|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 22, 2023 10:59:22 GMT
Here is another thing we need to consider and take into account:-
If Pikes are 8Pk, so that they match the enemy line,
how on earth can the Romans defeat them, as they always did?
Far better to force the enemies of the Pk to have reserves
(i.e. 16 ranks of Pk facing 8 ranks of Hastati backed by 8 ranks of Principes…
…the battleline is more or less the same length).
Instead of whinging about Pikes, take the blinkers off and look at the wider picture…
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 22, 2023 11:44:43 GMT
Here is another thing we need to consider and take into account:- If Pikes are 8Pk, so that they match the enemy line, how on earth can the Romans defeat them, as they always did? Far better to force the enemies of the Pk to have reserves (i.e. 16 ranks of Pk facing 8 ranks of Hastati backed by 8 ranks of Principes… …the battleline is more or less the same length). Instead of whinging about Pikes, take the blinkers off and look at the wider picture… How do you force people to have reserves when they can outflank easily? As we've discussed previously, PB's design of the Polybian Roman army list suggests that the Hastati and Principes form the battleline with only the Triarii in reserve. As such, they would represent 16 ranks. Why do the Pikes need 32 ranks? Jim |
|
|
|
Post by kaiphranos on Oct 22, 2023 11:55:46 GMT
Fundamentally the overlap mechanic of DBA means you have a strong incentive to extend your line as wide as possible and there is not a counterbalancing incentive to retain reserves. In fact, since the battle is decided when the first four elements are destroyed, you have even less reason to keep anyone back, since the battle may well be over before reserves can be thrown in.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 22, 2023 11:57:55 GMT
Macedonian Successor and Later Macedonian armies can usually have 6 Pk elements.
If these are 8Pk (with existing CFs), is that too powerful (even with the victory conditions for first double element lost applying)?
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 22, 2023 12:37:59 GMT
It depends on what you want to model, but probably yes. 6x8Pk at +6 v 6x4Bd at +5 will make it difficult for the Romans to break the line (need double overlap and 1-5 or 1-6). That seems more in keeping with the Pyrrhic Wars than the Macedonian Wars. Flank forces probably favour the Hellenistics if they can field Knights against Roman Cavalry so the balance will be against the Polybian Romans and the double element loss of the 8Pk probably doesn't balance out.
Against Sp, the 8Pk will likely run over them as even pursuit won't weaken them too much and this seems too easy when compared against the long grind described in battle reports. Spears will usually outnumber them though.
So I think overall, just overpowered.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 22, 2023 12:42:52 GMT
Fundamentally the overlap mechanic of DBA means you have a strong incentive to extend your line as wide as possible and there is not a counterbalancing incentive to retain reserves. In fact, since the battle is decided when the first four elements are destroyed, you have even less reason to keep anyone back, since the battle may well be over before reserves can be thrown in. And that Kaiphranos is the fundamental flaw in DBA…not pikes being outflanked. I’m an historical rather than just a game player, and I hate it when I see opponents using their Romans in one long line with no reserves, as if they fought the same as Greek Hoplites…especially when they even have their Triarii in the one long line. As far as I’m concerned any army in one long line with no reserves deserves to have their line punched through and rolled up. This to me is realistic. But if the rules favour having one long line, then game players will do so. I said earlier that we should look at the wider picture, so let’s do so here by taking an extreme example. Imagine 12 x 8Pk against 12 x 4Bd. Neither side has the longer line, so no outflanking. But the Pike CF of 6 easily drives the Bd back, and two overlaps on Bd has 9 chances out of 36 of scoring a double. So Bd are going to need some reserves to plug the gaps… …even the Trarii would do, and indeed this is how the Romans actually fought. Thus it is now the Blades that have the shorter battleline (as they’ll need reserves), or they will have one long brittle line that’ll be punched through and rolled-up. Having 8Pk super elements just shifts the flanking problem onto the Romans! Making Pikes a bit stronger would make their centre breakthroughs even more likely, and encourage the Blades to shorten their line as they’ll need to have reserves. This is the approach favoured in DBF, where Pikes recoil enemy on an equal roll. It encourages historical formations. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 22, 2023 12:46:28 GMT
It depends on what you want to model, but probably yes. 6x8Pk at +6 v 6x4Bd at +5 will make it difficult for the Romans to break the line (need double overlap and 1-5 or 1-6). That seems more in keeping with the Pyrrhic Wars than the Macedonian Wars. Flank forces probably favour the Hellenistics if they can field Knights against Roman Cavalry so the balance will be against the Polybian Romans and the double element loss of the 8Pk probably doesn't balance out. Against Sp, the 8Pk will likely run over them as even pursuit won't weaken them too much and this seems too easy when compared against the long grind described in battle reports. Spears will usually outnumber them though. So I think overall, just overpowered. Cheers Jim And this is why I think you need to tweak the CF or combat modifiers slightly if you want to use 8Pk. |
|
|
|
Post by kaiphranos on Oct 22, 2023 13:01:14 GMT
