Pike depth?

pyrrhus · Post by **pyrrhus** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:26 pm

How effective is 5 rank deep formation of pike is it worth the points or is 4 better?

jlopez · Post by **jlopez** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:16 pm

I prefer BGs of 10. Being 5 deep allows you to take casualties without losing punch (POAs) and gives you a second opportunity against good heavy foot. If faced with shooty horse you can also deploy four wide and three deep (4-4-2) to widen you front whilst making it very difficult for your opponent to score the 4 hits he needs to make you take a cohesion test.

Julian

MarkSieber · Post by **MarkSieber** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:36 am

The gamble is--will you lose cohesion/steadiness or bases first? If unsteady, the POA comparisons even without any lost bases mean pikes are likely to go downhill from there. Then the extra bases will just run away with the rest of the BG.

Andy1972 · Post by **Andy1972** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 4:09 am

remember that you only count the first 3 ranks in shooting when it comes to morale.. So a 10 base bg in 2 files.. would be counted as 6 stands for morale.. For me i face alot of shooty armies.. So i would go with a 12 with 3 files of 4.. The BG count as 9 vs shooting for morale. 3 hits vs 2 hits.. it may not seem much.. But 1 hit can make a difference.

daleivan · Post by **daleivan** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 9:17 pm

MarkSieber wrote:The gamble is--will you lose cohesion/steadiness or bases first? If unsteady, the POA comparisons even without any lost bases mean pikes are likely to go downhill from there. Then the extra bases will just run away with the rest of the BG.

And, as Mark knows

once a pikes go unsteady against swordsmen, the death spiral tends to kick in. And deploying in five ranks doesn't help for decreasing the ratio of hits per base since only the first three ranks are counted. I guess I'd stick with deploying in four ranks rather than five, especially given the problem of enemy overlaps on the pike phalanx to begin with.

If you deploy pikes in five ranks you've just narrowed your frontage that much more, allowing for the enemy to more readily overlap. And if they can get rid off whatever you have anchoring the flank of your five rank phalanx BGs, then they have a nice juicy flank to attack

Dale

pyrrhus · Post by **pyrrhus** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:03 pm

thanks guys I'll go with the four depth . interesting topic though

hercimurthemediocre · Post by **hercimurthemediocre** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:48 pm

pyrrhus wrote:thanks guys I'll go with the four depth . interesting topic though

yes, I'm sure this way you'll end up with a pyrrhic victory

pyrrhus · Post by **pyrrhus** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:15 pm

hope so