Autosupport?

[stecal]

Do the math: average man's torso is about 16-18" deep, so a dozen of them pressed together holding their 18 foot pikes overhead thrusting at the enemy can all have an effect. A guy with a 3' sword or 6' pilum/spear gets what - 2 ranks?

[Strategos69]

Because you have to simulate that five rows effectively engaging the enemy is at least twice as many as other troop types and pike formations most definitely relied on pushing as a battlefield tactic which isn't always certain for other formations.

I am not sure and this depends on game design but it seems to me that the first lines attacking the enemy(up to the fith row) in FoG terms would be the first and second elements, not more. Thus, the pikes effectively attacking should be comprised in the PoA's of pikes in two blocks. Everything behind that would be for pushing purposes (extra power added). We also know that hoplites used the othismos, pushing with their shields even if they usually formed in eight rows (although we also know that Thebans doubled that quanitty, precisely to add more power to the pushing effect and even Romans tried it in Cannae with disastrous effects). I think it is in Asclepiodotus where it is described a phalanx forming only eight deep in certain circumstances, shiled by shield, so, as Rainimiro says, even if I don't want to challenge common thought about pikemen, it makes you wonder why they are the only ones to benefit from those PoA's and why that should not be allowed in other circumstances.

[nikgaukroger]

Pikemen formed up deeper than other troops, therefore, the rules have the PoAs arranged so that they will (usually) do so on the table top. Simples.

[Ranimiro]

I believe nobody in his right mind would discuss that Nick. I think that what we are saying is that perhaps deeper formations of other troops types could have some kind of reward (no so powerful as extra POAs of course) so that the general would at least have to decide between a shalow formations to maximize favorable impact POAs and try to get overlaps or go for a deeper, sturdier formation (wich by the way could depict actual hsitorical tactics employed by romans against gauls and Thebans against spartans). In the first case was innefective because of "overlaps" and flanking but in the last it was effective.

Of course the benefit of deeper formations can be assigned in FoG rules to the capacity of replacing looses in the first 2 rows, but to put this mechanism in effect the unit cohesion should be mantained for a while at least and the autosupport can achieve this. On the down side it can lead to longer battles (down side for the user of the elite army, not for the owner of the average protected warband).

I see no potential "harm" for pike formations of appliying this rule. They will get the benefit too so the average result would be the same as with the current rules. But it could create a point of decision that is less than a no-brainer for an opponent: do I try to get overlaps or do i go for a deep formation and try to hold the ground?

[dave_r]

I believe nobody in his right mind would discuss that Nick. I think that what we are saying is that perhaps deeper formations of other troops types could have some kind of reward (no so powerful as extra POAs of course) so that the general would at least have to decide between a shalow formations to maximize favorable impact POAs and try to get overlaps or go for a deeper, sturdier formation (wich by the way could depict actual hsitorical tactics employed by romans against gauls and Thebans against spartans). In the first case was innefective because of "overlaps" and flanking but in the last it was effective.

Of course the benefit of deeper formations can be assigned in FoG rules to the capacity of replacing looses in the first 2 rows, but to put this mechanism in effect the unit cohesion should be mantained for a while at least and the autosupport can achieve this. On the down side it can lead to longer battles (down side for the user of the elite army, not for the owner of the average protected warband).

I see no potential "harm" for pike formations of appliying this rule. They will get the benefit too. But it could create a point of decision that is less than a no-brainer for an opponent: do I try to get overlaps or do i go for a deep formation and try to hold the ground?

But troops in deeper formations already have a bonus - Graham described this in an earlier post.

[Ranimiro]

Specifc troops in deeper formations have a benefit. This can be a general benefit for other troops types too. But i guess you are referring to the fact that it would make pike phalanx too strong. This is true too. The autosupport can be made relative to cohesion for different troop types, but that´s complicated. I don´t have an answer to that.

I just feel that the current game system rewards superior armored shock troops and was thinking of a mechanism to make poorer troops (thus cheepaer and with larger units) a more interesting option.

