Bizarre odds in melee

[Polkovnik]

Here's another example to consider. We can have either a BG of 8, or two BGs of 4. Lets say they are HF Light spear, swordsmen (or impact foot swordsmen). A BG of 4 cataphracts hits the end of the line (not a flank attack, but contacts the end base only).
Against the BG of 8, the HF will move bases to match the overlap in melee to fight 6 vs 4, then (if the cats do not break off), move more bases to overlap the cats in the following turn. Plus the BG of 8 needs more hits for it to test with negative modifiers and can survive three base losses. The BG of 8 should win.
Against the BGs of 4, the HF cannot move bases to match the overlap so fight 4 bases vs 4 in melee, down a POA, and will probably be broken within 2 or three melee phases.

There is no point looking at one situation (such as 2 BGs of 4 vs one of 8 with equal POAs in a straight fight) and concluding from the results that the points system does not correctly reflect the relative values of the forces. We might just as well look at my example above, or the example of facing one BG of 4 skirmishers, and conclude that large BGs are much better than small ones.
Experience of fighting lots of battles against different opponents (i.e. thorough playtesting rather than computer simulations) is the way to test a points system.

[fgilson]

Here's another example to consider. We can have either a BG of 8, or two BGs of 4. Lets say they are HF Light spear, swordsmen (or impact foot swordsmen). A BG of 4 cataphracts hits the end of the line (not a flank attack, but contacts the end base only).
Against the BG of 8, the HF will move bases to match the overlap in melee to fight 6 vs 4, then (if the cats do not break off), move more bases to overlap the cats in the following turn. Plus the BG of 8 needs more hits for it to test with negative modifiers and can survive three base losses. The BG of 8 should win.
Against the BGs of 4, the HF cannot move bases to match the overlap so fight 4 bases vs 4 in melee, down a POA, and will probably be broken within 2 or three melee phases.

There is no point looking at one situation (such as 2 BGs of 4 vs one of 8 with equal POAs in a straight fight) and concluding from the results that the points system does not correctly reflect the relative values of the forces. We might just as well look at my example above, or the example of facing one BG of 4 skirmishers, and conclude that large BGs are much better than small ones.
Experience of fighting lots of battles against different opponents (i.e. thorough playtesting rather than computer simulations) is the way to test a points system.

While correct, combining your reasoning with the simulation of Marioslaz would suggest that I have 8s on each flank of my line, and 4s down the middle?

[BlackPrince]

What do they say about War it is an art not a science.
A good set of rules allows for the Art rather than the science of triple armed Legionaries will beat everything they hit.
Using a software model to run though an isolated situation just pushes everything back to a science.
Eisenhower once said the only thing certain in combat is if you put a battalion against a squad then you are going to win.
(there might be a slight misquote in the exact wording)

[Polkovnik]

Here's another example to consider. We can have either a BG of 8, or two BGs of 4. Lets say they are HF Light spear, swordsmen (or impact foot swordsmen). A BG of 4 cataphracts hits the end of the line (not a flank attack, but contacts the end base only).
Against the BG of 8, the HF will move bases to match the overlap in melee to fight 6 vs 4, then (if the cats do not break off), move more bases to overlap the cats in the following turn. Plus the BG of 8 needs more hits for it to test with negative modifiers and can survive three base losses. The BG of 8 should win.
Against the BGs of 4, the HF cannot move bases to match the overlap so fight 4 bases vs 4 in melee, down a POA, and will probably be broken within 2 or three melee phases.

There is no point looking at one situation (such as 2 BGs of 4 vs one of 8 with equal POAs in a straight fight) and concluding from the results that the points system does not correctly reflect the relative values of the forces. We might just as well look at my example above, or the example of facing one BG of 4 skirmishers, and conclude that large BGs are much better than small ones.
Experience of fighting lots of battles against different opponents (i.e. thorough playtesting rather than computer simulations) is the way to test a points system.

While correct, combining your reasoning with the simulation of Marioslaz would suggest that I have 8s on each flank of my line, and 4s down the middle?

That's right. If you were going to use BGs of 4 in your battle line, you should have larger BGs at the ends.
However, one of the reasons people use BGs of 4 drilled troops is to have them whizzing about all over the place, getting on the enemy flanks. And then they can get isolated and are more vulnerable for being in 4s.

