|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 23, 2019 7:49:03 GMT
Good points. Tested Late Athenians vs EAP (1) last night. They both looked like Carthaginians since I don't have Greeks or EAP, but plan to buy them soon. Not the best DBA player. No terrain. Just a straight up slogfest. I did not put the Ps in the front, will do next time. Rule Tests: I ignored the single target rule for shooting. Also had +1 vs heavy troops. The greeks rolled really badly in PIPs and in combat. They lost Ps to the Persian Cv, but on the other flank took out of the Persian Ps. The persians ganged up shooting on one of the spears, and recoiled him, breaking the Hoplite line in 2. The Greeks reformed into a straight line, but didn't have enough PIPS to advance. The Persians shot again during the Greek turn and KILLED one of the Spears. Finally the Greeks charge and lose another spear. Will play again tomorrow, but it was indeed close, and the Greeks lost. With better rolling they should win, but I'm on board with the maths. Aha! See Greedo, NOW you can see why the Greeks took the Persians so seriously. So that would have been the Persian counteroffensive to retake the Western Satrapy capital of Sardis, where Persian HI sent a Greek Athenian hoplite army scurrying back across the Aegean with their tail between their legs. Now for mighty Darius to muster a force for a punitive expedition to Greece to sack Athens in retaliation. I hear Marathon Bay has really good beaches...
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 23, 2019 19:44:00 GMT
Indeed. Without the targeting restrictions on bw, the Greeks had a real fear of the Persian bows. Flanking them with hd that don’t recoil was a wise move. The 3 unit Persian cv was a steamroller on the flank.
Still unsure about the 4cv against heavies. The Greeks did roll badly but hope the scale wasn’t too far. An alternative could be to have just the immortals have the heavy bonus. This might be dependent on who’s playing as a handicap..
More testing to come
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 24, 2019 0:59:01 GMT
The way we did it is we kept the same battlefield and sides and replayed each battle three tines to try to average things out, but keep the battle deployments the same. PIPs, moves and combat outcomea vary, but at that point you really are controlling for terrain and deployment.
Then do a different board/setup with the same armies!
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 24, 2019 4:09:36 GMT
By the way, you need a lot of games - not one or two. I think if the Athenians lose again, think of them fighting (and losing) at Ephesus. Then of course there is the final destruction of Asiatic Greek independence in the disaster Miletus: so bad that a certain play was very badly received because it mentioned Miletus in it...
So I make hoplites vs Sparabara evenly split - if you leave out Thermopylae.
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Feb 24, 2019 5:28:34 GMT
Not in a position to do much in the way of playtesting on this, but I like the points Stevie and others have made and the way this appears to be headed. Of course, I have thought BW underrated against foot for some time...
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 24, 2019 5:55:19 GMT
By the way, you need a lot of games - not one or two. Yes... That has become painfully apparent. 2.2 and 3.0 are so different.. I won't talk about House Rules anymore. I'll just test your guys' suggestions Meanwhile, Later Athenians I/52f vs EAP I/60a Part II. Rule Tests: 1) No targeting restrictions on Bw fire 2) 8Bw CV4 vs heavies Greeks eeked out a 4-3 victory, mainly because at a crucial point around turn 4, the Persians rolled 1 PIP, and Greeks rolled 6 PIPs, allowing the Greeks to reform and focus on killing specific units. Things move SO fast now. I did not take that into account. Some learnings, partially being a DBA 3.0 n00b, and partially trying to actually test the rule change suggestions: 1) Battlefield is very small for a Hoplite army because of the 4BW from edges. Only 7BW wide for heavy infantry. I've always played on wider boards, so never really thought about this... 2) Putting Ps out front of your troops is GREAT. They didn't try to stop the Persian Cv this time which would have killed them quicker. Lots of pushing and shoving. Prevented the bows from doing as much damage to the spears. The ability to avoid overlaps makes this possible. 