|
Post by felixs on May 18, 2024 17:40:49 GMT
Dear all,
this may have been discussed before.
I wonder whether the role of Ps as bad-terrain troops, as seen in DBA, has any historical evidence.
I even wonder whether Ps would be used to cover and threaten flanks, as often seen in DBA.
From what I have read, it rather seems that skirmishing troops would be used in front of the main battle line(s), disrupting and exhausting the enemy battle line.
Can anyone cite any historical evidence for DBA-like use of skirmishers?
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 18, 2024 23:55:24 GMT
Great question! Also, difficult to answer, particularly across 4500 years covered by DBA! But of course, I'm going to try! I will use the era I'm most familiar with, classical Greece. Demosthenes led Athens to defeat in his Aetolian campaign in 426BC (Thucydides 3.94-3.98). In the description, Thucydides makes several important observations: - the Aetolians were lightly armed and swift of foot darters - the Aetolians made their stand in the hills - the Aetolians used hit and run tactics - Demosthenes was short of light troops of his own - Demosthenes' archers kept them at bay until low ammunition/loss of leadership broke the archers So using this as an example, Ps should be able to match Sp in difficult going, at least in this neck of the woods! Now what happens on the plain between two hoplite armies is more difficult. Certainly, a skirmisher screen as the armies approached was virtually ubiquitous in the sources (Epaminondas is a notable exception, using a cavalry screen. Perhaps he wanted to obscure the Spartan view of his extra deep deployment?) DBA doesn't allow a screen but in DBA3, where Ps can ignore corner to corner overlap, one or two Ps can have the effect of a screen and can retreat through or around the hoplites. So far so good. But what happens next? Where did they go once the heavy infantry clashed? We just don't know. IMHO they simply hung around the back of the phalanx, taking pot shots where they could. If they won, they could pursue easily as they were faster than hoplites. If they lost, they could outpace their own hoplites and escape. This is not modelled in DBA3. In DBA2 Ps could give Sp rear support but this is also imperfect as they would be spread across the line rather than at one or two points. However, much of what I wrote about phalanx battles relates to big cities, like Athens, that raised its own light troops and therefore, could assign those troops to any role. When troops were recruited from allies the historical reports tend to show them staying as one group (Alexander's Agrianians is the most famous example). So in this setting, it is quite conceivable that they would be assigned a station alongside the phalanx or in more suitable terrain. It would seem unreasonable to ask them to spread out, away from their mates, to cover another city's battleline. So in this setting, having Ps alongside the battleline or in suitable terrain is not unreasonable IMHO. So clear as mud. I think DBA3 does a very good job at giving the effect of Ps on the battlefield, in classical Greek/Hellenistic warfare at least, even if slightly abstract and imperfect. Ancient warfare, like all human endeavours, is so nuanced that perfect models are nigh on impossible. But maybe I should ask ChatGPT to write me the perfect wargame rules? Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 19, 2024 2:57:00 GMT
Super reply Jim.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 19, 2024 10:53:52 GMT
Thank you very much, Jim. Very much appreciated.
The problem with Thucydides is that he refers to the Aetolians as an army which is entirely light-armed (Ps? Ax?). I am not even sure whether this is the sort of field battle that DBA simulates. (This is a general problem: DBA - and other "battle" rules - being tailored towards open field battles and having a hard time incorporating less decisive approaches, ambushes, and guerilla tactics). Also, Thucydides seems to describe a battle won by attrition; which DBA is not ideal for. I would still say that this is probably the most ideal case for DBA's Ps: An army entirely made up of light troops. In that case, it is very plausible and it also matches the account by Thucydides that they would prefer to fight heavy-armed troops in rough terrain. As a side note, the DBA list (II/31j) for the "Aitolians" would make this tactic a bit harder to pull off, as the general is LH, plus there is one other LH element. The rest is Ps and 4Ax, which would work great for what we have in Thucydides.
The link to a translation of Thucydides, if anyone wants to read for themselves: (The link should jump to book three, ch. 94).
