|
|
Post by paddy649 on Jan 7, 2019 8:49:50 GMT
Many players of DBA forget that Alexander and Hannibal and even Caesar and Richard III did not fight in tournaments  DBA has two functions, firstly to allow people around the world to play games against each other in a tournament format with standard armies and rules. Or in pick up games. Secondly it allows people to recreate historical battles, whether as 12 vs 12 or in giant games. For the former some standardization is needed. Phil provides the standardization based on his reading of history, even though there is inconsistency. Nevertheless, the armies and rules are given, take them or leave them. I would like to have two Queens when I play chess, but I go with the rules. On the other had, the rules provide a useful framework for individuals to modify and create their own versions of armies to match their own reading of history. Likewise, players can make modifications to the rules to cover what they think are historical circumstances. You cannot recreate the plains of Gaugamela using the terrain system of the rules. There is no reason that players cannot make up what they consider real-life characteristics within the tool box of DBA. Bob, You miss the point. I do not object to Standardised armies and rules (that is the point of DBA) OR that the standardisation is currently based on Phil’s reading of history. However, my point is that DBA simply doesn’t allow the recreation of history, which you say is one of the aims of DBA, without altering the laws of probability given the current classification of Hypaspists AND that this (mis)classification appears to be based on factors that run counter to a core principle of DBA, that fighting style is more important that weaponary. To use your chess anology DBA has many chess sets: some have all pawns because their historical counterparts were all pawns; some have all knights because that is historically faithful. I am not criticising DBA’s standardisation of playing pieces into pawns or knights etc. What I am saying is that using those standards Alexander’s army looks like 1 Queen, 1 King, 6 Rooks, 2 Knights, 2 pawns and another piece. My reading of history is that this other piece seems to move diagonally and have a big effect on battles whilst in DBA it is classified as a pawn. I simply ask why this is? I think there is a better option. Interestingly in DBA 1.0 I never objected to the Ax classification of Hypaspists which didn’t seem as large as it is under DBA 3.0 - possibly because of the lack of flank support for Sp. Finally you say that “the armies and rules are given, take them or leave them.” In some respects I agree given that this allows tournament play etc. and were I to play Alexander in a tournament then Hypaspists would be 4Ax and I’d be forced to play them unhistorically. In other respects I couldn’t disagree more. DBA is a set of wargames rules and not a gospel. It is also the 3rd major revision of those rules which have evolved with time. I we can’t discuss niggles like this on a forum such as this then how will they continue to evolve and what is the point of the forum? |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 7, 2019 12:30:51 GMT
Many players of DBA forget that Alexander and Hannibal and even Caesar and Richard III did not fight in tournaments Oh I don’t know Bob...having the risk of death following a defeat could be classed as the most purest form of tournament... ...it would certainly spice up competitions and add another bit of realism!  If I had a set of WWII rules that made Tiger tanks less powerful and weaker than Sherman tanks I would frown. If I had a set of Napoleonic rules that made the French Imperial Old Guard as weak as raw recruits I would shake my head. If I had a set of Ancient rules that made elite superior veterans the weakest instead of one of the strongest units...? Well, I would at least complain about it. From what you’re saying, yes we know it’s wrong, but let’s keep slavishly following the army lists, no matter how daft they are. Fortunately, club and home play allows us to think for ourselves, and to correct what we perceive to be errors. I’m reminded of how in HoTT players ignored the printed move rates and swapped the speeds of Shooters and Warbands. This was such a good idea that tournament organisers also began to do the same and allowed this unofficial amendment. Eventually, even author himself had to admit it was a better arrangement and it was officially incorporated into HoTT 2.1. See web.archive.org/web/20071117181354/http://www.btinternet.com:80/~alan.catherine/wargames/shwb.htmPerhaps the same could be done with the DBA army lists... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually David, the DBMM II/12 Alexandrian Macedonian army list allows some of the Pikemen to be deployed as Reg Ax (S). And players are given the choice of deploying the Hypaspists as either Reg Ax (S) or Reg Pk (S). Since nobody, not even Phil Barker himself, knows exactly how the Hypaspists were armed or how they actually fought, it’s a shame that he didn’t give the DBA 3.0 list the option to have Hypaspists as either 4Ax/Sp/3Bd so that players could decide for themselves which they think best fits with what the ancient historians said about these troops. But I suppose such historical accuracy is permissible for highbrow DBMM people, and not for us dumb-down DBA players... