|
Post by stevie on Feb 14, 2019 17:23:47 GMT
Stevie, I think you may be expecting too much from DBA. It is a simple model of ancient warfare. Expecting it to be able to accurately recreate every battle over the course of 1500 years is pretty much impossible. What, the the most famous battle in ancient history? And DBA can’t re-create it? Then how can it re-create ANY battle? It’s not as if we were lacking information. Just type "Cannae" into Google...It is a simple model originally based on Wb vs Bd warfare, and then expanded to cover many other periods and troop types. We can bend and twist the dang thing in knots, but at some point, the model simply may not be able to do what you want it to do. How about we try. That’s right, do something that has never been done before in DBA and just try? Or shall we simply shrug our shoulders and carry on pretending that everything is fine?As to Cannae, how many other, more complicated rules sets are able to recreate Cannae accurately? If it was hard for Hannibal to pull off, image how hard it is to "naturally" make it happen in a wargame, WITHOUT simultaneously messing up other battles in other periods where something totally different happened. The other battles in other periods are already messed-up in DBA...that's why it needs fixing. See the the quotes from Duncan Head concerning the Iberians, Samnites, Illyrians, Thracians, Greek Thureophoroi, etc. To say that factors outside of the actual battle itself should not affect the outcome flies in the face of Sun Tzu. If the two Roman commanders were having problems, it may well have a systematic effect on how the troops are deployed, commanded, morale etc. And what's more, if Hannibal KNEW and encouraged the Roman problems, that too will affect how he deployed, Ah yes...”IF”...let’s use every excuse we can to do nothing.and strategized, but without super complicated "cunning ploys" rules or "external factors" rules, we cannot model this in a model as simple as DBA without changing DBA into something it was never intended to be. That's where "extenuating circumstances" rules for particular battles I don't think are a bad idea. I'm not saying Ax vs heavy foot shouldn't be changed in DBA (and the full BW impetuous 4Bd idea is also really interesting), but if we are focused so intensely on making sure that Cannae "works", we might end up with a system that doesn't work anywhere else for variety of complicated interactive reasons. “DBA 2.2 can’t properly reproduce Hoplite battles”...oh, it can now in DBA 3.0 with side-support... “DBA 2.2 can’t properly reproduce Hundred Years War battles”...oh, it can now in DBA 3.0 with side-support... “DBA 2.2 has Light Horse too weak to properly reproduce battles”...oh, it can now in DBA 3.0 with rear-support... “DBA 2.2 has Psiloi behind instead of out in front”...oh, they are now in DBA 3.0 by ignoring corner-to-corner overlaps... “DBA 3.0 can’t reproduce Cannae properly”...who knows, maybe one day it will... As to Polybius, this thread has gotten me to go out and buy a book about him and his Histories. I'm not brave enough to read the actual histories *yet* (Polybius' Histories by Brian C. McGing), so that's a start. Thanks for that! Here’s a start (and it’s free!): ---> see penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/3*.html The Battle of Cannae is in sections 113 to 117 near the end.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 14, 2019 17:28:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Feb 14, 2019 17:59:20 GMT
From my perspective any Wargame is an attempt to model historical battles at a given level of fidelity. The best prompt players to use historical tactics because that is what works best to secure a victory under the rules. So do I expect DBA to be able to represent every battle from 1500 years to the fidelity of 12 units a side on a 60cm x 60cm table? Too right I do! Especially as the 12 a side format and large figure and ground scale give a lot of flexibility.
If a historical outcome cannot be achieved under the rules even with a 6-1 die roll one way or the other then you have to ask questions. This is why the classification of Hypaspists as 4Ax is sooooooo wrong because they cannot do what they historically did under DBA regardless of the die roll.
Also if the rules don’t reward players for making historically justified tactical decisions then again ask questions. So if at Cannae the Romans deployed in a deep blade formation and lost and this is replicated under DBA then good! The rules work. But if the Romans use different tactics and win then again good! Perhaps the Romans should have used those tactics on the day. However the real trick for rules is to reward players using historically successful tactics.
