|
Post by Cromwell on Jan 10, 2022 20:12:01 GMT
Today using my 6mm late Medieval figures I fought three battles between later Swiss IV/79b and Medieval German IV/37c.
I played the Swiss and my Solo system played the Germans. I was brutally dealt with in each battle.
It seemed my pikes were very brittle against the Germans 6Kn. I tried Pikes with rear support and invariably they were ridden down resulting in my losing two elements. Single Pikes seemed to go even more easily. I tried Pikes inter spaced with blades supported by skirmishers. Nothing seemed to blunt this juggernaut!
Any helpful tips or suggestions?
I think one problem was with the Swiss high aggression I was always fighting on arable. I think the Swiss hills might have helped.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jan 10, 2022 21:10:28 GMT
Cromwell,
The compulsory BUA can be a hamlet (rough going) and I would leave the road in the terrain box. In addition, arable terrain does include difficult hills, wood, scrub and boggy ground, The latter two are ideal as pike will recoil on a less than result, this is where the single rank of pike and psiloi will shine.
Experiment with Swiss deployment. Pike need not be in four columns of two elements each. Weigh the advantage of echelon deployment versus line abreast.
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 10, 2022 22:29:35 GMT
Sure... Terrain is key... I also strongly suggest the change...
Pikes win ties with all non-pikes.
Doing this will yield some good results...
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 10, 2022 22:42:08 GMT
Here is some more of my thinking concerning Pike. I hope it is the edited version!
The Problem with Pike Pike (Pk) has suffered an unusual setback in DBA 3. The greater movement rates, improved rules for moving to contact, and the reclassification of the Pike troop type as impetuous would seem, at a cursory glance, to have improved the Pk troop type compared to earlier versions of DBA. Gone is the capability of a defender using simple geometric ploys to prevent a Pike phalanx from making contact in hand-to-hand combat. Banished is the need for large amounts of PIPs to keep those Pike formations fighting after they do finally contact.
Not all the changes were positive. Pike did have its rear support factor against most mounted cut to +1, but this is mitigated by foot classed as “Solid” (most Pike is rated as such) recoiling mounted on a tie (as an aside this change helps to better simulate the early Renaissance period). The addition of side support for Spear also is not much of a negative factor as the standard +5 (Spear with side support) vs +6 ((Pike with rear support) matchup will quickly break the Spear line, eliminating the side support. The improved capability of Pike to get to the enemy, enter combat with the enemy, and stay in combat would seem to vastly outweigh these small negative changes.
The Pike’s problems however quickly become apparent after playing a few games. The troop type has always suffered in DBA because of its lack of frontage. In ancient battles, non-pike -based armies facing pikes would shorten their lines in order to attempt to match the depth of their opponent, so as to prevent the Pike phalanx from breaking through their lines. This, coupled with the difficulty of commanding troops over a wide frontage, helped to keep Pike armies from being easily surrounded and destroyed. DBA, with its set limit of 12 elements per side, and the need for Pike elements to be deployed two- deep, has always struggled to simulate this. DBA 3 makes the issue worse than previous versions. The greater movement, improved movement to contact, and classification Pike as impetuous, actually work against the Pike troop type by allowing its enemies to more easily flank and engage the Pike phalanx. Envelopments that under 2.2 or earlier versions of DBA would take four or five turns to accomplish can now be done in two. The combat factors of the Pike simply aren’t high enough to produce the casualties needed for a breakthrough in that short number of turns. Defenders against Pike based armies don’t worry with deepening their lines or positioning reserves. They can instead expand their frontage and attempt an envelopment. An experienced Greek Hoplite player will recognize this and easily flank and destroy a Pike based army. The matchup between Pike based armies and Romans is even worse. The Roman Legionnaire Blade has always had the advantage against the Pike. One could of course argue from history that this should be the case. The Macedonians were unable to win any major victories over the Romans after Pyrrhus. Still, Pydna, Cynoscephalae and Magnesia were near run battles. Under DBA 3, Later Macedonian vs Early Imperial Romans is a slaughter. The Romans will easily outflank the Macedonians and make short work of them. The balance has shifted further against the Pike… The solution would seem to be found in upping the combat factor of the Pike, but this leads to some difficult balancing problems against other troop types. The addition of +1 to the factor of Pike vs Foot makes the Auxilia issue worse and produces bad effects against Bow, Warband, and Artillery.
