I too like Paddy’s explanation...even though it might sound a bit like a ‘gamey effect’ to an outsider, it nonetheless gives the right historical outcome of cavalry not being as impetuous as knights and getting themselves into trouble.
And I don’t think the rules are rubbish....they are a great tool for simulating ancient warfare. Although, like most tools, they could use a little sharpening-up in some areas.
P.S.
Oh, and since you mentioned impetuous Psiloi Martin, here’s a quote about the Battle of Adrianople, 378 AD:-
“Some Roman units began the battle without orders to do so, believing they would have an easy victory, and perhaps over-eager to exact revenge on the Goths after two years of unchecked devastation throughout the Balkans. The imperial scholae of shield-archers under the command of the Iberian prince Bacurius* attacked, but lacking support they were easily pushed back.“ (*Bacurius, presumably the Romanised Bakur, was a native and possibly prince of Iberia, and had command of the archers and/or scutarii with Cassio that accompanied Ricimer as hostage, and who attacked without orders) (Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adrianople )
The pursuit rules are made for combat not for destroyed enemy! So, what to do, when the enemy is destroyed: 1st Have special rules for every troop type. 2nd Use the already available pursuit rules. 3rd Let everyone pursue.
1st would be the most historical solution. But for a corner case (How often is an element destroyed? How important is it, if the winner pursues or not?) it was impractical for DBA. 3rd would have worked. Every unit will pursue if the enemy is broken, even Psiloi. But it is still a separate rule. 2nd was obviously the simplest to do. Treat both cases (being stuck in CC and pursuing a broken enemy) the same.
I like to imagine that combat can occur from the back of the cavalry element to the back of the opponent's element. We're told that 1BW is 80 paces. That gives at least 100 paces (90m?). That gives more than enough room for a pursuit of a broken enemy in my mind's eye. I've always looked at the pursuit rule as trying create some disorder rather than an appearance on the table, i.e. as battle progresses, these troops find it harder to maintain cohesion and have to act more independently unless chieftains/nobles/officers can get them in line. I don't like how it neuters Pikes but Pikes have a few problems. (I mean a 3x2 block of elements is Alexander's Pike Phalanx?).
Thanks Stevie - however I’m still at a loss to explain Cannae without a +1 to 4Ax vs HI or why the hell Hypaspists aren’t 4Ax / 3Bd.
Bingo!
I was wondering when the Hypaspists were going to be mentioned in this discussion.
I agree with many others, DBA is a high level, abstracted simulation of ancient warfare. It cannot replicate every troop type and situation. If you are after that level of detail, perhaps you shouldn't be playing DBA.
Thanks Stevie - however I’m still at a loss to explain Cannae without a +1 to 4Ax vs HI or why the hell Hypaspists aren’t 4Ax / 3Bd.
Bingo!
I was wondering when the Hypaspists were going to be mentioned in this discussion.
I agree with many others, DBA is a high level, abstracted simulation of ancient warfare. It cannot replicate every troop type and situation. If you are after that level of detail, perhaps you shouldn't be playing DBA.
Glad not to disappoint Spitzicles. The It’s just such a glaring, anti-historical error in my eyes.
I was wondering when the Hypaspists were going to be mentioned in this discussion.
I agree with many others, DBA is a high level, abstracted simulation of ancient warfare. It cannot replicate every troop type and situation. If you are after that level of detail, perhaps you shouldn't be playing DBA.
Glad not to disappoint Spitzicles. It’s just such a glaring, anti-historical error in my eyes.
Post by medievalthomas on Mar 19, 2019 17:47:26 GMT
First DBX is capable of producing correct combat results and is not in fact subject to such a high level of abstraction that it cannot do so. Correct rules and application of DBX principles can solve most problems. The well its abstract is just a cop out.
Perhaps the best rule would be that any element that has Shock v. an opponent (i.e. only needs More to Destroy opponent) also Pursuers. Possible exception for Ps opponents. But you would then need to work out which types of troops have Shock v. which types of opponents. Once this was done you could have a quite reasonable representation of troop behavior. The other principle involves Commanders, pre-battle, ordering troops not to Pursue and leave the battle line. This could be simulated by taking away Shock so no Pursuits occur. A Commander could expend 2PIPs to reverse this decision re-instating Shock for those troop types that have it.
