|
|
Post by dpd on Jul 20, 2023 20:37:26 GMT
Aside from complicating what should the the simplest of rule sets, there does not seem to be any historical justification for the splitting of so many foot units into fast and solid categories. IMHO, some unit types are inherently fast, some are inherently solid. Standard DBA does not use a fast spear (3sp), but 2.2 does. However there is a fast pike designation (3pk). Both types of loose fast formation should be included with 4AX in the auxilia designation. A fast blade (3bd) is more of a warband, especially when Dacian falxmen and Viking raiders are included in its description as examples. Conversely, a solid warband (4bd) described as being capable of fighting in a shield wall is more like a spear unit. As described in another thread, medieval axe men (6bd: Danish axe, Irish gallowglass, Swiss halberdiers, Byzantine varangians, etc.) might be better represented by double based warbands (6wb) - given the style of fighting different from that of sword armed blade units (Roman legions) and their barbaric origins. It seems logical to include hordes (both 5hd and 7hd - neither of which is really solid or fast) with this axe category since rebellious peasants and townspeople would be armed with improvised tools and farm implements (flails, scythes, goedendags - two handed weapons' resembling axes). Confession: I never liked 5hd - rioters are found on city streets, not battlefields. As for the horde description of "unskilled and unenthusiastic foot levied from peasantry to bulk out numbers and perform the menial work of sieges and camps", this describes camp followers and denizens. With 3sp and 3pk added to the solid auxilia (4ax) to make the auxilia category, javelin hurling fast auxilia (3ax) belong more with psiloi (2ps) as skirmishers. And since the typical skirmishers of antiquity included archers, light bow (3bw) should be included as well. With the 3bw gone, bow includes just two solid types, solid bow (4bw) and double base pavise bow (8bw). To summarize: | spear | 4sp, 4wb | solid | | pike | 4pk | solid | | blade | 4bd | solid | | warband | 3wb, 3bd | fast | | warband double / horde | 6bd, 6wb, 5/7hd | fast | | auxilia | 4ax, 3sp, 3pk | fast | | psiloi | 2ps, 3ax, 3bw | fast | | bow | 4bw, 8bw | solid |
Thoughts or comments? |
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Jul 20, 2023 21:57:17 GMT
Hello
Actually a unit historically can be solid and fast.
If you look at the Batavian auxilia at Mons Graupius they start by opening their already open order, they must therefore be fast.
Now having moved up the hill they threw their missiles and closed up their order and went in with the sword, probably legionary style, definitely solid, but probably only four ranks deep.
You cannot do that in DBA.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 21, 2023 0:08:58 GMT
I find myself agreeing with DavidConstable…but this should be possible for ALL 4Ax troops. See fanaticus.boards.net/post/47066/I do wonder if the current ‘Fast’ and ‘Solid’ classifications are nothing more than an artificial distinction created merely to justify the difference between 3 figure and 4 figure bases… …which is nothing more than an old ‘fossil’ basing convention left over from the WRG rules created way back in the 1980’s. Shouldn’t rules be based on history, rather than bending history to fit the rules? |
|
|
|
Post by gonatas on Jul 21, 2023 7:32:09 GMT
There are quite a few of us fossils still about Stevie :-(
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jul 21, 2023 12:32:44 GMT
There are quite a few of us fossils still about Stevie :-( I might be a fossil but I don't identify as old...more as "time-served"....not as compact or compressed.😁 |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jul 21, 2023 15:30:38 GMT
No, the Fast vs Solid split was needed to produce a more believable narrative from the game.
Is Fast spear in 2.2? No, it isn't. This is just a name to allow earlier WRG based armies to play 2.2. The reclassification to 3Pk is to synchronize the rules with other DBX rules.
Should Fast Pike be melded into Aux? No, the fighting style and psychology of these troop types is completely different.
Fast Blade isn't a warband and didn't fight as such. Again, the evidence we have shows these troops fought in very different ways.
