|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 11, 2023 20:52:03 GMT
The original rule was that Fast Recoiled on Equals. But we noticed this caused Fast to Recoil from each other in Close Combat. So we noted this in our playtest result. So Phil changed it to Solid Recoil Fast on Equals. Actually Tom, I can see nothing wrong with having both ‘Fast’ elements recoiling from each other on an equal combat score. They are both falling back to regroup before engaging yet again. DBA uses the ‘I-Go-You-Go’ system… …but having a bit of ‘simultaneous action’ would do no harm. On reflection I would have preferred this to Fast Bow not Recoiling Fast on ties. I too could live with Fast both Recoiling rather than staying in a sustained melee. Its better than the screwed up rule we have now (thanks to me not making it clear to Phil...) Trying to get this fixed in DBF - but learning once a bad idea gets enshrined in the rules its harder to get rid of it than getting the Dark Lord out of his Dark Tower. TomT
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 11, 2023 21:03:29 GMT
The point I meant to make was that it is not obvious that medieval/renaissance pike differed from Macedonians. I am comfortable with them all being solid. I share Snowcat's doubts about the existence of fast pike (partly because the thing seems so impractical - I imagine them as a line of synchronised pole vaulters running towards you). Agree, but either way, just be consistent about it. Either get rid of fast pike or give every unit a fast/solid designation (see my thread/rant "Doubling down on fast/solid designations"). Personally, my preferred approach is to keep certain units inherently solid (spear, pike, blade, horde) and others inherently fast (auxilia, warband, psiloi). Bow can be either but should be designated as either bow (fast) or pavise (solid). The lack of logical consistency is off putting. We try to be as logical as possible. But we do need to represent Welsh Spear who used long spears but in loose formations than clumped when facing Mounted. They did not form deep phalanx and were terrain adaptable. So Fast Spear works well. But with the added rule that Long Spears count as Solid v. Mounted (so get Drive Off). The troop categories in DBX are extremely broad and have to cover 3000 years of changing tactics and technology. Hence you don't ever want to limit available options. Norman Knights work as Fast Knights while Burgundian Knights are Solid. Welsh longbows are Fast; English armored Longbows are Solid. Auxilla are Medium Foot and cover a vast array of troop types from French medieval pillards with armor to near naked tribes men. We need all the variety we can get especially if logical consistency is a goal. TomT
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Aug 14, 2023 13:18:34 GMT
"But we do need to represent Welsh Spear who used long spears but in loose formations than clumped when facing Mounted."
IMHO these should be labeled as auxilia (4ax)
And auxilia that hurl javelins (3ax) should be labelled as psiloi.
And loose bows that don't stand and fight (3bw) should also be psiloi.
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Aug 22, 2023 2:19:48 GMT
I personally would treat fast pikes (3Pk) differently by 1) Taking away their rear support bonus 2) Taking away their close combat penalty in Bad Going
In one fell swoop we have a troop type that is on an even footing with Ax and Wb in the rough (and in the open although quite vulnerable to double ranked Wb) and has a slight advantage over mounted in the open (but vulnerable to a charging Kn general).
It would see Welsh spearmen able to hold their own against Irish allies of the English in the forests, capable of holding back English Kn in the open but also brittle especially if the English king leads the charge. We won't see two ranks of Welsh pushing back dismounted English knights (4Bd) or Norman spearmen (Sp)
I may be gilding the lily but I might have suggested this particular format in the early days of DBA3 playtesting.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 22, 2023 7:14:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Aug 25, 2023 14:24:30 GMT
Snowcat - Read it and thought your were spot on.
The thing that drives me nuts about this is that there really is a fast (relatively speaking) pike formation - the kind used by the Swiss and most armies of the late middle ages and renaissance up to the era of pike and shot.
These pikemen fought differently than the heavier/slower pikes used by Alexander and the Hellenistic armies.
The were more aggressive, winning battles on their own instead of just pinning the enemy army for the cavalry charge.
They could operate independently, and form squares for all around defense instead of being part of a long battle line.
They had less armor and no shields, making them more vulnerable to arrows.
They could move rapidly through alpine and other terrain.
Etc.
It nearly makes me as nuts as the lumping of axemen together with swordsmen in the blade category (Saxon Huscarls fought differently than Roman Legions)!
