|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 15, 2018 19:54:33 GMT
Actually on the subject of hoplites: 1) How do Thessalians do vs Athenians or Spartans? i.e. Cv and LH are now faster (LH REALLY fast). How do these guys do against a Shield Wall? I'd love to see. The Sp have lots of side support, but the LH and Cv can do lots of flanking 2) My experience (limited) was that Athenians vs Early Persians (i.e. Marathon) was always a win for the Athenians because Sp was just so strong vs Bw. Does the +1 for 8Bw make them more interesting fights now? Also does the faster mounted games mean the Persians can get around the back? Hi there, greedo, On the 24" board, you will need to be crafty to get outflanking with Cv and LH. Essentially, if you can goad the Athenians/Spartans to come forward, you can slip past (terrain willing) his flank outposts, and get loose behind him, or cutting in to a flank element. If his Ps are poorly positioned, you can use LH to "pin" them, and Cv to come up and finish them via QK in the open. If you are lucky, and he screws up a bit. Which is as it should be with Cv and LH in a combined arms force. Persians are now completely and thoroughly nerfed in v3 against Athenians/Spartans, for the following reasons: 1. Side support. The Athenian main battle line is now effectively twice as wide as it was under 2.2. Rear support of necessity shortened the Athenian line. It is even worse with Sparta. Now the Spartan army will set up a trench line across the board. Your Cv and LH are simply not strong enough to offset this. 2. Requiring Bow to shoot at a target in their TZ now effectively blows up in the Persians' faces, as they can no longer "concentrate" and are left shooting at hoplites with 2 vs 4 up and down the line. This is a recipe for disaster, as the hoplites simply laugh, and step up and smash the Persians in the face with nary a second thought. Forget the movie '300'. The fighting between Persian and Greek infantry was sustained, fierce and tough as all heck. The Greeks had the edge. But the Persians were far from pathetic losers. 3. Removal of the 3Bw element. Persians are now down to 4 bows instead of 5. For an army that has no choice but to rely on archery, this is catastrophic punishment. Unless using the army of Cyrus, even Babylon isn't scared of you any more! 4. Loss of the first 8Bw element counts as two elements lost, not one. Again, thoroughly nerfing the Persians. This is NOT what was described in Herodotus, or Theucydides. Both give the impression that the Persian infantry could put up a quite a fight, but losing in the long run. Don't forget that Persian armies smashed hoplites in Ionia, and Marathon only happened (allegedly) because the Persians had mishandled their Cv. (I defy anyone to show me a v3 game between Athens and Persia where absence of Persian Cv would have been even a mild influencer). Plataea was a near run thing, prompting Theucydides to caution against allowing Persian intervention in the Peloponnesian War. The fixes required are as follows (imho). A. Remove the idiotic rule forcing shooting at a target in the TZ. OK, if you have to have it, require it only for mounted targets. It doesn't reflect "concentrated anti-tank fire". It is a stand-in for an attrition system for mass shooting. That is all. B. Consider treating the Persian Cv to be as Kn versus hoplite armies (or just replace the Persian Cv with Kn). I think this actually is not a bad idea, as early hoplites rarely fought large horse formations, and when they did, often had trouble (Ephesus, Syrcause, Plataea etc...). Forces genuine fear of Persian horse by Spartans, as at Plataea. C. Give 8Bw (along with 4Ax and 4Bw) an additional '+1' in close combat on a losing score versus Sp, Bd and supported Pk,, to reflect staying power that lies between fast Bow/Auxilia, and hoplites/legions/etc. Either the above, or get your Spartan/Athenian opponent thoroughly drunk and distracted. |
|
|
|
Post by weddier on Apr 15, 2018 22:49:23 GMT
Tom, possibly those of us who appreciated all the hard work the testing group put in have not thanked all of you enough. I have been playing with WRG products since 1973 and DBA 3.0 is great. Really, a first rate product compared to any game publisher of similar stuff. Thanks again, all of you.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 16, 2018 5:44:30 GMT
