The Swiss Problem

[Paisley]

As those who've played RoR will perhaps be aware, there used to be an all-elite legion version of the Late Roman Republican list that was rather overpowered (to say the least). It wasn't unbeatable, but it was unhistorical and the list had now been adjusted to a much more reasonable (though in my opinion still too many elites allowed) state. The Late Republicans are now reasonably beatable in DAG play whilst remaining historically strong... pretty much as things should be (not all lists are going to be equally good in DAG play).

The Swiss present a different problem. I don't think it can be disputed that an all-superior drilled army (bar lights) is entirely justified historically. And they are historically fearsome in the game too. My record in DAG play is pretty average, I think. I maybe win a few more than I lose, and I think I'm improving, but see this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=16440&start=0

Which, although slightly tongue in cheek, I think illustrates my point (which i'm coming to...)

I have lost no battles as the Swiss (thus far). The only ones that have been close have been the ones where the terrain was entirely unsuitable for the Swiss to operate in, and still they won - sometimes only by a hairsbreadth, but still. Any games where the battlefield has lacked woods, fields, streams and steep hills in some quantity and positioned reasonably well for the other side to exploit have been fairly straightforward wins - often against players who would give me a tough game normally. Two wins have seen the Swiss fail to have a single unit even fragmented. 15 straight wins...

As I say, this seems to me to be fair enough historically but I wonder if in the interests of balance the DAG might not be adjusted for the Swiss. 15pts for a single drilled superior pikeman is fair enough. 90 pts for six is also fair enough (as in the Late Macedonian list). But at 600pts, I usually field 24 drilled superior pikes supported by 9 drilled superior halberdiers. 33 superior units in all. I don't think any other list has that level of ... well... superiority... Generally, if you dispose of ten or so superior units, the enemy's best troops are gone and he's left with just averages. Not so for the Swiss (also not so for Late Roman Republicans, I grant you, where 9 elites and 13 superior heavy foot can be fielded at 600 pts). But my 33 superiors cost 360+90=450pts, and that's half as many again superior heavy infantry units than the Roman can field at 153+168=321 points. That's quite a difference. And in SoA, the Swiss are often facing mainly average armies.

Now Late Roman vs Swiss is actually quite a reasonable match, or seems to be. But I wonder if the Swiss should not be handicapped slightly for DAG play. What might be done?

Reduce the quality of some units? I don't think that would be the way to go because all the evidence is that the Swiss behaved at all times in a way that fully justfies all-superior status.

Increase points? Perhaps if Swiss pikes were 17pts instead of 15 to compensate for the fact that they can field large numbers. That would rob my 600pt army of 48pts worth, which would be 3 pikes plus a halberdier. I don't know if that'd be enough to tip the balance.

Anyway the point of this thread is so people can make suggestions... I love playing as the Swiss but unless the opposing player is fortunate in his terrain, it feels like cheating... If you've played the Swiss, do you think an effectively 1/6 point (roughly 17%) handicap would be fair?

And of course if you think you can beat the Swiss... come ahead... I'm always open to challenges. Ideally at 600pts.

[IainMcNeil]

I've beaten Swiss 2 times with Portuguese and ... can't remember. I've not lost to them. The Swiss are slow so you have to avoid fighting them where they are strong and make use of terrain - they are hopeless in it, especially steep hills.

[Paisley]

Deeter, who is probably a bit better than me as a player, has lost twice in positions that could scarcely have been more favorable for his men (the first time behind a stream with much of his force on hills and some of the approach being marshy; the second time he was atop hills with fields slowing the Swiss approach dramatically. Granted, both games were close, but one cannot always rely on terrain being hands. I've beaten Swiss with my Lancastrians by utilising terrain but I was fortunate to have a long strip of boulders and scrub that I could deploy most of my archers in, and having some hills behind that so others could shoot over their heads.

[IainMcNeil]

Make sure if you fight Swiss you choose the densest terrain option to get as much as possible - assuming your army can cope with the terrain

There will always be match ups that favour one side or the other. The Swiss have trouble getting a result unless the enemy throws themselves at the Swiss. This is their main problem.

[Paisley]

I disagree. I've had games where the enemy has camped and it's taken me a long time to get to grips (the second battle with deeter saw a lot of manoeuvering). Sure, if you get the terrain, you'll have a chance. Just not usually much of one.

