How best to use Pk?

I understand the concept of the Pikes not being the numerically superior force, but the problem is that their concentration of force using this method isn't very good. A spear with support is 5, pike with support 6. Assuming one or two of your pike blocks will be overlapped even if you prevent them being fully flanked like in your diagram means that actually the benefit you get from being deep is negated. Pike can rarely actually drive through other heavy infantry.

Here is some drivel I wrote several years ago. I think it ok to post here as most have read it...and it is available in its entirety on the interwebs, though in French.

The Problem with Pike

Pike (Pk) has suffered an unusual setback in DBA 3. The greater movement rates, improved rules for moving to contact, and the reclassification of the Pike troop type as impetuous would seem, at a cursory glance, to have improved the Pk troop type compared to earlier versions of DBA. Gone is the capability of a defender using simple geometric ploys to prevent a Pike phalanx from making contact in hand-to-hand combat. Banished is the need for large amounts of PIPs to keep those Pike formations fighting after they do finally contact.

Not all the changes were positive. Pike did have its rear support factor against most mounted cut to +1, but this is mitigated by foot classed as ‘Solid’ (most Pike is rated as such) recoiling mounted on a tie (as an aside this change helps to better simulate the early Renaissance period). The addition of side support for Spear also is not much of a negative factor as the standard +5 (Spear with side support) vs +6 ((Pike with rear support) matchup will quickly break the Spear line, eliminating the side support. The improved capability of Pike to get to the enemy, enter combat with the enemy, and stay in combat would seem to vastly outweigh these small negative changes.

The Pike’s problems however quickly become apparent after playing a few games. The troop type has always suffered in DBA because of its lack of frontage. In ancient battles, non-pike-based armies facing pikes would shorten their lines in order to attempt to match the depth of their opponent, so as to prevent the Pike phalanx from breaking through their lines. This, coupled with the difficulty of commanding troops over a wide frontage, helped to keep Pike armies from being easily surrounded and destroyed. DBA, with its set limit of 12 elements per side, and the need for Pike elements to be deployed two-deep, has always struggled to simulate this.

DBA 3 makes the issue worse than previous versions. The greater movement, improved movement to contact, and classification Pike as impetuous, actually work against the Pike troop type by allowing its enemies to more easily flank and engage the Pike phalanx. Envelopments that under 2.2 or earlier versions of DBA would take four or five turns to accomplish can now be done in two. The combat factors of the Pike simply aren’t high enough to produce the casualties needed for a breakthrough in that short number of turns. Defenders against Pike based armies don’t worry with deepening their lines or positioning reserves. They can instead expand their frontage and attempt an envelopment. An experienced Greek Hoplite player will recognize this and easily flank and destroy a Pike based army.

The matchup between Pike based armies and Romans is even worse. The Roman Legionnaire Blade has always had the advantage against the Pike. One could of course argue from history that this should be the case. The Macedonians were unable to win any major victories over the Romans after Pyrrhus. Still, Pydna, Cynoscephalae and Magnesia were near run battles. Under DBA 3, Later Macedonian vs Early Imperial Romans is a slaughter. The Romans will easily outflank the Macedonians and make short work of them. The balance has shifted further against the Pike.

The solution would seem to be found in upping the combat factor of the Pike, but this leads to some difficult balancing problems against other troop types. The addition of +1 to the factor of Pike vs Foot makes the Auxilia issue worse and produces bad effects against Bow, Warband, and Artillery.

So, I propose the following: change the combat outcome for ‘Solid’ foot on ‘If its total is equal to that of its opponent’ to

‘‘Solid’ foot Destroyed by foot if CP, CWg or Lit & in contact on 2 or more edges by enemy front edges. If not Pike, recoiled by ‘Solid’ Pike, Otherwise no effect.’

This change increases the capability of a Pike phalanx to disrupt its enemy’s lines. While the Pike won’t become a killing machine, the improved outcome is just a recoil, the Pike phalanx does have a better chance to create breaks and dislocations in the enemy battle lines. In the following bounds the Pike will have a much greater chance of isolating and possibly destroying enemy infantry. Further, a Pike phalanx that is flanked has a better chance of recoiling its flankers. This prevents another flanked combat the next bound, where destruction is possible, and isolates the front attacking element so that it faces the wrath of the Pike phalanx alone!

With this change, the Greek hoplites at Chaeronea are now forced to consider a reserve. The Roman Legionnaires at Pydna and Cynoscephalae will be driven to the rear to face the danger of being broken before their compatriots can engage the flanks of the Macedonian/Greek Pikes. The Swiss will be able to take their place as a formidable battlefield force, though they will still underperform compared to their historical record as DBA lacks factors for grading quality.

Finally, this change allows the commander of a Pike army a slight amount more of flexibility. Pike in DBA must be deployed in two element ranks, otherwise it is hopelessly weak against enemy foot. With this modification, the single rank Pike is a more viable combat force, now enabled to stand for a time against Spear and slowly win against Auxilia.

I can see your reasoning, but I think in practical terms that requires you to have 6 pike stands that are not overlapped, which is normally all of your heavy infantry.

Paulisper:

No doubt more testing is in order. Our experience is the opposite of yours, though it was gathered from individual and club games, not tournaments. It also may produce different results from different play styles. I am more aggressive with my Pike armies and use echeloned attacks. Therefore, my Pike are already exposed. This has helped me. As you have stated, your experiences were different.

Again, broader testing is in order.

Joe Collins

Why has DBA given 1 element of Spear against foot 4 and 1 element of pike 3? What's is the reasoning? As it was only the first 5 ranks of pike extended beyond the front rank why does DBA make them a combat factor of 1 less against spear. An element in DBA represents twice the amount as in DBMM, so 1 element in DBA would be 512 Pk, 64 by 8 deep. So 3 element would be a Macedonian Phalanx 1,536. So 1 element would be the same as 1 element with 1 rear support in DBMM. Having a rear suppoting element in DBA would actually be 16 deep and they were quite capable of standing up to a Greek Phalanx when only 8 deep (1 element DBA) Assuming all things equal on perfect ground, why would a Greek Phalanx (sp) be better than a Pike Phalanx if both are 8 deep? should they not be at least the same?

There was a theory that pikes were to fix enemy heavy infantry in place, whilst the battle was won elsewhere….