|
Post by greedo on Sept 16, 2018 0:24:42 GMT
Stevie, I see the britons ignoring the javelins, and then closing. But legions threw pila which is included in their and status as a Bd.
I dunno, I still think giving 4Ax side support would accomplish the same thing as you’re aiming at. They get cc+1 and more than likely would be facing sp/bd/pk since those are the troop types in a battleline. We might be a bit trickier, but I’m still not quite buying the snap to different way of fighting mid battle. I could see hypasists fighting in a different way each battle but not mid battle. I see your point about forming up or adopting a looser formation but that seems a pretty complicated maneuver to accomplish in an ancient battle setting. I think giving armies the choice of being 3Ax or 4Ax before each battle could make sense, a bit like dismounted infantry depending on who you’re facing. Basically make all 4Ax into 3/4Ax.
I do like the 1bw recoils of 3/4Ax so with you there.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 16, 2018 0:50:19 GMT
Another option is to introduce fast spear which I feel is a bit of a hole. It would give another option for armies depending on how the troops behaved during a battle. For example, would Roman Aux be counted as “fast spear” instead of (ironically) Auxilliary?
Having fast spear fills the gap between Ax and Blade without changing any rules... thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 16, 2018 10:51:15 GMT
Well Greedo, there certainly seems to be a need to give 4Ax a bit of a boost when fighting heavy foot...if we want to re-create actual battles properly or make them perform as the ancient historians said they did. The question is, how? The problem with giving 4Ax a blanket +1 against all foot (be it by increasing their CF to 4, or by giving them side-support, or by classing them as ‘fast Spear’) is the knock-on effect this has against other troops such as Ps, Wb, and the like. This is why I much prefer Primuspilus’ suggestion of a new ‘surgical’ +1 Tactical Factor that only applies when 4Ax are fighting Bd/Sp/Pk. No knock-on effects. As for changing formation during a battle...is it really that difficult? We know that other foot would close up into a tighter formation when forming a shield-wall or when faced by a mounted charge. This is true not just of the ancient period, but also the Napoleonic period as well. Is it so hard for the rear ranks to merely step forward into the gaps, if the men have been well drilled and trained to do so? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 | | | | | | | | | | | Loose Formation Close formation (one pace apart) (shoulders touching) For those of you that do not possess a copy of Duncan Head’s “Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars”, here is a full quote from page 47 of the 1982 edition (note the last sentence at the very bottom):- Peltasts and thureophoroi Peltasts were traditionally skirmishers, evading when charged, and wearing their enemies down with a rain of javelins.Thus they won several notable victories, the most striking being Iphikrates’ destruction of a Spartan mora in 390. They were better equipped for close combat than psiloi, so were used in ambushes or to drive off skirmishers. Peltasts could be used along with hoplites to support cavalry against superior enemy horse, but if caught alone were likely to be ridden down. Iphikrates is credited with reforming their equipment to make it better for close combat, but it is not clear if the new weaponry was used widely, or at all. The thureophoroi who succeeded peltasts in the 3rd century were still rated among the light troops, euzonoi, and were similarly used as skirmishers. Plutarch says that when the Achaians were armed in this way they did not fight in formed units, (they) skirmished from a distance but were ineffective at close quarters, and their tactics were peltastikes, peltast style. They were used to support skirmishers, and along with these were used on forced marches, screening heavier troops in difficult country, or to open a battle. Thureophoroi and similar troops, such as Thracians and Illyrians, might also be deployed in battle to protect the vulnerable flanks of a phalanx (though not infrequently even good commanders like Pyrrhos and Philopoimen seem to have covered their phalanx flanks only with cavalry). Though often found fighting hand to hand with their own kind, they could not stand up to a pike-phalanx. Asklepiodotus bases their organisation on files of eight, and this was probably their typical depth in battle. It seems likely they would skirmish in open order but close up to pyknosis for close combat.He also goes on to say that the Thracians and Illyrians used similar ‘peltast’ tactics (on page 51), and that the Spanish (page 56) and Samnites (page 61) did the same. 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 greedo on Sept 18, 2018 3:48:49 GMT
Stevie, I'm not seeing anything in the excert about Peltasts showing that Ax did anything other than "heavy skirmishers". "...similarly used as skirmishers." "Plutarch says that when the Achaians were armed in this way they did not fight in formed units," "(they) skirmished from a distance but were ineffective at close quarters, and their tactics were peltastikes, peltast style." "Though often found fighting hand to hand with their own kind, they could not stand up to a pike-phalanx."
