DBA 3.1 Considerations... 3Bd vs Kns

martin Emperor Posts: 2,398	DBA 3.1 Considerations... 3Bd vs Kns Oct 16, 2017 10:46:52 GMT Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by martin on Oct 16, 2017 10:46:52 GMT Inclined to agree with stevie on all those points. M

Haardrada
Senator

Posts: 1,356

DBA 3.1 Considerations... 3Bd vs Kns Oct 16, 2017 14:55:52 GMT via mobile

Quote

Post by Haardrada on Oct 16, 2017 14:55:52 GMT

Oct 15, 2017 22:37:08 GMT lkmjbc said:

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

Delbruck gave a more in depth description of the Battle of Laupen which questioned the retreat of the Swiss reserve was due to a flank attack by the Imperial troops.
My point was although you can class Mortgarten and Sempach as ambushes,Laupen and the 3 battles of the Guglerkreig were open engagements where Halberdiers faced off or attacked Knight formations.Yes the Knights were defeated by a flank attack,but the Forrest canton troops had fought the Knights off for several hours and it was only the threat of missile troops comming to the Knights support that gave any threat to their situation.

As for the Vikings in France I quoted the earlier seige of Paris in 845AD where Ragnar defeated the army of Charles the Bald forcing his army to retreat.If overall battle reports are not available then the fact that most European Kingdoms which had contact with the Vikings in this era certainly had difficulty defeating them and resorted to other means to stem the tide.

I also disagree with the idea of slowing 3Bd using the Swiss as an example,at Murten,Nancy and Dornach to name a few examples, the Swiss are recorded as advancing rapidly and that is during a period when the rules classify them as 4Bd.It was normal at this time for Swiss formations to try to strike at enemy artillery as this is what they considered could do the most damage.

battlefieldanomalies.com/wp/?page_id=854

If you really want to curb the effectiveness of Bd vs Kn then it is better to remove the QK over Kn completely as there is no compelling evidence that 3Bd is any worse than 4Bd vs Kn., In fact there are at least two famous examples...Civitate and Hastings where what are class as 4Bd in an uphill position were both defeated by Kn (At Civitate it also took a simultaneous flank attack to beat the Swabians).

Last Edit: Oct 16, 2017 19:18:35 GMT by Haardrada

scottrussell
Centurion

Posts: 294

DBA 3.1 Considerations... 3Bd vs Kns Oct 16, 2017 18:00:10 GMT

Quote

Post by scottrussell on Oct 16, 2017 18:00:10 GMT

Oct 16, 2017 10:29:37 GMT martin said:

Oct 16, 2017 10:02:00 GMT scottrussell said:

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

Martin,
Delete "You are OK in that circumstance" and substitute "Your attempt to model the situation where Celtiberians were able to break off from Roman Legioinaries, fall back and regroup, as described by Livy, and which you describe above, would be successful in that circumstance...".
Scott

Last Edit: Oct 16, 2017 18:48:44 GMT by scottrussell

stevie
Emperor

Posts: 3,195

DBA 3.1 Considerations... 3Bd vs Kns Oct 16, 2017 20:56:59 GMT

Quote

Post by stevie on Oct 16, 2017 20:56:59 GMT

Oct 16, 2017 14:55:52 GMT Haardrada said:

If you really want to curb the effectiveness of Bd vs Kn then it is better to remove the QK over Kn completely as there is no compelling evidence that 3Bd is any worse than 4Bd vs Kn., In fact there are at least two famous examples...Civitate and Hastings where what are class as 4Bd in an uphill position were both defeated by Kn (At Civitate it also took a simultaneous flank attack to beat the Swabians).

Don't forget that Roman general Lucullus at the Battle of Tigranocerta in 69 BC managed to defeat the cataphracts of Tigranes the Great of Armenia ...but this was 4Bd against 4Kn (and the cataphracts were outflanked and taken by surprise in the flank/rear by a downhill charge by the legionaries when distracted by Roman mercenary light horse).

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

lkmjbc
Tribune

Posts: 925

DBA 3.1 Considerations... 3Bd vs Kns Oct 16, 2017 22:31:46 GMT

Quote

Post by lkmjbc on Oct 16, 2017 22:31:46 GMT

Haadrada:

Nice article on the Swiss... I don't own that volume of Delbruck...

I disagree with your assessment of the speed of the Swiss. The speed seems to be in their operational movement, not their tactical... though Phil has them moving tactically faster in DBR (Pike(S) get their movement allowance bumped).

I am reluctant however to cut their movement for another reason... there doesn't seem to be any historical reason to do so...

Again I fall back on the general notion that loose formation troops will have difficulty with knights... I don't think we can draw any conclusions from the Swiss. The early Vikings would seem to be a perfect example to base any changes... Oman's theory suggests this... except we have exactly zero good accounts of knights riding down Fast Bd... Ugh...

This is coupled with Phil mixing Bd X and Bd F in DBA.

We could of course limit the Kill on a Tie for 3Bd to 4Kn.

This helps to fix the Bd X issue... as those troops were designed to directly attack Cataphracts...

Still pondering... other historical examples would be welcome.

Joe Collins

lkmjbc Tribune Posts: 925	DBA 3.1 Considerations... 3Bd vs Kns Oct 16, 2017 22:32:56 GMT Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by lkmjbc on Oct 16, 2017 22:32:56 GMT To Everyone to quickly clarify.... My idea is to allow only Ax to recoil the extra depth... not all fast troops. Joe Collins

barritus
Beneficiarii

Posts: 71

DBA 3.1 Considerations... 3Bd vs Kns Oct 17, 2017 1:55:51 GMT

Quote

Post by barritus on Oct 17, 2017 1:55:51 GMT

This thread is (as usual in such things) drawing out all sorts of issues.

Personally I think 3Bd are somewhat overrated (especially against mounted in open going - as perhaps Fast troops are in general) and understand Joe's thoughts on reining them in somewhat.

Rather than limiting 3Bd QK vs Knights (I certainly DON'T agree with limiting 4Bd's QK - it was put there by PB for a reason) however I think a better bet would be to just restrict Fast troops movement (except for Ps) in Rough or Bad going to 2BW. This would balance up the relative merits of Fast vs Solid troops in an overall sense better than trying to restrict 3Bd's QK vs Kn (recall that in open going Kn will QK Bd about twice as often as visa versa.

cheers

B.

Post by martin on Oct 16, 2017 10:46:52 GMT

Post by Haardrada on Oct 16, 2017 14:55:52 GMT

Post by scottrussell on Oct 16, 2017 18:00:10 GMT

Post by stevie on Oct 16, 2017 20:56:59 GMT

Post by lkmjbc on Oct 16, 2017 22:31:46 GMT

Post by lkmjbc on Oct 16, 2017 22:32:56 GMT

Post by barritus on Oct 17, 2017 1:55:51 GMT