Why not pikes on two-rank deep stands?

[Philip McBride]

I like to game with a 28mm Greco-Bactrian army where the elephant is often deployed next to a two-stand phalanx. On the other side of the phalanx are often a two-stand deep formation of Mt. Indian light spears. In looking at the relative depths of the models, I began wondering if any consideration has been given to allowing heavy infantry with pikes to be mounted two ranks deep on a stand that is forty or sixty mm deep, while still allowing a second two-rank stand to support the front pike stand. The two-rank stand would sort of be like Persian pavisiers. Visually this would make a phalanx deeper than any other formation, including elephants and the light spears on their flanks, which seems appropriate. The cost of the two-rank pike stand would remain the same, just look more phalanx-y.

I understand from posts by Rod or David that the depth of stands is a tricky and subjective facet of tabletop gaming, being both a visual element and an important gaming issue.

Anyway, the idea crossed my mind this morning, so I thought I'd ask about it.

[Texus Maximus]

I have done that before with a Seleucid army. The Pike stands were twice as deep and had eight figures. It does look better, but I found it was clumsy during games when calculating recoils. This may not be as much of an issue now that recoils have been standardized.

I don't think I would do it again, but honestly my opinion is probably unduly influenced by my recent efforts to paint six Pavisier stands which seemed to take forever.

I wonder if it would be possible to squeeze more figures on the stand if you increased the depth slightly? For example, if one is using 40mm wide stands, increase the depth to 20mm instead of the standard 15mm. Maybe put three figures in the second rank so they could squeeze in the gaps in the front rank instead of being directly behind.

[Philip McBride]

I agree that the required recoil and follow-up rule change from the depth of a stand to only 1 MU for all types of stands should make double-deep pike stands not advance or retreat outrageously, again like pavisiers elephants, chariots and cataphracts. I'm already painting up eight old Macedonian pikemen to add to the Greco-Bactrian phalanx to see how it looks and plays. May simply become my house habit for solo games since I doubt our rule gurus have any interest in a change that would require a whole lot of rebasing of pike stands in a whole lot of different armies spanning 2500 years of wars.

[Rod]

Pikes on two stand allows players to utilize them differently depending on the enemy they face.

The point cost (3) reflects that as well as the powerful punch when they are two deep and focused forward. If they have the same punch at 6 points (cost of two stands) they are two expensive because you cannot split them and the loss of a stand is 6 points. If you have them with that punch to the front but at 3 points only then they are too cheap.

I think you will find it greatly shifts the historical battle interactions.

You might want to try a double stand at 4 or 5 points just to see how it feels, but I am pretty happy with my pikes deployed two ranks on two stands, they look good and they can be split when needed.

[Philip McBride]

Thanks for replying, Rod. I was thinking more of keeping the stand of 8 pike figures at 3 points and treating it like a pavisier stand, not able to split into separate front and rear stands. The idea is to create the deep depth of a phalanx with 4 ranks of figures compared to other 2-deep stand formations of hoplites or light spears or warriors. Anyway, I'll try out the double rank stands in a few solo games and offer thoughts afterward.

[Rod]

If you are keeping the same combat factors at 3 points I think you will find them unbalanced.

[Philip McBride]

Today I solo gamed the Greco Bactrians against Late Assyrians and put the new two-rank deep pike stands on the tabletop for the first time. The phalanx that was now 4 ranks of minis deep (but only 2 stands) looked right. It was deployed next to an elephant on one side and a 2-stand deep column of Mountain Indian light spears on its other side, so the GB 3-stands wide heavy battleline was comprised of 3 different depths. The Assyrians lost on both flanks so the phalanx never was in close combat, but first blush use of the 2-rank pike stands seemed to work well for me. But the Greco Bactrians are my only non-Biblical era 28mm army on 80mm stands, so a better field test will have to wait. But I'm encouraged by both the appearance and first game. I'll post some pics on the Triumph! facebook page.

[Rod]

Maybe I am not understanding your concept? Are you treating a pike single stand as a 40mm deep stand that still fights at a +3 / +4, and then only giving them the rear rank bonus if a second stand is present behind them?

[Philip McBride]

Sorry I'm late responding,

Yes, on 80mm wide stands for 28mm miniatures, I am treating the 40mm deep Pike stand with 8 figures in 2 ranks as a normal 3 pt. Pike stand of 4 figures in 1 rank, with rear support from another Pike stand available per the rules.

And this morning it worked well in a big scrum with a phalanx on both sides. For my solo games it looks 'right' to me and the increased depth of the Pike stands does make them more vulnerable on their flanks which seems right also.

EGB v QC 1.jpeg (1.01 MiB) Viewed 936 times