Pikeman vs Sword & Shield head to head post 1.02?

I have not really tried to use pikeman in campaign and today i just test them out with custom battle on some S&S units.

I was so surprise even head to head, with a stationary defensive solid setup, the pikeman are chopped into pieces by those S&S unit.

I even tried 2 units of pikemen vs 1 unit of dismounted feudal knight (so they cant "wrap" up my flank), the DFK still outrun them all even at the front of pikeline?? (150 pikemen gone, only 20 DFK is killed....)

I am not sure if this is right any infantry can beat an organised solid pikeline head to head so easily?? :inquisitive:

Not surprising, The pikemen have a penalty to attack VS infantry, they have less attack to begin with, and usually less armour.
A general rule is only use pikemen as infantry if they are upper tier and have maxed out armour upgrades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moral55

Not surprising, The pikemen have a penalty to attack VS infantry, they have less attack to begin with, and usually less armour.
A general rule is only use pikemen as infantry if they are upper tier and have maxed out armour upgrades.

---

Oh, i never know such penalty applied for pikeman, if thats the case in m2tw only? [RTW pikeman works different]

And such penalty make little sense to me in real life situation, other then game play balancing concern.

The most weird thing in m2tw is, in the initial contact, even the swordman didnt touch the pikeman in the animation, their charge still kill all the front rank of the pikeman.... :inquisitive:

pikemen are bugged intentionally but there are ways to get around CAs little tricks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mad cat mech

pikemen are bugged intentionally but there are ways to get around CAs little tricks.

---

"bugged" intentionally? It can either be bugged or intended i think?

Sorry if i have missed this bug which might have been discuss before 1.02. (all the major bugs i know is shield and 2h bug)

They changed it to stop scottish pike spam in MP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Terentius Varro

They changed it to stop scottish pike spam in MP

---

~:mad ~:mad

They went on the record with this? Cause if they did, and this is in fact the case, I am thoroughly ~:pissed:

Now, if all this is true, please tell me there is a better way to go around this than removing the pikemen's secondary weapons altogether.

all this is speculation because CA ,may the cat and rabbit population overrun their facility, will not divulge to its paying customers whether they intended for the pikes to work like they are or whether they are bugged.:wall:

Well if you can be bothered setting up MTW2 for modding, do so and remove secondary weapons from pikemen. I did this and find them to be much better, albeit not overwhelming. Alternatively you could remove their spear bonus, although since they still seem to love whacking stuff with swords I don't know how much difference it would make.

Never did like using pikemen, given the fact that they lack a shield they are extremely vulnerable to missile attacks.

I thought that´s precisely what´s supposed to happen :dizzy2:
Pikes beat cavalry, cavalry beats swords, swords beat pikes - it makes perfectly sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ciaran

I thought that´s precisely what´s supposed to happen :dizzy2:
Pikes beat cavalry, cavalry beats swords, swords beat pikes - it makes perfectly sense to me.

---

historically this is not true.

Not just historically, but it is not true by common sense/physic too.

I can understand a skillful S&S can parry the pike, charging in and make himself on the upper hand in close combat.

But in m2tw while the S&S charge in, make contact on the pikehead with their body/sword/shield, they dont even get hurt/killed but this impact somehow kill the man who is holding the pike in a distance!!?? :wall:

I will have no problem if the swordman or any other infantry beat the pikeman in a sensible way. Either they are parrying in or warping up the pike unit on their flank.

As i think one of the essence of TW is a realistic representation on the battle field. Such unrealistic outcome should not be made merely for game play balance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickooClan

Not just historically, but it is not true by common sense/physic too.

I can understand a skillful S&S can parry the pike, charging in and make himself on the upper hand in close combat.

But in m2tw while the S&S charge in, make contact on the pikehead with their body/sword/shield, they dont even get hurt/killed but this impact somehow kill the man who is holding the pike in a distance!!?? :wall:

I will have no problem if the swordman or any other infantry beat the pikeman in a sensible way. Either they are parrying in or warping up the pike unit on their flank.

As i think one of the essence of TW is a realistic representation on the battle field. Such unrealistic outcome should not be made merely for game play balance.

---

Whilst I wouldn't necessarily believe that 'charge' deaths should be biased towards the S&S troops (after all, who wants to charge on to a big pointy stick), think about it...

You have one guy with a really big pole with a point on it and a guy with a sword and shield. Imagine the pole is 6 foot long. How are you supposed to beat a guy with a sword with a 6 foot pole when he's 1 foot from you?

Of course the S&S will win in melee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lupiscanis

Whilst I wouldn't necessarily believe that 'charge' deaths should be biased towards the S&S troops (after all, who wants to charge on to a big pointy stick), think about it...

You have one guy with a really big pole with a point on it and a guy with a sword and shield. Imagine the pole is 6 foot long. How are you supposed to beat a guy with a sword with a 6 foot pole when he's 1 foot from you?

Of course the S&S will win in melee.

---

Still, I think you are overestimating S&S's ability to GET into a melee in the first place. The way the pike formation works, there is three ranks deep of pikes exposed, so it isn't just a pike six feet ahead, it is also a pike a few feet back from that, and another one a few feet back from that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent Smith

Still, I think you are overestimating S&S's ability to GET into a melee in the first place. The way the pike formation works, there is three ranks deep of pikes exposed, so it isn't just a pike six feet ahead, it is also a pike a few feet back from that, and another one a few feet back from that.

---

and a whole load to the left and right...

In RTW the pikes where more like a physical obstical in the front of the formation of troops and prevented te enemy form reaching them... Only when the enemy wrapped around and squeezed a few men between the pikes did melee combat occur... This made even militia pike troops useful as they could effectly block and pin other non-pike units for a reasonable amount of time even if they did not cause many casualties.

In M2TW this blocking ability seems to have been lost and the troops act more like a group of individuals using pikes rather than a formation. Troops are very quick to stop using the pike and start using their swords.

There was a mod going around that removed the ability to use swords from the pikeman whihc greatly enhanced their effectiveness...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lupiscanis

You have one guy with a really big pole with a point on it and a guy with a sword and shield. Imagine the pole is 6 foot long. How are you supposed to beat a guy with a sword with a 6 foot pole when he's 1 foot from you?

Of course the S&S will win in melee.

---

As i have said i can understand S&S can win if they skillfully parry the pike or wrap up the pike unit at the flank. But the way it is presenting in m2tw now is neither of those, the S&S just kill the pikeman head to head, especially in the initial charge which the S&S even didnt contact the pikeman at all! (but their pike)

@Bob the Insane

And i agree with you in RTW the function of pikeman make more sense and even militia pike troop can hold their ground if using correctly.

Honestly without modding i see very little point to use pike unit in m2tw compare with other standard spearman unit. They do a far better job against infantry, higher resistance against arrow with shield, higher mobility, less vulerable on flanks with schiltrom and also good against cavalry! :inquisitive:

And dont forget pike unit are on a higher tech tree compare with standard spearman...... :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickooClan

As i have said i can understand S&S can win if they skillfully parry the pike or wrap up the pike unit at the flank. But the way it is presenting in m2tw now is neither of those, the S&S just kill the pikeman head to head, especially in the initial charge which the S&S even didnt contact the pikeman at all! (but their pike)

@Bob the Insane

And i agree with you in RTW the function of pikeman make more sense and even militia pike troop can hold their ground if using correctly.