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And Paddy, I think I should take some of the blame for this digression. Such matters are usually reserved for the House Rule section. Nonetheless, you’re quite right...if we don’t point out the flaws in DBA, then how will it ever evolve and improve? (I do find it odd that people go into meticulous detail when selecting and painting their figures in order to get them as historically accurate as possible, but once they are on the table they blindly accept things that are obviously historically wrong) |
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Jan 7, 2019 16:22:26 GMT
Stevie,
I’m married so normally take the blame for everything and usually happy to plead “guilty as charged” - but in this particular case you started it with your post on Jan 5, 2019 at 12:23pm. 😉
The bottom line is that a bunch of unemployed mercenaries carrying a long spear are classified as Bd because of their psychology, fighting style and morale override their weaponary while the similarly armed elite Hypaspists in an Army that conquered the entire known world and fought for a General who achieved near immortality fall the other side of this dividing line.
In history Alexander, one of the greatest Generals in history, gave the Hypaspists the prime position on the right flank of his phalanx to act as the hinge between them and his mounted / companions because he trusted them to hold their position and win not because they were routinely destroyed on first contact as happens in DBA but could rely on luck giving a 6:1 roll.
Your analogy with the Tiger and Sherman is valid. I regularly play with a set of rules that pitch Sherman’s against Tigers and routinely the Tigers get knocked out, especially if badly handled and committed blindly into dense terrain without PzGren support or if exposed to massed artillery fire or from a Flank shot by a Firefly. 1:1 in the open Tigers beat Shermans - but if the Allied player ever lets that happen he deserves what he gets. The point is that those rules reward players for using historically accurate tactics and on average give historically accurate results.
DBA at its level of abstraction actually also gives very good results in most cases. Actually for a 12 unit vs 12 unit game on a 24” x 24” table I’d suggest that it gives a surprisingly accurate representation of Ancient warfare. I just don’t think that it nails the classification of the Hypaspists.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jan 7, 2019 19:30:34 GMT
Bob is correct that the principle purpose of DBA has always been to produce an evenly matched tournament game between 12 rather hypothetical troop elements. A chess match. Along come some radical thinkers who push for more historical representation in DBA and outcomes DBA 3.0 (a still controversial move). But given the 12 element limit and the strict troop classification system - this could only go so far. We have reached the limit of what can be done without adopting complex mechanisms that often prove counter productive (see DBMM).
Again we have pleas to smash square pegs into round holes (since "Blade" are better than "Spear" then troops that were "better" should become Blade rather than Spear even if tactically they seem to have used "spear" type methods). Phil says he doesn't use weapons as a criteria but then creates: Spear, Blade, Bow etc. along side non-weapon driven types: Aux, Cav, Ps. So its a mixed bag of reasoning which has never been one of DBXs strong points. What a troop types psychology is only goes so far - since your enemy doesn't care what you think you are - if a knight charges with a long lance and all you have is a short short to defend, the knight does not care if you "think" your a spearman. Hawkwood's men adopted some form of spear/pike to ward off mounted which seem to have been a feature of Italien warfare. The various English kings used massed bow to ward off mounted so men-at-arms could remain close fighting "blades". Hawkwood had archers but perhaps not enough so equipped his men as "spears". Its unclear whether the occasional practice of cutting down lances to make spears really changed the tactical character of men at arms but in Hawkwood's case it did seem to alter tactical use.
To make this work you need a general class of Heavy Foot whose characteristics are then altered by weapon use. Perhaps Hannibal's Heavy Foot did adopt Roman style weapons to become close in melee fighters (or perhaps they just added the armor). In any case they remain Heavy Foot but perhaps tactically altered by weapon use. To make troops "better" we should not be pounding them into square holes but instead just creating a classification system for quality.
