PDA

View Full Version : Bks II and II early impressions


Cremorn
03-06-2011, 02:50 AM
<edit> I meant for the thread to be called II and III, not II and II :-)

In a way I will miss prescribed figure numbers, but in another way, who cares? 4Sp, and 4Wb on a shorter base than 3Sp and 3Wb kind of represented more regular troops recoilling less(?), but 4Ax on the same base as 3Ax, and 4Bw on the same base as 3Bw always kind of shot that theory to crap. Is that not where DBA's base sizes were meaningless copies of DBM sizes? I will, nevertheless continue to slavishly follow whatever is handed down from WRG.

II/5 Spartan
Is there a Fanatic with the DBMM book II lists? Does it explain the increase in Ax? (I did see the explanation in the other post). It certainly adds bad-going interest. Brasidas' campaigning is a valid reason to add mountaineers, and I don't think Sparta ever fielded an army composed entirely of homoioi (spartans) anyway.

II/49 Marian Roman
Extra mounted! Warband!

II/56 Early Imperial Roman
Camels!

II/65 Early Visigothic
...gets a new (c) list!
-coinciding with the revision upward of the end of Late Roman II/78 to the death of Stilicho (408), Alaric gets his own "Middle Gothic" list. It makes a lot of sense to me that this post-Stilicho period is Patrician - at least as far as army composition is concerned. The enemies aren't right, yet, but I guess that will all get worked out. I have played a couple of games against Patrician with this, I like it (though the new Patsy West is hard to defeat!)

II/69 Sassanid
Not just Sassanid. A quick look through the lists shows that III/16 Khazar and the poor hapless Sui III/20a now list their Hordes as optional rather than mandatory.

II/78 Late Roman just lets the West swap an Ax for a Wb, but

II/82 Patrician Roman has a ton more options - West can take 4xBd! With the 2xBw and 2xWb it becomes a killer combined-arms outfit

III/8 Central Asian City States gets a choice of blending Kn and Cv

III/11 Central Asian Turkish (other) gets a Bw. Well ok its just a Bw but its something!

III/13 Avar (b) gets Arty

III/19 Welsh (a) gets a date revision and 2xBd (Dubliners)

III/24 ... damn! no change, still boring :-)

On the whole, lots of interest added!

kontos
03-06-2011, 09:24 AM
"II/69 Sassanid
Not just Sassanid. A quick look through the lists shows that III/16 Khazar and the poor hapless Sui III/20a now list their Hordes as optional rather than mandatory."

Why? What is the justification for this? Does someone have these armies and wants them to be more competitive? Filling out the ranks with "useless" infantry (horde) is what they fielded. Why is it now optional? Who in their right mind would field horde as a troop choice?

david kuijt
03-06-2011, 10:15 AM
Who in their right mind would field horde as a troop choice?

DS and I do it all the time with Teutonic Order. Because their subject foot are really not interested in dying for their Germanic Overlords.

... oh, wait, you said "in their right mind." Never mind...

kontos
03-06-2011, 10:23 AM
DS and I do it all the time with Teutonic Order. Because their subject foot are really not interested in dying for their Germanic Overlords.

... oh, wait, you said "in their right mind." Never mind...

And I do as well, just for the "cool" factor and a semblance of historical accuracy. But then again, that's because I really don't care about "winning is everything"; I want fun. Horde are fun (and good trash talk IF you happen to win with them). :D

pawsBill
03-06-2011, 11:26 AM
"II/69 Sassanid
Not just Sassanid. A quick look through the lists shows that III/16 Khazar and the poor hapless Sui III/20a now list their Hordes as optional rather than mandatory."

Why? What is the justification for this? Does someone have these armies and wants them to be more competitive? Filling out the ranks with "useless" infantry (horde) is what they fielded. Why is it now optional? Who in their right mind would field horde as a troop choice?

For the Sui they are now optional because the were only fielded in ONE campaign. I suspect that the Sassanids & Khazars didn't use them all the time either.

So let me ask you, what is YOUR justification for asserting that "Filling out the ranks with "useless" infantry (horde) is what they fielded"?

kontos
03-06-2011, 11:31 AM
For the Sui they are now optional because the were only fielded in ONE campaign. I suspect that the Sassanids & Khazars didn't use them all the time either.

So let me ask you, what is YOUR justification for asserting that "Filling out the ranks with "useless" infantry (horde) is what they fielded"?