[SRW1962]

This is the age old problem of playing points based games and especially out of period with an army that historically was virtually unbeatable. Many, many years ago there was the same 'problem' (if indeed that is the right way to look at it) with the Early Imperial Romans using WRG. First things to consider though are:

a. Do you usually win so many games against the same opponents?

b. Have you tried to play games with the same opponents using their armies on similar battlefields whilst they use the Swiss?

c. Do you think that you would simply go on winning with the Swiss as things stand?

If the roles were reversed and the other players couldn't emulate your victories, it could be simply that you have a 'feel' for the Swiss that suits how you play and use the army, if that makes sense. To change the points values would be an obvious (and appropriate) fix if other players were getting the same results in multiplayer games, so I guess that would be a good experiment to see how many times the Swiss actually lose.

[Paisley]

a. as I say, no. I wouldn't mind if I did... but I don't.

b. not yet.

c. yes. I mean I'm bound to lose one eventually. I might even lose to Grumbly's Seleucid clowns (oh, the shame!) today. But that doesn't change the fact that the success rate is overwhelming, and will probably continue to be so. The only other army where i had anything like as similar success was the old and unlamented all elite Late Roman Republican list. In RoR I did well with Macedonians, but not to anything like the same degree. Of my 15 wins to date, 3 have been narrow and only one has been against an RoR army (though that was not an obvious mismatch as it was Late Roman Republicans).

In fairness, I think I do have a feel for the Swiss. the only Swiss army I've played - as Lancastrians - I beat (very narrowly) but in honesty, I wouldn't say it was deployed or handled quite as well as it might have been. That's one reason I posted the thread, to see what other results people are getting.

As I say, I think the game does a bang up job of emulating the Swiss. It's just a bit much, or so it seems, for DAG play to have them at the same points as others.

[batesmotel]

I think the Swiss would be less potent if the default maps were wider. This would allow more space for open flanks and make it harder for armies like the Swiss and the Illyrians to be able to secure their flanks so easily. It would be interesting to know how the Swiss fair in 400 point games versus 600 since these are currently all played on the same size map.

Chris

[Paisley]

Virtually every army that has not hidden behind terrain (and some that have) has tried to turn my flanks with cavalry. By detaching half a dozen units to either flank as required I either force them to anarchy charge (if knights) or can simply manoeuvre to keep them away from the rear of the main line until the enemy are broken. This isn't sufficient to weaken the main line enough. Knights, with their 3 hex move and anarchy-happiness, are especially crap at attempting this. Perhaps an army with a goodly number of average lance armed protected/armoured cavalry (need to be cheap!) would present more of a problem. But they can't have too many or their main line will be too much weakened...

It's not so much the room needed to flank (I never occupy more than half the map width at 600pts), it's the time taken to do so and get round the rear. And the fact that I can just deploy uncommitted units to cover.

Wider maps really won't help. Against deeter's Burgundians in the second battle we deployed so neither army was overlapping the other - me on the right, him on the left (looking 'up'). Hence much manoeuvering to line up, allowing him to grab a strong position. And much good that did him... (in fairness, it did end up then being quite close, but the fact is map size just isn't an issue as far as I can see, there's plenty of room)

[pantherboy]

Let me have a crack at them. I have only played two pre-built scenarios versus the AI so far so it will a good indoctrination. I'll build a 600pt army and have at you. I'll post a challenge with your name for the password. Cheers.

[Paisley]

Ah, splendid. I was hoping you might be along. Because you are much, much better than me at the game.

[Xiccarph]

Could reduce the number of superior Swiss. Give them enough, and a few more, to have at the ead of their pike columns, with average filling in behind perhaps? Just a thought.

[SRW1962]

Virtually every army that has not hidden behind terrain (and some that have) has tried to turn my flanks with cavalry. By detaching half a dozen units to either flank as required I either force them to anarchy charge (if knights) or can simply manoeuvre to keep them away from the rear of the main line until the enemy are broken. This isn't sufficient to weaken the main line enough. Knights, with their 3 hex move and anarchy-happiness, are especially crap at attempting this. Perhaps an army with a goodly number of average lance armed protected/armoured cavalry (need to be cheap!) would present more of a problem. But they can't have too many or their main line will be too much weakened...

It's not so much the room needed to flank (I never occupy more than half the map width at 600pts), it's the time taken to do so and get round the rear. And the fact that I can just deploy uncommitted units to cover.

