This potential rule change was in response to a feeling that long spear are slightly underpowered against foot.
Foot LSp melee claims: +1 if in 1+ ranks vs any foot; +2 vs Cv, Cm, Ch if in 2+ ranks.
Charge claims would be unchanged.
Cancellation effects would be unchanged.
The same rule about supporting files not being downgraded in colour if supporting a file fighting pike would also apply if supporting a file fighting long spear.
So foot Long Spear would need to be in two ranks to claim during the charge, but against foot would only need one rank in melee combat.
The supporting file idea is to encourage the flanks of a phalanx to be protected.
The idea of still needing two ranks to claim against cavalry is the idea that cavalry could push through a shallow formation and you need the depth.
Would need more testing than I have been able to do. Would also need to see if any points adjustment was necessary, but initially would hope to avoid that.
Richard
feels 'wrong' , makes the average hoplite as good as a Roman Legionary in melee.
gives them a double bonus of shove and long spear while in two ranks and having lost the 2nd rank are still at +1 so fighting. I suspect will put tribal types at a bigger disadvantage if held from the charge against hoplites
It might be positive .
It still would not make it equal to roman legionary as terrain will affect the LS which was the key difference .
My only reticence would be that PA would work the opposite way as one rank deep gives a +1 vs anything, it need 2 rank deep vs infantry and one rank deep vs cavalry to have a +1 ...What would explain such a difference and what about balance European hoplite LS and Asian infantry PA ( or medieval European close order PA ) + What about the flanks of a PA infantry TUG
But studying the possibility would be nice
Quote from: badhabum on January 28, 2025, 12:59:12 PM
It might be positive .
It still would not make it equal to roman legionary as terrain will affect the LS which was the key difference .
currently do your 2 ranks of close order long spear spend much time fighting flexible Romans in terrain? if not I'd suggest that might not be quite that relevant to the discussion.
There are loose order long spear in a reasonable number of lists.
True there are loose order LS
Still roman legions face to face with pikeswere always the loosers, what about face to face with LShoplites is an unknown fact that never happened except vs Carthaginians sometimes they won sometimes they lost
So the flank being more vulnerable seems positive to me. Other changes the same I think you need to test it
If the flank is under flank protection as per rule 5.1 PDF pg 60 . Would the flank be protected and no colour drop or do you consider it always open flank for the overlap
Quote from: lionheartrjc on January 28, 2025, 10:12:21 AM
The same rule about supporting files not being downgraded in colour if supporting a file fighting pike would also apply if supporting a file fighting long spear.
Would that not complicate things ?
already by charging a flank from the front, does cancel the files bonus.
How would it articulate with the 1BW flank protection?
Overall, would it not push players with LS and pike armies to play in a more compact way and make these armies less attractive?
QuoteOverall, would it not push players with LS and pike armies to play in a more compact way and make these armies less attractive?
It was an historical factso that's not a problem as long as all infantry armies will have to be compact due to flank deployment restrictions
Quote from: badhabum on January 28, 2025, 04:39:43 PM
QuoteOverall, would it not push players with LS and pike armies to play in a more compact way and make these armies less attractive?
It was an historical factso that's not a problem as long as all infantry armies will have to be compact due to flank deployment restrictions
i know you are right, but same for barbarians, same for medievals and so on
Quote from: lionheartrjc on January 28, 2025, 10:12:21 AM
This potential rule change was in response to a feeling that long spear are slightly underpowered against foot.
I'm not sure I agree with the premise? Yes, Long Spears get the short end of the stick against Melee Expert infantry, but they have competitive to dominant matchups against nearly every other target type (barring a quality or armor disparity).
Given a choice between equivalent units of LS or Short Spear+Shieldwall, I'd be surprised if most people wouldn't pick the LS.
Quote from: Doomsmile on January 28, 2025, 05:48:15 PM
Quote from: lionheartrjc on January 28, 2025, 10:12:21 AM
This potential rule change was in response to a feeling that long spear are slightly underpowered against foot.
I'm not sure I agree with the premise? Yes, Long Spears get the short end of the stick against Melee Expert infantry, but they have competitive to dominant matchups against nearly every other target type (barring a quality or armor disparity).
Given a choice between equivalent units of LS or Short Spear+Shieldwall, I'd be surprised if most people wouldn't pick the LS.
agree fully shortspears become brittle after impact
Longspear is already pretty good. Not seeing any need for making it any better. If you're looking for an infantry weapon that could do with a bit of a boost (or become cheaper) I think Polearm is where you should start.
Martin
Quote from: martymagnificent on January 29, 2025, 02:37:10 AM
Longspear is already pretty good. Not seeing any need for making it any better. If you're looking for an infantry weapon that could do with a bit of a boost (or become cheaper) I think Polearm is where you should start.
Martin
indeed PA would also need a boost
Okay - not getting much support for that idea!
Quote from: tarnowski1 on January 28, 2025, 11:22:39 AM
feels 'wrong' , makes the average hoplite as good as a Roman Legionary in melee.
gives them a double bonus of shove and long spear while in two ranks and having lost the 2nd rank are still at +1 so fighting. I suspect will put tribal types at a bigger disadvantage if held from the charge against hoplites
+1
I think LSP do need a bit of help and my suggestion is to allow TUGS of 9 in the lists (normally they are 6,8).
When you are an 8, it's always the file with 2 ranks that takes the first base loss and loses its claim.
You can avoid this by taking them in 6s, but then you need more cards to control them all, so you end up not taking so many.
Quote from: LawrenceG on January 30, 2025, 07:57:54 AM
I think LSP do need a bit of help and my suggestion is to allow TUGS of 9 in the lists (normally they are 6,8).
When you are an 8, it's always the file with 2 ranks that takes the first base loss and loses its claim.
You can avoid this by taking them in 6s, but then you need more cards to control them all, so you end up not taking so many.
+1
Quote from: LawrenceG on January 30, 2025, 07:57:54 AM
I think LSP do need a bit of help and my suggestion is to allow TUGS of 9 in the lists (normally they are 6,8).
When you are an 8, it's always the file with 2 ranks that takes the first base loss and loses its claim.
You can avoid this by taking them in 6s, but then you need more cards to control them all, so you end up not taking so many.
Maybe.
I do think LSp have an issue in Magna when they are often in 4's and the first loss will always reduce their combat factors.
So some sympathy for allowing them in 9's in Maximus .
I do quite like the idea that Pike and Lsp don't downgrade supporting files but that would require other changes I imagine.
RJC change does seem to clash with the way PA currently works.
Hoplites as heavy fighters did reign over battlefields and not necessarily in deep ranks that came a bit later .So would 4 rank deep or 8 rank deep be necessary ? ( Marathon of course ) .
The depth gives more "push" but does it really change the USE of the dory, the LS ? Would it be enough to give a +1 factor vs others using SP or a similar spear but using it in a different way ?
I am willing to try and do think it might be a good change and yes the game balance will be affected but if it betters the rules and speeds game play I am open to it but as we are busy preparing Athens and Chanier, no time for real testing before mid-march