Slitherine

hazelbark wrote:

gelin wrote:

madaxeman wrote:
Maneuver is not a great way to beat them as their ability (when in 8's) to turn 90 degrees in their own footprint and then move full distance means they maneuver better than most HF in the game.

A fact that is a bit against reallity IMO, since even for drilled pikemen (such as Phillip V's or Perseus) such a move in combat was not possible.
Examples in Kunos Kefalai, Thermolylai etc

True, but the only way Madaxeman's tactic works is with nothing to the pikes front. Approach them at right angles and someone will get a flank. And the pike ceases to be manuverable.

Late Macedonian and Succesor phalangites where not even close to the quality of Alexander's pezeteroi. The Later ones where armed with an even longer pike and where only drilled for a few simple orders. I doubt they even deserve "drilled" status....

gelin wrote: Late Macedonian and Succesor phalangites where not even close to the quality of Alexander's pezeteroi. The Later ones where armed with an even longer pike and where only drilled for a few simple orders. I doubt they even deserve "drilled" status....

IIRC previously Richard has suggested that pikes should make turns as if Undrilled, although dicing as Drilled - also I suspect some of the worse pikemen should have been Undrilled as you suggest, alas we missed that trick when doing the lists

hazelbark wrote: True, but the only way Madaxeman's tactic works is with nothing to the pikes front. Approach them at right angles and someone will get a flank. And the pike ceases to be manuverable.

Approach most BGs at right angles, except the "all-singing, all-dancing, spin like whirling dervishes" variety*, and someone will get on the flank.

* light horse, to use the technical term

peterrjohnston wrote:

hazelbark wrote: True, but the only way Madaxeman's tactic works is with nothing to the pikes front. Approach them at right angles and someone will get a flank. And the pike ceases to be manuverable.

Approach most BGs at right angles, except the "all-singing, all-dancing, spin like whirling dervishes" variety*, and someone will get on the flank.

* light horse, to use the technical term

Sure that can work, however i am interested in the options the pike player has to deal with coming threats, not a situation in which the pikemen charge without orders.

IMO pike units where not as manouverable as they are currenty in FoG. In fact as someone suggested earlier, they are much better than most other HF since they usually operate 4 deep, hence when they turn 90 degrees they keep their formation. Highly unlikely for 1500 men, 16 or 32 deep in combat situation or within enemy charging range.

gelin wrote: IMO pike units where not as manouverable as they are currenty in FoG. In fact as someone suggested earlier, they are much better than most other HF since they usually operate 4 deep, hence when they turn 90 degrees they keep their formation. Highly unlikely for 1500 men, 16 or 32 deep in combat situation or within enemy charging range.

As Nik has pointed out, perhaps many should have been classified as undrilled. Although Swiss pike certainly seemed to have been highly manoeuvrable and, to the consternation of many opponents, fast.

peterrjohnston wrote:

gelin wrote: IMO pike units where not as manouverable as they are currenty in FoG. In fact as someone suggested earlier, they are much better than most other HF since they usually operate 4 deep, hence when they turn 90 degrees they keep their formation. Highly unlikely for 1500 men, 16 or 32 deep in combat situation or within enemy charging range.

As Nik has pointed out, perhaps many should have been classified as undrilled. Although Swiss pike certainly seemed to have been highly manoeuvrable and, to the consternation of many opponents, fast.

Yes that option for pikes would be nice to have...agreed about the Swiss

peterrjohnston wrote:

gelin wrote: IMO pike units where not as manouverable as they are currenty in FoG. In fact as someone suggested earlier, they are much better than most other HF since they usually operate 4 deep, hence when they turn 90 degrees they keep their formation. Highly unlikely for 1500 men, 16 or 32 deep in combat situation or within enemy charging range.

As Nik has pointed out, perhaps many should have been classified as undrilled. Although Swiss pike certainly seemed to have been highly manoeuvrable and, to the consternation of many opponents, fast.

So should Swiss be MF Pike?

azrael86 wrote:

peterrjohnston wrote:

gelin wrote: IMO pike units where not as manouverable as they are currenty in FoG. In fact as someone suggested earlier, they are much better than most other HF since they usually operate 4 deep, hence when they turn 90 degrees they keep their formation. Highly unlikely for 1500 men, 16 or 32 deep in combat situation or within enemy charging range.

As Nik has pointed out, perhaps many should have been classified as undrilled. Although Swiss pike certainly seemed to have been highly manoeuvrable and, to the consternation of many opponents, fast.

So should Swiss be MF Pike?

No, Determined Foot - oh hang on, thats FoG:R

It was making me thing about it, and perhaps its time rules moved away from the HF/MF distinction, which I often think is there only because of a lack of inertia to change what has always been, certainly since I started playing 25 odd years ago (yikes!). It's quite hard to simulate real Swiss tactics as they are stuck at the same speed as every other type of HF.

