Slitherine

Mario,

If you consider just the impact phase of a column of spear charging impact foot then you are indeed correct that there is a significantly lower chance that the spear will disrupt at impact. The issue is that you cannot consider just the impact phase in isolation.

I have plugged the numbers into my single round stats calculator and assuming average troops against average troops you get:

Legionaries disrupted 9.88%
Neither side disrupted 56.79%
Spear disrupted 33.33%

This does not take into account the chance of base loses.

The same combat on a 2 base frontage ends up with

Legionaries disrupted 11.87%
Neither side disrupted 45.61%
Spear disrupted 42.52%

There is no argument at all that in this isolated match up the spear are better off if they charge on a narrow frontage.

Where there is an issue is that by advancing in column the spear run the risk of being disrupted by shooting which is anything but insignificant as even a single average dice shooting with a - POA against a column of average troops with a general in command radius has a 9.26% chance of disrupting the spear and if that happens things are really bad for the spear.

As for stopping the expansion consider this:


The yellow BG has moved to a possition where it can shoot and it can block expansion.

hammy wrote:Mario,

If you consider just the impact phase of a column of spear charging impact foot then you are indeed correct that there is a significantly lower chance that the spear will disrupt at impact. The issue is that you cannot consider just the impact phase in isolation.

At last! I started this thread as an academic discussion, but since start all people deny even what you are now saying, so that there is an advantage statistically talking to do so. If this can introduced in real game it's another story. I know that I could appear boring, but I want say again I'm interested only for love of discussion to find if this could be possible, because I still consider this move not historical.

hammy wrote:I have plugged the numbers into my single round stats calculator and assuming average troops against average troops you get:

Legionaries disrupted 9.88%
Neither side disrupted 56.79%
Spear disrupted 33.33%

This does not take into account the chance of base loses.

The same combat on a 2 base frontage ends up with

Legionaries disrupted 11.87%
Neither side disrupted 45.61%
Spear disrupted 42.52%

There is no argument at all that in this isolated match up the spear are better off if they charge on a narrow frontage.

Again: at last!

hammy wrote:Where there is an issue is that by advancing in column the spear run the risk of being disrupted by shooting which is anything but insignificant as even a single average dice shooting with a - POA against a column of average troops with a general in command radius has a 9.26% chance of disrupting the spear and if that happens things are really bad for the spear.

As for stopping the expansion consider this:


The yellow BG has moved to a possition where it can shoot and it can block expansion.

OK, but you are not honest You get an extra BG and give me nothing? Take a look to what instead I had in mind (same forces):



Mario.

If the spears were in a 2 wide, 3 deep column (which would be more sensible so they still get full dice in melee) then they would just expand to the other side and still fight the melee at 6 dice each.

(this refers to Hammy's example 2 posts above)

As Mario has mentioned above, the only counter to this tactic appears to involve introducing another battle group not in the original example.
Next week I'll be playing Seleucids vs Galations. It is very likely that my battle line of pike and elephants (3 BGs of each)will face a battle line of galation warriors (with no missile troops anywhere nearby). It is very advantageous for me to put my elephants into column just before impact. Elephants vs Galation warriors (Superior, Impact Foot, Swordsmen) are at a slight disadvantage at impact and slight advantage in melee. The big danger to the elephants is losing a base at impact. If each BG fights with 4 dice at impact then there is a reasonable chance that at least one BG will lost a base (and thus the BG will be lost). If they each fight with 2 dice at impact there is very little chance of any of them losing a base. Then in melee they expand and fight with 4 dice each.

OK then what about this:



A BG of LF, even one that has pulled back turns 90 then wheels and passes through the line of impact foot into the double base gap. There is a chance that the spear may be able to angle their charge to take the skirmishers with them but depending on the distance between the two lines that may end up with one of the spear BGs not making the combat at all or with one BG infront of the others and at an angle which could be a problem.

In my book the fact that just one shot at a - POA has almost a 10% chance of disrupting a column of spear is more than enough reason not to use this tactic.

Advancing 2 wide and 3 deep is a reasonable compromise as is trying to catch just the end BG of the enemy line on the end base.

What you have to realise is that any 'clever' plan has downsides and your opponent will do everything in his power to exploit them.

You're still having to introduce extra BGs into the example to provide a counter to the tactic. There isn't a BG of LF behind the blue battle line. So now how do you stop it ?

hammy wrote:What you have to realise is that any 'clever' plan has downsides and your opponent will do everything in his power to exploit them.

You are still not honest, because you get extra BG without according me the same. If you use superiority you indeed will have not much problems to mess up my tactic. Anyway, you still don't consider one important fact: it didn't order me the doctor to put in column . If, when you are in the right spot, you see that your opponent can have something to turn your tactic against you, you simply go for the first solution: line vs line.

Mario.

Polkovnik wrote:You're still having to introduce extra BGs into the example to provide a counter to the tactic. There isn't a BG of LF behind the blue battle line. So now how do you stop it ?

Oh well, I suppose I had to in the end....

