|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 24, 2017 1:59:14 GMT
So many great ideas it would be a shame to lose them. The last time when some people had lots of good ideas, they wrote them into their own rules. Perhaps this is what can be done here. Not DBA 3+ but a new name to represent new rules. Nope. These ideas are for 3.1... for me at least. Others of course are free to do with them as they wish. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 24, 2017 2:02:35 GMT
Stevie The Loeb translation on Mons Graupius says: "on a gentle slope". Interestingly the auxilia "opened out its ranks" to go into battle, so did 4Ax become 3Ax for faster movement. The Batavi and Tungri are "ordered to bring thing's to the sword's point", it goes on to add "for the British swords, without points, did not admit of locked lines and fighting at close quarters". The cavalry also fought on this hill, mounted. Just a few points, but it seems they are more 4Bd than 4Ax. David Constable My take on this David is that you are correct. I think later Roman infantry could operate as either Bd or Ax...depending on how they were deployed. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Jun 24, 2017 5:58:15 GMT
Thanks Joe.
I suspect that 4Bd does not work as a direct substitution verses warband.
At the moment I am thinking of splitting 4Ax into two types, for convenience Greek and Roman.
Greek are longspear types (light hoplites), 3 verses foot, 4 verses mounted, not sure about 44?
Roman use swords etc., so could include Thracian with rhomphia, 5 verses foot, 3 verses mounted.
Due to the fact they seem to move quicker than 4Sp and 4Bd etc., I would treat as fast in good going, but slow otherswise.
4Ax and Kn are the two biggest problems in DBA, all versions.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 24, 2017 10:49:39 GMT
Stevie The Loeb translation on Mons Graupius says: "on a gentle slope". Interestingly the auxilia "opened out its ranks" to go into battle, so did 4Ax become 3Ax for faster movement. The Batavi and Tungri are "ordered to bring thing's to the sword's point", it goes on to add "for the British swords, without points, did not admit of locked lines and fighting at close quarters". The cavalry also fought on this hill, mounted. Just a few points, but it seems they are more 4Bd than 4Ax. David Constable Hello again Dave, I’ve found an online PDF edition of the Loeb Classical Library version of Tacitus’ Agricola, which can be found here:- ryanfb.github.io/loebolus-data/L035.pdf (Mons Grapius starts on page 229) Here are some quotes with my own footnotes and observations. “The British line was drawn up on higher ground, in such a way that the front rank was on the level, while the rest, on a gentle slope, seemed to be towering higher and higher.” (Note that the front rank was on the level, not on the hill, which seems a bit odd. Perhaps the Caledonians were trying to tempt the Romans into attacking, which they probably wouldn’t do if the enemy were all in a strong position.
As for for the ‘gentle slope’, see the 6th quote below…)“Because the enemy’s numbers were superior, Agricola, fearing to be assailed simultaneously in front and on the flanks, opened out his ranks, although his line was bound to become thereby too long proportionately.” (In order to match the front line of the Caledonians, Agricola had to spread his auxilia thinly. Does that mean that each individual man spread out from his neighbour, or that the auxilia were in a long line with no reserves (except for the legionaries behind them), or that instead of being in the usual 8 ranks deep they were reduced to maybe only 4 ranks?
See the quote below…) “The battle began with fighting at long range; the Britons, with their long swords and short targets, showed courage alike and skill in evading or brushing aside the Roman missiles, while on their own side they launched dense volleys of spears.” (Ha! Sounds more like 3Ax using ‘peltast tactics’ than 3Wb!
Or maybe such an exchange of javelins was normal at the start of a battle.)
Agricola then ordered the Batavi and Tungari auxiliary cohorts to charge, “…embarrassing to the enemy, whose shields were short and their swords too long; for the British swords, without points, did not admit of locked lines and fighting at close quarters.” (Hang on…if the British swords were no good for fighting in close quarters, then what use were they!
You can’t use a sword to fight at a distance!
