|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 3, 2018 14:49:29 GMT
DBA has generals permanently attached to an element, and in many battles this is a fine arrangement. However, in other real life engagements this is not correct and can lead to some unhistorical effects. Take Cannae or Zama for example. You only need to lose the two cavalry on your wings, one of which is the general, and a lowly psiloi to lose the battle…and this is before the main battleline has even got into the fight! These two battles would be better if the generals were detached and free roaming, instead of being tied to an element. Other examples of roaming generals is at Chaeronea and Orchomenus in 86 BC, where Sulla personally joined wavering elements to bolster them, as did Caesar at Gergovia in 52 BC, at Dyrrachium in 48 BC, and at Thapsus in 46 BC. So here are some simple advanced historical rules to redress this. Basing Roaming GeneralsThese are represented by a single commanding figure on horseback with a ½ BW frontage. They are not classed as an element, and are in addition to the normal amount of bases allowed to an army. Whether to have your general as fixed to an element or free roaming is decided during your deployment. (Only the C-in-C can be classed as ‘roaming’, and not subordinate or allied leaders) Advantages And DisadvantagesWhen unattached and not in contact with a friendly element they +1 to their PIP score. When in contact with any friends they are in the front rank, so +1 to the combat roll as normal, but -1 from their PIP score. This PIP roll adjustment is made at the beginning of the Move Phase, not when the PIP roll is made. Therefore it has no effect on PIP roll thresholds such as plough being rough, off-table flank march arrival, or rallying sacking troops. (When roaming and not joining friends they can concentrate on commanding the army, hence the +1 PIP.
If attached to a friendly element they become distracted, and it becomes harder to send or receive messengers.
This can sometimes mean they have no PIPs to spend…not even any to move the element they are temporarily with.
So only join an element to bolster it in an emergency, as a temporarily measure, or you may find it a severe disadvantage)Moving Roaming GeneralsRoaming generals that begin a move phase already in contact with a friendly element may stay with it, and moves with them at their speed (i.e. they have temporarily dismounted). If left behind when a friendly element moves, or if they began the move phase not in contact with friends, they move just as Cv do for no PIPs…but they only move at the end of the move phase, after everyone else has moved. (This may seem odd, but it’s to prevent a roaming general from issuing orders on one flank, moving 4 BW as Cv to the other flank, and then issuing further orders. That would in effect give them a Command Range of 20 BW, which is not the desired effect. Instead they must spend their PIPs before they go roaming)
Friendly Contact And Roaming GeneralsThey can pass through or be passed through by any friends, no matter the facing of either party, without hindrance. When in any kind of contact with friendly troops, they are automatically placed behind them, their side edge touching the rear of the friendly element/column they have joined, and are assumed to be with the front element, and they suffer all the same penalties as that element in combat. (Note that this can sometimes happen involuntarily, when elements pursue, recoil, are pushed back, or flee into contact with a roaming general). Enemy Contact And Roaming GeneralsIf contacted or passed over by enemy troops, they will flee in a straight line in a direction of their choice, pivoting and running down a table side-edge (see figure 21a), but halting if they meet a base table edge or any river, and stopping short of making contact with an enemy. If they cannot flee at all they are counted as lost. Although the enemy is not slowed or hindered in any way by making contact with a roaming general, troops that are making a second or subsequent extra move must still not start or go within 1 BW of them, even if on a road. (It might seem like fun to use LH to outflank the enemy battleline and chase their general away, but I can’t find a single historical example of this ever happening, so it’s not allowed.)Shooting At Roaming GeneralsWhen unattached and roaming, generals have no effect whatsoever on blocking shooting and cannot be shot at. (Being just the general and a few of his aides, from a distance all the enemy sees is a handful of mounted figures, which appears as a small difficult to hit target and too unimportant to waste ammunition on, especially when there are much bigger easier targets around)Which Armies Can Have A Roaming GeneralOnly the Romans, Byzantines, and the Later Carthaginians can have roaming generals, should they so wish. I.e Roman armies I/59, II/10, II/33, II/49, II/56, II/64, II/78, and II/82. Byzantine armies III/4, III/17, III/29, III/65, III/76, IV/1, IV/31, IV/33, IV/34, IV/50, and IV/51. And the Later Carthaginians of army II/32 (especially Hannibal). Now you might