2.2 to 3 reasoning for no psiloi rear support

From 'Dale's DBA': "Rear support from Psiloi is gone! This got rid of the controversy of rear-supporting Psiloi being destroyed if any of the three elements it was supporting were destroyed."

If my memory serves me, the rule was pretty much hated by the play-test group. Most thought it both looked odd and was a misuse of Psiloi. There was even a derogatory name for the formation... though I can't recall it now. It is getting to be quite a number of years ago. Not many complained about its passing.

With the splitting of foot into "Solid" and "Fast" types, Phil decided a better simulation was having mounted recoil on a tie from "Solid" foot. This somewhat subsumes the idea of shooters supporting heavy foot. This coupled with have 4Ax being moved to a +3 vs mounted really helped the simulation.

Joe Collins

As a proponent of the rear support rule I was disappointed to see its passing. Of course, I had originally called for Psiloi to support only the infantry directly in front of them, and not the 3 pack left, right and center.. Still, I feel that the medievalists triumphed over the ancient historical players, much as they did in WRG 6th edition with its invincible EHI and SHK.

What was the historical justification for the use of psiloi support? Read Procopius, Arrian or The Nisbis War or some of the Chinese military authors; and you will see that fire support by light infantry deployed behind the heavy foot was THE historical tactic for facing Alans, Huns or Sassanids. Therefore it should be modeled in DBA. And there are probably more sources, but I am at work right now. Another ancient theoretician points out that a major consideration for the ancient general was to choose depth vs length for his battle line. So, incorporating the psiloi support rule allowed the DBA gamer to confront this historically attested choice. Do I want to go narrow and have the benefit of psiloi support; but risk overlap, or go thin and risk being broken through?

The reason for trying to model this tactic in DBA was to balance the change from 1.x to 2.x of allowing knights to kill blades beaten by one in close combat. In 3.0 the balancing rule is to allow the blades to kill knights on a tie.

Why allow knights to kill blades when beaten but not doubled? An alternative might have been to allow knights to kill blades on a tie....I can't cite historical examples of this from memory. But it was embarrassing to realize that under DBA 1.x the Saxons would still rule the UK. Given the movement rates of 1.x, knights were barely more mobile than blades; worse against foot than blades, and fatally handicapped in any kind of terrain. Year after year we repeated the ancient Viking/ Marian Roman championships.

To me the big issue in DBA are the horrible situation for pike. In DBA 1.x the infantry movement rate was so slow that blades could not move from overlap into flank contact with pike in one turn. This could give the pike a critical turn in which to push forward frontally with their higher supported combat factor. Now, I disagree with Joe; pike stink. They are bow fodder and blade fodder. Long range bow fire is also too effective. Read from Sumer to Rome, The Military Capabilities of ANCIENT armies to see why the current rules are too favorable to ANCIENT, not Lance and Longbow Society bowfire.


Of course, in TRIUMPH the bowfire rule is worse for knights! They have a factor of 2 against bows, and every day is Crecy day......

Mostly, it just looked awful.  In Purple, Psiloi elements can do what they likely did:  Operate (for awhile) out in front of close order infantry, harassing the advance of enemy foot.  It looks and feels right.   

Old wounds go deep.

I would disagree that it 'looked awful.'

The evidence is that the psiloi support rule closely modeled an important ancient tactic.


psiloi could always be used on flanks, and certainly from in front of heavier foot AGAINST FOOT. Against mounted, they were used behind.


Finally, why did I prefer the Psiloi support balance to the current 'blades win on a tie' balance? Answer: Because the more 'quick kills' (a forbidden term I know) you build into the rules the more luck oriented the game becomes. It is bad enough that I can lose a game on a bunch of 2-2 and maybe a single 2-1 bowshots. Now I can lose a game when my knight general attacks a single blades even with an overlap! Using the same mechanic to 'fix' pike, as suggested in another thread, makes the game seem even more trivial.

Bob X has suggested that DBA 1.0 was the best edition. I may disagree, but it was the last set where knights could not quick kill blades so that no 'compensatory fixes' were needed for Kn-Bl, and the slow movement rates made Pike much better.

I'll give this topic a rest. The term, 'playtest group,' leaves a sour taste in my mouth. A large group of the most successful USA DBA players on the east coast left the game because of disagreements over DBA 3.0 playtesting. No DBA events at Fall In this year.

MG

Frankly, the improved power of crossbows and longbows in Medieval was part of the eternal 'protection vs penetration' arms race.

Then the protection got better as bows became more powerful - or vice versa.

Unless playing 'open' tournaments with Old Kingdom Egyptians (who had composite bows) facing HYW English the relative penetration of the weapons against the protection available to their targets is pretty much a wash.

Mr. Barker has stated (I believe on more than one occasion) that DBA and the rest of the DBx family are intended to be used within period and he explicitly disapproves of ahistorical matchups.

If you want to start 'grading' the missile weapons to create super troops, then you should start 'regrading' OMK blade against dismounted English KN from the WOTR...

And then the relative 'knockdown' power of slings vs javelins or arrows could be addressed.

As to the psiloi support, in how many armies did the psiloi withraw through the ranks of their melee weaponed compatriots to provide indirect support vs in how many armies were there units equivalent to the DBA 8BW element?

Which might well be better represented by a 'mixed' element (such as the T'ang 4CB) with a single row of figures combining missile and melees troops with a CF 3 or 4 vs foot and 3 or 4 vs mounted representing the fact that not all of the troops were armed with melee or missile weapons?

As to more powerful composite bows (or the longbow and crossbow), they shoot slower and tire their users quicker. Penetration and range vs volume of fire. And the effectiveness of either is dependent on the level of protection of the target.

Do you want a 'quick play' ruleset that gives reasonable historical results between historical opponents or a detailed simulation evaluating armor type and thickness, shield size and composition, bow type with rate of fire and penetration considerations, relative lengths of pole weapons, the material weapons are composed of - bronze, copper, iron, steel - etc?

And then the training level and determination of the troops comes into play - are Macedonian phalangites the equal of Swiss pike?

We shouldn’t over emphasize the effectiveness of the Asian recurved composite bow.
This powerful weapon, which was compact and handy for use when on horseback, was
not invented by the Mongols. In fact it was used by the the Pechenags, the Magyars, the
Bulgars, the Huns, the Alans, and even the Hsuing-nu, many centuries before the Mongols
came to dominate.
(Here are some interesting starting articles on the composite bow:-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mounted_archery and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_bow )

No, the real reason why the Mongols were so successful was all due to the efforts of one man -
Temujin, known to us as Genghis Khan. It was his strong will that united the various mounted
tribes of Asia, and by enforcing his strict iron discipline upon his sub-commanders, who in turn
enforced their own strict iron discipline upon the horsemen under their command, created such
a formidable fighting force. But he also had the foresight and skill to impose a strict administrative
and bureaucratic system that held his empire together, ensuring that it lasted long after his death.

If the other horse archer armies of Asia, who used the same composite bow and tactics that the
later Mongols used, had a leader such as Genghis Khan, then it would have been they and not the
Mongols who formed the largest continuous land empire in history.
Indeed, the Huns under Attila almost did so, but he did not have the foresight and skill to create
such a strict administrative and bureaucratic system, so his empire quickly fell apart once he died.



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