|
|
Post by dpd on Nov 12, 2022 21:16:47 GMT
Most of the main maneuver elements (SP, PK, BD, WB. BW, KN) follow a standard designation pattern for unit subtypes: fast/light (3 figures), solid/tough (4 figures), doubled/deep (6 or 8 figures).
Ignoring HD, and stand alone skirmish units like 2LH and 2PS, the only main maneuver elements that don't follow this pattern are CV and AX.
There is no doubled/deep 8AX unit or a solid/tough 4CV unit.
Consistency cries out for these types of units (especially when we include 8SP for only the Thebans and 6BD for only the Swiss) to create a uniform element categorization.
So can anyone think of historical examples of either an 8AX (Batavian Auxilia?) or 4CV (Mongol Kheshig?) unit.
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Nov 12, 2022 22:54:55 GMT
...I can imagine everything...but for what purpose??
|
|
Mr.E
Beneficiarii
New comer to DBA
Posts: 64
|
Post by Mr.E on Nov 21, 2022 20:18:52 GMT
Interesting! 8AX (assuming they get a +1 in combat) could easily be some warring states chinese troop too disciplined to be 7hd but not as solid to be PK . regarding the 4cv what is their difference with 4KN ? +1 and keeping the Cav combat result?
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 21, 2022 22:24:22 GMT
4Cv... no.
8Ax... interesting.
Hypaspists perhaps?
Possible for Hannibal's Gauls and Spanish?
is there any evidence either of these deployed in deep formations?
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by Vic on Nov 22, 2022 8:39:56 GMT
The main problem with the 8Ax concept is that it's not clear to me how a deep formation changes the behaviour of Auxilia in battle. Double-based elements should be reserved for those situations in which increased depth has a tangible effect on performance, otherwise isn't it more a case of two elements of 4Ax lined up?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 22, 2022 16:29:20 GMT
4Cv... no. 8Ax... interesting. Hypaspists perhaps? Possible for Hannibal's Gauls and Spanish? is there any evidence either of these deployed in deep formations? Joe Collins I have some info Joe. Hannibal’s formation at Cannae in 216 BC:- “On his left wing, close to the river, he stationed the Iberian and Celtic horse opposite the Roman cavalry;
next to them half the Libyan heavy-armed foot; and next to them the Iberian and Celtic foot; next the
other half of the Libyans, and, on the right wing, the Numidian horse. Having now got them all into a line
he advanced with the central companies of the Iberians and Celts; and so arranged the other companies
next these in regular gradations, that the whole line became crescent-shaped, diminishing in depth towards
it’s extremities.
The armour of the Libyans was Roman, for Hannibal had armed them with a selection of the spoils taken in
previous battles.”
(Source Polybius: sections 113 and 114 of:-
www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Histories_of_Polybius/JoljDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=polybius+histories&printsec=frontcover )
I have always thought that Hannibal should have his own army list:- 2 x Cv, 2 x LH, 2 x 4Bd (veteran Libyans using captured equipment), 4 x 4Ax, and 2 x Ps, with an aggression of 2 (so he gets to choose the battlefield). Having two of the Ax as 8Ax would make his centre stronger, and not be destroyed so easily. As for Philip’s and Alexander’s Hypaspists…I don’t think 8Ax is much help. They’d have a CF of 3 +1 (for double base), so they might as well be Spears. And neither Ax nor Sp will pursue…so much for them being a ‘hinge’ between the Pk and Kn. I much prefer treating Hypaspists as 3Bd (see fanaticus.boards.net/thread/520/alexander-hypaspists-blades ). More powerful against foot, can ‘quick-kill’ Kn on an equal score, and faster, even when in terrain, who WILL pursue and not leave a weak spot in the battleline allowing the enemy to overlap friends. |
|
