Pikeman vs Sword & Shield head to head post 1.02?

[Bob the Insane]

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...

[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.

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.

[pike master]

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.

[Jambo]

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?

[pike master]

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

[Agent Smith]

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.

[Bob the Insane]

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....

[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.

[Agent Smith]

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....

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.

[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...

[pike master]

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.

[Agent Smith]

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?

[Jobst_vonGrünungen]

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....

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.

[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.

[Jobst_vonGrünungen]

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.

[pike master]

[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.

[Jobst_vonGrünungen]

[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.

[Jambo]

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.

[pike master]

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.

[Agent Smith]

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"?

[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.

@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.

[hellenes]

@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...

[Thero]

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.

[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.

[Thero]

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.

[Miracle]

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.

[pike master]

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.

[Thero]

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.

[Foz]

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.

[Moral55]

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.