|
|
Post by Roland on May 22, 2020 14:32:46 GMT
I know there are at least a few of us who lament that Pks aren't as effective as some of their historical counterparts in DBA. I chalk part of that to the 12 element match play nature of the standard game ( were we able to treat Pk as double based that would be a literal game changer).
For Later Swiss ( particularly the campaigns of the Burgundian Wars), it seems like the game mechanics would model _that_ Swiss army better were it to treat Swiss pikes as Sp. I say this partly because it is widely speculated that the Swiss out numbered the Burgundians at Grandson and Morat so spears would allow a wider Swiss deployment and still maintain a potent battle against foot and mounted alike.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on May 22, 2020 15:02:03 GMT
Well, sort of...
Pikes in DBA 3 are much better than Pikes in 2.2. Pikes gained the ability to pursue... the conforming rules destroyed the major (and stupid) anti-pike tactic... the greater movement now allows Pikes to actually get into combat... pike blocks are no longer subject to being broken up by a flank attack...
Some of the perceived issue with pikes is the lack of a grading factor. The Swiss were some of the greatest pikemen in history. The same can be said of Alexander's veterans. There is no "Superior" grading in DBA. The Swiss and Macedonians will therefore under-perform. They should under-perform.
All the above being said... pikes still suffer from a depth vs width problem.
I proposed the following...
Pikes win ties...
This has proven with my play testing to be an ample remedy.
Try this experiment...
Fight Swiss vs Burgundian using two changes.
Have the Pikes win ties... and rate the Swiss as "Superior" by allowing them to re-roll any combat roll of a "2". They can keep the new roll or discard it in favor of the old. I think you will find the Swiss to be appropriately powerful.
(A better way would be to get a blank 12 sided dice and mark it 1,1,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,5,6,6- that is what we do for Superior troops.)
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 22, 2020 23:08:06 GMT
Well, sort of... Pikes in DBA 3 are much better than Pikes in 2.2. Pikes gained the ability to pursue... the conforming rules destroyed the major (and stupid) anti-pike tactic... the greater movement now allows Pikes to actually get into combat... pike blocks are no longer subject to being broken up by a flank attack... Some of the perceived issue with pikes is the lack of a grading factor. The Swiss were some of the greatest pikemen in history. The same can be said of Alexander's veterans. There is no "Superior" grading in DBA. The Swiss and Macedonians will therefore under-perform. They should under-perform. All the above being said... pikes still suffer from a depth vs width problem. I proposed the following... Pikes win ties... This has proven with my play testing to be an ample remedy. Try this experiment... Fight Swiss vs Burgundian using two changes. Have the Pikes win ties... and rate the Swiss as "Superior" by allowing them to re-roll any combat roll of a "2". They can keep the new roll or discard it in favor of the old. I think you will find the Swiss to be appropriately powerful. (A better way would be to get a blank 12 sided dice and mark it 1,1,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,5,6,6- that is what we do for Superior troops.) Joe Collins I agree with you that Pike are better in 3.0 than in 2.2 and maybe the Pike winning ties is a good suggestion. The Superior idea troubles me as so many troops in so many armies are also worthy of being considered as Superior, so why just allow it for Pike? I think a 6Pk element for Swiss and Macedonian Hypaspists may be a solution. It reflects the more rapid movement of lighter armoured troops, the Swiss allegedly being able to charge in formation at a run (storm pace). It would also reflect the rapid advance of the Swiss that caught the Burgundians time and again, but also leaves the first Double element loss counting as 2 elements towards your opponents victory total.The lack of manoeuvrability(ability to turn)of the Pike blocks in close combat coupled with the persuit rule also reflects the difficulty controlling the Swiss once in action, getting caught in bad going could be disastrous and the battle line is not shrunk by doubling up elements. The only reservation about the 6Pk is would they be right in the case of the Hypaspists in combat vs Theban 8SP? The Swiss are already almost unique in using 6Bd... 6Pk wouldn't be too much of a step in the same direction reflecting their use of a deep column formation in Early and Late armies.😊 |