think that any army could have a roaming general, but historically this was not the case. To be a roaming general the army must have a set of officers with a definite strict chain-of-command that will be obeyed without question. Hoplite generals were expected to fight in the main battleline like everyone else, and not skulk behind it. Barbarian and medieval generals could sometimes be held in reserve, but these generals were always accompanied (either through vanity, pride or custom) by their personal retainers, household troops, or a royal bodyguard, which is the default situation in the DBA Army Lists. Even the Macedonian generals, from Philip II, Alexander the Great, and all of Alexander’s Successors, led their armies from the front of their Companions. The Roman method of fighting in distinct lines with lots of reserves required a more rigid command structure. It was not a question of inspired leadership by a few outstanding commanders…it was a part of the Roman way of fighting. This modern looking command structure was in turn was adopted by their Byzantine successors, for much the same reasons. And their Carthaginian foes, with Punic officers commanding the various mercenaries, also adopted it. Of course, should a player wish to have their general permanently surrounded by personal retainers, household troops, a Praetorian bodyguard, or attached to a chosen Legion, they are still free to do so. But having them free to roam does give them certain advantages, and is necessary in some historical recreations. And if roaming generals were sometimes used historically, then they can also be used in our hypothetical battles as well. Later Edit:-Oh, I forgot to mention that roaming generals, not being elements, neither generate nor are they affected by Threat Zones. And the following troops types don't gain the +1 combat factor for having a roaming general attached to them:- Elephants, Allies, Artillery, and Scythed Chariots. (Elephants would not be inspired just because another human in a red cloak has joined them, Allies are not likely to be as impressed as the general's own troops, Artillery is not going to shoot faster or more accurately just because the general is present, and Romans/Byzantines/Carthaginians can't have SCh).Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Feb 3, 2018 19:07:20 GMT
Really innovative thinking here, Stevie. I'm looking forward to trying them out.
These rules force a player to make choices, and that almost always makes a game more fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 4, 2018 20:45:45 GMT
(snip) Enemy Contact And Roaming GeneralsIf contacted or passed over by enemy troops, they will flee in a straight line in a direction of their choice, pivoting and running down a table side-edge (see figure 21a), but halting if they meet a base table edge or any river, and stopping short of making contact with an enemy. If they cannot flee at all they are counted as lost. Although the enemy is not slowed or hindered in any way by making contact with a roaming general, troops that are making a second or subsequent extra move must still not start or go within 1 BW of them, even if on a road. (It might seem like fun to use LH to outflank the enemy battleline and chase their general away, but I can’t find a single historical example of this ever happening, so it’s not allowed.)Shooting At Roaming GeneralsWhen unattached and roaming, generals have no effect whatsoever on blocking shooting and cannot be shot at. (Being just the general and a few of his aides, from a distance all the enemy sees is a handful of mounted figures, which appears as a small difficult to hit target and too unimportant to waste ammunition on, especially when there are much bigger easier targets around)
Interesting ideas.
There is a similar rule for generals in the DBA-HX 1700 – 1850 variant uploaded to the Wiki Fanaticus.
Generals are susceptible to ‘overshoots’ by enemy on any targeted element it is attached to or located near it and in bow/artillery range.
In this case, the friendly element survives the shooting resulting in no effect, however, the accompanying general or general located nearby the targeted element and within bow/artillery range must cast a die as per third party distance shooting.
The general uses the same combat factors as per type and in most cases this would be cavalry; the enemy shooting uses the same score as for the earlier target.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 5, 2018 18:36:45 GMT
Just a few comments, Stevie.
Elephants most definitely can be influenced by a roaming general, as in most cases (a) the roaming general is the only reason Elephants are even in the army (i.e., who "sponsored" them in?) and Elephants represent more than just the animals, but rather the animals, their handlers, whatever tactics they are using, and how effectively they are timed in action. Classical Indian army has an Elephant General, BTW...
You may wish to consider having a roaming general as an actual element (i.e. a New DBA element: Roaming General), so as not to have the weird situation of a non-DBx marker floating about.
