|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 12, 2017 22:16:55 GMT
My last thread generated some excellent discussion... it however veered into many different topics and sub-discussions. This is part of the joy of a board such as this.
In this thread I would be interested in hearing from folks on the matter of 3Bd. Mike Guth started an excellent discussion on this that unfortunately was sidetracked.
My basic contention is that 3Bd should not get QK vs Kns on a tie.
The change in the rules would be as follows...
Knights or Camelry Destroyed in close combat by "Solid" Blades or any Bows that are Lb or Cb, recoiled in close combat by other “Solid” foot. 4Kn recoiled in close combat by 3Kn. Otherwise no effect.
This is a simple change... but can it be historically justified. The early Swiss were certainly reluctant to face large numbers of knights unless they were perched on a hill side. Later, they added increasing numbers of Pikes to counter mounted attacks.
Do we have other historical examples of 3Bd troops fighting Knights?
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Oct 13, 2017 3:48:12 GMT
There are three examples of troops classified as fast blades in the rules that were specialist for fighting knights that I can come up with - however only two of them are currently in the army lists.
1) Palestinian Clubmen - these were in the Middle Imperial Roman (East) list in either the v1 or v2 lists. Specialist fast blades for dealing with Palmyran Cataprhacts 2) Lanciarii in the Middle Imperial Roman (East) list - these fast blades would come out from the main line and pepper Parthian/Sassanid cataphracts with Javelins 3) Menavlatoi in the Nikephorian Byzantine list - are stated to be "thought to be a good defence against enemy Klibanophoroi" in the army description
I suppose that you could limit the effect of the first two examples to only 4Kn opponents but is this adding a needless level of complexity
Once again I stress that I do not believe that the Blade ability to kill Knights on a tie is a particular problem. Only two weeks ago I took two Bd heavy armies to a tournament and can state for the record that expecting to kill knights on a tie with blades is not a viable tactic. It did happen and I did win a game on it when a Kn general died at the hands of my Siamese 3Bd - but there were far more instances where the Kn rode over the top of my 3Bd effectively treating them as speed bumps.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by martin on Oct 13, 2017 10:43:00 GMT
There are three examples of troops classified as fast blades in the rules that were specialist for fighting knights that I can come up with - however only two of them are currently in the army lists. 1) Palestinian Clubmen - these were in the Middle Imperial Roman (East) list in either the v1 or v2 lists. Specialist fast blades for dealing with Palmyran Cataprhacts 2) Lanciarii in the Middle Imperial Roman (East) list - these fast blades would come out from the main line and pepper Parthian/Sassanid cataphracts with Javelins 3) Menavlatoi in the Nikephorian Byzantine list - are stated to be "thought to be a good defence against enemy Klibanophoroi" in the army description Once again I stress that I do not believe that the Blade ability to kill Knights on a tie is a particular problem. Totally agree with Macbeth on this one. Martin
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 13, 2017 12:53:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 13, 2017 15:20:29 GMT
The Palestinian Clubmen argument is rendered moot... they don't exist in 3.0.
The Roman Lanciarii were primarily used for going into the "goop" after then enemy when they were deployed in their own group/unit. When used along with the other heavy infantry their use is covered by the current 4Bd rules... back rankers with javelins supporting the melee guys.
The Nikephorian Menavlatoi are more of an issue... though their usages speaks more of 4Ax than 3Bd... a 15' spear? Phil, however has them as 3Bd.
Where were 3Bd troops directly confronted by Knights? (Besides the Swiss that is). Do we have any good examples from the early Viking period? What about in the East?
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 13, 2017 17:16:47 GMT
The trouble with historical examples is that its difficult to know the entire circumstances. Did Troop type X outnumber Troop type Y? Hit it on flank rear? Catch it in Bad Going? Get a lucky die result? All of these could explain a result other than just that Type X has some inherent power of Type Y. The best we can hope for is that the actual historical result is at least a reasonable possibility in our game.
In general it seems that the looser "Blades" were used to finish off halted Knights. Its seems they worked in conjuction with Pike or obstacles to first halt then knights and then use the "big clubs/blades" to defeat the knights heavy armor (Pikes better at halting then killing). The non-Fast versions also cover halbreds/bills which were rather spear like and able to ward off mounted better than just sword armed troops - but get lumped together.
Could the looser Blades absorb and defeat a knight charge on their own? Probably not but that is reflected by the "Shock" rule of Kn Destroying on More. It might have been better to limit the "Cry Havoc" effect (Destroy Knights on Equals) to Fast Blades v. Knights in Rough/Bad or extend it to Pikes with a second rank of Fast Blades and limit the Good Going Cry Havoc effect to non-Fast Blades (dense Halbreds etc.) But thats a quite a bit of rules overhead.
