Pike vs Cavalry

[Thierry]

Hello,

No, I'm not starting a spin-off of crossbow vs bow. At least I hope I'm not :D

I always heard that pike was a fantastic tool against cavalry.
Is there any effect in Dominion 3 that takes that into account (if it's true...)

Is it usefull to bring pikemen in front if you know you'll fight horseman or cavalry ?

[thejeff]

Pikes are long weapons and thus give a chance to repel against lances. Unfortunately, cavalry tends to have a high defense and morale and thus is hard to repel.

So, really no. Pikes aren't particularly useful against cavalry.

[Agema]

Pikes were effective because cavalry simply couldn't charge the formation lest they impale themselves, the same reason archers might hammer stakes into the ground in front of themselves. An awful lot of wargames don't represent that, although as said above the repel mechanics in Dom3 at least go some way to make pikes a bit more useful.

[thejeff]

Some games handle that by giving pikes, or other long weapons, bonuses when being charged. This could be handled in dominions by giving pikes bonuses to hit & the morale check when repelling vs a lance attack.

[Dedas]

CBM tried to address that by increasing the pikes attack bonus but that only makes it more strange. The pike probably was a good weapon (IRL) to stop a cavalry charge with but was it a good weapon to attack someone with? I think not. It must have been very cumbersome and unwieldy to actually use it offensively. I see it as a basically defensive weapon (keeping something away from you). A spear on the other hand is much shorter and could probably been used both ways somewhat effectively.

As for the repel mechanics they are much more potent than they seem. You have to remember that they bend both ways. With a long weapon you can repel a lot and not get repelled a lot.

[Agema]

Pikes were pretty effective generally. They were so long that there were probably 4 rows of pikeheads in front of the whole formation. To engage them from the front would involve getting past the huge number of spearheads, a very unhappy prospect for anyone.

Their weakness was manoeuverability. Uneven terrain could disrupt a phalanx's cohesion, and "holes" in the wall of spearpoints could be exploited. Whilst devastating to anything in front of them, they were very poor to the flanks and rear, and as they were so clumsy changing facing and direction, this was a big vulnerability.

[Dedas]

Yes, with the right tactics the pike could and have been used offensively. It is very hard to simulate that in Dom3 though, as we don't have a special formation bonus; every soldier is calculated on his own. So that is why I opt to only look at the individual soldiers capability because that is what we have to work with.

[Evil Dave]

Dedas got it right: the lack of any notion of formation is a key problem for modeling a bunch of things. One knight charging into a bunch of infantry will kill a bunch before he gets killed or forced to retreat. A line of knights, charging stirrup to stirrup, may cause the guys standing in front of them to rout before the charge hits home. That's even true of pike charges as well, at least against low-morale infantry.

[chrispedersen]

Alexander the greats father, Phillip of Macedon (??) developed the first real pike/long spear 24-26feet long, as I recall and had enormous success on the battlefield with it.

They were enormously susceptible to terrain, to archer fire, etc - but contrary to popular opinion face changing was relatively quick. They would point the spears up, turn, point the spears down.

However, as in another persons post, they really are not effective against cavalry. Cavalry have high prot and high morale - so a, the pikes don't tend to get through protection - and when they do the cav just make their morale check anyway.

The cav then proceed to hit you with that devestating first lance hit.

[Sombre]

I think the changes made to pikes in CBM make perfect sense.

Attack was increased not because the pike is some lightweight weapon that you can whip around hitting people, but because it actually is very hard to avoid being hit by a long weapon in the normal battlefield situation of a group of guys all using them. Additionally the bonus you get for being mounted is added def - having an extra point of attack helps here. KO and JK seem to agree since in basegame pikes are att 1 - compare this with glaives or naginata which are shorter and far less heavy weapons but have att -1.

Increasing attack also means repel works more often. And no, I don't think repel is underrated or more significant than it appears to be. Since it rolls against morale and is decreased with each attack it isn't any good against units designed to actually deal damage (as opposed to chaff) which have good morale and will have an easy time whacking the low def pikeman. However it is good against enemies like barbs, which is as it should be - I can't imagine disorganised barbarians overcoming pikes but enemy heavy infantry and elites would be much better at getting in to attack.

I think there's some confusion about att and def and what they represent. Almost universally, def comes from weapons that are less cumbersome like short swords etc, not so much att. Giving pikes def rather than att wouldn't make any sense, although it seems counter intuitive because they are recognised as 'defensive' weapons. The att value they have just represents how effective pike formations are in a system that doesn't have mechanics to better do so.

[Dedas]

But giving more attack to an unrepellable weapon (length 6) screws up the balance. See this thread:

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=42022&page=3

[Ironhawk]

You know what pikes work surprisingly well against? Giants. Its cause thier weapons are long enough to get a repel check against giant sized weapons. Its a small difference but counts due to the low number of giants against the high number of pikemen.

[Dedas]

Just to make one thing clear.

1. Being able to repel an attack is better than not being able to. Thus repel is a good thing.

2. To be able to repel you have to have a longer weapon than your opponent. Thus a longer weapon is always better than a shorter one.

3. There is a limit by the game to how long a weapon can be and that is 6.

4. That means that the pike (length 6) is the best weapon type in the game if you don't count damage and so on.

5. That means you have to be particularly careful when boosting this particular weapon type as every other weapon type is inferior to it in this regard. The only things they have to compete with it is damage, attack and defense.

This is not a big issue for nations without the pike, but for Ulm you have to measure the pike against - battle axe, hammer, morningstar, maul, flail and so on, in deciding what you want to buy. This is particularly messy because of the exact same gold and (close) resource cost of almost every MA Ulm unit.

[Trumanator]

Except pikes have no shields, low defense, and middling prot. I honestly don't see many uses against anything other than chaff and barbs.

[Dedas]

Then I can only say to you that you should play some more and check them out. They are not half as bad as you make them sound. Much thanks to repel. Have fun! :)

[chrispedersen]

I regard troops as essentially useless after middle game... I try to transition to SC's, mages, etc.

Under this strategy, I don't use pikeman, battle axes etc at all.

About the only exceptions are:

Archers, bodyguards, some cav, and niche units. For example lankas blessed troops, tienchi's etc stay valid till the end game.

