|
Post by stevie on Jun 30, 2018 9:04:21 GMT
Alrighty Jim...”disciplined regulars or veteran mercenaries”. Army II/35 Late Macedoinians: the Thracians are 4Ax... Army II/20b Ptolemaics: the Thracians are 4Ax... Army II/19b Seleucids: the Thracians are 4Ax... Army II18b Polyperchon: the Illyrians are 3/4Ax... Army II/17ab Lysimachids: the Thracians are 3/4Ax... Army II/15 Alexander Imperial: the Thracians are 3/4Ax... Army II/12 Alexander: the Thracians are 3/4Ax... Just don’t let your 21st century thinking contradict the ancient historians... ...and they say the Thracians fought in ‘peltast fashion’, not the same as those wild fierce Celts. (Indeed, the wild fierce charge of the Celtic Galatians came as something of shock to 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 Haardrada on Jun 30, 2018 10:43:58 GMT
Has anyone considered trying the side support for 8Bw and Pk?There is some Historical evidence of different armies experimenting with such formations but no evidence of its effectiveness.
Alexander certainly experimented with mixed Pk and Bow units but this may not have been put into practice. Tang Chinese certainly used mixed Spear and bow formations and Charles the Bold certainly advocated using mixed Pk and bow formations in his Ordonnances.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 30, 2018 12:54:54 GMT
Yes Haardrada, we have, and too many +1's would make 8Bw/Lb/Cb too powerful in close combat:- I use both Bow (+2/+4) and "longbow" (+3/+4) because these types of troops model known historical troop types. (As to the DBMM stuff - Bow shoot at +3 in DBMM so this suggestion has been tried and Phil wanted this for DBA 3.0 but got shouted down by now departed playtesters. I've played DBMM and have the headache to prove it. It has many complex rules that in the end make Bow a +3 v. Foot most of the time). Very well Tom, let us adopt the DBMM shooting system... but the target priority as well, not just the shooting factor against foot. Otherwise concentrated CF 3 fire at long range becomes too deadly, especially against CF 3 targets such as Pk/Ax/Wb. Therefore, getting back to Jim’s original 8Bw testing, doubled based 8Bw should not get side-support (CF 3, +1 for double base, and +1 for side-support, would be CF 5...equal to supported Sp/Bd in close combat, and far too high. CF 4 should be the limit).
See fanaticus.boards.net/post/14160/But if you mean a double base formation with pikes at the front and bows behind, then I’ve no idea. There is no record of such a formation ever being used in combat. Would it be CF 5, or CF 6, or even CF 7? We’ll never know. (Correction: army II/85a Burgundian Ordonnance of Charles the Bold (1471-1477 AD) has an 8Lb formation with pikes in the front and Lb behind...but it's the only one in the entire army lists. And according to the army list even his descendants stopped using it in 1478-1506, so it couldn't have been much good)
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 30, 2018 22:04:41 GMT
Alrighty Jim...”disciplined regulars or veteran mercenaries”. Army II/35 Late Macedoinians: the Thracians are 4Ax... Army II/20b Ptolemaics: the Thracians are 4Ax... Army II/19b Seleucids: the Thracians are 4Ax... Army II18b Polyperchon: the Illyrians are 3/4Ax... Army II/17ab Lysimachids: the Thracians are 3/4Ax... Army II/15 Alexander Imperial: the Thracians are 3/4Ax... Army II/12 Alexander: the Thracians are 3/4Ax... Just don’t let your 21st century thinking contradict the ancient historians... ...and they say the Thracians fought in ‘peltast fashion’, not the same as those wild fierce Celts. (Indeed, the wild fierce charge of the Celtic Galatians came as something of shock to 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
Actually, I was referring to the plain old Thracian army list, which allows a lot of 4Ax. I agree that the classical description is of peltasts. I agree that the Thracians in service with Hellenistic armies can be 4Ax. I agree in theory that 4Ax needs a boost against heavy foot and +1 is a start. I'm not sure they should also get "evade" type recoils on top, particularly as experience, density and a position on the line makes this seem less likely. But the actual Thracian list may or may not play historically, at least in the classical period. I'll try it out and see. Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 30, 2018 22:37:13 GMT
Jim, the Thracian list covers an extended period including Skythian horse archer allies, and the full spectrum from fox-skin hat wearing, pelta-carrying, cloaked javelin-men, to later shielded, helmeted rhompaia-wielding professionals.
