|
|
Post by judebecker on Apr 18, 2020 3:46:45 GMT
So, if I follow this correctly, the opposing foot would have to remember which units were joining combat for the first time and those that were rejoining would not have to use 2 pips?
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 18, 2020 7:36:02 GMT
So, if I follow this correctly, the opposing foot would have to remember which units were joining combat for the first time and those that were rejoining would not have to use 2 pips? I am still just at the concept stage with both options but I wouldn't see it working as you described as it would be a brain-ache to keep track of units which had previously contacted and the whole idea of dba is to avoid complication. I envisaged the rule only applying to the first contact of the Pike elements and not to continue.My idea is not to make it so easy to move frontally onto a Pike elements flank in the first round of combat or if an opposing element does it does not effect the combat in the first round. If someone has a better method of fixing Pike I'm all ears or if they can refine the ideas I've suggested that's fine. I'm partly in favour of the 8Pk element but I don't really want to mess with combat factors which could upset the ballance in the combat system and make the Pike too effective. There is also the problem with the Pk army lists in that by not having to use 2 elements in support do they have the same amount of Pk elements or alternative troop options? |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 18, 2020 10:27:55 GMT
I think the solution to the the “Pikes-are-easily-outflanked” problem is quite easy to fix Haardrada... ...make the 4Ax tough enough to be able to stand in the front line, at least for a while. This also has the benefit of replicating Hannibal’s formation and victory at the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC as well, making the 4Ax in all armies more useful, realistic, and better playbalanced . (I do like simple solutions that fix multiple problems). Here for example are some typical battlelines, after the skirmishers have fallen back to form a reserve:- Ps Sp Sp Ps
Camillan Romans = Cv Ax Bd Sp Sp Bd Ax Cv Pyrrhus’ Pike Army = Pk Pk Pk El Cv Kn
Ax Pk Pk Pk
LH Ps(Both armies have a front line of 8 elements. The Romans need 2 x Sp (Triarii) in reserve because of
the high chance the Pikes have of doubling and destroying Bd and Sp with double-overlaps. The left
wing of the Pikes is being held back in ‘echelon formation’ to delay and defend while the right attacks )And here is another example:- Ps Sp Sp Ps
Polybian Romans = Cv Bd Bd Bd Bd Bd Bd Cv Late Macedonians = Pk Pk Pk Cv Cv
Ax Pk Pk Pk
Ax Ps
LH(Again both armies have a front line of 8 elements, and the Pikes have a refused left wing ‘in echelon’) And of course there is that old favourite of mine, Cannae:-
Cv Ps Sp Sp Ps Cv
Polybian Romans = Bd Bd Bd Bd Bd Bd Hannibal’s Army = Cv Cv Bd Ax Ax Ax Ax Bd LH LH
Ps Ps(I’ve given Hannibal 2 x Bd to represent the ‘Libyan Spearmen’, because they were veterans in captured
Roman equipment...and veteran Spearmen would fight better than ordinary Spearmen.
The Romans are in their traditional ‘natural formation’, which means they are outflanked on both wings...
...but hey, that’s how the Romans chose to fight this battle, so blame them)However, trying to use the above formations with the current rules and it becomes blatantly obvious that the present Ax combat factor is way too low and they get massacred far too quickly by heavy foot. So it’s not the Pk that needs fixing...it’s the Ax. Fix the Auxiliaries (as shown by re-fighting Cannae) and the Pikes won’t be outflanked quite so easily.  |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 18, 2020 11:05:47 GMT
Some Pike armies don't have Ax. 😁
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 18, 2020 11:33:02 GMT
Well, all armies will have 12 elements, so use what they’ve got instead of Auxiliaries. And if Bows also prove to be too weak to stand up to heavy foot (and re-fighting Agincourt and Poitiers shows they are), then they too also need a bit of a boost just like the Auxiliaries. Pike armies, be they Macedonians or Medieval Swiss, always seemed to be in echelon formation, and attacked on one wing while defending on the other. Trying to use a Pike army as if they were a long straight line of Hoplites is not historical...  |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Apr 18, 2020 13:09:56 GMT
Pike armies, be they Macedonians or Medieval Swiss, always seemed to be in echelon formation, and attacked on one wing while defending on the other. Trying to use a Pike army as if they were a long straight line of Hoplites is not historical... Not sure where you're getting that from re Macedonian pike. Sometimes they fought in echelon, sometimes in line. e.g. Chaeronea & Granicus: pikes in echelon. Gaugamela: pikes and rest of army deployed in echelon formations.
Issus: pikes and rest of army basically straight line. Hydaspes: straight line. Raphia: straight lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 18, 2020 13:35:29 GMT
Pike armies, be they Macedonians or Medieval Swiss, always seemed to be in echelon formation, and attacked on one wing while defending on the other. Trying to use a Pike army as if they were a long straight line of Hoplites is not historical... Not sure where you're getting that from re Macedonian pike. Sometimes they fought in echelon, sometimes in line. e.g. Chaeronea & Granicus: pikes in echelon. Gaugamela: pikes and rest of army deployed in echelon formations.
