|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 11, 2019 11:21:24 GMT
I use a plastic Broom ! I cut the bristles off shape the spear point with a pliers and paint . Works great for me and my spears don't poke and they are flexible (no bending and no paint chipping off) I'll back pyrrhus1717 on this point. Take a look at this video www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWYAGyj01vECheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 11, 2019 11:16:28 GMT
Good response Joe!  (I love discussions about ancient history...and I think this is just the sort of thing that Jim wanted).
Yes stevie. Well done. This is what I'd hoped for. Historical discussion then reflection on our little toys. So far, and it is early days, it seems that there aren't complaints about 3Ax. This is good as it allows a more focused conversation on 4Ax. Interestingly, I just did a little experiment with my Thracians with 6x3Ax against 6x4Ax and the 3Ax trounced them. I know statistically the "recoil on evens" will sway the fight in the long run but at least 3Ax have a chance, particularly if they initiate contact and get an early win. Lots of interesting thoughts. Reading davidjconstable's description of Mons Graupius made me zero in on one word, "trained". Is this the problem with all of this? Veteran Roman auxiliaries would have excellent resources to train to fight as required, probably as would veteran Roman legionaries. The Hypaspists, I think would be quite comfortable with pike or spear and when Alexander asked them to drive off Afghan tribes in the foothills, were able to meet those demands. Maybe we are forgetting that some of these prototype 4Ax were trained professional soldiers with years of experience? I just can't see professional soldiers not acting in their own best interests in regards to adjusting equipment/formation/style against a known enemy. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 10, 2019 11:31:47 GMT
I've started a thread specifically for a generic discussion of 3/4Ax in the House Rules section so that this thread can return to lkmjbc's playtesting of his ideas.
Cheers
Jim
PS paddy649 you have my vote regarding the hypaspists!
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 10, 2019 11:28:28 GMT
You need to specify if just tweaks are being considered, or new troop types can be discussed as well. It would help people in general. David Constable I'm not considering anything at the moment. Just want a discussion at this stage. It can be as general or as specific as people like. Maybe as things progress, we could run a poll or two. As all of this is conjecture and in the House Rules section there are no limits. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 10, 2019 11:25:05 GMT
So I've been musing on this topic and I though I'd go back to the purple and re-read Phil's ideas. When you read the description then it seems to discuss 3Ax initially and then 4Ax. I am going to break it down...
AUXILIA (Ax), representing javelin-armed foot able to fight hand-to-hand but emphasising agility and flexibility rather than cohesion. Good description of 3Ax. Increased movement as they are fast, not slowed by rough or difficult going, able to deploy on flanks and no side-support or rear-support
Irregulars (often mountain peoples) such as Thracians, Armenians and Irish kerns are usually 3Ax classed as "fast". These should be considered the historical prototype
They were over-matched in open country by other close fighting foot No question 3Ax are overmatched by supported Pk, Bd, Sp, supported Wb with current rules
and are more vulnerable to cavalry than Spears Again this is true of the current rules
but are useful to chase off or support psiloi, to take or hold difficult terrain Certainly too good for Ps in good going. The lack of a group move in terrain against Ps makes this more challenging. Thought: Should 3Ax group move through difficult terrain?
as a link between heavier foot and mounted troops or occasionally as a mobile reserve Difficult to assess. Depends a lot on the player.
At this point, it seems that the current rules regarding 3Ax reflect Phil's thoughts quite well and seem historically plausible. Thought: Should 3Ax could flee from heavy foot rather than retire in good order?
Those that acquired better weapons or regular discipline such as Hellenistic thureophoroi, Iberian scutarii and Imperial Roman auxilia become (4Ax) classed as "solid" and can counter Warband.
It seems that this is the problem area. The historical prototypes are clearly stated. However, 4Ax fight Warband at +3 just like 3Ax so the only benefit they get is "solid" for which they lose so much manoeuvrability. Is that the only difference? PB doesn't mention heavier types but there are examples of the historical prototypes doing well enough against heavier types. There are a number of "fixes". A +1 against heavy foot. Side-support against heavy foot. The ability to "bounce" out of combat. I'm sure there are others out there. I have no particular preference but very interested in others thoughts. Ideally, in my opinion, we would have a Peltast type to replace 3Ax and an Auxilia type specifically for 4Ax. But that's not going to happen any time soon.
Well, the genie's out of the bag. Look forward to the replies.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 10, 2019 10:53:16 GMT
I decided to start this thread and separate it from lkmjbc's playtest thread on DBA 3.0. I think Joe wants us to playtest his rules ideas and, as is our want, we can get side-tracked. Hopefully this way Joe can get more focused comments on his request whilst ramblers such as myself can use this thread for discussion.
