Post by redrob on Apr 7, 2019 11:42:11 GMT
I imagine this has been brought up before but...
What is the problem with fast Pikes? Yes, they are fast, but given that they live and work predominantly on hills why are they so uncomfortable fighting on them? I am guessing that they operated in a different manner to their solid cousins- fighting in clumps or scattered groups of men, not in neat blocks of trained and well-led soldiers.
So why are they penalised on hills? Other irregular or fast warriors are not. It would seem logical that they should not be penalised in bad going (their 'home' turf, as it were) and perhaps they should get the rear rank bonus in such terrain. I like the idea that they could cause a great deal of grief in bad terrain but be slightly ill-at-ease in the open.
Or maybe fast pikes ought to be harder to be killed in combat results?
Ditto with fast blades I suppose. Can't see Viking raiders suffering the slightest inconvenience whilst charging down a rocky hill.
Just a thought...
What is the problem with fast Pikes? Yes, they are fast, but given that they live and work predominantly on hills why are they so uncomfortable fighting on them? I am guessing that they operated in a different manner to their solid cousins- fighting in clumps or scattered groups of men, not in neat blocks of trained and well-led soldiers.
So why are they penalised on hills? Other irregular or fast warriors are not. It would seem logical that they should not be penalised in bad going (their 'home' turf, as it were) and perhaps they should get the rear rank bonus in such terrain. I like the idea that they could cause a great deal of grief in bad terrain but be slightly ill-at-ease in the open.
Or maybe fast pikes ought to be harder to be killed in combat results?
Ditto with fast blades I suppose. Can't see Viking raiders suffering the slightest inconvenience whilst charging down a rocky hill.
Just a thought...