So, I propose the following… : change the combat outcome for “Solid” foot on “If its total is equal to that of its opponent” to the following…
‘“Solid” foot Destroyed by foot if CP, CWg or Lit & in contact on 2 or more edges by enemy front edges. If not Pike, recoiled by “Solid” Pike, Otherwise no effect.’
This change increases the capability of a Pike phalanx to disrupt its enemy’s lines. While the Pike won’t become a killing machine, the improved outcome is just a recoil, the Pike phalanx does have a better chance to create breaks and dislocations in the enemy battle lines. In the following bounds the Pike will have a much greater chance of isolating and possibly destroying enemy infantry. Further, a Pike phalanx that is flanked has a better chance of recoiling its flankers. This prevents another flanked combat the next bound, where destruction is possible, and isolates the front attacking element so that it faces the wrath of the Pike phalanx alone! With this change, the Greek hoplites at Chaeronea are now forced to consider a reserve. The Roman Legionnaires at Pydna and Cynoscephalae will be driven to the rear and face the danger of being broken before their compatriots can engage the flanks of the Macedonian/Greek Pikes. The Swiss will be able to take their place as a formidable battlefield force, though they will still underperform compared to their historical record as DBA lacks factors for grading quality. Finally, this change allows the commander of a Pike army a slight amount more of flexibility. Pike in DBA must be deployed in two element ranks, otherwise it is hopelessly weak against enemy foot. With this modification, the single rank Pike is a more viable combat force, now enabled to stand for a time against Spear and slowly win against Auxilia.
This is an excerpt of my Slingshot article from a few years back.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jan 11, 2022 0:25:30 GMT
That is quite a subtle and effective suggestion Joe.
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 11, 2022 3:27:54 GMT
It has play tested at one tournament. I've done a ton of test games with it- both standard games and historical refights. So far, I think it works well.
Certainly, the historical games are much better. The Swiss will still underperform, as they should... with no grading factors.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jan 11, 2022 9:33:53 GMT
I suspect that Cromwell’s complaint about the Swiss fighting the Germans in arable is about aggression level - Swiss higher aggression than their opponent, so likely to be in enemy territory (which is arable). [??]
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jan 11, 2022 10:06:46 GMT
I suspect that Cromwell’s complaint about the Swiss fighting the Germans in arable is about aggression level - Swiss higher aggression than their opponent, so likely to be in enemy territory (which is arable). [??] This has been one of my thoughts as a Swiss player.Early Swiss armies were no less aggressive but seem to receive consideration that most of their battles were on home territory.Yet later Swiss although just as aggressive have a mixed number of battles on home and neighbouring territories particularly between 1474-1522 period.If the constant raiding by Swiss forces is not taken into consideration ,the Late Swiss (a) list is possibly treated unfairly but the (b) list only if fighting historical invaders(IV/13b,c & IV/85).Otherwise,the Late Swiss aggression value is justified. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_of_the_Old_Swiss_Confederacy
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jan 11, 2022 10:10:51 GMT
….and aggression rating is key when picking an army. EG High aggression Mongols and Skythians spend most games in enemy territory, crammed in by nasty terrain….it’s an issue. So you’ll rarely see them played….which is a shame.
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jan 11, 2022 10:37:24 GMT
….and aggression rating is key when picking an army. EG High aggression Mongols and Skythians spend most games in enemy territory, crammed in by nasty terrain….it’s an issue. So you’ll rarely see them played….which is a shame. Scouting values were the thing during the WRG Ancients era, but that seem to work the other way and wasn't really fair on Axilla type armies who needed heavy terrain but played on billiard boards.Something in between is what is needed....maybe a scouting total with each element having a value which can be added up,divided by 12 and added to a d6 instead of the current system.But it's factoring in the difference in some lists where the army was more/less aggressive in different periods.🤔
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jan 12, 2022 21:44:48 GMT
Several Points:
Knights are in general too effective v. Pike (due to them getting only a +1 Rear Support).
