|
Post by greedo on Aug 30, 2018 21:52:33 GMT
I've been away for a while.
Did the group come to any consensus on improvements to the 4Ax element that would make them more historical/game-usable than in their current 3.0 form? My personal favorite is the 1BW recoil + side support with other 4Ax.
Also, the EAP 8Bw double element: Was there an consensus as to what would help the EAP army, especially when facing 4Sp heavy hoplite armies (probably a period specific house rule here, since the medieval period seems to be unaffected by this problem?)
Chris
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Sept 11, 2018 21:29:18 GMT
I'm in favor of giving 8BW shieldwall side support. Prefer to treat 4Aux as Fast Spear.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Sept 12, 2018 8:02:12 GMT
Hello Chris
Both are a big problem, and are not easy to fit into the rules as is.
An example of 4Ax being out of kilter is Mons Graupius. The centre Roman 4Ax fought differently from what we would call 4Ax, in fact they fought as 4Bd without the bad terrain effect. Some Roman Germanic 4Ax fought as 4Sp, it is mentioned in sources and shown on Trajans column.
The Hellenistic 4Ax are a mixture of 4Ax and 4Sp, effectively fighting as 4Sp with the movement of 4Sp against some opponents, but with the advantages of 4Ax against others, they were a form of light hoplite and peltast combined.
The 8Bw in the Persian army should probably not move but be behind defences, which are difficult to remove. In army lists they should have the option of being that or improved 4Bw.
DBA is too simple to cover this, what DBMM does I do not know.
David Constable
P.S. - In the Russian list in effect the 8Bw become non-moving WWg, but that is another matter. Some WWg move, some do not, and the rules do not differentiate by ability or base size.
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Sept 12, 2018 12:54:04 GMT
Greedo... I have playtested the EAP matchup quite a lot. I have 5 full EAP armies! I have no issues with the rules for 8Bw. In fact, I won my last two games against the Greeks.
For Ax vs Blade/Pike I strongly suggest the full base width recoil.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 13, 2018 4:40:39 GMT
Greedo... I have playtested the EAP matchup quite a lot. I have 5 full EAP armies! I have no issues with the rules for 8Bw. In fact, I won my last two games against the Greeks. For Ax vs Blade/Pike I strongly suggest the full base width recoil. Joe Collins Wait Joe, Didn't you test a whole bunch of 8Bw improvements? Are you saying they are all good? If so, that's cool. I need more experience with 3.0 anyway
As for 4Ax, perhaps the 1BW retreat is the easiest way to go. Thanks lads!
Chris
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Sept 13, 2018 12:37:53 GMT
Basically, yes. The only other suggestion that I am play testing currently is a +1 pip charge for an element or group to contact the front of a shooting element.
That change is very controversial. It may make shooting elements too powerful. More play testing is needed here.
EAP will win only about 1/3 of their battles against the Greeks with the RAW.
I think this is about the correct balance.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Sept 13, 2018 22:36:50 GMT
I'm not in favour of a 1BW recoil for 4Ax, as this goes against the standard rules (and I can't see there is any real benefit). My preferred option would be side support from other 4Ax or 4Bd (similar to 4Bw), which does match standard rules. I did suggest this during development but no-one seemed to be keen on it.
8Bw seems to be OK in close combat - the main downside is that the first loss counts double, like any other double element, and Bw are the most fragile of all the double element types (and most likely to be used en masse), especially when in a shooting match.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 14, 2018 5:25:52 GMT
I'm not in favour of a 1BW recoil for 4Ax, as this goes against the standard rules (and I can't see there is any real benefit). My preferred option would be side support from other 4Ax or 4Bd (similar to 4Bw), which does match standard rules. I did suggest this during development but no-one seemed to be keen on it. 8Bw seems to be OK in close combat - the main downside is that the first loss counts double, like any other double element, and Bw are the most fragile of all the double element types (and most likely to be used en masse), especially when in a shooting match. Hi Pawsbill,
I initially thought that too. I think the intended effect was two fold. It allows the 4Ax to back up out of range of advancing heavily infantry (like 4Bd), so that the Bd (or Sp or whatever) have to expend at least a pip to stay in contact with them.