These all seem to describe 3Ax.
4Ax are still medium infantry (Roman Aux), and perhaps they don't get the 1BW recoil. BUT they do get the +1 vs heavy infantry. I'm still in favor of giving them side support since they are going to be in line of battle against heavier troops. This might just be an agree to disagree point.
I'm still in favor of giving all fast troops the 1BW recoil, and all medium/heavy infantry get side support, but that will probably screw up all kind of dynamics. Perhaps the Ax is that in between type troop type so it's the one that gets the special treatment. If you're going to give 4Ax 1BW recoil, then all faster/lighter troops should get it too.
As for Cannae, I think that has to be a scenario specific rule to get the Ax and Wb to do what they did historically. I don't know of any other battle where this happened, and it could well have been overly impetuous Romans + steadily pushing back the Carthaginians without actually breaking them that caused the result. Making a rule so that every battle can become Cannae might be too much? Are there other battles like Cannae that we know of?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 18, 2018 10:50:04 GMT
Good points Greedo. And you know what...I agree with you (bet you didn’t see that coming! )Very well, how does this sound?:- 3Ax moves 3 BW (an advantage), can recoil/evade 1 BW like mounted (another advantage), but no +1 Tactical Bonus (a disadvantage). 4Ax only moves 2 BW (a disadvantage), only recoils ½ BW (another disadvantage), but gets a +1 against heavy foot (an advantage). The 4Ax has another advantage in that they recoil fast foot on an equal score. This still allows Cannae to be fought as Polybius said it was...the 4Ax will live longer, and still recoil drawing the legionaries with them. (And even I have to admit there seems to be no evidence at all that Imperial Roman Auxilia evaded enemy heavy foot charges)Problems with using side-support to generate the extra +1I much prefer Primuspilus’ surgical extra +1 Tactical Factor for 4Ax fighting Bd/Sp/Pk, unless they are in bad going. No knock-on effects. The problem with side-support is the 4Ax will lose it when in rough going. At the moment, 4Ax up a gentle hill or guarding a riverbank are still currently at a disadvantage when facing heavy foot. With this extra +1 they would at least become equal with Bd and side-support Sp in these situations...which seems about right to me. And in rough going they would still be at a disadvantage against Bd (4 v 5), would be equal against Sp (4 v 4), and have a slight advantage against Pk (4 v 3). If they have to rely on side-support for the extra +1, then 4Ax in rough going will still get massacred as they are now by Bd (3 v 5), and still be inferior to Sp (3 v 4)...which will encourage these heavy troops to deliberately seek out such rough terrain in order to give themselves an advantage instead of avoiding it. Problems with giving the ‘evade’ recoil to ALL fast footRemember, the effect of this 1 BW recoil is to allow certain foot to be able to break off contact and disengage if their opponents can only pursue ½ BW. Now do we really want to give it to 3Bd, who are already considered by some to be a super element as it is? And heaven forbid we give it to 6Bd and 3Pk as well! Fast moving, combat factor 6, AND able to disengage when recoiling!? Much too powerful. So I think it should be limited to those troops that the ancient historians said used it. I.e. 3Ax, Ps, and perhaps 3Bw only. In effect, 3Ax (DBMM Irr (O) class) acquires the alternative name of ‘peltasts’. While the 4Ax (DBMM Reg (S) class) acquires the alternative name of ‘medium infantry’. One uses it’s speed to stay alive, while the other has an extra +1 against heavy foot to help them to survive. 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 Sept 18, 2018 20:31:40 GMT
Obviously it would have been far better to just have a Medium Foot category and then vary it with various Abilities in the first place.
