Keils again

[daveallen]

A situation arose at Badcon that made me rethink the errata on keils:

Say a keil in a 4-4-3 formation has shooters behind each flank and is in the restricted area of one or both when it loses a base. It can't reform keil by reducing its frontage, but it can by turning 90 degrees.

Clearly, this would be the sub-optimal move as it invites a rear charge in the next bound.

In my view it should have the option of attempting to form square as well. If it fails then it must turn 90 and at worst only one of the shooters will be able to hit it in the rear rather than both in the flank...

Dave

[stecal]

It seems to me that the first sentence allows it to overide the requirement to reform keil if it is attempting to form square.


“Any non-tercio battle group that is capable of adopting keil formation (and not forbidden by its army list companion book from doing so) 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 started the battle able to adopt keil formation, but as a result of base losses now has fewer than eight heavy foot or determined foot 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.”

[grahambriggs]

I've suggested something along the lines of "troops capable of Kiel formation must deploy in that formation and cannot make any voluntary move to change formation from Kiel formation to a non-Kiel formation".

That way a Kiel that gets battered down to 3 deep on the way in doesn't have to stop and reform if they were, say, in 3MU of undefended artillery.

[daveallen]

I've suggested something along the lines of "troops capable of Kiel formation must deploy in that formation and cannot make any voluntary move to change formation from Kiel formation to a non-Kiel formation".

That way a Kiel that gets battered down to 3 deep on the way in doesn't have to stop and reform if they were, say, in 3MU of undefended artillery.

You'd have to add square to the permitted formations.

The idea was that as keils were intended to achieve maximum force over a narrow frontage they would try to maintain their formation at all costs. Let's say I have an elite Swiss keil of 14 Pk deployed 4433. On the way across the table it loses six bases to artillery, but has not sought to revert to keil so its formation is now 2222. Its fighting effect is reduced, but so too is the effect of the artillery. This was exactly the kind of formation that was being complained about.

BTW, don't think 8 bases of elite DF are a spent force - I've had a BG of ten reduced to four and still go on to destroy 3 average 6pax...

Plus from the Badcon discussion:

I was thinking Dave that it might prompt daft arguments: "you can't charge because then you'd be in close combat in the movement phase so you'd be unable to make a formation change. So you can't declare a charge" and other weaselly tosh like that

I take your point, there's no limit to the arguments a wargamer will come up with in a fix.

For my part I'd argue that you only have to "attempt" to change formation when "able." There is no compulsion to change formation or to avoid other actions that would prevent you from being able to do so.

For instance, at Badcon we had a keil reduced to 433. Because it had a threatened flank, the sensible move was to wheel it 3 mu on one flank. We failed a CMT (attempt made) and wheeled it anyway on the understanding that having made the attempt we weren't then required to move it 3 mu directly forward to reduce its frontage.

Regards,

Dave

[kevinj]

Since we've moved the debate here I'll re-ask my question: Why not make the adjustment to legal Keil formation when the base loss occurs, as happens for Early Tercios mutating into Late ones?

[peterrjohnston]

Given this is all about avoiding artillery shooting, strikes me it would have been simpler just to give artillery a + POA if they are "... or shooting at a BG capable of forming a keil."

[rbodleyscott]

Given this is all about avoiding artillery shooting, strikes me it would have been simpler just to give artillery a + POA if they are "... or shooting at a BG capable of forming a keil."

Because it isn't just about that.

It is also about deploying a keil on an 8 wide frontage (or even 16) and then picking the point of impact.

And other bollocks.

[daveallen]

Since we've moved the debate here I'll re-ask my question: Why not make the adjustment to legal Keil formation when the base loss occurs, as happens for Early Tercios mutating into Late ones?

Fair point, don't think it occurred to us in the earlier discussion...

[moncholee]

In a recent FOGR tournament we talked about this issue the day before playing and I proposed the following: Keils keep the formation they are deployed with. I mean, if at deployment you put a 10 bases keil 2 deep and 5 wide, it keeps that formation all the game. Of course, every one deployed them 4 deep and we had no problems. That was before the official errata came. It is a simplistic solution and I understand that it could generate problems in a highly competitive environment, but it worked for us

[Niceas]

In a recent FOGR tournament we talked about this issue the day before playing and I proposed the following: Keils keep the formation they are deployed with. I mean, if at deployment you put a 10 bases keil 2 deep and 5 wide, it keeps that formation all the game. Of course, every one deployed them 4 deep and we had no problems. That was before the official errata came. It is a simplistic solution and I understand that it could generate problems in a highly competitive environment, but it worked for us

I have to say that I kind of like this idea. If nothing else, all my reading over the years, and experience as reenactor marching around in formations leaves me with these rules of thumb:
1) Once deployed for action, you pretty much stay in the formation you were deployed in.
2) Once deployed for action, you pretty much go straight forward and fight what's in front of you.
3) Cavalry beating all their opponents on one flank or the other may possibly then intervene elsewhere.

Watching people constantly change frontages on their units has always been a pet peeve of mine--it's still pretty endemic in FOG:AM, and for my money seems to happen more often than I'd like in FOG:R.

[grahambriggs]

But is there evidence of massed pike forming in anything other than very deep formations? i.e. should pike units be allowed shallow formations at all?

[Niceas]

But is there evidence of massed pike forming in anything other than very deep formations? i.e. should pike units be allowed shallow formations at all?

That's a great question. I tend to think no, as far as 16th century pike blocs are concerned, but am willing to hear examples to the contrary.

[grahambriggs]

But is there evidence of massed pike forming in anything other than very deep formations? i.e. should pike units be allowed shallow formations at all?

That's a great question. I tend to think no, as far as 16th century pike blocs are concerned, but am willing to hear examples to the contrary.

I assume that was why RBS put the errata up: the authors looked at accountsthat all showed pike units forming deep ; intended that to mean mandatory Keil formation, but forgot to put in the line to make them mandatory

[rbodleyscott]

But is there evidence of massed pike forming in anything other than very deep formations? i.e. should pike units be allowed shallow formations at all?

That's a great question. I tend to think no, as far as 16th century pike blocs are concerned, but am willing to hear examples to the contrary.

I assume that was why RBS put the errata up: the authors looked at accountsthat all showed pike units forming deep ; intended that to mean mandatory Keil formation, but forgot to put in the line to make them mandatory

Yup