Does this contrevene the rules and what do the stats say.

[andy816]

A long posting so please be patient.

Background.

The assumption is that the game is played between two reasonably competent players (although some may disagree )

I have so far played all my test games using !st punic war Carthaginians to try out Offensive spearmen. I have played two historical games against mid repuplican Roman. The challenge in these games has always been the same. The Cathaginian army is larger and wider but cannot stand up to the strong Roman centre. So it is always a game that sees the Carthaginians trying to defeat one of the Roman wings before the centres meet so we can also attack the centres exposed flank. Timing in these games has always been the key.

The timing in the game is also greatly affected by the clash of the centres. (It is impossible IMO to get the timing perfect) so the centres always seem to meet before the flank issue is fully resolved. When the centres meeet if the Romans win the impact phase they tend to run through the Carthaginian spear in short order and the Carthaginian plan falls short of success. If the Carthaginian spear survive the impact bound then it is a long drawn out struggle in the centre buying enough time for Carthaginain plan to work.

So after all the planning, deployment manouver and counter manouver the balance of the game pivots on one crucial moment; the impact phase when legions meet spear.

This impact phase favours the Romans significantly. They have a +POA and re-rolls for being superior. So if the Carthaginians wish to improve their chance of overall success they need to minimise this Roman advantage. I have spent some time on trying to acheive this end and have come up with the following:

AA through to DD represents 4 BGs of 4 legionaries.
EE through to GG represents 3 BGs of 8 offensive spear
HH 1 Bg of 8 LF purely there to show how they glue the formation into a BL.

At the impact phase:

AAAABBBBCCCCDDDD
AAAABBBBCCCCDDDD
EE FF GG
EE FF GG
EE FF GG
EE FF GG
EE FF GG
EE FF GG
EE FF GG
EE FF GG
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

(There are meant to be spaces between the columns of spear so that EE is facing the second group of AA; FF is facing the second group of BB; and GG is facing the first group of DD reading from the left.) Sorry i don't know how to post this any other way.

In the melee phase after expansion (please excuse the letters not matching exactly the gaps are not intended to be there) but the spear do overlap the legions by 1 file.

AAAA BBBB CCCC DDDD
AAAA BBBB CCCC DDDD
EEEE EEFF FF FF GGGGGG
EEEE EEFF FF FF GGGGGG
EE FF GG

The spear have reduced the impact dice to 2 against each of their BGs, when they have the disadvantage at impact, and maximised their dice for the ensuing melee rounds where they have a slight advantage( BGs of 8 v BGs of 4 on even POAs).

So after all this script i have 2 questions to ask.

1/ I can't see anything in the rules to stop the spear using this formation, but i could be missing something.

2/ On paper and on the wargames table it looks as though an un-histirical use of a spear phalanx is the best way forwards against legionaries. What i can't work out which might prove this theory wrong are the stats. Reducing the the impact dice to 2 against the legions i think reduces the probability of their success but increases the random factor of potential results, which in turn may prove there is no significant advantage to this ploy after all.
Can any one help?

Cheers

Andy Robinson.

[hammy]

So after all this script i have 2 questions to ask.

1/ I can't see anything in the rules to stop the spear using this formation, but i could be missing something.

2/ On paper and on the wargames table it looks as though an un-histirical use of a spear phalanx is the best way forwards against legionaries. What i can't work out which might prove this theory wrong are the stats. Reducing the the impact dice to 2 against the legions i think reduces the probability of their success but increases the random factor of potential results, which in turn may prove there is no significant advantage to this ploy after all.
Can any one help?

As far as I can tell the rules don't prevent this. The big problem for the spears is that while they are less likely to lose the impact by 2 hits they are certain to take 1HP3B if they loose as they are in a single file. Also if they do lose the impact there will be no chance of them inflicting any losses on the Romans who get a +2 to their death roll if they loose.

After expansion the spear will still have at least two overlaps against them as each BG can only expand by one base.

Statistically:

Code: Select all

	4dice	2dice
R+2	46.16%	15.12%
R+1	28.54%	36.73%
even	17.50%	33.10%
C+1	6.40%	13.12%
C+2	1.41%	1.93%

The Carthaginians are more likely to win or draw the impact using this technique but I am not sure that by deploying in column they are more likely to disrupt. This is based on Superior Romans and Average Carthaginians BTW.

