|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 3, 2020 21:24:01 GMT
The new FAQ for 2020 will be published soon on Keith McNelly's excellent website. Be sure to check there often!
We added three new entries that hopefully will clear up questions and standardize play.
All for now...
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Jan 3, 2020 22:41:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 4, 2020 0:08:52 GMT
Thank you to the FAQ team for their efforts. It's efforts like this that will keep DBA around for some time to come.
Cheers and Great Gaming for 2020!
Jim
|
|
|
Post by ammianus on Jan 4, 2020 0:22:35 GMT
Thanks & Happy New Year! Roll sixes!
|
|
|
Post by Les1964 on Jan 4, 2020 1:00:13 GMT
Cheers for that , but nothing about ARABLE compulsory & optional terrain features .
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 5, 2020 13:28:11 GMT
I would like to thank both Joe Collins and all the rest of the FAQ Team for this latest set of adjudications.
However, for the first time ever I find myself disagreeing with one of the entries - namely that of Rivers. Here was a golden opportunity to bring DBA a little bit closer to historical reality, but instead the path chosen takes DBA further from the historical fact that of the four well documented set-piece battles won by Alexander the Great, two were by having his Phalangite Pikemen fighting their way across rivers.
Having Spears and Pikes crippled by being in water is not good for DBA as a game (as it can make rivers unplayable), nor is it good for historical accuracy, and only seems to be based purely upon “we have always played it that way, so it must be right”, thereby totally ignoring the ancient historical accounts. If Alexander’s Pikemen could fight their way across rivers, then why can’t we do the same?
Some players have always thought that there was something wrong with Rivers in DBA. At last it has been confirmed; DBA Rivers are officially broken for Spears and Pikes!
Good grief, it’s bad enough that DBA cannot recreate:- Cannae, as Ax with a CF of 3 can’t stand up to foot with a CF of 5. Poitiers/Agincourt, as side-supported Lb with a CF of 3 can’t stand up to foot with a CF of 5. Now Alexander can’t win Granicus and Issus, as Pk CF of 3 can’t stand up to supported Sp CF of 5. (There is a re-accruing pattern here...)
Still, this FAQ ruling will make little difference to the current situation, as I and my wargaming mates simply refuse to enter a river that cripples Spears and Pikes by denying them their support. This leads to rather pointless stalemates. Do this two or three times to a defender, and they will soon learn that having a Road that crosses a River is a waste of time if the invader has lots of Spears and/or Pikes. As for tournaments, Roads crossing Rivers rarely if ever appear, probably because of the above creating drawn battles that deny either side of any victory points. In both cases, Rivers are much less likely to be used (unless your Sp/Pk opponent likes to commit suicide), which is is not good from both a game and an historical point of view.
Nonetheless, DBA is still a good game...providing that you accept that it’s in some weird topsy-turvy Alice in Wonderland alternative universe, where logic, common sense, and historical accounts have no role, and long range shooting at small distant hard to hit targets is far more effective and more deadly than shooting at close range at nearby large targets...no matter what the historical example of Agincourt says. This suits many tournament players, as they are not too concerned with historical accuracy. They just want both players to follow the same rules, no matter how daft they are.
These leaves historical players like my wargaming mates and myself no choice but to ignore certain rules and use our own House Rules, so that we can re-create history. It would be nice if DBA were:- 1) quick to play and fairly easy to learn (which it already is), 2) and a bit more like the actual historical accounts (which can only be done with House Rules) .
If Phil Barker’s rules say that something cannot happen, but the historical accounts of the ancient historians say it did happen, than I’ll go with the ancient historians every time...
