Quote Originally Posted by Carl
I agree with Foz and Dopp on history. However thats ISN'T how CA have represented them in game. In game they've extended Halberds to the point where they are much longer than they really where. Thus in game they are meant to function as AP armored Pikes until engaged in general melee, at which point they switch over to a 2-Handed Axe attack.
Like Dopp, I fail to see how you infer that CA have represented halberds as superior to pikes. The fact that people are crying foul that they are not effective enough does not mean that CA intended them to be more effective, nor does their higher cost than pikes - it could as easily be intended to balance factions, to influence the army composition of factions that have halberds instead of pikes, or to represent the actual cost of the crap they require to be kitted out for battle! (more on that in a moment) They DO perform less effectively than pikes, and therefore I think it is an err in judgment to suggest that CA intended them to do anything except underperform pikes - that is to say, short of proving a bug, you can't really suggest that CA intended units to perform in any way other than they actually do. I suggest that the 3 things you point out below are intended to compensate for their otherwise (due to animations likely?) compromised situation regarding pikes:

They have 3 things on pikemen of a similar era generally:

1. Better Armour (Late Scot's Pikes aside).

2. Better Attack.

3. AP weaponry.

To me it's quite clear that CA intended them to be Pikemen with none of the Pikemen's normal weaknesses, (as the 2-Handed attack would eliminate their general melee weakness (and thus Flank/Rear weaknesses)).

Thus whilst I agree pikes are too cheap ATM, I also believe the price difference between Halberds and Pikes as it stands is Representative of where they should be relative to each other.
Again judging from how they actually perform, I think they are intended not to have the Pikemen's normal weaknesses, but also not to perform as effectively from the front as pikes (without jacking them up). I think it's more than adequate compensation for halberds to maintain a lot of the pike advantage from the front and then strip away the pikes major weaknesses (like getting cut to ribbons by missile fire).

As for prices, aren't the pike prices historically correct? (relative to other unit costs, I mean) I seem to recall discussion somewhere that halberds are in fact expensive to make, as they require the expertise of a swordsmith, where the pike has a simple end that even an apprentice blacksmith in some backwater town could easily make. Carl already pointed out that halberds wear a lot more armor too, so it seems entirely justified that men fitted with good armor and high quality weapons should cost a LOT more than men wearing very light armor (most pike units wear none at all) and carrying simple weapons.

Quote Originally Posted by dopp
I felt that halberds were working as intended animation-wise because they are actually using the same weapon; the switch code just marks the point where they wade in hacking. Pikemen, on the other hand, become swordsmen too easily, which I felt was a mistake, because the sword is only a secondary weapon for them when things get pretty bad (ie the formation is broken). In other words, halberds are MEANT to switch to melee, whereas pikes should not switch unless they get into serious trouble. The animation set and weaponswitch code should NOT be the same for both.

I concluded that since halberds were meant to switch over like that as a matter of course, and since halberds are generally less vulnerable in melee than pikes, and since halberds were lower-ranked than pikes on the build tree, that they represented a hybrid unit that was more flexible than pikes, but less powerful from the front. Trying to make them otherwise seemed unrealistic from both a historical, and a modding perspective.
Exactly my feelings as well. CA represents them as more rounded pikemen who give up some of their frontal advantage in exchange for removing their various weaknesses.

The cost of pikes caused me some pause, but I realized that they were the only troop line that was undercosted like that, yet they were also the melee infantry line with the highest tech requirements (huge city + militia barracks or military academy), and their upkeep cost is comparable to that of most halberds (and higher for elites). Therefore, Militia Pikes should be increased in price, rather than be rebalanced around their pathetic cost.
I actually don't think anything should be done about their costs. As I just mentioned above, the field equipment of a pike unit is absolutely cheap to produce, being mostly just the cost of a pike per man as they typically don't wear any armor. Recruitment costs are FAR outweighed by upkeep costs anyway, and so their low cost in no way makes them broken... Especially since a few missile units will easily decimate them before they are near enough to do anything. It's not like they're some kind of unbeatable unit - they die to missiles and to attacks from anywhere that isn't the front.