The other effect would be to represent something like Cannae in which 4Ax would back up and pull the Bd forward so that the end of that battle (Bd surrounded) would be possible. Stevie will dive in here.
I do agree the 1BW does seem a bit arbitrary and is a completely new rule. I've been thinking about how to simplify the rules (even more!). Perhaps Ax (3/4), mounted, and all "fast" troops get to recoil 1BW. This would include Ps since they are automatically fast. That gives fast troops a way to "evade" heavier troops without having to come up with some crazy evade rules that other rulesets have.
This might make Fast troops too powerful, so perhaps all formed troops (4Sp, 4Bd, 4Pk, 4Wb, 4Ax, 4Bw or it's 8 equivalent) could get side support. Side support wouldn't represent shield walls so much as mutual side support of bodies of troops for morale. The individual troop types still have their QKs, and individual combat ratings, but this might be a good division between "light", and "heavy" troops. You'd have to mess with the combat values to achieve similar results to now, but it might keep things more consistent. i.e. Bd would be 4/3, and only 4Bd goes to 5/3 with the side support, whereas 3Bd sit at 4/3, but still get faster movement to compensate.
Just to add a little something to the 8Bw, I would probably drop the 1st double ranked element = 2 lost. It makes armies with double ranked anything stronger, but, hopefully would be worth it for simplicity.
Of course that last idea gets all messed up when you start thinking about rear support 4Wb, and 4Pk, and how to handle that WITH side support. Plus, I'm changing things that I suspect most of the Fanaticii believe "ain't broke", thus doesn't need fixing. Perhaps Wb and Pk don't get side support, but then we're back to individual rules for each element type OhmyGodI'vegonecrosseyed...... it's late. Need to sleep.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Sept 14, 2018 16:35:00 GMT
I'm not in favour of a 1BW recoil for 4Ax, as this goes against the standard rules (and I can't see there is any real benefit). My preferred option would be side support from other 4Ax or 4Bd (similar to 4Bw), which does match standard rules. I did suggest this during development but no-one seemed to be keen on it. 8Bw seems to be OK in close combat - the main downside is that the first loss counts double, like any other double element, and Bw are the most fragile of all the double element types (and most likely to be used en masse), especially when in a shooting match. Hi Pawsbill,
I initially thought that too. I think the intended effect was two fold. It allows the 4Ax to back up out of range of advancing heavily infantry (like 4Bd), so that the Bd (or Sp or whatever) have to expend at least a pip to stay in contact with them.
Except that isn't how most of the troops represented by 4Ax operated. In may cases they were the heavy infantry, or at lease line-of-battle infantry, not "light" or skirmishing infantry. In a lot of cases, one nation's 3Bd and another's 4Ax are almost identical. 4Ax should be able to stand up to Bd, maybe giving way slowly to the heaviest enemy, but at factor +3 against a blade's +5, they are too vulnerable (and just giving them a longer recoil won't stop that).
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 14, 2018 17:36:52 GMT
Except that isn't how most of the troops represented by 4Ax operated. In may cases they were the heavy infantry, or at lease line-of-battle infantry, not "light" or skirmishing infantry. In a lot of cases, one nation's 3Bd and another's 4Ax are almost identical. 4Ax should be able to stand up to Bd, maybe giving way slowly to the heaviest enemy, but at factor +3 against a blade's +5, they are too vulnerable (and just giving them a longer recoil won't stop that). Well another option would be to give 4Ax side support so that when they are in the line of battle they can be more resilient. When not backed up by others, they would fall apart quickly, they are still faster moving, and 3Ax are still really fast heavy skirmishes...? So maybe we give 3Ax the 1bw retreat (make it a feature of fast Troops) and 4Ax and 4/8Bw get side support.
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Sept 14, 2018 20:51:22 GMT
As Mr. Constable points out DBA as constructed cannot solve these problems. The real solution is to have a Medium Foot +3 and allow it to take "Blades" thus raising its CF v. Foot by +1 (to +4) and lowering its CF v. Mounted by -1.
