|
|
Post by Haardrada on Aug 6, 2017 16:23:49 GMT
Hi double-ranked elements have long been a feature of DBA, but under successive issues of the rules some double-ranked elements have been added/removed as an influence on combat due to combat factors.
Be it Pk,Wb or Lh.,each have advantages/disadvantages to adding a rear rank to the combat.
Does double-ranking leave your battle-line to short?.In essence when do you think it's right or wrong to double-rank your elements?
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Aug 6, 2017 21:02:11 GMT
Hi double-ranked elements have long been a feature of DBA, but under successive issues of the rules some double-ranked elements have been added/removed as an influence on combat due to combat factors. Be it Pk,Wb or Lh.,each have advantages/disadvantages to adding a rear rank to the combat. Does double-ranking leave your battle-line to short?.In essence when do you think it's right or wrong to double-rank your elements?
I find Pk and LH less a problem than Wb heavy armies.
My Successor and Bactrian armies do have useful troops to cover the flanks of pike.
LH in close combat and in column risk being destroyed if forced to flee, so that tactic is used sparingly.
I have many barbarian armies with six or more Wb and learned early to avoid placing them all double ranked.
I found it wise to intersperse single Wb elements between columns or even an element of Ps.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Aug 6, 2017 21:26:21 GMT
Thanks for your reply Thomas., I read a thread on Pk tactics on the old Fanatcus site which recommended interspercing single and double Pk elements to help lessen the shrinkage in a battle-line and to be able to shift/shuffle elements to create double elements where needed.
Shielding the Pk flanks I find is the biggest problem to solve as they push there way into double overlap or get locked in a drawn combat then flanked by an extended enemy line.In a Successor army you do have various elements that can mask your Pk flanks, but with North Welsh and Swiss its either more Pk or Ps with the Welsh or adding Bd to that with the Swiss (Or Kn with the League of Constance army).
The double Lh elements I use very rarely and especially if there is any risk of a flee result....I no longer risk the supported Lh General frontal assaults on Elephants any more as a more opportune flank or rear attack offer better odds.😊
I still do not own a Wb heavy army as I sold my DBM Gauls years ago when Dba was still at 1.0 and nobody in our club wanted to play it.
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Aug 14, 2017 7:09:57 GMT
The question of reduction in frontage is a very interesting one.
Part of the equation worth consideration is table size and terrain. A larger table will penalise heavy foot armies, especially those that typically use pike or warband. Even on the standard sized table I try and overcome the disadvantage of a narrow front of my Successor armies by anchoring a flank on a waterway, a city or terrain. Though in the later situation you need to be able to hold or contest the terrain, while in the former be mindful of an enemy landing.
However, when a Gallic army is fighting Romans it would be a brave consul to not have a reserve. Indeed, I usually have two infantry stands as my reserve. So in that case the Gallic frontage is not significantly different.
Regards,
|
|