The difficulty comes at the level of the battle. We must assume that all battles, unless there is historical evidence otherwise, had a balance of probabilities. If a battle can only be won by a player rolling 6s all day then either the Scenario or tactics are wrong or the rules are wrong. So we need to adjust one or the other. So let’s get on and do that rather than going round in circles.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 14, 2019 18:09:09 GMT
Greedo, thanks for that link on Spanish Iberian warfare. An excellent find and a must read for all ancient wargamers. Cheers matey. P.S.
And if you didn’t notice it before, here again is that link to Polybius’ account:- penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/3*.html The Battle of Cannae is in sections 113 to 117 near the end.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 14, 2019 18:47:20 GMT
From my perspective any Wargame is an attempt to model historical battles at a given level of fidelity. The best prompt players to use historical tactics because that is what works best to secure a victory under the rules. So do I expect DBA to be able to represent every battle from 1500 years to the fidelity of 12 units a side on a 60cm x 60cm table? Too right I do! Especially as the 12 a side format and large figure and ground scale give a lot of flexibility. If a historical outcome cannot be achieved under the rules even with a 6-1 die roll one way or the other then you have to ask questions. This is why the classification of Hypaspists as 4Ax is sooooooo wrong because they cannot do what they historically did under DBA regardless of the die roll. Also if the rules don’t reward players for making historically justified tactical decisions then again ask questions. So if at Cannae the Romans deployed in a deep blade formation and lost and this is replicated under DBA then good! The rules work. But if the Romans use different tactics and win then again good! Perhaps the Romans should have used those tactics on the day. However the real trick for rules is to reward players using historically successful tactics. The difficulty comes at the level of the battle. We must assume that all battles, unless there is historical evidence otherwise, had a balance of probabilities. If a battle can only be won by a player rolling 6s all day then either the Scenario or tactics are wrong or the rules are wrong. So we need to adjust one or the other. So let’s get on and do that rather than going round in circles. Agreed to this. Not saying NOT try, but I think we need to think broader than a single (however famous) battle when we make changes that will be applied to every battle. One difficulty I just realized that arrises in DBA though is the scale. We assume a 12 element army, in which the side and rear support is a great effect of the overall army. If only 1 element in the army are Spears for example, then that Spear unit doesn't get side support because there aren't any other Spears to rely on. But we play BBDBA (which I'm a huge fan of), then we can have 3 spears which DO side support each other, and the dynamics of the battle will be affected because the Spears will magically get more powerful simply because we zoomed in. I'm not criticizing side support for Spears. Love that rule. But it does speak to the difficulties of making rule changes and element interaction. Giving 4Ax a +1 might not make as much difference in a 12 element game as in a 24 or 36 element game for example.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 14, 2019 18:48:35 GMT
Greedo, thanks for that link on Spanish Iberian warfare. An excellent find and a must read for all ancient wargamers. Cheers matey. P.S.
And if you didn’t notice it before, here again is that link to Polybius’ account:- penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/3*.html The Battle of Cannae is in sections 113 to 117 near the end. Thanks for that link. It'll take a few ferry rides, but I'll get through it
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 15, 2019 10:11:05 GMT
Greedo, and anyone else who is interested in the actual battle of Cannae, Here is an even better link, as it shows and compares both Polybius’s and Livy’s accounts side-by-side. Move your mouse over the bits in bold to see the extra historical notes and corrections:- www.johndclare.net/AncientHistory/Hannibal_Sources6.html Apart from building a time machine and going back and seeing it for ourselves, this is the best we will ever get. Now compare these two accounts with the travesty that DBA presents us with...
