|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 30, 2019 4:08:46 GMT
Bouncing off the "defeating Pike Blocks" thread, I thought about this from my last tourney. Because of the 4/2 BW deployment restrictions with the 24" board (~15BW wide), a lot of infantry armies deploy something like this: Assume a spearwall type army. Assume no terrain. _____[ENEMY]____ PsSpSpSpSpSpSpPs __Sp________Sp__ __Sp________Sp__ On a roll of > 1 PIP, the player then moves their Spears to this (it'll take about 2+ bounds): _____[ENEMY]____ PsSpSpSpSpSpSpSpSpSpSpPs A wall of Spears which LH and Cv will bounce off. My only tactic was to run a pair of LH around the spears before they closed the door, although I learned this later on, and did it vs a fast blade/fast bw army which was able to react to the LH easily. How do other people with non shieldwall armies deal with this? Note: it's very different from a pike block, because the pike block will be 3 elements wide only (assuming 6 pikes). <iframe width="21.86" height="10.36" id="MoatPxIOPT0_40158351" scrolling="no" style="border-style: none; left: 15px; top: -5px; width: 21.86px; height: 10.36px; position: absolute; z-index: -9999;"></iframe> <iframe width="21.86" height="10.36" id="MoatPxIOPT0_1017081" scrolling="no" style="border-style: none; left: 1035px; top: -5px; width: 21.86px; height: 10.36px; position: absolute; z-index: -9999;"></iframe> <iframe width="21.86" height="10.36" id="MoatPxIOPT0_86325848" scrolling="no" style="border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 454px; width: 21.86px; height: 10.36px; position: absolute; z-index: -9999;"></iframe> <iframe width="21.86" height="10.36" id="MoatPxIOPT0_93491870" scrolling="no" style="border-style: none; left: 1035px; top: 454px; width: 21.86px; height: 10.36px; position: absolute; z-index: -9999;"></iframe> In campaign games, we started using Stevie's optional rule that ALL elements pursue enemy if they win a combat and rolled a raw '6' on the die. It was nice because LH, Ps and Cv could charge a line of spears all day, and they just bounce off. But occasionally, a Sp elements gets so darned annoyed they jsut break formation and attempt to drive off the enemy ... and expose themselves to getting double overlapped at 2 or 3 vs 2. Sometimes I wonder if Stevie realises how brilliant some of his optional rules are! ... |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 30, 2019 5:43:01 GMT
Primus/Stevie, that is a cool rule. Another untapped mechanism. On a natural 6 or 1, and evens/odds!
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 30, 2019 5:43:02 GMT
Because of the 4/2 BW deployment restrictions with the 24" board (~15BW wide), a lot of infantry armies deploy something like this: Assume a spearwall type army. Assume no terrain. _____[ENEMY]____ PsSpSpSpSpSpSpPs __Sp________Sp__ __Sp________Sp__ This is a great example of why I like larger boards for spear armies. This is a very practical DBA deployment but it has little basis in history. I assume its the side effect of side-support replacing rear-support for Spears. As for a Pike Phalanx represented by a 3x2 block of elements, its very anorexic. When I get them painted up I'm doing the Hellenistic wars with 8Pk. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 30, 2019 5:48:14 GMT
This is a great example of why I like larger boards for spear armies. This is a very practical DBA deployment but it has little basis in history. I assume its the side effect of side-support replacing rear-support for Spears. As for a Pike Phalanx represented by a 3x2 block of elements, its very anorexic. When I get them painted up I'm doing the Hellenistic wars with 8Pk. Cheers Jim I actually disagree with that last one. 8Pk gives the Pike armies more width. I like the tradeoff between width and thickness. Something for them to cover, but I do agree that a side effect of the Side Support 4Sp means they always get to extend. The wider board is probably the solution to the shield wall problem. |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 30, 2019 8:14:43 GMT
This is a great example of why I like larger boards for spear armies. This is a very practical DBA deployment but it has little basis in history. I assume its the side effect of side-support replacing rear-support for Spears. As for a Pike Phalanx represented by a 3x2 block of elements, its very anorexic. When I get them painted up I'm doing the Hellenistic wars with 8Pk. Cheers Jim I actually disagree with that last one. 8Pk gives the Pike armies more width. I like the tradeoff between width and thickness. Something for them to cover, but I do agree that a side effect of the Side Support 4Sp means they always get to extend. The wider board is probably the solution to the shield wall problem. Fair enough. But 3x2Pk only covers 20% of the width of a 600mm board. A Polybian Roman army can cover 8BW with Blades. This doesn't seem to match the descriptions. A Pike phalanx 6BW covers 40%, which seems much more plausible historically and can still be enveloped by the Romans. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 30, 2019 11:07:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Mar 30, 2019 21:43:20 GMT
Exactly stevie!
And for some of those early armies you have some SP to add some width.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Mar 31, 2019 6:21:51 GMT
Hey Stevie - you managed to say that without dropping the “H” bomb! Enough respect! I wouldn’t have managed that. |
|
|
|
Post by decebalus on Apr 1, 2019 12:15:39 GMT
"Rough terrain is your friend."
I think this is wrong. A Pk army will want terrain, because it secures their flanks. A late persian army, that is a greek arny with more cavalry, wants to have an open board, so it can envelope the macedonians at will.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Apr 1, 2019 17:37:24 GMT
Where I do find that 4Ax Hypaspist element useful (actually by that I mean not totally useless) is where Alex can get a fairly large slab of BG just off center. Then the Ps can run around in it to their hearts content to TZ stuff moving through or round it plus the 4Ax can clear out any enemy Ps that want to play. This then gives a very solid flank to rest the Pk block on and a single flank to weight with the mounted. That is the theory at least........but with Agg=4 how often do you get that?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 1, 2019 17:52:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 1, 2019 18:34:12 GMT
Get an army with a few 6Cav that can fight the Pk at +4 vs +3.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Apr 1, 2019 20:30:42 GMT
Oh Stevie - I’m well aware of the maths....but we live in hope that a LAP player will oblige with their terrain choices given that all tables need a bit of BG and remembering that the attacker gets to choose at least 1 in 2 or 1 in 4 of the sides. |
|