3) For EAP, I really must remember to do 2PIPs for Hds 4) Didn't apply, but I must remember the 2 dead for Deep units. 8Bw. 5) Almost all the Ps out front died which really makes we want to test the "first Ps to die counts as 0 elements lost" idea as a compliment to the 2x elements lost for first deep unit lost rule. 6) The 8Bw were so hard to kill, that I found myself focusing on easier to kill targets like the 3Ax, and even the 3Cv. In a real game, the 3Ax would be in terrain, and the 3Cv might have gone for the camp, but I wanted to mention it. I like that the game is tense, but few 8Bw or 4Sp actually died. It was a Hd, Ps, 3Ax that lost the game. Not a complaint so much as something to notice. Side support of 8Bw might make them more brittle, but could make them TOO brittle... 7) Without actually playing it, I can see how Cannae can work with this (5CV vs 4CV). The 4Sp pushed the 8Bw back a lot, rather than actually killing them. Flanks tended to be the thing that decided if something lived or died. Having a general in the front rank of spears rather than in the flanking cav made a difference. Perhaps the Persian general would be better in a chariot in the middle. Will keep going with Test 3 tomorrow. Chris
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 24, 2019 9:09:35 GMT
By the way, you need a lot of games - not one or two. I think if the Athenians lose again, think of them fighting (and losing) at Ephesus. Then of course there is the final destruction of Asiatic Greek independence in the disaster Miletus: so bad that a certain play was very badly received because it mentioned Miletus in it... So I make hoplites vs Sparabara evenly split - if you leave out Thermopylae. Now I have supported improving Sparabara resilience against Spears (i.e. Hoplites) over multiple posts. But 50/50? Let's go to the videotape...(if only we had one) I could find 8 battles of Persian forces v Greek Hoplites in the first half of the fifth century BC that would likely have at least included at least some sparabara satrap regular forces. Sources are scarce and Herodotus is...well...Herodotus. 498 Ephesus v mostly Ionian Greeks with some Athenians and Euboeans - Persians win but this is thought to be due to Cavalry/Light Infantry overwhelming the flanks 494 Malene v Ionian Greeks - Persians win after surprise arrival of Cavalry on the flanks. I mention Ionian Greeks specifically because they had lived under relative peace under the Persians since Cyrus the Great and previous to that under the Lydians. They were not fighting Hoplite battles every few years as the mainland Greeks were inclined to do. After this time, I cannot find a Persian victory 490 Marathon 480 Psytalleia (only 600v400 but overwhelming victory to heavy spearmen) 479 Plataea (could count as two separate Greek victories due to the disjointed nature of the battle) 479 Mycale 476 Eion 466 Eurymedon if I'm missing any battles please let me know. So yes, 8Bw shouldn't be run over (it makes the game boring) but they shouldn't be even. I think this is best illustrated by Cimon's battles. He was never daunted when fighting Persians after Plataea and was the aggressor. He certainly seems to have learned that protected archers (even small numbers) are very good at protecting the flanks of the phalanx from cavalry with unarmoured horses. Why the empire that contained the largest proportion of the world's population (~45%) at it's height couldn't overcome bickering "farmer militia" on the battlefield is one of history's enigmas. But the results are there. Certainly weapon systems and home ground advantage play a role. But even after the Persians abandoned sparabara in the mid 5th century, hoplites continued to command the field. Xenophon and his friends seem to show that. So Athens was burned but earth and water were never received. If only Argos and Thebes weren't recalcitrant and a united Greek army with Thessalian cavalry had met the Great King's army on the plain of Thessaly. Wouldn't that be something? Now to hunker down under my aspis and await the arrow barrage (it is nicer in the shade...) Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 24, 2019 9:29:21 GMT
