Why more than two ranks?

[KenPortner]

I've read some posts saying that it's a good idea to form infantry, even non-spear/non-pike, in more than two ranks.

Since only two ranks fight in melee, I can't understand why this is.

Can someone explain the thinking behind this? Thanks.

[Blathergut]

1. Let's you have more bases versus shooting (harder to get 1 per 3 bases).
2. Let's you abosrb casualties from 3rd rank and not lose any dice for combat from the first 2 ranks. Very handy for ancient Spanish fighting Romans!!

[KenPortner]

1. Let's you have more bases versus shooting (harder to get 1 per 3 bases).
2. Let's you abosrb casualties from 3rd rank and not lose any dice for combat from the first 2 ranks. Very handy for ancient Spanish fighting Romans!!

Here's what I still don't understand. How do you lose bases fighting? If you're wider then your opponent can't you simply take the casualty from a non involved base? And by forming narrower and deeper you give up extra fighting bases if your opponent is wider or, if they're not, then as an overlap.

[SirGarnet]

Here's what I still don't understand. How do you lose bases fighting? If you're wider then your opponent can't you simply take the casualty from a non involved base? And by forming narrower and deeper you give up extra fighting
bases if your opponent is wider or, if they're not, then as an overlap.

Single BG vs. single BG, yes, you want everyone fighting. Overlaps and second ranks only count in Melee, not Impact, and before Melee you can use an extra rear base or usually two to expand out by one file to face an enemy overlap. Troops better at Melee than Impact might prefer a narrower frontage at Impact.

When losses are taken, you lose depth before you lose frontage in contact, meaning lines thin out. In a typical infantry battle line clash you might have one side with a 8 bases deployed 2 deep with 3 of its bases facing an enemy of 8 bases in 3 ranks, and the other base facing another enemy. With things otherwise equal, the thinner BG has a problem with one bad death roll while its main opponent can take 2 base losses and keep fighting with 6 bases. This means its side is weaker somewhere else, but in exchange they have a staying power advantage here. Busting through the center of the line subject the neighboring enemy BGs to extra Cohesion Tests, followed by being overlapped and potentially thereafter being flanked or taken in the rear. The whole line could crumble. So sometimes depth makes sense, sometimes it doesn't.

Legionaries don't usually deepen ranks - they are pretty solid and so expensive that the trade-off is less attractive.

Mike

[KenPortner]

Here's what I still don't understand. How do you lose bases fighting? If you're wider then your opponent can't you simply take the casualty from a non involved base? And by forming narrower and deeper you give up extra fighting
bases if your opponent is wider or, if they're not, then as an overlap.

When losses are taken, you lose depth before you lose frontage in contact, meaning lines thin out.

I'm confused. The section on Base Removal says you take losses from the front rank facing the BG that caused he most hits.

So how would you lose depth before frontage?

[SirGarnet]

You replace troops in the front rank from rear ranks, first those not fighting, then overlaps, then front rank overlaps, then rear ranks fighting, so that after 4 bases lost your Superior BG of 8 that is engaged on its whole front is 4 wide and 1 deep. Only then do you start closing up front rank bases by shuffling over (of course that 5th base loss autobreaks you after removing the base, but if you have a line of Knights you can shrink frontage for a while before that happens).

It's a sad feeling the first time you have a BG thinning out like that and fresh troops ready to fight that are behind in rear support but have no way to get into the fight until the first line breaks and the reserve can engage the pursuers.

It is of course nastiest to Pikes and Spears that lose rank POAs.

Mike

[gozerius]

Because the loss must, if possible, be made good from somewhere else in the BG. The lost front rank base must be replaced by another base from a rear rank, then if none are available, an unengaged front rank base, and only after all unengaged front rank bases are lost, an engaged front rank base that doesn't cause the BG to separate into two sections.
So, until all rear rank bases in the BG are lost, the frontage remains the same. (Assuming that you can't contract an unengaged file to feed more troops into melee, which can only be done if all bases contracted can contribute to the melee.)

[CrazyHarborc]

There are perks to forming up BGs in 3 or more ranks....That said, undrilled troops do have to pass tests/dice rolls to expand. True, you can wait to be charged then conform to the chargers.....That takes some time.

Oh, I do the 3 ranks bit. Trouble is, those undrilled units/BGs that just do not understand expanding. Right now our opposing armies are long on battlelines made up of all undrilled armies. Nothing like Hirdsmen(Superior) who can't come up with good enough dice rolls to expand.

[rtaylor]

There are perks to forming up BGs in 3 or more ranks....That said, undrilled troops do have to pass tests/dice rolls to expand. True, you can wait to be charged then conform to the chargers.....That takes some time.

Oh, I do the 3 ranks bit. Trouble is, those undrilled units/BGs that just do not understand expanding. Right now our opposing armies are long on battlelines made up of all undrilled armies. Nothing like Hirdsmen(Superior) who can't come up with good enough dice rolls to expand.

That's why I tend to deploy undrilled troops the way they will fight, and not expect them to expand. You can always deploy in two ranks and contract in the approach, but that's a complex move too.

[Scrumpy]

Struggling to remember the last time I saw you field undrilled troops Roger.......