We considered simplification. It greatly decreases the capability of the game to produce a believable historical narrative.
I suggest you check out "Great Battles of History for DBA3".
There you will see DBA used to refight historical battles. It does an excellent job at this. I would argue a better job than most other ancient rules.
To answer Stevie.
"I do wonder if the current ‘Fast’ and ‘Solid’ classifications are nothing more than an artificial
distinction created merely to justify the difference between 3 figure and 4 figure bases…
…which is nothing more than an old ‘fossil’ basing convention left over from the WRG rules
created way back in the 1980’s."
Wonder no more. Yes, that is correct. However, in those old rules, the basing difference was a design to produce the correct results from troops on the table.
So, this basing differences were designed to model different battlefield behavior. The problem with early versions of DBA is that we didn't model these.
Therefore, you had really bad results in certain historical matchups.
We attempted to correct this.
My historical refights show that we did a good job, though these is more to do.
Stay tuned to this channel.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Jul 21, 2023 16:07:39 GMT
I find myself agreeing with DavidConstable…but this should be possible for ALL 4Ax troops. See fanaticus.boards.net/post/47066/I do wonder if the current ‘Fast’ and ‘Solid’ classifications are nothing more than an artificial distinction created merely to justify the difference between 3 figure and 4 figure bases… …which is nothing more than an old ‘fossil’ basing convention left over from the WRG rules created way back in the 1980’s. Shouldn’t rules be based on history, rather than bending history to fit the rules? You're right, and yet you'll fail, because Grau, teurer Freund, ist alle Theorie, Und grün des Lebens goldner Baum. (J.W. Goethe) All theory is gray, my friend. But ever green the golden tree of life.
 |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jul 21, 2023 16:37:05 GMT
If 3Bw were to be reclassified as Ps, I'd certainly have to re-think my plans to assemble a Nubian army.
|
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Jul 21, 2023 17:53:51 GMT
"Is Fast spear in 2.2? No, it isn't. This is just a name to allow earlier WRG based armies to play 2.2."
Though I am not privy to the reasoning behind inclusion of this unit in 2.2, it is there plain as day: "4Sp and 3Sp are distinct types: Spears and Light Spears. The rules for these two types are somewhat different." and "Light Spears. The big porcupine’s prickly little brother."
And it's not just DBA. The old DBM army list provide 50 examples of 3ps units. As I mentioned in a recent thread:
"Unlike fast pike, DBA does not include a matching category of fast spear (3sp - except for DBA 2.2 with its "light spear" unit, which oddly does not have a 3pk designation). Many troop types could be reasonably designated as fast spear (typical bronze age foot, hill tribes from Scotland to Anatolia, Islamic foot, city and peasant militia, Saxon fyrd, etc.) So why does spear remains the only DBA foot type without a fast version? You'd think that it would do so if only for consistency's sake."
What does not make sense is a fast pike. 3pk is an oxymoron. Physically a mass of men wielding long sticks can't move fast without becoming a jumbled mess. And yes, auxilia are basically spearmen in loose formation. Imperial auxilia (4ax) were armed with thrusting spears. Javelin throwers were a skirmish unit (3ax - velites) along with slingers (2ps - funditori) and archers (3bw - sagitarii)
But getting back to consistency, what I see is a hodgepodge of cobbled together, ad hoc designations without overall organization that looks like it is slapped together at the last minute. Some units are fast/solid and some are not. Some can be double based, but others cannot.
Do one or the other, but be consistent.
Either the fast/solid designation applies to everyone or to no one. So use both 3sp AND 3pk.
This consistency should also include mounted units. It's good to have fast/solid knights (3kn/4kn) but also create a 4cv to represent cavalry primarily armed with javelins like Roman equites instead pf equites armed with bows like Byzantine cataphracts (3cv and 6cv). Then create a 3lh unit to represent javelin armed light horse like Irish hobelars. For some reason we have 3cm and 2cm, so why not 3lh and 2lh? Differentiate between African (fast) elephants and Indian (solid) elephants. And so on...
