correctly. I think I heard that they probably only moved about three feet forward every minute or so, so that scene where the two units kind of lurched toward each other seemed realistic.
However, this rolling under the pike thing in that kind of battle is seemingly impossible for one main reason: where are the swordsmen standing when the pikes meet? If the swordsmen are mixed in with the pikes, the spearwall will not be as dense. The only other possibility is that they are crawling on their hands and knees in front of the pikemen while they all move forawrd simultaneously.
In medieval terms it seems even more unrealistic. A S&S unit does not have the benefit of pikemen right over top of them to keep the other pikes busy. Also, I'd like to see some of you put on heavy mail armor with a breast plate and roll around on the ground to see how fast you can get up!
As far as I know the tercio was slow chiefly because it had to move slow enough for musketeers to reload, run forward, and fire as it moved. A plain old pike square would have been faster than that.
In a book of mine, depicting historical weapons etc, there is also a page showing pike tactics etc and mentions that two handed swordsmen and halberdiers used to work their way through the pikes in order to wreak havoc in the opposing pike formation. Humans are quite adaptable, I don't know where those guys were standing, but they could for example form the third row and once the engagement starts, they try to reach the other pikemen while the fourth row of pikes closes in to the second row after they are gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Smith
It's a bit hard to imagine anyone would try to get through there, but it's about as hard as imagining to stand in the front row of a napoleonic battleline and not run away IMO.:sweatdrop:
Well, we're not all trained warriors with mucho muscle etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Smith
I suppose my main problem is that I don't think any unit should be able to charge full speed into a pike formation. I understand pikes can only poke so far, and that if you can get in close you can reak havoc. But, perhaps part of the problem in the game is that infantry can charge full speed into a pike unit and get their charge bonus against a unit that has poor defense. Maybe if the mechanics were altered so that infantry wouldn't get a charge bonus against pikes it may make a little more sense to me. As it stands now, the game mechanics are just poorly done for pike units.
Slightly off topic but I shoudl point out that that the view that plate armour made you slow and clumsy is a myth that has been disproven time and time again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Smith
I've seen 3 or 4 programmes in last few years (I'm in Uk so BBC and history channel shows I think) that did weapon/armour recreations. Among them were plate armour and they had guys rolling, doing press ups leaping aona nd off horse and doing 100 yeard dashes in the armour. It was actually very flexible (it was usually built for the person too, for extra manouverability) and you coudl easily have done a forward roll or crawled on hands and knees.
P.s. Yes, sorry, that does mean Excalibur isn't historically accurate. Except the bit when Uther Pendragon has sex in 15th century full plate of course....
I don't doubt that armor was more flexible, etc. However, they did in fact weigh quite a bit, and fighting for extended periods is more of the issue than being able to don plate mail, run a 100 meter dash, then take a break. There are plenty of historical example of troops getting fatigued just MARCHING to the enemy depending on the circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moah
i think you should experiment with it yourself before you make that claim. i for one if i have a 100 lb rucksack on my back its gonna be awfully difficult to do just about anything except march and maybe shuffle run short distances.
even at 60lbs getting on your back and getting up is very difficult but crawling may not be so hard to do. but in the movie the guys crawling around are not sword and bucklers they appear to be the arquebusiers seen at the first of the battle scene. as well as i notice some of the pikemen after impaling someone or out of some response dropped their pikes and decided to get in on the crawling battle where they seemed to be cutting the opponents achilles tendons or hamstrings.
Sadly I would have to agree. I've made several posts about the pike bugs in the 1.2 (unofficial) bugs thread (at TWC) and they have all been ignored by the staff there.Quote:
Originally Posted by mad cat mech
So I decided to send a PM to Caliban about the death-from-ten-feet away bug and the issue of pikes switching to swords. I've tried to make it as balanced as possible.
Hopefully some kind of answer will eventually be sent.Quote:
Originally Posted by PM sent to Caliban
well, olmsted, who is a moderator on the .com made up the latest patch fix list for the devs. his biggest complaint as well as mine was the visual bug of not showing the pikes lowered before contact when in fact they are.
later after a more in-depth discussion with olmsted[ who i know has really little pull with the devs but was making the list] olmsted reluctantly agreed with me that they switched to swords to early and in the list both bugs are now mentioned right beside each other.
but to it a CA official to make any comment on the issue is impossible. i fear we will know our answer soon enough.
it just burns me up that all the other issues were addressed and comments made such as their intent on the new cav charge mechanics, admission to shield and two handed bug, but no mention on spearwall units period.
