Man for man, pike and shot seem terribly ineffective in Pike and Shot

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Man for man, pike and shot seem terribly ineffective in Pike and Shot

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Pike & Shot Series >> Man for man, pike and shot seem terribly ineffective in Pike and Shot

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Man for man, pike and shot seem terribly ineffective in... - 9/3/2015 7:17:54 PM

nijis

Posts: 18
Joined: 6/18/2005
Status: offline

I like this game a lot, but there's one aspect that's been bugging me.

I'm playing Poland versus Russia in the late 16th century, where Poland can deploy early pike and shot units. I know this is not the heyday of the formation, but even so, these units - while a decent buy point-wise - seem a terribly ineffective use of manpower.

A pike and shot body here represents about 2000 troops, 40 percent of whom are gunners. A Streltsy unit represents 500 gunners. Each streltsy inflicts a lot more casualties than it receives in both shooting and melee, and the only advantage of the 2000-troop formation is that it has more manpower to burn. Two streltsy can decimate a P&S formation that represents twice as many troops.

The one advantage of a pike and shot formation is that it's less vulnerable to cavalry charges- and even that is negated somewhat because it can only face in one direction at once, and thus can easily be charged in the rear.

P&S units are twice as expensive as streltsy in points, not four times as expensive, and so this is not imbalanced. But from a realism perspective, shouldn't numbers count for more? Pike and shot, not streltsy, became the dominant way to deploy infantry for about 100 years. In the real world, if you had 2,000 troops, it shouldn't cost that much more to field pikemen and musketeers than it does to field bardiche-and-musket-men.

I've played later games too and generally speaking, while the big 1000-2000 man units are powerful compared to other units, they're very weak compared to their manpower equivalent in other units. Ie, I'd much rather have four crossbowmen, or four commanded shot, or four almost anything else than a single big pike-and-shot block.

Again, while massing infantry should create some inefficiencies - you're a bigger target, and troops get in each other's way - I think these are a big exaggerated in the game, and numbers should matter more.

Do others have the same experience?

< Message edited by nijis -- 9/3/2015 8:19:20 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Man for man, pike and shot seem terribly ineffectiv... - 9/4/2015 1:16:59 AM

TheGrayMouser

Posts: 296
Joined: 7/12/2009
Status: offline

The game factors combat power by UNIT SIZE, not # of men per se. (You can find a units size in the UNIT xls file spreadsheet)
A streltsy unit is likely 600 size while an early pike/shot unit is 1600
There is a cap for infantry units in how much SIZE of the unit can fight , and that is 600 size worth(for shooting and melee, its different for cavalry and lights too), so you are correct in that shooting 40% arquebusers of the 600 cap (for the early P&S) is less than 100% arquebusers of 600 cap ( for the streltzy) However, the Streletz will lose combat power the very ist casualty they take, while theoretically the P&S unit can lose 1200 size worth of men before being effected.
Basically to some abstract degree, the game assumes greater "size" is deeper ranks, vs greater frontage.

In comparison
*streltzy (until they suffer losses) have maybe 2.5 x the firepower
*Early P&S have 2x the melee power
Early P&S are:
*kiels getting POA bonus in impact and melee
*as they are keils they are immune to flank attacks
*" " can ignore enemy ZOC's and can attack cavalry*
*as heavy or mixed troops they get a cohesion + modifier when needing to test

Strelty as medium foot are pretty vulnerable even to weak cavalry, but will suffer less mal effect in rough terrain
big P&S units = more vulnerable to artillery
in general, the Early P&S units are partially armoured which can help vs archaic weapons ( bows ) and possibly some melee situations

From a cost wise "value" of 1-2 it hard to say what is better, 1 Early P&S or 2 strelets... Depends too much on your own army composition, your opponents the terrain etc.

(in reply to nijis)

Post #: 2

RE: Man for man, pike and shot seem terribly ineffectiv... - 9/4/2015 8:35:47 PM

nijis

Posts: 18
Joined: 6/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

The game factors combat power by UNIT SIZE, not # of men per se. (You can find a units size in the UNIT xls file spreadsheet)
A streltsy unit is likely 600 size while an early pike/shot unit is 1600
There is a cap for infantry units in how much SIZE of the unit can fight , and that is 600 size worth(for shooting and melee, its different for cavalry and lights too), so you are correct in that shooting 40% arquebusers of the 600 cap (for the early P&S) is less than 100% arquebusers of 600 cap ( for the streltzy) However, the Streletz will lose combat power the very ist casualty they take, while theoretically the P&S unit can lose 1200 size worth of men before being effected.
Basically to some abstract degree, the game assumes greater "size" is deeper ranks, vs greater frontage.

One size point represents one soldier, right?

Either way, in theory what you described makes sense. My issue is that the game understates the staying power of size, in my opinion.

Two streltsy units firing into a P&S formation will inflict quite high casualties and are thus likely to disrupt and fragment it pretty quickly, even with that huge reservoir of men. In my impression, two units of streltsy (1200 men) will also prevail in melee, albeit less dramatically.

