PDA

View Full Version : DBA Army List II/ 31-60


Martyn
12-31-2010, 08:01 AM
For those who have not spotted it yet, Sue has posted on the DBA yahoo group the latest of the army list proposals.

This seems to be on the yahoo group only and not on Sue's website as the earlier army list were.

Martyn
12-31-2010, 08:58 AM
Having had a chance to look at the detail of the Later Cartho list I noted that the DBMM list allows for the upgrade of Hannibal’s Gallic warband to Ax. In the DBA list the introductory paragraph makes comment on this but the list itself does not include that as an option.

Is it worthwhile giving the LC list some date splits? The 1st Punic War armies are well represented by the current list. Whereas for the 2nd Punic War, and more particularily Hannibal’s Italy campaigns, should the option for upgrade of Wb be given together with limits on the number of elephants. The lists for post 2nd Punic War would be very different with no mercenary Gallic/Spanish and no Elephants.

vonBerlichingen
12-31-2010, 10:32 AM
II/51 LATE JUDAEAN 63 BC - 6 AD
REFERENCES NEEDED – after AMPW & before AEIR

Hello, Sue. For a reference, you might consider S. Rocca's The Army of Herod the Great, Osprey Men-At-Arms No. 443:

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/The-Army-of-Herod-the-Great_9781846032066

Tony Aguilar
12-31-2010, 11:51 AM
Why are the Later Carthaginians classed as Littoral in 2.2 and now in 3.0 as well?

Richard Lee
01-01-2011, 03:06 AM
Why are the Later Carthaginians classed as Littoral in 2.2 and now in 3.0 as well?

Could it be because the Carthaginians had a major navy that Rome got the better of in the First Punic War? Carthage had a massive harbour for its fleet.

Victor
01-01-2011, 03:45 AM
While on the Carthaginians, a sentence in the desciription states;

"It is uncertain whether Libyans and veterans should classed as Sp or Bd, but their use as Sp encourages historical deployments."

I for one would like to see the veterans being able to be reclassified as Bd, as I think it is quite hard for the Carthaginians to actually beat the Romans in DBA at the moment, to do so relies on good use of the mounted, not foot arm, of the army. The combo of Sp/Wb/Ax do not really match it against Roman blade.

Richard Lee
01-01-2011, 04:22 AM
I for one would like to see the veterans being able to be reclassified as Bd, as I think it is quite hard for the Carthaginians to actually beat the Romans in DBA at the moment, to do so relies on good use of the mounted, not foot arm, of the army. The combo of Sp/Wb/Ax do not really match it against Roman blade.
I think that the veterans in Hannibal's army should have the option to be blade. However, I still think that the way for Carthaginians to beat Romans is use of mounted or light troops to attack the flanks. At present, it is harder to win with Later Carthaginians than with Polybian Romans, but it is certainly possible. I don't think the Carthaginians should win easily without good generalship.

Tony Aguilar
01-01-2011, 10:10 AM
Could it be because the Carthaginians had a major navy that Rome got the better of in the First Punic War? Carthage had a massive harbour for its fleet.

1. Littoral Terrain types should have naval capability in the form of ships listed in DBM/DBMM army list in order to make a LIttoral Landing. According to the DBM one (my DBMM list is shortly OTW) has hardly any ships at all (0-2 Galleys to be exact.) The Romans on the other hand, are given much more naval capability, but aren't Littoral (nor should they be.)

2. What battles did the Carthaginians use a naval landing in? I am not aware of any, or that were fought sea side.

Richard Lee
01-05-2011, 01:00 AM
1. Littoral Terrain types should have naval capability in the form of ships listed in DBM/DBMM army list in order to make a LIttoral Landing. According to the DBM one (my DBMM list is shortly OTW) has hardly any ships at all (0-2 Galleys to be exact.) The Romans on the other hand, are given much more naval capability, but aren't Littoral (nor should they be.)