Honestly without modding i see very little point to use pike unit in m2tw compare with other standard spearman unit. They do a far better job against infantry, higher resistance against arrow with shield, higher mobility, less vulerable on flanks with schiltrom and also good against cavalry! :inquisitive:

And dont forget pike unit are on a higher tech tree compare with standard spearman...... :wall:

---

I don't understand why they couldn't make pike units operate like the phalanx did in RTW. The lack of mobility during spear wall should be countered by the superior frontal defensive capability. You are right, the two negatives make them difficult to use.

The chief advantage of pikemen is their ability to statically protect other units from cavalry. Unlike spearmen their pikes are long enough to guard a 2-rank unit in front of it from a cavalry charge.

This ability is extremely useful when combined with such units as Musketeers and Scots Guards. You would have all-around offensive and defensive ability with this setup, especially if you hotkey each pikemen/missile pair.

If pikemen were also good against S&S infantry, however, it would be too strong. It would basically render heavy cavalry in their traditional roles useless, which from a gameplay balance POV is highly undesirable.

the thing that puzzles me was when i played rome and first saw the phalanxes i said to myself, "they modeled them after medieval descriptions of swiss pike blocks"

the only trully really accurate descriptions of pike blocks come from the middle ages. they are not presented in very good detail at all from ancient pictures.

pike blocks in the middle ages should have 4 ranks lowered instead of two in a melee. 5 ranks lowered when braced instead of three.

battle accounts i have read make no dismissal to the effectiveness of a well ordered pike wall. they were very difficult to break into. often involving heroic deeds of self sacrifice to open a gap.

the romans tactics involved the pilum but also they scouted the enemies line and looked for a place where a boulder or a dip in the terrain weakened the formation. and they would focus their attack there to break into the phalanx.



here is a mtw/vi unit description of pikemen

2.5 Pikemen.



Pikemen are the successors to spearmen, they serve the same function and receive the same rank bonus as the spears ( +1 defence, +1 charge per supporting rank and +1 attack for each second supporting rank) but they can claim up to four supporting ranks. Therefore you should deploy them in ranks of six, one to fight, four to support and the sixth providing men to fill the gaps left by the dead. The supporting ranks mean that pikemen need to hold their formation in order to fight effectively, therefore keep them on hold formation at all times. You should also be careful when moving them, let them stop frequently to recover their formation. You can charge pikes somewhat more effectively than spears, just walk them up in front of the enemy, pause for a second to allow them to redress the ranks and then order the charge from close range. This arrangement allows the unit to take losses without losing the rank bonus too quickly. The need for a deeper deployment means that pikemen can cover less ground per unit as they have the same number of men as the spear units (133), this makes them less efficient for holding a front line. They are also more vulnerable to being flanked as the shorter frontage makes it very easy for enemy units to wrap around the pikes and attack from three sides simultaneously. Pikemen have one major problem – everything they can do another unit can do much better. Spears still provide a better front line troop for protecting missile units and providing a base for mobile units to work from. Polearms are much, much better at killing cavalry and they also have a bonus against armoured units, swords, spears and polearm units are also better for leading the charge into battle and engaging the enemy’s front line while others flank. These units are also less vulnerable to being wrapped in a combat situation.

There is one bonus to their small frontage – they are ideal for holding small spaces like the mouth of a bridge or a castle gate (not breach though, they are usually much larger than the gates) for a long time. They are often able to beat off many determined attacks when given a little missile support.

Pikes are best at: Charging the enemy, holding a position, holding a small space, guarding missile units.


M13
Image M13: This picture shows a unit of pikemen against a unit of spearmen. Both are in their optimal formations (pikes = 6 ranks, spears = 4). This shows just how easy it is for pike formations to get wrapped in combat, it also illustrates why spears are better for building a front line.
https://i155.photobucket.com/albums/...ikesupport.jpg
M14

Image M14: Here is an illustration of the pikes supporting rank bonus in action. Look at the row at the bottom of the screenshot. The first man is doing the actual fighting. The four behind him are in their fighting animations even though they are not near the enemy; this is because they are supporting the first man. The final man at the back is doing nothing, this is because he is the reinforcement rank – he will move in to replace a dead man. Because you can see the supporting ranks working in most of the formation you know that this unit is fighting at its best.

NOTE: the descriptions explaining that they are to fight in 4 to 5 ranks deep.

Of course with MTW this was all an illusion as only the first rank was fighting, but with bonus from the active ranks behind (shown by those rank's animations)...

In RTW and even more so in M2TW it is the individual men fighting, even from the rows further back...

I think Miracle may be right and CA have specifically opted to make pikes vunerable to S&S units...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lupiscanis

Whilst I wouldn't necessarily believe that 'charge' deaths should be biased towards the S&S troops (after all, who wants to charge on to a big pointy stick), think about it...

You have one guy with a really big pole with a point on it and a guy with a sword and shield. Imagine the pole is 6 foot long. How are you supposed to beat a guy with a sword with a 6 foot pole when he's 1 foot from you?

Of course the S&S will win in melee.

---

Because the four guys behind you also have poles and are poking at intermittent distances...

Some swordsmen would break up pike formations with sword and buckler, historically, but for the most part, once you had a pike wall the pike wall was dominant until it was slowly fazed out by guns.

I too have been very disapointed by the behaviour of pikemen, I like the way they worked in RTW better. It's supposed to be a situation where if you can't flank, and you can't headbutt them, then you shoot em, and that's why they should have low armour, no shields, etc. But giving them low armour and making them unable to resist a frontal attack? Ridiculous. Just up the price, or make em harder to get if you don't want to spam them.

The thing is making them vulnerable to S&S units is not sensible from a balance perspective. The RPS isn't Pikes beat Cav, Cav beat swords, swords beat Pikes, because it fails totally to take account of 2-handers.


The actual RPS looks something like this, (ignoring pikes):


Cav beat S&S, (with moderate to heavy losses), 2-Handers, (with low losses), and Archers, (with low losses).

Spears beat Cav, (with moderate to low losses).

S&S beat spears and archers, (with low losses).

2-Handers, beat S&S and Spears, (with low losses).

Archers beat 2-handers, (in conjunction with other units as they can rarely kill a whole unit by themselves).



Pikes are supposed to fit in by being nearly untouchable from the front, but extremely weak from the flanks and very vulnerable to missiles.

Here's the above with pikes added in:


Cav beat S&S, (with moderate to heavy losses), 2-Handers, (with low losses), and Archers, (with low losses), Pikes, (from the flank).

Spears beat Cav, (with moderate to low losses), Pikes, (from the flank).

S&S beat spears and archers, (with low losses).

2-Handers, beat S&S and Spears, (with low losses)[B], Pikes, (from the flank)/B] .

Archers beat 2-handers, (in conjunction with other units as they can rarely kill a whole unit by themselves), Pikes.

Pikes beat everything except archers when attacked head on.

the professional late-medieval swiss pikemen were regarded as pretty much unbeatable as long as they held rank, and should be so in the game too.

sword and buckler men would bypass the pike points by rolling under the pikes and entering meelee, but they cant possibly have have suceeded with that tactic on a regular basis, just imagine how hard that move would be to pull of.

therefore, the good pike units should in most cases beat swordsmen front to front. lesser pike militia, with lower cohesion, might be an other matter because they loose formation quicker and allow swordmen to infiltrate the ranks.

game balance is all well and good, but historically, for a while pike reigned the battlefield almost supreme, and should do so in the game too, losing their dominant position first when field arty and gunners are introduced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickooClan

I was so surprise even head to head, with a stationary defensive solid setup, the pikeman are chopped into pieces by those S&S unit.

---

You shouldn't have been surprise...