My reading, at least through the Belisarian Campaigns vs the Sassanids, indicates the Persian levy was visually impressive but far from battle worthy and rarely, if ever, committed to battle. That would be kind of how we use hordes now. For the most part, at least.

teenage visigoth
03-06-2011, 11:58 AM
Cremorn,

Well appraised. I agreed and for the most part look forward to trying out the new lists.

Still curious why said III/19a Welsh only appear after 580. I mean what were they doing prior to that? Just sitting around quaffing the brown saying 'let's just let those lowland Roman wanna-be gits fight the Saeson'?

Or are we to believe that the whole of Britannia south of the wall was organized in the Sub Roman military fashion and only after some defeats, massacres and hastily concluded one sided treaties those not under the Saxon thumb decided to ditch the whole thing and go back to charging and screaming like great-great-great-great-grandpappy* did?

Neither interpretation holds water for me.

Surely the 'welsh' list should start late 5th C, even possibly early as garrisons were stripped and more tribes granted federate status...

...just a grump of mine.:???

-TV (hordes rule)

* no, I did not count the generational 'greats' back specifically. It's like figurative, dude...

Lobotomy
03-06-2011, 04:18 PM
My reading,

Comic books don't count, Frank. Nor the ones with the fold-outs. :silly

kontos
03-06-2011, 04:20 PM
Comic books don't count, Frank. Nor the ones with the fold-outs. :silly

Isn't that how you learned law? :silly

Andreas Johansson
03-06-2011, 04:37 PM
In these armies, the hordes being mandatory in 2.2 seems to be a mistake: the list converter appears to have failed to notice they have only conditional minima in the DBM(M) lists (eg., the Sui hordes only apply if the army is the "million man" army sent against Koguryo).

David Brown
03-06-2011, 06:08 PM
Hordes should not have been introduced into DBA.

One of the early versions, (V1?) has a statement that troops were averaged out, that some within a type might have armour and others benefit from leser armour but more speed, some migh have dubious morale but could be considered to be present in greater numbers.

I like the idea.

In that context Hordes are just at the end of the bad morale, extra numbers spectrum.

After all, they are trying to be a troop type but are just not so good at it. I'd be happy to see all the Hordes changed to a real type, many as Spear, some as Ax or Bw.

regards
db

Martyn
03-07-2011, 09:21 AM
Still curious why said III/19a Welsh only appear after 580. I mean what were they doing prior to that? Just sitting around quaffing the brown saying 'let's just let those lowland Roman wanna-be gits fight the Saeson'?

Or are we to believe that the whole of Britannia south of the wall was organized in the Sub Roman military fashion and only after some defeats, massacres and hastily concluded one sided treaties those not under the Saxon thumb decided to ditch the whole thing and go back to charging and screaming like great-great-great-great-grandpappy* did?

Neither interpretation holds water for me.

Surely the 'welsh' list should start late 5th C, even possibly early as garrisons were stripped and more tribes granted federate status...


I too wonder on the dates for the Welsh lists, and make up relative to the SRB. I can only assume that the interpretation is that the Welsh were not as deeply affected by the civilising influence of the Romans and so more quickly reverted to the way it used to be done.

By the way, why do the South Welsh get an unfair advantage of having 14 elements :???

P.S. Belated happy St Piran's day to Cousin Jack.

Doug
03-07-2011, 09:34 AM
My reading, at least through the Belisarian Campaigns vs the Sassanids, indicates the Persian levy was visually impressive but far from battle worthy and rarely, if ever, committed to battle. That would be kind of how we use hordes now. For the most part, at least.

Except that they were usually only brought along for siege actions to dig and carry. One of the later Sasanian generals (the Kardarigan or 'Black Falcon') was actually heavily censured for allowing them to get involved in the fighting. (Not good when you get your farmers slaughtered..)

There were plenty of actions where the entire Sasanian army was mounted, and other occasions when the infantry component appear to have been archers and/or daylami.

Andreas Johansson
03-07-2011, 09:53 AM
By the way, why do the South Welsh get an unfair advantage of having 14 elements :???
Because Sue is only human and makes mistakes.

Martyn
03-07-2011, 10:03 AM
Because Sue is only human and makes mistakes.

Bang goes any conspiracy theory.:silly

(Have emailed Sue in case nobody had mention it.)

pawsBill
03-07-2011, 03:41 PM
Hordes should not have been introduced into DBA.

