Unit between Spearman and Pikeman

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

What should be a unit name of Anti-cavalry/Phalanx intermediate unit between Spearman and Pikeman in the Classical Era?
- For Civ6 Mod
- For Civ7

unit that basically
- 'Phalanx type' spearmen wearing more armor than those of bronze age. even have acess to at least studded armor, some even have access to steel armor of any kind (either chainmaile, scailmaile, or splintmaile (Grecoromans actually)
- And unit stat betwen Spearmen and Pikemen.
- Greek Hoplite, and Macedonian Pezhetairoi are a unique variant to this






Or shouldn't there be any?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't think there needs to be one but if there were I'd go with the general formation name of Phalanx.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ 'Phalanx' being unit name for this as well as the very formation these 'spearmen' uses?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

^ 'Phalanx' being unit name for this as well as the very formation these 'spearmen' uses?

I guess you could use the name 'Phalangists', which are the members of the phalanx formation, though that name was specifically used to describe the ones in the Macedonian army. In that regard, 'Phalanx' is the most generic name I could think of. It wouldn't be any different to the 'Pike and Shot' unit being named used as another formation.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ Maybe. while this reflects 'Generic Hoplites' used by any Hellenoid army (Anyone not Greek but armed their armies similiarly, this included Early Roman Legion as well). It doesn't neccessary represents Early Medieval 'Armored spearman' since their spear formations (Pre-13th-14th Century) are very simplified. They might hold their ground good against Charging Chariots and Cataphracts of the Classical Era. they are not so much against Knights of the High Middle Ages (whom wore heavier armor than Cataphracts), (aren't they?)..
Only with Swiss invention (Pikemen in square block) did the seemingly unstoppable armored heayv knights are stopped good.
'Phalangists' did have political overtone particularly in Spain. since the term is associated with Spanish Fascism under Franco (and actually someone before him, he's actually a successor to a Fascist rebellion leader captured earlier). Did you still think it is a proper name?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

^ Maybe. while this reflects 'Generic Hoplites' used by any Hellenoid army (Anyone not Greek but armed their armies similiarly, this included Early Roman Legion as well). It doesn't neccessary represents Early Medieval 'Armored spearman' since their spear formations (Pre-13th-14th Century) are very simplified. They might hold their ground good against Charging Chariots and Cataphracts of the Classical Era. they are not so much against Knights of the High Middle Ages (whom wore heavier armor than Cataphracts), (aren't they?)..
Only with Swiss invention (Pikemen in square block) did the seemingly unstoppable armored heayv knights are stopped good.

I assume it would go Spearman>Phalangite/Phalanx>Pikeman, with Pikemen being the Medieval counterpart. I don't see the need for a separate Early Medieval unit, when I already think a Classical one is unnecessary.

'Phalangists' did have political overtone particularly in Spain. since the term is associated with Spanish Fascism under Franco (and actually someone before him, he's actually a successor to a Fascist rebellion leader captured earlier). Did you still think it is a proper name?

I meant Phalangites. Those two words are way too similar.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

This seems less a central design question and more one to incorporate into a larger vision. I can see a few ways to go about it. One would be the Civ V throwback of twice as many distinct units. With adequate turns to field them, this introduces a consistent arms race structure to research and combat focusing on more marginal advantages. This would presumably be consistent across eras.

Another option could be to reserve intermediary slots for unique units as part of a balancing effort. For instance, Hoplites and Pezhetairoi could be significantly more powerful than the base unit but delayed an era to counter that increase in power. One could also consider specializing the unique units, possibly asymmetrically, to complicate clean comparisons. Reading about the Pezhetairoi, perhaps they could have increased defense as opposed to offense and suffer the move or attack restriction currently used by siege.

I hope Civilization will consolidate some of the strengths of Humankind and Old World, perhaps the melee-to-ranged transition from the former and tactical class specialization from the latter. Personally, I would not mind two unique units per faction.

 

[reddishrecue]

How about centurion? They're usually one of the very elite units and it has been used less often than the phalanx in civilization.

 

[Evie]

They're also not a spear or pike based unit in any way, make no sense as anti-cavalry (then again, neither do the phalanx), and a centurion is a commanding non-commissioned officer, not a type of troop. You might as well have a unit named the "sergeant".

 

[Patine]

They're also not a spear or pike based unit in any way, make no sense as anti-cavalry (then again, neither do the phalanx), and a centurion is a commanding non-commissioned officer, not a type of troop. You might as well have a unit named the "sergeant".