I think that what Tacitus is trying to say is that the long slashing swords of the Britons only allows fighting in a loose formation, as 3Wb, while the shorter stabbing swords of the Romans allows fighting in a close formation, as 4Ax.
So much for Agricola spreading his men individually…they would lose their close formation advantage.)“Accordingly when the Batavi began to exchange blows hand-to-hand, to strike with the bosses of their shields, to stab in the face, and, after cutting down the enemy on the level, to push their line uphill, the other battalions also charged.” (Again Tacitus says the front line of the Caledonians was on the flat, not on the hill.
So no +1 for being uphill then.)“Meanwhile, the squadrons of cavalry, when the chariots fled, took a hand in the infantry battle. And here, though they had just previously swept all before them in panic, they found themselves embarrassed by the close ranks of the enemy and the unevenness of the ground.” (The hill may have had a gentle slope, but it was difficult enough to impede the Roman cavalry, perhaps being rocky.
And if it was a difficult hill, then the Caledonians would not get +1 for rear support, just +1 for being uphill.
It would also explain why the legions were kept in reserve, as Bd fighting Wb in bad going is not a good idea!)“And the new aspect of the fight was by no means to our advantage, since our men with a footing on the hillside, at best precarious, were now dislodged by the impact of the horses of their own cavalry…” (The auxilia could defeat the Caledonians on the flat, but couldn’t make much headway when fighting them uphill.)Last of all, the the reserve Britons on the hill-top tried to attack the flanks of the Roman cavalry that were fighting the flanks of their front line, but were countered by Agricola’s reserve 4 cavalry squadrons (using their threat zones to pin the Britons advance perhaps?). ConclusionWith 4Ax fighting a single rank of 3Wb (with no rear support because the supporting rank in on a difficult hill), the 4Ax should prevail, as they also recoil the 3Wb on an even roll. Even if the 4Ax recoil, so much the better, as the pursuing 3Wb will then be overlapped as well (I wonder if this was Agricola’s plan…why only attack with two auxilia cohorts, and not all of them? Maybe he wanted to recoil and draw the enemy into overlap positions, but the Batavi got a lucky roll and forced the Caledonians to recoil uphill instead). One thing is for sure… …if the auxilia fight as 3Bd or 4Bd, then they had better not recoil, or they will be quick killed by the 3Wb! Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Jun 24, 2017 18:17:32 GMT
Hi Stevie
It is an interesting one this battle, number one on my list to look at.
The front rank of warband on the level in wargames terms would only make sense if the warband expected to advance in support of the chariots, so was more expected from the chariots? or do we overate being uphill?
Spreading out implies 3Ax not 4Ax, more use of missiles and a faster advance, which would make sense with the chariots in confusion in front of the warbands. If the unit frontage remains the same (which it should do) they go deeper, or do they detach some as skirmishing 2Ps?
There were six cohorts of Batavi and Tungri out of a probable ten, these being in the centre leaves those at the ends of the end of the line to lag behind slightly. The Tungri and Batavi are specialists with swords, to be in the centre and lead the attack would make sense. More so with Agricola with one, if you get to choose the order of combats (not strictly historical, but a good idea) and being on the level, a better die here gives you a pushback and overlaps the two outer warbands, both then evens fights.
The problem with the hill is that if you assume bad terrain what are the cavalry doing fighting on it? It only makes sense if it is a gentle hill with enough obstacles to hinder cavalry, but not affect their fighting ability, otherwise the cavalry are fighting on 3-2=1 against warband on a 3+1=4, and that is suicidal.
Now if the front rank gets pushed back onto the hill we have 4Ax on 3, warband on 3+1=4 on bad terrain, if a gentle hill the rear rank brings it up to 5.
It only to me makes sense if it is a gentle hill that inconenienced the cavalry, but not by -2. If the 4Ax were a Roman style (ie sword/blade) type and had a basic factor of 5, that would be 5 verses 4 on the level, 5 verses 5 on a hill.
Now if we assume that the cavalry went on a nasty hill (for reasons we do not know, enemy 2Ps?) and the auxilia are on a basic 5, if on the hill they get no rear rank but 1 for uphill, the auxilia are 5/4 up.