I see the 1BW applying to the 3Ax, and the +1 stiffening against HI applying to the later, heavier-equipped troops.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Jul 1, 2018 2:44:32 GMT
Jim, the Thracian list covers an extended period including Skythian horse archer allies, and the full spectrum from fox-skin hat wearing, pelta-carrying, cloaked javelin-men, to later shielded, helmeted rhompaia-wielding professionals. I see the 1BW applying to the 3Ax, and the +1 stiffening against HI applying to the later, heavier-equipped troops. I like this concept. New random idea: Fast Sp. 3Sp. Use instead of 4Ax. 4,4 but loses on ties to solid and no side support? And keep the 1bw retreat for both Ax. Now not sure if that’s bad against mounted...
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Jul 1, 2018 6:44:25 GMT
Jim, the Thracian list covers an extended period including Skythian horse archer allies, and the full spectrum from fox-skin hat wearing, pelta-carrying, cloaked javelin-men, to later shielded, helmeted rhompaia-wielding professionals. I see the 1BW applying to the 3Ax, and the +1 stiffening against HI applying to the later, heavier-equipped troops. Another reason I like this: it gives you a reason to choose between which ones you want fast or not. A real trade off. It does make things a tad more complicated but if it makes things work better, and helps people choose 4Ax so much the better.
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 1, 2018 8:25:58 GMT
Jim, the Thracian list covers an extended period including Skythian horse archer allies, and the full spectrum from fox-skin hat wearing, pelta-carrying, cloaked javelin-men, to later shielded, helmeted rhompaia-wielding professionals. I see the 1BW applying to the 3Ax, and the +1 stiffening against HI applying to the later, heavier-equipped troops. I agree. My gut feeling is that the 4Ax should be available later in the period. But, like much of ancient history, we are only left with a few snippets to deduce from. And of course, history is usually written by the victors (How many men did Xerxes' bring again?). So I suspect PB has left the door open for individual tastes, for which he should not be criticised, as real proof is unlikely to be discovered. But rule changes/house rules will interact with army lists and we need to be mindful of these interactions. Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jul 1, 2018 9:12:19 GMT
I use both Bow (+2/+4) and "longbow" (+3/+4) because these types of troops model known historical troop types. (As to the DBMM stuff - Bow shoot at +3 in DBMM so this suggestion has been tried and Phil wanted this for DBA 3.0 but got shouted down by now departed playtesters. I've played DBMM and have the headache to prove it. It has many complex rules that in the end make Bow a +3 v. Foot most of the time). TomT Very well Tom, let us adopt the DBMM shooting system... but the target priority as well, not just the shooting factor against foot. Otherwise concentrated CF 3 fire at long range becomes too deadly, especially against CF 3 targets such as Pk/Ax/Wb. DBMM says: “...can only shoot at the target most directly in front of their shooting edge (i.e. closest to a line perpendicular to the centre of that (shooting) edge).” In other words, must target the nearest enemy. So abandoning Pimuspilus’ suggestion (which I thought was simple and precise), here is the new proposal in full:- Solid Bows: CF 3 against foot, but fast 3Bw stays at CF 2 (4/8Bw are the ‘heavy’ bowmen, heavy due to their dense formation). Target Priority: must prioritize shooting at the nearest target (this helps prevent solid shooters from freely concentrating their new powerful CF 3...and helps make close range shooting equal instead of being weaker than long range shooting). Knock-on Effects: CF 3 makes good Psiloi killers, so Ps flee if doubled by close combat bows (this helps to prevent bows from charging into melee with Ps, and is similar to Tom’s excellent suggestion that LH should flee if doubled by bows). Veering Away: no need for Joe’s +1 PIP to contact shooters (CF 3 causes more recoils, especially if support shooters can also target the nearest enemy at close range, making it harder and more PIP costly to contact shooters). Therefore, getting back to Jim’s original 8Bw testing, doubled based 8Bw should not get side-support (CF 3, +1 for double base, and +1 for side-support, would be CF 5...equal to supported Sp/Bd in close combat, and far too high. CF 4 