|
|
Post by dpd on Oct 29, 2022 15:42:46 GMT
Except for 2.2 rules, 3SP "fast spear" is conspicuous by its absence.
It's nowhere in DBA 1.0, etc.
Even DBM does not have a Spear (F) - yet the DBM army list provides examples of 3SP units. Closest DBM analog to 3SP would be spear armed 4AX(X)
Even Stevie's excellent SAB does not have them.
Yet we have 3BD, 3WB, 3AX, 3BW and even 3PK (which IMHO is silly, a fast pike is an oxymoron).
So why no 3SP? It's yet another annoying inconsistency.
P.S. Another minor annoyance. The DBA rules always use the designation "SP" for spear units, never "4SP" which is what solid spears are. Now I'm just bitching.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 29, 2022 20:24:16 GMT
Pretty simple. The concept of a lighter and more loosely organized group of fighters that rely on spears is better represented by 3Pk or 3/4Ax.
This was Phil's conclusion. It seems to work well in practice for the few armies that are based on the troop type.
The suffix of 3 or 4 is just the number of figures per base with 15mm or 25mm figures. We use those to retain an easy compatibility with older/other WRG rules... such as 7th Edition...
That is beginning to change as well. Now you can have "solid" blades that are only 3 figures to a base for instance.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Oct 29, 2022 23:36:52 GMT
I can see that, but the logic isn't taken to its proper conclusion.
Perhaps we should do away with both 3PK and 4PK as well, creating an 8PK unit (not just a doubled 4PK unit) because pike units from Alexander to the Spanish tercio have always been deep formations.
Pikes and other polearms NEED to be in deep formation because their two handed weapons don't allow for the use of a large shield (or any shield) for protection. Your protection is provided by the deep of array of pike points from the men behind you that extend in front of you.
Seriously, has any played a pike army and NOT doubled up the 4PK?
Only spear protected by large shields can form a linear formation or shield wall for protection.
And then get rid of the 8SP since it is a one off only used by the Thebans.
And so for the spear category we have:
4AX - fast spears
4SP - solid spears
8PK - deep spears
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 30, 2022 0:28:41 GMT
Who would've thought soldiers with pointy sticks could be so difficult to classify? Spears can be a problem as all Spearmen get side-support but I don't think they all warrant it (e.g. Lydians shouldn't fight Persians as Hoplites). I would love to see side-support only on 8Sp as that would look great as a shieldwall and would allow more differentiation between spearmen. I could live with the 2 element loss for double base as a hole through a shieldwall is usually catastrophic. Thebans can have 2x12Sp for their deep phalanx. Agree Pk don't work well because you lose too much frontage to double base each block. And a 3x2 pike block looks silly as a representation of a Hellenistic phalanx! Now 6x8Pk is a phalanx and doesn't shorten your line but does put you at risk of a double element loss. As for 4Ax, well, they also don't seem to work well outside a matched pair with Warband armies. Samnites v Gauls can be fun! But this is what we have and it works well for many historic refights. Just on occasion it throws up a combination that feels wrong. If it didn't then what would we talk about on this site?  Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Oct 30, 2022 6:05:57 GMT
That is beginning to change as well. Now you can have "solid" blades that are only 3 figures to a base for instance. Joe Collins If you are referring to dismounted knights (3Kn//4Bd), I prefer basing a fourth figure, carrying a banner, will avoid the inevitable questions. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Oct 30, 2022 6:06:54 GMT
Seriously, has any played a pike army and NOT doubled up the 4PK? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by gonatas on Oct 30, 2022 8:30:19 GMT
Who would've thought soldiers with pointy sticks could be so difficult to classify? Spears can be a problem as all Spearmen get side-support but I don't think they all warrant it (e.g. Lydians shouldn't fight Persians as Hoplites). I would love to see side-support only on 8Sp as that would look great as a shieldwall and would allow more differentiation between spearmen. I could live with the 2 element loss for double base as a hole through a shieldwall is usually catastrophic. Thebans can have 2x12Sp for their deep phalanx. Agree Pk don't work well because you lose too much frontage to double base each block. And a 3x2 pike block looks silly as a representation of a Hellenistic phalanx! Now 6x8Pk is a phalanx and doesn't shorten your line but does put you at risk of a double element loss. As for 4Ax, well, they also don't seem to work well outside a matched pair with Warband armies. Samnites v Gauls can be fun! But this is what we have and it works well for many historic refights. Just on occasion it throws up a combination that feels wrong. If it didn't then what would we talk about on this site? Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by gonatas on Oct 30, 2022 8:36:30 GMT
Whoops.
