|
Post by snowcat on Nov 23, 2020 12:39:40 GMT
What if you changed the CF for Pk so that it was basically a 5. Single element, no rear support. Represented by 8-12 figures on a deep base, a bit like Hd. Start with that, and go from there. (I'm not saying it all works magically straight away, but as a starting point...)
Here's an idea for the above: 'Bd win on ties vs Pk'. (Might need to be 4Bd, but I don't mind it.)
Again, more is needed...
|
|
|
Post by proximocoal on Nov 19, 2022 11:03:09 GMT
I understand the concept of the Pikes not being the numerically superior force, but the problem is that their concentration of force using this method isn't very good. A spear with support is 5, pike with support 6. Assuming one or two of your pike blocks will be overlapped even if you prevent them being fully flanked like in your diagram means that actually the benefit you get from being deep is negated. Pike can rarely actually drive through other heavy infantry.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 19, 2022 14:20:56 GMT
Oh I don’t know… A Pk column CF of 6 v Sp CF of 5 has 21 chances out of 36 of recoiling the spearmen. Do that on both sides of Sp and the double-overlap with no side-support becomes CF 2. And CF 6 v CF 2 has 15 chances out of 36 of scoring a double and destroying the Sp. (Blades are a bit tougher: CF 6 v CF 3 has 9 chances out of 36 of scoring a double)Have a look at this to see how all this number-crunching was derived:- static.wikia.nocookie.net/fanaticus-dba/images/e/e7/COMBAT_EFFECTS_CHART_for_DBA_%26_HOTT.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20190204191800&format=original
I am of course assuming that your superior mounted Elephants and Knights with a General are also doing their bit on one wing, and not just sitting around watching hoping that the Pikes will win the battle all on their own…
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 19, 2022 15:35:41 GMT
Here is some drivel I wrote several years ago. I think it ok to post here as most have read it...and it is available in its entirety on the interwebs, though in French.
The Problem with Pike
Pike (Pk) has suffered an unusual setback in DBA 3. The greater movement rates, improved rules for moving to contact, and the reclassification of the Pike troop type as impetuous would seem, at a cursory glance, to have improved the Pk troop type compared to earlier versions of DBA. Gone is the capability of a defender using simple geometric ploys to prevent a Pike phalanx from making contact in hand-to-hand combat. Banished is the need for large amounts of PIPs to keep those Pike formations fighting after they do finally contact.
Not all the changes were positive. Pike did have its rear support factor against most mounted cut to +1, but this is mitigated by foot classed as ‘Solid’ (most Pike is rated as such) recoiling mounted on a tie (as an aside this change helps to better simulate the early Renaissance period). The addition of side support for Spear also is not much of a negative factor as the standard +5 (Spear with side support) vs +6 ((Pike with rear support) matchup will quickly break the Spear line, eliminating the side support. The improved capability of Pike to get to the enemy, enter combat with the enemy, and stay in combat would seem to vastly outweigh these small negative changes.
The Pike’s problems however quickly become apparent after playing a few games. The troop type has always suffered in DBA because of its lack of frontage. In ancient battles, non-pike-based armies facing pikes would shorten their lines in order to attempt to match the depth of their opponent, so as to prevent the Pike phalanx from breaking through their lines. This, coupled with the difficulty of commanding troops over a wide frontage, helped to keep Pike armies from being easily surrounded and destroyed. DBA, with its set limit of 12 elements per side, and the need for Pike elements to be deployed two-deep, has always struggled to simulate this.
DBA 3 makes the issue worse than previous versions. The greater movement, improved movement to contact, and classification Pike as impetuous, actually work against the Pike troop type by allowing its enemies to more easily flank and engage the Pike phalanx. Envelopments that under 2.2 or earlier versions of DBA would take four or five turns to accomplish can now be done in two. The combat factors of the Pike simply aren’t high enough to produce the casualties needed for a breakthrough in that short number of turns. Defenders against Pike based armies don’t worry with deepening their lines or positioning reserves. They can instead expand their frontage and attempt an envelopment. An experienced Greek Hoplite player will recognize this and easily flank and destroy a Pike based army.