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Jan 5, 2020 15:44:30 GMT
Knew you wouldn’t be happy with that one, Stevie, but I’m totally in agreement with the FAQ team here... no way should Pk or Sp have support whilst wading through a river 😉
P
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 6, 2020 6:24:15 GMT
Ha! Just as Galileo, when he submitted to the Inquisition, is allegedly reported to have muttered “Yet still the Earth moves”, so I mutter “Yet still Alexander’s Pikemen fought their way across rivers, not once but twice”. On the one hand we have history based upon the writings of the ancient historians, who wrote their accounts from eyewitness sources now lost to us, saying pikemen did fight their way across rivers. On the other hand we have history based upon the feelings of 21st century DBA wargamers, the vast majority of whom (like me) have never even held a pike, let alone fought their way across a river with one, saying it can’t possibly be done, as all rivers are always too deep, and never merely knee or ankle deep, so all those ancient historians must be telling lies. Hmmm....I wonder which is right?
|
|
|
Post by chaotic on Jan 6, 2020 10:12:49 GMT
... instead the path chosen takes DBA further from the historical fact that of the four well documented set-piece battles won by Alexander the Great, two were by having his Phalangite Pikemen fighting their way across rivers. Unless you have something new to add, I think your assertion is factually incorrect. Which two battles are you relying on for evidence? As we have already discussed at length, neither Issus nor Granicus provides credible support. Clearly the FAQ team have the right of it. Perhaps it is time to let the matter rest?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 6, 2020 10:20:38 GMT
But I’ll tell you what...don’t take my word for it. Try it for yourselves. Place three pike columns in a river against three spears defending the riverbank. In fact, let’s give the pikes an advantage by having a knight general already hard flanking one of the spears. Try this a couple of times without rear support and see how Alexander gets on. Now try it again with rear support and see which of these two scenarios best matches the historical accounts. The evidence of your own eyes will carry far more weight than mere armchair theorizing. Now I’m not saying that the FAQ adjudication is wrong...I’m just saying that allowing Sp and Pk to have support in a river (especially a paltry river!) gives a much closer and more accurate result for the Battle of Issus in 333 BC, while denying them support gives a totally different result that bares no relation whatsoever to the historical battle account given by the ancient writers. Judge for yourselves which is better: modern day thinking or the actual true life account.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 6, 2020 10:46:08 GMT
... instead the path chosen takes DBA further from the historical fact that of the four well documented set-piece battles won by Alexander the Great, two were by having his Phalangite Pikemen fighting their way across rivers. Unless you have something new to add, I think your assertion is factually incorrect. Which two battles are you relying on for evidence? As we have already discussed at length, neither Issus nor Granicus provides credible support. Clearly the FAQ team have the right of it. Perhaps it is time to let the matter rest? “Yet still Alexander’s Pikemen fought their way across rivers, not once but twice”.But I’ll shut up when somebody can point me to where it says in the rules:- “ For combat, a river is neither good nor other going...” All it says is:- “ For movement, a river is neither good nor other going...” Now I wonder why it specifically says “For movement” only, with no mention of combat effects? So why do people deliberately try to add things that are not there, and make it so that Alexander loses the Battle of Issus? All I can say is “thank heaven for House Rules”. At least a House Rule admits when its not playing by the rules as written...
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 7, 2020 11:55:45 GMT
In an earlier post I said that many players feel that rivers in DBA are not quite right, as we have the paradox that Pikes should lose their rear support, yet Alexander’s Pikemen could and did fight their way across rivers, as shown by the historical example of the Battle of Issus in 333 BC. Was the river at Issus (and at Granicus) some sort of special type of river, that allowed support? Or were Alexander’s Phalangites unique in the whole of human history as being the only pikemen that could fight their way over rivers?
I think I have sussed out the cause of this paradox...and it’s all a matter of perception. Basically, ancient generals were clever, while some DBA players are not quite so clever. Allow me to explain by putting ourselves in an ancient general’s shoes and thinking like an ancient general.
When an ancient general, even the barbarian ones, came across a river that was so deep that it would severely disorder and disrupt their troops, they didn’t blindly charge into it and commit suicide. No, they simply marched further up or down stream till they found a part of the river that they could cross reasonably safely (being in a river should be penalty, and in DBA they are... ...they give the enemy a +1 for the riverbank bonus).
That’s why the rivers at Granicus and at Issus appear to be ‘special’. They were where Alexander could see that the river was crossable for his pikemen, or he wouldn’t have tried fighting there.
