Problems of MeG representing Hellenistic Pike armies

[lionheartrjc]

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

[Hayung_is]

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. 

[nikgaukroger]

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.

[Hayung_is]

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.

[martymagnificent]

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

[nikgaukroger]

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.

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.

[nikgaukroger]

(There is probably scope for a separate topic on Medieval pike armies).

There probably is.

[Jilu]

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.

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.

[badhabum]

It 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

[badhabum]

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°

[Jilu]

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.

[lionheartrjc]

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

[Hayung_is]

Would you suggest testing with current point cost for pike so each TuG is 90ish points more expensive?

[SteveO]

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.

[martymagnificent]

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.

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