|
Post by greedo on Feb 21, 2019 7:12:55 GMT
Quick question: We've been talking a lot about 4Ax vs 4Bd, but what about side supported 4Sp? Is it the same situation? I'm thinking Thracians vs Hoplites, although the Thracians have plenty of 2Ps to hopefully break up the shieldwall?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 21, 2019 10:34:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 21, 2019 11:02:25 GMT
Well Jim, all I can do is quote from Duncan Head’s “Macedonian and Punic Wars” (as he has already done the research for us). Page 47 of the 1982 edition, or page 113 of the 2016 edition:- Peltasts and thureophoroiPeltasts were traditionally skirmishers, evading when charged, and wearing their enemy down with a rain of javelins. They were better equipped for close combat than psiloi, so were used in ambushes and to drive off skirmishers. Page 52 of the 1982 edition, or page 122 of the 2016 edition:- The IllyriansIn the 5th century Thucydides records that “as they fight in no sort of order, they have no sense of shame about giving up a position under pressure. To run forwards and to run backwards are equally honourable in their eyes...every man fighting on his own”. They would not press home an attack against enemy who stood firm, and would retire at speed from vigorous charges, operating in fact like the typical peltast and only closing with enemy weakened by missiles or by their fierce warcries. From these quotes we see that psiloi (CF 2) were not as good as peltasts (CF 3, so 3Ax) in close combat, who would evade (i.e. recoil 1 BW) when charged. And if an enemy charges, they will move forwards, and no longer be in a line with their mates. For how can you charge forwards to make the enemy evade, but not actually cover any distance or leave your original position?And when peltast-3Ax recoil from Spears they are not evading a charge, they have simply been bested in hand-to-hand combat, have fallen back, and seeing no pursuit (because the enemy is in a passive shield wall) they have halted and reformed. Note that this ‘evading when charged’ is not done by other types of ‘medium infantry’, as shown below... Ok. So firstly I'm limiting this to just 3Ax. No issue with 4Ax+1. I have no objection to the above opinions of Duncan Head. I completely agree that 3Ax need to be able to separate from Heavy Infantry. But allowing 3Ax to recoil 1BW but Ps only 1/2BW suggests 3Ax were more agile than Ps. The only reason for this is the game mechanic of Bd and Pk pursuit. Surely, changing the pursuit game mechanic is a simpler solution? If Bd and Pk don't pursue 3Ax or Ps then separation would occur. Hoping to disorganise a line of blades or a pike block seems more an attempt at play balance rather than historical record. As Duncan was writing about troops that would be quite familiar with hoplites, the comment about a passive shield wall is wrong, at least in open ground. Hoplites advanced. Otherwise the Persians would've shot them to pieces quite easily. I can't see why Bd and Pk would treat disorganised javelin throwers any differently to Hoplites. If 3Ax Thracians can't disorganise a hoplite phalanx then they shouldn't disorganise a Macedonian phalanx. Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 21, 2019 11:06:04 GMT
Don't break them up but can slow them down. In combination with others though they can effect some disorganisation. Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 21, 2019 12:46:08 GMT
Very good questions Jim...as always. Why do Blades and Pikes now pursue? (they didn’t in DBA 2.2)I think this is the fundamental question. And the answer is simply...play balance. We are all slaves to the two dice combat system. But this combat system is limited and gives us little room to make adjustments. In order to make powerful high combat factor troops have at least some chance of being doubled, Blades and Pikes now pursue. That way they can have their battleline broken-up more and have greater chances if being overlapped instead of just pushing and shoving for no real effect. It also allows breakthroughs in the centre instead of everything being decided on the wings. Spears on the other hand are now perceived to be more ‘static’ and ‘passive’, maintaining their formation rather than pursue. I must admit that it looks odd to have Pikes (who need to maintain a strict line formation more than most) pursuing as if they were a bunch of disordered impetuous Warbands...but it works within the limitations that the two dice combat system imposes on us. What has this to do with 3Ax peltasts?Well, having 3Ax ‘evading’ 1 BW and their opposing Blades and Pikes (and Warbands) pursuing them also breaks-up battlelines. Otherwise they would be as ‘static’ and ‘passive’ as Spears, thereby making Spears, who need side-support, somewhat superfluous. The basic idea in DBA is all elements are (at least theoretically) equal to each other, with various advantages and disadvantage. So Spears have a disadvantage in that they need side-support, but an advantage over Blades and Pikes in that they don’t pursue. 3Ax, with their weak combat factor of 3, have no chance in a toe-to-toe fight with Blades and Pikes. Ah, but if they can force the enemy to pursue them, then 3Ax can get overlaps on their pursuers and have a slight chance. What about Psiloi?If you want Psiloi to also be able to recoil a base depth or ‘evade’ a full base width, then I see no problem with that. But they don’t really need it, as they are not pursued, so recoiling ½ a BW or a full BW makes little difference to them. Either way, they still manage to break contact from most foot (but not from pursuing Hordes). So by all means let us have both 3Ax and Ps recoiling like mounted...but I’m not sure that Ps will ever need to. But it wouldn’t hurt them either if they could.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 21, 2019 15:40:03 GMT
Don't break them up but can slow them down. In combination with others though they can effect some disorganisation. Jim Yeah what he said In addition, I was actually thinking the unlikely but possible 6-1 result where the Sp is 6 vs Ps 8 so the Sp recoils. I thought that was the point of having Ps out front. To disrupt the spear and force more pips to reform thus draining pips from other areas.