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 16, 2019 15:50:38 GMT
My updated 2016 edition of Duncan Head’s “Macedonian and Punic Wars” has arrived, and I’ve read it from cover-to-cover. I am now totally, completely, 100% convinced that the only workable solution to the 4Ax weakness problem is as follows:- 3Ax recoil like mounted, i.e. recoil either a base depth or ‘evade’ a full base width, owners choice (to simulate Peltast tactics). 4Ax gain +1 when fighting Blade, Spear, or rear-supported Pikes, unless in bad going (to simulate closing ranks). Only this gives the underpowered 4Ax troops both the durability and the slight extra punch required to fit their historical role, without any knock-on effects against mounted, Warbands, Psiloi, Bows, or any other element. (I did want the +1 against Pk whether they were supported or not, but as this is Primuspilus’ suggestion for the sake of unity I’ve conceded to his original idea so that we can end the pointless bickering and finally begin to move forwards on a united front) The justification for this extra +1 Tactical Factor is that 4Ax troops are either well trained disciplined regulars or just naturally stubborn natives, both of which have the sense to change from loose-order to close-order when facing enemy heavy foot. And should anyone disagree with this justification, before they criticise could they just answer me this: what exactly is the current justification for “Solid” 4Bw getting +1 when side-supported by “Solid” Blades? Bows don’t form shield walls! No, it is nothing more than an excuse to give weak troops an extra boost where they need it...with no justification at all. Well, giving 4Ax a +1 when they fight heavy infantry is also an extra boost where they need it...but at least it sounds plausible. Oh, and for those that say it will change the dynamics of DBA, and you’ll no longer be able to slaughter 4Ax in good going with your heavy Hoplites and Romans as if they were helpless sheep like you have been free to do for decades... ...then tough. You should never have been allowed to in the first place. Please read the sources below to see how 4Ax Iberians, Samnites, Illyrians, Thracians, Greek Thureophoroi, etc really fought:- 4Ax at at Cannae, by Polybius (115.5) and Livy (47.4):- www.johndclare.net/AncientHistory/Hannibal_Sources6.html (mouse over items in bold to see additional notes)
Gauls and Ligurians at at Zama, by Polybius (13.1) and Livy (34.2):- www.johndclare.net/AncientHistory/Hannibal_Sources8.html (mouse over items in bold to see additional notes)
Peltasts, Duncan Head, page 113:- books.google.co.uk/books?id=-7n8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA18&dq=quesada+2010&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi40s-zmcDgAhXDUBUIHWOYAHMQ6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=notable&f=false
Thureophoroi, Duncan Head, page 114:- books.google.co.uk/books?id=-7n8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA18&dq=quesada+2010&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi40s-zmcDgAhXDUBUIHWOYAHMQ6AEINTAD#v=snippet&q=infrequently&f=false
Maccabean 4Ax, Duncan Head, page 120:- books.google.co.uk/books?id=-7n8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA18&dq=quesada+2010&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi40s-zmcDgAhXDUBUIHWOYAHMQ6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=Maccabean&f=false
Early Thracians, Duncan Head, page 121:- For the later 3Ax or the professional veteran mercenary 4Ax, see pages 125-126 of the 1982, or pages 247-248 of the 2016 edition:- books.google.co.uk/books?id=-7n8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA18&dq=quesada+2010&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi40s-zmcDgAhXDUBUIHWOYAHMQ6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=originators&f=false
Illyrian 4Ax in close order, Duncan Head, page 122. See also page 123 for the improvement between 3Ax and 4Ax Illyrians:- books.google.co.uk/books?id=-7n8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA18&dq=quesada+2010&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi40s-zmcDgAhXDUBUIHWOYAHMQ6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=Dardanoi&f=false
Iberian warfare, by Fernando Quesada, endorsed by Duncan Head, page 18:- books.google.co.uk/books?id=-7n8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA18&dq=quesada+2010&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi40s-zmcDgAhXDUBUIHWOYAHMQ6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=quesada%202010&f=false
Spanish Iberian warfare by Fernando Quesada:- www.researchgate.net/publication/238749568_Not_so_different_individual_fighting_techniques_and_battle_tactics_of_Roman_and_Iberian_armies_within_the_framework_of_warfare_in_the_Hellenistic_Age
Spanish quotes from “Macedonian and Punic Wars” by Duncan Head, page 56 and page 131 of the 1982 and 2016 editions:- “They did not despair if things went badly, but fought doggedly on...Their initial charge was often powerful enough to break even a Roman line; if held, Roman discipline and armour would usually beat them”.
