My feeling is that the current MeG Maximus rules (and associated army lists) are not doing a great job at representing Hellenistic pike armies. (There is probably scope for a separate topic on Medieval pike armies).
My suggestion would be to change pike TuGs so that they would become UGs of 9 rather than 8.
Pike preferred charge and melee combat claims would become (not if affected, badly affected or vs Barricades incl BWg)
if in 3+ ranks: +3 vs Cv, Cm, Ch; +2 vs others
if in 2 ranks: +2 vs Cv, Cm, Ch; +1 vs others
Supporting files fighting enemy Pike would not downgrade a colour.
The rationale for these changes would be to give pike phalanxes a broader frontage, but to also encourage the flanks of the phalanx to be protected. Whether these changes would require a points change would need testing.
Richard
I like this suggestion as it also makes Pike less maneuverable inherently due to the frontage of 3.
The supporting files not downgrading would differentiate them from Long Spear - but in some circumstances is quite a big drawback, so I'd expect a 9 unit Pike unit might cost similar to what an 8 unit one does right now as a starting point.
Quote from: Hayung_is on January 10, 2025, 01:37:57 PM
The supporting files not downgrading would differentiate them from Long Spear
The same argument on flanks may well apply to classical LSp types as well.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on January 10, 2025, 01:48:36 PM
Quote from: Hayung_is on January 10, 2025, 01:37:57 PM
The supporting files not downgrading would differentiate them from Long Spear
The same argument on flanks may well apply to classical LSp types as well.
That would seem to be a slipper slope to start going down unless there was a distinct gameplay reason to include only classical LSp, or LSp at all.
Would be bit of a pain for people who've painted armies with units on a 4 base deep 'model' (ie usually 8 bases)
Would also leave pike units looking pretty similar to other foot units from a depth POV. Would seem a little odd from an aesthetic POV.
How confident are we that there is a problem that needs fixing? I've been playing with Pyrhic a bit lately and I find it pretty solid.
Martin
Quote from: martymagnificent on January 10, 2025, 09:54:34 PM
Would be bit of a pain for people who've painted armies with units on a 4 base deep 'model' (ie usually 8 bases)
Does anyone do this when making a MeG army? Would seem a bit odd given you need to remove bases as part of the game. I've seen (and do) half the bases done a double based on 40x40 (or 60x60 in 28mm), but don't think I've ever seen a 4 deep model approach.
Quote
How confident are we that there is a problem that needs fixing?
Something not quite right with Hellenistic armies IMO, and how the pike work is probably at the root of it.
Quote from: lionheartrjc on January 10, 2025, 12:12:37 PM
(There is probably scope for a separate topic on Medieval pike armies).
There probably is.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on January 11, 2025, 06:38:12 AM
Quote from: martymagnificent on January 10, 2025, 09:54:34 PM
Would be bit of a pain for people who've painted armies with units on a 4 base deep 'model' (ie usually 8 bases)
Does anyone do this when making a MeG army? Would seem a bit odd given you need to remove bases as part of the game. I've seen (and do) half the bases done a double based on 40x40 (or 60x60 in 28mm), but don't think I've ever seen a 4 deep model approach.
Quote
How confident are we that there is a problem that needs fixing?
Something not quite right with Hellenistic armies IMO, and how the pike work is probably at the root of it.
part of my pikes are on a 4cm/4cm base with two bases 4/4cm and 4 bases on 4/2 cm
now the idea of larger pike units makes sense, the 4 deep ranks is decades old and is a legacy of other games. the small pike units have always been very strange to me. changing to 3 deep 3 front will be annoying as people have tons of those pike units painted as 4/2. It does requier to paint only one more base so would not be that bad for those who like painting.
QuoteIt does requier to paint only one more base so would not be that bad for those who like painting.
Except that some suppliers do not suppmy europe anymore
I do not have had time to look at it but were the phalanxes more square or more rectangular is perhaps the first question to answer .
If changed the proposal makes the phalanxes more vulnerable to loses as there is no 4th rank to fill in the file loses and keep on fighting a little bit longer at full capacity and that gives the romans a huge bonus
So support file no colour loss but what if the "flank" is covered by another TUG within 1 MU ( same principle as flank charge )
So first thoughts but the idea is interesting
Another question is : should a phalanx be able to turn 90°
Quote from: badhabum on January 11, 2025, 10:59:19 AM
I do not have had time to look at it but were the phalanxes more square or more rectangular is perhaps the first question to answer .