[ShrubMiK]

Following a similar line of thought...if you break one or more units in the middle of the enemy battle-line, the chances of your units pursuing is higher if they are small. Whereas if they are big they are more likely to get "stuck". Which is better? Hard to say. Your other BGs could lose whilst your victorious 4s can come back to influence the combat further, whereas the overlaps provided if you used big BGs might be decisive. Alternatively, the battle might stalemate for a while, and a victorious 4 turning around and attacking in rear might be the decisive factor.

I say again, a 55-45 split is too small to stack up against all the other variables and possibilities and come to the firm conclusion "smaller BGs are clearly better in combat".

[pyrrhus]

So while more likly to take base loses the 8 bg is more resistant to moral rolls ?
I can modify the Cohesion roll ,with rear support or a commander .The death roll I cant . So with rear support and quality rerolls It seems that the smaller BG's are better . I find myself using a large BG as fly paper at the hinge of my line slowly dieing over time and I attack with my smaller BG"s . Is this wrong or what ? Also seems like large pike BG's aren't worth the points. Three wide BG's seem to miss a major advantage of the 4 wide guys . what do you think ? Should I be buying 12 pike and having them 6 deep to expand later ? sees a waste of points

[rbodleyscott]

Another point. Two BGs of 8 foot can get rear support from one BG of 4. But only Republican Romans have BGs of 2 foot to support 2 BGs of 4.

[peteratjet]

Another point. Two BGs of 8 foot can get rear support from one BG of 4. But only Republican Romans have BGs of 2 foot to support 2 BGs of 4.

You could, but they would have to be in a single base column, which strikes me as a tiny bit cheesy. I don't think I could bring myself to do that A three-wide six-base BG for rear support is more convincing.

[pyrrhus]

why do they have to be in a single base wide column ? do you have to have all bases of a supporting BG partly behined the supported BG ,That just seems a little too restrictive . ( in this senario pike would never get support Yuoo would run out of table space ) I thought a 4 stand BG could set up between two 8 stand BG's and support both. Like so Unit A,B,C ?
----------------------AA
----------------------AA
----------------CCCC BBBB
----------------CCCC BBBB

[nikgaukroger]

All bases providing support must be at least partly behind the BG they are supporting - its in the support rules.

So for a 4 base BG to support two 8 base BGs it would have to be in a column behind the join of the two BGs.

[pyrrhus]

WOW well I dont think I was doing that right . Well thats nearly usless for people with pike armies .Long trailing colomns of support that seems goofy to me but not my rules . I didn;t use rear support that much before (to expensive ) and now this is going to be totaly useless to me . 8 stands in a single colmn is really restrictve for movement of other BG's behined my lines .

[rbodleyscott]

WOW well I dont think I was doing that right . Well thats nearly usless for people with pike armies .Long trailing colomns of support that seems goofy to me but not my rules . I didn;t use rear support that much before (to expensive ) and now this is going to be totaly useless to me . 8 stands in a single colmn is really restrictve for movement of other BG's behined my lines .

It isn't intended that pikes should be easy to rear support. Generally speaking historical pike armies did not bother with it.

[nikgaukroger]

8 stands in a single colmn is really restrictve for movement of other BG's behined my lines .

You have 16 base units that need support?

[pyrrhus]

yeah, when The lists only allow average pike and the combat system is rather luck reliant I need every advantage I can get. But as far as being movement rescrictive behined my lines the same would go for spear aswell 6 to 8 bases can be quite an obstacle even if 8 inches behind . Does anybody really use rear support it seem like 90% of the battles I have seen no one uses it ? why does fog have different stand allowences for BG's what is the benifit ?

[Polkovnik]

A three-wide six-base BG for rear support is more convincing.

You don't want to be three wide if you are giving rear support. If a unit in front breaks you'll get routed through.

[Polkovnik]

yeah, when The lists only allow average pike and the combat system is rather luck reliant I need every advantage I can get.

Unless facing superior armoured foot opponents you hardly need any extra advantage, even with average pike. They are up on POAs against virtually every opponent.

[peteratjet]

A three-wide six-base BG for rear support is more convincing.

You don't want to be three wide if you are giving rear support. If a unit in front breaks you'll get routed through.

Tell me about it

This thread seems to be careering towards the Interpenetration question immediately behind us. Unlike NKE infantry (or WotR longbows and bills) it may suffer a disruption

[pyrrhus]

well as a successor list who do you think most of my enemies are ( Romans ) (successors)