Am I missing something?

[Ironhawk]

Except pikes have no shields, low defense, and middling prot. I honestly don't see many uses against anything other than chaff and barbs.

Hello? Giants!

[Dedas]

:)

Yes, Ironhawk... giants.

[Trumanator]

Meh, from what I've read on the forums people don't use the average giant troops much, except maybe the Fomorians. Niefels don't much care if you've got a pike, and even if they get repelled the cold aura is what matters. Skinshifters I don't know that much about, but don't they also have good morale and att? Same for Woodsman, morale is not an issue. Against giant PD Pikes are probably good, but so is most anything.

[Ewierl]

By the 19th century, the rock-paper-scissors of pikes involved the contest against cavalry and artillery. If the pikes form up closely, you can present a pike wall that horses won't charge; but if they form up closely, they're vulnerable to artillery fire.

The idea still makes sense in a world with AoE spell artillery, but sadly I don't see any way to apply it in the Dominions formation system (or lack thereof)!

[Wrana]

There was an idea somewhere that pikemen could be represented by block units: i.e., 1 model representing, say, 4 pikemen and having Size 3, with #secondshape representing losses (3 pikemen unit having size 3 and 1-2 size 2). This would both protect them somewhat from tramplers and allow higher concentration of attacks against individual opponents (of any size). (this started as making individual pikemen Size 1 for better concentration, but vulnerability for tramplers was considered too great in such variant).
Another idea was to give them animal awe and make all cavalry of animal type (penalty they would get for sieges are thematic, but there is possible weirdness with some spell effects).

[Lingchih]

OMG. Not another post in the realm of the longbow vs. crossbow vein. Please let it end.

I'm sorry. Really, I am sorry.

[Endoperez]

Meh, from what I've read on the forums people don't use the average giant troops much, except maybe the Fomorians. Niefels don't much care if you've got a pike, and even if they get repelled the cold aura is what matters. Skinshifters I don't know that much about, but don't they also have good morale and att? Same for Woodsman, morale is not an issue. Against giant PD Pikes are probably good, but so is most anything.

Early age isn't the only era with giants. Jotunheim in Middle and Late doesn't have Niefels, Ashdod will use giant troops a lot as well, and there are some size 3 units with a single attack and no trample that pikes work against. Well, at least I think so: Pale Ones of Agartha aren't used much above water, Minotaurs trample, size 3 Abysians have high prot and often dual-wield, Caelians lose in melee any way... Perhaps Shamblers or Cave Men or other easily massable independent big hitters.

[Humakty]

It's extremey strange not to be able to repel tramplers : are elephants or minotaurs magically immune to pointy stuffs they crash on?

[Sombre]

Changing repel to work vs tramplers would necessitate a LOT of other changes to avoid wrecking the balance of the game.

[Aezeal]

Since trample by it's nature would be lenght 0.. It could always be repelled. (unless the unit has an AWESOME PRESENCE (tm) like me then you can trample pplz 10 feet away :D)

btw you can also repel with blunt weapons :D

[JimMorrison]

Changing repel to work vs tramplers would necessitate a LOT of other changes to avoid wrecking the balance of the game.

Hmmmm. I think if Trample were subject to Repel, it would mostly be a matter of increasing Morale for Trampling units. Yes, it negates the major disadvantage of elephants, for example, but since being subject to a Repel check causes damage, you will still have to carry significant numbers, or they will just chew themselves to pieces on the pikes.

[Ironhawk]

Meh, from what I've read on the forums people don't use the average giant troops much, except maybe the Fomorians.

Not true. Don't knock Pikes vs. Giants until you've tried it.

[Trumanator]

Well, I took Dedas' advice regarding the pikeman. I started a game as MA Ulm, and have been building them almost exclusively. I suppose I'm something of a convert now, at least when it comes to fighting indies. I was very surprised at the lack of attrition against archers, even with the chainmail pikes. The black plate pikes are just as invulnerable as all of Ulm's troops. The 2 extra HPs on all of Ulm's infantry also helps. I will say though that I would be somewhat more cautious with them in LA when crossbow indies are so much more prevalent.

[Dedas]

I'm glad you tried it, Trumanator! I myself think that learning new things about this wonderful game is a whole level of fun just by itself. So maybe we will meet on the field of battle some day and become even wiser?

[Tolkien]

Well, I took Dedas' advice regarding the pikeman. I started a game as MA Ulm, and have been building them almost exclusively. I suppose I'm something of a convert now, at least when it comes to fighting indies. I was very surprised at the lack of attrition against archers, even with the chainmail pikes. The black plate pikes are just as invulnerable as all of Ulm's troops. The 2 extra HPs on all of Ulm's infantry also helps. I will say though that I would be somewhat more cautious with them in LA when crossbow indies are so much more prevalent.
I've always been a fan of Pikes. I should though drop the habit in LA, since crossbows are so common that the (much less armored compared to my favorite Black Pikeneers: I love them so) Pikes just can't function without shield infantry and can't take too many hits.

[Wrana]

I also don't think Marignon or Tien Chi pikes are useful. Ulm has better stats on common soldier, after all...

[Scarlioni]

Pikes are a truly ancient weapon system dating back to at least the Sumerians. To be in front of a pike square on level ground was a very bad place to be as the romans found Cynoscephalae. On the other hand, as the romans showed at Cynoscephalae the pike could be soundly defeated if fought on uneven ground and/or flanked.

Pikes offerd signifigent protection against massed archers in the form of the back ranks using their pikes to knock incoming arrows aside.

I have to admit one of the first things I tried in Dominions3 was mass MA Ulm pikes and was very disapointed in their performance against enemy infantry in the independent territories.

In a fantasy context I had for a long time assumed a pikes vs monsters would be a bit like a cat vs a hedgehog. ie very inconclusive. Hollywood changed my opinion on this with the movie Alexander. In that movie a Macedonain phalanx was treated like so many galley slaves getting their oars clipped by an elephant marching perpendicular to the phalanx.

My revised opinion, according to earlier statements in the thread, would be that the treatment of tramplers vs pikes is fairly accurate in dominions3.

