|
Post by stevie on Jan 8, 2020 6:22:26 GMT
That is a very good analysis Chaotic. Yes, Arrian is biased (find me an historian who isn’t!), but he’s all we’ve got.
Unfortunately, in DBA we only have two choices: have rear support in rivers or don’t have it.
Pike CF of 3 (which drops to 2 with the easily achieved recoils) v Spear CF of 6 = Alexander gets slaughtered. Pike CF of 6 (with rear support) v Spear CF of 6 = a hard fight, that could go either way without Alex's flank attack.
Having rear support at Issus gives a result that plays out much like the historical account. Have no rear support and Alexander ends up being defeated!
It’s one or the other...there ain’t nothing in-between.
|
|
|
Post by chaotic on Jan 8, 2020 8:24:42 GMT
That is a very good analysis Chaotic. ... Unfortunately, in DBA we only have two choices: have rear support in rivers or don’t have it. ... Having rear support at Issus gives a result that plays out much like the historical account. Have no rear support and Alexander ends up being defeated! It’s one or the other...there ain’t nothing in-between. Thank you. However my point is that there is no evidence that a phalanx should be able to fight across a non-paltry river. I agree that the rules (properly, in my view) discourage such an action, without preventing it. I would also suggest that a reasonable historical recreation of Issus does not give such gloomy prospects for the Macedonians as you present. At Issus, Alexander was, as usual, separated from the phalanx by the hypaspists so for this purpose, the phalanx is largely irrelevant. It is likely that Alexander was accompanied by both the hypaspists and other light troops, perhaps some of the Agrianians, when he rashly, and perhaps desperately, charged across the river. Importantly, he was supported by troops that had shown on many occasions that they could cope with such adverse terrain. The depth of his penetration into the Persian line needs to be explained, given that his Companions also had to claw their way across the river and up the bank. Information from historical sources is thin, often citing the military and moral superiority of Alexander over the Persians - which is most likely propaganda. I think it more likely that his troops found a deployment weakness, such as a gap between some of the Kardakes forced by the winding river, and they were able to fight their way deep into the Persian line, causing panic and the subsequent rout. However it is not necessary to house-rule these events in order to recreate Issus. Issus was a tough fight against an opponent with all possible advantages. However using DBA to simulate this offers many possibilities. As one example, you could have Alexander (3KnG: CF 4) supported by the Hypaspists (4Ax: CF 3) and perhaps the Agrianians (CF 2) simply to prevent an overlap against the king, against two or three takabara (3Ax: CF 3 +1 defending the river bank = 4). Since river banks in DBA are the terrain that the river is passing through (in this instance, Good Going), Alexander's matchup is equal with a quick kill possibility. The hypaspists are -1 but recoil fast foot on ties, and the Agrianians are -2 and likely to be recoiled or destroyed. The odds of Macedonian success in this scenario seem much higher than Alexander had a right to expect. Of course, other troops could be substituted for Alexander's supports or the defenders, changing the odds in different ways, but I hope this illustrates that nothing here demands a rule-change. As I said previously, in this instance the FAQ has it right.
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Jan 8, 2020 10:00:22 GMT
Interesting to note that QC only mentions troops hurling javelins and fighting with swords (probably the hypaspists). Which works if DBA 3.0 classified the Hypaspists as Blade which in this instance as this is clearly how they were fighting - but it doesn’t. Under 3.0 these elite troops are 4Ax and almost if not equally as useless in this situation as the 4Pk. Also chaotic your reading of the battle of Issus works if the bank is defended by Takabara (3Ax) and even then Alex needs to roll well and will probably only be able to pull it off less than 25% of the time - quite often getting killed in the process. BUT Adrian specifically states it was defended by Greek mercenaries (Sp) - so the CF is not 3+1=4 it is 4+1+1=6. That is the point Stevie is making. Alex now needs to have a dice that rolls only 6s to even survive and the probability of success falls to single figure percentages. Is this the sort of decision we would expect the world’s greatest general to make? For me Alexander’s army is far weaker under DBA than it was historically- even without the river issue. I have never managed to get Alex to beat the Thessalians if they go for the 4 Cav option, Alex vs most Greek armies is 50/50 at best and Alex vs LAP is 65/35 against given the superiority of the LAP Cavalry and the ease with which the phalanx can be neutralised.