One of the early versions, (V1?) has a statement that troops were averaged out, that some within a type might have armour and others benefit from leser armour but more speed, some migh have dubious morale but could be considered to be present in greater numbers.

I like the idea.

In that context Hordes are just at the end of the bad morale, extra numbers spectrum.

After all, they are trying to be a troop type but are just not so good at it. I'd be happy to see all the Hordes changed to a real type, many as Spear, some as Ax or Bw.

regards
db

V1.0 predates the Horde troop type in the DBx world.

V2.0 had to introduce the troop type as some were just too bad to be Sp or Ax (Bw are hardly ever Hd). For example, Early Egyptian conscripts are too poor to be (DBMM) Sp(I) so have to be Hd. Sassanid conscrips (when used) are even worse.

winterbadger
03-07-2011, 05:23 PM
I'm torn. On the one hand, I'm thrilled by the diversity of three sublists for a Persian army. On the other hand...oy! Even before I finished them (still painting the optional extra Cav) I have to paint up lots more Sassers...

timurilank
03-10-2011, 06:59 AM
If the Horde are optional, in the case of the Sassanids, what types have increased in number? More Cv, LH?

Andreas Johansson
03-10-2011, 07:16 AM
The list is completely transmogrified:

II/69a Army of the Rise of Sassanid Persia 230AD-349AD: 1xKn (Gen), 3xKn, 1x (El or Cv), 2xLH, 2x (LH or Cv), 1x (LH or Ps or Ax), (2xLH or 2xBw or 2xHd)
Enemies: II/22c, II/22e, II/23a, II/23c, II/28b, II/28c, II/28d, II/37, II/46b, II/58, II/64b, II/69a, II/74a, II/78b, III/4a, III/4b
Allies= II/23b or II/28c or II/46b or II/58

II/69b Army of the Peak of Sassanid Persia 350AD-576AD : 1xKn (Gen), 3xKn, 1x (El or Cv), 2xCv, 1xLH, 1x (LH or Ps), 1x(LH or Ax), (2XLH or 2xBw or 2xHd)
Enemies: II/23a, II/23c, II/28c, II/28d, II/46b, II/46c, II/58, II/69b, II/78b, II/80a, II/80b, II/80d, II/82b, III/4a, III/4b, III/11b, III/16, III/17
Allies= II/28c or II/46b or II/58 or II/80b or II/80d or III/11b

II/69c Army of the Decline of Sassanid Persia 577AD-651AD : 1x(Kn or Cv)(Gen), 1xKn, 1x(El or Cv), 3xCv, 1xPs, 1xAx, 1x(Ax or Bd), (2xBw or 2xHd).
Enemies: II/23a, II/23c, II/28c, II/28d, II/

I'm rather skeptical about all that Kn, but I'm sure Doug will be here shortly to defend it.

timurilank
03-10-2011, 08:14 AM
Thanks Andreas,

Now that is a Christmas present.

Of all the armies I have sold in the past 2 or 3 years, I kept the Sassaniids and Late Romans (eastern), both are BBDBA strength. All the "extra" Sassanids can now be fielded. :2up

Is this on file at the DBA Yahoo group?

kontos
03-10-2011, 08:58 AM
The list is completely transmogrified:


I'm rather skeptical about all that Kn, but I'm sure Doug will be here shortly to defend it.

Especially when there is such resistance to make Byzantine Knights instead of all that Cav. Doesn't look like a decent "matched pair" anymore.

timurilank
03-10-2011, 09:19 AM
Would there be less scepticism, if the number of knights were dependent on the general being Kn or Cv. My understanding, if the King of Kings (Kn) lead the army, then the Immortals (Kn) were present in great numbers.

This would be a nice BB option. CinC (Kn) and two Generals (Cv).

We now have our first house rule. :cool

Tony Aguilar
03-10-2011, 09:54 AM
All I can say is that the DBMM list for the Sassnids must be significantly different than the DBM one, as it doesn't have the Kn included to support this.

winterbadger
03-10-2011, 10:21 AM
Especially when there is such resistance to make Byzantine Knights instead of all that Cav. Doesn't look like a decent "matched pair" anymore.

I don't know, Byzantine Boy; it looks like quite a good pair to me. :D

Prince of Persia

Bob Mcleish
03-10-2011, 10:27 AM
All I can say is that the DBMM list for the Sassnids must be significantly different than the DBM one, as it doesn't have the Kn included to support this.

