|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 16, 2020 0:58:19 GMT
By virtue of their low CF vs mounted, why are Warband more susceptible to frontal mounted attacks than Auxilia?
Many Warband formed up cohesively in shieldwalls = 4Wb, but are only CF2 vs mounted (half the CF of Spears). Auxilia equivalent 4Ax are CF3 vs mounted. Fast Warbands were formed much like fast Auxilia, usually equipped with shields and swords, plus javelins or spears that could be thrown, just like 3Ax. 3Wb are CF2 vs mounted; 3Ax are CF3 vs mounted.
Putting Knights aside for the moment, Warband armies' great susceptibility to mounted attack in the ancient period usually stemmed from insufficient or inadequate mounted of their own, combined with flank attacks made by well directed enemy mounted (usually Cv and LH). Knights could steamroll Warband frontally, just as they could Auxilia.
Previously, Ax used to be CF2 vs mounted prior to their upgrade under v3.0. In v2.0 Ax were 'vulnerable to cavalry'. In v3.0 this changed to 'more vulnerable to cavalry than Spears'.
I would have thought the same could be said for Warband: 'more vulnerable to cavalry than Spears'.
Why were Warband kept at CF2 vs mounted when Auxilia were improved?
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Sept 16, 2020 1:41:22 GMT
Hi Snowcat
my memories of the playtesting are vague these days but I seem to remember that the CF of Ax v mounted was bumped up when the +1 for Ps support was taken out of the rules. It is possible that at the time rear support for Wb was more universal at the time (ie included fighting mounted). This second statement I am not as sure on.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 16, 2020 2:23:34 GMT
Good point Macbeth. Let's check...
Under v2.0, Wb could claim +1 rear support vs any enemy except Cv, LH, SCh, Bw or Ps. So Wb could get the +1 vs Kn, but still nothing against other mounted.
Under v2.0 Ax could claim +1 for a single element of Ps lined up behind them (directly or side edge) vs mounted.
So Wb have gone backwards (against Kn), while Ax have improved against all mounted.
Why have Wb been kept so low vs mounted, and made even worse against Kn?
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Sept 16, 2020 4:02:49 GMT
Perhaps a warband beat up PB at boarding school and took his lunch money  Or is it that Wb have few champions in the DBA community. Wb suffered several hits in the DBA3 transition - the double move into contact was taken away as well. I found that Wb was not a high power element even in DBA2.2 - it may be just me, but by and large any troop type that needs to sacrifice line breadth for a combat advantage does not work well. The longer move distances in DBA3 only made it worse - insofar as it they can be flanked from a greater distance (whereas in DBA2 there needed to be a special rule to allow slow foot to close the gate from overlap). However a small force of Wb was a great counter to shooters when they could double move into contact from beyond the missile range. I used the 4x3Wb of the Christian Nubians to great effect this way. So it goes  |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 16, 2020 4:14:56 GMT
So what if Wb were CF 3/3? They'll be at even odds against most mounted, except Kn and SCh (who QK them), which is still not quite as good as Ax who don't get QK'd by SCh.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Sept 16, 2020 4:47:27 GMT
Macbeth remembers it pretty much the way I do. Phil was trying to eliminate all rear support. At the same time we were working on a better simulation and differentiation of Ax. Taking away the PS rear support required a change to encourage the use of Ax. Moving them to +3 vs mounted and having "Solid" troops recoil mounted on a tie was a good way to accomplish this.
Warband remained weak. They are better now against both Blade and Pike, but worse vs Spear and most mounted. Of course better does not mean great. Solid warband does now at least recoil mounted on a tie. Yay.
The long and short of it is that Phil doesn't place much faith in the fighting power of warband armies. They did tend to get beaten often
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 16, 2020 5:04:08 GMT
Macbeth remembers it pretty much the way I do. Phil was trying to eliminate all rear support. At the same time we were working on a better simulation and differentiation of Ax. Taking away the PS rear support required a change to encourage the use of Ax. Moving them to +3 vs mounted and having "Solid" troops recoil mounted on a tie was a good way to accomplish this. Warband remained weak. They are better now against both Blade and Pike, but worse vs Spear and most mounted. Of course better does not mean great. Solid warband does now at least recoil mounted on a tie. Yay. The long and short of it is that Phil doesn't place much faith in the fighting power of warband armies. They did tend to get beaten often Joe Collins "They did tend to get beaten often."
Yes, but to Cv and LH frontally? More than Ax?
Those Qin Chinese did pretty well against all-comers when their motivation was given a boost. They didn't win every battle, but they won more than they lost. Head-taking for advancement courtesy of Lord Shang's reforms supposedly produced a 'ferocity' among the Qin soldiers, at least according to various accounts (which can be believed or not), and Phil stated that this justified Wb status. A pity all those Qin with nasty ji halberds and swords are so much weaker against mounted than their opponents, whether the latter wield the much longer pike version of the ji (3Pk) or the later shorter version (Bd). Perhaps Qin are better off using the (d) or (e) lists, as they see fit, or just treating the Wb in their own (a) list as Bd and keeping everything else the same, including the higher aggression factor.
