|
Post by stevie on Sept 20, 2018 10:51:46 GMT
Good points Jim...and I do have a simple answer:- Overlaps.
A bow element with a CF of 4 fighting against a CF of 5 will have 19 chances out of 36 (52.8%) of being recoiled. And once recoiled, their mates will be overlapped, giving the CF 5 troops 6 chances out 36 (16.7%) chance of scoring a double. There is your disruption of the Persian line leading to eventual defeat. (And if you want to have your Hypaspists fighting as the ancient historians said they did, then see this:- fanaticus.boards.net/thread/520/alexander-hypaspists-blades ) 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 11:03:33 GMT
I'll try it on the table. It will certainly lengthen the melee, which is a good thing. But I still can't see the Persians falling back and coming forward with their shields at the ready. Having said that we're not certain how they fought, so maybe. If the effect makes the games more even then that's a good thing.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Vic on Sept 20, 2018 11:07:56 GMT
Oh! Thanks a lot for this. I was thinking about writing some code to calculate combat odds in arbitrary situations (I'm an amateur programmer so it's probably not going to be great or quick, but I'll enjoy the process) but this will do for now.
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Sept 21, 2018 8:37:05 GMT
Jim1973
I think (but need to do a lot of checking) that the Persian have three systems for 8Bw.
Sparabara - these have a non movable defensive wall in front that is very difficult to pull over and destroy by the enemy. When the troops are layed out on the table this would need to be put out, the Persians could not cross it unless they themselves pushed it over. Probably used at Marathon?
Takabara - these probably come in two types, all except the front rank armed with bow, the front rank having spear and a form of pavise. Alternatively all carrying spear, bow and light shield, this was probably the majority of the better quality troops.
One extra type that is not really covered in the rules, but was a common Persian troop type would be 3Bw and possibly 4Bw with bow and spear that in some cases carried shield as well, they are better than pure bow only in close combat.
David Constable
P.S. - There is another change needed to do Marathon, the Greeks thinned the centre, so the hoplites should be fighting on a lower factor, that combined with the fortifications in front of the Persian line should defeat the hoplites, causing them to flee.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 23, 2018 6:40:11 GMT
Good points Jim...and I do have a simple answer:- Overlaps.
A bow element with a CF of 4 fighting against a CF of 5 will have 19 chances out of 36 (52.8%) of being recoiled. And once recoiled, their mates will be overlapped, giving the CF 5 troops 6 chances out 36 (16.7%) chance of scoring a double. There is your disruption of the Persian line leading to eventual defeat. (And if you want to have your Hypaspists fighting as the ancient historians said they did, then see this:- fanaticus.boards.net/thread/520/alexander-hypaspists-blades ) 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
A simple fix to the 8Bw vs 4Sp problem might be simply to get rid of the x2 elements lost on the first one. In addition to the 5Hd = 0 elements lost that EAP have, that should bolster them even a little? Certainly enough to eek out some more victories against those accursed Greeks!
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 23, 2018 6:51:01 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
I've never thought of Side Support as specifically the "shield wall", but it does do 2 things as far as I can tell:
1) It provides that "morale boost" of troops who have other troops to their left and right (vs behind) that ancient rules sets often use, and makes sense to me. 2) It make elements fighting in battleline brittle. Once a battle line starts falling apart, they lose their side support AND get overlapped. Double trouble! So I can see things falling apart fast if holes aren't plugged..
Just a late night thought..
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 23, 2018 12:52:27 GMT
Good points Jim...and I do have a simple answer:- Overlaps.
A bow element with a CF of 4 fighting against a CF of 5 will have 19 chances out of 36 (52.8%) of being recoiled. And once recoiled, their mates will be overlapped, giving the CF 5 troops 6 chances out 36 (16.7%) chance of scoring a double. There is your disruption of the Persian line leading to eventual defeat.
