|
|
Post by markw on Aug 31, 2016 12:38:53 GMT
Hi, I just posted this query a day or so ago on the old Fanaticus site as I didn't know it was about to shut down and somebody kindly suggested I re-post it here... so here goes... I originally downloaded and used this great adaptation of DBA for the Italian Wars some years ago. Kudos to Tony Aguilar for all the hard work on those army lists! I've been a bit out of the wargaming loop generally for a few years but am now looking at these rules again with a view to the French Wars of Religion (actually with Mikes Models figures!!). With regard to reiters/pistoleers caracoling - I completely accept the interpretation of these as DBA "Cav" and note that the RRR adaptation similarly negates the +3 rear support for pikes against Cav used in DBA 2.2 and in purely technical terms that seems to cover it. However it's never felt quite right for me in terms of "look and feel" on the tabletop. I'm sure this is something Tony and the play testers will have considered but unless I'm missing a trick there is no means to really encourage players to replicate the historical deployment of deep formations which reiters were reported to employ. I'm aware Tony & some others have planned to upgrade RRR to be compatible with DBA 3.0 so I guess there are two strands to my query here as follows: - (i) Continuing using the Variant as per DBA 2.2
Simply just base them as Double elements ie. 6Cav? Or, would a specific RRR "house" rule be better to encourage historical deployment of Cav still based in 3s?
- (ii) Converting to DBA 3.0
I note the substantially different factors now used in DBA 3.0 for rear support! The +3 for pikes has completely changed (now vs foot only excl Ps) and there is now the new +1 factor for double elements against foot. Should reiters be based as 6Cav and receive that +1 as appropriate? Or would an RRR "specific" +1 factor for rear support on Cav still based as 3 per base be more appropriate?
I realise it might seem like I've already answered my own questions there, but from a mainly aesthetic consideration I confess, I've never been that keen on double depth basing which again "feels" odd to my mind in the context of 12 elements and smallish numbers of figures. Hope that makes sense. Anyway that's my reasoning behind looking at alternative options and puzzling over the various implications. I'd be very interested for Tony's (I note his comments elsewhere about work commitments so strictly subject to availability) or anyone else's thoughts on the subject? Thanks and best regards, Mark |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Aug 31, 2016 12:58:45 GMT
It is only the early reiters classified as Pi(I) that are considered Cav.
There are reiters that are classified as Pistols, but they are the later ones (from about 1550 onward) which are Pi (O).
Those DO benefit in DBA-RRR from having a second rank behind them.
With the advent of 3.0 as the rule set we play, there will at some point be revision to put it inline with the new core rules.
As to when that will be will be anyone's guess - there is a lot going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by markw on Aug 31, 2016 14:09:05 GMT
Many thanks for your reply Tony.
I can see what you mean... yet I'm still wondering how do we distinguish between say Henry of Navarre's later Huguenot "Miller" pistoleers post 1576 (and Dutch cuirassiers etc) who charged (trotted) to contact with pistol & sword compared with German mercenary reiters, even later ones who remain graded Pi(I) and as far as I can see, with the exception of couple of inspired occasions, still used the caracole thus avoiding contact?
Oman and other writers all seem to suggest they were considered inferior in quality and Barker continues that assumption in the DBR lists.
Therein lies my quandary - or is the difference too marginal to matter? From my reading I'm not sure it is.