Pikes were never defensive, but always an offensive weapons, being the very definition of a shock weapon. A wall of spear points approaching at a charge worked for the Sumerians right up to the swedes under Gustavus Adolphus.

Two greek hoplite armies, traditionally sixteen ranks deep impacting each other at a dead run was a terrible experience. Pikes shattering on shields giving off the noise of gunfire, the warcrys and screams of the dying mixed with the smells of blood. Men dying from the sheer crush of bodies, the smell of the recenly deceased loosening their bowels mixed with the stench of the merely terrified loosing control of thier bladders. This led Hippocrates to describe a condition that in later times was called shellshock.

[Tolkien]

But of course, the shock effect of the Phalanx requires good terrain. The sheer inflexibility of the Phalanx when it came to being flanked or on forested and rough terrain is the primary reason why the Hellenistic Empires fell to a more flexible, reformed Roman Legion system.

That and unimaginative commanders, but that's besides the point.

Pikes I suppose do have SOME advantages over cavalry: the repel is useful to negate the charge: which is one of the best shock values on cavalry. Past that though, Pikes don't have that much survivability against normal morale infantry. Pikes definitely have their uses, of course: against Giants (because those shields won't protect you when that Jotun Sword hits) or low morale chaff.

[Baneslave]

Pikes offerd signifigent protection against massed archers in the form of the back ranks using their pikes to knock incoming arrows aside.


Seriously? :eek:

[Dedas]

But of course, the shock effect of the Phalanx requires good terrain. The sheer inflexibility of the Phalanx when it came to being flanked or on forested and rough terrain is the primary reason why the Hellenistic Empires fell to a more flexible, reformed Roman Legion system.

That and unimaginative commanders, but that's besides the point.

Pikes I suppose do have SOME advantages over cavalry: the repel is useful to negate the charge: which is one of the best shock values on cavalry. Past that though, Pikes don't have that much survivability against normal morale infantry. Pikes definitely have their uses, of course: against Giants (because those shields won't protect you when that Jotun Sword hits) or low morale chaff.

Have you tried pikes against normal infantry?

Making a moral check against normal morale (10) is morale + drn against 13 + drn. I don't see that translated to low survivability against normal morale infantry. Also, logic tells us it is better to be able to repel than not. Another thing to remember is that it is not only a matter of repelling but also about being repelled, thus a longer weapon is double effective.

[Wrana]

Pikes are a truly ancient weapon system dating back to at least the Sumerians. To be in front of a pike square on level ground was a very bad place to be as the romans found Cynoscephalae. On the other hand, as the romans showed at Cynoscephalae the pike could be soundly defeated if fought on uneven ground and/or flanked.
Would you be so kind as to offer a proof link considering Sumerians? It seems conclusion was drawn from Assirian and Babilonian armies who DID use them - not always successfully.
Cynoscephalae, on the other hand, is mostly a moot point - as Romans have won due completely to the fact that their more experienced army was able to dress ranks faster as two armies clashed accidentally (they marched on parallel roads unaware of each other, for those who don't know/remember about this battle).

Pikes offerd signifigent protection against massed archers in the form of the back ranks using their pikes to knock incoming arrows aside.
Yes, such a legend exists. But it is mostly drawn from descriptions by MUCH later authors who didn't have personal experience in battle. Of course, some arrows falling onto phalanx could strike raised pikes and be accidentally deflected, but this was certainly rare, or Macedonian phalangistae wouldn't have shileds (and Assirians, of course).

I have to admit one of the first things I tried in Dominions3 was mass MA Ulm pikes and was very disapointed in their performance against enemy infantry in the independent territories.
And they are about the best pikemen in the game! Lack of formation concept makes for a lousy pikemen, unless you take steps to improve them in some other way...

In a fantasy context I had for a long time assumed a pikes vs monsters would be a bit like a cat vs a hedgehog. ie very inconclusive. Hollywood changed my opinion on this with the movie Alexander. In that movie a Macedonain phalanx was treated like so many galley slaves getting their oars clipped by an elephant marching perpendicular to the phalanx.
Don't draw conclusions from Hollywood, for Cthulhu's sake! %) Really, it would depend on monster. It's well known that in real world elephantes were tried against falanx, but results were surely inconclusive - meaning, different each time. Of course, much information that we have comes through Romans and they liked to portray enemies as inefficient buffons coming into battle in great mobs to be slaughtered by brave and agile Romans in shiny armor (much like today reports, if you think of it). Of course, while smaller North Africa elephantes could be stopped more easily, larger Indian ones would require more drastic measures - and they were sometimes armored, especially in later period, so, barring some lucky shot were pretty impervious to phalanx's weapons. Rhino, on the other hand... ;)

Pikes were never defensive, but always an offensive weapons, being the very definition of a shock weapon. A wall of spear points approaching at a charge worked for the Sumerians right up to the swedes under Gustavus Adolphus.
Wrong. First, they were used differently in different context (for now let's not go into whether Macedonian sarissa should be classified as pike). In late Greek or Macedonian army part of the pike-armed phalanx was doing the offensive, while another part was performing a holding operation - but that was against enemy's infantry. Assirians an Babylonians used their pikemen mainly on defense as a base which protected their powerful archers, with chariots as an offensive arm. Alexander the Great's army used a reformed heavy cavalry as the main offensive arm, with phalanx more as an "anvil" (of course, when it came against inferior enemy it couldn't help but make progress). In later Hellenistic states its role varied on case to case basis - and against Romans it was used mainly on the offensive just because Roman infantry couldn't take it head on - and on the other hand, Romans had throwing weapons so waiting for them indefinitely would be unwise. Still later, Romans turned to using pikes themselves and in Byzantine times their pikemen were used to form a protective square from which archers shoot and cavalry sallied forth...
And later still, Swiss infantry was used mainly in attack - but they mainly used halberds, not pikes! :) Also, Swiss army almost never had cavalry of its own. Landsknechts, on the other hands, were formed as pikemen - and used more to stop enemy cavalry while holding strong German cavalry in reserve and shooting attackers from harquebuses and, later, from artillery.
And, of course, Gustavus Adolphus decreased both numbers and influence of pikes in his army, using them to protect musketeers from cavalry charges - i.e., also on defense... :p