Swiss always massively outnumbered their opponents and you cannot simulate this in the 12 Element Game. It works much better in D3H2 where Pikes cost 1.5 and Knights 2. I strongly recommend this version for all historical scenerio type games. The 12 element game is meant to be more of a chess match than an historical reconstruction.
The easiest fix for Pikes is to have them get a general +2 for Rear Support but cost fewer points so you get more and hence can have large double ranked armies.
Have pondered Joe Collins suggestion that Pikes get Drive Off against all opponents instead of just Mounted and Fast. Will run this through my playtest group.
We need to fix Aggression concept. Choice of battlefield should relate to scouting. High Aggression you invade (so use opponent's terrain) but High Scouting value allows you to set up Terrain.
Solution to Mongols involves lower cost of LH which is also done in D3H2 and helps a lot.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by dave8365 on Feb 6, 2022 18:09:23 GMT
A while ago I developed a variant for the Macedonain/Punic wars where the general assumption was that a unit of Blades was a legion and a unit of Pikes was a phalanx - each representing approximately 4,000 to 4,800 men. I mounted my 15mm figures on 60mm wide bases, with a Roman unit being 8 figures on a 30mm deep base, and a pike unit being 18 figures on a 40mm base.
As for factors, I gave the Pikes a 5 against infantry, and a 5 rating against mounted, and Pk is not impetuous.
My Romans (representing a Consular Army) consisted of 4 Bd (Roman legions), 4 Bd (Latin/Italian Socii), 2 Ax or Wb (other allies), 1 Cav General (Roman/Latin Equites) and 1 Cav (Italian Socii). I did not represent the triarii or velites, choosing instead to incorporate these as constituate part of the Bd legion.
My Pike armies varied depending on whether it was representing a Pyrrhic, Macedonian, or Seleucid army; generally, the main battle line had 5 or 6 Pk, 1 or 2 Sp (if Pyrrhic), and a mix of Kn, Cv, Ax, Ps, and El.
The biggest impact on this addressed the issue Joe raised above - the differences in frontage between Pk armies under the rules as written, vs. the historical reality where armies would inevitably form a main battle line that was approimately equal to their opponents.
It made for fun games with fairly balanced armies where terrain played an important role, and the various Pk armies had enough variety to make things different and interesting.
Cheers, Dave
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Feb 9, 2022 18:26:59 GMT
Looks like an interesting solution to the "Pike Problem". Armies did not in fact form battle lines of equal length to opponents. Wise commanders had to find ways to use terrain and dispersed light troops to over come larger army's overlapping them. The Swiss for instance used their massive superiority in numbers to overlap and attack the flanks of the Burgundians resulting (finally) in a decisive victory.
The 12 element chess game just can't deal with this nor was it designed to do so. Light troops cost as much as Heavy Foot (each takes up one slot) so you can't spread out less dense light troops to offset massed heavies which helps compensate for sheer numbers.
Without mutilating the respective abilities of Pike armed troops v. close combat armed troops the problem cannot be solved without making Pikes cheaper (and light troops) than massed close combat trained and equipped troops.
One suggestion has always been to just fix two pike elements together and have them count as a single element (so it would be +6 v. Foot and for some reason only +5 v. Mounted). Problems arise from terrain interaction and attrition from missle troops. So nothing has ever come of it.
D3H2 does fix this (mostly) but I realize not everyone uses it, so experiments are welcome for the 12 element game.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Feb 9, 2022 18:44:43 GMT
Hi Tom. Is D3H2 available for download?
Cheers Simon
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Feb 12, 2022 1:28:05 GMT
Experiment with Swiss deployment. Pike need not be in four columns of two elements each. Weigh the advantage of echelon deployment versus line abreast. I started running my Swiss in an echelon formation ever since David Kuijt ('memba him?) showed it to me. I don't know if it actually helps them, but it looks really cool and I've had opponents tell me it messes with their minds. Psychological warfare! --So, it's at least of some value.
|
|