|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 23, 2020 7:19:45 GMT
The best thing might be to find some troops classed as 3Pk who historically fought significantly deeper than 8 ranks. If there aren't any, then no rear support for 3Pk and we go from there?
On a similar note, did 4Bw ever fight significantly deeper than 8 ranks? It's a bit unlikely isn't it?
Yeah 4Bw is another one but if we’re trying to do “universal rear support”... and it’s only in cc. Not shooting. Also it’s basically a more expensive 8Bw since it takes 2 elements to do it, so I think it’s ok. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 23, 2020 7:35:33 GMT
Yup, it's unlikely to be seen very often. Good.
So just 3Pk to solve then. I'm betting there are no cases of troops classed as 3Pk forming significantly deeper than 8 ranks, in which case we have a pure demarcation between solid and fast, which I think is very much in the spirit of DBA and will be extremely enjoyable to play.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 23, 2020 9:31:45 GMT
When suggesting changes to combat factors, we should try to think multi-dimensionally,
and not just use one-dimensional thinking. By that I mean consider ALL the ramifications.
If 3Pk did not receive rear-support they’d be CF 3 troops who can’t even fight in bad going.
They’d just be poor quality Ax, and be even worse than them (although better v mounted).
If 3Wb did not receive rear-support, how are they supposed to deploy? With a CF of 3 they’ll
die pretty easily against CF 5 troops, especially with the easily achievable overlaps. So they’ll
need to keeps lots of 3Wb in reserve to fill in the inevitable gaps that will appear in their line.
So we end up with an untrained undisciplined barbarian army in nice neat multiple lines, as if
they were highly trained and highly disciplined Romans!
Anyway, the historical accounts say they fought in dense deep columns.
The +1 “Universal Rear-Support” doesn’t only represent troops standing and fighting in one body.
That is just one-dimensional thinking.
It also represents individual fresh men being temporarily sent forwards to relieve tired men,
or a morale boost to the front rank fighters for having friends in close support behind them,
or the sheer intimidation the enemy feels when in a single rank and having to face such a
massive body, as well as having missile troops shooting overhead in close combat.
At the ‘Grand Tactical Scale’ of DBA all these can be achieved just as well by ‘fast’ troops.
One of the main purposes of “Universal Rear-Support” is to fix that age old gripe about light troops
not being able to stand against heavy troops, as they get slaughtered far too quickly and easily.
Take away the +1 rear-support for ‘fast’ troops and we are back to square one, with CF 3 v CF 5.
So all-in-all, having play-tested it thoroughly, I think that Shrimplyamazing’s suggestion outlined
in the very first post of this thread (with the addition of Spears receiving side-support even when
shot at) is the best solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaiphranos on Oct 23, 2020 10:56:09 GMT
Hittite infantry is classed as 3Pk for some reason, but what sources we have seem to suggest deeper formations. Maybe the solution there is just to reclass them as 4Pk...
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 23, 2020 12:23:45 GMT
When suggesting changes to combat factors, we should try to think multi-dimensionally, and not just use one-dimensional thinking. By that I mean consider ALL the ramifications. If 3Pk did not receive rear-support they’d be CF 3 troops who can’t even fight in bad going. They’d just be poor quality Ax, and be even worse than them (although better v mounted). If 3Wb did not receive rear-support, how are they supposed to deploy? With a CF of 3 they’ll die pretty easily against CF 5 troops, especially with the easily achievable overlaps. So they’ll need to keeps lots of 3Wb in reserve to fill in the inevitable gaps that will appear in their line. So we end up with an untrained undisciplined barbarian army in nice neat multiple lines, as if they were highly trained and highly disciplined Romans! Anyway, the historical accounts say they fought in dense deep columns. The +1 “Universal Rear-Support” doesn’t only represent troops standing and fighting in one body. That is just one-dimensional thinking. It also represents individual fresh men being temporarily sent forwards to relieve tired men, or a morale boost to the front rank fighters for having friends in close support behind them, or the sheer intimidation the enemy feels when in a single rank and having to face such a massive body, as well as having missile troops shooting overhead in close combat. At the ‘Grand Tactical Scale’ of DBA all these can be achieved just as well by ‘fast’ troops. One of the main purposes of “Universal Rear-Support” is to fix that age old gripe about light troops not being able to stand against heavy troops, as they get slaughtered far too quickly and easily. Take away the +1 rear-support for ‘fast’ troops and we are back to square one, with CF 3 v CF 5. So all-in-all, having play-tested it thoroughly, I think that Shrimplyamazing’s suggestion outlined in the very first post of this thread (with the addition of Spears receiving side-support even when shot at) is the best solution. Re 3Pk not getting rear support, they'd only be CF3 if we thought 'one dimensionally' and didn't consider other alternatives.