Two greek hoplite armies, traditionally sixteen ranks deep impacting each other at a dead run was a terrible experience. Pikes shattering on shields giving off the noise of gunfire, the warcrys and screams of the dying mixed with the smells of blood. Men dying from the sheer crush of bodies, the smell of the recenly deceased loosening their bowels mixed with the stench of the merely terrified loosing control of thier bladders. This led Hippocrates to describe a condition that in later times was called shellshock.
It would be a good description if only you didn't mistake late armies influenced by Macedonia with early ones - which traditionally formed 8 ranks and didn't use pikes at all. Description itself would be accurate if you'd only add that it's drawn from the Rennaissance time... We do NOT have actual eyewitness descriptions from the Ancient world - and data on losses seem to disagree with such a description. In Rennaissance times, of course, first ranks were in half- or three-quarter-plate armors, which reduced casualties from pikes dramatically. Still, they were high. Ancient world also used more broad formations then Swiss-originating columns - but then, in those days, cavalry was weaker due to abscence of both stirrup and really large warhorses...

And sorry for rant, by the way... ;)

[Agema]

Battles between two phalanxes actually were relatively bloodless - they were largely huge shoving matches. The reason for this is that phalanxes were very close order units to start with, and when two met, the crush meant that the unwieldy pikes were not good at cutting the enemy down. The casualties tended to occur when one side routed and were cut down fleeing.

The Greek way of warfare was a very different matter from the Middle Eastern. The Persians/Babylonians/Assyrians etc. mostly relied on missile fire or smashing the enemy with chariots or cavalry, or in the case of the Persians sheer volume of numbers. However, their bulk spearmen quite evidently tended to be poor quality, mostly unarmoured, and it's very doubtful they fought as ordered units in the way the Greeks or Romans did. They were probably pretty much light infantry on a par with peltasts, except maybe not even that good. They may have had pikes on occasion, but I think we can consider it doubtful they operated much that was comparable to (or as effcetive as) a phalanx or medieval pikemen.

[Humakty]

I totally agree with Agema, and I've read (in some book, but can't remember if it was a reliable one...) it was the phoenicians who invented the hoplitic formation. Along with bireme and other stuff.

[Trumanator]

Victor Davis Hansen actually does an incredible job describing hoplite warfare. As for phalanxes meeting at a run, Herodotus makes a big deal about how unique it was that the Athenians did this at Marathon, so I'm inclined to think that mostly they just met at little more than a jog. Besides, running would disrupt the formation.

[JimMorrison]

I think that this entire discussion in fact WOULD be helped out by a good dosage of semantic reasoning (after just spending 20 minutes arguing with, and researching with my roommate, to define this, so it can be discussed effectively.

For all purposes, all long thrusting weapons should be described as a "spear". If you mean to refer to the specific weapon called a Spear in-game, it would be best to refer to it as a "short spear", else for the purposes of this discussion, any usage of the word "spear" could and should be seen as saying "long spear".

To clarify, the Pike and the Sarissa are in fact very different weapons, originating in very different times, with very different usage. Yet, they both do fall under the broad classification of "spear".


Also to clarify, the Sarissa may have been used as early as 3000 BC, and the Pike did not see use until circa 500 AD. They had different designs, and different uses. They were both spears. If we agree on terminology, maybe, just maybe, we can understand eachother, and our differing ideas, just a little bit better.

<3

[Tolkien]

But of course, the shock effect of the Phalanx requires good terrain. The sheer inflexibility of the Phalanx when it came to being flanked or on forested and rough terrain is the primary reason why the Hellenistic Empires fell to a more flexible, reformed Roman Legion system.

That and unimaginative commanders, but that's besides the point.

Pikes I suppose do have SOME advantages over cavalry: the repel is useful to negate the charge: which is one of the best shock values on cavalry. Past that though, Pikes don't have that much survivability against normal morale infantry. Pikes definitely have their uses, of course: against Giants (because those shields won't protect you when that Jotun Sword hits) or low morale chaff.

Have you tried pikes against normal infantry?

Making a moral check against normal morale (10) is morale + drn against 13 + drn. I don't see that translated to low survivability against normal morale infantry. Also, logic tells us it is better to be able to repel than not. Another thing to remember is that it is not only a matter of repelling but also about being repelled, thus a longer weapon is double effective.
I have. I completely understand your point, and the repel does work, but in my experience, it is not as effective as shield bearing infantry on the defense, and they are rather vulnerable to crossbow fire.

[Dedas]

In my experience it really depends on the length of the weapons the shield bearing infantry carries and the length of the enemies weapons. If the shield bearers carries morningstars (length 2) and the enemy carries spears (length 4), the spear carrying infantry will never repelled and always get a second chance (repel check) but the morningstars will always be subjected to a repel check when they attack and never get to repel. Even with high morale (12-14) it is not unlikely they will get repelled when attacking while the spears can just concentrate on directly beating their defence. That is two check for the morningstars to even get through and one for the spears. It should be the other way around for a good defensive unit. Pikes on the other hand (length 6) will beat any other weapon so they are excellent for defence. Missile fire on the other hand... well, then you really want a shield (double parry against missile).

[Scarlioni]

Oh wow... Great discussion guys!

Firstly... Pictures of Sumerian pikes from bas relief

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic-art/580081/3902/Sumerian-phalanx-2500-BC

[vfb]

Those aren't pikes! Those are pointed sticks.

[chrispedersen]

In my experience it really depends on the length of the weapons the shield bearing infantry carries and the length of the enemies weapons. If the shield bearers carries morningstars (length 2) and the enemy carries spears (length 4), the spear carrying infantry will never repelled and always get a second chance (repel check) but the morningstars will always be subjected to a repel check when they attack and never get to repel. Even with high morale (12-14) it is not unlikely they will get repelled when attacking while the spears can just concentrate on directly beating their defence. That is two check for the morningstars to even get through and one for the spears. It should be the other way around for a good defensive unit. Pikes on the other hand (length 6) will beat any other weapon so they are excellent for defence. Missile fire on the other hand... well, then you really want a shield (double parry against missile).

I don't dispute the validity of your point Dedas, but I think you overstate it.

Repel is not widely used as a tactic for a reason.

