|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 4, 2024 8:24:58 GMT
It's a big challenge to make Pike, Spear and Blade feel different and still remain relatively well matched. Swiss Pike could be dealt with a deeper formation like 8Bw, 6Kn, etc. I agree that pike phalanxes pinned enemy and could grind out a victory rather than punch through. I tried experimenting Pk at +4 that couldn't be recoiled, only destroyed when doubled, so they weren't overlapped often. But side support spears still crushed them, let alone blades. Still haven't found a good mix. Jim Have you considered using the rule of having no overlap in combat for Pike in combat similar to Ps..or would that have a significant side effect?It's a question of would loosing the negative factor for Pike being overlapped be significant change to the combat outcome? For me it would make it just a little more difficult to flank the Pk but not interfere too much with the combat factors and in a way simulate the way units had to contact the flanks of pike units to defeat them.It could also simulate the Pike unit forming a hedgehog formation or Swiss producing Halberdiers from their rear ranks to contest flanking of the main keil?🤔 If the negative flank factor doesn't work how about having a TZ for supported Pk similar to that of war wagons?This again could make it more difficult to contact the flank of supported Pk elements but not effect combat factors,as well as emulate Pk formations as above plus Pike squares? This would all need play-testing if not already tried? I've mentioned on other posts that I don't like rear supported pikes because the battle line is too short and easily overlapped/flanked (also 3x2 elements is not a phalanx to my eyes!). So I've been looking at ways to use pike as single elements. But your ideas may help them in the current model of supported pikes so worth investigating. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 4, 2024 9:24:39 GMT
Have you considered using the rule of having no overlap in combat for Pike in combat similar to Ps..or would that have a significant side effect?It's a question of would loosing the negative factor for Pike being overlapped be significant change to the combat outcome? For me it would make it just a little more difficult to flank the Pk but not interfere too much with the combat factors and in a way simulate the way units had to contact the flanks of pike units to defeat them.It could also simulate the Pike unit forming a hedgehog formation or Swiss producing Halberdiers from their rear ranks to contest flanking of the main keil?🤔 If the negative flank factor doesn't work how about having a TZ for supported Pk similar to that of war wagons?This again could make it more difficult to contact the flank of supported Pk elements but not effect combat factors,as well as emulate Pk formations as above plus Pike squares? This would all need play-testing if not already tried? I've mentioned on other posts that I don't like rear supported pikes because the battle line is too short and easily overlapped/flanked (also 3x2 elements is not a phalanx to my eyes!). So I've been looking at ways to use pike as single elements. But your ideas may help them in the current model of supported pikes so worth investigating. Jim I also think supported elements do shorten the line too much and that a double element of some kind is needed to represent Pk better,but if the rules remain the same the double elements will also have the same weaknesses as being too easily flanked like the supported elements and adding the rule that the first one lost counts as two elements. What was universal in battle accounts of Pike formations were that frontally in combat they were formidable,to defeat them they either had to be disordered in some way or usually contacted frontally and on their flanks to beat them Otherwise, it was by weakening them by missile fire or a push of formations(normally other pike) that decided the day.Some Pike formations were adaptable enough to form circles(schiltrons,hedgehogs or squares) to be able to defend themselves to a degree....it's finding an effective way of representing that.🙄 Yes my suggestions are based on the current rules and work on two basic principles....the first one on "Pike shock" that WRG were keen to represent in both Ancient & Medieval rules as being significant...and the second on the difficulty on attacking the flank of a formation that has momentum or capable of offering some defence in their formation by making it difficult for an overlapping element to wheel onto the Pk elements or close the door on their flank.Yes it does shorten the line but a lot of line formations are incorrect for the armies used in the game....We are told the Republican Roman army fought in a succession of lines,Arab formations consisted of a succession of lines and flanking formations,the Byzantines too copied the Lombards who fought in two lines....when do you see any of these tactics in a dba game?lol Perhaps this problem can only be sorted by stricter deployment rules and command distances limitations?Shorter battle lines would go some way to solving the extended line enveloping the double elements issue and you may even see some historical formations.😉 |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 4, 2024 10:47:24 GMT
There is a possible solution present in the DBA army list. The French Ordonnance IV/82b have 1 x pikemen (7Hd) in addition to 2 x Swiss mercenaries (4Pk). The French pikemen were raised in Picardy and Savoy. However, their performance forced Charles VIII to recruit more Swiss and rearm the pike with other weapons. I used this example of “lesser trained” pikemen for the Ghent rebellion scenario against the Duke of Burgundy (1453). Along the march to Gavere, Ghent gathered troops enroute and to represent these, the elements were based as horde. Actually, they are 9 figures on a 40mm x 40mm and can be seen in photos of the refight (3 of 7, lower right). Background Battle of Gavere 1453 dbagora.blogspot.com/2021/01/battle-of-gavere-1453.htmlThe re-fight dbagora.blogspot.com/2021/01/threetests-used-standard-dba3-lists-for.html |
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on May 4, 2024 10:54:00 GMT
Perhaps this problem can only be sorted by stricter deployment rules and command distances limitations?Shorter battle lines would go some way to solving the extended line enveloping the double elements issue and you may even see some historical formations.
