|
Post by sicadi on Feb 20, 2019 8:10:26 GMT
Hi all Could the Cannae issue be fixed by taking blades down to a base 4 with +1 for a rear support. This makes the Romans fight in a deeper more historical formation (and possibly represents a very abstract portrayal of the mysterious line swap). Like the idea of 4 Ax having side support with the mounted recoil option. Sorry if this has been suggested elsewhere... Strength of DBA is its simplicity. There must be a simple yet elegant solution
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Feb 20, 2019 8:34:57 GMT
Stevie and all,
I’m wanting to help out with the Cannae play testing of these suggestions but I note that without an agreed scenario we may all be doing different things and unwittingly coming to different conclusions. So what we need is a standard DBA ORBAT and deployment for Cannae.
Not being an expert I have plagiarised previous fanaticus posts and come up with this. I’m happy to be corrected on any of the detail. Points to note - I’ve put the Roman General on the right (Paullus) as he is too effective against the Numidian on the left (Varro) and to compensate I’ve put the extra Sp on the Carthaginian Right.
II/33 Polybian Romans = Cav(Gen) 1 x Cv, 4 x 4Bd, 2 x Sp, 2 x 4Ax, 2 x Ps
II/32a Later Carthage = Cav(Gen) 1 x Cv, 2 x LH, 3 x Sp, 3 x 4Ax, 2 x Ps
l l Sp Sp l......... Gen l Cv Ax Bd Bd Bd Bd Ax Cv l.........................Ps Ps l River l l.......................... Ax l Cv Cv Ps Ax.......Ax Ps LH LH l Gen l Sp Sp Sp l I Large but Gentle Hill
Is this anything like it should be? Sorry - I didn’t manage to line thing up well in the diagram.
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Feb 20, 2019 8:56:12 GMT
Wait, are you suggesting the Spanish at Cannae should be pursuing? Doesn't really matter. Look at the bigger picture, a line of 3Bd will tend to lose ground to a line of 4Bd. It's possibly more problematic that 3Bd Spanish/Gaul actually have a chance to beat the Romans (or is it?).
Look at it the other way. What gives Hannibals' Spanish (Argyraspids...) their "Auxilianess"? Able to kill Ps? Good in terrain vs Wb? Decent vs El?
By the way, I also quite like Stevie's +1 vs HF. I'm just not sure it tackles the fact that some current Ax are probably misclassified, and I doubt it will help your Bythinians or Brutians (in isolation! if coupled with a downgrading of Bd capabilites in terrain, and better terrain rules, then sure, why not). In fact, that +1 vs HF has the enormous advantage of not having to deal with army lists, which might be an important design criterion for 3.1 (as opposed to 4.0). Who knows...
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 20, 2019 12:53:01 GMT
About not pursuing 3Ax recoilsThe problem with this is that all troops end up looking like Hoplite Spears, in a nice neat line, if they don’t pursue 3Ax. Having Blades, Pikes, and Warbands pursuing 3Ax that recoil a full BW does break up their battleline, costing them PIPs to reform and leaving them vulnerable to overlaps (and looks very realistic in the case of Warbands). Having these troops pursuing recoiling 3Ax is a very useful tool for the Ax...it’s like a ‘feigned-flight’ manoeuvre, which in effect is what an ‘evade’ move is, drawing them out of position (although because of their high combat factor, Pikes are less affected and will usually all pursue together in a line). So I think that having Bd/Pk/Wb pursuing 3Ax, even if they can’t catch them, is the better option. I agree with much of what you have written. But this is probably your weakest argument. 3Ax often represent irregular tribesmen armed with javelins. I doubt they used an "evade" tactic. They just threw their javelins from a comfortable distance (which is more than compensated by the base depth) and fell back when they got too close. Javelins would probably run out quickly and they likely legged it. I don't think there is any need to improve a line of 3Ax against heavy infantry in open ground. They shouldn't be there in the first place. We are not going to cover all the historical nuances of medium infantry over 4500 years with two troop types. I'd rather stick with two historical prototypes and do our best from there. One type that was more mobile, excellent in bad going, OK against mounted but steam rolled in the open against heavy infantry. The other type was more organised (or better elan), could stand up