|
|
Post by chris on Feb 11, 2017 18:33:50 GMT
Bear with me a moment, for this is going to sound like a rant to begin with; which it is not. DBA covers thousands of years of history, so cannot be expected to portray every conflict in precise accuracy.
It is well known that DBA does not support the Triplex Acies deployment used by the Roman legions during much of the republic. That is to say, whilst you can do it there is no apparent benefit in doing so and you are generally better off deploying in a wider line with a single reserve. This bothers some people - myself included. As a result, despite the Roman republic being the period which primarily interests me I have never bothered to collect it in DBA.
Another thing that gets me about DBA is the Warband element. Described as wild foot that relied primarily on a ferocious charge with the hope of sweeping away their enemy and getting disheartened if they do not. In 3.0 this has changed slightly to include solid foot that are keep a shieldwall and keep fighting after the initial charge. Germanic armies in DBA are primarily made up of this brittle element despite the only real source for this being an account by Gaius Julius Caesar - not known for his historical objectivity. Indeed, other sources point to a more organised, less easily disheartened foe.
This is going somewhere I promise...
Now. There is one military organisation that *was* known for it's ferocious charges. Bearing down at great speed and power in the hope of sweeping it's foe before it. Getting easily disheartened if it didn't achieve this in the initial impact. That historically had difficulty in dealing with cavalry. That liked to operate in deep formations.
See what I'm getting at?
In short, I believe that the Hastati and Principes elements of the Polybian Roman list should be changed from solid Blade to solid Warband. They can be deployed doubled up in a deep formation with the Warband rear support bonus. The Triarii behind acting as reserve (and thanks to flank support no longer needing to double up ahistorically). With the socii Auxilia on the wings to help prevent overlap.
This would not have worked until 3.0 of course. The Triarii need the flank support and in previous versions supporting Warband would have been destroyed along with the element they were supporting - all of which works against the Triplex Acies.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 12, 2017 2:28:10 GMT
Not sure if it's a houserule or a variant army list.
Overall I suspect you might find more success treating them as Bd, but with rear support of +1, and base CF of 4/2. The trouble with warband is that for Bd as Wb against Carthaginian army Spanish and Gauls, the fighting can be over really fast.
With Bd as 4/2, with +1 rear support works quite well for Punic Wars, if you also give the Spanish Ax(S) a +1 in CC in GGo vs Bd, Sp and supported Pk. In addition, you then aren't forced to shoehorn the Italian Allied legions into Ax(S), so these can also be regular Bd (4/2).
With this approach, you get the durability of the Roman system, along with the vulnerability to flank attacks. By the way, apply the +1 for rear support even in bad going.
As a side note on topic, for Kardakes for Alexander vs Darius III, I use a front element of Ax(S) with a rear element of Ax(F) contiguous behind. They fight and move as a permanent double-based element, taking one PIP to maneuver. But when one element is killed, the remaining element reverts to type. This creates the large infantry force Darius used to bolster his lines, and forces the Phalanx to literally wade through these masses. The two element count as one for winning and losing. Simple attrition without actual "attrition" .
|
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Feb 12, 2017 5:58:31 GMT
Looking at the numbers of troops depicted by an element (typically 1,000 to 1,200 in older versions of DBA, possibly less in version 3 - please ask someone with version 3) it seems to me that a line of Blades in DBA represents at least 2 of the lines. As far as I understand, the hastatiti and princepes lines were typically very close together. I believe that they acted as if they were one line with the different parts acting as a tactical reserve (when the hastati got tired or used up their pila, the princepes would have a go). If fact, my 6mm Polybian Romans have hastati and princepes on the same base. This picture shows the army on the left hand side with two lines both consisting of hastati and princepes:  .  This still leaves the question of what to do with the triarii. In DBA, the obvious tactic is to put them on the ends of the infantry battle line because they are better against mounted. Whether or not this was a typical Roman deployment is an interesting question. |
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 12, 2017 12:57:46 GMT
primuspilus: A variant army list rather than a house rule. I just couldn't find anywhere else to put it that wouldn't look like I was demanding Mr Barker update the army lists.
You are right, That would all simulate it much better. But I was looking for a simpler change that already works within the structure of the rules. It's easier to persuade someone I'm playing with to accept Warband legions than a bunch of other modifiers.
Plyan Glupak: An element represents 6 to 8 ranks of close order infantry rather than a specific number. So the answer is complicated.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 12, 2017 15:35:21 GMT
Hi Chris,
Indeed, you make a good point, though the additional rules are hardly much of a complexity to basically address the issue.
That said, the previous comment staying that the Bd is 5 vs foot precisely to account for the deeper lines and pila seems equally effective. In that case I suggest taking the Allied Legions as Ax(S)...
By the way, you will find Ax(S) get vapourised by enemy heavy foot pretty quickly. That also allows Hannibal's veteran African infantry to win against the flanks historically, if the Ax are placed wide.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 12, 2017 19:33:30 GMT
No, they aren't too complicated - and if I was refighting a historical battle with DBA I would likely use those suggestions. But then, if I was refighting a historical battle I would likely use or write a set of rules that represents the specific battle better than DBA does.
The problem with the blade option is it encourages quite a wide, thin deployment when it should encourage a deeper one with a more limited frontage in comparison to many of their opponents. Besides, if there is one classical troop type that could genuinely be described as relying on wild charges it is certainly the Polybian Roman legion!