If it were a small advantage, I wouldn't object - P&S does give up something by adopting those huge formations, with the trade-off being that they're protected against cavalry. But the advantage other infantry have in infantry-vs-infantry fights is such that I'd rather have X number of any kind of infantry over X number of pike and shot.

The game recognizes this, as X number of any kind of infantry is almost always more expensive in points than X number of pike and shot. I'd argue that this should be the opposite - P&S, being the dominant force in the period, ought to be more effective - man for man - and thus more expensive (in P&S "point" terms) than most other foot.

(in reply to TheGrayMouser)

Post #: 3

RE: Man for man, pike and shot seem terribly ineffectiv... - 9/5/2015 6:57:57 PM

rbodleyscott

Posts: 134
Joined: 10/17/2014
Status: offline

Early pike and shot formations were rather inefficient, being formed in far too many ranks for all of the shot to fire. Pike and Shot became more efficient later in the period as the units became smaller and shallower, and the game reflects that.

The inefficiency of the earlier units is not entirely reflected in their points cost, because the game is about representing military development over the period, and demonstrating the reasons for this development, and not about ensuring that all unit types are equally cost-effective.

(in reply to nijis)

Post #: 4

RE: Man for man, pike and shot seem terribly ineffectiv... - 9/7/2015 7:55:50 PM

nijis

Posts: 18
Joined: 6/18/2005
Status: offline

That makes sense - and I'm glad that demonstrating the reasons for change in the formations is a major objective of the game. Right now I'm playing Austria vs France around 1610-20, and there are a lot more varieties of P&S to chose from.

But even so, the big deep formations - early P&S, tercios, keils - must have been superior to earlier ways of deploying 2000 foot, or they would not have been adopted. Often I find myself hankering for a more medieval army - a unit of crossbows/arqubusiers and a unit of something like billmen - rather than lumping pokers and shooters into a single mass that does neither job particularly well. I'd still venture that while the deep formations' offensive limitations may be realistic, they remain too fragile.

Reiters/cuirasseurs are another unit that don't seem to reflect their brief time in the sun, although maybe I'm not using the correctly.

< Message edited by nijis -- 9/7/2015 8:59:44 PM >

(in reply to rbodleyscott)

Post #: 5

RE: Man for man, pike and shot seem terribly ineffectiv... - 9/8/2015 7:56:29 AM

rbodleyscott

Posts: 134
Joined: 10/17/2014
Status: offline

quote:

But even so, the big deep formations - early P&S, tercios, keils - must have been superior to earlier ways of deploying 2000 foot, or they would not have been adopted.

It was a trade-off. The new formations protected the shot so they could fight in the open without being run over by enemy pikes or cavalry, and fend off enemy shooters (such as reiters) from the pikes. The trade-off was a partial reduction in frontal close combat power.

quote:

Reiters/cuirasseurs are another unit that don't seem to reflect their brief time in the sun, although maybe I'm not using the correctly.

Reiters aren't very good, but you have to bear in mind that they were mercenaries, without any special elan, and that the unit you should be comparing them with is Demilancers (rather than Gendarmes), because that is what they would be if they had not switched to reiter tactics.

Cuirassiers are very good in their heyday. Not sure why you are having problems with them. In later battles they tend to get swarmed by cheaper, smaller, and hence more numerous enemy cavalry units.

< Message edited by rbodleyscott -- 9/8/2015 9:12:39 AM >

(in reply to nijis)

Post #: 6

RE: Man for man, pike and shot seem terribly ineffectiv... - 9/8/2015 4:45:19 PM

nijis

Posts: 18
Joined: 6/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

It was a trade-off. The new formations protected the shot so they could fight in the open without being run over by enemy pikes or cavalry, and fend off enemy shooters (such as reiters) from the pikes. The trade-off was a partial reduction in frontal close combat power.

I understand this, but I would argue the game exaggerates the trade-off. The game implicitly acknowledges this with its point values. There aren't pure shallow pike formations so any comparison is a bit apples-and-oranges, but I think the below should illustrate.

Four units of missile troops almost always will have a point value higher than one "deep" unit, even though they represent the same amount of troops. A 1500 French Landsknecht unit (Above Average) is worth 120 points for 2000 men. Four foot arqubusiers (also 2000 men, but only average) are worth 144 points - even though historically, albeit in later periods, pikemen tended to get higher wages than gunners. Crossbows aren't priced in skirmish mode but I suspect they were about the same. The rule holds true in later periods as well. 2000 early Polish pike and shot are less expensive than the equivalent numbers of Haiduks or Streltsy.

I would argue that the more "sophisticated" deep heterogeneous formations should cost more than the equivalent in homogeneous formations, although less than later shallow heterogeneous formations. Pike and shot wasn't just more cost-effective, man for man, than separate melee and missile formations, it was more effective-effective.

quote:

The inefficiency of the earlier units is not entirely reflected in their points cost, because the game is about representing military development over the period, and demonstrating the reasons for this development, and not about ensuring that all unit types are equally cost-effective.

Fair enough - but I would argue that while the game shows well the evolution from deep to shallow, it shows less well why those deep early mixed formations were adopted in the first place.