Hello Tony,

The DBMM list for the later Carthaginians also has 0 to 2 galleys. However, I am not sure how many naval elements a DBM/DBMM army list should have before the equivalent DBA list has littoral terrain. Had a quick look at Book 1 of the DBMM lists and noticed that the Makkan, Dilmun, Saba, Ma’in and Qataban list (I/8), Minoan and Early Mycenaeans (I/18), New Kingdom Egyptians (I/22), Libyan Egyptians (I/38) and Ku****e Egyptians (I/46) each have 0 to 4 Naval elements. The Later Mycenaean and Trojan War list (I/26) has 0 to 4 naval elements for the Achaians, but none for the Trojans. The Hyksos (I/17) have 0 to 2 ‘Irregular Boats’. Kyrean Greeks (I/56) have a maximum of one naval element.

You are correct in that the Polybian Roman DBMM list has a substantial fleet available (9 to 12 naval elements). Why this should be when the Later Carthaginians don't, I don't know. In my opinion the big surprise of the First Punic War was that the Roman navy survived and destroyed the Carthaginian sea power.

2. What battles did the Carthaginians use a naval landing in? I am not aware of any, or that were fought sea side.

Have to admit that I can’t think of any either. On the other hand, I have to say that I can not think of many battles where a naval landing of up to a third of an army on the day of battle occurred in ancient or medieval times. Is it possible that they were comparatively rare in the ancient period? To be honest, I am of the opinion that DBA littoral landing are a little like BUAs, but not quite so obviously pernicious. Put it like this, if Littoral Landings and BUAs in their present form were left out of DBA 3 then I don't think that I would mind.

Was going to reply to you before this.:)

Redwilde
01-05-2011, 02:29 PM
Caesar's landing in Britain in 55 was opposed on the beach. But Marian Roman army is not littoral in DBA....

Overall though, the littoral landings are a rarity that would be better as scenario specific rules for most of the current armies.

For pure romanticism though, I like that some armies have it as a regular feature: Sea Peoples, Vikings & kin, Polynesians & Indonesians, and Portugal after 1434 (the rounding of Cape Badajor; technically it would be better set in 1488 with the rounding of the Cape of Good Hope -- DBA officially ends in 1485, but it is fun that the Portuguese get to fight the Tupis and the Indonesians, so that being the case, let's be generous in granting them littoral status!)

Redwilde
01-05-2011, 02:41 PM
And thinking of the Marian list, to be more representative of Caesar's army in Gaul, there should be options for a much higher proportion of Gallic cavalry. This is a very significant period within this list, I'd like to see the blade component amended from 8 Bd to: 2x(Cv or Bd), 6 Bd.

Jim Riley
01-06-2011, 11:41 PM
In the Early Imperial Roman list I would like to see the artillery element become optional. It's use in field battles certainly wasn't the norm (though it can be fun to use in a game!).

Rong
01-07-2011, 12:04 PM
Don't forget the Mycenean armies, Trojan war, bunch of ships, landing on the beach. :2up

Chris Pagano
01-07-2011, 08:51 PM
I think that the veterans in Hannibal's army should have the option to be blade. However, I still think that the way for Carthaginians to beat Romans is use of mounted or light troops to attack the flanks. At present, it is harder to win with Later Carthaginians than with Polybian Romans, but it is certainly possible. I don't think the Carthaginians should win easily without good generalship.

In DBA the Carthaginian infantry should be inferior to the Roman infantry. As Richard points out, the Carthaginians usually won by taking the flanks.

Trebbia is a good example. There the Romans were enveloped on both sides and even ambushed to the rear. As a whole they were soundly defeated. Nonetheless, the Roman infantry beat the Carthaginian infantry in the center. In DBA terms the Roman elements in the center eliminated the Carthaginian elements opposing them and escaped the massacre by continuing to march forward and exiting off the Carthaginian board edge!

Also, keep in mind that if you look at historical orders of battle and divide through by the number of elements in DBA, you find that at Cannae each element of heavy infantry represents around 4,800 men for the Carthaginian Sp & Wb and around 6,666 for the Roman Bd. When I run my 'Hannibal vs Rome' scenario game with 4 armies on each side these numbers work out to 1,200 and 1,667, respectively.

So even if you think that the Carthaginians were equal to the Romans man for man, the Roman elements represent over a third more men.

It was the opposite for the Cav. It works out to around 4,000 men per element for 'Carthaginian' Cav and 3,000 for the Roman Cav (and 2,667 for 'Carthaginian' LH).

If you are going to alter anything to give the Carthigians a better chance, it should be the Cav and LH, not the infantry.

-Chris P.