Whichever way you try and work it the auxilia/warband battle does not work at the moment, accress the whole front, not just an odd unit.
So 4Bd becomes on the level a good option, if a gentle hill, death if not.
I suspect that the whole warband problem needs sorting out, and that there is no quick fix.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 24, 2017 22:07:16 GMT
Me again David, hi once more. I love discussing ancient battles.  Just a few points… You seem to imply that the Caledonian chariots were in front of the hill and the warbands. Surely it would make more sense if they were on the flat level ground either side of the hill. Otherwise, the first clash would have been the Roman Auxilia fighting them and not the warbands. Indeed, Tacitus specifically states that the auxilia, amounting to some 8,000 men, formed a strong centre, while the 3,000 Roman cavalry circled round the wings. He makes no mention of the auxilia fighting the chariots, but says that the Roman cavalry, once the chariots had fled (beaten by the cavalry on the wings?), attacked the flanks of the Caledonian warbands (who couldn’t turn to face them as they were already engaged with fighting the auxilia). Spreading out does not necessarily imply 3Ax instead of 4Ax…as I said, it could mean the auxiliary cohorts were in one long line (instead of having the usual Roman 3 lines), or that the rear 4 ranks of the auxilia being used to extend the line. Think about it: would it really make sense to keep the auxilia 8 ranks deep but tell each man to have a couple of paces between each of them (and forgo the advantage of being in a close formation), or to use the rear ranks to make the line longer (thereby retaining the close formation, but with each cohort being shallower than normal)? I don’t know where you get 6 cohorts of Batavi from. Tacitus says “…until Agricola exhorted the two battalions of the Batavi and Tungari to bring things to the sword point…”. I read that as two cohorts, one called the Batavi and one called the Tungari. Following their success the rest of the auxiliary cohorts (who are not named) were then sent in. As for the Roman cavalry fighting on a difficult hill…they didn’t.  They simply fell on the flanks of an enemy that were already engaged to their front. (See diagram 20b on page 28 of the Great Purple Book: the Ax are Wb, Wb ‘A’ are Roman Auxilia, and Wb ‘B’ are Cv)It doesn’t matter if the Cv suffer a -2 for being in bad going, they are still in contact with an enemy flank, causing them to be destroyed if they recoil (and with the two elements of chariots already being routed, the Caledonians only need to lose two more elements to be defeated). Here is my reconstruction of the battle of Mons Grapius, using the existing army lists. (Items in brown are on a 4 BW long difficult hill):- 3Wb 3Wb
3Wb 3Wb 3Wb 3Wb LCh 3Wb 3Wb 3Wb 3Wb LCh LH Cv 4Ax 4Ax 4Ax 4Ax Cv LH 4Bd 4Bd 4Bd 4Bd The 4Ax engage the 3Wb on the flat and push them back up the hill, while the Roman mounted destroy the Caledonian chariots then fall on the flanks of the warbands (the victorious light horse can zip around the hill and use their threat zones to pin down the Caledonian reserves, without needing to enter the bad going). So no need to change any of the existing DBA 3.0 rules at all (although I still support Joe Collins attempts to make Ax live a bit longer when they fight heavy infantry). Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Jun 25, 2017 8:13:48 GMT
Me again David, hi once more. I love discussing ancient battles. Just a few points… You seem to imply that the Caledonian chariots were in front of the hill and the warbands. Surely it would make more sense if they were on the flat level ground either side of the hill. Otherwise, the first clash would have been the Roman Auxilia fighting them and not the warbands. Indeed, Tacitus specifically states that the auxilia, amounting to some 8,000 men, formed a strong centre, while the 3,000 Roman cavalry circled round the wings. He makes no mention of the auxilia fighting the chariots, but says that the Roman cavalry, once the chariots had fled (beaten by the cavalry on the wings?), attacked the flanks of the Caledonian warbands (who couldn’t turn to face them as they were already engaged with fighting the auxilia). 35 gives the layout of the army and finishes with "the war-chariots, noisily manoeuvring, filled the intervening plain." So between at least the auxilia and the warbands are the chariots.
