On the AW side, Phalanxes are too maneuverable. I can make units one stand wide and four deep, put a general in the front rank and signal them forward. This allows me to ahistorically turn the formation faster than most of my opponents. Phalanxes were robust and resilient formations, but a bit unwieldy. I have tested a rule that has worked well in several battles that may be of good use to other players:

"Phalanx units (close order pikes and long spears) must be a minimum of 12 stands (8 stands in games less than 600 points) unless they are specialty units (Argyrspids, Hypaspists, etc). They may not be pushed back until they fall below two full ranks. For morale purposes, phalanx units divide stand losses by two plus 1 for each additional 4 stands in the unit over 8 in the unit at the start of the battle (all fractions rounded down). When squaring up in combat, the formation will wheel the maximum move distance toward the combat each turn. Under a deployment order it may expand or contract frontage by one base per flank."

This encourages players to make huge deep blocks of phalangillites with ample support on the flanks for protection - just like history. It gives a better feel of phalangillite battle and is visually appealing. It looks great having formations 6 or more stands wide and four deep lumbering across the field (I usually do 700 point games on a 4x8 table). Terrain gives the huge formations problems, they either get disordered or are delayed several turns as they slowly contract their front, advance, and slowly expand it once past the terrain. Most phalangillite generals of the period favored open plains to avoid these problems and if terrain is present, initial deployment becomes critical. Under the rules as written, the phalanx that has one bad roll can be pushed back disordered and then is dead meat since it moves too slowly to retreat and its power is gone since it can't use its depth. Players compensate with bizarre deployments of small agile phalanxes.

I am also experimenting with scythed chariot rules. These were usually suicide type units that were used to attrit or break up enemy formations, but given their point value in AW can't be used historically. One option is to reduce their cost to 5 and not count the loss of the unit in the army break total. The scythed chariot gets one attack (enemy unit must check morale if charged) and is destroyed unless the enemy routs (i.e. the drivers bailed out and the chariots are no longer a combat threat).

A phalanx vs non-phalanx army creates some interesting delemas. Since the phalanx is so stong from the front the Romans tend to flood a flank while sacrificing a unit or two to the front of the phalanx to pin it. I haven't tryed Galations against a phalanx, but they like most other non-phalanx opponent will place lots of terrain on the field to reduce the effectiveness of the phalanx. The other thing about the one big unit is that you have an advantage of not needing to issue so many commands. I had thought about requiring each phalanx to purchace a dismounted general to command it to offset the advantage.

A taxis was the smallest operational unit within a phalanx. Alexander's Army had 5 taxis in his phalanx of 2-5000 men each (sources vary). Even at the small end of the scale 2000 men equates to a 16 stand unit with your 1:30 scale and a phalanx of 80 stands at his most noted epic battles (plus the 1-3 taxis of Greeks). As the infighting among his Successors eroded his empire, one could assume that the size of the taxis dropped. Even considering that, an 8 stand (960 man) taxi is probably the smallest they would ever get before some of the taxis would be combined into larger units. Ancient chroniclers have often been accused of exaggerating the numbers of troops engaged so I tend to favor the lower end of any range given in troop strength. My 12 stand (1500 man) taxi is my compromise between playability and reality.

Phalanxes were extremely tightly packed formations. 16 men deep, often the shield of the rank behind in the back of the man in front. As men died they sometimes were pinned standing in the crush of bodies (hence the no push back rule since other units did not fight that deep or closely packed). Some sources say that the Spartans would have men rotate out of the front rank to the rear rank to rest as fatigue overcame them in combat and they required a rest. I believe that the three vice 4 ranks fighting accounts for this in an abstract way since the short jabs of a pike wielded underhand would create less fatigue than the longer thrusts required of the overhand spears used by the earlier Greeks. The 14 foot sarisa was as much of a revolution in warfare and tactical advantage in its day as a repeating\ breach loader was in the mid 1800s and allowed the Macedonians the ability to crush the Peloponnesian powers.

The next issue this raises is how did the Romans beat them? Superior command and control, through the use of well drilled and led soldiers allowed them to both out maneuver and out fight the phalanxes. Maybe trained sword armed foot should get some sort of bonus in subsequent combat rounds as they hack their way into the spear points.

I know you have been focusing on MW so don't feel obligated to make any immediate decisions or response. My ramblings are offered as food for thought on a slow Friday afternoon. I also know that most folks don't have 300 phalangites (especially if they are using 25mm figs). A 1:60 scale would yield a 4 stand roughly 1000 man cohort and a 12 stand roughly 3000 man Taxi. Since the taxi is on a wider frontage, the Romans are more maneuverable (as they should be). Plus the reduced scale makes it easier to field an army. Of course skirmishers would never attempt to melee with troops formed up so tightly since this would be suicidal and I would only disorder the stands on the side nearest the flank of the attack since the effect of the flank attack wouldn't be felt down the line (but breakthrough would!)