Hi there, greedo, On the 24" board, you will need to be crafty to get outflanking with Cv and LH. Essentially, if you can goad the Athenians/Spartans to come forward, you can slip past (terrain willing) his flank outposts, and get loose behind him, or cutting in to a flank element. If his Ps are poorly positioned, you can use LH to "pin" them, and Cv to come up and finish them via QK in the open. If you are lucky, and he screws up a bit. Which is as it should be with Cv and LH in a combined arms force. Persians are now completely and thoroughly nerfed in v3 against Athenians/Spartans, for the following reasons: 1. Side support. The Athenian main battle line is now effectively twice as wide as it was under 2.2. Rear support of necessity shortened the Athenian line. It is even worse with Sparta. Now the Spartan army will set up a trench line across the board. Your Cv and LH are simply not strong enough to offset this. 2. Requiring Bow to shoot at a target in their TZ now effectively blows up in the Persians' faces, as they can no longer "concentrate" and are left shooting at hoplites with 2 vs 4 up and down the line. This is a recipe for disaster, as the hoplites simply laugh, and step up and smash the Persians in the face with nary a second thought. Forget the movie '300'. The fighting between Persian and Greek infantry was sustained, fierce and tough as all heck. The Greeks had the edge. But the Persians were far from pathetic losers. 3. Removal of the 3Bw element. Persians are now down to 4 bows instead of 5. For an army that has no choice but to rely on archery, this is catastrophic punishment. Unless using the army of Cyrus, even Babylon isn't scared of you any more! 4. Loss of the first 8Bw element counts as two elements lost, not one. Again, thoroughly nerfing the Persians. This is NOT what was described in Herodotus, or Theucydides. Both give the impression that the Persian infantry could put up a quite a fight, but losing in the long run. Don't forget that Persian armies smashed hoplites in Ionia, and Marathon only happened (allegedly) because the Persians had mishandled their Cv. (I defy anyone to show me a v3 game between Athens and Persia where absence of Persian Cv would have been even a mild influencer). Plataea was a near run thing, prompting Theucydides to caution against allowing Persian intervention in the Peloponnesian War. The fixes required are as follows (imho). A. Remove the idiotic rule forcing shooting at a target in the TZ. OK, if you have to have it, require it only for mounted targets. It doesn't reflect "concentrated anti-tank fire". It is a stand-in for an attrition system for mass shooting. That is all. B. Consider treating the Persian Cv to be as Kn versus hoplite armies (or just replace the Persian Cv with Kn). I think this actually is not a bad idea, as early hoplites rarely fought large horse formations, and when they did, often had trouble (Ephesus, Syrcause, Plataea etc...). Forces genuine fear of Persian horse by Spartans, as at Plataea. C. Give 8Bw (along with 4Ax and 4Bw) an additional '+1' in close combat on a losing score versus Sp, Bd and supported Pk,, to reflect staying power that lies between fast Bow/Auxilia, and hoplites/legions/etc. Either the above, or get your Spartan/Athenian opponent thoroughly drunk and distracted. Hi PrimusPilus, Hmmm, good thoughts! Ok, based on zero playing 3.0, I'll think out loud here: - The outflanking could be solved by a 36" wide board, which I'm told makes it harder for heavy infantry lists, so hopefully this will give the Persian Cv in the face of a straight Hoplite trench to make them think twice.
- 8Bw get +1 for being deep in CC vs foot, so they'd be a 3 vs Spears 5 (assuming side support from the Spear). Bad, but not *as bad*?
- Didn't know about the TZ zone. So a Bow's range is 3BW, Hoplites move 2BW (or 1BW if we can lure into a sand dune!) so the Bw will get 1 round of shooting where they can concentrate fire on a single Sp before the Hoplites close and smash face. That sounds a bit too much measuring of distances to me... Unsure how to solve this, unless some Persian Ps are out front to hopefully recoil some of the hoplites to remove that side support.
- Perhaps the Persians need to hide in a line of some Rough Going that will get the Hoplites a -2 in CC, and nuke their side support.. So 2 vs 2 in CC. Of course, the Hoplites would have to be willing to do that, but if the Persians are sitting there they can just keep shooting the Hoplites... Requires some careful terrain placement which might not always be possible.
- I dunno, are they are nerfed as you say? That's a real shame. How about late Persians vs late Hoplites?
