|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 20, 2018 14:30:22 GMT
Quick question Joe: The updated Bw rule being tested is: "+1 PIP for an element or group to contact an element or group containing 3/4/8Bw" Is that right? As opposed to +1PIP for EVERY bow in the group right? Chris Yes, that is correct. Just +1 pip.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 22, 2018 2:45:40 GMT
More play test results...
Tonight I decided to test if the "Pike wins ties" is too powerful. To do so, I pitted them against a rather tough foe. Later Macedonians vs Poly Romans (Late). This in straight DBA is a hopeless match. The later Macedonians lost Pydna, Cynoscephalae, and Magnesia (ok Seleucid here)... and their kingdom to the Romans. This is not a good track record. The DBA army list reflects this well... 2x Cv, 6x 4Pk, 1 Lh, 2x 4Ax, 1 Ps. This is matched against 2 Cv, 6 4Bd, 2 Sp, 2x Ps... None of those Italian ally 4 Axs in this Roman army!
Needless to say, this isn't an even match. The earlier Macs with Alex as a knight general and only 1 4Ax have a much better chance... even with Alex killed on a tie vs the Roman Bd.
So, the only consolation is that the Macs are aggression 1. Needless to say I was the defender and proceeded to roll nothing but 4s for terrain placement. So much for the idea of limiting the frontage of the battle to protect my flanks. The plough was good going and I decided that aggression and an echelon attack were my only chance. I do the echelon attack well... having played Macedonians for many years.
True to form I caught the long Roman line with 4 Pike and my cav on one flank. Here the win the ties helped on two occasions. I was able to push the Roman blade line and gain overlaps... not particularly important overlaps as I couldn't get a double. I sacrificed my Lh to delay his cav... but to little effect. My Cav were able to pick up a Ps and a Cav... but I was unable to kill a Bd. He eventually closed with the rest of my line... killing a pike block on a 5 to 5 fight... and then he hit my Ax... they did survive a turn extra due to the 1BW recoil. 4-2 loss for the Later Macs.
Conclusions... The "Pike win ties" rule do toughen up the Pike. The Romans will get pushed back... unlike previous fights... the Ax do live longer with the Ax retreat 1 BW rule... the end result however is that this still is a hopeless fight for the Macs... probably as it should be.
I am much more comfortable with the Pike changes. They work without being overpowering. They will certainly help the Macs and the Swiss... The Swiss will still under-perform...as they should... DBA has no superior rating... but they are certainly better.
The Ax changes worked as designed... allowing the Ax to live longer vs heavy infantry.
Big tests to come...
EAP vs Greeks... (well EAP vs LAP that have a lot of Greeks).
We will see how well the shooting changes work.
and the ultimate test of Ax! Clontarf! (though Clontarf is a small ways off yet)
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 22, 2018 8:36:14 GMT
Excellent playtest reports Joe. I myself have been conducting some small scale Pk tests, not full battles, just half a dozen elements a side. And I quite like the Pk recoilling enemies on an equal score that I occasionally see. But I wonder if you would consider the following possible amendments:- Solid Pk only: should this extra recoil only benefit 4Pk, and not 3Pk? And should it only apply in good going, as in rough/bad going their enemies could get in closer as they get under the reach of the disordered long pikes? Mutual recoils: when two solid Pk columns score equal, how about having both recoil? It might seem odd, but it simulates both Pk formations backing off to regain their breath, their formation, and the bringing forward of fresh rear ranks to replace the tired front rank. It would make the wording on the combat outcomes less cumbersome if it simply said “Solid foot recoil from solid pikes on an equal score in good going” (fast foot already have a line that says they recoil from solid foot when scores are equal).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
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 22, 2018 14:29:30 GMT
I thought some on these.
3 Pk is an odd bird. I'm not sure that there is enough data to give any kind of direction to the thinking on this. I find it best just to keep Pk the same across the board.
The rough/bad terrain exception may be warranted historically, but I don't think it worth the complication. One rarely sees Pike in either rough or bad... and they are penalized enough already... If they are in that terrain.. they are as good as dead anyway. I don't think it would matter to the game ever... or so rarely that it isn't worth it.
Mutual recoils is interesting... but again I don't see it happening in many historical narratives- but it is interesting and perhaps warrants some study.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jul 7, 2018 21:56:58 GMT
Finally another play test...
Again we pitted the Later Macs against the Romans in a Pydna/Cynocephalae/Magnesia fight.
Test Rules...