to heavy infantry, particularly warband, at least for a while, but not as mobile. So for me, I will be trialling 4Ax +1 against heavy infantry and 3Ax not pursued by heavy infantry and also 3Ax can group move in bad going. We'll see how it goes. Cheers Jim 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... Page 56 of the 1982 edition, or 130 of the 2016 edition:- The SpaniardsThey did not despair if things went badly, but fought doggedly on...Their initial charge was often powerful enough to break through even a Roman line; if it was held, the Spaniards were still formidable with swords, but Roman discipline and armour would usually beat them. Page 62 of the 1982 edition, or page 143 of the 2016 edition:- The SamnitesThe Romans believed the first Samnite attack was the most dangerous, and after a while they would run out of missiles and their spirits would flag...Their infantry would usually charge fiercely and fight at close quarters rather than skirmish with their javelins; the Romans seem to have had a slight edge in such a contest, but Samnite troops worsted them more than once. From all the above we get a clear picture of how skirmishers and the different types of ‘medium’ infantry actually fought. Skirmishers = Psiloi, combat factor 2, Peltasts = 3Ax, combat factor 3, evade 1 BW to keep their distance (and are pursued by those that like to pursue), Medium inf = 4Ax, combat factor 3 +1 v heavy foot, who fight toe-to-toe and don’t evade 1 BW, but move slower than 3Ax.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 20, 2019 13:01:08 GMT
Wait, are you suggesting the Spanish at Cannae should be pursuing? Doesn't really matter. Look at the bigger picture, a line of 3Bd will tend to lose ground to a line of 4Bd. It's possibly more problematic that 3Bd Spanish/Gaul actually have a chance to beat the Romans (or is it?). Look at it the other way. What gives Hannibals' Spanish (Argyraspids...) their "Auxilianess"? Able to kill Ps? Good in terrain vs Wb? Decent vs El?
By the way, I also quite like Stevie's +1 vs HF. I'm just not sure it tackles the fact that some current Ax are probably misclassified, and I doubt it will help your Bythinians or Brutians (in isolation! if coupled with a downgrading of Bd capabilites in terrain, and better terrain rules, then sure, why not). In fact, that +1 vs HF has the enormous advantage of not having to deal with army lists, which might be an important design criterion for 3.1 (as opposed to 4.0). Who knows...
Actually Arnopov, the 4Ax +1 v Bd/Sp/supported Pk except in bad going was not my idea, but was suggested by Primuspilus’.Still, a good idea is still a good idea, no matter the source. Now I do agree with you about having Hannibal’s Spanish as 3Bd at Cannae...and the Carthaginian ‘spearmen’ as 4Bd. Hannibal should have his own army list (II/32 c). According to the DBA Army Lists, Hannibal’s army was just an ordinary Carthaginian army, no different from the others. Any reading of Polybius or Livy will show that this is wrong. The so called ‘spearmen’ should be 2 x 4Bd and not 3 x Sp because:- * They were re-armed with captured Roman equipment (see Polybius), * After fighting across the Rhone, the Alps, at Trebia, and at Trasimene, they were veterans...and veteran Sp would be better. * Their battlefield behaviour (see page 3 first sentence of the rules) was not that of passive spears huddling in a shield wall. Any one of these reasons on their own would be enough to re-classify them, but all three reasons together...?! As for the Spanish...when Hannibal left Spain, how many of his Spanish troops were Celiberians? All, some, or none? All right, after fighting across the Rhone, the Alps, at Trebia, and at Trasimene, how many were now veterans? And according to army II/39, the Celtabrians are 3Bd instead of 3/4Ax because they were better than ordinary Iberians. Well, veteran Iberians would also be better than ordinary Iberians, so at Cannae they too should be 3Bd. That leaves us with the Celtic-Gauls...what should they be? Army II/32 says that they were re-trained before Cannae, so can be 4Ax instead of Wb. Now I very much doubt that Hannibal would go through all the trouble of re-training them to be worse! At least Wb have a chance of quick-killing Bd...4Ax with their combat factor of 3 cannot. No, if Hannibal did re-train them, then he did it to make them better...so they too should be 3Bd. So there you have it. At Cannae the Carthaginians should be 2 x Cv, 2 x LH, 2 x 4Bd, 4 x 3Bd, and 2 x Ps. --- BUT (ah, there’s always a but...)--- This is just avoiding the main issue; how did 4Ax fight Blades in reality? Oh, it ‘fixes’ Cannae all right...but now we have to scrabble around trying to find other well documented incidences of 4Ax v 4Bd. And unfortunately Cannae is the best example - indeed just about the only example - that we have. Fortunately Duncan Head in his “Macedonian and Punic Wars” has done this for us, and 4Ax +1 v heavy foot fits with what he says.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 20, 2019 14:00:11 GMT
