Problems of MeG representing Hellenistic Pike armies

[nikgaukroger]

I do not have had time to look at it but were the phalanxes more square or more rectangular is perhaps the first question to answer .

That's a fair question but not easily answered. The phalanx appears to have started out eight ranks deep like its hoplite precursors before possibly moving to 10 ranks and then apparently settling on 16 ranks as the 'norm'. However, it was not uncommon for commanders to halve the depth to eight, or double the depth to 32, in order to meet tactical requirements. Furthermore, the ground scale we have to use on the table top distorts the shape of formations so we are really looking for an impression rather than 100 percent technical accuracy.

For Hellenistic pike phalanxes the answer is they would usually look rectangular.

16 ranks is (probably) the most common deployment depth. In rough terms a man with stand in a space about 1m x 1m (we can leave aside synaspismos at present). If we look at Gaugamela as a reasonable example Alexander had, IIRC, about 9000 pezetaroi so you have frontage of about 550m (plus any gaps between the sub-units) and a depth of about 20m (allowing for a bit of extra space before closing up).

[badhabum]

IIt might be interesting to test but why 9 and not 12 bases ?

It will not be cheap that's a fact still thinking about it 

I reassure the players, it will not be tested at IWC that's 2 weeks away 

[lionheartrjc]

It might be interesting to test but why 9 and not 12 bases ?

It will not be cheap that's a fact still thinking about it.

I reassure the players, it will not be tested at IWC that's 2 weeks away

12 would be disproportionate to other TuGs with no historical justification.

Richard

[SteveO]

12 would be disproportionate to other TuGs with no historical justification.

Disproportionate to what Richard - Republican Roman TuGs in fives or sixes? What historical size formations are our Tactical Unit Groups (TuGs) meant to represent? Maniples, centuries or cohorts in the case of the Romans? Pentacosiarchia or merarchia in that of the pike armies? As there is no fixed troop scale aren't we going for the right 'look and feel'?

Steve

[AntiokosIII]

I like this idea enough to try it out even if I have to rebase a bit (i have 1/2 of my pikes double based and half single based for easy of maneuver). I have stopped running pike armies despite loving the Hellenistic period because the narrow frontage makes the point cost too high. They are simply too easy to avoid by troops you can beat. This would help a lot.
Richard, if I want to test this, how should I cost out the unit? Same price per stand? I personally think that while the cost seems reasonable for the combat factors, the narrow frontage and limits to maneuver make pikes a bit overpriced for my taste. If we keep the rules limiting maneuver but increase the frontage, do we keep the cost the same?
Kudos to Richard for coming up with a possible way to make Hellenistic pikes worthwhile, or at least enough better I might get my Seleukids  off the shelf once in awhile.
/


I

0


I

[Hayung_is]

12 would be disproportionate to other TuGs with no historical justification.

Disproportionate to what Richard - Republican Roman TuGs in fives or sixes? What historical size formations are our Tactical Unit Groups (TuGs) meant to represent? Maniples, centuries or cohorts in the case of the Romans? Pentacosiarchia or merarchia in that of the pike armies? As there is no fixed troop scale aren't we going for the right 'look and feel'?

Steve

I think historically aside, 12 unit TuGs would be so expensive you would reintroduce the same problem I think is trying to be solved - frontage, as well as creating problems for lists like Alex Macedonian which struggle to field enough TuGs as it is. Unless the cost per base was reduced significantly which I don't think you could justify given the factors for Pike.

I like this idea enough to try it out even if I have to rebase a bit (i have 1/2 of my pikes double based and half single based for easy of maneuver). I have stopped running pike armies despite loving the Hellenistic period because the narrow frontage makes the point cost too high. They are simply too easy to avoid by troops you can beat. This would help a lot.
Richard, if I want to test this, how should I cost out the unit? Same price per stand? I personally think that while the cost seems reasonable for the combat factors, the narrow frontage and limits to maneuver make pikes a bit overpriced for my taste. If we keep the rules limiting maneuver but increase the frontage, do we keep the cost the same?
Kudos to Richard for coming up with a possible way to make Hellenistic pikes worthwhile, or at least enough better I might get my Seleukids  off the shelf once in awhile.

