|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 21, 2019 11:06:04 GMT
Don't break them up but can slow them down. In combination with others though they can effect some disorganisation. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 21, 2019 11:02:25 GMT
Well Jim, all I can do is quote from Duncan Head’s “Macedonian and Punic Wars” (as he has already done the research for us). Page 47 of the 1982 edition, or page 113 of the 2016 edition:- Peltasts and thureophoroiPeltasts were traditionally skirmishers, evading when charged, and wearing their enemy down with a rain of javelins. They were better equipped for close combat than psiloi, so were used in ambushes and to drive off skirmishers. Page 52 of the 1982 edition, or page 122 of the 2016 edition:- The IllyriansIn the 5th century Thucydides records that “as they fight in no sort of order, they have no sense of shame about giving up a position under pressure. To run forwards and to run backwards are equally honourable in their eyes...every man fighting on his own”. They would not press home an attack against enemy who stood firm, and would retire at speed from vigorous charges, operating in fact like the typical peltast and only closing with enemy weakened by missiles or by their fierce warcries. From these quotes we see that psiloi (CF 2) were not as good as peltasts (CF 3, so 3Ax) in close combat, who would evade (i.e. recoil 1 BW) when charged. And if an enemy charges, they will move forwards, and no longer be in a line with their mates. For how can you charge forwards to make the enemy evade, but not actually cover any distance or leave your original position?And when peltast-3Ax recoil from Spears they are not evading a charge, they have simply been bested in hand-to-hand combat, have fallen back, and seeing no pursuit (because the enemy is in a passive shield wall) they have halted and reformed. Note that this ‘evading when charged’ is not done by other types of ‘medium infantry’, as shown below... Ok. So firstly I'm limiting this to just 3Ax. No issue with 4Ax+1. I have no objection to the above opinions of Duncan Head. I completely agree that 3Ax need to be able to separate from Heavy Infantry. But allowing 3Ax to recoil 1BW but Ps only 1/2BW suggests 3Ax were more agile than Ps. The only reason for this is the game mechanic of Bd and Pk pursuit. Surely, changing the pursuit game mechanic is a simpler solution? If Bd and Pk don't pursue 3Ax or Ps then separation would occur. Hoping to disorganise a line of blades or a pike block seems more an attempt at play balance rather than historical record. As Duncan was writing about troops that would be quite familiar with hoplites, the comment about a passive shield wall is wrong, at least in open ground. Hoplites advanced. Otherwise the Persians would've shot them to pieces quite easily. I can't see why Bd and Pk would treat disorganised javelin throwers any differently to Hoplites. If 3Ax Thracians can't disorganise a hoplite phalanx then they shouldn't disorganise a Macedonian phalanx. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 20, 2019 0:07:29 GMT
About not pursuing 3Ax recoilsThe problem with this is that all troops end up looking like Hoplite Spears, in a nice neat line, if they don’t pursue 3Ax. Having Blades, Pikes, and Warbands pursuing 3Ax that recoil a full BW does break up their battleline, costing them PIPs to reform and leaving them vulnerable to overlaps (and looks very realistic in the case of Warbands). Having these troops pursuing recoiling 3Ax is a very useful tool for the Ax...it’s like a ‘feigned-flight’ manoeuvre, which in effect is what an ‘evade’ move is, drawing them out of position (although because of their high combat factor, Pikes are less affected and will usually all pursue together in a line). So I think that having Bd/Pk/Wb pursuing 3Ax, even if they can’t catch them, is the better option. I agree with much of what you have written. But this is probably your weakest argument. 3Ax often represent irregular tribesmen armed with javelins. I doubt they used an "evade" tactic. They just threw their javelins from a comfortable distance (which is more than compensated by the base depth) and fell back when they got too close. Javelins would probably run out quickly and they likely legged it. I don't think there is any need to improve a line of 3Ax against heavy infantry in open ground. They shouldn't be there in the first place. We are not going to cover all the historical nuances of medium infantry over 4500 years with two troop types. I'd rather stick with two historical prototypes and do our best from there. One type that was more mobile, excellent in bad going, OK against mounted but steam rolled in the open against heavy infantry. The other type was more organised (or better elan), could stand up to heavy infantry, particularly warband, at least for a while, but not as mobile. So for me, I will be trialling 4Ax +1 against heavy infantry and 3Ax not pursued by heavy infantry and also 3Ax can group move in bad going. We'll see how it goes. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 19, 2019 9:33:10 GMT
