|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 9, 2020 16:06:30 GMT
Interesting analysis Stevie as always. I also started Thinking of formations that would be good in this new paradigm. But also interesting is that a battle line with ps out front can really disrupt the enemy before contact, which also makes my opponent want to put his ps out front as well to see off the enemy ps... which jives with what I’ve read. So there really is a tension between putting your ps on the wings to prevent your line getting rolled up, or putting out front and hoping to encourage a breakthrough, or prevent one... Trying to figure out ways this could be “gamed” in a buttocks is death type way to take advantage of the rules but not looking at all historical. Can’t think of anything yet. Next question. Stevie uses Cannae as a test quite a lot. I still think Cannae itself is an outlier, however I can also see how it could actually happen in a DBA game if the formations were just so, so that can’t be all bad  So my question is, can it happen, or is it much more likely that a break through will occur instead of gradually pushing a line back? |
|
|
|
Post by saxonred on Sept 9, 2020 18:10:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 9, 2020 18:16:03 GMT
Ah Cannae...my favourite battle. This engagement has so much to tell us. Here is one way of re-creating it, after the skirmishers have fallen back. (Underlined elements shows the positions of the generals):- Ps Sp Sp Ps
Cv Bd Bd Bd Bd Bd Bd Cv
Cv Cv Bd Ax Ax Ax Ax Bd LH LH
Ps PsI’ve given Hannibal two Bd instead of Sp, because they were veterans using captured Roman equipment. I’d also move generals about as well, as losing both Cv (one being the general) means the Romans are defeated too quickly. If the overlapped Ax prove to be too brittle, replace them with 3Bd instead, as after fighting their way over the River Rhone and across the Alps, and the victories at Trebia in 218 BC and Lake Trasimene in 217 BC, by the time of Cannae in 216 BC the Ax too would be veterans, and some of the Spanish were probably Celtiberians anyway. Note that each Roman Cv is positioned to face two Carthaginian mounted. This prevents them from being 'hard flanked' right from the start. -------------------------- If players wish to represent the greater numbers on the Roman side, an alternative is to use what I call ‘decorative double-bases’ for the Bd:- "A ‘decorative double base’ is just two ordinary foot bases on a 1 x 1 BW card with double-sided sticky tape to hold them in place. It acts just like a single element in all respects…it just looks more impressive. Think of it as having a -1 because they are poor quality troops, but also a +1 for their unusually deep formation." (See fanaticus.boards.net/post/19035/ for details,
and fanaticus.boards.net/post/10670 for examples) |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Sept 9, 2020 21:22:56 GMT
Another option (which I've always liked) is for Wb to only QK in their bound. Think of it as a 'ferocity surge' as opposed to a constant. I used to suggest this for Knights too. TomT |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Sept 9, 2020 21:24:13 GMT
My main issue with X-ray TZ is that you count as in the TZ when you're just touching the edge of it (i.e a column of 1/2BW deep units, three deep with the front unit engaged with the enemy would be all in the TZ of the enemy). If touching the border of the TZ didn't count as being in the TZ it would be much nicer. In regards to moving to plug gaps, people would have to decide between having a double rank which is supporting vs having a second rank that is 1/2BW+ away from the front rank that can be used to plug gaps OR bolster certain points with rear support when needed. (Or you could be Romans and do both, double ranked Blades with triarii further back out of TZ to plug gaps and so forth.) Your quite right. The rule should of been that elements currently giving Rear Support can't move. TomT |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 9, 2020 21:32:54 GMT
I thought of an idea to help separate the fast from solid infantry: Fast troops may give but cannot receive rear support. Across the board.
This will mean that 3Ax (javelin throwers) will hug terrain since they will get killed if they are in the battleline, but 4Ax (Roman Auxiliaries) can stand up there if they have rear support. Same for 3Bd, 3Bw, and even 3Wb and 3Pk (controversial those last 2).
2Ps is a little trickier, and might prove the exception in that they can both give and receive rear support. This will stop the fast infantry from being too powerful to compensate for their fast speed, but they can still take advantage of being able to move quickly through terrain, and for the lighter troops, not penalized for fighting in there. Don’t know if this is actually a problem but I suddenly thought of Ax heavy armies like Thracians and realized everybody might just start playing on billiard tables with no terrain because now everybody can be in the line of battle. Many armies allow 3/4Ax or 3/4Wb and this will help you decide how you want to play that particular battle. Do I terrain spam or do I try to face them in the open? Even Vikings would be different as Early Vikings (3Bd) would fight very differently than later Vikings (4Bd). In a similar vein, Samurai Ashigaru Yaris (3Pk) should behave differently than a Macedonian Phalanx (4Pk). 3Wb might also prove troublesome and so might need to be an exception, but I prefer broad rules to a bunch of exceptions; my opinion.
