|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 10, 2020 2:32:56 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. it is simpler. Ok I’m in. I suppose if you’re putting fast troops into the battle line you’re wasting their speed advantage anyway. Are people still ok with Wb supporting Wb only and pk supporting pk only? Also, why are Ps allowed to get rear support, never be overlapped AND don’t suffer rear supported enemies? Bd and Sp are down to a 4 max, vs your supported Ps 3, and if two Ps work together and overlap even one side, the other one will be 3v3. That’s a non trivial chance that a Ps can kill a heavy infantry in frontal combat..? Seems a bit much although I do like Ps recoiling stuff more.. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 10, 2020 8:38:17 GMT
Wb support Wb only, and Pk support Pk only - yes.
Re Ps - I'm not so keen on them receiving rear support. It doesn't feel right to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 10, 2020 8:53:44 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. I agree with Kaiphranos. The 3Pk situation: without their rear support, 3Pk become nothing more than poor quality 3Ax... ...and a poor quality 3Ax that pursues into double overlaps and get themselves slaughtered! Yes, they are better against mounted, but that’s not much help in the centre of a battleline. And remember, this rear-support is lost in rough or bad going. 3Pk need rear support, just to survive. The 3Wb situation: with their low combat factor, and their compulsion to pursue, they too will be slaughtered in droves, so will need lots of reserve 3Wb to plug the inevitable gaps. If these reserve 3Wb gain no benefit from being in a column, they’ll have to form separate lines. Thus we end up with a 3Wb army looking like a disciplined and highly drilled Roman formation! 3Wb need rear support, just to survive. The Ps situation: a combat factor of 2+1 for rear support against a combat factor of 3 (say Wb, Pk, or Ax, who’s rear-support doesn’t count when fighting Ps, as the missiles are all hitting the front ranks) has just 2 chances out of 36 (6%) of being doubled and destroyed, while a combat factor of 4 (say Bd or side-supported Sp) has no chance of being doubled. Doesn’t sound too bad to me. I’m thinking of those hopelessly underpowered all Ps armies such as the Aitolians, Paionians, and early Thracians...rear-supported Ps would give them a bit of a boost and make them more playable by allowing foot skirmishers to concentrate more missiles on a target, like rear-supported LH do. And a large force of skirmishing Ps could even defeat the formidable Spartans. (See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lechaeum )The Art situation: why not have Art receiving rear-support in close combat against foot like the others? I’m thinking of Napoleonic cannon batteries firing cannister a point blank range then the crews running back behind their supporting line infantry. If Artillery players want to shorten their battleline to get this extra +1, then the enemy can do the same to attack them with columns (‘universal rear support’ only applies against close combat foot, not mounted). The WWg situation: why not have WWg receiving rear-support in close combat against foot like the others? Think of it as extra men are being placed inside the War Wagons. It will make WWg tougher to break through, as they never recoil, but at a cost...the WWg battleline will be shorter, and more easily outflanked. In short, let’s keep things simple without the need for complicated exceptions to exceptions. (Mind you, doubled-bases shouldn’t get rear support, as they’d be too powerful, and they already have their
own built-in internal rear-support anyway) |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 10, 2020 9:11:28 GMT
At Lechaeum, the javelin throwers are referred to as peltasts. Are we sure they were Ps and not 3Ax? And if Sphacteria gets a guernsey for similar reasons, the Athenian light troops with javelins were referred to as Psiloi, but again, how do we know they weren't 3Ax?
(Wasn't it Phil Sabin who didn't believe in a class between heavy and light infantry? The Ps/3Ax gets pretty blurred, and you can throw 3Bw in there too.)
Can you think of an ancient battle where artillery received rear support? Romans maybe? What about Art providing rear support? Can you think of an ancient/medieval battle where war wagons received rear support? What about WWg providing rear support? |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 10, 2020 9:55:06 GMT
Good points as always Snowcat.  Art with rear support: any general that has their Art in close combat WITHOUT support deserves to lose ‘em! In a worse case scenario, Art CF 4+1 for support v Wb/Ax/Sp/Pk CF 3 with no support:- 6 chances out of 36 (17%) of the attackers being doubled and destroyed, and 6 chances out of 36 (17%) of the Artillery being recoiled and destroyed. (plus the Art column will have a shorter battleline...) Troops with Art as rear-support: again I am reminded of the Napoleonic ‘regimental guns’ shooting through gaps left by their friends in front. And, being behind, the Art can’t shoot at range but only support those in front in close combat (I think it was Phil Barker himself that once said “we shouldn’t make rules to prevent
players from making mistakes”).WWg receiving rear support: I’ve already covered that by assuming that many of the rear supporters are actually inside the WWg bolstering them in close combat...but at the cost of having a shorter battleline. Troops with WWg as rear support: the WWg are using their missiles by shooting overhead, just as rear supporting Ps and Bows would do, but again at a cost of having a shorter battleline. Anyway, it would be a bit of a suicide formation, as WWg cannot be pushed back, so the troops in front couldn’t recoil and they’d be destroyed instead (see that quote above from Phil Barker).  |
|
|
|
Post by shrimplyamazing on Sept 10, 2020 14:15:53 GMT
So from what I'm seeing so far, the simplest variation of these modifications to rear support factors would make the rear support section read as follows:
this would be coupled with the reduced factor of 4 3 for Blade and 3 4 for Spear. as well as a modification to the Tactical factors:
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 10, 2020 17:14:08 GMT
Good summary. Perhaps Pk, Wb, and Ps can only be supported by other like elements.