The paradox come about purely because some players, and even the FAQ Team, insist that ALL rivers are so deep that they automatically prevent support, even the paltry rivers. But these deep rivers that prevent support are NOT the ones represented on our wargames table. Yes, a deep river would prevent support...however, those types of river are off the table. The rivers we should be using are the ones that ARE crossable, or we wouldn’t be deploying there!
That’s why I refuse to advance and enter a river that prevents support. Not because I’m being stubborn, but because I’m thinking like an ancient general. Give me a river that I CAN cross with rear support, and like Alexander I’ll attack over it. Otherwise, like an ancient general, I’ll just wait for the next battlefield thank you very much.
So those players and the FAQ Team that think that ALL rivers should be uncrossable for pikes have to resort to their own kind of “House Rule” (because that is what they are doing...they are changing the rules as written where it says that rivers are neither good nor other going FOR MOVEMENT ONLY, and trying to apply this to combat as well, even though the rule quite clearly says you shouldn’t do this). And their reward for doing so is to completely ignore the example of Issus that is staring them in the face, and to force all spear and pike players to blindly throw themselves into rivers where no support is allowed when in reality the commander of such forces wouldn’t do so (unless he was phenomenally stupid!).
On the other hand, if you play by the rules as written, and allow support in rivers because the part of the river you are facing is NOT so deep that it prevents support, then you get a much better game where rivers are used more often, Alexander gets to fight as he should at Issus, and DBA is far more realistic.
Fighting over a river should still be hard, what with the +1 riverbank bonus, but not impossible for Sp and Pk. The examples of Issus and Granicus shows us this.
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Jan 7, 2020 12:07:49 GMT
Specifically what do those accounts say about *how* Alexander's pikemen fought their way across those rivers?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 7, 2020 12:27:32 GMT
I’m glad you asked Snowcat. For Arrian’s account of the Battle of Issus:- “And it turned out just as Alexander had conjectured; for as soon as the battle became a hand-to-hand one, the part of the Persian army stationed on the left wing was put to rout; and here Alexander and his men won a brilliant victory. But the Grecian mercenaries serving under Darius attacked the Macedonians at the point where they saw their phalanx especially disordered (in DBA terms, overlapped). For the Macedonian phalanx had been broken and disjoined towards the right wing (again, overlapped); because Alexander had charged into the river with eagerness, and engaging in a hand-to-hand conflict was already driving back the Persians posted there (in DBA terms, the Companions pursued); but the Macedonians in the centre did not execute their task with equal speed; and finding many parts of the bank steep and precipitous (so not a paltry river), they were unable to preserve the front of the phalanx in the same line (yet again, overlapped). Here then the struggle was desperate; the aim of the Grecian mercenaries of Darius being to push the Macedonians back into the river, and regain the victory, though their own forces were already flying; the aim of the Macedonians being not to fall short of Alexander’s good-fortune, which was already manifest, and not to tarnish the glory of the phalanx, which up to that time had been commonly asserted to be invincible. Here fell Ptolemy, son of Seleucus, after proving himself a valiant man, besides about 120 other Macedonians of no mean repute.(Source: www.gutenberg.org/files/46976/46976-h/46976-h.htm#Page_99 ...sections 98 to 104)As I said before, try it for yourselves. Place three pike columns in a river against three spears defending the riverbank. In fact, let’s give the pikes an advantage by having a knight general already hard flanking one of the spears. Try this a couple of times without rear support and see how Alexander gets on. Now try it again with rear support and see which of these two scenarios best matches the historical account. Pike CF of 3 (which drops to 2 with the easily achieved recoils) v Spear CF of 6 = Alexander gets slaughtered. Pike CF of 6 (with rear support) v Spear CF of 6 = a hard fight, that could go either way without Alex's flank attack.