They could be extra to the element count, unable to make contact with any enemy element voluntarily, they DO exert a TZ (their retinue makes them seem "dangerous", and perhaps the enemy mistakes them for scouts or an advance screening party) and perhaps having CF +2, but fleeing from just about everyone if doubled, unless "hard-flanked"? Perhaps they are +4 (or even +5) vs shooting? I think having this be a DBA element might gain more traction for folks. It is sort of like a CP, but much weaker, and more "movement-y"...?
To simulate their effect, they give +1 rear support. However, I cannot see Caesar moving to provide a +1 to LH, or Ps, or 3Ax for instance, so consider restrictions on who can be supported?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 6, 2018 10:33:31 GMT
Some thought-provoking replies gentlemen. Timurilank, I was not aware of how DBA-HX 1700-1850 handles the shooting at roaming generals situation, but I do see some problems with ‘overshoots’ that you posted. If the roaming general has joined a foot element, and therefore dismounted to be in the front rank, why should he have the mounted vulnerability when shot at? And it looks a bit odd when the element holds its ground but the general figure gets a recoil result from shooting…is he forced to remount to avoid the shooting as he leaves the element he has attached himself to? Perhaps it’s better and simpler to just have him suffer the same fate as those he has joined, and be too small to be an individual target. (For those interested in Harold getting one in the eye at Hastings, see this: www.bayeux-tapestry.org.uk/deathofharold.htm ) Primuspilus, when a general is allowed to be mounted on an elephant (such as the I/58 Kushites, the II/2 & II/3 Indians, the army of II/18d Ptolemy Keraunos, amongst others), I assume that the very biggest, best, and most obedient beasts, along with loyal devoted riders, would be used as the general’s personal guard unit, and that’s why they have a +1 in combat. If the elephants knew who it was that ‘sponsored’ them into the army, they’d probably attack him! And I very much doubt that someone riding up shouting and waving their sword about is going to inspire a pachyderm... ...not unless they have buns in their pocket. (After all, how many humans, apart from Doctor Doolittle, can speak elephant?)  Having a ‘roaming general’ as a full element, representing him being surrounded by several hundred personal retainers, household troops, or a large unit of bodyguards, would defeat the whole purpose of him being able to move about freely on his own with just a couple of aides, as historical generals (even the bad ones) sometimes did. Sulla, Caesar, and even Crassus didn’t join a wavering unit to bolster their morale by dragging their huge entourage or their favourite Legion along with them. As for having a roaming general wanting to join LH or Ps or 3Ax…why not. As Phil Barker likes to say, we shouldn’t make rules to prevent a player from making a mistake. If people want to take the risk of their precious general suffering the same fate as these low combat troops, I say let them. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 6, 2018 14:13:29 GMT
Sorry, Stevie, you are not understanding me. Pachyderms as military units are not simply wind-up toys. The +1 for the general applies to the officers and men who are handling them and running alongside. Your argument could apply equally well to Cavalry for example. Why would horses be more likely to obey a man in a nice cape, with a really, really short skirt, waving his arms and yelling like a banshee either? Elephant difficulties are reflected in the pip cost, and in the "stampede" effects. But otherwise they fight like other elements. And can be directed. And their handlers "motivated" to be a better version of themselves... When "Godfather is watchin' " as Sgt. Major Sixta would say... I see no reason why a General element representing a far more spread out version of themselves can't work just fine. See here for AWI for example: hardpointgames.netfirms.com/simplerules/dba4awi.html |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 6, 2018 19:06:38 GMT
I have three very good answers.  1. Cavalry: The analogy with cavalry is not a good one, because it is not the horse that does the killing, but the man on it’s back. Elephants are different…not only are the men in the howdah trying to kill you, but so is the elephant by gouging with it’s tusks, picking you up and flinging you with it’s trunk, and stamping on you with it’s immense feet. The worst you’ll get from a horse is a bit of biting and kicking. (Indeed, it’s arguable which does the most killing…the men in the howdah or the elephant itself.
