|
|
Post by stevie on May 14, 2018 10:19:22 GMT
Wedges...what are they good for...huh...absolutely nothing...Page 5 paragraph 3 says that Macedonian Companions and some Skythian nobles (I assume this means 3Kn) can have a deeper base with the central figure further forward in a wedge. The question is, why on earth would anybody want to do this? Having a base depth equal to the base width just means if there is no room in which to recoil when attacking an enemy flank, they’ll be destroyed! Now I wouldn’t mind if this disadvantage were offset by some sort of advantage...but it isn’t. So here is a suggestion:- “3Kn Macedonian Companions and 3Kn Skythian nobles, if in a wedge on a base whose depth equals their width, do not suffer corner-to-corner overlaps, just like SCh.” 0 00 0000 000000 Where is their front-corner and flank?They’ll still be destroyed if attacking a flank and they don’t have enough room to recoil... ...but at least they’ll gain some sort of advantage to compensate for it. It’ll make then slightly better than their cousins the 4Kn, who have smaller bases so can recoil... It’ll make them slightly better than HCh, who also have trouble recoiling from a flank attack... And like SCh, they’ll pursue and often end up in mutual-edge contact, which does overlap them. So if you want to give them a disadvantage, then fine...but give them an incentive to do so. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 14, 2018 16:15:46 GMT
Wedges were designed to protect the flanks of the formation so you could use the DBMM solution and say a Wedge isn't Overlapped by "corner" overlaps (but is by "friction' side contact overlaps - much like Ps.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 14, 2018 16:19:19 GMT
Wedges...what are they good for...huh...absolutely nothing...They look good. Enough reason for me to use them. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 14, 2018 16:33:03 GMT
Wedges...what are they good for...huh...absolutely nothing...They look good. Enough reason for me to use them. I agree with Felix on this one. 8Bw aren't actually deeper than 8 ranked phalanx, BUT they look dang cool with the 2 ranks  And a wedge of Campanions would look pretty sweet. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 14, 2018 16:53:43 GMT
...and I agree gentlemen, they do look nice. But if they are going to be penalized just for looking good, wouldn’t it be nice if they had a special ability to off-set that penalty? Giving them some sort of minor advantage might encourage other players to use them, and we might see more of these good looking troops on our wargames tables. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on May 14, 2018 17:00:01 GMT
Good, innovative thinking per usual, from you, Stevie. But, as Felixs said, the coolness factor alone was good enough for me to mount Big Al's Companions in this manner. Here's a posed shot of mine below.  Unmistakably, 15mm Mikes Models. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 14, 2018 17:25:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on May 14, 2018 17:38:52 GMT
Now imagine how cool they'll be if, like SCh and Ps, they were not affected by corner-to-corner overlaps... 
I can't see any downside, Stevie. A minor advantage is given to offset a minor disadvantage. Yin & yang. Oh, and it affects all of two armies in all of Purple. I'm putting a little sticky-note with this in my Big Al box now. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 14, 2018 19:04:13 GMT
Wedges...what are they good for...huh...absolutely nothing...Page 5 paragraph 3 says that Macedonian Companions and some Skythian nobles (I assume this means 3Kn) can have a deeper base with the central figure further forward in a wedge. The question is, why on earth would anybody want to do this? Having a base depth equal to the base width just means if there is no room in which to recoil when attacking an enemy flank, they’ll be destroyed! Now I wouldn’t mind if this disadvantage were offset by some sort of advantage...but it isn’t. So here is a suggestion:- “3Kn Macedonian Companions and 3Kn Skythian nobles, if in a wedge on a base whose depth equals their width, do not suffer corner-to-corner overlaps, just like SCh.” 0 00 0000 000000 Where is their front-corner and flank?They’ll still be destroyed if attacking a flank and they don’t have enough room to recoil... ...but at least they’ll gain some sort of advantage to compensate for it. It’ll make then slightly better than their cousins the 4Kn, who have smaller bases so can recoil... It’ll make them slightly better than HCh, who also have trouble recoiling from a flank attack... And like SCh, they’ll pursue and often end up in mutual-edge contact, which does overlap them. So if you want to give them a disadvantage, then fine...but give them an incentive to do so. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
There is some merit to the idea of restricting combat effectiveness when fighting enemy in wedge formation; similar to combat with Ps. However, if in wedge formation and turning to contact a flank in a restricted space then one should imagine the loss of formation when force to recoil, hence an element of destroyed knights.