The double Recoil discussion does raise the point as to whether a special Ability other than Evade (Flee on Doubled Result) would be useful: Skirmish = Double Recoil on More Result.
So it would be Medium Foot w/Skirmish. Light Foot w/Skirmish & Evade.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 19, 2018 0:36:28 GMT
Interesting! Agreed on most of what Stevie said (the +1 I'd have to play, but perhaps it'd be alright). Also agreed not to give "skirmish" as TomT puts it to all fast troops, just the light ones.
Actually to that point, TomT, I always saw the flee as a way to get Ps out of the battle for a bit but not to kill them outright. i.e. it'll take a few PIPs to get them back online with the actual loss of an element.
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Sept 19, 2018 15:41:46 GMT
Purely as a thought, could 4Ax be given the option of being 4Sp or 3Ax, changing as the player wants if stationary and not in contact with the enemy.
It would mean the 4Ax become the 4Sp, same base depth, but needs the 3Ax adding.
It means they become dual purpose.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 19, 2018 16:25:21 GMT
Purely as a thought, could 4Ax be given the option of being 4Sp or 3Ax, changing as the player wants if stationary and not in contact with the enemy. It would mean the 4Ax become the 4Sp, same base depth, but needs the 3Ax adding. It means they become dual purpose. David Constable I love this idea. Uses a PIP, and the element can't move, like dismounting. And you can only change once per battle (otherwise you'll have to keep track) If that's too costly, perhaps for 1 PIP, and no movement, ALL you're 4Ax not in contact get to change.. Another option would be that any army that has 4Ax gets to be 3Ax/4Ax/3Sp, and chooses at the beginning of the battle. I think 4Sp might be a bit too powerful. I'd take a 4Sp over a 4Ax every time, especially if I have other 4Sp in the army.
|
|
|
Post by Vic on Sept 19, 2018 17:14:22 GMT
I was mentally toying with this (interesting thread, thanks everyone for the input!) and kept thinking about Bows as well, which as the discussion about Persian 8Bw vs Greek Sp showed, are trapped in a similar "middle ground" - increasing their factor overpowers them against light enemies, but at present they are just too weak against heavy infantry.
Having played a lot with a mostly 3Bw army recently, I found it frustrating - the factor of 2 is too weak to face almost any enemy infantry, not enough to cause considerable attrition during approach, and, being fast, there isn't even the option of using neighbouring blades to stiffen them up. They are not penalised by bad going, but bad going will often block distant shooting - taking away their only safe way of attacking. This leaves 3Bw as a weak element that's disadvantaged against heavy infantry even in bad going, and that will be easily destroyed rather than forced back.
So perhaps Bows could benefit from a similar rework as Auxilia?
- Fast Bows: gets to evade (recoil 1BW) - Solid Bows: doesn't get to evade, but gets +1 (in close combat only) against Sp/Bd/Pk
This would mean 4Bw elements would fight Sp at 3 vs 4 (3 vs 5 if Sp is side-supported), and 8Bw would get an additional +1 in good going for a 4 vs 4 but the first would count as 2 lost elements, while 3Bw would still have a factor of 2 but if not destroyed outright could recoil 1BW, disengaging from enemy foot but keeping them in their threat zone which will typically give them the chance to do a round of distant shooting before being charged again.