Historically, and from what I remember from my tabletop wargaming days, S&S units were the perfect antithesis of pikes... Think of how more free of movement a sworsman is compared to a man wielding a 10-foot long pike which could be easily diverted to get to the man behind...

I'd like to see the more professional soldiers performing better because of discipline issues, not stats alone. This is especially important for pike units that rely on unit cohesion a lot. If you bring only pike militia, seeing them switch to swords in melee or being broken up by swordsmen feels realistic. But if you bring higher-tech pikes (Tercio, Aventuros, Scotch what-was-their-names), these should really be impregnable from the front, just because they hold formation better and don't let go of their pikes in a hurry. This system of "performs better because of discipline" could also be tied to unit experience, to make the system more interesting. This is really something I'd like to see! Until then, Carl's ProblemFixer removes a pike unit's swords, which is sufficient to make it worthwhile.

@ Carl

I think i am going to fix the pike issue on my 1.02 game, could you let me know what have you done to fix the pike problem in your fixer mod? If the only thing i have to do is removing the secondary weapon [sword] ? thanks a lot!

I guess without a fixer, even with the full release of 1.2, pike unit which cant even hold their own at front is totally useless imo.

Well, I have somewhat different experiences with the leaked patch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

Cav beat S&S, (with moderate to heavy losses), 2-Handers, (with low losses), and Archers, (with low losses).

---

Cav murders swords witht the charge but will not murder high charge 2H units any longer. You are much better of with a high charge 2H unit vs cav than with swords.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

Spears beat Cav, (with moderate to low losses).

---

With heavy losses if there is a charge, and why would the cav player miss the charge?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

S&S beat spears and archers, (with low losses).

---

With the leaked pacth S&S beats most inf with ease.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

2-Handers, beat S&S and Spears, (with low losses).

---

Well, depends on the 2H unit. Some will lose to standard S&S like DCK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

Pikes are supposed to fit in by being nearly untouchable from the front, but extremely weak from the flanks and very vulnerable to missiles.

---

Supposed to, but they are not, that is why people complain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

Pikes beat everything except archers when attacked head on.

---

Well, this is does not hold any longer with the leaked patch. DCK beats up any pikes head on with ease. This is, why people, including OP complains. However, IMO pikes were not nerfed (in any way), it is the effect of the shield fix, S&S inf are much stronger overall.

Quote:

---

Cav murders swords with the charge but will not murder high charge 2H units any longer. You are much better of with a high charge 2H unit vs Cav than with swords.

---

It depends on the Cav type. Feudal knights vs. DCK will see the S&S inflict heavy losses. the charge 8 stuff just rolls over them.

Quote:

---

With heavy losses if there is a charge, and why would the Cav player miss the charge?

---

Remember i play my Problem Fixer, which like Lusted's LTC incorporates a few additional changes, something Lusted at least appears to be pushing CA towards. in both LTC and the ProblemFixer mods the Cav vs. spears balance is exactly what the adviser suggests it should be. Generally if you charge Cav into spears head on you'll get the first 2 ranks of spears, but it will cost you your front rank of Cav and sometimes parts of your second rank, (assuming a 3 deep spears vs. 2 deep Cav).

Quote:

---

Well, depends on the 2H unit. Some will lose to standard S&S like DCK.

---

DCK aren't stock, their elite high end. Byzantine infantry/swordsmen militia are more the mid range, (their isn't a low range till you fix the light_spear bug). and even vs. DCK most 2-hander units will still do very high damage for their price, on price they beat S&S senseless.

Quote:

---

Supposed to, but they are not, that is why people complain.

---

AND

Quote:

---

Well, this is does not hold any longer with the leaked patch. DCK beats up any pikes head on with ease. This is, why people, including OP complains. However, IMO pikes were not nerfed (in any way), it is the effect of the shield fix, S&S inf are much stronger overall.

---

I know that, the entire second piece is how it SHOULD be, not how it actually is.

Quote:

---

but will not murder high charge 2H units any longer. You are much better of with a high charge 2H unit vs Cav than with swords.

---

Thats the effects of the mass drop talking I expect, bad idea on CA's part as it's barely effected Cav charges against the units they beat up before, but it's made 2-handers way overpowered. they are SUPPOSED to be countered by Cav. That the point of their low defense, everything that has low defense and isn't pikes is supposed to be murdered by Cav.

Certainly with just an animation fix in place and foz's shield fix the 2-handers get murdered and it's a balance both myself and lusted, (based on the fact that he hasn't changed anything with 2-hander to make them more Cav resistant), have found to work well in general.


Generally whatever lusted tends to find works is a good indicator of what direction he'll be trying to push CA in and he seems to be having some success at this so in time I expect them to match up.

Take away their swords.

There really should be some distinction between pikes in good order and not in good order... In good order and even more so if braced pike should by nearly impossible to get at from the front for infantry or cavalry... However if not in good order they should become very vunerable...

I never understood why switching their special ability on or off seemed to have little effect on the way they functioned...

Making pikemen nearly invincible against frontal melee attackers makes both S&S infantry and heavy cavalry far less useful. Granted, pikemen are currently of limited use themselves, but they are the only unit type capable of withstanding a cavalry charge and killing cavalry quickly with minimal losses as well as directly protecting another unit from that charge.

However, I'd agree that they whip out their swords too soon against attacking infantry, and inflict too few casualties . Making them use their pikes longer and inflicting greater casualties on infantry is perfectly fine, but they should still lose a 1 vs. 1 match against a comparable S&S unit.

the only reason sword and buckler men succeeded against pikes is because they were integrated in the tercio pikemens ranks. when the pike walls engaged the sword and buckler men would crawl underneath the melee and start hamstringing the opponents pikemen.

this would be very difficult to implement in the game. also a disciplined pike formation would tend to remain holding their pikes despite if an isolated individual makes it throught the pike wall because they know that if they continue to inflict damage to the rest of his unit he will look back and realize he is isolated while his unit is fleeing.

furthermore under the weighted advance of a swiss pike block he would also stand a good chance of loosing his balance and being trampled underfoot.

offensive pike tactics also usually integrated a core of halberdiers inside the pike block to continue the attack in case the spear wall broke down.

a very formidable combination, but also very difficult to emulate in the game because of different marching speeds.

Has anyone previously tested whether pikemen work better in deep formation, i.e. 6+ ranks, or in shallow formation, i.e. <6 ranks? Are they more likely to bring out their swords one way or the other?

a formation wide enough to contain the opposite units flanks works the best. usually 2 ranks deep versus horse and 3 to 4 ranks deep versus infantry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miracle

Making pikemen nearly invincible against frontal melee attackers makes both S&S infantry and heavy cavalry far less useful. Granted, pikemen are currently of limited use themselves, but they are the only unit type capable of withstanding a cavalry charge and killing cavalry quickly with minimal losses as well as directly protecting another unit from that charge.

---

That's just not true. In RTW, phalanxes were tough from the front against anything, however, they were far from invulnerable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent Smith

That's just not true. In RTW, phalanxes were tough from the front against anything, however, they were far from invulnerable.