|
|
|
Post by Roland on May 22, 2020 23:14:14 GMT
I agree with you that Pike are better in 3.0 than in 2.2 and maybe the Pike winning ties is a good suggestion. The Superior idea troubles me as so many troops in so many armies are also worthy of being considered as Superior, so why just allow it for Pike? I think a 6Pk element for Swiss and Macedonian Hypaspists may be a solution. It reflects the more rapid movement of lighter armoured troops, the Swiss allegedly being able to charge in formation at a run (storm pace). It would also reflect the rapid advance of the Swiss that caught the Burgundians time and again, but also leaves the first Double element loss counting as 2 elements towards your opponents victory total.The lack of manoeuvrability(ability to turn)of the Pike blocks in close combat coupled with the persuit rule also reflects the difficulty controlling the Swiss once in action, getting caught in bad going could be disastrous and the battle line is not shrunk by doubling up elements. The only reservation about the 6Pk is would they be right in the case of the Hypaspists in combat vs Theban 8SP? The Swiss are already almost unique in using 6Bd... 6Pk wouldn't be too much of a step in the same direction reflecting their use of a deep column formation in Early and Late armies.😊 Now _this_ I not only like but agree with the logic behind it. |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 23, 2020 20:12:51 GMT
The problem with 6Pk is keeping the combat factors as they are as we don't want to make them too powerful and spoil the ballance in the combat system. Adding the +1 combat factor for being a double element doesn't effect combat with mounted troops, but does with foot... adding +3 for Pk fighting foot(except Ps) And a +1 for being a double element vs foot in good going seems a little excessive, but I wouldn't want to tinker with the original combat factors.The easiest outcome is not to count the double element factor for 6Pk...this means no combat bonuses vs Ps but they didn't have that anyway.
The next consideration is Ikmjbc's suggestion that Pk win all combat ties? Could this be matched by counting the 6Pk as Solid in combat vs foot and Mounted or only foot? Or that be too much?
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on May 23, 2020 21:46:52 GMT
Losing the double element bonus but counting as having the (built-in) rear support makes good sense, haardrada.
Hypaspists though are still better as a 'improved' 4AX. Or make them 3BD. Although they should be better than AX against mounted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 24, 2020 14:41:02 GMT
Losing the double element bonus but counting as having the (built-in) rear support makes good sense, haardrada. Hypaspists though are still better as a 'improved' 4AX. Or make them 3BD. Although they should be better than AX against mounted. Sorry goragrad, I'm on the side of the Hypaspists could be Ax or Pk....I had a unit of each for my W.R.G 6th Edition army. 😊 |
|
|
|
Post by Roland on May 24, 2020 19:58:07 GMT
The problem with 6Pk is keeping the combat factors as they are as we don't want to make them too powerful and spoil the ballance in the combat system. Adding the +1 combat factor for being a double element doesn't effect combat with mounted troops, but does with foot... adding +3 for Pk fighting foot(except Ps) And a +1 for being a double element vs foot in good going seems a little excessive, but I wouldn't want to tinker with the original combat factors.The easiest outcome is not to count the double element factor for 6Pk...this means no combat bonuses vs Ps but they didn't have that anyway. The next consideration is Ikmjbc's suggestion that Pk win all combat ties? Could this be matched by counting the 6Pk as Solid in combat vs foot and Mounted or only foot? Or that be too much? Am I wrong in assuming that 6Pk don't actually exist currently?! So we treat 6Pk as double Pike? +1 support simply turns them into spears without flank support. Since, for Swiss, I'm interested in modeling not merely deep Kiels but actually spreading the frontage, would not spears still make sense?! ( especially as we are not creating anything genuinely new).
