Post by stevie on Dec 29, 2016 13:47:37 GMT
The Hypaspists were the elite foot troops of both Philip II and Alexander the Great’s armies.
But DBA 3.0 treats them as merely lowly 4Ax, no better than Hellenistic Greek thureophoroi.
And we all know how useless 4Ax are....
As DBA 3.0 does not have any rules for elite troops, I suggest that the Hypaspists element of army II/12 (Alexandrian Macedonians) be used as blades instead of auxiliaries.
Now I’m not saying that they threw their spears away and fought with swords, just that, to quote from DBA 3.0: “Troops are defined by battlefield behaviour instead of the usual formation, armour, weapons and morale classes. We distinguish only between troops whose fighting style differs sufficiently to need to be treated differently by either their general or their foe.”
Let’s consider the effects of this change:-
In bad going: auxiliaries have a combat factor of 3...and so do blades (and no pursuit in bad going).
In other going: auxiliaries have a combat factor of 3...but blades have a combat factor of 5.
Against mounted: both have a combat factor of 3...but blades can quick-kill knights.
If shot at: auxiliaries have a combat factor of 3...but blades have a combat factor of 4.
Pursuit: yes, blades will pursue...but this can be an advantage, as it saves PIPs.
So blades are greatly superior to auxiliaries. Just what you might expect from elite foot troops.
Now blades are not as good as auxiliaries when fighting warbands or scythed chariots, as they can be quick-killed by these troop types. But Philip and Alexander never faced warbands, and only faced scythed chariots in a single battle, at Gaugamela, where they were on a different part of the battlefield and never actually met. And by the time Alexander faced elephants, in India, the Hypaspists had already been upgraded to pikes (army list II/15, Alexandrian Imperial).
I would even go so far as using them as 3Bd instead of 4Bd.
Then they would be able to act as a sort of ‘hinge’ between the slow pike phalanx and the fast moving mounted troops. They would also be faster in rough or bad going, which seems fitting as Alexander always made sure they were with him on his many forced marches.
(It might seem odd to have a 4 figure element fighting as a 3 figure element...but dismounted knights can be depicted as 3 blade yet fight as 4 blade. Why not have the Hypaspists doing the reverse?)
After all, although they never actually met, are we really saying that these top elite foot troops were INFERIOR to tribal Celtiberian scutarii, Dacian falxmen, or Lykian drepanon warriors?
But DBA 3.0 treats them as merely lowly 4Ax, no better than Hellenistic Greek thureophoroi.
And we all know how useless 4Ax are....
As DBA 3.0 does not have any rules for elite troops, I suggest that the Hypaspists element of army II/12 (Alexandrian Macedonians) be used as blades instead of auxiliaries.
Now I’m not saying that they threw their spears away and fought with swords, just that, to quote from DBA 3.0: “Troops are defined by battlefield behaviour instead of the usual formation, armour, weapons and morale classes. We distinguish only between troops whose fighting style differs sufficiently to need to be treated differently by either their general or their foe.”
Let’s consider the effects of this change:-
In bad going: auxiliaries have a combat factor of 3...and so do blades (and no pursuit in bad going).
In other going: auxiliaries have a combat factor of 3...but blades have a combat factor of 5.
Against mounted: both have a combat factor of 3...but blades can quick-kill knights.
If shot at: auxiliaries have a combat factor of 3...but blades have a combat factor of 4.
Pursuit: yes, blades will pursue...but this can be an advantage, as it saves PIPs.
So blades are greatly superior to auxiliaries. Just what you might expect from elite foot troops.
Now blades are not as good as auxiliaries when fighting warbands or scythed chariots, as they can be quick-killed by these troop types. But Philip and Alexander never faced warbands, and only faced scythed chariots in a single battle, at Gaugamela, where they were on a different part of the battlefield and never actually met. And by the time Alexander faced elephants, in India, the Hypaspists had already been upgraded to pikes (army list II/15, Alexandrian Imperial).
I would even go so far as using them as 3Bd instead of 4Bd.
Then they would be able to act as a sort of ‘hinge’ between the slow pike phalanx and the fast moving mounted troops. They would also be faster in rough or bad going, which seems fitting as Alexander always made sure they were with him on his many forced marches.
(It might seem odd to have a 4 figure element fighting as a 3 figure element...but dismounted knights can be depicted as 3 blade yet fight as 4 blade. Why not have the Hypaspists doing the reverse?)
After all, although they never actually met, are we really saying that these top elite foot troops were INFERIOR to tribal Celtiberian scutarii, Dacian falxmen, or Lykian drepanon warriors?