Now what happens on the plain between two hoplite armies is more difficult. Certainly, a skirmisher screen as the armies approached was virtually ubiquitous in the sources (Epaminondas is a notable exception, using a cavalry screen. Perhaps he wanted to obscure the Spartan view of his extra deep deployment?) DBA doesn't allow a screen but in DBA3, where Ps can ignore corner to corner overlap, one or two Ps can have the effect of a screen and can retreat through or around the hoplites. So far so good.
This is the case that I am mainly interested in, as I believe that it is the normal case (or at least the "classical" case): Skirmishers as screens for the main battle line. And I am not convinced that this works. While in theory, Ps could approach the enemy line, get beaten and retire behind their own main battle line, this is too expensive in terms of PIP cost and also ineffective. The Ps are unlikely to cause any kills. And if they cause a recoil, the cost for repairing this is the same that moving the Ps was. Plus the Ps are in a very dangerous situation after the enemy recoil, since they can now be attacked in the flank ("closing the door"), which is likely to kill them, counting as a full loss. Thus I would say, skirmish screens have the only benefit of potentially slowing down the enemy advance a bit, but at a very high cost.
It is much (!) more effective to use Ps as bad-terrain types or to threaten a flank. And I am not convinced (so far) that his has much to do with historical use of such troops (in battle, as opposed to guerilla operations or other small-scale warfare).
I would also like to note that I do realize, and as you pointed out, that DBA covers such a long time span and such diverse subjects that it would be unfair to hold these things against DBA as a game. It is probably not possible to avoid some problems with the troop types.
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 19, 2024 12:51:37 GMT
Thank you very much, Jim. Very much appreciated.
The problem with Thucydides is that he refers to the Aetolians as an army which is entirely light-armed (Ps? Ax?). I am not even sure whether this is the sort of field battle that DBA simulates. (This is a general problem: DBA - and other "battle" rules - being tailored towards open field battles and having a hard time incorporating less decisive approaches, ambushes, and guerilla tactics). Also, Thucydides seems to describe a battle won by attrition; which DBA is not ideal for. I would still say that this is probably the most ideal case for DBA's Ps: An army entirely made up of light troops. In that case, it is very plausible and it also matches the account by Thucydides that they would prefer to fight heavy-armed troops in rough terrain. As a side note, the DBA list (II/31j) for the "Aitolians" would make this tactic a bit harder to pull off, as the general is LH, plus there is one other LH element. The rest is Ps and 4Ax, which would work great for what we have in Thucydides.
The link to a translation of Thucydides, if anyone wants to read for themselves: (The link should jump to book three, ch. 94).
Now what happens on the plain between two hoplite armies is more difficult. Certainly, a skirmisher screen as the armies approached was virtually ubiquitous in the sources (Epaminondas is a notable exception, using a cavalry screen. Perhaps he wanted to obscure the Spartan view of his extra deep deployment?) DBA doesn't allow a screen but in DBA3, where Ps can ignore corner to corner overlap, one or two Ps can have the effect of a screen and can retreat through or around the hoplites. So far so good.
This is the case that I am mainly interested in, as I believe that it is the normal case (or at least the "classical" case): Skirmishers as screens for the main battle line. And I am not convinced that this works. While in theory, Ps could approach the enemy line, get beaten and retire behind their own main battle line, this is too expensive in terms of PIP cost and also ineffective. The Ps are unlikely to cause any kills. And if they cause a recoil, the cost for repairing this is the same that moving the Ps was. Plus the Ps are in a very dangerous situation after the enemy recoil, since they can now be attacked in the flank ("closing the door"), which is likely to kill them, counting as a full loss. Thus I would say, skirmish screens have the only benefit of potentially slowing down the enemy advance a bit, but at a very high cost.
It is much (!) more effective to use Ps as bad-terrain types or to threaten a flank. And I am not convinced (so far) that his has much to do with historical use of such troops (in battle, as opposed to guerilla operations or other small-scale warfare).
I would also like to note that I do realize, and as you pointed out, that DBA covers such a long time span and such diverse subjects that it would be unfair to hold these things against DBA as a game. It is probably not possible to avoid some problems with the troop types.
