|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 30, 2020 4:50:39 GMT
Chaeronea is an interesting battle to game. We don't have a huge detailed account of the battle, but we do have some archeological evidence. Diodorius claims the Greeks were outnumbered by Phillip. Others disagree. I follow Phil Sabin's analysis. He shows the terrain having a major impact on the battle. In essence, it narrowed the frontage for the fight. The Greeks therefore couldn't outflank the Macedonians. This turns it into a frontal fight where the Greek spearmen are outmatched by the pikes. Further problems are caused by the DBA army lists. The Macedonian list really can't be used for battles with Phillip. It is really for Alexander's battles. Here is what I do for this fight (I have done it with historical forces over 10 times...and as a normal sized game many times as well.) 1. Use Phil Sabin's terrain setup from "Lost Battles" 2. Phillip is a Pk general... not a Kn General. 3. Use my alternate rules for Pk.... basically 4Pk win ties. This makes the pike front truly scary. The Greeks are in trouble if they don't deepen up. Alexander also is key... a timely knight charge can easily break the Greek line and win the game. I find the above produces a fight that can turn out much like the narrative of the battle we all know. Joe Collins I agree that the infantry general should be available. As Pk, would you want to add another to the list to give even numbers? Logically though, if Philip was on foot, he would have Hypaspists with him, but who would want a 4Ax General?  Pk win on ties is interesting but it still doesn't provide the frontage to match the hoplite line. As a game DBA 3 works well because of the interactions like spearwall vs blades does make for a tense fight. I'm looking for similar between Sp and Pk and between Bd and Pk, preferably with minimal changes, even if these changes are only applicable from Philip II to Philip V. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 30, 2020 1:20:53 GMT
6-4 against spears across the line and the Spears won't last long. Diodorus writes about Chareronea "The battle was hotly contested for a long time and many fell on both sides, so that for a while the struggle permitted hopes of victory to both". There is a tumulus near the proposed battle site that contains the burnt corpses of the Macedonians that seems to add weight to this statement as they were far more likely to fall during battle than in the aftermath.
The more I read, the more I am agreeing with Fred Eugene Ray Jr (Greek and Macedonian Land Battles of the 4th Century B.C.) that the pikes and spears were not hugely different in effect in this era. Even Diodorus states clearly that Philip's generalship was a major factor, together with the combined arms of the Macedonian army.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 29, 2020 11:01:50 GMT
Advice on branching out.....logically you should do Persians next and then Alexander and the Successors after that. Then once you are there Rome, Carthage and the Punic wars will follow.....or is it just me who is addicted? No, you are not alone. I've always thought that Fanaticus was a therapy group!  Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 29, 2020 10:59:27 GMT
Why Bd? Weren't hypaspists equipped as spearmen? Yes they were. But so were the Vikings mostly. It's just that 4Ax doesn't give then their historical role. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 29, 2020 10:57:24 GMT
Yes stevie, Gaugamela is a struggle but at Chaironea, the lines were considered equal(ish). Which is the more important battle to simulate? My view is Chaironea as it was roughly even numbers. Gaugamela was not. Many accounts indicate that Generals extended their line to match the enemy. They were more worried about the flank than the break through. But the numbers were so disparate at Gaugamela that Alexander couldn't consider this tactic. Should an Athenian army be more likely to match the Persian host than Alexander? It seems as though Hellenistic battles often saw thinned lines and these were also able to achieve local victory, particularly if they were high quality veterans. That's one of the reasons that I'm not convinced that the Pike Phalalnx had to be twice as deep as the hoplite phalanx to be effective. Most general seemed comfortable to deploy thinner but match the enemy width.
I followed the "Rear support for all" thread but it didn't appeal to me so I didn't contribute (you know, "if you've got nothing good to say..."). I don't want to see deeper battle lines at the expense of width. If nothing else, it is not aesthetically pleasing to my eye. I'm certain in my mind that Psiloi did filter through ato the rear and take pot shots where possible. But I don't think that's going to make a difference at this scale. But their ability to impede a breakthrough with their TZ is something that DBA 3 does brilliantly. I do favour double based elements rather than rear support. On a DBA battlefield, I'd rather see Gaius Suetonius Paulinus 4xLegionaries and 4xAuxilia face Boudica's 6xdouble based Warband and 3xChariots. This gives the mass, gives the cumbersome manouverabilty and the brittleness of the battle and looks good on the table!
But that's just me. I'm going to try Pk at +4 with +2 for side support to see how that works at Chaironea.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 29, 2020 3:30:45 GMT
The first experiment was interesting. The side support was chaotic with very interesting match ups. Probably too chaotic but did provide opportunities for cavalry to charge the flank of exposed elements. The deep formation was a slow steam roller. Always felt that the spears were doomed.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 29, 2020 1:57:10 GMT
Just reading the Alexandrian Macedonian army list and it states that it represents the army at Chaironeia amongst others. Now try and replicate this in DBA.
