|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 19, 2019 2:27:02 GMT
I have tried it Joe...several times. Recoiling 1 BW looks good for peltast 3Ax, but not 4Ax. No matter how far an Ax runs away, it leaves its neighbouring Ax to single or even worse double overlaps (50% chance of destruction). I say again: overlaps-kill-auxiliaries!. See fanaticus.boards.net/post/19157/The maths don’t lie... Just a thought stevie regarding 3Ax recoil. As you say, Psiloi don't need this because there is no pursuit. Could the same effect not happen with limiting pursuit against 3Ax (as this would only be a minor change that involves relatively similar troop types) rather than making an unusual rule where mounted plus one specific infantry type move in a certain way? It would still separate the lines. It would also address paddy649's concerns about further weakening Pike. Cheers Jim Jim, I think you may be onto something with limiting pursuit. That is certainly a very viable idea. And it limits offboard recoils of 3Ax somewhat. I like it.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 19, 2019 3:01:16 GMT
Joe we played about 30 games with the 1BW recoil for 4Ax. Sorry mate, in around 25 of the games, a 4Ax died quick and hard on the overlap at 5 (or 6) vs 2. The 4Ax line simply can't stand against HI at all. And that is NOT what the accounts say happened with them is the real world. By the way, this cuts both ways and helps the Romans against a line of Pictish spears as well, no? Well, I am only 4 games in with Cannae and the outcome is 2 to 2. Perhaps that will change, but it certainly isn't a wipeout like it was previously. Joe Collins Joe, How did your 4Ax survive? I just admit the numbers seem to be against the 4Ax case when overlapped/double overlapped. Did they do something else or were lucky? Would love to know what happened. Also, still interested in helping Bw in yet another thread as suggested with similar recoil rules. Chris
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 19, 2019 3:14:29 GMT
Just a thought stevie regarding 3Ax recoil. As you say, Psiloi don't need this because there is no pursuit. Could the same effect not happen with limiting pursuit against 3Ax (as this would only be a minor change that involves relatively similar troop types) rather than making an unusual rule where mounted plus one specific infantry type move in a certain way? It would still separate the lines. It would also address paddy649's concerns about further weakening Pike. Cheers Jim Jim, I think you may be onto something with limiting pursuit. That is certainly a very viable idea. And it limits offboard recoils of 3Ax somewhat. I like it. But they don’t need to pursue to overlap. B1 B2 B3 : A2 : A1 A3 Here A1 has been recoiled by B1 and not pursued, and A3 has been recoiled by B3 and not pursued. A2, which hasn’t fought yet, is now double overlapped (CF 1 v CF 5, 18 chances in 36 (50%) of being doubled). If A2 has a +1 for facing Bd/Sp/unsupported Pk, it might survive (CF 2 v 5, 12 chances (33%) of being doubled).
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 19, 2019 3:20:52 GMT
Tournament players know Ax are weak and not play balanced, which is why you rarely see Ax heavy armies in competitions.
I'm broadly sympathetic to your aims, but how do you know the above is true, and not just another big dollop of hyperbole? This forum is absolutely riddled with unsubstantiated, if often (because of?) very enthusiastic, statements. Unsubstantiated claims? UNSUBSTANTIATED! Have I not given links to:- Ancient historical authors such as Polybius and Livy? Modern academical research by Fernando Quesada and Duncan Head? Mathematical proof? fanaticus-dba.fandom.com/wiki/File:COMBAT_EFFECTS_CHART_for_DBA_%26_HOTT.pdf And asked people to prove it for themselves? fanaticus.boards.net/post/19157/Is the proof of your own eyes still not enough for you? Yea gods...what must I do...steal the keys to Doctor Who’s TARDIS, go back in time, and actually show people?! But you are quite right to question any assertion. Very well, I have looked at the 104 armies used in 5 major tournaments:- Bakewell Winter Warmer Tournament 2019 fanaticus.boards.net/post/19044/ (22 armies) Welsh Open 2019 fanaticus.boards.net/post/18668/ (13 armies) Cancon Canberra 2019 fanaticus.boards.net/post/18674/ (44 armies) Landwaster 2018 fanaticus.boards.net/post/17272/ (11 armies) Tarrington Tourney 2018 fanaticus.boards.net/post/17037/ (14 armies) (I gave up looking after 5 tournaments, for the same reason that I’ve stopped looking for fairies at the bottom of my garden... ...because I’m not going to find anything). I did find one person that used the I/48 Thracians (6 x 3/4Ax or Ps, and 3 x LH or 4Ax, but I don’t know which option they chose). And another once used the IV/71 Chimu Imperial (6 x 3Ax). I did say “you rarely see Ax heavy armies in competitions”...and two out of 104 armies is pretty rare wouldn’t you say? Oh, one did used the IV/63 Aztecs (6 x 5Hd/3Ax), but I bet they chose the 5Hd option, and the 1/7d Early Libyans and the II/81 Sub-Roman British popped up twice (5 x Sp or Ax) ...again I suspect with the Sp and not the Ax option. Other armies with 4 x Ax are not uncommon, but all these have El/Kn/Bd/Pk/Sp to give the army some ‘punch’. Not once did I find the I/47 Illyrians (9 x 3/4Ax), the I/36a Samnites-Umbrians (10 x 3Ax), the I/36b Sardinians (8 x 3Ax), the I/39 Urartians (8 x 3/4Ax), the I/40 Phrygians (7 x 3Ax), the II/6 Bithynians (8 x 3/4Ax), the II/8 Bruttian-Lucanians (9 x 3/4Ax), the II/13 Samnites (10 x 4Ax), II/39 Iberians or ANY of the many other Ax heavy armies with no additional powerful troops being used in tournaments. Why, it’s almost as if they were being deliberately avoided. Now I wonder why that is... Hands up all the tournament players that would take any of the above armies to a competition. If not, why not? Could it be that everyone knows they are weak and helpless?
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Feb 19, 2019 3:21:26 GMT
Well tonight they didn't survive...but I was the Romans!
Cannae in the small battle game features the Romans with 4 Auxilia. The trick is to screen them with the Psiloi if the Romans launch blades against them. This coupled with the recoil out of combat allows the the Carthaginians to use their cavalry superiority to game the upper hand. They can also use their Spear against the Roman Auxilia.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 19, 2019 3:52:31 GMT
Jim, I think you may be onto something with limiting pursuit. That is certainly a very viable idea. And it limits offboard recoils of 3Ax somewhat. I like it. But they don’t need to pursue to overlap. B1 B2 B3 : A2 : A1 A3 Here A1 has been recoiled by B1 and not pursued, and A3 has been recoiled by B3 and not pursued. A2, which hasn’t fought yet, is now double overlapped (CF 1 v CF 5, 18 chances in 36 (50%) of being doubled). If A2 has a +1 for facing Bd/Sp/unsupported Pk, it might survive (CF 2 v 5, 12 chances (33%) of being doubled).
Hi stevie.3Ax wouldn't get the plus one. And if A1 and A3 recoiled full base depth and B1 and B3 pursued then they would still double overlap A2. No? I do like the idea of 4Ax getting the +1. Jim
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 19, 2019 4:23:50 GMT
Just to be clear, guys I am supportive of Jim's idea for 3Ax/3Bw say. 4Ax still need the +1, and then would not be allowed the break off.
This gives a genuine distinction between troop types, and better history.
I still find 8Bw utterly nerfed aginst HI, but what the heck. EAP lost in Greece (despite taking and burning Athens to the ground - something not even the Spartans pulled off in the famous war with Athens) so why even bother playing EAP vs hoplites. Waste of a good gaming night ... 🙁
Now give them the same +1 as the 4Ax, and there is a real chance they can delay the hoplites enough to win on a flank ... And suddenly the hoplites are favoured to win, but need to be careful.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 19, 2019 5:23:00 GMT
Well tonight they didn't survive...but I was the Romans! Cannae in the small battle game features the Romans with 4 Auxilia. The trick is to screen them with the Psiloi if the Romans launch blades against them. This coupled with the recoil out of combat allows the the Carthaginians to use their cavalry superiority to game the upper hand. They can also use their Spear against the Roman Auxilia. Joe Collins Hi Joe, I love the different tactics. I haven't heard of Psiloi being used in Cannae. Not to say they weren't used, but perhaps they didn't have much influence over the battle.