This does a few things:
1. Pike blocks are supposed to be pike blocks. If you remove any limitation, then you're going to get 6 wide pike blocks with light troops behind them. A wall of CV5 for half the cost.
2. Warband blobs are supposed to be warband blobs. Otherwise you get all the Quick Kill fun, for only half the cost (similar to pike block argument)
3. Ps seem a bit overpowered if they are going to be CV3 much of the time. But a "cloud" of Ps could certainly be more powerful, so if they are only supported by other Ps, then the Ps heavy armies can take advantage of supported Ps, and if you only have 1-2 in your army (vast majority), then you use them as you normally would out front hoping to disrupt the enemy. Think of this as the same as the LH rear support argument. Ps already have plenty of advantages, but this will give a boost to Ps heavy armies.
4. Leaving the others being able to rear support anybody allows different elements to be supporting reserves (Ax supporting Bd, Sp supporting Sp, Bw supporting Ax etc.) so you can get reserve lines
5. There is still a danger that if you shorten your line too much, you will be overlapped/outflanked, and you're army can collapse, so this should prevent people ONLY doing rear support all the time. Your opponent will dictate how wide your line should be.
I could argue WWg, and Arty, but I don't have any so am less sure about how they are used. I'm cool with rear support across the board (with caveats above).
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 10, 2020 17:19:51 GMT
That is a good analysis Shrimply. 👍
Note that the “Double Elements” line in the current Rear Support section
‘implies’ that they still get this +1 when assaulting cities, forts and camps...
...however, Close Combat on page 10 clearly says “no rear support when
defending or assaulting a city, fort or camp” (so it might be a good idea to
add this to the Double Elements line for clarity, and to keep all the relevant
rules together instead of having them scattered throughout the rulebook.).
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 10, 2020 17:42:11 GMT
...actually, Greedo does raise some interesting points...although Pk supported by non-Pk would only be +1, so would be CF 3+1, not CF 3+2. As for a line of Wb supported by a line of Ps (or supported by any other foot troops), yes, they’d still be CF 3+1 with their usual 'quick kill', but once the front line Wb are destroyed the CF 2 Psiloi would be exposed and facing the enemy directly. In other words, Wb supported by Wb is more powerful than Wb supported by Ps. (Ya pays ya money and makes ya choice...)
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 10, 2020 17:48:40 GMT
That is a good analysis Shrimply. 👍 Note that the “Double Elements” line in the current Rear Support section ‘implies’ that they still get this +1 when assaulting cities, forts and camps... ...however, Close Combat on page 10 clearly says “no rear support when defending or assaulting a city, fort or camp” (so it might be a good idea to add this to the Double Elements line for clarity, and to keep all the relevant rules together instead of having them scattered throughout the rulebook.). The only tear I shed for double elements is 8Sp.
The only advantage the Theban's "deep" formations would now be is that they get a couple of free elements since they don't have to support those 2 Sp units.
Not entirely sure how to fix that one, but perhaps the benefits of these new rules overrules this. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 10, 2020 19:55:09 GMT
Ok I’ve thought about it some more. I’m cool with universal rear support for all foot including Ps, Wb, etc. Only exception is Pk. Pk supported by other pk get +2. Would we allow Pk supported by non-Pk to be +1?
Waaay simpler. I think the army lists will prevent silliness, and will certainly encourage people to stick their Ps out front to chase off other Ps. It may also result in some very odd looking formations, but only a whole lot of play-testing would show this, and I think "historical" play should still result in victory.
|
|
|
|
Post by shrimplyamazing on Sept 10, 2020 22:06:01 GMT
That is a good analysis Shrimply. 👍 Note that the “Double Elements” line in the current Rear Support section ‘implies’ that they still get this +1 when assaulting cities, forts and camps... ...however, Close Combat on page 10 clearly says “no rear support when defending or assaulting a city, fort or camp” (so it might be a good idea to add this to the Double Elements line for clarity, and to keep all the relevant rules together instead of having them scattered throughout the rulebook.). It'd be interesting to go back to the DBA 2.2 lists for armies with 3.0 double elements and see if this house rule makes the double elements superfluous |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 11, 2020 2:59:03 GMT
Can we take a look at what 'rear support' is actually meant to mean and be doing, particularly in an historical context for the period of DBA?