Hammy

[andy816]

So after all this script i have 2 questions to ask.

1/ I can't see anything in the rules to stop the spear using this formation, but i could be missing something.

2/ On paper and on the wargames table it looks as though an un-histirical use of a spear phalanx is the best way forwards against legionaries. What i can't work out which might prove this theory wrong are the stats. Reducing the the impact dice to 2 against the legions i think reduces the probability of their success but increases the random factor of potential results, which in turn may prove there is no significant advantage to this ploy after all.
Can any one help?

As far as I can tell the rules don't prevent this. The big problem for the spears is that while they are less likely to lose the impact by 2 hits they are certain to take 1HP3B if they loose as they are in a single file. Also if they do lose the impact there will be no chance of them inflicting any losses on the Romans who get a +2 to their death roll if they loose.

After expansion the spear will still have at least two overlaps against them as each BG can only expand by one base.

Statistically:

Code: Select all

	4dice	2dice
R+2	46.16%	15.12%
R+1	28.54%	36.73%
even	17.50%	33.10%
C+1	6.40%	13.12%
C+2	1.41%	1.93%

The Carthaginians are more likely to win or draw the impact using this technique but I am not sure that by deploying in column they are more likely to disrupt. This is based on Superior Romans and Average Carthaginians BTW.

Hammy

Thanks Hammy thats useful information. The spear are not meant to dirupt the legions at impact is's all about getting into the melee phases with themselves not being dis-rupted. Buying crucial game turns was the objective.

Andy

[hammy]

Thanks Hammy thats useful information. The spear are not meant to dirupt the legions at impact is's all about getting into the melee phases with themselves not being dis-rupted. Buying crucial game turns was the objective.

Andy

Of course if the Romans charge the Carthaginians and can manage a slight wheel such that they step a base forwads and into a second base of the spear columns (not that hard to do) you are significantly worse off as you will be rolling 4 dice each but the spear will be testing at -2 if they lose by 1 and -3 if they lose by 2 or more.

Hammy

[dave_r]

Of course there is also the problem about what the Romans do about this column - they could simply march past it and then hit the Carthaginians in the flank? Or ignore the deep columns to help the flanks out first. One thing is for certain, the spearmen are very much more disadvantaged to shooting.

I suppose it is a question of tactics. Do what Hannibal did and ambush 'em

[hammy]

Of course there is also the problem about what the Romans do about this column - they could simply march past it and then hit the Carthaginians in the flank? Or ignore the deep columns to help the flanks out first. One thing is for certain, the spearmen are very much more disadvantaged to shooting.

I suppose it is a question of tactics. Do what Hannibal did and ambush 'em

Or do what he did at Canae......

He deployed his African veterans in deep columns at either end of his battle line. There may actually be some history to this type of deployment

Hammy

[andy816]

Of course there is also the problem about what the Romans do about this column - they could simply march past it and then hit the Carthaginians in the flank? Or ignore the deep columns to help the flanks out first. One thing is for certain, the spearmen are very much more disadvantaged to shooting.

I suppose it is a question of tactics. Do what Hannibal did and ambush 'em

Or do what he did at Canae......

He deployed his African veterans in deep columns at either end of his battle line. There may actually be some history to this type of deployment

Hammy

What an excellent point Hammy i'd forgotten about Cannae. More justification for the rules working historically.

Andy

[andy816]

Of course there is also the problem about what the Romans do about this column - they could simply march past it and then hit the Carthaginians in the flank? Or ignore the deep columns to help the flanks out first. One thing is for certain, the spearmen are very much more disadvantaged to shooting.

I suppose it is a question of tactics. Do what Hannibal did and ambush 'em

My diagram didnt work Dave, the columns are spaced to cover the the legionary frontage hence the light foot to glue it all together. It was just an attempt to minimise the impact capability of legionaries and i suppose any other impact foot. Wouldn't use it against bow or any other foot types ( i don't think).

