Keil formations

[madaxeman]

So, this proposed Keil rule redefinition would mean that ALL pike-only or pike-and-halberd/sword formations in every army list where at least 8 bases are allowed must always deploy and/or form up as a Keil.... and all such pre-shot--era Pikemen would have all operated in a way to justify the formation-specific advantages Kiels get?

I appreciate the alternative might be a list tweak/amend, but are we sure on this ?

[footslogger]

Another way to approach it might be to penalize the formation on impact and melee perhaps by making unprotected pike < 3 deep a "-" on impact and melee?

[daveallen]

Footslogger wrote:

Another way to approach it might be to penalize the formation on impact and melee perhaps by making unprotected pike < 3 deep a "-" on impact and melee?

Fair point, but the complaint was that Swiss were acting in a sneaky way - by deploying and manoeuvring 2-deep they avoided the effects of Artillery and prevented enemy getting round their flanks. They then formed Keils just before impact thus getting the advantages of deep formation as well. Also, this would seriously discomfort pike bg's created when their shot are detached.

Madaxeman wrote:

So, this proposed Keil rule redefinition would mean that ALL pike-only or pike-and-halberd/sword formations in every army list where at least 8 bases are allowed must always deploy and/or form up as a Keil.... and all such pre-shot--era Pikemen would have all operated in a way to justify the formation-specific advantages Kiels get?

I appreciate the alternative might be a list tweak/amend, but are we sure on this ?

I don't really see any "pre-shot" pike in these rules - the Swiss list starts (and ends) right at the beginning. Others around that time could be said to have operated in the same tactical environment and so adopted similar methods, Landsknechte would be the prime example.

Interestingly, one of the English lists in T&T specifically denies Keil formation to its pike.

Whether or not the poorly trained pikemen of, say, a Peasant Wars army should get the same advantages as Swiss is a good question, but one the authors seem to have answered by not barring them from forming keils. If they can form a keil and get its advantages then the rule should also prevent them avoiding its disadvantages.

Regards,

Dave Allen

[footslogger]

Footslogger wrote:

Another way to approach it might be to penalize the formation on impact and melee perhaps by making unprotected pike < 3 deep a "-" on impact and melee?

Fair point, but the complaint was that Swiss were acting in a sneaky way - by deploying and manoeuvring 2-deep they avoided the effects of Artillery and prevented enemy getting round their flanks. They then formed Keils just before impact thus getting the advantages of deep formation as well. Also, this would seriously discomfort pike bg's created when their shot are detached.

<snip>

Regards,

Dave Allen

Ah, yes, I see now what the technique is doing, and that they could get back in formation quickly before those "-"s would have any deleterious effect.

[madaxeman]

I don't really see any "pre-shot" pike in these rules - the Swiss list starts (and ends) right at the beginning. Others around that time could be said to have operated in the same tactical environment and so adopted similar methods, Landsknechte would be the prime example.

Interestingly, one of the English lists in T&T specifically denies Keil formation to its pike.

Whether or not the poorly trained pikemen of, say, a Peasant Wars army should get the same advantages as Swiss is a good question, but one the authors seem to have answered by not barring them from forming keils. If they can form a keil and get its advantages then the rule should also prevent them avoiding its disadvantages.

Regards,

Dave Allen

There are a few more pike units in the early end of the eastern book. Maybe a reality check might be needed on what is after all a very small number of lists and books?

[Simpleton]

Maybe instead of trying to write up some wholly new description of Keils, the authors just add a (K) next to certain troops who have to form Keils such as Swiss and Landsknects, and whatever other troops might qualify. Leaving all other types to deploy freely. Also, I think there should be a Keil exception in regards to defending Artillery, Fortifications, Villages, and water features, as deep formations would not always be tactically useful in these situations and would explain the previous response about the Battle of Seminara. The Swiss did deploy three deep, rather than the traditional Keil formation, however the armies were separated by a stream.

[ravenflight]

*sigh*

All these rules that have to be written and re-written to stop exploitation... annoying isn't it?

If you build a pike army you KNOW you're going to have artillery problems... using ahistorical formations to avoid that sucks IMHO.

If you don't like it enough to want to be ahistorical don't run the damned army!

[madaxeman]

*sigh*

All these rules that have to be written and re-written to stop exploitation... annoying isn't it?

If you build a pike army you KNOW you're going to have artillery problems... using ahistorical formations to avoid that sucks IMHO.

If you don't like it enough to want to be ahistorical don't run the damned army!

Agreed... however where do you draw the line?

Is a 12-strong pike unit allowed to deploy 4 wide and 3 deep ? They still get the artillery minus...

What happens when the same pike gets 4 bases shot off - should they contract to 3-wide, or can they stay 2-deep?

These things can happen by accident rather than design..

[rbodleyscott]

So, this proposed Keil rule redefinition would mean that ALL pike-only or pike-and-halberd/sword formations in every army list where at least 8 bases are allowed must always deploy and/or form up as a Keil.... and all such pre-shot--era Pikemen would have all operated in a way to justify the formation-specific advantages Kiels get?

Well errm, yes, in general. If there are any known historical exceptions perhaps someone could point them out.