David Constable worries that this will disrupt tournaments. It should not as tournaments should be played using standard DBA 3.0 rules. History is for home and club play. Which is easy for me to say as I almost never play in tournaments but spend all my time running historical battles and campaigns (and a few fantistorcal ones as well). This is where we should be concentrating our creative energies not tormenting DBA tournament players with house rules.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 7, 2019 20:58:43 GMT
Understood and agreed Tom. Fear not all you tournament players...if/when I turn up with my II/12 Alexandrian Macedonians, I shall be fielding a 4Ax element... ...but I won’t be calling them ‘Hypaspists’, I’ll shall be calling (and using) them for what they really are, ‘mercenary peltasts’. Because elite superior veterans, the cream and very best of the Macedonian army, they ain’t.They’ve just got the wrong name. |
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Jan 7, 2019 23:21:21 GMT
Stevie,
So we call them Thyreophoroi rather than Hypaspists and they have the correct classification for a DBA tournament fight.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 8, 2019 1:57:39 GMT
So we call them Thyreophoroi rather than Hypaspists and they have the correct classification for a DBA tournament fight. That’s about the size of it Paddy. I’m gonna call one of the pike elements the ‘Hypaspists’ (and give ‘em silver shields). It fits with the DBMM army lists, which allows Hypaspists to be pike armed... It fits with DBA army II/15 Alexandrian Imperial, where the Hypaspists are now called ‘Argyraspids’... It fits with the concept of powerful elite troops (CF of 6 with rear support, even better than my proposed 3Bd substitute)... It fits with their historical deployment on the right of the phalanx, next to the Companions... As for that 4Ax element in army II/12... Tournament players, who don’t seem to be concerned about historical accuracy, can call it what they like. Giving a 4Ax element a fancy name isn’t going to make them fight better, or reflect their true historical capabilities. If it has a CF of 3 (like thureophoroi), moves 2 BW (like thureophoroi), has combat outcomes (like thureophoroi), then let’s face it... ...they’re thureophoroi! |
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Jan 8, 2019 14:53:31 GMT
For what it's worth, Triumph! rates the hypaspists as raider (kinda 3Bd, but better thought through). Seems to fit a lot better indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Jan 8, 2019 17:06:22 GMT
So the net result is that we have the II/12 Alexandrian Macedonian list with an element of thureophoroi - which is a total anachronism - rather than historically accurate Hypaspists. I’m sure ther is a logic to this but I clueless as to what it is. So I’ll just say “Amen!” and put the purple book back in the aron kodesh.
Stevie - If I ever fight you, even in a tournament, with II/12 I’m more than happy for you to use Hypaspists as 3Bd.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jan 8, 2019 18:48:10 GMT
Stevie:
I don't care anything about what things are called in DBA 3.0 tournaments but I am interested in historical capabilities and uses. (Calling them "Raiders" seems even more bizarre than Aux and illustrates what weird troop categories are not the way to go.)
