"Heavy Foot in Built up Areas" Topic

So what does everyone think?
Should Heavy Foot be disordered in Built up Areas?
I've been looking at well armoured Riot police sweeping back protestors quite regularly. And thought, well…

Having done riot work, the lines are trained to keep together, and it is drummed into you about not breaking ranks; leave that for the snatch squads. Behind the rank is usually a supervisor performing the role of a file closer, making sure ranks stay intact. In the front rank or nearby is another supervisor who can make tactical decisions on the spot. You move together, stand together, pivot, wheel etc. A roman century is an analogy I think is appropriate.
BUT
In a BUA, rooftops and missiles are a problem. Also, narrow streets make a denser mass that we need to push back so makes it harder. It also limits the use of batons to (again) roman style, stab, withdraw.
What is critical is to stay together, if discipline breaks, then the strength of the unit, i.e. its togetherness, is gone.

Depends on the nature of the "Built Up Area" and the function of the troops themselves, and the nature of the opposition.
Are there streets? Are they wide or narrow, open or cluttered? Do the buildings have windows, relatively flat and supportive rooftops, doors or other access to the street?
Are there open-topped walls the enemy can use, which force the Heavy Infantry to break up their formations, or leave the infantry open to flanking attacks and ambushes?
What makes the infantry "heavy"? If it's merely the use of armor, then that would not seem to be a detriment in a BUA. If it's tight shield formations, see all of the above. If it's the nature of the weaponry, then is that weaponry logically hampered by tight maneuvering conditions?
And then one gets into the details of the rules, etc..

The one thing I would agree on would be that speed and maneuvering are obviously hampered in a dense urban environment (of any era or genre). But that's sauce for the goose— every significant body of troops, infantry or cavalry, will be affected by the conditions of the BUA.

An interesting element to consider is troop discipline— what keeps the troops from deciding that there's a lot of "loose" valuable stuff here and degenerating into a looting mob? (Do any games actually try to reflect this consideration?)

I guess it depends on what you are trying to accomplish, who your foe is, and what type of terrain you are operating in. I have also spent a fair amount of time on the skirmish line and, as noted, you will have your line or wedge, grenadiers in support, lines or files in support of the first line, arrest teams, etc. The primary issues are maintaining unit cohesion, protecting your flanks, and having a plan. So, yes, I think heavy infantry would do fine as long as they had a plan, ex., they have their main formation, they have thought about their flanks and rear, they have light infantry support or they have designated soldiers to be "assault teams" to enter buildings to clear rooftops, etc. They might also decide to clear rooftops by setting buildings on fire. I imagine that heavy infantry had a greater battlefield flexibility than we are aware of or give them credit for.

Since this is in the Ancients Board, yes, heavy infantry should be disordered/penalised in built up ares. A typical and highly trained Roman maniple or cohort has not trained at all for street fighting. They do not have the command and control for it neither.

In the siege of Carthage, the Romans did develop a systematic plan to take the city, but it was six grueling bloody days going building to building. That was a very exceptional battle.

"Since this is in the Ancients Board, yes, heavy infantry should be disordered/penalised in built up ares. A typical and highly trained Roman maniple or cohort has not trained at all for street fighting. They do not have the command and control for it neither."

No ancient troops were trained for street fighting. As Parzival says, there is no especial reason why "heavy infantry" should be penalised more than lighter troops. The key issue is discipline – which heavy infantry might have in greater measure than others, though equally throughout history, even the most disciplined troops, whether Roman or 18th century Europeans such as British and Prussian foot, were accepted (reluctantly) to be unmanageable once inside a town or city after a siege.

Again as Parzival notes, some weapons (but really only pikes and long spears) might be sub-optimal in street fighting, but equally one has the example of Alexander's "heavy infantry" who are thought to have switched to javelins or light spears when assaulting towns.

One might argue that heavy infantry might have more of an issue in terms of getting INTO the town. If one is going for a breach in the walls, then they may well be best suited to force their way through in close order, well protected. Going up a ladder, large shields are going to be a bore. Doubly so if you have anything more than a sword.

Sneaking into a city by tunnel, "inescalable" path, or stealthy ladder climb, is perhaps where heavy infantry will be unsuited, unless they shed a lot of their gear beforehand.

Thank you everyone for such thought-provoking responses, including valuable personal experiences.
You've made me realize that my current early bronze age infantry (Big Square wooden shields in the front rank/s men behind stabbing with two handed spears), would lack the training and command structure to deal completely with the new challenges.
So Disordered might be the best way to rate them.