Present CF v Foot Proposed CF v Foot
4Ax 3 3 +1 v hvy foot 8Bw 2 +1 support, +1 DB 2 +1 DB, +1 v hvy foot (but loses side-support) 4Bw 2 +1 support 2 +1 support, +1 v hvy foot
Playing devil's advocate again stevie. Why just against heavy foot? 4Ax - Are they really less effective against 3Wb than 4Wb? Equal to 3Ax? Struggle more against Ps? Could they not help balance 3Bd? 8Bw/4Bw - More difficult to work out the knock-on effects of this one. Certainly improvement of 8Bw helps Cyrus dominate his neighbours. Maybe different shooting bonuses and close combat bonuses? Just a thought. Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 24, 2019 11:34:27 GMT
Now to hunker down under my aspis and await the arrow barrage (it is nicer in the shade...) ...and if there is one thing you need in Australia Jim, it’s shade! (maybe not so much in Melbourne, but still too hot for me). Are Ax really equal to unsupported Wb?Phil Barker seems to think so...and nobody is complaining...so I assume it’s perceived to be about right. As for justification (which means let your imagination run riot):- Ax usually fight in loose formation, which is why they are unaffected by bad going. When trained, drilled or naturally stubborn 4Ax face heavy foot, they have the sense to change to a close formation (hence +1). Close formation makes 4Ax as brittle as Bd/Sp when facing fierce Wb, so they stay loose to ‘roll with the punch’ (not quick-killed). Against Ps/Ax, they need a loose formation so they can make sudden dashes to catch such slippery evading/fleeing opponents. And staying in a loose formation makes them less vulnerable to arrow-shot (half the arrows fall in the spaces between the men). And they will balance themselves against 3Bd...well, a bit:- New Tactical Factor +1 for solid 4Ax and solid 8/4Bw when fighting any Bd, Sp, or supported Pk (unless in bad going, or when assaulting or defending a city or fort)...(you can't be in close formation half-way up a ladder...)And 8Bw will have different shooting and close combat factors:- In close combat: CF 2 , with +1 for being doubled based and +1 for facing any Bd, Sp, supported Pk (total = CF 4). Shooting at foot: CF 2 (remember that half of 8Bw are close combat troops, so they have the same number of bows as 4Bw). ... but 8Bw needs to lose side-support in close combat, or they’ll be CF 5, which is the same as Bd, and is too high. This loss of side-support is actually a bit of a bonus for 8Bw, as they are not so dependent on friends (but must still watch overlaps). Anyway, 8Bw already have several ranks of close fighters in their front rows, so why should they have side-support as well? And this new freedom from depending upon friends won’t allow 8Bw to zip about the battlefield... ...if they move more than 1 base width, they can’t shoot. Lastly, yes, you’re quite right...Persia v Greeks will not be 50/50. A Persian 8Bw CF of 4 will eventually lose to a Greek side-supported Hoplite CF of 5...but it won’t be a walk-over. Them Greeks is gonna ‘ave ta fight for it!
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 24, 2019 13:43:09 GMT
Now to hunker down under my aspis and await the arrow barrage (it is nicer in the shade...) ...and if there is one thing you need in Australia Jim, it’s shade! (maybe not so much in Melbourne, but still too hot for me). Are Ax really equal to unsupported Wb?Phil Barker seems to think so...and nobody is complaining...so I assume it’s perceived to be about right. As for justification (which means let your imagination run riot):- Ax usually fight in loose formation, which is why they are unaffected by bad going. When trained, drilled or naturally stubborn 4Ax face heavy foot, they have the sense to change to a close formation (hence +1). Close formation makes 4Ax as brittle as Bd/Sp when facing fierce Wb, so they stay loose to ‘roll with the punch’ (not quick-killed). Against Ps/Ax, they need a loose formation so they can make sudden dashes to catch such slippery evading/fleeing opponents. And staying in a loose formation makes them less vulnerable to arrow-shot (half the arrows fall in the spaces between the men). And they will balance themselves against 3Bd...well, a bit:- New Tactical Factor +1 for solid 4Ax and solid 8/4Bw when fighting any Bd, Sp, or supported Pk (unless in bad going, or when assaulting or defending a city or fort)...