Discussion about the state of pike units in DEI 1.1

[KAM 2150]

Dear KAM, hoplites will lose to pike units if they are in formation attack. Take the hoplites out of formation attack and the pikes will lose.

Of course, because it is cheating....Since the beggining of DeI it was always said that you CAN'T turn off formation attack, because AI can't do that either, so you were in fact cheating. Not intentionally but cheating. That is why result is not valid.

[Ritmas]

Dear KAM, hoplites will lose to pike units if they are in formation attack. Take the hoplites out of formation attack and the pikes will lose.

And in actual game battle watch your formationless hoplites get slaughtered by reinforcements.

[Smiling Hetairoi]

And in actual game battle watch your formationless hoplites get slaughtered by reinforcements.

I doubt that since units not using formation attack are more effective.

[KAM 2150]

Because it is cheating and you turned off formation attack on those units. Unless I am missing some pictures, but I can only see that hoplites and praetorians with formation attack turned off won.

[TheRomanRuler]

Because it is cheating and you turned off formation attack on those units. Unless I am missing some pictures, but I can only see that hoplites and praetorians with formation attack turned off won.

darn. Is there way to fix that in some way? Removing ability to toggle it on/off would be enough. I think many people want to "use every trick in the book" and not have to worry if it is cheating or not

[Smiling Hetairoi]

So do the barbarian units cheat since they don't have formation attack? The pike unit does win in most images but takes huge losses in the process. In my game with the early Hastati that were not using formation attack both units were wavering.

[KAM 2150]

Barbarian units have mostly weaker armour and shield defence then Hellenic and Roman nations so they take larger casualties, but Celts had not many obstacles when they raided Greece and Anatolia.

Like I wrote, infantry charge will be a bit lower so initial casualties for phalanx will be also lower.

If you have any good ideas that will work both for player phalanx and AI phalanx then I am all ears, damn, I would be even happy about it, because this one took me around 15-20 hours just to balance this damn formation and it already took many more hours in the past. Seriously, this formation can completly change balance if you increase/decrease some stuff even by 0.05!

[Smiling Hetairoi]

Simply make the pike phalanx worth using. Perhaps increase the killrate or make it tougher. Perhaps it can be as weak as it is if we allow the pikes to keep enemies away. I'm not sure about player and AI balance but from my hours playing the mod it rarely matters. It doesn't matter what unit the enemy is using since the AI will charge your frontline and allow you to outflank it with ranged units, cavalry or spare infantry. The pike unit isn't good at much besides keeping the enemy at bay but in the latest version it's not even good at that due how many casualties they take. I respect the amount of time you've put into the mod but currently the pikes don't serve a purpose when you can get the more versatile hoplites or thorax units.

[Augustusng]

Hoplites are hardly more versatile. I think they actually move more slowly than pikemen even. As for thorax units, yeah. That's sort of the point. Once you get to thorax reforms, you might think about using an army without pikemen, because you have more versatile units available.

[Geffalrus]

I think the early pikes - epistratoi and phalangitai - are still fairly well balanced. The epistratoi are super cheap and represent an easy way to make a large army of heavy infantry. Of course, they're torn to shreds by skirmishers and don't do that well versus more expensive hoplites and melee infantry. The phalangitai solve some of that by having better combat stats - plus - much better armor. The progression to leukaspides, chalkaspides, and faction specific royal guard pikemen sort of builds sensibly on top of that. Leukaspides are basically phalangitai with even better combat stats, chalkaspides have better stats and much better armor, and the royal guard pikes should have the highest combat stats AND armor. My initial impression of playing a number of hours on Macedonian Wars is that this is sort of how it's working out. The problem I've seen so far is that the very expensive pikes don't do as well versus militia hoplites as their status would suggest. That being said, I have seen a royal guard pike break a levy pike in a frontal assault without too much trouble. It's mostly the garrison militia hoplites (not the garrison professional hoplite) that seem to take forever to kill unless you go full hammer and anvil.

