|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 29, 2020 22:26:51 GMT
4Pk win ties is an interesting house rule. At first glance it seems rather promising.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 30, 2020 0:07:49 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). Or just remove side support vs Pk. 
Not wanting to derail Jim's playtesting of his own ideas any further, I've created my own house rule thread entitled, 'Remove Side Support vs Pk'. |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 30, 2020 4:50:39 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 I agree that the infantry general should be available. As Pk, would you want to add another to the list to give even numbers? Logically though, if Philip was on foot, he would have Hypaspists with him, but who would want a 4Ax General?  Pk win on ties is interesting but it still doesn't provide the frontage to match the hoplite line. As a game DBA 3 works well because of the interactions like spearwall vs blades does make for a tense fight. I'm looking for similar between Sp and Pk and between Bd and Pk, preferably with minimal changes, even if these changes are only applicable from Philip II to Philip V. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 30, 2020 5:04:36 GMT
Just change the army list for that battle then. DBA can't hope to duplicate particular battles exactly with respect to their numbers/proportions in a 12 vs 12 element game.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 30, 2020 5:16:24 GMT
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. I have been thinking about the Polybian (Republican) Romans in DBA for a little while. I think this may have been one of PB's prototype armes. I'm trying to guess what PB had in mind for the "historical" deployment of this army in DBA 3. He writes the list as "4xHastati/Principes (Bd), 2xHastati/Principes (Bd) or allies (3/4Ax), 2xtriarii (Sp)". I suspect that he intended to see 6 elements in the front line on an open battlefield with the triarii as reserve, the manipular swap of the hastati and principes being too fine detail for DBA. This would fit nicely into the deployment area, which on the smallest board only allows 7 elements across. It also explains the side-support of blades for spears, which allows the triarii to independently fill a whole in the line and keep fighting at +5. The Cv and Ps support and the allies useful as an option for difficult terrain. I don't see a three line deployment of 4-4-2 (any football fans out there?) being of practical use in DBA. So using this as a prototype, I'm looking at Rome's pike armed enemies being able to match a 6 element heavy infantry battle line and have a good fight, similar to blades and spears currently, without being overwhelmed on the flanks by numbers because of depth and without auxillaries being a speed hump! Again, this may only be in my little interest area of Classical and Hellenistic warfare. (But DBA works so well for Dark Age Britain!) Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 30, 2020 5:20:07 GMT
As an aside, here's a fascinating article from none other than Victor Davis Hanson for those interested: New Light on Ancient BattlesI like the idea that there's more to learn! Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 30, 2020 7:34:48 GMT
I have been thinking about the Polybian (Republican) Romans in DBA for a little while. I think this may have been one of PB's prototype armes. I'm trying to guess what PB had in mind for the "historical" deployment of this army in DBA 3. He writes the list as "4xHastati/Principes (Bd), 2xHastati/Principes (Bd) or allies (3/4Ax), 2xtriarii (Sp)". I suspect that he intended to see 6 elements in the front line on an open battlefield with the triarii as reserve, the manipular swap of the hastati and principes being too fine detail for DBA. This would fit nicely into the deployment area, which on the smallest board only allows 7 elements across. It also explains the side-support of blades for spears, which allows the triarii to independently fill a whole in the line and keep fighting at +5. The Cv and Ps support and the allies useful as an option for difficult terrain. I don't see a three line deployment of 4-4-2 (any football fans out there?) being of practical use in DBA. So using this as a prototype, I'm looking at Rome's pike armed enemies being able to match a 6 element heavy infantry battle line and have a good fight, similar to blades and spears currently, without being overwhelmed on the flanks by numbers because of depth and without auxillaries being a speed hump! Again, this may only be in my little interest area of Classical and Hellenistic warfare. (But DBA works so