|
|
Post by jim1973 on Nov 26, 2023 1:37:02 GMT
Exact battle sites are difficult to pinpoint. But the 254 bodies found under the Lion of Chaeronea monument are most likely the Sacred Band, which puts the battle close by. Google maps gives a great view of the topography. The river comes right up to the spur of Mt Akontio, a great terrain anchor and it would be easy to form a hoplite line of 30000, 8 shields deep, to cover the 4km to the foothills of the range south of Chaeronea. As defenders, they get to choose the battlefield so why not stretch Phillip's line? But we know that the lines were roughly equal and fought hard over a long period. If Phillip's entire army was 16 deep, this wouldn't work. We are missing something. I think Ray is onto something in Battles of 4th Century Greece, where he adds Greek allies to Phillip's army, increasing the heavy infantry. Phillip was as great a diplomat as a general and it is so common in Greek history for hoplites to be on both sides of the battle. But we'll never truly know so everyone's opinion is valid.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Nov 26, 2023 1:49:42 GMT
Medieval battles featuring the Swiss are also better, though I argue in other places that we will never be able (and shouldn't be able) to accurately model the Swiss without a quality grading factor. I can never understand the Swiss pike formations. Extremely dense columns with Halberdiers and Swordsmen thrown in. Didn't dominate cavalry despite having polearms. Very bloody engagements against the Landsknechts. Would they be better as double ranked Blades in DBA? Pikes in front and sides. Halberdiers in the two central rear positions. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by gonatas on Nov 26, 2023 8:11:33 GMT
May I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous post?
"Swiss pikes should, by contrast, be treated as 6Bd"
Good to find a kindred spirit!
As for Chaeronia could it be said that the Macedonian phalanx made a good fist of steamrollering the enemy in front of it?
I suggest that the lesson from this battle is that hoplites and phalanx were fairly evenly matched.
The Macedonians had better tactical options and also used them well.
Double based pike in DBA reduce the players tactical options considerably.
Stephen
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Nov 26, 2023 8:20:24 GMT
I've never been called honourable. And gentleman? I'm Australian! But I'll take it.
Maybe early Swiss as 6Bd for their mobility and later Swiss mercenaries as 8Bd?
As for Hoplites v Pikes, I suspect you're right. It was the presence of Phillip and Alexander that made the difference. Even legionaries had to fight it out against phalanx formations, as the prototypes found out against Pyrrhus. Flexibility and tactical ability count for a lot. That's good for gamers!
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Nov 26, 2023 8:31:03 GMT
I've never been called honourable. And gentleman? I'm Australian! But I'll take it. Maybe early Swiss as 6Bd for their mobility and later Swiss mercenaries as 8Bd? As for Hoplites v Pikes, I suspect you're right. It was the presence of Phillip and Alexander that made the difference. Even legionaries had to fight it out against phalanx formations, as the prototypes found out against Pyrrhus. Flexibility and tactical ability count for a lot. That's good for gamers! Cheers Jim We already have the early Swiss as 6Bd, so someone in the list-writing team thought it fits…👍🏼 |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Nov 26, 2023 13:49:57 GMT
I've never been called honourable. And gentleman? I'm Australian! But I'll take it. Maybe early Swiss as 6Bd for their mobility and later Swiss mercenaries as 8Bd? As for Hoplites v Pikes, I suspect you're right. It was the presence of Phillip and Alexander that made the difference. Even legionaries had to fight it out against phalanx formations, as the prototypes found out against Pyrrhus. Flexibility and tactical ability count for a lot. That's good for gamers! Cheers Jim We already have the early Swiss as 6Bd, so someone in the list-writing team thought it fits…👍🏼 The Swiss being 6Bd would be a good "fit" to the problem, but that would also make them fast and recoil on ties with Solid foot.🤔 I suppose you can't have everything and don't want to make them more advantaged than other Pikes....or could they be included in the Push of Pike's rule suggested by Medievalthomas,that other none-pikes recoil from pikes on a tie? |
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Nov 27, 2023 3:53:10 GMT
The problem of frontage can be fixed by double bases, but other problems will need factors sorting.
It seems to me that the rules are going to change so much they will no longer be DBA.
Always remember "a camel is a horse designed by a committee".
