|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jul 29, 2018 12:47:52 GMT
After watching Dan Snows documentary on Norman walks I had a question form in my mind.The Battle of Hastings was fought 6 miles approx.from the invasion camp at Pevensey and could be described as an amfibious operation so why no Littorial option for this in the rules?
Likewise, the Normans in Italy/Scicily from 1061(Massina)to the fall of Palermo 1972 increasingly used naval units in their leisurly campaigns being replaced by the IV/5a Scicilian list from 1072...so why do the Normans not qualify as fighting in Arable and Littorial?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 29, 2018 14:44:52 GMT
Perhaps because they didn’t maintain a regular fleet and didn’t fight naval battles Haardrada, but just used their ships for nothing more than transport purposes. Mind you, what about the I/60c & II/7 Persians and the II/33 & II/49 Polybian and Marian Romans... ...they certainly did maintain regular fleets and fought sea battles, yet are classed as Arable. All I can say is “I didn’t write the rules”...  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 Haardrada on Jul 29, 2018 15:16:25 GMT
Perhaps because they didn’t maintain a regular fleet and didn’t fight naval battles Haardrada, but just used their ships for nothing more than transport purposes. Mind you, what about the I/60c & II/7 Persians and the II/33 & II/49 Polybian and Marian Romans... ...they certainly did maintain regular fleets and fought sea battles, yet are classed as Arable. All I can say is “I didn’t write the rules”... 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
I didn't think the Normans would be a unique case...but The 1066 army is specific to that year and alaternatively, Robert and Roger Guiscard DID amass a growing fleet from 1061 which gradually grew in size and capability beyond 1072. 😊 |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jul 29, 2018 15:18:26 GMT
Perhaps because they didn’t maintain a regular fleet and didn’t fight naval battles Haardrada, but just used their ships for nothing more than transport purposes. Mind you, what about the I/60c & II/7 Persians and the II/33 & II/49 Polybian and Marian Romans... ...they certainly did maintain regular fleets and fought sea battles, yet are classed as Arable. All I can say is “I didn’t write the rules”... 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
I didn't think the Normans would be a unique case lol...but The 1066 army is specific to that year and alaternatively, Robert and Roger Guiscard did amass a growing fleet from 1061 which gradually grew in size and capability beyond 1072. 😊 I thought maybe someone who was involved in the construction of 3.0 may shed some light on the subject.💡 😊 |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jul 29, 2018 17:52:09 GMT
My (albeit vague) recollection is that when the topographies of DBA armies were decided it was based on the DBM army lists, and if THOSE were permitted 'x' number of ships then the DBA army was designated 'littoral'. Whether or not armies occasionally used landings didn't come into it.....so no Caesar in 55BC or whatever . African Vandals are a reverse case - yes they raided, but most of their fighting was very much on 'arable'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jul 29, 2018 18:59:41 GMT
My (albeit vague) recollection is that when the topographies of DBA armies were decided it was based on the DBM army lists, and if THOSE were permitted 'x' number of ships then the DBA army was designated 'littoral'. Whether or not armies occasionally used landings didn't come into it.....so no Caesar in 55BC or whatever . African Vandals are a reverse case - yes they raided, but most of their fighting was very much on 'arable'. Thanks Martin,maybe the need or desire to find out was lacking.lol I have the original DBM lists and strangely Normans in Italy are allowed ships in 1041AD....for DBA purposes the amount must not have been enough.😁 |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 29, 2018 21:30:07 GMT
Actually, looking into this intriguing question a little more deeply, I think I may have sussed-out Phil Barker’s thinking on this. It all seems to boil down to the concept of what exactly is a naval power. Just having a lot of transport/merchant ships does not make a nation a naval power...at least, not as far as DBA is concerned. What really matters is how much of a nation’s income (i.e. it’s GDP to use a modern term) is spent on the navy. Both Persia and Rome had sizeable well maintained organized fleets, but these were both land empires in which the navy played but a small role. Athens on the other hand, spent much (up to 50%?) of it’s wealth on maintaining a large fleet, so counts as Littoral. Likewise with Carthage, Egypt, the African Vandals, and forces like II/16b Demetrios’ Asiatic Early Successor army. By this definition forces such as that of Sextus Pompey, the youngest son of Pompey the Great, who briefly formed a naval power based on Scilly in 40 BC following the assassination of Julius Caesar and was a thorn in the side of Octavian-Augustus, should also be classed as Littoral. But this army does not exist in the army lists. (I’m beginning to find several relatively important armies that are missing from the army lists: see fanaticus.boards.net/post/11652/ .