Pikes win ties
Ax recoils 1BW from Bd/Pk
1x Cv Gen
1x Cv
1x LH
6x 4Pk
2x 4Ax
1x Ps
vs
1x Cv Gen
1x Cv
6x 4Bd
2x Sp
2x Ps
I attacked as usual in echelon hoping to catch one of the long flanks of the Romans. The match-ups unfortunately had my Lh against an enemy Cv. Yes, he doubled me first turn. Still, the Pikes winning the ties pushed the blades back. The end of my line was able to hold a turn against a flank attack... and my Cav General got a double against a blade! To my dismay, my Pikes pushed too far forward... allowing one of my Pike columns to be flanked. The flanked cav on my flank was destroyed and I lost the Pike column as well... though the fight was 5 to 5 with me winning ties.
Thoughts:
I am 90% certain that these are good rules. They are simple, help the period... you can now actually push Bd back! and they don't make the pikes overpowered, nor Ax for that matter. They should also greatly help 8x Pike armies...again without making them overpowered.
The Ax recoil rule never came into use as I kept my Ax in the woods and away from the enemy blade.
Once again... I call for folks to test these new rules!
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jul 9, 2018 2:15:49 GMT
Joe
Whilst your ideas are interesting I'm not convinced about the rules for pikes pushing back foot on a draw. At Cynocephalae the Macedonians were uphill (DBA +1 factor) and yet still could not break the opposing left wing legionaries - giving the Roman right wing time to come to its aid and outflank said pikemen. Giving armies that consistently failed (as Macedonian pike did against Romans legionaries) a bonus seems a rather shall we say counter intuitive idea.
B.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jul 9, 2018 3:21:08 GMT
Barritus, what you describe though seems to be more or less exactly what will happen with Joe's rule. There will be no "lock" result between the Pk and the Bd, with the edge going to the Pk. If the Roman is smart, he'll have a second line of Bd that can peel off and hit the Pk in column on a flank. Pretty deadly for the Pk, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jul 9, 2018 5:35:42 GMT
Primuspilus, I'm not sure I understand your logic here. Giving the recoil on a DRAW will give the Pikes more chance of overlaps on the Bd - I can't see how that is helpful to Blade (especially as Joe is openly trying to improve Pike.....). That is likely to defeat the Blade before any outflanking can occur.
There is also the issue that if you include it for Fast Pike (a very dodgy troop type I believe) then you are breaking the Solid foot recoils Fast foot on a DRAW rule.
cheers
B.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 9, 2018 7:13:57 GMT
At Cynocephalae the Macedonians were uphill (DBA +1 factor) and yet still could not break the opposing left wing legionaries... But Philips’ right-wing phalanx did drive the Roman left-wing legionaries down the hill and pursued them, thereby increasing the gap between them and the rest of Philips’ left-wing phalanx. I find that Joe’s extra pike recoil to be quite minor, and only occasionally happens in practise:- (The numbers are chances out of 36) Pike Pike Blade Blade Doubled Recoiled Equal Recoiled DoubledCF 6+1 (uphill) v CF 5 (no overlaps) 0 6 4 24 2 CF 6+1 (uphill) v CF 4 (Bd overlapped) 0 3 3 24 6 The threat of losing a Bd encourages the Romans to keep reserves, and less likely to have a longer line than the rear-supported Pk’s. A double overlap on the Bd is not easy for the Macedonians in a 12 element battle, as at least 2 of the Pk are on the opposite wing. However it is more common in BBDBA...but then the Romans will also have more elements to form a reserve to plug any gaps. P.S.
Interestingly, I have re-fought this battle several times in the past, albeit without Joe’s newly conceived extra Pk recoil.
It is one of many battles that has led me to believe that ‘Roaming Generals’ are necessary for correct historical re-enactments, but only for the Romans and Carthaginians.
Flamininus started on the Roman left-wing (where?...tied to the cavalry or tied to the legionaries?), and later moved to his right-wing (without dragging his cavalry bodyguard with him). Hannibal likewise was not tied to his cavalry at Cannae or Zama.
Still, let us not discus such things here in this thread.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
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jul 9, 2018 16:55:36 GMT
Fast Pike should have been Fast Spear. For home battles just replace all Fast Pike with Fast Spear.
If we are bothering with history, the Legionaries would be much better at stuck in close fighting that a draw represents.