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Nov 27, 2023 3:53:52 GMT
My answer, and the one we have taken in DBF is up the combat power of pike and make the pursuit optional. They now recoil all non-pike on equal scores. Pursuit is as I have stated... optional. These may seem small changes, but they do seem to produce a much better outcome. So when do I get to exercise the option to pursue? Is is straight after the combat or after my line of Pk has driven back the enemy can I exercise the option then and have the whole line pursue? (from a gamers perspective that is when I would prefer to exercise the option - after all if I have to choose at the conclusion of each combat and only one of the line does well I could still end up in the custard_). I also wonder why there was such a worry about changing army lists? - the My Little Sample Thread that I created indicates that there was not much fear about changing other lists given that across my stable only about 10 were unchanged and a goodly number need new elements to be fielded legally. As for the power of a double based Pk, you can counter that by reducing the number of Pk elements in the army - if an army used to have 6x4Pk you could max it as 3 or 4 elements of 8Pk and fill the army with more support troops. Or is that a step too far. Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Nov 27, 2023 4:02:21 GMT
The problem of frontage can be fixed by double bases, but other problems will need factors sorting. It seems to me that the rules are going to change so much they will no longer be DBA. Always remember "a camel is a horse designed by a committee". David Constable Hi David. I don't think DBA3 itself is going to change. At least not for a long time. DBF will have its own ideas. Players will use their own house rules. But in the end, the common language will be the purple book (and what a tough language it is! 😉). Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 27, 2023 7:37:49 GMT
As for the power of a double based Pk, you can counter that by reducing the number of Pk elements in the army - if an army used to have 6x4Pk you could max it as 3 or 4 elements of 8Pk and fill the army with more support troops. Or is that a step too far. Cheers That still seems reasonable to me.
(For instance, in ADLG you don't get the option to have single element AND/OR rear-supported Pike. Pike is Pike. It's a unit, deeper than most other foot, with a proportionately higher CF and cost to field. Double-based Pk in DBA would roughly approximate this.)
|
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Nov 27, 2023 16:33:30 GMT
The problem of frontage can be fixed by double bases, but other problems will need factors sorting. It seems to me that the rules are going to change so much they will no longer be DBA. Always remember "a camel is a horse designed by a committee". David Constable Hi David. I don't think DBA3 itself is going to change. At least not for a long time. DBF will have its own ideas. Players will use their own house rules. But in the end, the common language will be the purple book (and what a tough language it is! 😉). Cheers Jim Hello Jim Up to 2019 in the UK all the completion's and local games I saw and played in used the rules as written, except for dismounting. By using local rules you are going back to a time when every club had its own rules, and the Purple Primer had just been published. That was no joke if playing in the Nationals, I once turned up to play a game with no army lists or rules, luckily my opponent was in the same situation. I am beginning to wonder that in the UK the players might not want to get together and write their own version. David Constable |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Nov 27, 2023 17:12:51 GMT
Hi David. I don't think DBA3 itself is going to change. At least not for a long time. DBF will have its own ideas. Players will use their own house rules. But in the end, the common language will be the purple book (and what a tough language it is! 😉). Cheers Jim Hello Jim Up to 2019 in the UK all the completion's and local games I saw and played in used the rules as written, except for dismounting. By using local rules you are going back to a time when every club had its own rules, and the Purple Primer had just been published. That was no joke if playing in the Nationals, I once turned up to play a game with no army lists or rules, luckily my opponent was in the same situation. I am beginning to wonder that in the UK the players might not want to get together and write their own version. David Constable Or a case of too many cooks..... |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 27, 2023 17:57:28 GMT
Chaeronea for example plays much differently (Tease/Hint... you may just see this scenario one day). Pydna does as well. Very interested to see if it's Phillip's feigned flight and counterattack to defeat the Athenians or Alexander turning the Theban flank with a cavalry charge that wins the day in your scenario. Maybe you've even goth the Hypaspists as somewhat more useful than 4Ax!  Cheers Jim Yes, the Hypaspists will be more useful for certain.
The battle was fought west of Chaeronea in the open. There simply isn't enough room further down the valley for the armies to deploy. The Haemon stream references are a joke. I actually had difficulty finding it... I can pee more water than it puts out. The spring in Chaeronea itself is more important I think as well as the streams further up the valley. Please note the the Kifisos (river?... err more like a stream) still limits the battlefield... it isn't deep, but there was probably (and still is) significant growth to present a barrier.
I find it a mistake to take the Lion Monument as a marker for the battlefield. It is on the outskirts of the town... on the road coming from Boeotia. A logical place for a monument/gravesight...both today and two thousand years ago.
The tumulus is where most were buried after the battle. It is further down the valley, but was probably placed there to protect the town from contamination. I would use Phil Sabin's Lost Battles map as a good guide.
In any regards, placing the battle there solves the frontage problem without resorting to oddly angles lines as some historians have done. You still don't have the "rise" where Philip retreated... but that is another story.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 27, 2023 18:01:20 GMT
BTW... All the photos of the lion monument misrepresent it.
It is huge!
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Nov 30, 2023 10:38:39 GMT
Pike have always been a problem in DBA/DBM since it began and has never been fixed, and I doubt it ever will be. Spear are simply superior to Pike. 1 element of pike CF3 (same as Aux, I mean come on) and 1 element of spear CF 4 (5 if you add side support) the glaring and obvious point is trying to force pike into 2 deep isn't the answer, but to make then the same CF as spear with an extra 2 for a second rank and get rid of the ridiculous automatic follow-up (which I believe is happening.
|
|