Numbers will beat it.
Equal length weapons defeats it. Trampling defeats it. Missiles defeat it.

Not to mention the usual other suspects.

[Scarlioni]

I dont know how to quote like you guys do yet....

From Wranga
"Yes, such a legend exists. But it is mostly drawn from descriptions by MUCH later authors who didn't have personal experience in battle. Of course, some arrows falling onto phalanx could strike raised pikes and be accidentally deflected, but this was certainly rare, or Macedonian phalangistae wouldn't have shileds (and Assirians, of course)."

I've seen an reenactement that convinced me personally. The arrows coming in arent that fast having only gravity for momentum, so a defelction of as little as 10% would help keep you from getting stuck. A twenty foot peice of wood gets a pretty good vibration if you shake it. If nothing else you'd train your phalangites/pikemen to do it for morale reasons, so thay have something to do whilest thousands of arrows fall on them. We'll have to disagree ;)

"And they are about the best pikemen in the game! Lack of formation concept makes for a lousy pikemen, unless you take steps to improve them in some other way..."

They worked. Just they werent the steamroller I was expecting.

"Don't draw conclusions from Hollywood, for Cthulhu's sake!"

Again I'll hastur disagree. While far from definative hollywood has been trying to make decent histio-porn for the past twenty years. They fail miserably most the time, but at least they talk to some historians before shooting. The movie Troy for example has the only footage I've ever seen of two phalanxes meeting (even if it lasts like 10 seconds). They're trying. My point was that until I saw that scene in Alexander I had never imagined a way to use an elephant against massed pointy things.

"Of course, much information that we have comes through Romans and they liked to portray enemies as inefficient buffons coming into battle in great mobs to be slaughtered by brave and agile Romans in shiny armor (much like today reports, if you think of it)."

I hastur really really disagree with this (concerning the romans). Reading Ceaser's dispatches to Rome you'd believe that every gaul was an eight foot tall woad covered, mouth foaming fanatic that took five pilums to drop (wildly exagrarating to make my point of course). Didnt the romans claim that a dacian falx could cut a legionaire in half through his shield? Descriptions painted of the jihadi's at fallujah given by the Us marines harldy painted their opponents as "inefficient buffons." I've always read that battelfield reports had a tendecy to overestimate the capabilties of even easily defeated foes. I'd have to say that a commander's after action reports of the enemy probably owe more to politics than reality even today.

"Wrong. First, they were used differently in different context"

Sure, we're discussing a 4,500 year period in the historic record. I'm positive that we could both come up with many specific examples to support our mutual views!

"for now let's not go into whether Macedonian sarissa should be classified as pike"

Please educate me. I always figured twenty foot pointy thing= 20 foot pointy thing.

"Still later, Romans turned to using pikes"

Actually I thought the Romans dropped the pike in the Marian reforms. Even Dom3 has early age Ermor with pikes.

"Swiss infantry was used mainly in attack - but they mainly used halberds"

Again, I'll disagree. weren't halbreds used by the front ranks in the same manner as the Landsnecht zwiehander, to chop up the other guys pikes?

"Swiss army almost never had cavalry of its own"

I thought the swiss spent most of their ascendent period fighting for the french who provided the cavalry?

"Landsknechts, on the other hands, were formed as pikemen"

Weren't the landsnechets copying the swiss to fill a need for mercenary pikes since the french largely monopolized the swiss and used them to spank everyone else?

"Gustavus Adolphus decreased both numbers and influence of pikes in his army"

Agreed one hundred percent! My point was that tightly massed formations of men with long pointy things were still being used after the introduciton of gunpoweder weapons. I think the consensus is that pikes were displaced by the adoption of the socket bayonet.

"which traditionally formed 8 ranks and didn't use pikes at all"

Maybe traditionl wsant such a wise choice of words. I think I was referenceing the spartans defeat at the hands of the sacred band. According to my memory the Spartans were using the "traditional" sixteen ranks while those sneaky thebans stacked themselves thirty two ranks deep. I promise I'm quoting somehting I read.

"half- or three-quarter-plate armors"

Wouldn't that be a good description of hoplite armor or the dendra panopoly?

I guess what I meant by offensive use was you'd want to be rushing forward to make skish ka bob of your opponents. I just can't imagine holding still and waiting for your opponents to skewer themselves on your pikes would be terribly effective in the majority of cases.

Ok, saying they were NEVER defensive weapons is a bit much. Especially since I brought up the role of pikes in the age of gunpowder. If you'll allow me to badly paraphrase Patton... "Defensive structures are a monument to the stupidity of man"

"And sorry for rant, by the way... "

No, I enjoyed it very much, you made some great points and I enjoyed it!

[JimMorrison]

Those aren't pikes! Those are pointed sticks.

Indeed, or for lack of a better word, Long Spears.

Again, the Pike was not invented until circa 500 AD, long after the phalanx came into prominence. Thus, the Sumerians did not use a Pike. The Pike and the Sarissa are both varieties of spear, and while there are others, it disservices the veracity of any arguments, to use the term "Pike" as a generalization. The most famous English long spear was called a Pike, and we are using the English language here, but that does not make all long spears, Pikes. <3

Remember, a Zeppelin is not a Blimp. And a Teepee, is not a Tent. ;)

[Scarlioni]

Well.. since wikipedia is no help to me on the difference of pikes and sarrissas (Defining a sarissa as a 13-21 foot long pike) could you please elaborate the difference for me?

[JimMorrison]

Well.. since wikipedia is no help to me on the difference of pikes and sarrissas (Defining a sarissa as a 13-21 foot long pike) could you please elaborate the difference for me?

That is because of the trend toward the over-association of the term Pike, with any long spear.

There seem to be 3 primary design differences between the Hellenistic Sarissa, and the English Pike. The first being that the Sarissa notably featured the bronze butt spike, so that it can be very firmly set in the ground in anticipation of a charge. The second being that the Sarissa was typically fashioned in 2 pieces, that were then adjoined like a pool cue, likely primarily to make the weapons easier to handle during extended mobilizations. The third difference being that the English Pike was tapered towards the tip, and thus needed to be reinforced with metal strips.