Spreading out does not necessarily imply 3Ax instead of 4Ax…as I said, it could mean the auxiliary cohorts were in one long line (instead of having the usual Roman 3 lines), or that the rear 4 ranks of the auxilia being used to extend the line. Going to 3Ax extends the line, same number of men, more elements as less men per element, if not limited to 12 elements that is. Did you not read the part of both Generals speach where they say "sorry lads you will have to stay out of this, I have brought too many of you."  Think about it: would it really make sense to keep the auxilia 8 ranks deep but tell each man to have a couple of paces between each of them (and forgo the advantage of being in a close formation), or to use the rear ranks to make the line longer (thereby retaining the close formation, but with each cohort being shallower than normal)? If you started at eight ranks say roughly four and half feet per file with 8 ranks, you could expand to say roughly six feet between files and 8 ranks, 4Ax to 3Ax, now to get close order you file in the gaps in the first 4 ranks by bringing up the rear 4 ranks, giving you three feet per file and 4 ranks, keeping the overall frontage length the same.
I don’t know where you get 6 cohorts of Batavi from. Tacitus says “…until Agricola exhorted the two battalions of the Batavi and Tungari to bring things to the sword point…”. I read that as two cohorts, one called the Batavi and one called the Tungari. Following their success the rest of the auxiliary cohorts (who are not named) were then sent in. 36 says "until Agricola ordered four battalions (cohortes) of Batavi and two of Tungri to bring things to the sword point".As for the Roman cavalry fighting on a difficult hill…they didn’t. They simply fell on the flanks of an enemy that were already engaged to their front. (See diagram 20b on page 28 of the Great Purple Book: the Ax are Wb, Wb ‘A’ are Roman Auxilia, and Wb ‘B’ are Cv)It doesn’t matter if the Cv suffer a -2 for being in bad going, they are still in contact with an enemy flank, causing them to be destroyed if they recoil (and with the two elements of chariots already being routed, the Caledonians only need to lose two more elements to be defeated). 36 does not make it clear if they are on the hill or not at the start "Meanwhile, the squadrons (turmae) of cavalry (for the charioteers had fled) took a hand in the infantry battle. And here, though they caused momentry panic, they found themselves brought to a standstill by the close ranks of the enemy and the unevenness of the ground:" latter on the reserve cavalry "attacked the enemy's line from behind" so at that point at least some cavalry must be on the hill.Here is my reconstruction of the battle of Mons Grapius, using the existing army lists. (Items in brown are on a 4 BW long difficult hill):- 3Wb 3Wb
3Wb 3Wb 3Wb 3Wb LCh 3Wb 3Wb 3Wb 3Wb LCh LH Cv 4Ax 4Ax 4Ax 4Ax Cv LH 4Bd 4Bd 4Bd 4Bd The 4Ax engage the 3Wb on the flat and push them back up the hill, while the Roman mounted destroy the Caledonian chariots then fall on the flanks of the warbands (the victorious light horse can zip around the hill and use their threat zones to pin down the Caledonian reserves, without needing to enter the bad going). So no need to change any of the existing DBA 3.0 rules at all (although I still support Joe Collins attempts to make Ax live a bit longer when they fight heavy infantry). Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 25, 2017 11:47:19 GMT
Me again David, hi once more. I love discussing ancient battles. Just a few points… Indeed, Tacitus specifically states that the auxilia, amounting to some 8,000 men, formed a strong centre, while the 3,000 Roman cavalry circled round the wings. He makes no mention of the auxilia fighting the chariots, but says that the Roman cavalry, once the chariots had fled (beaten by the cavalry on the wings?), attacked the flanks of the Caledonian warbands (who couldn’t turn to face them as they were already engaged with fighting the auxilia). 