|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 12, 2019 22:38:39 GMT
Part two.In the book, The Imperial Roman Army by Yann Le Bohec, the organization and role of the army in the empire well covered, but relavent to this debate are the sections under ‘Activities of the Army’’ which include training, tactics and strategy. Under training we find troops honing their skill with their standard issued weapons, but also learned the use of bow, sling and throwing stones. Drills included the change of formation from close order to open order and the reverse so cohorts could quickly adapt to the terrain they moved through or the enemy they fought. Noteworthy, in Tacitus – Agricola, four cohorts of Batavians and two of Tongres were ordered to engage the Britions with sword and shield like legionnaires (p.144, Le Bohec). The passage is long but would certainly add weight to the suggestion of increasing the combat factor from 3 to 4 as a good one. With good military leaders one can expect a high level of training, ensuring an army’s performance and conversely, as the quality of leaders declined, so would the performance of the troops under their command. Regarding increasing the combat factor for auxilia, my own Middle Imperial Roman army (II/64) would benefit greatly, but consistantly using them against all barbarian and nomadic tribes their tactics and deployment have greatly improved. The Late Imperial Roman army (II/78) are similar to the Middle Imperial with regard to troop type. They do however, have a significantly higher number of mounted elements. Despite the smaller number of foot troops, the ratio of legion to auxilia remains nearly even. I do like the increasing the recoil distance of 1BW for auxilia. I would like to see a distinction between the two types and suggest the following: 3Ax – recoil 1BW 4Ax – recoil base depth or 1BW, similar to the option given to mounted troops. Thank timurilank. I enjoyed both your posts. My own experience is mostly around the Greco-Persian Wars and Peloponnesian War, where Thracians are the dominant Auxilia force. They don't do well against Spears clearly. The 1BW recoil wouldn't really do much in this setting. I think the concept is to free them from pursuing Blade and Pike. Maybe not allowing Blade and Pike to pursue Auxilia would be a better (easier) solution? I am going to try a game where 3Ax flees from Spears. This forces the Hoplite player to have to disrupt the line and flank for a kill, potentially open up an opprtunity for the Thracians with a good PIP roll to set on an out of place element. Let you know. Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 12, 2019 22:59:50 GMT
Thank timurilank. I enjoyed both your posts. My own experience is mostly around the Greco-Persian Wars and Peloponnesian War, where Thracians are the dominant Auxilia force. They don't do well against Spears clearly. The 1BW recoil wouldn't really do much in this setting. I think the concept is to free them from pursuing Blade and Pike. Maybe not allowing Blade and Pike to pursue Auxilia would be a better (easier) solution? I am going to try a game where 3Ax flees from Spears. This forces the Hoplite player to have to disrupt the line and flank for a kill, potentially open up an opprtunity for the Thracians with a good PIP roll to set on an out of place element. Let you know. Cheers Jim Is the problem that Ax have been slowed down? 3Ax are still moving fast and don't get slowed by Rough, but 4Ax moves at the pace of heavy foot. Should they be able to move faster? I seem to remember them moving quicker before the introduction of the Fast troop concept.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 12, 2019 23:55:24 GMT
That is a very good piece of research Timurilank, but I’d like to respond to Greedo’s number crunching. Greedo, your percentages are dead right...for one 4Ax element fighting just one Blade element. But what happens when a line of 4Ax fights a line of Blades? I can tell you (showing chances out of 36):- Ax Doubled Ax Recoils Equal Score Bd Recoils Bd DoubledCF 3 v CF 5, no overlaps 6 (17%) 20 (56%) 4 (11%) 6 (17%) 0 CF 2 v CF 5, Ax overlapped 12 (33%) 18 (50%) 3 (8%) 3 (8%) 0 CF 1 v CF 5, Ax double overlapped 18 (50%) 15 (42%) 2 (6%) 1 (3%) 0 What does it all mean? Well, it means that a single Bd has 26 chances (72%) of chasing off a single Ax so they can overlap the neighbouring Ax. Once an Ax is overlapped on both sides, it has 18 chances (50%) of being doubled and destroyed. Must I keep reminding players that in DBA overlaps-kill-auxiliaries!. Please people, don’t take my word for it...I am not making it up... TRY IT FOR YOURSELVES. Line up 6 Ax and 6 Bd and fight it out yourselves, like this:- B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6...and fight B1 v A1 first, then B3 v A3, before resolving B2 v A2 (so