My understanding was that a Centurion was a Roman citizen who carried on as a professional, career solider rather than going to be a, "civilian," after his mandatory service with the Legions, but who lacked the patronage and privilege of being born (or adopted) into the Equite and Senatorial classes, and thus access to the high, apex military command ranks. However, that may have, in practice, ammounted to about the same thing.

 

[Evie]

I mean NCO may not be precisely on point, but the general idea - that this is a command officer roughly equal to a modern sergeant (the comparison is common, and is not mine) and thus a very weird choice of Unit name, stays the same.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

looks like i might haave to answer this in a post that combines all of my ideas + song of the eons

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I assume it would go Spearman>Phalangite/Phalanx>Pikeman, with Pikemen being the Medieval counterpart. I don't see the need for a separate Early Medieval unit, when I already think a Classical one is unnecessary.

1. Who say I want another 'Medieval Spearmen'? I'm saying that this Classical Era unit should also represent Medieval Spearmen as well. until Swiss style Pikemen came to be

How about centurion? They're usually one of the very elite units and it has been used less often than the phalanx in civilization.

2. No! 'Centurion' or 'Kentarch' denotes ranks equivalent to either (Army) Captain or Sarge of the 20th Century. They--as per Late Republic Roman Standard--are better equipped than (also high standard wargear equipped) Rank and File Legionnaire.

The tern 'Heavy Infantry' is too bland to me. When i'm making a mod. I'd use the term 'Heavy Spearman' but again I began to confuse as this intermediate unit can be either (heavy) 'Spearmen' or (classical) 'Pikemen' (Macedonian Pezhetairoi (still uses roundshield), and maybe Qin era infantry (actually halberdier, they're equipped with 'Ge').

Heavy infantry - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

^ An asian sample of 'Heavy Spearman' or 'Heavy Infantry'. this one comes from Han era or even Sanguo era. (A big hit literature in Asia.). and according to current Civ6 engine they deserve a separate 'intermediate' unit status.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

1. Who say I want another 'Medieval Spearmen'? I'm saying that this Classical Era unit should also represent Medieval Spearmen as well. until Swiss style Pikemen came to be

I don't know if you could get a Classical Era 'Spearman' that also represents Medieval 'Spearman'. The Greek/Macedonian phalanx started to die off during Roman times. I guess the closest would be the heavy infantry units of Eas Asia, like you mentioned.
Swiss style Pikemen came about in the late Middle Ages so that's where it should come in the tech tree anyway.

 

[Evie]

The problem is that fundamentally the shield and spear to pike transition happened twice, in both the classical and Middle Ages. So there really is not a unit that can cover both sarissa infantry and early medieval shields walls spears.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ I'm not sure if @Boris Gudenuf will say the same or even agree with an intermediate unit between Spearmen and Pikemen.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The problem is that fundamentally the shield and spear to pike transition happened twice, in both the classical and Middle Ages. So there really is not a unit that can cover both sarissa infantry and early medieval shields walls spears.

- And what the game and game designers have never noticed is that both times, the transition to pikes was not for better defense against cavalry, but for better attack by semi-trained infantry. A pike phalanx on level ground, as Martius the Roman (who faced them in the Macedonian Wars) testified, is absolutely Terrifying: every point in the world seems to be pointing directly at you, and unless you are also in a pike phalanx, you cannot imagine how you are going to stop that mass of men and iron coming at you - and Alexander's and Phillip's Phalanx, relatively lightly armored, could charge at a fast trot or run with all the Impact and Force that implies (as did the later Swiss, who charged so fast they more than once caught the enemy army still in its tents and ended the battle before their opponents realized it had started!).

Phillip's adoption of a two-handed pike over a one-handed spear seems to have been a logical extension of the very deep formation of the Thebans (where he was a hostage when young). The Thebans adopted a very deep, 48 to 50-rank column to punch through an enemy line. Using spears, only the first 2 - 3 men could actually fight, though, so the rest just added Mass. The 18 - 21-foot Macedonian Pike (Sarissa) meant the first 5 - 6 points extended past the first man, a truely bristling front that still had another 10 - 11 men behind it to add weight. No army, no force ever stood up to a charge by Phillip's or Alexander's phalanx of pikes on level ground - at Issus Greek mercenary spearmen managed to rough it up when it was disordered crossing a river, but they never managed to break it and were still caught up fighting it when Alexander's Hetairoi cavalry appeared in their rear - Game Over.

The Swiss actually started using more halberd-equivalents than pikes, the 'heavy weapons' being more useful in mountainous country. They slowly converted to all or nearly-all pike formations when they started hiring out and fighting on more open ground, where their lightly-armored force could charge at speed and crush anything in front of them, including the entire country of Burgundy after they hacked Charles the Bold into mincemeat at Nancy in 1477.

