eg407
Beneficiarii
Posts: 92
|
Post by eg407 on Dec 5, 2018 13:52:48 GMT
Hi all,
Last night we played several games of DBA at our Hamburg club night. The games are generated by our 275BC(era) campaign that I am currently running.
Through the evening I played with two different Successor pike heavy armies (4Pk and 6Pk elements respectively). Both times I faced Later Carthaginian Sp based armies. I found it very difficult to actually make any impression with the Pk. In both games I found the wider spear line could easily wrap around the edges. The loss of frontage was a major disadvantage. The times I did manage to disrupt the spear lines I would go from +6 vs +5 to +4 vs +4, by following up into a double overlap. The mounted in both games was roughly equal, so my opponent was able to keep mine busy. The other troops in the army were Ax and Ps, both of which attempted to hold the flanks of the Pk, but tended to die/flee leaving nice gaps for the Sp to exploit.
I was wondering if anyone has any tactics, hints or tips for using a Pk heavy army??
Thanks in advance!
EG  |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Dec 5, 2018 16:59:07 GMT
As someone that has won multiple US tournaments with Pike armies (albeit under 2.2), I think I can comment.
First, pikes are weirdly slightly less effective under 3.
Second, because of the changes in 3, the tactics now differ somewhat from past DBA versions... I think they are more historical under 3.
So, to answer your question directly, there are three items to use...
Terrain
Echelon Attacks
Synchronicity
Terrain is the most obvious. Spears don't do well in rough going and are pretty hopeless in bad going. Use bad or rough going held by light troops to shorten the frontage of the battlefield available to Sp. A wood or rough hill clogging up one flank will limit the ability of spear to overlap you. Eventually, you will get +5 or +6 attacks vs +3 or less... these will cause casualties in time.
Echelon attacks are another way of limiting the battlefield... though only for a short time. In my Alexandrian army, I usually attack with 4 Pks upfront and 2 Pks on the flank 1BW or so to the rear. The other flank should be covered by terrain, or by mounted... NOT BY Ax UNLESS YOU HAVE BAD GOING. If you can hit the end your opponents line of Spear... you can sometimes sequence attacks to get overlaps... or possibly break the shieldwall.
Your echeloned pike will prevent the Sp from flanking the forward pike... and force any attack against the back pike block to be with an overlap. Some luck and proper sequencing can produce a 6 to 2 or 5 to 2 attack.
Finally, synchronicity works well here. If you have an army that has Knights...ie Alexander... have him either in back of the Pikes or in line with the rearward pike block. A sudden move by Alex or other Kns to the side of a pike block will often give you an attack with an overlap...+4 to +3 with a quick kill.
If this works, you can often have a pike block with two overlaps against an opponent. I have many time seen this produce two kills in one bound. I have also seen it get Alex surrounded and killed... after killing two of my opponents elements... so careful timing here is essential.
Some things that don't work...
Holding a flank in good going with Ax.
Ax in 3 just can't do this successfully. They are great now for holding against mounted... but they will be slaughtered by Sp, Bd, or other Pike in short order.
Alexander's Hypaspists will under perform. One could argue that they should in DBA... as it has no grading factors.
Pike Armies without Kns.
Pikes by themselves simply aren't good enough to win fights without QK troops... of course... the later Macs didn't do well against Rome...they are also hopeless in DBA 3.
Armies with 8 Pikes...
Here again the lack of grading factors hinder the Swiss and armies like them. The Swiss will under perform... perhaps as they should.
Weirdly, the greater movement in DBA 3 hurts Pike armies somewhat. Echelon attacks now will keep your enemies off the flanks of your pikes only a turn or two at most. Under earlier versions of DBA, you would have more turns to fight... though Pike being impetuous and the new moving into contact rules offset this somewhat.
I hope this helps.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Dec 5, 2018 19:58:14 GMT
To be fair the Late Swiss will under perform under Dba 3.0...the Swiss during this period hid their deployment and were usually making a suprise attack,even as late as the Swabian wars.This is hard to replicate when the attacker (usually the Swiss)move second.
In 2.2 and 3.0 Pk will suffer from lack of frontage and have vulnerable flanks.That is why I tend to favour list (a)and (c) now...the(a) list has multiple 6Bd which can move fast and hit hard and the (c) list has Kn,6Kn and Bd to cover the flanks of the Pk.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Dec 5, 2018 20:38:44 GMT
Joe,
As a self confessed pikeophile I can only thank you for your insights.
I like pike, mainly because they look great and have lots of vertical real estate for flags. However, using them under 3.0 is hard. My Alexandrian Army works if you can get the “hammer and anvil” tactics working with the pike pinning the enemy spear while Alexander, Thessslians and prodromi take the spear from the rear. This works especially well when the opposition throw lousy PIP dice. However, against a Thessalian army with 4 Cav, whet the pike is flanked by all that Spear and the Macedonian amounted isobermatched it is hard. I agree with your assessment of the Hypaspists and think there is a good case for them being classified as 4Ax//4Bd//4Sp.....but that is another thread.