(you can't be in close formation half-way up a ladder...)And 8Bw will have different shooting and close combat factors:- In close combat: CF 2 , with +1 for being doubled based and +1 for facing any Bd, Sp, supported Pk (total = CF 4). Shooting at foot: CF 2 (remember that half of 8Bw are close combat troops, so they have the same number of bows as 4Bw). ... but 8Bw needs to lose side-support in close combat, or they’ll be CF 5, which is the same as Bd, and is too high. This loss of side-support is actually a bit of a bonus for 8Bw, as they are not so dependent on friends (but must still watch overlaps). Anyway, 8Bw already have several ranks of close fighters in their front rows, so why should they have side-support as well? And this new freedom from depending upon friends won’t allow 8Bw to zip about the battlefield... ...if they move more than 1 base width, they can’t shoot. Lastly, yes, you’re quite right...Persia v Greeks will not be 50/50. A Persian 8Bw CF of 4 will eventually lose to a Greek side-supported Hoplite CF of 5...but it won’t be a walk-over. Them Greeks is gonna ‘ave ta fight for it! I know it's imagination but 4Ax are tactically very flexible for an ancient troop. Must have great NCOs! Back to the game. I've tested sparabara 4 v hoplite 5 and it seemed to work well enough. But not with the added targeting rule changes that have been suggested. Together, they may tip the balance too far but we'll see. I still think many spear armed troops would work better historically as the new 4Ax rather than Sp. Cheers Jim PS it was a pleasant 32C today in Melbourne.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 24, 2019 14:21:59 GMT
By the way, you need a lot of games - not one or two. I think if the Athenians lose again, think of them fighting (and losing) at Ephesus. Then of course there is the final destruction of Asiatic Greek independence in the disaster Miletus: so bad that a certain play was very badly received because it mentioned Miletus in it... So I make hoplites vs Sparabara evenly split - if you leave out Thermopylae. Now I have supported improving Sparabara resilience against Spears (i.e. Hoplites) over multiple posts. But 50/50? Let's go to the videotape...(if only we had one) I could find 8 battles of Persian forces v Greek Hoplites in the first half of the fifth century BC that would likely have at least included at least some sparabara satrap regular forces. Sources are scarce and Herodotus is...well...Herodotus. 498 Ephesus v mostly Ionian Greeks with some Athenians and Euboeans - Persians win but this is thought to be due to Cavalry/Light Infantry overwhelming the flanks 494 Malene v Ionian Greeks - Persians win after surprise arrival of Cavalry on the flanks. I mention Ionian Greeks specifically because they had lived under relative peace under the Persians since Cyrus the Great and previous to that under the Lydians. They were not fighting Hoplite battles every few years as the mainland Greeks were inclined to do. After this time, I cannot find a Persian victory 490 Marathon 480 Psytalleia (only 600v400 but overwhelming victory to heavy spearmen) 479 Plataea (could count as two separate Greek victories due to the disjointed nature of the battle) 479 Mycale 476 Eion 466 Eurymedon if I'm missing any battles please let me know. So yes, 8Bw shouldn't be run over (it makes the game boring) but they shouldn't be even. I think this is best illustrated by Cimon's battles. He was never daunted when fighting Persians after Plataea and was the aggressor. He certainly seems to have learned that protected archers (even small numbers) are very good at protecting the flanks of the phalanx from cavalry with unarmoured horses. Why