|
|
|
Post by chaotic on Jan 8, 2020 11:14:00 GMT
Interesting to note that QC only mentions troops hurling javelins and fighting with swords (probably the hypaspists). Which works if DBA 3.0 classified the Hypaspists as Blade which in this instance as this is clearly how they were fighting - but it doesn’t. Under 3.0 these elite troops are 4Ax and almost if not equally as useless in this situation as the 4Pk. Also chaotic your reading of the battle of Issus works if the bank is defended by Takabara (3Ax) and even then Alex needs to roll well and will probably only be able to pull it off less than 25% of the time - quite often getting killed in the process. BUT Adrian specifically states it was defended by Greek mercenaries (Sp) - so the CF is not 3+1=4 it is 4+1+1=6. That is the point Stevie is making. Alex now needs to have a dice that rolls only 6s to even survive and the probability of success falls to single figure percentages. Is this the sort of decision we would expect the world’s greatest general to make? ... This discussion should probably be in a thread of its own. But I'll address some of Paddy's points. DBA's classification of hypaspists is a separate, hotly debated topic that IMHO can only be resolved by giving them multiple troop types. This is not really pertinent to the accurate simulation of the Battle of Issus. Stevie's contention is that the battle of Issus provides evidence that a phalanx can fight its way across a non-paltry river. I contend that it does not. In other discussions I further contend that there is no evidence that a phalanx ever did this. Stevie's example of Issus includes the assumption that Alexander's charge was against hoplites. This is incorrect. As Arrian himself confirms: ... Alexander had charged into the river with eagerness, and engaging in a hand-to-hand conflict was already driving back the Persians posted there ... My DBA scenario of the battle reflects what actually seems to have occurred: Alexander supported by hypaspists and other lighter troops attacking Persians, not Greeks. I have not done the math, but on your assessment of less than 25% chance of success, given all the adverse conditions, I consider this to be a fair outcome for a battle that Alexander almost lost.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 8, 2020 11:16:01 GMT
Ha! It’s good to see that we both agree on something Choatic... ...but I hope this illustrates that nothing here demands a rule-change. As I said previously, in this instance the FAQ has it right. Ah, but it is not I that wants to make a rule change... ...it is those that want rivers to be neither good nor other going FOR COMBAT that are changing the rules, when the rules state quite clearly that “ For movement, a river is neither good nor other going...”. “ For movement” it says, and only for movement, not for both movement and combat. I want to play by the rules as written, and not change a thing. But I think you may be missing the main point --> we are all slaves to the DBA combat system. And under the DBA combat system, an overlapped pike without rear support has a combat factor of 2, therefore stands no chance at all against a side-supported spear with a +1 riverbank bonus CF of 6. However, a pike combat factor of 6 does stand a chance (mathematics can be a harsh mistress at times). I think that Mr Barker knows this, and he also knows that Alexander’s pikemen were not massacred like helpless sheep at Issus, which is why he wrote his river rule in the way that he did:- “ For movement, a river is neither good nor other going”...meaning this does NOT apply to combat. But I’m going to speak frankly...although it won’t win me any friends here on Fanaticus (if I had any!). What I think has happened is some time ago a bunch of influential old school DBA players started off with their own personal preconceived notion, based on no historical evidence whatsoever, that pikes should always loose their rear support in rivers, and are now trying to push this misguided view on the rest of us by attempting to make it semi-official via the FAQ, even though:- * It does not follow the rules as written (“For movement” only it says)... * It is contradicted by historical accounts (the pikemen at the battle of Issus)... * It makes rivers almost unplayable for spears and pikes (not good from a game point of view)... * and it treats all ancient commanders of spears and pikes as idiots (as in reality, when faced with such a formidable river, they would have simply marched up or down stream to find an easier crossing point, not blindly banged their heads against a brick wall). When the FAQ Team makes a rule clarification that improves DBA, it should be applauded. When they try to completely change things to fit their own personal agenda...well, that’s something else. Oh, and for those that have never even held a pike in their life (let alone tried to fight their way across a river with one) that remain convinced that it couldn’t be done, I suggest they write to Alexander the Great himself and tell him it just isn’t possible, as they know far more about ancient warfare then he ever did. Now you could also accuse me of having a preconceived notion about pikes...and it’s true, I do. I know that Alexander won the battle of Issus, and that his pikemen did fight their way over a river. Oh, they were greatly helped by Alexander’s flank attack, and may not (or may) have succeeded without it. But they weren’t slaughtered like helpless sheep, and suffered so many casualties that the battle was lost. How do I know all this? Because the ancient historians tell us so. And if under the rigid DBA combat system this can only be achieved by giving the pikes a CF of 6, then so be it. It’s a pity that DBA didn’t pay a bit more attention to the actual battle accounts of the ancient historians, rather than on modern day preconceptions, then perhaps recreating battles such as Granicus, Issus, Cannae, Carrhae, Poitiers, Agincourt and many others would have been possible, and DBA would not only be a great game, but also more historically accurate as well. Surely the whole purpose of a set of ancients rules, that claims to be based on ancient history, is to recreate that history. Well, I don’t know what world DBA is supposed to be set in...but it certainly isn’t this world!