Wider maps really won't help. Against deeter's Burgundians in the second battle we deployed so neither army was overlapping the other - me on the right, him on the left (looking 'up'). Hence much manoeuvering to line up, allowing him to grab a strong position. And much good that did him... (in fairness, it did end up then being quite close, but the fact is map size just isn't an issue as far as I can see, there's plenty of room)

This sums up well part of the problem very nicely with the PC version of the game. Manoeuverability of units, especially what would be big units in the TT version is exaggerated. Consider this, historically the Swiss deployed their pikes in 3 large blocks, now if you do this in the TT version they will manoeuvre as 3 large blocks and will not be able to turn on a sixpence etc so will be more vulnerable to flank and rear attacks (they are still formidable though) and therefore although very strong they still have their weaknesses. In the PC version as you quite rightly pointed out you were able to detach a few pieces of your large block and totally negate your opponents attempts to outflank you, therefore any weaknesses the Swiss had in the TT version (or historically) they haven't got in the PC version of the game.

It might be a case for making certain troop types form up in larger blocks/groups to represent the difference in tactical use. Lets face it one of the major advantages Romans had over Pike armies was their ability to use smaller detachments and thus outmanoevre their opponents . It wouldn't stop the Swiss being powerful or really hard to beat, but it would give back some of the balance that has perhaps unwittingly been taken out by making all units the same size.

[Paisley]

In fairness, on the table you will almost certainly (it seems to me from reading the army list threads) have 8 blocks of 8. But your general point is a good one. I think stricter command/control rules might help (though they might actually end up making outflanking harder too, so it'd be back to square one.

I'd also add that historically the Swiss manoeuvre unit was the 100 man block of 10x10 which was capable of fast movement and fast turning, much like the Roman century. Although they deployed in deep columns, there's no suggestion these were monolithic without small gaps between units. Indeed did they not have gaps between the hundreds they would have been incapable of such speed across the ground as they demonstrated.

[TheGrayMouser]

In fairness, on the table you will almost certainly (it seems to me from reading the army list threads) have 8 blocks of 8. But your general point is a good one. I think stricter command/control rules might help (though they might actually end up making outflanking harder too, so it'd be back to square one.

I'd also add that historically the Swiss manoeuvre unit was the 100 man block of 10x10 which was capable of fast movement and fast turning, much like the Roman century. Although they deployed in deep columns, there's no suggestion these were monolithic without small gaps between units. Indeed did they not have gaps between the hundreds they would have been incapable of such speed across the ground as they demonstrated.

Thats an interesting take, i must admit I have never heard of the Swiss having the ability to articulate their formations at that level.

As for the ability to move large blocks rapidly: historcially, the frontage of a unit is what caused slowness in maneuver, not depth, A pike block 50 x 50 (2500) could move much quicker than a Napoleonic battalion in line with say 900 men, 3 ranks of 300
Why? it is much easier to simply follow the file leader as opposed to keeping dressing w the man to your left and right... Look at the slow pace or warefare in the Linear age of muskets , pre Napoleonic. The thin shallow formations needed to stop and dress ranks quite frequently, there was no way to advance in line and force your opponent to fight, they could easily march away... Even Fredericks maneuver tactic (the direct march of platoon collumns then making a right angle turn parrallel to the enemy line) were often times readily countered... The true change came in post revolutionary France when they developed a satisfacotry way to shake a column into line rapidly and at the same time be headed toword the enemy.

Historically (even if only in theory) the way to beet the swiss would have been a combined armed force of Heavy cavalry and missle infantry, not to disimilar to the English fighting the Scots pikes..
The Pikes advance, the cavlary threatens a charge , forcing the pikes to halt to prsent pikes, the missle troops close and shower the pikes with missle fire, merley threatening the pikes w cavalry might not be enough, so the cvalry might need to actually charge in, at a price to slow the pikes further, after halting the cavalry retreats and the missle men continue to fire at the pikes... rinse and repeat until the pikes are broken....