|
|
|
Post by chaotic on Jan 7, 2020 21:24:20 GMT
Specifically what do those accounts say about *how* Alexander's pikemen fought their way across those rivers? The Gutenberg extract provided above gives good, but for our purposes quite limited, information about the battle, and its omissions require examination. It is also necessary to filter some aspects through a DBA lens (as Stevie has done). The context is also very important. It must be acknowledged that Arrian greatly admired Alexander and was rarely critical of him, except with respect to some of Alexander's more excessive behaviours. Modern scholars question many aspects of Arrian's battle descriptions, his overly sympathetic depictions of Alexander and his dismissal and/or criticism of other persons. In terms of the terrain, academic sources indicate that the Pinarus was a relatively shallow river which meandered a lot and whose course has changed many times since the battle. The records suggest that, at least on the defended side, the bank was quite steep and its bed was comprised of sharp stones. It had been raining for several days, so conditions would definitely have been slippery and perhaps the river was flowing faster than usual. In DBA terms, this indicates a non-paltry river with a die-roll of at least 3. Whether it rates a 5+ is perhaps arguable, but unnecessary for our purposes because the shape of the river probably hindered crossing by large formed bodies of troops anyway. Wikipedia provides a reasonable deployment map (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Battle_issus_initial.png) however other battle maps (based on the left flank of the phalanx being attacked from several different directions) often indicate that the river curved in a bow shape (for example: www.livius.org/articles/battle/issus/ - search for "Issus"). These are merely guesses by the authors. In any event, the river must also have hindered the defenders by forcing them to conform to the river's curves and preventing a solid defensive line. In DBA terms, overlaps should be difficult to achieve and the hoplites probably would not benefit from side support. However one particular effect of the river's shape is clear. Different elements of the phalanx came to the river at different times and probably crossed in different directions. Now for the battle itself. Various sources indicate that different parts of the phalanx were fighting different types of troops. The left wing (supported by its own light troops) was facing lightly armed kardakes and other missile troops, whereas the right wing (supported by hypaspists) was facing Greek mercenaries in full hoplite panoply. The Gutenberg translation (above) describes the phalanx as generally disordered, but more significantly broken and disjointed on the right. The left wing may have been disordered by a combination of the river's effects and missile fire, but clearly the right wing was disordered, disjointed and broken by the river itself. And who were the troops that Arrian was describing? Although somewhat less reliable as a source, Quintius Curtius gives a graphic picture of what is happening at this point: The troops sent forward into the midst of the Persians were now totally surrounded and were stoutly defending themselves. But, being densely packed and virtually locked together, they could not effectively hurl their javelins which, simultaneously discharged, became entangled with one another as they converged on the same targets; so that the few which fell on the enemy did so gently and without inflicting injury, while the majority fell ineffectively to the ground. Thus, obliged to fight hand-to-hand, they swiftly drew their swords. Then the blood really flowed, for the two lines were so closely interlocked that they were striking each other’s weapons with their own and driving their blades into their opponents’ faces. It was now impossible for the timid or cowardly to remain inactive. Foot against foot, they were virtually engaging in single combat, standing in the same spot until they could make further room for themselves by winning their fight: only by bringing down his opponent could each man advance. But, exhausted as they were, they were continually being met by a fresh adversary, and the wounded could not retire from the battle as on other occasions because the enemy were bearing down on them in front while their own men were pushing them from behind."Interesting to note that QC only mentions troops hurling javelins and fighting with swords (probably the hypaspists). Where was the phalanx? Clearly in desperate trouble, unable to advance or retreat. In summary, on the Macedonian left flank, Parmenion was hard pressed by Nabarzanes and about to lose the battle. The phalanx was in real danger. It was stalled, disordered and very close to being enveloped by Nabarzanes' cavalry attack. On the right flank, it was broken and facing both superior numbers and heavier troops. Its fair to say that the Macedonian phalanx was saved by two factors: Parmenion's stubborn defence on the left of the phalanx preventing its envelopment and Alexander's desperate, "all or nothing" charge on the right. Some speculate that the timing of Alexander's rash charge may have been forced on him by the increasing peril of the phalanx and Parmenion's impending defeat, rather than, as Arrian implies, the ultimate act in a carefully planned and executed battle. In any event, the rout of the Persian left flank clearly saved the phalanx, which did cross the Pinarus, but in all likelihood only after Darius fled and Persian resistance collapsed. Even in Arrian's highly propagandised account of the battle, he makes it clear that the invincibility of the phalanx was now in question.
|
|