I think we're talking about different things. I mean "ability to absorb missile fire in the normal course of their duties" not "usefulness as a junk unit to stand around and get shot." It's pretty wasteful to recruit a unit simply to eat up enemy missile fire. It makes a lot more sense to just get the better unit that avoids missiles at least as well, and simply march it at the enemy line until melee is joined. They won't take too many missiles, and will fare very well in the melee that follows, generally. Every 2 spear units you recruit to die to enemy missiles deprives you of 1 S&S unit that could instead be simply winning the battle for you. So to my thinking DFKs are better in this regard, because they do something besides just die: they actually go attack and win, where you can be reasonably assured your spears will die quickly if they try to similarly fight it out in melee to end the missile battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miracle
I will also point out that you are comparing a unit with no upgrades required to one with 3 upgrades required. It costs you 4200 florins to get your junk spears up to the level you're talking about, and you'll certainly need more than one city with that upgrade to get enough spears. So at least 8400 florins invested just so the unit can be wasted all the time... that doesn't seem like smart spending to me at all. A few factions may have other reasons to upgrade their city blacksmiths that far, but others probably don't, so the desirability of doing this with spears is certainly questionable at best.
Uh, no. Mainline troops that are typically anvils do not have to be anti-charge at all: only the flanks of the line need that ability, since that's typically where cavalry show up. Frontal cavalry charges by contempary cavalry (FKs) cause ~1/3 initial kills to DFK... and then the FKs can be assured of destruction by the surrounding mainline units. Not to mention it's difficult to get your cavalry to go through your own line and get organized enough to hit the enemy with a formed charge, especially before he can react. The simple fact is that most times your anvil units are not vulnerable to cavalry attack, and therefore do not need that ability at all. They do however end up in protracted melee all the time (since that is the point of being an anvil), where the 7 or more extra melee defense S&S units have will make a HUGE difference in their effectiveness over spears. Spears can die to 2-handers so quickly that they'd be nearly worthless as an anvil against them, and in the vast majority of situations are far inferior at holding off an enemy force, i.e. being an anvil.Quote:
Raw defense AND anti-charge mechanisms. Even with 22 defense S&S can take 50%+ casualties from a single cavalry charge. Armoured Sergeants won't. The best anvil is the one that can reliably withstand all types of melee attacks for a reasonable amount of time. Plus, AS have a larger unit size, which helps to compensate for their lower defense skill.
Yup, if you choose to go that way. It's not a good choice always though - see below. Also, does anyone know if towers can shoot you while you're on the ground in the area of a breach? It may be possible the polearms can get shot by the towers if the enemy plugs the hole decently, which would really hurt their value in that role. I don't know if it's possible for towers to do though: they'd have to fire backwards a tiny bit.Quote:
By the time most polearms are available you'd have the siege artillery necessary to destroy towers, rendering this issue moot.
Speed, of course. If your army has to move any considerable distance, it will take many more turns if it has artillery along. I sometimes go either way on the artillery issue, but some forum goers are definitely in the "never use artillery b/c it is so slow" camp, so the issue has bearing on at least some portion of players since not everyone uses artillery, and it is sometimes not practical to do so (like if you're going on crusade, or have expanded away from your primary production centers).Quote:
Again, why assault defenders on walls when you can just blow apart the walls with artillery.
Quickly enough to be set for cavalry if the cav take off at a run? I'm pretty sure you'd fail at least some of the time. It seems like a method that is just inviting cavalry to take a shot at the pike unit. Even if you can get them set in time every time, a smart opponent will feint the charge just to make the pikes stop, when they will be shot to pieces by archers. There's no way to make their speed into a non-issue if your opponent has any sense or tactical prowess.Quote:
1a. They can run if you turn off spearwall, and can quickly get back in standing spearwall with a quick "F+Backspace."
Duh. That doesn't mean you can write it off. The primary issue here is pikes vs. S&S units, so the huge difference in missile defense counts as a big drawback (and thus a big mitigating factor to their potentially increased performance) any way you slice it.Quote:
3. All other shieldless units have the same problem
What do the stats of DFKs and DCKs have to do with the pike issues that we are talking about here? I'm talking about things like the pikemen switching to swords right away, failing to keep enemy units out of their ranks, and walking through enemy units with pikes raised, never attacking even though an attack was ordered. All this about SBM is tertiary at best, and frankly losing sight of the bulk of the real issue: that pikes suck horribly, and simply should not.Quote:
Changing the stats of DFK's, DCK's and their like (to differentiate it from SBM) should be quite easy - easy enough that CA could have squeezed it in 1.2 or even 1.1. The fact that they didn't, and that it isn't acknowledged as a bug anywhere at all by anyone most likely means that CA and the rest of the community is fine with it.