Are there any reliable numbers on the battle being discussed - who outnumbered who and hence might have the wider or deeper front?/
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 9, 2018 18:51:38 GMT
Are there any reliable numbers on the battle being discussed - who outnumbered who and hence might have the wider or deeper front? TomT 25,500 (20,00 legionaries, 3,000 light infantry, 2,500 cavalry, 20 elephants: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cynoscephalae (See also: www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Cynoscephalae ) (And also: www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_cynoscephalae_197.html ) (Plus: www.arsbellica.it/pagine/antica/Cinocefale/Cinocefale_eng.html ) Approximate Macedonian Strength:- 27,000 (16,000 phalanx, 5,000 peltasts, 4,000 light infantry, 2,000 cavalry): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cynoscephalae (See also: www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Cynoscephalae ) (And also: www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_cynoscephalae_197.html ) (Plus: www.arsbellica.it/pagine/antica/Cinocefale/Cinocefale_eng.html ) (Battle of Cynocephalae, Polybius, p131 to p143: penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/18*.html#28 ) (Battle of Cynocephalae, Livy, sections 33.3 to 33.10: mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Livy33.html ) 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
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jul 9, 2018 19:30:00 GMT
Oddly enough the Romams seemed to believe that the legions had to engage the phalanx on broken or rough ground, to nullify the Macedonian battle system. As in the case of Marathon, I ask the question: if one of the battle systems was so clearly and comprehensively inferior, why did the other side carefully select a battleplan to defeat them? Why not just up and trundle right over them with nary a second thought?
When it comes to specific outcomes, wargamers often display very elementary mistakes with statistical reasoning: in particular that association is the same as causation, in cases like these.
In each of the victories of the legion over the phalanx, it seems that at a critical point the phalanx had the upper hand, and it was superior tactical decision-making (i.e. DBA generalship?) that gave victory, not inherent superiority of one weapon system over the other?
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jul 9, 2018 19:48:50 GMT
Some excellent points. This fight is extremely hopeless for the Greeks...and difficult to recreate as a close fought battle.
Giving the pikes the ability to win ties helps. The Romans now must worry with depth in case the pikes do double a blade, though in the end they still have the advantage.
This change also helps the Alexander vs Greek fights...Chaeronea is much more possible.
I would be interested in Swiss vs Burgundy and Germany...the Swiss should still underperform as there is no grading...but they should underperform less.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 9, 2018 21:04:05 GMT
In each of the victories of the legion over the phalanx, it seems that at a critical point the phalanx had the upper hand, and it was superior tactical decision-making (i.e. DBA generalship?) that gave victory, not inherent superiority of one weapon system over the other? I largely agree Primuspilus. Cynocephalae is a good example of where rough/bad going was not an issue. Despite the pikes having a superiority in combat, and having the uphill tactical advantage, the Macedonians were simply out -generalled. When re-creating ancient battles, I strongly believe in ‘pre-programing’ a battle to get the right historical result. In this engagement, Philip, who was tied to his cavalry, placed himself on the right wing of his right hand phalanx. As these rolled the Romans down the gentle hill and they followed-up, this will leave Philip on the wrong side of the hill crest, making it expensive in PIPs to get his left wing up the hill and into action before the Roman right wing gains the hilltop advantage (so the Roman elephants will be uphill, recoiling the pikes and causing them to be overlapped as well as downhill). However, one of the problems with this battle is how to prevent the Roman right wing from simply turning on to the flank of the victorious pikes coming down the hill on their left. My solution is to use the Macedonian psiloi X-ray threat zones to pin the Roman reserves on the Roman right wing. By the time Flaminius, who has joined his right wing, has driven off these skirmishers, gained the hilltop, and is driving the disordered Macedonians down the other side of the hill, his own left wing has also been recoiled halfway down the near side of the hill...making it easy to detach his reserve Triarii to charge the victorious phalanx in the rear. (Doesn’t always work...damn those PIP dice rolls!  )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
|
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jul 10, 2018 2:38:27 GMT
Stevie, thanks for the arithmetic analysis. I admit I still don't support the idea that somehow this is for the Bd's advantage (and goes against Joe's stated aim of improving Pike). One other telling reason whilst it is not a good idea is that it will improve Fast Pike - which will cause more problems.
Perversely I would say Joe's Pike idea would actually be good for Fast Pike (good as in more historical not necessarily better for the Fast Pike) provided that Fast Pike no longer receive rear support (the idea of rapidly moving deep formations of Pikes - as represented by Pk(F) is historically untenable I think).
cheers
B.
|
|
)