|
Post by dpd on Oct 18, 2022 22:15:27 GMT
Their description (Troops unhappy to stay and fight hand-to-hand (3Bw, 3Lb, 3Cb) are classed as “Fast”) - appears to describe skirmishers
The description of 4BW (those that defended themselves with light spears, heavy swords or clubs and sometimes behind stakes or pavises (4Bw, 4Lb, 4Cb) are classed as “Solid”) - appears to describe massed formations of archers.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 19, 2022 7:39:03 GMT
You know my take on the situation. I like to envision foot troops as being in the following broad categories:- 2 figure foot = light skirmishers armed with missile weapons, who pick their targets individually, like snipers. 3 figure foot = irregular undisciplined untrained natives. If missile armed, they shoot in massed volleys, and use distant long range area bombardment. 4 figure foot = regulars, or tougher stubborn untrained irregulars. Again, if missile armed they shoot in massed volleys.
The exception to the above are warbands, as the idea of a ‘regular warband’ is an oxymoron. But some warbands (i.e ancient Germans) were tougher than others (i.e. Gauls and Britons).
There should be a difference between regulars and native irregulars, otherwise why bother going through all that time consuming hassle of training them if they are the same as irregulars? DBA handles this simply by giving 3 figure irregulars more speed, but they are slightly less effective in combat and recoil on an equal score from 4 figure foot.
Whether 4Ax ancient Iberian Spanish, the Illyrians, and the later Thracians were ‘regulars’ or merely ‘tougher’ is up to each player to decide…perhaps they were on their way into 'evolving' into regulars.
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Oct 19, 2022 9:37:43 GMT
What about mounted units?
3 figure mounted units include Alexander's Companions (3KN) and Mongol heavy cavalry (3CV) - neither would be considered irregulars.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 19, 2022 11:16:11 GMT
Ah yes, mounted troops.
Well, animals have minds of their own, and are difficult to keep in a nice tight ordered group. So both regular and irregular mounted move and fight in a looser formation than foot troops.
There is an exception (isn’t there always?), that of tight ponderous Cataphracts (4Kn in DBA). Both regular and irregular Cataphracts could be considered to be spearmen on horseback. (In DBA, 4Kn, like Sp, don’t pursue, and try to maintain their tight formation just like foot spears)
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Oct 19, 2022 22:38:11 GMT
"There is an exception (isn’t there always?)"
It's not the exceptions that bother me it's the inconsistencies.
For example, we have a distinct unit, 8SP. for deep formation Spear (apparently only used by the Thebans)
We also have deep formation Blades, 6BD (apparently only used by the Swiss).
But we have special rules for deep, double based Pikes and Warbands.
Why not have unique units to represent them as well ("8PK" - Spanish Tercio e.g., and "8WB" - Barbarian Cunea e.g.)?
Or conversely, why not do away with 8SP and 6BD and and have special rules for deep, double basing of Spear and Blade?
The rules should do one or the other.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 20, 2022 10:52:30 GMT
I take your point Dpd, and partly agree with you. Each new version of DBA has extra historical accuracy added as it evolves. But this has been done by merely attaching things onto the basic rules. The result can leave things looking a little add-hock and disjointed. As for 8Pk elements, some players favour this approach, although I don’t:- See the best way to use Pikes: fanaticus.boards.net/post/17660/See historical Pike performance: fanaticus.boards.net/post/34571/ If there were 8Pk, what would their combat factor be? CF 6 v foot and CF 4 v mounted? But what about when in rough going? Lose the double-base rear-support, so they become CF 3 v foot? Now what about in bad going? Lose the rear-support and minus 2, so they become CF 1 v foot? And what about when they are shot at? CF 6 is too high, somehow they need to be reduced to CF 3, less than Blades. All-in-all, although not perfect, the present system appears to work quite well.
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Oct 20, 2022 14:59:12 GMT
Two other things I would change (or include in house rules):
The first problem is with blades. DBA really should differentiate between blade units armed with sword and blade units armed with axe. I know DBA is about fighting style not weapons, but an axe is to a sword what a pike is to a spear - a two handed weapon that makes it difficult to use a large protective shield. And so a Saxon Huscarl fights very differently than a Roman Legionnaire.
I'd keep the 3BD, 4BD, 6BD for both types, expanding the 6BD-axe to other armies that used polearms in deep formations (it wasn't just the Swiss who did this)
A good choice for 6BD-sword would be Late Patrician Roman long spatha armed legions. They were less regular and less disciplined than classic legions of the middle empire and fought in less flexible, deeper formations. Massed formations of Scottsh claymores, Landsknecht zweihanders and Spanish rodeleros would also fit the bill.
