A Call for Play Testing

It was my understanding that Alex's phalanx was designed to stand their ground and give Alex an opportunity to smash the enemy center with the companions. That said, it sound that your battle AARs actually sound truer to history, despite perhaps that the phalanx charges a bit far ahead? Sounds to me like the tactics you end up using (i.e. the decision tree that gets used) is closer the reality? Still, I prefer my +1 fix for 4Ax over the increased recoil...

This replaces the combat outcome for all Ax.

Joe Collins

Well, I have conducted some play-testing, and here are my findings.

When Solid Foot Score Equal:   If not Pike, recoiled by “Solid” Pike, otherwise no effect.
Joe first suggested this some months ago. I liked it then, and I still like it now.
It is very simple, needs no remembering as it is written into the Combat Outcomes, and gives a small boost to Pike armies.
But I should emphasize that the effect is very small...an equal score only occurs 6 times out of 36 (1 less with each overlap by
either side), which is the equivalent to 1 in 6, or to rolling a ‘6’ on a single die. Nonetheless, the slight increase in recoils forces
the opponent to keep some reserves in case of the dreaded double overlap (Pike CF 6 v Blade CF 5 minus 2 means 9 chances out
of 36 of being doubled). And if the Romans have to keep some reserves, which both looks and feels right for the Romans, then
they will not have a longer battleline and outflank the Pikes.

The Set-up
I used II/33 Polybian Romans (2 x Cv, 6 x Bd, 2 x Sp, 2 x Ps) against II/35 Later Macedon (2 x Cv, 1 x LH, 6 x Pk, 2 x 4Ax, 1 xPs),
with no terrain, no elephants, and no allies...so not a true recreation of Pynda, as the Romans should have some Greek 4Ax allies.

                 V1  T1  T2  V2
     *
    C1  B1  B2  B3  B4  B5  B6  C2          (V=velites, T = trarii, * = General)

                             P2  P3  M1  M2         (M =mounted/cavalry, P = phalagites, A = 4Ax, Sk = skirmishing Ps)
                       P1  P2  P3   *
                       P1

                 A1        Sk

           A2

    LH


First Battle
The Macedonian right, group P2 to M2, drove back the Roman left several times. Pike column P3 even got a couple of double overlaps
on Roman Blade B5 (CF 6 v CF 3, meaning 9 chances out of 36 of getting a double), but just couldn’t get the die rolls high enough.
On the Macedonian left, Roman group C1 to B3 advanced and overlapped Pike column P1 and drove it back, but couldn’t hard flank P1
because of the TZ from Aux A1. However, B3’s success proved to be it’s downfall...pursuing after P1 left B3 out in front
of B2, and both A1 and Sk moved up to form a line with the recoiled P1 column. Overlapped on both flanks (TZ’s again preventing hard
flank attacks), B3 had 9 chances out of 36 and this time was doubled. Roman Triarii T1 had to advance into the gap with V1 on it’s right
and use it’s TZ to prevent the Macedonians from hard flanking B2 and B4. Meanwhile, Roman C1-B1-B2 group advanced, hit A1 with an
overlap, and (CF 5 v CF 2, 12 chances out of 36) A1 was doubled, leaving B2 free to hit Pike column P1 in the flank while it was engaged
with T1, and all of column P1 recoiled and was destroyed. Then it was just a matter of mopping-up for the Romans.
Final score, 4-1 to Rome.

Second Battle
Same deployment as the first fight, only this time the Macedonian left wing has LH-A2-A1 together in a group-line slightly echeloned
behind column P1...hoping to prevent killer overlaps on the auxiliaries....not that it did much good...
Again the powerful right wing of the Macedonians repeatedly drove back the Romans, but couldn’t get any kills, And even if it had,
the Romans had plenty of reserves to fill the gap. On the Roman right group C1-B1-B2 charged straight into Macedonian left group
LH-A2-A1. Roman B1 fought first (CF 5 v CF 3, 6 chances of doubling A2 and 20 (!) chances of recoiling them out of 36), A2 ‘evaded’
1 BW as per Joe’s rule and saved themselves. Good for them. But it exposed their neighbours to being overlapped.
LH was instantly doubled by C1* (CF 2 minus 1 for the overlap v CF 3 plus 1 for the general, 15(!!) chances of being doubled out of 36),
while A1 managed to also ‘evade’ 1 BW from B2 (CF 3 minus 1 overlap from B1 v B2’s CF of 4, as Macedonian Sk moved across to touch
A1’s right side...column P1 was busy pursuing B3 and too far away to overlap B2).
Well, you can guess the rest...Cv1* & B1 sandwiched A2 (destroyed), then A1 (destroyed), and it was all over bar the shouting.
Final score, 4-0 to Rome.

Conclusion
The recoil from Pike on an equal is a good, and a threat to the opposition, who must keep reserves just in case, shortening their line.
But note that it wasn’t because the Macedonians had a shorter battleline that led to their defeats.
It was because the auxiliaries are just far too weak to stand in the front line, or to extend the battleline.
Had they been tougher and more resilient, they would have lasted longer, and bought more time.
And the Romans did exactly what you’re supposed to do; attack the enemy’s weakest elements, not their best.