Oh...one more thing...about 3Bd pursuing. Yes, they will. But with a combat factor of 5, the 3Bd have a good chance of surviving a double-overlap. (See fanaticus-dba.fandom.com/wiki/File:COMBAT_EFFECTS_CHART_for_DBA_%26_HOTT.pdf ) Therefore, to stop them pursuing, have them in a crescent formation, so they are deliberately overlapped, like this:- 3B 3B 3B 3B Cv Cv 4B 4B LH LH Ps Ps ...and blow me down...this is exactly how Hannibal deployed at Cannae! (the old fella apparently knew what he was doing). Try that with 4Ax and see what happens. Always let history be your guide...
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 20, 2019 15:35:21 GMT
Oh...one more thing...about 3Bd pursuing. Yes, they will. But with a combat factor of 5, the 3Bd have a good chance of surviving a double-overlap. (See fanaticus-dba.fandom.com/wiki/File:COMBAT_EFFECTS_CHART_for_DBA_%26_HOTT.pdf ) Therefore, to stop them pursuing, have them in a crescent formation, so they are deliberately overlapped, like this:- 3B 3B 3B 3B Cv Cv 4B 4B LH LH Ps Ps ...and blow me down...this is exactly how Hannibal deployed at Cannae! (the old fella apparently knew what he was doing). Try that with 4Ax and see what happens. Always let history be your guide... So if we take This Bd3 carth formation, and face them against pure bd romans (no Ax) would that constitute both a fair fight and a historical deployment that is likely to get Cannae? .... so this whole thread about 4Ax is for naught?
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 20, 2019 15:42:44 GMT
Oh...one more thing...about 3Bd pursuing. Yes, they will. But with a combat factor of 5, the 3Bd have a good chance of surviving a double-overlap. (See fanaticus-dba.fandom.com/wiki/File:COMBAT_EFFECTS_CHART_for_DBA_%26_HOTT.pdf ) Therefore, to stop them pursuing, have them in a crescent formation, so they are deliberately overlapped, like this:- 3B 3B 3B 3B Cv Cv 4B 4B LH LH Ps Ps ...and blow me down...this is exactly how Hannibal deployed at Cannae! (the old fella apparently knew what he was doing). Try that with 4Ax and see what happens. Always let history be your guide... So if we take This Bd3 carth formation, and face them against pure bd romans (no Ax) would that constitute both a fair fight and a historical deployment that is likely to get Cannae? .... so this whole thread about 4Ax is for naught? I must say pretty genius that not only the Troops and outcomes but crescent formation is duplicated. It’ll Be hard for Carthage’s line to move unless they get good pips but whatever.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 20, 2019 15:43:21 GMT
So if we take This Bd3 carth formation, and face them against pure bd romans (no Ax) would that constitute both a fair fight and a historical deployment that is likely to get Cannae? .... so this whole thread about 4Ax is for naught? No, No, No! You are not reading everything I post. Yes, it may solve Cannae...but it does not solve the 4Ax v 4Bd issue in every other battle. I repeat again the following:- --- BUT (ah, there’s always a but...)--- This is just avoiding the main issue; how did 4Ax fight Blades in reality? Oh, it ‘fixes’ Cannae all right...but now we have to scrabble around trying to find other well documented incidences of 4Ax v 4Bd. And unfortunately Cannae is the best example - indeed just about the only example - that we have. Fortunately Duncan Head in his “Macedonian and Punic Wars” has done this for us, and 4Ax +1 v heavy foot fits with what he says. P.S. Why would Hannibal wish to advance? Pinning the Romans with the Carthaginian Threat Zones is just as good. If the Romans want to leave their best troops, their Blades, just sitting there watching while their wings are enveloped, then good.