yep, limiting the command range was something I have mentioned also.
|
|
|
|
Post by jouvain on May 4, 2024 13:28:51 GMT
After the proposal for "ignoring the overlap and side-combat of ennemy with less elements in depth", some test result :
Simulation without Pikes: gallic VS marian romans
The change isn't THAT substantial. I feared a strong shift in overall balance and/or an undue "buff" for Wb, and they are indeed much less brittle and more nerve-racking for the roman side... but not in a bad way : against a strong two-column warband center, romans had to choose between gaining overlaps on far wings (if gallic cav let the thing happening) OR doubling their own lines of Blades in order to get the good numbers for kill with overlap/side-support.
Quite tense, 2 roman victories for one (real) massacre by early winning warbands in three tests.
The gallic Cav had the same choice to make against the roman Cav supported by a column of LH : go for the flank OR the overlap/side-combat.
Next : the REAL thing to be tested, with... Pikes !
|
|
|
|
Post by pteros on May 4, 2024 13:49:10 GMT
Perhaps this problem can only be sorted by stricter deployment rules and command distances limitations?Shorter battle lines would go some way to solving the extended line enveloping the double elements issue and you may even see some historical formations. yep, limiting the command range was something I have mentioned also. Someone here (can’t remember who) said that they played 24 elements on a side with one die for pips and that forced them to maneuver in a three-division system like medieval battles often had. It is, to some degree, an advantage for Pike to always move in one big block. Maybe allow Pike to line up with other Pike for no pip cost? That would advantage Pike more in the shoving match with Blade and allow your other elements, like Companions, to strike the decisive blow while the side with Blades is spending all their pips fixing the line. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 4, 2024 16:55:13 GMT
Perhaps this problem can only be sorted by stricter deployment rules and command distances limitations?Shorter battle lines would go some way to solving the extended line enveloping the double elements issue and you may even see some historical formations. yep, limiting the command range was something I have mentioned also. Someone here (can’t remember who) said that they played 24 elements on a side with one die for pips and that forced them to maneuver in a three-division system like medieval battles often had. It is, to some degree, an advantage for Pike to always move in one big block. Maybe allow Pike to line up with other Pike for no pip cost? That would advantage Pike more in the shoving match with Blade and allow your other elements, like Companions, to strike the decisive blow while the side with Blades is spending all their pips fixing the line. That someone is me. We use a standard 80cm x 80cm board and increase this to 120cm x 80cm for the larger battle. Pike work best if used as they were intended, to pin the enemy, while the cavalry wing rolls up the enemy’s flank. The opposite wing is busy foiling the enemy to do the same. Here are two examples of pike battles. Antiochus III against the Bactriansdbagora.blogspot.com/2023/10/antiochus-iii-against-bactrians.htmlBactria crosses the Indusdbagora.blogspot.com/2023/10/bactria-crosses-indus.html |
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on May 10, 2024 8:24:17 GMT
Not quite sure that applies to all pike, timurilank. Definitely the manner used by Alexander and Successors, but they appear also to have been also a 'mowing machine' running over units unable to flank or avoid them in a number of battles.
Although with the Swiss, as has been noted, the speed of their advance was a major factor in their success.
|
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on May 10, 2024 15:34:35 GMT
Very delayed response from "the USA" to Vodnik. I started playing DBA shortly after it appeared in the USA at the Emperors' Headquarters LHS in Chicago, I'm guessing around 1990. At that time, I had a number of lengthy conversations with Phil in connection with the original rules, which IMHO were quite well-written, except for a few gray areas (this bears on my comment below).
Favorite version is 1.1, and least favorite is 3.0, which contains the culmination of a series of poorly conceived changes over versions subsequent to 1.1, many apparently proposed to Phil by a group of competition convention players. Unfortunately for me, I was not aware of the discussions which led to these changes, as I think I could have convinced Phil to do it differently (see above). IIRC from various on-line forum posts on these changes, many of the alleged issues seemed to have game-play solutions, which the posters apparently weren't aware of. For example, although none of my armies have elephants, my opponents often did, and they could be dealt with using proper tactics, not requiring rule changes.
Not impressed by your comment "... americans (sic) may cheat ... different types, black or white?". IMHO you will get better results using logical arguments, than using national or ethnic insults.
MH
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 10, 2024 20:40:24 GMT
Not quite sure that applies to all pike, timurilank. Definitely the manner used by Alexander and Successors, but they appear also to have been also a 'mowing machine' running over units unable to flank or avoid them in a number of battles. Although with the Swiss, as has been noted, the speed of their advance was a major factor in their success.
