Deep/Double Auxilia and/or Psiloi?

I would think these are specific historical examples that PB wanted to include such as the Theban phalanx or the Persian sparabara. My gut feeling is that PB wanted to avoid rear support but was forced to "beef up" light horse and warband. Pikes are modelled to represent his view on the legion v phalanx contest. The playtest group may know more. I'm on PB's side, in that I would rather avoid rear support where possible in a 12 element game.

Cheers

Jim

PS I think Ps are great in DBA3. 3Ax are OK. 4Ax are a problem child

Isn’t this simple? An element of Aux in DBA (a 12 element game) represents a far larger body of troops than an element of Aux in DBM (a 50+ element game.) So while rear support can be justified in DBM it can’t in DBA because it is set at a far higher level of abstraction.

"but was forced to "beef up" warband"

Probably by his missus who's favourite army is the Britons.

…..no hornet’s nests kicked either! 😂

Not yet….I’ll get me boots….😁🐝🐝🐝🐝

Well I’ll only talk about the armies I know so:
I think 8Sp only applies to the Thebans who used unusually deep Hoplite formations that inspired Philip of Macedon to develop the Pike blocks that under Alexander conquered the whole known world. These were tactically significant in Hoplite warfare and were used in numbers - so are probably appropriate in the 12 element game.
6Bd are the highly effective Swiss flying columns that can account for 3/4 the army so again tactically significant in a 12 element game.
The 6Kn in my forces are the Teutonic Spitz Wedges, again tactically significant in a 12 element game.
In these all cases the Double based element is optional (so take it or leave it but it adds flavour) and comes with the VP penalty for the first one lost. So for me the logic holds out in these examples. However, I’m happy to explore the other double based elements to find the exception that proves the rule.

It is worth noting that the Ax that can give and get rear support are Ax(X) which are the equivalent of 3Pk in DBA

Unpopular opinion but I miss the Ps rear support from DBA2 as I don't see that it conceptually (rather than physically) represents the disruption to attackers of a skirmisher screen. That's just me though

Back in the day I ran a 'DBA with a Twist' event where Hd gave rear support in a similar way to how Ps did in 2.2 (giving +1 to the element in front and the two in side edge and front corner contact with the primary supported element). I saw this as the morale effect of having massed troops backing up the main line (which is one theory as to why some armies brought in vast numbers of poorly trained and armed troops). If the prime element was destroyed the supporting element was as well (as was the general effect back then - any element giving +1 in rear support also died if the front rank was destroyed) but I added the extra rule that if the front rank element was recoiled the supporting Hd fled.

I suggested it in the DBA3 playtest and it was briefly considered before being knocked on the head under the situation of "We've already gotten rid of that ridiculous 3 way rear support for Ps, why would we bring it back for Hd'. I'm not sure that the alternative method of making Hd somewhat valuable by not counting as losses was a step forward - it turns them into expendables.

cheers