|
Post by greedo on Mar 16, 2019 22:49:42 GMT
Just be careful: once you open up the inferior/suoerior road to travel on, good luck balancing the army lists. DBMM seems to have this problem in spades. The +1 on 4Ax works well either way, however woth an outside chance 1/36 of killing an isolated Sp, you find that 4Ax+3Ax armies suddenly become very, very interesting and fun to play. Illyrian vs Corinthian is fun as all heck! Yeah I know. And certainly S/I/O is not popular for DBA because of the possible impact to complexity. But I just love it, so will definitely use it in my home games and historical attempts. My Spartans have to be (S), Numidian LH(S), Veteran Legionaries, maybe even Triarii(Sp(S))? Agreed that balancing is an issue, but the way I would play it to have you can pick any element to be (S), but you have to nominate another element to be (I), OR your opponent gets to nominate one of their elements to be (S) too, so that it balances out. So you could make your entire army (S) if you wanted to, but your opponent gets to as well. These issues might start to call to mind some sort of point system, but that's a whole other problem. With regards to 4Ax vs 4Sp, was that what you meant? But I'd still prefer to have the 4Ax gang up on the lone 4Sp with a hard flank/overlap to reduce their CV down. I'm ok with that, although as you point out 1/36 is a small chance. But it's still a chance.
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Mar 17, 2019 4:43:54 GMT
As to 4AX vs 4SP, the Iphikrates apparently thought the 4AX were the better option - (from wiki) "His "Iphicratean reforms" consisted of increasing the length of their spears and swords, substituting linen cuirasses in place of heavier bronze armor, and introducing the new footwear that took his name. In addition, he replaced the heavy aspis shield with a lighter pelte that could be strapped to the forearm, freeing the left hand to help hold the lengthened spears. By these changes he greatly increased the rapidity of their movements. He also paid special attention to discipline, drill and maneuvers; the longer weapons, combined with the lighter armor and shield, forced his troops to take a more aggressive approach in tactical situations. With his peltasts Iphicrates dealt the Spartans a heavy blow in 392/390 BC by almost annihilating a mora (a battalion of about 600 men) of their famous hoplites at the Battle of Lechaeum. The Iphicratean reforms are considered to have been one of the leading influences on Philip II of Macedon, when he created the sarissa-armed Macedonian phalanx. His son, Alexander the Great, employed this new infantry formation in his many conquests.[7]"
Apparently he rolled the '6' and the Spartans a '1.' Oh wait, with a CV of 3 best he could hope for is a push back unless he had at least one overlap.
Now back to at least a +1 for 4AX against 'heavies.' Since they are called auxilia, I tend automatically to think of Roman auxilia -
"Infantry formations and drill were very like those of legionary infantry, the main difference being that auxiliaries were regarded as especially suitable for work in difficult terrain such as in woods or over Steep hills. Their training must therefore have emphasised mobility and flexibility rather than rigid formation keeping. Except for those units primarily armed with the bow, they were mainly hand-to-hand fighters, though their lighter missiles, shields and armour would put them them at a disadvantage to Legionarii in that respect.
Tungricani. Finally, there were 10 Auxilia Palatina, all raised by Constantine. These were the Cornuti, Brachiati, Petulantes, Celtae, Heruli, Batavi, Mattiaci, Salii, Regii and Tubantes. In spite of their tribal names, these were all elite disciplined units.
Above from 'Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome" 4th ed. by Phil Barker.
Now I don't see these as 'super ninja' 4AX, they may be better than many if not all of the other 4AX (hypaspists, Catalan company???), but as long as they are rated as 4AX then as I stated before they are woefully shortchanged.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 17, 2019 20:02:41 GMT
As to 4AX vs 4SP, the Iphikrates apparently thought the 4AX were the better option - (from wiki) "His "Iphicratean reforms" consisted of increasing the length of their spears and swords, substituting linen cuirasses in place of heavier bronze armor, and introducing the new footwear that took his name. In addition, he replaced the heavy aspis shield with a lighter pelte that could be strapped to the forearm, freeing the left hand to help hold the lengthened spears. By these changes he greatly increased the rapidity of their movements. He also paid special attention to discipline, drill and maneuvers; the longer weapons, combined with the lighter armor and shield, forced his troops to take a more aggressive approach in tactical situations. With his peltasts Iphicrates dealt the Spartans a heavy blow in 392/390 BC by almost annihilating a mora (a battalion of about 600 men) of their famous hoplites at the Battle of Lechaeum. The Iphicratean reforms are considered to have been one of the leading influences on Philip II of Macedon, when he created the sarissa-armed Macedonian phalanx. His son, Alexander the Great, employed this new infantry formation in his many conquests.[7]" The Iphikrates I can't decide if they should be updated 4Ax, or Fast Sp, 3Sp. Might even be 3Pk given that they were the precursors for the 4Pk?
I recognize that 3Sp is a new(ish) element, but these guys specifically seem to be the poster child for "Spears that might be a bit lighter than hoplites, but can out maneuver those hoplites and beat them".