I'll try to run some numbers on this and on the Auxilia proposals and post the results.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 20, 2018 0:22:59 GMT
That is good thinking Vic. Indeed, Primuspilus suggested such a thing, as can be seen here: fanaticus.boards.net/post/13610/ So, the final version of the extra Tactical Factor could be as follows:- +1 if solid Ax or solid bows in close combat against Bd/Sp/Pk (except in bad going, or if assaulting/defending a City, Fort, or Camp).No knock-on effects against Ps, or Wb, or Ax, or any other element for that matter. Just a bit of a boost against heavy or powerful foot. However, we need to be careful with 8Bw. With a combat factor of 2, +1 for being double based, and a +1 for side-support from Bd, AND yet another +1 from this new Tactical Factor, that would give them a final combat factor of 5...the same as Bd! This would make them far too powerful. Ideally, it would be best if 8Bw levelled off at CF 4. I say take away the side-support from 8Bw. After all, just why do bows get a +1 for being side-supported? Bows don’t form shield walls! Is it because some of the side-supporting Bd are assumed to be mixed in the front rank of the bows to help protect them? Well, if that is the case, 8Bw in DBA already have quote “several ranks of close fighters (as opposed to a single rank of pavisiers) in front of the shooters”. So what is the justification for 8Bw getting side-support? Speaking of justification, people may well ask why solid bow are getting this extra +1 Tactical Factor in close combat with Bd/Sp/Pk. I think I got away with it for solid Ax by saying they are trained and drilled to adopt a close formation when fighting heavy opponents. Trying to justify it for solid bows is a bit more tricky. On the other hand, DBA 3.0 is already littered with unjustifiable rules. Apart from solid bows getting side-supported mentioned above, here are a few more examples:- Shield Walls: wouldn’t all the spearmen in an element lock shields with their immediate neighbours, and not wait for another friendly element of the right type to make contact with the element’s flank before forming a ‘shield wall’? Bd v Kn: on an equal score Bd destroys Kn. Why? Oh, it’s because the Kn are vulnerable when standing still, and can be pulled off their horses. Fine...what about when Kn get an equal score against Ax, Wb, Sp, and so on? Are Kn not ‘stationary and vulnerable’ to being pulled from their horse in these situations as well? Or do all Bd carry tin-openers that can get through the Kn armour? (And not all Kn have heavy armour...think of HCh and Macedonian Companions...they don't have heavy armour, and even if they did they can't fight while laying on their backs on the ground!)My point is that none of the above is ‘ justifiable’...but they are necessary to give extra combat abilities where needed, to encourage historical behaviour, and to help make our little metal soldiers act like the ancient historians said they did. Well, consider solid bows getting an extra +1 against Bd/Sp/Pk in close combat as yet another of these extra combat abilities to be added where it is needed. 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 Sept 20, 2018 7:26:03 GMT
Purely as a thought, could 4Ax be given the option of being 4Sp or 3Ax, changing as the player wants if stationary and not in contact with the enemy. It would mean the 4Ax become the 4Sp, same base depth, but needs the 3Ax adding. It means they become dual purpose. David Constable I love this idea. Uses a PIP, and the element can't move, like dismounting. And you can only change once per battle (otherwise you'll have to keep track) If that's too costly, perhaps for 1 PIP, and no movement, ALL you're 4Ax not in contact get to change.. Another option would be that any army that has 4Ax gets to be 3Ax/4Ax/3Sp, and chooses at the beginning of the battle. I think 4Sp might be a bit too powerful. I'd take a 4Sp over a 4Ax every time, especially if I have other 4Sp in the army. My thinking was that you can do swop on the same basis as dismounting, and also only allow once. The 4Sp option is really for Hellenistic 4Ax, it represents light hoplites or peltast closed up to face cavalry. I prefer 3Ax as these are true light troops and fast on bad terrain.
Sorry for slow reply.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by Vic on Sept 20, 2018 8:30:27 GMT
However, we need to be careful with 8Bw. With a combat factor of 2, +1 for being double based, and a +1 for side-support from Bd, AND yet another +1 from this new Tactical Factor, that would give them a final combat factor of 5...the same as Bd! This would make them far too powerful. Ideally, it would be best if 8Bw levelled off at CF 4. I say take away the side-support from 8Bw. After all, just why do bows get a +1 for being side-supported? Bows don’t form shield walls! Is it because some of the side-supporting Bd are assumed to be mixed in the front rank of the bows to help protect them? Well, if that is the case, 8Bw in DBA already have quote “several ranks of close fighters (as opposed to a single rank of pavisiers) in front of the shooters”. So what is the justification for 8Bw getting side-support?
