|
|
3Pk???
Jun 5, 2021 21:05:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by Haardrada on Jun 5, 2021 21:05:23 GMT
Are 3Pk under-rated or a broken element? I notice that 3Pk don't seem to have a lot of fans or is it that genuine fans don't big them up? Are there players who have had a measure of success with 3Pk armies or are they an element that under-performs?
|
|
|
|
3Pk???
Jun 5, 2021 21:31:27 GMT
Post by timurilank on Jun 5, 2021 21:31:27 GMT
I have four armies that field them; the Picts, Free Canton Dithmarschen, the Portuguese and Spanish.
Against their historical opponents, the Picts did not fare well, but the other three do.
I must confess, the last game with the Picts was five years ago and skills have sharpened since then.
|
|
|
|
3Pk???
Jun 5, 2021 23:46:56 GMT
Post by stevie on Jun 5, 2021 23:46:56 GMT
I’ve always thought that ‘3Pk’ were a bit of a fake troop definition, with no basis in reality.
I mean, they are supposed to be spearmen that hold their spears in both hands, yet they
live in regions where they cannot fight, such as difficult hilly Picts and the Northern Welsh.
One would have thought that warriors living in such regions would be adapted to fight in
their terrain, not choose to use a battle technique that is totally unsuitable for that region.
I strongly believe that ‘3Pk’ is nothing more than an attempt to counter the DBA 2.2+
breakaway group’s ‘fast Spear’…after all, there is a lot of HoTT fantasy in DBA…
|
|
|
|
3Pk???
Jun 6, 2021 8:28:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by martin on Jun 6, 2021 8:28:48 GMT
They’re a bit of a weird element...a transformation from DBM (or DBMM?) 3Ax (x). Tries to fill a poorly defined gap.
I’ve enjoyed using their speed to close....inc. a tournament win with N Welsh + English ally. The block of 3Pk’s charged headlong into enemy lines, and enjoyed spiking Bw elements in particular (6 v 2).
On a bad day they bounce off solid foot. On a good day it’s all over by turn three 😊
|
|
|
|
3Pk???
Jun 6, 2021 8:41:42 GMT
Post by snowcat on Jun 6, 2021 8:41:42 GMT
Any reliable examples of Pk(F) fighting as deep as solid Pk? I have my doubts, and think they should probably be limited to not having rear support. And if that makes them useless, I don't care; either adjust the CF accordingly or get rid of them altogether.
|
|
|
|
3Pk???
Jun 6, 2021 10:26:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by Haardrada on Jun 6, 2021 10:26:32 GMT
They’re a bit of a weird element...a transformation from DBM (or DBMM?) 3Ax (x). Tries to fill a poorly defined gap. I’ve enjoyed using their speed to close....inc. a tournament win with N Welsh + English ally. The block of 3Pk’s charged headlong into enemy lines, and enjoyed spiking Bw elements in particular (6 v 2). On a bad day they bounce off solid foot. On a good day it’s all over by turn three 😊 This is along th lines I was thinking,fast,a good combat factor vs mounted and against foot with rear support and can keep pace with Kn.Ok they bounce off Solid troops like other fast foot and don't like bad going like Solid Bd,Pk,Sp & HD...so why arn't thy more popular? |
|
|
|
3Pk???
Jun 6, 2021 11:28:03 GMT
via mobile
Post by kaiphranos on Jun 6, 2021 11:28:03 GMT
Any reliable examples of Pk(F) fighting as deep as solid Pk? I have my doubts, and think they should probably be limited to not having rear support. And if that makes them useless, I don't care; either adjust the CF accordingly or get rid of them altogether. Hittite foot are classed as fast pike, but seem to have fought in relatively deep formation. Arguably they should just be reclassified as solid pike or solid auxilia though. |
|
|
|
3Pk???
Jun 6, 2021 14:23:01 GMT
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jun 6, 2021 14:23:01 GMT
I like them and they have been successful especially the Nanzhou's Bamboo Freight Train.
Solid Aux on the other hand.....
|
|
|
|
3Pk???
Jun 6, 2021 16:54:30 GMT
via mobile
Post by greedo on Jun 6, 2021 16:54:30 GMT
Ive always thought the difference between fast and solid should be to remove the win on ties against fast and just have fast -1 cv vs foot. And solid get penalized in rough.
Controversial I know and will cause some other problems but I think it would make the troops different so that every troop type has a use.
|
|
|
|
3Pk???
Jun 6, 2021 22:34:00 GMT
Post by snowcat on Jun 6, 2021 22:34:00 GMT
Ive always thought the difference between fast and solid should be to remove the win on ties against fast and just have fast -1 cv vs foot. And solid get penalized in rough. Controversial I know and will cause some other problems but I think it would make the troops different so that every troop type has a use. I have thought the same for a while. I think the problem with this though is it nerfs some of the troops with low starting CFs. In other words, it redresses the balance a bit too strongly. But it would bring a swift end to the decision to automatically opt for the Fast troop when given the chance.
