|
Post by martin on Feb 11, 2019 17:23:01 GMT
A thought. If we DID see some sort of adjustment for 4Ax and/or 3Ax, is there enough historical evidence to be able to realistically and definitively reclassify/categorise all the different so named elements which appear in our 500 or so lists and sub-lists? Or is this likely to be opening a rare ol’ can of worms?
I admire the sentiment, but am pretty certain a lot of the ‘historical’ lists have a judicious amount of guesswork applied to categorisation, and are based on snippets of information.
(I await a good ol’ shouting down......)
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Feb 11, 2019 18:59:40 GMT
Good points David. One question then, hypasists? Whether they carried spears or not, they did have swords. Of course as SP they would be a better cover for the flank of the phalanx against Persian cavalry... P.S> Other than that Stevie makes a good case. Hypaspist are a can of worms big enough to swallow this planet. You can make a case for spear, pike, Ps, 3Ax or 4Ax. Blade is as far as I know not on, I have not come across an account that is specific in saying they fought specifically with sword only. Now at Mons Graupius the centre six auxilia (4Ax) are specifically mentioned as being trained to use the sword, and to take the enemy at sword point.
The position of a sword does not make troops blade. Now if you want to make Hypaspist blade because they are elite, that opens a can of worms big enough to swallow the galaxy.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Feb 11, 2019 19:08:36 GMT
Having decided to drop DBA3 as I did not like it, I preferred to write my own DBA from scratch, I have dropped that idea.
I believe that we should make a troop type for historical actions, not fit them into an oversimple troop system. DBA is simple and a good idea, but the troop types need some changing, I was hoping with a new version DBA3.1 might come that change, but I fear it will not.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 11, 2019 20:55:37 GMT
A bunch of disjointed thoughts here. Please bear with me. Some great comments in this post btw! Throughts on 4Ax vs 3Bd: Perhaps that's the way to handle Hypaspists is to make them 3Bd instead of 4Ax. You're only going to get 1 unit of them in an Alexander list so hopefully not over-powering. They will eventually become 4Pk anyway in later lists. Spanish Celtibarians are also listed as 3Bd, so I think this follows. I'm still of the mind that there's a missing link of CV 4 vs foot in there somewhere, either 3Sp, or weakened blades? But perhaps that level of granularity is too much for DBA. Then again, people have been saying that 3Bd are too "uber soldiers", so is there a slightly weakened version? +1 to 4Ax sound like it. I'm against +1 only vs heavier troops because I just don't see in an ancient dusty battlefield, units having that much command/control. Perhaps pre-battle, but not during. Also, it introduces a completely new mechanic to DBA, which is already full of exceptions for each element. I'd prefer to minimize these if possible. What to do with 4Ax: From a pure game perspective, every element has a bit of a super power to it, to make it worth being 1/12 of the army. Ps can flee and don't often get killed, Wb can QK Blades, Kn QK lots, El and Bd have really really high CV, Pk can double up for really high CV, Sp have side support etc. But poor old 4Ax doesn't get anything to make them special. I know I mentioned side support previously, and IF (and this is an IF based on the sketchy view of history that we have) 4Ax are support for the heavier troops, perhaps side support from ALL heavy troops would be the super power. They get side support from 4Ax, 4Bd, 4Sp, and 4Pk, so they are made more powerful by being the flank protector of their heavier sponsor unit, but if you get them isolated, they are going to get run down. Another way is to abandon the idea that 4Ax should be supporting in the Line of Battle (rerate support units as 3Bd instead?) And double down on the idea that 4Ax are supposed to be skulking in rough terrain being slightly more powerful than 2Ps and 3Ax... Another random idea, what about giving 4Ax +1 when they LOSE a combat? That way, they might not win too much against heavy foot, but they would recoil a lot more instead, and not die unless they get double overlapped, where, let's face it, you SHOULD die. If you don't care about 12 elements, could you give a bonus 4Ax for every 4Ax that your army has? If you don't have the quality, at least you have quantity Cannae: As to Cannae, I think this really is a special case. Hannibal knew what the Romans were going to do, and he specifically ordered his Ax/Wb to give ground (and he thought they were inferior troops anyway). This strikes me a special scenario specific rule rather than a general case for all 4Ax, especially if 4Ax is expected to span 2000 years of combat.. A lot of random thoughts bouncing around here. Hopefully not to muddy the waters too much.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 11, 2019 22:09:01 GMT