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Apr 16, 2018 7:31:49 GMT
This is NOT what was described in Herodotus, or Theucydides. Both give the impression that the Persian infantry could put up a quite a fight, but losing in the long run. Don't forget that Persian armies smashed hoplites in Ionia, and Marathon only happened (allegedly) because the Persians had mishandled their Cv. (I defy anyone to show me a v3 game between Athens and Persia where absence of Persian Cv would have been even a mild influencer). Plataea was a near run thing, prompting Theucydides to caution against allowing Persian intervention in the Peloponnesian War. I have just come across a Slingshot article about how army lists forget their Herodotus and under-rate Early Achaeminid Persians. It was by Giobanni d'Erme - and it was publishes back in 1986! Issue 126 July 1986 to be precise. Plus ca change! Simon |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 16, 2018 18:22:56 GMT
I think in the case of DBA it is caused primarily by the non-linear dice interactions between CFs of 3, and those of 4 or 5. I believe 4Ax, 4/8Bw attempted to have something between LI and HI, so you'd be tempted to pick '3'. Unfortunately the kill rate between, say, 3 and 5 is pretty sad for the '3'. Which is why in DBM/DBMM they were pretty much forced to add in all manner of conditional modifiers. Lets you keep the simple d6 ratio system, and still get something approximating reality. I think in the DBA v3 case, the '+1' Defensive Bonus is the right way to do it. Doesn't make them more likely to kill things. Just makes them less likely to die - or take one look at the enemy and run screaming for the hills...
I mean let's be honest: with a '+1' rescue modifier, they are still going to die against hoplites. There is just at least some better chance that in the time it takes the hoplites to polish off the Persian infantry, they can threaten to win "by other means"... i.e. delaying the decision with the hoplites long enough to sack a camp, bag a general, trundle a Ps or Ax, you get the picture...
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Apr 16, 2018 21:21:11 GMT
I am somewhat unconvinced. EAP were pretty much devastated by every decent hoplite army they encountered. Their transition from archery to mercenary heavy infantry was a very direct result of this.
Cunaxa is a case in point (and essentially presents an EAP vs LAP matchup, IMHO).
I also can't see many cases in history of troops we rate as Ax or 8Bw standing up for long against heavy infantry. Cannae is the one extreme exception... though to be honest 3Bd would probably be a better designation for Hannibal's troops. That solution however is not available to us...
I think that the change for 8Bw from +2 to +3 in close combat probably represents this troop type well. (I did actually win my last two games against Greek Hoplites with EAP... of course I have lost more overall than won with them! I am however flush with victory now!)
For Ax, I think the ability to break contact from Pike and Blade probably enables Cannae to happen as well as supports the events of Cunaxa.
I am unsure of the other great Ax vs Bd matchup...Irish vs Vikings... but I will be exploring that this summer when I model Clontarf.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 16, 2018 21:39:00 GMT
Ok, so understanding this:
Side Supported Spear wall is +5.
8Bw is Double 4Bw so 2+1 = 3.
Then basically give 8Bw semi-superior grading (without the +1 on ties)
Given that the bows have wicker shields in front of them, this doesn't sound out of the question, and wouldn't as weird as giving them another +1 (8Bw with +4?)...
Another option. Could you just give the Persians a few more 8Bw's? Maybe 3 more, and raise their defeat level from 4 elements to 5 elements lost? If that's too many, keep the 4 elements loss, but only give them 1-2 more 8Bw's?
I think I prefer giving the Persians a few more troops, rather than mucking with the rules too much as we'll start getting into every element has a special exception to all the rules eventually..