I also think the non-negative to solid troops in Rough is highly generous. I suspect many formed close order troops would find certain 'rough' going disadvantageous and annoying.
So we're on a similar wavelength here.
|
|
|
|
3Pk???
Jun 6, 2021 22:42:42 GMT
Post by snowcat on Jun 6, 2021 22:42:42 GMT
Back to 3Pk: moving swiftly through all terrain while holding pikes in especially deep formations providing rear support to those in front = nonsense.
Again: who are the definitive 3Pk who fought in formations deeper than 8-10 ranks? And did all of the above?
And if anyone claims that 3Pk should get rear support just because their friends are right behind them, then sign yourself up for Universal Rear Support immediately.
|
|
|
|
3Pk???
Jun 7, 2021 0:40:24 GMT
via mobile
Post by greedo on Jun 7, 2021 0:40:24 GMT
Back to 3Pk: moving swiftly through all terrain while holding pikes in especially deep formations providing rear support to those in front = nonsense. Again: who are the definitive 3Pk who fought in formations deeper than 8-10 ranks? And did all of the above? And if anyone claims that 3Pk should get rear support just because their friends are right behind them, then sign yourself up for Universal Rear Support immediately. Didn’t rear support gets lost when in rough? As for the solid fast thing, I’d actually +1 to solid stuff at the low level (4Ax, 4Bw etc) and subtract from fast at the higher levels (3Bd) and you’d need a modification of like rear support, but agreed. This is a 3Pk discussion  |
|
|
|
3Pk???
Jun 7, 2021 1:49:16 GMT
Post by snowcat on Jun 7, 2021 1:49:16 GMT
Back to 3Pk: moving swiftly through all terrain while holding pikes in especially deep formations providing rear support to those in front = nonsense. Again: who are the definitive 3Pk who fought in formations deeper than 8-10 ranks? And did all of the above? And if anyone claims that 3Pk should get rear support just because their friends are right behind them, then sign yourself up for Universal Rear Support immediately. Didn’t rear support gets lost when in rough? As for the solid fast thing, I’d actually +1 to solid stuff at the low level (4Ax, 4Bw etc) and subtract from fast at the higher levels (3Bd) and you’d need a modification of like rear support, but agreed. This is a 3Pk discussion Yes, rear support only applies in good going. But that doesn't stop the mystical 3Pk from moving around in deep formations through all manner of terrain and getting rear support the moment they pop out. Who were they exactly? |
|
|
|
3Pk???
Jun 7, 2021 6:11:10 GMT
Post by barritus on Jun 7, 2021 6:11:10 GMT
Some time back I proposed that most Fast troops get a -1 vs most mounted when in open going. This would make 3Pk less attractive.
Having said that if treating 3Pk in isolation (ie without considering the broader aspects of Fast foot) I would certainly agree that removing rear support for 3Pk is a good option - the idea that they charge around at speed in very deep formations (ie around 16 ranks as do slower Solid pike) whilst retaining some type of order is historical nonsense.
cheers
B.
|
|
|
|
3Pk???
Jun 7, 2021 6:39:04 GMT
Post by macbeth on Jun 7, 2021 6:39:04 GMT
I can remember back in the early days of DBA3 where I proposed the 'A' concept of '3Pk' before the concept of fast and solid troops bubbled up from the brain of our lord and master. In my defence learned friends: 1) I was already aware that the concept of 3Sp was going to be abolished. 2) At this point in time Ax were still only +2 against mounted. 3) I have been fanatically opposed to the DBM(M) concept of Ax(X) - counting as Ax(S) against mounted and AX(I) against foot - the best kind of Ax in the worst situations and the worst kind of Ax in the best situations HELL NO!!!!!! 4) I sure as hell didn't want my Pre Feudal Scots to become an army of Ax 5) PB had already proposed some difference in Kn between 3Kn and 4Kn (fortunately some of the wilder suggestions did not take).  6) My proposal was for them to be as Pk (=3/+4) but to be able to move through and fight in bad going unpenalized, but not get rear support. This was not a blanket proposal for fast troops (which didn't exist at the time) but just a way to differentiate a group of spearmen that were about to be left in the cold. Fate took us in a different direction and we must now live with the consequences. On the other hand - if you don't mind cheesy play with these boys (I sit back and await the brutal but well deserved attacks from Stevie and Snowcat) - with such a long strike range (3BW) you can form a single element deep line with your 3Pk and then from just inside 3BW range, with 3PIPs you can slam 3 columns into the weakest part of your enemy's line as 3 sets of 2 elements form column for 1 PIP each and then slide into contact No one will love you for this. Cheers |
|