[KAM 2150]

In melee_weapons tables There is a colum called weapon reach and set the value for all pike entries (pike1, pike2 etc) to 4 or 5 depending on you like.

As for the pike units attack, they have the highest killratio skills but it works a bit weair for them as they are only units that kill more as the battles goes, while other units tend to kill less as they get tired. Currently upping pikes melee attack by 0.1 makes them extremly OP in terms of kills as they simply start to kill units in ridiculous speed after time.

And of course thorax units are superior to phalanx, they were developed later on.

[Geffalrus]

And of course thorax units are superior to phalanx, they were developed later on.

With all due respect, I don't think that's quite correct. The thorakitai developments were more an evolution of existing units in response to economic developments and the availability of celtic chainmail, rather than an anti-phalanx creation.

[Thyra13]

Hi guys!!
I want you to know that i really apreciate your hard work which resulted this stunning result called DEI! And ofc i thank you KAM for spending so many hours trying to balance the battles.
But unfortunately i have to agree with Smiling Hetairoi..
I understand the need of balancing the pikes, but in my humble opinion the way the formation acts now is not neither visually tempting nor close to what historically happened(although i wasn't there )..
In the battle preview video you explain to us that pike phalanx formation should be like this because, otherwise, pikes will be unbeatable frontally. And i wander.. Isn't this what should be happened? I mean who can withstand a charge on the pikes frontally without huge losses? I think we should not be misleading by the roman victories against the macedonian phalanx. The phalanx did her job in almost every encounter or didn't engage at all, but as you know phalanx alone can't win battles..
After a minor research in wikipedia you will find this:

So historically even levy pikes could easilly pin down the heaviest troops of Rome. I don't want you to do exactly this ofc, but i want to give you the bigger picture.
With all due respect to your work and my best regards!

[TheOrangeProject]

Always pikes...

I will never understand it.

I just tried it out. Levy pikes from Epirus vs. Roman cohors praetoria. The cheapest unit of pikes Epirus can wield into battle was able to fend off the best roman soldiers during mid game for more than 6min. What excatly is the issues with pikes? I don't get it.

It is like a cool looking stone,scissor,paper game. Every game is like that. If you need 6min to position a unit to interrupt an enemy move you certainly doing something wrong.

__________

Offtopic:
About wikipedia and such being sources: As someone who is into theory of science it cringles me that people cite wikipedia. Even if the articles is based on certain sources it just a paraphrase of the primary source or worse maybe it is a paraprase from a secondary source, making wikipedia a tertiary source, which is a no go for serious arguments regarding any scientific argument (with exceptions). EVERY paraphrase is an interpretation with certain points of view regarding a specific topic. Which means that there is no objectivity regarding wikipedia. If you want to offer reasonable evidence you will have to dig through a of texts, papers, discussions, etc.. Objectivity in science is an illusion, because mainstream media stuff tells people that is all about facts - which is also statement only wielded by folks who have no clue about sciene, namely mainstream media and sometimes freshmen.

[Smiling Hetairoi]

Always pikes...

I will never understand it.

I just tried it out. Levy pikes from Epirus vs. Roman cohors praetoria. The cheapest unit of pikes Epirus can wield into battle was able to fend off the best roman soldiers during mid game for more than 6min. What excatly is the issues with pikes? I don't get it.

It is like a cool looking stone,scissor,paper game. Every game is like that. If you need 6min to position a unit to interrupt an enemy move you certainly doing something wrong.

__________

Offtopic:
About wikipedia and such being sources: As someone who is into theory of science it cringles me that people cite wikipedia. Even if the articles is based on certain sources it just a paraphrase of the primary source or worse maybe it is a paraprase from a secondary source, making wikipedia a tertiary source, which is a no go for serious arguments regarding any scientific argument (with exceptions). EVERY paraphrase is an interpretation with certain points of view regarding a specific topic. Which means that there is no objectivity regarding wikipedia. If you want to offer reasonable evidence you will have to dig through a of texts, papers, discussions, etc.. Objectivity in science is an illusion, because mainstream media stuff tells people that is all about facts - which is also statement only wielded by folks who have no clue about sciene, namely mainstream media and sometimes freshmen.