I still find 8Bw utterly nerfed aginst HI, but what the heck. EAP lost in Greece (despite taking and burning Athens to the ground - something not even the Spartans pulled off in the famous war with Athens) so why even bother playing EAP vs hoplites. Waste of a good gaming night ... 🙁 I was thinking about an 8Bw thread once this one was finished. But as I was writing this it occurred to me that this thread may help EAPs, at least against contemporaries. I've metioned before that there are too many Sp enemies (e.g. Lydian, Cypriot, etc) that didn't really fight as a shieldwall like (better) hoplites. Reclassing these to the new 4Ax may help even the odds for the Persians. Even downgrading some hoplites (e.g. Ionians) can also improve things. It'll never make the official rules but can easily be used for local campaigns. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 19, 2019 9:24:46 GMT
I like paddy649's reflection. One battle may be the exception rather than the rule. I think the more general descriptions by the ancient authors given by stevie are a better guide.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 19, 2019 3:52:31 GMT
Jim, I think you may be onto something with limiting pursuit. That is certainly a very viable idea. And it limits offboard recoils of 3Ax somewhat. I like it. But they don’t need to pursue to overlap. B1 B2 B3 : A2 : A1 A3 Here A1 has been recoiled by B1 and not pursued, and A3 has been recoiled by B3 and not pursued. A2, which hasn’t fought yet, is now double overlapped (CF 1 v CF 5, 18 chances in 36 (50%) of being doubled). If A2 has a +1 for facing Bd/Sp/unsupported Pk, it might survive (CF 2 v 5, 12 chances (33%) of being doubled).
Hi stevie.3Ax wouldn't get the plus one. And if A1 and A3 recoiled full base depth and B1 and B3 pursued then they would still double overlap A2. No? I do like the idea of 4Ax getting the +1. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 19, 2019 2:09:21 GMT
I have tried it Joe...several times. Recoiling 1 BW looks good for peltast 3Ax, but not 4Ax. No matter how far an Ax runs away, it leaves its neighbouring Ax to single or even worse double overlaps (50% chance of destruction). I say again: overlaps-kill-auxiliaries!. See fanaticus.boards.net/post/19157/The maths don’t lie... Just a thought stevie regarding 3Ax recoil. As you say, Psiloi don't need this because there is no pursuit. Could the same effect not happen with limiting pursuit against 3Ax (as this would only be a minor change that involves relatively similar troop types) rather than making an unusual rule where mounted plus one specific infantry type move in a certain way? It would still separate the lines. It would also address paddy649's concerns about further weakening Pike. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 17, 2019 2:21:03 GMT
Re Canne and its challenges its only fair to point out that SPI in is heyday created a very popular ancient warfare general simulation in which the Romans routinely slaughtered the Carthaginians in the Canne scenario (and of course part of this comes from the fact that we are not Hannibal and our Roman opponent is forewarned as to the historical outcome). TomT From memory I remember a discussion on recreating Cannae in Slingshot. PB contributed and his thoughts were that to recreate Cannae you need a Hannibal and a Varro. Now if players deployed the same way and If they moved the troops in to contact the same way then the outcome should be possible with the mechanics. (Marathon is virtually not possible but complaints are minimal because the Hoplites still win most against EAP but that's another story/thread.) So I think that 4Ax +1 against Sp/Bd/supported Pk is getting traction. 3Ax recoiling like cav seems to be popular. Let's see some game results. Athens v Thrace Part II coming up! Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 14, 2019 9:03:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 14, 2019 8:58:47 GMT
