|
Post by skb777 on Oct 12, 2023 12:07:21 GMT
‘as they would by choice, more often than not, no?’
Not necessarily - they could very easily fight 8 deep, even 10 (same as Sp) so why force them to fight 2 deep elements by giving them a crappy CF when 1 deep?
And yes I do think the problem is you are constantly giving Pk based armies a disadvantage by giving them the problem of being continuously outflanked. I’m probably in a minority in thinking that the phalanx Philip II designed was more flexible and not this unwieldy block that could only charge straight ahead.
I don’t really sign up to the ‘hammer and anvil’ philosophy either.
Thread should be changed to Poor Old Baldie
Out of interest who were the Mac’s up against in these battles Baldie?
I like using them to be fair as you do get a sense of victory and achievement when they win, rather than just lucky matchups or dice 😜
|
|
|
Post by Les1964 on Oct 12, 2023 14:00:09 GMT
Not necessarily - they could very easily fight 8 deep, even 10 (same as Sp) so why force them to fight 2 deep elements by giving them a crappy CF when 1 deep? Didn't they also form up 32 ranks deep , so how many elements deep would that be game wise ?
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Oct 12, 2023 15:10:05 GMT
‘as they would by choice, more often than not, no?’ Not necessarily - they could very easily fight 8 deep, even 10 (same as Sp) so why force them to fight 2 deep elements by giving them a crappy CF when 1 deep? And yes I do think the problem is you are constantly giving Pk based armies a disadvantage by giving them the problem of being continuously outflanked. I’m probably in a minority in thinking that the phalanx Philip II designed was more flexible and not this unwieldy block that could only charge straight ahead. I don’t really sign up to the ‘hammer and anvil’ philosophy either. Thread should be changed to Poor Old Baldie Out of interest who were the Mac’s up against in these battles Baldie? I like using them to be fair as you do get a sense of victory and achievement when they win, rather than just lucky matchups or dice 😜 Poor old Baldie would be an acceptable moniker. Have fought against Alex many times as despite being crap he is at least popular Don't think I have used him in a DBA battle other than against mi sen. The battles I recently played were against The and. I have used several successor type armies though and have had great fun with them. True to my new nickname I also love EAP and love it when I actually win with em. Got a lovely mounted Alex and some Seleucid cataphracts on the go at the moment. Given that I have taken the Ancient British to tourneys for no other reason than I love em Alex may still get his chance.
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Oct 12, 2023 16:01:06 GMT
I don’t really sign up to the ‘hammer and anvil’ philosophy either. So the fact that it is mentioned by Polyaenus, Diodorus, Plutarch, Polybius and Demosthenes isn’t important then? (….and that’s only the historical sources I mentioned in my dissertation - I’m sure there are more!)
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Oct 12, 2023 16:20:27 GMT
Not necessarily - they could very easily fight 8 deep, even 10 (same as Sp) so why force them to fight 2 deep elements by giving them a crappy CF when 1 deep? Didn't they also form up 32 ranks deep , so how many elements deep would that be game wise ? 4 😂
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Oct 12, 2023 16:21:34 GMT
I don’t really sign up to the ‘hammer and anvil’ philosophy either. So the fact that it is mentioned by Polyaenus, Diodorus, Plutarch, Polybius and Demosthenes isn’t important then? (….and that’s only the historical sources I mentioned in my dissertation - I’m sure there are more!) I always preferred Arrian. But pinning with the phalanx and delivery the winning stroke with the companions? Alexander always timed and picked the correct point to attack and was almost always with the companions, the hypaspists and a taxeis of pike (Asthetairoi) along with the agrianians. So no I don’t buy folks interpretation of the sources that the infantry were on to there to pin the enemy whilst the cav rode to glory.
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Oct 12, 2023 17:51:29 GMT
So you acknowledge that it was a tactic used by Alex but contest the interpretation that it was his only tactic? Well you’ll have to come up with a reference for that assertion….because as far as I was aware nobody was saying that. However, you need to also acknowledge the earlier use of the tactic by Philip when Alex was back home operating as Regent.
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Oct 12, 2023 18:40:38 GMT
So you acknowledge that it was a tactic used by Alex but contest the interpretation that it was his only tactic? Well you’ll have to come up with a reference for that assertion….because as far as I was aware nobody was saying that. However, you need to also acknowledge the earlier use of the tactic by Philip when Alex was back home operating as Regent. Where did I say that?
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Oct 12, 2023 19:12:42 GMT
3 posts above this one! I assumed the word “on” was an auto-correct for “only” because that made your post make sense. However, if I misinterpreted please clarify because at the moment you are not being clear as to why you “….don’t really sign up to the ‘hammer and anvil’ philosophy…”. …..after all it does come with clear historical evidence that it was not only a tactic but a commonly used and intended tactic of both Philip and Alex.