that the blades are aiming for double overlaps). You’ll see at least one Ax, possibly two or more, destroyed...and that is after only a single round of combat! Now imagine that this line of 6 Ax represents Hannibal’s centre at the battle of Cannae. Does the result you get...the result you can see with your own eyes...bear any resemblance whatsoever to Polybius’ account? I’m afraid that modern day anecdotal feelings and fond memories simply cannot stand in the face of Mathematical Facts. Now you could dismiss Polybius’s account of Cannae as a fluke, a one-off, a special one-in-a-million event. But the only window we have on ancient warfare comes from the writings of the ancient historians. If you reject one ancient historian, then what other ancient accounts are you also going to reject? All those that don’t fit with the DBA combat system? Has the DBA combat system now become ‘historical fact’, and the ancient writers must have been lying?! Shouldn't we be bending the rules to fit reality, and not trying to bend reality to fit the rules? 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 Feb 13, 2019 1:32:56 GMT
I hear you Stevie. But I feel like I'm hearing competing accounts of what 4Ax are. 3Ax are definitely lose formation peltasts. Basically slightly better Ps, and they seem to be described that way. I *think* we're all agree on that one.
But I read in Duncan Head's book about how Spanish Ax can't stand up to formed troops, Hannibal didn't trust his Ax, Ax is used on the flanks to protect the heavy troops etc. etc. And THEN, we come to Cannae, where Hannibal knew what the Romans were going to do/how they fought, and even though he didn't trust his own light/mediums, he put them right in the front, and put his Veteran Spears on the flanks, which flies in the face of every other battle I've ever read.
Now the result shows Hannibal to be a genius, but he did INSTRUCT his light/mediums to not fight full on, but to gradually give ground. Which leads me to the conclusion that they didn't recoil because they had to, they recoiled because it was the plan. But this leads to a conundrum with DBA. If we make 4Ax stronger, will that just make generals want to put their 4Ax in the main battleline, since we know they won't die, and can take it (at least for a while). Will flank based 4Ax be too strong now? I haven't read anywhere that 4Ax formed up as soon as they spotted heavier troops, and then spread out as the need arose. That would require training, and precision, which I don't know for certain the ancients had access to (they might have, but I don't know that).
Side support for the 4Ax does nothing for the double overlap problem Stevie points out, but making them as strong as a Hoplite unit when facing hoplites just seems wrong. Any other solution introduces some weird new rule (+1 when they lose, etc.) that has to be accommodated.
Introducing a new troop type ("Medium Infantry, CV 4,3) seems an unpopular choice, because why would anyone ever pick 4Ax, when they can go for heavier troops? Changing Cannae Ax to Wb or even 3Bd also seems like it would make things not work...
I must admit I'm flummoxed.
Short of giving 4Ax rear support (which should help the Cannae problem, but are now too "warbandy"?), I'm not sure what to do.
I would love to hear what Duncan Head and Phil Barker have to say about this, not to criticize their decision, so much as understand their rationale for defining the troops this way.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 13, 2019 7:24:44 GMT
Thank timurilank. I enjoyed both your posts. My own experience is mostly around the Greco-Persian Wars and Peloponnesian War, where Thracians are the dominant Auxilia force. They don't do well against Spears clearly. The 1BW recoil wouldn't really do much in this setting. I think the concept is to free them from pursuing Blade and Pike. Maybe not allowing Blade and Pike to pursue Auxilia would be a better (easier) solution? I am going to try a game where 3Ax flees from Spears. This forces the Hoplite player to have to disrupt the line and flank for a kill, potentially open up an opprtunity for the Thracians with a good PIP roll to set on an out of place element. Let you know. Cheers Jim I have similar tests planned for the 2nd Punic War in Hispania,
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 13, 2019 9:36:29 GMT
{snip} But I read in Duncan Head's book about how Spanish Ax can't stand up to formed troops, Hannibal didn't trust his Ax, Ax is used on the flanks to protect the heavy troops etc. etc.'{snip} Greedo, In the latest edition of Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars (2016), Duncan acknowledges Quesada’s research which promotes just the opposite; they did “engage in pitched battles fighting in a similar style as the Romans but lacking their discipline” (p.18).