Hey guys, i wonder if any of you would be interested in testing out these files me and Palamedes have been working on for LTC 2.3:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...43#post1711543
You can use them with the -io.file_first command, and you need to have 1.2 installed. Just interested to see what you think of the balance.
Anyone thought that they are swithing to swords directly BECAUSE the S&S infantry has rolled under the pikes and is eating them ( i'd like a graphic effect there tho) already?
S&S infantry was doing this TOGETHER with pikes of their own and apparently with not that great success...otherwise this trick wouldnt have been completely abandoned by the Renessaince...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Terentius Varro
Pike units arent as uber as some people assume they are slow volnuerable to missiles and weak at flanks...
If one has a little strategical thought one would NEVER charge the pike units recklessly head on...but would try to pin them using some shielded spearmen whith high defence and rip their flanks apart by S&S or cavalry...
Well Caliban sent me a reply and it looks like it's already been discussed. Palamedes is working on the problem.
I suggest downloading the file Lusted posted, it definitely improve pikes. There are still a few problems, but pikes work much better.
I'm really not worried about pikes anymore, it looks like it's being taken care of.
Then why CAN units charge recklessly head on into pikes in M2:TW and come out drastically on top?Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
Maybe because of the classic "RTS" RSP system that assumes that there is no flanking manouverability or physics involved...Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Smith
The RPS system was fine for the simplified green bar-resourcecollecting-basebuilding Dune2 clo(w)nes however when approaching the whole matter from a more logical and realistic matter the pikes should exist in the space (as in RTW) and thus work as a barrier...
what i think is funny is that when i played rome on multiplayer that when i played against a guy who used a phalanx box. there was always a way depending on his skill to defeat it. this was in rome with the uber hoplites and pikes.
in mtw2 they change to swords to quickly, lose formation easily, have no shield to stop missiles and are pretty much trash and still people find a way to complain about pike heavy armies. you have to be very,VERY creative to find ways to make pikes work in mp.
and if you have a system worked out than i figure you earned it. maybe people who like their favorite melee units can spend as much time as some of us pike fans have they would have us complaining about their units.
any system put together by units you think a lot of can be made to work successfully but you have to work and practice with it and learn how those units work at their best.
Well my first thought is... what good are knights now? You gave crap spear units so much defense that the knights can barely touch them even with a perfect charge - they lost 15 or less when I was charging spear militia w/ mailed knights. And that's with no armor upgrades at all on the spears. On the other hand, their attack boost ensures that the knights die in droves. Given that spears are the vast majority of what you'll encounter in the game for quite a while, what usefulness can knights now possibly have?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusted
I also notice that spears, when upgraded fully, will actually have comparable stats to most heavily armored units like DFK (13+7 = 20, where many heavies have 19 in your file). This just seems wrong, and I can't see how it will possibly be balanced.
So my overall impression so far is that things went in the right direction, but went past balanced and landed at unbalanced in the opposite direction. I suspect this is more due to the huge shift in spearmen stats than anything else...
Note: I haven't played it to death yet so I'm sure there are more opinions & possibly refinements of these coming yet, but this is my impression after a play session.
Not just a cavalry charge, but any melee cavalry attack in any style at the front, including walking wedges. For that, two ranks are not enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by mad cat tech
CA's description of SBM says they are "capable of breaking pike formations." Either they didn't know what you know or they simply didn't care. But compared to other things it's a trivial matter.Quote:
the tercios successful use of sword and buckler involved occupying the opposing pike block with a bad war against their own pikemen and then slip under the spearwall.
Yes, completely. This is the type of scenario I'm talking about: The enemy army has a good portion of foot archers. The one sacrificial armoured spear militia is moved towards them to gain their attention and absorb their missiles. Meanwhile your main attack forces run up behind and alongside this unit completely unharmed. Because your attack forces may be expensive but shieldless, it's much better to have the SM take the missiles instead of your attack forces. After your main forces engage in melee, the SM can still function in the rear as a reserve unit against cavalry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foz
Obviously this only works in SP; in MP some other strategy should be used.