well for Dark Age Britain!) Cheers Jim Jim - I think you are right that this may have been a play test exemplar when developing DBA3.0. Initially Polybians vs Successors seems to play quite well historically for this reason. A block of 6x4Pk hitting a line of 6x4Bd allows the pike some success, plugged by the Triarrii, before ultimately the blade kills the supports and flanks the pike. However, I would argue that historically Phalanx vs Legion was a close fight (i.e. the Pike had a realistic chance of wining) and this is not the case in DBA. Alexander’s tactics of pining with the pike, winning with the Cav and then hard flanking is not a good DBA tactic (unless the Polybian player splits their Cavalry) because the Cavalry battle is not a certainty and needs time to develop and under DBA the pike crumbles too quickly. Hence the Succesor player ends up denying the pike...the exact opposite of history. However the real crunch comes with Pikes vs Hoplites which should be a walkover for the Pike and with the width of the Hoplite line just isn’t. I note that this didn’t seem to happen in DBA1.0 when Spear were +4 but could claim rear support - so they either got pushed back quickly in line or more slowly in a deeper formation. One aspect I am concerned about is that under DBA, pike blocks lose the battle quickly. When hard flanked, a defeated pike block is a loss of 2 elements. Lose some light troops and have a poor roll with an element of Cav and game over! Maybe this is where DBA3.0 can be improved. Perhaps a house rule that beaten but undoubled Pike retire 1BW (rather than lose 2 elements) if hard flanked by solid foot OR a destroyed Pike block of 2 elements only counts as 1 VP if destroyed in a single event. Either may work. |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 30, 2020 8:33:35 GMT
As usual paddy649, I agree with you (well, mostly). The speed of the pikes demise is a major issue. DBA doesn't provide for the "defensive" pike block. The pinning force as you described. It concentrates on the "offensive" threshing machine. One thought that occurred to me that may work is to make Pk pursuit optional. You can decide if there is a tactical benefit to pursue or to hold the line. Just a thought at the moment that needs testing.
Regarding the Successors, if the 3x2 block extends its line with 4Ax, well, let's not get in to 4Ax! But if you could have mercenary spear and they could get side-support from pike, then the line can stand two to two with the Romans for a while.
As for walking over hoplites, I'm not convinced. Apart from Charonea, their is Megalopolis. Agis III gave quite a good account with the Spartans, even outnumbered. IMHO the combined arms doctrine developed by Philip and perfected by Alexander was the key. I'd love to see the DBA elements slug it out for a while before a cavalry element finds an exposed flank and charges in. But that's my opinion.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 30, 2020 8:38:32 GMT
Along similar lines: once deployed 2-deep, a pike block may not redeploy itself in separate elements for the remainder of the game and counts as 1 VP if destroyed in a single event.
Maybe too nice?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 30, 2020 9:41:27 GMT
Jim is of course right. With only 12 elements a side, we cannot hope to duplicate the Polybian Roman three line formation exactly...we have to simulate it. And having the first two lines (the Hastati and Principes) represented by a single line of Blades, with the Triarii and Velites behind them, at least looks and ‘feels’ like a multiple line formation. It certainly looks and feels more like a Roman formation than having them in a long single line with nobody behind them! If the Pikes and Romans have a shorter front line (due to being in columns and/or multiple lines), but the Hoplites have a long single line, then it seems to me that the answer is to also force the Hoplites to form columns as well so the frontages match. Give Spears a CF of 3 against foot, with +1 for side-support AND another +1 for having rear-support. The Spearmen will then have to choose...either form up deeply to get their maximum CF, or deploy in one long line to outflank their opponents but be brittle in the centre. --------------------------------------- Here is something that I posted in another thread that should also be taken into consideration:- The Myth About Blades v PikesBecause Polybius wrote a whole chapter about how a pike phalanx operated, and how it became disordered by rough going, there is a common misconception among historians, wargamers, and even rule writers, that all the Blade victories over the Pikes were due to ‘terrain disorder’. This is untrue, and