Unfortunalety there is no mechanism in the game that could represent this for multiple reason, primarily there is no need to halt in order to defend against a cavalry charge in the game, there is no disorder to a unit for simply moving (a mechanic present in many games) , also the attrition of bowfire would certainly never work vs a host of superior pike units
Also, the large # of pike units would make any kind of aproach as outlined above difficlt as , as Chris pointed out, the Swiss individual units are too numerous and maneuverable to ever present a flank, and the opposing player would likly just get pushed off the map....
anyways, just my too cents, really dont have any solutions.... Would like to hear if any one has defeated a late Swiss army in the pc game... maybe the Anglo irish can with there ability to have huge forces of mediums as well as a lot of suprior spears.....hmmmm

[Paisley]

Yes, front is what slows things down. But 5 groups 10x10 with 5-10yds between blocks and four similar 'lines of blocks' following at 5-10yd intervals will move much faster than a 50x50 block There's no reason to suppose the Swiss did not maintain unit intervals as the Macedonians must have done (albeit generally 16x16 or 32x8). And the Swiss were devillishly fast (something the FoG doesn't model).

The Scots schiltrom was different in that (save under Bruce at Bannockburn who had drilled his men all summer) it was basically a monolithic and purely defensive formation capable of only slow advance.

the Burgundians employed copious missiles and numerous cavalry against the Swiss to little effect (although there were of course some mitigating factors).

But look at Bannockburn, where the Scots were well drilled. the English cavalry could not stop the advance of the spears by threatening a charge because the Scots managed to maintain cohesion (again, to be fair, there were other factors also, like the surprise of the Scots avancing at all and the fact they very likely appeared on the English flank, contrary to traditional modern explanations - an explanation that explains the otherwise lunatic English dispositions.

I'm currently playing an Anglo-Irish, which has the benefit of decent woody terrain, I'll let you know how it goes.

[deeter]

The problem with the Swiss is that they field a zombie army of the most potent weapon of the time. You can slaughter them in droves but there are always more to take their place. Given that they are all superior, you take heavy losses breaking them so in the end attrition favors the Swiss. This is true even with favorable terrain.

Mass bowfire isn't effective enough to do more than route a few BGs which are easily replaced. The Swiss also get more LF than many other armies.

Dismounted knights with heavy weapons aren't very effective against pikes, and mounted troops are useless from the front. As Paisley says, it's easy to counter any flanking move.

I'm no expert, but I don't recall the Swiss being defeated in battle veryy often. So, perhaps they are the best army of the day. In period, they probably can't be defeated if handled reasonably well. Out of period though, a shooty horsey army like Parthians would at least fight them to a stalemate if not defeat them outright.

Rather than tweak the list, I would say mirrored games would be the truest test of generalship with any uber army.

Deeter

[Paisley]

You'd never stoop to play the Swiss so mirrored games won't work as a solution.

In the SoA period, the Swiss were never defeated.

[batesmotel]

The problem with the Swiss is that they field a zombie army of the most potent weapon of the time. You can slaughter them in droves but there are always more to take their place. Given that they are all superior, you take heavy losses breaking them so in the end attrition favors the Swiss. This is true even with favorable terrain.

Mass bowfire isn't effective enough to do more than route a few BGs which are easily replaced. The Swiss also get more LF than many other armies.

Dismounted knights with heavy weapons aren't very effective against pikes, and mounted troops are useless from the front. As Paisley says, it's easy to counter any flanking move.

I'm no expert, but I don't recall the Swiss being defeated in battle veryy often. So, perhaps they are the best army of the day. In period, they probably can't be defeated if handled reasonably well. Out of period though, a shooty horsey army like Parthians would at least fight them to a stalemate if not defeat them outright.

Rather than tweak the list, I would say mirrored games would be the truest test of generalship with any uber army.

Deeter

I would think that dismounted superior knights with heavy weapon should do ok against the Swiss. You are down a POA at impact but even in melee after that until the Swiss are below 75% which costs them a POA and an attack.

As far as flanks go, I'd suggest playing 400 (or maybe 500 points) against the Swiss rather than 600. And using an army that does have a fair amount of cavalry and skirmishers.

Chris

[Paisley]

dismounted superior knights with heavy weapon

The English experience this morning argues against that (see other thread). If I have time tomorrow I'll run some sample combats, ten Swiss pikes vs ten superior heavy armoured heavy weapons). In part, I think, it may be 'ganging up' that has an effect, though I'm not sure why that should effect the Swiss less.

If said knights are uphill then things are more even.

In the current 600 pt battle I'm playing against deeter, his knights have MASSES of room to turn the flank. More than could ever be wished for.