|
|
Post by martin on Dec 17, 2016 9:00:21 GMT
In the Spanish 'e' list there are a pair of 3Pk, in the 'f' list the pike have become 4Pk. Is that correct, or misprinted....ie do they start as 3Pk and become 4Pk??
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Apr 22, 2017 0:47:16 GMT
Martin, I noticed you hadn't received a reply to this question.
I don't believe there is an error. Looking at the DBMM list it notes that between 1495 and 1503 the Spanish have have 6-16 Pike (F). From 1504 they have 12-32 Pike(O). The ratios and gradings look consistent with those in the DBA lists.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Apr 22, 2017 21:34:05 GMT
Thanks I posted a similar query on the Society of Ancients Forum. Got a looong thread going, but the main post of interest was from Duncan Head, who I believe was directly involved with writing that particular list:- "The change to Pk(O) is because there are suggestions that de Cordoba improved the quality of the pikemen, introducing modern close order drill and longer pikes copied from the Germans, as part of the reforms that led to the establishment of the colunelas (the precursor organization to the tercios). Earlier Spanish pikemen are thought to have had shorter pikes, so needed to be classed as either (I) or (F) in DBMM. (F) was chosen at least in part because it was the grade used for earlier 15th-century Italian pikes, based on figures like the running pikemen in the San Romano paintings." So, seems it was a bit of a tenuous classification, and now we have a DBA list with a hard-to-justify troop type. However, won't be losing any sleep over it  . Cheers Martin |
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Apr 22, 2017 21:45:27 GMT
Excellent Martin. I'm pleased you have this clarified. There was no such background in the MM list so at least now you have some of the reasoning.
I suppose their will always be some ratings that are debatable. In many ways DBA reduces this as there are less granular ratings than many other rule sets.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Apr 23, 2017 8:21:38 GMT
Always a potential 'issue' when translating a troop type from one rule set to another. Sometimes a troop type is better in DBA than in the set the list was 'translated' from, causing anomalies.
Similarly, the littoral topography designation for an army in DBA is correlated to the percentage or number of troop ships available in DBM/DBMM, I believe, so some 'arable' types had very active naval forces, but cannot land.
M
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Apr 24, 2017 1:03:17 GMT
Yes, I agree.
With respect to the littoral issue it is of course it is a simplification, and such simplifications have issues. I always struggle that when the Carthaginians are defending they must place a waterway. On the upside at least the elements landing are restricted somewhat.
|
|
.