Re: cavalry charges against pikes units
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">On the first contact, yes. I've no real problem with that idea, although the malus might be capped. That would perfectly reflect battles like Cynocephale. The Roman army won, but in the initial shock they were completely unable to use their swords and were pushed back for a while. And the legionaries still have their pila anyway.

BTW, I know at least a couple tabletop figs rules that use exactly the same system - huge attack reduction vs pikes on the first contact. So there's nothing new in my proposal.

Quote:

Pikes most certainly were melee weapons, and a "barrier" only in the sense that units that couldn't fight them didn't come close to them.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Pikes were melee weapons, except unlike other weapons noone would use them outside deep and close formations.

Re: cavalry charges against pikes units
 

A pike is NOT a melee weapon. A pike *formation* is a melee formation, but individually a pike is about the weakest weapon that exists. The advantage of a pike square is that it's impossible to reach the first line of soldiers without THREE or more lines of soldiers being in range of you. When you only have one line, a pike is simple to beat - they're incredibly unwieldy and have no way to handle anything closer than 8 feet or so in front of you.

Pikes have value *only* in a formation, and only in a deep formation at that. A single pikeman has absolutely no strength to repel a cavalry charge, even with just one horseman bearing down on him.

Re: cavalry charges against pikes units
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I wouldn't quite say THAT. A single horseman colliding with a single pointy stick is in for a world of hurt. It'll be that much harder for a single pikeman to connect, but if he does, it's gonna hurt just as much.

Of course, you can model this by having all pikes in a square be able to make a repel attempt against anything that attacks the square...and combine that with my "extra damage for repelling a charger" bonus. A charging cavalryman will thus be looking at 3 sharp pointy stick attacks at once....with extra damage because he charged across the field into them.

Re: cavalry charges against pikes units
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Pikemen were routinely issued small axes (or shortswords) as secondary weapons.

Re: cavalry charges against pikes units
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There is much that could be enhanced in the tac engine. I could probably write an essay on the matter. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: cavalry charges against pikes units
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">We'd rather you write code. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: cavalry charges against pikes units
 

I'd give spears/pikes a significant attack/defense bonus against cavalry, rather like morningstars get attacking units with against shields. I'd give a similar bonus for light troops vs. trampling.

There's not much point in doing more, since the tactical engine doesn't take into account flanking.

Re: cavalry charges against pikes units
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The reason pikes are effective against horses is that horses aren't dumb. They won't charge into a field of sharp pointy things that they can't jump over and can't avoid. They won't knowingly commit suicide. A single pikeman doesn't provide that benefit - there's plenty of room for the horse to manuever.

Re: cavalry charges against pikes units
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Which doesn't negate anything I said at all; indeed, it reinforces it. Pikemen wouldn't be issued alternate arms if the pikes were a viable melee weapon in its own right.

Re: cavalry charges against pikes units
 

Pete Rose is my Pikeman trainer. His famous words, "Choke up on the bat, son, for more maneuverability." I can see them doing so if their formation has broken up or when fatigued.

Aikamun

[ February 17, 2004, 04:46: Message edited by: Aikamun ]