Andy

[hammy]

My diagram didnt work Dave, the columns are spaced to cover the the legionary frontage hence the light foot to glue it all together. It was just an attempt to minimise the impact capability of legionaries and i suppose any other impact foot. Wouldn't use it against bow or any other foot types ( i don't think).

I still think that a formation like this while slightly better at impact vs legionaries does run the risk of the legionaries charging you at an angle and as a result getting you rolling 4 dice each anyway but with you 1 wide so suffering 1HP3B automatically.

Perhaps something more like:

Code: Select all

AABBBCC
AABBBCC
AAB BCC
AA   CC

for the spear formation?

Hammy

[shall]

1/ I can't see anything in the rules to stop the spear using this formation, but i could be missing something.

2/ On paper and on the wargames table it looks as though an un-histirical use of a spear phalanx is the best way forwards against legionaries. What i can't work out which might prove this theory wrong are the stats. Reducing the the impact dice to 2 against the legions i think reduces the probability of their success but increases the random factor of potential results, which in turn may prove there is no significant advantage to this ploy after all.
Can any one help?

A good spot Andy and one of the early things the athors tested to destruction. We we wodnering when it would come up. There is a temptation to say if I am good in melee and poor in impact then best to stay thin at impact and wide in melee. Voerlaps and other mechanisms force you more into normal positions though.

If you try it out a fair but you will find your will struggle for several reasons:

1. If you do lose the 1h3b is automatic
2. The odds of losing are still rather high with 2 dice at 4s vs 2 at 5s - it is the chance of you winning that has gone up mainly due to the scatter spread - which you care about little and you will be lucky to get a - on the Romans if you do win. Big wins are not uncommon as its just a 2-0 on 2 dice - one of the reasons for it being set at 2 in the cohesion test in fact (cunnng devils that we are ). So if both on 4s say you each have a 1 in 4 chance of 2 hits and a 1 in 4 chance on no hits. So 1 in 8 chance of a big win for one side still.
3. You have just given away your wider frontage - so what will happen is that the opposing player will have spare legionaries to run around you or cause trouble elsewhere - you may not win the flanks quite so easily therefore. Ifyou lose you rism 1 legionary BG taking down 2 or 3 spear Bgs ...ugly. So the risk profile is pretty extreme if you run it through.
4. If you win the impact phase - which you can - you cannot expand out quickly enough to exploit the win. The Romans have therefore now been given a no risk attack.
5. And this is a big one....if any of the BGs rout it forces all three to test because you are not spread out much...so wait until later in the fight and watch it crumble.....if in a long line this only happens if the middle on breaks.....the odds are one of them will lose and be in trouble....

As ever its the sublety of lots of simple mechanisms that gives a wide wide spread and the end results are not so obvious from the basic stats - you need the whole tree of events. Other than all of that its a great tactic and you are correct that at first glance it lloks mathematically attractive - but I would suggest having tried it a fair bit rather less attractive overall than it first appears. I tried it with samurai monks who were HW so no impact factors and unprotected too. This way you could only expand out if you had a chance given the lack of armour. Worked a dream.......for Terry.

A better bet for holding the romans up is to stack rear support behind your offensive spearmen and make sure the generals are nearby. If you make the units 8 bases and keep them 3 wide this gives better chance of avoiding a -2. 1 small supporting BG can support 2 8s if positioned correctly behind. Use a couple of cavalry BGs to provide rear support to the spearline as a reserve perhaps. So with this and a general that is 2 +s which cancel out the 2-s. If you can afford an IC even better. So even on a bad loss you have 68% chnace of passing and holding the line. This then may buy you the time you need.........

What is the Carthaginian vs Roman tally so far then Andy? oh and yes its legal..............

Si

[andy816]

A better bet for holding the romans up is to stack rear support behind your offensive spearmen and make sure the generals are nearby. If you make the units 8 bases and keep them 3 wide this gives better chance of avoiding a -2. 1 small supporting BG can support 2 8s if positioned correctly behind. Use a couple of cavalry BGs to provide rear support to the spearline as a reserve perhaps. So with this and a general that is 2 +s which cancel out the 2-s. If you can afford an IC even better. So even on a bad loss you have 68% chnace of passing and holding the line. This then may buy you the time you need.........

