Legio Yow is damn right: I have never heard of a single ancient battle in which missile units played a dominant or decisive part. Archers and slingers in RTW are grossly overpowered, in my opinion. But I may be wrong, of course.
From the (Roman) sources I’ve read, the gaps in the macedonian phalanx (damn me: are Kynoskephalai and Pydna the same battle?) were created by the roughness of the terrain. Many people here seem to feel that the hoplite phalanx and pikemen are underpowered. However, I wonder why the nations/factions still employing them at the time of the game proved to be unsuccessful and fell to an empire using completely different formations.
Soldiers out of breath: I am not sure for pikemen, but we must always keep in mind that the physical prowess of most ancient warriors (especially hoplites and legionaries) was immense. Most disciplines of the hellenic games (and they served the purpose to prepare men for war) were usually performed in full armor. Roman legionaries started their exercises with sword, pilum and spear with dummies that weighed twice as much as the actual weapons. So their stamina was quite good.
Of course, they were not superheroes. And I am sure that running with a Sarissa clutched in your hands is no easy feat, especially in difficult terrain trying to keep formation...
Sorry I forgot who wrote that, but it makes no sense to "run at the enemy, then stop a small distance apart to regain formation, and then charge" – if you are employing a formation that relies on shock, impact and momentum to overpower your opponents. It’s like exhausting yourself and then giving away your hard gained advantage at the most critical point.
That’s what made the hoplite phalanx so deadly – it combined the shock of a charge with the cohesion only disciplined (sorry, barbarian factions) troops could achieve.
Just my two cents.
P.P.