Colunela formations

Maniakes · Post by **Maniakes** » Mon May 16, 2011 11:56 am

Normally colunelas are deployed two files wide (eg one with three pike and a sword and bucklerman and another with two arquebus) but can they be three wide (eg one with a single sword and buckler then three pike then two arquebus)? I couldn't see why not. May not be a great idea of course ...

Maniakes · Post by **Maniakes** » Wed May 18, 2011 9:41 am

I guess nobody can see anything wrong with this - probably because it would mostly work to the colunela's disadvantage (eg having a file with one rank isn't that good) - but it might solve some of the narrow frontage problems the colunela has

stecal · Post by **stecal** » Wed May 18, 2011 8:08 pm

Just use the colonelas in pairs = ersatz late tercio. I think the swordsmen are better in the rear for the ability to pop out and overlap on either flank.

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Wed May 18, 2011 8:44 pm

But they cannot pop out if a 4th rank of a pike file, as they would contribute to the pikes poa.

Maniakes · Post by **Maniakes** » Thu May 19, 2011 8:56 am

Scrumpy wrote:But they cannot pop out if a 4th rank of a pike file, as they would contribute to the pikes poa.

Also they cannot pop out if you put the colunelas side by side with the pike files touching (because if three wide the pike have to be in the centre - you can't have the files in sequence of swordsmen,arquebus,pike.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Thu May 19, 2011 9:40 am

Maniakes wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:But they cannot pop out if a 4th rank of a pike file, as they would contribute to the pikes poa.
Also they cannot pop out if you put the colunelas side by side with the pike files touching (because if three wide the pike have to be in the centre - you can't have the files in sequence of swordsmen,arquebus,pike.

But you could deploy 2 colunelas side by side with the shot in the middle. Then, if you lose a pike base the swordsmen are eligible to expand as they are no longer contributing to a POA.

Maniakes · Post by **Maniakes** » Thu May 19, 2011 10:18 am

rbodleyscott wrote:
Maniakes wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:But they cannot pop out if a 4th rank of a pike file, as they would contribute to the pikes poa.
Also they cannot pop out if you put the colunelas side by side with the pike files touching (because if three wide the pike have to be in the centre - you can't have the files in sequence of swordsmen,arquebus,pike.
But you could deploy 2 colunelas side by side with the shot in the middle. Then, if you lose a pike base the swordsmen are eligible to expand as they are no longer contributing to a POA.

Hmmm ... I'm begining to think Colunelas aren't a killer formation. Which I guess is fair enough - they didn't persist that long, so they must have had their problems.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Thu May 19, 2011 5:24 pm

Maniakes wrote: Hmmm ... I'm begining to think Colunelas aren't a killer formation. Which I guess is fair enough - they didn't persist that long, so they must have had their problems.

Looking at them (i have an army ready to test) in 16th century period they are good for concentrating fire, which is what happened at Pavia I think. Its about the only massed firepower around. Also there isn't much that will shoot away a base of pike before contact so it often will get that POA.

In later periods I think they may match up "ok" versus Pike and shot. as their frontage "may" mean they don't take as many casualty checks and the overlap or 4 deep pike POA and being armoured may make them not a disaster.

These are theories of course and i am prepared for...

Sort of like my theory of 5 elephant BGs, shielded for all but 2 shooting phases, half would be bound to make it to impact and start killing. Well 3 exploded from shooting. 1 exploded by losing impact an the 5th ran away.

stecal · Post by **stecal** » Thu May 19, 2011 11:29 pm

there is always the detached shot option during deployment (to represent battles like Ravenna where the shot manned the barricades?) Seperate a pair of colunelas into a Pike/swordsmen BG of 6+2 & the shot into a BG of 4. You can only do this with 1/2 the Colunelas in the army though.

mfarley · Post by **mfarley** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 6:21 pm

So in out two games so far of the Italian Wars, the placement of the two shot stands came up. The Spanish player is annoyed with the rigity of the stand placement. He is a self described "round corner school of thought" and I am very "linear/ square corner". But I do see how having the two shot stands piled up on one side and unable to switch sides in one movement does seem too restrictive. Any thoughts on this?

Vespasian28 · Post by **Vespasian28** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 8:02 pm

I too have been thinking about colunelas; another six weeks should see my 1980's Spanish brought up to FOG.