If changed the proposal makes the phalanxes more vulnerable to loses as there is no 4th rank to fill in the file loses and keep on fighting a little bit longer at full capacity and that gives the romans a huge bonus
So support file no colour loss but what if the "flank" is covered by another TUG within 1 MU ( same principle as flank charge )
So first thoughts but the idea is interesting
Another question is : should a phalanx be able to turn 90°
Yes indeed losing a rank will be hurting more as now in melee it can lose its 4th without penality in melee.
Perhaps make Pike TUg 4 deep 3 wide ? 12 bases?
About the 90° if i remember well it was impossible for them to do so as the command structure would be totaly scewred.
I urge testing it out before commenting too deeply. A 3-file pike TuG can potentially do more damage than a 2-file 4 deep phalanx.
My suggestion for anyone with existing 8 base TuGs that need converting to a 9 base TuG might be to create an extra "command" base so that you don't need to match the exact models - but I realise this is not ideal if you have wonderfully painted 8-base TuGs. It is partly why I am raising this now - so that there is plenty of opportunity to consider.
I am of the opinion that turning a pike phalanx 90 degrees is really no more difficult than turning other formations 90 degrees. The first syntagma would wheel 90, then the next one would line up to it and so on. Doing it close to enemy would be risky, but it would be for other troops as well. I think it was because in MeG they were 2-files that the rule was introduced.
Keep it simple - the rule would be supporting files fighting a pike file would not downgrade their colour.
Against Romans - assuming same quality and melee expert, the Romans would be = at impact (IW vs pike), down if the pike remain 3 deep, = if the pike are 2 deep and +1 if the pike are down to 1 rank. The pikes may also have shove. If the flanks of the phalanx are unprotected then the Romans could take advantage. This seems about right to me. Veteran legions should be average pike. Average legion vs average pike with protected flanks could favour the Romans - particularly if the Velites can get a shot in first.
Richard
Richard
Would you suggest testing with current point cost for pike so each TuG is 90ish points more expensive?
Quote from: badhabum on January 11, 2025, 10:59:19 AM
I do not have had time to look at it but were the phalanxes more square or more rectangular is perhaps the first question to answer .
That's a fair question but not easily answered. The phalanx appears to have started out eight ranks deep like its hoplite precursors before possibly moving to 10 ranks and then apparently settling on 16 ranks as the 'norm'. However, it was not uncommon for commanders to halve the depth to eight, or double the depth to 32, in order to meet tactical requirements. Furthermore, the ground scale we have to use on the table top distorts the shape of formations so we are really looking for an impression rather than 100 percent technical accuracy.
More generally, I agree that the proposed changes would need to be thoroughly play tested before they were adopted and the points checked and adjusted if necessary. While MeG might not represent Successor armies perfectly, it does a reasonable job IMO, especially for a rule set that has to cover thousands of years of history rather than focussing on the wars of the Diadochi and/or against Republican Rome.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on January 11, 2025, 06:38:12 AM
Quote from: martymagnificent on January 10, 2025, 09:54:34 PM
Would be bit of a pain for people who've painted armies with units on a 4 base deep 'model' (ie usually 8 bases)
Does anyone do this when making a MeG army? Would seem a bit odd given you need to remove bases as part of the game. I've seen (and do) half the bases done a double based on 40x40 (or 60x60 in 28mm), but don't think I've ever seen a 4 deep model approach.
Quote
How confident are we that there is a problem that needs fixing?
Something not quite right with Hellenistic armies IMO, and how the pike work is probably at the root of it.
I explained myself poorly. I just meant made in units of 4, 8 or 12 bases. Not actually based that way. I, for example, recently painted 6x8 based units of pike. They are all different to each other so if this went ahead I would need to do one more base for each. Not the end of the world, but definitely annoying.
Martin
Quote from: SteveO on January 12, 2025, 01:23:01 AM
Quote from: badhabum on January 11, 2025, 10:59:19 AM
I do not have had time to look at it but were the phalanxes more square or more rectangular is perhaps the first question to answer .
That's a fair question but not easily answered. The phalanx appears to have started out eight ranks deep like its hoplite precursors before possibly moving to 10 ranks and then apparently settling on 16 ranks as the 'norm'. However, it was not uncommon for commanders to halve the depth to eight, or double the depth to 32, in order to meet tactical requirements. Furthermore, the ground scale we have to use on the table top distorts the shape of formations so we are really looking for an impression rather than 100 percent technical accuracy.
