|
Post by dpd on Sept 25, 2023 20:05:31 GMT
In the DBM rules there is a rule allowing for the doubling of Auxilia (X):
"However, they benefit from deep formations."
And, "Auxilia (X) add +1 for each supporting 2nd or 3rd rank of auxilia (X), if the 2nd rank is of auxilia (X)."
And, "Other auxilia in close combat against spears, pikes, blades, auxilia or bowmen to their front add +1 for a supporting 2nd rank of auxilia of the same grade."
So in DBA, if Warbands can be doubled (3wb + 3wb) and receive a rear support bonus, why not their cousins the Auxilia?
Though Warbands get a +1 rear support bonus in close combat with foot other than Psiloi, it would make sense to give this bonus to javelin-hurling Auxilia against all foot.
Possible historical examples: elite Roman auxilia like the Batavians, late Roman 1,000 man "legions" (who bear a striking resemblance to earlier Auxilia units), Spanish almogavars.
DBM gives as similar bonus to Psiloi; "Psiloi (S) or (O) who are fighting skirmishers to their front add +1 for a supporting rank of psiloi of the same or (O) grade."
In DBA, the mounted skirmishers, Light Horse and Light Camel, get a +1 in rear support bonus in close combat against any troops.
So why not let the foot skirmishers, Psiloi, get the same rear support bonus as mounted skirmishers?
Possible historical examples: early hand gunners that needed deeper formation to allow for reloading.
TLDR: in DBM there are explicit rules giving rear support bonuses to auxilia and psiloi, and in DBA there are related units (warbands and light horse/camel) who already get this bonus. So why not give these bonuses to auxilia and psiloi in DBA as well?
Thoughts or comments?
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Sept 25, 2023 20:31:30 GMT
...cheers, you are a good mixer first you are talking about Ax than you change to wb and last but not least to Psinou. But there is a difference between dba with 12 elements and DBM with 60 or 80 elements...cheers...
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 26, 2023 7:36:47 GMT
............ Thoughts or comments? I think DBM also had a special rule which allowed Ancient Spanish Ps to give rear support to their LH. Of course, one could just play DBM instead of the 12 element game.
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Sept 26, 2023 9:18:15 GMT
............ Thoughts or comments? I think DBM also had a special rule which allowed Ancient Spanish Ps to give rear support to their LH. Of course, one could just play DBM instead of the 12 element game. DBA 2.0 did allow Ps to give rear support
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Sept 26, 2023 9:20:45 GMT
Why not allow rear support to every unit of the same type? Even artillery would work better with some more logistics behind them... Why? Because, as PB pointed out concerning army composition: The "proportions of different troops fielded were decided by availability within their culture and not cost-effectiveness against the current opponent". So the composition of an army and (I like to add:) its style of fighting is rather a question of its culture than of pure tactical planning. And remember: the advantage of rear support is always connected with the disadvantage of a shortened battle line, which can be overlapped or even flanked more easily. – Decisions, decisions... The only clarification (desperately) needed is: The combat outcome in case of recoil, flight, destruction or follow up of the front element must also be applied to the supporting element. (In order to simulate the medieval style of first and second "Treffen", we might even consider to allow rear support to different unit types, just as a fresh and new idea, thrown into the ring, about which I haven’t thought about yet...or maybe the possibility to com- bine attacks and to attack through the front elements?)
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 26, 2023 9:48:40 GMT
I think DBM also had a special rule which allowed Ancient Spanish Ps to give rear support to their LH. Of course, one could just play DBM instead of the 12 element game. DBA 2.0 did allow Ps to give rear support But only to Sp, Bd or Ax fighting mounted or Wb, they couldn't support LH as ?Polybius says the Spanish Ps used to do. Allowing 1Ps to potentially support 3 Sp/Bd/Ax was a nice touch though.
|
|
|
Post by Les1964 on Sept 26, 2023 10:42:52 GMT
............ Thoughts or comments? I think DBM also had a special rule which allowed Ancient Spanish Ps to give rear support to their LH. Of course, one could just play DBM instead of the 12 element game. Also Japanese Cv could have Ax support in one list . Yep could play DBM/M 100 if you want more rules .