Re historical accounts of warband fighting in dense deep columns - sounds like 4Wb to me.
Re removing +1 rear support for 'fast' troops, and we're back to CF3 vs CF5. Fast Ax would be CF3. Sp would be CF3 +1 for side or rear support. Bd would be CF4 +1 for rear support. Fast Wb would be CF3 with QK. Doesn't appear so bad to me.
It might actually be helpful to explore new suggestions positively as they arise rather than repeating ad nauseam the same thing just because you like it. Personally I find that a little 'one dimensional'. 
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 23, 2020 12:25:27 GMT
Hittite infantry is classed as 3Pk for some reason, but what sources we have seem to suggest deeper formations. Maybe the solution there is just to reclass them as 4Pk... Or even Sp or Hd.
(Only semi-serious, as I know next to nothing about Hittites.)
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 23, 2020 13:16:04 GMT
OK, one area where the demarcation of 'rear support for solid foot only' potentially comes up short vs 'universal rear support' is the support provided by non solid Bw and Ps.
Using 'universal rear support', all foot missile troops can potentially support other foot from behind. Not just solid Bw providing rear support. The ability of all foot archers to provide rear support to other infantry in front of them strikes me as more reasonable.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 23, 2020 14:03:31 GMT
Re removing +1 rear support for 'fast' troops, and we're back to CF3 vs CF5. Fast Ax would be CF3. Sp would be CF3 +1 for side or rear support. Bd would be CF4 +1 for rear support. Fast Wb would be CF3 with QK. Doesn't appear so bad to me. Actually, under Shrimply's suggestion, Sp would be CF 3 +1 for side-support AND +1 for rear-support, so they'll have a final CF of 5, in order to make them equal with Bd CF 4 +1 for rear support, just as both are presently CF 5 under the existing unchanged rules. And an Ax CF of 3 will get slaughtered by a CF of 5...just as they are now. I may keep repeating myself, but the facts don't change. ("Ye canna change the laws of physics" as Scotty likes to say.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 23, 2020 14:28:12 GMT
So Stevie, my thinking was to really differentiate fast troops from solid troops.
We have a chance to do that with the -1 plus double ranking mechanics.
The problem of light troops (3/4Ax + 4/8Bw) dying against heavies was solved when we said -1 for the heavies.
Now, the next evolution was to allow some of the troops to get back to their original CF level by doubling up.
This is fine because in order to get it they’ve halved their frontage, so it’s a trade off.
Solid lights (4Ax, 4Wb, 4Bw) belong in the line of battle as they are decent (slow) troops who can also hold their own in rough terrain.
BUT there is still a battlefield role for the more dispersed troops (Fast) which is to hunker or ambush from, woods, outflank, and use their speed.
These fast lights will only be in real danger if they charge straight at a straight line of doubled up heavies, but I would not use them in that way. Since 3 doubled heavies are facing 6 fast lights, the heavies are going to be severely overlapped, so either the heavies thin out or use something to handle their flanks where the fast troops are now.
Remember too, that I would also give all fast troops the ability to recoil 1BW if they choose, further emphasizing their "dance in and dance out" abilities, so they would never get tied down by auto advancing troops like 4Bd, or 4Pk.
This means that fast armies will behave very differently from solid armies, and when given the choice, there'll be a real choice depending upon how you want to play.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 23, 2020 14:35:31 GMT
So yeah 3Pk with CF3 is pretty weak, but that’s why I would have 3Pk of CF4, and then 4Pk get +2 when double ranked, so 3Pk aren’t just fast & bad spear. A single 3Pk vs a single 4Sp would be slightly better, but when the 4Sp gets together with his friends, the 3Pk start to fall apart. However remember the overlaps...
They’ll be able to hold their own, but won’t get all the bonuses of a full Macedonian phalanx.
Then again, 3Pk are only weak if you send them head to head with double ranked heavy troops, so again, they aren’t pike phalanxes from Macedonia, don’t use them in that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaiphranos on Oct 23, 2020 16:06:59 GMT
Hittite infantry is classed as 3Pk for some reason, but what sources we have seem to suggest deeper formations. Maybe the solution there is just to reclass them as 4Pk... Or even Sp or Hd.
(Only semi-serious, as I know next to nothing about Hittites.)
