Short-range pieces go down in value compared to sliders, but Chieftain Chess has mostly (only) short-range pieces. Which suffer similarly. The orthodox Knight isn't so hot on 16x12 either. Speed no doubt is an asset in games with conventional Pawns, as it increases the area from which you are able to stop a passer. The Knight is better at that than the Man. OTOH, when a Man catches up with a passer, it annihilates it. A Knight can only stop its advance, remaining bound to doing so forever.
Of course having other types of Pawns would totally upset these evaluations. E.g. with Metamachy Pawns, which can always move 2 steps ahead, a Man would be pretty inept at stopping them, greatly affecting the relative value of Knight and Man.
As to the Pawn definition: Part of the problem is that 'Pawns' are a family rather than a class of pieces. In Berolina Chess the Berolina Pawns obviously are Pawns. So when they appear in another variant as 'guest pieces' in low numbers, we still think of them as Pawns. In Mini-Shogi you only start with a single Pawn. But no one doubts it is a Pawn, because it is the same piece as in regular Shogi, where you start with 9. I wouldn't call a 'Steward' a Pawn, especially not when you start with only two, embedded in the Pawn rank. It is just a weak piece, and starting on the Pawn rank IMO doesn't have any significance. It is weak enough to fit my definition, though, in a variant where you started with many of them. The Cavalier already is more worrisome, although a Mao is only worth half a Knight in a FIDE context. But part of the value of a FIDE Pawn (some 40%) comes from its ability to promote, and a Mao would promote much more easily. A Horseman should still be pretty weak; it adds a quarter non-capturing Knight to a normal Pawn.
Short-range pieces go down in value compared to sliders, but Chieftain Chess has mostly (only) short-range pieces. Which suffer similarly. The orthodox Knight isn't so hot on 16x12 either. Speed no doubt is an asset in games with conventional Pawns, as it increases the area from which you are able to stop a passer. The Knight is better at that than the Man. OTOH, when a Man catches up with a passer, it annihilates it. A Knight can only stop its advance, remaining bound to doing so forever.
Of course having other types of Pawns would totally upset these evaluations. E.g. with Metamachy Pawns, which can always move 2 steps ahead, a Man would be pretty inept at stopping them, greatly affecting the relative value of Knight and Man.
As to the Pawn definition: Part of the problem is that 'Pawns' are a family rather than a class of pieces. In Berolina Chess the Berolina Pawns obviously are Pawns. So when they appear in another variant as 'guest pieces' in low numbers, we still think of them as Pawns. In Mini-Shogi you only start with a single Pawn. But no one doubts it is a Pawn, because it is the same piece as in regular Shogi, where you start with 9. I wouldn't call a 'Steward' a Pawn, especially not when you start with only two, embedded in the Pawn rank. It is just a weak piece, and starting on the Pawn rank IMO doesn't have any significance. It is weak enough to fit my definition, though, in a variant where you started with many of them. The Cavalier already is more worrisome, although a Mao is only worth half a Knight in a FIDE context. But part of the value of a FIDE Pawn (some 40%) comes from its ability to promote, and a Mao would promote much more easily. A Horseman should still be pretty weak; it adds a quarter non-capturing Knight to a normal Pawn.