should be the limit). That just leaves us with the 4Ax problem: how can we give 4Ax a +1 without knock-on effects against Ps/Ax/Wb/Hd/Bw? I know...a new tactical factor. +1 to 4Ax when in close combat with Sp, Pk, or Bd, (unless in bad going, etc)... ...because unlike irregular native 3Ax, the 4Ax are disciplined regulars trained to close-up into a tight close formation when facing heavy foot. Not abstract, not illogical, but perfectly in keeping with 21st century logic (unless you believe 4Ax troops would stay in a loose formation and want to be defeated and killed). (I don’t really care about which method is used... ..I just want my little metal soldiers to behave as the ancient historians said they did. At the moment, some of them don't...)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
The bonus for the 4Ax in close combat is a good idea and very simular to a basing system under the old WRG rules where you could base your LHI/LMI with a HI/MI frontage but with the usual LHI/LMI depth to allow the same figure frontage in combat.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Jul 1, 2018 17:12:41 GMT
Another crazy idea:
Give all heavy infantry and 4Ax side support from like infantry so bd with bd, pk with pk, 4Ax with 4Ax etc.
Drop the cc factor of bd and pk down one so bd is now 4,3, make pk rear support only +2 so with side support they are back where they were. Battleline infantry including 4Ax are now where they belong in the battle line and as soon as breaks appear, the battleline will become more brittle.
I’m actually cool with the +1 for cc for 4ax but thinking of some alternatives...
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Jul 2, 2018 6:57:20 GMT
Re-reading Stevie's post, the 4/8Bw and 4Ax changes seem pretty easy to implement into a "house rule package". I'm still a little weirded by Ax getting more powerful when they fight heavy infantry, but if this allows the rules to work well and historically, so be it. If DBA 3.1 ever gets written, then this debate will at least have plenty of discussion and testing behind it. I mean it's discussions like that this that made BUA's optional, and the battlefield 24-36" wide right? So just to sum up: - 3Ax get 1 BW optional recoil and stay at +3cc against all foot - 4Ax get +1cc against heavy infantry (Bd, Pk, Sp) unless in bad going, and remain 1/2BW recoil - 4/8Bw get +3cc against foot, but remain at +2 shooting at foot - 3Bw remain at +2cc against foot (no change) Is this all the proposed house rules? Chris
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 2, 2018 11:00:29 GMT
Well Greedo, we do appear to at least be beginning to reach some sort of consensus. To sum-up, 3Ax and 3Bw are exactly the same as they are now, but can recoil a full base width (as can Ps). 4Ax gets a tactical +1 in close combat with Sp/Pk/Bd (but not in bad going, or when assaulting or defending a City, Fort, or Camp). 4/8Bw is a bit more tricky, as there are two options:- a) give them the same +1 as 4Ax (which only affects close combat, and has no effect on distant shooting). b) give them a CF of 3 against foot (which means some other adjustments or knock-on effects when shooting). (I prefer option a)...it’s simpler, with no unwanted side-effects)Either way, 8Bw shouldn’t get side-support, or 8Bw will be too powerful in close combat. As for whether 4Ax should be allowed to recoil a full base width or not like 3Ax/3Bw/Ps, there are two schools of thought. Some say they should, and some say they shouldn’t. I like to go with what the ancient historians said they did. Here are some quotes from Duncan Head’s excellent “Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars” (1982 edition):- “In the 270’s (BC) some Greek states replaced the traditional hoplite with thureophoroi, who were used primarily as skirmishers, though equipped for close combat too. Later, these states and others took up Macedonian-style pike phalanxes, and thus Macedonian tactics. Thureophoroi and other light troops, mostly mercenaries, still played a large part.” Thureophoroi : “Peltasts were traditionally skirmishers, evading when charged, and wearing their enemy down with a rain of javelins. They were better equipped for close combat than psiloi, so were used in ambushes or to drive off skirmishers. The thureophoroi who succeeded peltasts in the 3rd century (BC) were still rated among the light troops, euzonoi, and were similarly used as skirmishers. Plutarch says that when the Achaians were armed in this way