For Hellenistic pike phalanxes the answer is they would usually look rectangular.
16 ranks is (probably) the most common deployment depth. In rough terms a man with stand in a space about 1m x 1m (we can leave aside synaspismos at present). If we look at Gaugamela as a reasonable example Alexander had, IIRC, about 9000 pezetaroi so you have frontage of about 550m (plus any gaps between the sub-units) and a depth of about 20m (allowing for a bit of extra space before closing up).
IIt might be interesting to test but why 9 and not 12 bases ?
It will not be cheap that's a fact still thinking about it 8)
I reassure the players, it will not be tested at IWC that's 2 weeks away 8)
Quote from: badhabum on January 12, 2025, 04:49:42 PM
It might be interesting to test but why 9 and not 12 bases ?
It will not be cheap that's a fact still thinking about it.
I reassure the players, it will not be tested at IWC that's 2 weeks away
12 would be disproportionate to other TuGs with no historical justification.
Richard
Quote
12 would be disproportionate to other TuGs with no historical justification.
Disproportionate to what Richard - Republican Roman TuGs in fives or sixes? What historical size formations are our Tactical Unit Groups (TuGs) meant to represent? Maniples, centuries or cohorts in the case of the Romans?
Pentacosiarchia or
merarchia in that of the pike armies? As there is no fixed troop scale aren't we going for the right 'look and feel'?
Steve
I like this idea enough to try it out even if I have to rebase a bit (i have 1/2 of my pikes double based and half single based for easy of maneuver). I have stopped running pike armies despite loving the Hellenistic period because the narrow frontage makes the point cost too high. They are simply too easy to avoid by troops you can beat. This would help a lot.
Richard, if I want to test this, how should I cost out the unit? Same price per stand? I personally think that while the cost seems reasonable for the combat factors, the narrow frontage and limits to maneuver make pikes a bit overpriced for my taste. If we keep the rules limiting maneuver but increase the frontage, do we keep the cost the same?
Kudos to Richard for coming up with a possible way to make Hellenistic pikes worthwhile, or at least enough better I might get my Seleukids off the shelf once in awhile.
/
I
0
I
Quote from: SteveO on January 12, 2025, 10:08:53 PM
Quote
12 would be disproportionate to other TuGs with no historical justification.
Disproportionate to what Richard - Republican Roman TuGs in fives or sixes? What historical size formations are our Tactical Unit Groups (TuGs) meant to represent? Maniples, centuries or cohorts in the case of the Romans? Pentacosiarchia or merarchia in that of the pike armies? As there is no fixed troop scale aren't we going for the right 'look and feel'?
Steve
I think historically aside, 12 unit TuGs would be so expensive you would reintroduce the same problem I think is trying to be solved - frontage, as well as creating problems for lists like Alex Macedonian which struggle to field enough TuGs as it is. Unless the cost per base was reduced significantly which I don't think you could justify given the factors for Pike.
Quote from: AntiokosIII on January 13, 2025, 01:54:17 AM
I like this idea enough to try it out even if I have to rebase a bit (i have 1/2 of my pikes double based and half single based for easy of maneuver). I have stopped running pike armies despite loving the Hellenistic period because the narrow frontage makes the point cost too high. They are simply too easy to avoid by troops you can beat. This would help a lot.
Richard, if I want to test this, how should I cost out the unit? Same price per stand? I personally think that while the cost seems reasonable for the combat factors, the narrow frontage and limits to maneuver make pikes a bit overpriced for my taste. If we keep the rules limiting maneuver but increase the frontage, do we keep the cost the same?
Kudos to Richard for coming up with a possible way to make Hellenistic pikes worthwhile, or at least enough better I might get my Seleukids off the shelf once in awhile.
Funnily enough I've approached this problem by downgrading Pike to poor, which is a work-around to be sure but generally you can get a 4 poor pike for the price of 2 average + 300 points. The +1 factor means you can still hold troops in place and cavalry still want nothing to do with them.
So in frontage is all you're after, its one way to do it.
Is pike maneuverability something that comes up for others? For drilled Pike, doing a double to turn and then move when >4BW from an enemy is functionally the same. The only other time I could see it being a factor is capitalising on a breakthrough, which for Pikes won't be very common (fighting multiple enemy TuGs usually).
The base width shift while advancing (or double shift if double moving) can be very valuable for drilled pike. Helps you get in the face of things that want nothing to do with you.
