Defensive Spear POA

[philqw78]

This has been mentioned elsewhere but needs repeating here.

It should be a tie break POA just like the Cav Lt Sp. Stops them getting mauled by archers who they get shot by but dare not charge into due to the dramatically uneven impact against foot. If they pass the impact they are OK, but v's 50% more dice very scary when the other dice are on evens. And I believe they should also be able to, and would, charge off bow mounted to get a respite from shooting

[nikgaukroger]

This has been mentioned elsewhere but needs repeating here.

It should be a tie break POA just like the Cav Lt Sp. Stops them getting mauled by archers who they get shot by but dare not charge into due to the dramatically uneven impact against foot. If they pass the impact they are OK, but v's 50% more dice very scary when the other dice are on evens.

I'd like to see some historical justification for this to be honest. What accounts do we have of troops classified by FoG as Defensive Spear in action against MF type archers in reasonable numbers?

Defensive Spear is for those troops whose job really was to sit tight, the armies contain other troops for attacking and players should be using those IMO.

And I believe they should also be able to, and would, charge off bow mounted to get a respite from shooting

Alas this latter statement is not supported by history - for example Greek (to some degree), Crusader and Chinese spearmen generally seem to have stood and taken it, charging was more the exception than the rule against shooty mounted (you probably get more in FoG than in history). Even the offensively minded Romans took a few centuries before closing with the mounted became the norm for their infantry

[philqw78]

I'll shut up then

[philqw78]

Or maybe not

Chinese and some crusader foot have something to shoot back with. And the Chinese are not usually graded as def spear, but Lt Sp so can charge at evens against mounted bow and get a POA against foot, even though MF. Greeks are normally Off Sp so have no problem charging.

[nikgaukroger]

Or maybe not

Chinese and some crusader foot have something to shoot back with. And the Chinese are not usually graded as def spear, but Lt Sp so can charge at evens against mounted bow and get a POA against foot, even though MF. Greeks are normally Off Sp so have no problem charging.

The point of mentioning them was that even troops classified as OffSp (or Lt Sp) in FoG did not, in real life, charge shooty mounted with any great regularity and they are more psychologically inclined to be offensive, so Def Sp should be even less likely.

[philqw78]

So why do Def Sp charge Def Sp at evens then. Surely they should be worse off than Def Sp set to receive their charge then. So this thread should be aimed at getting rid of that POA

[nikgaukroger]

So why do Def Sp charge Def Sp at evens then. Surely they should be worse off than Def Sp set to receive their charge then. So this thread should be aimed at getting rid of that POA

That went in during play testing as people didn't like the Mexican stand-off between BGs of Def Sp. Off the top of my head I cannot recall what the historical record says about what happened when (if?) bodies of such troops found themselves facing each other in battle - any ideas Phil?

[philqw78]

Treat all 'Spear' the same for POA, but make defensive spears CMT to charge like Foot BG with front rank bow do. In effect if a commander can Gee them up enough to charge they are spears, if not they stand there with thumbs up bums and get shot to death. Since there is little, if any, evidence of spears successfully charging formed, not skirmishing, mounted only give Spears a POA for charging foot, skirmishers and cavalry/camelry in 1 rank. This means Mamluks etc in 2 ranks would be a ooh erm target for all spears, evens at impact, but would make no difference if charging shock cavalry.

This would mean also dropping the 3 rank of pike plus against mounted, (but not the fourth rank plus), and dropping the plus for impact foot and Lt Sp, except in the circumstances above. But since foot did not normally charge mounted whats the problem.

[nikgaukroger]

I prefer the distinction between the current Off Sp and Def Sp, I think it is more realistic that your suggestion Phil. IMO it is not about commanders geeing them up to charge but an intrinsic defensive tactical method that was inbuilt to the whole army they were in - the commanders wouldn't try and get them to charge (most of the time) as they knew the spears were defensive troops - so, IMO, your suggestion would distort this. (Although you are focusing on mounted enemies it applies to foot enemies as well I think).