The same cannot be said of a horse and it’s rider…)2. Gameplay: having roaming generals joining elephant elements and giving them a +1 in combat is far too powerful. Players would do it all the time, and the elephant element end up as a magnet drawing all roaming generals to it. (Plus the fact that in DBA elephants are hard to kill, so the roaming general joining and suffering the same fate as the elephant element is giving himself the best possible protection...which is not the intention)3. History: I can’t find a single example in Polybius, Livy, or in the writings of any other ancient author of a general joining an elephant unit part way through a battle. In fact, the opposite appears to be the case, and generals actively avoided getting near even friendly elephants (unless the were already riding one of course). (Not really surprising. Elephants are notoriously unpredictable, and generals avoiding them makes sense if that general knows full well that his presence is not going to have any influence on them anyway)Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 6, 2018 20:38:16 GMT
Soooo... the Classical Indian list is wrong? Someone forgot to tell Porus...
By the way, the men fighting from the Elephant, and screening it ahead, are as much the inflicters of damage. The Elephant itself made relatively little contact with te vast majority of an enemy unit. It was the morale and terror effects overall, combined with javelins, lances and archery from above.
On Cavalry, sorry, depending on the rider, the horse itself is a fantastic weapon. If it makes contact at a 30mph gallop, you are going down HARD...Even if it is just turning on a dime, and it clips you with its haunches, down you go. And you fall hard whenever a horse hits you. And if in an ancient battle, falling down is often a death sentence.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 6, 2018 22:55:27 GMT
Soooo... the Classical Indian list is wrong? Someone forgot to tell Porus... ---And where pray tell did I say that the Classical Indian Army List is wrong?---By the way, the men fighting from the Elephant, and screening it ahead, are as much the inflicters of damage. The Elephant itself made relatively little contact with the vast majority of an enemy unit. It was the morale and terror effects overall, combined with javelins, lances and archery from above. ---Don’t know…I’ve never seen an ancient elephant in battle.---On Cavalry, sorry, depending on the rider, the horse itself is a fantastic weapon. If it makes contact at a 30mph gallop, you are going down HARD...Even if it is just turning on a dime, and it clips you with its haunches, down you go. And you fall hard whenever a horse hits you. And if in an ancient battle, falling down is often a death sentence. ---I’d rather face a charging horse than a charging elephant---Interestingly enough, despite all of Alexander’s Successors realising how useful elephants could be in battle, and they bent over backwards to secure as many of them as they could, only one successor (Ptolemy Keraunos) thought it a good idea to try and lead his army from the back of one. Then there are the Carthaginians, using elephants in both of the Punic Wars against Roman…yet not one of their generals tried to command while riding one, or even to try and personally lead a unit of them. What does that tells us? If a general temporarily joining a unit can improve its fighting ability, how come there are no records of this ever happening in the case of elephants? All I am saying is that if the Army List allows you to have your general riding an elephant then fine, you’ve got your +1 in combat. But if a roaming general temporarily joins a elephant element, they don’t get the +1. Oh, the men might want to impress their commander (although how they do that from a howdah is questionable…what do they do, jump down to the ground to show how brave they are?), but the elephants themselves are not going to suddenly become bigger, more fierce, or more obedient. I’m not trying to rob your Classical Indian general of his +1…I just don’t want the Marian Romans and the Carthaginians to get the same +1 and creating a ‘super element’ by having their roaming generals joining elephant troops (because they never did). Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Feb 7, 2018 5:07:38 GMT
On this one I have to disagree on the +1 for an elephant unit, Stevie - as noted these are not just elephants with a couple of guys along for the ride in a howdah. They are often units of 50 or more men per elephant. And the elephant is nominally being controlled by a driver/mahout.
The human element could very well be inspired to greater efforts/effectiveness by having the general leading them or watching over their shoulders.
Not that I anticipate using this option much, but if I do, elephants will be included.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 7, 2018 10:03:56 GMT
Fair enough Goragrad, each to their own. All very 21st century armchair logical…it’s just that I don’t want my Carthaginian and Roman commanders doing things on the wargames table that they never did in reality, such as having a general leaving his bodyguard and temporarily joining an elephant corps to boost its morale and make it fight better. (I’m assuming that actual generals 2,000 years ago knew more about ancient warfare than we will ever know) Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 7, 2018 15:36:44 GMT
But historically, Elephants were used as a screen. Again, the issue I have is with having a "marker" in the game to represent something other than an element. At keast from a classical DBx perspective, that is.
