|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 28, 2019 1:49:17 GMT
Yup.
And a really good Persian commander with diligence and a spot of luck, can actually go one better, and just maybe win where Mardonius failed, and hold the line at Plataea to get the Greeks to fold!
Which is why my rule works. But guys don't take my word for it. Play it to death. Both it and the 4Ax rule work to reflect different factors, but grt the right outcomes at the overall level!
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 28, 2019 6:42:11 GMT
So 8Bw seems like it's working out (barring more testing than just the 4 of us), but I want to talk about the Thracians and returning to 4Ax for a sec.
Reading from D. Head, 1982 edition, page 121, "The Thracians": "The Thracians had been the originators of the peltast style of fighting which the Greeks had adopted...", "...In pitched battles, however, Thracians who attempted to skirmish would now often find themselves ridden down by enemy cavalry...","...forced to fight hand to hand and soundly beaten by their heavier armed opponents."
This screams 3Ax and 2Ps to me, and so the Thracian army would no longer get 4Ax by the new definition, which is ok, but as long as we acknowledge that some armies will have to change to adapt to this new paradigm of 4Ax being medium/heavy infantry.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 28, 2019 6:45:25 GMT
To summarize the proposed changes to Bw: 1) All Bows are not restricted by the TZ of enemies anymore, and can gang up freely. 2) 8Bw are now CV4 against "Heavy Infantry": Sp, Bd, rear supported Pike, except in rough terrain. They also lose side support. 3) 4Bw are .... I forget. Tried to go back, but it's lost in the feed.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 28, 2019 7:59:35 GMT
Hi Greedo, We are looking at 4Bw being 3CF against HI (Bd, Sp, and rear-supported Pk), same CF as 3Ax 3Ax. They lose side support. So it addresses not just the English Longbow issue, but also fixes 4Bw on a wider basis, and renders them better balanced (otherwise, with identical shooting, and 3BW in all terrain, why on earth would you ever choose 4Bw for any other period, if you had a choice over 3Bw? As it stands now, in a handful of cases where your 4Bw get to play alongside blade, they suck. And they can't even move nicely in rough or bad going, and they can't shoot from marsh or rivers anymore Your point about Tharcians is well-taken, but the list goes right up to after Alexander, if I am not mistaken. Those 4Ax Thracians represent the Rhompaia-wielding infantry, if I am not mistaken. So perhaps the early Thracians were 3Ax/Ps (makes sense) but I'd leave the option for later Thracian to have 4Ax as well.
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 28, 2019 9:54:14 GMT
In short, with the new proposed rule amendments, I’d say that the odds were now about 50/50.
Ah, stevie, you wily politician. Themistocles would be proud! 50/50 is fantastic for a game. But is it history? Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 28, 2019 10:25:46 GMT
Hi stevie. This is a great book and I have dreams of playing each of the 173 engagements described. But when it comes to Ephesus, it simply does not say that the sparabara broke the Greek centre. It says that the Greeks broke once their floating flank (the other was anchored on the Cayster River) was enveloped by the Persian cavalry. It also says that the Ionians couldn't break through the sparabara or the Lydians. To quote the author: "Asian Greeks either lacked othismos (pushing) tactics or were less practiced at them. In fact, the latter seems more likely, a product of the peaceful conditions that had long prevailed within Persian-administered Ionia". No doubt the Athenians present learned the lesson well that staying put is bad idea and took it home with them. It also clearly states that the Athenian centre at Marathon did not break. Again to quite the author: "The Persian center held firm under this spear attack, as it had the best troops and faced only short Greek files that couldn't exert strong othismos. It was front-fighter against front-fighter here and the sparabara forced their foes backwards. Herodotus said that the Persians went so far as to penetrate the middle of Athens' line, but this seems quite unlikely in light of the phalanx's abiltiy to hold formation elsewhere. It's more probable that the Greek center merely fell back a bit and didn't actually break". That has been my point in this discussion. The sparabara need to have a chance at holding the hoplites long enough to win on the wings. They shouldn't bulldoze holes through the line. Unless, of course, you take Herodotus as gospel. But 2 million in Xerxes' army? Not likely. Having said that, I do believe the 192 casualties at Marathon. It seems similar to other casualty lists by sources like Thucydides after a phalanx victory. It is also something that would've been recorded, venerated and public knowledge in Athens so a fudge would have been called out. But that's the fun of Herodotus, finding what you believe and what you discard. Dan Carlin calls him the world's first screenwriter and it seems apt. If you accept this number then it is unlikely that the Athenian centre broke, particularly as the Athenians suffered casualties both from Persian cavalry during the pursuit and at the fight for the ships. By all means let's stiffen the Persian line. Maybe they can avoid the recoil like hordes. Maybe increasing CC factor. But please don't give them RPGs. I really want games where there is tension from the set up dice roll to the last element. More than happy for the Persians to set up favourable terrain at home to maximise their strengths (But stevie rules will allow the Greek general to choose the smallest board...) and help even the contest. I do not want steam roller affairs. But the changes have to make reasonable historical sense based on the outcomes. To help, the extra PIP to contact can be explained by Pausanias' ridiculous slaughtering of goats at Plataea. It may not have happened but, as I said, you get to choose with Herodotus. Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 28, 2019 10:44:28 GMT
Any dumb player can lead the Greeks to victory.