I thought about this, and my instinct was that the new surgical +1 factor could replace side support - however, it would mean that solid Bows lose a chance to increase their factor against foot other than Sp/Bd/Pk - so it's always 2 vs 3 against Warband, Auxilia and Hordes and 2 vs 2 against Psiloi. Which is not necessarily a bad thing - if the +1 against Sp/Bd/Pk represents specific tactics used against heavy infantry, it may well be that these don't apply to fighting disordered, rash or skirmishing troops. I will run the numbers on all the options as I think it will be easier to discuss that way. I'm not sure, but I think the side support for Bows is there to represent late medieval tactics - a topic about which I know next to nothing. I suspect, however, that stiffing up an element with a very low factor without overpowering it in other situations (which is what we're trying to do with these proposals) has been also be a part of it. It might be interesting to know what's the rationale behind that side support from people familiar with the rules crafting process. I don't remember Bows receiving side support in 2.0; was that rule there in pre-3.0 versions or is it a new addition?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 20, 2018 10:07:03 GMT
You are quite correct Vic about ‘side-support’ not being in the earlier versions of DBA. It is a new thing. Imagine DBA 3.0 without side-support. Well, that was the situation we were in for almost two decades (although Sp did used to get rear-support in the earlier versions). It took some 20 years before DBA finally realised that Hundred Years War longbows were too weak in close combat with dismounted men-at-arms, and that Sp rear-support, with it’s shorter front line, did not truly reflect Hoplite and Dark Age battles very well. So side-support was eventually added to the rules. And what a good rule it is too. It makes the game better, more realistic, and encourages historical deployment. But it was only added as an excuse to give weak elements a bit of a boost where they needed it, nothing more.And it’s still not quite enough...and I for one am not willing to wait another 20 years until DBA finally gets it right! That fact that side-support is difficult to justify doesn’t matter...it has the just right effect. Likewise, an extra +1 for solid Ax/Bw in close combat with Bd/Sp/Pk, even if difficult to justify, also has just the right effect. So I say keep side-support (except for 8Bw) AND add this new +1 Tactical Factor to solid Ax/Bw. Then the game will be even better, and even more realistic. (Oh, and if you want to do some play testing and number crunching Vic, you might find this useful:- fanaticus.boards.net/post/9701/ )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 jim1973 on Sept 20, 2018 10:29:12 GMT
However, we need to be careful with 8Bw. With a combat factor of 2, +1 for being double based, and a +1 for side-support from Bd, AND yet another +1 from this new Tactical Factor, that would give them a final combat factor of 5...the same as Bd! This would make them far too powerful. Ideally, it would be best if 8Bw levelled off at CF 4. I say take away the side-support from 8Bw. After all, just why do bows get a +1 for being side-supported? Bows don’t form shield walls! Is it because some of the side-supporting Bd are assumed to be mixed in the front rank of the bows to help protect them? Well, if that is the case, 8Bw in DBA already have quote “several ranks of close fighters (as opposed to a single rank of pavisiers) in front of the shooters”. So what is the justification for 8Bw getting side-support?
Ahhhhh stevie, as you are an avid reader of the ancient historians you would know that the reports on hoplite v sparabara were consistent in saying that the hoplites only got the upperhand after they disrupted the Persian line. This seems to me to indicate, in DBA terms, what would happen if they did have side-support. I would imagine pavsiers would rather not try and retreat with their big shield under enemy pressure. I agree that sparabara are better modelled as CF4 (Immortals probably at CF5) but think that they would suffer more than 4Bw if disrupted. Joe indicated that EAP v Greeks fights usually run at 1:2, so a little tweak to get this over 40% would make the EAPs more interesting to wargamers and they deserve to be on the table more often. Particularly these new miniatures from Xyston and FIB. If the 4Ax also works then some of the enemies of Persia that currently fight as hoplites (e.g. Lydians) could also be reclassed as 4Ax to give a better historical result. I look forward to trying the new 4Ax suggestions. My Hypaspists are tired of hiding from those mercenary hoplites (probably Thebans!). Cheers Jim
|
|