Re: phalanx: a wargaming perspective—an alternative one
Speaking for I, me, myself personally, I can't wait to get me hands on them.
Four boxes of each, likely mixed and matched within them and a bit with Zvezda's Macedonians and linear b's Mithridatic heavies with seven (most likely) or perhaps six to a rank and two ranks on a 120 mm x 40 mm base (a left-over from Impetus that I'll use for Lost Battles; and whatever other system I may use).
For Successor stuff I'll limit myself to two bases per unit, I expect, but may go to three if there are only phalangites on one side of 'the argument'. Lost Battles is agnostic to basing, so it's purely about the effect and preference.
I'm also happy to have the shabby, pointy-fighty ones (to expand on your wonderful expression 'Babylonian') as I like the look of them and you get a nice 'push of pike' on the table. With similar poses in my Great Northern War figures I have interlocked them or set them up with pikes above or between other troops for storage.
As with everything, I appreciate that what may suit me may not suit others, but they look like they are gonna be the cat's guts as far as I am concerned.
You'll notice I have used no figures with horizontal pikes. These are, IMO, a bit of a pain to store or to use in a game as the sarissas stick out to an exceptional degree & stop an enemy from closing.
In reality though, that was kind of the point of pikes (pun unashamedly intended), they can attack us but we can't reach them. Could a phalanx be just the ancient equivalent of a WWII tank?
I do understand your need for bases to touch for the game mechanism.