A simple fix to the 8Bw vs 4Sp problem might be simply to get rid of the x2 elements lost on the first one. In addition to the 5Hd = 0 elements lost that EAP have, that should bolster them even a little? Certainly enough to eek out some more victories against those accursed Greeks! Don’t forget the hierarchy in the I/60 Early Achaemenid Persian army (all have a shooting CF of 2 against foot, 4 against mounted):- 8Bw = close combat factor 4 (2, +1 the new Tactical Factor against Bd/Sp/Pk, +1 double base ), but the first lost counts as 2 elements. 4Bw = close combat factor 3 (2, +1 the new Tactical Factor against Bd/Sp/Pk, no side-support cos no 4Bd), each lost counts as 1 element. 3Bw = close combat factor 2 (no new Tactical Factor, and no side-support allowed), again each lost counts as 1 element. 3Bw also has the advantage of moving 3 BW in all terrain, but will be recoiled by solid foot on an equal score. (3Bw will probably have the advantage of being able to recoil or evade a full BW like mounted as well)
If 8Bw only count as 1 element when lost, why would anybody take the 4Bw option? 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 26, 2018 4:57:57 GMT
Don’t forget the hierarchy in the I/60 Early Achaemenid Persian army (all have a shooting CF of 2 against foot, 4 against mounted):- 8Bw = close combat factor 4 (2, +1 the new Tactical Factor against Bd/Sp/Pk, +1 double base ), but the first lost counts as 2 elements. 4Bw = close combat factor 3 (2, +1 the new Tactical Factor against Bd/Sp/Pk, no side-support cos no 4Bd), each lost counts as 1 element. 3Bw = close combat factor 2 (no new Tactical Factor, and no side-support allowed), again each lost counts as 1 element. 3Bw also has the advantage of moving 3 BW in all terrain, but will be recoiled by solid foot on an equal score. (3Bw will probably have the advantage of being able to recoil or evade a full BW like mounted as well)
If 8Bw only count as 1 element when lost, why would anybody take the 4Bw option? 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
Oh crap you're right Stevie! Good call.
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Sept 26, 2018 14:40:02 GMT
In the case of Persian Sparabara in a defensive wall, at worst bringing down one section creates a gap perhaps twelve feet (four metres) wide at best. That relies upon the fact that you can do it, it is an easily defended gap, even if with dead bodies.
Side support might be a fix that is simple in the rules, but I suspect that in practise in might not work as well as it did originally. Do not forget that it will work against everything but very determined infantry (including elephants), and even then I am not certain about it failing.
In DBA terms it needs to be an uncrossable barrier by the attacker, a very difficult barrier to cross by the defender, and needs to be placed in front of the base of the troops.
And that does not take into account a possible moveable Chinese version (but not sure about that one).
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 26, 2018 22:27:59 GMT
Just a quick note. I have been testing the surgical +1 of mine for the better part of six years now, and it is stable, works great, and produces exactly the right effects. Surgical (even if wonky-looking) because it fixes the problem, and only the problem.
Note, 4Ax will STILL not stand in the line of battle against Bd, SUPPORTED Pk, and Sp for long. But they will stand for a bit. And sometimes, through the vagaries of the dice, they stage quite the fighting withdrawal. I have reproduced Cannae several times with this. Not every time though, and if Cannae was such a slam dunk for Hannibal, it would not still be being studied in military colleges around the world. But it happens better than never. Which is current state.
Spanish are also interesting. Note I didn't adopt a blanket +1 otherwise 4Ax become the triple-nickel Psiloi - killers. Above all, I believe the 4Ax troop type to have been more vulnerable to mounted charges and light troops, but still capable of giving resistance to heavy infantry.
Also, against unsupported Pk, I don't apply the +1. It is not clear to me that they would have had the upper hand against less deep Pk blocks. But against the +6, they needed a leg up. Otherwise the conquest of Illyria by Alexander would not have needed his army. Only a small detachment.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 27, 2018 0:54:43 GMT
Alright, well if it's been unbiasedly tested to death, and seems to produce good results, then who am I to stand in the way of user testing... 4Ax: 1BW recoil (choice), +1 against Bd, supported Pk, and Sp.
I'm assuming both fast and solid versions?