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Jan 8, 2020 12:05:46 GMT
Here's how I read it...
GOOD GOING = gentle hills and playing surface other than terrain features. Rivers are a linear terrain feature. Therefore, rivers are a type of terrain feature, and consequently are not GOOD GOING. In CLOSE COMBAT, rear support factors apply when elements have another friendly element of the same type lined-up directly behind them and facing the same direction, and both are in GOOD GOING.
Therefore elements crossing a river are not entitled to rear support.
(Perhaps they should be, but under the RAW they are not. Furthermore, the sentence beginning with 'For movement, a river is neither good nor other going...' is the opening line in a passage that introduces the rule for crossing a river on p.9 wherein the strength of the river is determined by a D6 roll and the consequential movement penalties to the crosser are determined along with eligibility for the defender of the opposing riverbank to receive a close combat bonus against the crossing element(s) that make front edge contact with them.)
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 8, 2020 13:24:45 GMT
But Snowcat, nowhere in the rules does it say “FOR COMBAT, a river is neither good nor other going”. The actual going for rivers has been left out, is has been forgotten, it is missing. What you and others are doing is making an interpretation to try and fill in this missing rule... ...an interpretation that makes Alexander lose the battle of Issus (despite the historical accounts), that makes rivers unplayable for Sp and Pk (as they’ll get slaughtered), and makes all ancient commanders of Sp and Pk monumentally stupid (“shall we find an easier place to cross? Naaa, let’s just charge in knowing that it’s suicide”). Me and my mates choose to fill in this missing rule by interpreting it so that for combat rivers are the going of the terrain they pass through...and you know what, with our interpretation Alexander doeswin the battle of Issus, rivers are playable for Sp and Pk, and ancient generals don’t stupidly charge blindly into rivers they have no hope of crossing (and we don’t have to change any of the rules either... ...”For movement” means just that, for movement only, and we are not trying to pretend that it says “For movement and combat” when it doesn’t) Our interpretation gives results that match the ancient historical accounts. The other interpretation does not. Still, if players are not bothered by the writings of those stuffy old ancient scholars, then by all means use the interpretation they prefer...and say to hell with history. We should all be allowed to enjoy DBA in our own way.
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 8, 2020 16:32:27 GMT
Some "Inside Baseball" on this ruling from the FAQ team.
I usually am reluctant to expose the inner-thinking/working of the FAQ team for a variety of good and not so good reasons... but I think for this one I will make an exception.
We use a variety of sources and methods in researching and formulating our answers. Among these are: older versions of the rules... other DBX rules... searches of our body of emails from the development period... other writings from Phil... and beer drinking whilst posting.
The team must be unanimous in agreement with an answer.
In this case we were of course (else you wouldn't have the entry in the FAQ).
This however doesn't mean that the team was unanimously happy with the answer.
There are good arguments for both sides of this issue as Stevie, Snowcat and others have pointed out in the spirited debate that is ongoing.
There are further arguments as to the effect on the game... history aside. Rivers can produce bad games. They were a problem if I recall as far back as WRG 6th edition as well.
We did entertain the idea of making "Paltry" rivers good going for combat, thus allowing rear support.