[Strategos69]

Another example that came to my mind: Pompeius at Pharsalus. He feared that his legionaries would not stand the charge of the better prepared (thus superior or elite) Caesarian legionaries. What Pompeius did was, first, mixing raw legions and veteran legions and, second, deploying his legions also in a deep formation, with the cohorts closer than the triple acies of Caesar. That way Pompeius' legions could absorb the shock of the Caesarian legionaries and in the original plan of Pompeius, wait until the cavalry played the hammer role. Finally they stood until they were charged on the flank and Caesar committed fresh troops from the third line.

Regarding Barbarians certainly we do not have descriptions of the depth of the formation but we are told by Romans sources that thye fought 2 to 1 or even in harder situations. We can doubt the accuracy of the sources, but if we admit they were more numerous and they had the same frontage (no flanking attacks described) then it is not unbeliveable that their depth was bigger than Roman one.

As it has been said, it is not only a way to depict some historical situation but in game terms it can provide some alternatives to players that cannot make their superior numbers count. It doesn't matter if you have replacements behind your troops if they are chopped into pieces as they come. For sure some limitations can be thought. For example, troops in column formation can't benefit from this (in fact I think troops in column should fight at a net -- as if charged in the flank or rear), as well as cavalry, skirmishers, etc.

[philqw78]

I think it is inbuilt with the extra POA for pike. But for deep 'warband' (read undrilled foot) formations it is not. And it was shown that deeper formations for these troop types were more effective on occasion (some discussion can't remember where or when, friday, beer). So an extra +1 on CT for undrilled (ONLY) HF with three ranks of HF is a good idea.

BG of 10 bases, 4,4,2 get it cheap, but hey they're F big BG anyway. BG of 12 would get it longer.

[philqw78]

(in fact I think troops in column should fight at a net -- as if charged in the flank or rear), as well as cavalry, skirmishers, etc.

I take it you had a bad experience with them.

[philqw78]

So anyway my idea is a +1 on any melee CT taken by undrilled HF that have at least three ranks of HF.

(before they lose a base 'cos the romans are still at ++)

Pikes don't get it. Columns don't get it*, pansy MF and mounted don't, Mixed BG would not normally get it, etc

* if you can get your undrilled HF into a column you are so good you don't need this.

[shadowdragon]

I believe nobody in his right mind would discuss that Nick. I think that what we are saying is that perhaps deeper formations of other troops types could have some kind of reward (no so powerful as extra POAs of course) so that the general would at least have to decide between a shalow formations to maximize favorable impact POAs and try to get overlaps or go for a deeper, sturdier formation (wich by the way could depict actual hsitorical tactics employed by romans against gauls and Thebans against spartans). In the first case was innefective because of "overlaps" and flanking but in the last it was effective.

Of course the benefit of deeper formations can be assigned in FoG rules to the capacity of replacing looses in the first 2 rows, but to put this mechanism in effect the unit cohesion should be mantained for a while at least and the autosupport can achieve this. On the down side it can lead to longer battles (down side for the user of the elite army, not for the owner of the average protected warband).

I see no potential "harm" for pike formations of appliying this rule. They will get the benefit too. But it could create a point of decision that is less than a no-brainer for an opponent: do I try to get overlaps or do i go for a deep formation and try to hold the ground?

But troops in deeper formations already have a bonus - Graham described this in an earlier post.

Uh.....NO, don't do it....

Uh, Dave is.....I repeat, "Don't do it! You'll be damned for all eternity."

Uh, Dave is....uh, correct. ....Aaaaaaaaaaargh! You said it!

[philqw78]

Uh, Dave is....uh, correct. ....Aaaaaaaaaaargh! You said it!

NOT sensible

[shadowdragon]

Uh, Dave is....uh, correct. ....Aaaaaaaaaaargh! You said it!

NOT sensible

Up waaaay too early today and waaaay too much wine (if that were possible) tonight for anything that has a passing sensibility.

[Ranimiro]

Nice argument shadowdragon, very eloquent. Shows a deep thinking and open minded predisposition.