they did not fight in formed units, (instead) skirmished from a distance but were ineffective at close quarters, and their tactics were peltastikes, peltast style. They were used to support skirmishers, and along with these were used on forced marches, screening heavier troops in difficult country, or to open a battle. Thureophoroi and similar troops, such as Thracians and Illyrians, might also be deployed in battle to protect the vulnerable flanks of a phalanx. Though often found fighting their own kind, they could not stand up to a pike-phalanx. Asklepiodotos bases their organisation on files of eight, and this was probably their typical depth in battle. It seems likely they would skirmish in open order but close up to pyknosis for close combat.” Thracians: “The Thracians had been the originators of the peltast style of fighting which the Greeks had adopted, and their infantry still relied heavily on javelin fire. In pitched battles however, Thracians who attempted to skirmish would now often find themselves ridden down by enemy cavalry, and against Romans and Macedonians the Thracians often found that after an initially successful exchange of missiles they would be force to fight hand to hand and soundly beaten by their heavier armed opponents.” Illyrians: “The Illyrian Dardanoi in 200 (BC) are described as much steadier warriors - these troops do not leave their ranks impulsively but keep close order both in combat and withdrawal. This may be connected with a shift in Illyrian tactics from rather disorderly skirmishing towards close combat. In the 5th century Thucydides records that “as they fight in no sort of order, they have no sense of shame about giving up a position under pressure. To run forwards and to run backwards are equally honourable in their eyes”. They would not press home an attack against an enemy who stood firm, and would retire at speed from vigorous charges, operating in fact like the typical peltast and only closing with enemy weakened by missile fire or by their fierce warcries. The contrast between 5th century Illyrians fighting individually in no order and their 3rd century counterparts in formed speirai suggest a marked improvement in battlefield organisation probably related to the new tactics.” Spanish: “Spanish equipment and tactics were famous for lightness and mobility. In pitched battle the main force was the scutarii, who would advance performing wardances and charged with a shower of thrown spears, then closing with swords. This initial charge was often powerful enough to break through even a Roman line; if it was held, the Spaniards were still formidable with swords, but Roman discipline and armour would usually beat them.” Oscans: “What we know of tactics suggests they were common to all Oscan (Italian) peoples. Most of the army was mobile, lightly-equipped infantry at home in hills and woods. Where possible they would surround an enemy force, avoiding contact but pelting it with javelins. When an ambush was impractical or discovered too soon, the Samnites were always prepared for a straight fight. The Romans believed the first Samnite attack was the most dangerous, and after a while they would run out of missiles and their spirits would flag. Their infantry would usually charge fiercely and fight at close quarters rather than skirmish with their javelins; the Romans seem to have had a slight edge in such a contest, but Samnite troops worsted them more than once. The cohors seems to have been the basic tactical unit.” (The II/13 Samnite army list description also says "Where possible, they would surround an enemy force and pelt it with javelins, but would also charge downhill on an enemy or block them in a narrow valley"...typical peltast type tactics)From all this I deduce the following:- Ps are light skirmishers, who don’t like getting into hand-to-hand combat (and should allowed to recoil a full base width). 3Ax are peltasts, who can skirmish like Ps or fight hand-to-hand (so should also be allowed to recoil a full base width). 4Ax are regular/veteran/professional 3Ax (better with a +1 against heavy foot, but still allowed to recoil a full base width). Thus 3Ax have a speed advantage, but are weak against Sp/Pk/Bd. And 4Ax are slower, but with an advantage against Sp/Pk/Bd (though still not as good, they are still classed as ‘light troops’, and can still use their agility to recoil 1 BW). The one thing that 4Ax were not is some sort of poor quality heavy infantry forced to fight toe-to-toe and doomed to lose!... ...they were specialised lighter troops, with abilities and more discipline above and beyond that of ordinary native 3Ax peltasts. (I consider them to be DBMM Ax (S) ‘superior’ class, as opposed to DBMM Ax (O) ‘ordinaries’)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 Jul 2, 2018 12:36:53 GMT