---

Quite true, and a head-on battle between a decent phalanx and a good S&S (or spear) unit often ended up with very few initial casuaulties as the S&S could defend themseves against the pikes but could not get close enough attack the men. Only if the S&S men could get around the flanks or somehow break the formation and get in could they do a lot of damage. Until then there was just a lot of pushing.... :2thumbsup:

Phalanx units in Rome were completely overpowered in the hands of a human. I don't want pikes to go back to that level. Somewhere in between Rome and what we currently have in Med II would be better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob the Insane

Quite true, and a head-on battle between a decent phalanx and a good S&S (or spear) unit often ended up with very few initial casuaulties as the S&S could defend themseves against the pikes but could not get close enough attack the men. Only if the S&S men could get around the flanks or somehow break the formation and get in could they do a lot of damage. Until then there was just a lot of pushing.... :2thumbsup:

---

Exactly. Phalanxes were utterly destroyed by the whole hammer and anvil tactic. Hold them in place while simultaneously hitting their flank, preferably with cavalry. They will die very, very quickly. Not to mention how the Medieval Pikemen can be pelted to death by missile units.

There really is no reason to have to dumb down pikemen and make them virtually unusable.

Switching to alternative weapon almost immediately after the impact IMHO is the main (and possibly the only) pike problem in the vanilla game. It was present also in vanilla RTW.

In general, there is nothing wrong with pike's battle stats, but switching to swords part (even when fighting cavalry head on) makes them vulnerable. Taking away pikes' secondary weapons helps them to maintain the spearwall formation and retain their main advantage. The effect is so powerful, that with swords taken away, pikes can hold their ground against anything non-pike thrown at them frontally in the game.

There is a slight problem with taking pikes secondary weapons away though. Without their swords, pike formation seem to be able to annihilate cavalry charging them from behind and from flanks...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jambo

Phalanx units in Rome were completely overpowered in the hands of a human. I don't want pikes to go back to that level. Somewhere in between Rome and what we currently have in Med II would be better.

---

one could also say that about the roman legionarres as well. not only could they weaken a phalanx by throwing pilums but there was also the trick where you could use testudo to get inside the spearwall and then attack.

most that dont want strong pike units are the ones who want to cav spam. not all but most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jambo

Phalanx units in Rome were completely overpowered in the hands of a human. I don't want pikes to go back to that level. Somewhere in between Rome and what we currently have in Med II would be better.

---

Do you mean phalanx units were easily killed by human players, or that human players could destroy everything with phalanxes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob the Insane

Quite true, and a head-on battle between a decent phalanx and a good S&S (or spear) unit often ended up with very few initial casuaulties as the S&S could defend themseves against the pikes but could not get close enough attack the men. Only if the S&S men could get around the flanks or somehow break the formation and get in could they do a lot of damage. Until then there was just a lot of pushing.... :2thumbsup:

---

Well, generally my experience was that a Phalanx would butcher any infantry or cavalry stupid enough to charge it in the front eventually, but that another phalanx would pin them effectively (they even did the shifting-to-the-left thing which historically occurred as the men edged towards the shield next to them..!) and if your frontal attackers could survive long enough for anyone or anything to hit em in the rear the phalanx was a goner.

The second it's hit in the rear with cavalry it switches to sword and loses. That's how it should be. Even a wall of multiple phalanxes will generally break with just a few units of cavalry charging towards the rear of their wall, especially if you kill the enemy general first. Also, shooting them worked quite well. M2TW pikes have less armour and should be even more vulnerable to missile-fire.

It's one thing to look at pikemen in real life or in RTW, but it's another thing entirely in the context of the M2TW battle system.

They should be judged primarily by their usefulness in the present combat environment, not by realism or past precedent.

It's also quite misleading to say that pikemen can be easily defeated by pinning them with one unit and flanking them with another. That's two vs. one. Practically all types of units are vulnerable to such tactics. Every unit should be judged by comparing it to another, single unit, not multiple units.

There's also one important aspect of M2TW over RTW that totally changes the rules: gunpowder troops. They are capable of breaking S&S infantry before they even get close, especially if placed on a hill. If pikemen too were strong against S&S units, then S&S infantry wouldn't have much of a use in the late game environment. While historically S&S infantry virtually died out with the advent of pike & shot formations, in M2TW gameplay (read: fun) always comes first. And it's simply more fun to play battles with 5 or more types of units rather than just a few.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miracle

It's one thing to look at pikemen in real life or in RTW, but it's another thing entirely in the context of the M2TW battle system.

They should be judged primarily by their usefulness in the present combat environment, not by realism or past precedent.

It's also quite misleading to say that pikemen can be easily defeated by pinning them with one unit and flanking them with another. That's two vs. one. Practically all types of units are vulnerable to such tactics. Every unit should be judged by comparing it to another, single unit, not multiple units.

There's also one important aspect of M2TW over RTW that totally changes the rules: gunpowder troops. They are capable of breaking S&S infantry before they even get close, especially if placed on a hill. If pikemen too were strong against S&S units, then S&S infantry wouldn't have much of a use in the late game environment. While historically S&S infantry virtually died out with the advent of pike & shot formations, in M2TW gameplay (read: fun) always comes first. And it's simply more fun to play battles with 5 or more types of units rather than just a few.

---

I suppose none of us had really considered the M2TW system, to be fair. But the fact is that pikes, at least the earliest pikes available to most factions, seem nearly useless, which does not give one much incentive to use more units. I tried playing as the scottish in a custom battle and I was appalled at how the pikeman operated (or rather didnt operate). They were no where near the operating level of the phalanxes with which I am so familiar and enamoured from RTW.

I supposed it's that very fact that biases me against the m2tw ones, I'm used to the RTW ones and disappointed that these guys don't hold up to comparison, but I suppose that's not entirely historically inaccurate. I haven't been quite as disappointed by the late period pikes, particularly with gunners and a few cannons, in custom battles, but Ive only fought with them against Aztecs, so I don't know how they'd handle against another European army.

[If pikemen too were strong against S&S units, then S&S infantry wouldn't have much of a use in the late game environment.]

this isnt true. to attack castles or flank an army you need infantry who do not require to maintain a formation.

also in rome many of the lower class phalanxes and hoplites were trash against a roman legionarre unit or any good infantry unit for that matter.

one on one the phalanx unit gets wrapped by sword infantry and only the better phalanxes could protect those vulnerable corners who had better sword fighting ability such as spartans.

militia hoplite and pike units were very easy to rout frontally if they were the lower class variety because they could not protect their wrapped flanks as well as units like spartans, and armored hoplites.

of course against horses they were very effective as they should be. but it seems i did some testing of lesser phalanx units versus heavier horse in rome and the horse routed them.

rome had a good balance. pikes and hoplites needed to support one another to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mad cat mech

[If pikemen too were strong against S&S units, then S&S infantry wouldn't have much of a use in the late game environment.]

this isnt true. to attack castles or flank an army you need infantry who do not require to maintain a formation.

also in rome many of the lower class phalanxes and hoplites were trash against a roman legionarre unit or any good infantry unit for that matter.

one on one the phalanx unit gets wrapped by sword infantry and only the better phalanxes could protect those vulnerable corners who had better sword fighting ability such as spartans.

militia hoplite and pike units were very easy to rout frontally if they were the lower class variety because they could not protect their wrapped flanks as well as units like spartans, and armored hoplites.

of course against horses they were very effective as they should be. but it seems i did some testing of lesser phalanx units versus heavier horse in rome and the horse routed them.

rome had a good balance. pikes and hoplites needed to support one another to win.

---

Two points to add; Historically s&s were rather useless in late period, thats why it evolved into the PIKE and Musket era; Second, that's very true and something I didn't think of that both S&S and 2H really(or would really) come into their own in sieges, where pikes are nearly worthless. Historically they would just use cannons to neutralize the castle in late period, which you could do, but if you came up against a stone wall with no cannons you'd need S&S or 2H to take the walls and get through the gate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent Smith

Do you mean phalanx units were easily killed by human players, or that human players could destroy everything with phalanxes?

