|
|
Post by decebalus on Nov 16, 2020 11:48:19 GMT
Just a reminder, that there are some who think that Stevies trick isnt working. (There was a big discussion about it.) The discussion is about the famous first sentence in the combat section stating, that combat always happens if the front edge of the attacker touches an enemy element.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 16, 2020 17:14:01 GMT
Just a reminder, that there are some who think that Stevies trick isnt working. (There was a big discussion about it.) The discussion is about the famous first sentence in the combat section stating, that combat always happens if the front edge of the attacker touches an enemy element. Just to throw some more petrol on the fire  , there is also the following to consider. Yes, the first sentence of Contacting The Enemy on page 9 says:- “The general principle is that troops that would contact in real life do so in the game so that moving a front edge into contact with an enemy always results in combat.” Take this just as it is purely on its own and there is no such thing as an ‘illegal contact’... ... any front edge touching causes close combat, no matter the situation or position. Ah, but then the very next sentence goes on to say:- “At the end of the bound’s movement phase the contacting element (or at least one element of a contacting group) must be lined-up with an enemy element, either in (a), (b), (c) or (d) positions, with mutual corners touching. If this is not possible, the move does not happen.” So which is it? Any front-edge contact causes close combat? Or front-edge contact AND lining-up so that the mutual corners are also touching? I think most people would say that the first sentence ‘general principle’ is just that... ...nothing more than a vague ill defined general principle that needs clarification, and this extra detail and clarification is provided by the second sentence above. Otherwise the ‘general principle’ taken purely on its own contradicts (a), (b), (c) & (d). Front-edges ’always’ cause combat...but you can’t end a move unless the corners touch.But what if conforming is prevented due to a lack of space?:- “If conforming to a front edge by contactors is prevented, contacted elements or groups must either conform or fight as if in full contact and overlapped.” Note that this only applies when trying to move into contact with an enemy FRONT-edge, and not when trying to contact an enemy flank or rear-edge. Soooo, putting it all together, we have the following:- * a moving element/group must conform (i.e. get those corners touching) when they contact a group. * if the moving element/group is contacting the enemy FRONT and doesn’t have the room, then those contacted must conform instead or fight as if overlapped. * however, if the moving element/group is NOT contacting the enemy front and doesn’t have the room, then tough...the contact is illegal. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 16, 2020 23:45:54 GMT
Seeing as we're doing reminders...
The reminder at the bottom of p2 of a proposal I put forward to de-nerf Pk vs Sp, achieves one more thing: while it doesn't force the Sp player to narrow his Sp line vs Pk, it does encourage it. It encourages the Sp to deploy deeper in the face of Pk, because they have no effective answer to the Pk when deployed solely in line. And nor should they!
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Nov 20, 2020 2:25:17 GMT
Try this...Pikes win ties vs non-Pike Quick question: if pike push non pike back, will they also automatically advance? Quite powerful. I like it  Also, what would you use to represent “superior”? |
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Nov 20, 2020 7:00:02 GMT
Just a reminder, that there are some who think that Stevies trick isnt working. (There was a big discussion about it.) The discussion is about the famous first sentence in the combat section stating, that combat always happens if the front edge of the attacker touches an enemy element. Just to throw some more petrol on the fire , there is also the following to consider. Yes, the first sentence of Contacting The Enemy on page 9 says:- “The general principle is that troops that would contact in real life do so in the game so that moving a front edge into contact with an enemy always results in combat.” Take this just as it is purely on its own and there is no such thing as an ‘illegal contact’... ... any front edge touching causes close combat, no matter the situation or position. Ah, but then the very next sentence goes on to say:- “At the end of the bound’s movement phase the contacting element (or at least one element of a contacting group) must be lined-up with an enemy element, either in (a), (b), (c) or (d) positions, with mutual corners touching. If this is not possible, the move does not happen.” So which is it? Any front-edge contact causes close combat? Or front-edge contact AND lining-up so that the mutual corners are also touching? I think most people would say that the first sentence ‘general principle’ is just