So this is as good as any to discuss Auxilia. Just Auxilia.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 10, 2019 9:17:46 GMT
As always stevie, very well thought out.
It is important to think of overall effect in DBA and not historical numbers. As you say, ancient numbers can be misleading. But also, extra element numbers have a specific game effect so should only be used if the scenario designer believes this effect existed or could have existed in the battle (e.g. could Darius III's levies really act as 10 elements of Hd in a DBA battle even if they were present?) Athenian hoplites were clearly outnumbered against Syracuse (according to Thucydides) but didn't seem too troubled in the open field battle described.
Decorative elements are a great concept. If I were starting again I may look at 6mm to make elements "look" right but still have the defined game function.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 9, 2019 0:27:33 GMT
Oh dear! I thought late last night that arnopov 's post would start a serious conversation rather than talking about toy soldiers being pushed across the felt whilst rolling dice.
Personally, I am more than happy to participate in discussions of variants, evolutions, etc. But I do understand that some do not. But greedo hit the nail on the head, we must avoid a "civil war", a splintering of the player base, which was so painful. "DBA 3" is the best version in all our minds but the community lost players along the way and that doesn't bode well for the hobby in the long run. What happens to "DBA" is entirely the prerogative of the owners, though of course suggestions can be made. However, as WRG hasn't aggressively protected its IP over the years with many spin-offs, both sanctioned and unsanctioned, published then an (another) Ancient and Medieval ruleset based on the DBA mechanics is completely plausible.
So where to from here? One way is to create a new topic "Towards DBA 3.1" or something similar. That way, all that are interested can actively participate (maybe even vote using the poll) and those not interested can comfortably avoid. So discussion the "DBA 3" topic can be on the current rules and interpretations and the new thread can concentrate on new rules that people think would be useful in an update. This is different to "House Rules", which are often period specific or optional extras. If there is limit to the number of topics then surely we can delete some that are little used (see the DBA 2.2+ topic).
It is so important to keep this community together. There are very active champions of DBA on both sides of this fence and a split in this group would be a tragedy.
That's my 2c worth (1p in UK on current exchange rates). Now back to my Thracian Civil War. My seven year old has adjusted my deployment. As his name is Alexander, I'd better check...
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 8, 2019 23:59:04 GMT
They look fantastic! I wouldn't worry about a "dirty" painting style. Real troops were far from clean! Now with modern washes I get a more"dirty"look and I like it. If I remember correctly, Phil used a tan undercoat for his troops so if he missed some it would simply look like mud.
Which rule version are you using? DBA 3, HOTT, D3H2, Knights and Knaves? Other?
Cheers
Jim
PS Welcome to the forum!
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 8, 2019 11:10:57 GMT
Doof! (Jaw hits floor). Stunning! Beautiful work.
Cheers
Jim
'SIGH'...where in the lead mountain are my unpainted Byzantines again...near the crusaders...behind the saracens...to the rights of the sumerians...
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 7, 2019 10:56:56 GMT
4. Now that both players know what list will they play, they decide on a valid composition according to their list. It is written down and kept hidden for now. This has always been a point of interest. When do you need to declare your army's composition? If you follow the Deployment section as written then you only see the army at deployment, which would give the invader too much flexibility. I like your solution. It makes sense. Historical generals gathered what they could to do the job and then met on the field of battle. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 7, 2019 10:43:42 GMT
Would giving 4Ax side support with 4Sp and other 4Ax yield similar results? In effect making the light spear?
I think the problem with this is that side support modifies the combat factor against all opponents, which may in turn make 4Ax too strong against light foot or mounted. That's why I prefer a more narrow factor to make them more resilient against heavy foot.
I'm no expert on Romans but if the 4Ax prototype is the Roman Auxilia then it doesn't seem to hit the mark (it completely misses the mark in relation to Hypaspists but that's another story!) Side support when in the main battleline in good going with other solid infantry seems reasonable. Others may be able to tell me if Roman Auxilia were at risk from mounted when formed. Of course, we should follow Joe's example and play test! Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 6, 2019 12:29:21 GMT
Seriously good work!
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 6, 2019 12:27:03 GMT
Quite a warm night Downunder so we'll curl up with Youtube and watch the action!
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 6, 2019 12:25:43 GMT
Go ahead stevie. Just check that we haven't put in too many playsheets that they piece together to form the rules. Anything to promote the cause of DBA.
Jim
|
|
(I love discussions about ancient history...and I think this is just the sort of thing that Jim wanted).
