Keil formations

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:39 am

Unlike the Tercio rules that state that you have to keep your bases in the footprint of the tercio, there is no such restriction for Kiels. It does sound like it was overlooked and I agree a decision should be made and it should be posted in the errata.

Agreed

How about the following erratum:

Any non-tercio battle group that is capable of adopting a keil formation must do so.

(With the caveat that this does not supercede the rule on ad-hoc detached pike depths)

johngl · Post by **johngl** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:48 am

Looks fine. The idea of "concertinaing Swiss" just doesn't feel right.

Delbruck · Post by **Delbruck** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 11:29 am

Certainly a simple enough change, but I think massed (cheap) bows are a bigger problem than pikes in 2 ranks.

footslogger · Post by **footslogger** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 12:55 pm

Delbruck wrote:Certainly a simple enough change, but I think massed (cheap) bows are a bigger problem than pikes in 2 ranks.

I think the suggestion is fine. Massed (cheap) bows is a different kind of problem.

quackstheking · Post by **quackstheking** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:24 pm

I don't have my army lists with me but I recall that some Huguenot French have Pike that could count as keils but with shot wings. This means they could deploy the pike either 2 or 4 deep with shot to each side. Presumably now with this amendment they would have to deploy the pike 4 deep? Should we just look to impact BG's with no shooting ability i.e. those whose historical tactic was to deploy deep pike blocks and advance on the enemy.

Don

Maniakes · Post by **Maniakes** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:28 pm

footslogger wrote:
Delbruck wrote:Certainly a simple enough change, but I think massed (cheap) bows are a bigger problem than pikes in 2 ranks.
I think the suggestion is fine. Massed (cheap) bows is a different kind of problem.

To which Swiss are one of the solutions! (Or indeed any foot with armour and a close combat ability, or good mounted troops,or....etc) - I think cheap bow is one of those problems that might resolve itself as people play more games against them. But the question about Keils and "Swiss Accordions" was partly about aesthetics and perceived historical accuracy. It just felt odd on the table, despite Tim's valiant attempt to justify it.

Not that the Swiss players were doing anything wrong, though. It was all OK within the rules as they stand now. I've played three times against the Swiss now and they were all great games played in a good spirit.

So to come back to the original question - that sounds like a good idea, Richard

footslogger · Post by **footslogger** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 2:12 pm

Maniakes wrote:
footslogger wrote:
Delbruck wrote:Certainly a simple enough change, but I think massed (cheap) bows are a bigger problem than pikes in 2 ranks.
I think the suggestion is fine. Massed (cheap) bows is a different kind of problem.
To which Swiss are one of the solutions! (Or indeed any foot with armour and a close combat ability, or good mounted troops,or....etc) - I think cheap bow is one of those problems that might resolve itself as people play more games against them. But the question about Keils and "Swiss Accordions" was partly about aesthetics and perceived historical accuracy. It just felt odd on the table, despite Tim's valiant attempt to justify it.

....

Agreed.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 3:02 pm

quackstheking wrote:I don't have my army lists with me but I recall that some Huguenot French have Pike that could count as keils but with shot wings. This means they could deploy the pike either 2 or 4 deep with shot to each side. Presumably now with this amendment they would have to deploy the pike 4 deep? Should we just look to impact BG's with no shooting ability i.e. those whose historical tactic was to deploy deep pike blocks and advance on the enemy.

Don

If you mean the ones with 4 pike and 4 shot, they can't be a keil because they don't have 2 files of 4 pike.

If you mean landsknechts with shot sleeves, then they should form up as keils with shot sleeves.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 3:03 pm

Delbruck wrote:Certainly a simple enough change, but I think massed (cheap) bows are a bigger problem than pikes in 2 ranks.

Whether or not that is true, this is not the thread to discuss it in. If you have a beef about massed (cheap) bows, start another thread please.

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 3:50 pm

Sounds good to me RBS !