Ouch!
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 28, 2019 10:59:39 GMT
In short, with the new proposed rule amendments, I’d say that the odds were now about 50/50.
Ah, stevie, you wily politician. Themistocles would be proud! 50/50 is fantastic for a game. But is it history? Jim Ha! Themistocles didn’t have to paint all my little metal Persian soldiers did he... ...and I’ll be buggered if after going through all the trouble of buying, painting, and basing them, I’m then told:- “Oh, they can never win a battle!” When I say “50/50” I don’t mean Hoplites v Sparabara 8Bw are “50/50”, because they’re not...Sp are still superior. I mean that Greeks v Persians is about “50/50”...one is better in close combat, the other has cavalry for outflanking. Or are you telling me that no matter how badly a Greek army is commanded, they can never lose? But you are right about Ephesus...the Persian Sparabara held the the Greek Hoplites, and it was the Persian Cv that won it. And the Persians can’t hold against side-supported spears with a combat factor of 3 (but they can with a combat factor of 4). As for Marathon...Herodotus says the Persians penetrated the Athenians centre. That’s good enough for me. Just because modern Greek loving historians cannot possibly conceive of how their beloved butch Hoplites were bested by those weak effete Persians, so they make up excuses to account for it, is not going to change what Herodotus actually wrote. So yes, I want to re-create history... ....and if history says that a Persian 8Bw Sparabara could stand up to and hold Hoplites for a while, and even on occasion repel them, then they should at least have the chance to do so on our wargames table. And a combat factor of 3 just ain’t up to the job... Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 28, 2019 11:18:48 GMT
As for Marathon...Herodotus says the Persians penetrated the Athenians centre. That’s good enough for me.
Is everything Herodotus wrote good enough? Because it will provide huge ammunition for some truly bizarre rules. Thucydides didn't have a high opinion of his "objectivity" shall we say. Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 28, 2019 11:41:26 GMT
Well, until you can lay your hands on the keys to Doctor Who’s TARDIS and go back and see for yourself, Herodotus is all we’ve got. Oh, like most ancient and medieval writers, he exaggerated the numbers (hundreds of thousands to them just means ‘a lot!’). But if you’re going to start cherry-picking his account (“we’ll have this bit...but not that bit”), then how will you know that ANY of it is right...and which bits are just concocted modern-day fantasy? Perhaps when I say “I want to re-create history” I should really say “I want to re-create what the ancient historians said happened”, as opposed to what modern-day thinkers think should have happened... Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 28, 2019 11:49:54 GMT
I would hardly call Thucydides a modern-day thinker. And if he doubts Herodotus then that's enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 28, 2019 13:06:09 GMT
Very well then...which bits of Herodotus do you want to keep, and which bits should we discard? And while we are at it, which bits of Thucydides should we keep, and which bits should we discard? Remember why Thurcydides was critical of Herodotus. He never contradicted Herodotus account of the Persian War, but he was critical of the way Herodotus ‘romanticized’ it (just as Livy ‘romanticized’ Polybius account of the Punic Wars). Herodotus views history as a source of moral lessons, with conflicts and wars as misfortunes flowing from initial acts of injustice perpetuated through cycles of revenge. In contrast, Thucydides see wars as a political struggle (which is true for the Peloponnesian War), and claims to confine himself to factual reports of contemporary political and military events, based on unambiguous, first-hand, eye-witness accounts...although, unlike Herodotus, Thucydides does not reveal his sources, so we don't know if his account is entirely true and not distorted by his love of Sparta and hatred of Athens. He was also critical of the way Herodotus recorded in his Histories not only the events of the Persian Wars, but also geographical information and stories of strange creatures and local customs, as well as the fables related to him during his extensive travels. Typically, Herodotus passes no definitive judgment on what he has heard. In the case of conflicting or unlikely accounts, he presents both sides, says what he believes, and then invites readers to decide for themselves. Thucydides on the other hand views life exclusively as political life, and history in terms of political history. Conventional moral considerations play no role in his analysis of political events while geographic information and local customs are omitted or, at best, of secondary importance. I think we need both writers if we want to get even a glimmer of the real truth. Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 28, 2019 14:59:23 GMT