I meant to reply to the post not just copy it.
In fact I wanted to support it.
We're pike phalanxes used to break through opposing lines? Or, rather, we're they generally used to pin the enemy frontally while the damage was done on the flanks?
I would suggest the latter.
If I am right then I would endorse the idea of 8Pk, though not fighting at factor 6, in any further iteration of the rules.
As things stand 4pk are a bit odd, IMO.
Stephen
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 30, 2022 18:13:12 GMT
Sorry Gonatus, but I’m afraid I disagree with you.
Was the sole purpose of the Swiss pikemen to merely pin the enemy battleline?
Since they had no mounted troops, just who did the Swiss have to damage the flanks?
And if the purpose of the Macedonian pike phalanx was to pin the enemy battleline,
then why have them 16 ranks deep? That seems an awful waste of manpower when your
opponents are half that, thereby shortening your battleline and encouraging being outflanked.
Yes, during the Diadochi Wars amongst the Successors of Alexander, where both sides
had pike phalanxes armed and formed in the same way, a breakthrough in the centre
was unlikely (although the Argyraspid Silver Shields under Eumenes’ command did so).
When a breakthrough in the centre of these battles wasn’t possible did the mounted
action on the wings become the only way of defeating the enemy.
Besides, if pikes only pinned the centre, shouldn’t Hannibal have 8Ax to do the same at Cannae?
The notion that pikes only pinned the enemy is something that modern historians often bandy
about and repeat without giving it more thought…just as they often say that the role of multiple
ranks was because they fought like some sort of rugby scrum, with the rear ranks pushing.
This is utter rubbish.
You only have to look at the news reports on television to see what happens when rear ranks push…
…those at the front are crushed to death!
Modern historians should pay more attention to details as well as the whole picture before
they make these off-the-cuff pronouncements.
|
|
|
|
Post by gonatas on Oct 31, 2022 7:49:38 GMT
Some very good points there Stevie which require a bit of unpicking.
First off. How much does a classical phalanx have in common with a Swiss pike block?
I wonder if we should start with how the Classical phalanx should be catered for in the rules and then ponder what to do with the Swiss.
I say this for convenience on the basis that there are more armies in DBA with the classical phalanx than there are Swiss pikes.
So, battles with phalanx.
Philip fought hoplites. Chaeroneia?? IIRC, and I haven't checked, the hoplites weren't broken by the phalanx.
Phalanx fought phalanx - often a draw but with the occasional victory
Phalanx fought Roman legions. I seem to recall a quote from a Roman General that the memory of a phalanx bearing down on him brought him out in a cold sweat. We hear quite a lot about Roman victories often after a long slog.
What I take from this is that the phalanx was very tough frontal (like derr!) Could engineer the occasional breakthrough or could eventually be broken through but either would take time.
This sounds to me like a force that would pin the enemy, albeit with lots of very sharp pins.
So, Stevie, looking at the classical phalanx in isolation, how do you think it is best represented on the table.
Oh, and on the numbers front - weren't classical Macedonian/diadochi armies generally comparatively high in numbers - perhaps because of all those 16 deep pikemen!
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 31, 2022 8:31:10 GMT
And I agree with you. It sounds to me like a force that could pin the enemy, but takes time to break through, which could be done much more quickly if you also simultaneously hit them in the flank. Pinning was not their only function…not when they are 16 ranks deep. At Chaironeia in 338 BC, Alexs’ dad Philip II withdrew his right wing, drawing the Athenian Hoplites out of position (which could be classed as another form of ‘pinning’ the enemy). And if we are to treat the Swiss pikemen differently, then we had better do the same with the Scots at the battle of Bannockburn in 1314 AD, who certainly did more than just ‘pin’ the English battleline. As for the rest, see fanaticus.boards.net/post/17660/  |
|
|
|
Post by errico on Jan 9, 2023 11:18:51 GMT
Hi all, imo I think same auxilia fit more correctly into other categories, es.: almughavars should be 3 pikes or 3 blade, samnites should be 3 blade, ecc., but certainly not auxilia.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 9, 2023 12:12:02 GMT
|
|
Ainkatsiss
Evocati
My english is... what it is. If you don't understand me, please ask me to clarify ;-)
Posts: 103
|
Post by Ainkatsiss on Jan 9, 2023 14:50:26 GMT
Do you have some "centralized" documentation on the house rules for army list ? It's probably impossible to have all in one document, because every player could have his own alternate army list, but i think some could have find some consensus over the years one this forum. |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jan 9, 2023 15:08:03 GMT
consensus I do hope not life would be dull as heck
|
|
