|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 1, 2018 10:46:56 GMT
The truth is that when the Persians abandoned placing large wicker pavises in front of their bowmen, it took some 1,500 years before this tactic came back into fashion in the 12th and 13th centuries. Certainly the Greeks, Macedonians, Romans, Byzantines, and Dark Age armies never used them. Not used for some 15 hundred years?...this seems to suggest that they were a bit of a failure.
Hi stevie! How did you get this post past primuspilus? I'm not sure "failure" is a fair description given the size of the Persian empire. Yes, the hoplite phalanx trumped them, but mostly in terrain which allowed secure flanks. Many spear armed armies were defeated before crossing the Aegean. Personally, I would have liked some of these spear armed troops to be reclassified as 4Ax for a better effect as currently all spears are the same, which seems strange given the varying qualities of such a ubiquitous troop type. Jim
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Oct 1, 2018 12:27:49 GMT
Hello Jim
Not sure what is going on with that post.
The part starting "The truth is" is not me.
It is interesting but not strictly correct since the Persian version was a big obstacle to cross if an attacker, and probably even if a defender, more like a Roman marching fort wall in strength. Nothing really like a pavise or similar, no matter what size.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 1, 2018 15:20:19 GMT
Sorry David. I was having some fun with stevie! I can see why you were confused. I deleted your section to improve the clarity but I ennded up making it more opaque! Hopefully my edit makes it clearer.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 1, 2018 18:38:55 GMT
The truth is that when the Persians abandoned placing large wicker pavises in front of their bowmen, it took some 1,500 years before this tactic came back into fashion in the 12th and 13th centuries. Certainly the Greeks, Macedonians, Romans, Byzantines, and Dark Age armies never used them. Not used for some 15 hundred years?...this seems to suggest that they were a bit of a failure.
Hi stevie! How did you get this post past primuspilus? I'm not sure "failure" is a fair description given the size of the Persian empire. Yes, the hoplite phalanx trumped them, but mostly in terrain which allowed secure flanks. Many spear armed armies were defeated before crossing the Aegean. Personally, I would have liked some of these spear armed troops to be reclassified as 4Ax for a better effect as currently all spears are the same, which seems strange given the varying qualities of such a ubiquitous troop type. Jim Ha! Don’t blame me...blame the ancient warriors who all gave up using pavises for a millennia and a half! Perhaps they knew something that we don’t... Remember that under DBA there is a big difference between ‘pavisiers’ (8 rank deep 4Bw, where only the first rank are close fighters with a large wicker pavis in front of them), and 8Bw (up to 16 ranks deep, with the first 4 to 8 ranks all close fighters and the rest bowmen shooting from behind them). DBA treats the former as ordinary 4Bw, and (like myself) considers the pavises, if there are any, as relatively unimportant. The latter formation, better known as the Sparabara, was a far more formidable proposition, with or without pavises. So under DBA it’s the number of front rank fighters, and not some flimsy wicker barrier, that is important. (If a flimsy wicker barrier was soooo good, why didn’t anybody else use it?) All I can say is (dare I say it?...oh what the hell, it’s been a while)...”I didn’t write the rules”. 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 jim1973 on Oct 2, 2018 2:57:18 GMT
Hi stevie! How did you get this post past primuspilus? I'm not sure "failure" is a fair description given the size of the Persian empire. Yes, the hoplite phalanx trumped them, but mostly in terrain which allowed secure flanks. Many spear armed armies were defeated before crossing the Aegean. Personally, I would have liked some of these spear armed troops to be reclassified as 4Ax for a better effect as currently all spears are the same, which seems strange given the varying qualities of such a ubiquitous troop type. Jim Ha! Don’t blame me...blame the ancient warriors who all gave up using pavises for a millennia and a half! Perhaps they knew something that we don’t... And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
Maybe Darius III would go back to the old ways if playing DBA 3? If the surgical fix includes Pk then the pursuit rules of Pk, which seems to be designed for the BdvPk encounter, makes Pk vulnerable to troops that, at least in the Near East, did not seem to trouble Pk in open terrain. Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 2, 2018 3:44:03 GMT
Because all we have is a relief, a single reference in Herodotus, and conflicting accounts and depictions of Persian Sparabara. They are shown with wicker shields. Contemporaneously, there are depictions of Persian heavy infantry carrying what look like Homeric or Boeotian "figure 8" shields. I remain unconvinced that the "wicker basket" shields were anything other than occasional attempts at mobile "IP's" (or Improved Positions) and as such, I remain unconvinced of the extent to which Persian foot relied on the mechanism.
I prefer an agnostic approach. The Persians kicked serious ass for quite some time. Alexander could not entirely discount the Persian heavy infantry (the fact that they fled when they saw Darius booking it at Gaugamela is no verdict on their combat system, but rather a verdict on the political motivations of the fighting men in the front lines). Many ancient writers wrote not for the benefit of wargamers and reenactors, but for political and personal gain. That said, we are left with nuggets here and there and need to piece together bits and pieces to try to recreate the OUTCOMES that were recorded, and not the MECHANISMS which fine tune those outcomes.