I think the essentially worry is that Fast Blades are too effective in general so we thrash around to find ways to re-balance them.
Here's three suggestions: Fast Recoiled on Equals in Close from any non-Fast and by any Bow Shooting (Fast Bow Recoil other Fast on Equal (Fast v. Fast Bow would mutually Recoil).
Arrow Storm: Fast (except Ps): Destroyed on Equals by any Bow shooting. (Too stubborn to Recoil out of the rain (of arrows)). This would put some annus pucker into Fast troops.
Impetuous: Fast Pursue on More v. Shooting (Breaks up Groups does bring them closer...but it doesn't help them much as they are already in "charge" range.) Could also apply to Knights.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Oct 13, 2017 19:07:53 GMT
The early Swiss were certainly reluctant to face large numbers of knights unless they were perched on a hill side. Later, they added increasing numbers of Pikes to counter mounted attacks. Do we have other historical examples of 3Bd troops fighting Knights? Joe Collins I'd like to expand on this,The Swiss certainly were not reluctant to face Knights in the open by the Battle of Laupen and in the Guglerkreig which can be seen as evolving tactics and growing confidence from realising the effectiveness of their halberds and tactics. The Early Swiss list IV/41 only has the 3Bd option for the General element,its the (a) and (b) lists of the Late Swiss who have the option of choosing 3Bd.😊The Nachut at the Battle of Murten was made up entirely of Halberdiers and swept rapidly through the Burgundian lines to cut off the Burgundian retreat.You could argue that a Swiss player could field 6Bd instead...but 6Bd are after all supported 3Bd.😊 The increase in the numbers of pikes was also due to contact with Italian armies armed with pike and knights starting to dismount to face the Swiss Keils.The Keils remained a mix of Pike and halberds even into the Italian wars. I would not like to see the 3Bd loose the QK.Correct me if I am wrong but part of the difference between 3Bd and 4Bd is that 3Bd fight in a more loose formation and what they loose in mass is made up by impetus.Their arms and armour in most cases (not just Swiss) are essentially the same...so why make them less effective? For other examples of 3Bd successes against Kn armies are there accounts of Vikings beating Frankish armies prior to 850 AD (seige of Paris 845AD)? Or you could look at the earlier successes of the Biblical Sea Peoples defeating Caanite,Hittite,Syrian and Ugarit Heavy Chariots?
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 15, 2017 22:37:08 GMT
Ok... having skimmed sources... I disagree with your assessment of Laupen... this was an attack while still on a hill. The Swiss were able to finally defeat the mounted knights only via a flank attack... at least according to Oman's narrative.
The Sempach narrative has the men at arms dismounting.
Later Arbedo is no help either. Here 1/3 of the Swiss force was pike... and they were instrumental is stopping the German Cavalry.
Ugh...
Haarada, to answer your question... not that I can find...
The Knight victories over the Vikings of Saucourt in 881 and Chartres in 911 are well past our time period for 3Bd.
Oman speaks at length on the rise of the mounted knight being the death-knell for the Viking Age, but this seems due to operational and not just tactical considerations.
Looking further back in history may be warranted... but I am afraid the sources become more thin... and the relevance less...
Phil's other rules help little. DBMM has Bd Fast with no QK vs Knights... that is reserved for Bd(X). In DBA we have lumped them together with Bd Fast.
I fall back upon the fact that throughout history loose formation infantry has always been easily beaten by mounted. Only banding together in close formation... and then preferably with long weapons can a mounted charge be withstood. This is nicely demonstrated in DBA 3 with Solid infantry repulsing Knights on a tie and Fast infantry being stuck with them in melee... with a chance of being swept away next bound. This relationship breaks down with Bd.
Tom... Some interesting ideas with regards to missile fire. Oman makes reference to the Swiss being sensitive to missile troops... giving example with an English mercenary band that caused havoc against the Swiss cantons in the 14th century. This certainly is not well represented in DBA where 6Bd are missile troop's very worst nightmare.