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Feb 24, 2019 6:29:31 GMT
At this point 4AX +1 vs heavy foot and optional 1 BW evasion for 3AX seem to be definite improvements. As with the BW discussion good arguments here.
Will be interesting to see what extensive playtesting shows.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 25, 2019 11:56:25 GMT
4Ax play test Over the weekend, three test games were played betwee the Iberians (4Ax) and Polybian. As both sides have arable terrain, we used the BUA (hamlet), two difficult hills and one wood for the game board.
The initial game required more time to reach a decision and in some respects the number of turns were reminiscent of between Vikings and Anglo-Saxons. The first game last 60 minutes (11 turns) steadily decreasing to 30 minutes for the final test (6 turns).
Despite the loss of all three games, each was hotly contested with Rome losing their general mid-way through the final battle.
Next week will shall try the 3Ax option for the Iberians and test the increased recoil option.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 25, 2019 12:41:02 GMT
Timurilank, you didn’t say if you were using ordinary 4Ax (CF 3) or the proposed enhanced 4Ax (CF 3 +1 v Bd/Sp/supported Pk).
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 25, 2019 13:00:06 GMT
Timurilank, you didn’t say if you were using ordinary 4Ax (CF 3) or the proposed enhanced 4Ax (CF 3 +1 v Bd/Sp/supported Pk). Yes, the increased factor was used for all three tests.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 25, 2019 14:11:50 GMT
Ah, good...I wanted to make sure.
Interesting results, just what we had hoped for. The Spanish Iberians were eventually defeated (as they should be), but it wasn’t a walk-over.
Note however that had the Spanish Iberians, being Arable, had chosen a road and two gentle hills (one hill at each end of the road), they could have been uphill of the Romans, and had a CF of 3, +1 v heavies, and +1 for uphill, for a CF of 5.
So when uphill, or defending a riverbank, the new proposed 4Ax (be they Spanish, Samnites, Illyrians, Thracian 4Ax, etc) could actually be equal to Blades and side-supported Spearmen, and so ‘might’ be able to win a battle outside of bad going... ...well, at least sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 25, 2019 17:10:11 GMT
Stevie, Future tests will make use of other terrain features. However, for this series selecting the terrain for the next battle is easily done without a road present; simply rotate the board 90 degrees and deploy.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 4, 2019 21:50:03 GMT
I just finished three test games between the Polybian and Iberian (3Ax) using the optional recoil of base depth or 1BW. This worked well as the Iberians were able to prolonge their battles long enough to take advantage of any Roman setbacks. I had the feeling on two occassions that victory was just around the corner. Unfortunately for the Iberians, Fortuna favoured Rome with a steady stream of 6 – 1 die casts to take game two with a 4 – 0 score.
Game three was close as the Iberians rebounded from a 0 – 3 deficet to even the score in time to see another 6 – 1 die cast. All battles used the same terrain as in the previous tests; BUA (hamlet), two difficult hills and one wood on an 80cm x 80cm board.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 5, 2019 0:36:20 GMT
I was watching Tony Aguilar's youtube videos and saw Polybian Romans (full compliment of 4Bd) vs Later Carth: www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYThI--o8-8A couple of things came up: 1) His opponent specifically moved his 4Ax out of harms way because he knew that the Romans Blade would mulch him. 2) They both agreed that Later Carth would lose 9/10 times in play It occurred to me that there's about 5 people talking about these changes. What is now needed for more players to come over to suggesting these changes to the powers that be? Would a tournament to test be worthwhile? When do these suggestions get surfaced beyond the House Rules section?
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Mar 5, 2019 1:12:54 GMT
On kind of a side note:
There are a couple of army lists that have the option of either 4Ax or Sp. (I/35c Phoenician and I/50 Lydian, for example).
With the house rule of +1cf for 4Ax against HI not in non-bad going, make 4Ax more attractive of an option (for at least some of it since you can mix and match), or would you just stick with the Sp?
|
|