|
Post by davidconstable on Jun 25, 2017 8:13:48 GMT
Me again David, hi once more. I love discussing ancient battles. Just a few points… You seem to imply that the Caledonian chariots were in front of the hill and the warbands. Surely it would make more sense if they were on the flat level ground either side of the hill. Otherwise, the first clash would have been the Roman Auxilia fighting them and not the warbands. Indeed, Tacitus specifically states that the auxilia, amounting to some 8,000 men, formed a strong centre, while the 3,000 Roman cavalry circled round the wings. He makes no mention of the auxilia fighting the chariots, but says that the Roman cavalry, once the chariots had fled (beaten by the cavalry on the wings?), attacked the flanks of the Caledonian warbands (who couldn’t turn to face them as they were already engaged with fighting the auxilia). 35 gives the layout of the army and finishes with "the war-chariots, noisily manoeuvring, filled the intervening plain." So between at least the auxilia and the warbands are the chariots.
Spreading out does not necessarily imply 3Ax instead of 4Ax…as I said, it could mean the auxiliary cohorts were in one long line (instead of having the usual Roman 3 lines), or that the rear 4 ranks of the auxilia being used to extend the line. Going to 3Ax extends the line, same number of men, more elements as less men per element, if not limited to 12 elements that is. Did you not read the part of both Generals speach where they say "sorry lads you will have to stay out of this, I have brought too many of you." Think about it: would it really make sense to keep the auxilia 8 ranks deep but tell each man to have a couple of paces between each of them (and forgo the advantage of being in a close formation), or to use the rear ranks to make the line longer (thereby retaining the close formation, but with each cohort being shallower than normal)? If you started at eight ranks say roughly four and half feet per file with 8 ranks, you could expand to say roughly six feet between files and 8 ranks, 4Ax to 3Ax, now to get close order you file in the gaps in the first 4 ranks by bringing up the rear 4 ranks, giving you three feet per file and 4 ranks, keeping the overall frontage length the same.
I don’t know where you get 6 cohorts of Batavi from. Tacitus says “…until Agricola exhorted the two battalions of the Batavi and Tungari to bring things to the sword point…”. I read that as two cohorts, one called the Batavi and one called the Tungari. Following their success the rest of the auxiliary cohorts (who are not named) were then sent in. 36 says "until Agricola ordered four battalions (cohortes) of Batavi and two of Tungri to bring things to the sword point".As for the Roman cavalry fighting on a difficult hill…they didn’t. They simply fell on the flanks of an enemy that were already engaged to their front. (See diagram 20b on page 28 of the Great Purple Book: the Ax are Wb, Wb ‘A’ are Roman Auxilia, and Wb ‘B’ are Cv)It doesn’t matter if the Cv suffer a -2 for being in bad going, they are still in contact with an enemy flank, causing them to be destroyed if they recoil (and with the two elements of chariots already being routed, the Caledonians only need to lose two more elements to be defeated). 36 does not make it clear if they are on the hill or not at the start "Meanwhile, the squadrons (turmae) of cavalry (for the charioteers had fled) took a hand in the infantry battle. And here, though they caused momentry panic, they found themselves brought to a standstill by the close ranks of the enemy and the unevenness of the ground:" latter on the reserve cavalry "attacked the enemy's line from behind" so at that point at least some cavalry must be on the hill.Here is my reconstruction of the battle of Mons Grapius, using the existing army lists. (Items in brown are on a 4 BW long difficult hill):- 3Wb 3Wb
3Wb 3Wb 3Wb 3Wb LCh 3Wb 3Wb 3Wb 3Wb LCh LH Cv 4Ax 4Ax 4Ax 4Ax Cv LH 4Bd 4Bd 4Bd 4Bd The 4Ax engage the 3Wb on the flat and push them back up the hill, while the Roman mounted destroy the Caledonian chariots then fall on the flanks of the warbands (the victorious light horse can zip around the hill and use their threat zones to pin down the Caledonian reserves, without needing to enter the bad going). So no need to change any of the existing DBA 3.0 rules at all (although I still support Joe Collins attempts to make Ax live a bit longer when they fight heavy infantry). Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:- fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Jun 24, 2017 18:17:32 GMT
Hi Stevie
It is an interesting one this battle, number one on my list to look at.
The front rank of warband on the level in wargames terms would only make sense if the warband expected to advance in support of the chariots, so was more expected from the chariots? or do we overate being uphill?
Spreading out implies 3Ax not 4Ax, more use of missiles and a faster advance, which would make sense with the chariots in confusion in front of the warbands. If the unit frontage remains the same (which it should do) they go deeper, or do they detach some as skirmishing 2Ps?
