Difference between revisions of "Pikemen (ETW Unit)"
Fire-dweller (talk | contribs) (→Factions) |
Fire-dweller (talk | contribs) m (moved Pikemen (Empire Unit) to Pikemen (ETW Unit)) |
(No difference)
| |
Revision as of 13:22, 8 November 2009
| Pikemen (ETW Unit) | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Class | Melee Infantry |
| Unit Size | |
| Weaponry | |
| Morale | |
| Melee Attack | |
| Ranged Attack | |
| Defence | |
| Charge Bonus | |
| Accuracy | |
| Range | |
| Ammunition | |
| Region | Europe |
| Recruitment Cost | 720 |
| Upkeep Cost | 180 |
| Turns to Build | |
| Unit Limit | |
| Building Requirements | |
| Technology Requirements | |
| Attributes | |
Overview
Despite the fact that firepower is the key to battle, “trailing a pike” into battle is more gentlemanly than carrying a gun. Pike-men are shock troops, relying on mass and impact in melee. Pikes are not without their uses: a solid wall of spear points is a formidable barrier to any cavalry attack. Pike-men still march into battle because not every European nation can afford (or find) enough guns for everyone. Sending men into battle with an obsolescent weapon is better than sending them forward with nothing at all.
By 1700, most European generals realized that the pike and pike-men were hopelessly outdated and outclassed on a modern battlefield. Pike-men had been a vital part of all infantry formations, protecting musketeers from cavalry and being the “shock” element in melee combat. There was a fatal problem for pike-men: a musket could kill at a distance, and once a decent bayonet was developed, pikes really did lose their point!
Although a brilliant general in every (other?) respect, Maurice de Saxe, the great Marshal General of France, remained an advocate of the pike even in the 1740s. By then, it was obvious that pikes were useless against massed musket-armed infantry.