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Feb 13, 2019 12:54:43 GMT
Stevie continues to make a good case.
All an enhanced recoil just means that AX in a line in combat die as their fellows get pushed back and that other troops whose flank they are covering get exposed to overlaps just as they did before.
As to getting Duncan Head's opinion, i have been thinking on how to frame the question in a post on TMP (The Miniatures Page) to catch the attention of and get a response from Ghurkhan (AKA Duncan Head).
He posts replies there to questions on equipment and other topics in areas where he has some expertise (often with links to the site Dzuzhina posts his information on which has excerpts from Duncan and Ian Heath's WRG publications). Not sure that a straight up question on how DBA treats what are defined as Ax, particularly the 4AX, would draw a response.
If anyone here has a suggestion (or wishes to make the post), it would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 13, 2019 13:06:37 GMT
Timurilank, you have convinced old Stevie that it’s about time he entered the 21st century and bought Duncan Head’s 2016 edition. Should be arriving on Friday. In the meantime, on with the the discussion. Let’s Get Back To The Fundamental BasicsThis debate is going around and around in circles, and has done so for several decades. So let us cut the crap and go right to the heart of the matter:- When an ancient author says something happened, but the DBA combat system gives a different result, who do you believe? That is what this debate is all about. Writing Rules Based On Ancient HistoryWriting an ancient set of rules is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle, where the jigsaw pieces are facts from ancient authors. Now many of the pieces of this puzzle are missing, so we have to extrapolate and make-up pieces to complete the picture. So when an ancient author gives us a nice juicy fact, we would be fools to ignore it. And I don’t give a toss about what any 21st century armchair amateur wannabe military historian ‘thinks’ is right. If an ancient historian says something happened, then that is good enough for me...even if I don’t fully understand how. Polybius As An HistorianWhy do we have pikes in deep formations, with a high combat factor, but weaker in hindering disordering terrain? Because Polybius wrote a whole chapter on how a pike phalanx worked...so we believe that part of his writings. And why do we have Republican Romans in lines of Hastati, Principes, and Trarii, organised in small maniples? Because Polybius wrote a whole chapter on how the Roman legion worked...so we believe that part of his writings. But when Polybius says that Spanish 4Ax medium infantry stood up to blades and grudgingly gave ground without being destroyed...oh no, we reject that part of his writings. Why? “Well...er...you see...er...it’s because...er...it contradicts with the DBA combat system! And DBA can’t be wrong, can it!” Does A Single Battle MatterYes, I’m afraid it does. I’ve read lots of posts by people who bend over backwards trying to justify the DBA combat system. Oh they say... Hannibal was a genius, so his men fought better than normal at Cannae... Or the Spanish troops at Cannae were a special kind of one-off supermen... Or Hannibal was just lucky, and rolled nothing but sixes that day in 216 BC... Well Polybius (and Livy) are telling us exactly how 4Ax medium troops behaved when facing heavy foot. If we get their performance wrong at Cannae, then every engagement involving 4Ax v heavy foot will be wrong. And that affects all the Spanish Iberians, the Samnites, the Bruttians and Lucanians, the Illyrians, the Thracians, the Greek Thureophoroi, the mercenaries used to protect the phalanx flanks, the Italian Allies accompanying the Republican Romans, the Imperial Roman Auxilia that made up half the foot in Roman civil wars, and every other 4Ax you can find in the Army Lists. Honestly, sometimes I feel like Galileo Galilee, who during his interrogation by the Spanish Inquisition allegedly said:- “But I can prove that the celestial bodies go around the Sun and not the Earth, just look through my telescope and you will see the truth for yourselves”. “No” his interrogators are said to have replied, “we already know the truth, that given to us by centuries of religious dogma.” Well I feel the same:- “Look through the telescope of ancient historical writings, and you will see the truth for yourselves”. “No” the DBA players say, “we already know the truth, that given to us by decades of DBA dogma”.
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Feb 13, 2019 13:52:27 GMT
A bit of a quibble with that last statement stevie - not the Spanish Inquisition, just the Inquisition (those 19th Century anti-papist/anti-Spanish English authors have a lot to atone for). And the reason that there were centuries of religious dogma for Galileo to run afoul of is that the writings of certain ancient Greeks had been accepted in toto due to the perceived validity of the bulk of their writings.