Yes it is true, you can kink in FoG.



The whole point is that you simply cannot consider just one thing in isolation. There are always other factors. If someone tries to get clever against me then I will get clever back.

BTW if you advance as a solid line of spears kinking won't work as you just end up with a non conformed melee.

Mario, as no players used to play in FOG tournament, answered "great, I will use this tactic next time", it simply means this tactics could work against newbees but not against experienced FOG players.

Sometimes I charge with my knights on 2x2 formation rather than on a line, in order to reduce fire of bowmen, crossbowmen, both on shooting and impact phase.
This formation may not be an historical one, but if you do it in line formation, you have a lot of chance to get the same results that the french knights against english longbowmen during the real HYW. So the result using FOG rules is pretty closed from history if you play exactly in the same way that it historically happened.
But the purpose of a wargame rule is to offer us the "what if" and to offer us to try different tactics depending of your army, the ennemy army and the terrain.

Personnaly, I don't see any "hole in the rule" using the tactic you describe. Mathematically it sounds good, but on the table it will be hard to achieve the result you pointed out.

hammy wrote:BTW if you advance as a solid line of spears kinking won't work as you just end up with a non conformed melee.

You give the answer by yourself. When I saw your diagram, at glance I thinked: perfect! I charge with lines and in manoeuvre phase I advance and expand with columns so I conform as overlap and I fight with more bases than my opponent. If at the point you draw the diagram my lines are not in charge reach, yet better! I advance with all my BG and reform a line. I will end my move in restricted area of kinked BGs and then I want to see how you exit from that mess!

Mario.

frederic wrote:Personnaly, I don't see any "hole in the rule" using the tactic you describe. Mathematically it sounds good, but on the table it will be hard to achieve the result you pointed out.

Hole in the rule is an indeed wrong term and I apologized for this in a previous post. I said that I posted a thread with that title, even if question mark wants to signify it was just a doubt, because this to me seems a trick not historical. About your formation, this is the same case. Yes, wargame rules born to test "what can happen if" but you forget an important matter: ancient warriors were not stupid.s If they didn't make certain manoeuvres, that can appear to us obvious, likely this happen because we don't know enough about them.

In conclusion, even if all this thread could make you think opposite, I prefer to loose with an historical tactic than to win with unhistorical tricks. Anyway, I can always find a decent excuse for my failure, and I must not suffer punishment ancient people reserve to loser generals

Mario

hammy wrote:

Have I missed something? Isn't that inherently dangerous for blue? As yellow I'd wheel all BGs to their respective kinked BGs and charge in. The inner colums just do not expand, not are they required to. Now I have an overlap on each of the kinked BGs.

I assume the kinked BGs forward position by a gnat's todger in front of the middle BGs is deliberate? If so blue look a little stuck now. One of the inner BGs would have to contract to allow the other to move into overlap in the next blue turn and by then it could be as good as over.

If you mean the kinked BGs to be corner to corner with the inner ones then blue can get both inner BGs in to overlap but not unitl their turn.

Steve P

If the outer BGs wheel in by 1 degree leaving their corners in contact with the inner ones then there is nothing the spear player can do to fight all along the line. Drawing a diagram like that is not easy and the point may be missed so I exagerated. As the diagram stands I can't actually see how the spears can engineer an overlap but I will take your word for it as I am obviously not able to see it.

The blue player will of course advance so as to be at 3MU from all the spear BGs and the outer BGs will advance the same distance before their tiny wheel.

The end result will be that the outer BGs cannot be overlapped and the middle ones if charged are sure of one overlap each. The spears could choose to expand back to a sensible formation before charging and then wheel slightly out and they will get everyone in contact. Of course should any of the spear BGs fail their CMT not to charge they will be in BIG trouble.

hammy wrote:As the diagram stands I can't actually see how the spears can engineer an overlap but I will take your word for it as I am obviously not able to see it.

I was assuming each of the central yellow BGs would have time and room to actually wheel and hit the kinked BGs on their inner most base. The position of the outer yellow BGs suggests if they both wheel outward and advance the final position would mean they slide left on the left and right on the right when conforming, hence achieving the overlap on the outside bases.


But of course it depends on the true distances as opposed to my reading of the diagram and whose turn it is etc, etc...

stenic wrote:But of course it depends on the true distances as opposed to my reading of the diagram and whose turn it is etc, etc...

Well from earlier in the thread I am assuming that the spears are about 3MU away from the impact foot.

If the spear advance to 3 MU from the impact foot the impact foot can all safely test to not charge as even if they do charge they will not end up with overlaps against them (which would not be the case if the spear were in a solid line). If the spear are more than 3MU away then the impact foot can safely advance to 3MU and setup the kinks which means that any failed not to charge tests by the middle BGs of spear will end up with them in a real mess.

Yes this 'tactic' will possibly gain you a small advantage in some situations and I freely admit that if I have cataphracts against spears I always try to hit the end of the line for essentially just this reason. The problem is that if your opponent uses their brain there are quite a few ways that the plan can come badly unstuck.