Those 4200 florins aren't just for making SM arrow eaters. As we've discussed before smith buildings are incredibly useful for many units for a very long time. Even if you do intend to use DFK's to absorb missiles you'd end up getting those smith buildings anyway. Also note that castle smiths can upgrade city units and vice versa.Quote:
It costs you 4200 florins to get your junk spears up to the level you're talking about
You can't always assume that...even the AI tends to exploit any vulnerabilities.Quote:
only the flanks of the line need that ability, since that's typically where cavalry show up.
A far better comparison would be CK vs. DFK or DCK. In that case the S&S will easily lose. Given how short a time FK's dominate the cavalry scene (which is debatable; MK's are just as good anyway), this is a far more relevant comparison.Quote:
Frontal cavalry charges by contempary cavalry (FKs) cause ~1/3 initial kills to DFK
And what do you think he'll react with? Ah that's right - spearmen.Quote:
especially before he can react.
S&S die even quicker to a good cavalry charge. Given the choice between a cavalry charge and polearms, I'd chose the polearms.Quote:
Spears can die to 2-handers so quickly that they'd be nearly worthless as an anvil against them
Typically this happens in large largely landlocked factions like Poland, Hungary, and Russia. In this case you'd want to use your superior cavalry to reach settlements and starve them out, instead of sieging at all.Quote:
If your army has to move any considerable distance,
For factions like Venice, ships can be used to transport siege artillery quickly to coastal settlements. For the majority of other factions, the campaign slowdown due to siege equipment isn't as significant as it seems.
It takes a considerable amount of time to halt an uncommited charge, withdraw, reform, and attempt another formed charge feint. During that time the pikemen can quickly close the distance between it and the archers.Quote:
a smart opponent will feint the charge just to make the pikes stop, when they will be shot to pieces by archers.
Furthermore the enemy puts their own cavalry at the risk of friendly fire, just to feint pikemen. That doesn't sound too smart.
No, the main issue is how pikemen perform in the combat environment. To discuss this pikemen and S&S need to be compared to every other unit type.Quote:
The primary issue here is pikes vs. S&S units
I apologize if it seemed indirect, but they do have a connection. The stats of these units give a hint as to their function. Since these stats are very close to that of SBM, there is a strong possibility that these units ought to perform the same function of SBM. CA has described SBM as capable of breaking pike formations. So these units should probably break pike formations as well. If pikemen were over-improved, this would not happen, and CA would contradict itself.Quote:
What do the stats of DFKs and DCKs have to do with the pike issues
I also want to correct a claim I made last time; Armoured Swordsmen are actually two levels slower than Sudanese Tribesmen.
But DFK's are still as fast as SBM, and for this discussion that's all that matters.
but CA is already contradicting itself.
again read the instruction manual and you will find several sections describing how tough the spearwall is supposed to be and that pikes can do schiltrom.
it seems like they had different people put all this stuff together and one had no idea what the other was going to do.
the wedge formation is accurately described in the instruction book but not described properly in the game. basically saying that the wedge is useful to move through enemy lines but not as an ability to engage with.this is a rather hideous issue in itself is that the units which can benefit from wedge the most i.e. border horse, alan mercenaries dont have it while heavy cavalry which usually launches its attacks head on and do not do as much nimble maneuvring do have it.
from the instruction book, to the unit descriptions, the stats, actual battlefield performance are pretty messed up on certian issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Smith
charging into pike should cause losses for the charging unit, not the pike formation. much better chance of getting yourself impaled by running into a braced pike point than actually getting trough.
And CK are nearly TWICE the price of DFK/DCK, DFK vs. feudal is a FAIR comparison because since S&S ARE NOT an anti-Cav unit I would NOT expect them to hold vs. Cav that is nearly double their price.Quote:
A far better comparison would be CK vs. DFK or DCK. In that case the S&S will easily lose. Given how short a time FK's dominate the cavalry scene (which is debatable; MK's are just as good anyway), this is a far more relevant comparison.
WRONG, S&S don't die to a good Cav charge when they walk everywhere because you should have some spears behind the line ready to intercept Cav charges, the AI does exactly that to me in my ProblemFixer and if the AI was just half a second faster in moving it's spears forward I'd never be able to get a frontal charge into a formed battle line.Quote:
S&S die even quicker to a good cavalry charge. Given the choice between a cavalry charge and polearms, I'd chose the polearms
You can try the same with polearms, but I guarantee any sane opponent will shoot them to bits. if they walk, and Cav charge them off the board if they run, (you can't move the spears to protect because the spears move at the same speed as the Cav).