What does everyone think if we cut the movement rate of 3/6 Bd down to 2BW/2BW... the same as Solid Ax? There is some precedent for this as Viking raiders and Swiss Keils were known to be operationally fast... but not necessarily tactically fast.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Oct 16, 2017 8:05:25 GMT
Joe, I agree with you on the 3Bd/Kn QK. It is not the impetus of blades that kills the knights, it is the solidity. Regarding speed, there are times when the increased movement can bring about the knights' demise by a flanking movement or opportunistic attack not available to 4Bd. I disagree with you on cutting the movement rates, although I would agree with a cut to 2.5 BW for 3Bd, 3Pk, and possibly 3Lb and 3Cb (and an increase for 4Ax to the same). My suspicion is that this was ruled out early in the 3.0 development because the 2.2+ group got there first, just at the point where feelings were running particularly high and common sense was suffering. I feel it would benefit from further consideration. It would look a bit less clumsy if we used the term movement unit to indicate half a base width, and adjusted the annotation of all elements movement appropriately (solid foot 4 MU, cavalry 8 MU etc.). Scott
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Oct 16, 2017 8:18:54 GMT
What does everyone think if we cut the movement rate of 3/6 Bd down to 2BW/2BW... the same as Solid Ax? There is some precedent for this as Viking raiders and Swiss Keils were known to be operationally fast... but not necessarily tactically fast. Joe Collins
No!
Read Livy and Appian – The Wars in Spain. For two centuries, the Lusitanian and particularly the Celtiberian method of fighting was described by the Romans as ‘concursare’; a rapid attack, retreat, regroup and counter-attack tactic. Daniel Varga explains in his book ‘The Roman Wars in Spain’ how this tactic was successfully employed to lure even Roman armies into an ambush. Executed on the battlefield this method broke up Roman formations making them vulnerable to counter-attack.
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Oct 16, 2017 9:17:28 GMT
What does everyone think if we cut the movement rate of 3/6 Bd down to 2BW/2BW... the same as Solid Ax? There is some precedent for this as Viking raiders and Swiss Keils were known to be operationally fast... but not necessarily tactically fast. Joe Collins
No!
Read Livy and Appian – The Wars in Spain. For two centuries, the Lusitanian and particularly the Celtiberian method of fighting was described by the Romans as ‘concursare’; a rapid attack, retreat, regroup and counter-attack tactic. Daniel Varga explains in his book ‘The Roman Wars in Spain’ how this tactic was successfully employed to lure even Roman armies into an ambush. Executed on the battlefield this method broke up Roman formations making them vulnerable to counter-attack.
But this doesn't work does it? 3Bd are recoiled but 4Bd follow up and remain in contact. If we are to address this we need to increase recoil distance for fast foot. No that that would necessarily be a bad idea. Scott
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Oct 16, 2017 9:34:13 GMT
No!
Read Livy and Appian – The Wars in Spain. For two centuries, the Lusitanian and particularly the Celtiberian method of fighting was described by the Romans as ‘concursare’; a rapid attack, retreat, regroup and counter-attack tactic. Daniel Varga explains in his book ‘The Roman Wars in Spain’ how this tactic was successfully employed to lure even Roman armies into an ambush. Executed on the battlefield this method broke up Roman formations making them vulnerable to counter-attack.
But this doesn't work does it? 3Bd are recoiled but 4Bd follow up and remain in contact. If we are to address this we need to increase recoil distance for fast foot. No that that would necessarily be a bad idea. Scott I would not mind that, especially if I am recoiling into BAD GOING terrain - such as difficult hills.
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Oct 16, 2017 10:02:00 GMT
You are actually OK in that circumstance, as elements don't usually pursue into bad going. It doesn't occur often though, and is to the advantage of the (non-) pursuer, not the pursued. Scott
|
|
|
Post by martin on Oct 16, 2017 10:29:37 GMT
You are actually OK in that circumstance, as elements don't usually pursue into bad going. It doesn't occur often though, and is to the advantage of the (non-) pursuer, not the pursued. Scott How about the situation where the 3Bd recoiled so its rear portion was in bad going (= -2 CF) but its front was out, so the opponent had no negative factor AND could pursue or move to engage it. Wouldn't help the 3Bd much there. M
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 16, 2017 10:38:07 GMT
No!
Read Livy and Appian – The Wars in Spain. For two centuries, the Lusitanian and particularly the Celtiberian method of fighting was described by the Romans as ‘concursare’; a rapid attack, retreat, regroup and counter-attack tactic. Daniel Varga explains in his book ‘The Roman Wars in Spain’ how this tactic was successfully employed to lure even Roman armies into an ambush. Executed on the battlefield this method broke up Roman formations making them vulnerable to counter-attack. But this doesn't work does it? 3Bd are recoiled but 4Bd follow up and remain in contact. If we are to address this we need to increase recoil distance for fast foot. No that that would necessarily be a bad idea. Scott I very much like the idea that fast foot should have the option to recoil a full base width if they wish (I would also include 4Ax as well), but that may make 3Bd even more powerful, which is what Joe Collins is worried about. Personally, I'm not sure that 3Bd are currently too powerful: they are certainly good, and better than some, but they do have disadvantages. (Recoiling on an equal score from solid foot...afraid of warbands in bad going...not much use against elephants...etc) 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
|
|