Keil formations

[hood_mick]

Don a Tercio is always a Tercio, but a battle Groups is only a Keil if it has 2 files at least 4 bases deep of the right troop type. Thus a Tercio and a Keil turn differently from a base wide column of a BG not a Tercio/Keil.

[Delbruck]

The Keil is supposed to be a block in any event. So, if it able to face 90 or 180 it should maintain it's original formation (facing in the new direction).

[daveallen]

Ha!

I go away on holiday for a couple of weeks and return to find my Swiss trashed by a rules author.

Where can I get me some cheap bowmen?

Actually, not such a problem for the Swiss who can usually rely on their speed to get them into contact before they face too much attrition.

However, there is a conflict with the definition of a legal formation if the rules are changed as suggested. For example if a 442 keil loses a base from one of the 4s it would become a 342. It isn't a keil and has more than one rank with an unequal number of bases. It must change its formation, but isn't forced to contract to remain a keil so it would have the option to expand to 12222 because it hasn't expanded "so that it ceases to be a keil."

Nor does the rule allow a keil or ex-keil to form square.

A simple way to overcome these issues is to rewrite the rule as follows:

Any non-tercio battle group that is capable of adopting keil formation must do so at all times unless it is in, or forming, square. If as a result of base losses it ceases to be a keil, but still has at least eight pike, swordsmen or two handed weapon bases, it must attempt to reform as a keil as soon as it is able. If it has fewer than eight such bases the only formation changes permitted are to form or leave square, or reduce or expand frontage so that the pike, swordsmen or two handed weapon bases are no more than one or two bases wide.

In my view, the troops in a keil are inclined/trained to bunch together in a deep formation and they would attempt to do this even if they did not get the advantage of the keil rule. This rule would ensure that they do not spread out even after they are reduced below eight bases. The reason for the clumsy reference to pike, etc is to include keils with shot wings. I hope it all makes sense.

Regards,


Dave Allen

[daveallen]

Just a slight adjustment:

Any non-tercio battle group that is capable of adopting keil formation must do so at all times unless it is in, or forming, square. If as a result of base losses it ceases to be a keil, but still has at least eight heavy foot or determined foot bases, it must attempt to reform as a keil as soon as it is able. If it has fewer than eight such bases the only formation changes permitted are to form or leave square, or reduce or expand frontage so that the heavy foot or determined foot are no more than one or two bases wide.

Gets rid of the "pike..." clumsiness.

Dave

[deadtorius]

That seems to have covered it very well, so does that make you a Swiss rules author???

[madaxeman]

Just a slight adjustment:

Any non-tercio battle group that is capable of adopting keil formation must do so at all times unless it is in, or forming, square. If as a result of base losses it ceases to be a keil, but still has at least eight heavy foot or determined foot bases, it must attempt to reform as a keil as soon as it is able. If it has fewer than eight such bases the only formation changes permitted are to form or leave square, or reduce or expand frontage so that the heavy foot or determined foot are no more than one or two bases wide.

Gets rid of the "pike..." clumsiness.

Dave

Would this prevent an 8-base 2-wide Kiel expanding a 4th rank halberdier out to form an overlap when in combat (or is this already illegal?)

[viperofmilan]

Would this prevent an 8-base 2-wide Kiel expanding a 4th rank halberdier out to form an overlap when in combat (or is this already illegal?)

This already is illegal as all 4 ranks of HF are contributing to POA.

Kevin

[madaxeman]

Would this prevent an 8-base 2-wide Kiel expanding a 4th rank halberdier out to form an overlap when in combat (or is this already illegal?)

This already is illegal as all 4 ranks of HF are contributing to POA.

Kevin

OK - thought so (problems of posting without the rules in front of me). However, from a game tonight...

An 11-strong unit in combat (4/4/3) lost a base and was reduced to 10 bases.

Can it (or must it) then reform or move bases around whilst in combat - either to a 6/4 or even a 4/4/2 (which would be moving a base which doesn't contribute dice or POA's)?

[Simpleton]

OK - thought so (problems of posting without the rules in front of me). However, from a game tonight...

An 11-strong unit in combat (4/4/3) lost a base and was reduced to 10 bases.

Can it (or must it) then reform or move bases around whilst in combat - either to a 6/4 or even a 4/4/2 (which would be moving a base which doesn't contribute dice or POA's)?

To be legal at least 2 files must have 4 bases at least 2 of which per file are Pike and the others are Pike, swordsmen or Hvy Weapon. So if you have 11 bases of the appropriate type, you could be 5/5/1 ovrlap, or 1/5/4/1 with two overlaps, or 4/4/3 with a deeper overlap.

[madaxeman]

OK - thought so (problems of posting without the rules in front of me). However, from a game tonight...

An 11-strong unit in combat (4/4/3) lost a base and was reduced to 10 bases.

Can it (or must it) then reform or move bases around whilst in combat - either to a 6/4 or even a 4/4/2 (which would be moving a base which doesn't contribute dice or POA's)?

