Everyone gets rear support!

I think the great thing about it is that it contributes to solving several problems. It gives Auxilia the ability to be more resilient, it makes depth a bigger factor meaning that Pike armies may no longer suffer from having a tiny front in comparison to everyone else and it provides a solution for the deployment limitations for heavy foot (deploy them deeper).

Probably also makes Psiloi armies stronger too as they can double up to be the equivalent of auxiliain strength

Perhaps simply because nobody thought of it...
...just as nobody thought of having LH ignoring corner-to-corner overlaps like Psiloi.
(see fanaticus.boards.net/post/30985/ )

I’d like to share some other observations that playtesting has revealed.

The Role Of Psiloi
In the old DBA 2.2 days, Psiloi gave rear-support to several other element types.
This led to Ps often being more useful behind the battlelines instead of them being in front,
as if they were 81mm mortars as MedievalThomas likes to say. This was cured in DBA 3.0
by having Ps ignore corner-to-corner overlaps and removing their rear support ability.
But this had the disadvantage of removing ‘Arrian’s Battle Order Against the Alans’ and
the Late Roman practise of having archers in the rear of their Blade and Auxiliary formations.

Shrimplyamazing’s ‘reduced heavy foot with universal rear support’ gives us the best of both worlds.
Now Ps are actually better when they are the front of an infantry column (CF 2+1 for rear support),
and if they recoil they become the rear of that column and give +1 by shooting overhead.
(If they flee, that’s good news for the Ps, as they avoid being destroyed, but they’ll run so far back
that they won’t be rear supporting those they fled through...and they’ll be facing the wrong way)

Note that this won’t work with a Pk or Wb column...Ps can flee through multiple ranks, but as page 9
Interpenetration says: “Recoilers move back to a clear space immediately behind the first element met”.

Why Have Pikes When You Can Have Spears?
Blade CF 4 +1 for rear support, and Pikes CF 3 +2 for rear support, and Spears CF 3 +1 for side-support
with another +1 for rear support, are all two deep columns with a CF of 5...and Spears don’t pursue.

I don’t see this as a problem, as Spears are CF 4 against mounted (unlike Blades), and Pikes supported
by other Pikes are also CF 4 against mounted with an extra +1 against heavy mounted (i.e. Kn/HCh/SCh/Ele).

Players can still have their Blades and Spears in a single rank against Pikes if they wish, and fight with a
combat disadvantage against a Pike column, just as they do at present...but they could also fight equally
against the pikes if they too adopt column formations and reduced their battleline to match that of the pikes.

Anyway, Philip II of Macedon and his lad Alex the Great used their phalangite pikemen to pin the the enemy
so that their heavy mounted could deliver the decisive blow, not simply punch through with their pikemen.
And Blades v Pikes were evenly matched historically, with the Blades usually winning rather than losing.

However, these changes will mean that Pikemen are better than they are at present:-
    In Rough Going, with no support, Blades will be CF 4 and Spears/Pikes will be CF 3.
    In Bad Going, with a -1 as well, Blades will be CF 3 and Spears/Pikes will be CF 2.
So Spears have the advantage of not pursuing but are more vulnerable when they lose their
side-support, and Pikes have the advantage against heavy mounted.
Seems pretty balanced to me.

Hmmm...I don’t think that giving Pikes side-support as well as rear-support is a good idea Greedo.
Pikes, with their smaller shields and two-handed weapons, can’t form ‘shield walls’ for one thing.
It’ll make Spears and Pikes the same as each other.
And it will make advancing in echelon (a common tactic for pikes of all periods) practically suicide.
They could only operate in nice neat dead straight lines...like Hoplites (so much for historical realism).

Mind you, it’s what HoTT does.
A single Spear in HoTT has a CF of 4...a column of HoTT Spears has a combat factor of 4+1 (effectively ‘pikes’).
But then again, HoTT Spears don’t have any of the following:-
HoTT Spears don’t pursue (would you have a single Spear NOT pursuing, but a column of Spear DO pursue?).
HoTT Spears don’t get rear bonuses against heavy mounted (well...they do sort of...the +1 rear-support  is against everyone, even Rider-Cavalry).
HoTT Spears don’t have side-support (they need to be two-deep to equal the HoTT Bd CF of 5, thus always have a shorter battleline...a disadvantage).
HoTT Spears giving rear-support are destroyed when the front Spears are destroyed (without needing to be ‘flanked’).