Issus: pikes and rest of army basically straight line. Hydaspes: straight line. Raphia: straight lines.
Was it not a line at Magnesia too? |
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Apr 18, 2020 14:00:32 GMT
Well, all armies will have 12 elements, so use what they’ve got instead of Auxiliaries. And if Bows also prove to be too weak to stand up to heavy foot (and re-fighting Agincourt and Poitiers shows they are), then they too also need a bit of a boost just like the Auxiliaries. I've been following the pulling of hair and gnashing of teeth regarding the lack of war bow supremacy when trying to stage re-fights of famous HYW battles using DBA. I'm not sure I would use this as evidence of 4Lbs in the game being incorrectly valuated. I think if one is going to stage correct replays of Agincourt, Crecy, or Poiters then a few specific considerations need to be made that I think would balance things out a bit more in favor of the English. Crecy and Poiters would have archers deployed on slopes. Gentle, yes but enough that I would grant them +1 combat resolution. Poitiers supposedly had archers deploying amid hedges. This should count as "bad" going and will benefit bows in CC. Agincourt should have a much larger portion of the game board designated as bad going for the French than standard game rules allow. This is going to slow their advance significantly and add extra bounds of English archery to endure.
HYW English IV/62b and c can have between 8 and 9 4Lbs. Flank support from 4Bds will help, however, for specific battle re-fights, I would also play with opting for up to 4 of the 4Lbs to be designated 8Lbs to further reflect the combined arms with hvy foot, fighting behind stakes, and various theories of exactly how a "herse" might have been used.
All these are very scenario specific. I don't think its fair to use the 'match play' format of DBA and use it to criticize how it doesn't simulate actual battles. I think for that, extra work needs to go into creating specific scenarios that are outside the framework of the first pages of Purple.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 18, 2020 17:17:46 GMT
I think I need to explain what I mean about ‘Pikes in straight lines’ in a bit more detail. In reality, the Pikes would be 16 ranks deep, but their immediate opponents are only 8 deep. So the Pikemen end up with a shorter battleline...but this logic is false. Their opponents would also be 16 deep...because of the reserves needed to plug the gaps when a front line element is destroyed by the powerful Pike elements with double-overlaps. Thus in DBA the Pike elements are two deep, with a shorter battleline, while the Romans also have a shorter battleline because they need replacements to replace losses. One is in columns, the other with lots of reserves...but both battlelines are roughly the same. It seems to me that players want their Pikes in deep formations AND want to be able form in a single line to match the enemy, as if they were nothing more than a bunch of Hoplites. Well you can’t have both...unless you have Pike armies always outnumbering their enemies. So what did they do in reality? If the enemy kept lots of reserves, their battlelines would match each other, so no problem. If the enemy deployed in a long thin brittle line with no reserves, the Pikes didn’t try to match it. They’d hit one wing with their best troops and defend, harass, and delay on the other wing, using echelon formations. If you want a long thin brittle battleline, then play with a Greek type Spear army. If you want to use a Pike army, then learn to hold a wing with inferior forces. Alex the Great and his dad Philip did...and they never complained.  -------------------------------------------- Well, all armies will have 12 elements, so use what they’ve got instead of Auxiliaries. And if Bows also prove to be too weak to stand up to heavy foot (and re-fighting Agincourt and Poitiers shows they are), then they too also need a bit of a boost just like the Auxiliaries. All these are very scenario specific. I don't think its fair to use the 'match play' format of DBA and use it to criticize how it doesn't simulate actual battles. I think for that, extra work needs to go into creating specific scenarios that are outside the framework of the first pages of Purple.
Oh I couldn’t disagree more Roland. If someone were designing a set of historical ancient rules, based on history, shouldn’t they at least take lessons and examples from the actual historical battles themselves in order to make sure that our little metal soldiers are behaving correctly on our wargames table? Are we saying that to get a true historical performance for Bowmen we must have specific special rules for individual engagements, but when playing a friendly one-off what-if random battle they will always be weak and helpless? Agincourt and Poitiers shows us how they really performed. And they should do the same on our wargames table, if the conditions are the same. Elephants in DBA act like real life war elephants, Pikes act like real life pikemen, Cavalry act like real life cavalry, Knights act like real life knights, and Warbands act like real life warbands. So why can’t DBA Bowmen act like real life bowmen? Because I don’t know what world DBA is set in...but it certainly isn’t our world!  |
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Apr 18, 2020 17:36:31 GMT
All these are very scenario specific. I don't think its fair to use the 'match play' format of DBA and use it to criticize how it doesn't simulate actual battles. I think for that, extra work needs to go into creating specific scenarios that are outside the framework of the first pages of Purple.