I thought you could switch the shot file to the other flank as a formation change (p63 bullet point three) but now I'm not sure as it does say you can't change the position of it's front corners. Somewhat limits exactly what a formation change can do especially as it is a complex move and therefore not easily achieved anyway.

mfarley · Post by **mfarley** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:51 pm

Oh yea your right, thats how to change the position of the shot. It beeing a complex move is a bummer tho. I think the front right corner thing is a positional thing. Says that you can reposition stands in a formation is a leagal formation, not the same formation. So if a pike stand was at the front right you can move stands and have the shot inn the front right, just at the same position.

Vespasian28 · Post by **Vespasian28** » Sun Jul 10, 2011 1:47 pm

Ah yes, quite right mfarley. I was thinking about how you moved the shot not just doing a swap.

Quite happy with a complex move though; this isn't something that is done easily.

Niceas · Post by **Niceas** » Sun Jul 10, 2011 10:28 pm

I'd like to know how the formation for the Colunela was decided upon--F.L. Taylor mentions that Gonsalvo equipped 1/6 of his infantry with arquebuses, 1/2 with pike, and the remainder with sword and buckler.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:00 pm

Niceas wrote:I'd like to know how the formation for the Colunela was decided upon--F.L. Taylor mentions that Gonsalvo equipped 1/6 of his infantry with arquebuses, 1/2 with pike, and the remainder with sword and buckler.

I presume the fudge is to make the formation effective in game terms. If you were literal.
3 Pike
1 arquebus
2 Sword and buckler.

Once in melee the shot would restrict the number of dice you throw as it would always be one deep.

Niceas · Post by **Niceas** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:24 pm

hazelbark wrote:
Niceas wrote:I'd like to know how the formation for the Colunela was decided upon--F.L. Taylor mentions that Gonsalvo equipped 1/6 of his infantry with arquebuses, 1/2 with pike, and the remainder with sword and buckler.
I presume the fudge is to make the formation effective in game terms. If you were literal.
3 Pike
1 arquebus
2 Sword and buckler.

Once in melee the shot would restrict the number of dice you throw as it would always be one deep.

Good point--I'm wondering, now that I've seen the things in action, if it might be allowed for the Colunelas to detach shot from more than half their number, (which I assume everybody would). It might better represent what the Spanish were doing at Cerignola, Biccoca and possibly Pavia.

Just a thought.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:05 pm

I don't know details of battles. But havign 50% of your frontage issuing firepower against a non-firepower army isn't so bad. The attacking pike need to be deep to maintain there POA.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:37 am

hazelbark wrote:I don't know details of battles. But havign 50% of your frontage issuing firepower against a non-firepower army isn't so bad. The attacking pike need to be deep to maintain there POA.

They seemed to work well for Dave (Maniakes) in the pre-tercio Italian Wars theme at Campaign last weekend, although this may have had more to do with them being Superior than any inherent advantages of the formation. Also the swordsmen get a POA in melee against unprotected MF arquebusiers.

So in short - they were a transitional formation, they work well enough in their own timeframe, but are probably not a very good bet outside it.

Maniakes · Post by **Maniakes** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:15 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
hazelbark wrote:I don't know details of battles. But havign 50% of your frontage issuing firepower against a non-firepower army isn't so bad. The attacking pike need to be deep to maintain there POA.
They seemed to work well for Dave (Maniakes) in the pre-tercio Italian Wars theme at Campaign last weekend, although this may have had more to do with them being Superior than any inherent advantages of the formation. Also the swordsmen get a POA in melee against unprotected MF arquebusiers.

So in short - they were a transitional formation, they work well enough in their own timeframe, but are probably not a very good bet outside it.

Their firepower wasn't that impressive when shooting at big formations - at most they would dink enough casualties off a keil so that it had to contract it's frontage by one to maintain depth, but a dribble of casualties doesn't cause morale tests. I had a little success with combined firepower (adding in LF and artillery) but their main bonus was that they die slowly - with one file four deep and Superior it takes a keil long enough to kill a colunela that you can get round the side/rear or win elsewhere. That's the theory - in practice I came about mid table (just above Mr Bye who was getting 10 points a round), so no disgrace, but no triumph either.

Vespasian28 · Post by **Vespasian28** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:12 pm

Has anyone posted any more detailed post action reports from the Italian Wars section of the Campaign tourney?

Colunela formations

Colunela formations

Colunella formations