not borne-out by the historical accounts. There was no rough/bad going at Cynoscephalai in 197 BC (indeed, the Pk were uphill and were attacked in the rear). There was no rough/bad going at Pydna in 168 BC (where the Romans infiltrated their way between the pike columns). There was no rough/bad going at Chaeronea in 86 BC or Orchomenus in 85 BC (where Sulla defeated the Mithridatic pike phalanx after seeing-off their Scythed Chariots). Yes, Blades had an easier time against a disordered pike phalanx...but they were quite capable of matching and besting Pikes in good going as well...when they fought in their traditional multiple-line formation that is. From this we see that the Macedonian pikemen were not ‘supermen’...but the later Swiss certainly were. And the reason why the Swiss under-perform is because DBA doesn’t take into account their fanaticism. In other words, the Macedonians were ‘ordinary pikemen’, while the Swiss were ‘superior pikemen’. Making ALL pikemen 'superior' in all periods is not the answer. There are several ways of introducing ‘superior’ troops into DBA (which would not only benefit the Swiss, but also Eumenes’ elite Argyraspid Silver Shields, and the formidable elite Spartan hoplites amongst others):- See fanaticus.boards.net/thread/2298/ And fanaticus.boards.net/post/5419/ And fanaticus.boards.net/thread/1146/house-rule-index
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 30, 2020 9:54:04 GMT
...it's not the Pikes that need fixing...it's the Spears... Please explain. Are you only changing the Sp factors now, or other heavy foot as well as per Shrimply's rear support rule? |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 30, 2020 10:25:14 GMT
Oh, I’m just pointing out the tip of the iceberg Snowcat. If the Pike v Blade deployment causes no problems, but the Spear deployment does, then it is the Spear deployment that needs fixing. Shrimplyamazing’s ‘Universal rear-support, with reduced heavy foot combat factors’ does just that...as well as fixing several other issues. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 30, 2020 10:42:31 GMT
Well I'm putting my 5c back in this thread then... To beat Pk you need to break up their hedgehog and get in amongst their files of pikemen. John Warry showed how the Romans did this in 'Warfare in the Classical World': by throwing pila to disrupt the integrity of the hedgehog and following this up by sending groups of legionaries between the files of disordered pikes. Once the Romans are in amongst the pike formation, their superiority in hand-to-hand with an individualistic cut and thrust style vs pikemen still trying to retain their original formation (holding pikes) spells doom for the pikemen, especially if the Romans can get them on uneven ground. Being in a solid shield wall (4Sp) with your mates tightly packed on either side of you is not of much benefit facing a hedgehog of pikes. In fact, it presents the hedgehog with a tightly packed gift with a ribbon on top, completely lacking the system and flexibility required to disrupt the pikemen as they close. See above. And anyone who doesn't own a copy of John Warry's book, do yourself a favour. It's getting on in years now, but it's one of the best on classical warfare. Back to Shrimply's idea...it even helps Wb. Ahhhh! |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 30, 2020 10:47:58 GMT
Another problem may be the army lists. 6-8 elements of spears should be enough. I'm sure there were lots more light troops than represented. I like the balance of the Theban list but if you take the deep elements you should lose two other spears, making the phalanx frontage 6 wide. I think that's the sweet spot on a 600mm board. It should also increase the use of terrain on the flanks. Again, I like the visual of lights and cavalry stalking each other around a wood, whilst the heavy infantry slug it out.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 30, 2020 10:51:07 GMT
Another problem may be the army lists. 6-8 elements of spears should be enough. I'm sure there were lots more light troops than represented. I like the balance of the Theban list but if you take the deep elements you should lose two other spears, making the phalanx frontage 6 wide. I think that's the sweet spot on a 600mm board. It should also increase the use of terrain on the flanks. Again, I like the visual of lights and cavalry stalking each other around a wood, whilst the heavy infantry slug it out. Cheers Jim Err, I did point out a few posts back: "Just change the army list for that battle then. DBA can't hope to duplicate particular battles exactly with respect to their numbers/proportions in a 12 vs 12 element game."
Maybe I'm on 'ignore'... |
|