The second problem is that there is no differentiation between javelin and bow armed units such as 3CV, 4AX and 2LH.
3CV-javelin were more like mounted Roman legions - hurling their javelins right before directly charging home (a favorite tactic of barbarian cavalry).
3CV-bow like the Byzantines used the "close range shooting, using rapid archery or circulating formations to concentrate a mass of missiles, but charged when that would serve better or to follow up an advantage" tactics as described in the rules.
4AX-javelins also differed from 4AX-spears (Roman Imperial Auxilia armed with hasta spears, e.g.)
2LH-javelin (Irish hobelars and Numidian horse) were rough terrain light horse (Irish bogs and forests, North African deserts and mountains).
2LH-bow were the classic horse archers of the flat open Asian steppe - the only place where horse archer tactics worked well.
|
|
|
Post by saxonred on Oct 20, 2022 17:59:32 GMT
Looking forward to seeing these in the house rules section. Especially the Bd one and seeing your take on axe armed Huscarls.
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Oct 21, 2022 12:10:15 GMT
Two other things I would change (or include in house rules): The first problem is with blades. DBA really should differentiate between blade units armed with sword and blade units armed with axe. I know DBA is about fighting style not weapons, but an axe is to a sword what a pike is to a spear - a two handed weapon that makes it difficult to use a large protective shield. And so a Saxon Huscarl fights very differently than a Roman Legionnaire. I'd keep the 3BD, 4BD, 6BD for both types, expanding the 6BD-axe to other armies that used polearms in deep formations (it wasn't just the Swiss who did this) A good choice for 6BD-sword would be Late Patrician Roman long spatha armed legions. They were less regular and less disciplined than classic legions of the middle empire and fought in less flexible, deeper formations. Massed formations of Scottsh claymores, Landsknecht zweihanders and Spanish rodeleros would also fit the bill. The second problem is that there is no differentiation between javelin and bow armed units such as 3CV, 4AX and 2LH. 3CV-javelin were more like mounted Roman legions - hurling their javelins right before directly charging home (a favorite tactic of barbarian cavalry). 3CV-bow like the Byzantines used the "close range shooting, using rapid archery or circulating formations to concentrate a mass of missiles, but charged when that would serve better or to follow up an advantage" tactics as described in the rules. 4AX-javelins also differed from 4AX-spears (Roman Imperial Auxilia armed with hasta spears, e.g.) 2LH-javelin (Irish hobelars and Numidian horse) were rough terrain light horse (Irish bogs and forests, North African deserts and mountains). 2LH-bow were the classic horse archers of the flat open Asian steppe - the only place where horse archer tactics worked well. If you prefer rules based on weapon types I suggest you have a look at WRG 6th Edition. They also differentiate between Regular and Irregular troops and you have a morale rating for each unit as well allowing for quite specific classifications.
|
|
|
Post by Les1964 on Oct 21, 2022 13:30:22 GMT
Two other things I would change (or include in house rules): The first problem is with blades. DBA really should differentiate between blade units armed with sword and blade units armed with axe. I know DBA is about fighting style not weapons, but an axe is to a sword what a pike is to a spear - a two handed weapon that makes it difficult to use a large protective shield. And so a Saxon Huscarl fights very differently than a Roman Legionnaire. I'd keep the 3BD, 4BD, 6BD for both types, expanding the 6BD-axe to other armies that used polearms in deep formations (it wasn't just the Swiss who did this) A good choice for 6BD-sword would be Late Patrician Roman long spatha armed legions. They were less regular and less disciplined than classic legions of the middle empire and fought in less flexible, deeper formations. Massed formations of Scottsh claymores, Landsknecht zweihanders and Spanish rodeleros would also fit the bill. The second problem is that there is no differentiation between javelin and bow armed units such as 3CV, 4AX and 2LH. 3CV-javelin were more like mounted Roman legions - hurling their javelins right before directly charging home (a favorite tactic of barbarian cavalry). 3CV-bow like the Byzantines used the "close range shooting, using rapid archery or circulating formations to concentrate a mass of missiles, but charged when that would serve better or to follow up an advantage" tactics as described in the rules. 4AX-javelins also differed from 4AX-spears (Roman Imperial Auxilia armed with hasta spears, e.g.) 2LH-javelin (Irish hobelars and Numidian horse) were rough terrain light horse (Irish bogs and forests, North African deserts and mountains). 2LH-bow were the classic horse archers of the flat open Asian steppe - the only place where horse archer tactics worked well. If you prefer rules based on weapon types I suggest you have a look at WRG 6th Edition. They also differentiate between Regular and Irregular troops and you have a morale rating for each unit as well allowing for quite specific classifications. You can get similar with DBM(M) , which are already element based games .