---

Both really. The main issue was more that the AI didn't use them to their best ability. This is now true for pikes and halberds in Med II.

i think if they would just fix the visual bug of them not leveling their pikes until contact would go a long way to at least allow you to see them use the pikes a little longer.

but if they just fix them to hold on to their swords more reliable wise, ill settle for doing without the additional ranks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miracle

It's one thing to look at pikemen in real life or in RTW, but it's another thing entirely in the context of the M2TW battle system.

They should be judged primarily by their usefulness in the present combat environment, not by realism or past precedent.

It's also quite misleading to say that pikemen can be easily defeated by pinning them with one unit and flanking them with another. That's two vs. one. Practically all types of units are vulnerable to such tactics. Every unit should be judged by comparing it to another, single unit, not multiple units.

There's also one important aspect of M2TW over RTW that totally changes the rules: gunpowder troops. They are capable of breaking S&S infantry before they even get close, especially if placed on a hill. If pikemen too were strong against S&S units, then S&S infantry wouldn't have much of a use in the late game environment. While historically S&S infantry virtually died out with the advent of pike & shot formations, in M2TW gameplay (read: fun) always comes first. And it's simply more fun to play battles with 5 or more types of units rather than just a few.

---

The reference to the hammer and anvil was directed at the notion that CA didn't want "pikeman" spam. I was merely pointing out that large pike armies are vulnerable just like anything else.

I also disagree with you entirely. There are no factions that have real, professional pike units, except the Scottish. How would making pike units actually perform their intended duty make the game less "fun"?

@mad cat:
I was specifically talking about S&S infantry, not 2-Handers. For sieges/battles most 2-Handers (D[N/P/E]K's, VG, Tabs, etc.) have superior close combat abilities, so you'd rather use them instead of swordsmen anyway. If pikemen were beefed up the only role S&S would be best at is chopping up cornered archers and javelineers - hardly worthy of such well trained warriors.

I'm not going to comment on RTW because it's simply a different game than M2TW.

@Agent
A relatively homogeneous battlefield is a boring one. The more types of units you have to play with, the more fun it gets. But if some types of units become relatively overpowered, then the player is obliged to build them over the more specialized units. This de-diversifies army composition. The result is that battles require less of the type of tactical thinking and micro that many gamers enjoy. So while pikemen ought to be nearly invincible at the front, CA has compromised this to allow more varied gameplay.

Regarding the Scots:

It's true, they're not as powerful in 1.2 as they once were. Many have suggested that pikemen should drop their pikes later rather than sooner to fix this, and I agree.

But they still shouldn't beat a comparable S&S unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miracle

@mad cat:
I was specifically talking about S&S infantry, not 2-Handers. For sieges/battles most 2-Handers (D[N/P/E]K's, VG, Tabs, etc.) have superior close combat abilities, so you'd rather use them instead of swordsmen anyway. If pikemen were beefed up the only role S&S would be best at is chopping up cornered archers and javelineers - hardly worthy of such well trained warriors.

I'm not going to comment on RTW because it's simply a different game than M2TW.

@Jobst
Yes I acknowledged the fact that swordsmen became nearly useless at the start of the Renaissance Period. Please read more carefully. But I also stressed that gameplay comes first and that swordsmen should still have a solid role in the late game - that of chopping up pikemen.

@Agent
A relatively homogeneous battlefield is a boring one. The more types of units you have to play with, the more fun it gets. But if some types of units become relatively overpowered, then the player is obliged to build them over the more specialized units. This de-diversifies army composition. The result is that battles require less of the type of tactical thinking and micro that many gamers enjoy. So while pikemen ought to be nearly invincible at the front, CA has compromised this to allow more varied gameplay.

Regarding the Scots:

It's true, they're not as powerful in 1.2 as they once were. Many have suggested that pikemen should drop their pikes later rather than sooner to fix this, and I agree.

But they still shouldn't beat a comparable S&S unit.

---

You see the difference between the Warcraft, AoE to the Total War games is that the fun and the immersion is coming from the realism of the setting and the battlefield...
I can name at least 5 games that are hyped and played just because they can claim a significant level of realism (SWAT, PES, America's Army) espessially PES (Pro Evlution Soccer) is preffered by most real football fans just because its closer to real football...it lacks the licences...presentation..commentary...of FIFA but since its FAR closer to the real sport than FIFA in gameplay its much more fun to play since its the sport that is fun not some guys perception of the sport...
Can you imagine a possibility to be able to travel back and time and lead an army on the battlefield?
Just try the EB mod and you will see the value of realism and historical immersion in the era...

I posted this in TWcenter, but perhaps I should post it here to.

One huge balance issue right now is pike units. Currently, when enemy infantry charges the first row of pike men die immediately, even though the enemy infantry hasn't gotten past the row of pikes. Then the rest of the pike men switch to swords and get slaughtered. Pikes currently suck against everything but cavalry. Historically Pikes are what brought an end to medieval warfare, and it would be great if the late era simulated this.

Also, since only the first two ranks of pike men engage in combat with their pikes, the enemy will always run between the pikes and force them to draw their swords. The third, and likely fourth ranks need to attack with their pikes as well, that way spear wall formation can be useful.

There's also the problem of pike men turning their backs to the enemy during combat. This seems to occur after toggling the spear wall formation several times (which is needed to make them use their pikes again...).

If all of those issues were fixed, and a couple more ranks of pike men engaged in combat as opposed to two, pikes would become much more powerful and able to compete.

Before the game was released CA said that you had the option to ban certain units in multilayer. If this is still the case then there should be no problem with pikes being realistic. As it is now the only point in getting them is to prevent frontal cavalry charges. Other than that they are just a weaker swordsmen unit.

Jobst if you're reading this please ignore the comment hellenes quoted.

@hellenes:

Unfortunately the historical roleplayer demographic is a small one. They're what those mods are for. But a mainstream game like M2TW has to make CA profit, and nothing drives sales like a quality, finely-balanced game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miracle

Jobst if you're reading this please ignore the comment hellenes quoted.

@hellenes:

Unfortunately the historical roleplayer demographic is a small one. They're what those mods are for. But a mainstream game like M2TW has to make CA profit, and nothing drives sales like a quality, finely-balanced game.

---

I don't think the majority of people buy the total war for it's multi player.

You may recall Rome total war, which sold quite nicely and also had realistic pikes. I don't see functioning pikes driving sales down to much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thero

I don't think the majority of people buy the total war for it's multi player.

You may recall Rome total war, which sold quite nicely and also had realistic pikes. I don't see functioning pikes driving sales down to much.

---

But having better, more solid gameplay in SP and MP helps to attract a wider audience and increase sales, doesn't it?

Agreed, functioning pikes will improve gameplay and drive up sales. But dominating pikes will not. Every impression has to be made that Total War games are intrinsically great games even without the historical backdrop. It's good for the gamer and it's good for CA.

how difficult would it be for CA to change those animations? i suppose you couldnt just replace them with rome total war animations for phalanx because of the more individual moves and animations.

i think adding 3 or 4 lowered ranks in melee would probably do the trick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miracle

But having better, more solid gameplay in SP and MP helps to attract a wider audience and increase sales, doesn't it?

Agreed, functioning pikes will improve gameplay and drive up sales. But dominating pikes will not. Every impression has to be made that Total War games are intrinsically great games even without the historical backdrop. It's good for the gamer and it's good for CA.

