Problems of MeG representing Hellenistic Pike armies

[Hayung_is]

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.

In conjunction with this change to 3wide 9 base I might try out formed/tribal. The downside is there is less granularity between the well trained pike and the rubbish pike in armies.

[LawrenceG]

We know from historical drill manuals that Hellenistic pike had drills for doubling and halving their ranks, wheeling 90 degrees and turning 180.

The turn 90 as represented in MeG I'm not so sure was that simple (for any troops), given that a file was the elemental unit and each man had a specific place in the file based on how experienced he was. It's not just a case of everybody doing a right turn on the spot.

[Jilu]

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.

In conjunction with this change to 3wide 9 base I might try out formed/tribal. The downside is there is less granularity between the well trained pike and the rubbish pike in armies.

Formed/tribal, what about the effects on the elephants ? would need to have a look at combat factors too

[Doomsmile]

NGL, the longer I've had to mull over these proposed changes, the more I'd really like to see these as the default rules for all pikes in general, should play testing go well.
Pike "noodles" tend to just generally behave strangely, and I have a feeling these proposed rules would help a lot with that.


The suggestion to make pikes units generally Tribal to represent their (relatively) restricted ability to maneuver also sounds promising, and would synergize well with the improved supporting files ability.

(As far as tribal pikes interacting with elephants: the elephants would be net +1 on the charge and mostly tied in the melee.
Anecdotally: those are the relative claims I personally look for when hunting elephants.
Elephants would be just as poorly served charging tribal pikes as they would be charging drilled LS.)

[AntiokosIII]

I played 2 games yesterday using the proposed Helenistic pike changes. I used 3x 9 stand pike units, first against Northern Tang and second against Thracian Hill tribes. Both were competitive games in which the pikes dominated the center of the table, giving the Early Seleukid cavalry room to attack and benefiting from flank support from elephants, Thorakitai, and Thracian mercenary troops. The extra frontage was very important.
Both my opponents were initially skeptical about the change. Both made use of overlaps to their benefit (still dubious of the rationale for this) but over two games I lost only one pike block.
Both of my opponents said by the end of the game that the changes made pikes more cost effective and made them look and behave a bit more like ancient accounts.

[badhabum]

NGL, the longer I've had to mull over these proposed changes, the more I'd really like to see these as the default rules for all pikes in general, should play testing go well.
Pike "noodles" tend to just generally behave strangely, and I have a feeling these proposed rules would help a lot with that.


The suggestion to make pikes units generally Tribal to represent their (relatively) restricted ability to maneuver also sounds promising, and would synergize well with the improved supporting files ability.

(As far as tribal pikes interacting with elephants: the elephants would be net +1 on the charge and mostly tied in the melee.
Anecdotally: those are the relative claims I personally look for when hunting elephants.

Elephants would be just as poorly served charging tribal pikes as they would be charging drilled LS.)

Most Phalanxes were drilled so why go formed or tribal ? and it has huge impact when fighting nellies

Also beware what you want : "all pikes" what about columella what about kiel ?

[Manzikert]

Most Phalanxes were drilled so why go formed or tribal ?

Absolutely, but does that classification best reflect what the formation would have actually been capable of? I'm not gonna pretend to be an expert but every description I've read of a phalanx describes them as a ponderous formation. Being tribal doesn't even stop them from performing most maneuvers, would just stop them from doing them as part of a double move which seems pretty accurate to me. I doubt pikes could wheel multiple times or shift at a jog.

And while it does make them worse against elephants I don't think that alone is reason to give drilled to a unit that doesn't otherwise deserve it. Especially when it's still a pretty bad match-up for the elephants anyway. As Doomsmile said above elephants fighting tribal pikes would be basically the same as fighting drilled long spear.

what about columella what about kiel ?

I'll admit some ignorance when it comes to what later pike formations were capable of. My understanding of Swiss pikes at least is that they formed huge columns and just charged as an unstoppable tide. Certainly they were fast, but I've never heard one way or another on what kinds of maneuvers they could perform at speed.

[badhabum]

not convinced at all ...Phalanxes were more mobile than people think. It is a fearsome beast that even legions could not fight frontally and had to have it's flanks protected. It is already an uneasy task and if you want to make it even more complicated and kill the phalanxes, I say no please do not fix what is not broken . By 9 why not ? formed or even tribal no or till roman legion becomes tribal 

Phalanxes could even fight uphill and in rough terrain

[SteveO]

Most Phalanxes were drilled so why go formed or tribal ?

Absolutely, but does that classification best reflect what the formation would have actually been capable of? I'm not gonna pretend to be an expert but every description I've read of a phalanx describes them as a ponderous formation.