the empire that contained the largest proportion of the world's population (~45%) at it's height couldn't overcome bickering "farmer militia" on the battlefield is one of history's enigmas. But the results are there. Certainly weapon systems and home ground advantage play a role. But even after the Persians abandoned sparabara in the mid 5th century, hoplites continued to command the field. Xenophon and his friends seem to show that. So Athens was burned but earth and water were never received. If only Argos and Thebes weren't recalcitrant and a united Greek army with Thessalian cavalry had met the Great King's army on the plain of Thessaly. Wouldn't that be something? Now to hunker down under my aspis and await the arrow barrage (it is nicer in the shade...) Cheers Jim Miletus Ephesus
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 24, 2019 14:26:40 GMT
...and if there is one thing you need in Australia Jim, it’s shade! (maybe not so much in Melbourne, but still too hot for me). Are Ax really equal to unsupported Wb?Phil Barker seems to think so...and nobody is complaining...so I assume it’s perceived to be about right. As for justification (which means let your imagination run riot):- Ax usually fight in loose formation, which is why they are unaffected by bad going. When trained, drilled or naturally stubborn 4Ax face heavy foot, they have the sense to change to a close formation (hence +1). Close formation makes 4Ax as brittle as Bd/Sp when facing fierce Wb, so they stay loose to ‘roll with the punch’ (not quick-killed). Against Ps/Ax, they need a loose formation so they can make sudden dashes to catch such slippery evading/fleeing opponents. And staying in a loose formation makes them less vulnerable to arrow-shot (half the arrows fall in the spaces between the men). And they will balance themselves against 3Bd...well, a bit:- New Tactical Factor +1 for solid 4Ax and solid 8/4Bw when fighting any Bd, Sp, or supported Pk (unless in bad going, or when assaulting or defending a city or fort)...(you can't be in close formation half-way up a ladder...)And 8Bw will have different shooting and close combat factors:- In close combat: CF 2 , with +1 for being doubled based and +1 for facing any Bd, Sp, supported Pk (total = CF 4). Shooting at foot: CF 2 (remember that half of 8Bw are close combat troops, so they have the same number of bows as 4Bw). ... but 8Bw needs to lose side-support in close combat, or they’ll be CF 5, which is the same as Bd, and is too high. This loss of side-support is actually a bit of a bonus for 8Bw, as they are not so dependent on friends (but must still watch overlaps). Anyway, 8Bw already have several ranks of close fighters in their front rows, so why should they have side-support as well? And this new freedom from depending upon friends won’t allow 8Bw to zip about the battlefield... ...if they move more than 1 base width, they can’t shoot. Lastly, yes, you’re quite right...Persia v Greeks will not be 50/50. A Persian 8Bw CF of 4 will eventually lose to a Greek side-supported Hoplite CF of 5...but it won’t be a walk-over. Them Greeks is gonna ‘ave ta fight for it! I know it's imagination but 4Ax are tactically very flexible for an ancient troop. Must have great NCOs! Back to the game. I've tested sparabara 4 v hoplite 5 and it seemed to work well enough. But not with the added targeting rule changes that have been suggested. Together, they may tip the balance too far but we'll see. I still think many spear armed troops would work better historically as the new 4Ax rather than Sp. Cheers Jim PS it was a pleasant 32C today in Melbourne. How many games? You also DO realise that your ONLY job as a hoplite general facing 8Bw is to get into close combat ASAP to neutralise the Persian bowfire, right? You don't have time to punt around maneuvering. Everybody has to get into the fight ASAP, and shut down the ability of the Persians to gang up bowfire. BTW, wait till you have some games where the Persian bowfire doesn't land all that much, amd hoplites hit you all at once. Quite frightening for the Persian. There's Marathon for you. Well about as well as DBA can do it , that is...