---

Agreed. I recall someone suggesting that pikes be made more expensive for multi player. That would perhaps balance it out. That way if someone were to mass pikes there would be fewer, and they would be extremely vulnerable to arrows and fire-arms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thero

Agreed. I recall someone suggesting that pikes be made more expensive for multi player. That would perhaps balance it out. That way if someone were to mass pikes there would be fewer, and they would be extremely vulnerable to arrows and fire-arms.

---

Their massive slowness is undoubtedly also a huge killer in multiplayer already. A reasonable number of missile units should absolutely demolish a pike-heavy army before it gets anywhere near threatening them. I honestly don't think any further changes should be needed for multiplayer: you can easily force the pikes to go on the offensive, and once they must do so, they are doomed from missile fire and/or elementary cavalry flanking.

I agree pike can use some upgrading.
HA, archers, gun infantry, jav units, naffitun, and flanking would still going to hurt pike units alot, with there slow movement speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

Switching to alternative weapon almost immediately after the impact IMHO is the main (and possibly the only) pike problem in the vanilla game. It was present also in vanilla RTW.

In general, there is nothing wrong with pike's battle stats, but switching to swords part (even when fighting cavalry head on) makes them vulnerable. Taking away pikes' secondary weapons helps them to maintain the spearwall formation and retain their main advantage. The effect is so powerful, that with swords taken away, pikes can hold their ground against anything non-pike thrown at them frontally in the game.

There is a slight problem with taking pikes secondary weapons away though. Without their swords, pike formation seem to be able to annihilate cavalry charging them from behind and from flanks...

---

its not the only problem.

its one thing for the pikemen to shift to sidearms as soon as their ranks are infiltrated.

whats worse is that they always raise their pikes and keep them raised when attacking, thus really losing nearly all offensive value. and medieval pikemen of the higher quality types should be able to attack, both by slow pushing and poking and by charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miracle

Agreed, functioning pikes will improve gameplay and drive up sales. But dominating pikes will not.

---

There is the rub...

One man's functioning pike is another's dominating pike...

As for disabling their secondary weapon and there pikemen fighting with raised pikes, are they not still using the pikes from a game mechanic perspective as it is their only weapon? I mean do they still kill enemies at close quarters?

Yes they seem to. It looks a bit silly up close because three or four of them will stick their pikes right through an enemy soldier and jab them until they get a kill. But yes pikes do work up close. The main issue with taking away their secondary weapons is that the pikes don't work properly on a steep slope and they have nothing else to use.

@Miricale:

You can't compare pikes 1 on 1, you have to start by doing it on an army by army basis.

I'd also like to point out that your argument that pikes need 2 units to beat them makes them IMBA is wrong. simply put a unit like DFK or DEK simply isn't going to be beaten by, (for example), 2 units of town militia, (with the light_spear bug fixed), even with one in the front and another in the flank. Almost ANY pike unit in the game WILL be beaten by such a combination though. Pikes are incredibly weak in melee once they pull out swords.


As mentioned you also have to look at the overall armies. Pike based armies typically won't be able to include much/any ranged units if they wish to place sufficient infantry melee units on the flanks to keep said flanks safe. You also probably won't see as much in the way of heavy Cav either. I went into this a while back.

But to summaries a good pike army needs:


6 units of S&S/2-Handers, (preferable 4 S&S and 2 2-Handers)
4 Spears
4 Cav, (preferably light Cav)
The rest is a mix of pikes and whatever else you want/can fit in.


A Pike "FORMATION" is VERY vulnerable to flanking actions in a way that no other formation is because even one semi-decent unit in the flank of a line of pikes can and will chew it's way along the entire line of pikemen with very low losses for the amount of damage it inflicts. No other unit is as vulnerable to flanking actions like pikes are because they still fight with their full melee abilities to the flank and rear, so if the combined forces engaged front and rear are NOT of overall greater power than the unit in question, then said flanked unit can drive it's flankers off. Pikes are not like this, even the best are only barely better in melee to the flanks than Spear Militia.

Thus trying to say needing to flank pikes is IMBA totally fails to take account of the fact that other units suffer FAR less from flanking actions than pikes and that formations containing pikes give up large advantages in mobility and composition so as to allow the pikes to function correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

Pike Business

---

EXACTLY. This is what I was trying to get at. This notion that pikes would be overpowered if they worked as intended just isn't true. Pike-heavy armies get slaughtered by missile units and need adequate support. If anything, @Miracle, making a true pike army REQUIRES you to have diversity to make it effective.

In regards to the Scottish, if they were going to make pikes like this on purpose, they could've at least gave the Scots a better archery unit. As it stands the pikes are barely supportable at range. The Scots lack of ranged units would really balance any extra "power" the pikes would get from being actually effective. Although I don't think pikes would get overpowered by making them actually work.

In MP it shouldn't even be an issue. Any player stupid enough to make an army mainly of pikes without support is going to get killed by another player.

@Carl:

I was thinking more on the lines of being flanked by charging cavalry, for which neither DFK, DEK nor any other non-schiltrom infantry unit can hold out against, no matter what their formation.

Also, while swordsmen do have better flanking resistance against infantry, one should take steps to avoid enemy flanking actions regardless, in order to minimize casualties.

So all my unit comparisons were done using frontal combat power only, since between two equally competent commanders, neither should be able to outflank the other.

@Agent:

Different folks have different ideas of how pikes should work "as intended." Some want them to be invincible to frontal melee attackers, including S&S infantry. This is wrong. Others, like me, want them to simply use their pikes longer and perhaps fight in deeper ranks. This is perfectly fine, as long as they can't beat a comparable S&S unit.

As for the Scots, perhaps better morale and stamina for all their pike units, higher melee attack and defense skill for their archers, and the obvious pike fix should satisfy most disgruntled Scots players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miracle

It's one thing to look at pikemen in real life or in RTW, but it's another thing entirely in the context of the M2TW battle system.

They should be judged primarily by their usefulness in the present combat environment, not by realism or past precedent.

While historically S&S infantry virtually died out with the advent of pike & shot formations, in M2TW gameplay (read: fun) always comes first. And it's simply more fun to play battles with 5 or more types of units rather than just a few.

---

Well, this of course depends on one’s perspective and expectations. Nothing disappoints me more than seeing a unit perform in a manner that is inconsistent with history. Pike and polearm units could be ferocious units (on defense AND offense) and I expect them to be so in the game. If certain troop types became obsolete they should suffer accordingly when their time has past. I realize that the goal is more to be fun and less to be didactic but the game can be both. Buffing or nerfing units in order to encourage diverse armies is unnecessary. Some troop types are inherently superior to others while some are generally weak. Such is war. Finely honed strengths and weaknesses for each unit regardless of historic fidelity is a hallmark of traditional RTS games with their artificial rock, paper, scissors thing going on. I enjoy RTS games but I don’t want Total War to be like them. Factions did the best they could with the armies they could raise. I enjoy dealing with the various impediments and advantages of each faction.

I think we can all agree that the game already lets us tailor armies for various tasks in a way that was absolutely not available to medieval or renaissance commanders. They had to use the tools at hand.

