Slitherine

lawrenceg wrote:So would it solve it if, when only 1 base of a column is in contact, it and its opponent roll double the normal number of dice?

Column is a manouver formation, not a battle formation. So it's use should be discouraged close to enemy. AND those turning into column to produce an intercept flank charge would love the extra dice.

Like I said, change the -1 CT modifier for impacts to "lost" instead of 1 HP3B, and column charges look a lot less interesting.

spikemesq wrote:Like I said, change the -1 CT modifier for impacts to "lost" instead of 1 HP3B, and column charges look a lot less interesting.

But if a column loses it must have taken 1 HP3. It punishes those not in column who may not take 1HP3 when they lose.

philqw78 wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:So would it solve it if, when only 1 base of a column is in contact, it and its opponent roll double the normal number of dice?

Column is a manouver formation, not a battle formation. So it's use should be discouraged close to enemy. AND those turning into column to produce an intercept flank charge would love the extra dice.

yes and those who turn to avoid a flank charge? or would the 'column penality' not be to receive a charge?

If a column is a manouvre formation should it no be easier to expand for drilled or undrilled, as they need to form a 'natural' battle formation to impact/fight?

Sign the petition! Save the "To be disadvantaged in Column" alternative lifestyle battlegroups.

Our membership includes:-

Republican Roman - Triari - 2 Superior Armoured Offensive Spear
Ordonnance French - Gendarmes - 2 Superior Knights
War of the Roses - Royal Household Knights - 2 Superior Knights
War of the Roses - Mecenary Pikemen - 4 Average Pikemen
Early Hungarian - Teutonic Knights - 2 Superior Knights
Nikephorian Byzantine - Kataphractaritaritaritari - 2 Elite Cats
Ottoman Turkish - Turka Derka Nobles - 2 Elite Bow Cav
Successor - Agema - 2 Elite Lancer Cav


Endorsed by Napoleon "Viva La Column!"

Knights should always be penalized for fighting in column.

?????? Wedge anyone???????

A myth. Read Delbrueck.

Is this really prevalent enough to warrant.

What are people really experiencing that is a problem.

Defensive spearmen charging around in column then expanding into mellee.

Ghilmen contracting to column vs arab lancers prior to impact?

If the chargers are wider than the defenders often a slight wheel is enough to scoop up the base hiding in the back rank (unless the two BGs are perfectly parallel and lined up prior to impact.

It the issue columns generally or wide groups in battle lines contracting a little to crete gaps prior to impact, then expanding after the fight. eg spearmen vs impact foot sword.

Cavalry against camels, always. Cavalry against spears or, if they have to fight them, pikes. Its mainly a cavalry problem because they are normally a 4 base BG and can get into column easily and after impact they expand to their normal fighting width. I see it a lot.

and what about : if you want to expand in melee make a CMT. If BG in column must make a CMT to feed base in melee , it will be very dangerous to charge in column or received a charge in column. .....

philqw78 wrote:Cavalry against camels, always. Cavalry against spears or, if they have to fight them, pikes. Its mainly a cavalry problem because they are normally a 4 base BG and can get into column easily and after impact they expand to their normal fighting width. I see it a lot.

Armoured infantry with Light spear/sword against MF with light spear/bow. Armoured infantry with heavy weapon against protected impact foot/sword. I see it a lot too.

Lycanthropic wrote:Sign the petition! Save the "To be disadvantaged in Column" alternative lifestyle battlegroups.

This is fixed by a 2-base unit rule ala FOGR where they get +1 on the death roll. exempt 2 base elements that don't roll 2 dice in melee.