Our mission however is to attempt to not change the rules except under the most extreme circumstances.
This was deemed to be too much of a change.
A rethinking of rivers must wait till a new edition.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Jan 8, 2020 18:47:41 GMT
Some "Inside Baseball" on this ruling from the FAQ team. I usually am reluctant to expose the inner-thinking/working of the FAQ team for a variety of good and not so good reasons... but I think for this one I will make an exception. We use a variety of sources and methods in researching and formulating our answers. Among these are: older versions of the rules... other DBX rules... searches of our body of emails from the development period... other writings from Phil... and beer drinking whilst posting. The team must be unanimous in agreement with an answer. In this case we were of course (else you wouldn't have the entry in the FAQ). This however doesn't mean that the team was unanimously happy with the answer. There are good arguments for both sides of this issue as Stevie, Snowcat and others have pointed out in the spirited debate that is ongoing. There are further arguments as to the effect on the game... history aside. Rivers can produce bad games. They were a problem if I recall as far back as WRG 6th edition as well. We did entertain the idea of making "Paltry" rivers good going for combat, thus allowing rear support. Our mission however is to attempt to not change the rules except under the most extreme circumstances. This was deemed to be too much of a change. A rethinking of rivers must wait till a new edition. Joe Collins Joe, I feel this is a sensible approach and a logical decision related to the current rule structure, even if our good friend, Stevie, struggles with it 🤣. I agree that paltry rivers give rise to a possible variation to what is written presently, but this would fit better with a broader update of the rules when it comes about - DBA 4.0 anyone...?! 😉😎 P
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Jan 8, 2020 20:11:41 GMT
I have not done the math, but on your assessment of less than 25% chance of success, given all the adverse conditions, I consider this to be a fair outcome for a battle that Alexander almost lost. Well not really no......because he only “almost” lost it and didn’t actually lose did he! It is all down to prior probability and a ridiculously small sample size of one but if my guess is correct and it is a 25% chance then it isn’t a fair outcome. If history shows Alex won then we would expect that to be the most probable result and not 3:1 against and any other thinking only explains why Las Vegas makes so much money out of gullible people who don’t understand probability. However, this is about Alex fighting across the river and not his phalanx - there is no point in Alex crossing the river to hard flank Hoplites being pushed back by the phalanx is all the phallengites are dead in the river!
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 8, 2020 21:12:47 GMT
Thanks for that Joe, but I did notice one thing from the following:- We use a variety of sources and methods in researching and formulating our answers. Among these are: older versions of the rules... other DBX rules... searches of our body of emails from the development period... other writings from Phil... and beer drinking whilst posting. ...you didn’t mention anything about “taking historical examples into consideration”. Now I know I’ve been a naughty Stevie, but there is one last thing I wonder about. Did the FAQ Team take into consideration the other side-effects of their decision? For example:- * if rivers are ‘neither good nor other going’, then they can be used to negate the Knights quick-kill, which only operates in Good Going. Now does anybody think that it is realistic to abandon the defensive position on the riverbank and dive into the water, just to avoid being quick-killed by Knights? (“Quick lads, there are Knights about, everybody into the water!”) * if a river passes through say a Wood, and I have a Blade in the river, it will fight at full strength, as it’s not in Bad Going. Meanwhile, my opponent is trying to defend the riverbank, but is subject to -2 for being in Bad Going and +1 for the riverbank bonus. Thus my Blade, in the river, has a combat factor of 5, while my opponent’s Blade, defending the riverbank within a Wood, has a combat factor of only 4. Therefore, although in a river, my Blade has a combat advantage! (Standing in a river in bad going is better than trying to defend the riverbank!) All these issues, as well as the historical and gameplay considerations mentioned before, are fixed when the “for combat, rivers are the going of the terrain passed through, just like roads” interpretation is used (which incidentally was first suggested by Paddy... ...but a good idea is still a good idea, no matter the source. Sorry Paddy )By the way, with this interpretation, those that really want to knacker Spears and Pikes can still do so...just have a river passing through rough terrain and the river going will be rough, so no side or rear support for Pikes and Spears. Just a few thoughts. I’ll shut up now.
