Quote from: steads on August 26, 2019, 04:03:16 PM
2 Wide 4 deep = Narrow. "Quality" troops should exploit this narrowness not whine when they lose, doing exactly what the enemy wants ie taking them on frontally. Terrain, maneuver, flank marches, skirmish screens, ambushes, break offs, fall backs. These are the traits of small quality armies, throughout history, taking on more numerous opponents successfully. I am sure that the true historical scholars among us can list lots of examples.
I think the current decision to take an 8 as 4 wide, 3 wide with one short file vs 2 wide is an interesting choice that requires decision making about width versus resilience (surely the decision making is reason to play MeG). Removing that option leaves fewer decisions and thus weakens the game.
At the moment 2 wide 4 deep is successful as a tactic and will remain so until players work out how to kill it; I am confident that the ability to deal with this is a lesson waiting to be learnt by more of us: my feeling is that the top players already can.
I am strongly against limiting depth to 3 except for Pike. It smacks of "I don't know how to beat this tactic, therefore the rules are wrong". Small, quality armies with a clear, well executed plan can topple most anything {I refer doubters to Jason's Alex Mac Exped}.
In short, don't fix something that isn't broken because some players, and I include myself here, have not got the knack of rendering this tactic a valid choice rather than a go-to winning must.

Wise and honest words Mr Stead!!

I also agree with Stephen.
I am not sure where the problem is.  4 deep is slow to kill, but relatively easy to outflank, and horribly vulnerable to slowing effects of shooting when 2 wide. 

Most of the 4 deep units ive seen are short spear/nothing.  Cheap and effective.  and probably pretty realistic. 

The Danish huscarls might by an outlier - 4 superior and 4 crap, then you have to fight your way through the superior to get to the crap.  Unless of course, you outflank them.  which is relatively easy as narrow and tribal.

The double ally German covers the flank with strangly mad long spear, so a cavalry flank is a bit harder to pull off.  Decent infantry will make a mess of them though.

I would think a decent Roman army would be the German's nemesis.  Or Catalans.  EAP might be interesting as well (Huscarls vs immortals, immortals dont have to charge, get to through white+ on the way in, 1 hit to slow, immortals up 1 on impact, down 1 in melee)

My vote goes, nothing wrong with four deep. Just give some of us more room on the flanks. Why is it being debated ? Who is complaining about it. It's to hot out here on the balcony to Scroll through 10 pages to find the initial complaint. The rules are pretty much ok IMO as Steve says dont fix what's not broke. Otherwise what players you have got might migrate elsewhere. Nothing can ever be perfect. (Dont tell the wife I said that  )

Quote from: DracoStandard on August 26, 2019, 05:16:01 PM
I also agree with Stephen.
I am not sure where the problem is.  4 deep is slow to kill, but relatively easy to outflank, and horribly vulnerable to slowing effects of shooting when 2 wide. 

Most of the 4 deep units ive seen are short spear/nothing.  Cheap and effective.  and probably pretty realistic. 

The Danish huscarls might by an outlier - 4 superior and 4 crap, then you have to fight your way through the superior to get to the crap.  Unless of course, you outflank them.  which is relatively easy as narrow and tribal.

The double ally German covers the flank with strangly mad long spear, so a cavalry flank is a bit harder to pull off.  Decent infantry will make a mess of them though.

I would think a decent Roman army would be the German's nemesis.  Or Catalans.  EAP might be interesting as well (Huscarls vs immortals, immortals dont have to charge, get to through white+ on the way in, 1 hit to slow, immortals up 1 on impact, down 1 in melee)

I must admit my experience of playing a few is that:

• It is a pain of they artificially outshout you - but that is fixed
  Then you just need to be bold and aggressive.
  Far too often players line up when they don't have to.

Si

Well guys, I would have loved to face a meta army at britcon . I did it only once and we had a good game. Back in 2016 with the nikephorians I faced lots of what is now called meta armies. The problem for me was where to strike, go quickly and outmaneuver those guys .

So I do not fear them. 

I played the frisians in 2018 and even think I was the first to do so . The only problems I faced were slow players and time to fininsh a game when meeting a similar meta army . Melees could take ages.

For me, do not change or if the pressure is to high, just put the warbands and similar from 6 or 9 bases, skip the 8 and so be it .

My sense is we have suspicion of an issue but not evidence.
Mr Stead is spot on to me.
I will gladly face any of them with these Romans.

S

[attachment deleted by admin]

Excellent let's leave it then. The Feudal Germans will ride again. Never been outflanked by a drilled army yet.

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 26, 2019, 08:18:20 PM
My sense is we have suspicion of an issue but not evidence.
Mr Stead is spot on to me.
I will gladly face any of them with these Romans.

S

Are your Romans any better than than fully Armoured foot THCT  and melee expert as I saw quite a few of them off?

The big units are very tough. The free wheel on charging is very nice for a bunch of tribal - killing or restricting that might make more impact on these untrained types.
8 might be a better maximum TuG size because they are stilll breakable, but once you get to 9+ it becomes difficult in an ~6-7 turn game without flanking them.

Quote from: stuuk on August 26, 2019, 09:32:23 PM
The big units are very tough. The free wheel on charging is very nice for a bunch of tribal - killing or restricting that might make more impact on these untrained types.
8 might be a better maximum TuG size because they are stilll breakable, but once you get to 9+ it becomes difficult in an ~6-7 turn game without flanking them.

The important difference between 8's and 9's is that the former can be deployed 2 wide whilst the latter cannot (well, until they've lost a base). It is actually quite an important difference.

Quote from: Robin on August 26, 2019, 05:22:28 PM
My vote goes, nothing wrong with four deep. Just give some of us more room on the flanks. Why is it being debated ? Who is complaining about it. It's to hot out here on the balcony to Scroll through 10 pages to find the initial complaint. The rules are pretty much ok IMO as Steve says dont fix what's not broke. Otherwise what players you have got might migrate elsewhere. Nothing can ever be perfect. (Dont tell the wife I said that  )

Will raised this initially after facing Hunter and myself. I was then the honest Joe who agreed with him despite benefiting from using such an army.
I will now back down and admit that these meta armies are total rubbish and would actively discourage any player from using them - well other than myself.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on August 26, 2019, 09:35:35 PM

Quote from: stuuk on August 26, 2019, 09:32:23 PM
The big units are very tough. The free wheel on charging is very nice for a bunch of tribal - killing or restricting that might make more impact on these untrained types.
8 might be a better maximum TuG size because they are stilll breakable, but once you get to 9+ it becomes difficult in an ~6-7 turn game without flanking them.

The important difference between 8's and 9's is that the former can be deployed 2 wide whilst the latter cannot (well, until they've lost a base). It is actually quite an important difference.

In my experience nines are a liability while 8's are ideal.

if we move to 9s rather than 8s for these guys, we may need to consider the double bubble KAB on camp collapse...

Quote from: DracoStandard on August 26, 2019, 09:41:26 PM
if we move to 9s rather than 8s for these guys, we may need to consider the double bubble KAB on camp collapse...

If they are not a problem as seems to be the consensus then no need to remove 8 as an option. Keep it simple and allow 6, 8 and 9.

Ah yes good point I only took into account 2 files fighting in my numbers which is of course sh*t for anything bigger than an 8.

The short answer then is you need red dice versus something 2 wide, 4 deep or else the ability to break off and keep going in on yellow (green not so good - makes it about 4 turns)
Either way you're looking at three turns to kill them as a minimum.
Which probably leaves some time for the enemy to envelop you.