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Oct 23, 2022 10:19:33 GMT
Stevie "The result can leave things looking a little add-hock and disjointed."
If we can apply a consistent taxonomy to the major unit types, we can greatly simplify and streamline the units types, making them logically consistent.
This taxonomy is taken from the 3.0 rules with its unit subcategories (for most units) of "fast" (loose, light), "standard" (solid), and exceptional (deep, double based, heavy), plus combining related unit types:
Spear - 3SP, 4SP, 8SP Pike - 3PK, 4PK, 8PK (double based)
Blade (sword) - 3BD, 4BD/LIT, 6BD Blade (axe) - 3BD, 4BD/LIT, 6BD
Auxilia - 2PS, 3AX, 4AX Warband - 3WB, 4WB, 6WB (double based)
Bow - 3BW/3LB/3CB, 4BW/4LB/4CB, 8BW/8LB/8CB Artillery - GUN(early handguns), ART, WWG/CWG
Knights - HCH/3CM/3KN, 4KN, 6KN Cavalry - 2LH, LCH/2CM/3CV, 6CV
Leaving ELE and SCY/EXP.
|
|
|
Post by saxonred on Oct 23, 2022 11:18:11 GMT
How does having 2 differing types of blades streamline troop types?
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Oct 23, 2022 11:35:55 GMT
Axe needs to be different from sword for the same reason that pike is different than spear - they fight differently.
Or you can go the other way.
If sword and axe remain the same as "Blades", why not follow the same logic and combine Spear and Pike into "Phalanx", Auxilia and Warband into "Irregulars", Bow and Artillery into Missile?
As I said above, it's not the exceptions that bother me about DBA it's the inconsistencies.
Either do it one way or the other, just be consistent.
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Oct 23, 2022 12:40:28 GMT
Axe needs to be different from sword for the same reason that pike is different than spear - they fight differently. Or you can go the other way. If sword and axe remain the same as "Blades", why not follow the same logic and combine Spear and Pike into "Phalanx", Auxilia and Warband into "Irregulars", Bow and Artillery into Missile? As I said above, it's not the exceptions that bother me about DBA it's the inconsistencies. Either do it one way or the other, just be consistent. Back in the day WRG Ancient rules were based on ancient and medieval tactical manuals that gave us some(if limited)understanding on battlefield performance of troop types and weapons handling.One thing (amongst others) was the adding of two handed cut and thrust weapons effecting combat factors...it was seen that polearms of sorts was efficient enough to be classed different in combat due to their dual role.Thus they were considered a slightly better weapon than axes,warclubs,etc.But no matter how well or armed and armoured some troops may be there are other factors that effect performance....leadership,training,motivation,logistics,weather,etc....so let's not just focus on the optimum performance of any given unit armed with a certain weapon/troop type as sometimes ...for example Ancient Gauls used to terrify and route Early Roman armies with ease...until the Romans gained enough training and experience to counter them. On the whole I consider this difference to have been "factored in" in DBA as DBA is a brief fastplay set of rules which is evolving with a mass of ideas to iron out rules which don't work efficiently and fix troop type combat factors that don't reflect historical performance.I believe this is healthy for our game system,but we must not loose sight of keeping the rules brief,uncomplicated and maybe a bit more concise.
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Oct 23, 2022 13:52:33 GMT
"but we must not loose sight of keeping the rules brief, uncomplicated and maybe a bit more concise." Then you may like "De Bellis Simplicimus" fanaticus.boards.net/thread/3022/de-bellis-simplicimusAs sword and polearms are combined into 1 element type called "Blades" why not: Combine spear and pike into 1 element called "Phalanx"... Combine auxiliary with warband into 1 element called "Irregulars"... Combine psiloi and bow into 1 element called "Missile"... Combine light horse and cavalry into 1 element called "Horsemen" (also incudes light chariot and light camel) Knights stay knights (also includes heavy chariot and heavy camel) Artillery, scythed chariots and elephants were rare (Hannibal had only 80 elephants at Zama, Darius had only 200 scythed chariots at Gaugamela, nobody used artillery in field engagements prior to the invention of gunpowder - except Alexander to cover a river crossing). Camp followers and hordes were unimportant/ineffectual - essentially very inferior irregulars. War wagons and litters are essentially immobile and can be treated as a type of built up area. Which is about as simple as an ancient/medieval wargame can get with only 6 different pieces (phalanx, blade, irregular, missile, horsemen, knights) like chess (pawn, rook, knight, bishop, queen, king).
|
|