There were six cohorts of Batavi and Tungri out of a probable ten, these being in the centre leaves those at the ends of the end of the line to lag behind slightly. The Tungri and Batavi are specialists with swords, to be in the centre and lead the attack would make sense. More so with Agricola with one, if you get to choose the order of combats (not strictly historical, but a good idea) and being on the level, a better die here gives you a pushback and overlaps the two outer warbands, both then evens fights.
The problem with the hill is that if you assume bad terrain what are the cavalry doing fighting on it? It only makes sense if it is a gentle hill with enough obstacles to hinder cavalry, but not affect their fighting ability, otherwise the cavalry are fighting on 3-2=1 against warband on a 3+1=4, and that is suicidal.
Now if the front rank gets pushed back onto the hill we have 4Ax on 3, warband on 3+1=4 on bad terrain, if a gentle hill the rear rank brings it up to 5.
It only to me makes sense if it is a gentle hill that inconenienced the cavalry, but not by -2. If the 4Ax were a Roman style (ie sword/blade) type and had a basic factor of 5, that would be 5 verses 4 on the level, 5 verses 5 on a hill. Now if we assume that the cavalry went on a nasty hill (for reasons we do not know, enemy 2Ps?) and the auxilia are on a basic 5, if on the hill they get no rear rank but 1 for uphill, the auxilia are 5/4 up.
Whichever way you try and work it the auxilia/warband battle does not work at the moment, accress the whole front, not just an odd unit.
So 4Bd becomes on the level a good option, if a gentle hill, death if not.
I suspect that the whole warband problem needs sorting out, and that there is no quick fix.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Jun 24, 2017 5:58:15 GMT
Thanks Joe.
I suspect that 4Bd does not work as a direct substitution verses warband.
At the moment I am thinking of splitting 4Ax into two types, for convenience Greek and Roman. Greek are longspear types (light hoplites), 3 verses foot, 4 verses mounted, not sure about 44? Roman use swords etc., so could include Thracian with rhomphia, 5 verses foot, 3 verses mounted. Due to the fact they seem to move quicker than 4Sp and 4Bd etc., I would treat as fast in good going, but slow otherswise.
4Ax and Kn are the two biggest problems in DBA, all versions.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Jun 23, 2017 20:19:29 GMT
Stevie
The Loeb translation on Mons Graupius says: "on a gentle slope". Interestingly the auxilia "opened out its ranks" to go into battle, so did 4Ax become 3Ax for faster movement. The Batavi and Tungri are "ordered to bring thing's to the sword's point", it goes on to add "for the British swords, without points, did not admit of locked lines and fighting at close quarters". The cavalry also fought on this hill, mounted.
Just a few points, but it seems they are more 4Bd than 4Ax.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Jun 22, 2017 17:55:35 GMT
Sorry I am having a few problems with silly discrepencies between what is shown on my screen, and what the post actually shows.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Jun 22, 2017 17:52:09 GMT
Could auxillia be split into three: 3Ax with factors of 3 foot, 3 mounted. 4Ax (Greek style) 3 foot, 4 mounted. Being spear they are better against mounted. 4Ax (Roman style) 5 foot, 3 mounted. Being blades they are better against foot.
All other parts of the rules stay the same.
This means on even dice the 3Wb recoil in the Mons Graupius situation, and it does not involve any convoluted changes.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Jun 21, 2017 16:16:46 GMT
It is also 4Ax verses 3Wb and probably 4Wb.
Tacitus in his book "Agricola" has the Roman 4Ax defeat the 3Wb, despite the warband having numbers in their favour and being uphill, they are defeated by auxilia moving like legionaries, sword in hand in close order, good going on the dice, same tactical factor, but the warband get extra for being uphill and rear support.
It is almost as if the 4Ax are 4Bd that ignore bad terrain. The same might be said for Greek style 4Ax. A very heretical thought, could they be treated as 4Bd or 4Sp but with bad terrain capability, perhaps indicated as ignoring the bad terrain deduction by a star or something being added.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Jun 21, 2017 8:00:06 GMT
Looking at MonsGraupius in 83/84AD several points arise: (1) Tacitus (our only source?) is very clear that II/60 Caledonian was using cavalry, so there should be an option for 2x2LH or 3Wb. It cannot be cavelry or chariots as both are present. (2) The chariots are clearly 2-horse with 2-crew, however the Latin is clear (Loeb edition) that these are scythed chariots, but they are handled like normal chariots, one crew member dismounting, there is also a reference to these in the "Germania". I am reminded of a lady with her daughters on the Embankment, chariot with scythes, so maybe a rule change is needed?
As an aside, the hill is not steep or difficult but gentle in the "Agricola", the warband despite having numbers in their favour and being uphill are defeated by auxilia moving like legionaries, sword in hand, good going on the dice, same tactical factor, but the warband get extra for being uphill and rear support.
David Constable
P.S. - Sorry, missed out that it is modern authors that mention the cavalry, they do not seem to be mentioned in the "Agricola", but I am re-checking this. The DBMM list agrees with DBA2.2 & 3.0, no cavalry.
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Jun 19, 2017 7:37:10 GMT
I might be wrong, but why not let 3Ax evade a charge, but Not 4Ax. The 4Ax should be better in combat, 3Ax are more shoot and scoot. David Constable Please explain how you think an evade would work. I was thinking that (if the rule could be worked out) the 3Ax move 3BW, most mounted 4BW. If the 3Ax evade into nearby friendly terrain, the mounted will end up at the edge, or in terrain that is not of their choice. So the 3Ax are able to shoot and scoot. If the +1 flank support could apply to 4Ax if supported by a suitable troop type, types to be decided, it would help make it worthwile to use 4Ax. The problem is working out the evade move direction. It gives a potential problem to a mounted unit, do you charge knowing your opponent might evade, you end up behind the opponents lines with a 3Ax hitting you in front, and that nicely placed 3Cv(Gen) hitting you on the side. Needs a lot of working out, just random thoughts realy. David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Jun 17, 2017 21:20:36 GMT
To an outside spectator, they would see Ps sometimes recoiling and sometimes fleeing (Ps don’t like to fight hand-to-hand). And they would see Ax sometimes recoiling a base depth, sometimes ‘evading’ 1 BW, and sometimes being destroyed. And for those who don’t like the idea of Imperial Roman Auxiliaries ‘evading’ 1 BW, just think of it as they are being bested in melee, and being more agile than slow ponderous heavy infantry have disengaged and fallen back, and seeing they have out-distanced their pursuers they rally and reform ready to continue fighting (when destroyed, their moral has been broken preventing them from reforming, or their initial break-off was caught by a sudden charge or due to an unseen terrain impediment). REST CUT AS NOT NEEDED. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:- fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
I might be wrong, but why not let 3Ax evade a charge, but Not 4Ax. The 4Ax should be better in combat, 3Ax are more shoot and scoot. David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Jun 12, 2017 8:17:40 GMT
Deleated.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Jun 12, 2017 8:13:36 GMT
As a lover of DBA2.2 I feel I should not interfer, however, my basic reasons might help people to understand some of the resons why I am going to go to my own version of DBA 2.2 (solo).
Here goes: PB is not one for clarity, he puts rules where it saves space or where he needs that particular section, not where they should be, so in terrain camps are in mulitple places, by all means say a river can act as a camp, but put a note under river only, and put the camp rules under camp. (It is not there so do not look it up.) Closing the door with Art etc. needed a small word change. I have seen some very cheesy moves with El down roads, so road movement needs a few extra words. If an item has needed an explanation in FAQ, then the wording in the rules needs changing. Diagrams and text must tally, and vice versa. Army lists need clarifications.
Once ALL that sort of thing has been sorted out, then possibly actually change the rules, but only with the approval of PB etc.
Meanwhile I shall continue with my solo DBA2.2.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Jun 11, 2017 8:04:12 GMT
As an observer I found it interesting. I tried to keep quite over rules, but mentally noted a number of inconsistencies.
Laying out terrain showed differences, with the less experienced players on occasions not being as creative as they could have been, or allowing for possible mishaps, they will learn (the hard way).
The more I look at dismounting armies, the more I think it should be banned.
Enjoyed myself.
One aside for those not there; Tamara and Graham Fordham (father and daughter) got the same number of points AND killed the same number of elements, considering they both played six games each against various opponents, I find the odds very long.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Jun 1, 2017 5:37:40 GMT
The Mediterranean is relatively most of the time a flat sea (yes I know a big oversimplification) so easy to cross in a small ancient boat.
If you want to know what a rough sea looks like go to Dover, and look at the English Chanel there in a storm force 10.
Sardinia is a hop to Egypt by canoe in comparison.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 29, 2017 7:10:42 GMT
I was thinking that a hash or star would simplify things, no need for explanations, and if you are not talking about a few years, but centuries, then it becomes a bigger problem to do date changes.
I suspect with Romans that several battles might well have been fought with an older style army and tactics, how long did it take most of the Roman army to change equipment, or even in some cases tactics.
You have to be careful that your list of changes does not end up longer than the original lists.
David Constable
|
|