Demosthenes faced the II/5e Aitolian army (4Sp, 7-8 Ps, 0-1 LH) that has Aggression 1 and Hilly terrain. So it is quite plausible for the Aitolians to defend a gameboard that is quite hilly, making this type of battle possible with DBA3. My aim when using Ps in front of my battleline is to be the one that makes first contact so I can be first to choose the match ups. I think Ps does this well enough. You can protect its flank by having your battleline close enough that hard flanking the Ps is not possible because of TZ. This also puts the battleline in reach of the enemy to spring forward through the Ps and make first contact. For more historical examples like the Agrianians, I will have to wait for my house renovations to finish as my library is out of reach at the moment! But if I find some, I will post them. Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by pteros on May 19, 2024 16:44:00 GMT
While I don’t have references close at hand, my feelings are similar to felixs. I can think of lots of examples of skirmishers defeating heavy troops from rough terrain, but in most cases those are in small-scale engagements, skirmishes, not battles. I can’t think off the top of my head if a major battle where skirmishers played a separate part in the battle line other than a screen in front of other troops.
It seems there’s a trend in 3.0 to define javelin-aremed light troops as Ax and to have Ps be bows and dispersed shooting troops, but again I don’t know if there’s cases where bows fought dispersed as a separate part of the battle line. It seems that in the cases where they did, they would be better represented by 3Bw
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on May 19, 2024 16:44:24 GMT
I always find Ps to be formidable sidekicks to such vulnerable units as El or SCh.
They prevent their being overlapped and thus make them far more powerful.
I even think the link of Ps with Elephants is mentioned by ancient authorities, but I'm not sure about it.
But I think, felixs, you're absolutely right when you point out that Ps out in front of a battleline are not as effective in DBA3 as they must have been in history.
To start a bit of a discussion:
Maybe Ps should give mutual side support and/or receive rear support from any troops? They would be a real nuisance then ...
(But I admit, this is just a Schnapsidee...)
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on May 19, 2024 17:12:54 GMT
I always find Ps to be formidable sidekicks to such vulnerable units as El or SCh. To start a bit of a discussion: Maybe Ps should give mutual side support and/or receive rear support from any troops? They would be a real nuisance then ... (But I admit, this is just a Schnapsidee...) I can see my Ps side and rear supported ‘Uber’ troop now… fighting on a +4 and no overlaps… suddenly the Aitolian Greeks are a force to be reckoned with 😱😂😂😂 P
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on May 19, 2024 18:25:26 GMT
As I said, a Schnapsidee. But now that I think a bit more about Ps, I see that they are much better than one might think, even in front of your line. Just think of their interpenetration capabilities. They move through and recoil through any friendly units. So they may evaporate under attack, thus break up the enemy line, and lure single units into overlaps ...
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on May 19, 2024 19:21:35 GMT
............... So they may evaporate under attack, thus break up the enemy line, and lure single units into overlaps ... Except that Kn destroy them, and Bd, Pk and Wb don't pursue Ps. So it's just the SCh, El and Hd who would be "lured in" - and SCh ignore overlaps.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on May 19, 2024 20:14:39 GMT
............... So they may evaporate under attack, thus break up the enemy line, and lure single units into overlaps ... Except that Kn destroy them, and Bd, Pk and Wb don't pursue Ps. So it's just the SCh, El and Hd who would be "lured in" - and SCh ignore overlaps. Ah, yes, you're right. (Really, Bd do not pursue Ps? I thought ½ BW.) O.k. then, no use of them in front. By the way, stevie had many good ideas for historical accuracy (he even made his own new DBA version), but at the moment I can't recall his thoughts about Ps.
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on May 19, 2024 21:19:46 GMT
...DBA is not so realistic like it looks. There are a lot of killer armies like in computer games. But so many real armies could not field strong troops and had to usae even hordes. But skirmishers were skilled often elite troops...
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 19, 2024 23:20:09 GMT
At the battle of Nancy 1477 the Confederate center (Nachut) was made up entirely of Ps while the Vorhut made a flank march through Forrest and snow and then Gerwalthut simultaneously attacked the Burgundians from two directions and routed them, killing the Duke in the pursuit.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 21, 2024 17:36:46 GMT
Thank you all for your thoughts, very interesting!
