I remember when MTW first came out there was a great debate on the org on whether knights were underpowered or not. Some folk persuasively argued that charging knights should ride over most infantry apart from pikemen, others like myself liked the balance the way it is the patched game (knights are best used on the flanks).
I wonder if the equivalent debate about RTW will concern pikes vs swords. (I am trying not to think about elephants vs pigs, it's too depressing). It's often been debate which was stronger - a Macedonian style phalanx or a Roman legion. Its seems that in RTW, we will be putting legions up against, if not Alexander's phalanx, then serious bodies of pikemen from Carthage and elsewhere.
Which unit will be most powerful in close combat? Let's leave the pila out of it, and focus on sword/shield vs pike in frontal combat.
If we look at the "combat factors" in MTW as a guide to what will happen in RTW, the edge seems to be with the phalanx:
sword: +3 attack +2 def (for the large sheild)
pike: +1 attack +1 def
with max 4 rank bonus => +3 attack +5 def
So it looks like the pikes will gradually prevail due to superior defence. Sounds ok to me. The phalanx won't simply walkover the legion, but unless they have much better valour troops, the Romans will have to fight clever to break up the phalanx by flanking etc(sounds like there are more opportunities for this in RTW).
What do other people think?
Bookmarks