Problems of MeG representing Hellenistic Pike armies

[lionheartrjc]

@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

[LawrenceG]

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.

[lionheartrjc]

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

[badhabum]

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

[LawrenceG]

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.

[LawrenceG]

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.

[lionheartrjc]

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

[accard]

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.

[badhabum]

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

[nikgaukroger]

@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.

[Princeps]

@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

[LawrenceG]

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.

[SteveO]

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(?)

[Jilu]

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

[nikgaukroger]

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.