Such descriptions were usually written by Roman or Greek authors who were comparing pike phalanxes to contemporary Roman formations. Much recent analysis and research indicates that a trained/experienced phalanx, while unable to match the Roman legion's' exceptional level of flexibility, was not as cumbersome as often portrayed. Furthermore, there was a big difference between Alexander's Foot Companions and the later Successors' phalangites.

[AntiokosIII]

not convinced at all ...Phalanxes were more mobile than people think. It is a fearsome beast that even legions could not fight frontally and had to have it's flanks protected. It is already an uneasy task and if you want to make it even more complicated and kill the phalanxes, I say no please do not fix what is not broken . By 9 why not ? formed or even tribal no or till roman legion becomes tribal 

Phalanxes could even fight uphill and in rough terrain

With respect, that has not been my experience. Pikes are sadly overpriced for their battlefield effect, which is severely limited by frontage. I personally view Helenistic pikes as mostly ineffective for the price. Romans definitely do not fear to close with them in open ground. As presently depicted, pikes do not have the same ability to dominate whatever is to their front that they did historically, and are not difficult to avoid because they are so narrow. Just my experience, better players may get better results. In my play test last week, the 9 stand pike formations were much more useful.
If there was a way to keep pike drilled for combat and tribal for movement, it would be worth testing, in my opinion. Certainly Alexander's pikes massacred the elephants at Hydaspes, and the matchup was rarely tried after that.

[Jilu]

not convinced at all ...Phalanxes were more mobile than people think. It is a fearsome beast that even legions could not fight frontally and had to have it's flanks protected. It is already an uneasy task and if you want to make it even more complicated and kill the phalanxes, I say no please do not fix what is not broken . By 9 why not ? formed or even tribal no or till roman legion becomes tribal 

Phalanxes could even fight uphill and in rough terrain

With respect, that has not been my experience. Pikes are sadly overpriced for their battlefield effect, which is severely limited by frontage. I personally view Helenistic pikes as mostly ineffective for the price. Romans definitely do not fear to close with them in open ground. As presently depicted, pikes do not have the same ability to dominate whatever is to their front that they did historically, and are not difficult to avoid because they are so narrow. Just my experience, better players may get better results. In my play test last week, the 9 stand pike formations were much more useful.
If there was a way to keep pike drilled for combat and tribal for movement, it would be worth testing, in my opinion. Certainly Alexander's pikes massacred the elephants at Hydaspes, and the matchup was rarely tried after that.

Must say i agree, pikes a  disavantaged to other troops for now as they have a narrow frontage. it is all a legacy of previous rules that... we all played. time to shake up thing a bit perhaps , but it needs to be tested. Certainly against historical opponents. against Qin it does not make much sence but within a army list  e.g. macedon and greece or syria... it would be interesting to see the results...

[SteveO]

Must say i agree, pikes a  disavantaged to other troops for now as they have a narrow frontage. it is all a legacy of previous rules that... we all played. time to shake up thing a bit perhaps , but it needs to be tested. Certainly against historical opponents. against Qin it does not make much sence but within a army list  e.g. macedon and greece or syria... it would be interesting to see the results...

That's the conundrum. I think pikes are currently tough enough in a fair fight but their limited frontage means the army as a whole, not just the phalanx, is disadvantaged.

I wonder if it is a points issue? If we used an historical OOB for Magnesia say, would we still have the same problem? In other words, are we facing a game issue rather than a simulation issue? After all, I have yet to see an Alexandrian Imperial army win a tournament on the few occasions people are brave enough to take one, yet it is was one of history's most successful armies.

[lionheartrjc]

To be clear, I am not really interested in the opinions of people who haven't actually tried out the idea.  I am really interested in how people who have tried the idea out go on.
I have no plans to change the training of pikes; drilled, formed or tribal.  Only by testing would I have any real idea if a points change was needed or not.

I would hope to run a 1-day test event to see how it works at some point.  Probably a theme of Hellenistic armies and their enemies from 380 BCE to 70 CE.

Richard

[jamie]

I think the proposal would be a good idea and i'd be keen to try out either at an event or elsewhere, though the impact against peers such as ancient greeks would need thought/testing against to ensure this doesn't give the macedonians an unreasonable advantage.  The MeG macedonian/sucessor armies have felt drastically more narrow compared to ancient greek armies - to the point where trying to re fight chaeronea or the like has always felt off as the macedonians can just be enveloped by a much wider greek line - which does not reflect as far as i'm aware what we know of relative frontages in history.

[badhabum]

@RJC : Phalanxes by 9 OK , 3 rank deep not 4 OK but many armies are for now limited to 4 X 8 or 32 bases . Would 36 be the new maximum ?