A thought. If we DID see some sort of adjustment for 4Ax and/or 3Ax, is there enough historical evidence to be able to realistically and definitively reclassify/categorise all the different so named elements which appear in our 500 or so lists and sub-lists? Or is this likely to be opening a rare ol’ can of worms? I admire the sentiment, but am pretty certain a lot of the ‘historical’ lists have a judicious amount of guesswork applied to categorisation, and are based on snippets of information. (I await a good ol’ shouting down......) I fear you are correct Martin...we don’t have enough information to finely grade every troop type into their own unique class. Good grief, we don’t even know what colour the Republican Roman shields were, let alone how their relief system actually worked! But we don’t need such detail. Just broad troop classes based on behaviour will suffice (and at the moment, the 4Ax class is missing). However, I’ve always thought that 3Pk class was a bit artificial and ‘gamey’, with no historical evidence for it. Fast Spears that are not affected by bad going with no side-support seem more plausible. Mind you, I wouldn’t mind if horse archers and slingers kept their combat factors but were given range and the same rules as bows. But then that raises play-balance issues...why have Ps javelinmen and javelin LH when you could have shooting versions of them? And talking about ‘Psiloi’, I do wish Phil Barker had used normal descriptive names instead of fancy words to show how clever he is. No Roman ever called their light infantry by the Greek word ‘Psiloi’...they used their Latin name, ‘Leves’ or ‘Velites’. Call ‘em what they are...skirmishers! I'm pretty sure that no western medieval nobleman has ever called their light infantry ‘Psiloi’! As for the daft ‘Fast Foot’ and ‘Solid Foot’...what’s wrong with good military terms such as loose-order and close-order troops? Light Horse, Cavalry, Camelry, Warband, Bows, Spears, Pikes and Hordes are ok. But Knights?! Knights are medieval troops!...call ‘em what they are, ‘Heavy Cavalry’ (and 4Kn are ‘Cataphracts’). Blades should be ‘Skilled Fighters’...like Hypaspists and Hannibal's veterans! (no matter what they have got in their right hand). And Auxiliaries...they should be called ‘Medium Infantry’ (‘Loose Medium Infantry’ and ‘Close Medium Infantry’ of course ). Oh well...a rose by any other name and all that. I’d better get back to discussing the differences between 3Ax and 4Ax once more... ...before I suffer the wrath of Jim for going off-topic again. Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 11, 2019 22:18:53 GMT
Cunaxa is an interesting battle...I am of the firm belief that bow based elements certainly still existed along with the new Kardakes troops. Joe Collins
I agree with you Joe about the Later Persians should still have lots of bows, and army I/60c have lots more native 3Ax troops. Alexander faced an arrow-storm at both Issus and Gaugamela, at least according to some of the ancient writers. I wish army II/7 Late Persians had included the option of:- 3 x kardakes (4Ax) or takabara (3Ax or 3Bw) or hoplites (Sp) or [in 329 BC] Saka horse archers (LH)...and let players decide. As for Duncan Head’s “...though even good commanders seem to have covered the pikes flanks with cavalry”, I think you are placing the emphasis on the word “good”, thus implying that ‘good’ generals used cavalry instead of 4Ax. I on the other hand place the emphasis on the word “even”, implying that the standard practice was to use 4Ax in this role, but ‘even’ good generals (who should have known better) still managed to get away with just using cavalry. Anyway, it’s all pretty academic...4Ax usually guarded the flanks of the phalanx, but sometimes cavalry was used instead. “Where were the 4Ax Thureophoroi... they were in the camp”. Ha! See Duncan Head’s brief description of the battle of Paraitakene in 317 BC. Eumenes had a phalanx 0f 17,000 men and 18,000 ‘light troops’. I very much doubt that he left half his foot in his camp... ...especially as his opponent Antigonus had a phalanx of some 28,000! Still not convinced that 4Ax were used to extend the battleline? All right then, when the Romans fought Pyrrhus, where did they put all their 4Ax Italian allies? Surely they weren’t all in the camp smoking ciggies and talking about where they would be going on their next holiday... (By the way, I like your collective name for all barbarian hill troops. I want an army of ‘Hillbillies’. Probably more appropriate for HoTT though...) Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Feb 11, 2019 23:40:39 GMT
Cunaxa is an interesting battle...I am of the firm belief that bow based elements certainly still existed along with the new Kardakes troops. Joe Collins
