|
Post by dpd on Jun 8, 2023 18:52:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by carll on Jun 8, 2023 19:36:08 GMT
Yes! I first played Medieval Tactica, and in process painted up 15mm armies for Mongol, Teutonic Order, Polish Kingdom, and Russian then added army list for Pagan Prussian and painted them! I bought Tactica Ancients 1 and 2 also but have only played Tactica 2 a couple of times, with 25mm and in that scale it is a big table requirement! Mind I have seen us cover a big table with 15mm too! Not played the siege rules just open battles. Mind the Pagan Prussians could play well from ambush terrain! CarlL
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 9, 2023 3:37:35 GMT
Tactica was my first ever ruleset! Made up cardboard units to try it out. Simple but not simplistic. Deployment was critical with minimum maneuverability. Minimal terrain. Big table for 25mm (I played on the floor as a teenager). Perhaps it is a better "simulation" than other sets because Ancient generals rarely acted as chess grand masters. But it became predictable, even if that meant a dice slog feast. However, DBA3 deployment rules are strikingly similar to Tactica. But Tactica allowed heavy infantry to spread out of the central zone provided they were a continuous line (each unit less than 2 inches from its neighbour). DBA3 makes some awkward deployments for heavy armies on small boards.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Jun 9, 2023 4:12:07 GMT
Tactica was my first ever ruleset! Made up cardboard units to try it out. Simple but not simplistic. Deployment was critical with minimum maneuverability. Minimal terrain. Big table for 25mm (I played on the floor as a teenager). Perhaps it is a better "simulation" than other sets because Ancient generals rarely acted as chess grand masters. But it became predictable, even if that meant a dice slog feast. However, DBA3 deployment rules are strikingly similar to Tactica. But Tactica allowed heavy infantry to spread out of the central zone provided they were a continuous line (each unit less than 2 inches from its neighbour). DBA3 makes some awkward deployments for heavy armies on small boards. Cheers Jim Not wishing to derail, *but*... How does DBA3 make deployment awkward for heavy foot? Compared with mounted and other troop types, for instance? (Just curious re your thoughts on this.)
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 9, 2023 10:50:34 GMT
I think I can answer that Snowcat. Some DBA armies, such as the early Greek Hoplites and others, have 9 or more heavy foot, but the deployment rules only gives these 7 BW in which to deploy, with 4 BW of ‘extra’ space on either side of them. This results in having some Hoplites in columns (in which they gain no benefit), or having some of them in an additional second line in reserve…which ends up looking more like a Roman multiple line formation instead of an historical linear Greek deployment! MedievalThomas came up with an interesting solution for this:- allow Spears to gain +1 for side OR rear support, but not both together. This would give the Spears a reason and an advantage to be in columns, and not be dependent on adjacent friends. After all, Spears did sometimes form up deeper or shallower than usual, as at the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC, where the Athenian wings were deeper than their centre. (See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon#First_phase:_the_two_armies_form_their_lines )
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Jun 9, 2023 13:06:01 GMT
Thanks Stevie
Re Marathon, the Athenian centre was thinned. The wings were normal depth. So not an example of rear support. The Thebans at Mantinea in 362BC is a better example.
Interesting idea though re the either/or option.
Given DBA's inherent abstraction, having a few hoplite units in reserve is probably not a deal breaker. And I would have thought Phil by design would have encouraged the use of a reserve in the game.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 9, 2023 14:51:44 GMT
Given DBA's inherent abstraction, having a few hoplite units in reserve is probably not a deal breaker. And I would have thought Phil by design would have encouraged the use of a reserve in the game. Ha! Tell that to the Ancient Greeks! For what its worth, here is what Duncan Head in his “Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars” says:- “(Hoplites) most commonly fought in multiples of 4 ranks deep, usually eight, though four was known, 12 and 16 common. Asklepiodotus says early infantry organization was based on a file of eight men, but there is little evidence that hoplites were organized at all down to this level, except in Sparta; and Spartan organization was better adapted to depths of six or twelve, twelve being usual.”I very much doubt that Anglo-Saxon ‘Select Fryd’ spearmen fought exactly 8 ranks deep, never more and never less. Allowing +1 for rear-support would give a bit more freedom and variation in our otherwise boring Spear formations... ...but either claim +1 for side-support OR +1 for rear-support (owner's choice), not both of them together.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 9, 2023 14:58:44 GMT
Ha! Tell that to the Ancient Greeks! ............ "Go tell the Spartans passerby...."?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 9, 2023 15:02:32 GMT
"Go tell the Spartans passerby, that they should have reserves, or they will die..."
|
|
|
Post by ammianus on Jun 9, 2023 23:52:01 GMT
I still remember throwing those fistfuls of dice!
|
|
|
Tactica?