I must say pikes work fine for me, even against sword+shield units. I have them stand still in shield wall (special formation active) but with guard mode off.
This way they will point their pikes up into the air. Now let the enemy come closer. If they charge, the first few lines of pikes will lower their weapon and form what is pretty much a phalanx. That way you can avoid having your first line killed by impact. Au contraire! I tested it with aventuros against Spanish sword&shields and the poor Spanish lost half their numbers instantly making them run. Of course it's harder with pike militia against knights and sometimes you can loose but those foolish enough to charge will pay the price.
I have not tried it against cavalry yet, maybe it's diffrent for that.
For so long I've refrained from using pikes but now knowing how to make good use of them they have some slots in my armies. :yes:

The problem is that the scotts get pikes from the start so it would make them an absolute unstoppable superpower at the start of the game if they were to make S&S obsolete as it happened historically

if teh scots pikes are mainly defensive units and they have very weak missile troops firepower wise and their cav is average its apparent that one only needs sit back and bombard the scots pike forcing him to attack which supposedly makes his pikes lose cohesion and become defeated.

every faction has weaknesses and strengths. to me cav currently are way overstrength but i have yet to play1.2.

the only unit that usually stops cav reliably are pikes. this is ok but why limit pike numbers to 5 and allow 8 to 9 cav. dont you think that is leaning toward people using cav exploits more?

i really fail to understand why some people think pikes are such steamrollers.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miracle

Different folks have different ideas of how pikes should work "as intended." Some want them to be invincible to frontal melee attackers, including S&S infantry. This is wrong. Others, like me, want them to simply use their pikes longer and perhaps fight in deeper ranks. This is perfectly fine, as long as they can't beat a comparable S&S unit.

---

You just said "There are people that think differently from me: they're wrong. Then there are people that think like me, and they're right." Since when do you get to make up what's right and wrong, and give no supporting evidence at all to back it up? In case you missed the memo, just because you think something doesn't make it inherently right. In fact most of the people discussing this issue are agreeing that pikes should do exactly what you just said is "wrong" so I'm just going to write off your comments as part of your seeming inability to look at the situation objectively. If you intend to say that you don't think the game should work in a given way, then say that: but don't go about trying to paint it like your viewpoint is right and the other is wrong, especially without making a case for that. If anything, history bears out that your viewpoint is simply fallacy, and I've heard no word yet in any direction as to what the developers actually intended the pike units to do, so to claim any knowledge of how pikes should work "as intended" is not only presumptuous, it is simple fabrication.

To be fair, I was the first one to say the phrase "as intended." I meant that in a historical sense, not in a "how CA wanted it done" sense. My fault if that was confusing. I just wanted to point out that pikes should be hard to run full speed into.

Other than that, I agree with Foz. I'm still not seeing how it would ruin game balance, force armies without diversity, and make pike heavy armies uber-powerful. Many here have said over and over about how easy pike heavy armies can be thumped, tough in a frontal assault or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foz

give no supporting evidence at all to back it up?

---

The reasoning was given throughout this thread. In case you missed it, it was mostly because of gameplay balance reasons - which, in the interests of both CA and most gamers, ultimately triumphs over historical correctness. I suggest you carefully look over this entire thread from beginning to end before making such criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foz

In fact most of the people discussing this issue are agreeing that pikes should do exactly what you just said is "wrong"

---

Just because the majority of the posters here disagrees with me, doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foz

I've heard no word yet in any direction as to what the developers actually intended the pike units to do

---

And neither have I. But it's still possible to determine what would be most favourable to CA.

[Originally Posted by Foz
I've heard no word yet in any direction as to what the developers actually intended the pike units to do]

this is the most frustrating issue of all since the game has been released no one can get those geeks to tell us yes or no.

probably 40 threads on pikes in the .com forum and not once has any member of CA or SEGA ever made a legitimate comment on it.

why is that? a very good question i think.

We can probably make a very good guess from the custom battle unit roster descriptions of all Scottish pike units:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Custom Battle Screen

Scots Pike Militia:

Lowland Scots levied into a militia to defend their settlement. Armed with pikes for good defense against cavalry, but lacking in armour.

Highland Pikemen:

Well trained, but sometimes reckless clansmen armed with pikes, able to form a wall of pikes against cavalry.

Heavy Pike Militia:

Levied troops equipped with pikes and protected by heavy armour. Good defense against cavalry.

Noble Pikemen:

Well armoured Pikemen made up of Scottish nobles preferring to fight in the infantry.

---

Emphasis mine.

From this it's pretty clear CA intended pikemen to be primarily anti-cavalry units. If pikemen in M2TW were intended to be an invincible wall of sharp points that could defeat even knightly swordsmen, CA probably would have dropped us a hint.

I'd admit, however, that the AI doesn't know how to properly use pikemen in their capacity as anti-cavalry units. One reason is the utter passiveness of guard mode, but of course the bigger issue is that pikemen simply drop their pikes too quickly, and don't fight in deeper ranks. I'm sure everybody will be happy if this were fixed.

But again, going further than that and making S&S infantry nearly useless against them would hamper gameplay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miracle

The reasoning was given throughout this thread. In case you missed it, it was mostly because of gameplay balance reasons - which, in the interests of both CA and most gamers, ultimately triumphs over historical correctness. I suggest you carefully look over this entire thread from beginning to end before making such criticism.

---

Gameplay balance does not ultimately triumph over historical correctness, at least not entirely. If you make a WW2 game and have foot soldiers more powerful than tanks, or have shermans at three times the power level of panzers, no one will play it. It could play like a million bucks, but the inaccuracies are so crazy at that point that no one would be able to stand it: it's entirely unbelievable. So it is with M2TW. It doesn't matter what is best for gameplay if it makes the game ludicrous historically, because part of the game's appeal comes from its roots in history. There is some amount of liberty that can be taken with history in order to improve the gameplay mechanics, but if things deviate too far from historical accuracy, the game loses all the things that make it more appealing than fantasy games of the genre. Actually it becomes worse than other games at that point: a fantasy game is easy to accept, because it has no preconceptions. A history-based game has to be believable in some sense for most players to enjoy it as much as they would any fantasy game, or else the experience is ruined by the constant nagging of things that feel wrong. It is that believability I call into question: many of us know better than to have sword and shield units able to successfully attack pikes frontally, and it is a disturbing enough sight when it happens that for those who know better, it hurts the game far more than some imbalance due to historical accuracy would. I'm not even admitting it would cause any, but that's been argued already: I'm just saying any that might be caused would be more than compensated for through the much better immersion the change would create.

Historical games require not only a well-designed combat system, but also enough realism to maintain the illusion, and neither can be sacrificed to the exclusive benefit of the other without also destroying the game.

Quote:

---

From this it's pretty clear CA intended pikemen to be primarily anti-cavalry units. If pikemen in M2TW were intended to be an invincible wall of sharp points that could defeat even knightly swordsmen, CA probably would have dropped us a hint.

...

But again, going further than that and making S&S infantry nearly useless against them would hamper gameplay.

---

Perhaps it should be more of a stalemate than anything. S&S units are very well armored, so some sharpened sticks should have real problems causing them harm. On the other hand, heavily armored men just shouldn't be able to easily breach a wall of such pikes. Barring wraparound (which will kill the pikes due to poor side defense) I would be happy enough if a pike and S&S unit engaged would simply lock horns, losing a few men as they test each other and try to find weaknesses, and mostly get stuck waiting for some other unit(s) to flank and break the stalemate. In that sense S&S would still be useful as one of the few units able to hold a while against the repeated stabbings from the pikes, and so would at least provide an anvil to smash pikes on. As others have pointed out, pikes get slaughtered when engaged on multiple fronts, so all that's really necessary is for S&S to be an effective anvil against otherwise-effective pikes: a simple flanking move from any other unit then destroys them. That seems like a reasonable balance to me at least. They'd be:

On ~even terms against each other
Both good against other infantry
Pikes far better against cav
S&S far more arrow-resistant
Pikes totally vulnerable to flanking, where S&S can hold for quite some time usually when flanked.

