Tom Welch writes

Suggestion for obstacle placement.

Obstacles were time intensive to put in and should take an entire turn to put in. Trained troops should be able to do this more efficiently than untrained troops. To reflect this, any obstacles placed cost one function (this allows untrained troops to put in obstacles), but obstacles don't appear until during the recover phase of the turn of placement.

[That's when they should appear.]

Trained troops get two deploy functions so they could place obstacles and exchange ranks (This abstractly represents the bowmen placing stakes and falling back into the formation but does expose them to the risk of being caught in the front rank). Untrained troops would require an extra turn to exchange the ranks and would be at a disadvantage in that intervening turn).

[This is correct.]

Charge response.

If the unit receiving the charge has a deploy order, it should be able to exchange ranks. It takes less time for unarmored bowmen to slide behind a row of halberdiers than it would for the entire formation to wheel 45 degrees to face the enemy. Unarmored bowmen would not stand and take the hit when the security of the halberdiers was right behind them. The unit would have to pass the morale test caused by being charged by a higher armor class in order to exchange ranks (nothing is automatic). If any unit fails the morale check caused by an enemy charge they halt in place disordered so the risk and penalties are high enough. Missile troops of any armor level (not dual armed or mixed formation troop types with melee units up front) should have to test morale if charged by anyone since this would give unarmored types a chance to catch the bowmen as well (missile troops were not trained or equipped to fight an even melee).

[Not a bad suggestion, but this would have to go into the Tournament Rules booklet as the MW rules are done.]

Advance into contact.

First of all, I think that you should not be allowed to offensively enter contact with the enemy unless you have a charge order. Advance orders should be allowed to be upgraded to a charge or countercharge as the exception (the charge upgrade would be allowed if the enemy moved close enough to reduce the distance between the units to half movement range (also see opportunity charge/fire below). Rational here is that the order for men to go forward is different from that of ordering them into actual melee combat and there level of preparation is considerably different (speed of advance, readiness of weapons etc). Also, it makes for a more exciting game since some charges will fall short. If advance into contact is allowed, the defenders should be allowed a charge response since these troops are obviously threatening the formation yet not moving as rapidly towards it.

[The defenders are allowed the same responses as they would if they are being charged. Units did blunder into each other often, no charges, just mistakes or simply not having momentum to count as a charge.]

Opportunity charge/fire.

Units moving across the front of an opponent may be immediately opportunity charged if within 1/2 of normal movement range of an undisordered unit with advance orders or fired on if within effective range of a missile unit with defend orders. This rule prevents units from being able to cross the front of a unit without risk while still requiring the defender to give the proper orders. (I doubt that you would be able to find a historical case of units crossing an enemy front exposing a flank at close range to a prepared enemy).

[Again, this would be a good Tournament rule.]

Shan Palmatier writes:

I don't agree at all that small units are better, especially phalanxes. The fact of the morale test at less percentage of the unit being killed is a disadvantage of the larger sized units, including the phalanx, but by no means does this outweigh the shock power of the larger phalanx, in my mind.

With no artificial ruling or mandatory unit size requirements I chose to build my phalanxes in 2 wide by 3 deep formations, a six stand unit. This is standard for my Greek-era hoplites and gives me enormous hitting power.

Remember the wider and deeper modifiers are added now to six stands, and you have an excellent chance of getting both mods with such a unit. Factor in the historical trait of Greek generals to lead from the front (a two edged sword in AW, but this is also how it should be), this allows the General to give an incredible +2 to 6 full stands of Hoplites. This sort of shock power is what allowed me to defeat Terry's Ceasarian Romans across the board in face to face matchups. Alas that I ran out of flanking units to contain his.

Still, the same number of stands arranged in single columns sent in thesame manner against his same line would have fared far less well. Ask Terry how many times the Greeks eked out a win based on larger unit size or the General bonus, or the deeper unit. To my recollection, it was pretty much all of them.

I considered the smaller Phalanx units, and rejected them on a basis of insufficient mass. Also, the thrust of the hoplite line has little to do with one unit breaking through here or there, it is about a full-frontage attack. Think Marathon. Also any Phalanx player in this game knows full well the deadly danger of disorder. I will not create HI units longer than they are wide, for the most part. Why? It gives my opponent the maximum amount of flank area per unit. I don't need to be dealing with lots of out of command control spearmen who will be vulnerable to warband and light troop flank charges.

Now the later Greek armies, particularly the Macedonians should have some single column pike units, such as pike armed Hypaspists. The Macedonians used all the pike/Lspear formations created and tweaked during the Hoplite era (and there was a lot of experimentation with the formations and unit sizes, much more than is usually given credit by gamers casually familiar with this period), and it wouldn't be surprising to me to see them form up with several different sized Phalangite units. Nor would it in any way worry me. Additionally, the Macedonian/Successor Phalangites were known for their alacrity of movement, much like the later Swiss. These are not the later pikeman by any means, but a potent battlefield force.

The later era Phalangites were much better suited to defense. The length of the pike has been increased to epic proportions, training and esprit were thought to be lacking from the earlier Hellenistic period, and the pikes were run in large masses, preferably fairly immobile (to help the pikemen keep the all-important formation). The early Macedonians seem to have been well trained enough not to worry about losing the formation whilst maneuvering. At least not to the extent they lost their impact power. Of course, this is a huge era I just summarized.

I do not believe that rules changes are really needed for the Phalanx. Right now a general has 3 options for size, small, medium and large. All are good for their purpose, and allow the Greek/Hellenistic/Carthaginian player to run different concepts of armies with seemingly the same figures. Points values seem right as well. Remember that only Roman Legionaries can match the power of a well ordered Phalanx, and nothing can touch an Elite Phalanx head to head in terms of innate combat factors. And some army lists have access to 100% Veteran Pike or Longspear armed troops, one list can take 50% Elite Longspear armed phalanxes! There is no need to reduce their points cost. They are expensive, but their combat power is worth the points. (and remember that they are virtually immune to frontal cavalry charges!)

In short, the rules work fine for on this point, at least as far as I am concerned. Some list tweaking is in order (please let the Theban generals get off their horses and fight in the ranks!) but the rules per se seem to fulfill three important functions as they are written now:

1) They seem to have balanced points values. I have never felt that my Greeks were not worth the points they cost, nor felt that they were undercosted. They have certain attributes, such as a need to fight in depth for full impact (which you don't HAVE to do, a la Marathon, again), but the shock power well balances this out.

2) They allow the general to experiment tactically. I have 6 Greek armies drawn up on paper right now, and each plays very differently. Only two have actually seen the table top, but I have begun to appreciate the differences.

3) They represent what might have happened historically. A high morale phalanx (Veteran or Elite) can defeat a Roman unit 60-70% of the time. An average morale phalanx unit chances go way down. I like that.

The real power of the phalanx comes from their solidarity. Pikeman cannot be Elite, and are typically not even in heavy armor. Phalanx armies scoff at cavalry, which they did historically, despite many gamers perceptions that they will simply ride rings around the spearmen. And the Trained status of pikes and phalanxes allow them to execute well ordered movements on the battlefield, as they were noted for doing, particulary the Macedonian pikes.

In sum, Them rules--I like em!