|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 29, 2020 1:57:10 GMT
Just reading the Alexandrian Macedonian army list and it states that it represents the army at Chaironeia amongst others. Now try and replicate this in DBA.
The Thebans/Athenians set up on 600mm board with a river down one flank and hills on the other (place an insignificant hamlet in a corner to allow for a legal terrain). They defend and place an 8 element hoplite phalanx across the board and between terrain. Cavalry and Psiloi in support or in the hills. So far so good.
The accounts that we have indicate that the heavy infantry fought across the line and were evenly matched before either a) the Athenians pursued, possibly due to feigned flight, and were broken by Phillip, b) Alexander broke the Thebans, probably after flanking, c) a bit of both. Accounts state that the Athenians and the Sacred Band (extreme left and extreme right) were engaged with heavy infnatry.
Now DBA Phillip comes along and he can place a 3x2 Pk block, a single spear and a 4Ax (Hypaspists!) but his line is 3 short. He can extend it with Cavalry and hope the Knights break through and turn the flank before his Hypaspists (his select troops) are slaughtered but that won't give the description of a close heavy infantry fight that we have been provided. He could place the Pk as single elements and match the line but that would be suicide in DBA!
My upcoming experiment with house rules are to either make the Pikes 8Pk at deployment for +6 or give Pk +3 side support instead of rear support. Hypaspists will also be reclassed as Blades. The deep option makes the Pikes ponderous and brittle as the first loss counts as two. The second option allows Pk to be broken up, isolated and picked off by Blades after a few rounds unless they win early. As you may guess, I'm not convinced that the Pike phalanx was always significantly deeper than its enemy in order to be effective.
I'll let you know how it goes!
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 29, 2020 3:30:45 GMT
The first experiment was interesting. The side support was chaotic with very interesting match ups. Probably too chaotic but did provide opportunities for cavalry to charge the flank of exposed elements. The deep formation was a slow steam roller. Always felt that the spears were doomed.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 29, 2020 5:37:10 GMT
I wonder if the reduced heavy infantry plus universal rear support would solve this? Check two threads ago for the final rules but I believe pikes would gain +2 from pike rear support and +1 from anybody else. This would allow your pike units to spread out and be backed up other troops (including ps). The narrower, deeper all pike formations would still have the edge but you could determine the length of your line.
The 4Ax will be more effective against heavy foot since all sp, bd and Pk are now -1. And Ax can be rear supported as well to make them equals to spear.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 29, 2020 6:15:03 GMT
This is a difficult one because DBA 3.0, by introducing side support for Sp, has nerfed Pk out of existence. If I remember right in DBA 1.0 Sp were a standard +4 and so the Pike at 6:4 had a better chance of a kill and punching a hole in the hoplite phalanx - and then it is a different game. Not sure there is an easy fix under DBA 3.0.
IMHO Hypaspists should definitely be blade in most of Alex’s set piece battles and 3Bd//4Ax suits them well as a troop type.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 29, 2020 6:34:18 GMT
Why Bd? Weren't hypaspists equipped as spearmen?
|
|
|
|
Post by aelbert on Sept 29, 2020 6:45:50 GMT
Why Bd? Weren't hypaspists equipped as spearmen? yep but they also were Alex super special forces unit. Used in all situations with numerous kinds of weapons. Cheers B |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 29, 2020 6:51:08 GMT
Really? Oh. Fair enough then if that's correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 29, 2020 9:52:57 GMT
Why Bd? Weren't hypaspists equipped as spearmen? Yes, but in DBA:- “Troops are defined by battlefield behaviour instead of the usual formation, armour, weapons and moral classes.” (Phil Barker then goes and breaks his own sensible guideline at every possible opportunity!)Apart from Bd having a much higher combat factor than Ax (as you would expect from elite troops), The Companions pursue because they are knights. The Phalangites pursue because they are pikes. Yet the Hypaspists, the link between these two arms………? So do auxiliaries and spears really reflect the battlefield behaviour of the Hypaspists? (You know what I’m going to say now don’t you...
...yep, see fanaticus.boards.net/thread/520/alexander-hypaspists-blades ) ---------------------------------------------------- As for fixing the Pikes, I personally am against having ‘8Pk’ elements, for the reasons described below:- see fanaticus.boards.net/post/17660/ Making Alexander’s battleline longer would mean that at Gaugamela in 331 BC the Macedonians would have a frontage that matched Darius’ Persians, and that just doesn’t seem right. Many players deploy their Pike columns, see that the enemy outflanks them, so then demand a longer line. Well how about an alternative approach...force the enemy to also deploy in columns and multiple lines. Then the frontages would be similar (and it’s far more realistic and historical). As Greedo says, Shrimplyamazing’s ‘Everybody gets rear support’ house rule does just that. Not only does this fix the Pike problem, but it also fixes several other problems as well. (See fanaticus.boards.net/post/33201/ for the various other things it fixes) |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 29, 2020 10:57:24 GMT
Yes stevie, Gaugamela is a struggle but at Chaironea, the lines were considered equal(ish). Which is the more important battle to simulate? My view is Chaironea as it was roughly even numbers. Gaugamela was not. Many accounts indicate that Generals extended their line to match the enemy. They were more worried about the flank than the break through. But the numbers were so disparate at Gaugamela that Alexander couldn't consider this tactic. Should an Athenian army be more likely to match the Persian host than Alexander? It seems as though Hellenistic battles often saw thinned lines and these were also able to achieve local victory, particularly if they were high quality veterans. That's one of the reasons that I'm not convinced that the Pike Phalalnx had to be twice as deep as the hoplite phalanx to be effective. Most general seemed comfortable to deploy thinner but match the enemy width.