What does anyone think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miracle

@Carl:

I was thinking more on the lines of being flanked by charging cavalry, for which neither DFK, DEK nor any other non-schiltrom infantry unit can hold out against, no matter what their formation.

Also, while swordsmen do have better flanking resistance against infantry, one should take steps to avoid enemy flanking actions regardless, in order to minimize casualties.

So all my unit comparisons were done using frontal combat power only, since between two equally competent commanders, neither should be able to outflank the other.

@Agent:

Different folks have different ideas of how pikes should work "as intended." Some want them to be invincible to frontal melee attackers, including S&S infantry. This is wrong. Others, like me, want them to simply use their pikes longer and perhaps fight in deeper ranks. This is perfectly fine, as long as they can't beat a comparable S&S unit.

As for the Scots, perhaps better morale and stamina for all their pike units, higher melee attack and defense skill for their archers, and the obvious pike fix should satisfy most disgruntled Scots players.

---

why on earth should they not beat similar-quality swordsmen head to head every now and then? theres a reason pikes dominated early ancient and late medieval battlefields, and that was that you usually cant run headlong into them and expect a good outcome, neither is it any fun when they run headlong into you, all four sharp points of the file in front of you going for your gut.

of course, they should loose badly when they get infiltrated by the "close-combat" types, but semiprofessional pike should be able to stay in formation and keep the swords away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Terentius Varro

The problem is that the scotts get pikes from the start so it would make them an absolute unstoppable superpower at the start of the game if they were to make S&S obsolete as it happened historically

---

the scots pike shouldnt be unbalancing in the campaign because there should be one very effective pike-killer waiting south of their border; longbows are absolute death to unarmoured, tightly-packed slow-moving pike formations.

also, pike dont render swordsmen completely obsolete, elite swordsmen should perform well agaisnt pike militia, and then theres all those situations where pike get bogged down, flanked, looses formation etc.

without having tested it, I also suspect that in a one on one open field battle sword can beat fully functioning ( RTW style) pikes simply by running up to their sides, and then charging in as the pike raise their weapons to wheel around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foz

Gameplay balance does not ultimately triumph over historical correctness, at least not entirely. If you make a WW2 game and have foot soldiers more powerful than tanks, or have shermans at three times the power level of panzers, no one will play it. It could play like a million bucks, but the inaccuracies are so crazy at that point that no one would be able to stand it: it's entirely unbelievable. So it is with M2TW. It doesn't matter what is best for gameplay if it makes the game ludicrous historically, because part of the game's appeal comes from its roots in history. There is some amount of liberty that can be taken with history in order to improve the gameplay mechanics, but if things deviate too far from historical accuracy, the game loses all the things that make it more appealing than fantasy games of the genre. Actually it becomes worse than other games at that point: a fantasy game is easy to accept, because it has no preconceptions. A history-based game has to be believable in some sense for most players to enjoy it as much as they would any fantasy game, or else the experience is ruined by the constant nagging of things that feel wrong. It is that believability I call into question: many of us know better than to have sword and shield units able to successfully attack pikes frontally, and it is a disturbing enough sight when it happens that for those who know better, it hurts the game far more than some imbalance due to historical accuracy would. I'm not even admitting it would cause any, but that's been argued already: I'm just saying any that might be caused would be more than compensated for through the much better immersion the change would create.

Historical games require not only a well-designed combat system, but also enough realism to maintain the illusion, and neither can be sacrificed to the exclusive benefit of the other without also destroying the game.



Perhaps it should be more of a stalemate than anything. S&S units are very well armored, so some sharpened sticks should have real problems causing them harm. On the other hand, heavily armored men just shouldn't be able to easily breach a wall of such pikes. Barring wraparound (which will kill the pikes due to poor side defense) I would be happy enough if a pike and S&S unit engaged would simply lock horns, losing a few men as they test each other and try to find weaknesses, and mostly get stuck waiting for some other unit(s) to flank and break the stalemate. In that sense S&S would still be useful as one of the few units able to hold a while against the repeated stabbings from the pikes, and so would at least provide an anvil to smash pikes on. As others have pointed out, pikes get slaughtered when engaged on multiple fronts, so all that's really necessary is for S&S to be an effective anvil against otherwise-effective pikes: a simple flanking move from any other unit then destroys them. That seems like a reasonable balance to me at least. They'd be:

On ~even terms against each other
Both good against other infantry
Pikes far better against cav
S&S far more arrow-resistant
Pikes totally vulnerable to flanking, where S&S can hold for quite some time usually when flanked.

What does anyone think?

---

I think youre pretty much spot on, but the push of pike should eventually push away or injure other infantry so long as the pike unit is cohesive.

sorry for quting the whole post by the way, how do I quote parts of a post?

@Foz:

The thing with all TW games is that in the vast majority of cases realism doesn't impair gameplay. So I'm not saying everything should be changed to optimize gameplay.

But this pikemen issue is a special exception. This isn't like riflemen beating Panzers or whatnot. There's at least some historical basis by which sword-wielding soldiers could break pike formations head on:

Sword-And-Buckler Men: Although mad cat tech mentioned that they actually rolled beneath the pikes to reach the pikemen, obviously this is a little difficult to emulate in a game. So CA made the rightful decision to make them and thereby all S&S infantry able to kill pikemen head-on.

Zweihanders: According to The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts (a highly respected organization):

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ARMA

These weapons were used primarily for fighting among pike-squares where they would hack paths through knocking aside poles, possibly even lobbing the ends off opposing halberds and pikes then slashing and stabbing among the ranks.
...
The Italian humanist historian Paulus Jovius writing in the early 1500s also described the two-hand great sword as being used by Swiss soldiers to chop the shafts of pikes at the battle of Fornovo in 1495.

---

So there you have it. It may be hard to imagine for some, but pikes, while very formidable to face in a frontal melee, were not actually frontally invincible to certain sword-wielding troops.

So why are some historical immersionists here opposing my viewpoint? The answer may be that they can't imagine, nor can they ever find evidence for, dismounted sword & shield wielding knights beating pikemen head on.

But my belief is that ultimately the need for balanced gameplay ought to overcome what little historical impediment this presents. Not only are the benefits concrete and significant, but it will not seriously ruin the historical aspect of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foz

In that sense S&S would still be useful as one of the few units able to hold a while against the repeated stabbings from the pikes, and so would at least provide an anvil to smash pikes on.

---

That's it? Merely an anvil? These knights trained for all their lives just so they can let some pikemen try to poke them?

And what if the opponent had another unit to oppose your flanking action? How are you going to kill the pikemen without missile units?

Let me tell you what I believe is a guiding principle in M2TW balancing: Every normal (non-elephant) unit should have a melee-based counter-unit in frontal combat. This is because in confined situations (woods, settlements), using missile units may not always be an option. So if pikemen had frontal melee invincibility, you couldn't effectively use any missile units, and you had very little maneuvering room, how would you beat the pikemen?

Of course, you'd ask, "What about Dismounted Christian Guard? How could you beat them in those conditions?" Well the answer may be a little underwhelming but you'd have to charge them with upgraded Royal Mamluks or Quapakulu and hope for the best.

But DCG is one heck of a special exception. As it stands it's fairly balanced, with pikemen needing a little more treatment to make them fulfill their role better.

@anders:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anders

but semiprofessional pike should be able to stay in formation and keep the swords away.

---

...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.