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Feb 20, 2019 17:29:22 GMT
We actually have several different types of Auxilla now; people just don't realize it. Fast blades could be viewed as auxilla trained to fight with large shield; sword and throwing weapons of various sorts. These are the AX of Mons Grappius.
Then, we have fast pike. These are later Greek peltasts and Catalan Almughavars.
Spaniards should be warriors or warband, which is why Romans could be broken by their charge.
Fast Horde could be second line 'Aux'.
And the '4 Figure Aux.?' Maybe these really are drilled troops with worse armor and weapons than blades and spears and so don't deserve any help from the rules.
I think it is a question of list classification and not of rule changes to gradually make all troops the same. (Aux have been useless against blades for generations of DBA now._
You could turn 4 figure aux into 4 or 5 against foot and 2 against mounted, or fast blades into 5 against foot and 2 against mounted.......
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 20, 2019 17:40:50 GMT
Why would Hannibal wish to advance? Pinning the Romans with the Carthaginian Threat Zones is just as good. If the Romans want to leave their best troops, their Blades, just sitting there watching while their wings are enveloped, then good. Well yeah I know that, but in DBA terms, the staggered deployment NECESSITATES a higher PIP score if you REALLY want to move (of if you need to fill gaps).
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 20, 2019 17:52:10 GMT
We actually have several different types of Auxilla now; people just don't realize it. Fast blades could be viewed as auxilla trained to fight with large shield; sword and throwing weapons of various sorts. These are the AX of Mons Grappius. Then, we have fast pike. These are later Greek peltasts and Catalan Almughavars. Spaniards should be warriors or warband, which is why Romans could be broken by their charge. Fast Horde could be second line 'Aux'. And the '4 Figure Aux.?' Maybe these really are drilled troops with worse armor and weapons than blades and spears and so don't deserve any help from the rules. I think it is a question of list classification and not of rule changes to gradually make all troops the same. (Aux have been useless against blades for generations of DBA now._ You could turn 4 figure aux into 4 or 5 against foot and 2 against mounted, or fast blades into 5 against foot and 2 against mounted....... Kind of on board with this. Certainly simpler than trying to convert people to rules changes. No need for Superior/Inferior etc. I think think there's room for "Fast Spear", but whatever, we have plenty of options. After all, Stevie's quote of the Spaniards from D. Head: "Page 56 of the 1982 edition, or 130 of the 2016 edition:- The Spaniards They did not despair if things went badly, but fought doggedly on...Their initial charge was often powerful enough to break through even a Roman line; if it was held, the Spaniards were still formidable with swords, but Roman discipline and armour would usually beat them." That really strikes me as 4Wb behavior, but would we put nothing but 4Wb in Cannae? Probably not.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 20, 2019 17:55:29 GMT
You are not reading everything I post. Yes, it may solve Cannae...but it does not solve the 4Ax v 4Bd issue in every other battle. Well to be fair Stevie, you post a LOT. Polybius would be proud But yeah 4Ax vs 4Bd is an issue, but as we seem to be evolving, does it need to be? With other options on the table, wouldn't we reclassify a battleline of "Ax" as something else? By the way, WHAT ARE 3Pk? I have a hard time wrapping my head around what they represent... Later Greek Light troops? And a random rules question. Can 3Pk rear support 4Pk or visa-versa? I know you probably wouldn't want to, but just in case you HAD to.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 20, 2019 19:49:09 GMT
You are not reading everything I post. Yes, it may solve Cannae...but it does not solve the 4Ax v 4Bd issue in every other battle. Well to be fair Stevie, you post a LOT. Polybius would be proud Ah...yes...but you've got to admit, it's all good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 20, 2019 20:44:30 GMT
Well to be fair Stevie, you post a LOT. Polybius would be proud Ah...yes...but you've got to admit, it's all good stuff. Oh it's good reading. Got me into Polybius and Livy for a start.. DBA 3.0 has got me eye'ing Xyston DBA sets too (even if the Hoplites do come with 2 units of 4Ax!). It's why I keep coming back here. Fanaticus is a great community.
|
|