My approach was based NOT on weapon system, nor even on deployment, but on OUTCOMES and the descriptions at the political level, of the battles under consideration.
And remember, Theucydides cautions against the invasion of Syracuse by giving as his example the Third Persian assault on Greece: by comparing superior Athenian foot being exposed to extended supply lines, superior enemy knowledge of terrain, and morale issues with fighting far from home. If the Persian army of the period were such a pathetic, pyjama-clad joke, Theucydides' warning would have been a laughable comment by an unsophisticated drunk, rather than a deadly serious point, made by a deadly serious writer.
That is the correct way to reason with ancient texts. He was serious enough for his writings to have survived (Lord knows there must have been several that didn't). He gives the Persian army its due, not in lavishing praise on the Greeks for having beaten them heroically, but rather as the warning on the label - the Persian army was beaten by strategic factors as much as tactical, and infantry prowess is no protection against bad generalship....
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 3, 2018 5:33:43 GMT
Ok, here’s a Grenade... Suppose we give 8Bw side support with other 8Bw, and 4bw can move faster to give people an incentive to take them instead sometimes but don’t get the side support. The argument against the blanket +1 is they would over power 4Ax, 4Wb, and 2Ps. But.. if what we’re saying about the Sparabara is true, then why shouldn’t this be the case? If they were good enough to conquer most of the western world before the Greeks, why not have that edge? Bows are a great defense against light troops who can’t run away from arrows very well?? Grenade thrown for no reason other than this is long
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Oct 3, 2018 11:04:10 GMT
Greedo
My return "Dora" shell would be, why not allow the non-moving wall version to be WWg as in the Russian list IV/44, gulay gorod is effectively the same idea.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 4, 2018 20:00:39 GMT
Ok, here’s a Grenade... Suppose we give 8Bw side support with other 8Bw, and 4bw can move faster to give people an incentive to take them instead sometimes but don’t get the side support. The argument against the blanket +1 is they would over power 4Ax, 4Wb, and 2Ps. But.. if what we’re saying about the Sparabara is true, then why shouldn’t this be the case? If they were good enough to conquer most of the western world before the Greeks, why not have that edge? Bows are a great defense against light troops who can’t run away from arrows very well?? Grenade thrown for no reason other than this is long Greedo, with bowfire, the 8Bw already rain serious death and destruction on enemy Ax. No need to apply the +1 against those troops. It'd be a one-sided, ahistorical boodbath - the very thing we are trying to avoid.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 4, 2018 23:17:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 21, 2019 18:51:55 GMT
This *might* have been done before but started thinking about why Bd get a -1 against shooting instead of close combat. Could the same be done with 4Sp? A shield wall vs Sparabara, CV 4, BUT CV 3 against shooting? Then when they are being ganged up on by Bw, CV 2.
More than enough to disrupt the Hoplite line and maybe even kill one or 2. A big incentive for the Spears to get into contact quickly, and it wouldn't affect lighter troops.. OR, if we worry about spears getting killed too quickly, you could give Bw +1 in shooting against heavies, a bit like the 4Ax+1 suggestion...
Chris
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 21, 2019 22:25:42 GMT
This *might* have been done before but started thinking about why Bd get a -1 against shooting instead of close combat. Could the same be done with 4Sp? A shield wall vs Sparabara, CV 4, BUT CV 3 against shooting? Then when they are being ganged up on by Bw, CV 2. More than enough to disrupt the Hoplite line and maybe even kill one or 2. A big incentive for the Spears to get into contact quickly, and it wouldn't affect lighter troops.. OR, if we worry about spears getting killed too quickly, you could give Bw +1 in shooting against heavies, a bit like the 4Ax+1 suggestion... Chris For things like 8Bw, the shooting against HI isn't the issue. OK, but for the galactically stupid TZ shooting requirement that all but nerfs Bw against HI - I ignore the rule completely. It never used to be there, and the game plays great with one less stupid thing to have to keep an eye on, that does nothing but subtract from the historicity of outcomes. The problem comes in when the Sp close into CC, and 8Bw get vaporised in one bound. It is crap as history. Here is the way we have houseruled solid foot for All our club play and campaigns: +1. Solid Bw and Solid Ax in close combat in good or rough going, against an element of Bd, Sp or rear-supported Pk. I am formally requesting a playtest on this. It works. It gives Way better history. And it is targeted at the problem. We have played well over 200 games in the group with these mods, as well as a myriad solo test cases, to examine the edges. Try them out. Let me know how they work, please.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 21, 2019 23:18:11 GMT
For things like 8Bw, the shooting against HI isn't the issue. OK, but for the galactically stupid TZ shooting requirement that all but nerfs Bw against HI - I ignore the rule completely. It never used to be there, and the game plays great with one less stupid thing to have to keep an eye on, that does nothing but subtract from the historicity of outcomes. The problem comes in when the Sp close into CC, and 8Bw get vaporised in one bound. It is crap as history. Here is the way we have houseruled solid foot for All our club play and campaigns: +1. Solid Bw and Solid Ax in close combat in good or rough going, against an element of Bd, Sp or rear-supported Pk. I am formally requesting a playtest on this. It works. It gives Way better history. And it is targeted at the problem. We have played well over 200 games in the group with these mods, as well as a myriad solo test cases, to examine the edges. Try them out. Let me know how they work, please. Good callout Primus. So is this only 8Bw, or is this 4Bw as well? Also, 8Bw already gets +1 in CC vs everyone. Does that mean that 8Bw is now CV4 against Heavy infantry? 4Bw would still be CV3 against heavy infantry? and 3Bw is CV2 against all foot. Is this right?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 22, 2019 0:02:20 GMT
That's it. It isn't perfect, but it gives serious options to the Bw player. 8Bw are indeed 4 VS Sp, Bd and rear-supported Pk. They are 3 against others. But double overlap still hurts them (5 vs 2). And their first loss hurts at 2 elements (50% of the way to victory).