Jun 10, 2023 0:25:26 GMT
via mobile
Post by jim1973 on Jun 10, 2023 0:25:26 GMT
My thoughts are explained well above by others. Reserves are a good idea for wargamers but not readily mentioned by the sources. Many (most?) "leaders" were fighting in the lines or revered monarchs that were well guarded but not mobile tacticians. Hoplite battles would usually be over if one DBA equivalent element of hoplites was destroyed. (Spartans would only be concerned with the loss of Spartans.) Psiloi and the humble Cav can do a stirling job at plugging holes for hoplite armies. I use a slightly oversized board that is between 16 and 17 BW wide so that the centre allows 8 bases across. But I wouldn't mind the Tactica rules that allow spillover. The caveats from Tactica were: A) the heavy infantry was a continuous battleline B) the spillover had to be more or less symmetrical. If you add one unit to one flank, the next unit, if available, must be added to the other flank. This kept the battleline more or less central.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Jun 10, 2023 3:53:57 GMT
Given DBA's inherent abstraction, having a few hoplite units in reserve is probably not a deal breaker. And I would have thought Phil by design would have encouraged the use of a reserve in the game. Ha! Tell that to the Ancient Greeks! For what its worth, here is what Duncan Head in his “Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars” says:- “(Hoplites) most commonly fought in multiples of 4 ranks deep, usually eight, though four was known, 12 and 16 common. Asklepiodotus says early infantry organization was based on a file of eight men, but there is little evidence that hoplites were organized at all down to this level, except in Sparta; and Spartan organization was better adapted to depths of six or twelve, twelve being usual.”I very much doubt that Anglo-Saxon ‘Select Fryd’ spearmen fought exactly 8 ranks deep, never more and never less. Allowing +1 for rear-support would give a bit more freedom and variation in our otherwise boring Spear formations... ...but either claim +1 for side-support OR +1 for rear-support (owner's choice), not both of them together. I'm not disagreeing with you, and I'm already familiar with all of the above.
If using a hoplite army, could you not deploy them something like this (assuming up to 11 Sp elements):
H H H H H H H
H H H H
And then spend the first turn or two moving the column elements out to join the rest of the line on the wings?
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Jun 11, 2023 5:10:11 GMT
I can easily imagine a hoplite army deploying from its march into full battle array from the above formation. It represents the hoplite army almost fully deployed in maximum width. In a single bound (or two at most) it will achieve maximum width.
And if being attacked before being perfectly historically deployed is *still* a concern, the hoplite army could simply deploy slightly back from the forward-most position allowed, giving it both more 'time' and 'space' to achieve the desired 'optimum historical formation'.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 11, 2023 13:55:48 GMT
Yes Snowcat, we can deploy like that…indeed, the rules actually force us to, unless we place than as a second reserve line and pretend that the Ancient Greeks invented multi-line line deployment system instead of the Romans.
But it is a bit artificial, and bending reality to fit the rules. Shouldn't we be bending the rules to make them more closely fit reality?
And it still doesn’t resolve the following issues:- * how do we show spears 12 or 16 ranks deep, like they sometimes were? * did the Anglo-Saxons, and every other nation, always deploy spears 8 deep? * how do we simulate Marathon, where the wings were deeper than the centre?
Allowing spears to gain +1 for side OR rear support goes some way to simulating these. And it’s not taking anything away…it’s just adding a little bit of extra reality.
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 12, 2023 0:58:50 GMT
I can easily imagine a hoplite army deploying from its march into full battle array from the above formation. It represents the hoplite army almost fully deployed in maximum width. In a single bound (or two at most) it will achieve maximum width. And if being attacked before being perfectly historically deployed is *still* a concern, the hoplite army could simply deploy slightly back from the forward-most position allowed, giving it both more 'time' and 'space' to achieve the desired 'optimum historical formation'. Completely agree. The trouble is that in DBA3 (on the standard board) this happens always. Every game. You immediately lose initiative in order to form your line. Now most rules allow for the occasional tardy general being caught on the march or in deployment but heavy spear armies in DBA3 are always late to the battle. When it is so repetitive it becomes predictable and less fun. But only slightly less fun and I can live with that (besides, I have my slightly oversized board). It is still a great game! Cheers Jim
|
|