So that leaves 8Bw: Do they get a +1 vs Bd, sup Pk, and Sp in CC too?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 27, 2018 11:57:00 GMT
Ha! It was you Greedo that persuaded me into thinking that 4Ax should not be allowed the 1 BW recoil (see page 2 of this thread) It just doesn’t seem right to have Imperial Roman Auxilia ‘evading’ a heavy foot charge, and there’s no evidence that they ever did. Sooo...only 4Ax (and 4Bw/8Bw) get Primuspilus’ new +1 Tactical Factor, and only 3Ax (and 3Bw/Ps) get Joe Collin’s ‘evade’ 1 BW. The former has a slight boost in close combat, while the latter has the option to recoil further. And Primuspilus, concerning whether this new +1 Tactical Factor should or shouldn’t apply when facing UNSUPPORTED Pk. I’m in two minds. Remember that Joe has also suggested that all troops recoil from Pk on an equal score to encourage reserves when facing them. If 4Ax and a single Pk both have a CF of 3, but the 4Ax have to recoil on an equal score, it would mean the Pk have an advantage even in rough going instead of avoiding such terrain. And should Joe's recoiling from Pk not be implemented, it still means that 4Ax and Pk are the same in rough (apart from the speed difference)...and one would have thought that the 4Ax should have the advantage in such going. (Note that 3Ax would not get the new +1 Tactical Factor, so they would be the same as single Pk in rough)Giving 4Ax the new +1 Tactical Factor against even a single element of Pk means that it is the 4Ax, and not the Pk, that has a slight advantage in rough going instead of the other way round. Anyway, it makes the wording much simpler to just say “Bd/Sp/Pk”without any awkward exceptions. 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 Vic on Sept 27, 2018 12:12:45 GMT
Indeed, one of the advantages of formulating it in this way is that it's easy to express succinctly.
We'd only need an additional line in the "Tactical factors" list:
"+1 If "Solid" Auxilia or Bows and in close combat against Blades, Spears or Pikes."
And another line in "Recoiling":
"An element of Psiloi or "Fast" Auxilia or Bows can choose to either move 1BW or to move its own base depth."
while changing the reference to foot into "other foot".
And the (b) case for flank support (Bows) would be removed (as superseded by the tactical factor).
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 27, 2018 12:57:27 GMT
In the case of Persian Sparabara in a defensive wall, at worst bringing down one section creates a gap perhaps twelve feet (four metres) wide at best. That relies upon the fact that you can do it, it is an easily defended gap, even if with dead bodies. Side support might be a fix that is simple in the rules, but I suspect that in practise in might not work as well as it did originally. Do not forget that it will work against everything but very determined infantry (including elephants), and even then I am not certain about it failing. In DBA terms it needs to be an uncrossable barrier by the attacker, a very difficult barrier to cross by the defender, and needs to be placed in front of the base of the troops. And that does not take into account a possible moveable Chinese version (but not sure about that one). David Constable Yes, we ‘could’ have special rules for Persian Sparabara and medieval pavisiers...but I wonder if we are missing the vital question. Just what effect did these have on actual combat in reality? The truth is that when the Persians abandoned placing large wicker pavises in front of their bowmen, it took some 1,500 years before this tactic came back into fashion in the 12th and 13th centuries. Certainly the Greeks, Macedonians, Romans, Byzantines, and Dark Age armies never used them. Not used for some 15 hundred years?...this seems to suggest that they were a bit of a failure. Much like how the Thessalian rhomboid or ‘diamond' mounted formation, and the Thracian rhomphaia and the Dacian falx, which might sound impressive to our 21st century ears, were in fact failures and not adopted by any other nation. Oh, medieval crossbowmen used pavises, as did some Chinese crossbowmen, but their slow rate of fire meant they needed them. Indeed, one could assume that almost all Cb already automatically have them, and it is already part of their combat factor. DBA makes a clear distinction between having several ranks of close fighters in front of the shooters (i.e. 8Bw) and just a single rank of pavisiers being in front of them (i.e. some 4Bw and Cb). So I don’t think any new special Sparabara and pavisier rules are 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 stevie on Sept 27, 2018 13:25:13 GMT
And the (b) case for flank support (Bows) would be removed (as superseded by the tactical factor). Oh, a slight disagreement there Vic. I want English Longbowmen to have a CF of 4 against dismounted French men-at-arms blades. So they need the side-support (CF 2, +1 for the new Tactical Factor, and +1 for side-support). I just don't think 8Bw should be the same as Bd (CF 2, +1 for the new Tactical Factor, +1 for double base, AND +1 for side-support is too much). So 8Bw alone should lose side-support. 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
|
|