Khaziofkalabra,

Yes - it would be effective. But then you are effectively fighting the battle with your support forces not the phalanxes, which is exactly the situation I would try to avoid. Maybe it is more historically accurate however to have your cavalry and ranged troops whittled down in successive battles so that after a while you are only left with unprotected phalanxes. As after all is this the weakness that supposedly undermined the successor kingdoms?

Its probably just me, but after a few battles I do get tired of chasing people around the map and fighting the entire battle on the flanks.

Having said all that, and here I could be very wrong, I had understood that historically phalanxes had moved quickly into combat - non-sarissa troops even charged. ie the famous Athenian charge at Marathon. And did Alexander not move his phalanxes as fast as possible into the enemies face at several battles? If I remember right he was so outnumbered only a quick strike to decapitate the persian beast would work for him.

Used offensively to pin people in place, the phalanx is useless if it is unable to catch and engage the enemy.