Stevie, I do NOT support the 1BW recoil for the 4Ax. Otherwise they become better than 3Ax pretty much all round. I think having 3Ax having the ability to skirmish a bit more by recoiling 1BW gives them a DIFFERENT mechanism for survival than 4Ax, who as the above description makes clear, could stand up to Pike.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 2, 2018 13:18:36 GMT
”...who as the above description makes clear, could stand up to Pike.”And where pray does Duncan Head say that?:- "...though often found fighting their own kind, they could not stand up to a pike-phalanx." “...and against Romans and Macedonians the Thracians often found that after an initially successful exchange of missiles they would be forced to fight hand to hand and soundly beaten by their heavier armed opponents.” "...if it was held, the Spaniards were still formidable with swords, but Roman discipline and armour would usually beat them.” "...the Romans seem to have had a slight edge in such a contest, but Samnite troops worsted them more than once.” The one thing that 4Ax were NOT is some sort of poor quality heavy infantry forced to fight toe-to-toe and doomed to lose!... ...they were specialised lighter troops, with abilities and more discipline above and beyond that of ordinary native 3Ax peltasts. (I consider them to be DBMM Ax (S) ‘superior’ class, as opposed to DBMM Ax (O) ‘ordinaries’)So you prefer 4Ax to be low quality infantry, with no choice but to fight toe-to-toe, in which even their extra +1 will still result in defeat? “In the 270’s (BC) some Greek states replaced the traditional hoplite with thureophoroi, who were used primarily as skirmishers, though equipped for close combat too.” “The thureophoroi who succeeded peltasts in the 3rd century (BC) were still rated among the light troops, euzonoi, and were similarly used as skirmishers. Plutarch says that when the Achaians were armed in this way they did not fight in formed units, (instead) skirmished from a distance but were ineffective at close quarters, and their tactics were peltastikes, peltast style." "Asklepiodotos bases their organisation on files of eight, and this was probably their typical depth in battle. It seems likely they would skirmish in open order but close up to pyknosis for close combat.” “The Illyrian Dardanoi in 200 (BC) are described as much steadier warriors - these troops do not leave their ranks impulsively but keep close order both in combat and withdrawal...The contrast between 5th century Illyrians fighting individually in no order and their 3rd century counterparts in formed speirai suggest a marked improvement in battlefield organisation probably related to the new tactics.” “What we know of tactics suggests they were common to all Oscan (Italian) peoples. Most of the army was mobile, lightly-equipped infantry at home in hills and woods. Where possible they would surround an enemy force, avoiding contact but pelting it with javelins.” (The II/13 Samnite army list description also says "Where possible, they would surround an enemy force and pelt it with javelins, but would also charge downhill on an enemy or block them in a narrow valley"...typical peltast type tactics)Perhaps you should argue with Duncan Head directly, or with the ancient historians he quotes, rather than me. I didn't write the rules...and I didn't write the ancient historical accounts either...but there they are...
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jul 2, 2018 16:37:54 GMT
I think, once again, you have managed to miss the entire point of my post, Stevie. With a +1 TF for forming up against HI, 4Ax can indeed stand against HI without just immediately melting away like a small speed bump. As they did historically. Can they win? No. Can they stand up to HI long enough for their comrades to work some magic elsewhere? Hopefully.
By adding +1 AND giving them the 1BW, I believe you pretty much force people to choose 4Ax over 3Ax. You are far stronger against HI and can still trap and kill Ps and Cv, winning on ties etc.
I strongly caution against using the 1BW recoil for solid troops, unless you are going to give additional compensation to the 3Ax...
|
|