Demosthenes faced the II/5e Aitolian army (4Sp, 7-8 Ps, 0-1 LH) that has Aggression 1 and Hilly terrain. So it is quite plausible for the Aitolians to defend a gameboard that is quite hilly, making this type of battle possible with DBA3. My aim when using Ps in front of my battleline is to be the one that makes first contact so I can be first to choose the match ups. I think Ps does this well enough. You can protect its flank by having your battleline close enough that hard flanking the Ps is not possible because of TZ. This also puts the battleline in reach of the enemy to spring forward through the Ps and make first contact. For more historical examples like the Agrianians, I will have to wait for my house renovations to finish as my library is out of reach at the moment! But if I find some, I will post them.
Yes, I agree that DBA can work OK for engagements where at least one side consists mostly of Ps. Not so sure whether this is true for the Aitolian list, as I see a high risk of their LHgen getting killed. But could surely make for an interesting scenario. I think that Ps more or less work OK for those cases where they represent a part of the main body of an army that entirely (or mostly) consists of light troops and fought as such.
What I am not convinced is the performance of Ps in their role as representing such skirmishers as fought in front of the main battle line, pestering the enemy, trying to get the enemy a bit softened up for the main battle line to charge in. I am under the impression that this is the role that most of the troops that are classified as Ps in DBA would have performed historically.
And this usage of Ps in front of the main battle line does not work very well in DBA. Mostly because "softening up" would mostly be by recoils, which are a nuisance and may slow down the enemy a bit, but come at a high cost, since the Ps have to be moved independently, using up PIP of their own.
I find the usage that you describe for using Ps in front of the main battle line interesting, but I am sceptical as for its effectiveness. I am especially unsure on how that would help with choosing match-ups (which would potentially be a big advantage).
To specify my question: I am interested whether there are cases in history where troops that would be classified as Ps were used to hold difficult terrain during a battle with lots of heavy infantry, possibly cavalry on both sides. (As opposed to those cases where an army of light troops ambushed another army in bad terrain).
Or, in other words:
I can’t think off the top of my head if a major battle where skirmishers played a separate part in the battle line other than a screen in front of other troops.
Hope this clears it up a bit. And I also hope it is not too convoluted.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on May 23, 2024 15:13:35 GMT
Hi felixs, the following passage is cited from stevie's valuable DBA variant 'Lessons from history': 1. Historical 3Ax, Ps, & 3Bw recoiling and evading
Ancient light and medium missile foot often used their speed to evade and run from enemy heavy foot charges. Unfortunately, under the DBA 3.0 basic rules, they are denied the ability to break contact with heavy enemy foot and are reduced to fighting toe-to-toe with pursuing Blades, Pikes, and Warbands...a role they are usually not suited for. Hamstringing them in this way is contrary to the how they actually behaved in reality. To correct this discrepancy, apply the following rule suggested by Joe Collins:-(to be added to the page 12 paragraph 3 Recoiling rules) “Fast” 3Ax, Ps, and 3Bw may choose to either recoil a base depth, or ‘evade’ a full base width, like mounted. The effect of this rule This allows these troops to break contact from pursuing heavy foot (although not from Hd, who pursue 1 BW), and helps them to survive for a bit longer. It will also prevent those enemy troops with a movement of 2 BW from ‘hard flanking’ or attacking recoiled 3Ax, Ps, and 3Bw in the side. In effect it gives these troops some control over their own future...do they recoil their base depth and stay in contact with their pursuers in the following bound (which is the default basic rule), or ‘evade’ a full base width and disengage, forcing their opponents (even those that pursue ½ a base width) to spend PIPs to renew contact? Historical examples and links to the sources: -All the following quotes are from Duncan Head’s “Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars”, 2016 edition:- books.google.co.uk/books?id=-7n8CwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Macedonian+Punic+wars&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjeyLm7xvLhAhXTWhUIHa WZAE4Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Macedonian%20Punic%20wars&f=false
|
|