Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Keil  (Read 399 times)

stuuk

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Keil
« Reply #30 on: February 11, 2019, 05:28:57 PM »
Seems harsh to me that the Swiss cannot fight to both their flank and their front in Kiel.

The Kiel bonus means they don't suffer any flank penalties, fair enough - but it shouldn't mean they don't have a flank at all - it's still there, it's just protected by doctrine.
I would allow them to roll dice against both attackers personally - Kiel is super duper expensive.

lionheartrjc

  • TWZ Team
  • Auxilia
  • *
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
Re: Keil
« Reply #31 on: February 11, 2019, 05:42:02 PM »
Seems harsh to me that the Swiss cannot fight to both their flank and their front in Kiel.

The Kiel bonus means they don't suffer any flank penalties, fair enough - but it shouldn't mean they don't have a flank at all - it's still there, it's just protected by doctrine.
I would allow them to roll dice against both attackers personally - Kiel is super duper expensive.


Not correct as Simon clarified (if I understood correctly).  If contacted in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th rank, those ranks can choose to fight to the flank, not to the front.  The element to the front will lose it's pike support.  Alterantively it can fight with the ranks to the front and not get any dice to the flank...   See the diagrams on p88 and p89 of the rules.

I am amazed how many people have expressed an opinion without actually having fought against them or tried them out. 

Personally I would suggest one change to the Kiel characteristic.  It should only be allowed if the UG is 2 elements wide.  If it expands out then it should lose the Kiel characteristic IMO.

Richard

nikgaukroger

  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
Re: Keil
« Reply #32 on: February 11, 2019, 06:56:16 PM »
I am amazed how many people have expressed an opinion without actually having fought against them or tried them out. 

After how many years wargaming you can still say that  :P ;) ;D


Quote
Personally I would suggest one change to the Kiel characteristic.  It should only be allowed if the UG is 2 elements wide.  If it expands out then it should lose the Kiel characteristic IMO.

Richard

Very good idea. Years ago we had to amend the FoG:R keil rules becauuse of people deploying wide - it was just very very silly.

Simon Hall make it so  8)
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

stuuk

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Keil
« Reply #33 on: February 11, 2019, 07:11:10 PM »
I fought against them only three days ago, with an almost unbelievable 12-12 mutual break (in the same combat roll yes)

Kiel is very scary but it's hard to stay in Kiel against a more numerical cavalry opponent. And if you do they will end up behind you as well.

Agree on the change though, 8 wide keil would be just very silly indeed.

stuuk

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Keil
« Reply #34 on: February 11, 2019, 07:54:33 PM »
and it's even harder to spell it properly without referring to somewhere off the Baltic Sea

Simon Meg-Meister

  • TWZ Team
  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 121
  • TWZ founder, MeG author and lifelong wargamer
    • View Profile
    • The Wargames Zone
Re: Keil
« Reply #35 on: February 15, 2019, 05:28:36 AM »
I will make an alteration to Kiel to state that it only applied is a formation is 2 wide.
Makes sense and a minot tweak. Starting a new clarry stream to do so.

Simon
Rolling Skulls in the land or Purple

Kokor Hekkus

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Keil
« Reply #36 on: February 15, 2019, 09:43:44 AM »
Does Keil also require minimum depth ?, a Tug at half strength ie 2BW wide x 2 base deep, essentially no difference for a 2 deep line

nikgaukroger

  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
Re: Keil
« Reply #37 on: February 15, 2019, 09:59:01 AM »
I don't think that would be a good idea. In MeG base losses also cover morale a keil recuded in depth would in all likelihood still be a deep formation, just one that has had its morale battered.
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

Simon Meg-Meister

  • TWZ Team
  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 121
  • TWZ founder, MeG author and lifelong wargamer
    • View Profile
    • The Wargames Zone
Re: Keil
« Reply #38 on: February 15, 2019, 10:13:48 AM »
Already done and happy with it.
Even a single base has some depth in reality - 4 ranks of hoplites a bit of a standard.
So even 2 deep is good enough.

Si

Rolling Skulls in the land or Purple

marshalney2000

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Keil
« Reply #39 on: February 15, 2019, 10:47:35 AM »
Sensible I think to keep simple at 2 bases wide. If you open this can of worms you then can query the depth required for other bonuses such as shieldwall.