Personally, I would love to see two separate point values for troops - one representing the actual cost to field it, and the other representing its in-game effectiveness, for balance.

Also, sometimes the fragility of deep formations leads to odd tactics. In some games I find I need to keep them as far away from the combat as possible, hidden behind forests if possible to protect from enemy cannon fire less they break and make my percent-routed jump.

quote:

Reiters aren't very good, but you have to bear in mind that they were mercenaries, without any special elan, and that the unit you should be comparing them with is Demilancers (rather than Gendarmes), because that is what they would be if they had not switched to reiter tactics.

Cuirassiers are very good in their heyday. Not sure why you are having problems with them. In later battles they tend to get swarmed by cheaper, smaller, and hence more numerous enemy cavalry units.

This is good to know. I was treating cuirassiers and reiters as two variations on the same theme, both comparable to gendarmes, so that probably distorted my impression.

< Message edited by nijis -- 9/8/2015 6:19:03 PM >

(in reply to rbodleyscott)

Post #: 7

RE: Man for man, pike and shot seem terribly ineffectiv... - 9/10/2015 2:09:13 PM

JosephM

Posts: 202
Joined: 3/18/2014
Status: offline

Regarding the deep early formations this was something I discussed with Nik, and I would have thought that a unit or two of swordsmen would have been useful in battles of the period, especially against earlier P&S units. He advised that historically as Gunpowder was becoming the primary weapon of choice, pike were mostly used for keeping the enemy at bay. Early shot would have been used to kill most opposing units (swordsmen, cavalry and such), but they were vulnerable if closed in Melee combat and that is why the pike was used and that was why the shallower formations became standard over time as guns improved. But that was something he said a while ago and I'm by no means a specialist of the era so Richard and others are best positioned to confirm this.

(in reply to nijis)

Post #: 8

RE: Man for man, pike and shot seem terribly ineffectiv... - 9/10/2015 3:00:04 PM

rbodleyscott

Posts: 134
Joined: 10/17/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseph M

Regarding the deep early formations this was something I discussed with Nik, and I would have thought that a unit or two of swordsmen would have been useful in battles of the period, especially against earlier P&S units. He advised that historically as Gunpowder was becoming the primary weapon of choice, pike were mostly used for keeping the enemy at bay. Early shot would have been used to kill most opposing units (swordsmen, cavalry and such), but they were vulnerable if closed in Melee combat and that is why the pike was used and that was why the shallower formations became standard over time as guns improved. But that was something he said a while ago and I'm by no means a specialist of the era so Richard and others are best positioned to confirm this.

The Spanish experimented with sword-and-bucklermen early in the 16th century but dropped them thereafter. You will find them as separate units of Rodeleros in the earliest Spanish list, and also as part of the composition of Spanish colunelas.

< Message edited by rbodleyscott -- 9/10/2015 4:01:10 PM >

(in reply to JosephM)

Post #: 9

RE: Man for man, pike and shot seem terribly ineffectiv... - 9/10/2015 3:07:40 PM

rbodleyscott

Posts: 134
Joined: 10/17/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nijis
Fair enough - but I would argue that while the game shows well the evolution from deep to shallow, it shows less well why those deep early mixed formations were adopted in the first place.

They evolved from the deep keils of pikemen by gradually replacing an increasing proportion with shot.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the game is perhaps over-generous to early pure shot units by making many of them light foot. As medium foot they are very vulnerable against enemy pikes and gendarmes in the open, and it is easy to see why the mixed formations came to be preferred.

This is why in the "Pike and Shot: Campaigns" skirmish army lists, about half of the early shot units that were previously rated as light foot in "Pike and Shot" have been changed to medium foot.

< Message edited by rbodleyscott -- 9/10/2015 4:12:18 PM >

(in reply to nijis)

Post #: 10

RE: Man for man, pike and shot seem terribly ineffectiv... - 9/13/2015 5:05:50 PM

nijis

Posts: 18
Joined: 6/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

He advised that historically as Gunpowder was becoming the primary weapon of choice, pike were mostly used for keeping the enemy at bay.

That's my understanding too - but in the game, when one big unit is pitted against another, melee-heavy units seem to have an advantage. This is because once either unit decides to close, it becomes invulnerable to shot and its own shot becomes useless. Maybe pike-and-shot units should break off from combat more often? Or should be able to fire when in melee, and be fired upon?

quote:

The Spanish experimented with sword-and-bucklermen early in the 16th century but dropped them thereafter. You will find them as separate units of Rodeleros in the earliest Spanish list, and also as part of the composition of Spanish colunelas.

Good to know - I'll try to experiment with those.

quote:

This is why in the "Pike and Shot: Campaigns" skirmish army lists, about half of the early shot units that were previously rated as light foot in "Pike and Shot" have been changed to medium foot.

This seems like a very good adjustment.

But I'd argue that melee still has something of an advantage over shot (ie, keils often do better than mixed units) and I'd still rather have homogeneous melee units or homogeneous shot units over mixed foot in most cases, if they're evaluated man-for-man. I'll check the unit lists to see if the point values bear this out.

(in reply to rbodleyscott)

Post #: 11