Author Topic: Pikes: What's the Point?  (Read 3262 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mike_Porter

  • Guest
Pikes: What's the Point?
« on: January 17, 2008, 09:24:05 PM »
Hello all!  Just got my rules and I had a question about Pk.  I come from DBA, and Pk have a +3 for rear support.  Am I reading DBMM correctly when I read that Pk only get a +1 (against foot) per rank (max +2)?  What hope is there of Macedonians defeating Greeks? ???

I imagine I'm missing something since I've only skimmed the rules at this point.  Can anyone enlighten me?

Mike_Porter

  • Guest
Re: Pikes: What's the Point?
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2008, 09:59:41 PM »
Never mind!  I rooted through some older posts and got my answers.  I need paint a whole bunch of more pike! ;D

toby

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Pikes: What's the Point?
« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2008, 02:44:34 PM »
Your opponent also gets the -1 for your 4th rank (unless you are X).

The 'funny' things are:

Pk(X) are (IMHO) worse than Pk(I) despite being more expensive.
Against 'skirmishers' (LH, Cv, Ps) you don't get any rear support - so a Cv vs Pk battle is a real slug at 4-4. I fought one the other evening and over 10 frontages for about 8 rounds I lost 2 Pk and killed no Cv at all. It is the ultimate tar-pit.

andrew

  • Guest
Re: Pikes: What's the Point?
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2008, 01:25:07 AM »
I agree - Pk don't kill too much and they are a pip intensive slug-fest.  The lack of rear support vs mounted is a bit of a bummer.  Why they don't get rear supports versus mounted in the opponents bound is a mystery to me.  It's not as if the 2nd and 3rd ranks would have lifted their pikes because their mates to the front had a mounted opponent.  Although in fairness it is unlikely they are in physical combat against mounted other than knights....

In the games I have played the Pk are either a Bg guard or they hold up a flank against a flying mounted wing - not historically accurate but it works.

Andrew

MikeCampbell

  • Guest
Re: Pikes: What's the Point?
« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2008, 01:45:07 AM »
They get rear support vs mounted - just not Cavalry and Lh - who I presume aer considered to be shooting at them and not actually in close combat and who can individually run away.

they do get it vs Elephants, Knights and Camels & Expendables

They also don't get rear support vs psiloi - I assume for the same rationale - and train - Baggage, artillery and war wagons - which are all a bit weird anyway1


Valentinian Victor

  • Guest
Re: Pikes: What's the Point?
« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2008, 03:22:23 PM »
Historically cavalry were extremely loath to frontally attack pike armed troops, it may well be that the rules author decided to represent this in the fashion they have.

Tim Child

  • Guest
Re: Pikes: What's the Point?
« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2008, 11:55:57 PM »
Pike come into their own against Kn and enemy foot.  Against "missile-mounted", they are vulnerable and that, surely, is as it should be?

4-deep Pike vs Cv or LH is no different to 4-deep Sp of the same grade vs Cv or LH.  It can be a tar-pit, as Toby opined earlier in this thread, but Cv(S) against (I) Sp/Pk can plow through in about 3-5 pairs of bounds if it gets lucky.  (This is where paying extra for the Pk(X) would be worthwhile!)

Cv(O) or lesser against Pk(O+) is potentially a waste of both sides' time - but since the model is of the Cv throwing/shooting things at the Pike and the phalanx's response being limited to charging out and shoo-ing them away, it's not that unreasonable.

The way to try to force a result (for the Pike) is to be as aggressive as you can.  In your bound, keep advancing into combat anywhere where you have, or can hope to manufacture, an overlap.  Don't be afraid to stick a column into a hole in advance of its mates, even though the pals won't follow-up to catch up and you're probably conceding an overlapped (or double-overlapped) element next bound.  What you're trying to do is force the Cv to repulse, or even better to spend elements (at least it gets them off the table).  At 4:3 or 4:2 (don't forget you only get overlaps if your bound or it's side-edge to side-edge in the Cv bound) it's a slog but you will do it.  Once the enemy line is broken up, it'll cost him a fortune in PIPs to get them all back in again, so your casualty accretion will generally slow down.  And once you start punching holes, you can force columns into his (generally lower quality) reserves, flank the Cv elements that don't repulse/recoil (at 4:4 basic there will be plenty - you actually want to get results where half of the Cv get pushed away/spent and the other half win their fights!) so that you can kill them or even get around behind the Cv if the enemy is foolish enough to be without a back line.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but a decent width (6 or more) of Pk/Sp faced with non-impetuous Kn or Cv ought to get first charge in if they can - they hope to break up the enemy line and that the enemy will not then have enough PIPs to get all their elements back in.

I've not tested with Pk, but with Irr Sp(I) vs Cv it's generally a long slog but on even AP:frontage honours are about even.  Reg Pk would be easier to force the overlaps with (less PIPs to turn) but cost more ME each time you have an unfortunate result.

Tim Child

toby

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Pikes: What's the Point?
« Reply #7 on: April 11, 2008, 01:36:47 PM »
Pike do have some good points:

They are cheap for 1 ME troops.
They get a free march move if they are more than 2 ranks deep of entirely Pike
If you have a regular general with them, then they get another move with his PIP

So you can really push them up the battlefield even with the lowest PIP

Deep, they are a bugger for most other troops to kill off (except Wb), so they will really force your enemy to manouver around them.

I use them in my Macedonian army as the pinning wing while the Cav, Knights and light troops try to work their flanks or outflank the enemy - they are like mobile impassable terrain.

I like Pike.