|
|
Post by felixs on May 4, 2017 7:56:43 GMT
Dear all,
Thinking about Nagashino (1575), the Hideyoshi invasion (1592-98) and the fact that Japanses lists end 1542 in DBA, I had some (probably not so heretic) thoughts. I am not sure about this, but it seems to me that DBA is good for much later than the 1500s. That is: Outside of Europe.
In Europe, we have the change to pike and shot formations and the accompanying new tactics, which is quite different from what we have earlier and hard to simulate with DBA. Of course, there is a need for the likes of DBR, DBA-RRR and all the other permutations of the DBx rules.
(As a side note: I think that the approach of treating Pike and Shot as separate elements is not a good one. Something like triple-based pike with shooting capabilitay is probably in order. This rather fundamental problem keeps me from trying DBR.)
However: Outside of Europe, there are many regions where there is no change that could not be simulated under DBA rules. Gunpowder (before the introduction of repeating rifles) did change warfare, but not more so than stirrup cavalry, crossbows or pikes. In fact, DBA allows for that fact by including at least 300 years of gunpowder use (starting in the late 1200s). No problem there. True, gunpowder weapons might be a bit more effective against armoured troops (even though not necessarily much so) and they would have changed the nature of warfare. The introduction of gunpowder weapons could have decisive effects locally, but it did not change the pattern of warfare much. It radically changed the pattern of siege warfare, but that is not what DBA is about.
The biggest change probably is that muskets are very easy to use as compared with bows or even crossbows. They do not require much strength, are relatively robust and require little training. So, fielding a lot of musketeers is a question of finding enough muskets really. If that is possible, fielding firearms troops is not a big problem. So, in DBA terms, we still have Bw, but they are now armed with firearms. No need for different rules, except for maybe make them Lb.
Up to the introduction of repeating rifles, cavalry was still very effective. Cavalry might use pistols, sometimes even muskets, but fire was generally not very effective and would be at short range. Absolutely zero need for change here (at least if we assume that the portrayal of non-shooting LH in DBA is acceptable.)
Some cavalry would dismount for shooting - Cv//Bw or Kn//Bw should take care of this. Most such cases would be better represented by Cv or LH anyway.
Of course: There are things that are hard to squeeze into the DBA pattern, but that is just as true for the period before 1500.
For most of Asia, the Americas, Africa and the Middle East (that is: for everywhere where there is no pike and shot), DBA should work until the introduction of repeating rifles.
Is this generally accepted wisdom, or am I much wrong somewhere?
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on May 5, 2017 0:03:28 GMT
I'm not sure I agree with rating musket or arquebus troops as Bw is wise. The introduction of arquebus into Japanese warfare had a notable impact. However, at least initially, it was combined with fixed obstacles. In Korea the information I have seen indicates the advantages of the arquebus was considered critical and soon effectively replaced the bow.
Warfare in Europe was heavily impacted by the introduction of arquebus and musket. I'm not sure it was less in Japan, though other factors will have certainly impacted tactics and adoption.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 5, 2017 6:09:39 GMT
I'm not sure I agree with rating musket or arquebus troops as Bw is wise. The introduction of arquebus into Japanese warfare had a notable impact. However, at least initially, it was combined with fixed obstacles. In Korea the information I have seen indicates the advantages of the arquebus was considered critical and soon effectively replaced the bow. Warfare in Europe was heavily impacted by the introduction of arquebus and musket. I'm not sure it was less in Japan, though other factors will have certainly impacted tactics and adoption. Thank you for your reply  Of course these weapons had an impact. What I am suggesting is that this impact is more or less comparable to the impact of crossbows. And that effect is about that of longbow. The real attraction with muskets is that they are so much easier to use. Also, the real trouble for the Korean army in the Imjin war were not the Japanese muskets. It was corruption of the bureaucracy and an ensuing organizational disaster that left Chosôn Korea more or less without an army in the 1590s. The other problem that the sources often mention was the skill of the Japanese at close figthing - namely Japanese sword techniques. In DBA terms, the problem was the Japanese Blades (which makes one wonder whether the idea of Japanese foot as Pikes has it all wrong...). This is not to downplay the importance of muskets, but rather to try and balance it a bit. The beautiful thing about DBA is that it is not (primarily) about weaponry, but about the way troops fought and about the interaction of troops. In Korea, bows were kept at least until the early 1800s, but that was not only due to a conscious choice in favour of bows, but also due to shortages of musket supply. Plus there are a lot of records on the shoddy production quality and the bad storage conditions of muskets, which, however, was also true for bows. The main change in tactics in China and Korea seems to be the change to organizational patterns inspired by the military manuals of Qi Jiguang - even thought it is unclear how effective these changes ever were. I wonder what the difference in game terms should be, especially as the mixed units suggested by Qi Jiguang are hard to simulate in DBA anyway (and this also is a problem for earlier Chinese armies and for Japanese cavalry supported by retainers). I have never found the evidence for pike-and-shot tactics in Japan convincing - please tell me if I am missing anything important. Mixed units of muskets and melee weapons would probably be best simulated by double based Bw (which lacks staying power, but that is also true for Persians etc. in DBA). Arguably the Dsungar wars of the early and mid 1700s represent a serious change in warfare in China (strangely enough, there is little to nothing on this in Korean records). However, this change seems to have been mostly logistical and not so much in tactics. There are more guns though, but two Art elements should represent that in DBA terms. One could argue that artillery became much more effective and that this should be represented. While I tend to agree, I also think that DBA is so abstract and that the different types of artillery lumped into that category already, there is little harm in stretching it a bit further. Any opinion on what DBR or any of the DBA derivates does better for non-European warfare would be much appreciated. |
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on May 6, 2017 23:35:13 GMT
In DBR ashigaru are rated as Bd(F) which are similar to 3Bd, so ashigaru armed with arquebus do not gain side support for supporting pike. This of course means there are no pike and shot tactics as you see in European warfare in DBR when using Japanese armies. I often field a Japanese army in DBR. The weakness of the Japanese arquebus armed ashigaru is they can be swept away by a mounted charge. This risk is somewhat countered by having archers nearby or by using fixed obstacles to provide a degree of protection. Getting the fixed obstacles in the correct position is of course extremely difficult! The factors in DBR when using normal scale for arquebus armed ashigaru are 4 vs foot and 2 vs mounted, the reverse of Bw. These are modified by additional ranks when using "normal" scale as are archers. The interactions generally play well. In "condensed" scale the factors are 4 vs foot and 3 vs mounted.  Above, during a DBR game, the archers are kept as a reserve as massed arquebus engage the enemy with dismounted Samurai in support. I would certainly like to use my arquebus armed ashigaru in DBA 3.0. My current thinking is to allow them a 3 vs foot and 2 (or perhaps 3) vs mounted, with interactions as normal Bw. |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 7, 2017 12:34:48 GMT
Thank you!
