|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 28, 2021 15:54:58 GMT
Why is this not being discussed in the house rule section ? You are quite right. It’s all my fault I’m afraid. (I’m a naughty Stevie  ) |
|
|
|
Post by jeffreythancock on Mar 28, 2021 16:12:27 GMT
Did Central Asian nomad light horse win campaigns strategically? Harass enemy on march, prevent foraging, cut off resupply, out scout, and choose location and time of battle? Outnumber enemy, threaten homes and crops, etc.? Did Ottoman Akinji win tactical battles, or provide a strategic advantage? If in DBA Light Horse armies can’t win battles, then how did they ever form these vast empires?
...but no one did) |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 28, 2021 18:30:29 GMT
Did Central Asian nomad light horse win campaigns strategically? Harass enemy on march, prevent foraging, cut off resupply, out scout, and choose location and time of battle? Outnumber enemy, threaten homes and crops, etc.? Did Ottoman Akinji win tactical battles, or provide a strategic advantage? Then give them some of these advantages on the wargames table.  * Harass enemy on march, prevent foraging, cutting off resupply... (Reduce the enemy combat factor due to fatigue caused by a lack of food?,
which is what ignoring corner-to-corner overlaps does) * Out scout, and choose location and time of battle... (The army with the most LH gets to choose and place the terrain?) * Outnumber the enemy, threaten homes and crops... (Every two LH in the army lists becomes three LH on the table?)...cos the present system of making ‘em like poor quality Cv, and forcing them to fight ‘toe-to-toe’ as if they were Cv, ain’t working. If skirmishing Ps, armed with missiles weapons, who like to keep their distance and avoid hand-to-hand combat can ignore overlaps, then why can’t skirmishing LH, also armed with missiles weapons, who also like to keep their distance and avoid hand-to-hand combat, do the same? (especially as they move quicker).
(By the way...ignoring corner-to-corner overlaps does not make them more powerful.
It just makes them survive longer...just what you would expect from skirmishing LH) |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 28, 2021 20:57:31 GMT
...and on reflection, letting the army with the most LH choose and place the terrain would also make a nice ‘House Rule’ to further improve wimpy LH armies. Think about it:- A LH army wins the aggression roll, but having more LH than the enemy, they get to choose the terrain, so decide to give their defending Arable opponent a compulsory large or small Hamlet, City, or 2 Plough. There is Jeffreythancock’s “LH army strategically threatening homes and crops” in a nutshell... ...the defender is sending an army to protect their civilians and assets. (A good idea is still a good idea, no matter the source.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by jeffreythancock on Mar 30, 2021 2:30:26 GMT
A backhanded compliment from stevie? Should I be insulted or feel special? (A good idea is still a good idea, no matter the source. ) |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 30, 2021 7:28:49 GMT
The results of the tests have been posted to the blog. Four late medieval armies were paired to create nine interesting games. On the whole, I liked the corner-to-corner solution as it does add a subtle dynamic to cavalry combat for knights in wedge and light horse. dbagora.blogspot.com/2021/03/dba3-tests.html |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 30, 2021 9:03:29 GMT
A backhanded compliment from stevie? Should I be insulted or feel special? (A good idea is still a good idea, no matter the source. ) Actually, I was referring to myself:- “A good idea is still a good idea, even if Stevie thought of it and Phil Barker didn’t”Nonetheless, since it was you that inspired me, it is you who should get the credit. 👍 ----------------------------------------------- But returning to Timurilank’s original proposal, “Conforming DBA with DBMM”, how do players feel about using or at least adapting the DBMM Army Lists for use in DBA? (purely as a ‘House Rule’ of course). As he has pointed out, DBA army IV/13cd Medieval Germans says you must have 2 x 6Kn, but DBMM allows these to be ordinary 3Kn if you wish. Other examples are:- III/62ab Sung Chinese...DBMM allows them to have WWg, but DBA 3.0 does not. II/12 Alexandrians...DBMM allows some Pk to be replaced by Ax, but DBA 3.0 does not. II/7 Later Achaemenid Persians...DBMM allows some 3Bows, but DBA 3.0 does not. (And some historical accounts say that Alexander faced an arrow storm at Issus in 333 BC) Plus there are many, many, other examples. Now I know that DBA 3.0 is a dumbed-down version of DBMM (or DBMM is an
over-complicated version of DBA...depending on your own personal point of view), but if these troops were used historically, as indicated by the DBMM Army Lists, and if DBMM is allowed to have this extra historical accuracy, then why are they being denied to us DBA players? Are we considered not to be clever enough? Yes, DBA is simplified...but we are all grown-ups, and should be allowed to choose the amount of complexity we feel comfortable with. After all, they would just be options in the DBA Army Lists, so players can choose not to use them if they wish. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 30, 2021 10:03:28 GMT
Good points Stevie. I have just ordered DBMM book IV from Amazon.
It will be interesting to read any further differences that may influence the remaining historical scenarios.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Mar 30, 2021 10:33:42 GMT
But returning to Timurilank’s original proposal, “Conforming DBA with DBMM”, how do players feel about using or at least adapting the DBMM Army Lists for use in DBA? (purely as a ‘House Rule’ of course). I'm all for it as a house rule. If some of these were to serve as improvements to army lists in DBA 3.1 - should such a work come to pass - then *bonus*. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 31, 2021 16:24:08 GMT
To recapitulate, tests for wedge and LH ignoring corner-to-corner demonstrated the following.
Worked well for both knights in wedge formation and light cavalry.
Melees did last marginally longer.