Functionally, the Sarissa is intended to be used with a shield, and the bronze butt spike aids in balancing the long weapon for 1 handed use. By contrast, the English Pike was exclusively a 2 handed weapon, such as the Pike is portrayed in Dominions.

Oddly, the actual "Long Spear" in the game is used with a shield as well, and thus is the closest that we come to a Sarissa, despite the fact that the average length of a Sarissa was actually longer than the average Pike, yet, in game Pike = 6 and Long Spear = 5. ;) Crazy Swedes. <3

[Dedas]

In my experience it really depends on the length of the weapons the shield bearing infantry carries and the length of the enemies weapons. If the shield bearers carries morningstars (length 2) and the enemy carries spears (length 4), the spear carrying infantry will never repelled and always get a second chance (repel check) but the morningstars will always be subjected to a repel check when they attack and never get to repel. Even with high morale (12-14) it is not unlikely they will get repelled when attacking while the spears can just concentrate on directly beating their defence. That is two check for the morningstars to even get through and one for the spears. It should be the other way around for a good defensive unit. Pikes on the other hand (length 6) will beat any other weapon so they are excellent for defence. Missile fire on the other hand... well, then you really want a shield (double parry against missile).

I don't dispute the validity of your point Dedas, but I think you overstate it.

Repel is not widely used as a tactic for a reason.

Numbers will beat it.
Equal length weapons defeats it. Trampling defeats it. Missiles defeat it.

Not to mention the usual other suspects.

:)

I understand you but my humble (and annoying) opinion is that repel is much better than people give it credit for. I have done a lot of tests over the years and found out that repel gives a subtle (for the eye) but very effective edge over your enemy in two different ways. Those ways are to repel and to not be repelled as opposed to not repel and to be repelled. There is a third option and that is no repel in effect in the event of equal length.

To meet your arguments:
As for numbers "beating" it that is just not true. In the event of repelling an attack you get normal to hit for the first, -2 to the second, -4 to the third etc. With high attack you could repel several blows to you with high probability. With low attack you could repel several attacks as well but it is not so likely after a few. But this is the same principle applied when you attack someone, it gets easier for every blow. So what would you rather have when you are attacked by a big number of enemies?

1. The same length weapon: no repel in effect but you get -2 defence for every attack made to you.

Summary: You get one rapidly fading chance to defend yourself from every attack.

2. Shorter weapon: no repel in effect but you get -2 defence for every attack made to you. When you attack however the enemy gets to repel. When attacking the enemy gets one rapidly fading chance to defend itself.

Summary: You get one rapidly fading chance to defend yourself from every attack. When attacking the enemy gets two rapidly fading chances to defend itself.

3. Longer weapon: you get to repel with -2 to your attack when trying achieve repel. You get -2 defence for every attack made to you.

Summary: You get two rapidly fading chances to defend yourself from every attack. The enemy gets one rapidly fading chance to defend itself.

The right answer is of course 3.

In addition, I don't see the connections between choosing numbers over repel. It is all a matter of what you meet. If the enemy comes equipped with axes (length 1) use broad swords (length 2) and you will have a clear edge as seen above. If they come with battle axes (length 3) use spears (length 4) and so on. Oh, and if they come with pikes (length 6) you either want to come with pikes as well (alternative 1) or use missile units. Just try to avoid alternative 2, that is bad in every way for you. And if you have bigger numbers than your enemy you might even it out, but there is nothing stopping your enemy to field the same amount of troops as you (or more) and beat you more efficiently (lower losses/cost). Intel is key here.

As for trampling. Yes, but that is true in any case, shields won't help you here, only high natural defence, size and HP.

Missile units. You can use a shield and still have a longer weapon than your enemy. In the case of the pike, no. But I'm not debating pikes over shields or something silly like that. Everything has its place.

Thank you for discussing with me. :)

[Agema]

The sarissa is a pike in most meaningful senses. The semantic difference has very little to do with tactics, function and form, and a lot to do with the fact the former fell out of use during late BC and the latter was a reintroduction centuries later. It's hard to agree with the design difference argument because there are notable differences in designs across the history of European pikes, yet they are all still pikes.

At least one encyclopaedia and some books on ancient warfare I've read readily describe the sarissa as a pike or a pike-like weapon, so I'd suggest expert opinion considers them effectively the same thing.

[Wrana]

I dont know how to quote like you guys do yet....
Well, there is that little button down of each post... ;) Of course, if the post itself is long - like this one, you have to cut it to pieces manually (by copying quote marks, then pasting them where you want them).


"Yes, such a legend exists. But it is mostly drawn from descriptions by MUCH later authors who didn't have personal experience in battle. Of course, some arrows falling onto phalanx could strike raised pikes and be accidentally deflected, but this was certainly rare, or Macedonian phalangistae wouldn't have shileds (and Assirians, of course)."

I've seen an reenactement that convinced me personally. The arrows coming in arent that fast having only gravity for momentum, so a defelction of as little as 10% would help keep you from getting stuck. A twenty foot peice of wood gets a pretty good vibration if you shake it. If nothing else you'd train your phalangites/pikemen to do it for morale reasons, so thay have something to do whilest thousands of arrows fall on them. We'll have to disagree ;)
For morale reasons it would probably be good. :) Still, could you give some link on such a reenactmaent?

"And they are about the best pikemen in the game! Lack of formation concept makes for a lousy pikemen, unless you take steps to improve them in some other way..."

They worked. Just they werent the steamroller I was expecting.
To clear this: Ulm has the best pikemen in the game. They work (somewhat).
In real life pikemen could be quite a steamroller unless specifically countered... ;)

"Don't draw conclusions from Hollywood, for Cthulhu's sake!"

Again I'll hastur disagree. While far from definative hollywood has been trying to make decent histio-porn for the past twenty years. They fail miserably most the time, but at least they talk to some historians before shooting. The movie Troy for example has the only footage I've ever seen of two phalanxes meeting (even if it lasts like 10 seconds). They're trying. My point was that until I saw that scene in Alexander I had never imagined a way to use an elephant against massed pointy things.
Hastur disagrees a lot, it seems... ;) And "porn" is a good term here. :p
As for Troy, it has some saving moments (Achilles & Priamos scene is good, for example) - but two phalanxes meeting had no place under Troy in 1200 BC! :D At the same time, you wouldn't have to imagine a lot had you read actual historical books. Of course, primary sources are still better even if they aren't always easy to use...