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 12, 2017 23:56:29 GMT
I confess I've never really liked the rear support rule applying only to handful of elements. Also, I haven't found Wb as done in DBA to be that evocative of the trooptype when they stood their ground and fought.
Interesting approach though, classifying as Wb... I have often thought hoplites could be similarly represented as Wb as well... Hoplite vs hoplite would be very interesting!
|
|
|
|
Post by evilgong on Feb 13, 2017 0:01:03 GMT
HI there
>>>>>>>>>>
It is well known that DBA does not support the Triplex Acies deployment used by the Roman legions during much of the republic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is academic debate suggesting that what we thought we knew about this deployment might be seriously wrong.
Regards
David B
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Feb 13, 2017 0:03:25 GMT
No, they aren't too complicated - and if I was refighting a historical battle with DBA I would likely use those suggestions. But then, if I was refighting a historical battle I would likely use or write a set of rules that represents the specific battle better than DBA does. The problem with the blade option is it encourages quite a wide, thin deployment when it should encourage a deeper one with a more limited frontage in comparison to many of their opponents. Besides, if there is one classical troop type that could genuinely be described as relying on wild charges it is certainly the Polybian Roman legion! Some interesting ideas Chris. I go back and forth on the Republican Romans. Sometimes I feel that the whole triple line setup is a figment of history. No one has been able to replicate the line relief system. No one can really tell us how the Republican Romans really fought. What I think now is that the triple battle line probably existed, but was actually a liability. It allowed the Romans to project tremendous combat power in one direction... forward. You see this as an issue at Bagradas, Trebbia, and Cannae. Only when the Romans became more flexible did they begin to triumph. You quickly see the end of any distinction between Hastati, Principes, and Triarii. This of course doesn't help you run the matchups in DBA though. Here is a suggestion. For a regular sized game... cut the command distance in half. This will encourage a deeper initial deployment. Very late in the development of DBA I suggested this. For historical refights the answer is more straightforward... just deploy the Romans in the triple battle line. For a good example, check out my article on Bagradas (along with well known internet raconteur Pat Lowinger) in Wargames, Soldier, and Strategy #80. You can also find another treatment of the same battle in Great Battles of History for DBA 3. (Available from lulu.com). Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 13, 2017 8:14:42 GMT
I guess it's my fault for mentioning it first, but I feel people are paying too much attention to the Triplex Acies part here. That was just a justification for the rear support and the requirement for deep formations. Essentially the reclassification as Warband is primarily because the description in the DBA 3.0 book for solid Warband seems to describe the manipular legions of Polybius better than the blade description does.
Primuspilus: I agree with you - I believe most troop types should have rear support. The choice between depth and width - concentration of force and battlefield control - is a fundamental one that more armies should have to worry about. I also rather agree with you about Hoplite Warbands. Perhaps a new element type should be considered instead - Shock or Pressure infantry. Representing those troop types who charged and then relied on being able to maintain forward pressure.
+3 vs foot and mounted.
Follow up as per Warband etc.
+1 for rear support vs foot.
+1 if they entered combat this bound or followed up and remained in contact vs foot.
Not sure about quick kills. I guess they would be quick killed as per blade. But would have to think further about what they quick killed, if anything.
That way they are rewarded for deep formations and concentrating on forward momentum.
Got to go into work now so will have to finish this later.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 13, 2017 10:47:26 GMT
On further thought, I don't think those suggestions for Shock infantry really work.
evilgong: There is always academic debate about everything. Do you have a source? I'd be interested in reading it. I haven't seen anyone actually debating the existence of the Triplex Acies, though I have seen people questioning the Quincunx. And the majority of those were sheer disbelief that something mentioned in a primary source would actually work - Kit Marlowe can tell you why that is dangerous - and the erroneous emphasis on the vulnerability of a unit's flank, as well as a misunderstanding about the pace of battle. Which is not to say that I am entirely decided on the Quincunx, only that I have not yet seen a valid argument against it.
lkmjbc: That's true, history after all is a story made up as best we can from fragments. Nonetheless a number of fairly credible primary sources to describe the Triplex Acies and I see no reason to discount them.
I wouldn't say it was a liability. Limited in scope perhaps and a liability against certain opponents absolutely. As you say, it allowed them to project tremendous combat power - pressure - directly forward. And most importantly maintain that pressure long beyond the tiring point of their opponents. It necessitated a narrow frontage but throughout most of it's existence that was not an issue. Their target point would crumble and scatter long before the flanks would achieve anything useful. Until they fought Carthage the system worked. It allowed even a mediocre or unreliable commander to succeed against Rome's usual opponents.
It's important to note that the three battles you mention are all against Carthage. At Bagradas the Romans were unable to cope with the elephants which ultimately led to defeat. And Trebbia and Cannae were against Hannibal - a good commander more than capable of seeing how the Roman system worked and exploiting it when the opposing commander is inflexible and uninspired. It's important to note that exactly the same system was used at Zama, a Roman victory. Scipio was able to use that system and take specific action to counteract it's weaknesses and the Carthaginians strengths, but the Triplex Acies was apparently still the core of that plan.
Later Roman formations were undeniably better and more flexible. But Bagradas, Trebbia and Cannae do not indicate that the formation was a complete liability - only the unpreparedness of it's commanders. Any system can be exploited by someone who knows what they're doing!
I shall have to chase down that article and take a look, it sounds like my cup of tea.
|
|