Or don't.
Just be consistent.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 21, 2023 18:07:01 GMT
To answer Stevie. "I do wonder if the current ‘Fast’ and ‘Solid’ classifications are nothing more than an artificial distinction created merely to justify the difference between 3 figure and 4 figure bases… …which is nothing more than an old ‘fossil’ basing convention left over from the WRG rules created way back in the 1980’s." Wonder no more. Yes, that is correct. However, in those old rules, the basing difference was a design to produce the correct results from troops on the table. So, this basing differences were designed to model different battlefield behavior. The problem with early versions of DBA is that we didn't model these. Therefore, you had really bad results in certain historical matchups. We attempted to correct this. Wait a minute…let’s see if I got this right… A combat factor of 3 is useless against a combat factor of 5. “I know” someone said, “let’s make 3Ax even more useless by making them recoil from ‘Solid’ foot on an equal score as well. Then they’d be not just useless, but totally and utterly useless. And since they are no danger whatsoever to Legionaries, the Romans can safely form-up in one long line with no reserves.” What bit of history is that simulating? Is it the bit that says certain 3Ax armies can never ever win a battle against heavy foot? Making already weak troops even weaker is not “getting correct results on the table”. As for “having bad results in certain historical matchups”, try 3Ax against Sp or 4Bd. The ‘Solid’ and ‘Fast’ classification has made a bad situation even worse, not better. …from the self appointed chairman of the Committee Representing Auxiliary Personnel. |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jul 21, 2023 18:11:35 GMT
Well, it looks as if we will have to disagree.
Fast Spear simply isn't in DBA 2.2. It is simply Spear.
Your observation about "slapped together" is demonstrably wrong. The development of DBA 3 took many years of careful consideration and many compromises between competing interests. I participated in most of it.
The appellation of Fast vs Solid to Mounted is an interesting idea. We did consider it. The reasons it was discarded are complicated. I am onboard with you dpd (and was onboard during the development) on this one.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Jul 21, 2023 18:21:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jul 21, 2023 19:18:26 GMT
If 3Bw were to be reclassified as Ps, I'd certainly have to re-think my plans to assemble a Nubian army. Do the Nubians as a nearly-all-Ps army, Denis. Loadsa fun 🙂⚔️⚔️..and saves on a fair few figures |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 21, 2023 21:38:53 GMT
Following on from my previous comment, where I said:- “The ‘Solid’ and ‘Fast’ classification has made a bad situation even worse, not better”… …let us now look at the other ramifications. 4Ax, being ‘Solid’, only move 2 BW…making the 4Ax class less useful. And many players consider that 3Bd, being ‘Fast’, moving 3 BW is far too powerful. Now don’t get me wrong…yes, there should be a difference between 3 and 4 figure bases. But burdening an already weak troop class with yet another disadvantage is not the way. Give the weak 3Ax some sort of historical advantage to compensate for their weakness, thereby making them more useful and not a troop class to be avoided. Joe Collins own suggestion to have 3Ax recoil a base depth OR a full base width, just like mounted, is a start, simulating the historical ‘evading an enemy charge’. And let 4Ax move 3 BW, but they get a +1 when fighting against heavy foot. Then the totally artificial ‘recoil on an equal score’ concept can be discarded. (But keep it for mounted vs heavy heavy foot) In the software testing industry, which I have now retired from, there is an old maxim:- “The best software testers are the general public, as they will eventually find all the
faults and flaws in a computer program”.Well, after many thousands of hours of playing DBA 3.0 by wargamers, we are beginning to see all the faults and flaws in the current rules, that even the playtesters missed. Of course, the first step in fixing things is to first admit that something is wrong…  |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 22, 2023 6:55:32 GMT
That links to DBA 2.2+ not DBA 2.2. It think it incorporates the unofficial amendments from that group before they developed Triumph. I suspect Light Spears is one of those amendments. Jim |
|