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 26, 2023 1:13:49 GMT
Thanks.
One area where my interpretation differs from Macbeth's is that I believe Fast Pike should receive a -1 in Bad Going, due to their long spears being more of a disadvantage in that terrain vs Ax with shorter weapons. This keeps Ax slightly better than Fast Pike in the former's more beneficial terrain, while giving Fast Pike the edge vs enemy mounted in the open.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 26, 2023 1:16:37 GMT
I personally would treat fast pikes (3Pk) differently by 1) Taking away their rear support bonus 2) Taking away their close combat penalty in Bad Going In one fell swoop we have a troop type that is on an even footing with Ax and Wb in the rough (and in the open although quite vulnerable to double ranked Wb) and has a slight advantage over mounted in the open (but vulnerable to a charging Kn general). It would see Welsh spearmen able to hold their own against Irish allies of the English in the forests, capable of holding back English Kn in the open but also brittle especially if the English king leads the charge. We won't see two ranks of Welsh pushing back dismounted English knights (4Bd) or Norman spearmen (Sp) I may be gilding the lily but I might have suggested this particular format in the early days of DBA3 playtesting. Cheers And for those who rarely travel to the House Rules board, here is the 'topical' post I mentioned:
A while ago I said I'd present an alternative/fix for Fast Pike - 3Pk. Why now? It just came up *again* in another thread. So... What's wrong with Fast Pike? It seems to be a contradiction in terms, a class of fast moving men wielding pikes (or very long spears) in formations that can be as deep as a Macedonian phalanx. And it gets used to represent troops that did not fight that deeply. I shudder when I see Far Eastern armies with 3Pk in them. Rear support available, each element representing 6-10 ranks of men according to the rules. And so we have the 'bamboo freight train'. Chinese armies were usually structured around the system of 5's. Chinese formations were usually not more than 5 ranks deep. Korean armies evolved in parallel with the Chinese, and apart from a few idiosyncrasies, were very similar. Japanese armies evolved separately, adopting a more individualised style of warfare. As such, their formations were often more fluid, and even later during the Warring States period, Ashigaru formations with nagae-yari were usually not more than a handful of ranks deep. So When I see 3Pk, I treat it this way: Is it representing fast nimble troops with long spears but little or no shields, fighting in non-deep formations? If yes, then Ax(X) (see below). If no, then treat as either Sp, 4Pk or 7Hd. Ax(X) = CF 3/4, -1 in Bad Going (due to their long spears being more of a hindrance than a benefit in such terrain). No rear support. Otherwise, as Fast Auxilia.An alternative to this would be a Fast Spear class with similar stats. But the above solution is how I treat them.
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Aug 30, 2023 11:37:14 GMT
Snowcat - Read it and thought your were spot on. The thing that drives me nuts about this is that there really is a fast (relatively speaking) pike formation - the kind used by the Swiss and most armies of the late middle ages and renaissance up to the era of pike and shot. These pikemen fought differently than the heavier/slower pikes used by Alexander and the Hellenistic armies. The were more aggressive, winning battles on their own instead of just pinning the enemy army for the cavalry charge. They could operate independently, and form squares for all around defense instead of being part of a long battle line. They had less armor and no shields, making them more vulnerable to arrows. They could move rapidly through alpine and other terrain. Etc. It nearly makes me as nuts as the lumping of axemen together with swordsmen in the blade category (Saxon Huscarls fought differently than Roman Legions)! 'These pikemen fought differently than the heavier/slower pikes used by Alexander and the Hellenistic armies"
Hellenistic yes, Alexander probably no. The phalanx of Alexander were a lot more mobile and certainly less heavily armoured than later Successor/Macedonian Armies. It was part of Alexander's Military Genius that they tried to emulate, but never really understood.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 30, 2023 14:23:43 GMT
Actually Skb777, I do wonder about that old cliché often passed around by historians that Alexander’s Successors never really understood his tactics.
Alexander never had to face another Macedonian Pike Phalanx, and he never had to face an army as good as his own.