Martin
Quote from: AntiokosIII on January 13, 2025, 01:54:17 AM
Richard, if I want to test this, how should I cost out the unit? Same price per stand?
For testing, I would suggest keeping the same points per base (it means you can use the existing army builder). I would welcome to hear how you get on.
Richard
Quote
Funnily enough I've approached this problem by downgrading Pike to poor, which is a work-around to be sure but generally you can get a 4 poor pike for the price of 2 average + 300 points. The +1 factor means you can still hold troops in place and cavalry still want nothing to do with them.
So in frontage is all you're after, its one way to do it.
Poor pike are more vulnerable for shooting. does not feel right
Quote from: Jilu on January 13, 2025, 10:12:17 AM
Poor pike are more vulnerable for shooting. does not feel right
Depends if you feel pike should be more vulnerable to shooting given their smaller shields :D
How would people feel if pikes were generally Tribal with some of the better ones Formed and maybe a few Drilled to stand out? It would help significantly with the cost issue and it's always been sort of weird to me that pikes are some of the most nimble formations in MeG; sure they can't turn 90 and move but neither can most infantry when they're 3 wide. Obviously the men in the formation would be drilled in order to stay in formation and move at all; but I'm skeptical they could have pulled off the same level of battlefield maneuver as a comparable sized unit of legionnaires.
Quote from: Manzikert on January 13, 2025, 08:29:30 PM
How would people feel if pikes were generally Tribal with some of the better ones Formed and maybe a few Drilled to stand out?
Answer: respectfully, not much.
While the average Successor pikemen might not have reached the skill and training levels of Philip and Alexander's foot companions, most were still trained professionals whose formations were fairly flexible and adaptable within the constraints of being 16 (normally) ranks deep armed with very long pointy sticks. Of all the solutions offered so far for fixing the phalanx's frontage issue in MeG, Richard's seems to offer the best prospects IMO. The trickier bit might be the points.
Quote from: Hayung_is on January 13, 2025, 11:27:05 AM
Quote from: Jilu on January 13, 2025, 10:12:17 AM
Poor pike are more vulnerable for shooting. does not feel right
Depends if you feel pike should be more vulnerable to shooting given their smaller shields :D
Small Shields for Alex-Mac perhaps? not for the later armies
Quote from: Hayung_is on January 13, 2025, 11:27:05 AM
Quote from: Jilu on January 13, 2025, 10:12:17 AM
Poor pike are more vulnerable for shooting. does not feel right
Depends if you feel pike should be more vulnerable to shooting given their smaller shields :D
Smaller shields but also a wall of wooden sticks that could limit the effect of archery and or javelins ..but difficult to say as reenact it would be very costly indeed dinding enough reenactors would be a first problem
Quotetrained professionals whose formations were fairly flexible and adaptable within the constraints of being 16 (normally) ranks deep armed with very long pointy sticks.
But this is the limitation I'd like to see represented. They were certainly drilled, they'd have to be to maintain their formation. But from a 10,000 foot view the formation wouldn't have been as maneuverable as other infantry without those constraints. That's why I don't think they're best represented as the highest level of maneuverability. Maybe formed would sound better, but tribal seems to reflect their actual battlefield limitations better. Can't wheel during a double move, back-up with great difficulty, trouble creating new files or turning to face a threat from an unexpected direction. And then they wouldn't be able to turn 90/180 and move without requiring a special exception in the rules.
Quote from: Manzikert on January 15, 2025, 09:33:53 PM
Quotetrained professionals whose formations were fairly flexible and adaptable within the constraints of being 16 (normally) ranks deep armed with very long pointy sticks.
But this is the limitation I'd like to see represented. They were certainly drilled, they'd have to be to maintain their formation. But from a 10,000 foot view the formation wouldn't have been as maneuverable as other infantry without those constraints. That's why I don't think they're best represented as the highest level of maneuverability. Maybe formed would sound better, but tribal seems to reflect their actual battlefield limitations better. Can't wheel during a double move, back-up with great difficulty, trouble creating new files or turning to face a threat from an unexpected direction. And then they wouldn't be able to turn 90/180 and move without requiring a special exception in the rules.
In conjunction with this change to 3wide 9 base I might try out formed/tribal. The downside is there is less granularity between the well trained pike and the rubbish pike in armies.
We know from historical drill manuals that Hellenistic pike had drills for doubling and halving their ranks, wheeling 90 degrees and turning 180.
