Slitherine

Stop people going into column to lessen the effect of an unfavourable impact. Give one dice per 2 bases in overlap at impact. It being a melee dice it would round up* so putting your lancers into column would mean the camels in line would still get 3 dice to 2. And if you were overlapped both sides it would still only be one dice. Gives big rubbish units more of a chance in impact as well.

*for simplicity's sake Hammy.

philqw78 wrote:Stop people going into column to lessen the effect of an unfavourable impact. Give one dice per 2 bases in overlap at impact. It being a melee dice it would round up* so putting your lancers into column would mean the camels in line would still get 3 dice to 2. And if you were overlapped both sides it would still only be one dice. Gives big rubbish units more of a chance in impact as well.

*for simplicity's sake Hammy.

An interesting idea IMO.

It would make large BG of Poor Pike even MORE effective... :)

How large can they be? 12 bases or 3 base frontage?
He who charges this with a 2 base frontage deserves no better.

With this rule they could go 2 deep and hit a 5 base wide BG and still get the overlap. The PoA would be carp but you get another dice.

timmy1 wrote:With this rule they could go 2 deep and hit a 5 base wide BG and still get the overlap. The PoA would be carp but you get another dice.

Fishy POA's notwithstanding you have a point Tim. That said getting into any combat where you are at a negative POA with poor troops is a very bad plan to start with. What makes poor pike really quite good is the fact that against most opposition they are fighting at even or better POA which significantly reduces the impact of being poor.

At evens an average BG hits 18 times out of 36 and a poor one 15 times out of 36 so the average troops get 20% more hits than the poor
At minus an average BG hits 12 times out of 36 while a poor one only hits 8 times out of 36 meaning that the average troops get 50% more hits than poor :O

timmy1 wrote: The PoA would be carp but you get another dice.

Well I trout to say it will keep people in battle lines.

Or a - impact POA if in column?

peterrjohnston wrote:Or a - impact POA if in column?

This may be more appropriate as, I think, in general impact phase combat is generally a good mechanism without overlaps being introduced.

nikgaukroger wrote:

peterrjohnston wrote:Or a - impact POA if in column?

This may be more appropriate as, I think, in general impact phase combat is generally a good mechanism without overlaps being introduced.

25+ years later, the final demise of wedges

peterrjohnston wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

peterrjohnston wrote:Or a - impact POA if in column?

This may be more appropriate as, I think, in general impact phase combat is generally a good mechanism without overlaps being introduced.

25+ years later, the final demise of wedges

Ah, mentioning them I was wondering whether a - PoA for being in column would be unfair on Nikeforian katafraktoi. I suppose 2 base BGs could be exempt.

nikgaukroger wrote: Ah, mentioning them I was wondering whether a - PoA for being in column would be unfair on Nikeforian katafraktoi. I suppose 2 base BGs could be exempt.

There are a numer of 2 Base BG that could suffer. However katafraktoi should be surrounded by other cav at impact, so wouldn't suffer overlap dice if usded correctly. Also what about multiple chargers that are forced to drop files to hit their target. More exemptions?

Give a - POA for charging in column of more than 3 bases as attack column wasn't invented before 19th!

Also what about multiple chargers that are forced to drop files to hit their target. More exemptions?

No , close the rank are NOT a good idea when you charge!

philqw78 wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote: Ah, mentioning them I was wondering whether a - PoA for being in column would be unfair on Nikeforian katafraktoi. I suppose 2 base BGs could be exempt.

There are a numer of 2 Base BG that could suffer. However katafraktoi should be surrounded by other cav at impact, so wouldn't suffer overlap dice if usded correctly.

Good point on the katafraktoi - they were indeed supposed to be supported on either side by normal cavalry. Careless of me to forget

Also what about multiple chargers that are forced to drop files to hit their target. More exemptions?

Get your troops into the proper positions to charge so they don't have to drop back bases?

nikgaukroger wrote:Get your troops into the proper positions to charge so they don't have to drop back bases?

back to the old its your own fault thing. Just a way for better players to rub poorer players noses in it. Must charges like this are forced due to enemy manouver.

philqw78 wrote:Stop people going into column to lessen the effect of an unfavourable impact. Give one dice per 2 bases in overlap at impact. It being a melee dice it would round up* so putting your lancers into column would mean the camels in line would still get 3 dice to 2. And if you were overlapped both sides it would still only be one dice. Gives big rubbish units more of a chance in impact as well.

*for simplicity's sake Hammy.

If I would be a lover of trash talking I would point out this thread where I claimed the same and all people deride me
But because I like to propose, I would say you can introduce a minus in cohesion test. The idea is: when you concentrate your troops to get a better effect at impact (even if you use troops that historically didn't it) if you loose impact you get a worse test.

Other idea: a minus to impact if you fight in a deep formation unless your troops historically do it (you need to produce a list of troops able to fight impact in deep formation)

Olivier's post is very French; stylish and elegant solution to the point Peter raises.

I see the point with the column troops, and it's a vry bd trick vs. newbie players that are not that good in manouevering yet.
But, on the other hand, a change here will create in worst case exceptionell rules, which I really don't like.
We will have troops having to fight in columns (like every BG with only 2 bases, I'm also thinking about Elephants, or Battle Wagons)
They should not be punisched.
And what about Pikes in units of 4 (are they existing? I'm not sure)
They will be in trouble as well.

I think the best way to avoid people charging in column is really to allow an overlap with one dice only per side, no matter how many figure fighting in the overlap.
Give this dice always a zero POA.
So there is no special exception, but the nasty tricks of charging with a column of undrilled kinights, because they will not have any negative effect from the existing overlaps can expand for free before melee will be reduced.

Martin0112 wrote:....And what about Pikes in units of 4 (are they existing? I'm not sure)
They will be in trouble as well.

I think the best way to avoid people charging in column is really to allow an overlap with one dice only per side, no matter how many figure fighting in the overlap.
Give this dice always a zero POA.
So there is no special exception, but the nasty tricks of charging with a column of undrilled kinights, because they will not have any negative effect from the existing overlaps can expand for free before melee will be reduced.

4's of pike do exist WotR, bloody yorkshire again,, and I was thinking only half a dice per side, 4 dice v's 2 is a bit too much if a column is overlapped both sides.

Olivier's post is very French; stylish and elegant solution to the point Peter raises.

Thank you

I think the best way to avoid people charging in column is really to allow an overlap with one dice only per side, no matter how many figure fighting in the overlap.
Give this dice always a zero POA.

Oh, and what about a 4 base BG of lancer against a 8 Bases BG of infantry impacting in the middle??? As they are overlapped, must have they more dice against them? Don't seem a good solution.

For the Yorkist Pike : Booh to them!