Fine by me. If thats the ways you are going to treat any suggestion i will refrain from posting anymore.

[shadowdragon]

Fine by me. If thats the ways you are going to treat any suggestion i will refrain from posting anymore.

If it will put an end to this nasty, nasty virus that makes people hallucinate and think Dave is correct, it will have been a noble sacrifice that will live forever - or until the end of next week - in the annals of wargaming.

* Just in case your post was serious....and one can never tell via electronic media...it's just that everytime I see Dave's "signature block" it gets me laughing. If your post was meant in jest ignore this comment and refer to the one above.

[philqw78]

Nice argument shadowdragon, very eloquent. Shows a deep thinking and open minded predisposition.

Fine by me. If thats the ways you are going to treat any suggestion i will refrain from posting anymore.

apart from denuding us of social and intellectual intercourse what will that achieve. Except 1 less intercourse.

[nikgaukroger]

And it was shown that deeper formations for these troop types were more effective on occasion (some discussion can't remember where or when, friday, beer).

It was?

[pezhetairoi]

This isn't such a bad idea.
Gives players another tactical choice: width or depth. Right now, I always pick width. I think most do. This would make me reconsider in some situations.
I see big blocks of foot using it to keep the pressure on.

Makes some sense of later Theban tactics. Gives barbarian types a little help with numbers.
Might make some crappy troops hold on longer than they deserve to, since its all about the CT.
And the the 3rd rank LF would have to be considered carefully.

[Strategos69]

This isn't such a bad idea.
Gives players another tactical choice: width or depth. Right now, I always pick width. I think most do. This would make me reconsider in some situations.
I see big blocks of foot using it to keep the pressure on.

Makes some sense of later Theban tactics. Gives barbarian types a little help with numbers.
Might make some crappy troops hold on longer than they deserve to, since its all about the CT.
And the the 3rd rank LF would have to be considered carefully.

Effectively, that is the point. It is not also historical, but interesting in game terms. We have seen examples when generals deployed in a deeper formation to get an extra push in a certain point of the battlefield. In the case of Thebans, being inferior man by man to Spartans, they applied all their force in one point of the line. In other cases, Bagradas or Pharsalia, knowing the generals that their troops were weaker, they deployed in depth to counter the superior troops they were facing (elephants and elite legionaries).

[grahambriggs]

This isn't such a bad idea.
Gives players another tactical choice: width or depth. Right now, I always pick width. I think most do. This would make me reconsider in some situations.
I see big blocks of foot using it to keep the pressure on.

Makes some sense of later Theban tactics. Gives barbarian types a little help with numbers.
Might make some crappy troops hold on longer than they deserve to, since its all about the CT.
And the the 3rd rank LF would have to be considered carefully.

Effectively, that is the point. It is not also historical, but interesting in game terms. We have seen examples when generals deployed in a deeper formation to get an extra push in a certain point of the battlefield. In the case of Thebans, being inferior man by man to Spartans, they applied all their force in one point of the line. In other cases, Bagradas or Pharsalia, knowing the generals that their troops were weaker, they deployed in depth to counter the superior troops they were facing (elephants and elite legionaries).

The Thebans weren't inferior at the point of impact. The innovations here were to attack on the left with the sacred band - top troops - which was a surprise. The Spartans were disordered. The Thebans were indeed deeper at that point but we are talking about steady troops vs disrupted troops of the same quality. It's unclear to what extent the deeper Theban formation helped.

Re Bagradas and Pharsalus it seems to me that the key point is that the generals put their troops in deeper formation thinking it might help but they lost. I seem to recall on the former that it was taken as inexperience on the part of the Romans that deep formations would help against elephants (the elephants are just too heavy to be resisted by depth of men).

Pharsalus shows no evidence that the deeper formation helped. But that might be that they put themselves at a disadvantage by taking the charge at the halt. Rather than being an advantage, the deep formation meant that Caesar had spare men that were used to beat the cavalry then fall on the Pompey flank. The current rules allow us to make the error that Pompey made. If you give advantages to his deep legions then you'll get the wrong result for Pharsalus.