The turn 90 as represented in MeG I'm not so sure was that simple (for any troops), given that a file was the elemental unit and each man had a specific place in the file based on how experienced he was. It's not just a case of everybody doing a right turn on the spot.
Quote from: Hayung_is on January 16, 2025, 12:10:13 AM
Quote from: Manzikert on January 15, 2025, 09:33:53 PM
Quotetrained professionals whose formations were fairly flexible and adaptable within the constraints of being 16 (normally) ranks deep armed with very long pointy sticks.
But this is the limitation I'd like to see represented. They were certainly drilled, they'd have to be to maintain their formation. But from a 10,000 foot view the formation wouldn't have been as maneuverable as other infantry without those constraints. That's why I don't think they're best represented as the highest level of maneuverability. Maybe formed would sound better, but tribal seems to reflect their actual battlefield limitations better. Can't wheel during a double move, back-up with great difficulty, trouble creating new files or turning to face a threat from an unexpected direction. And then they wouldn't be able to turn 90/180 and move without requiring a special exception in the rules.
In conjunction with this change to 3wide 9 base I might try out formed/tribal. The downside is there is less granularity between the well trained pike and the rubbish pike in armies.
Formed/tribal, what about the effects on the elephants ? would need to have a look at combat factors too
NGL, the longer I've had to mull over these proposed changes, the more I'd really like to see these as the default rules for all pikes in general, should play testing go well.
Pike "noodles" tend to just generally behave strangely, and I have a feeling these proposed rules would help a lot with that.
The suggestion to make pikes units generally Tribal to represent their (relatively) restricted ability to maneuver also sounds promising, and would synergize well with the improved supporting files ability.
(As far as tribal pikes interacting with elephants: the elephants would be net +1 on the charge and mostly tied in the melee.
Anecdotally: those are the relative claims I personally look for when hunting elephants.
Elephants would be just as poorly served charging tribal pikes as they would be charging drilled LS.)
I played 2 games yesterday using the proposed Helenistic pike changes. I used 3x 9 stand pike units, first against Northern Tang and second against Thracian Hill tribes. Both were competitive games in which the pikes dominated the center of the table, giving the Early Seleukid cavalry room to attack and benefiting from flank support from elephants, Thorakitai, and Thracian mercenary troops. The extra frontage was very important.
Both my opponents were initially skeptical about the change. Both made use of overlaps to their benefit (still dubious of the rationale for this) but over two games I lost only one pike block.
Both of my opponents said by the end of the game that the changes made pikes more cost effective and made them look and behave a bit more like ancient accounts.
Quote from: Doomsmile on January 16, 2025, 08:45:30 PM
NGL, the longer I've had to mull over these proposed changes, the more I'd really like to see these as the default rules for all pikes in general, should play testing go well.
Pike "noodles" tend to just generally behave strangely, and I have a feeling these proposed rules would help a lot with that.
The suggestion to make pikes units generally Tribal to represent their (relatively) restricted ability to maneuver also sounds promising, and would synergize well with the improved supporting files ability.
(As far as tribal pikes interacting with elephants: the elephants would be net +1 on the charge and mostly tied in the melee.
Anecdotally: those are the relative claims I personally look for when hunting elephants.
Elephants would be just as poorly served charging tribal pikes as they would be charging drilled LS.)
Most Phalanxes were drilled so why go formed or tribal ? and it has huge impact when fighting nellies
Also beware what you want : "all pikes" what about columella what about kiel ?
QuoteMost Phalanxes were drilled so why go formed or tribal ?
Absolutely, but does that classification best reflect what the formation would have actually been capable of? I'm not gonna pretend to be an expert but every description I've read of a phalanx describes them as a ponderous formation. Being tribal doesn't even stop them from performing most maneuvers, would just stop them from doing them as part of a double move which seems pretty accurate to me. I doubt pikes could wheel multiple times or shift at a jog.
And while it does make them worse against elephants I don't think that alone is reason to give drilled to a unit that doesn't otherwise deserve it. Especially when it's still a pretty bad match-up for the elephants anyway. As Doomsmile said above elephants fighting tribal pikes would be basically the same as fighting drilled long spear.
Quotewhat about columella what about kiel ?