The problem in game terms, as posted, is that pikes are a natural extension of spears, which are the logical (relatively cheap) alternative to expensive swordsmen (expensive because swords require constant practice to stay proficient, so swordsmen will cost you High Maintenance to maintain them: the Roman sword-based Legions after Marius were all Professional Troops requiring pay and upkeep constantly). That means, potentially, Any spear-based unit can upgrade to pikes.

Why it didn't happen more often is due to the key word above: Cheap. Many spearmen (other than the citizen-militia that were Hoplites) were peasants conscripted by various means to provide cheap infantry to back up the aristocracy - they ranged from the bulk of many Gallic forces behind aristocratic swordsmen to Persian peasants behind cavalry to medieval Fyrd and their equivalent impressed farmers behind Knights or Huscarles. Having started with the primary objective of providing Cheap Infantry, very few states and cultures were willing to provide the extra training required to turn them into a really proficient Pike unit. Note that Phillip's and Alexander's men were Full Time soldiers, paid and equipped by the State - that was expensive if you didn't need to do it because you were contemplating Conquering the World. The Swiss as pike formations were Mercenaries - "No silver, No Swiss" as the saying went - they were paid by Someone Else as full-time pikemen.

So, one potential answer to the spear-pike challenge is one I'v already posted about: add the very basic attribute to every unit of Professional Versus Amateur. Spearmen can be Amateurs - almost no maintenance cost, many provide their own weapons, but they aren't very good. Swordsmen (Legions, aristocracy) and Pikemen (Macedonians, Swiss, Flemish, Lowland Scots) are Professionals, incurring expensive Maintenance Costs in pay, equipment, and training. If you are willing to pay the cost, you can convert your Spearmen to Pikemen for extra combat effectiveness, but the cost will be Huge - Maintenance/Turn will go up enormously, and they take prime workers (young men) out of your civilian labor pool permanently. To put it bluntly, few states before the Industrial or very late Early Modern Era can afford it.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ That means. Under Civ6 System
1.
A. Pikeman has to be re-adjusted to Classical Era (and have the appearance of Classical Infantry. What should be unit name for either Classical and Medieval era?
B. add Phalangites between Spearmen and Pikemen and give them Sarissa and shield while Pikemen remains at Late Medieval era?
2. Romans didn't have history of using pikes (or Sarissa copy) especially with them begin with Hellenoid Hoplites that quickly organized as smaller Company (of 100, lead by Centurion or Kentarch, Equivalent to Army Captain or First Class Lieutenant ) or Sections (of 10, lead by Decanus/ Decurion (equivalent to Corporal) ), their linear warfare development instead evolved around big shields and short swords with javelins of any kind.

 

[BuchiTaton]

The problems of the in-game representation of Spearman and Pikeman is another reason for my suggestion for a different system for common militar units. I have some points in mind to build the common lines:

1- Units should be easy to identify by the player, being key elements the weapon used and the way the warrior move using such weapon. Even their icon could be just the weapon.​

2- Also considering that each common unit should have different "skins" for different world regions (european, middle eastern, far eastern, etc.) Likewise prioritize to have upgrades for the lines each era if possible.​

3- Replace the every turn micro of carpets of units from overspecific units lines with a system of armies+garrisons composed by different units, formations and orders (adding value to experience, moral, positioning, terrain and supplies).​

4- Integrate the "denizens" core system of social "classes" with regular units from the Warrior class and irregular units from the Labourers class.​

Then as @Boris Gudenuf pointed spears were usually a cheap weapon commonly used by the irregular/non-professional troops. So for my Irregular line (Commoner>Levy>Militia>Guerrilla) the two first stages would be armed with spears (Commoner is Ancient+Classical and Levy is Medieval+Renaissance, Militia is Industrial+"Modern* from the introduction of accesible guns). For reasons of naming and being a non-ideal combatant unit (also some historical) this line has two eras stages.