"Of course, much information that we have comes through Romans and they liked to portray enemies as inefficient buffons coming into battle in great mobs to be slaughtered by brave and agile Romans in shiny armor (much like today reports, if you think of it)."

I hastur really really disagree with this (concerning the romans). Reading Ceaser's dispatches to Rome you'd believe that every gaul was an eight foot tall woad covered, mouth foaming fanatic that took five pilums to drop (wildly exagrarating to make my point of course). Didnt the romans claim that a dacian falx could cut a legionaire in half through his shield? Descriptions painted of the jihadi's at fallujah given by the Us marines harldy painted their opponents as "inefficient buffons." I've always read that battelfield reports had a tendecy to overestimate the capabilties of even easily defeated foes. I'd have to say that a commander's after action reports of the enemy probably owe more to politics than reality even today.
Yes, and he also said that enemy army had always been much more numerous than his own. Don't remember offhand his report, but Marius said that there were 300 000 Teutons with their allies when they met Romans. How would you call 300 000 7-foot tall guys which were slaughtered with Romans with loss of about 500 Roman lives? ;) And Roman portrayal of Mid-Eastern armies was particularly notorious in this degree - it seems almost as they tried to outdo Herodotos with his 5 million Persians (including noncombatants, of course!).
Your last phrase is, of course, completely on-target. Such reports can often be misleading.

"Wrong. First, they were used differently in different context"

Sure, we're discussing a 4,500 year period in the historic record. I'm positive that we could both come up with many specific examples to support our mutual views!
So you concede the point of "weapon mainly used on offense? ;)

"for now let's not go into whether Macedonian sarissa should be classified as pike"

Please educate me. I always figured twenty foot pointy thing= 20 foot pointy thing.
Jim noted some points already. I would add that these "pointy things" had different points actually! :) Rennaisance pike had piramidal or even conical one to better punch through armor. Macedonian sarissa had a laurel-leaf head causing more dangerous wounds against no or little armor. Plus, different balance as already mentioned. Konnolly has quite good illustrations of it. ;)

"Still later, Romans turned to using pikes"

Actually I thought the Romans dropped the pike in the Marian reforms. Even Dom3 has early age Ermor with pikes.
Before Marius they didn't use them. They used spears (hasta). They used heavy javelins (pila). But later Karakalla offered to introduce some pike-like weapons (probably sarissa - I didn't look int othis moment closely) to use against Germanic and Eastern cavalry. As I said, I didn't try to follow a fate of this reform after he was assassinated but Byzantians used long spears at 6-10th centuries at least...

"Swiss infantry was used mainly in attack - but they mainly used halberds"

Again, I'll disagree. weren't halbreds used by the front ranks in the same manner as the Landsnecht zwiehander, to chop up the other guys pikes?
First, zweihander was not used to chop off pikes - just to knock them aside, the same as later halberds, or, still better, ranseurs/espontons (sp?). And Swiss started with halberds only, using them to chop up (and thrust, too) whoever came to hand. :) Later they started to used pikes, too, but it was after Landsknechts appeared and iirc Swiss pikes were always shorter.

"Swiss army almost never had cavalry of its own"

I thought the swiss spent most of their ascendent period fighting for the french who provided the cavalry?
At their ascendent period they fought mainly for themselves and plunder. Later France and other kingdoms began to hire them and yes, at this later period French commanders tried to make Swiss fought on defense. Unfortunately, this rarely worked and Swiss trying to plunge forward against enemy fire led to some pretty heavy defeats for France.

"Landsknechts, on the other hands, were formed as pikemen"

Weren't the landsnechets copying the swiss to fill a need for mercenary pikes since the french largely monopolized the swiss and used them to spank everyone else?
Copying the Swiss - it could be said. But I don't happen to remember whether Emperor Maximillian said anything on who he used as a prototype for his "new army". It could also be Scotts (also almost monopolized by French) or Flemish (and these were partly imperial subjects). We can draw some conclusions on similar battle order, but I'm not certain. And as I said, Swiss started to use pikes after Landsknechts, not before - which actually makes sense as the latter were initially organized as a semi-regular forces by a centralized state while the former were militia of small cantons who sometimes had to fight in less cohesive way...

"Gustavus Adolphus decreased both numbers and influence of pikes in his army"

Agreed one hundred percent! My point was that tightly massed formations of men with long pointy things were still being used after the introduciton of gunpoweder weapons. I think the consensus is that pikes were displaced by the adoption of the socket bayonet.
I wouldn't be sure about the latter. My personal opinion is more like that mounted pistoliers and harquebusiers making pikemen suffer heavily while being at the same time vulnerable to musket fire. After they became a prevalent cavalry - and with a progress in field artillery - pikes became less needed and more vulnerable. Plus, at the 30-years War pikemen were used only in large battles, while musketeers were also used in raiding - and so gathering more spoils. Which led to the latter position becoming much more popular for a common soldier... ;)

"which traditionally formed 8 ranks and didn't use pikes at all"

Maybe traditionl wsant such a wise choice of words. I think I was referenceing the spartans defeat at the hands of the sacred band. According to my memory the Spartans were using the "traditional" sixteen ranks while those sneaky thebans stacked themselves thirty two ranks deep. I promise I'm quoting somehting I read.
Quite possibly. But iirc Sacred band at Leuctres was at 50 or so ranks deep. :)

"half- or three-quarter-plate armors"

Wouldn't that be a good description of hoplite armor or the dendra panopoly?
I guess what I meant by offensive use was you'd want to be rushing forward to make skish ka bob of your opponents. I just can't imagine holding still and waiting for your opponents to skewer themselves on your pikes would be terribly effective in the majority of cases.
Ok, saying they were NEVER defensive weapons is a bit much. Especially since I brought up the role of pikes in the age of gunpowder. If you'll allow me to badly paraphrase Patton... "Defensive structures are a monument to the stupidity of man"
Well, Patton has a reason to say so in his time. But he probably wouldn't be so cocky facing Wermacht of 1941... :rolleyes: Defensive structures - and formations - were used to allow you to concentrate most of your military strength against a pert of the enemy's strength. And they were quite effective at this, too - unless you were so much overwhelmed as Germany was by 1944 (fighting against countries with a total of 1.5 billion population and 2 largest economies of the world)...
As for half-plates and hoplite armors - they certainly played similar roles. They were made differently (of course, if Hellenes had a good steel...). I don't remember "dendra panopoly" - it seems Greek, but escapes me right now...