Not that I disagree with your other comments on the validity of Polybius and other historians.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 13, 2019 14:11:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Feb 13, 2019 14:56:52 GMT
Stevie - top class rant! I enjoyed it. Well said!
Reading through this thread it would appear that the consensus is that 3Ax are generally handled OK under DBA 3.0 but that all the changes to Spear (side support), Warbsnd (rear support), double units etc. has “nerfed” the lowly 4Ax and made them unhistorically weak when compared to other “solid” foot.
So my question is what game mechanisms are there that allow us to make 4Ax stronger and can they be employed. So we could do one or more of the folowing:
Give 4Ax a +1 CF vs solid in GG.....butis this Sp by any other name?
Allow 4Ax +1 side support in GG. This has been discussed and won’t help with the overlap problem.
You could do something clever when totals are equal - perhaps allowing a break-off.
You could reinstate the break-off combat rule and allow Ax to break off from combat against slower opposition. A lot of people like this.....but let’s go further and allow 4Ax who win or draw combat against solid opposition a limited free move after combat to restore their battle line and prevent overlaps. Say 4Ax who won or drew we’re allowed a free 1/2 BW withdraw followed by a 1 BW move in any direction regardless of TZ. This would the 4Ax to withdraw slowly and reform on any recoiled 4Ax to reform the battle line and minimise overlaps - plus they get to hang up on impetuous Bd in a PIPless manner. It could also open the way for 4Ax to edge into Bad Going and sucker in unsuspecting solid foot. Allowing 3Ax the same ability would probably also be appropriate.
I must admit I’ve not fully thought this idea through and am shooting from the hip - but offer it up for discussion.
One other thought is that 3Bd seem overly strong in 3.0 and probably also need to be nerfed down.
Paddy
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 13, 2019 15:39:17 GMT
Thanks Paddy (as I said before, Fanaticus is cheaper than therapy). There are three stages when it comes to fixing a problem:- 1) First admit that a problem exists. 2) Find out what exactly is causing the problem. 3) Find ways of fixing the causes. I fear we have not even reached stage one yet...
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Feb 13, 2019 17:11:02 GMT
Perhaps another tactic would be to ask what we think the percentages should be.
Let us take a classic match of 4Pk vs 4Ax. With Ax at +4 and Pk at +3 the Ax will win every time.
Two Ax vs two Pike is more difficult to calculate. One can however argue that the fight is +4 for the Ax and +5 for the Pk (double ranked)... but the Ax gets a kill on the phalanx due to flanking. Again, this seems over-powered.
Against Spear, the match is more complicated. With Ax at +4 a match against a single Spear is even in good going. In bad, the Ax is clearly superior. In a two on two match, the Spear is the winner, though the fight is more even. Again, in rough or bad going the Ax is clearly superior.
Against Blade, the +4 is an obvious help. In bad going, the Ax are marginally superior due to their greater movement rate. In the open, the Blades win in the long run.
I just can't see the +4 working.
For a DBA 4 idea. What about this?
On doubled...
Aux Recoil 1BW from Pike, Blade, or Spear if the combat score is an even number, else destroyed.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 13, 2019 17:46:22 GMT
{snip} But I read in Duncan Head's book about how Spanish Ax can't stand up to formed troops, Hannibal didn't trust his Ax, Ax is used on the flanks to protect the heavy troops etc. etc.'{snip} Greedo, In the latest edition of Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars (2016), Duncan acknowledges Quesada’s research which promotes just the opposite; they did “engage in pitched battles fighting in a similar style as the Romans but lacking their discipline” (p.18).
Thanks Tim, I'll check it out. It's a thick read, so specific page number references are really helpful
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 13, 2019 17:50:28 GMT
For a DBA 4 idea. What about this? On doubled... Aux Recoil 1BW from Pike, Blade, or Spear if the combat score is an even number, else destroyed. Joe Collins Interesting idea Joe! Songs of Blades and Heroes uses the DBA, beat = recoil, double = kill, mechanic, and they also use a "if I beat you with an odd dice roll, this happens. If I beat with an even dice roll, something else happens", either a recoil or a fall over (it's a skirmish game). I think Pique (Ancients version is call Archon) does this too.. It's certainly another avenue to give differing results, short of modifying the CV directly.
|
|