To be legal at least 2 files must have 4 bases at least 2 of which per file are Pike and the others are Pike, swordsmen or Hvy Weapon. So if you have 11 bases of the appropriate type, you could be 5/5/1 ovrlap, or 1/5/4/1 with two overlaps, or 4/4/3 with a deeper overlap.

Might some of these formations make the formation illegal under the "only one odd numbered rank of one type of troops" rule though?

I wonder if "in combat" should be an exception to the "Kiels must Reform to be Kiels"rule, as it gets too messy otherwise..?

[daveallen]

An 11-strong unit in combat (4/4/3) lost a base and was reduced to 10 bases.

Can it (or must it) then reform or move bases around whilst in combat - either to a 6/4 or even a 4/4/2 (which would be moving a base which doesn't contribute dice or POA's)?

My view on this is that the rules on legal formations and keils both apply.

This means that if the base being removed happened to be the front of the 3 file and the two behind were halberdiers that would be acceptable as 442 is both a keil and a legal formation. However, in other circumstances the BG would cease to be a keil as it would have to reduce to 433 (or 343) to remain a legal formation.

Bear in mind that the proposed rule: "If as a result of base losses it ceases to be a keil, but still has at least eight heavy foot or determined foot bases" allows for a BG to cease to be a keil through base losses even while it has enough bases to be in keil formation. Also, the rule: "it must attempt to reform as a keil as soon as it is able" means it probably won't reform whilst in combat.

So, it must attempt to reform on its first move after the combat is finished, but until then it is permitted for it to be out of keil formation.

Dave

[timmy1]

Dave

You wrote

'I go away on holiday for a couple of weeks and return to find my Swiss trashed by a rules author.'

Would this be the same 'rules author' who you beat 15-5 with your Swiss at Britcon per chance? :)

Regards
Tim

[rbodleyscott]

Dave

You wrote

'I go away on holiday for a couple of weeks and return to find my Swiss trashed by a rules author.'

Would this be the same 'rules author' who you beat 15-5 with your Swiss at Britcon per chance?

Regards
Tim

In point of fact, he would have got a much better score if he hadn't wasted most of the game time doing the hokey-kokey with his keils.

[timmy1]

Don't doubt that having been hit by Steve's steamroller version...

[madaxeman]

Dave

You wrote

'I go away on holiday for a couple of weeks and return to find my Swiss trashed by a rules author.'

Would this be the same 'rules author' who you beat 15-5 with your Swiss at Britcon per chance?

Regards
Tim

Wouldn't be the first time...

http://www.madaxeman.com/reports/usk2000.php

[peterrjohnston]

Here you can clearly see Swiss concertinaing as some of the bases expand outwards...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... illing.jpg

And here they're even in single line!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... enfeld.jpg



( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Categ ... uselang=de for anyone who wants to see all the pictures available).

[khurasan_miniatures]

Well, the rules must be historically accurate, as the magnates of the late 15th and early 16th centuries were asking themselves this very question -- how do we stop the Swiss? The answer they came upon was, "let's have a military revolution." Of course, even with that, they still had to put up several layers of field fortifications in order to weather the shock of impact. And even then the Swiss almost won several of those battles! (Marignano comes to mind -- and actually did win on at least one occasion, at Calven during the Swabian War.)

However, one thing the magnates did not need to worry about was the accordian maneuver, so well fixed ....

[footslogger]

Here you can clearly see Swiss concertinaing as some of the bases expand outwards...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... illing.jpg

And here they're even in single line!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... enfeld.jpg



( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Categ ... uselang=de for anyone who wants to see all the pictures available).

These are amazing! It's interesting that the artist was a FoG:R player. I see that he conveniently labelled many of the swiss with a "+" to keep track of their final POAs in impact and close combat.

[peterrjohnston]

These are amazing! It's interesting that the artist was a FoG:R player. I see that he conveniently labelled many of the swiss with a "+" to keep track of their final POAs in impact and close combat.

Sometimes I wonder if we get infantry right. In this one the army of the (Swiss) League of God's House (black ram on white flag) is attacking the Swabians from the woods at the Battle of Frastanz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Schla ... astanz.jpg


Also marching round flanks over mountains seems to be something the Swiss did often. I suppose if you've lived all your life in the mountains and walking is the only way to get around, physically it was easy for them to do.

[footslogger]

These are amazing! It's interesting that the artist was a FoG:R player. I see that he conveniently labelled many of the swiss with a "+" to keep track of their final POAs in impact and close combat.

Sometimes I wonder if we get infantry right. In this one the army of the (Swiss) League of God's House (black ram on white flag) is attacking the Swabians from the woods at the Battle of Frastanz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Schla ... astanz.jpg


Also marching round flanks over mountains seems to be something the Swiss did often. I suppose if you've lived all your life in the mountains and walking is the only way to get around, physically it was easy for them to do.

Getting things right is tough for wargames. What I'd like to see a game that puts players into a particular perspective on a battle and tries to make that perspective realistic. I don't think there are many games that try to do this, and it's probably a really tough goal.