|
Post by barritus on Jun 27, 2017 2:28:57 GMT
Whilst on the subject of drawn combats can I ask the following question; What happens if a CP, CWg or Lit is contacted on two sides by Fast foot and the combat is a draw ? Do the fast foot recoil or is the CP, CWg or Lit destroyed (or both) thanks B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jun 21, 2017 2:42:14 GMT
The best I think we can get for 3.1 is some clarifications and such. I don't see Phil ever agreeing to rules tweaks.
My last comments on Roman Auxilia were as much to illustrate that Phil will not budge from his position no matter how much evidence may be put before him (this is emphasised in a Slingshot article back in Nov 2001 on Roman Auxilia in DBM which quite a few people - including myself took part wrote a lot of good points and of course achieved nothing). Blades vs elephants which I have posted earlier are another example of Phil's rejection of good evidence (it also gives a much better historical and game outcome I might add).
In regards Auxilia I think the current rules give a good rendition of skirmishing Auxila with 3Ax. 4Ax however just need a bit more oomph - especially now as Sp have flank support so where it was likely in 2.2 to be a +4 vs +3 fight in 3.0 its likely to be a +5 vs +3 fight which is death to the Auxilia in short order.
My own preference is for 4Ax to QK SP. Pk and Bd on a draw since although it still makes 4Ax in the open a bit weak there is still a chance of a kill (so always hope for the 4Ax player!). The alternative is I think to give a +1 tactical factor to 4Ax fighting Sp, Pk or Bd in rough or open going (allows 4Ax to hang around longer but unlikely to kill Bd and Sp). I know Phil has rejected both these options in th e past - a pity as either is preferable to the massacres of 4Ax at moment (and would make some armies Catalans, Dalami come to mind, more likely to be seen on the tabletop which would certainly be a good thing).
Cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jun 20, 2017 11:46:44 GMT
Hello Timurlenk,
Regarding evidence lets turn the question on its head a bit to ' what historical evidence is there to markedly differentiate Roman Auxilia and legionaries fighting styles and tactics'.
My answer to this is that there isn't any of real note. Sure Auxiliaries seem to have been armed with Lancea and javelins but so were some legionaries if I recall. They were also often armoured , were good swordsmen (see Tacitus' Agricola vs Caladones) and could fight in close formation (see Ammianus' description of Battle of Stasbourg - shields overlapping like scales of a tortoise ??).
So basically they are primarily close combat swordsmen (tho both had various missile weapons) - just like legionaries (indeed if Tacitus and Ammianus had stated that the troops they were describing were legionaries we would not have thought twice about it). As I said they are basically a cheaper (but not markedly less effective they defeated gladiators and legionaries in 69AD and legionaries in 312AD in Milan if I recall rightly) form of legionary and this is I think the current view of most historians. One thing they are not is a slightly souped up version of a bunch of semi-skirmishing javelin throwers which is what PB rates them as.
cheers
Barritus
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jun 20, 2017 3:03:16 GMT
After my original post on this thread I've been watching the follow up.
Unfortunately I think its pretty clear that Phil (and Sue perhaps) have no real interest in changing 3.0 to them (or Phil at least) its pretty much perfect.
The current debate on Auxilia is a classic example (I can think of others eg 4Kn and 6Cv spring to mind but that's another story). Anyone who has followed DBA development has for years seen interminable debates with Phil on why his version of Auxilia is flawed - at least in terms of 4Ax - I think it works quite well for 3Ax. Indeed I'd be surprised if many (if any) scholars support Phil's idea that Roman Auxiliary infantry are in DBA terms Auxilia ! The conventional view is that they are a cheaper version of legionaries (so would be Blade in DBA land). But Phil believes he's correct (even when historical evidence says otherwise) and so the same old show continues.
barritus
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jun 12, 2017 3:21:28 GMT
In relation to Joe's original proposals my thoughts are as follows;
Elephants vs shooting +4. Maybe but..... My preference would rather be to allow Lb and Cb to kill Elephants in close combat on a draw. This simulates shooting by powerful bows destroying elephants at very close range. Historically Elephants were defeated by shooters on occassions eg the Chinese used Cb effectively against elephants in 971AD and pits and Cb were used against Vietnamese elephants around 602-605AD. So I would suggest that Cb (and Lb which are similarly classified as having superior armour penetration at close range and frequently used stakes and pits) should also get a boost vs elephants.
As an aside I would also allow Blade to destroy Elephants in close combat on a draw. I've actually used this as a home rule for the last couple of years and it has worked out very well - gives blade some chance against elephants without letting them be over powerful and definitely gives much better historical outcomes.
Note historically Elephants were defeated on a number of occassions by Blade eg Caesar's legionaries at Thapsus and Jovian & Herulian legions fought off Sassanian elephants during Julian's Persian campaign. Also Arab Bd defeated Sassanian Elephants at Qadisiyah.
Blades are too powerful vs Knights. Definitely a No. I am at a loss as to how this is historically accurate. A number of examples are the tenacious defence by Swabians at Civitate, the performance of the Anglo-Danish Huscarles at Hastings and the Anglo-Norman (who learnt from Hastings) use of dismounting vs Knights in a number of battles.
And now another aside. If anything it is Spearmen who are perhaps overrated vs Knights (tho' I'm not suggesting a change to DBA in that regard). The fact that Solid Spearmen can recoil Knights on a draw is a huge advantage as it will usually create rapid overlaps for the Spearmen on a line of Knights - playtesting will I think bear this out. One should also note that Spearmen are much better vs Elephants currently than Blade and yet their is little evidence I think of Elephants vs Spearmen historically occurring - I recall PB once mentioning he could not actually think of a single historical case (indeed even pikes may have struggled - I recall Arrian in his Life of Alexander mentioning Indian Elephants doing 'great exectution' amongst the Macedonian pike phalanx). Bearing that in mind Blade are the poor cousins when fighting Elephants in DBA 3 currently and yet historically they could (sometimes) put up a good show against them.
Auxilia recoil changes. Maybe. Auxilia is quite a difficult problem (a bit of a dogs breakfast in DBA I'm afraid).
Forgive me for being a bit turgid here. Too put it simply and this has been mentioned many times - DBA Auxilia really encompass a whole range of troop types from skirmish types (eg 3Ax) to very good hand to hand fighters (eg Roman Auxilia, Catalan Almughavars etc) to various second line troops (in many armies) who just don't fit in anywhere else and so are 'dumped' into the Ax category.
My own preference for rules changes (as opposed to list changes) are therefore as follows. 1. Allow 3Ax to recoil as suggested.
2. For 4Ax I believe that they would be better simulated if they destroy heavy foot (Blade, Spearmen and Pikes) on a drawn close combat result. Whether they should otherwise recoil as 3Ax I'm currently undecided - on balance perhaps not. This allows 3Ax to act as Peltasts using mobility whilst 4Ax fighting toe-toe in close combat have at least some chance against heavier foot.
cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jan 12, 2017 5:32:31 GMT
Thanks Tony and Bob for your explanations. Just to push the subject a bit further - does this mean an element can recoil through a group. I'm thinking here of the recoil passing through the junction of two elements as in the example where element 'A' is recoiling through the junction of elements 'X' & 'Y' AAAA XXXXYYYY and ends as XXXXYYYY AAAA Also if the above is possible does it matter if elements 'X' & 'Y' have different base depths ? Sorry for the complication - just trying to consider all the possible circumstances B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jan 10, 2017 2:47:23 GMT
Hi,
Sometimes I'm sure these boards are created for one (in this case moi) to show one's ignorance - and here is a case in question
I'm trying to understand what happens when an element recoils through friends. The rules state (pg 9); Recoilers can pass through friends facing in exactly the same direction to a clear space immediately behind the first element met, but only if either (a) mounted troops recoiling into any friends except Pikes, Hordes or Elephants, (b) Blades recoiling into Blades or Spears, (c) Pikes or Bows recoiling into Blades, or (d) Psiloi recoiling into any friends except Psiloi.
What I'd like to clarify is what is implied by the phrase ' to a clear space immediately behind the first element met'. Does this mean that the recoiling element must already be exactly lined up with the element being recoiled through prior to the recoil being initiated or can they be offset?
Thanks for any help.
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Sept 26, 2016 11:26:59 GMT
Hi Cromwell,
Just a minor point - Lobsters are not listed in 'the score greater than but less than half' outcomes. Should they be listed alongside Pistols perhaps ?
An interesting set of rules if I ever get around to painting up ECW figures (yes they are on my things to do!) I'll certainly give them a crack.
cheers
B.
|
|