|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 27, 2023 10:14:12 GMT
There was a theory that pikes were to fix enemy heavy infantry in place, whilst the battle was won elsewhere…. There are pikes and there are pikes. I think early (at least) hellenistic pikes were more defensive to pin the opponent. The genius of Phillip and Alexander was in exploting combined arms and elite troops to win the day IMHO. But then swiss pikes were offensive juggernauts. Maybe early pikes could be considered spears in DBA? Afterall, DBA is about battlefield performance rather than weapons. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 25, 2023 14:28:16 GMT
Greek and Macedonian Land Battles of the 4th Century B.C.
Fred Eugene Ray Jr
I suspect it will make me go back to the primary sources and revisit Phillip's army list.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 25, 2023 1:52:17 GMT
You can add the Beer drinker from the Eureka Sumerian range to add to the camp feel!
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 23, 2023 11:15:01 GMT
Certainly space opera battles resemble naval surface actions rather than true space movement. But HOTT is for fantasy so that doesn't bother me too much so long as it feels like Star Wars (or whatever your choice of poison). However, I draw the line at those ridiculous bombers in Star Wars episode 8. At least TIE bombers could be equipped with a mountain of proton torpedoes!
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 21, 2023 16:09:21 GMT
It is a game though. Getting historically accurate results may not be great fun after a while. I'm happy with historically plausible with a nod to the historical results. Romans should beat Gauls more often but not to the point that no one buys Gallic miniatures. Most rules deal with this with points but then you simply get the repeated scenario of a small high quality army dealing with a larger low quality army trying to get around the flank. Though this happened, most ancient reports I read seem to indicate a thinning of the line to deal with these situations together with mounted and light troops protecting the flank and terrain anchors.
Period specific house rules can certainly add to the flavour and get closer to history (eg Sparta gets 1-3 Spartiates elements that cause -1 to enemy heavy infantry) but this leads to predictable battles or ahistorical tactics IMHO. And that is another strength of DBA3. You can use it as tool kit and tinker it as much you like to get the game you want.
Jim
PS The issues with 4Aux and LH armies are more problematic as they don't seem to get near plausible historical results
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 20, 2023 10:33:12 GMT
Some interesting thoughts stevie. Assuming we forget about the real physics of space and consider space opera battles as the aim then there are possibilities. I have Star Wars Armada from FFG and it gives an interesting game. The ships have different attacks depending on which side is facing the enemy (eg broadside v frontal). Small ships could be shown as a swarm and act like Psiloi. It could just work.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 19, 2023 11:57:23 GMT
Having started out on the WRG rules set, when it became DBA we never got beyond the first game. Warband are far too powerful, in our book anyway, beyong the initial charge. All you carefully planned Pike, spear, blades just dissolved. Not sure if this has ever been rectified. Recently looked at DBMM and it does at least offer solutions to this conundrum, though translating Phil Barker's language is a challenge. Welcome to fanaticus! I do hope you try DBA 3. It is not perfect but it's very good and improved from the earlier versions. Certainly warband are not considered too powerful in the current version. If anything people find them a little underpowered but they can still pull off a win with some careful planning or good dice rolling! Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 13, 2023 1:02:50 GMT
Happy Birthday! Ask for some blank dice and write your own numbers!
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 11, 2023 11:54:44 GMT
I was looking at the DBMM army list and the most cavalry a Strathclyde army could get is General + 4 companions per command. At the DBMM point cost they would represent a significantly lower percentage of the army than the DBA army list. Another argument that they are over represented in DBA.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 11, 2023 11:50:21 GMT
I'm trying to resist the 3D printing itch. This just makes it so much harder!
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 11, 2023 7:20:50 GMT
I think gonatas hits the nail on the head. DBA is (supposedly) more about battlefield performance than actual equipment. Best example is Vikings. Historically, they were mostly spearmen using shieldwall but the Bd/Sp interaction gives historically plausible results against Anglo-Saxons. On the flip side though most people dislike 4Ax because they don't give historically plausible outcomes.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 10, 2023 11:37:44 GMT
Your logic cannot be faulted. This is not the only army list that in covering such a long period (~500 years), the make-up can look out of place at certain points of history. It seems to me to happen more with the "supporting cast" of nations around the main historical protagonists.
But we also must remember that our sources are limited, sometimes severely limited. I've just put up a link to a podcast on hoplite phalanx depth in the Off-topic section to illustrate how few sources actually talk about the depth. The absence of records doesn't exclude the presence of cavalry. It could simply be that Strathclyde was too small to warrant much attention from the latter Anglo-Saxon chroniclers. Or that the cavalry simply didn't have much battlefield effect against Saxon spearmen.
You could try to rationalise the cavalry as small numbers in a small army so the percentage represented is the same.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 10, 2023 11:20:40 GMT
I was listening to this podcast and it reminded me of how limited our sources are for ancient history. But they're the best we've got! ancient warfare podcastCheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 9, 2023 12:00:04 GMT
I was reading about the Battle of Himera (480 BC) Wiki as I'm working on a campaign to cover The Sicilian Wars and it got me thinking about cities in DBA. Now it seems that the city rules are not well loved in their current form by most players. But when I read about this battle and I can see why PB wanted cities in the rules to cover situations like Theron sallying forth at the critical moment to flank the Carthaginians. Now this is possible with the current rules but it doesn't seem to work. So here are some alternative ideas as a first draft: 1) Modelling: Don't model the complete city but just a portion of the city wall and one gate. It can be rectangular 2) Placement: City must be placed against the battlefield edge and project no more than two BW into the battlefield 3) Size: Between 1 and 2 BW deep and between 3 and 4 BW long (so it's at least as big as the biggest camp). 4) Garrison: Up to three elements are reserved as garrison troops and are kept off the board (or placed in the city). These can be an allied contingent. If not, the troops are selected from the home army list as if they were an allied contingent (city defenders won't be dregs but higher level troops). WWg and elephants are not allowed. If artillery chosen, it's combat factor is reduced as if it were in a fort. 5) Game rules: The city cannot be assaulted by the invader whilst it's garrisoned. (If they could they would've already done it before the relief force arrived). To sally forth, the defender must pay 6 PIPs (this simulates poor communication and a reticence to leave the safety of the walls) to place the garrison as a legal group touching the city base within half a base width from the gate. They can be placed within enemy TZ and in legal edge to edge contact. Once the garrison sallies forth, the invader can enter the city via the gate. It sacks the city as per the current rules. This counts as 3 element equivalent loss for the defender (after all that's why you're fighting the battle in the first place). No government change/denizens/puppet regime etc. Please let me know your thoughts. Is it too powerful and will be used in every battle to flank the enemy? Is 6 PIPs too expensive? Should you be able to place it on a Waterway or does this cramp the field too much? Any other feedback welcome! Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 31, 2022 12:17:11 GMT
Mounted probably hate terrain more so that works (unless Camels in Dunes or Oasis). Fast should probably recoil solid in Bad going. That would make sense. I'm ambivalent about Rough.
But I agree with Tony, simplification.
Jim
|
|