A better classification would be to classify infantry by speed/aggression rather than terrain. There are certain types, like Swiss pike, who very aggressive and fast moving, others more "standard", and others who preferred to move slowly if at all (think shield walls). Penalties for disorder should depend only on the type of weapon, as is done to some extent now, rather than the MF/HF distinction, ie pikes don't like terrain, swordsmen should barely be effected.

So you would have (as suggestions, and open to debate):

Fast, 4MUs: Swiss pike, Arab conquest infantry, perhaps Dailami and Catalans, and warband like Gauls and Germans, etc.
Standard, 3MUs: most infantry, legionaries, Macedonian pike, Greek hoplites, etc.
Slow, 2MUs: most bow, (including Janissaries*!), post-conquest Arabic army infantry centres, dark age shield walls, etc.

* The standard Ottoman battle plan was a solid defensive centre of the Janissaries, not the current dancing around the drilled MF gives them now. I've only once seen an Ottoman army used like it was historically; this is ridiculous.

Ah, if the search function were available you'd be able to go back a couple of years and see that you and I (and others) agreed on this back then

In fact I was discussing this with Si towards the end of FoG development and he had some good ideas on it, alas it was too late to start changing things by then.

It would be an excellent thing for a FoG V2 to do.

Excellent. I think it would be a lot better simulation of infantry than at present. A lot of time and thought has gone into getting mounted interactions correct over time, but infantry seems to have stayed the same with HF/MF.

peterrjohnston wrote: Slow, 2MUs: most bow, (including Janissaries*!), post-conquest Arabic army infantry centres, dark age shield walls, etc.

* The standard Ottoman battle plan was a solid defensive centre of the Janissaries, not the current dancing around the drilled MF gives them now. I've only once seen an Ottoman army used like it was historically; this is ridiculous.

I agree with the Ottoman plan. That is not so much a function of their manuverability.

We had a 2000 point Hungarian vs Ottoman battle. We made the table too long, but on anything that would represent a dense frontage more like the battlefields I think you would see this tactic much more often.

16 bases of Jannisaries in the open with nothing on the flanks. Are not terribly excited to see 8-10 bases of HA Superior KNs coming down. In a larger sense most of the KN armies would historically feel better if the table was about 4 feet wide.

peterrjohnston wrote: Slow, 2MUs: most bow, (including Janissaries*!), post-conquest Arabic army infantry centres, dark age shield walls, etc.

* The standard Ottoman battle plan was a solid defensive centre of the Janissaries, not the current dancing around the drilled MF gives them now. I've only once seen an Ottoman army used like it was historically; this is ridiculous.

You could probably make a case that any MF missile unit should have to CMT to move at all, if it is

a) in shooting range of enemy
b) not in charge range of shock troops

hazelbark wrote: In a larger sense most of the KN armies would historically feel better if the table was about 4 feet wide.

Only until they met the Swiss.

Edited to correct quotye tags for Peter

I didn't write that!

peterrjohnston wrote:Excellent. I think it would be a lot better simulation of infantry than at present. A lot of time and thought has gone into getting mounted interactions correct over time, but infantry seems to have stayed the same with HF/MF.

Agreed. Some types of infantry are somewhat out of the balance concerning movement.

Also some lists such as Dominate Roman that allow all Auxilia to be fielded at 4s thus giving an obsurd manouverability advantage, should be revisited. Perhaps forcing the player to have equal numbers of 4s and 6s

peterrjohnston wrote:I didn't write that!

The internet says you did, it must be true.

gelin wrote: Also some lists such as Dominate Roman that allow all Auxilia to be fielded at 4s thus giving an obsurd manouverability advantage, should be revisited. Perhaps forcing the player to have equal numbers of 4s and 6s

Yep there are lots of posts where everyone agrees that this was an unintended error.

hazelbark wrote:

gelin wrote: Also some lists such as Dominate Roman that allow all Auxilia to be fielded at 4s thus giving an obsurd manouverability advantage, should be revisited. Perhaps forcing the player to have equal numbers of 4s and 6s

Yep there are lots of posts where everyone agrees that this was an unintended error.

Indeed - in fact 4's would go, just 6+ bases allowed (not that they aren't, to all intents, just as manoeuvrable). For my own interest I've actually rewritten the various imperial Roman lists, and there are far more changes than just that

So, Nik, FoG:AM V2 will also have FoG V2 army lists as well... :) Glad I forked out so much on the set.

On this foot speed thing, I think that armoured/HA foot should move slower than unarmoured/protected. That way one would perhaps see why later Greek Hopiltes were unarmoured and maybe we will see them on the table - unlike now.

timmy1 wrote:On this foot speed thing, I think that armoured/HA foot should move slower than unarmoured/protected. That way one would perhaps see why later Greek Hopiltes were unarmoured....

But that isn't why later Greek Hoplites were Protected. It was for economic reasons.