|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 16, 2018 18:36:49 GMT
Three turns (30 years) into the Merovingian campaign have produced 15 battles most of which involve either the Neustrian or Austrasian Franks (III/5a or 5b). The Neustrian infantry place a heavy reliance on their city militia (Sp) fielding six elements to an Austrasian three, with the later favouring their tribal foot, the Ripuarian Franks (4Wb).
The Neustrians have fought mostly warband heavy armies resulting in their spearmen being shredded while in shieldwall; i.e., in mutual side edge contact enjoying the +1 side support. The results are the same if spearmen are facing a single element of warband or two in column; the former needing one or two bounds more to achieve the same result.
I have interspersed warband or psiloi between paired elements of spear, but this may extend the same agonising outcome by an additional bound.
Anyone else encountered the same dilemma?
|
|
hdan
Munifex
Posts: 35 
|
Post by hdan on Apr 18, 2018 2:59:31 GMT
I've wondered about this situation, since before too long I'll have some Libyans (with Wb option to give them a chance) to face off against my Spartans.
It seems that maybe deploying your 6xSp as a 3-wide, double deep block. If the Wb punch a hole in the center, then they follow up into a "pocket" and face another supported Spear, this time at +5 to +1 or +2, depending on where they punch through.
But your reduced frontage may be too big a disadvantage for that ploy to work out.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 18, 2018 6:10:18 GMT
I've wondered about this situation, since before too long I'll have some Libyans (with Wb option to give them a chance) to face off against my Spartans. It seems that maybe deploying your 6xSp as a 3-wide, double deep block. If the Wb punch a hole in the center, then they follow up into a "pocket" and face another supported Spear, this time at +5 to +1 or +2, depending on where they punch through. But your reduced frontage may be too big a disadvantage for that ploy to work out. A double rank of Sp might work if its flanks were protected in some way.
At the moment, the Saxons and Frisians are hammering the Merovingians (Neustria) as both have 11 x 4Wb and 1 x Ps.
Against the same type of armies (Thuringian and Bavarian) the Austrasian have performed much better having 2 x Cv, 6 x 4Wb, 3 x Sp and 1 x Ps.
We will focus on this situation later tonight with a few tests.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 19, 2018 7:14:12 GMT
We did a further test of shieldwall versus warband with Neustria (III/5b) fighting Austrasia (III/5a).
Without mentioning anything other than the problem which needed testing, Jan placed the terrain ending with a fine defensive position flanked by a difficult hill and BUA (hamlet). This offered enough space to deploy three spearmen with an element of cavalry forming his front leaving the remaining three spearmen to form a second line. His three warband covered the slope of the difficult hill.
As the attacker, I placed all the warband (6 x 4Wb) to face his shield wall forming a front four elements wide giving me two deep columns. The flanks of this assault group were protected by the remaining infantry with my cavalry forming a reserve.
The battle was well contested with both sides losing spearmen to warband attacks. Casualties fell each bound with one side ahead and becoming even on the following bound. Both sides had their share of low pip scores and combats resulted in much recoiling and returning to combat. Both sides inflicted a fourth casualty on the same bound, so we called the test a draw.
Note: we used Stevie’s Random Generated Terrain table which added a lake to our arable setting.
|
|