Samnite quotes from “Macedonian and Punic Wars” by Duncan Head, page 62 and page 143of the 1982 and 2016 editions:- “The Romans believed the first Samnite attack was the most dangerous, and after a while their spirits would flag”. “They would usually charge fiercely and fight in close quarters, where the Romans seem to had a slight edge, but Samnite troops worsted them more than once”.None of the above is mathematically possible using a combat factor of 3 against heavy foot with the DBA two dice combat system. But add a +1 to 4Ax when facing heavy foot, then all the above quotes do become possible. So can we please stop procrastinating and just accept it...
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Feb 16, 2019 15:59:43 GMT
Again, I’m with you, Stevie 👍 The arguments for the majority of 4Ax to be boosted to the level of Sp I feel are well made. Maybe ‘Ax’ is really a misnomer...
P
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Feb 16, 2019 17:11:31 GMT
We should always try to improve. DBX is capable of dealing with many aspects of historical simulation - I would argue much better than most other competing mechanism (even those base on DBX principles). It may not, however, be able to do so within the context of the 12 element chess game format covering rather abstractly 3000 years of history. And we historical players need to recognize that before we drive the tournament players crazy. But Stevie is correct to point out the huge improvements in historical representation that 3.0 ushered in - But (yes two buts in one sentence) bear in mind that doing this set off an open revolt by a large minority (some claim a majority) of tournament players, lead to the creation of an alternative version of 2.2 and further offspring and still we hear from those decrying 3.0 to this date - all because we stuck in some historical stuff. Lets not do that again.
Re Canne and its challenges its only fair to point out that SPI in is heyday created a very popular ancient warfare general simulation in which the Romans routinely slaughtered the Carthaginians in the Canne scenario (and of course part of this comes from the fact that we are not Hannibal and our Roman opponent is forewarned as to the historical outcome).
Eventually we will come to realize that we need a Medium Foot (CF +3) category and it needs the capacity to be armed with "Blades" (+1 to CF v. Foot; -1 v. Mounted) or "Spears" (Drive Off Mounted) and/or a Fast Spear sub category to fix the "Aux" problem. Joe Collins has suggested we also give this category the "Breakoff" Ability (they can Recoil either their Base Depth or a Base Width just like Mounted do now). Not for tournament play (which will never recreate Canne or Agincourt or Hastings or Arsuf or the Battle of the Bastards in any case).