I followed the "Rear support for all" thread but it didn't appeal to me so I didn't contribute (you know, "if you've got nothing good to say..."). I don't want to see deeper battle lines at the expense of width. If nothing else, it is not aesthetically pleasing to my eye. I'm certain in my mind that Psiloi did filter through ato the rear and take pot shots where possible. But I don't think that's going to make a difference at this scale. But their ability to impede a breakthrough with their TZ is something that DBA 3 does brilliantly. I do favour double based elements rather than rear support. On a DBA battlefield, I'd rather see Gaius Suetonius Paulinus 4xLegionaries and 4xAuxilia face Boudica's 6xdouble based Warband and 3xChariots. This gives the mass, gives the cumbersome manouverabilty and the brittleness of the battle and looks good on the table!
But that's just me. I'm going to try Pk at +4 with +2 for side support to see how that works at Chaironea.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 29, 2020 10:59:27 GMT
Why Bd? Weren't hypaspists equipped as spearmen? Yes they were. But so were the Vikings mostly.  It's just that 4Ax doesn't give then their historical role. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 29, 2020 11:09:45 GMT
Yes, I see what you and Stevie mean. Sometimes the class names get imprinted on the brain in black and white, but miss the colour in between. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 29, 2020 11:13:41 GMT
What if the solution was in the form of a penalty to those facing Pk or in the Pk's immediate vicinity, rather than a rejigging of a bonus of some kind to the Pk?
Or how about this:
Side support doesn't count vs Pk.
I think it even makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 29, 2020 11:46:59 GMT
That should go some way to de-nerfing Pk. You may want to limit it to 4Pk though...? (I still see 3Pk as an almost mystical thing.)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 29, 2020 14:32:50 GMT
Far be it for me to discourage Jim’s playtesting his suggestion of giving Pikes side
instead of rear support, but it will raise two potential problems.
The first issue is fairly trivial...it will make advancing in echelons suicide.
Players will be forced to keep their Pikes in dead straight lines, as if they were Hoplites.
This may be acceptable for the Macedonians, but not for the much later Swiss.
The second issue is it just shifts the problem.
Sure, the Pike army can form one long line without reserves, but opponents such as the
Romans will then complain that they must do the same, leaving no troops left to form
their famous multiple line formation.
In short, instead of the Pikes complaining about being outflanked, the Romans will complain
that they cannot deploy historically.
And this will also affect 4Ax opponents, such as Thureophoroi Greeks, Illyrians and Thracians.
With the poor 4Ax combat factor, these troops are destroyed easily (especially as they are also
recoiled so effortlessly, leading to double overlaps), meaning these armies desperately need
reserves to fill in the inevitable gaps that will appear in their battleline.
Soooo, not only will the Pikes have the combat factor to punch through the centre, they’ll also
be able to outflank their enemies as well!
I still think that the Shriplyamazing’s ‘Everyone gets rear support’ house rule is better, as
it forces players to make a decision...have a long line (but be weak in the centre), or have
reserves in columns and/or multiple lines to strengthen their centre (and forgo outflanking).
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Sept 29, 2020 17:51:52 GMT
Chaeronea is an interesting battle to game. We don't have a huge detailed account of the battle, but we do have some archeological evidence. Diodorius claims the Greeks were outnumbered by Phillip. Others disagree. I follow Phil Sabin's analysis. He shows the terrain having a major impact on the battle. In essence, it narrowed the frontage for the fight. The Greeks therefore couldn't outflank the Macedonians. This turns it into a frontal fight where the Greek spearmen are outmatched by the pikes.
Further problems are caused by the DBA army lists. The Macedonian list really can't be used for battles with Phillip. It is really for Alexander's battles.
Here is what I do for this fight (I have done it with historical forces over 10 times...and as a normal sized game many times as well.)
1. Use Phil Sabin's terrain setup from "Lost Battles"
2. Phillip is a Pk general... not a Kn General.
3. Use my alternate rules for Pk.... basically 4Pk win ties.
This makes the pike front truly scary. The Greeks are in trouble if they don't deepen up. Alexander also is key... a timely knight charge can easily break the Greek line and win the game.
I find the above produces a fight that can turn out much like the narrative of the battle we all know.
Joe Collins
|
|
It's just that 4Ax doesn't give then their historical role.