I agree with you Joe about the Later Persians should still have lots of bows, and army I/60c have lots more native 3Ax troops. Alexander faced an arrow-storm at both Issus and Gaugamela, at least according to some of the ancient writers. I wish army II/7 Late Persians had included the option of:- 3 x kardakes (4Ax) or takabara (3Ax or 3Bw) or hoplites (Sp) or [in 329 BC] Saka horse archers (LH)...and let players decide. As for Duncan Head’s “...though even good commanders seem to have covered the pikes flanks with cavalry”, I think you are placing the emphasis on the word “good”, thus implying that ‘good’ generals used cavalry instead of 4Ax. I on the other hand place the emphasis on the word “even”, implying that the standard practice was to use 4Ax in this role, but ‘even’ good generals (who should have known better) still managed to get away with just using cavalry. Anyway, it’s all pretty academic...4Ax usually guarded the flanks of the phalanx, but sometimes cavalry was used instead. “Where were the 4Ax Thureophoroi... they were in the camp”. Ha! See Duncan Head’s brief description of the battle of Paraitakene in 317 BC. Eumenes had a phalanx 0f 17,000 men and 18,000 ‘light troops’. I very much doubt that he left half his foot in his camp... ...especially as his opponent Antigonus had a phalanx of some 28,000! Still not convinced that 4Ax were used to extend the battleline? All right then, when the Romans fought Pyrrhus, where did they put all their 4Ax Italian allies? Surely they weren’t all in the camp smoking ciggies and talking about where they would be going on their next holiday... (By the way, I like your collective name for all barbarian hill troops. I want an army of ‘Hillbillies’. Probably more appropriate for HoTT though...)
Well, they really were... Cousin Jethro... Cousin Spiro!
As to the Persians having bow... yes... where also did the Immortals go? Did they just become a color guard?
As to Duncan's comments... we will just have to disagree.
As to Thureophoroi... I do think they were used more in support roles. They did of course take the field when they were needed. I just think them a poor choice for not holding terrain. Lest we think them too weak in DBA... Tactica has them destroyed by simply being contacted by heavy infantry! Tactica 2 is worse... they don't even get a parting shot! (ok... I'm being unfair here. they do get a chance to evade.)
As to the Italian allies... they were seen as being weaker sisters to the Roman legions. So, they were on the flank of course.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 12, 2019 7:01:31 GMT
Still thinking about this after work... Another idea that I’m sure has been thought of:
Multiply all cv x 2 and all modifiers by x2, and use a d12 to resolve combat. On the surface nothing changes, BUT you can now effectively add 1/2 a point of cv. This can represent elites vs inferior, or minor tweaks to units. Fast units could even be -1 to compensate for the faster speed they get (and ignore losing to solid) so that 3Bd be downgraded without nerfing them completely.
Hypaspists ate better than regular Ax? No worries. +1 and they are still not quite as good as spears so remain as support units. Once they get upgraded to pikes, you could give them +1, and they’re become elite pikes. Not as good as having the general (+2) but still slightly better than regular pikes.
If Steve is wants to give his Ax +1, then they are still better against heavy and light infantry, but not crazily so I’m either direction. A bit of a compromise on that one, so I have to run the numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Feb 12, 2019 15:57:40 GMT
Still thinking about this after work... Another idea that I’m sure has been thought of: Multiply all cv x 2 and all modifiers by x2, and use a d12 to resolve combat. On the surface nothing changes, BUT you can now effectively add 1/2 a point of cv. This can represent elites vs inferior, or minor tweaks to units. Fast units could even be -1 to compensate for the faster speed they get (and ignore losing to solid) so that 3Bd be downgraded without nerfing them completely. Hypaspists ate better than regular Ax? No worries. +1 and they are still not quite as good as spears so remain as support units. Once they get upgraded to pikes, you could give them +1, and they’re become elite pikes. Not as good as having the general (+2) but still slightly better than regular pikes. If Steve is wants to give his Ax +1, then they are still better against heavy and light infantry, but not crazily so I’m either direction. A bit of a compromise on that one, so I have to run the numbers. Can we please stick with D6! Simon
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Feb 12, 2019 17:58:39 GMT
Or maybe meet halfway with a D8 or D10? Just kidding
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 12, 2019 18:06:40 GMT
Or maybe meet halfway with a D8 or D10? Just kidding Haha, yeah d12 seemed to be the best option to reduce math Half baked thoughts late at night... Will post any numbers I calculate.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 12, 2019 19:21:43 GMT
Never mind.... Made a spreadsheet that calculates Death, Recoil, Draw, and a d12 throws all the draw numbers off (i.e. there are way fewer of them). For some reason I thought it would be the same probabilities as a D6. Silly Chris...
