|
Post by greedo on Nov 26, 2019 17:58:12 GMT
Been thinking about doing Theban vs Spartan battles, and trying to figure out how to do Echelon formation, refused flank type tactics that the Thebans and the Macedonians used to great success.
It's hard to figure out how to do this in DBA with the group PIP system.
As usual I am of two minds. The PIP Group system means that units are incentivized to stick together into groups, modelling cohesion problems with spreading your troops out in an ancient context. It also means that keeping in line is important, and when the battleline meet, recoiling will cost more PIPs and command to get everybody fighting again. This works SO well.
SO, is the way to do a refused flank simply to have 2 groups? One about 1BW ahead of the other?
i.e. Thebans with their 8Sp:
2Ps8Sp8Sp _________4Sp4Sp4Sp4Sp4Sp__3Cv
Note I have a 2Ps guarding the left flank of the 8Sp. Also note that the 4Sp line is it's own group, and is 1-2BW behind the 8Sp
Is this the way to do it? It's a *slight* PIP cost, but should give the required effect (only 2 groups instead of 1 giant line of spears). Have to try it, but I think this is right.
What do people think? Chris
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Nov 26, 2019 21:10:25 GMT
Pretty much.
Except the 8SP is on the right with the general as the extreme right SP element - Greek practice. Then probably with the CV on the general's right flank.
With an echelon hitting a line you are going to have an overlap against the inside element which evens the CFs if the other element doesn't push back or kill its opponent (not likely if going against supported SP.
Presuming the CV hits an opposing PS you have a good chance of getting an overlap for the general (and possibly a kill on the PS) - 6 vs 4. This will a decent chance of an overlap for the left hand 8SP and counter the fact that it is overlapped.
Should CV kill the PS you then have a good chance to roll up the opponent's line.
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Nov 26, 2019 22:13:47 GMT
I’m on a work trip and haven’t got my purple with me so can’t check. However, I’m pretty sure that is one group. The 8Sp are DBE - so 30mm deep. The Sp in echelon can align with the rear edge of the DBE and still count as being in a group.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Nov 26, 2019 23:18:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Nov 26, 2019 23:33:15 GMT
Ah, wasn't thinking along those lines, paddy649, but I do believe that is correct.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Nov 27, 2019 0:54:30 GMT
Wait... groups can align by their REAR edge too?! That’s nice and certainly helps this situation. Just re read the post!
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Nov 27, 2019 1:03:53 GMT
Yes - pretty sure that is right. Works for pike blocks as well.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Nov 27, 2019 5:31:49 GMT
Been thinking about the numbers on here too: Element A: 4Sp with side support + General = 4 + 1 + 1 = 6 Element B: 8Sp with side support + General = 5 + 1 + 1 = 7!
Tossing into my trusty spreadsheet: RAW Out of 36 A Dead 0 A Recoil 10 Tie 5 B Recoil 21 B Dead 0
Things get bad when the Spartans get overlapped on one flank: RAW Out of 36 A Dead 0 A Recoil 6 Tie 4 B Recoil 24 B Dead 2
And it's game over if the Spartans get double overlapped because they also lose their side support: RAW Out of 36 A Dead 0 A Recoil 1 Tie 2 B Recoil 21 B Dead 12
So things are slow at first, but then when one side starts to crumble, it all falls apart. Not sure if the numbers are strong or weak enough. I was considering what happens if Heavy Infantry has 1 less CV (i.e. Spears are CV3) as in a House Rules section. Would certainly make it more decisive, but perhaps TOO random but hopefully more of a risk for the Thebans (for which historically it WAS a risk)
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Nov 27, 2019 19:23:48 GMT
Wait... groups can align by their REAR edge too?! That’s nice and certainly helps this situation. Just re read the post! Thanks! For DBA 3.0, don't think you can align by rear edge only, while still being part of the same group. Although Phil seemed to write it that way on page 8 of the hardbound 3.0 version in front of me, the "clarification" on page 16 of the diagrams says ". . . or side edge contact and front corner to front corner contact." Note the term "front corner".
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Nov 27, 2019 20:15:42 GMT
WRT the OP, we used to do something like that with our 6mm Byzantines, per the image below. In the image, the strongest matchup (this was DBA 1.1) is the spear-backed-by-psiloi infantry on the right, which is attacking the Sassanian cavalry. IIRC that gave a +2 for each, minus 1 for uphill. As in the OP's scheme, the refused flank shown here allowed the Byzantines to put their best matchups in contact, while making it unlikely that the Sassanians would be able to do the same thing on the opposite flank. In DBA, the refused flank is facilitated by the "threat zone" of the units on the refused flank, assuming a small portion of their TZ covers the flank of the in-contact elements. Here the refused flank was implemented in 2 steps, with the first step protecting the flank of the main attack with relatively invulnerable light horse, and the second protecting the flank of the light horse. The Sassanians typically wouldn't have the pips to effectively engage the refused flank, as they would be needed to deal with the increasing disorder on the engaged portion of the line (also note it would take the Sassanian spears at least 2 moves to contact the flank guard light horse). Hence breaking the line into 3 groups didn't matter much.
As an additional comment on the image, note the extra mounted on the far right, intended to exploit the hoped-for disintegration of the Sassanian left. They have just pushed back the Sassanian light horse, improving the chances for the subsequent combat to their left.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Nov 27, 2019 21:25:13 GMT
Wait... groups can align by their REAR edge too?! That’s nice and certainly helps this situation. Just re read the post! Thanks! For DBA 3.0, don't think you can align by rear edge only, while still being part of the same group. Although Phil seemed to write it that way on page 8 of the hardbound 3.0 version in front of me, the "clarification" on page 16 of the diagrams says ". . . or side edge contact and front corner to front corner contact." Note the term "front corner".
I disagree....I believe side edge and either front or rear corner contact permits elements to constitute a group.
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Nov 27, 2019 21:52:55 GMT
For DBA 3.0, don't think you can align by rear edge only, while still being part of the same group. Although Phil seemed to write it that way on page 8 of the hardbound 3.0 version in front of me, the "clarification" on page 16 of the diagrams says ". . . or side edge contact and front corner to front corner contact." Note the term "front corner".
I disagree....I believe side edge and either front or rear corner contact permits elements to constitute a group. Agree with Martin. The rules say "in edge and corner to corner contact." Doesn't say which corner! Simon
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Nov 27, 2019 22:12:52 GMT
I disagree....I believe side edge and either front or rear corner contact permits elements to constitute a group. Agree with Martin. The rules say "in edge and corner to corner contact." Doesn't say which corner! Simon If you read my post more carefully, you will see that I mention that the 3.0 rules do say that in the text section, but they also modify what the text section says in the diagrams section. Logically, you have to go with the more restrictive case. It's like saying both of the following must be true, "a positive number" and "the number three". That constrains you to the number three.
So you're entitled to play the way you want to, but in this case, you would be ignoring part of the rulebook.
MH :-)
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 27, 2019 22:59:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Nov 28, 2019 0:31:42 GMT
Ah, the FAQ ...
Although I don't agree with all the interpretations it contains, nor the politics behind it, it is a good way to avoid arguments so I'll live with it. Thanks for pointing that out.
MH
|
|