What is the Carthaginian vs Roman tally so far then Andy? oh and yes its legal..............

Si

Thanks Si, all that information was a great help. It would seem there is no clever manouvre to stop the Legionaries (or at least i haven't found it yet) so it is back to using rear support.

The tally so far is 1-1. Both games hinged on what happened in the impact phase when the Legions met the Hoplites in the centre. Hence the reason for the post. The difficulty is that to not lose the impact phase takes well above average dice rolls for the hoplites, so as you suggested i must accept the innevitable but stack the odds as best as possible for the CT tests.

Alternatively i could just realise that historical generals new best and follow Xanthipus in placing all the elephants against the Roman centre with some spear giving them rear support.

Cheers

Andy

[lawrenceg]

According to my sums, with superior impact foot on a net + in the impact phase the chance of the average spear losing the combat is given below (number in brackets is chance of losing by 2 or more):

2 dice: 52% (15%)
4 dice: 65% (37%)
6 dice: 73% (51%)

So in theory it helps significantly if you narrow the front and then expand in melee. In practice, as others have pointed out, the Romans may be able to counter your plan by charging first at a slight angle and stepping forward into additional bases behind the front rank. On the other hand, once he gets within charge range of you, you can charge first. So the only downside is that you will always suffer 1HP3B if you get hit at all. On a frontage of 2 or 3 it is likely you will still lose 1HP3B anyway, so this does not appear to be much of a downside. Also your chance of losing by 2 or more is much reduced at the smaller frontage. So your tactic seems viable versus legionaries.

However, I would expect the Romans to have Velites covering the front of the legions and your formation would be more vulnerable to their shooting than a continuous front (2 shots needing only 1 hit to cause a CT). Plus your deep columns with "glue" behind may interfere with the ability of your own skimishers to interpenetrate. But maybe the time he spends shooting you up will allow you to win the flank battle. Looks like it is worth trying just to see how well it works in practice.

Simon's points about rear support and generals are good ones.

Hannibal's Cannae scheme still looks like a more promising option.

[shall]

But the problem is that the overlaps get you later. You are commiting yourself to a 2 dice disadvantage in melee even if you win the impact phase. If you run the whole tree through its a lot less attractive. What the Spears cannot affor dis to be disadvantaged in all the melee rounds that follow even if they survive..........if you see what I mean.

At least standing up 6 vs 6
2 dice: 52% (15%)
4 dice: 65% (37%)
6 dice: 73% (51%)

you get 73% of losing and have to test. But you have about 2/3rd chance of passing oif you stack the generals and rear support well. So odds of a probelm are around 25% mark.

If you go two dice you are 52% chance of losing and more at a -1 on ct tests. This gives you a 3/4 chance of passing say and a problem 15% of the time

BUT in case 1 you are now even...in case 2 you now have a 2 dice disadvantage in melee thus commiting you to 2 more rounds with the likeilhood of losing

Net result not so pleasant when I simulated fully, but must admit I can't lay my hand son the numbers so the impressionistic sketch above will have to do. What is impartant always is to do the full tree of Impact - CTs and DRs - Melee - CTS and Death Roll at least once to get a good feel for the result.

Hope that makes sense

Si

[lawrenceg]

But the problem is that the overlaps get you later. You are commiting yourself to a 2 dice disadvantage in melee even if you win the impact phase.

No, you can expand in the movement phase and thus avoid the 2 dice disadvantage. If I interpret the Ascii art correctly the columns of spear are 1 base apart so can fill all the gaps by a single expansion. (If this is the case then 6-base BG of spear are probably as effective as 8-base, but there may be other reasons for using 8-base BGs.)

[rogerg]

The technique of keeping the impact front small and then expanding for the melee can lead to some very ugly looking positioning. I have wheeled in a charge at an angle to troops ahead to narrow the impact knowing I would be better in the melee round after expanding.

Should the phase sequence change to shooting, impact, melee, move (including expansions), final (interbound) phase?
It would be nice to get all the combat sequences consecutive. Take shooting, charge to impact, fight the melee (with the overlaps as they are at impact) and then move other troops. I think this would be more pleasing to play too. After the impact contact, moving and shooting always seems a it in the way because you really want to find out how the melee will work out. Play might be faster too becasue you don't have to break off from thinking about one area to consider the moves then return to the combat area for the melee.

