Slitherine

Maniakes wrote:

donm wrote:Certainly looks strange that they can do this, when Tercios and pike and shot units do not appear to have the same freedom.

Page 34 'Exceptions' doesn't seem to allow it.

Maybe needs a look at?

On the plus side, it would certainly be easier to beat them in two ranks.

Don

Yeah, but they don't stay in two ranks! As they bore down on me Dave's units were almost continuously either expanding or contracting - often for reasons that were too subtle for me to grasp. so I just called it the "Swiss Accordion" and concentrated on running away

Ran away accordion-gly ?

Timmy 1 said...

As I was on the recieving end of Steve's 3 GBGs of 16 Elite Swiss, two of which deployed not as Keils, and a Swiss player myself to boot, rest assured I spent most of the time Steve was on fag breaks looking for something to confirm that he could not be 2-deep and could not even find a hint of it... I believe it is legal.

AJust to clarify for our posters in the former colonies, a fag is a cigarette, and not what you might have thought from American slang !

My original post read something like 'every time Steve stepped out for a quick suck on his fag...' but as we were near to Canal Street I changed it to avoid any possible misunderstandings...

i

You can probably blaim it on the numpty who played Swiss in the Beta tourney not having the brains to think of it so the rules authors did not see it to ban it.

However I think we have to be careful of making rash judgements about the historical accuracy here. A 16 base GBG of Swiss probably represents 3000 men. Even if 20 ranks deep the frontage will be 150 files. The formation will be approximately 7.5 times wider than it is long, so probably represents the contingents of a number of cantons. On the table in 15mm it will be 40mm deep and 320mm wide which is not too far off 7.5 to 1. I don't have any problem with it then closing up to at the moment of impact. From what I read of 1476 to 1513 nothing says that the Swiss were not able to manouvre rapidly and with great skill.

An historical example please?

Even assuming your analysis is correct, we all know that bases represent mostly empty air and the same argument can be made in favor of pike and shot units, for instance, deploying in a single line. Surely easier for authors to man up and admit they made a mistake (as RBS indicated in this topic) and issue an errata statement outlawing the practice.

Kevin[/quote]

I'd have thought the fact they are called Swiss or Pike Keils when listed would indicate they have to fight in that formation. Otherwise why not just call them Pike ?

As above, they are listed as keils. Keils must have at least 2 files with 4+ bases. The rest would be free to deploy as desired.

I'd have thought the fact they are called Swiss or Pike Keils when listed would indicate they have to fight in that formation. Otherwise why not just call them Pike ?

Indeed, Ya might think so Paul!!

Ecrasez l'infame!

Kevin

Sorry to disagree with our North American (well I am not really but felt I should pretend...) but the word 'keil' appears in the troop name rather than in the bases per BG (such as ET or LT might). The rules on page 29 say 'To count as a "keil"... a battle group must include at least two files including at least 4 bases'. I can find nothing that says that troops with the name 'keil' having to deploy as "keil".

So does 'tercios.'

So does 'tercios.'

Yet some troops named as 'tercios' aren't actually tercios.

What's happening here is that the rules are particularly restrictive about the formation some BG types are allowed to use and some people assume such restrictions apply to all formations. The rules are quite clear: tercios, and pike & shot BGs have these restrictions, others don't.

Almost all pike BGs can form keil, but nothing says they have to. If they don't they simply don't get the advantages of the formation. Where's the problem?

Dave

None. Just trying to clarify a point in case it comes up in games here.

Sorry, wasn't meant as aggressively as it might have looked

Dave

PS signing off now - in Cologne where my sons have just had a day at a massive games con - around 250,000 visitors they tell me!!!

I'm not saying it is wrong Dave, but it is one of those things that don't look right, if you know what I mean.

I agree nothing in the rules suggests what you did was illegal.

Unlike the Tercio rules that state that you have to keep your bases in the footprint of the tercio, there is no such restriction for Kiels. It does sound like it was overlooked and I agree a decision should be made and it should be posted in the errata.
Were only human and it happens, too bad the beta Swiss player was not more sinister in his deployment.

Perhaps one of the authors could give us a ruling to end this endless discussion .

bahdahbum wrote:Perhaps one of the authors could give us a ruling to end this endless discussion .

RBS did in a different thread. He has taken in the historical arguments and outlawed the Swiss accordion manuever. If you can form a Keil you must do so and reform into a Keil if casualties temp cause you to be a non-Keil.

Interesting . We might ask what about phalanx in FOGAM ? Alexander did deploy them in less ranks than usual ...but ?

We might ask what about phalanx in FOGAM ? Alexander did deploy them in less ranks than usual ...but ?

True, and I agree with you. But that is a fight for another time and place. Doesn't sound like it is on the current "fix list" for FoG-AM2.

Kevin

By bthe way I hope to see some of you in January at the brussels tournament IWchallenge 2012

The Swiss did not always form deep though. At the battle of Seminara in 1495 the Swiss only formed three ranks deep as they judged the Spanish and Neapolitan troops on the other side incapable of putting up much resistance.

I think the difference between Keil and the other formations is that pike and shot units were composed of fundamentally different troop types who were stuck together in order to mutually assist each other. In order to work together a certain amount of time and effort had to be put into arranging them just so vis a vis each other. Germanic pike blocks of the late 15th-early 16th centuries were all made up of troops with essentially the same function -- to engage and overthrow the enemy in close combat by engaging him as quickly as possible. Speed and combat power generally required that the troops form deep (in a keil), but they did not always do so.

He has taken in the historical arguments and outlawed the Swiss accordion manuever

By the way, reading Opsrey's battle of PAVIA 1525, I read that swiss and germans of the imperial armies were trained to deploy in less ranks in order to minimize casualties under artillery fire .

So it seems that , after all, there might be an historical argument in favour of the swiss acordeonic tactic


I hope to see some of you at IWC2012 ( brussels end of january )