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 5:47 pm

Richard

I have looked again at the evidence back as far as 1475 and can't find any record of Swiss pike other than in column so I am in complete agreement with the proposed errata. I will give it a try and see if it renders the Swiss unviable again.

Delbruck · Post by **Delbruck** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:27 pm

This subject seems to have taken people by suprise, but in all honesty I don't understand why. The Swiss and others in FogAM have been using the accordian tactic for years. When FogR was published it seemed clear that there was a difference between the way keils and other formations were defined. The keil is defined by formation and weapons. Tercios and the Swedish brigade formations were required by the army list books. In these lists, only four formation types are commented on:

1. Early Tercios
2. Later Tercios
3. Swedish Brigades
4. Exceptions to the rule book formation requirements

Keils are never mentioned as a required formation. As far as I can see the suggestion about keils IS an actual rules change, not a clarification.

Blathergut · Post by **Blathergut** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:44 pm

Wouldn't it be a rule change only if the author(s) intent was changing?

If it is just clarification of original intent, how is it a rule change?

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 7:38 am

This subject seems to have taken people by suprise, but in all honesty I don't understand why. The Swiss and others in FogAM have been using the accordian tactic for years.

Possibly, but it is more significant in FOGR because it avoids the +POA for artillery shooting at 3+ rank formation.

Delbruck wrote: As far as I can see the suggestion about keils IS an actual rules change, not a clarification.

I am not claiming it is a clarification. It is an erratum.

Maniakes · Post by **Maniakes** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:43 am

rbodleyscott wrote: Possibly, but it is more significant in FOGR because it avoids the +POA for artillery shooting at 3+ rank formation.

Even more significantly it enables the Swiss to protect their flanks until just before Impact. Maybe it's my lack of cunning but I found it quite hard to get round the end of the Swiss line in my games. Usually there is a trade-off for most armies eg they are tough frontally but have to worry about their flanks but the Swiss are doing well on both counts at the moment.

I am aware that the discussion is a bit one sided at the moment - none of us use Swiss, so of course we are likely to be happy with this change. What do the Swiss players think, would this change make the army unviable? (...Steve? ...Dave?)

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:57 am

Maniakes wrote:I am aware that the discussion is a bit one sided at the moment - none of us use Swiss, so of course we are likely to be happy with this change. What do the Swiss players think, would this change make the army unviable? (...Steve? ...Dave?)

Was Steve doing it? He certainly didn't against me at Milton Keynes, and had no trouble rolling over me.

In any case, I am afraid the Swiss players don't get a veto. The practice is manifestly unrealistic and is liable to bring the game into disrepute. It will be banned - only the wording is under discussion.

Maniakes · Post by **Maniakes** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:41 am

rbodleyscott wrote:
Maniakes wrote:I am aware that the discussion is a bit one sided at the moment - none of us use Swiss, so of course we are likely to be happy with this change. What do the Swiss players think, would this change make the army unviable? (...Steve? ...Dave?)
Was Steve doing it? He certainly didn't against me at Milton Keynes, and had no trouble rolling over me.

In any case, I am afraid the Swiss players don't get a veto. The practice is manifestly unrealistic and is liable to bring the game into disrepute. It will be banned - only the wording is under discussion.

Fair enough. What about BGs of 10 bases - they will have to be always two wide (and five deep) under this erratum. Is that the intention.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:21 pm

Maniakes wrote:What about BGs of 10 bases - they will have to be always two wide (and five deep) under this erratum.

Not if they have 2 bases with HW, surely? They could form up with an 8 base keil in the middle and HW on each flank.

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:33 pm

What if they lose a base though RBS ? Then the hw would count as the 4th rank of pike ?

Maniakes · Post by **Maniakes** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:59 pm

Scrumpy wrote:What if they lose a base though RBS ? Then the hw would count as the 4th rank of pike ?

So as the unit took casualties the Heavy Weapons would have to shrink back into the pikeblock to maintain Keil status - deprives the player of any choice as written at the moment