|
Post by stevie on Mar 16, 2019 15:15:22 GMT
Why do Warbands pursue destroyed opponents? “Oh that’s easy Stevie...they’re wild and impetuous, and difficult to control. Especially when they have destroyed their enemy and have helpless survivors running and throwing away their weapons as they flee for their lives in front of them.” Very well then, why don’t Cavalry in barbarian Warband armies also pursue destroyed opponents? “Ah...well...er...it’s because...er...you see...er...” Just pointing out something that people seem to take for granted. And wondering when it was that DBA and common sense parted company... 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 hammurabi70 on Mar 16, 2019 17:06:42 GMT
Why do Warbands pursue destroyed opponents? “Oh that’s easy Stevie...they’re wild and impetuous, and difficult to control. Especially when they have destroyed their enemy and have helpless survivors running and throwing away their weapons as they flee for their lives in front of them.” Very well then, why don’t Cavalry in barbarian Warband armies also pursue destroyed opponents? “Ah...well...er...it’s because...er...you see...er...” Just pointing out something that people seem to take for granted. And wondering when it was that DBA and common sense parted company... 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
'cos being barbarians they are struggling to stay on their horses.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 16, 2019 17:24:57 GMT
LoL ... good one.
I was going to rag on my mate Stevie a tad and say "it ain't logical, but it gives the right outcomes!"
Sorry mate, couldn't resist! 😜
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 16, 2019 17:34:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 16, 2019 18:34:31 GMT
Were Gallic armies known for their Cv charges breaking through opponent's lines?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 16, 2019 21:39:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by decebalus on Mar 16, 2019 22:03:43 GMT
Pursuit is not about routing enemy. It is about being stuck in close combat or not. Cavalry that fought with javelins at short distance didnt stuck in close combat.
(And yes, what happened, when ccavalry routed enemy is abstracted out in DBA. I think, we can live with that. For our big Zama replay, we had a card event, that the roman cavalry would pursue to the table edge after destroying the carthagenian cavalry.)
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 16, 2019 22:40:04 GMT
So Cavalry would not pursue a broken enemy...even if that enemy were on foot and were throwing away their shields and weapons...a body of say 500 horsemen would all spontaneously halt and have a nice cup of tea as they watched their helpless foes running for their lives...and they are on horseback and two or three times faster than their defeated scattering opponents... Warbands pursue... Blades pursue... Even Pikemen pursue... But Cavalry for some mysterious reason won’t. Oh, and I'm not talking about merely 'following-up' a recoiling opponent, but a routed broken enemy.Hmmm...are we not trying to bend reality to fit the rules, when we should be bending the rules to fit reality? Or have we reached the stage where DBA has become reality, and is treated as if it were historical fact? 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 16, 2019 23:07:43 GMT
The inclusion of Blade and Pike pursuing, I'm less enthusiastic about. It seems like one of those game rules that achieves something in the game. I kind of preferred it when only Wb and Kn were impetuous.
But to my argument: 1) I think the idea was to treat Kn as impetuous because as has already been mentioned, they actively CHARGED the enemy with intent to break them with the charge, and the charge only. So slowing down a mounted charge like that is really hard.
2) But 3Cv is treated as horsemen who hurled javelins at the enemy and only "charged" them when they were sufficiently weakened. So I get the idea that it's easier to halt javelin throwers than it is to stop a bunch of lance holding psychos.
But I would agree with Stevie, if we're going to make Bd and Pk impetuous, then mounted should probably be so too.
But I disagree with Bd and Pk chasing anyway, so I'm against Cv doing so as well. That said, I can't argue with the game results as I haven't played them enough to see what it does in the long term.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 17, 2019 2:14:55 GMT
Gallic cavalry were noted for their discipline and quality, if I am interpreting ancient texts correctly. They served often and well in the Roman army. That said, if you make them pursue into double overlaps, they will be highly vulnerable to Ax and Bd. Not sure we'd want that (remember, Gallic Cv did not possess stirrups, and were not supposedly as effective as Alexander's Companions). I don't mind the idea of LCh pursuing though - Barbarian chariots were feared. But I read a cool rule that had chariots threading through each other on a tie! What do the playtest results show?
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Mar 17, 2019 4:11:10 GMT
Actually, CV pursuing is a moot question. Although as significant percentage of the CV in the army lists are lance or spear armed in addition to whatever missile weapons they carry one would expect them to switch weapons and pursue.
For PK though to pursue is logical as for a phalanx to be particularly effective against other foot they should be advancing.
Or so I have read...