In the case of Pk supporting Pk, I see extra ranks of equivalently trained and organised pikemen aligned to coordinate with the element in front of them and provide greater density and push as required. They're joined. There's no gap between them.
In the case of Wb supporting Wb, I see extra tribesmen (or ferocious types) fighting in the same individualistic fashion, providing extra depth and push for smashing through the enemy as required. Again, no gap between them.
But now, I can put an element of javelinmen (Ps) behind an element of Wb and claim the same +1 support as if I had an identical element of Wb behind the first. Really? Wow, those relatively few skirmishing javelinmen must be awesome!
Similarly, I could put an element of warband behind drilled hoplites and claim +1 support. Explain to me how those hoplites fighting in hoplite fashion are actually going to be 'supported' by the mob of undrilled individualistic combatants immediately behind them. They fight in a completely different style. IMO if the hoplites need to recoil, they'll find themselves with a mob of undrilled nutters in their way, not a compatible body of drilled hoplites trained to recoil with the parent body accordingly. The 2 elements - one immediately behind the other - are not compatible. And yet, with universal rear support, my warband will recoil in perfect step with the shieldwall in front of them. As for how the warband are supposed to be benefitting the hoplites in front of them, I'm not sure either. They can't surge forward with the hoplites without disturbing the hoplites' order. Maybe they provide emotional support by jumping up and down and screaming a lot. (Or is there a conveniently sized gap between the 2 bodies allowing these movements? To which I reply, "then how is the rear body providing rear support? Separate lines are separate lines. They exist before rear support has been provided.")
These are just a couple of quick examples. I could provide more that leave me looking down on the 'battlefield of universal rear support soldiers', scratching my head and thinking, "You what now...?"
This is the problem I see with a 'universal' rear support. You will get all manner of supposedly 'supported elements' that are highly unlikely to have ever provided or received actual close combat support when combined with each other in this way. It might work mathematically and as a game, but upon closer inspection I believe it becomes fantastical.
Solution? Perhaps 'like may support like' (before exceptions) as a starting point rather than 'anything may support anything'. Or if the universal rear support remains, then Wb and Pk need to be exceptions (only supporting/supported by their own kind), as a minimum. I suspect other exceptions will come up.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 11, 2020 4:19:52 GMT
Good points Snowcat. Perhaps the solution is to have “any element may rear support an element of the same type to its front”. So Wb and Pk are no longer the exception. They are the rule, and if someone comes up with some particular case (like Ps) that should be allowed to support another element type as the exception, then we can debate that? This will also remove rear support of Arty, unless you happen to have two Artys in your army and if so you’d be wasting one  . Alexander Macedonians: Hypaspists are trickier since there’s only 1 of them in Alex Mac BUT you do have some Thracian 4Ax to back them up Not the most realistic but a decent compromise. Polybian Romans: Those principes can be supported by hastati since they are both blade. The triarii still mutually support each other so can still be held in the rear line as a reserve or could form a line unit double deep. Same with Italian allies who would form a block of 2x4Ax to support each other. Imperial Romans: Roman legionaries would fight next to Auxilliaries which would each have their own depth support rather than being two thin lines behind each other. Ax heavy armies can double up to be fightable, as can Ps heavy armies, or indeed any “X element heavy” army. The best thing is even Spartans with their 12x4Sp can only double up to 6 elements wide and so MUST be careful to anchor their flanks so doubling up isn’t always the answer. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 11, 2020 4:50:20 GMT
Yes, before I edited my last post I had posted the idea of 'like may support like' (before exceptions) as a starting point rather than 'anything may support anything'. But I then saw how folks would like Bd and Sp and Ax and Bw and Ps being able to support one another...
However, I personally prefer the idea of troop types that are compatible with each other (through identical training and/or familiarity) being able to provide rear support to one another rather than incongruous units being able to fight and move together as a deeper force in almost mystical synchronicity.
I like the examples you've shown above. It shows the simplicity of the rule - from an adjusted perspective - but without some of the 'fantasy'.
BTW I don't see this rule producing a basic halving of battle-line frontages, more the odd element here and there, especially in the 12AP game. But even with only a minority of elements opting to go 2-deep, either in direct support or reserve lines, this should still create wider flanks on the battlefield, possibly to the benefit of more mobile armies such as those with high proportions of mounted, especially LH.
|
|
.