[shall]

shall wrote:
But the problem is that the overlaps get you later. You are commiting yourself to a 2 dice disadvantage in melee even if you win the impact phase.

No, you can expand in the movement phase and thus avoid the 2 dice disadvantage. If I interpret the Ascii art correctly the columns of spear are 1 base apart so can fill all the gaps by a single expansion. (If this is the case then 6-base BG of spear are probably as effective as 8-base, but there may be other reasons for using 8-base BGs.)

But only on 1 side, so a column hitting a line is 6 dice vs 4 at melee. If you put together then still 4 vs 6 each in melee. If a column hits 8 then it take several expnasions to catch up - which means surviving 2 rounds of melee. This is in fact one of the technical reasons for only allowing expansion on 1 side.

Si

[andy816]

shall wrote:
But the problem is that the overlaps get you later. You are commiting yourself to a 2 dice disadvantage in melee even if you win the impact phase.

No, you can expand in the movement phase and thus avoid the 2 dice disadvantage. If I interpret the Ascii art correctly the columns of spear are 1 base apart so can fill all the gaps by a single expansion. (If this is the case then 6-base BG of spear are probably as effective as 8-base, but there may be other reasons for using 8-base BGs.)

But only on 1 side, so a column hitting a line is 6 dice vs 4 at melee. If you put together then still 4 vs 6 each in melee. If a column hits 8 then it take several expnasions to catch up - which means surviving 2 rounds of melee. This is in fact one of the technical reasons for only allowing expansion on 1 side.

Si

I hope you don't mind discussing this issue just a little further to complete my understanding (My fault i know because i'm not statistically trained).

If the spear contacted the legions in 4 BGs of 6 (as Lawrence suggested) instead of the 3 BGs of 8 as i origionally posted, we would have the following:

A= legionary frontage
X= spaces
B-D = spear BGs

At the impact phase

AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
XBCXXDEX
XBCXXDEX
XBCXXDEX
XBCXXDEX
XBCXXDEX
XBCXXDEX

In the subsequent melee phase

AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
BBCCDDEE
BBCCDDEE
BBCCDDEE

If we assume the same ammount of rear support in all cases then from the 1st melee round onwards all statistical probabilities are the same. The only difference will be at the impact phase.

If the spear attack as columns each BG is on two impact dice only, however when losing the impact bound the spear are always going to count the 1HP3B minus.

If the spear attack as BGs which are 2 bases wide and 3 deep it is 4 impact dice with only a possibility of the spear counting a 1HP3B minus when losing.

Therefore although the column will lose the impact bound less often it will fail the CT more often and overall the column has a greater chance of going into the first melee phase disrupted.

Is this a correct laymans appraisal?

Cheers

Andy Robinson

[rogerg]

However, the probability of being less lkely to lose and less likely to lose by two hits, makes the single base frontage the one you really want to choose to go with.

[rbodleyscott]

However, the probability of being less lkely to lose and less likely to lose by two hits, makes the single base frontage the one you really want to choose to go with.

This is true, and it all looks horribly cheesy. I would hate to see this sort of thing done as a regular tactic in tournament games.

However, fortunately, there are other factors that may deter people from using such formations in practice:

1) Inability to move such formations as a battle line without an additional BG at the back as "glue."
2) Extra vulnerability of columns to cohesion tests from shooting. (Only 1 hit needed to trigger test). The Roman velites could come in handy here.
3) Possibly your 24 Spears would be more effective as 2 BGs of 8 in front and 1 BG of 8 (or indeed 4 if the list allows) in rear support.

What does the panel think? Do we need to do something to stop this sort of thing dominating tournament tactics?

[markm]

This over-exagerated depth thing is a common phenomena in WAB - for other reasons.

One suggestion was that formations must be at least as wide as deep (unless in column), with some suitable penalty if this is not the case eg. -1 dice/2 in combat!?

So a 6 base BG would need to be at least 3 wide. Only 4 BG units could be 2 wide and I can think of precious few examples where one might want to do it with elite-style troops.