Keils

[batesmotel]

So I guess a late Tercio charged on a second flank is in better shape than a Keil since it doesn't cease to be a tercio just because if can't comply with the legal formation rules. Seems a little odd compared with a Keil but possible the formation with mixed troops should be more flexible than a Keil only including pikes (possibly with some heavy weapon and swordsmen).

Chris

[SirGarnet]

I think there are 3 related questions.

Whether a Keil counts as fighting in two directions if not engaged to its rear.

No, per the quotes above.

Is a Keil is no longer a Keil because bases turn in response to a flank charge and are no longer part of a 4-deep "file."

Physically the bases turn, but I focused on the attacks being treated as being on the front of the file (so the file remains such for combat purposes) and the turning a mechanic to show opposing bases.

The game problem with saying the "small keil" (2 files wide) ought not to keep its status vs. attacks from both flanks is that 8, 10, 12 and 14 sometimes 14 base keils are likely to move 2 files wide to preserve the keil status, ranks bonus, and allow halberdiers to pop out to overlap. Only at 16 bases is 3-wide a necessity.


Whether some number of non-rear charges is enough to cause an immediate cohesion loss on contact.

I'm seeing "no" from the rules language, but admittedly that was my assumption going forward, unless turning bases means it no longer has enough deep files for a Keil. A Keil or Tercio outnumbered and attacked in 3 or more directions by decent troops is probably doomed, but the strength of the formation is/should be that it does not fall into disorder immediately and the attackers need to earn the win in combat.

Hit a keil in rear, of course, and it takes a cohesion loss. This remains the weakness, and the reason for using echelon (in addition to support).

--

The Swiss strike and die hard, but are vincible in the end, as battle reports show.

[panda2]

The assumption that bases not facing the same direction as the front rank base aren't in the same file doesn't seem to me to be correct. The definition of a file on p172 only states that the bases are lined up behind the front rank base, not that they are lined up behind and facing the same direction. This may seem a bit like splitting hairs, but it is supported by the second paragraph on "POAs requiring ranks" on p124. This states:

"Pike count as being in 3 or 4 ranks for POA purposes even if some of the ranks in the file have heavy weapon or swordsman capablity, provided that there is a bases with pike capability in the front rank, the file includes at least two bases with pike capability, and all the 3 or 4 bases are facing the same direction."

The last part of the sentence wouldn't be necessary if all bases in a file had to face the same direction.

I would there suggest that a 2 file kiel that turns bases to face a attacked that would be a flank attack if it were not a kiel, remains a kiel since the turned bases are still it the same file as the front rank base. However, neither the front rank or the turned bases would get the benefits of 3 or 4 ranks for POAs.

Andy

[viperofmilan]

Andy,

That certainly is the way we have been interpreting the kiel rules in our gaming circle - still a kiel but with no benefit for 3rd and 4th ranks. Seems to give the right result. I had a small (12 base) Swiss kiel in my Venetian army repulse simultaneous mounted attacks from the front and both sides, but it was a close run thing.

Kevin

[GHGAustin]

Andy,

That certainly is the way we have been interpreting the kiel rules in our gaming circle - still a kiel but with no benefit for 3rd and 4th ranks. Seems to give the right result. I had a small (12 base) Swiss kiel in my Venetian army repulse simultaneous mounted attacks from the front and both sides, but it was a close run thing.

Kevin

That is also how we played it. In our case, had there been another CT, it would have lost its keil status just from stand losses, and so not self supporting.