Final note about one element of Spear Side Support - yes your rather stuck if you only have one element in your army (its like those Blade armies in 2.2 that didn't have a Ps mortar unit to put behind them). I originally suggested that Spear get a +1 v. Foot if NOT Overlapped to create one element Shieldwalls. Didn't make the cut but it would have solved this problem.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 16, 2019 18:18:49 GMT
My updated 2016 edition of Duncan Head’s “Macedonian and Punic Wars” has arrived, and I’ve read it from cover-to-cover. I am now totally, completely, 100% convinced that the only workable solution to the 4Ax weakness problem is as follows:- 3Ax recoil like mounted, i.e. recoil either a base depth or ‘evade’ a full base width, owners choice (to simulate Peltast tactics). 4Ax gain +1 when fighting Blade, Spear, or rear-supported Pikes, unless in bad going (to simulate closing ranks). Only this gives the underpowered 4Ax troops both the durability and the slight extra punch required to fit their historical role, without any knock-on effects against mounted, Warbands, Psiloi, Bows, or any other element. (I did want the +1 against Pk whether they were supported or not, but as this is Primuspilus’ suggestion for the sake of unity I’ve conceded to his original idea so that we can end the pointless bickering and finally begin to move forwards on a united front) The justification for this extra +1 Tactical Factor is that 4Ax troops are either well trained disciplined regulars or just naturally stubborn natives, both of which have the sense to change from loose-order to close-order when facing enemy heavy foot. And should anyone disagree with this justification, before they criticise could they just answer me this: what exactly is the current justification for “Solid” 4Bw getting +1 when side-supported by “Solid” Blades? Bows don’t form shield walls! No, it is nothing more than an excuse to give weak troops an extra boost where they need it...with no justification at all. Well, giving 4Ax a +1 when they fight heavy infantry is also an extra boost where they need it...but at least it sounds plausible. Oh, and for those that say it will change the dynamics of DBA, and you’ll no longer be able to slaughter 4Ax in good going with your heavy Hoplites and Romans as if they were helpless sheep like you have been free to do for decades... ...then tough. You should never have been allowed to in the first place. Please read the sources below to see how 4Ax Iberians, Samnites, Illyrians, Thracians, Greek Thureophoroi, etc really fought:- 4Ax at at Cannae, by Polybius (115.5) and Livy (47.4):- www.johndclare.net/AncientHistory/Hannibal_Sources6.html (mouse over items in bold to see additional notes)
Gauls and Ligurians at at Zama, by Polybius (13.1) and Livy (34.2):- www.johndclare.net/AncientHistory/Hannibal_Sources8.html (mouse over items in bold to see additional notes)
Peltasts, Duncan Head, page 113:- books.google.co.uk/books?id=-7n8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA18&dq=quesada+2010&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi40s-zmcDgAhXDUBUIHWOYAHMQ6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=notable&f=false
Thureophoroi, Duncan Head, page 114:- books.google.co.uk/books?id=-7n8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA18&dq=quesada+2010&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi40s-zmcDgAhXDUBUIHWOYAHMQ6AEINTAD#v=snippet&q=infrequently&f=false
Maccabean 4Ax, Duncan Head, page 120:- books.google.co.uk/books?id=-7n8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA18&dq=quesada+2010&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi40s-zmcDgAhXDUBUIHWOYAHMQ6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=Maccabean&f=false
Early Thracians, Duncan Head, page 121:- For the later 3Ax or the professional veteran mercenary 4Ax, see pages 125-126 of the 1982, or pages 247-248 of the 2016 edition:- books.google.co.uk/books?id=-7n8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA18&dq=quesada+2010&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi40s-zmcDgAhXDUBUIHWOYAHMQ6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=originators&f=false
Illyrian 4Ax in close order, Duncan Head, page 122. See also page 123 for the improvement between 3Ax and 4Ax Illyrians:- books.google.co.uk/books?id=-7n8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA18&dq=quesada+2010&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi40s-zmcDgAhXDUBUIHWOYAHMQ6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=Dardanoi&f=false
Iberian warfare, by Fernando Quesada, endorsed by Duncan Head, page 18:- books.google.co.uk/books?id=-7n8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA18&dq=quesada+2010&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi40s-zmcDgAhXDUBUIHWOYAHMQ6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=quesada%202010&f=false
Spanish Iberian warfare by Fernando Quesada:- www.researchgate.net/publication/238749568_Not_so_different_individual_fighting_techniques_and_battle_tactics_of_Roman_and_Iberian_armies_within_the_framework_of_warfare_in_the_Hellenistic_Age
Spanish quotes from “Macedonian and Punic Wars” by Duncan Head, page 56 and page 131 of the 1982 and 2016 editions:- “They did not despair if things went badly, but fought doggedly on...Their initial charge was often powerful enough to break even a Roman line; if held, Roman discipline and armour would usually beat them”.