The matchup between Pike based armies and Romans is even worse. The Roman Legionnaire Blade has always had the advantage against the Pike. One could of course argue from history that this should be the case. The Macedonians were unable to win any major victories over the Romans after Pyrrhus. Still, Pydna, Cynoscephalae and Magnesia were near run battles. Under DBA 3, Later Macedonian vs Early Imperial Romans is a slaughter. The Romans will easily outflank the Macedonians and make short work of them. The balance has shifted further against the Pike.
The solution would seem to be found in upping the combat factor of the Pike, but this leads to some difficult balancing problems against other troop types. The addition of +1 to the factor of Pike vs Foot makes the Auxilia issue worse and produces bad effects against Bow, Warband, and Artillery.
So, I propose the following: change the combat outcome for ‘Solid’ foot on ‘If its total is equal to that of its opponent’ to
‘‘Solid’ foot Destroyed by foot if CP, CWg or Lit & in contact on 2 or more edges by enemy front edges. If not Pike, recoiled by ‘Solid’ Pike, Otherwise no effect.’
This change increases the capability of a Pike phalanx to disrupt its enemy’s lines. While the Pike won’t become a killing machine, the improved outcome is just a recoil, the Pike phalanx does have a better chance to create breaks and dislocations in the enemy battle lines. In the following bounds the Pike will have a much greater chance of isolating and possibly destroying enemy infantry. Further, a Pike phalanx that is flanked has a better chance of recoiling its flankers. This prevents another flanked combat the next bound, where destruction is possible, and isolates the front attacking element so that it faces the wrath of the Pike phalanx alone!
With this change, the Greek hoplites at Chaeronea are now forced to consider a reserve. The Roman Legionnaires at Pydna and Cynoscephalae will be driven to the rear to face the danger of being broken before their compatriots can engage the flanks of the Macedonian/Greek Pikes. The Swiss will be able to take their place as a formidable battlefield force, though they will still underperform compared to their historical record as DBA lacks factors for grading quality.
Finally, this change allows the commander of a Pike army a slight amount more of flexibility. Pike in DBA must be deployed in two element ranks, otherwise it is hopelessly weak against enemy foot. With this modification, the single rank Pike is a more viable combat force, now enabled to stand for a time against Spear and slowly win against Auxilia.
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Nov 19, 2022 15:57:43 GMT
I agree with everything you've said here, Joe, in terms of the main issues with Pk in 3.0 and this is echoed by a number of people elsewhere. However, I've played your suggestion under tournament conditions and it just didn't work as a solution. If anything, it made the overlap and envelopment problem even worse, as the Pk were even more likely to pursue into danger, and their flanks became exposed even faster than previously.
There is a definite need to consider how to solve the nerfing of Pk armies under 3.0, but I don't think this fixes the issue and, in some situations, even exacerbates it...
P.
|
|
|
Post by proximocoal on Nov 19, 2022 16:16:27 GMT
Oh I don’t know… A Pk column CF of 6 v Sp CF of 5 has 21 chances out of 36 of recoiling the spearmen. Do that on both sides of Sp and the double-overlap with no side-support becomes CF 2. And CF 6 v CF 2 has 15 chances out of 36 of scoring a double and destroying the Sp. (Blades are a bit tougher: CF 6 v CF 3 has 9 chances out of 36 of scoring a double)Have a look at this to see how all this number-crunching was derived:- static.wikia.nocookie.net/fanaticus-dba/images/e/e7/COMBAT_EFFECTS_CHART_for_DBA_%26_HOTT.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20190204191800&format=original
I am of course assuming that your superior mounted Elephants and Knights with a General are also doing their bit on one wing, and not just sitting around watching hoping that the Pikes will win the battle all on their own… I can see your reasoning, but I think in practical terms that requires you to have 6 pike stands that are not overlapped, which is normally all of your heavy infantry.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 19, 2022 16:38:36 GMT
Ah…that’s where being a good general comes into play… …don’t let it happen.