Those 4Ax Thracians represent the Rhompaia-wielding infantry, if I am not mistaken. So perhaps the early Thracians were 3Ax/Ps (makes sense) but I'd leave the option for later Thracian to have 4Ax as well. Ooooo...careful Primuspilus...you’re not basing the Thracian 4Ax performance on the weapons they carried are you? Personally, I don’t care if Thracian 4Ax carried a rhomphia, or had exceptionally long spears, or that they swapped the traditional crescent-moon pelta shield for a bigger oval Celtic thureos, or that some tribes were naturally more stubborn than others, or that some became professionally trained and drilled mercenaries... ...I just want 4Ax to be better and able to stand up to enemy heavy infantry...at least for a short while. People can make-up their own justifications as to why 4Ax are better than 3Ax. But there seems to be a few inconsistencies creeping into this thread. So I like to remind everyone what Primuspilus original suggestion is, so we are all singing from the same song-sheet as it were:- New Tactical Factor +1 to solid 4Ax and solid Bows in close combat with Bd, Sp, and supported Pk (unless in bad going, or assaulting or defending a city or fort)...and 8Bw loses side support. ...and 3Ax, 3Bw & Ps recoil like mounted. Thus all 4Ax and solid Bows, in all periods, are a bit stronger when they fight heavy foot. So Chris, rough going has no effect...it’s bad going that cancels this new Tactical Factor. And Primuspilus, 4Bw do get side-support as they do now, thus making HYW English bowmen a bit stronger against French blades. I’ve divided all the bows into 5 groups:- Here is the current The effect of an extra +1 in DBA situation:- close combat against Bd/Sp/Pk:- 3Bw not allowed side-support CF 2 CF 2 4Bw with no 4Bd side-support CF 2 CF 3 4Bw with 4Bd side-support CF 3 CF 4 8Bw with no 4Bd side-support CF 3 CF 4 8Bw with 4Bd side-support CF 4 CF 4 (lose side-support, or it will be CF 5)As you can see, all solid bows (and this includes Cb and Lb) becomes a bit better in close combat against heavy foot. If players want crap bows, then take 3Bw. If players want top-of-the-range bows, the Rolls-Royce of bows, the very best that bows can be, then take 8Bw. (8Cb/Lb are the Rolls-Royce version with the extra luxuries added as standard). Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 28, 2019 16:16:31 GMT
Hi Greedo, We are looking at 4Bw being 3CF against HI (Bd, Sp, and rear-supported Pk), same CF as 3Ax 3Ax. They lose side support. So it addresses not just the English Longbow issue, but also fixes 4Bw on a wider basis, and renders them better balanced (otherwise, with identical shooting, and 3BW in all terrain, why on earth would you ever choose 4Bw for any other period, if you had a choice over 3Bw? As it stands now, in a handful of cases where your 4Bw get to play alongside blade, they suck. And they can't even move nicely in rough or bad going, and they can't shoot from marsh or rivers anymore Your point about Tharcians is well-taken, but the list goes right up to after Alexander, if I am not mistaken. Those 4Ax Thracians represent the Rhompaia-wielding infantry, if I am not mistaken. So perhaps the early Thracians were 3Ax/Ps (makes sense) but I'd leave the option for later Thracian to have 4Ax as well. But again that’s the Thracians via the older definition, so would Rhompaia wielding troops be able to stand up to Blades just like Iberians?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 28, 2019 18:45:07 GMT
Those 4Ax Thracians represent the Rhompaia-wielding infantry, if I am not mistaken. So perhaps the early Thracians were 3Ax/Ps (makes sense) but I'd leave the option for later Thracian to have 4Ax as well. Ooooo...careful Primuspilus...you’re not basing the Thracian 4Ax performance on the weapons they carried are you?
Um, Stevie, if a guy is carrying a two-handed Kitana with a four foot handle, he isn't likely chucking javelins and doing a heck of a lot of skirmishy-stuff when facing Bd, Sp, and rear-supported Pk. And if we carry the whole argument that equipment is utterly irrelevant to how someone fought, well then all infantry are 3/3... If a guy don't got much javelins, he ain't much for skirmshing. He'll form up in closer order, and fight hand to hand as well as he can. Point is, 4Ax represent troops that can/would form up. I argue 4Ax later Thracians are such troops.
|
|