The column in battle

[Justin Taylor]

They don't do it when under threat of engagement in melee.

I suggest that is entirely why they are doing it. Because of the threat of enemy attack that they have to be able to respond to. If there were not the threat they would not be doing it, because the normal column of march is a completely different animal.

And if you have rules which allow it because it might be possible, guess what the players will all do when they find it has a real advantage.

So that is why in a set of rules you don't make it too much of an advantage. I can give you an example from the first version of WAB. Before normal moves took place, drilled Romans could make a formation change. So it was standard practice for them to form into column of march and then move where they wanted at triple speed (column of march speed) then in the next move they could form line of battle to the left, right or facing forward and charge (because the manoeuvre was done before movement had taken place. This became known as 'silly Roman tricks' and has been removed from WAB2. But likewise in WAB2 a hollow square would be no use at all, because normal troops are not allowed to make a 90 degree turn - so would be hit in the flank and routed.

So yes I am aware of the trap of letting rules allow players to do silly things. I suppose with 42 years of playing ancients, I had better of learned.

[Mark G]

I find that all of the examples which are produced are of non tactical formations in non tactical situations.

we shall agree to disagree on this in the interests of others having a go.

[Mark G]

That WaB example is strikingly similar to the DBM example at the top of this thread.

You may, perhaps, now see my point about not allowing this sort of stuff in the first place.  Or maybe not.

[Erpingham]

I find that all of the examples which are produced are of non tactical formations in non tactical situations.

It is very difficult to see that a battle like Carrhae or Arsuf didn't have a tactical element - there was shooting and charging involved and you don't get more tactical than that.  It is fair comment to say it wasn't a formal encounter, with the two sides ranged in lines on opposite sides of a field.  But there are gamers who want to fight these sort of things, as there are with other weird battles like Teutoberger Wald or Largs (less a battle, more an extremely hazardous salvage operation  ).  So, the rule writer either says "Here are standard rules for formal battles - if you want something hinky, write your own adaptions" or tries to provide for every eventuality.    If you do the latter, you run the risk of non-standard or even unique actions becoming a gaming commonplace because of advantages deliberately or accidentally confered.

[Justin Taylor]

Yes I have had players asking to refight the 'battle' of Lake Trasimene. My response is that is remarkably hard to find people willing to play the Romans.

There are battles which are not much more than slaughters of the other side. And if anyone asks you to play a game where one army is in a column marching with one flank to a lake, think twice.

[Paul Innes]

In a sense, the learned discussion about the column or the othismos is something of a red herring (shoving people with a fish!?) to people like me, because while I can appreciate the details of the discussion, what interests me even more is how tabletop rules can or should give the same overall result.  Example:

The ruleset favoured by our group in the corner of our club for 25/28mm games is the playtest version of Tactica II.  Hardly a statistical universe, but I shall press on regardless...  The rules specify a range of unit sizes and also a range of permitted formations.  The maximum size for a massed infantry unit is 48 figures, in a minimum of 8 files, maximum of 12.  In other words, two or three elements wide.  The end result is something that seems to us to emulate historical practice, with less powerful troops tending to form up in deep lines, or far lack of a better term, 'columns'.  A typical heavy infantry unit will maybe be comprised of 36 figures in three ranks of twelve, while 'medium' types may form up 48 strong in six ranks of 8.  These configurations work on the field of battle.  There is a small dice advantage for being deeper than the opposition, but the main purpose of deeper formations for less powerful troops is that it gives them more staying power on the same frontage to compensate for their relative weakness in combat.  Imagine if you will two strong hoplite units of 36 figs, each 12 wide, fighting three blocks of 48 Kardakes in depth.  That is the effect generated by the rules on the tabletop, and it works in practice.

These are effectively 'fighting columns', and the result works.  Anyone else have anything similar?

Paul

[Justin Taylor]

Yes that all sounds sensible (although I favour the old WRG idea of a figure representing 5 men wide, 4 ranks deep, so 2 ranks of figures would be equivalent to your 8 ranks of figures). Only combat advantage in TDIC for deeper formations is for pikes (again the good old WRG 4 ranks, representing 16). But if you lose a round of combat, are close order foot and out-number your enemy by at least 2:1 then thats a bonus of 3 to your morale roll. Tends to keep units in the fight. Buts thats just my view that a fighting column of troops is a bonus to morale in combat.