I have similar tests planned for the 2nd Punic War in Hispania, Ok, I tested my idea of 3Ax fleeing from Sp when doubled. The armies were: Athens: 1xSp(Gen), 8xSp, 1 x LH, 1x3Bw, 1xPs Thrace: 1xCv(Gen), 3xLH, 6x3Ax, 2xPs Turns out that the Athenian phalanx couldn't destroy anything without a hard flank! Not quite the outcome I wanted. I guess it's important to remember that the Army lists need to mesh with the rules. I could try the DBA-RRR odds/evens mechanic but I have decided that 3Ax is not broken. I've also shelved the group move in bad going idea unless I see something on the table that seems unreasonable. I will spend some time setting up the Thracians to see what seems best from a terrain point of view. They will be tough enough with three difficult hills. As I am no expert on 4Ax I will sit back with popcorn and read with interest. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 12, 2019 22:38:39 GMT
Part two.In the book, The Imperial Roman Army by Yann Le Bohec, the organization and role of the army in the empire well covered, but relavent to this debate are the sections under ‘Activities of the Army’’ which include training, tactics and strategy. Under training we find troops honing their skill with their standard issued weapons, but also learned the use of bow, sling and throwing stones. Drills included the change of formation from close order to open order and the reverse so cohorts could quickly adapt to the terrain they moved through or the enemy they fought. Noteworthy, in Tacitus – Agricola, four cohorts of Batavians and two of Tongres were ordered to engage the Britions with sword and shield like legionnaires (p.144, Le Bohec). The passage is long but would certainly add weight to the suggestion of increasing the combat factor from 3 to 4 as a good one. With good military leaders one can expect a high level of training, ensuring an army’s performance and conversely, as the quality of leaders declined, so would the performance of the troops under their command. Regarding increasing the combat factor for auxilia, my own Middle Imperial Roman army (II/64) would benefit greatly, but consistantly using them against all barbarian and nomadic tribes their tactics and deployment have greatly improved. The Late Imperial Roman army (II/78) are similar to the Middle Imperial with regard to troop type. They do however, have a significantly higher number of mounted elements. Despite the smaller number of foot troops, the ratio of legion to auxilia remains nearly even. I do like the increasing the recoil distance of 1BW for auxilia. I would like to see a distinction between the two types and suggest the following: 3Ax – recoil 1BW 4Ax – recoil base depth or 1BW, similar to the option given to mounted troops. Thank timurilank. I enjoyed both your posts. My own experience is mostly around the Greco-Persian Wars and Peloponnesian War, where Thracians are the dominant Auxilia force. They don't do well against Spears clearly. The 1BW recoil wouldn't really do much in this setting. I think the concept is to free them from pursuing Blade and Pike. Maybe not allowing Blade and Pike to pursue Auxilia would be a better (easier) solution? I am going to try a game where 3Ax flees from Spears. This forces the Hoplite player to have to disrupt the line and flank for a kill, potentially open up an opprtunity for the Thracians with a good PIP roll to set on an out of place element. Let you know. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 12, 2019 22:24:04 GMT
You know i very much doubt it is Details.....and pics (‘or it never happened’ 😊), pleeeez 😳 We'll soon need an adult filter for the forum...   Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 12, 2019 22:22:18 GMT
Hi Tony. One question about the NKE v Sea Peoples. Did Mitch have his camp back-to-front with the water projecting into the battlefield? Cheers Jim That camp is just a VISUAL representation of a camp, so there is actually no water, it is just aesthetics. Sorry Tony. My attempt at humour fell flat again on the digital platform. I completely understand the abstract nature of the camp. It just looked funny to me! I also assume your Qin army doesn't have a display version of the Great Wall that it lugs around on carts to house the general (come to think of it, this may not be that implausable...) Love your videos and always learn a lot! Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 12, 2019 9:02:26 GMT
Hi Tony.
One question about the NKE v Sea Peoples. Did Mitch have his camp back-to-front with the water projecting into the battlefield?
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 11, 2019 11:25:55 GMT
I'm struggling to get pictures on the site at the moment but I buy my bases from Back-2-Basix in Adelaide. You can buy just one of most things. I just added one of various appropriate lengths (1BW to 7BW)x 10mm width to an order of bases then painted each BW a different colour. Markers done!
Cheers
Jim
|
|