Or perhaps Wb just need an appropriate boost against Cv and LH, in line with Ax. If not, I can only presume that the main reason to keep Wb's CF against mounted so low is to represent the ability of Cv and LH to lure Wb into ill-disciplined attacks, disrupting their order and taking advantage of this. Against Kn, I'm not sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Sept 16, 2020 8:42:00 GMT
Macbeth remembers it pretty much the way I do. Phil was trying to eliminate all rear support. At the same time we were working on a better simulation and differentiation of Ax. Taking away the PS rear support required a change to encourage the use of Ax. Moving them to +3 vs mounted and having "Solid" troops recoil mounted on a tie was a good way to accomplish this. Warband remained weak. They are better now against both Blade and Pike, but worse vs Spear and most mounted. Of course better does not mean great. Solid warband does now at least recoil mounted on a tie. Yay. The long and short of it is that Phil doesn't place much faith in the fighting power of warband armies. They did tend to get beaten often Joe Collins "They did tend to get beaten often."
Yes, but to Cv and LH frontally? More than Ax?
I would not count on Roman auxilia (4Ax) eliminating a column of warband (4Wb), but think of them to – contain – delay – disrupt – a barbarian assault so a counter-stroke can take place elsewhere, perhaps with cavalry.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 16, 2020 9:18:32 GMT
That's not really what I'm challenging though, is it. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 19, 2020 5:16:02 GMT
So hillmen such as Thracian peltasts, in the open, armed with javelins, swords and small shields, are better against FRONTAL attacks by all mounted than fast moving warband such as Gauls, armed with javelins/spears, swords and larger shields, also in the open. How? Why?
Late Roman auxilia, armed with spear, sword and medium shield, wearing little armour, are better in the open against FRONTAL attacks by all mounted than late Germanic warband armed with heavy throwing weapons such as franciscas and angons, swords and medium shields, wearing little armour, also in the open. How? Why?
The above rules out equipment as the difference. So that leaves behaviour. What are the Gauls and late Germanic warband doing vs frontal attacks by mounted in the open that leaves them more exposed than their Ax equivalents? And where are the examples from history to support this?
|
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Sept 19, 2020 7:46:55 GMT
Hi Snowcat
Personally I don't have an issue with 4Ax being +3 vs mtd (and likely 4Wb should be similarly rated - recall them defeating Julian's Roman cataphracts in 357AD...try that at moment!). 3Ax are admittedly as you rightly imply a very dodgy proposition and to be honest I'm rather chary of Fast foot vs mtd in open going (with some exceptions) but DBA being simple I suppose we are stuck with it - in which case 3Wb could/should be +3 as well.
cheers
B.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 19, 2020 8:13:44 GMT
Yup, that's my point. Nice example. Argentoratum 357 AD.
At the beginning of the battle, Alamannic Cv Gen (Chnodomar) dismounts as 4Wb and receives the charge of Roman heavy cavalry, including cataphracts (Clibanarii 4Kn) - the cream of the Roman heavy cavalry - at the front of the Roman cavalry wedge formation. Outcome of this clash: foot warband wreaked havoc, bringing down the horses of the cataphracts (Clibanarii) and then killing their riders on the ground; the cataphracts panicked and fled the field, forcing the rest of the Roman cavalry to redeploy. (Zosimus claims that one regiment of Clibanarii refused to return to the battle, and were forced to wear women's clothes by Julian as punishment!)
Again... "So what if Wb were CF 3/3? They'll be at even odds against most mounted, except Kn and SCh (who QK them), which is still not quite as good as Ax who don't get QK'd by SCh."
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 19, 2020 9:24:50 GMT
Well, it is known that the mostly Warband armies of the Germans were subjugated by the Huns in the 5th century AD, and the deep Warband columns of the Franks didn’t do too well against the Byzantine mounted at the battle of Casilinum in 554 AD (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Volturnus#Deployment )... ...but these were outflanked at the time and attacked in the rear. On the other hand, these same deep Warband columns of the Franks did quite well against the mounted troops of the Arabs and Moors at the battle of Tours in 732 AD. (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours#Preparations_and_maneuver ) (Perhaps rear supported Warbands should get a +1 against both foot and mounted. They do in HoTT...) |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 19, 2020 9:38:05 GMT
Hi Stevie
Volturnus (quite familiar with this one) is an example of warbands destroyed by cavalry in the flank, as you noted, so doesn't apply here in what I'm arguing.
The rear support argument is a separate approach, and not one that I'm exploring here. Clearly, Chnodomar's dismounted cavalry (4Wb) didn't rely on a massed column behind them to bring down the horses of the Roman 4Kn and then kill their riders on the ground. That's a 4Wb General vs 4Kn. Under RAW it's toast for Chnodomar, but history told a different story.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 19, 2020 11:02:05 GMT
Good points Snowcat.
(By the way, I was wrong...according to the DBA 3.0 Army Lists, it was the III/28 Carolingian Franks
that fought at Tours in 732 AD, and they don’t have any Warbands.)
But you know how obsessed I am with historical formations, and I fear that giving Wb a CF of 3
against mounted (and nothing for rear-support) will encourage them to fight in lines instead of
staying in deep columns as the historical accounts say they did.
So I still think a CF of 2 against mounted but with a +1 for rear-support would be better.
|
|