(Mind you, he was still a very clever bloke)
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Aug 30, 2023 19:49:37 GMT
This is true and there was certainly an ‘arms race’ amongst the successors to keep upping the phalanx to bigger and heavier in a bid to outmatch their opponent in what then just became a slogging match. But was this counter intuitive to how it actually operated? There certainly didn’t appear to be any of the combined arms use he employed or pulling the other side out of shape to create any sort of weak point. With Porus he certainly came up against a match for then Macedonians, though he only fought 4 major battles in his own and three of those included river crossing, no easy feat with and doesn’t point towards a dense mass of pike. He was able to win these so decisively that he didn’t need to fight any more than that as the victories were so decisive. But these don’t tell the whole story, it’s with his ‘small wars’ and his lighting attacks that you see how he was able to adapt to any situation. Guess we’ll never know.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 30, 2023 20:44:14 GMT
Oh I don’t know, there are the following examples:-
Battle of Hellespont, 331 BC. Eumenes knew his Cappadocian foot couldn’t face up to the Macedonian Phalangites of Craterus, so he held his centre back and overwhelmed both mounted wings of his opponent, which was pretty clever.
Battle of Paraitakene, 317 BC. Eumenes had his best cavalry on his right, his phalanx in the centre, and LH his left (a typical Alexander tactic). Antigonus did the same, so both sides intended to pin the centre, lead with their right and refuse with their left.
Battle of Gabiene, 316 BC. Antigonus had his best cavalry on his right, while Eumenes had his best cavalry on his left. So both strong mounted wings faced each other, the other wing being held with Light Horse.
Battle of Gaza, 312 BC. Demetrious planned to lead a strong left wing while his right wing was held back at an angle to refuse battle. Ptolemy saw this and countered by making his own right wing strong and delaying with his own left.
I could go on, but the point is clear. The Successors (and by Successors I mean those who knew Alexander personally) DID understand and use Alexander’s tactics. The problem was, their opponent was doing exactly the same thing. (Alex the Great never faced a ‘pin-the-centre-and-envelope-on-one-wing-while-delaying-on-the-other’ tactic)
However, I do agree that the later pike phalanx did become heavier and more ponderous. But I think this was inevitable when both sides are using the very same tactics. If both sides are trying to pin the centre and outflank one wing, it makes sense to be stronger in the centre and break your opponent’s attempt to pin there.
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Aug 31, 2023 10:35:21 GMT
Well no, that is kinda my point. Why they are all more than capable and experienced generals - having been trained from childhood in the arts of war that’s no great surprise.- they imitated, ‘oh Alexander did this so I’ll do it as well’ This often resulted in a ‘revolving door’ I mean I can lead with the right and refuse the left, but it doesn’t make me an Alexander. He only did this because he was usually outnumbered and it was to counter being outflanked. Alexander never had more than 7,000 cavalry, few were LH until after Darius is defeated (generally used as a flank guard) Eumene’s and Antigonus were the best amongst them I would say - them again he was Alexander’s secretary and kept his diary.
And at Issus the Persians had 15,000 Greek hoplites who are. More than a match for a pike phalanx, even more so across a riverbank. So were we can argue Alexander didn’t face an army similar to his own, but then again did the Successors? Only 8,000 Of Antigonid’s heavy infantry are Macedonians, Eumenes’ had 3,000 of Alexander’s veteran Silver Shields who just mauled anything that was in front of them. Alexander did face other considerable challenges (pretty much every conceivable one you can think of - that he was able to overcome. As I said there is a tendency to only look at major battles as these are, let’s be honest, generally were the focus is. None of the successors faced any were near the amount that Alexander did. I imagine he would have been able to find an answer had he ever faced an opposing army of Macedonians or similar. And here’s the thing, we’re the successor just copied Alexander expecting the same results, who’s to say he wouldn’t have changed tack and used different tactics?
Anyways we digress. The ‘hammer and anvil’ of pinning with the phalanx and delivering the decisive blow with the Companions is, I believe, becoming and outdated theory. It was much more subtle than that - the Companions would be supported by the hypaspists, 2 phalanx taxies and light troops.
|
|
|
Post by errico on Sept 11, 2023 11:52:16 GMT
Hi all! How to classify almughavars? Auxilia is too reductive and solid does not reflect their speed of maneuver. what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 11, 2023 14:40:28 GMT
Not my era but 3Bd seems to cover what has been said about them.
Jim
|
|