|
|
Post by tiger6 on Apr 3, 2022 19:43:53 GMT
Those of you who play with Gallic armies do you use 3WB or 4WB?
If I’ve read it correctly if you are using the chariot option then you probably want to use the 4WB option. But if you are going with Cav and no chariots then probably go with the 3WB option. Are there any thoughts on this? During Caesar’s Gallic wars which would be common 3 or 4WB?
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Apr 3, 2022 20:35:09 GMT
...according to Phil Barker, Celts tended to fight in an open order. Also the Spanish Celts and the British. In Switzerland some tribes, the Helvetii, fought in close formation. Almost like Germans...
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 3, 2022 20:58:58 GMT
Those of you who play with Gallic armies do you use 3WB or 4WB? If I’ve read it correctly if you are using the chariot option then you probably want to use the 4WB option. But if you are going with Cav and no chariots then probably go with the 3WB option. Are there any thoughts on this? During Caesar’s Gallic wars which would be common 3 or 4WB? You do have an option to use both 3Wb and 4Wb, as this can represent a coalition of different tribes. Do not overlook the allies, such as the Germans of II47b (3 x 4Wb). |
|
|
|
Post by tiger6 on Apr 3, 2022 21:37:38 GMT
I guess that I’m looking at it historically. If you are using the Poly Roman’s, would the Gauls they faced be more 3 or 4 WB? What about during Caesar’s Gallic wars would he have faced both types or or was one type of WB more prevalent? I tend to play with historical opponents that’s why I’m asking. I actually already have 3WB and I’m in the process of finishing the 4WB’s.
Thanks for your time and help.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 4, 2022 0:15:01 GMT
I would've thought both are plausable given the population and territory covered by the army lists. I'm not sure you will find a definite historical array for this tribal coalition v that tribal coalition. Besides, they need help against the Romans so some flexibilty is handy!
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffreythancock on Apr 4, 2022 1:28:22 GMT
Perhaps the "home field" helped determine tactics? Open areas 4Wb, closed terrain 3Wb?
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Apr 4, 2022 7:38:39 GMT
As others have intimated, it’s not a ‘known known’, so with the level of uncertainty existing you can use either and not be accused of being ahistorical, t b h.
(A lot of the lists are ‘informed guesses’, which is why they change and morph over time….very little is based on absolutely solid fact).
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 4, 2022 9:46:25 GMT
I tend to follow the army list suggestions.
So the early Gauls are aggression 3, have no Cavalry, and are all 4Wb.
The middle Gauls, say 300-225 BC, have both LCh and Cv, and are 4Wb or maybe 3Wb Gaesati.
I have the later Gauls from 225 BC onwards as aggression zero, with no Chariots, and all 3Wb.
However, I do wish that Phil Barker had been more consistent and kept things simpler by having
all Celts (be they Gauls, Britons, Caledonians, Scots-Irish and even Galatians) as 3Wb, and reserved
the 4Wb class exclusively for the Germanic and Gothic peoples.
From what I’ve read I get the distinct impression that the Romans found the denser formations
of the Germans made them more steady and dependable compared to the fiery but brittle Gauls,
and therefore much tougher opponents.
On the other hand, perhaps I am being too naive in thinking that all Celts were the same.
Maybe some of them were a bit tougher than others, such as the Galatians and Helvetii.
Usage on the wargames table
I’m in two minds about whether to have the faster 3Wb or the better fighting 4Wb (with less recoils).
Yes, the extra speed of the 3Wb is useful in hindering terrain and when seeking flanking opportunities.
But speed alone doesn’t kill...once in a toe-to-toe hand-to-hand melee, speed becomes irrelevant and
it’s their fighting ability that counts.
So, if given the choice, I usually go for the 4Wb option...
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 4, 2022 18:34:39 GMT
I tend to follow the army list suggestions. So the early Gauls are aggression 3, have no Cavalry, and are all 4Wb. The middle Gauls, say 300-225 BC, have both LCh and Cv, and are 4Wb or maybe 3Wb Gaesati. I have the later Gauls from 225 BC onwards as aggression zero, with no Chariots, and all 3Wb. However, I do wish that Phil Barker had been more consistent and kept things simpler by having all Celts (be they Gauls, Britons, Caledonians, Scots-Irish and even Galatians) as 3Wb, and reserved the 4Wb class exclusively for the Germanic and Gothic peoples. From what I’ve read I get the distinct impression that the Romans found the denser formations of the Germans made them more steady and dependable compared to the fiery but brittle Gauls, and therefore much tougher opponents. On the other hand, perhaps I am being too naive in thinking that all Celts were the same. Maybe some of them were a bit tougher than others, such as the Galatians and Helvetii. Usage on the wargames tableI’m in two minds about whether to have the faster 3Wb or the better fighting 4Wb (with less recoils). Yes, the extra speed of the 3Wb is useful in hindering terrain and when seeking flanking opportunities. But speed alone doesn’t kill...once in a toe-to-toe hand-to-hand melee, speed becomes irrelevant and it’s their fighting ability that counts. So, if given the choice, I usually go for the 4Wb option... I would tend to agree with you Stevie apart from the Helvetians should definitely be 4Wb as their close fighting order was recorded as more destinctive than other Gallic tribes. |
|
Mr.E
Beneficiarii
New comer to DBA
Posts: 60
|
Post by Mr.E on Apr 4, 2022 20:45:42 GMT
Hmmmm I am a descent of gallic.... So I will say gallic tribes was numerous and differents, so 3wb or 4wb dépend of your style of fighting, I personally model all the option and I'm very happy with it, if you read the Cesar comments each battle are different he even call some gallic formation "phalanx" Belgian seems to be particularly solid when middle Gaul seems more mobile and cavalry like.
|
|
|
|
Post by eagle6 on Apr 8, 2022 15:35:35 GMT
If it says that your army has 8 3/4 WB's, are you allowed to field a mixture of the two types? Or must you use all 3WB or all 4WB? I had always thought that you had use one or the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 8, 2022 16:14:03 GMT
That’s a good question Eagle6.
Page 31, Army Lists, Troop Definitions And Terminology, says:-
“/” between 2 codes or prefix numbers directs that either
can be used by all (not some of) those elements.”
However, the II/11 Gallic army list has the Warbands in different sections:-
1 x LCh or Cv or 3/4Wb,
2 x LCh or Cv,
2 x Cv or 3/4Wb,
6 x 3/4Wb,
1 x Ps.
...so I can see no reason why you can’t have 2 x all 4Wb and 6 x all 3Wb,
or 2 x all 3Wb and 6 x all 4Wb (the General’s element is in its own section,
so can be either, irrespective of what type the other warriors are).
The “6 x 3/4Wb” is in a single section, so they will have to be all of the same type.
|
|
|
|
Post by eagle6 on Apr 11, 2022 17:43:29 GMT
Thanks everyone for your replys.
|
|
