How to beat the (insert meta army here)?

[Rino]

Tribal in 2 files are manœuvrable, in 3 they are not.
Restricting the 4 deep to pike will have impact on significant number of aspects
One among others: charge.
You can contract by one as long as you are still in a legal format. One 8bases unit by 3 will not be able to do so anymore.

[marshalney2000]

Tribal in 2 files are manœuvrable, in 3 they are not.
Restricting the 4 deep to pike will have impact on significant number of aspects
One among others: charge.
You can contract by one as long as you are still in a legal format. One 8bases unit by 3 will not be able to do so anymore.

Should they be able to manoeuvre? Nine base units already have that  problem of not being able to contract?

[nikgaukroger]

One among others: charge.
You can contract by one as long as you are still in a legal format. One 8bases unit by 3 will not be able to do so anymore.

Not quite correct.

Page 55 states that an UG can deviate from a legal formation when charging to get through a gap between friends, etc. Page 70 further says you can contract 1 BW as long as you remain at least 2 BW wide (but must reform to legal formation immediately if no contact is made).

[Simon Meg-Meister]

No they could still contract if charge and stay in that formation.  Wouldn't affect that at all.
S

[martymagnificent]

This was always my backup plan if volume started to dominate.
How would players feel about that?
I am wary of having two camps of players
a) minimum changes please and non if you can
b) lets fix a few things while we can

Same thing on chariots.

Si

I feel the chariot situation is rather different as the changes are not actually driven by 'fixing a few things' in a game sense and the objection to them is not a general objection to changes. I would see it as more of a:

a) leave things as they are (ie chariots are a rather match-up sensitive marginal sort of option)
b) Make changes that would appear to be creating less variety and weakening them and then be stuck with them for the foreseeable future.

Martin

[Rino]

No they could still contract if charge and stay in that formation.  Wouldn't affect that at all.
S

Do you mean they could stay in not legal formation after charge ?
Does it apply ONLY on the modification you are considering for the non pike unit or is that a general rule I missed (with clear impact on unit of 9bases) ?

Thx for confirming

[Simon Meg-Meister]

All

• Any UG can be out of normal formation if if combat.
  Any UG can contract by one down to 2 wide to charge
  Usually the latter puts them in combat so no issue.
  If they don't get in they must expand back out at the first possible opportunity that place allows.
  Displacing friends being allowed to do so.

Don't think there is any issue therefore.

Team is leaning towards max depth being 3 except for pikes.
So more comment welcome.

Si

[marshalney2000]

All

• Any UG can be out of normal formation if if combat.
  Any UG can contract by one down to 2 wide to charge
  Usually the latter puts them in combat so no issue.
  If they don't get in they must expand back out at the first possible opportunity that place allows.
  Displacing friends being allowed to do so.

I am a vote for three deep maximum other than pikes. This is like self harming as it totally knackers my Britcon army. Que Sera Sera. It was boring to play any way.

Don't think there is any issue therefore.

Team is leaning towards max depth being 3 except for pikes.
So more comment welcome.

Si

[rayfredjohn]

I would suggest Tribal and Formed never allowed in 4 ranks unless EITHER pike OR Superior/Exceptional

Simples

[IanN]

Re: limiting depth to 4 ranks for Pikes only : Disagree - there are plenty of examples of Tribal foot (eg Warband types) attacking in depth from Sentinum to Casilinum and probably beyond. Restricting such troops to three ranks only makes those troop types worse than they already are and I fail to see any historical justification. There may (potentially) be a case for Drilled and Formed non-Pike units although even that is restricting the player's choice of how to use their troops, and feels like a knee-jerk solution to a problem troop type - ie the cheap levy used to shore up TUG count. 

[marshalney2000]

Re: limiting depth to 4 ranks for Pikes only : Disagree - there are plenty of examples of Tribal foot (eg Warband types) attacking in depth from Sentinum to Casilinum and probably beyond. Restricting such troops to three ranks only makes those troop types worse than they already are and I fail to see any historical justification. There may (potentially) be a case for Drilled and Formed non-Pike units although even that is restricting the player's choice of how to use their troops, and feels like a knee-jerk solution to a problem troop type - ie the cheap levy used to shore up TUG count.

[marshalney2000]

Re: limiting depth to 4 ranks for Pikes only : Disagree - there are plenty of examples of Tribal foot (eg Warband types) attacking in depth from Sentinum to Casilinum and probably beyond. Restricting such troops to three ranks only makes those troop types worse than they already are and I fail to see any historical justification. There may (potentially) be a case for Drilled and Formed non-Pike units although even that is restricting the player's choice of how to use their troops, and feels like a knee-jerk solution to a problem troop type - ie the cheap levy used to shore up TUG count.

The problem is not armies using cheap levy as filler. The issue is armies which consist of low cost average foot which because of going four ranks deep can use attrition to defeat high cost better quality troops. Look at the popularity of a Frisians and Feudal German.

[steads]

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.

[Robin]

One thing and one thing only is certain. You cant please everybody. Somebody will be unhappy whatever you decide.

[Simon Meg-Meister]

No everybody is happy just with mild disappointments ...
This is happy purple land.

Si