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 12, 2019 20:54:03 GMT
From my calcs:
4Ax vs 4Bd: 4Ax die 17% 4Ax recoil 56% Draw 11% 4Bd recoil 17% 4Bd die 0%
Is that really all that bad? 4Ax aren't really supposed to destroy Blades are they?
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 12, 2019 21:12:00 GMT
Jim1973, My compliment for taking the initiative on this subject.
Any 3Ax/4Ax in my collection are to be found in armies for Books II and III so my comments will reference those armies.
To begin with, both Seleucid and Graeco-Bactrian have a compliment of auxiliaries (3/4Ax). The argyraspids, formerly hypaspists, are introduced during Alexander’s campaign in Indian and one wonders if the reorganization was to counter the profusion of enemy elephants or simply to fill up the ranks of his slowly depleting Macedonian phalanx. Bar Kochva’s The Seleucid Army, Organization & Tactics In The Great Campaigns, does cover the organization of the argyraspids and their deployment at the battles of Raphia and Magnesia. Their deployment to the right of the phalanx should be seen as an indicator of their ‘elite’ status. To fill the vacated position of hypaspists, we find Thracians, Agrianians and later, the thureophoroi (initially mercenary peltasts) filling the role of protecting the phalanx. If used in this manner on the game board they do perform well.
I have two Iberian armies (II/39a) which represent both ‘solid’ and ‘fast’ options. Generally, their string of victories fall short when comparing them to the Celtiberians and Lusitanians, but then this is historically accurate. Despite their setbacks, the Iberians have had their share of scrappy battles when the terrain is suited for their style of fighting; difficult hills, scrub and river in addition to the compulsory BUA (Hamlet).
Their primary opponent, the Consular army (II/33) do have an option to field two auxilia representing the Italian troops. These I prefer over the blade alternative which are less suited to moving through rough and bad going terrain of Hispania.
In battle, Livy did describe the Iberians as ‘brittle’, that is good for one major assault and failing this would disperse to fight at a later day. Their current combat factor adequately represents this. We fight historical battles and I have found little need to change combat factors. To improve their game performance, I looked to better terrain placement, troop deployment and the use of reserves, but do read on.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 12, 2019 21:14:49 GMT
Part two. In the book, The Imperial Roman Army by Yann Le Bohec, the organization and role of the army in the empire well covered, but relavent to this debate are the sections under ‘Activities of the Army’’ which include training, tactics and strategy.
Under training we find troops honing their skill with their standard issued weapons, but also learned the use of bow, sling and throwing stones. Drills included the change of formation from close order to open order and the reverse so cohorts could quickly adapt to the terrain they moved through or the enemy they fought.
Noteworthy, in Tacitus – Agricola, four cohorts of Batavians and two of Tongres were ordered to engage the Britions with sword and shield like legionnaires (p.144, Le Bohec). The passage is long but would certainly add weight to the suggestion of increasing the combat factor from 3 to 4 as a good one.
With good military leaders one can expect a high level of training, ensuring an army’s performance and conversely, as the quality of leaders declined, so would the performance of the troops under their command. Regarding increasing the combat factor for auxilia, my own Middle Imperial Roman army (II/64) would benefit greatly, but consistantly using them against all barbarian and nomadic tribes their tactics and deployment have greatly improved. The Late Imperial Roman army (II/78) are similar to the Middle Imperial with regard to troop type. They do however, have a significantly higher number of mounted elements. Despite the smaller number of foot troops, the ratio of legion to auxilia remains nearly even.
I do like the increasing the recoil distance of 1BW for auxilia. I would like to see a distinction between the two types and suggest the following: 3Ax – recoil 1BW 4Ax – recoil base depth or 1BW, similar to the option given to mounted troops.
|
|