|
|
Post by pteros on Apr 29, 2024 14:13:58 GMT
Sorry for necro-answering, but this idea just hit me. The (in)famous "pike problem" is somehow "formation-related" i.e the longest battleline has an edge versus the deeper but shorter Pike-line, correct ? What if the "overlap" and "side to side" malus don't apply to an element IF the ennemy in front have less friendly element on his back ? If so, a column (like double Pk or Wb... or anything) is still a gambit/risky move, but much less brittle while the ennemy isn't REALLY flanking or playing the same gambit. Not tested yet. Any thought ? My gut feeling is to like the idea, but I’m sure there’s obvious complications I’m missing. How would DBEs work with this rule? |
|
|
|
Post by jouvain on Apr 29, 2024 15:50:15 GMT
Sorry for necro-answering, but this idea just hit me. The (in)famous "pike problem" is somehow "formation-related" i.e the longest battleline has an edge versus the deeper but shorter Pike-line, correct ? What if the "overlap" and "side to side" malus don't apply to an element IF the ennemy in front have less friendly element on his back ? If so, a column (like double Pk or Wb... or anything) is still a gambit/risky move, but much less brittle while the ennemy isn't REALLY flanking or playing the same gambit. Not tested yet. Any thought ? My gut feeling is to like the idea, but I’m sure there’s obvious complications I’m missing. How would DBEs work with this rule? Err... sorry, i don't know what's DBEs ^^. And, yet still untested, the idea is itching. Could be a partial remedy for "butterfly" LH, and give a little boost to Aux (becoming "depthfodder" or true "weak wing sider" to flank the ennemy in a column duel). But in DBA, side-effects, side-effects... i have to see what's the impact on Pike-free games. Unless, of course, one of the venerable ancients already have ! |
|
|
|
Post by pteros on Apr 29, 2024 16:00:25 GMT
My gut feeling is to like the idea, but I’m sure there’s obvious complications I’m missing. How would DBEs work with this rule? Err... sorry, i don't know what's DBEs ^^. And, yet still untested, the idea is itching. Could be a partial remedy for "butterfly" LH, and give a little boost to Aux (becoming "depthfodder" or true "weak wing sider" to flank the ennemy in a column duel). But in DBA, side-effects, side-effects... i have to see what's the impact on Pike-free games. Unless, of course, one of the venerable ancients already have ! DBE = Double based elements. 8Bw, 8Sp, 6Cv, 6Kn, 6Bd, etc |
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on May 1, 2024 17:44:20 GMT
I sometimes wonder if Pikes were as effective as history would have us believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by pteros on May 2, 2024 2:59:38 GMT
I sometimes wonder if Pikes were as effective as history would have us believe. The Macedonians used them effectively, and the Swiss, so if pikes aren’t as strong a troop type as Bd and Kn those armies will underperform. My heretical belief is that Bd are overpowered and that the historical success of Romans and some other Bd armies is a fair reflection of how Bd actually compares to other troop types. I personally like the idea that in a DBA context, all troop types are roughly equally effective, though I’m not sure how you’d balance Ax/Ps with Kn/Bd/El outside a point system. |
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on May 2, 2024 9:57:54 GMT
I sometimes wonder if Pikes were as effective as history would have us believe. The Macedonians used them effectively, and the Swiss, so if pikes aren’t as strong a troop type as Bd and Kn those armies will underperform. My heretical belief is that Bd are overpowered and that the historical success of Romans and some other Bd armies is a fair reflection of how Bd actually compares to other troop types. I personally like the idea that in a DBA context, all troop types are roughly equally effective, though I’m not sure how you’d balance Ax/Ps with Kn/Bd/El outside a point system. You get certain troop types that stood out as unique - Legionnaires being one of them. Unfortunately lumping them in with all the other blade doesn't really do them justice, but it is what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by pteros on May 2, 2024 13:40:46 GMT
Legionaries fought with javelin and short sword and were able to adjust their formations for close-order protection or to move effectively across terrain. Legionaries should be 4Ax.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on May 2, 2024 21:01:07 GMT
Legionaries fought with javelin and short sword and were able to adjust their formations for close-order protection or to move effectively across terrain. Legionaries should be 4Ax. This is an April Fool’s a month late, right… ?!! 😱😂😂😂 Please |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on May 2, 2024 23:11:32 GMT
Legionaries fought with javelin and short sword and were able to adjust their formations for close-order protection or to move effectively across terrain. Legionaries should be 4Ax. Heresy, utter heresy.  But I really think that there should be another type of foot element like 'Axe men' (Am) or the like with a CF of +4 against foot and as slow as Bd, but less disciplined... Don't we need a link between Bd and Ax? Maybe I should start a thread on this question in Rants & raves? |