Well now come my more heterodox take on this. The whole "anti-cav" line is scraped, incorporated into the "melee" line. As mentioned the Pike was a weapon associated to professional units that beyond the hellenistic Phalanx were not so common until the LateMedieval+EarlyModern period, then I decided to add Pikeman to my Melee line (Clubman>Axeman>Swordman>Pikeman>Musketman>Rifleman>Shock Infantry>Assaul Infantry>Augmented Infantry). The stages 1-6 are named after their weapon while 7-9 are under the scheme of a more technified system of mechanized warfare (the biggest change in militar gameplay). For the early stages the visual of each era are:

- Clubman, beathing the enemy with a two-hands wooden club based on the ones from Polynesia and Amazonia.​

*The era is Neolithic but is NOT supposed to be a hunter-gatherer gameplay era, is based in prehistoric agrarian-pastorial-maritime villages that at least for me are an underrated period.​

- Axeman, chopping the enemy with a single hand bronze axe (shield in the other) based on the ones from ancient Egypt, Sumer, China, etc.​

- Swordman, slicing the enemy with a single hand iron sword (shield in the other) based on popular picture of classical and "dark age" infantry.​

- Pikeman, stabbing the enemy with a two-hands steel pike (still could have a shield tied up in one arm or in the back) based more on early forms of the Scottish Schiltron than on the Swiss Reislaufer for a more medieval esthetic.​

Of course these weapons historicaly were NOT a succession, but we must take in mind that any try to fit all these into the game's abstracted common militar units for the whole world from Ancient to Modern eras would end in another ahistorical naming anyway. Otherwise in a more overspecific system à la Total War even more different lines would turn to be an incovenient to visualy represent every regional forms of each one and for the player to recognize them.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

^ That means. Under Civ6 System
1.
A. Pikeman has to be re-adjusted to Classical Era (and have the appearance of Classical Infantry. What should be unit name for either Classical and Medieval era?
B. add Phalangites between Spearmen and Pikemen and give them Sarissa and shield while Pikemen remains at Late Medieval era?
2. Romans didn't have history of using pikes (or Sarissa copy) especially with them begin with Hellenoid Hoplites that quickly organized as smaller Company (of 100, lead by Centurion or Kentarch, Equivalent to Army Captain or First Class Lieutenant ) or Sections (of 10, lead by Decanus/ Decurion (equivalent to Corporal) ), their linear warfare development instead evolved around big shields and short swords with javelins of any kind.

1. In the Civ VI system, a better route would be to make the Pezhetairoi, or "Foot Companions" of Phillip or Alexander as Unique to Macedonia and the Successor States: no one else in the classical world ever used them. That also allows keeping the 'real' title for them.
2. Never, never, never use 'phalangists' or 'phalangites' for ANYTHING. Phalanx in the Greek system simply meant 'the Army': specifically, the mass of heavy close-formation infantry. It does not have anything to do with how they are armed, equipped or organized, which is why the Greeks refer to Persian and Roman 'phalanxes' - the term becomes meaningless when you try to apply it to specific units or types of troops.
3. Both the Greek, and much later, the Roman forces, started as Decimal formations: 100 men, 10 ranks by 10 columns. The Greeks quickly changed to an 8-man rank, which was more flexible in that it could be sub-divided into formations 2 or 4 ranks deep if necessary, or 'doubled' to 16 and still keep its internal organization of pairs of File Leaders and File Closers. The original decimal organization is attested by the nomenclature: both the Greek and the Roman words for the commander of the file translate as 'leader of 10' (Latin: Decurion, Greek: Dekarch) even though the later Roman Decuria was in fact a 'squad' or section of 8 and the Greek file was normally also 8 men.
Both also had formations of 100 men: the famous Roman Century, and the Greek Lochos, which much later got applied to a larger formation of 500 as a sub-division of a Chiliarchy (force of 1000).
The change in armament among the Roman forces from all spears to a mix of spears and swords is well-attested in the writings of Livy and Polybius and took place over a period from well before the Carthagenian Wars until right after them: Hannibal fought against a Legion whose third 'line' of Triarii still carried long spears to give the entire formation more firmness in defense. It was only definitively with the reforms of Marius that the Legion became a force entirely of armored swordsmen with heavy javelins (pilum) as a secondary weapon.

The generic Pikeman should remain a Medieval unit, because they were far more generally adopted in Europe at that time, among both the Flemish and Italian city states as well as the Swiss (in all cases by 'volunteer', highly-motivated infantry rather than the conscripted peasant spearmen that had preceded them). The Lowland Scots actually used a 'half-pike' about 10 - 12 feet long instead of the true 18 - 21 foot Pike, which gave their formations more flexibility in the rough country more characteristic of Scotland, but their combat characteristics were similar enough that they could be included in the 'pike' units for game purposes. Also, of course, the pike formations gradually converted to mixed units culminating in Pike and Shot, starting with the early Spanish addition of crossbowmen to the pike units, then Halberds, and the already-mentioned Swiss adoption of mixd halberd and pike units.