Perhaps Sextus Pompey is another that should have been added to the “Army List Corrections”...
...but don’t tell Timurilank, or he'll go spare! )It’s all a bit subjective of course, but it appears that these are the following guidelines as to who is and who isn’t a naval power:- * must maintain a war fleet, not just transport ships, on a long term basis... * must spend a sizeable amount of income on the fleet as opposed to army expenditure... * must have engaged in naval battles. By these criteria, the Normans do not qualify as Littoral. (Later Edit: hmmm...the II/54 Scots-Irish and the II/68 Picts were not noted for maintaining war fleets or engaging in sea battles...
...but they were noted coastal raiders and at home on the sea.
Oh well, I did say it was all a bit subjective...)
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 davidjconstable on Jul 30, 2018 7:33:41 GMT
Taking the Stevie list with note :
It’s all a bit subjective of course, but it appears that these are the following guidelines as to who is and who isn’t a naval power:-
* must maintain a war fleet, not just transport ships, on a long term basis...
* must spend a sizeable amount of income on the fleet as opposed to army expenditure...
* must have engaged in naval battles.
By these criteria, the Normans do not qualify as Littoral.
(Later Edit: hmmm...the II/54 Scots-Irish and the II/68 Picts were not noted for maintaining war fleets or engaging in sea battles...
...but they were noted coastal raiders and at home on the sea.
Oh well, I did say it was all a bit subjective...)
Could You add to the list :
*must have raided by using the sea, either crossing or going round the coast. This needs to be an alternative to the Stevie list not an extra.
That would cover coastal Picts and Vikings etc., but not Normans or Romans. Just a thought.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jul 30, 2018 8:03:21 GMT
My (albeit vague) recollection is that when the topographies of DBA armies were decided it was based on the DBM army lists, and if THOSE were permitted 'x' number of ships then the DBA army was designated 'littoral'. Whether or not armies occasionally used landings didn't come into it.....so no Caesar in 55BC or whatever . African Vandals are a reverse case - yes they raided, but most of their fighting was very much on 'arable'. Thanks Martin,maybe the need or desire to find out was lacking.lol I have the original DBM lists and strangely Normans in Italy are allowed ships in 1041AD....for DBA purposes the amount must not have been enough.😁 No, Haardrada, the need or desire wasn’t an issue 😊. The original topography allocation was a VERY long time ago, and the details are lost to my rapidly diminishing grey matter...it may be that it was ‘x’ number of ships, or ‘x’ % of the list’s min/max points or some other methodology, but it certainly didn’t cover every use of littoral landing potential by all possible armies.* M * just one of DBA’s gaming related rules, that may or may not reflect historical realities, but which adds variety to the patchwork of army interactions. Fine by me....... |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jul 30, 2018 9:08:42 GMT
Stevie,That should not be such a great problem as the 'Army List Corrections' project is nearly buttoned up. I have added another item that list, the Welsh (III/19a) as allies for second Middle Anglo Saxon sub-list (Mercia only).