The Swiss are somewhat unique. Fast, aggressive and drilled. Among medieval lists there really isn't another analog ( the Scots certainly never managed anything near the combat effectiveness of the Swiss formations and the Low Countries contingents only found effectiveness in prepared defensive positions)
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 24, 2020 21:31:11 GMT
The problem with 6Pk is keeping the combat factors as they are as we don't want to make them too powerful and spoil the ballance in the combat system. Adding the +1 combat factor for being a double element doesn't effect combat with mounted troops, but does with foot... adding +3 for Pk fighting foot(except Ps) And a +1 for being a double element vs foot in good going seems a little excessive, but I wouldn't want to tinker with the original combat factors.The easiest outcome is not to count the double element factor for 6Pk...this means no combat bonuses vs Ps but they didn't have that anyway. The next consideration is Ikmjbc's suggestion that Pk win all combat ties? Could this be matched by counting the 6Pk as Solid in combat vs foot and Mounted or only foot? Or that be too much? Am I wrong in assuming that 6Pk don't actually exist currently?! So we treat 6Pk as double Pike? +1 support simply turns them into spears without flank support. Since, for Swiss, I'm interested in modeling not merely deep Kiels but actually spreading the frontage, would not spears still make sense?! ( especially as we are not creating anything genuinely new).
The Swiss are somewhat unique. Fast, aggressive and drilled. Among medieval lists there really isn't another analog ( the Scots certainly never managed anything near the combat effectiveness of the Swiss formations and the Low Countries contingents only found effectiveness in prepared defensive positions)
Yes Roland 6Pk do not exist,they are a concept in which they fight just the same as supported Pk,but move as fast foot and are still as vulnerable to shooting and the first element lost counts as 2 points towards victory (3 if it is the General). Sp may fit the bill if you like, but to me they fall short of the mark in several ways....Sp form in Phalanx 10 ranks deep but only the first 2 fight(Theban phalanxes could be up to 25 men deep these 8Sp). You could class Swiss Pikes as 8Sp but the Swiss fought in Squares or Columns(Keils), not lines.... and Sp are Solid foot and do not simulate the rapid movement of the Swiss. Your comparisons of the Swiss with the Scots and Lowland Pikemen is spot on. Of interest if you have not read it: battlefieldanomalies.com/swiss-military-tactics/ |
|
|
|
Post by Roland on May 24, 2020 23:33:32 GMT
I Agree about the Swiss Keil and square. As DBA is an abstract I was less interested in the shape of the formation and more interested in the comparative size advantage of the Swiss formations in comparison with their adversaries the Burgundians.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 25, 2020 7:46:49 GMT
I have liked the idea of Double-based Pikes because a block of 3x2 Pikes does not a Phalanx make (in my eyes). It is too easily outflanked by the Polybian Romans (8xBd Hastati/Pricipes and 2xSp Triarii). But from my reading it was disorder and local flanking from the more flexible Roman deployment that destroyed the Phalanx. After all, the Triplex Acies is quite deep when all the ranks are counted. This is well-represented by the Pursuit rule in DBA. I want to experiment with 6x8Pk for the Hellenistic armies at base CV +3 but Side-Support of +3 and pursue half a base depth. That way one element needs to pursue twice before being isolated. I think this will work well against Spears, which don't pursue so don't cause as much disorder and Blades, which do pursue and can seriously disorder the line.
But this has to wait as my Xyston Persians have arrived so back to the 5th Century BC.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by andrea on May 27, 2020 11:43:16 GMT
For me it would be sufficient to remove the QK of Kn against the Pk. 3/4 against foot/mounted, up to 6/5 with rear support is reasonable and not bad at all.
And when it comes to Swiss, I'd be glad to have more chances to set up terrains by reducing their aggression factors. But that is another story.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 27, 2020 21:31:57 GMT
Ah Pikes - the unsolvable problem in the 12 element game...
First the Swiss did indeed out number the Burgundians in all battles except Grandson which was more a comedy of errors than a battle. Nor were they able to achieve a decisive victory until Nancy by employing 3-4K mounted Confderacy troops as a pursuit force. Not to mention the 20K-8K number advance the Swiss enjoyed.
So pump the brakes on the Swiss being super troops (the 2K Swiss and German merc pikemen at Stoke fared badly).