What I would like to see is the exception for shock foot needing to test to not charge if they could contact mounted removed if the mounted are not themselves shock troops - the Tegeans at Plataia are a good example of foot being goaded into charging against orders by mounted missilemen.

[philqw78]

What I would like to see is the exception for shock foot needing to test to not charge if they could contact mounted removed if the mounted are not themselves shock troops - the Tegeans at Plataia are a good example of foot being goaded into charging against orders by mounted missilemen.

Another case for intercepts in flank to happen then. Currently one of the biggest features of the game. How often did it happen that units were charged in the flank just as they had lined themselves up to charge frontally.

[hazelbark]

Alas this latter statement is not supported by history - for example Greek (to some degree), Crusader and Chinese spearmen generally seem to have stood and taken it, charging was more the exception than the rule against shooty mounted (you probably get more in FoG than in history). Even the offensively minded Romans took a few centuries before closing with the mounted became the norm for their infantry

Well to what degree did they believe that by charging they broke up their own formation and the mounted would then come in and cut them up?

[BlackPrince]

I in part agree with Phil that DF should a POA tie breaker but only when charging other foot. Can I prove in battles no but then why did the authors give DF spears a POA for charging other DF spears what is their justification?
The only army I know enough about that uses DF spears is the Crusaders and Nik is right about their tactical use.
The Post Romano British changed to DF spears and as they fought amongst each other as much as the Saxons and others. This would imply that DF spears would have to charge for a fight to occur in a only Post Romano British battle. The rules give a POA for DF spears to charge DF spears to allow two defensively minded armies to fight but does not take into account battles between non historical defensively minded armies without DF spear which occur under the rules for example;
Post Romano British vs Post Romano British you get a sensible game
Post Romano British vs English HYW crap game as the Post Romano Brits walk up and then stop to be shot to pieces.
Post Romano British vs Christian Nubian an even more crap game as the CN archers are not even swordsmen.

[paulcummins]

why stop?

you can charge with Def Spear, you just dont get a POA
once you are in amongst those bowmen (assuming you arent disrupted against the LB) you should chop them to pieces.

[lawrenceg]

IMO defensive spear could quite happily be a stand-off with other defensive spear. Their doctrine and training, or their survival instinct, tells them to do that. The armies have other troops capable of attacking.

One thing that could be usefully addressed is 2 ranks of defensive spear charging 1 rank of defensive spear backed by MF bows. The mixed formation is worse in impact than a pure bowmen formation.

If it was

DEfensive spear charging = no POA

DEfensive spear not charging = +1 except vs defensive spear

I think that would work and be no more complex than at present.

[azrael86]

why stop?

you can charge with Def Spear, you just dont get a POA
once you are in amongst those bowmen (assuming you arent disrupted against the LB) you should chop them to pieces.

average or poor DS vs Nubians isn't likely to end well for the spear.

[RichardThompson]

Alas this latter statement is not supported by history - for example Greek (to some degree), Crusader and Chinese spearmen generally seem to have stood and taken it, charging was more the exception than the rule against shooty mounted (you probably get more in FoG than in history). Even the offensively minded Romans took a few centuries before closing with the mounted became the norm for their infantry

1. They didn't charge because they knew the cavalry could evade away.

2. The historical tactic was to mix spearmen and archers in the same unit so that they could shoot back.

Such mixed units are often represented in FoG as two ranks of HF spearmen and one rank of LF archers.

Why can't archers in the rear rank shoot in the shooting phase?

LF archers would only get 1 die per 2 bases so they would not be that effective....

Maybe the rear rand should be of MF bow?


3. It is very risky to stand and take archery fire under FoG.

Consider a unit of 12 average protected spearmen in 3 ranks being shot at by an equal frontage of average cavalry in two ranks.

The cavalry would get 6 dice, would need 4 to hit, and would need to get 4 hits to force a cohesion test.

Lets say the spearmen are in range of a field commander so have +1 on cohesion test.

This works out at 22/64 * 10/36 = 9.5% chance of failing a cohesion test each round.

