|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 20, 2023 13:06:27 GMT
This is a specific house rule as I am not too familiar with Swiss pikes and their battlefield performance, other than their excellent reputation. For me, Hellenistic pikes were more static but fielded in huge numbers by the Successors. PB has modelled pikes as strong but brittle. He also seems to want them to pursue Romans onto rough going as described at Pydna. The former is fair enough. The latter seems more of an exception than a rule for Hellenistic pikes. So I did some 6v6 tests between Pikes and Spears and Pikes and Blades with the following changes: Pike +3 with +3 side support and no pursuit. My observations were: - Everybody got "wins" - Blade pursuit was not suicidal - Pikes were brittle
Once the support was stripped from the Pike it was very vulnerable. This made the flanks particularly vulnerable as you only needed one push back to get a 5-2 advantage. Perhaps this is too much and Pikes may be able to get side-support from Spear, 4Ax or even Cav and Knights in order to make the flanks more robust. Will need to test it on the battlefield as these were just in isolation. I'll keep you informed if any progress.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 20, 2023 21:54:16 GMT
Have you tried it at CF 4 with +2 side support?
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 20, 2023 23:43:47 GMT
That would make them less brittle. But pursuing single blade elements would struggle.
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 20, 2023 23:45:14 GMT
How about optional pursuit?
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 21, 2023 3:58:13 GMT
Certainly possible. Pursuit has always been a puzzle for me. Was the intention to potentially get charging, impetuous troops into trouble like the Byzantine cavalry at Manzikert? Warbands, Elephants and Knights I can understand, but Blades are puzzling. Romans were mostly disciplined. Vikings were more spear and shieldwall than axes. Is it to try and recreate Cannae without a feigned flight mechanism? I'd rather give lighter troops the option to pull heavies out of line if they win the combat. May help 4Ax.
Jim
PS Good excuse to get my Khurasan Polybians painted up and out against Phillip V
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 21, 2023 4:36:44 GMT
I think compulsory pursuit makes sense for the bonkers hard-charging warband and knight types. But disciplined legions and phalanxes not so much; for them I think pursuit should be optional - then if by pursuing (thinking they can gain some advantage) they get themselves into trouble, well them's the breaks.
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Oct 21, 2023 6:19:09 GMT
Those who know me know my view that DBA is pretty perfect in my eyes so I am not a great tinkerer.
If I were to tinker though I may consider giving some troops the ability to get certain units to pursue them, LH annoying heavy foot with missiles and forcing a pursuit out of formation etc.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 21, 2023 12:09:03 GMT
Don’t forget that having Bd and Pk pursuing in DBA 3.0 is largely an artificial mechanical adjustment, caused by the limitations of having a two-dice combat system. Wb destroy by just recoiling heavy foot (known as having a ‘quick kill’ against them). So Bd need to have a high combat factor in order to match and defeat the Wb. This makes Bd vs Bd a pointless pushing back exercise. Ah, but if Bd pursue, it helps to weaken them by drawing ‘em into dangerous situations. And the same applies to the even more powerful rear-supported Pk. This approach works, and gives reasonably realistic effects on our wargames table. However, we now have people treating this ‘pursuit’ as historical fact, and desperately trying to find justifications for it. There are many more of these ‘artificial mechanical adjustments’ present in DBA… …side-support for Sp, side-support from solid Bd for solid Bows, rear support for Wb, rear-support for LH, fast 3Ax and Skirmishers moving at the same speed as Kn, and so on. All these have no real-life equivalents, and are needed merely to give the right effects. (Having said that, have a look at this → fanaticus.boards.net/post/10089/ )
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 22, 2023 2:06:35 GMT
Fair point re mechanism vs effect.
(Not sold on the mechanisms to shoehorn some of those effects, or the effects that appear to be missing, but hey.)
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 22, 2023 4:02:23 GMT
I don't know stevie. Gaming war is artificial in whatever sense you consider. At least some of the mechanisms are "plausible". (Spears maintaining cohesion. Knights pursuing into danger. Warband attacking en masse). Some less so. My trouble with Bd and Pk pursuing into danger is that breaking into the enemy battle line was the aim of the exercise and, usually, led to victory, at least in that part of the battle. The three "heavies' (Bd/Sp/Pk) will eventually break if left to their own devices, usually after a bit of a slog, even without pursuit.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Oct 22, 2023 8:58:25 GMT
One question - mostly to Jim who started this thread: What are we trying to achieve with this house rule?
Faced with Macedonian pike being frequently outflanked for the loss of 2 elements I have been thinking about making Macedonian Pike an 8Pk element which assumes the stats of 4Pk with rear support but as a DBE that counts double for the first loss. This has the advantages of giving the Alex’s army list 4 x 8Pk, adding a extra LH (which it needs) BUT I don’t know what the final extra element should be possibly 8Pk or Sp or 4Ax or Ps. Couple this with making the Hypaspists 4Ax or Sp or 3Bd AND making Alexander’s Companions 6Kn, this should make Alexander’s army more useful.
Three points to note - I think the 8Pk idea comes from Jim’s post in 2020. Second, my Macedonians are currently at the bottom of a big stack of really useful boxes so I haven’t tried out all these ideas. Lastly - if 8Pk is a thing then what does 4Pk represent?
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 22, 2023 9:33:49 GMT
(I personally favour the idea of 8Pk.)
The problem IIRC is with armies of 4-6+ Pk getting re-classed as 8Pk: the first 8Pk lost counting as 2 elements for Victory purposes was more than compensated for by the sheer battering ram power of so many powerful double-elements.
Which is why I thought an additional tweak to the CF might be needed. Otherwise you flick the dial too far in the opposite direction.
Anyway, over to Jim...
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 22, 2023 10:32:02 GMT
One question - mostly to Jim who started this thread: What are we trying to achieve with this house rule? Faced with Macedonian pike being frequently outflanked for the loss of 2 elements I have been thinking about making Macedonian Pike an 8Pk element which assumes the stats of 4Pk with rear support but as a DBE that counts double for the first loss. This has the advantages of giving the Alex’s army list 4 x 8Pk, adding a extra LH (which it needs) BUT I don’t know what the final extra element should be possibly 8Pk or Sp or 4Ax or Ps. Couple this with making the Hypaspists 4Ax or Sp or 3Bd AND making Alexander’s Companions 6Kn, this should make Alexander’s army more useful. Three points to note - I think the 8Pk idea comes from Jim’s post in 2020. Second, my Macedonians are currently at the bottom of a big stack of really useful boxes so I haven’t tried out all these ideas. Lastly - if 8Pk is a thing then what does 4Pk represent? My motivation is that a 3x2 or 2x2 block for 4Pk just isn't representative of a Phalanx. Most reports we have when facing Hoplites or Legionaries show relatively equal length battle lines. Certainly not double length that we have in DBA3. Outflanking is just too easy if half your army only covers 12 out of 60cm. Yes, you can use terrain if you're defending if it falls your way. But again, that seemed to be the exception rather than the rule. If you had 16000 phalangites, you were usually pretty confident to march out and meet the enemy. Initially, I suggested 8Pk as a powerful force but brittle due to the two element loss. It was argued that this was too powerful. This attempt is again to extend the line but keep it powerful and brittle as envisioned by PB. It also helps that no further painting is required! (And you could choose an odd number of pike elements without later regret) Cheers Jim PS The relatively poor performance of Hellenistic Pikes against historical opponents that they did beat is another motivation.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 22, 2023 10:39:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Oct 22, 2023 10:41:06 GMT
I’m not sure 8Pk is too OP for the Macedonian Phalanx.
|
|