I'll admit some ignorance when it comes to what later pike formations were capable of. My understanding of Swiss pikes at least is that they formed huge columns and just charged as an unstoppable tide. Certainly they were fast, but I've never heard one way or another on what kinds of maneuvers they could perform at speed.
not convinced at all ...Phalanxes were more mobile than people think. It is a fearsome beast that even legions could not fight frontally and had to have it's flanks protected. It is already an uneasy task and if you want to make it even more complicated and kill the phalanxes, I say no please do not fix what is not broken . By 9 why not ? formed or even tribal no or till roman legion becomes tribal :)
Phalanxes could even fight uphill and in rough terrain
Quote from: Manzikert on January 20, 2025, 09:16:46 PM
QuoteMost Phalanxes were drilled so why go formed or tribal ?
Absolutely, but does that classification best reflect what the formation would have actually been capable of? I'm not gonna pretend to be an expert but every description I've read of a phalanx describes them as a ponderous formation.
Such descriptions were usually written by Roman or Greek authors who were comparing pike phalanxes to contemporary Roman formations. Much recent analysis and research indicates that a trained/experienced phalanx, while unable to match the Roman legion's' exceptional level of flexibility, was not as cumbersome as often portrayed. Furthermore, there was a big difference between Alexander's Foot Companions and the later Successors' phalangites.
Quote from: badhabum on January 20, 2025, 09:36:15 PM
not convinced at all ...Phalanxes were more mobile than people think. It is a fearsome beast that even legions could not fight frontally and had to have it's flanks protected. It is already an uneasy task and if you want to make it even more complicated and kill the phalanxes, I say no please do not fix what is not broken . By 9 why not ? formed or even tribal no or till roman legion becomes tribal :)
Phalanxes could even fight uphill and in rough terrain
With respect, that has not been my experience. Pikes are sadly overpriced for their battlefield effect, which is severely limited by frontage. I personally view Helenistic pikes as mostly ineffective for the price. Romans definitely do not fear to close with them in open ground. As presently depicted, pikes do not have the same ability to dominate whatever is to their front that they did historically, and are not difficult to avoid because they are so narrow. Just my experience, better players may get better results. In my play test last week, the 9 stand pike formations were much more useful.
If there was a way to keep pike drilled for combat and tribal for movement, it would be worth testing, in my opinion. Certainly Alexander's pikes massacred the elephants at Hydaspes, and the matchup was rarely tried after that.
Quote from: AntiokosIII on January 21, 2025, 05:02:08 AM
Quote from: badhabum on January 20, 2025, 09:36:15 PM
not convinced at all ...Phalanxes were more mobile than people think. It is a fearsome beast that even legions could not fight frontally and had to have it's flanks protected. It is already an uneasy task and if you want to make it even more complicated and kill the phalanxes, I say no please do not fix what is not broken . By 9 why not ? formed or even tribal no or till roman legion becomes tribal :)
Phalanxes could even fight uphill and in rough terrain
With respect, that has not been my experience. Pikes are sadly overpriced for their battlefield effect, which is severely limited by frontage. I personally view Helenistic pikes as mostly ineffective for the price. Romans definitely do not fear to close with them in open ground. As presently depicted, pikes do not have the same ability to dominate whatever is to their front that they did historically, and are not difficult to avoid because they are so narrow. Just my experience, better players may get better results. In my play test last week, the 9 stand pike formations were much more useful.
If there was a way to keep pike drilled for combat and tribal for movement, it would be worth testing, in my opinion. Certainly Alexander's pikes massacred the elephants at Hydaspes, and the matchup was rarely tried after that.
Must say i agree, pikes a disavantaged to other troops for now as they have a narrow frontage. it is all a legacy of previous rules that... we all played. time to shake up thing a bit perhaps , but it needs to be tested. Certainly against historical opponents. against Qin it does not make much sence but within a army list e.g. macedon and greece or syria... it would be interesting to see the results...
Quote from: Jilu on January 21, 2025, 08:42:59 PM
Must say i agree, pikes a disavantaged to other troops for now as they have a narrow frontage. it is all a legacy of previous rules that... we all played. time to shake up thing a bit perhaps , but it needs to be tested. Certainly against historical opponents. against Qin it does not make much sence but within a army list e.g. macedon and greece or syria... it would be interesting to see the results...
That's the conundrum. I think pikes are currently tough enough in a fair fight but their limited frontage means the army as a whole, not just the phalanx, is disadvantaged.
I wonder if it is a points issue? If we used an historical OOB for Magnesia say, would we still have the same problem? In other words, are we facing a game issue rather than a simulation issue? After all, I have yet to see an Alexandrian Imperial army win a tournament on the few occasions people are brave enough to take one, yet it is was one of history's most successful armies.