Fully appreciate a revision in line with DBA 3.0 requires time which may be in short supply. :-) I'm quite happy for the time being continuing with RRR as per 2.2 - perhaps dare I say with a house rule for the above issue.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Aug 31, 2016 14:52:19 GMT
Many thanks for your reply Tony. I can see what you mean... yet I'm still wondering how do we distinguish between say Henry of Navarre's later Huguenot "Miller" pistoleers post 1576 (and Dutch cuirassiers etc) who charged (trotted) to contact with pistol & sword compared with German mercenary reiters, even later ones who remain graded Pi(I) and as far as I can see, with the exception of couple of inspired occasions, still used the caracole thus avoiding contact? Oman and other writers all seem to suggest they were considered inferior in quality and Barker continues that assumption in the DBR lists. Therein lies my quandary - or is the difference too marginal to matter? From my reading I'm not sure it is. Fully appreciate a revision in line with DBA 3.0 requires time which may be in short supply. :-) I'm quite happy for the time being continuing with RRR as per 2.2 - perhaps dare I say with a house rule for the above issue. Mark I think for the time being you have stumbled upon your solution. I can tell you that with the inclusion of TIES having different results in 3.0 it opens up some possibilities to be able to break apart certain troop types. Breaking apart Sipahis from Cav comes readily to mind. This will have to be play-tested and we don't have ANY plans to tackle this until after October of this year. Thanks for you interest. I know it is hard to wait, but there is just so much going on right now and we don't want to rush and do it wrong. Regards. |
|
|
|
Post by mellis1644 on Aug 31, 2016 21:15:29 GMT
Many thanks for your reply Tony. I can see what you mean... yet I'm still wondering how do we distinguish between say Henry of Navarre's later Huguenot "Miller" pistoleers post 1576 (and Dutch cuirassiers etc) who charged (trotted) to contact with pistol & sword compared with German mercenary reiters, even later ones who remain graded Pi(I) and as far as I can see, with the exception of couple of inspired occasions, still used the caracole thus avoiding contact? Oman and other writers all seem to suggest they were considered inferior in quality and Barker continues that assumption in the DBR lists. Therein lies my quandary - or is the difference too marginal to matter? From my reading I'm not sure it is. Fully appreciate a revision in line with DBA 3.0 requires time which may be in short supply. :-) I'm quite happy for the time being continuing with RRR as per 2.2 - perhaps dare I say with a house rule for the above issue. Mark For your own games you could make the 'totting chargers' Pistols vs. Cav for the usual caracole tactics. It is likely a little generous but the DBR pistols(i) included a wide range of troops and tactics - too wide really. It really depends on whether you think they deserve that difference, as after all these are your games as much as anything else. The lists are far from gospel on such things - often there is a fairly large degree of interpretation.  |
|
|
|
Post by markw on Sept 1, 2016 15:36:16 GMT
Many thanks for your thoughts. My apologies in advance if I'm being a little slow-witted here but I'm not sure I quite follow what you are suggesting there. Could you possibly expand on it a bit more? From my reading I'm tending towards thinking the difference is sufficient to merit some attention, certainly for this particular conflict. I'm certainly happy to use any lists and rules as I feel works for me and I'd hate to appear a slave to them. :-) However, I've tried a couple of period specific DBA "tweaks" in the past and found they did unbalance the game slightly in certain circumstances so I'm keen to avoid that if I can and am just generally interested to see if - or what - others may come up with in regard to this issue. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by mellis1644 on Sept 23, 2016 14:04:23 GMT
My comment was from the mapping of troops to DBA-RRR, as takes it lead from DBR there can be issues. Note this is from memory as well, so might be wrong now.  As background, DBR has 4 types of pistols. Pistols(i) are inferior but can shoot (poorly) at range. They tend to map to Cav in DBA-RRR style games - they are the typical caracoling pistol troops. Unfortunately, in DBR this clarification also covers just poor mounted troops - for example many early ECW troops who did not caracole but just meet opposing horse at a near standstill and tried to fire pistols at blank range before hand to hand. This was a bad idea historically and never really worked well for them... For the game mapping both troops to one type IMO was mistake as it causes issues. As background DBR Pi(f) hard charging troops in DBA-RRR often map to knights. DBR Pi(o) and DBR Pi(s) troops often map to DBA-RRR pistols troop types. These days the DBR Pi(s) likely would map in DBA-RRR to whatever Cataphracts are. The overloading of DBR(i) troop type causes issues as here are really at least 2 types of combat being reflected in that one figure type. What I was suggesting is if in your DBA-RRR games you feel you have enough justification for the difference you could use the caracoling horse as Cav and maybe the better hand to hand units as Pistols vs. Cav. Hope this helps |
|