that... ...nothing more than a vague ill defined general principle that needs clarification, and this extra detail and clarification is provided by the second sentence above. Otherwise the ‘general principle’ taken purely on its own contradicts (a), (b), (c) & (d). Front-edges ’always’ cause combat...but you can’t end a move unless the corners touch.But what if conforming is prevented due to a lack of space?:- “If conforming to a front edge by contactors is prevented, contacted elements or groups must either conform or fight as if in full contact and overlapped.” Note that this only applies when trying to move into contact with an enemy FRONT-edge, and not when trying to contact an enemy flank or rear-edge. Soooo, putting it all together, we have the following:- * a moving element/group must conform (i.e. get those corners touching) when they contact a group. * if the moving element/group is contacting the enemy FRONT and doesn’t have the room, then those contacted must conform instead or fight as if overlapped. * however, if the moving element/group is NOT contacting the enemy front and doesn’t have the room, then tough...the contact is illegal. I have to say that I agree with Stevie The first sentence is indeed a general principle that if troops can come into contact the should --> all good so far Then further down the page there is a definitive rule - that if legal contact cannot be made then the move does not happen. In between are the rules for legal contact. Before anyone cries foul over contact being blocked and Stevie's master plan being gamey let me be clear. The enemy Sp are not prevented from fighting the flank guarding Ax - they are just prevented from attacking the flank. They just have to move to the point where they can attack the Ax frontally - if that takes more than a single move so be it. It is not as if a real battle involves a series of IgoUgo stop start moves, but given the free slide in movement I doubt that it would take a full move for one element of Sp to strike the Ax. After a little bit of push and shove the Ax are driven away and the Pk have their flank exposed - job done. You only get to complain if it took so long to flank the Pk that they actually cut your front to pieces - and if you are complaining about that then you are in the same boat as the Pk commander who would otherwise be annoyed that without this balancing tactic he was flanked from the start and lost the game. Me I have never been able to make an army that sacrifices breadth for combat power to work - not even in 2.2 so I am of the opinion that Pk and Wb are nerfed but always have been. Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 20, 2020 8:46:53 GMT
So what if Pk were treated as a single deep element (or 'double element'), with a corresponding CF?
It might work similarly to a double element of Sp (without the side support).
If AdG (L'Art de la Guerre) can treat Pk as one element, just with more figures on a deeper base than most infantry, and with its own combat factors, why can't DBA?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 20, 2020 10:33:47 GMT
Well Snowcat, as most people know I myself am dead against ‘8Pk elements’ (see fanaticus.boards.net/post/17660/ ) And here’s why:- Rear-supported Pikes having a CF of 6 forces their opponents to have reserves, either in a column formation or as a separate line, just so that they can fill in the gaps that will appear in their battleline. Even the vaulted Blades need reserves...CF 5 with -2 for being double-overlapped (easily achieved when CF 5 faces CF 6) has 9 chances out of 36 of being destroyed. Introducing ‘8Pk’ with a CF of 6 and you’ve got an army that not only punches its way through the centre, but they also end up outflanking the enemy (who need reserves) as well! Good news for the Pikes...bad news for everyone else.  And how would this reconcile itself with the fact that the Roman Blades nearly always managed to beat Pikes in actual historical battles? There is a common myth amongst wargamers (and rule writers) that the Pikes were only ever beaten because they were disrupted by some sort of hindering terrain. That is not the case:- At Beneventum in 275 BC the Romans won (and there was no disruption due to terrain). At Cynoscephalae in 197 BC the Romans won (and there was no disruption due to terrain). At Magnesia in 190 BC the Romans won (and there was no disruption due to terrain). At Pydna in 168 BC the Romans won (and there was no disruption due to terrain). At Chaeronea in 86 BC the Romans won (and there was no disruption due to terrain). At Orchomenus in 85 BC the Romans won (and there was no disruption due to terrain). Yes, disordered Pikes were easier to beat...but Blades appear to be quite capable of defeating Pikes even on flat good ground. So I don’t think that turning Pikes into a ‘super element’ that can both punch its way through the centre AND outflank on the wings is the answer. Later edit: on the other hand, Swiss Pikemen were definitely superior.
So perhaps they and they alone should be allowed to have 8Pk elements...