The Thebans/Athenians set up on 600mm board with a river down one flank and hills on the other (place an insignificant hamlet in a corner to allow for a legal terrain). They defend and place an 8 element hoplite phalanx across the board and between terrain. Cavalry and Psiloi in support or in the hills. So far so good.
The accounts that we have indicate that the heavy infantry fought across the line and were evenly matched before either a) the Athenians pursued, possibly due to feigned flight, and were broken by Phillip, b) Alexander broke the Thebans, probably after flanking, c) a bit of both. Accounts state that the Athenians and the Sacred Band (extreme left and extreme right) were engaged with heavy infnatry.
Now DBA Phillip comes along and he can place a 3x2 Pk block, a single spear and a 4Ax (Hypaspists!) but his line is 3 short. He can extend it with Cavalry and hope the Knights break through and turn the flank before his Hypaspists (his select troops) are slaughtered but that won't give the description of a close heavy infantry fight that we have been provided. He could place the Pk as single elements and match the line but that would be suicide in DBA!
My upcoming experiment with house rules are to either make the Pikes 8Pk at deployment for +6 or give Pk +3 side support instead of rear support. Hypaspists will also be reclassed as Blades. The deep option makes the Pikes ponderous and brittle as the first loss counts as two. The second option allows Pk to be broken up, isolated and picked off by Blades after a few rounds unless they win early. As you may guess, I'm not convinced that the Pike phalanx was always significantly deeper than its enemy in order to be effective.
I'll let you know how it goes!
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 29, 2020 1:10:44 GMT
Welcome to fanaticus! As timurilank stated, this set is not particular for DBA. You certainly get enough Hoplites. The extra troops will help develop other armies (e.g. Thessalian, Aitolian, Thracian) as few will be needed for Sparta. If you wanted a Peloponnesian War look for the Spartans then Xyston does the set below: Spartan DBA set
Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 28, 2020 12:43:38 GMT
It does strike me that the Fast/Solid differences create pseudo classes that perhaps would've done better as specific classes? Instead of 3Ax/4Ax we could have Peltasts and Auxilia. Knights and Cataphracts instead of 3Kn/4Kn. This does sound very 2.2+ and perhaps this is the price we pay for schism. Certainly the mechanics of DBA 3 are fabulous. (The Anglo-Danish just handed Harald Hardraada another defeat and the Blades/Spears interaction as well as the role of the Psiloi were better than so many so called more serious rulesets.)
DBA 3 is so strong because it is simple but not simplistic, because it gets great results that are plausible history with a small figure count on a small board in under an hour. If we can get the message out then this can be the flagship that keeps the future wargamer interested. It has wrinkles (4Ax, Pikes, Bw v Heavy Infantry) but overall it seems as though we all love playing it. Shame there won't be an "official" update.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 26, 2020 12:49:39 GMT
A little off topic but the one and only Tony Aguilar just unboxed a book on 16th century warfare on his youtube channel. He mentioned bringing DB-RRR up to 3.0, which would be very interesting, especially as Eureka have just released an 18mm ECW range.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 26, 2020 0:22:16 GMT
Regarding Ps, may be PB is just being a purist? Ps wouldn't fall back through Ps to find relative shelter. The mass would just fall back from whatever the pressure was facing them. In practice, you can swap the two of them. It doesn't affect the game.
I don't think this is a major wrinkle that needs ironing. Pikes on the other hand...
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 20, 2020 11:11:12 GMT
Maybe Chnodomar just rolled a 6-1? |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 17, 2020 10:00:58 GMT
Member Olivia has been banned. All posts deleted. Usual Camel Fleas on their way. Are Camel fleas bigger than regular fleas? |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 17, 2020 9:58:30 GMT
I should clarify ronisan, I agree with your first line but not with the rest.
I think option (d) in "Moving into contact with enemy" is independent of any frontal contact to that element. Rather it is a position in relation to an element. My rationale is:
a) Elements can end up overlapping each other after combat and outcome moves. It would be unusual for this to be legal contact that cannot be achieved by tactical moves. It is an extra complication to the game. It would also open up significant discussion, as at the end of the next movement bound it could be argued that the contact is illegal. Do you have to move them apart? Do you need to spend PIPs? What rules cover the situation?
b) As Psiloi and Scythed Chariots cannot be overlapped in combat by corner to corner contact (Page 10 "... any enemy element except Psiloi or Scyhed Chariots overlaps this"), defining overlap by combat doesn't work. It would mean a group cannot contact a lone psiloi with only corner to corner overlap as this would not fulfil option (d) as it is not in overlap and does not generate the tactical factor.
I think considering overlap as a position relative to an element helps simplify the game, avoids unusual differences between tactical moves, outcome moves and combat results and avoids contradicting the special nature of Psiloi (and Scythed Chariots).
But each to their own. We'll see if the FAQ team takes this up. Otherwise, we can agree to disagree and get back to painting and gaming!
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 17, 2020 8:38:56 GMT
I agree. But I'm sure I've seen them played differently.
|
|