|
|
|
Post by pteros on May 3, 2024 1:05:04 GMT
Legionaries fought with javelin and short sword and were able to adjust their formations for close-order protection or to move effectively across terrain. Legionaries should be 4Ax. Heresy, utter heresy. But I really think that there should be another type of foot element like 'Axe men' (Am) or the like with a CF of +4 against foot and as slow as Bd, but less disciplined... Don't we need a link between Bd and Ax? Maybe I should start a thread on this question in Rants & raves? I think it would be easier to beef 4Ax up (and define certain superior troops as 3Bd and not 4Ax) than it would be to make Bd weaker. Regardless, I apologize for dragging Ax and Bd discussion into this thread. Legionaries fought with javelin and short sword and were able to adjust their formations for close-order protection or to move effectively across terrain. Legionaries should be 4Ax. This is an April Fool’s a month late, right… ?!! 😱😂😂😂 Please Seeing as Bd is pretty much defined as “troops like Roman legionaries”, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 3, 2024 2:35:06 GMT
Legionaries fought with javelin and short sword and were able to adjust their formations for close-order protection or to move effectively across terrain. Legionaries should be 4Ax. Heresy, utter heresy. But I really think that there should be another type of foot element like 'Axe men' (Am) or the like with a CF of +4 against foot and as slow as Bd, but less disciplined... Don't we need a link between Bd and Ax? Maybe I should start a thread on this question in Rants & raves? Tweaked 4Wb? |
|
|
|
Post by gonatas on May 3, 2024 6:15:34 GMT
I sometimes wonder if Pikes were as effective as history would have us believe. I suppose the question is "effective at what". Di the Greek phalanx really expect to plough through their opponents in the way CF 3 plus 3 for second rank suggests? Macedonian and successor pike were good at fixing the enemy line - but how often were they decisive? Alexandrian battles were won by the cavalry. Seleucids perhaps relied more on their pike to grind out a victory. Is it a coincidence that scythed chariots are used at this time as a weapon designed to disrupt compact bodies of infantry. Swiss pike seem to have whizzed about, frightening the enemy - who knew they were about to have the fight of what was going potentially to be the rest of their short lives, and attacking them with the utmost of ferocity. A very different beast in my view to the classic Greek phalanx. If I had to undertake the difficult task of classifying the Greek phalanx in DBA terms I would put it in the horde category (sticks like glue and hard to defeat) but give it an extra combat factor or two). It should be destroyed if doubled or if it loses in cc while hard flanked (similar to a CP) Swiss pikemen, as I have suggested before, would be 6Bd. Having said that I appreciate it is easy to come up with simple sounding solutions while having forgotten the side effects so I shall pause there and wait to have the shortcomings of my suggestions explained to me. All the best Stephen |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 3, 2024 20:34:22 GMT
I sometimes wonder if Pikes were as effective as history would have us believe. I suppose the question is "effective at what". Di the Greek phalanx really expect to plough through their opponents in the way CF 3 plus 3 for second rank suggests? Macedonian and successor pike were good at fixing the enemy line - but how often were they decisive? Alexandrian battles were won by the cavalry. Seleucids perhaps relied more on their pike to grind out a victory. Is it a coincidence that scythed chariots are used at this time as a weapon designed to disrupt compact bodies of infantry. Swiss pike seem to have whizzed about, frightening the enemy - who knew they were about to have the fight of what was going potentially to be the rest of their short lives, and attacking them with the utmost of ferocity. A very different beast in my view to the classic Greek phalanx. If I had to undertake the difficult task of classifying the Greek phalanx in DBA terms I would put it in the horde category (sticks like glue and hard to defeat) but give it an extra combat factor or two). It should be destroyed if doubled or if it loses in cc while hard flanked (similar to a CP) Swiss pikemen, as I have suggested before, would be 6Bd. Having said that I appreciate it is easy to come up with simple sounding solutions while having forgotten the side effects so I shall pause there and wait to have the shortcomings of my suggestions explained to me. All the best Stephen I will second your reasoning here as In the wars of the Diadochi the Phalanx was often locking in combat but the decisive part of the battle took place on the wings....on one occasion the foot surrendered because their cavalry was beaten or driven off. The Swiss Pikes were different entirely....even from pike units of Scots and Lowlanders of their same era. Yes they were fast and should be regarded as fast foot due to the speed at which they could manouvere, but also regarded as Solid as they could take on and beat any formed foot they encountered. I'm not sure what "remedy" would be the best fit for either and how it would effect games by changing the rules.....plus I think it would be wrong to just give one type of troops special rules when lots of different troops were also exceptional.🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 4, 2024 3:00:10 GMT