...much like the way the Thebans are the only ones to have 8Sp. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 20, 2020 12:23:36 GMT
Allow me to clarify. I wasn't suggesting a double-element of Pk with the same CF as 2 elements of Pk under RAW. I was putting forward the idea of a visually deeper element (like in AdG) with an appropriate CF and rules for Pk. That's what I meant by 'corresponding'. It could appear much like an 8Sp combination, possibly worth 2 VPs for first lost element, etc. It was a starting point for looking at Pk as a single element, and working out the appropriate/corresponding CFs and rules to make that work from there. You don't need to remind me of the Roman ability to defeat Pk. Have you forgotten I wrote this: "To beat Pk you need to break up their hedgehog and get in amongst their files of pikemen. John Warry showed how the Romans did this in 'Warfare in the Classical World': by throwing pila to disrupt the integrity of the hedgehog and following this up by sending groups of legionaries between the files of disordered pikes. Once the Romans are in amongst the pike formation, their superiority in hand-to-hand with an individualistic cut and thrust style vs pikemen still trying to retain their original formation (holding pikes) spells doom for the pikemen, especially if the Romans can get them on uneven ground. Being in a solid shield wall (4Sp) with your mates tightly packed on either side of you is not of much benefit facing a hedgehog of pikes. In fact, it presents the hedgehog with a tightly packed gift with a ribbon on top, completely lacking the system and flexibility required to disrupt the pikemen as they close. See above."
PS .. the same single element idea in principle could apply to Wb, just like it does with Hd.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 20, 2020 21:25:20 GMT
Against foot except PS, they would follow up. I find the best way to represent Superior troops is with a 12 sided die marked...1,1,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,5,6,6. There are many other ways of course. Joe Collins Try this...Pikes win ties vs non-Pike Quick question: if pike push non pike back, will they also automatically advance? Quite powerful. I like it Also, what would you use to represent “superior”? |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Nov 21, 2020 12:38:05 GMT
Allow me to clarify. I wasn't suggesting a double-element of Pk with the same CF as 2 elements of Pk under RAW. I was putting forward the idea of a visually deeper element (like in AdG) with an appropriate CF and rules for Pk. That's what I meant by 'corresponding'. It could appear much like an 8Sp combination, possibly worth 2 VPs for first lost element, etc. It was a starting point for looking at Pk as a single element, and working out the appropriate/corresponding CFs and rules to make that work from there. You don't need to remind me of the Roman ability to defeat Pk. Have you forgotten I wrote this: "To beat Pk you need to break up their hedgehog and get in amongst their files of pikemen. John Warry showed how the Romans did this in 'Warfare in the Classical World': by throwing pila to disrupt the integrity of the hedgehog and following this up by sending groups of legionaries between the files of disordered pikes. Once the Romans are in amongst the pike formation, their superiority in hand-to-hand with an individualistic cut and thrust style vs pikemen still trying to retain their original formation (holding pikes) spells doom for the pikemen, especially if the Romans can get them on uneven ground. Being in a solid shield wall (4Sp) with your mates tightly packed on either side of you is not of much benefit facing a hedgehog of pikes. In fact, it presents the hedgehog with a tightly packed gift with a ribbon on top, completely lacking the system and flexibility required to disrupt the pikemen as they close. See above."
PS .. the same single element idea in principle could apply to Wb, just like it does with Hd.
Rather than introducing a 6Pk element which generally meets a lot of resistance,would it not be an idea to allow Pk not to be overlapped in close combat simular to Ps and Scythed Chariots? This could be interpreted as Snowcat describes of the hedgehog formation and the disruption of its integrity to defeat it. As for the introduction of Superior/inferior troops into dba. This has been done to some degree by the classification of some foot between 4Ax and 3Ax or 4Sp and 3Pk etc. If its elitism or guard status you wish to represent isn't the DBM system of allowing a +1 factor for Superior and a - 1 factor for inferior troops not sufficient? |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 21, 2020 14:35:49 GMT
Rather than introducing a 6Pk element which generally meets a lot of resistance,would it not be an idea to allow Pk not to be overlapped in close combat simular to Ps and Scythed Chariots? This could be interpreted as Snowcat describes of the hedgehog formation and the disruption of its integrity to defeat it. Hmmm...that is possible Haardrada, but it won’t have that much effect I’m afraid. Pikes like to pursue (as do Bd, Wb, Kn, HCh, SCh, Ele and Hd), so the Pikes will usually find themselves in mutual side-edge contact, which does still count. (Unless they ignore both corner-to-corner AND mutual side-edge contact...
...but then how on earth did the Romans ever beat them in those six historical
examples that I posted yesterday?!)