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 30, 2018 14:36:59 GMT
Could You add to the list : *must have raided by using the sea, either crossing or going round the coast. This needs to be an alternative to the Stevie list not an extra. That would cover coastal Picts and Vikings etc., but not Normans or Romans. Just a thought. David Constable Not only is it a good thought David, but I’ve taken it aboard (pun intended ). So the following seems to be Phil Barker’s guide to Littoral Armies:- Naval Powers: those that fought sea battles and maintained a war fleet that took up a sizeable proportion of the nations income. Coastal Raiders: those that used small boats to make numerous small attacks (as opposed to large one-off invasions using transports, such as the Roman invasion of Briton and the Norman invasion of 1066 AD). Now let’s put it to the test by following Martin’s advice and comparing the DBA army lists with the DBMM lists. DBMM allows the Persians, Macedonians, Romans, and Byzantines, of all periods, to have quite substantial naval forces...but their fleets only took up a relatively small part of their entire military budget, so DBA does not class them as Littoral, which fits nicely with the above guidelines. Interestingly though, DBMM allows the III/38 Arab Indians and the III/60 Medieval Vietnamese to have large naval forces...but DBA classes these as Tropical, with no sea landing ability. Likewise, the DBMM III/48 Rus can have up to 8 boats, the same as the II/68a Picts and the II/54 Scots-Irish, but DBA treats the former as Forest and only the latter two as Littoral. Note that the Goths made substantial raids into Roman Anatolia across the Black Sea in the 3rd century AD (see commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gothic_raids_in_the_3rd_century.jpg ), and DBA classes the II/65 Visigoths as Arable, but these raids could be covered by the II/67b Heruls, who are Littoral. Plus the Saxon coastal raiders of Britain of the same period could be covered by the II/73 Frisians. (DBMM allows both the Frisians and the Saxons to have up to 6 boats). So all-in-all, although somewhat arbitrary in places, those guidelines above do seem to work...well, most of the time... 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 Haardrada on Jul 30, 2018 20:42:21 GMT
Taking the Stevie list with note : It’s all a bit subjective of course, but it appears that these are the following guidelines as to who is and who isn’t a naval power:- * must maintain a war fleet, not just transport ships, on a long term basis... * must spend a sizeable amount of income on the fleet as opposed to army expenditure... * must have engaged in naval battles. By these criteria, the Normans do not qualify as Littoral. (Later Edit: hmmm...the II/54 Scots-Irish and the II/68 Picts were not noted for maintaining war fleets or engaging in sea battles... ...but they were noted coastal raiders and at home on the sea. Oh well, I did say it was all a bit subjective...) Could You add to the list : *must have raided by using the sea, either crossing or going round the coast. This needs to be an alternative to the Stevie list not an extra. That would cover coastal Picts and Vikings etc., but not Normans or Romans. Just a thought. David Constable I would be careful to discount the Romans as costal raiders as they had to deal with Irish and Picts raiding for centuries and are recorded raiding in Ireland.There were forts and harbours at Bowness on the Solway at the Western end of the Roman wall as well as both sides of the Severn estuary as well as on the rivers Ellen, Esk, Mite, Irt and Dee that are known of.😊 The Normans are a different example as they are still noted as pirates as late as 996 AD in Normandy and the Hautvilles (In Southern Italy) really extended and enlarged their fleet from 1061 AD to be able to blockade the Harbour at the seige of Bari and seize the port of Catania in 1071 AD as a prelude to the assult on Palermo....to quote Phil(or Richard) in the DBM army lists (Feb 1994 AD), book 3, page 49...."Since the invasion fleet did not remain to co-operate with his army in the face of the superior English fleet, William is not allowed supporting ships.The Norman invaders of Scicily, however, frequently had supporting naval contingents which fought several sea battles." Several other armies come to mind as naval powers Tamil (Chola) Indians,Sung and Ming Chinese for instance. |
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Jul 31, 2018 7:49:09 GMT
I vaguely seem to remember hearing or reading a quote. By whom I have no idea, sorry!
"If you have a country you must have an Army, if you have a coast line you must have a Navy, If you have a Navy you must have a port.
If your coast does not have a port, use your Navy and Army to capture a neighbours coast and Port"
|
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Jul 31, 2018 10:57:41 GMT
Sorry if this throws a spanner in the works, but it bugs me. Hope it makes sense.