Using the general as an optional actual (pretty weak) element would work well in this case. To get the +1 you have to be in the rear of the Elephant. All fine until the Elephant recoils! Bye bye general staff/HQ...
I guess, Stevie, I am suggesting that a DBA-esque way to model "Rome-ing" (sorry couldn't resist that one!) generals is as part dismount procedure, part mobile, very weak neo-CP element.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 8, 2018 13:44:28 GMT
Perhaps I should explain in more detail how this concept of ‘Rome-ing’ generals (I like that one ) came about, and why it is necessary in certain historical re-enactments. In 322 BC, a year after Alexander’s death, the new regent Perdiccas led the Imperial Army (II/15 in the army lists) into Cappadocia to crush the Persian satrap Ariarathes, and Eumenes, Alexander’s Greek secretary, was installed as the new governor. In the following year the 1st Diaochian War broke out, and Perdiccas went south to invade Ptolemy’s Egypt, where he was murdered when his army mutinied. Eumenes was left in Anatolia and had to use army II/14 to face Craterus’ army of II/12 (with local troops instead of hypaspists) at the Battle of the Hellespont in 321 BC. Being a mere Greek, Eumenes had little access to heavy infantry, and knew that his light armed Cappadocian foot could not stand up to Craterus’ Macedonian phalangites. So he devised a plan to keep his centre back and win on the flanks. With 3 x 3Kn and 2 x LH he easily outnumbered Craterus’ 3Kn, Cv, and LH, and destroying these three mounted elements along with Craterus himself is enough in DBA to secure victory, even before the foot in the centre has come into contact. Now this battle can be re-enacted just fine with 12 elements with no need to change any of the current DBA rules. The problem is, the same thing can happen at Trebia, Cannae, and Zama when Hannibal is fighting the Romans. Lose a Ps and two Cv, one of which is your general, and you’ve lost the battle. But this not what happened in these engagements. Some way of prolonging these 12 element battles is needed to get the correct historical outcome. (BBDBA doesn’t have this problem…they have enough elements to keep their general in reserve.
12 element games do not have that luxury)Now there are several ways this could be done. We could say that losing a general does not help towards victory…but that mucks up the Battle of the Hellespont. We could say that you need to lose more than 4 elements to be defeated…but that again affects the Hellespont. We could say that Roman and Carthaginian generals can be attached to any element when they deploy… …but then players could have their general with an elephant element, which the Romans and Carthaginians never did. Or we could take inspiration from history, and using the examples of Sulla and Caesar have some generals ‘free roaming’. Remember that when an army list allows their C-in-C to be mounted on an elephant, they are not joining an elephant unit. They are in fact assembling an elephant bodyguard around their general, chosen from the finest, largest, strongest, and most obedient beasts available, as well as mounting them with the bravest and most loyal soldiers in their army…and all this is done months or even years before the day of battle. This is a far cry from just riding up to a random elephant unit and shouting “Come on you lot, fight harder”. Because in all of the battles in which the Successors used elephants, I cannot find one example of a C-in-C joining an elephant unit to inspire it to fight better. And in all of the Carthaginian battles in which they used elephants, I cannot find one example of their C-in-C joining an elephant unit to inspire it to fight better. And in the few battles where the Marian Romans used Numidian elephants, I cannot find one example of a C-in-C joining an elephant unit to inspire it to fight better. In fact, in the whole of history I can’t find a single example of a C-in-C joining an elephant unit to inspire it to fight better! I think there is a pattern here, and history is trying to tell us something. As for the Carthaginians, just where exactly was their general? Was Hannibal with the cavalry at the battles of Trebia, Cannae, and Zama? No, he was in the centre. Was the Scipio with his cavalry at the battle of Zama? No, again he was in the centre. (This is a bit like looking at those illustrated children’s books, “Where’s Wally”...he's in the picture somewhere, but where?)Having ‘roaming’ Roman and Carthaginian generals is the best solution: it allows certain historical battles to be re-created using just 12 elements, it simulate those times when generals of these armies joined a wavering unit to bolster their morale, and it emphasizes the ‘commanding’ instead of ‘fighting’ role they played in reality…a role more sophisticated and advanced than just leading their bodyguard around the battlefield like all the other ancient and medieval generals did. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 8, 2018 15:20:53 GMT
I clearly see generals far more abstractly in DBA than you do, Stevie. Similarly for camps. Did you know that the Romans appear to have been one of the very few armies that fortified their marching camps? And that if I am recalling correctly, the only instance of one being captured was at Pharsalus, ... after it had been abandoned! If so, what exactly does Caesar's "camp" in a DBA game represent? I see it as the "HQ" in this case. And the General's element? Could this not be the abstraction of a key focal point in the army's battle plan?