To be clear, I am not really interested in the opinions of people who haven't actually tried out the idea. I am really interested in how people who have tried the idea out go on.
I have no plans to change the training of pikes; drilled, formed or tribal. Only by testing would I have any real idea if a points change was needed or not.
I would hope to run a 1-day test event to see how it works at some point. Probably a theme of Hellenistic armies and their enemies from 380 BCE to 70 CE.
Richard
I think the proposal would be a good idea and i'd be keen to try out either at an event or elsewhere, though the impact against peers such as ancient greeks would need thought/testing against to ensure this doesn't give the macedonians an unreasonable advantage. The MeG macedonian/sucessor armies have felt drastically more narrow compared to ancient greek armies - to the point where trying to re fight chaeronea or the like has always felt off as the macedonians can just be enveloped by a much wider greek line - which does not reflect as far as i'm aware what we know of relative frontages in history.
@RJC : Phalanxes by 9 OK , 3 rank deep not 4 OK but many armies are for now limited to 4 X 8 or 32 bases . Would 36 be the new maximum ?
Quote from: badhabum on January 23, 2025, 10:58:50 AM
@RJC : Phalanxes by 9 OK , 3 rank deep not 4 OK but many armies are for now limited to 4 X 8 or 32 bases . Would 36 be the new maximum ?
Yes. All the maximums would need adjusting.
Richard
Quote from: AntiokosIII on January 21, 2025, 05:02:08 AM
Romans definitely do not fear to close with them in open ground.
I suspect this is largely because the Romans are always superior melee expert.
If players are worried about the narrowness, they can run their 8s 3 wide and they are still better than LSp across most of the frontage for not much extra cost. They still have the option to go four deep when they need the concentrated punch.
What if pike TUGs were available in 9s as an option with no other rule changes? Would players take that option?
Or if they were in 12s the player would have the choice of going 3 or 4 ranks deep.
The game is complicated enough as it is without special rules for supporting files.
Quote from: LawrenceG on January 28, 2025, 03:49:36 AM
Quote from: AntiokosIII on January 21, 2025, 05:02:08 AM
Romans definitely do not fear to close with them in open ground.
I suspect this is largely because the Romans are always superior melee expert.
If players are worried about the narrowness, they can run their 8s 3 wide and they are still better than LSp across most of the frontage for not much extra cost. They still have the option to go four deep when they need the concentrated punch.
What if pike TUGs were available in 9s as an option with no other rule changes? Would players take that option?
Or if they were in 12s the player would have the choice of going 3 or 4 ranks deep.
The game is complicated enough as it is without special rules for supporting files.
Superior Romans with melee expert would beat average pike (but cost more in points!).
I don't think the supporting file rule would be a complication. I think it is necessary to encourage players to protect the flanks of their phalanxes.
12's (and 4-deep) with the rule change would make Hellenistic pikes too powerful. I think it might apply to Keils but I am still testing that out.
I am looking at the rules and seeing what complications might be removed without impacting the game significantly. The one that causes problems consistently seems to be frontal contacts in the flank and melees that don't align.
Richard
It's a bit of a disgression but RJC emphasises the need to protect the flank of the phalanxes ( hoplites style or Macedonian style ) . My general feeling for years is that antiquity being what it is, the infantry deployment should be concentrated in the center area only + protected flanks . I now similar to atother rule but that would give an army some flanks to bother with and to me it would have a better historical feeling ! Why did the greek fear the persians , was it not because of the persian cavalry and the threath to the flanks ...Imagine a swiss army having to look at both it's flanks ..Would that not be more accurate . I know a disgression and perhaps it would be necessary to open a new discussion about it but it is linked to phamanxes, need to protect the flanks and so on
Quote from: lionheartrjc on January 28, 2025, 08:16:46 AM
12's (and 4-deep) with the rule change would make Hellenistic pikes too powerful. I think it might apply to Keils but I am still testing that out.
Richard
I was thinking 12's and 4 deep with NO rule change.
Is the "protecting the flanks" thing because you can use 8 pike 4 deep on their own and still be better than other infantry with a +1 claim that is 4 wide and 2 deep (so you only need to cover half of a given width)?
2 green versus 2 white plus 2 black.
Quote from: LawrenceG on January 30, 2025, 08:06:45 AM
Is the "protecting the flanks" thing because you can use 8 pike 4 deep on their own and still be better than other infantry with a +1 claim that is 4 wide and 2 deep (so you only need to cover half of a given width)?