I agree that Pk mix well with 3Kn but numbers matter. Armies with 6 or 8Pk are hard to use as I found out at PAWS where my Low Countries Army with 6 Pk and no mounted felt like I took a knife to a gun fight. However, a Pk Gen spices things up and can kill with reasonable dice. So not a killer army but it’s fun trying!
Paddy
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Dec 5, 2018 22:28:11 GMT
Paddy:
When 3.1 ever comes about, I hope to address this issue. Here is my current thinking...
Amend the Combat Outcome for "If its total is equal to that of its opponent" on page 11...
To be-
"Solid" foot Destroyed by foot if CP, CWg, or Lit & in contact on 2 or more edges by enemy front edges.
If not "Solid" Pk, recoiled by "Solid" Pk, otherwise no effect.
I have had good results with this simple and seemingly small change.
More play testing however needs to be done.
Joe Collins
|
|
eg407
Beneficiarii
Posts: 92
|
Post by eg407 on Dec 7, 2018 8:48:42 GMT
Hi lkmjbc,
Thank you for the advice! I will give those tips a go next Tuesday. I know my one biggest problem is to get my opponent to deploy in the correct place for me to attack! I was using an Phryic army, so probably historically correct that I lost a lot of troops! But it just slightly irked me that an army that constantly beat the Romans couldn't beat Carthage. I think there is a possibility to take a few Sp themselves, but at first I didn't want to as they don't get their +1 being next to Pk?! But as Paddy says, they do look pretty and are 'fun' to play!
I am not sure I understand your proposed rule change. Do you mean that on a draw, the troops fighting Solid Pk recoil?
Thanks,
EG
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Dec 7, 2018 13:59:50 GMT
Eg - I’d be tempted to take the spear. I find that under 3.0 spear are much tougher than previous editions. Using 2 Spear dude by side next to or in the middle of your pike blocks can extend your frontage nicely and give you the ability to exploit any holes the pike make.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Dec 7, 2018 21:17:32 GMT
Hi lkmjbc, Thank you for the advice! I will give those tips a go next Tuesday. I know my one biggest problem is to get my opponent to deploy in the correct place for me to attack! I was using an Phryic army, so probably historically correct that I lost a lot of troops! But it just slightly irked me that an army that constantly beat the Romans couldn't beat Carthage. I think there is a possibility to take a few Sp themselves, but at first I didn't want to as they don't get their +1 being next to Pk?! But as Paddy says, they do look pretty and are 'fun' to play! I am not sure I understand your proposed rule change. Do you mean that on a draw, the troops fighting Solid Pk recoil? Thanks, EG Yes!
This defines what happens on a tie to an element classed as "solid".
If not "Solid" Pk, recoiled by "Solid" Pk, otherwise no effect.
So, if you aren't solid pike, then you are recoiled if fighting "Solid" Pike. If you are solid in any other circumstance... then no effect.
In effect...... Solid Pike win ties.
Though this seems a small change, it has large implications against Spear though somewhat less against other troop types.
Try it in your next game and let me know.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by mustrum on Dec 9, 2018 12:35:38 GMT
Joe, As a self confessed pikeophile I can only thank you for your insights. I like pike, mainly because they look great and have lots of vertical real estate for flags. However, using them under 3.0 is hard. My Alexandrian Army works if you can get the “hammer and anvil” tactics working with the pike pinning the enemy spear while Alexander, Thessslians and prodromi take the spear from the rear. This works especially well when the opposition throw lousy PIP dice. However, against a Thessalian army with 4 Cav, whet the pike is flanked by all that Spear and the Macedonian amounted isobermatched it is hard. I agree with your assessment of the Hypaspists and think there is a good case for them being classified as 4Ax//4Bd//4Sp.....but that is another thread. I agree that Pk mix well with 3Kn but numbers matter. Armies with 6 or 8Pk are hard to use as I found out at PAWS where my Low Countries Army with 6 Pk and no mounted felt like I took a knife to a gun fight. However, a Pk Gen spices things up and can kill with reasonable dice. So not a killer army but it’s fun trying! Paddy You and your bloody pikes!  |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Dec 9, 2018 13:09:48 GMT
There is not much mention of 3Pk?.....play,avoid or mixed blessings?
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Dec 13, 2018 22:26:11 GMT
Keep in mind that that the Swiss massively outnumbered the Burgundians - something that is impossible in the 12 element game. They also used wide flank attacks to avoid Burgundian Bows.
Pike are a problem due to the frontage issue. The solution is cheaper Pike but this won't work in the 12 element set up. Given the need to cover 3K years of history and the limits of the generic element 12 v. 12 set up its not surprising that some armies just don't work. What's surprising is how many do work in 3.0.