The following is probably obvious to everybody, but I figured I'd state it.
I think the thrust of Stevie's argument is this:
If historical wargame rules cannot take a historical situation, and with the historical tactics used, roughly approximate a historical result, then perhaps the rules need modifying. DBA seems to be doing a good job of this, except in a couple of areas, and battles (and has been stated, is improving with every version).
So the big question is, given impetuous Roman Blade/Aux, and Spanish/Gaul Aux facing them, can we recreate Cannae?
If we CAN recreate Cannae, then the REALLY interesting question becomes, what if the Romans used different tactics, would they have been able to beat Hannibal?
We know that we've gone too far when no matter what the Romans do, they ALWAYS lose. That's just dull as a game, and there's no point in having 200+ armies in the back of the DBA book if we only ever play with 50 of them because the other 150 always die.
But back to Cannae:
Joe seems to be able to have fairly balanced results in terms of win/loss without the +1, but he's using non-historical tactics.
So my big questions are these: 1) Stevie, what is your win/loss ratio with Cannae using the +1 suggestion?
2) Joe, if you used +1, would you find your win/loss ratio slant significantly against the Romans, using whatever tactics you like?
3) Everybody, what is the win/loss ratio of Cannae using the +1 AND doing EXACTLY what we think the historical forced did?
Chris
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Feb 19, 2019 5:36:27 GMT
Just to be clear, guys I am supportive of Jim's idea for 3Ax/3Bw say. 4Ax still need the +1, and then would not be allowed the break off. This gives a genuine distinction between troop types, and better history. I still find 8Bw utterly nerfed aginst HI, but what the heck. EAP lost in Greece (despite taking and burning Athens to the ground - something not even the Spartans pulled off in the famous war with Athens) so why even bother playing EAP vs hoplites. Waste of a good gaming night ... 🙁 Now give them the same +1 as the 4Ax, and there is a real chance they can delay the hoplites enough to win on a flank ... And suddenly the hoplites are favoured to win, but need to be careful. Hey stop trashing the EAP. I have beaten the Greeks multiple times with them. (Hopefully you won' t notice I cleverly neglected to mention how many times I have lost with them or the fact multiple can mean as few as twice.) Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 19, 2019 5:38:46 GMT
One more quick thought about 3/4Ax. We are acting on the notion that: 3Ax = Peltasts or something close. 4Ax = Flexible Spanish Iberians or something similar that can fight heavies and lights decently if not amazingly.
Is there room for some kind of medium troop that ISN'T flexible? i.e. We have historical precedent that Iberians were flexible and could kind of hold against early Republican Roman legions. But what of other medium troops?
i.e. Is there a historical precedent for non-Spanish Ax? Should there be something representing 4Ax as it currently stands, or some kind of modified version? I'm suggesting another troop type, but just wanted to point out that not all 4Ax are Spanish Iberians, or Hyperasts. Would we expect the same dogged flexibility from Roman Aux? Or formed Thracians? Or Japanese Ashigaru? Or Proto-Hoplites?
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Feb 19, 2019 8:34:19 GMT
Chris (Greedo) - not so simple. Your big questions are: 1) Stevie, what is your win/loss ratio with Cannae using the +1 suggestion? 2) Joe, if you used +1, would you find your win/loss ratio slant significantly against the Romans, using whatever tactics you like? 3) Everybody, what is the win/loss ratio of Cannae using the +1 AND doing EXACTLY what we think the historical forced did?
The trouble is we only have one data point - the actual battle. So what we do know is that it was (in game terms) approximately a 4G-1 win for the Carthaginians by the time DBA would decide victory, assuming that Paullus’ death and that Hannibal’s casualties of just over 10% and mostly Gauls amounted to an element loss. So all we can tell for certain is that this one outcome must be possible. What we can’t say is that it was probable because Varro and Hannibal can’t now fight it multiple times and come up with their own win/loss ratio.
BUT let’s assume for a moment that the battle had been fought 100 times. Do we think 4G-1 the median result (i.e. 50% of the time Hannibal did better than History and 50% Varro does better.)? OR do we think that Hannibal and the Carthaginians beat the odds and out performed the Romans? In which case what was should the average result be? Certainly Gisgo’s remarks at the start of the battle don’t indicate that he thought it would be 4G-1.