If anything they should be harsher treated when overlapped, thus representing the enemy infiltrating their files and disrupting their formation. Giving Pikes a CF of 3 with +2 for rear-support and +1 for side-support would do it. My objection to turning all Pikes into 8Pk elements is they’ll end up outflanking their ‘must-keep-some-troops-in-reserve’ opponents, as well as punching through the centre. I still think the fault lies with the players, and not the PIkes. Learn to hold or at least delay on a wing with inferior forces. (Many people complain about their Pikes having a shorter battleline and end up outflanked.
Well, just for a change, think about how the Romans almost always managed to beat them...
...and did so WITHOUT drawing them into rough or bad going) |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Nov 21, 2020 15:47:28 GMT
Then only count the overlap bonus if not persuing into side edge contact and then count the negative combat factors against the Pike as normal. This will give the Pike general a dilemma of what frontage they wish to present to enter contact or try to protect their flank with other elements to gain success from their breakthrough.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Nov 23, 2020 8:44:23 GMT
Watching Tony’s Riverdance games and reading this thread I’ve had a few thoughts. With Pike it is all about frontage and squeezing the 15BW frontage on a standard 24” table down to the less than 7 that pike armies need. So assuming you win terrain (a big assumption) how can you take out 8 or so BW out of the equation?
Fortunately most Successor armies are relatively low aggression. Ptolemy and the Macedonian Successors are all 1 and Seleucid is 2 but let’s not look at the Asiatic Successors or especially Alex’s army who are 3s and 4s for aggression.
So if you do win terrain then running a river down the middle of the board 5BW in form one side and then running a road parallel to it immediately splits the table into 2 with a useable 10BW on one side and an isolated 5BW on the other. Now gum up the opposite flank with woods or BUA 3BW wide, with 1BW from the table edge and you have a frontage of 6BW to play in. Use LH or Cav to disrupt any river crossing attempt and hope the crossing forces roll a 5/6 for the river. Plus use Ps and Ax to control the woods and you El and Pk in echelon can push in the centre.
There are variants of this for the littoral armies that can squeeze even more frontage out of the table. I think a waterway on one flank and a river running parallel a few BW in on the opposite side is legal - please correct me if I’m wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Nov 23, 2020 10:08:24 GMT
Rather than introducing a 6Pk element which generally meets a lot of resistance,would it not be an idea to allow Pk not to be overlapped in close combat simular to Ps and Scythed Chariots? This could be interpreted as Snowcat describes of the hedgehog formation and the disruption of its integrity to defeat it. Hmmm...that is possible Haardrada, but it won’t have that much effect I’m afraid. Pikes like to pursue (as do Bd, Wb, Kn, HCh, SCh, Ele and Hd), so the Pikes will usually find themselves in mutual side-edge contact, which does still count. (Unless they ignore both corner-to-corner AND mutual side-edge contact...
...but then how on earth did the Romans ever beat them in those six historical
examples that I posted yesterday?!)
If anything they should be harsher treated when overlapped, thus representing the enemy infiltrating their files and disrupting their formation. Giving Pikes a CF of 3 with +2 for rear-support and +1 for side-support would do it. My objection to turning all Pikes into 8Pk elements is they’ll end up outflanking their ‘must-keep-some-troops-in-reserve’ opponents, as well as punching through the centre. I still think the fault lies with the players, and not the PIkes. Learn to hold or at least delay on a wing with inferior forces. (Many people complain about their Pikes having a shorter battleline and end up outflanked.
Well, just for a change, think about how the Romans almost always managed to beat them...
...and did so WITHOUT drawing them into rough or bad going)You are definitely right stevie, in that the Romans kept winning. But from my reading of the battles you listed, they seemed to win by breaking through the line first before defeating the remaining phalanx in detail. I just find 3x2 Pk block is too easy to outflank with a Polybian army (8Bd + 2Sp) without needing to contest the centre. Just my observation. Besides, we want the Romans to have the advantage but not so much that there is no tension in the game. Cheers Jim PS Didn't the Romans lure the phalalnx onto rough ground at Pydna? |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Nov 23, 2020 10:59:40 GMT
I am really not much of a historian but was the pike not brought in to help fight armies that used long spear, mines longer than yours.
Then found to be useful against cavalry and lightly armoured troops who were not prepared to close.
Ran into trouble against well armoured drilled troops with short swords who were prepared to get in close.
We prob just need to accept that in our DBA world they just have too many limitations as if supporting they can be flanked and if left unsupported are at a big disadvantage.
Bad pips by enemy or great terrain luck being exceptions
|
|
, there is also the following to consider.