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Jan 9, 2020 0:00:24 GMT
But Snowcat, nowhere in the rules does it say “FOR COMBAT, a river is neither good nor other going”. The actual going for rivers has been left out, is has been forgotten, it is missing. What you and others are doing is making an interpretation to try and fill in this missing rule... ...an interpretation that makes Alexander lose the battle of Issus (despite the historical accounts), that makes rivers unplayable for Sp and Pk (as they’ll get slaughtered), and makes all ancient commanders of Sp and Pk monumentally stupid (“shall we find an easier place to cross? Naaa, let’s just charge in knowing that it’s suicide”). Me and my mates choose to fill in this missing rule by interpreting it so that for combat rivers are the going of the terrain they pass through...and you know what, with our interpretation Alexander doeswin the battle of Issus, rivers are playable for Sp and Pk, and ancient generals don’t stupidly charge blindly into rivers they have no hope of crossing (and we don’t have to change any of the rules either... ...”For movement” means just that, for movement only, and we are not trying to pretend that it says “For movement and combat” when it doesn’t) Our interpretation gives results that match the ancient historical accounts. The other interpretation does not. Still, if players are not bothered by the writings of those stuffy old ancient scholars, then by all means use the interpretation they prefer...and say to hell with history. We should all be allowed to enjoy DBA in our own way. I repeated what was written in the rules, word for word. And those words, by their connection, leave no room for an alternative interpretation.
"GOOD GOING" is "gentle hills and playing surface other than terrain features." "Rivers" are listed under "LINEAR TERRAIN FEATURES". Linear terrain features are 1 of 2 types of terrain features. Therefore, rivers are a type of terrain feature, and consequently are not GOOD GOING. In "CLOSE COMBAT", "rear support factors" "...apply when elements have another friendly element of the same type lined-up directly behind them and facing the same direction, and both are in GOOD GOING."
Therefore elements crossing a river are not entitled to rear support.
I don't have a stake in the outcome; my reading isn't selective. What you are doing is making an interpretation based on what is NOT written in the rules, while rejecting the interpretation based on what IS.
But go ahead, play it however you want.
|
|
|
Post by chaotic on Jan 9, 2020 2:12:02 GMT
I have not done the math, but on your assessment of less than 25% chance of success, given all the adverse conditions, I consider this to be a fair outcome for a battle that Alexander almost lost. ... If history shows Alex won then we would expect that to be the most probable result and not 3:1 against and any other thinking only explains why Las Vegas makes so much money out of gullible people who don’t understand probability. On the contrary, for all Alexander's battle genius, this is in all probability an instance of him being lucky rather than good.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 9, 2020 6:35:34 GMT
I don't have a stake in the outcome; my reading isn't selective. What you are doing is making an interpretation based on what is NOT written in the rules, while rejecting the interpretation based on what IS. Fair enough. So rivers, being “Linear Terrain Features” (just like Roads), are not Good Going, because they are not listed under the “Area Terrain Features”. “AREA TERRAIN FEATURES includes those listed below as BAD, ROUGH or GOOD GOING and also BUA (see p.7).” Rivers are not listed as one of the Rough Going types, nor as one of the Bad Going types. So what going are they? The rules don’t say. Well, they must be some sort of going, so in order to fill in this missing piece of information some players are reverting to the “For movement, a river is neither good nor other going”, and interpreting this to also apply to combat, even though it specifically says not to do this, but only apply this condition to movement. An alternative interpretation to fill in this missing information is to treat rivers the same as roads, as they are both Linear Terrain features...and this gives a much better game, and is consistent with the ‘neither good nor other going’ condition only applying to movement, just as the river rule says, with no contradictions.
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Jan 9, 2020 6:47:09 GMT
On the contrary, for all Alexander's battle genius, this is in all probability an instance of him being lucky rather than good. .....which works as an explanation, in this case only 25% of them time and only goes so far. The trouble is DBA continually uses this explanation for Alex. Yes you may be able to recreate history I’d Alex rolls a 6:1 BUT if he has to continually roll 6:1s to recreate history then it no longer is a plausible explanation - you just got the balance of the rules wrong.......and if as Stevie argues you can’t even recreate history with a 6:1 (i.e. the phalanx can’t cross the river in the face of Hoplites even with a 6:1) then it is no longer a question of balance.
|
|