But for the 12 element tournament game its probably best to just leave well enough alone (easy for me to say since I don't really play the 12 element tournament game). In any case adding the various complex bandaid solutions suggested above is not the answer (DBMM flounders here too as it too is stuck with the arbitrary element classification system).
TomT
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 15, 2018 13:07:54 GMT
Hi Pawsbill, I initially thought that too. I think the intended effect was two fold. It allows the 4Ax to back up out of range of advancing heavily infantry (like 4Bd), so that the Bd (or Sp or whatever) have to expend at least a pip to stay in contact with them. Except that isn't how most of the troops represented by 4Ax operated. In may cases they were the heavy infantry, or at lease line-of-battle infantry, not "light" or skirmishing infantry. In a lot of cases, one nation's 3Bd and another's 4Ax are almost identical. 4Ax should be able to stand up to Bd, maybe giving way slowly to the heaviest enemy, but at factor +3 against a blade's +5, they are too vulnerable (and just giving them a longer recoil won't stop that). I entirely agree with you Pawsbill about Ax being too weak to stand up to heavy foot. Indeed, this issue has been raised many, many times over the last couple of decades. And you are quite right that allowing Ax to recoil like mounted will not on its own be enough to keep them alive. Unfortunately, there is no simple fix. A blanket +1 to 4Ax would mean knock-on effects when they fight Ps/Wb/Bw/WWg/etc. However, I very much disagree with the notion that 4Ax were just another type of poor quality of close combat troops. So let us look at solid ‘medium infantry’ getting a new Tactical Factor of +1 in close combat against Bd/Pk/Sp in good going AND also being able to recoil a full base width as well (by the way, I’m not going to use the word “auxiliaries” as that carries too much mental baggage with it). What Are ‘Medium Infantry’?Well, ancient troops came in three types:- Close fighters who liked to get stuck-in such as Bd, Pk, Sp, Wb, and also their mounted equivalent the Kn. Skirmishers who fought at a distance such as Ps and their mounted equivalent, javelin or bow armed LH. Last of all there were the medium troops, who could do both, and their mounted equivalent, the javelin or bow armed Cv & Cm. (There were also the dedicated shooters, such as Bw, WWg, and Art, who were also reluctant to get into close combat) Now these medium troops were not as good as the close fighters in a melee, nor as good at shooting as the skirmishers/dedicated shooters, but they were a sort of ‘jack-of-all-trades’, capable and adaptable depending upon the situation. Examples are the Ancient Spanish, Samnites, Illyrians, Hellenistic Peltasts and Thureophori, Thracians, and many others, all of whom would throw javelins at a distance, but were prepared to charge in on a disorganised or disrupted enemy, just like Cv, and would often ‘evade’ a heavy foot charge to keep their distance until they saw an advantage. (Source: the many ancient historians and Duncan Head’s “Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars”)Does DBA 3.0 Reflect This Medium Infantry ‘Peltast’ Style Of Fighting?No, it does not. Instead of being beefed-up skirmishers, capable of distant and close combat, they are relegated to be nothing more than poor quality heavy infantry, forced to fight toe-to-toe, a fight in which their weak CF of 3 has no chance against a CF of 5...and they can’t evade an enemy charge like they did in reality either. Allowing them to recoil or ‘evade’ a full base width restores some of their real capabilities the ancient historians said they had. Should solid medium infantry get a +1 against Bd/Pk/Sp?...yes they should. Cannae and the fact that these troops were used in Successor pike armies to extend the battleline shows that they were capable of standing up to heavy foot, at least for a while, and not melt away like butter under a hot knife the way DBA portrays them. But should solid medium infantry also be allowed to ‘evade’ a full base width as well?...yes they should. It’s how the Ancient Spanish, Samnites, Illyrians, Hellenistic Peltasts and Thureophori, Thracians, and so on fought and stayed alive. (Again, read the ancient historians and Duncan Head’s “Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars”)It was Primuspilus that first suggested adding a new +1 Tactical Factor for 4Ax when fighting Bd/Sp/Pk... ...and I can even give a justifiable justification... ...4Ax can change their formation, and would switch from loose formation to close formation when fighting close formation opponents (hence the +1 v Bd, Sp, Pk, but not against Ax