As far as I can tell, it's all spun up from the depiction we have of Hittite infantry at Kadesh. For what it's worth, it seems to show a tight mass of infantry with long spears and no shields. Now, this is a depiction by their opponents, in a battle where the troops in question didn't really seem to have played much of a role, so... your guess is as good as mine. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 23, 2020 16:54:57 GMT
OK, one area where the demarcation of 'rear support for solid foot only' potentially comes up short vs 'universal rear support' is the support provided by non solid Bw and Ps. Using 'universal rear support', all foot missile troops can potentially support other foot from behind. Not just solid Bw providing rear support. The ability of all foot archers to provide rear support to other infantry in front of them strikes me as more reasonable. I HATE exceptions.... But, you do have a point Ok, so you're saying, that 3Bw and 2Ps could supply (but not receive) rear support for all others yeah? It's not awful, and it shows that missiles can help out troops in front.. We'd make sure to only support troops directly to their front. 2Ps had some funny stuff in 2.2 about supporting diagonally, so leaving that out. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 23, 2020 17:38:40 GMT
Regarding Wb, it would be the same calculations as 3Ax, except that there's the added bonus of a Quick Kill against Sp and Bd.
4Wb represent the hairy mass of shield wall type troops. Mass make a difference here, but they would sacrifice width to get CF4 vs CF4 of Blades. With a Quick Kill, that's almost TOO powerful.
3Wb represent (from the Viking list) Berserkers or much looser order hairies.
They still get the quick kill, but can bounce off and fizzle out if the enemy is prepared (double ranked). Berserkers don't get any morale boost from having troops behind them, and don't fight better. They just charge in and hope they kill you. It's still CF3vsCF4 with Quick Kill so I'd say still a good matchup.
Also, sorry for the slew of posts! Had a lot of thoughts on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 23, 2020 20:19:40 GMT
Excellent analysis there Greedo. But let’s look at some of the details. It would be odd if 3Pk had a CF of 4 but 4Pk, in a denser formation and with longer two-handed weapons, only had a CF of 3. And those Picts did give the Romans a hard time, and were never fully conquered by them. So allowing 3Pk to have rear-support seems about right in the narrow confines of the DBA combat system, and prevents them from being mere low quality Ax. Missile troops should give rear-support for shooting overhead, as described in “Arrian’s Battle Formation against the Alans”, plus the Late Roman and Byzantine practise of having rear ranks of foot armed with bows. So they should be allowed to do so. As for 3Wb...Caesar says the Belgic tribes of Gaul fought in deep columns (I made a reconstruction of the Battle of Sambre for DBA here: fanaticus.boards.net/post/10770/ ), and the Roman accounts of the conquest of Briton say the same. Indeed, untrained and undisciplined barbarians had no choice...they certainly couldn’t form-up in nice neat multiple-lines like the Romans! So they too should have rear-support, with the rear ranks sending fresh men forwards to relieve tired warriors, and boosting the morale of the front rank fighters by lobbing javelins overhead. That just leaves us with 3 figure ‘fast’ Auxiliaries, such as the Spanish, the Thracians, the Oscan tribal warriors of Italy, and those of Anatolia and the Near East and the like. Now everything you say in your analysis is true...but it can still happen if players chose to do so. I don’t think we should single-out 3Ax by making them the sole exception and penalize them. Nor should we dictate how players should choose to fight, based purely on our own prejudices. Let players decide for themselves...form-up shallow to outflank, or form-up deep to live longer. I’m fairly sure that’s what the ancient leaders did. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 23, 2020 21:11:41 GMT
Good points Stevie, as usual.
Re: Pk, what I meant was 3 and 4 Pk BOTH get CF of 4, but only 4Pk would be allowed to have rear support of +2.
3Pk would get a boost, but 4Pk would get, not really an option, but would be really good when deep.
It’s admittedly a bit of a crutch because otherwise 3Pk on its own is lousy.
Regarding the Gauls, what is the real difference between 3Wb and 4Wb? I can understand a packed mob of Gauls charging forward, but I suppose it goes to what 3Wb are supposed to represent vs 4Wb. This change to rear support makes them distinct troop types. The Gauls you are referencing would be 4Wb.
Part of this is also to make the choice between fast and solid troops a choice. As it stands you should almost always take fast because the only thing you lose is losing on ties, and you gain high movement and through woods. Why would anyone ever choose solid?
I agree that players should choose but that could be done during the army selection process. do I pick the faster troops because there’s lots of terrain for them to traverse and I need to outflank the enemy? Or do I go for solid which I can double up to pack a bigger punch in the middle?
I also agree that 3Bw and 2Ps could rear support, but 3Ax might toss javelins too...
Well, how about this?
Fast Troops can give but not receive rear support universally?
Solid Troops can both AND receive rear support universally?
|
|
)