The apparently swift movement comes from the advantage of masses of deeply deployed pikemen all moving in the same direction with no need to maneuver. In DBX terms it was a very PIP economically formation which could relentlessly advance.
So we don't need to mess with movement allowances. Instead we need to get to the heart of why small poor countries could field such large numbers of troops. It seems to stem from the sheer cost in equipment and training of fielding swordsmen, knights or longbows or even crossbows. Pike blocks needed mass, cohesion and determination something that seems abundant and almost inherent in small poor countries.
So to get Pikes correct we need cheaper pikemen - impossible in the 12 element game (but see D3H2 for a partial solution). If you want to stick to 12 elements your going to have to accept that one pike element represents a lot of pikemem in a deep formation. So they need to become +4 v. Foot +5 v. Mounted with the usual +3/+1 Rear Support. The resistance to shooting can be explained by heavier armor in the front ranks but more likely sheer bloody mindedness and the willingness to accept losses from missiles. (If it still bothers you have them only count +3 v. Shooting).
This collaterally solves the problem with Pike v. Knights (a problem inherited from DBMM which had a point system to compensate). Currently two Knights are +3! v. +4= against 2 Pikes - not at all bad for the Knights.
Pikes are formidable as a rolling bulldozer but not so much when brought to a halt - so they should not win on Equals - this represents close in shield to shield fighting at which the Pikes were at a distinct disadvantage as Machivelli noted in his the "Art of War" written in the 1500s.
While fixing heavy foot we should also remove Drive Off v. Mounted from Blades and reserve it for Pike/Spear only. By while at it if you want to add some spice and historical tactics give Cry Havoc to Blades v. Pike.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jun 1, 2020 8:28:04 GMT
Ah Pikes - the unsolvable problem in the 12 element game... First the Swiss did indeed out number the Burgundians in all battles except Grandson which was more a comedy of errors than a battle. Nor were they able to achieve a decisive victory until Nancy by employing 3-4K mounted Confderacy troops as a pursuit force. Not to mention the 20K-8K number advance the Swiss enjoyed. So pump the brakes on the Swiss being super troops (the 2K Swiss and German merc pikemen at Stoke fared badly). The apparently swift movement comes from the advantage of masses of deeply deployed pikemen all moving in the same direction with no need to maneuver. In DBX terms it was a very PIP economically formation which could relentlessly advance. So we don't need to mess with movement allowances. Instead we need to get to the heart of why small poor countries could field such large numbers of troops. It seems to stem from the sheer cost in equipment and training of fielding swordsmen, knights or longbows or even crossbows. Pike blocks needed mass, cohesion and determination something that seems abundant and almost inherent in small poor countries. So to get Pikes correct we need cheaper pikemen - impossible in the 12 element game (but see D3H2 for a partial solution). If you want to stick to 12 elements your going to have to accept that one pike element represents a lot of pikemem in a deep formation. So they need to become +4 v. Foot +5 v. Mounted with the usual +3/+1 Rear Support. The resistance to shooting can be explained by heavier armor in the front ranks but more likely sheer bloody mindedness and the willingness to accept losses from missiles. (If it still bothers you have them only count +3 v. Shooting). This collaterally solves the problem with Pike v. Knights (a problem inherited from DBMM which had a point system to compensate). Currently two Knights are +3! v. +4= against 2 Pikes - not at all bad for the Knights. Pikes are formidable as a rolling bulldozer but not so much when brought to a halt - so they should not win on Equals - this represents close in shield to shield fighting at which the Pikes were at a distinct disadvantage as Machivelli noted in his the "Art of War" written in the 1500s. While fixing heavy foot we should also remove Drive Off v. Mounted from Blades and reserve it for Pike/Spear only. By while at it if you want to add some spice and historical tactics give Cry Havoc to Blades v. Pike. TomT There are some good observations there TomT, the Swiss did of course outnumber the Burgundian in all the battles of the war including Hericourt.At Nancy the Burgundian army may only have consisted of 2-8K and was demoralised. Later in the Swabian war they were attacking more than one army, but several separate