Why 4Pk rear support instead of 8Pk?

The history of double based elements in DBA goes back so far that only our most venerable longbeards can now tell the tale in full, but I think Weddier has it pretty much spot on.
Pragmatically, pike blocks are so powerful that it is only vulnerability on the flanks that gives other armies a chance, so reducing their frontage does give balance.
They can be used in a single rank if up against cavalry or light horse where rear support does not apply.
If transferred to the new double based rules they would only get a +1, and then only against foot, and would not get the side support, so would be like low quality spear, or would have to have special rules written for them, thus increasing the complexity of the rules (another of PB's aversions)
Scott

I am not so sure there that the problem is pike... rather the problem is the Blades.
The Romans deployed in very deep formations as well. The triple battle line certainly had a very narrow front... and not just as a response to pike formations.
Cannae is case in point... here the Carthaginians double encircled the Romans...

Later battles certainly showed a more nimble response from the Romans... but even at Pydna and Cynoscephalae, they weren't comfortable with a wide deployment. Yes, their gains in flexibility from experiences in the Punic Wars did produce victories... but not from outflanking on the flanks... but instead from maneuver once the battles lines had collided.

All of these issues were discussed during DBA 3 development. All the solutions were found somewhat lacking. Here is what we did...

Pikes...
Changes from 2.2
Conforming rules... this is a huge change. In 2.2 Pikes rarely fought. They were easily stymied by the enemy cocking elements to prevent them from contacting.
Pursuit... In 2.2... even if you got Pikes in contact... you couldn't maintain it. The pip drain was too much to keep those +6 fights constant... Pursuit fixes this.
Larger movement rates... Pikes now get into combat more easily!
Pike now only +1 vs mounted for rear support... This is also a great change. It fixes the late Medieval/Early Renaissance period with regards to Knights..
Pikes get rear support vs Bow...

All in all.... Pike are much better in 3.0

However, while this helps the problem with simulation... it doesn't fix it.

Here are some things I stridently argued during development that were not accepted...

Command Distance...
Restricted setup is great... but the real issue is command distance. Cut it down to 4BW in the open and 2BW out if sight.
This drastically cuts down on the wild outflanking moves... and helps LH as well (they remain at their current distances).
Now the Romans have reason to deploy in depth... as well as everyone else!

The Pikes giving rear support don't die when flanked and beaten.
This is a small change... but it certainly does delay the loss of a game... maybe giving time for Alex and the Companions to complete their breakthrough.
It does however leave some odd configurations that require conforming.

Both these suggestions were not adopted. The first changes the game too much. The second forced more difficult conforming situations.

Try both of these in the small battle game and see what happens..

Joe Collins

I agree Joe that the problem lies with the Romans not being encouraged enough to fight in their own deep formations.
Wb are ok as they are, as their ‘quick-kill’ forces the legionaries to keep reserves to deal with any breakthroughs.
So both the Wb and the Bd armies will have a shortened front line.

Your suggestion to reduce the Command Distance is an intriguing one...
...but I wonder if you could expand it a bit more fully and go into a bit more detail.
I’d like to add this to the “House Rule Index” (see fanaticus.boards.net/thread/1146/ ), and more info would be nice.

Specifically, what about mounted generals (as most of them are) being on one far flank?
Would that not make the other flank very difficult to control?
And would it force players to keep their general near their high PIP elements, such as Elephants?
Lastly, would it make battles too predictable...i.e. where the enemy general is, that’s where he’s going to attack?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the 8Pk suggestions, I’m in two minds.

Points for the idea
I do like the visual look of deep formations, be they two stands of 4 figures or a double stand of 8 figures.
It would also make moving more ‘chunky’ and less ‘fiddly’, and thus help to speed up play (always a good thing).

Points against the idea
In a word: attrition. Bows were rarely big killers of units, but wore down their opponents by prolonged missile fire.
The only way DBA can represent this is by the removal of single stands. Losing a whole double element seems excessive.
Especially as it would leave a gaping hole in your battleline...just from missile fire alone.
Then there is the question of balance.
If you have 12 elements, half of them double-based pikes, you are effectively giving the pike army free rear rank elements.
With such a massive advantage of extra elements, what will be their corresponding disadvantage?
And no...saying that a double-base Pk counts as 2 elements when lost is not the answer.
That just makes battles end more quickly, instead of being the hard fought long drawn-out affairs they were in reality.

So all-in-all I’d say that the present system is probably the best (although Joe’s idea about Command Distance is a good one)

(Another suggestion is to have Bd, and some other foot elements, not recoil from Pk but flee from them.
Then, if Bd are allowed to flee through Bd and Sp, you'd force the Romans to be in a deeper formation...)



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

Joe, if the second rank of pike is not destroyed when flanked, what happens to it?

No, your reading is correct. I am saying this should not be so for elements providing support.

Bob...to answer your question...nothing.

However, the flanking element must conform.

"Elements contacted this bound by
enemy or whose front edge is still in contact when combat ends automatically conform if necessary."

Joe Collins

You mean the flanking element slides into proper flank contact with remaining element?  Does the flanked element then turn to face?  In next bound?

This could not happen it the front winning element were to pursue.  Does the flanking element then just slide into proper flanking position?  Thus we have the supporting rank now in front and flank contact, no escape.  Not good odds to survive. 

What if the flanking element is in contact with two rear elements?  The supporting element and one behind it.  This happens against a column with elements 15mm deep.