LH performed better the primary role of skirmishing and wearing down the enemy.
Length of games took an extra turn to resolve.
This should be seen as a good thing as it built more tension to the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Apr 1, 2021 23:21:29 GMT
Here's how I'd handle Alexander's companions.
Model them in a 2 rank wedge either '2 behind 1' or '3 behind 1' on a 40mm square base.
Counts as 1 element of 3Kn, but ignores corner overlaps except against Bw.
This keeps 6Kn as the more brutal but bigger, clunky beasts they were, while providing Macedonian companion cavalry with the benefit of their formation without any artificial penalties.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 2, 2021 9:15:35 GMT
Book IV DBMM arrived and I was pleased to read how knights are listed for the Medieval German army.
Below are other lists that include German mercenaries, of interest is the final line found in the army description for the Teutonic Order.
DBMM
IV/13 Medieval German Army 1106 – 1518
Only from 1440 AD
CinC Reg Kn (S) for (I, T, or Ci) may be included in the below listed option.
Rich knights forming front element of ‘spitz’ of double based wedge - 0 or 1-2
Replace Kn (O) with Reg Kn (I) in double based wedge - 0 or 1-2
Elsewhere.
IV/18 Lithuanian or Samogitian 1132-1515 AD
Only Lithuania from 1397-1399 AD
Teutonic knights ½ Reg Kn (S), ½ Reg Kn (I) double based behind – 0 or 2
IV/30 Teutonic Order 1201-1525 AD
Only after 1236 AD
Rebase Reg Kn with same elements in DB wedge for general.
½ Reg Kn (S), ½ Reg Kn (I) double based behind – 2-12
From the army list description;
“Whether all Kn (S) were in wedge is disputed, but at least one spitz of unknown size was normal”.
IV/43 Later Hungarian 1245-1526 AD
Only from 1442-1490 AD
German or Bohemian armigeri – ½ Reg Kn (O), ½ Reg (I) are double based in wedge.
IV/66 Later Polish 1335-1525 AD
Only after 1400 AD
German or Bohemian mercenaries Reg Kn (O) are not DBE.
– a better recruitment process perhaps?
Found on other lists
IV/53 Medieval Scandinavian 1280-1523 AD
Only Union armies from 1440 AD
Downgrade German men-at-arms to Reg Kn (I) double based (not wedge) - all
IV/69 Albanian 1345-1430 and 1443-1479 AD
Only from 1450 AD
Italian, German, Hungarian and other mercenary men-at-arms – Reg Kn (O), up to ½ Reg Kn (O), ½ Reg Kn (I), or Irr Kn (O) – 0 to 4
IV/79 Later Swiss 1400-1522 AD
Only from 1474 to 1477 AD
Lorrainer or Alliance horse – ½ Reg Kn (S), ½ Reg Kn (I) double based behind – 0 or 2
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 3, 2021 20:36:04 GMT
After reviewing every article appearing in Slingshot (disc) and topics archived at the forum,
the subject of wedge formation for Medieval German still is open to debate.
Some suggest the term wedge was a poor translation of the Latin term cuneus or better still,
a misinterpretation of cavalry that charged between (wedge) two enemy infantry formations.
IV/13 Medieval German Army 1106 – 1518
DBA3, both c and d sub-lists have knights as 6Kn.
IV/18 Lithuanian or Samogitian 1132-1515 AD
DBA3, no German mercenaries are listed.
IV/30 Teutonic Order 1201-1525 AD
DBA3, may have either 3Kn or 6Kn.
IV/43 Later Hungarian 1245-1526 AD
DBA3, have the option for either German/Bohemian 6Kn or Hungarian 3Kn.
IV/53 Medieval Scandinavian 1280-1523 AD
DBA3, German knights (3Kn/6Kn)
IV/66 Later Polish 1335-1525 AD
DBA3, no German mercenaries are listed.
IV/69 Albanian 1345-1430 and 1443-1479 AD
DBA3, mercenary men-at-arms are 3Kn.
IV/79 Later Swiss 1400-1522 AD
DBA3, Alliance horse is listed as (3Kn/6Kn).
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 5, 2021 15:48:09 GMT
Converting the DBMM Army Lists for use with DBA 3.0
I have found that the following scaling-down method works quite well,
if you first group all the troop types together to find their maximums.
For example, work out the maximum number of DBMM Artillery, the
maximum number of DBMM Psiloi, the maximum number of DBMM
Auxiliaries, and so on, then:-
a) If DBMM says “0-1”, then you can’t have that element.
(as there are too few to be represented in a 12 element army)
b) Divide all other DBMM amounts by 8, rounding down.
(but any amount divided to be less than 1 is counted as 1)
This roughly appears to be the method used to create the DBA lists,
as you can see by looking at the DBMM II/12 Alexandrian Army.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 11, 2021 16:40:01 GMT
In the latest Slingshot (335) is an interesting article by Andreas Johansson, The Teutonic Order in the 15 Years War.
Following the Battle of Tannenberg (1410), the Order did not fully recover the knights lost and subsequent conflicts
relied more on mercenaries to fill its ranks.
Naturally, loyalty to the order depended greatly on the timely payment for services and during the 13 Years War this became a source of friction.
The author presented an army list (DBMM) that would best reflect the post-Tannenberg Teutonic Order;
mercenary men-at-arms, mounted crossbowmen, militia crossbowmen protected by spearmen (DBE) and the use of war wagons.
In retrospect, this nearly mirrors the Later Polish list, but gone were the knights in wedge formations.
|
|
)
) 