Correct, the option would not apply to all pike formations. Our late 15th c. historical scenarios, this proved a useful option to distinguish mercenaries (4Pk) from pike armed retainers (7Hd). Medieval German IV/13d represents the Imperial army and as a consequence, it omits the diversity of city, clerical or feudal forces. We modified the sub-list to reflect the above differences to play out the conflicts within the Holy Roman Empire. Some do include Heerban pikemen (7Hd).
Recommend
Germany in the Later Middle Ages, Du Boulay War in the Middle Ages, Philippe Contamine Ordnung für grosse Heere und Schlacten, Philipp von Seldeneck, fought at Seckenheim (1465) and wrote a tactical treatise. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 11, 2024 2:26:24 GMT
Very delayed response from "the USA" to Vodnik. I started playing DBA shortly after it appeared in the USA at the Emperors' Headquarters LHS in Chicago, I'm guessing around 1990. At that time, I had a number of lengthy conversations with Phil in connection with the original rules, which IMHO were quite well-written, except for a few gray areas (this bears on my comment below). Favorite version is 1.1, and least favorite is 3.0, which contains the culmination of a series of poorly conceived changes over versions subsequent to 1.1, many apparently proposed to Phil by a group of competition convention players. Unfortunately for me, I was not aware of the discussions which led to these changes, as I think I could have convinced Phil to do it differently (see above). IIRC from various on-line forum posts on these changes, many of the alleged issues seemed to have game-play solutions, which the posters apparently weren't aware of. For example, although none of my armies have elephants, my opponents often did, and they could be dealt with using proper tactics, not requiring rule changes. Not impressed by your comment "... americans (sic) may cheat ... different types, black or white?". IMHO you will get better results using logical arguments, than using national or ethnic insults. MH Mark, if your favourite version to play is 1.1, do you still use the original army lists as well, or do you use more recent army lists (e.g. v3.0) with the 1.1 rules?
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on May 12, 2024 20:13:55 GMT
Very delayed response from "the USA" to Vodnik. I started playing DBA shortly after it appeared in the USA at the Emperors' Headquarters LHS in Chicago, I'm guessing around 1990. At that time, I had a number of lengthy conversations with Phil in connection with the original rules, which IMHO were quite well-written, except for a few gray areas (this bears on my comment below). Favorite version is 1.1, and least favorite is 3.0, which contains the culmination of a series of poorly conceived changes over versions subsequent to 1.1, many apparently proposed to Phil by a group of competition convention players. Unfortunately for me, I was not aware of the discussions which led to these changes, as I think I could have convinced Phil to do it differently (see above). IIRC from various on-line forum posts on these changes, many of the alleged issues seemed to have game-play solutions, which the posters apparently weren't aware of. For example, although none of my armies have elephants, my opponents often did, and they could be dealt with using proper tactics, not requiring rule changes. Not impressed by your comment "... americans (sic) may cheat ... different types, black or white?". IMHO you will get better results using logical arguments, than using national or ethnic insults. MH Mark, if your favourite version to play is 1.1, do you still use the original army lists as well, or do you use more recent army lists (e.g. v3.0) with the 1.1 rules?
Cheers
For 1.1, I use 1.1 lists, because I had minis based for them. (See image below for 6mm scale DBA 1.1. The Byzantines had advanced up the road in columns, and then deployed. Note the refused left flank, the 2nd rank psiloi, and the elephants being irrelevant over on the left. He also had a Seleucid army with 3 elephant elements).
For 3.0, I use 3.0 lists. If opponent(s) agree, I can always adjust lists, of course. MH  |
|
|
|
Post by pteros on May 13, 2024 3:22:10 GMT
Mark, if your favourite version to play is 1.1, do you still use the original army lists as well, or do you use more recent army lists (e.g. v3.0) with the 1.1 rules?
Cheers
For 1.1, I use 1.1 lists, because I had minis based for them. (See image below for 6mm scale DBA 1.1. The Byzantines had advanced up the road in columns, and then deployed. Note the refused left flank, the 2nd rank psiloi, and the elephants being irrelevant over on the left. He also had a Seleucid army with 3 elephant elements).
For 3.0, I use 3.0 lists. If opponent(s) agree, I can always adjust lists, of course. MH Beautiful picture! That’s a great-looking board, especially considering the size. This makes me wonder, could I base 2mm minis 3-4 to a base and play DBA on a 4” square board, perhaps moving them with tweezers? |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 13, 2024 11:35:14 GMT
Mark, great game board. Just shows what can be done. And 6mm! 28mm has become the new 15mm for my eyes - they're getting older.  Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on May 14, 2024 0:37:46 GMT
Not impressed by your comment "... americans (sic) may cheat ... different types, black or white?". IMHO you will get better results using logical arguments, than using national or ethnic insults. MH I believe vodnik may be using the assistance of something like google translate, and something may be getting lost in translation between German and English? If you check out his webpage, English is not his first language? Just a thought? May not be his intent to come across like that? |
|