Well first they wouldn't keep shooting constantly, second, they could do EXACTLY the same with ANY infantry unit because Pikemen CANNOT use their pikes when out of spearwall so a simple spears charge into them will make them melee with swords. Lastly their is such a thing as multiple Cav units, you can keep more than one pike unit slowed up with just one Cav unit and cycling lots of Cav units in and out can really mess things up.Quote:
It takes a considerable amount of time to halt an uncommitted charge, withdraw, reform, and attempt another formed charge feint. During that time the pikemen can quickly close the distance between it and the archers.
Furthermore the enemy puts their own cavalry at the risk of friendly fire, just to feint pikemen. That doesn't sound too smart.
Missile fire can be let off in the gaps with relative ease. The other problem is I find that the time it takes for pikes to get into spearwall is about the same time it takes Cav to cover the distance your ordinary bowman can shoot. You won't EVER be able to switch out of spearwall whilst under missile fire because if you do you'll never get back into it in time to receive the charge. You will be forced to endure the missile fire regardless. Remember running units get spread out a Little.
The History that CA has provided with SBM says they used to be used for breaking pike formation. CA has said NOTHING on the matter. Lastly, it's not just S&S that are the issue, every infantry unit in the game (apart from a few of the weakest spears), can beat pikemen up. The only way you'll get Pikes to hold off non-S&S units is to make them fight in more ranks and in a more tightly packed formation so they keep these other units out frontally. However if you do that the S&S units won't get in either, they won't have enough defense and if you give them enough then even CK won't be able to hurt them with a formed charge. Your either stuck with pikes as invulnerable from the front,. or with pikes that are crap against everything, (since good spears can counter Cav far better).Quote:
I apologize if it seemed indirect, but they do have a connection. The stats of these units give a hint as to their function. Since these stats are very close to that of SBM, there is a strong possibility that these units ought to perform the same function of SBM. CA has described SBM as capable of breaking pike formations. So these units should probably break pike formations as well. If pikemen were over-improved, this would not happen, and CA would contradict itself.
Ah, spears might be very good against cav when charged from the front, but they are still incredibly vulnerable to flanking and rear charges. The cavalrys mobility allows them to out flank spear units and beat them like that. The changes makes the player think more about how they are using cav.Quote:
Well my first thought is... what good are knights now? You gave crap spear units so much defense that the knights can barely touch them even with a perfect charge - they lost 15 or less when I was charging spear militia w/ mailed knights. And that's with no armor upgrades at all on the spears. On the other hand, their attack boost ensures that the knights die in droves. Given that spears are the vast majority of what you'll encounter in the game for quite a while, what usefulness can knights now possibly have?
Spear units have a negative bonus against other melee infantry so any non-spear armed infantry will have an edge over them.Quote:
I also notice that spears, when upgraded fully, will actually have comparable stats to most heavily armored units like DFK (13+7 = 20, where many heavies have 19 in your file). This just seems wrong, and I can't see how it will possibly be balanced.
Spearmen have had +2 or +1 added to their attack stats, the main change is their increased mass(are you sure your playing with the latest version of the files i posted?)Quote:
So my overall impression so far is that things went in the right direction, but went past balanced and landed at unbalanced in the opposite direction. I suspect this is more due to the huge shift in spearmen stats than anything else...
You do need to play it quite a bit to see the full extent of the rebalance.Quote:
Note: I haven't played it to death yet so I'm sure there are more opinions & possibly refinements of these coming yet, but this is my impression after a play session.
Hi All ! I have'nt read through the whole thread, unfortunately but in essence, would some be so kind as to tell me if pikes work in 1.20 ? Thanks.
There is no perceptable diffierence in the 1.02 leaked patch...
Thanks.
Yes, I figured that out as I was going. However, it's still a problem. Almost all the fighting in the game happens during sieges... where it becomes nigh impossible to attack units from the flanks most of the time. Even harder to actually charge from there, the city layouts almost never allow it. And when my mailed knights do not hit the charge, they die anyway even when attacking from the rear of the spears. Most battles are sieges, ergo knights become pointless units if they are immediately ground into meat by spears frontally, and that's not even considering their already lacking usefulness because they are incapable of manning siege gear, assaulting walls, or otherwise performing useful functions in a siege.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusted
I also note how ludicrous it looks for an entire company of knights to crash into what is essentially a brick wall of spearmen, which gives not at all under the tremendous energy of a charge. I thought that pikemen were supposed to perform that function, in which case spears should not do it as well, as they are less teched up and obviously not brandishing 3 whole rows of nasty pike points.