And that is the crux of the matter.
Auxiliaries can ‘evade’, recoil, flee, or run as much as they like...it’s the overlaps on their neighbours that they leave in the lurch.
A weak CF of 3 can’t afford a minus 1 from an overlap and hope to survive for long facing a CF of 5, if at all, with 12 chances in 36 of
being doubled and 18 of recoiling...and if facing 2 overlaps it’s 18 chances of being doubled...and that’s 50% (!!!).

The problem is blatantly staring us in the face...Auxiliary combat factors against heavy Blade/Spear/Pike is just far too low.

　                                    　--------------------------------------------------------------------------
　　
I have another play-test, that of Cannae, that I’ll post tomorrow, but it has the same results.
As much as I like the 1 BW ‘evade’ from heavy foot, and want to see it introduced, it has no effect whatsoever on Auxiliary survival.
Hannibal’s centre is effectively gone and he has lost the battle after only two bounds, or just two or three rounds of combat.

I mention this to the local group, none of them were interested in any play testing of any new rules. They’re still Getting comfortable with and learning the new rules as they are, they don’t want to have more things to think about. I don’t blame them, we went through three years of play testing almost On a monthly basis. We did it for version two also: -(

I know what you are saying Peter, and I agree with you.

One idea I’ve been experimenting with is not giving a +1 to 4Ax, but instead reduce all the heavy foot v foot factors by 1. So:-
            Blades become CF 4 v foot (hell, they already have a CF of 4 when shot at, and this is what DBMM does),
            Spears become CF 3 v foot (with +1 for side-support, which also applies when in a shield wall and shot at),
            and Pikes stay CF 3 v foot (but only get +2 for rear support in good going).

To make this work the penalty for being in Bad Going will need to be reduced to -1, unless you are Ps, Ax, Wb or Bw of course.
Oh, and I’m afraid Wb will have to lose their rear support or they’ll be too powerful (but at least their front line will be longer).
No other changes, and all other factors such as foot v mounted are unchanged and remain exactly as they are now.

This solves a lot of problems (which is probably why it’s done that way in DBMM).
Ax becomes more durable when facing heavy foot, as do Bows.
And the almost pointless pushing and shoving match between Bd v Bd and Pk v Pk even becomes a bit more decisive.

Have a look at the “Combat Effects Chart” here:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/File:COMBAT_EFFECTS_CHART_for_DBA_%26_HOTT.pdf
...and see what these changes will actually do.



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

Don’t worry Greedo...it’s not that much difference.

Chances Out Of 36 Of Getting A Double:-

                                              No Overlap     One Overlap      Two Overlaps
CF 6 v CF 6, at the moment =        0                     1                      4            (present Pk v Pk)
CF 5 v CF 5, at the moment =        0                     2                      6            (proposed Pk v Pk, or present Bd v Bd)
CF 4 v CF 4, proposed         =        1                     4                      9            (proposed Bd v Bd)

Remember, 6 chances out of 36 is 1 in 6, or the same a rolling a ‘6’ on a single die.
Plus you’ve still got to do a awful lot of pushing and shoving to get that double overlap.
And a double overlap doesn’t mean your dead...just a 9 in 36 (or 1 in 4) chance of dying.
Don’t get a high enough roll, then it’s back to pushing and shoving to get the next double overlap...

See the “Combat Effects Chart” and give it a try yourself.

(Still tooooo radical...so I'll just stick to pushing for a +1 to 4Ax when in close combat with Pk/Sp/Bd...)



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

Two more test games tonight...

1st was Alex vs Early Poly Romans (with 2x 4Ax Italian elements).

The game started well with Alex actually winning the terrain roll. I narrowed the frontage with a water way and a swamp. I lead with the classic echeloned attack with one variation. I put the Hypaspists protecting the right flank of the phalanx- between it and the water. The Romans closed quickly and engaged with a 6 to 1 vs the poor Aux.

I conveniently had Alex close and counter-charged the legionnaires, running them down and getting some revenge. 1 to 1. The legions clashed with the Pikes. The new Pike win ties worked wonderfully and the Romans were forced back... but to no avail. Multiple 6-3 combats with no doubles. Worse, the new Ax rules worked against me as I hit one of Italian Allied Ax who promptly recoiled out of contact (a 6-2 fight). He countered Alex with his Commander. The Pikes finally pushed far enough forward to form a hinge where I could hit the flank of the legions. In a hard fight I won 4-3 despite losing part of the phalanx. Close game.

The second game featured a Successor army with an Elephant General and 6 Pk. In this game I approached with elephant in the middle of my line... counting on a good pip roll to maneuver away from the Roman Psiloi. I got the needed roll and was able to maneuver the Elephant against the legion. Again the phalanx and elephants were able to push the Romans, but unable to break them. Finally, I was able to get the Geek Xyston armed cav in the fight. After an almost disastrous charge against a Ps... they rallied and broke through. In the final turns the Romans finally crumbled. 4-0 for the Greeks. To be fair, my opponent had never faced an Elephant General before.

All in all I am pleased with the results. The Aux certainly survive longer. The Pikes act much more like the pikes in the ancient narratives. They are able to push the Romans, but not quickly break them.

The ultimate Ax vs Bd game awaits... Clontarf.

Joe Collins