Perhaps the best rule would be that any element that has Shock v. an opponent (i.e. only needs More to Destroy opponent) also Pursuers. Possible exception for Ps opponents. But you would then need to work out which types of troops have Shock v. which types of opponents. Once this was done you could have a quite reasonable representation of troop behavior. The other principle involves Commanders, pre-battle, ordering troops not to Pursue and leave the battle line. This could be simulated by taking away Shock so no Pursuits occur. A Commander could expend 2PIPs to reverse this decision re-instating Shock for those troop types that have it.
TomT
TomT, this shock victory = pursue rule is one worth testing. Add it to the list. It could be explained in the rules by changing the combat results into a table with a Pursuit column (Y/N).
Not sure about commanders ordering troops not to pursue before a battle and reversing the decision in battle. That seems like asking a lot of men in the heat of battle. But, just my opinion.
Perhaps the best rule would be that any element that has Shock v. an opponent (i.e. only needs More to Destroy opponent) also Pursuers. Possible exception for Ps opponents. But you would then need to work out which types of troops have Shock v. which types of opponents. Once this was done you could have a quite reasonable representation of troop behavior. The other principle involves Commanders, pre-battle, ordering troops not to Pursue and leave the battle line. This could be simulated by taking away Shock so no Pursuits occur. A Commander could expend 2PIPs to reverse this decision re-instating Shock for those troop types that have it.
TomT
TomT, this shock victory = pursue rule is one worth testing. Add it to the list. It could be explained in the rules by changing the combat results into a table with a Pursuit column (Y/N).
Not sure about commanders ordering troops not to pursue before a battle and reversing the decision in battle. That seems like asking a lot of men in the heat of battle. But, just my opinion.
I too think that Tom’s suggestion has merit... ...but I’d like it to only apply to destroyed opponents (which is what a ‘quick-kill’ is).
I do wish that DBA had made a distinction between “following-up” a recoil and “pursuing” a rout... ...because they are not the same thing (although DBA does treat them as such).
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...
Stevie, Infantry recoiling as a result of close combat with cavalry may not necessarily be from hand to hand but a result of an intense barrage of javelin or archery storm. Since the infantry have retired 40 paces (1/2BW) in that time troopers have been re-armed or have exchanged ranks with others before moving forward to deliver another lethal barrage.
This follows much of what Maurice has written in the Strategikon covering cavalry formation, drill and tactics.
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...
Stevie, Infantry recoiling as a result of close combat with cavalry may not necessarily be from hand to hand but a result of an intense barrage of javelin or archery storm. Since the infantry have retired 40 paces (1/2BW) in that time troopers have been re-armed or have exchanged ranks with others before moving forward to deliver another lethal barrage.
This follows much of what Maurice has written in the Strategikon covering cavalry formation, drill and tactics.
Agreed Timurilank...
...Cavalry should not “follow-up” a recoiling opponent, as the recoil may have been caused by javelin/bowfire. But I was taking about a destroyed routing opponent.
It certainly looks odd for the wild impetuous Warbands to pursue a destroyed routing opponent, while the barbarian Cavalry next to them (who are just as wild and impetuous, but on horseback) merely sit there and watch as their destroyed routing opponents helplessly run for their lives. That’s an amazing degree of self-control that Cavalry have, that even the Romans can’t instil into their legionaries (although for some reason the Romans are able to instil this remarkable self-control into their own Cavalry, if not their legionaries).
One could of course argue that the Cv are in fact the better, more disciplined, experienced troops, which is why they don't have to walk along with the usual mob of whirling dervishes.
I remain unconvinced that the Cv were simply Wb who got lucky and found some horses and saddled up (i.e. Dothraki screamers). I suspect you will find the the Cv arm in ancient armies was materially different in outlook, tactics, station, and training.
You seem to be suggesting here that if a Wb army has mounted troops on horseback, then those troops are just Wb with horses. Not sure I buy that.
Declaring a War on Terror in response to 9/11 is like declaring a War on Torpedo Bombing in response to Pearl Harbour...