Several of my regulars are wanting to expand into ancients and are actively buying and painting the very nice plastic box sets available for this period (making local store owner very happy - good news for historicals). So what capabilities should they have? CF? MA? Do they get Evade (Flee if Doubled)? Do they Pursue any types of troops? Should they have Cry Havoc (Destroy on Equals) - against what other types? Loose Order (ignore Bad/Rough)? Etc.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 8, 2019 19:57:15 GMT
So the net result is that we have the II/12 Alexandrian Macedonian list with an element of thureophoroi - which is a total anachronism - rather than historically accurate Hypaspists. I’m sure ther is a logic to this but I clueless as to what it is. So I’ll just say “Amen!” and put the purple book back in the aron kodesh. Stevie - If I ever fight you, even in a tournament, with II/12 I’m more than happy for you to use Hypaspists as 3Bd. Cheers matey...and I’ll do the same for you and anybody else I happen to cross sarissas with. Mind you, I don’t mind having the 4Ax as a 4Ax...but I prefer the name ‘mercenary peltasts’ for them. (See armies II/16b, II/16c, II/16e, II/17a, II/18a, II/18c, II/18d, II/18e, and II/19a) You’re right, the term ‘thureophoroi’ is anachronistic, as they acquired that name because of the Celtic oval shields they adopted. And the Celtic Galatian Gauls didn’t invade Greece till 281 BC, long after both Philip and his lad Alex the Great were brown bread. (I wouldn’t want to be accused of being ‘historically incorrect’ now would I  )------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To be honest Tom, neither I nor any other modern day eminent historical scholar (not that I am one!) has a clue about how the Hypaspists were armed, let alone exactly how they fought. Having them as 3Bd is a step in the right direction, but as Arnopov says, it’s not perfect...and probably never will be due to the lack detailed information that has come down to us. I’ll have to scan Arrian (again!) and find out what they actually did in reality. If we can get them to act on our wargames table as the ancient writers said they did, then we must be close to getting them right. Off the top of my head I can think of the following list of attributes:- High combat factor against foot (but probably not as high as rear-supported Pk) Reasonable combat factor against mounted (at least as good as Sp) Good defence against being shot (about the same as Bd) No need for side or rear support (so they can act independently, even when overlapped in echelon formation) High speed (so they can keep up with the Companions) Good in rough and bad going (so Alexander will want them with him wherever he goes, such as outflanking the Persian Gates) Definitely pursue (or they’ll leave a gap between the already pursuing Phalangites and Companions) Perhaps recoil most opponents on an equal score? (they were elite superior veterans after all) They did conduct a feigned retreat at Chaeronea in 338 BC which drew the Athenian hoplites out of position, but under under DBA Sp don’t pursue. Oh, one last thing, DBMM allows Philip to be an Hypaspist general in 338 BC only (with Alexander as a sub-general in charge of the Companions). That’s about it really. As you can see, 3Bd is already more than halfway there...and 3Bd already exists without creating some sort of new ‘super element’. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 8, 2019 20:34:25 GMT
Let me put my comments more briefly. For tournaments, play the rules and armies as Phil has given them, it is just a game. Phil hated it when I wrote that There are 600 armies. Do not complain that one army does not agree with what you want, find the one that has the element types you want. If you are trying to recreate a specific historical battle, modify the rules and armies as you think appropriate. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 8, 2019 22:58:15 GMT
Don’t worry Bob...all this talk about 3Bd is, as you say, nothing more than a House Rule, only to be used when the wife is out by consenting adults behind closed doors with the curtains drawn(!). I’ve already agreed in a tournament to use army II/12 as 1 x Kn, 1 x Cv, 1 x LH, 1 x 4Ax, 6 x 4Pk, 1 x Sp/Ax/Art, 1 x Ps. What more do you want? Do you object to my calling the 4Ax by the alternative (but more accurate) name of ‘mercenary peltasts’? Can I have your permission to at least think it?  |
|
|
|
Post by jeffreythancock on Jan 10, 2019 0:03:30 GMT
Awww, what about all the voyeurs who wanna watch?! Don’t worry Bob...all this talk about 3Bd is, as you say, nothing more than a House Rule, only to be used when the wife is out by consenting adults behind closed doors with the curtains drawn(!). |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 10, 2019 11:28:22 GMT
Awww, what about all the voyeurs who wanna watch?! Don’t worry Bob...all this talk about 3Bd is, as you say, nothing more than a House Rule, only to be used when the wife is out by consenting adults behind closed doors with the curtains drawn(!). Sorry Jeffrey...it has to be done out of sight lest it cause offence. (But you might be interested in item 7 here: fanaticus.boards.net/thread/1224/new-rules-make-more-realistic )  |
|
DBA has two functions, firstly to allow people around the world to play games against each other in a tournament format with standard armies and rules. Or in pick up games. Secondly it allows people to recreate historical battles, whether as 12 vs 12 or in giant games. For the former some standardization is needed. Phil provides the standardization based on his reading of history, even though there is inconsistency. Nevertheless, the armies and rules are given, take them or leave them. I would like to have two Queens when I play chess, but I go with the rules.
)