Samnite quotes from “Macedonian and Punic Wars” by Duncan Head, page 62 and page 143of the 1982 and 2016 editions:- “The Romans believed the first Samnite attack was the most dangerous, and after a while their spirits would flag”. “They would usually charge fiercely and fight in close quarters, where the Romans seem to had a slight edge, but Samnite troops worsted them more than once”.None of the above is mathematically possible using a combat factor of 3 against heavy foot with the DBA two dice combat system. But add a +1 to 4Ax when facing heavy foot, then all the above quotes do become possible. So can we please stop procrastinating and just accept it... Stevie, thanks again, mate! The whole not having the +1 against single ranked Pk was to allow the Pk player to still have some of the historical flexibility of Alexander's army. I didn't want to have to force Pk to go double ranked against 4Ax. This was developed in research and extensive playtesting against the Illyrians, trying to recreate Alexander's campaigning in the North. Giving the +1 against single Pk will basically nerf Alex in the Illyrian campaign. The way you reflect this campaign, BTW is you make the DEFENDER be required to win, so the Illyrian has to engage the Pk, and not hide out in his difficult hills. While not strictly accurate, it is the only clean way to represent the ability of Alex's army to still successfully campaign in difficult country, without introducing a whole raft of complications. Also, 4Ax now have a real "hinge" capability as a link between HI and mounted forces. You guys will find this works well. We have been playing this way for 4 years now, and we NEVER use 4Ax any other way. We simply won't play them as written. I am a BIG fan of Joe's recoil rule applied to 3Ax. We have been using this with 3Bw as well (we've started calling them "borderers" - a-la a middle ages perspective, thanks Tom! . Also like Joe's rule giving 3Bd the same move as 4Ax/4Wb. This makes them better balanced. I am intrigued by Joe's Pk rule, as I think they seem to catch the Bd/Pk fight really well. Again, perhaps this needs to be specified lest we have medieval peasant pike behaving badly against Men at Arms? Onward and upward, mateys!
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 16, 2019 18:27:06 GMT
By the way, just to clarify, Bd vs 4Ax is still pretty grim for the 4Ax: double overlap is 5 vs 2 ... Ouch. But it lasts on average a bound or two longer, which is all we wanted. And sometimes, the 4Ax line just won't break, and instead steadily give ground, while keeping up a stiff resistance...
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 16, 2019 18:33:20 GMT
... Final note about one element of Spear Side Support - yes your rather stuck if you only have one element in your army (its like those Blade armies in 2.2 that didn't have a Ps mortar unit to put behind them). I originally suggested that Spear get a +1 v. Foot if NOT Overlapped to create one element Shieldwalls. Didn't make the cut but it would have solved this problem. TomT I agree with much if not most of your latest post, Tom, but I wonder if the +1 for lone Sp (which I have often thought long and hard about, and Bw are the other troop type where this becomes relevant) I wonder if that wouldn't leave them too strong against Pk and Bd? They can smash a single Pk, and are indestructible against a single Bd?
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 16, 2019 22:43:22 GMT
Very compelling evidence Stevie. I’m on board for what my opinion is worth.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 17, 2019 2:21:03 GMT
Re Canne and its challenges its only fair to point out that SPI in is heyday created a very popular ancient warfare general simulation in which the Romans routinely slaughtered the Carthaginians in the Canne scenario (and of course part of this comes from the fact that we are not Hannibal and our Roman opponent is forewarned as to the historical outcome). TomT From memory I remember a discussion on recreating Cannae in Slingshot. PB contributed and his thoughts were that to recreate Cannae you need a Hannibal and a Varro. Now if players deployed the same way and If they moved the troops in to contact the same way then the outcome should be possible with the mechanics. (Marathon is virtually not possible but complaints are minimal because the Hoplites still win most against EAP but that's another story/thread.) So I think that 4Ax +1 against Sp/Bd/supported Pk is getting traction. 3Ax recoiling like cav seems to be popular. Let's see some game results. Athens v Thrace Part II coming up! Jim
|
|