It strikes me that there is a gap of CV 3-4. We have fast Peltasts (3Ax), and we have Heavy Spear (4Sp), and then there's 4Ax inbetween. To make them CV4 means we no longer have slightly lousier troops that hang more in the rough going. Perhaps we should leave this to 3Ax and 2Ps. Then again, to leave them at CV3 means that there are no troops who, while technically inferior to heavy spears, could stand up to them as we have of history is telling us.
While LEGO these days doesn't like to make new pieces unless absolutely necessary, perhaps this is a case where there is a space for a new troop type? 3Sp? It won't require ANY new rules since fast troops already exist, and it'll do what is asked for against 4Sp/4Bd.
Downsides of 3Sp: 1) 4 CV against Mounted. Is this bad? Would it make them too powerful, and ahistorical? 2) 4 CV blanket against light troops. Is this bad? Given that they would now be separate from 4Ax. Do we leave 4Ax in the rough? 3) Rejigging of army lists, since 3Sp could be applicable to all sorts of places.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 18, 2019 1:42:01 GMT
I think therein lies the rub. Adding 3Sp, apart from having to give side support, or create an entirely new troop type, I cannot see how to do this. Would Cv flee from them? Or would their speed allow them to at least trap horsemen in enough numbers to threaten the integrity of a Cv element?
Then what about Alexander's heavy Thracians (4Ax).
I see the 4Ax in context perhaps being the best of a bunch of poor choices, at covering the widest possible ground, with minimal knock-on effects. Every single other rule I have tried has either failed to actually fix the problem in a material way, or makes things worse for the troop type under consideration, or has serious destabilising knock-on effects
I suspect there isn't anyone posting regularly on this forum who has seriously playtested as many house rules to try to tweak this, as Stevie and me... So our ideas do actually work. They will never be perfect. But they are quite decent for historical/campaign settings.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 18, 2019 2:15:14 GMT
That said, we realise not everyone is going to like these or use them, and we wouldn't people feeling forced or coerced to use them reluctantly.
By all means, play 4Ax, 8Bw and 4Bw as you like and see fit.
In my house, we play robust solid Bw and Ax... 😜😝
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 18, 2019 4:08:47 GMT
Just as a thought exercise. How would you write the rules if you had two different troop types: ie Peltasts (replacing 3Ax) and Auxilia (replacing 4Ax)? This may provide a bit more freedom that the fast/solid differentiation. It plays on medievalthomas' idea of a "medium infantry" but with a more DBA-esque terminology.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 18, 2019 7:54:24 GMT
Funny, Jim, I always thought the "solid/fast" delineation was the most radical departure from canonical DBA we've ever seen...
I wonder what we call 8Bw, 4Bw, 3Bd, 3Bw?
I like "Peltasts" but does that really fit outside classical era?
To me, 4Ax are the true Auxilia ...
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 18, 2019 10:03:16 GMT
Jim...here is a quote from the "Lessons from History" booklet. How does it sound? "A short note on ‘peltast’ terminology The word originally derived from ‘pelta’, the name for the wicker crescent-shaped shield traditionally carried by light javelin armed skirmishing Thracians. Soon however it came to represent the throwing of javelins and the evading of heavy infantry charges style of fighting, and was used by medium foot capable of both hand-to-hand combat as well as being able to skirmish (those that DBA calls ‘3Ax’).
These early disorganised peltasts later became trained and drilled regulars with larger oval Celtic type thureos shields, and were called thureophoroi (the troops that DBA calls ‘4Ax’). But because of their javelin throwing ability they were still known as peltasts...or ‘mercenaries’ as they made up the bulk of Hellenistic hired foot. So we treat thureophoroi, peltasts, and mercenaries as interchangeable names for Hellenistic 4Ax troops.