2 green versus 2 white plus 2 black.
No. It is to try and reflect history, that flanks of phalanxes were vulnerable (e.g. Cynoscephelae) and needed protecting and discourage having gaps between pike UGs.
Richard
Tried out the proposed Hellenistic Pike changes last night - so Phalanxes 3x3 and overlaps not downgraded in colour.
Armies were Later Macedonian vs Mid Republican Roman with average legionaires.
Main battle line was 3 average Pike phalanxes with long spear on one flank and Thracian short spear/melee expert on the other.
Facing off against 6 x 6 Legionaries and one long spear unit.
The Macedonian Long Spear unit ended up vs 1.5 Legions, the Thracians vs a long spear and 1 legion, leaving the Pikes facing 3.5 legions. Due to order of charges Romans managed to get overlaps vs phalanx at one end of the line.
Combat lasted 4 rounds and ended up a narrow victory to the Macedonians. One Pike phalanx broke, 2 others down to 5 bases. 4 legions broke and another going shortly. It was damn close though, and basically cascading KaB tests in the last round did it for the Macedonians just before their flank was going to get rolled up due to breaking Thracians.
We both assessed that luck did not greatly favor one side over the other.
The upgraded overlaps had only a minor effect.
We'll try it with 8 man Roman TuGs next.
Before we test any other reports or feed bak that came in and changed things ?
@richard : no colour downgrade for supporting files OK but what if the flank is protected by a one MU zone that avoids flank charges ?
We will use some SUP romans are we commonly see them on the continent for friendly games
Quote from: badhabum on March 17, 2025, 12:19:42 PM
@richard : no colour downgrade for supporting files OK but what if the flank is protected by a one MU zone that avoids flank charges ?
Exactly what happens now one would assume; it does nothing to prevent a supporting file contributing to the fight so would not prevent the no colour downgrade.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on March 17, 2025, 01:04:19 PMQuote from: badhabum on March 17, 2025, 12:19:42 PM
@richard : no colour downgrade for supporting files OK but what if the flank is protected by a one MU zone that avoids flank charges ?
Exactly what happens now one would assume; it does nothing to prevent a supporting file contributing to the fight so would not prevent the no colour downgrade.
The rationale behind "no downgrade for supporting files" is that pikemen, totally commited straightforward, would be left vulnerable to people attacking diagonally. Now, that might not be exactly what the 1MU zone of flank protection is designed for, but the question holds potential interest should tests indicate the no-downgrade might be a tad too powerful.
I will keep it in mind.
Best,
Antoine
IT occurred to me that if the aim is to get pike operating in wide blocks with no gaps between them, an alternative approach would be:
Treat supporting files vs pikes as normal;
For pikes to get their +1 for 3rd or 4th ranks, the file would have to have a neighbouring file in their own or another friendly TUG.
Quote from: LawrenceG on March 19, 2025, 10:01:18 AM
IT occurred to me that if the aim is to get pike operating in wide blocks with no gaps between them, an alternative approach would be:
I think a second objective was was to widen the frontage of the phalanx(?)
Quote from: LawrenceG on March 19, 2025, 10:01:18 AM
IT occurred to me that if the aim is to get pike operating in wide blocks with no gaps between them, an alternative approach would be:
Treat supporting files vs pikes as normal;
For pikes to get their +1 for 3rd or 4th ranks, the file would have to have a neighbouring file in their own or another friendly TUG.
Alexandiran pike were not always side to side, echelon seems to have been used too.
see Hydaspes and Gaugamela
Not sure it was the case at Hydaspes. It was the case at Gaugamela but that is something of an outlier and as it was against a cavalry army I don't think the phalanx would have issues in a refight using the tactic - at worst it'd be a well calculated risk by Alexander.
Quote from: LawrenceG on March 19, 2025, 10:01:18 AM
IT occurred to me that if the aim is to get pike operating in wide blocks with no gaps between them, an alternative approach would be:
Treat supporting files vs pikes as normal;
For pikes to get their +1 for 3rd or 4th ranks, the file would have to have a neighbouring file in their own or another friendly TUG.
OF course, I mean TWO neighbouring files.
So as a neighbouring file is defined as : neighbouring files are those in edge contact with, facing the same way, and parallel to the file creating a shatter or a shove ( PDF pg 134 ) , any supporting TUG touching the 3rd file is a supporting file enough to protect the flank.