|
Post by paddy649 on Jul 27, 2019 7:36:13 GMT
What I did learn from looking at Issus was quite how well DBA could represent it. I could explain everything in Issus within reasonable bounds of probability. Why did Darius do that - because he threw low PIPs. Why did those units stand off - because they were TZed. Why did Darius’ flank collapse - because it got hard flanked.
What I didn’t quite get was just why Darius deployed in such a stupid way - until I realised he was defending so deployed first and also he was a noobie so this wasn’t a match of equals it was like me fighting arnopov......a bit one sided!
Last thought was the slight difficulty I had reconciling and representing the battle lines at a Issus with the 12 elements of BDA. As Joe Collins found with Cannae 12 elements forced some difficult choices. It needed just slightly more and if 14 or 15 elements were employed they totally self selected. Which led me to think are they any other battles that work best with a slightly larger number of elements?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 27, 2019 10:16:06 GMT
I’ve been looking deeply into Paddy’s interpretation of rivers (that they are the going of the terrain beneath them, at least for combat, but not for movement), and the more I study it, the more convinced I become that Phil Barker intended that is how they should operate. For example...take two hoplite armies where one of them is trying to cross a river running through a wood. The defending Spears will be CF 3 (4, -2 for the bad going, but +1 for the riverbank bonus, and no side support). If rivers are neither good nor other going for combat:-The Spears crossing will be CF 4 (no side support as rivers are not good going...but they're not bad going either). That means those crossing will have a CF of 4 v a CF of 3 for the defenders...those crossing will be superior! That can’t be right.If rivers are good going for combat:-The Spears crossing will be CF 5 (4 with +1 for side support). That means those crossing will have a CF of 5 v a CF of 3 for the defenders...those crossing are much superior! That also can’t be right.But if for combat rivers count as the terrain they are placed on:-The Spears crossing will be CF 2 (4, -2 for being in bad going, with no side support). That means those crossing will have a CF of 2 v a CF of 3 for the defenders...ah, now the defenders are superior. And that at last looks dead right. As for the order of battle at Issus, here is my reconstruction:- ¦ _______ ¦ LCh 7Hd / difficult \ ¦ l hill l ¦ LH Cv 3Bw 3Bw Sp Sp 4Ax Cv LH \ Ps / waterway ¦--------------------------------------------------------------------- this river should (the sea) ¦--------------------------------------------------------------------- meander a bit ¦ Sp Pk Pk Pk 3Bd 3Kn Ps ¦ LH Cv Pk Pk Pk ¦
Notes: I’ve given the Persians two 3Bow instead of Takabara 3Ax, as some historians say there was an arrow storm. I’ve also given Alexander a 3Bd to represent the Hypaspists, as they were elite and far superior to 4Ax. And I’ve positioned Alexander’s LH facing two Persian mounted, so it can’t be hard-flanked. I like to use ‘decorative double bases’, (i.e. two ranks 40mm deep) to represent the vast numbers of Persian foot. A ‘decorative double base’ acts exactly like a single element...they just look more impressive visually. (Now I’m not against having more than 12 elements a side...but if you don’t need to, why do it?)
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Jul 27, 2019 11:59:52 GMT
Your post got a bit mashed there Stevie - but I think I followed it. I had Issus very similar but used 1 x 3Bw and 2 x 4Ax and I swapped One of your LH for Cav.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 27, 2019 12:18:20 GMT
Here is an alternative better Persian deployment, after the mounted have been repositioned, and with more mercenary Hoplites, based on a reading of Arrians account. (See en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Anabasis_of_Alexander/Book_II/Chapter_VIII ) ¦ _______ ¦ LCh 7Hd / difficult \ ¦ l hill l ¦ LH LH Cv 4Ax Sp Sp Sp 4Ax Cv \ Ps / waterway ¦--------------------------------------------------------------------- this river should (the sea) ¦--------------------------------------------------------------------- meander a bit ¦ Pk Pk Pk 3Bd 3Kn Ps ¦ Pk Pk Pk ¦ Sp ¦ ¦ Cv ¦ ¦ LH
Note: I've left Darius as part of the Persian reserve as, let's face it, he didn't do much in this battle!
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jul 27, 2019 13:49:06 GMT
Indeed, there is a sentence in the section on roads that reads "combat on a road is in the going the road crosses" or some such.
Rivers make most sense of played similarly. It wouldn't surprise me if that was Phil's original intent, being that both roads and rivers are linear features, and both have rules for movement and combat that are already unique.
Because otherwise a river that crosses through a wood creates a thin strip of non-woods for combat purposes, which would temporarily suspend the -2 TF for a Sp in the act of crossing it, say. That doesn't seem right at all.
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Jul 27, 2019 15:21:13 GMT
That is almost exactly how I had it except I put Darius in the line and put the Persian LH in column. Now with that set upI find it difficult for Darius to lose especially if the Hypaspists are 4Ax.