Oh I couldn’t disagree more Roland. If someone were designing a set of historical ancient rules, based on history, shouldn’t they at least take lessons and examples from the actual historical battles themselves in order to make sure that our little metal soldiers are behaving correctly on our wargames table? Are we saying that to get a true historical performance for Bowmen we must have specific special rules for individual engagements, but when playing a friendly one-off what-if random battle they will always be weak and helpless? Agincourt and Poitiers shows us how they really performed. And they should do the same on our wargames table, if the conditions are the same. Elephants in DBA act like real life war elephants, Pikes act like real life pikemen, Cavalry act like real life cavalry, Knights act like real life knights, and Warbands act like real life warbands. So why can’t DBA Bowmen act like real life bowmen? Because I don’t know what world DBA is set in...but it certainly isn’t our world! That's OK, I expected as much. I try to make my point in as straight forward a way as possible. Poitiers, Agincourt, and Crecy show the potential of bowmen at their best. Were we able to fight the actual battle of Poitiers a dozen times over, its entirely plausible that the English would have lost as many times or more than they would have won. We seldom mention the battles where bowfire failed to win the day and archers were ridden down or pushed off the field.
I see that my expectations of the core game as written vary from your own. To me the basic game is match play and abstracted ( including abstracted terrain). I think with specifically written scenarios the mechanics can handle historic battle refights with as much vigor as any game at this level of abstraction. Reasonable people may disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 18, 2020 18:19:01 GMT
Well... Warbands, Pikes and Light Horse get rear support (because that makes them more realistic)... Spears get ‘side support’ (because that makes them more realistic)... Knights pursue, but are vulnerable to LH (because that makes them more realistic)... Blades have a CF of 3 against Cv, and 4 if shot at (because that makes them more realistic)... Psiloi ignore corner-to-corner overlaps (because that makes them more realistic)... Scythed Chariots are destroyed on an equal score (because that makes them more realistic)... Elephants and Hordes cost two PIPs to move (because that makes them more realistic)... Artillery cannot shoot if they move (because that makes them more realistic)... War Wagons cannot move into contact (because that makes them more realistic)... ...and so on.
I’m sure people would complain if any of the above were taken away.
But having Bows (and 4Ax) performing as they did in reality?...noooooo! That’s going too far. Yes, DBA is an abstract game, that simulates ancient warfare as simply as possible. But an abstract game that gives realistic results is better than an abstract game that does not. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 18, 2020 18:23:44 GMT
I have never been a fan of scenario special rules for the DBA system. To me its "agnosticism" is its big draw. YMMV and will!
So my issue is not "if there were 100 parallel universes and in 50 of those, the English bow were ridden down by French gallantry at Agincourt" but rather what a-priori probability does the system assign to that event, and does the game play data suggest Agincourt was all but impossible under that probability.
I fully support Bayesian reasoning (we do it when we design a game, and use a less informed prior) but the question is, from canonical Bayes ...
"when/how/where do you update your posterior probabilities?" ...
The above items Stevie mentions are fine examples of updating the posterior probabilities on the arrival of new research and new game data.
By the way, everyone here should pick up John Curry's reprint of DBA 2.2. It includes prior versions of DBA back to v1.0, and even v0, the one-pager fiven out at the SoA game day back in 1989.
Then come tell us DBA should have all the items Stevie mentioned, but that my +1 mod is a step way too far ...
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 18, 2020 23:30:24 GMT
Based on this discussion I do think you can draw a difference between medieval bow and ancient bow..
Perhaps Cb and Lb can be that bridge and maybe even 8Bw and 8Lb but making regular old
Bow more powerful based on 3 medieval examples seems a bit biased. The Persians “darkening the sky” might fall into that more powerful category too, but it just seems there is a distinction to be made either in cc or ranged combat.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Apr 18, 2020 23:51:51 GMT
Just as Roland mentions now, I previously explained that the non-penalty for dismounted men-at-arms crossing a field of mud against archery is the problem with 'DBA Agincourt'.
Roland mentions the hedges, like I did, at Poitiers being of no value to the defender in 'DBA Poitiers'.
But rather than simply tweaking the terrain modifiers to fix this, certain folks would rather find fixes elsewhere - ignoring the terrain - at which point I roll my eyes and leave them to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 19, 2020 0:06:35 GMT
The Bd-Lb interaction is somewhat addressed through the reduction of Bd combat factor if shot at down to 4 (from 5), shooting into and out of overlap, as well as the plough turning into mud on a 1 for first PIPs, plus Lessons from History's removal of the bone-headed TZ shooting rule. Oh and you only need LoS to a half base section on the target. So a recoiled Bd can still be shot at using concentrated bowfire.
If you as a Bd are slogging toward a line of Lb that are blasting away at your centre element at 2 vs 2, and that can always get 2 vs 2 because we have suspended the absolutely ludicrous TZ rule, then you have at least two full bounds on closing, and on any recoils, there are even more shots. Shooting is free, so you are always running the gauntlet.
Now are we also claiming that of the fields weren't so muddy, then the Bd would still have gotten massacred in the same way? Maybe. But perhaps for Agincourt, you need to deploy rough going everywhere as Boggy just to be sure. Of course then the Bd will avoid it on deployment, since he'll know before he puts his troops down, exactly where the muddy bits are.
Decisions decisions.
Meantime, 4Ax and 8Bw remain a serious challenge across the board. By the way, making solid Bow +1 against Bd actually further helps your case at Agincourt. Check out Lessons from History on this point?
|
|