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 16, 2018 23:53:25 GMT
I am somewhat unconvinced. EAP were pretty much devastated by every decent hoplite army they encountered. Their transition from archery to mercenary heavy infantry was a very direct result of this. Cunaxa is a case in point (and essentially presents an EAP vs LAP matchup, IMHO). Sorry, Joe, you're dead wrong, mate. Cunaxa is AFTER the Peloponnesian Wars are already over. Also, Cunaxa was NOT decided by the clash of shields, as you know, but by the death of Cyrus during the battle. Sorry, but let's do a count of hoplite battles: Sardis - crushing EAP victory, chasing the Athenians back to the sea with their tails between their legs Ephesus - crushing EAP victory Miletus - crushing EAP victory - failure of Aristagoras to free the Greeks from Persian rule. So bad that Greek playwrights were forbidden from mentioning it without requiring the audience to weep simultaneously... (did I get that right?) Marathon - crushing HG victory Thermopylae - crushing EAP victory, followed up by the burning of Athens to the ground, and the ENTIRE population huddling on a small island. Some glory... Plataea - long, drawn-out fight with heavy losses on both sides, and the EAP army and entourage hunted down and slaughtered in the weeks and months following the defeat, primarily by all the Medising Greeks eager to show how they really hated the Persians, and just went along with them out of fear... Cunaxa - as you mentioned. Crushing EAP victory. Ask yourself this: if Spartan hoplites were so good, why did they feel the need to beg the Persians for safe passage back home after their failed little adventure? Why not just smash them in the face? And don't forget that by 358BC, the Achaemenid Empire had forced Athens back to Greece, and Asia Minor was once again under Persia rule. This was a big reason for Hellenistic determination to go after Persian once and for all. History tells a very different story of the victory of Greek hoplite armies over Persians. The Greek victories in the invasions by Persia were as much about loss of the Persian navy (Persia was primarily a land power) as about superiority of Greek arms. And as I always point out - Persian archery was so useless, and the Greeks so unafraid, that throughout the Greek military campaigns, the ENTIRE Greek battle plan revolves around neutralizing the Persian bow fire any way they can, lest they get caught in the open and shot to pieces. So which is it? Was Persian bow fire dangerous? By the way, a big reason for getting rid of archery was not superiority of arms (Persian archers had the capability to make and wear heavy armour, as well as decent shields). It is the requirements of the march distances of patrolling the Persian Empire. The Greeks never marched more than a few dozen miles to fight - on average. The average Persian battle march was hundreds and hundreds of miles. Lugging hoplite panoply all that distance to fight predominantly mounted and light tribesmen - total waste. Then there was the cost of equipment. The Persians gave an excellent account of themselves at Plataea, and at Marathon, as at Cannae, if the Greek centre had burst, Marathon would have had a VERY different outcome. In their day, the Persians were the equivalent of the Romans a few hundred years later. The biggest, baddest and best army on the planet. They lost a few battles to the Greeks (and the Romans never did seem to do too well against the Germans) and handful of others, but they smashed just about everyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 17, 2018 0:11:45 GMT
greedo, giving the Persians an extra 2 4Bw or 8Bw, and maybe setting victory at 6 elements, would certainly help...
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 17, 2018 3:49:24 GMT
I won't jump into how many battles Persians and Hoplites won vs each other because I really only know the Greek-centric version.
My impression was the Persians outnumbered the Hoplites a great deal, so even though a hoplite could beat a Sarabara, there were so many more of them, that it evened out, so perhaps so I think that might end up being my house rule for "3.0 weakened" armies, adding a few elements to compensate for lots of weaker troops.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Apr 17, 2018 13:29:15 GMT
Interesting discussion, which makes me want to learn more about this period! Was the Persian cavalry seen as the major arm?
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Apr 17, 2018 14:53:07 GMT
I am somewhat unconvinced. EAP were pretty much devastated by every decent hoplite army they encountered. Their transition from archery to mercenary heavy infantry was a very direct result of this. Cunaxa is a case in point (and essentially presents an EAP vs LAP matchup, IMHO). Sorry, Joe, you're dead wrong, mate. Cunaxa is AFTER the Peloponnesian Wars are already over. Also, Cunaxa was NOT decided by the clash of shields, as you know, but by the death of Cyrus during the battle. Sorry, but let's do a count of hoplite battles: Sardis - crushing EAP victory, chasing the Athenians back to the sea with their tails between their legs Ephesus - crushing EAP victory Miletus - crushing EAP victory - failure of Aristagoras to free the Greeks from Persian rule. So bad that Greek playwrights were forbidden from mentioning it without requiring the audience to weep simultaneously... (did I get that right?) Marathon - crushing HG victory Thermopylae - crushing EAP victory, followed up by the burning of Athens to the ground, and the ENTIRE population huddling on a small island. Some glory... Plataea - long, drawn-out fight with heavy losses on both sides, and the EAP army and entourage hunted down and slaughtered