As for “a single element of pikes are slightly stronger against unsupported foot”:-
                                              Currently        Proposed
A single Pk v a single Ps    =   CF 3 v CF 2     CF 3 v CF 2
A single Pk v a single Bow =   CF 3 v CF 2     CF 3 v CF 2
A single Pk v a single Ax   =   CF 3 v CF 3     CF 3 v CF 3
A single Pk v a single Wb  =   CF 3 v CF 3     CF 3 v CF 3
A single Pk v a single Sp   =   CF 3 v CF 4     CF 3 v CF 3
A single Pk v a single Bd   =   CF 3 v CF 5     CF 3 v CF 4
(Combat against mounted opponents is unchanged)

Oh, the Spears will need to be in nice neat straight lines (or have ‘universal rear-support’) to get their current CF,
but that is just emphasizing the historical nature of Hoplite warfare on our wargames table.
And Bd will be a bit weaker than at present, but still have the advantage (unless they fight historically, in multiple lines...
...8 ranks of hastati in front, with 8 ranks of principes or 8 ranks of Ps or 8 ranks of trarii behind them, fighting 16 ranks
of pikemen, with both opposing battlelines the same length).


The Myth About Blades v Pikes
Because Polybius wrote a whole chapter about how a pike phalanx operated, and how it became disordered by
rough going, there is a common misconception among historians, wargamers, and even rule writers, that all the
Blade victories over the Pikes were due to ‘terrain disorder’.
This is untrue, and not borne-out by the historical accounts.
There was no rough/bad going at Cynoscephalai in 197 BC (indeed, the Pk were uphill and were attacked in the rear).
There was no rough/bad going at Pydna in 168 BC (where the Romans infiltrated their way between the pike columns).
There was no rough/bad going at Chaeronea in 86 BC or Orchomenus in 85 BC (where Sulla defeated the Mithridatic
pike phalanx after seeing-off their Scythed Chariots).
Yes, Blades had an easier time against a disordered pike phalanx...but they were quite capable of matching and
besting Pikes in good going as well...when they fought in their traditional multiple-line formation that is.

New question:
If a supported element is destroyed, does it take the supporting element with it? Could be another choice esp when bd facing wb.

The greater concern is for the Republican Roman - with over a 60 percent chance of 'winning' the BD will be advancing into a single or double overlap.  And as the odds of the opposing WB being destroyed are only 2 in 36 it will be either 4 vs 4 or 3 vs 4 for the Roman on the following combat with then a 40+ to 60+ percent probability of being destroyed.

With that in mind, I would lay odds that the Roman puts the triarii front and center  as a.) they aren't impetuous and won't be advancing into overlaps, and b.) they are the weaker unit head to head and so less of an overall strength loss when destroyed.

At least against the Gallic or Galatian lists.

This does presume that the Roman line is 4 elements wide with a second in support - if I am the Gauls, I will be coming with a 4 element wide frontage and if the Roman is looking to deploy 'historically,' will have an overlap from the first contact.

Of course the Roman might well use the PS in rear support to expand out to a width of 5 or 6 elements as the Gauls and Galatians have a slight advantage in CVs and mobility with their remaining elements.

Back to SP, my understanding is that SP got side support from BD in DBA 3 due to a desire to improve the performance of triarii.  Similarly the 'shieldwall' side support from fellow SP was an attempt to give Dark Age (as seen by the term) spear armies a chance against the Viking BD (upgraded from WB because they weren't performing well enough).

These were 'bandaids' to improve the performance of underpowered Sp in particular cases.

With the reduced CV, they just become weaker against foot across the board.

If supporting ranks are also destroyed when their front element is destroyed, you could have much shorter games. Not sure that's a good outcome.

Don't hate the idea of removing compulsory Bd pursuit though; better to make it optional. That would show the flexibility of Bd.

Sp should keep side support. It's a fine idea that feels right and works, whether a band-aid or not. Solid Bw side support from solid Bd is a whole different matter entirely.