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 15, 2019 20:57:46 GMT
For historical battles never worry about the 12 element limit - it virtually never works. Just work out a rough count of the army size (always a bit foggy but relative sizes can generally be worked out) and divide by some number to get a rough element count. For medievals 1/1000 for foot and 1/500 for Mounted or Ps seems to work OK.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by j on Aug 21, 2019 0:01:09 GMT
In order to save repeating everything, the main gist of the issue can be found here:- fanaticus.boards.net/post/23569/...and discussions both for and against can be found on page 2 of the same thread. So, on with the question:- ---do rivers count as good going for combat, even though they don’t for movement?--- Yes or no. And whatever your final decision, can we please have it included in the next FAQ. Thanks in advance... Stevie Later Edit Paddy649 has an even better interpretation:- --For combat, do rivers count as the going they pass through? (even though they don’t for movement)--- See fanaticus.boards.net/post/23622/This hurts my head... All things considered, I am tempted to agree with Paddy649 as it seems to work for me & fits in with how roads traverse other going yet in combat they count as in the same going they are in. Regards, j
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Aug 21, 2019 3:29:18 GMT
The RAW is clear. Terse, and economical, but unambiguous. Rivers are not defined as being of any going anywhere in the book, therefore they are not of any going, good, rough, or bad. The oft misquoted "For movement, a river is neither good nor other going;" is the introduction to a section that describes (surprise!) how movement works in rivers. It doesn't say anything about the "going" status of river related to combat, nor does it need to as the rules work perfectly well as written. And it is a perfect ruse to station a Bd element in a river inside a wood. Now imagine the enemy's look of surprise and disgust when he realises you are not -2 in combat for being in the wood...
|
|
|
Post by j on Aug 21, 2019 10:02:07 GMT
The RAW is clear. Terse, and economical, but unambiguous. Rivers are not defined as being of any going anywhere in the book, therefore they are not of any going, good, rough, or bad. The oft misquoted "For movement, a river is neither good nor other going;" is the introduction to a section that describes (surprise!) how movement works in rivers. It doesn't say anything about the "going" status of river related to combat, nor does it need to as the rules work perfectly well as written. For something so clear & ambiguous, there seems to be a shedload of differing views. Just sayin' Regards, j
|
|
|
Post by vtsaogames on Aug 21, 2019 15:54:22 GMT
And it is a perfect ruse to station a Bd element in a river inside a wood. Now imagine the enemy's look of surprise and disgust when he realises you are not -2 in combat for being in the wood... Hmm. Isn't an element with any part in bad going considered in bad going, regardless of where most of the element is?
|
|
|
Post by martin on Aug 21, 2019 18:52:48 GMT
And it is a perfect ruse to station a Bd element in a river inside a wood. Now imagine the enemy's look of surprise and disgust when he realises you are not -2 in combat for being in the wood... Hmm. Isn't an element with any part in bad going considered in bad going, regardless of where most of the element is? I assume this suggests a situation where a Bd is wholly IN the river, with none of the element’s base out of river/in the wood (?). Rare, if not impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Aug 22, 2019 11:38:10 GMT
I am a bit lost as to where we have got to with this discussion! Is there consensus that a river is neither good nor bad/rough but troops wholly in a river count as being in any area terrain that the river passes through?
Simon
|
|
|
Post by j on Aug 22, 2019 11:45:46 GMT
I am a bit lost as to where we have got to with this discussion! Is there consensus that a river is neither good nor bad/rough but troops wholly in a river count as being in any area terrain that the river passes through? Simon This is the assumption I am making but I would be grateful for a consensus at least if not an update to FAQ when possible. Regards, j
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 22, 2019 12:22:10 GMT
I am a bit lost as to where we have got to with this discussion! Is there consensus that a river is neither good nor bad/rough but troops wholly in a river count as being in any area terrain that the river passes through? Simon Unfortunately Simon, there is no consensus...just two different factions. On the one hand we have the players who:- * want to knacker Pk/Sp/Wb in rivers, but not Bd/Ax/Ps/Mounted... * think that hiding inside a river is a good way to avoid being ‘quick-killed’ by Knights... * and who don’t mind if Blades in a river that runs through a wood fight at full strength, while the Blades who are trying to defend that same riverbank are at a disadvantage. (CF 5, with -2 for being in bad going, but with +1 for the riverbank bonus, so CF 4 v CF 5) And on the other hand we have the players who:- * think all the above is absurd, and for combat rivers should count as the terrain they pass through. Until we get an arbitrated decision from the FAQ Team, each player will have to make up their own mind. Speaking of which...there is STILL not a single comment from ANY of the FAQ Team or ANY of the DBA 3.0 development playtesters. The question is a simple one: do rivers affect combat? It can’t be that hard to say either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ can it? After all, they did playtest these rules prior to publication didn't they, so they should know the answer... 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
|
|