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 17, 2019 8:09:49 GMT
All this came about as I was doing some play-testing to see the different results of 3Wb and 4Wb against 4Bd. I got someone I didn’t know very well to be my opponent, although DBA is new to him, and he’s only played a bit of Napoleonics. Things were going fine until a Gallic Wb pursued a destroyed Bd, but the Gallic Cv next to it did not pursue the Roman Cv it too had destroyed. My opponent questioned this but we continued on with the battle. It was when on the opposite wing a Bd pursued a destroyed Wb but the Roman Cv next to it did not pursue It’s destroyed enemy that my opponent suddenly burst out laughing and declared “infantry pursue but cavalry don’t? These rules are rubbish!”. All those games over all those years, and I had never once thought to question the DBA pursuit rules. Like everyone else I just took it on faith. But now it’s been pointed out to me...yes, when you come to look at it, it is wrong. Again I must emphasize that we are not talking about following-up a recoil. That, as Decebalus says, can be explained away by assuming that the Cavalry were merely throwing javelins (or shooting bows in some armies). But we are talking about when an enemy element is actually physically destroyed, yet the Cavalry just sits there and does nothing. Those Gallic, Germanic, and other barbarian cavalry must have had phenomenal training to instil them with such astonishing self-control and obedience. Apparently even the Romans couldn’t impart such rigid discipline into their legionaries as they did into their cavalry. Trooper: “Sire, we have broken the enemy in front of us and they are running for their lives! Shall we pursue them?” Officer: “No, that’s not our job. Keep the men stationary and just watch.” Trooper: “But Sire, the warriors/legionaries on our left are pursuing their broken opponents.” Officer: “Let them. Everybody knows that it’s the foot that pursue a broken enemy, not the cavalry.” Trooper: “Er...are you sure about that Sire?” Officer: “Yes, quite sure. I read it in some military manual called DB something. Now lets just sit here quietly and take in the view...” 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 paddy649 on Mar 17, 2019 8:42:14 GMT
Stevie - while I agree with your sentiment - I think we should look st the level of abstraction and scales of DBA.
The bound length of DBA is difficult to specify because a DBA bound is as long as a 90 mins in real life OR until the next tactally significant event. Knights “impetuate” (to use a Tony Aguilar word) because that may put them in a tactically difficult place leading to a tactally significant event.....same with pike pushing or Blade advancing.
In DBA on the other hand Cavalry DO pursue the fleeing enemy, kill and disperse them and recover back to where they started to pick up thrown javelins, collect riderless horses and tend injured mates. However, this is not represented in DBA because being Cavalry, not knights, they will not continue into a tactally risky situation, not contact enemy infantry with blown horses and evade if charged. Thus at the end of the bound (I.e. about 60 mins later) the Cavalry are back where they started.
I’m not saying that this is the perfect answer but it would be the way I justify this part of the rules if asked.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Mar 17, 2019 9:35:53 GMT
I agree with Paddy....he summed it up admirably.
Yep, stevie, you’re proposal is completely missing the entire concept of DBA - it’s ‘broad brush/big picture’. We’re not trying to micro-manage every action of every trooper on the battlefield. ie It’s ‘top down’, not ‘bottom up’.
Look at it from a general’s viewpoint- if I commit these troops (Kn or Wb) they may, if successful, race forward out of control. However, if I commit these other troops (eg Cv or LH) they are less likely to disobey orders and ‘go impetuous’.
“These rules are rubbish” ? Maybe his perception of the scale of the battles portayed by these rules needs to be queried. Don’t have the rules to hand, but intro page #1 used to explain the general concept, IIRC. If you agree with him, maybe he needs to think about writing us a more ‘correct’ set of rules...
Martin
Next thing we’ll be having psiloi, who got lucky and destroyed an opponent, getting ‘all excited’ and rushing forward looking for more opponents to hurl rocks at, or maybe Saracen cavalry pursuing Crusader knights....how historical would that be?
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Mar 17, 2019 10:23:17 GMT
Gallic cavalry were noted for their discipline and quality, if I am interpreting ancient texts correctly. They served often and well in the Roman army. That said, if you make them pursue into double overlaps, they will be highly vulnerable to Ax and Bd. Not sure we'd want that (remember, Gallic Cv did not possess stirrups, and were not supposedly as effective as Alexander's Companions). I don't mind the idea of LCh pursuing though - Barbarian chariots were feared. But I read a cool rule that had chariots threading through each other on a tie! What do the playtest results show? Maybe it was you who came up with these chariot house rules?
|
|