Funnily enough I've approached this problem by downgrading Pike to poor, which is a work-around to be sure but generally you can get a 4 poor pike for the price of 2 average + 300 points. The +1 factor means you can still hold troops in place and cavalry still want nothing to do with them.
So in frontage is all you're after, its one way to do it.

Is pike maneuverability something that comes up for others? For drilled Pike, doing a double to turn and then move when >4BW from an enemy is functionally the same. The only other time I could see it being a factor is capitalising on a breakthrough, which for Pikes won't be very common (fighting multiple enemy TuGs usually).

[martymagnificent]

The base width shift while advancing (or double shift if double moving) can be very valuable for drilled pike. Helps you get in the face of things that want nothing to do with you.

Martin

[lionheartrjc]

Richard, if I want to test this, how should I cost out the unit? Same price per stand?

For testing, I would suggest keeping the same points per base (it means you can use the existing army builder).  I would welcome to hear how you get on.

Richard

[Jilu]

Funnily enough I've approached this problem by downgrading Pike to poor, which is a work-around to be sure but generally you can get a 4 poor pike for the price of 2 average + 300 points. The +1 factor means you can still hold troops in place and cavalry still want nothing to do with them.
So in frontage is all you're after, its one way to do it.

Poor pike are more vulnerable for shooting. does not feel right

[Hayung_is]

Poor pike are more vulnerable for shooting. does not feel right

Depends if you feel pike should be more vulnerable to shooting given their smaller shields

[Manzikert]

How would people feel if pikes were generally Tribal with some of the better ones Formed and maybe a few Drilled to stand out? It would help significantly with the cost issue and it's always been sort of weird to me that pikes are some of the most nimble formations in MeG; sure they can't turn 90 and move but neither can most infantry when they're 3 wide. Obviously the men in the formation would be drilled in order to stay in formation and move at all; but I'm skeptical they could have pulled off the same level of battlefield maneuver as a comparable sized unit of legionnaires.

[SteveO]

How would people feel if pikes were generally Tribal with some of the better ones Formed and maybe a few Drilled to stand out?

Answer: respectfully, not much.

While the average Successor pikemen might not have reached the skill and training levels of Philip and Alexander's foot companions, most were still trained professionals whose formations were fairly flexible and adaptable within the constraints of being 16 (normally) ranks deep armed with very long pointy sticks. Of all the solutions offered so far for fixing the phalanx's frontage issue in MeG, Richard's seems to offer the best prospects IMO. The trickier bit might be the points.

[Jilu]

Poor pike are more vulnerable for shooting. does not feel right

Depends if you feel pike should be more vulnerable to shooting given their smaller shields

Small Shields for Alex-Mac perhaps? not for the later armies

[badhabum]

Poor pike are more vulnerable for shooting. does not feel right

Depends if you feel pike should be more vulnerable to shooting given their smaller shields

Smaller shields but also a wall of wooden sticks that could limit the effect of archery and or javelins ..but difficult to say as reenact it would be very costly indeed dinding enough reenactors would be a first problem

[Manzikert]

trained professionals whose formations were fairly flexible and adaptable within the constraints of being 16 (normally) ranks deep armed with very long pointy sticks.

But this is the limitation I'd like to see represented. They were certainly drilled, they'd have to be to maintain their formation. But from a 10,000 foot view the formation wouldn't have been as maneuverable as other infantry without those constraints. That's why I don't think they're best represented as the highest level of maneuverability. Maybe formed would sound better, but tribal seems to reflect their actual battlefield limitations better. Can't wheel during a double move, back-up with great difficulty, trouble creating new files or turning to face a threat from an unexpected direction. And then they wouldn't be able to turn 90/180 and move without requiring a special exception in the rules.