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 24, 2019 18:41:09 GMT
I know it's imagination but 4Ax are tactically very flexible for an ancient troop. Must have great NCOs! Back to the game. I've tested sparabara 4 v hoplite 5 and it seemed to work well enough. But not with the added targeting rule changes that have been suggested. Together, they may tip the balance too far but we'll see. I still think many spear armed troops would work better historically as the new 4Ax rather than Sp. Cheers Jim PS it was a pleasant 32C today in Melbourne. Ha! Even Rugby players have the sense to form-up into close order when they go into a scrum. Oh, and I wouldn’t worry too much about concentrated shooting at close range. After all, if you’re 1¼, or 1½, or 1¾, or exactly 2 BW from the enemy, he can still concentrate his bow-fire, and you can still reach the bows in a single bound, at least in good going. Why should being at 1 BW or less be any different? All that ‘Threat Zone shooting priority’ does is to create an artificial ‘shooting safety zone’ in front of the shooters... ...and allows exploitation by merely sitting 1 BW or less away in an area where concentrated shooting is prohibited. Apart from making long range shooting more deadly than close range shooting (what!!!), it creates a false safety zone where heavy foot (CF 4 when shot at) can sit in complete safety where they cannot be doubled (and only have 1 chance in 6 of even recoiling) as they await that big PIP roll so they can all advance together. Odd how the accounts of Agincourt, Poitiers, and every single other Bow engagement never mentions this ‘safe zone’. Indeed, at Agincourt the dismounted French Knights found that the closer they got to the English the more intense the shooting became...so intense in fact that when close they would often shy-away from the shooters and instinctively head towards the men-at-arms not shooting at them to avoid the arrow-storm. Still, it’s not so surprising that there is no mention of it when you take into account the fact that it never existed! Anyway, as I said here fanaticus.boards.net/post/19492/ , it’s just a matter of scale. The bigger the scale, the smaller the ‘must shoot at the nearest threat’ gap becomes until it merges into close combat. And DBA, representing whole armies, is a big scale set of rules... (...32 degrees centigrade in Melbourne...and you call that ‘pleasant’! I break into a sweat at 25 degrees! But then I am a big hairy Neanderthal evolved to survive through the last Ice Age... )
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 25, 2019 0:19:56 GMT
Just so I can review, can you guys assemble all your references that support the view that carrying around large rectangular laundry basket lids was standard equipment for HI in the Persian Army?
Again, DBA pulls this bait and switch crap in which it is claimed that battlefield behaviour is all that counts (which is why we only have Ps, regardless of bow, sling or javelin) but then when it comes to Persian HI, we obsess about whether they carried laundry baskets or not, and when they stopped.
Stevie is 100% right on this. Ignore the equipment. Focus on outcomes. It was clear that Persia did NOT abandon HI after Plataea (and the loss of Ionia after) but retained HI at least till Gaugamela.
So how did they behave? Did thet cease shooting bows! Did they form up? Loose or Close?
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 25, 2019 6:03:23 GMT
Play Test 3:
Athenians I/52i vs EAP I/60a No camps No terrain
Rule Tests: 1) No restrictions on Bw fire 2) 8Bw 4CV vs Heavies
Outcome: Persian victory 4-2. This time the main lines didn't even clash. The left flank was a Ps fight with the 3Ax supporting. The Greek Ps ganged up on the 3Ax and killed him. The Persian Ps then turned and killed one of the Greek Ps. The right flank Cv vs Cv fight was inconclusive.
I deployed the Greeks in 2 lines this time (5 in front, 3 behind), separated by about 1/2BW to act as a counter to the Cv flanking that was expected. However the Persian bowfire killed one of the forward Sp as soon as he got into range. Next turn the Greeks scored a 1 PIP and weren't able to reform. The massed bow fire this time pushed him back. The following turn the poor general himself was brought down by massed bowfire. Finish.
Next time I'll put the General in the 2nd line of Greeks...
So we didn't actually test the 4CV, but when massed bowfire hits, it really HITS. I'm beginning to wonder if both it, and the 4CV might be a bit much. Perhaps, as I said, to act as a good means of handicap for the Greek player if they are too good?
Still only 3 games, so not a huge amount, it really looks hard for the Greeks. Perhaps I am doing something wrong as a DBA player, as opposed to a tester. I'm still pretty new to 3.0. But the Greeks don't have much which can quickly KILL anything. They'll either push back the 8Bw, and maybe gang up on weaker elements. The Persians meanwhile have that wonderful 3Cv hammer, and the 8Bw Anvil, but really nice bow fire (if they are lucky)
Chris
|
|