An easier solution might be the replacement of an element in wedge formation with a duplicate element of standard base depth (30mm). This would simulate the collapse of the formation on scores of ‘even or less than’, while the wedge formation is retained if it recoils its opponent. There would be no recovery of the wedge formation in the former situation as key ranks were lost during that combat. This would counter balance the advantage of the formation.
The idea could apply to Germanic and Scandinavian foot troops that used similar formations. With 2.2 I did mount my Alamanni in wedge formation to take the place of two elements.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on May 14, 2018 21:14:51 GMT
You know, Stevie, this may just render my Alex Macs once again the terror of the battlefield!
I like it! A lot!
|
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on May 15, 2018 8:58:57 GMT
You know, Stevie, this may just render my Alex Macs once again the terror of the battlefield! I like it! A lot! I know, right. So simple and elegant is Stevie's rule that it can be expressed in just three words: "Wedges ignore overlaps." (Even I can remember that one.) |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 15, 2018 9:21:34 GMT
Seems quite straight forward. Now to deal with Thessalian rhomboid formation... Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 15, 2018 11:00:47 GMT
Ha! I wondered when someone would bring in the Thessalians.  Alex’s dad Philip II considered the Thessalian rhomboid or ‘diamond’ formation as being too deep, with the rearmost ranks serving no real purpose and just a waste of manpower, so he did away with them and formed his Companions into simple wedges. front front front 0 0 00 00 0000000 0000 0000 flank 0000000 flank 000000 000000 where is the flank? 0000000 0000 00000000 00 rear 0 rear rear So I’d say leave the Thessalians as ordinarily based horsemen, for three reasons:- (1) Philip II actually saw these in action, and knew far more than we will ever know about ancient warfare. (2) This rhomboid formation could be considered a failure, as no-one else appears to have adopted it. (3) Mr Barker only mentions Skythians and Macedonians, not Thessaly. By the way, here is a list of all the armies with 3Kn only wedges ignoring overlaps:- I/43b Skythians (300 BC -19 BC) (but not the early Hu, as they have no 3Kn) II/12 Alexandrian Macedonian (359 BC -319 BC) II/15 Alexandrian Imperial (328 BC -321 BC)
(I would also allow the following armies to use it, as they stayed with Philip’s and Alexander’s tactics) II/16 Asiatic Early Successor (320 BC - 285 BC) II/17 Lysimachid (320 BC -281 BC) II/18 Macedonian Early Successor (320 BC - 260 BC) II/19 Seleucid (320 BC -64 BC) (3Kn only, not 4Kn) II/20 Ptolemaic (320 BC -30 BC) II/27 Pyrrhic (300 BC - 272 BC) (3Kn only)
(after Pyrrhus the 3Kn wedge formation seems to have gradually fallen out of favour.
The Romans certainly did not adopted it for their mounted troops.
Perhaps they thought the ability to ignore overlaps did not outweigh the disadvantage of being on deep bases...) Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 15, 2018 14:21:50 GMT
Ha! I was being mischievous. I don't think Thessalians need a specific rule. Your quotes from Phillip are interesting though, given the reputation of Thessalian cavalry for a couple of centuries before Phillip, albeit that Greek cavalry was not of that high a standard. I'm not second guessing Phillip but I wonder if the Thessalian cavalry had devolved over time. Things like increasing armour, increasing wealth, life style change, gentrification may have led to changes that made the rhombus obsolete. Alternatively, loss/change of skills/drills made the later Thessalians unable to make the rhombus work. We'll never know.
Cheers
Jim
PS Hmmmm, a House rule has come into my head for Thessalians prior to Phillip. Base 4 as a rhombus on 40x40mm base. All cavalry rules apply. Weakness of increased base depth offset by ability to choose it's front edge. Makes forming column easy too!
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 15, 2018 18:35:54 GMT
Actually Jim, the explanation for the demise of the Thassalian rhomboid might have a very simple explanation... ...it must have took a hell of a lot of training to get them proficient enough to maintain order in such a difficult formation. Fine if you have a long period of peace. But what with the attrition in war, and the need to raise troops fast... Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
And a wedge of Campanions would look pretty sweet.