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 26, 2023 11:03:40 GMT
Why not allow rear support to every unit of the same type? Even artillery would work better with some more logistics behind them... Why? Because, as PB pointed out concerning army composition: The "proportions of different troops fielded were decided by availability within their culture and not cost-effectiveness against the current opponent". So the composition of an army and (I like to add:) its style of fighting is rather a question of its culture than of pure tactical planning. And remember: the advantage of rear support is always connected with the disadvantage of a shortened battle line, which can be overlapped or even flanked more easily. – Decisions, decisions... The only clarification (desperately) needed is: The combat outcome in case of recoil, flight, destruction or follow up of the front element must also be applied to the supporting element. (In order to simulate the medieval style of first and second "Treffen", we might even consider to allow rear support to different unit types, just as a fresh and new idea, thrown into the ring, about which I haven’t thought about yet...or maybe the possibility to com- bine attacks and to attack through the front elements?) And there once was a thread called 'Universal Rear Support'...
(There really was!)
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Sept 26, 2023 11:06:18 GMT
DBA 2.0 did allow Ps to give rear support But only to Sp, Bd or Ax fighting mounted or Wb, they couldn't support LH as ?Polybius says the Spanish Ps used to do. Allowing 1Ps to potentially support 3 Sp/Bd/Ax was a nice touch though. Maybe I didn’t word it correctly - to say ‘just go and play DBMM if you want those rules’ DBA did used to include a basic form of rear support, so it isn’t exclusive to DBMM. I thought it was better for it I’m all honesty as it’s allows Ps to still have a role once the battle lines close to fighting other than just hanging around on rough ground in the wings.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 26, 2023 11:42:43 GMT
But only to Sp, Bd or Ax fighting mounted or Wb, they couldn't support LH as ?Polybius says the Spanish Ps used to do. Allowing 1Ps to potentially support 3 Sp/Bd/Ax was a nice touch though. Maybe I didn’t word it correctly - to say ‘just go and play DBMM if you want those rules’ DBA did used to include a basic form of rear support, so it isn’t exclusive to DBMM. I thought it was better for it I’m all honesty as it’s allows Ps to still have a role once the battle lines close to fighting other than just hanging around on rough ground in the wings. V3 still does include rear support, although not by Ps. Any thoughts on the question "as set" though? Should Ax get rear support from Ax? How about Ps supporting Ps (as opposed to supporting heavier infantry types)?
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Sept 26, 2023 12:12:28 GMT
As Brian pointed out, not all Aux fought that way.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 26, 2023 12:48:59 GMT
As Brian pointed out, not all Aux fought that way. True. However, one could make it list-specific. Another option might be to allow 4Ax to provide rear support to 4Ax, but have 3Ax neither give nor receive rear support. I can't think of any examples where Ps fought in deep formations. However, if one were to allow Ps to give rear support to Ps, I think one might also need to revisit the current no front corner to front corner overlap rule.
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Sept 26, 2023 13:26:44 GMT
"Yep could play DBM/M 100 if you want more rules"
Not looking for more rules, just consistent rules.
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Sept 26, 2023 13:30:39 GMT
As Brian pointed out, not all Aux fought that way. True. However, one could make it list-specific. Another option might be to allow 4Ax to provide rear support to 4Ax, but have 3Ax neither give nor receive rear support. I can't think of any examples where Ps fought in deep formations. However, if one were to allow Ps to give rear support to Ps, I think one might also need to revisit the current no front corner to front corner overlap rule. In terms of rules that need fixing I’d say 4 Aux getting rear support is probably somewhere way down the bottom of the list for me. I’d say I’d say LH having rear support should be taken out rather than having LI brought up to the same level.
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Sept 26, 2023 13:31:26 GMT
Perhaps we should do away with inherently doubled units (6Kn/6Cv/6Bd/8Sp/8Bw) provided in the army lists, but allow any unit to be doubled and get the +1 rear support bonus?
Also, I was never clear why only solid units are doubled for spear and pike (8sp and 8pk) while only fast blade and warband units are doubled (6bd and 6wb)?
|
|