|
|
Post by snowcat on Jun 12, 2023 2:14:51 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. Stevie
Re Marathon again - I think you need to get this "where the wings were deeper than the centre" out of your head and replace it with "where the centre was thinner". The wings were the *standard depth*, i.e. 8 ranks; the centre was thinned to only 4 ranks. So unless you want to impose a -1 penalty to the Greek centre for being half as deep as normal (the wings) you might as well remove Marathon from your list of examples. DBA3 states that an element of heavy foot represents 6-10 ranks, so those wings at Marathon are only standard depth. Spears that were 16 ranks deep are already classed as 8Sp. Spears that were 12 ranks deep either miss out - like so many other nuances or fine details in the very broad brushstroke of DBA - or could be grouped with the 16 deep formations and either treated as 8Sp or +1 for rear support as per Thomas' idea. (Again, I have no real issue with this where it represents history.)
Having to deploy a la my suggestion is *slightly* artificial. But so is having a 24 inch board with 4 distinct edges of the world to deal with, *especially for an army of horse archers*!!! I'd be less concerned about being able to stretch a hoplite army to its full width in the opening bound on an already narrow battlefield than having to use an army of horse archers riding around with one arm tied behind their backs, hoping for a miracle where they get to actually do something that resembles what they did historically!
|
|
|
|
Post by jdesmond on Jun 12, 2023 8:25:14 GMT
AT the Thursday night historical games at Maplewood Hobby (WWW.maplewoodhobby.com), you'll find occasional games of Tactica - and often visits from folk whose names are in that rulebook,
IMHO, problem with Tactica is that points where generals can turn/wheel units are so infrequent and so important that everyone gathers round with protractors, calipers, laser pointers ... to assure adherence to rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 12, 2023 8:58:34 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. Stevie Re Marathon again - I think you need to get this "where the wings were deeper than the centre" out of your head
and replace it with "where the centre was thinner"....says who?...
The wings were the *standard depth*, i.e. 8 ranks; the centre was thinned to only 4 ranks...again, says who?...
...not Herodotus, our only contemporary source...
As we all know, DBA is an abstract game that uses abstract concepts, and does so in order to simulate and re-create historical effects. After all, does anybody really believe that ‘fast’ foot can run about cross country at the same speed as Knights and Camels? Of course not…it’s just an abstraction. ‘Fast’ foot move quicker than ‘Solid’ foot, and heavy mounted are slower than lighter mounted., that's all. As for depth of ranks, the Polybian Roman Legionaries are abstractly portrayed in DBA with the Hastati and the Principes combined into a single Blade element…and this abstraction works. So why all this insistence on Spears always being exactly 8 ranks deep? Especially when there is ample evidence that they were not? Let’s see what Herodotus, our only source, says about Marathon:- “Now, as they marshaled the host upon the field of Marathon, in order that the Athenian front
might be of equal length with the Median, the ranks of the centre were diminished, and it became
the weakest part of the line, while the wings were both made strong with a depth of many ranks.”(Source: Herodotus 111 www.thelatinlibrary.com/historians/herod/herodotus8.html )No mention there about how many ranks were where. Just that the wings were deeper than the centre. So I see nothing wrong with using an abstraction for the Spear’s depth in this battle. All we know for sure is that the wings were deeper than the centre. Anything else is pure speculation. I do like simple solutions that fix multiple issues. And +1 for rear OR side-support does just that. * 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? * how do we overcome the artificial DBA deployment limitations? Of course, at present you can have Spears in two element deep columns… …but you are punished for doing so. You gain no combat benefit, and X-Ray TZ means they are locked in place. Give ‘em a reason for being in a column, because the notion that Spears must always be in a single rank, never more, is just artificial fiction. I say let’s use a bit of abstraction where necessary to add more realism to DBA.  |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Jun 12, 2023 11:58:47 GMT
Not so fast, old boy.  Now I'm confident that what follows hasn't escaped you, but I do feel it needs stressing. "As the Athenians were marshalled at Marathon, it happened that their line of battle was as long as the line of the Medes. The center, where the line was weakest, was only a few ranks deep, but each wing was strong in numbers." (That's another translation. I actually prefer yours because it catches a very important point better than the translation I just provided.) Why would the Athenians have thinned their centre? A bit of fun? Something to do? No, they did it to match the frontage of the Medes. So as it's established that the standard hoplite phalanx of this period was often (but not always) 8 ranks deep in close order, and it is also accepted that a suitable 'thinning' of this would be about half, we arrive at 4 ranks for the centre (as some writers on the subject have concluded). Whether it was 3, 4, 5 or 6 ranks doesn't really matter. The point is that it was *notably thinner* ("diminished"/"weakest") than the formations to either side of it. (We're probably not just talking about 1 rank here. Pretty safe bet.) When you thin the depth of the centre and then add those men so taken to its immediate sides, you both extend the centre's own frontage + extend the unthinned remainder (the flank formations) both rightwards and leftwards accordingly, thereby matching the enemy frontage overall. What you *don't* do is take the culled rear ranks of the standard depth centre and distribute them to the rear of each flank, because a) the men there are already in many ranks, i.e. the standard deep hoplite formation of 8+ ranks, and b) because you won't succeed in your goal of widening the army to match the enemy's frontage (which was kind of the point in the first place!). Therefore, the thinning of the centre widened the Athenian army overall to match the Medes' army, and had *nothing to do with adding additional depth to the flanks*. So in other words, the flanks were only "deeper" relative to the centre, because the centre had been thinned.The flank formations retained their standard depth, which in DBA3 = 1 standard 4Sp element. And given that the Athenians were already forced to stretch their frontage to match the enemy's by thinning their centre, it's highly unlikely that their flank formations were of the luxurious 12+ depth more typical of later hoplite warfare. Short version: thin centre, standard flanks. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 12, 2023 12:34:04 GMT
♫ “You say tomato, I say tomarto…” ♪  In an abstract game, the wings were deeper than the centre. Or do we add Marathon to the growing list of battles that can’t be reproduced in DBA? And what about those other issues?:- * how do we show spears 12 or 16 ranks deep, like they sometimes were? (oh, we can’t) * did the Anglo-Saxons, and every other nation, always deploy spears exactly 8 deep? (obviously unrealistic) * how do we simulate Marathon, where the wings were deeper than the centre? (oh, we can’t) * how do we overcome the artificial DBA deployment limitations? (only by artificial deployments)Giving Spears +1 for rear OR side-support covers all these. (The defense rest's it’s case…your witness… ) |
|
|
|
Post by kaiphranos on Jun 12, 2023 12:40:09 GMT
Hmm, seems like maybe part of the problem with that battle is that the Persians should have an advantage in numbers, not 12 elements vs 12. So set them up with, say, 20 elements or whatever, and then give the Athenian player a choice: deploy as regular Sp, or swap some number for 4Ax at a rate of, say, 3-for-2, to be able to extend the line to match the Persians...
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Jun 12, 2023 12:47:57 GMT
I think you'll find there are a LOT of battles that can't be reproduced in DBA. You'd probably have more chance with ADLG or something else more detailed. But then you lose the minimalist elegance of DBA. Again, I don't have an issue with Thomas' idea. I think it's fine. It just doesn't apply to Marathon. (To make it apply, you're really bending the history to fit the rule to solve a 'problem' that I already provided a simple enough solution for within the RAW.) This is why I don't really see the 7BW heavy foot deployment limitation a big deal, especially considering the edge of the world restrictions placed on horse archer armies. If folks think the 7BW deployment for heavy foot is a nonsense idea, then let's hear why, in detail. Spare me more about Marathon though. |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Jun 12, 2023 12:55:46 GMT
Hm.
Some of these issues have led the Ulmer Strategen to this:
In tournaments with 15mm on 40mm BW we use a square 80cm x 80cm board as a standard.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Jun 12, 2023 12:58:49 GMT
Hmm, seems like maybe part of the problem with that battle is that the Persians should have an advantage in numbers, not 12 elements vs 12. So set them up with, say, 20 elements or whatever, and then give the Athenian player a choice: deploy as regular Sp, or swap some number for 4Ax at a rate of, say, 3-for-2, to be able to extend the line to match the Persians... Yup. On the right track.
The DBA 12 vs 12 often breaks down when trying to reproduce an historical battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Jun 12, 2023 13:00:09 GMT
Hm. Some of these issues have led the Ulmer Strategen to this: In tournaments with 15mm on 40mm BW we use a square 80cm x 80cm board as a standard. Interesting. The folks bemoaning the 7BW deployment restriction for heavy foot are gonna love that! |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Jun 12, 2023 13:23:45 GMT
Hm. Some of these issues have led the Ulmer Strategen to this: In tournaments with 15mm on 40mm BW we use a square 80cm x 80cm board as a standard. Interesting. The folks bemoaning the 7BW deployment restriction for heavy foot are gonna love that! And it is surely interesting for LH heavy armies... or LH at all See this example. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Jun 12, 2023 13:33:21 GMT
I remember that one. Yes, it's only a little wider than the 30" board, but the heavy foot armies (well the ones without supporting Bw at least) won't be fans... More space for LH (and Cv and Ps for that matter) isn't a bad thing. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 12, 2023 13:34:27 GMT
Actually, it’s only the heavy foot that have the 7 BW deployment limit.
LH has an 11 BW deployment limit, as they can be placed in the ‘extra’ deployment areas.
And for many years I have been championing allowing the invader to choose the table size.
(Larger 20 BW tables are allowed for in the rules, but Phil Barker (bless him) neglects to
tell us who it is that actually gets to choose.
Let the invader choose, as they have the initiative and can decide on the direction of approach,
which would greatly help many mounted and offensive armies, who have higher aggression)
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Jun 12, 2023 13:42:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Jun 12, 2023 20:18:49 GMT
Mantinea supports the view that hoplite armies should not have to deploy within the game before fighting. The Allies courteously stood back and let the Spartans deploy before joining battle. I once did a refight in BBDBA with a 2.5-metre long table in which things turned out differently (https://wordpress.com/post/paulhhodson.wordpress.com/3483).
|
|