"And sorry for rant, by the way... "

No, I enjoyed it very much, you made some great points and I enjoyed it!
Well, I'm not so sure all the others did - especially as the guy starting this thread pulled his hair some time ago... :o

To Agema: I don't know what you mean by "meaningful sense". They were used in different periods against different enemies. So they HAD quite a few differences. Encyclopedias are great to start your reading - they were never meant to contain all about the subject (well, maybe Diderot's was, but never mind this...)

To Dedas:
You seem to forget that shield soldiers - or greatswords often have:
1. better armor;
2. better damage output to defeat enemy armor;
3. weapon/shield combo resulting in higher Defense.
So your examples are flawed as they don't take all these into account (I can be not able to repel you but with my armor/shield/broadsword you either won't hit or won't wound me - and in return, my armor will protect me from your repel, I have better attack and your armor isn't proof against broadsword). Note that Ulm pikemen partially negate these with their better-than-human stats, but that wouldn't be true for other pikemen.
And of course, the point with tramplers is that soldiers with greatswords/halberds/battle axes can strike back against large and tough tramplers with a chance to kill or heavily injure them with just a few hits while pikemen have to really overwhelm them with numbers to do that - and numbers cost.
(Sorry for intruding in your discussion, but it seems to include flawed reasoning which is counterproductive...)

[Agema]

It's certainly true that the bayonet put pikemen on the road to obsolescence. However, it also involved improvements in gun technology (flintlocks, Adolphus' powder & shot cartridges) such that muskets became more efficient battlefield weapons, and firepower started to become more dominant for infantry. Pikemen were no more vulnerable to cannons than musketeers, and the threat of gun-owning cavalry was already minimal because of mixed-troop formations such as the Spanish tercio.

My point about "meaningful sense" is that the sarissa was equivalent to a pike in virtually every way except that it was specific to a set of nations at a different point in history. Encyclopaedias are not academic sources, but they are based on academic sources. I own two books on ancient warfare that refer to sarissas as pikes, and I've read others also describing them as such: I expect the authors to be adequate authorities.

The sacred band was only 150 strong. It's very unlikely it fought 50 ranks deep!

[Scarlioni]

Still, could you give some link on such a reenactmaent?
I looked for about ten minutes on utube and couldnt find anything, sry.

Dendra panopoly..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendra_panoply

[chrispedersen]

Dedas:

Outnumbered 2:1, the pikemen in the game aren't going to matter a hill of beans.

you asked which would I rather have repel or no repel outnumbered and my answer is:

Neither. I'd rather not be in that situation. But if I was in that situation I'd rather have significantly better armor.

[Dedas]

But armour comes after repel, don't you see? First you have to hit something to do damage. Also, repel is not something limited to pikes. If you think that your understanding of the game mechanics are seriously limited.

Also, pikemen without significant armour is a lot cheaper to mass than those with so I say there is a great chance than anything with more armour and shorter weapons will be outnumbered. And even if it isn't it will have to pass two checks to do damage instead of one - a serious disadvantage.

[chrispedersen]

I do understand armor comes after repel.

I also understand that repel is only a *chance* of repelling the attack. And that repel decreases with each sequential attack.

So I'd much rather have

20 Atk 10 Pro 4 Pike Len 6
vs
10 Atk 10 Prot 16 Random Shortweapon3

than

20 Atk 10 pro 4 Pike Len 6
vs
10 atk 10 pro 4 Pike len 6

Assuming strengh 10

[JimMorrison]

My point about "meaningful sense" is that the sarissa was equivalent to a pike in virtually every way except that it was specific to a set of nations at a different point in history. Encyclopaedias are not academic sources, but they are based on academic sources. I own two books on ancient warfare that refer to sarissas as pikes, and I've read others also describing them as such: I expect the authors to be adequate authorities.

I think that your assessment of what differences are meaningful or not, may be a bit superficial. In fact I would argue that the -only- major similarity between the Pike and Sarissa (in form) was that they are both very long point sticks (Spears). And I would argue that the only major similarity in usage between the Pike and the Sarissa in usage, was that formations would array multiple ranks of spearheads towards a given enemy. Beyond that, there were distinct differences to every aspect of design and use. It's like arguing that a Halberd is a Glaive, and that all Polearms are Glaives, rather than calling them all Polearms.

And this leads me to my next point - a Historian is not a Semanticist. ;)

Furthermore, the Sarissa was employed millenia before the Pike. By the transitory property of relational semanticism, if you refuse to call either the Sarissa or the Pike a "Spear", then since Pikes did not exist when the Sarissa was invented, you could consider the Pike to be a type of Sarissa, but it is wholly improper to consider the Sarissa a type of Pike. Still, they are both Spears, as it came before either, and has long since been used as a broad classification for any "long pointy thrusting weapon made mostly or entirely of wood".


Oh and to answer you Dedas, I'd just go for higher Morale troops, and/or insure the casting of Sermon of Courage to marginalize the benefit of your Repel "chance". :happy:

[Akela]

Some of you guys know waaaaaay too much about this stuff. After the holocaust I want to be on your team.

[Endoperez]

This thread is getting too serious. Would you misters most knowledgeable in spears help me improve on a bad pun?

"Spear will give you an edge over your opponent, and that's the point."


P.S. I've been watching Animaniacs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaHTeefeLYw).

[analytic_kernel]

This thread is getting too serious. Would you misters most knowledgeable in spears help me improve on a bad pun?

"Spear will give you an edge over your opponent, and that's the point."


You have a piercing wit.

[chrispedersen]

Shafted by my slow typing speed, but still, I'd hate to be the butt of the joke.

[JimMorrison]

Shafted by my slow typing speed, but still, I'd hate to be the butt of the joke.

Or the butt spike. :happy: