|
Post by jim1973 on May 15, 2018 23:46:42 GMT
I've been reading through this topic with interest, but one thing puzzles me....is there any historical evidence where 8Bw could be considered equal to or superior to 4Sp? Before Marathon, EAP were usually victorious against all Spears including Hoplites. (The did form an Empire after all!). This may have been due to superiority of cavalry and outflanking rather than direct defeat but I don't think we know. After Marathon, Hoplites became the dominant troop type in the region. Looking at the DBA army lists, many of the listed enemies for EAP have "spearmen" but these are often classified 4Ax or 4Ax/Sp. The 4Ax probably gives historical results but I don't have any playtests to be sure. You could still give Croesus in Lydia 4xSp or the Cypriots/Phoenicians 6xSp and skew the match up. Unfortunately most of the historical record that remains is in relation to Hoplites and the results of their battles. My gut feel is that there was an intense battle at the pavise wall but once it gave way, the line fell away pretty quickly. Lack of individual shields v heavy armour doesn't help. Also, the fact that you are likely to outrun the hoplites, may make discretion as the better part of valour kick in! Maybe "Sp" grade should be more selective? Or side-support only for those armies thought to fight with more cohesion? Personally, I'd rather a solution that changes the army list gradings (i.e. Sp to 4Ax) rather than the game mechanics. Cheers Jim PS Still looking for the right EAPs to suit my Tin Soldier Greeks
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 15, 2018 14:21:50 GMT
Ha! I was being mischievous. I don't think Thessalians need a specific rule. Your quotes from Phillip are interesting though, given the reputation of Thessalian cavalry for a couple of centuries before Phillip, albeit that Greek cavalry was not of that high a standard. I'm not second guessing Phillip but I wonder if the Thessalian cavalry had devolved over time. Things like increasing armour, increasing wealth, life style change, gentrification may have led to changes that made the rhombus obsolete. Alternatively, loss/change of skills/drills made the later Thessalians unable to make the rhombus work. We'll never know.
Cheers
Jim
PS Hmmmm, a House rule has come into my head for Thessalians prior to Phillip. Base 4 as a rhombus on 40x40mm base. All cavalry rules apply. Weakness of increased base depth offset by ability to choose it's front edge. Makes forming column easy too!
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 15, 2018 14:09:43 GMT
If you give Sparabara side support you may want allow Spears to provide and receive side support for Sparabara as well. Otherwise the Medizing Hoplites (I'm looking at you Thebes!) are significantly weakened as only one element is available.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 15, 2018 13:50:53 GMT
Many years ago I ran one of my "DBA With a Twist" tournaments where the breakpoint for armies was variable. Elements were given a value ranging from 0.5 (Ps/Hd) through to 1.5(Kn/El) with most having a value of 1. At the end of each bound where players had suffered a loss they had to roll a dice and score HIGHER than the value of their losses to keep fighting. I can't access my personal wargaming data at work any more so I can't elaborate on when the competition was held, what it was called, the exact lists of values of elements or who rolled first if both sides suffered losses. This (I think) in some way addresses the Thracian Problem that Primuspilus alluded. I remember that everyone did enjoy the game Cheers Victory conditions tinkering is quite interesting. Variable break points is very interesting and can be used to stiffen historically tough armies (e.g. Spartans). An easy way is to roll equal to or greater than the total elements lost (probably starting at 3; wouldn't want to give up after losing a single Ps! ). I've mentioned core v non-core troops before. Core troops could be worth 1 and non-core worth 0.5. SCh always worth 0. But, like with many of these ideas, they need playtesting, playtesting, playtesting, especially if there is ever a serious push for DBA 3.1. But maybe we could use the power of the digital age have a way to record effects of House rules? Anybody know of an appropriate platform? Then we could have "Official Fanaticus Unofficial House Rules"! Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 15, 2018 13:43:37 GMT
Now I agree with stevie most of the time. But the loss of both flanks and your general in an ancients/medieval battle is likely irreparable. (In fact, either occuring is likely to have doomed the army historically.) The example given of Cannae illustrates that. The bigger question is why didn't the battlelines meet in DBA as they did historically? Cheers Jim Jim, I think you may be missing the point. At both Cannae and Zama it was the fact that the infantry were fighting while surrounded that led to victory. But according to DBA, Hannibal and Scipio needn’t have bothered... ...just defeat a skirmisher and the cavalry on each flank and the battle is yours. No need to go through all that tedious hassle of actually engaging the enemy heavy foot. But this is not what happened in reality is it. The infantry in these battles actually fought on quite stubbornly, even though the situation was hopeless. So either DBA is wrong about this...or the history books are wrong! (Actually, neither of the losing generals were personally defeated, routed, or killed in these two battles. It’s just that the army lists insists that these generals are permanently attached to their cavalry element. And with only 12 elements, few armies can afford the luxury of keeping their general safe behind their front line.)Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients, and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
Hi stevie.I understand that it's possible in DBA for the heavy infantry battlelines not to meet and the result to be decided on the flanks. But does that actually happen given the deployment and speed rules? I haven't seen it but others have more games under their belts. If it does happen then which mechanism is at fault? Are people advancing their centre as a priority but not reaching the enemy in time? Are the flank combats too bloody? I'm not sure it's the Ps rule that explains it all. And I still think losing both your flanks before breaking the centre should be a game loss but it would be interesting to play it out and see if the legionaries can turn it around on a DBA table. The general has been discussed on a thread before. It would be nice to have some more granularity (the front rank fighter, the mobile tactician, the God-King that flees easily etc). Good house rules and scenario rules fodder there. Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 15, 2018 9:21:34 GMT
Seems quite straight forward. Now to deal with Thessalian rhomboid formation... Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 15, 2018 6:15:46 GMT
Jim, This is where peer pressure really helps! I learned this from the Lead Adventure Forum Army Painter Challenges. 7 armies on your painting table and its May. Pledge to showcase 1 army per month on this Forum and by 31 Dec you'll have cracked them all! What's more I'll match you! I've pledged to showcase 12 armies this year, 2 down already - 10 to go. Any one else in? Paddy Ok Paddy! I like deadlines. However, I am in the UK June/July and won't be taking my hobby room with me. So the deadlines will be: - Anglo-Saxon/Anglo Danish, Vikings, Gauls all finished by end of August. Lot's of overlap with these projects - NKE by end of September (another business trip but I can get a camp, BUA and ediface done. - Early Carthaginians/Thracians/Greeks by end October. Birthday month, so should get some "me" time. Then an army a month from then. Choices include Nikephorian, Crusaders, Saladin, Sumerians (probably), HOTT mythical greek and anything shiny I buy in the meantime. Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 15, 2018 5:58:13 GMT
This seems quite a complex discussion and I'm not sure we'll get agreement because of the variability available in DBA 3.
Firstly, the effect needs to be looked at in terms of Ps heavy and Ps light armies. The point that a Ps light army may not be concerned with the loss of these troops is plausable. But for Ps heavy armies those same troops would be equals in their society. Wouldn't the morale/tactical loss be more deeply felt?
Secondly, morale effects are difficult to grasp. They may be tinkerers and cobblers from the back streets, but seeing them butchered by cavalry in the open may remind all about their very real danger in battle. Not to mention the morale boost for the enemy. Also seeing your flank cleared of friends would make you somewhat uneasy.
Thirdly, the overall effect seems to be right. Now I agree with stevie most of the time. But the loss of both flanks and your general in an ancients/medieval battle is likely irreparable. (In fact, either occuring is likely to have doomed the army historically.) The example given of Cannae illustrates that. The bigger question is why didn't the battlelines meet in DBA as they did historically? This would seem unusual with current deployments and speeds but wjhupp indicates that he is seeing it in his games. Is anyone else seeing this?
Finally, there are compromises all through DBA. Would Harold Godwinson really just shrug if the entire Great Fyrd turned tail and ran (4x7Hd)? Can Vikings make a Shieldwall using 4Bd?. But the effect seems to work because otherwise we would not spend so much time discussing, painting, building and playing! Speaking of playing, I'd like to hear more from primuspilus about how this rule worked when used in FtF games. After all, to misquote von Moltke "no wargames rules extend with any certainty beyond the first contact with the players."
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 12, 2018 15:16:36 GMT
Persian Sparabara were 10 ranks deep. Hoplites were 6-12 ranks deep. I can see that making them 8Bw (twice the depth of Hoplites???) gives them the +1 in close combat but that is a little offset when the first one lost counts for two. Unless that element happens to represent the Immortals I don't think that is a fair representation of the morale loss given Sparabara were very common in the army. In the Greco-Persian Wars, they should lose to Hoplites more than they win but they need to win enough to make them playable. Or at least last long enough for a cavalry/light infantry outflanking move. Maybe Recoil Solid foot on equal scores could be a start?
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 11, 2018 7:46:59 GMT
Here are some thoughts I posted on the "2 ranks destroyed thread":
The cost to frontage to achieve a bonus for pikes is a problem. It makes the phalanx too small and too easily outflanked. Descriptions of Cynoscephalae and Pydna don't indicate that the Romans simply extended their line, wrapped up the flanks and went home for lunch. The battles were hard fought, often requiring combined arms tactics from the Romans. The initial clash seemed to favour the pikes but as it wore on, disorganization created gaps and flanks for the more flexible/manouverable Romans to exploit. I'm not sure if it will work but I am going to try 8Pk options to allow a strong battle line but each loss to count for two elements so you must protect the phalanx. This will hopefully balance strength and brittleness.
I'll start playtesting soon and report back to the group
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 9, 2018 7:08:15 GMT
Nice report and love seeing the Tin Soldier Hoplites! What did you use for EAP? I'm looking for something to match up with my Tin Soldier miniatures, as they seem to stubbonly refuse to extend their Persians!
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 9, 2018 0:16:43 GMT
Currently I have the following "almost finished" armies:
- Anglo Saxons - half painted but paused as I paint up TravelBattle for an upcoming trip - Vikings - painted and based but waiting Anglo Saxons for flock and also need camp - Gauls - were finished but felt that I couldn't use woad tattooed 3Wb as substitutes so 8 x 3Wb were painted and based but waiting for flock - NKE - need camp - Early Carthaginians - Finished but proportions of Citizen and Libyan spearmen need to be adjusted. Also need Camp renovation - Thracians - finished BUT then Tin Soldier brings out a Thracian Javelin thrower which suits the Ps elements better... - Late Hoplite Greeks - looking for appropriate figures for Black Sea and Agesilaus' expedition (Tin Soldier armies)
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 9, 2018 0:04:51 GMT
It's probably good that Gaul is tougher to conquer than historically recorded. Having Spartans, Romans, Mongols etc win the same percentage of battles in DBA as in history would kill the hobby. I'm not sure what the exact percentage should be between "matched pairs" but the army that history records as weaker should probably win at least 40% of games to make them playable. There is another type of army, which I call the "nuisance" army, that can be a bit weaker but still be built (e.g. Thracians, Welsh, Picts). You need these armies for good campaigns. What really breaks the system is when the historically successful army struggles (e.g Spartans, Alex v Darius)
I think much of the problem is that people like myself, with an interest in classical warfare (pikes and spears), didn't do enough playtesting when it mattered. medievalthomas eluded to this in an earlier post. You can see the benefit of his work in the medieval period and lkmjbc worked hard on the dark ages to achieve a balance.
The cost to frontage to achieve a bonus for pikes is a problem. It makes the phalanx too small and too easily outflanked. Descriptions of Cynoscephalae and Pydna don't indicate that the Romans simply extended their line, wrapped up the flanks and went home for lunch. The battles were hard fought, often requiring combined arms tactics from the Romans. The initial clash seemed to favour the pikes but as it wore on, disorganization created gaps and flanks for the more flexible/manouverable Romans to exploit. I'm not sure if it will work but I am going to try 8Pk options to allow a strong battle line but each loss to count for two elements so you must protect the phalanx. This will hopefully balance strength and brittleness.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 8, 2018 23:40:46 GMT
No I don't mind. stevie proof read the first draft and gave some great suggestions. He also added that extra special touch, which I will leave as a surprise. Just need to edit them and then move into presentation. Probably need to put them on the wiki as the file may be quite large. Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 8, 2018 23:24:52 GMT
I've heard of them. They have a mythical nature on the internet. Never seen one up close but do wish they were re-released.
Cheers
Jim
|
|