If it worked you would see top players using it. You don't see top players doing it ergo it probably doesn't work when you try it on the battlefield.

hammy wrote:

Polkovnik wrote:You're still having to introduce extra BGs into the example to provide a counter to the tactic. There isn't a BG of LF behind the blue battle line. So now how do you stop it ?

Oh well, I suppose I had to in the end....

Yes it is true, you can kink in FoG.



The whole point is that you simply cannot consider just one thing in isolation. There are always other factors. If someone tries to get clever against me then I will get clever back.

BTW if you advance as a solid line of spears kinking won't work as you just end up with a non conformed melee.

OK, but I'm quite boring, because as historical fan I don't see how this fit with history.
I can split in 2 situations. As you remember, my spearmen are 3 to 6 MU away. Of course, if they are exactly 3 MU away your troops must CMT before assuming that configuration, but it's a rare case and I don't want to consider it. So, your troops can be quite near to 3 MU away, I would say less than 4 MU, or they are a little far. If they are a little far I advance to exactly 3 MU from the more advanced point of your line, like this:

this for my troops is a simple move (I always supposed my spearmen are drilled). I depicted the line reformed, but this is not much important. Now your outer BG must CMT or will be in trouble. Anyway, I can figure out also a move with undrilled, because we are out of 3 MU we must not charge, so we can advance full, ending very closely to red line, that is not a line in this moment, and next turn we want to see what they will do in this confused formation (you will need a lot of wheel and a lot of imagination to contact my troops, and badly you must do in the way I wanted). I mean this

If instead we are quite near to 3 MU, so you with a small kink can let your outer BGs be within 3 MU from my respective, but of course central BGs are not, I reply with this:

This is the situation after manoeuvre, so after impact, conforming and movement of column, that expand one file and wheel. Of course I must impact without column bonus, but in melee you cannot gain overlap and I can gain rear support.

Mario

Mario, my line have all advanced to 3 MUs, then the outer parts have wheeled in slightly. If either one of your central BGs fails the shock troops roll it will charge into a double overlap. If both fail or both charge then they will charge into an overlapped position.

Should we ever meet over the table you are more than welcome to try attacking in columns with spears. I do not dissagree at all that at the point of impact they are not as badly off as they would be if they charged in a solid line but I am still sure that as an overall game plan for winning a battle it is not a particualrly good one.

Shall we just call it a feature of the rules and be done with it?

hammy wrote:Mario, my line have all advanced to 3 MUs, then the outer parts have wheeled in slightly. If either one of your central BGs fails the shock troops roll it will charge into a double overlap. If both fail or both charge then they will charge into an overlapped position.

Should we ever meet over the table you are more than welcome to try attacking in columns with spears. I do not dissagree at all that at the point of impact they are not as badly off as they would be if they charged in a solid line but I am still sure that as an overall game plan for winning a battle it is not a particualrly good one.

Shall we just call it a feature of the rules and be done with it?

Sorry, but this could be even worst for you. I test with my outer not to charge and then I charge with central 2 BGs. If at least one BG pass test, in that side I have an advantage (you cannot claim overlap with kinked BG because they are not in side contact with a friend). In that side I can advance my BG and also reform in column, if there are no menaces as such skirmishers, and I can kink my BG too. If in a side I don't pass CMT, I go with both my BG. The BG in line will fight as usual, the one in column fight a first round with lower chance to DISR, than in melee can expand from just one side and fight 4 vs 6, and this also happen in any way with my tactic in first melee round. But as I stated at start of this thread, 4 dice at 4 against 6 at 5 are a better chance than 6 spearmen DISR. In conclusion, with your move you can just hold down damages, that is quite far from the original assertion someone made (I can't remember who) spearmen would be torn to pieces.

Other that, I will agree with you totally. First of all, for a good game you need an overall plan and not some callous tricks. Anyway, I never stated so, that you can win with this genial move , and again I went on in this discussion just for curiosity. Again, chances we meet over the table are near to zero (I play only at my local club with just some old friends).

Mario.

If the outer BGs wheel in by 1 degree leaving their corners in contact with the inner ones then there is nothing the spear player can do to fight all along the line.

If the two inner BGs charge this turn, and the outer BGs charge the following turn, then they will be able to fight along the line, won't they ? Obviously they would have to make CMTs not to charge if appropriate.

Polkovnik wrote:

If the outer BGs wheel in by 1 degree leaving their corners in contact with the inner ones then there is nothing the spear player can do to fight all along the line.

If the two inner BGs charge this turn, and the outer BGs charge the following turn, then they will be able to fight along the line, won't they ? Obviously they would have to make CMTs not to charge if appropriate.

True, as the outer 'wings' have not got in the way of expansion then the centre BGs would be able to expand (although this would put them in corner to corner contact with the 'wings' and I am not sure that you can expand in that situation.

Either way it is overcomplicating things for the spears and the risk of it all going belly up is a lot more than the small improved chance of not disrupting at impact.