35 gives the layout of the army and finishes with "the war-chariots, noisily manoeuvring, filled the intervening plain." So between at least the auxilia and the warbands are the chariots. If the chariots were between the auxilia and the warbands, then how did the last two manage to have a javelin fight? And what were the Roman cavalry doing while the auxilia were supposedly fighting these chariots (which Tacitus never mentions). With no chariots to protect the Caledonian flanks, and nothing in front of them, did the Roman cavalry just sit there watching? Or could it be that the chariots were originally in the intervening plain, acting as a screen while the warbands formed up, but later moved to the flanks to oppose the Roman cavalry. If you want to place the chariots in front of the warbands and make the battle even easier for the Romans, fine. I prefer to give the Caledonians a bit of a chance and have the chariots in their traditional place on the wings, where they have room to manoeuvre, can protect the warband’s flanks, and oppose the Roman cavalry. Hang on…what’s the difference? Move some of the rear ranks to the ends of the cohort to extend it, or move the men further apart to extend the cohort and then bring the rear ranks forward to fill the gaps. The end result sounds the same to me…still in close formation but with a less depth, and still 4Ax. Unless you would like thinner formations to be less effective when they have fewer than their usual 8 ranks deep. Could make things tougher for Caesar’s understrength veterans at Pharsalus in 48 BC (where he had to thin his line to match the overwhelming numbers of the Pompeians and still keep the usual 3 lines of battle) if his men are 3Bd instead of 4Bd. Or at Agincourt in 1415, where Henry V (having to stretch his understrength line to fill the gap between the two woods) has to use 3Lb instead of 4Lb. Actually, Tacitus wrote: “…donec Agricola Batavorum cohortes ac Tungrorum duas cohortatus est…”
I don’t see a quatuor, quattuor, or quartus (meaning four), but I do see a duas (meaning two). But then again, I can’t speak Latin… Perhaps I was unclear in my meaning. I’ll try to describe it in DBA terms. Once the LCh's have been destroyed (presumably because the Cv and LH had defeated them on the level ground beside the difficult hill), there is nothing to stop the Cv from then turning and entering the bad going to hit the 3Wb on the hill in the flank, although this will take two bounds as Cv only move 1 BW in bad going. As the Cv are not facing the front edge of the 3Wb (who cannot turn to face them because they are already in front-edge contact with the 4Ax in front of them), the -2 for being in bad going has no effect on them. The 3Wb on the wings of the Caledonian army, with an enemy in front-edge contact to their flank, will be destroyed if they recoil, as will any 3Wb element behind them if they are also in a column. And the reserve 3Wb’s still at the top of the hill will be unable to move to attack the flanks of the Cv because the LH will be generating threat zones to prevent this, even though the LH have not entered the bad going. Making the hill difficult solves so many problems with this battle:- It explains why the cavalry were ‘brought to a standstill by the unevenness of the ground’. It explains why the warbands do not get +1 for rear support, just +1 for being uphill. It explains why the legionaries were kept in reserve, because the ground was unsuitable for them. It explains why the chariots were not actually on the hill, again because the ground was unsuitable. It even makes things harder for the Caledonians to manoeuvre, because of the PIP costs and only column group moves when in bad going. Without the difficult hill, you will have to find individual alternative reasons for each of the above. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 25, 2017 19:40:20 GMT
One alternative we can all consider as well, is allowing a change of deployment/tactics from more loose and open order, to more dense, closed order? In this, we allow an element of otherwise HI to "dismount" at the start of a battle (or at deployment) into the 4Ax type. What this allows is the tactical flexibility to choose between survivability against HI in open ground, vs the movement and loose order advantage in bad ground.
As an example, could the Spanish and Gauls at Cannae not be classed as "Spear" at the start? This would render them able to stand somewhat against the legionary 4Bd, until the "Formation" (i.e. "shieldwall") gets broken up, and they slowly, on average give ground? Another example concerns the Macedonian campaign in Thrace and Illyria, where I believe the Phalanx (4Pk) "dismounted" into 4Ax to take the fight to the enemy in bad going hilly and ravine-scarred country?