I suppose the question is "effective at what". Di the Greek phalanx really expect to plough through their opponents in the way CF 3 plus 3 for second rank suggests? Macedonian and successor pike were good at fixing the enemy line - but how often were they decisive? Alexandrian battles were won by the cavalry. Seleucids perhaps relied more on their pike to grind out a victory. Is it a coincidence that scythed chariots are used at this time as a weapon designed to disrupt compact bodies of infantry. Swiss pike seem to have whizzed about, frightening the enemy - who knew they were about to have the fight of what was going potentially to be the rest of their short lives, and attacking them with the utmost of ferocity. A very different beast in my view to the classic Greek phalanx. If I had to undertake the difficult task of classifying the Greek phalanx in DBA terms I would put it in the horde category (sticks like glue and hard to defeat) but give it an extra combat factor or two). It should be destroyed if doubled or if it loses in cc while hard flanked (similar to a CP) Swiss pikemen, as I have suggested before, would be 6Bd. Having said that I appreciate it is easy to come up with simple sounding solutions while having forgotten the side effects so I shall pause there and wait to have the shortcomings of my suggestions explained to me. All the best Stephen I will second your reasoning here as In the wars of the Diadochi the Phalanx was often locking in combat but the decisive part of the battle took place on the wings....on one occasion the foot surrendered because their cavalry was beaten or driven off. The Swiss Pikes were different entirely....even from pike units of Scots and Lowlanders of their same era. Yes they were fast and should be regarded as fast foot due to the speed at which they could manouvere, but also regarded as Solid as they could take on and beat any formed foot they encountered. I'm not sure what "remedy" would be the best fit for either and how it would effect games by changing the rules.....plus I think it would be wrong to just give one type of troops special rules when lots of different troops were also exceptional.🤔 It's a big challenge to make Pike, Spear and Blade feel different and still remain relatively well matched. Swiss Pike could be dealt with a deeper formation like 8Bw, 6Kn, etc. I agree that pike phalanxes pinned enemy and could grind out a victory rather than punch through. I tried experimenting Pk at +4 that couldn't be recoiled, only destroyed when doubled, so they weren't overlapped often. But side support spears still crushed them, let alone blades. Still haven't found a good mix. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 4, 2024 4:04:12 GMT
I will second your reasoning here as In the wars of the Diadochi the Phalanx was often locking in combat but the decisive part of the battle took place on the wings....on one occasion the foot surrendered because their cavalry was beaten or driven off. The Swiss Pikes were different entirely....even from pike units of Scots and Lowlanders of their same era. Yes they were fast and should be regarded as fast foot due to the speed at which they could manouvere, but also regarded as Solid as they could take on and beat any formed foot they encountered. I'm not sure what "remedy" would be the best fit for either and how it would effect games by changing the rules.....plus I think it would be wrong to just give one type of troops special rules when lots of different troops were also exceptional.🤔 It's a big challenge to make Pike, Spear and Blade feel different and still remain relatively well matched. Swiss Pike could be dealt with a deeper formation like 8Bw, 6Kn, etc. I agree that pike phalanxes pinned enemy and could grind out a victory rather than punch through. I tried experimenting Pk at +4 that couldn't be recoiled, only destroyed when doubled, so they weren't overlapped often. But side support spears still crushed them, let alone blades. Still haven't found a good mix. Jim Have you considered using the rule of having no overlap in combat for Pike in combat similar to Ps..or would that have a significant side effect?It's a question of would loosing the negative factor for Pike being overlapped be significant change to the combat outcome? For me it would make it just a little more difficult to flank the Pk but not interfere too much with the combat factors and in a way simulate the way units had to contact the flanks of pike units to defeat them.It could also simulate the Pike unit forming a hedgehog formation or Swiss producing Halberdiers from their rear ranks to contest flanking of the main keil?🤔 If the negative flank factor doesn't work how about having a TZ for supported Pk similar to that of war wagons?This again could make it more difficult to contact the flank of supported Pk elements but not effect combat factors,as well as emulate Pk formations as above plus Pike squares? This would all need play-testing if not already tried? |
|