Then you need to look at statistical significance - which simply put that you can’t tell if it is the effect you intend unless it has less than 5% chance of happening by chance alone. If you assume that DBA is a 50/50 battle - then it is like flipping a coin and you can’t even suspect you are using a double header unless you have flipped it at least 5 times and seen no change in the result. So when you are looking at the impact of a +1 for only part of the Carthaginian force you’d have to fight 100s of times to be statistically significant.
So basically if we play Cannae in DBA 20 times and get a 4G-1 result in favour of Carthage at least once then you could say the rules don’t need changing. However if 4G-1 (or better) comes up 10 times then have we succeeded in representing history more accurately or have we just killed the game as now Varro can never win?
All this said - I think there is something in the +1 for 4Ax vs Bd, Sp & 2xPk rule that appeals. I suspect that after 20 games of Cannae you’ll probably be about 15-5 in favour of the Romans and I can’t see where a 4G-1 result to Carthage comes from under existing rules. But with the +1 rule it’ll move it to 12-8 or 13-7 with maybe a 4G-1 in there somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 19, 2019 9:24:46 GMT
I like paddy649's reflection. One battle may be the exception rather than the rule. I think the more general descriptions by the ancient authors given by stevie are a better guide.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 19, 2019 9:33:10 GMT
I still find 8Bw utterly nerfed aginst HI, but what the heck. EAP lost in Greece (despite taking and burning Athens to the ground - something not even the Spartans pulled off in the famous war with Athens) so why even bother playing EAP vs hoplites. Waste of a good gaming night ... 🙁 I was thinking about an 8Bw thread once this one was finished. But as I was writing this it occurred to me that this thread may help EAPs, at least against contemporaries. I've metioned before that there are too many Sp enemies (e.g. Lydian, Cypriot, etc) that didn't really fight as a shieldwall like (better) hoplites. Reclassing these to the new 4Ax may help even the odds for the Persians. Even downgrading some hoplites (e.g. Ionians) can also improve things. It'll never make the official rules but can easily be used for local campaigns. Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by Vic on Feb 19, 2019 11:41:10 GMT
I still think extending the 3/4Ax modifications to Bw (namely, "Fast" Bows can voluntarily evade 1 BW, "Solid" Bows get +1 against Bd/Sp/Pk in close combat) would work well to prop them up a bit and play their role as medium (shooting) foot.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 19, 2019 14:04:26 GMT
Lots of thoughts bouncing around here, and this thread, like so many others on this subject, is in serious danger of going off-topic.
About 3/4Bw Yes, I too think that Bows are weak, need a bit of a boost in close combat, and the 4Ax +1 for facing heavies is one way to go. BUT...this thread is about 3/4Ax, not 3/4Bw, so let’s fight one battle at a time. There are still many people not convinced that a problem even exists, despite my many links to ancient authors, modern research, mathematical proof, the sight of their own eyes, and that Ax heavy armies are rarely used in competitions (a fact that tournament players still seem strangely reluctant to admit, even though it is blindingly obvious).
Far too many threads about improving Auxiliaries have failed in the past due to too many off-topic subjects. We now have in the 4Ax +1 mechanism a way that works, with no side-effects, is simple, and even sounds plausible. Let’s try and convince as many players as we can that it is a good idea (for we will never convince everybody), and save discussion of Bows for a later date and another thread. If we can’t persuade people that +1 is a good idea for 4Ax fighting heavies, we are unlikely to persuade them to adopt it for 4Bw.
About not pursuing 3Ax recoils The problem with this is that all troops end up looking like Hoplite Spears, in a nice neat line, if they don’t pursue 3Ax. Having Blades, Pikes, and Warbands pursuing 3Ax that recoil a full BW does break up their battleline, costing them PIPs to reform and leaving them vulnerable to overlaps (and looks very realistic in the case of Warbands). Having these troops pursuing recoiling 3Ax is a very useful tool for the Ax...it’s like a ‘feigned-flight’ manoeuvre, which in effect is what an ‘evade’ move is, drawing them out of position (although because of their high combat factor, Pikes are less affected and will usually all pursue together in a line). So I think that having Bd/Pk/Wb pursuing 3Ax, even if they can’t catch them, is the better option.
|
|