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 19, 2022 17:10:13 GMT
Paulisper:
No doubt more testing is in order. Our experience is the opposite of yours, though it was gathered from individual and club games, not tournaments. It also may produce different results from different play styles. I am more aggressive with my Pike armies and use echeloned attacks. Therefore, my Pike are already exposed. This has helped me. As you have stated, your experiences were different.
Again, broader testing is in order.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Nov 20, 2022 9:15:16 GMT
Paulisper: No doubt more testing is in order. Our experience is the opposite of yours, though it was gathered from individual and club games, not tournaments. It also may produce different results from different play styles. I am more aggressive with my Pike armies and use echeloned attacks. Therefore, my Pike are already exposed. This has helped me. As you have stated, your experiences were different. Again, broader testing is in order. Joe Collins Would exempting advancing or pursuing Pike from overlap(as with Ps and Sch)versus Pk,Bd or Sp,to represent their momentum go part way to resolving this issue?The Pk can still receive the negative factor if contacted on their flank and be just as vulnerable if contacted stationary or halted/recoiled in combat. It certainly doesn't make them immune to flank contact but does represent the "threat" of their breakthrough being of greater importance to their opponent? This would only remove the negative combat factor vs flanking heavy foot,but only if the Pk are moving forward.Other foot elements such as Ax,Bw or Ps would still be as effective.
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Jan 24, 2023 21:18:40 GMT
I understand the concept of the Pikes not being the numerically superior force, but the problem is that their concentration of force using this method isn't very good. A spear with support is 5, pike with support 6. Assuming one or two of your pike blocks will be overlapped even if you prevent them being fully flanked like in your diagram means that actually the benefit you get from being deep is negated. Pike can rarely actually drive through other heavy infantry. Why has DBA given 1 element of Spear against foot 4 and 1 element of pike 3? What's is the reasoning? As it was only the first 5 ranks of pike extended beyond the front rank why does DBA make them a combat factor of 1 less against spear. An element in DBA represents twice the amount as in DBMM, so 1 element in DBA would be 512 Pk, 64 by 8 deep. So 3 element would be a Macedonian Phalanx 1,536. So 1 element would be the same as 1 element with 1 rear support in DBMM. Having a rear suppoting element in DBA would actually be 16 deep and they were quite capable of standing up to a Greek Phalanx when only 8 deep (1 element DBA) Assuming all things equal on perfect ground, why would a Greek Phalanx (sp) be better than a Pike Phalanx if both are 8 deep? should they not be at least the same?
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Jan 25, 2023 23:30:45 GMT
play DBA 1.0 or 1.1.......When blades could not close the door on pikes in 1 move.....
Sarcastically yours,
MG
|
|
|
Post by diades on Jan 26, 2023 20:18:15 GMT
There was a theory that pikes were to fix enemy heavy infantry in place, whilst the battle was won elsewhere….
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Jan 27, 2023 8:09:54 GMT
I game the Italian Wars a fair amount. I tend to use my Pikes to slow up the oppositions Knights. I usually place skirmishers either side. This has worked well in the past unless the enemy bring up shot or crossbows.
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 27, 2023 10:14:12 GMT
There was a theory that pikes were to fix enemy heavy infantry in place, whilst the battle was won elsewhere…. There are pikes and there are pikes. I think early (at least) hellenistic pikes were more defensive to pin the opponent. The genius of Phillip and Alexander was in exploting combined arms and elite troops to win the day IMHO. But then swiss pikes were offensive juggernauts. Maybe early pikes could be considered spears in DBA? Afterall, DBA is about battlefield performance rather than weapons. Cheers Jim
|
|