If it’s too large of a nerf, perhaps remove the solid beats fast on ties?
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 10, 2020 0:16:35 GMT
I think it's time we now develop a list of exceptions and allowances for the rear support idea.
In the 'no rear support' category we have: Mounted (presumably except LH with other LH?).
I'll add Art and WWg.
Any others?
Then we have additional criteria such as Wb can only support Wb, Pk can only support Pk, etc. Can we have a full list of these?
It'd be nice to see how this is all coming together in a more finished form.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 10, 2020 0:17:13 GMT
Good question Snowcat. In the earlier versions of DBA, Pikes and Blades didn’t pursue, and their very high combat factors meant it was very hard to kill them, even with double overlaps (CF 6 v CF 6-2 has only 4 chances out of 36 (11%) of being doubled). This has been ‘fixed’ somewhat in DBA 3.0 by making them pursue, leading to more double-overlaps, but Pk v Pk or Bd v Bd still just push each other about for little effect (unless someone gets a very lucky die roll), meaning all the action occurs on the wings and breakthroughs in the centre are practically non-existent...making the Roman multiple-line formation pretty pointless! With reduced heavy foot combat factors, having Pk/Bd pursuing is not quite so much of an issue... ...but I’d say leave it as it is. After all, the whole purpose of having reserves (be they in the rear of a column or as a separate line) is so that the battleline can be maintained without the enemy making gaps in it. And if the chances of an element being destroyed in the centre is soooo low, what’s the point of having any reserves? Anyway, some Blades, such as French dismounted men-at-arms, certainly would pursue uncontrollably! And it does emphasise the difference between non-pursuing Spearmen huddling together defensively in largely stationary ‘shield-walls’ from the more aggressive Pikes and Blades who want to get stuck in. Yup, fair points. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by kaiphranos on Sept 10, 2020 0:45:02 GMT
I thought of an idea to help separate the fast from solid infantry: Fast troops may give but cannot receive rear support. Across the board.
This will mean that 3Ax (javelin throwers) will hug terrain since they will get killed if they are in the battleline, but 4Ax (Roman Auxiliaries) can stand up there if they have rear support. Same for 3Bd, 3Bw, and even 3Wb and 3Pk (controversial those last 2). Would this include 3Pk being unable to support other 3Pk? Seems like that would make them... quite bad. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 10, 2020 0:46:19 GMT
Just realized another benefit of “any can support any”. Those armies that only have a single 4Sp can now have that Sp be supported from the rear! It’ll cost you an element but that small shield wall can stand Otherwise they’d be cv3 with no way to get it back again. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 10, 2020 0:56:37 GMT
Would this include 3Pk being unable to support other 3Pk? Seems like that would make them... quite bad. I know... it’s controversial but I suppose it’s a reflection of what 3Pk are supposed to represent. In essence they become non hoplite long spear. Perhaps Pk would be another exception. I don’t like exceptions but sometimes it can’t be helped. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 10, 2020 1:02:43 GMT
I suppose you could always give 3Pk rear support from other 3Pk, but limit it to +1 instead of +2 vs other foot.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 10, 2020 1:53:00 GMT
I suppose you could always give 3Pk rear support from other 3Pk, but limit it to +1 instead of +2 vs other foot. A good point (haha.. point!). Perhaps 3Ax should be the only exception and everybody else can just rear support. It’s the main reason. But perhaps it’s not even needed, but I wanted to bring it up just in case. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 10, 2020 2:12:10 GMT
I suppose you could always give 3Pk rear support from other 3Pk, but limit it to +1 instead of +2 vs other foot. A good point (haha.. point!). Perhaps 3Ax should be the only exception and everybody else gets rear support. It’s the main reason. But perhaps it’s not even needed, but I wanted to bring it up just in case. |
|
|
|
Post by shrimplyamazing on Sept 10, 2020 2:27:00 GMT
You wouldn't have to worry about 3Pk if you're limiting Pk and Wb to only rear support from themselves:
Pk receive +2 rear support from other Pk
Wb receive +1 rear support from other Wb except against Ps
Other solid foot receive +1 rear support from other foot except against Ps
Though I personally would say just allow Foot in general +1 from rear support from other Foot (not against Ps) with only a specific +2 for the Pk+Pk combo.
|
|
So my question is, can it happen, or is it much more likely that a break through will occur instead of gradually pushing a line back?