Tony,

The MM list allows for 0-6 Cv to be upgraded to cataphracts Kn (X) - from 225AD to 493AD only. Even so, the proposed DBA list seems a bit generous with the allowance of Kn...

Regards
Bob Mcleish

Tony Aguilar
03-10-2011, 10:49 AM
Tony,

The MM list allows for 0-6 Cv to be upgraded to cataphracts Kn (X) - from 225AD to 493AD only. Even so, the proposed DBA list seems a bit generous with the allowance of Kn...

Regards
Bob Mcleish


In that regards it is the same as the DBM list then. At most they should have an option (not mandatory) to have two Kn elements. Unless of course, the DBA list is based on other sources (other than DBMM) or they decided to treat Cv (S) as Kn instead of Cv.

kontos
03-10-2011, 10:53 AM
I don't know, Byzantine Boy; it looks like quite a good pair to me. :D

Prince of Persia

II/69b Army of the Peak of Sassanid Persia 350AD-576AD : 1xKn (Gen), 3xKn, 1x (El or Cv), 2xCv, 1xLH, 1x (LH or Ps), 1x(LH or Ax), (2XLH or 2xBw or 2xHd)

vs.

III/4a Early Byzantine 493AD-578AD: 1x3Cv (Gen), 5x2LH or 5x3Cv, 1x3Kn or 2LH or 3Ax, 2x4Bd, 2x2Ps.

Really? The Persian tactic, regardless of their heavily, heavily armed look, was to shower their enemies with arrows as they walked in. They may have gotten up to a trot. Sounds like a Cv rating to me. The Byzantine tactic, on the other hand, was not to get into a shooting contest with the Persians. Instead, they closed the distance after each Persian volley with the intent to charge home and come to grips with them. That sounds like a Kn rating to me. The solution to this rating dilemma will never come to pass. It begs for a mounted rating between Kn and Cv to satisfy a wide range of army lists. But, alas, all cavalry "fought the same". ;)

Don't get me wrong, I am not a proponent of rating all Byzantine heavy horse as Kn. On the contrary, I am opposed to rating all those Sassanids as Kn. Not until the Thematic period, especially the Tagmatic Byzantine forces, have I recommended the introduction of 2-3 Kn formations. Classifying heavily armored lance/kontos/kontarion and bow armed cavalry to distinguish them from spear/sword armed cavalry is the challenge. Neither can be classed as Kn but a Cv rating doesn't do justice to the abilities of the former when properly used. Just my opinion.

timurilank
03-10-2011, 10:56 AM
There have been some recent articles in Slingshot about the Sassanids. Could anyone here pass on what those essentially were?

david kuijt
03-10-2011, 11:05 AM
In that regards it is the same as the DBM list then. At most they should have an option (not mandatory) to have two Kn elements.

I'd agree with that.

or they decided to treat Cv (S) as Kn instead of Cv.

Not a chance. That would impact perhaps a hundred DBA army lists, including many Arab lists, Mongols, Timurid, and so on.

Andreas Johansson
03-10-2011, 12:26 PM
In that regards it is the same as the DBM list then. At most they should have an option (not mandatory) to have two Kn elements. Unless of course, the DBA list is based on other sources (other than DBMM) or they decided to treat Cv (S) as Kn instead of Cv.

It is, near as I can tell, based on Doug Melville. He posted a proposal much along these lines to the DBA Yahoo list, which Sue seems to have adopted (in apparent contradiction to her earlier statement that the list updates would be in line with the DBMM lists).

Tony Aguilar
03-10-2011, 01:54 PM
It is, near as I can tell, based on Doug Melville. He posted a proposal much along these lines to the DBA Yahoo list, which Sue seems to have adopted (in apparent contradiction to her earlier statement that the list updates would be in line with the DBMM lists).

How truly odd. :???

Rich Gause
03-10-2011, 02:22 PM
The idea of just making a scaled down translation of the DBMM lists is looking better and better. Take all the opinion and favoritism of certain armies out of the process IMO. Where is the best place to get the DBMM army lists in the US anyway?

Rome
03-10-2011, 05:04 PM
I purchased DBMM lists Bk 1 and 2 from On Military Matters.

snowcat
03-10-2011, 08:54 PM
Similarly the all-mounted version of the Nth Dyn Chinese (Bk2/79a) end up with 2 compulsory Cv, while in the DBMM list the closest match is an option for up to 1/4 of cavalry to be unbarded Cv, the rest barded as Kn.