Other nations that used similar undisciplined disorganised medium foot we also treat as 3Ax, while those medium foot that were just naturally stubborn (such as some Iberians, Samnites, later Illyrians, and some Thracian tribes) or trained and drilled regular medium foot (i.e. Imperial Roman Auxilia) are treated as 4Ax."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
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 18, 2019 22:01:01 GMT
Funny, Jim, I always thought the "solid/fast" delineation was the most radical departure from canonical DBA we've ever seen... I like "Peltasts" but does that really fit outside classical era? To me, 4Ax are the true Auxilia ... <iframe width="28.40000000000009" height="4.920000000000016" style="position: absolute; width: 28.40000000000009px; height: 4.920000000000016px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_54836227" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="28.40000000000009" height="4.920000000000016" style="position: absolute; width: 28.4px; height: 4.92px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1356px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_30032163" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="28.40000000000009" height="4.920000000000016" style="position: absolute; width: 28.4px; height: 4.92px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 152px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_54210165" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="28.40000000000009" height="4.920000000000016" style="position: absolute; width: 28.4px; height: 4.92px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1356px; top: 152px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_56708077" scrolling="no"></iframe> It doesn't but neither does Psiloi. Warband is also thrown around, as is Knights. So I was trying to stay in theme! But if you had two separate troop types you don't have to relate one to the either. Or you could have potentially Fast/Solid versions of each, giving 4 categories if required. I struggle to see Roman Auxilia as the evolution of Thracian Peltasts. If anything, they would have more in common with the Warbands they were initially designed to counter, i.e. a (disciplined, they were Roman after all!) form of infantry that are not hindered by rough ground and fight hand-to-hand. But that's me. Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 19, 2019 1:13:59 GMT
I don’t think that Roman Imperial Auxilia ‘ evolved’ from Thracian Peltasts Jim (although the Hellenistic thureophoroi did). It was more a case of ‘Convergent Evolution’, where different armies in different locations came to a similar solution. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution )Hoplites were limited, so the Greeks began hiring Thracian peltasts to do the things that hoplites couldn’t do. Later they raised their own better trained regular versions of these peltasts called thureophoroi. The Macedonians understood the concept of combined arms, so they too had troops that could do the things that phalangites with their long sarissa pikes couldn’t do. Likewise, in a different country, the Romans could see that those Italian nations they had subdued had useful troops that could do the things that their heavy legionaries couldn’t do, so these ‘allies’ had to supply the Roman army with ‘auxiliaries’. Later, under the Empire, they too began to raise regular trained and uniformed Auxilia to accompany their Legions. Having an army consisting solely of heavy spearmen, pikemen, or blades is like having a fleet of nothing but battleships with no destroyers and cruisers to support them. 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
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 19, 2019 21:20:21 GMT
This has nothing to do with historians, but I happened to be looking at the Basic Impetus 2 Army Lists, and noticed that Hypaspists, Roman Aux, Spanish Aux etc. all had comparable combat values with the hoplites/legionaries. Of course there are lots of other special rules around Pila throwing etc., but regardless, the straight up combat values of Impetus' version of 4Ax were only slightly lower than the main heavy infantry. So other game systems might treat their 4Ax a bit better, if that's worth anything.
Basic Impetus also separates out the Sparabara and the Pavises into 2 separate units. The Pavises were roughly on par with hoplites, but the archers were really low. This makes 8Bw a bit of a tricky one since it's a merging of the two and the two layers have different combat characteristics.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 19, 2019 23:43:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 20, 2019 6:07:15 GMT
The part about Sparabara got me thinking how other rule sets represent this. DBA uses 1 element 8Bw. Impetus uses 2, front, and back. You've mentioned a lot the Bw/Bd side support rule being random, but required to achieve some kind of historical result. I'm assuming this is Henry V's English at Agincourt where the bow were intermixed with the blade? Is that right? If so, then could they be represented as a "mixed" unit, like 8Bw? Where instead of Pavises, you have swords/halbards? That also got me thinking about rear support. i.e. Could you have a unit of upgraded 4Ax (4Cv), and 4Bw could do "rear" support of them, and fire from their front rank? I know this has been suggested before, and it would require 2 elements where 8Bw is only 1, but still. It would also be a great unit. Basically bow armed 4Ax.. The same could be done with 4Bd. Put some 4Bw behind them, and now the 4Bd get bowfire for the cost of 1 extra element. And THAT got me thinking about deep units. Wb do double ranked. Pk do rear support. Why did Spear lose rear support? We've heard of deep Spears vs narrow Spears, but perhaps 8Sp is that element (which I love for the Thebans!) Too many random thoughts late at night.
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Mar 20, 2019 18:50:48 GMT
Bow was not intermixed within a unit at Agincourt but in the battle line (so you had blocks of Men at Arms next to blocks of archers with the bulk of the archers then deployed in "wings"). English archers were expected to fight hand to hand with sword and buckler if needed so could form part of the man battle line but their primary defense against Heavy Foot was close range shooting. At Agincourt the French could not close with the archers and instead piled in against the Men at Arms (who at least weren't shooting at them). The archers then charged into the open flanks of the French. Shooting the enemy into disorder and then charging into hand to hand was a favorite yeoman tactic. And is still practiced today with current suppress and close assault tactics.
As to reform the easiest and least disruptive is to create Fast Spear as the Fast mechanics (+1BW to MA; but Recoil on Equals from most non-Fast) already exist. Fast Spear would not get Side Support as they don't form Shieldwall or Drive Off Mounted (this last is debatable). An issue remains about -2 in Difficult to Spear.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 20, 2019 21:11:50 GMT
And of course an element exception for Ps - do they flee fast Sp? Do Cv? Do LH? What is their CF in shooting? Do they provide side support to 4Sp? Bw? Bd?
Now you need element-based exceptions on the BGo modifier. Do they get rear support? Why/why not?
And what about fast Pk? Do they still exist, or are they now fast Sp?
I dunno, call me stupid, but that seems TONS more rules verbiage and special cases overhead than my simple +1 solution ...
|
|