Keil formations

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:07 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
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.

12 bases of pike starting 3x4 when reduced to 10 would still have to shrink to 2x5.

That's a bit messy IMO.

Maybe easier to say that a Kiel can only ever have 1 (Pike?) file of less than 3 deep. That then leaves some tactical choice (wide Kiel without 4-rank bonus, or narrower one with..) but prevents dodging cannonballs through excessive use of Swiss Cheese ?

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:12 pm

Maniakes wrote:
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

And that is unrealistic because....?

(How much choice do other foot formations have)

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:13 pm

madaxeman wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote:
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.
12 bases of pike starting 3x4 when reduced to 10 would still have to shrink to 2x5.

That's a bit messy IMO.

Agreed. I think.

How about the following. The wording needs improvement but you will hopefully get the intention.

Any non-tercio battle group that is capable of adopting a keil formation must do so at deployment time. Subsequently, it cannot expand its number of pike files so that it ceases to be a keil, but can expand heavy weapon or swordsmen bases even if this results in it ceasing to be a keil. It is not obliged to contract to maintain keil status following base losses.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:53 pm

I am not sure this is such a big deal.

But I admit i have done this to a degree myself.

In particular the only time it seem logical for a dense pike block to be deployed thinner would be at deployment.

May I suggest a simpler change?

BGs that can form a Keil at the start of the game can only enter or leave a keil formation in the manuver phase by making a formation change.

1) Prevent expansions and contracitons and moves
2) Risky to accordian near foes.
3) Minimal rules definiation adjustments
4) Does not need to worry about charges, feeding bases, casualties etc.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 7:31 pm

Steve did it to me at Britcon - about which I have no complaints - but as a Swiss player I can't justify it as a historically valid tactic even if I wanted to.

Blathergut · Post by **Blathergut** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:02 pm

Isn't the point that they, like all other BGs, should have to maintain their formation? They should have to start and stay as keils.

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:20 pm

hazelbark wrote:I am not sure this is such a big deal.

But I admit i have done this to a degree myself.

In particular the only time it seem logical for a dense pike block to be deployed thinner would be at deployment.

May I suggest a simpler change?

BGs that can form a Keil at the start of the game can only enter or leave a keil formation in the manuver phase by making a formation change.

1) Prevent expansions and contracitons and moves
2) Risky to accordian near foes.
3) Minimal rules definiation adjustments
4) Does not need to worry about charges, feeding bases, casualties etc.

For Elite Swiss with a General, a formation change is not that difficult. And is still a-historical and against the authors intent

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:26 am

Richard

I am happy with the new wording's intent and can't immediately think of a cleaner set of words so happy to go with that.

hood_mick · Post by **hood_mick** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:18 am

Richard. Your wording does allow a BG to contract to a single base wide column not to be a Keil and then turning would put the BG in 2 ranks.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:29 am

hood_mick wrote:Richard. Your wording does allow a BG to contract to a single base wide column not to be a Keil and then turning would put the BG in 2 ranks.

Argh!

Maniakes · Post by **Maniakes** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:49 am

rbodleyscott wrote:
hood_mick wrote:Richard. Your wording does allow a BG to contract to a single base wide column not to be a Keil and then turning would put the BG in 2 ranks.
Argh!

Yes, Argh - but a brilliant spotting of a loophole!

hood_mick · Post by **hood_mick** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:14 am

I have a filthy mind.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:42 pm

I know exactly how devious Mr Hood can be... but a damn good spot.

What about extending the Tercio 90 degree turn rule to cover Keils, so that a 90 degree turn becomes a formation change instead? Also allows the blocked turns rule to come into play.

hood_mick · Post by **hood_mick** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:47 pm

It already does, but a single base wide column is not a Keil.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:49 pm

Of course, you are right.

quackstheking · Post by **quackstheking** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:47 pm

Why should a Keil be allowed to adopt a 1 base wide formation? - Tercio's cannot. The only time there could be some reasonable justification for a keil to adopt this non keil formation would be to travel along a road but as far as I'm aware in a battlefield situation this never happened.

Therefore why don't we just amend Richard's wording to:-

Any non-tercio battle group that is capable of adopting a keil formation must do so at deployment time. Subsequently, it cannot expand or contract its number of pike files so that it ceases to be a keil, but can expand heavy weapon or swordsmen bases even if this results in it ceasing to be a keil. It is not obliged to contract to maintain keil status following base losses.

This stops keils adopting a one base wide formation and enforces that in a 90 degree turn the keil must do a formation change.

Don[/i]

hood_mick · Post by **hood_mick** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:11 pm

Actually 3 file wide Tercios can adopt a 1 base wide formation. P34 EXCEPTIONS, No 1 Columns.

quackstheking · Post by **quackstheking** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 11:04 am

Good point MIck.

This must mean that they have potentially the same issue if they turn from a 1 wide column as their depth (for a 9 base LT) would be 180mm and therefore they can only turn 4 or 5 wide!!

Maybe the solution is as above and make the 1 wide turn a formation change requiring a CMT which results in a Keil or LT being formed as appropriate.

Don

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:09 pm

Can a Kiel expand files once in combat after the 4th rank is lost ?

Doing so may allow a Kiel to bring more bases into combat - and if taken from a 3rd rank, they would not be contributing dice or POA's unless they expand

(This is a question for the rules as written, as well as to consider when thinking how to word an errata. The same question might also apply to a Tercio too)

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:09 pm

Can a Kiel expand files once in combat after the 4th rank is lost ?

Doing so may allow a Kiel to bring more bases into combat - and if taken from a 3rd rank, they would not be contributing dice or POA's unless they expand

(This is a question for the rules as written, as well as to consider when thinking how to word an errata. The same question might also apply to a Tercio too)