This seems too high to me.

[hammy]

2. The historical tactic was to mix spearmen and archers in the same unit so that they could shoot back.

Such mixed units are often represented in FoG as two ranks of HF spearmen and one rank of LF archers.

Why can't archers in the rear rank shoot in the shooting phase?

LF archers would only get 1 die per 2 bases so they would not be that effective....

Maybe the rear rand should be of MF bow?

Actually most of these mixed formations are one rank of spear and one of MF so they can and do shoot quite effectively against cavalry. They are not much good against infantry but they were an anti cavalry formation so I don't see that as an issue.

3. It is very risky to stand and take archery fire under FoG.

Consider a unit of 12 average protected spearmen in 3 ranks being shot at by an equal frontage of average cavalry in two ranks.

The cavalry would get 6 dice, would need 4 to hit, and would need to get 4 hits to force a cohesion test.

Lets say the spearmen are in range of a field commander so have +1 on cohesion test.

This works out at 22/64 * 10/36 = 9.5% chance of failing a cohesion test each round.

This seems too high to me.

But there is nothing stopping the spear charging the cavalry (who can't evade as they are in 2 ranks) and the end result will be an even impact and probably an even melee assuming the cavalry are armoured. When you consider that the cavalry cost twice as many (or even more) points as the infantry what is the issue?

[jlopez]

But there is nothing stopping the spear charging the cavalry (who can't evade as they are in 2 ranks) and the end result will be an even impact and probably an even melee assuming the cavalry are armoured. When you consider that the cavalry cost twice as many (or even more) points as the infantry what is the issue?

And it'll probably take a lot of turns for that expensive cavalry unit to have any effect. That's also assuming the spears don't ever recover from failed cohesion tests or no other BG in the army intervenes by charging the shooters.

[RichardThompson]

2. The historical tactic was to mix spearmen and archers in the same unit so that they could shoot back.

Such mixed units are often represented in FoG as two ranks of HF spearmen and one rank of LF archers.

Why can't archers in the rear rank shoot in the shooting phase?

LF archers would only get 1 die per 2 bases so they would not be that effective....

Maybe the rear rand should be of MF bow?

Actually most of these mixed formations are one rank of spear and one of MF so they can and do shoot quite effectively against cavalry. They are not much good against infantry but they were an anti cavalry formation so I don't see that as an issue.

The mixed formations you describe work OK under the rules.

As do the mixed units which are classified as MF Bow/Lt Spear.

My point concerned the mixed HF spear/LF bow units which cannot currently shoot back at skirmishers.

3. It is very risky to stand and take archery fire under FoG.

Consider a unit of 12 average protected spearmen in 3 ranks being shot at by an equal frontage of average cavalry in two ranks.

The cavalry would get 6 dice, would need 4 to hit, and would need to get 4 hits to force a cohesion test.

Lets say the spearmen are in range of a field commander so have +1 on cohesion test.

This works out at 22/64 * 10/36 = 9.5% chance of failing a cohesion test each round.

This seems too high to me.

But there is nothing stopping the spear charging the cavalry (who can't evade as they are in 2 ranks) and the end result will be an even impact and probably an even melee assuming the cavalry are armoured. When you consider that the cavalry cost twice as many (or even more) points as the infantry what is the issue?

The cavalry will probably get three shots before the infantry can declare a charge. There is about a 28% chance that the infantry will be disrupted (or worse) by then!

The cavalry cannot (and don't want to) evade but they do get an automatic break-off if the spearmen are steady at the end of the melee phase. At which point they get three more shots...

In my example (which came from a recent game between Carolingians and Magyars):
the protected infantry cost 7+7+5 = 19 points per base front
the protected cavalry cost 11+11 = 22 points per base front
The infantry needed to use more generals so the points were about equal.

[philqw78]

The cavalry cannot (and don't want to) evade but they do get an automatic break-off if the spearmen are steady at the end of the melee phase. At which point they get three more shots...

The cav will be 5 MU away and facing the wrong way so will get no more shots until turned and in range