The levy pike unit didn't hold of the praetorians thanks to their pikes but rather to how large the unit is and how slow the combat is in general in DEI. I don't need a pike unit for that.

[SiegeTank]

In melee_weapons tables There is a colum called weapon reach and set the value for all pike entries (pike1, pike2 etc) to 4 or 5 depending on you like.

As for the pike units attack, they have the highest killratio skills but it works a bit weair for them as they are only units that kill more as the battles goes, while other units tend to kill less as they get tired. Currently upping pikes melee attack by 0.1 makes them extremly OP in terms of kills as they simply start to kill units in ridiculous speed after time.

And of course thorax units are superior to phalanx, they were developed later on.

Hey its me again. I was wondering, what would the effects of weakening pikes from the flanks be, While increasing the attack from the front?
Also what is your goal for balancing pikes if it is making them balanced for the AI vs Human battle then you make them a lot weaker in human vs human, but i presume most of the players play campaign with dei in which case the second option that some people proposed might be more viable (the increase of range of pikes) since attacks units head on and doesnt position its units in a way so that they can flank as much.

[KAM 2150]

I never stated that they were counter phalanx, just that they are superior due to being introduced later on and adopted to new ways of fighting.

[Augustusng]

"This section does not city any references (sources.)"

This is why we don't use wikipedia to make claims about things. That paragraph you highlighted really doesn't hold up to any analysis. Find better sources.

[SiegeTank]

Also as much as you guys argue about one unit or another being realistic, has nothing to do with a game. While you can have certain historical accuracy you can't expect everything to fit in the imaginary world that you create and play on.
Balancing a game to be fun and good cant always confirm with what was realistic, however making units viable(in a balanced way) is a completely different question.

[TheRazaman]

@SmilingHetairoi - Lt. Col. Theodore Ayrault Dodge's Alexander and John Warry's Warfare in the Classical World. Dodge's work is older and has some slight misinformation based on modern findings, but is phenomenal nonetheless. As an aside I highly recommend his work on Hannibal, classic. He took the route through the Alps and visited all the major battlefields, which allows him a real sense for the circumstances of a battle (as well as his being a seasoned soldier). Warry's work is a pillar for anyone looking to build knowledge of ancient warfare.

@Geffarius - Agreed. Neither Philip nor Alexander preferred the phalanx as their main arm of the army; that role was reserved by the cavalry, which often made the decisive attack to win battles (and the timely defensive maneuver to save a victory as the Thessalians did at Gaugamela). You're also right that the other arms of the Diadochi armies did decline with increased rapidity compared to the pike phalanx, but this thread is about pike phalanx effectiveness.

To your point about maneuverability of the phalanx: It was not for lack of training — the Diadochi did serve under Alexander and were excellent battle commanders in their own right — but the ensuing arms race that led to this decline. The Successor period was the first time sarissa fought sarissa and so, they were extended from 5m all the way up to 7m to gain an advantage along with heavier armor being worn. This all served to reduce the flexibility of the force.

As to the supremacy of legion over phalanx, I was intimating that the decline of the phalanx (by above mentioned evolutions in their armor and weapons) allowed for the legion to fill the void left by the Philipine-Alexandrian phalanx; that of an elite infantry unit capable of adapting to varying environmental and tactical conditions. I'm not asserting that the manipular legionary formation > pike phalanx in objective terms nor that it was a decisive advantage held by the legion. After all, the best legions never fought the best phalanx. However, what is apparent, is that by the time of Rome 2, the legion in mainpular formation was superior to its contemporary phalanx.