I am not claiming this is the correct solution, just one that requires in my view minimal overhead. Dismounting to replace Kn, say, with Bd, or HCh with Sp (hoplites) is already a thing in DBA v3.0, and the Army Lists have already been flagged as needing tweaking. Is this a great way to "sell" a solution to both tournament and historical gamers? It seems eminently believable as a technique for reflecting actual capabilities?
Just my two cents worth. May not work, but I thought it was worth getting everyone's views on.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 26, 2017 21:56:50 GMT
Stevie The Loeb translation on Mons Graupius says: "on a gentle slope". Interestingly the auxilia "opened out its ranks" to go into battle, so did 4Ax become 3Ax for faster movement. The Batavi and Tungri are "ordered to bring thing's to the sword's point", it goes on to add "for the British swords, without points, did not admit of locked lines and fighting at close quarters". The cavalry also fought on this hill, mounted. Just a few points, but it seems they are more 4Bd than 4Ax. David Constable They are clearly Medium Foot w/Sword. We just need to get off the rigid classification system outside tournaments. TomT |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 26, 2017 22:00:25 GMT
Thanks Joe. I suspect that 4Bd does not work as a direct substitution verses warband. At the moment I am thinking of splitting 4Ax into two types, for convenience Greek and Roman. Greek are longspear types (light hoplites), 3 verses foot, 4 verses mounted, not sure about 44? Roman use swords etc., so could include Thracian with rhomphia, 5 verses foot, 3 verses mounted. Due to the fact they seem to move quicker than 4Sp and 4Bd etc., I would treat as fast in good going, but slow otherswise. 4Ax and Kn are the two biggest problems in DBA, all versions. David Constable David is correct - Blades Pursue and Warband have Shock v. Blades - neither "Aux" like. You need a flexible Medium Foot with swords. Also a Medium Foot w/Spears - bit better v. Mounted. Gets rid of odd ball "Fast" Pike. |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jun 27, 2017 21:23:38 GMT
Medievalthomas said:
But I like those odd ball "Fast" Pike, the single element in some armies is a nasty surprise to mounted elements and if used in bulk in some armies can rapidly pin down parts of an enemy line and are a bull-dozer to most foot troops when double ranked.😊
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jun 27, 2017 21:38:25 GMT
Medievalthomas said: But I like those odd ball "Fast" Pike, the single element in some armies is a nasty surprise to mounted elements and if used in bulk in some armies can rapidly pin down parts of an enemy line and are a bull-dozer to most foot troops when double ranked.😊 My Picts rather like the oddity. |
|
|
|
Post by BrianNZ on Jul 2, 2017 9:17:59 GMT
Played a 25mm Big Battle game today at my local Wargames Club, EIR v LIR.
I deployed Blade Auxilia Blade Auxilia Blade and counted the Auxilia +1 for Flank Support when adjacent a Blade. Worked well, the Auxilia were pushed about but stood in the line, none were doubled and destroyed ( bit of luck there ).
As a simple fix within the rules would work for solid Auxilia imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Jul 3, 2017 16:14:58 GMT
I’d like to take this opportunity to give my thoughts about the Imperial Auxilia and what their function was. I’ll be mostly using Phil Barker’s “Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome” as one of the sources... All through the imperial period the auxilia were armed and equipped differently from the legionaries.
It needs to be pointed out that this is not a good approach to anything that claims to represent history. The “Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome” is not only lightyears from being a primary source, it contains almost no referencing. So it is not surprising that you make the claim that "all through the imperial period the auxilia were armed and equipped differently from the legionaries," blissfully ignorant of how little evidence there is for this. Try finding a couple of literary references that describe the equipment of a Roman auxiliary, let alone one that contrasts their equipment to a legionary. You'd think it would be easier, but try finding a lot of references that describe significantly different behaviour between auxilia and legionary. You will be disappointed. It is very very difficult to add anything to our understanding of the Roman military because there is so much secondary material to integrate, and the guys who wrote the Roman DBM lists from which DBA depends were far more familiar with the material than I am (you are). This thread might be successfully edging towards a better game, but the historical argument has been a weak pretence. |
|