So perhaps my issue is more with the mass than with the stats. With the shield fix the stats, combined with the anti-charge ability, proved to go an awful long way toward stopping cavalry charges, which makes me think mass manipulation should not be required at all for spears now that their shields are working and you've otherwise boosted their melee defense substantially as well. I'd like to try that - setting the spears back to normal-ish mass, and just playing with mass in general. Where's the setting at in the files? I don't believe I've seen it yet, at least not that I knew what it was.
Well I assume so, since I have previously not used your mod at all. I grabbed the "Latest changes.zip" late-ish last night, and dropped the files into my mod directory, overwriting my typical ones.Quote:
Spearmen have had +2 or +1 added to their attack stats, the main change is their increased mass(are you sure your playing with the latest version of the files i posted?)
I did notice one other big thing so far. It seems like missile fire is somewhat better than in vanilla. I note though that missile attack values stayed about the same, or maybe were lowered a bit even in some cases, and missile defenses are often increased. Am I imagining it, or are there changes to the projectiles or missile accuracy that are causing improved results?Quote:
You do need to play it quite a bit to see the full extent of the rebalance.
Also I just ran a test of upgraded spearmen against DFK, and it put down that concern at least. The DFK won handily, losing only 23% while inflicting 78% casualties on the spears. Seems to more than justify the cost difference. So I'm more and more convinced my main beef is w/ the mass of the spearmen being high.
I aim for the balance to be good for field battles, not sieges, as i tend to fight more field battles in my mod. Plus cav are never going to be very useful in narrow streets.
It's the collision mass number:Quote:
So perhaps my issue is more with the mass than with the stats. With the shield fix the stats, combined with the anti-charge ability, proved to go an awful long way toward stopping cavalry charges, which makes me think mass manipulation should not be required at all for spears now that their shields are working and you've otherwise boosted their melee defense substantially as well. I'd like to try that - setting the spears back to normal-ish mass, and just playing with mass in general. Where's the setting at in the files? I don't believe I've seen it yet, at least not that I knew what it was.
This is still much less than the 4 mass for pikemen.Quote:
soldier Armored_Sergeants, 60, 0, 1.5
There needs to be an early anti-cav unit that can stand up to cav charges, because pikes are late game, and having other heavy cav as a counter just doesn't work well for balance, as all cav armies would dominate.
Bingo, improved accuracy of arrows/crossbows, reduced accuracy of bullets to tone gunpwoder units down a notch.Quote:
I did notice one other big thing so far. It seems like missile fire is somewhat better than in vanilla. I note though that missile attack values stayed about the same, or maybe were lowered a bit even in some cases, and missile defenses are often increased. Am I imagining it, or are there changes to the projectiles or missile accuracy that are causing improved results?
Basically im going for a MTW balance with cav v spears, where all spears can halt any cav unit frontally, though low levels ones will lose quiite a few men against high level cav. But spears remain very vulnerable to flanking, and can be almost wiped out in a single charge to the rear. This imitates the MTW balance, encourages flanking charges with cav whilst enemy spearmen are tied down by your infantry, and reduces cav spam as they can be countered better.Quote:
Seems to more than justify the cost difference. So I'm more and more convinced my main beef is w/ the mass of the spearmen being high.
Now we just need to get the AI to flank with its cavalry. The AI always seems to charge its cavalry headlong into my ranks...
According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikeman
"The pike was an extremely long weapon, carried by infantry and resembling a spear usually 10 to 14 feet (3 to 4 meters) long. It had a wooden shaft with an iron or steel spearhead affixed. The shaft near the head was often reinforced with metal strips called 'cheeks' or langets. When the troops of opposing armies both carried the pike, it often grew in a sort of "arms race," getting longer in both shaft and head length to give one side's pikemen an edge in the combat; the longest pikes could exceed 22 feet (6 meters) in length. The extreme length of such weapons required a strong wood such as well-seasoned ash for the pole, which was made narrower towards the tip of the weapon to prevent the pike sagging on the ends, although this was always a problem in pike handling.
"The great length of the pike allowed many spearheads to be presented to the enemy and greater reach, but also made it unwieldy in a confused close combat. This meant that pikemen had to be equipped with a shorter weapon such as a sword, mace, or dagger in order to defend themselves should the fighting degenerate into a melee. In general, however, pikemen attempted to avoid such disorganized combat, at which they were at a disadvantage. To compound their difficulties in such melee, the pikeman often did not have a shield or had only a small shield of limited use in close-quarters fighting."
(emphasis added by this poster)
Im gonna play with that variable we discussed at TWc, see if that affects the ai.