As I said, they give good outcomes, these rules. I challenge you guys to test then as exhaustively, and tell me they are worse than current state. Me and my pals have tested the crap out of them, and they give good results. Heck the 8Bw have an edge in cc as compared with 4Ax, due to being able to shoot things up a little bit first, but 4Ax are less "loss intensive".
It is fine to critique these, and say "but what about..." but until you test them copiously in action, we have no data. Just attitudes. Which is fine, but I remind everyone that DBA makes an initial claim about behavior (i.e. outcomes!), but then steadily undermines this by focusing on weapons and armour.
We found these rules work well. They do strengthen 4Bw against HI, something which is currently needed. In medieval settings, they work OK maybe, but they are crap in classical unless shooting at the Pk for 3 bounds. But 5 or 6 vs 3 in close combat is still a bloodbath for Bw! It just takes a couple bounds more. Which is all you need to make things interesting.
We find the Greeks still win a bunch against EAP, but somehow the battles always feel a bit desperate for Greece. They win plenty, but it doesn't feel that way. It feels like a real slog, and hoplites die. That is good history.
We find the Greek and Neo Babylonian extra archer is real interesting. A 3/4 Bw choice that is agonizing. Didn't used to be. But the 1BW move in bad or rough going, plus only 2 as a combat factor unless at Agincourt, really nerfed 4Bw badly.
Again, I am far less impressed by opinion and debate than I am by history and game data.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 22, 2019 1:25:01 GMT
That's it. It isn't perfect, but it gives serious options to the Bw player. 8Bw are indeed 4 VS Sp, Bd and rear-supported Pk. They are 3 against others. But double overlap still hurts them (5 vs 2). And their first loss hurts at 2 elements (50% of the way to victory). As I said, they give good outcomes, these rules. I challenge you guys to test then as exhaustively, and tell me they are worse than current state. Me and my pals have tested the crap out of them, and they give good results. Heck the 8Bw have an edge in cc as compared with 4Ax, due to being able to shoot things up a little bit first, but 4Ax are less "loss intensive". It is fine to critique these, and say "but what about..." but until you test them copiously in action, we have no data. Just attitudes. Which is fine, but I remind everyone that DBA makes an initial claim about behavior (i.e. outcomes!), but then steadily undermines this by focusing on weapons and armour. We found these rules work well. They do strengthen 4Bw against HI, something which is currently needed. In medieval settings, they work OK maybe, but they are crap in classical unless shooting at the Pk for 3 bounds. But 5 or 6 vs 3 in close combat is still a bloodbath for Bw! It just takes a couple bounds more. Which is all you need to make things interesting. We find the Greeks still win a bunch against EAP, but somehow the battles always feel a bit desperate for Greece. They win plenty, but it doesn't feel that way. It feels like a real slog, and hoplites die. That is good history. We find the Greek and Neo Babylonian extra archer is real interesting. A 3/4 Bw choice that is agonizing. Didn't used to be. But the 1BW move in bad or rough going, plus only 2 as a combat factor unless at Agincourt, really nerfed 4Bw badly. Again, I am far less impressed by opinion and debate than I am by history and game data. No game data yet, BUT: In conjunction with the 4Ax discussion (and even 3Bd thread): It sounds like the CV Table needs to have 5 columns: Element X: CV vs Light Foot, CV vc Heavy Foot, CV vs Shooting, CV against Mounted Would this eliminate the need to have +1 vs HI modifiers etc.? And it would yield some redundancy. But if (big if) people felt some elements needed tweaking in the future, the table would already exist without increasing the number of modifiers/exceptions to worry about. Might be too complicated but a lookup table is simpler than a bunch of +1/-1 modifiers isn't it? The table could even be made longer to include Fast Troops, and Deep troops, so if 3Bd needs to be made different than 4Bd, it'll be reflected. If 8Bw is different from 4Bw, that could be reflected. Perhaps this is 6 1 way, 1/2 dozen the other...
|
|