In DBA a littoral landing is made against an opposing army, two problems are obvious.
First - How many battles ACTUALLY took place where an army made an opposed landing against an army that was already there and waiting. The Romans in Kent are one immediate thought, but they are not littoral and also landed the whole army, so cannot do what they did historically.
Second - A lot more might have received reinforcements from the sea, those would be littoral in the DBA game sense. At Marathon the Greeks attacked the Persians, the Persians were probably reinforced by troops on the boats that landed to fight the Greeks. A littoral landing in the DBA game sense.
The problem is that there were probably very few instances of actual opposed landings, and they do not fit the DBA game littoral landing rules, but probably a lot more where additional troops landed that did help an army that had previously landed, but they need to be on the battlefield itself to fit DBA, two miles away is not good enough.
We will not complicate the matter further by pointing out Vikings landing near London or Paris to destroy defended bridges, both on rivers.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 31, 2018 13:35:45 GMT
Sorry if this throws a spanner in the works, but it bugs me. Hope it makes sense. In DBA a littoral landing is made against an opposing army, two problems are obvious. First - How many battles ACTUALLY took place where an army made an opposed landing against an army that was already there and waiting. The Romans in Kent are one immediate thought, but they are not littoral and also landed the whole army, so cannot do what they did historically. Second - A lot more might have received reinforcements from the sea, those would be littoral in the DBA game sense. At Marathon the Greeks attacked the Persians, the Persians were probably reinforced by troops on the boats that landed to fight the Greeks. A littoral landing in the DBA game sense. The problem is that there were probably very few instances of actual opposed landings, and they do not fit the DBA game littoral landing rules, but probably a lot more where additional troops landed that did help an army that had previously landed, but they need to be on the battlefield itself to fit DBA, two miles away is not good enough. We will not complicate the matter further by pointing out Vikings landing near London or Paris to destroy defended bridges, both on rivers. David Constable And I entirely agree with you David. In DBA 3.0 a Littoral Landing is in effect a wide outflanking manoeuvre, but conducted by sea instead of on land. However, I am unable to find even a single solitary example of this ever being done in reality in ancient or medieval times. And believe me, I have searched...and am still searching. In fact, I’m unable to find even a single example of it happening in modern times either! D-Day in 1944 was an entire army, not just a small part of one, all landing together, as was the Anzio landings in Italy in 1944, and the Gallipoli landings in 1915, and Caesar’s 55 BC & 54 BC landings in Briton, and the same for Suetonius Paulinus’ landing in Mona (Anglesey) in 60 AD. Now this is odd as the ancients certainly had the capability of landing a small amphibious force in the middle of a set-piece battle. So why was it never done? I think the answer is pretty obvious and staring us in the face...the ships would take time to sail across the water and would be seen (allowing the enemy to react), they would be vulnerable and take time to disembark on the beaches and would be seen (allowing the enemy to react), and the troops would take time to form-up and get themselves organized as they advanced and would be seen (allowing the enemy to react). That’s why there are no records of it ever being done in reality...it wouldn’t have worked! Nonetheless, Littoral Landings are in the rules, even if they are an abstract unrealistic artificial cartoony gamey construct that has no historical basis whatsoever. It might have been better if being Littoral reflected the true capabilities of having a seaborne force (here goes Stevie House Ruling again!). Having the ability to land anywhere along a coastline means you have the element of surprise and are able to catch the enemy off-guard. Also, it means your army is not so dependent on normal supply lines, but can be supplied by sea, giving you more strategic mobility. Therefore, after the aggression roll to determine in who's region the battle will take place, if there is a Waterway present the player with the most Littoral capable troops gets to freely decide if they want to be the defender (as they got to the battlefield first) or the attacker (as they have caught the enemy on the march). If both sides have an equal amount of Littoral elements, then the normal aggression roll applies. That would be a better way of reflecting the advantages of being Littoral and having a fleet of warships, transports, or small boats. Just a thought.  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
|
|