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Oct 12, 2023 21:26:43 GMT
3 posts above this one! I assumed the word “on” was an auto-correct for “only” because that made your post make sense. However, if I misinterpreted please clarify because at the moment you are not being clear as to why you “….don’t really sign up to the ‘hammer and anvil’ philosophy…”. …..after all it does come with clear historical evidence that it was not only a tactic but a commonly used and intended tactic of both Philip and Alex. I’m not sure I follow what you are referring to? Do you mean this line? ‘I’m probably in a minority in thinking that the phalanx Philip II designed was more flexible and not this unwieldy block that could only charge straight ahead.’ I then said I don’t sign up for the hammer and anvil philosophy either. That would make it a separate issue. It seems pretty clear to me, apologise if you have misunderstood that it is two separate issues. Happy to oblige, understanding the course of Alexander’s battles is complicated by the fact he is the star of the show and it all centres on him and the fighting around him. Sources do not always agree on events either. I would argue that the tactics involved are more subtle than ‘hammer and anvil’ if you want to include Phillip at Chaeronea he used a feined retreat ( if you believe this was intentional or not is another matter) to create a gap to exploit. Alexander used a variation a Gaugamela with a move to the right. Granicus - “Polyaenus does mention Alexander outflanking the enemy left, but Arrian’s claims that the Persian line was very long and that it collapsed when the centre (rather than the left flank) was broken. He also mentions a spearhead of cavalry and infantry to lead the attacks, followed by an oblique attack to the right and a desperate struggle to gain the bank. Issus - ‘a swift attack would shake the enemy, and the sooner they came to grips the less damage would be done by Persian archers. Arrian says that Alexander’s charge quickly shattered the Persian left as soon as it hit them. The rest of the Macedonians were held up by the steep banks, Alexander had already won the day. Gaugamela - ‘for a time alexander continued to advance on column; presently, however, the movement of the Persian cavalry…… left a gap i the Persian front - and this was Alexander’s opportunity. He promptly made for the gap, and, with his companions and all the heavy infantry on the sector of the line, drove in his wedge. Adrian p.169 Hydaspes - the heavy infantry……with orders not to engage until it was evident that the Indians, both horse and foot, had been thrown into confusion by Macedonian cavalry.. Arrian p.277 Macedonian Kings were expected to lead for the front, so it is not unusual for Alexander to win the day. It was expected after all, but I don’t read anywhere that the phalanx were only there as the anvil, if anything some sort of inclined move to the right to open a gap or got a weak spot and this only after careful preparation to secure flanks and the use of combined arms. Poor Old Baldie, what have you started 🙈
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Oct 12, 2023 23:18:51 GMT
I agree with your comment that “the phalanx Macedonian was more flexible and not this unwieldy block that could only charge straight ahead.” ….less so for the later Successors but that’s a different discussion. I also agree that the tactics involved are more subtle than ‘hammer and anvil’ especially in siege warfare (obviously.)
However, you “didn’t sign up to the the hammer and anvil philosophy” but have subsequently retracted that statement for a more nuanced agreement that it was an important tactic that emphasised the role of Alex or the Macedonian King but was not the only consideration.
Hence, I think we are furiously agreeing that Pike under DBA does not fully represent the phalanx under Philip or Alexander. So what to do about it? …and on top of that what to do about Alex’s Hypaspists who are utterly neutered under DBA?
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Oct 12, 2023 23:31:29 GMT
‘subsequently retracted that’ I haven’t retracted it at all, I don’t buy the ‘hammer and anvil’ at all.
Well there’s the rub. Within the DBA system there isn’t any, currently, anyway to differentiate élite troops maybe a new classification is needed? Would one element of poke really be that different from one of spear?
Ultimately I suppose that someone else’s call.
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 13, 2023 0:45:28 GMT
I agree with your comment that “the phalanx Macedonian was more flexible and not this unwieldy block that could only charge straight ahead.” ….less so for the later Successors but that’s a different discussion. I also agree that the tactics involved are more subtle than ‘hammer and anvil’ especially in siege warfare (obviously.) However, you “didn’t sign up to the the hammer and anvil philosophy” but have subsequently retracted that statement for a more nuanced agreement that it was an important tactic that emphasised the role of Alex or the Macedonian King but was not the only consideration. Hence, I think we are furiously agreeing that Pike under DBA does not fully represent the phalanx under Philip or Alexander. So what to do about it? …and on top of that what to do about Alex’s Hypaspists who are utterly neutered under DBA? Re Hypaspists - perhaps allow their element to be (their choice before deployment) 4Pk, 4Sp or 4Ax or 3Bd?
Maybe not quite so many options (as above), but in principle would something like that be apt?
Should this 'how to fix Pk' move to its own thread?
|
|
|
Post by aelbert on Oct 13, 2023 6:36:38 GMT
MMM... real problem is not the 16 deep phalanx but the 30 plus deep Roman organisation that we don't see on the DBA battlefield.
Cheers B
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 13, 2023 6:40:06 GMT
Because it's not possible in a 12 element game?
|
|