in the weeks and months following the defeat, primarily by all the Medising Greeks eager to show how they really hated the Persians, and just went along with them out of fear... Cunaxa - as you mentioned. Crushing EAP victory. Ask yourself this: if Spartan hoplites were so good, why did they feel the need to beg the Persians for safe passage back home after their failed little adventure? Why not just smash them in the face? And don't forget that by 358BC, the Achaemenid Empire had forced Athens back to Greece, and Asia Minor was once again under Persia rule. This was a big reason for Hellenistic determination to go after Persian once and for all. History tells a very different story of the victory of Greek hoplite armies over Persians. The Greek victories in the invasions by Persia were as much about loss of the Persian navy (Persia was primarily a land power) as about superiority of Greek arms. And as I always point out - Persian archery was so useless, and the Greeks so unafraid, that throughout the Greek military campaigns, the ENTIRE Greek battle plan revolves around neutralizing the Persian bow fire any way they can, lest they get caught in the open and shot to pieces. So which is it? Was Persian bow fire dangerous? By the way, a big reason for getting rid of archery was not superiority of arms (Persian archers had the capability to make and wear heavy armour, as well as decent shields). It is the requirements of the march distances of patrolling the Persian Empire. The Greeks never marched more than a few dozen miles to fight - on average. The average Persian battle march was hundreds and hundreds of miles. Lugging hoplite panoply all that distance to fight predominantly mounted and light tribesmen - total waste. Then there was the cost of equipment. The Persians gave an excellent account of themselves at Plataea, and at Marathon, as at Cannae, if the Greek centre had burst, Marathon would have had a VERY different outcome. In their day, the Persians were the equivalent of the Romans a few hundred years later. The biggest, baddest and best army on the planet. They lost a few battles to the Greeks (and the Romans never did seem to do too well against the Germans) and handful of others, but they smashed just about everyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Apr 17, 2018 14:58:48 GMT
Except that the Persians abandoned their light infantry archers for Mercenary Hoplites...
I also seem to remember that the Ten Thousand marched a few miles before Cunaxa... and a few afterwards...
Yes, the Greeks had trouble getting it together... when they did, the result was the extermination of the Persian Empire not the extermination of the Greeks.
We will just have to disagree.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 17, 2018 17:11:47 GMT
Except that the Persians abandoned their light infantry archers for Mercenary Hoplites... I also seem to remember that the Ten Thousand marched a few miles before Cunaxa... and a few afterwards... Yes, the Greeks had trouble getting it together... when they did, the result was the extermination of the Persian Empire not the extermination of the Greeks. We will just have to disagree. Joe Collins But wasn't it the Macedonians who did everybody in eventually? Yeah I *know* they're greek, but they also took down all the hoplite greeks didn't they? I suppose it's also a while after the Early Hoplites... |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 17, 2018 21:34:25 GMT
Joe, they didn't exactly abandon their "light" archers (who by all accounts carried shields, and wore some kind of body armour/cuirass under their tunics).
Alexander at Issus was exceptionally afraid of Persian archery, and urged his phlanax to basically break formation and rush the Takabara Marathon-style, so as not to have his infantry shot to pieces by Persian arrows. Some 150-odd years AFTER marathon.
The Persians did not abandon their infantry. They added mercenary hoplites (finally getting over their racial prejudice against using non-Asian Greeks in the army) whilst simultaneously also, adding peltas (we think, but aren't sure) and possibly the aspis to some regiments.
Incidentally, if hoplites were so dominant against light troops, why did Iphicrates urge the abandonment of the hoplite system, in favour of a Persian-style Light Infantry force around a far more lightly armed "heavy infantryman"? Around the time the Persians were supposedly adopting it? So you basically get convergence.
In my view, the DBx has stuck itself with a problem regarding troops like Iphicrates' infantry, and Persian heavy foot. In my view, making EAP sparabara into Sp who shoot, is a more accurate portrayal (what was it that Sp are again? Oh, right, shieldwall. You mean like a line of large, heavy wicker "fieldworks" jammed shoulder-to-shoulder into the earth in front of the main Persian force, and defended viciously with spears, swords and arrows ?).
I think making the default CF for "heavy infantry" into a '4/3', making 4Bw a 3/4 but 2/4 in shooting, and giving Bd +1, Sp +1 side support, and Pk +3 rear support, gets it about right. -1 in CC in bad going vs foot. Ps can flee from "heavy infantry", to compensate for the CF differential. HI fight as Ax vs mounted, but don't QK Elephants.
Whether discussing Lydians, Persians, Gauls at Zama, etc, it is clear DBA has a bit of a hole where a generic "somewhat formed infantry" element should be. Why don't we backfill it, with certain cases of 8Bw, 4Wb and maybe 4Ax as candidates?
In this case, "heavy infantry" are still mostly outclassed by Sp, Bd and supported Pk. There will be "+5 vs +2" in quite a few cases. Occasionally, the HI will get stomped, and occasionally they will stubbornly hang on, and refuse to just die.
|
|