Fundamentally the overlap mechanic of DBA means you have a strong incentive to extend your line as wide as possible and there is not a counterbalancing incentive to retain reserves. In fact, since the battle is decided when the first four elements are destroyed, you have even less reason to keep anyone back, since the battle may well be over before reserves can be thrown in. And that Kaiphranos is the fundamental flaw in DBA…not pikes being outflanked. I’m an historical rather than just a game player, and I hate it when I see opponents using their Romans in one long line with no reserves, as if they fought the same as Greek Hoplites…especially when they even have their Triarii in the one long line. As far as I’m concerned any army in one long line with no reserves deserves to have their line punched through and rolled up. This to me is realistic. But if the rules favour having one long line, then game players will do so. Alright, here's a radical idea: a unit of solid infantry (Blades, Pikes, Spears, Bows, Warband or Auxilia) that is destroyed while another unit of solid infantry is directly behind it does not count as a lost element. (With no change to side/rear support factors.) Now you have an incentive to form at least a double line with your heavy troops. And the Blade/Pike combat becomes +6 vs. +5 initially - but when the Blades lose a rank, they'll still be +5, while the Pikes drop to +3. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 22, 2023 13:11:11 GMT
Stevie: in DBF, Pikes have optional pursuit too. That also makes a difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 22, 2023 14:00:01 GMT
Making Pikes a bit stronger would make their centre breakthroughs even more likely, and encourage the Blades to shorten their line as they’ll need to have reserves. This is the approach favoured in DBF, where Pikes recoil enemy on an equal roll. It encourages historical formations. Firstly, DBF is a point cost game so the troop costs will be important if people want to translate that to historical games. Maybe Pikes will be cheaper than Blades. We'll have to wait and see. But I'd still be happy to line up my six Blades in a line with the two Spears in reserve to face a 3x2 Pike block. Doubling Romans with only 3 attacks is not that easy and the flanks of the Pikes will soon be open. The Romans will still have 10 elements in the frontline with the Pike army down to 9. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Oct 22, 2023 17:23:49 GMT
It depends on what you want to model, but probably yes. 6x8Pk at +6 v 6x4Bd at +5 will make it difficult for the Romans to break the line (need double overlap and 1-5 or 1-6). That seems more in keeping with the Pyrrhic Wars than the Macedonian Wars. Flank forces probably favour the Hellenistics if they can field Knights against Roman Cavalry so the balance will be against the Polybian Romans and the double element loss of the 8Pk probably doesn't balance out. Against Sp, the 8Pk will likely run over them as even pursuit won't weaken them too much and this seems too easy when compared against the long grind described in battle reports. Spears will usually outnumber them though. So I think overall, just overpowered. Cheers Jim I would not envisage 6 x 4Pk being replaced by 6 x 8Pk. Instead they would be replaced by probably 4 x 8Pk leaving room for other elements that are not represented by the current Alex army list such as more LH, Sp or Aux. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 22, 2023 23:12:28 GMT
That is something that was proposed a few years back: a system whereby 8Pk could be fielded but in slightly reduced numbers to preserve 'balance'. It meant adjusting army lists - especially those with more than 4 x 4Pk - and IIRC didn't get much further (although I didn't have an issue with it).
To answer your earlier question: if 8Pk is a thing, what does 4Pk represent? Answer: probably not much.
IMO rear support in DBA could be removed entirely. Just fix the CFs and modifiers accordingly. Then pike armies - with each Pk element having 8+ figures on it representing a phalanx - would better resemble and function more like pike armies, and light horse and warband (like Pk) wouldn't need to halve their frontage to get a combat bonus. Warband armies - with each Wb element having 6-8 figures on it - would actually resemble warband armies, etc. I know this idea will be unpopular with some, and that's fine. But for me, it's what the 12 element army system really needs.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 26, 2023 21:04:55 GMT
Pikes are difficult to model in the 12 Element game due to frontage issues.
The easy solution is to makes Pikes cost less which we are doing in DBF. Besides High Fantasy it is intended for those who want to use historical armies (like English HYW or Pike based) that just won't work in the 12 Element game without massive ahistorical rule tinkering.
How much cheaper is a good question. Going to be next big playtest project.
We have introduced Pike Recoiling Foot on Equals to simulate Push of Pikes.
Optional Pursuit also - but this needs testing.
blades Pursue to simulate aggressive close combat tactics and following up reeling foe - unlike say a Spear wall based army. Romans sought to breakup opponent formations. Keep in mind that Pursing Blades are also dishing out friction Overlaps to the opposing enemy line. Also actually Pikes tended to roll back Romans until some favorable condition altered the balance.
In the Concept Game we have toyed with many ideas about Blades slicing into opponents lines - should they inflict -2 friction Overlaps to reflect swordsmen's flexibility compared to Spears/Pikes?
This stuff won't make it into DBF (player base far too conservative) but as soon as we are done playtesting DBF we will go back to the Concept Game where new ideas are tried all the time (and mamy have made it to DBF).
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 27, 2023 0:12:33 GMT
I am very much looking forward to DBF and its mechanics. As you allude to, High Fantasy and High/Late Medieval, will work together well. Can't wait to try my LOTR armies! We'll have to see how it extrapolates to the Ancient era. To stay on point, I'm not sure Swiss pikemen or other late medieval polearm troops (billmen, halberdiers, etc) behaved like phalangites. If nothing else, the phalangites were deployed in much larger numbers giving them much more inertia and less flexibility.
But I am interested in your playtests with cheaper costs, as this may lead to a surrogate playtest of 8Pk. If 8-12 pike elements cost the same as 6 blades then I'm reasonably certain they will be in a block and act very similarly to 8Pk. I am assuming that a single Pk will still be quite weak. I do wish Alex could field his Pk as 4Ax to simulate his battles with tribal armies in Afghanistan, but I digress.
Cheers
Jim
PS Really good to see you back on fanaticus medievalthomas!
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 27, 2023 0:25:25 GMT
|
|