TomT
|
|
eg407
Beneficiarii
Posts: 92
|
Post by eg407 on Dec 14, 2018 8:26:43 GMT
One way that might work is to make Pk troops (from people like the Macedonia/Swiss) double based, an 8Pk for example. Then if you give Pk generally slightly heightened base factors, +4/+5, and remove the rear support factors then single element deep Pk are a bit tougher, and the army lists that have them double based, means that you can have a full frontage.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 14, 2018 17:12:59 GMT
People have made suggestions about changing pikes to 8Pk before, but I’m very much against the idea. My reasons?...I think this would distort the whole concept of pike armies. Firstly, there is the manpower representation issue.Take a typical Macedonian army of say 3 mounted, 6 pike elements, and 3 elements of auxiliaries. That’s roughly 42 figures. This represents some 40,000 men, with a battleline of just 6 elements because the Ax are too weak to stand in the line. If you make all the Phalangites 8Pk, it would be 66 figures. Did the Macedonians always outnumber their opponents? No, they did not. Now I know what MedievalThomas is going to say...move away from the 12 element-a-side format. But if you want their opponents to also have 66 figures, then the 12 Macedonian elements will be facing 18 enemy elements. And then you are back to square one...the pikes will again be outflanked by the extra enemy troops. Either that or ‘pretend’ that the Macedonians always did have more men than the enemy... So rather than ‘fix’ the pikes, why not fix the auxiliaries?Many have complained over the past decades that Ax troops are too weak in DBA. Try re-fighting Cannae to see what I mean. If Ax troops were a bit more durable, then they could stand in the front and extend the battleline...at least for a while. Then the pikes would not be outflanked so easily. But without changing the rules, what can we do?Well, I think the problem is not with the pikes, but it’s the way players try to use them. Let’s let history be our guide. The Theban general Epaminondas was the first to use ‘echelon’ tactics, where one wing attacks while the other wing defends. Young Philip of Macedon was a political hostage in Thebes at the time, and he soon adopted the Theban formation. This novel tactic was followed his son Alex the Great and all of Alex’s Successors. The pikes were meant to be outflanked...that’s the whole idea. You concentrate your forces on one wing and hold on the other. It seems to me that players want to have a long line that matches the enemy, as if they were nothing more than Greek Hoplites. But that is not how pike armies were supposed to fight. If you use troops unhistorically, then expect to lose. (Of course, the Macedonians were not the only people to use pikes. But even the much later Swiss attacked in echelon formation.
It’s as if it were endemic to pikes...they’re always 16 ranks deep instead of the usual 8 ranks, and they always use echelons)The solution - learn to hold a wing with inferior forces.Apart from using terrain, there are two way of doing this:- Ps Cv Sp Sp Sp Sp Sp Sp Sp Sp Sp Cv
Pk Pk Pk Kn Cv
Pk Pk Pk
Ax
Ps
Ax
Cv
Here the red Pk flank is protected from being outflanked by the Threat Zones generated by the echeloned Ax elements. The best the blues can do is get an overlap on one of the Pk columns. It won’t hold forever, but it will buy time. An alternative formation (if a bit cheesy but still allowed in the rules) is the following:- Ps
Cv Sp Sp Sp Sp Sp Sp Sp Sp Sp Cv
Pk Pk Pk Kn Cv (<--- facing) Ax Pk Pk Pk (<--- facing) Ax Ps CvHere the red Ax are together in a group facing to their left. Neither the end Ax nor the end Pk can be attacked in the flank. Because to be in close combat you must have front corners touching at the end of the move phase, and there just isn’t room. The blues will have to spend several bounds wheeling their Sp around to attack the Ax in the front...which takes time. (This formation also leaves the red army with a reserve Cv element, which can be sent to where it is needed)ConclusionUse a pike army as a pike army, and not like a line of Hoplites, and it won’t let you down.  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 Haardrada on Dec 14, 2018 21:25:15 GMT
I had not considered using Pk in an 8Pk block and had only seen the 3/4Pk with rear supporting element as the best way to represent Pk in deep formation.Certainly the combat bonus for the rear element does justify surrendering frontage for the greater combat factor.
If you used a 6 or 8 pk element then do you count the combat factor as a supported element or a single element?As a single element you would need 12 or 16 figures to represent 2 elements....maybe a bit too many figures?
I do get the idea of it as 6Bd,7 Hd,8Bw and 8Sp all represent deeper formations.
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Dec 14, 2018 23:38:10 GMT
I faced my opponents new Scots Common army last night with my Wars of the Roses English. The Scot’s centre comprised six 4Pk with one stand being the general. While The Scot’s frontage was smaller I was unable to take advantage of it due to a lack of PIPs. In the centre the pike general did considerable damage with a factor of seven.
|
|