That is very useful information.
What type are the arquebus armed ashigaru? (I would believe that the Bd(F) are the naginata etc. armed ones? What about ashigaru with long spears?)
Is the interaction between those arquebus armed infantry units markedly different from what you would get in DBA using Bw, Cv and Kn?
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on May 8, 2017 7:17:47 GMT
What type are the arquebus armed ashigaru? (I would believe that the Bd(F) are the naginata etc. armed ones? What about ashigaru with long spears?) Is the interaction between those arquebus armed infantry units markedly different from what you would get in DBA using Bw, Cv and Kn? In DBR the arquebus armed ashigaru are all graded as Sh(O). In DBR ashigaru are either Sh(O), Bw(I) or Bd(F). The Bd(F) is a compromise to model shallower yari formations and those with the naginata. If they were rated as pike they would be deployed as pike and shot units due to the DBR equivalent of flank support. Unlike DBA there is no 3Pk. In DBR Pk(F) are four to a base and are found in support of salvo firing musket pike & shot formations. In DBR the bow is in decline it just can't withstand the power of musket armed troops. Arquebus armed ashigaru can break up enemy foot but can fall apart when charged by mounted Samurai. There are some really interesting transitions being modelled in DBR. |
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on May 8, 2017 7:35:48 GMT
...the fighting stile in Hideyoshis Japan was a different kind as in Europe even different as in China. Yaribushi were fighters with pike, best represented as fast pike. After posing formation without yari as auxilia or hordes. You can quote foot samurai as blade skilled close combat fighters. In that time all cavalry fought as uhlans with a short yari. But most horsemen were used as messengers then as fighters...
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 8, 2017 10:30:25 GMT
In DBR the arquebus armed ashigaru are all graded as Sh(O). In DBR ashigaru are either Sh(O), Bw(I) or Bd(F). The Bd(F) is a compromise to model shallower yari formations and those with the naginata. If they were rated as pike they would be deployed as pike and shot units due to the DBR equivalent of flank support. Unlike DBA there is no 3Pk. In DBR Pk(F) are four to a base and are found in support of salvo firing musket pike & shot formations. In DBR the bow is in decline it just can't withstand the power of musket armed troops. Arquebus armed ashigaru can break up enemy foot but can fall apart when charged by mounted Samurai. There are some really interesting transitions being modelled in DBR. Thank you very much for this digest. Again, most useful. So in DBR Sh is superior to Bw. That sounds reasonable. Having the staying power against infantry and cavalry reversed in comparison to Bw is something that I would need to test. Maybe I should get a copy of the DBR rules and try that out.. It is to be stated then, that DBR works quite differently from what one would get if one would just use DBA and treat Shot as Bow. Whether this is necessary for regions outside Europe, I am not so sure. As for the case of Japan, I would agree with Vodnik that they should not normally play a decisive role as shock cavalry. The DBA 6Cv with a mixed formation of foot and mounted seems to simulate this quite well. Supported 6Cv will easily kill Bw in close combat, but supported shooting is very dangerous. DBA 3 generally seems to have made shooting a bit more effective, so Bw are not bad against infantry too. Whether they are good enough is another question though. |
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on May 9, 2017 20:47:24 GMT
It is hard to paraphrase all the interactions in the DBR rule book here. Purchasing a copy may indeed be useful. However, even this is no replacement for playing games with them.
In DBR mounted Japanese are graded as sipahis until 1542 when they change to Lancers, actually Lv(F). These gradings are similar to Cv and Kn in DBA, but not exactly. One interesting effect is that sipahis flee from Sh, even if firing, if the Sh score more but not double. 6Cv are not modelled in DBR but they are in DBMM.
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on May 10, 2017 9:04:21 GMT
...we use in my house rules for sengoku jidai (1497-1616) an Art de la Guere playing area (120 x 80cm using 15mm miniatures) to play with 25-39 elements per army in 2-3 command groups. That means: 24 troops and W6 additional elements. That is for a simple game. But we use wether rules & any other gimmicks:  ...  ... |
|