armies and often were outnumbered, sometimes 2-1 or nearly 3-1 at Dornach. I don't think the Swiss were super troops but the did perform well almost consistently, it was their tactical ability over the period which is worthy of note. At Stoke initially they were successful, but once the Yorkists were held and pushed back they stubbornly died were they stood.. according to Molinet they were "filled with arrows like a hedgehog". I do however, think that (probably as a house rule) the Swiss Pike men should have some sort of movement bonus given numerous examples of their initial attacks being made either by Suprise at short distance and/or at a rapid pace. The initial attack at Murten was made from as close as 1,000 yards, the flank attack at Nancy through dense forest and Snow, the complete Suprise at Dornach are a few examples. The amount of armour and equipment the Pike men carried most probably varied, the army at Murten had little or no armour according to Richard Vaughan but we can assume that in later battles the Swiss would have accumulated captured armour or bought some with their booty.In addition to this it worthy to note that the Swiss Pike varied in length, starting at 12-15ft and lengthened to 15-18ft by the 15th Century. Your suggestion to up the Pike combat factors to +4 vs Foot and +5 vs Mounted with the usual +3/+1 modifiers are interesting, but would this not make Pk too strong? The +3 factor vs shooting by the rules is adequate given historical examples of vulnerability. But if this solves the problem with Pk vs Kn as in DBMM it certainly has potential.. What did draw my attention was your reference to the ability to represent the movement of massed Pk in a straight line in DBX, which is pip efficient.... does this mean that DBX allows rapid movement of Pk?This is what I think is missing in DBA when Swiss Pk are graded as 4Pk,they are too slow... especially at the begin in of a game. My initial suggestion of changing of changing the 4Pk to a 6Pk element would solve the movement problem but is probably too radical as it could possibly mean rebasing and may be too much of an advantage. On looking into the rapid movement of the Swiss pike I noticed it was during the initial phase of the Battle that this took place and with varying success. The Battle of Marignano gives both examples of this. On day one the Swiss had Suprise and advanced rapidly against the French to be stopped and beaten back again and again, initially taking the guns but fatally not destroying them or dragging them away. On day two they were shot to pieces and made no headway anywhere else so retreated. This gave me the idea of allowing the Swiss Pk to make a secondary move like Ps in their first turn, pips allowing.. the second turn must be only in a straight line with no turning? The disadvantage of this is that your opponent could deploy set back, so allowing the second move until contact is made might be the answer... again this could be too much of an advantage? |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 3, 2020 22:28:36 GMT
In DBX rapid movement can come from a high MA or not having to stop and start due to not enough PIPs to move everything. I'm suggesting that a combined arms army with mounted, bow and heavy foot tends to need to break up into smaller groups to be effective. But Pike can just roll forward in a mass battle line or in columns which also helps maneuver. I think this is why the Swiss seemed to observers to be moving faster. At Nancy they went on a wide flank maneuver to avoid Burgundian shooting but seem to have fixed the Burgundians by demonstrating in front. Maybe they just had more PIPs!
The problem of course is we have such a small representative sample of historical battles v. the mass number of DBA games (all with players that have more experience than most medieval commanders who rarely fought more than one let alone hundreds of battles). It may just be that in DBX terms opposing armies didn't get many initial PIPs to respond to the mass of approaching Swiss in most battles. In other words for some reason opposing commanders were sluggish to respond and simply had not faced an army that just put its head down and went straight into combat with no preliminary maneuvering either politically or tactically.
I have wrestled with Pike even in Knights & Knaves where I literally have the power to fix everything and am not confined by troop types or 12 element limits. So I agree that perfect solutions are elusive. But for those wanting to stick to "pure" DBA 3.0 I strongly recommend D3H2 which has points so Pikes can be a bit cheaper and therefor more plentiful. This is the easiest solution (and doesn't involve changing any stats).
Thomas J. Thomas
Fame & Glory Games
|
|