or Ps, as they need a loose formation to be able to catch them, and not against Wb, as it would make the 4Ax as vulnerable, inflexible, and as brittle as Bd when facing a Wb fierce charge). Consider 3Ax as ordinary native warriors fighting in their own undisciplined 'irregular' style (so no +1 Tactical Factor), but 4Ax are more disciplined, trained, 'regulars', who have officers and have been taught to change formation when necessary. To use DBMM terminology, if 3Ax are the Irr (O) ordinary class, then 4Ax should be the Reg (S) superior class. All that is needed is to allow Ax (and Ps and 3Bw) to recoil like mounted, and a new extra line added to the Tactical Factors:- +1 if solid Ax fighting Bd/Sp/Pk (unless in bad going, or when assaulting or defending a City, Fort, or Camp).No knock-on effects...just a simple surgical fix to give them a bit of a boost only where they need it... ...and to make them behave as the ancient historians said they 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 paulisper on Sept 15, 2018 14:27:07 GMT
I like very much Stevie’s ideas here 😎👍
P
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 15, 2018 17:44:19 GMT
Thanks for that Paulisper... ...although I should point out that none of the above was my idea:- Duncan Head has all the details in his excellent “Armies and Enemies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars”, The II/13 Samnite Army List mentions where possible they pelted the enemy with javelins, but could also charge if necessary, Joe Collins first suggested having certain foot recoil or ‘evade’ like mounted, And Primuspilus first suggested the new +1 Tactical Factor for 4Ax. Still, good ideas are still a good ideas, no matter the source. 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 stevie on Sept 15, 2018 17:48:13 GMT
I think at this point I should mention the Imperial Roman Auxilia...before anyone else does. There is a misconception that the Roman Auxilia were deployed in front of the legionaries. But this was only true in a single battle, that of Mons Graupius in 83 AD, and Tacitus goes into some detail to describe the Roman deployment there as if it was unusual and needed some explanation. Certainly the Auxilia were not in front of the legionaries when Suetonius defeated the Britons during Boudica’s revolt, there is almost no mention of them during the civil war in the ‘Year of the Four Emperors’ in 69 AD following Nero’s suicide, and to have them out in front when facing Parthian cataphracts would have been madness. That Mons Graupius was an exception is easily understandable if the Caledonians were on a steep, rocky, ‘difficult’ hill. It would explain why the Caledonian chariots were also not uphill but were on the flat ground below the hill, why the Roman cavalry were disordered when they later tried to outflank the Caledonians, and why the legionaries were kept in reserve...because the ground was unsuitable for them. So how did the Imperial Roman Auxilia fight?Unfortunately, the Romans never bothered to tell us. As wargamers, what we need is some actual contemporary historical accounts. About the only account I can find is again that of Mons Graupius. So here are Tacitus’ own words describing the beginning of that battle:- “The action began with distant fighting. The Britons with equal steadiness and skill used their huge claymores and small targes to avoid or to parry the missiles of our soldiers, while they themselves poured on us a dense shower of darts, till Agricola encouraged three Batavian and two Tungrian cohorts to bring matters to the decision of close fighting with swords.”(Source: The Agricola of Tacitus - section XXXVI:- archive.org/stream/tacitusagricolag00taciiala/tacitusagricolag00taciiala_djvu.txt )“The combat opened with the discharge of missiles; and the Britons, with their mighty swords and small shields, coolly and skilfully evaded or parried the darts of our men, and poured in upon them in reply a tremendous shower of javelins, until Agricola ordered all the Batavians and two cohorts of Tungrians to go in to close quarters and use their swords.”(Source: The Agricola - paragraph 36:- www.forumromanum.org/literature/tacitus/agricola_e.html )And there you have it...Imperial Roman Auxilia keeping their distance while they pelted the enemy with javelins. Using the very same ‘peltast’ tactics that the earlier Hellenistic Peltasts, Thureophori, Spanish, Samnites, Illyrians, Thracians, used. So I see nothing wrong with having Imperial Roman Auxilia as 4Ax, with a +1 Tactical Factor when facing Bd/Sp/Pk, and ‘evading’ a full base width like mounted when recoiled. (Unless someone can find a better historical example...)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
|
|