What would the effect of a loss of the Carthaginian Cavalry superiority, perhaps as represented by the "General" being on a Cv element, have been on a Carthagnian Army? Ditto for Rome? Often it was the case that driving off the enemy's cavalry and skirmishers would leave their remaining HI highly exposed?
My point is that while I can get behind a "roaming general", I simply don't see a guy yelling at an Elephant. I see the stiffening effects of the general's presence (just knowing he was nearby was a huge morale boost in ancient armies. Troopers would tell their grandkids about the time that the Great Alexandros looked at them... And smiled!) or possibly, one the general's key lieutenants, perhaps dispatched their by the general himself.
It represents a "key zone" or cluster of force plus intent.
Maybe it is my fault for having made a lifelong study of command in theory in practice. But DBA is an incredibly abstract and abstracted game.
Elephant handlers and support troops are just as susceptible to fear and inspiration as other troops. I think what you are trying to solve is the wrong problem, but if we agree that it isn't, then you should allow a separate general's element. It requires less overhead, simulates "reserves and command focus" nicely, and has appropriate downside risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 8, 2018 17:12:37 GMT
I clearly see generals far more abstractly in DBA than you do, Stevie. Similarly for camps. Did you know that the Romans appear to have been one of the very few armies that fortified their marching camps? And that if I am recalling correctly, the only instance of one being captured was at Pharsalus, ... after it had been abandoned! If so, what exactly does Caesar's "camp" in a DBA game represent? I see it as the "HQ" in this case. And the General's element? Could this not be the abstraction of a key focal point in the army's battle plan? Actually, most ancient people fortified their camp in some way or another…they weren’t that stupid!
And some sources say that the Romans got their idea for nice well laid-out camps from Pyrrhus…
…although other sources say it was Pyrrhus that was impressed when he saw how tidy Roman camps were.
What would the effect of a loss of the Carthaginian Cavalry superiority, perhaps as represented by the "General" being on a Cv element, have been on a Carthagnian Army? Ditto for Rome? Often it was the case that driving off the enemy's cavalry and skirmishers would leave their remaining HI highly exposed? Yep, exactly what happened when Eumenes defeated and killed Craterus at the Battle of the Hellespont in 321 BC.
But it didn’t happen at the battles of Trebia, Cannae, or Zama did it…the main battlelines fought on for some time at these engagements, and an historical re-creation should do the same, or it’s not being historical. My point is that while I can get behind a "roaming general", I simply don't see a guy yelling at an Elephant. I see the stiffening effects of the general's presence (just knowing he was nearby was a huge morale boost in ancient armies. Troopers would tell their grandkids about the time that the Great Alexandros looked at them... And smiled!) or possibly, one the general's key lieutenants, perhaps dispatched their by the general himself. All good 21st century armchair logic…except that it-never-actually-happend-in-reality.
Show me one, just one example of a C-in-C joining an elephant corps in the middle of a battle to inspire it, anywhere in history, and I’ll agree with you.It represents a "key zone" or cluster of force plus intent. Maybe it is my fault for having made a lifelong study of command in theory in practice. But DBA is an incredibly abstract and abstracted game. ...that can be used to simulate reality, with the right rules.Elephant handlers and support troops are just as susceptible to fear and inspiration as other troops. I think what you are trying to solve is the wrong problem, but if we agree that it isn't, then you should allow a separate general's element. It requires less overhead, simulates "reserves and command focus" nicely, and has appropriate downside risk. Ha! So you agree with the principle…and we are just quibbling over the base size.
You want all armies to have 12 elements, but Rome and Carthage to have a special ‘13th element’ for their general.
I want all armies to have 12 elements, but Rome and Carthage to have a special ‘roaming general marker’, smaller than an element.
|
|