However, the older v2.0 DBA list is the same in also including the compulsory 2Cv and predates DBMM, so where did the 2Cv come from? The 0-4 Chinese subject heavy cavalry from the corresponding DBM list (which no longer exist in the DBMM list)? If so, that's a bit odd when the Sth Dyn Chinese (Bk2/79b) only get 1 compulsory Cv in their DBA list yet have 2-5 cavalry in the DBM list and up to half of their cavalry can be Cv in the DBMM list. I'll qualify this by saying that from the Sth Dyn Chinese perspective only having 1 Cv makes sense given the DBA list has no all-mounted version and infantry numbers dominate - but where the almost mythical 2 Cv for the Nth Dyn Chinese come from is still a mystery.

The simplest answer is probably that a lot of expanded lists haven't translated well into DBA lists due to the difficulty in fitting everything into a smaller 12 element DBA format. But where some troops seem to have been added/invented rather than omitted/subsumed makes me wonder...

Tony Aguilar
03-10-2011, 11:12 PM
Now that you mention them, Southern Dynasties Chinese should be Tropical too.

Doug
03-11-2011, 06:38 AM
II/69b Army of the Peak of Sassanid Persia 350AD-576AD : 1xKn (Gen), 3xKn, 1x (El or Cv), 2xCv, 1xLH, 1x (LH or Ps), 1x(LH or Ax), (2XLH or 2xBw or 2xHd)

vs.

III/4a Early Byzantine 493AD-578AD: 1x3Cv (Gen), 5x2LH or 5x3Cv, 1x3Kn or 2LH or 3Ax, 2x4Bd, 2x2Ps.

Really? The Persian tactic, regardless of their heavily, heavily armed look, was to shower their enemies with arrows as they walked in. They may have gotten up to a trot. Sounds like a Cv rating to me. The Byzantine tactic, on the other hand, was not to get into a shooting contest with the Persians. Instead, they closed the distance after each Persian volley with the intent to charge home and come to grips with them. That sounds like a Kn rating to me. The solution to this rating dilemma will never come to pass. It begs for a mounted rating between Kn and Cv to satisfy a wide range of army lists. But, alas, all cavalry "fought the same". ;)

Don't get me wrong, I am not a proponent of rating all Byzantine heavy horse as Kn. On the contrary, I am opposed to rating all those Sassanids as Kn. Not until the Thematic period, especially the Tagmatic Byzantine forces, have I recommended the introduction of 2-3 Kn formations. Classifying heavily armored lance/kontos/kontarion and bow armed cavalry to distinguish them from spear/sword armed cavalry is the challenge. Neither can be classed as Kn but a Cv rating doesn't do justice to the abilities of the former when properly used. Just my opinion.

Ok, my thesis, based upon readings of equipment (Bivar etc), seals showing generals etc as Cataphracts is that the most common Roman descriptions were based upon un-typical Persian armies. So Julian's invasion was opposed by a general of the quarters with feudal troops, and in the later Belisarian period, the bulk of the Mihran Persian troops stood aside. The Strategikon talks about this, but is based on Roman invading expeditions where the Royal Army isn't present. Al-Tabari, the Syrian and Armeniac accounts depict a usually mounted army of heavily armoured cataphract types supported by horse archer retainers (on the original Parthian model) who became more heavily armoured over time, especially in the East facing Hunnic Horse Archers, and that this was supported (when infantry were brought along) by substantial bodies of foot archers protected by armoured infantry with pavises (not dissimalar to Achmaenid Persian sparabara). When siege operations were contemplated, as was most often the case in the years when Khusrau was moving the border westward, large contingents of farmer peasants were brought along to perform siege operations, (digging/building etc.)

The evidence suggests a discipline copied by later Roman and Byzantine models, so a heavily armoured lancer equipped front rank(s) supported by armoured horse archers. One interesting fact is the alacrity with which Persian deserters were incorporated into the later Heraklian armies. This to me suggests that the military system was not too dissimilar, and that in fact the Persians were the model, otherwise why not use Goths, Heruls, etc

Doug
03-11-2011, 06:54 AM
How truly odd. :???

Yep.. it was my thesis, and I presented it to Sue. Phil wasn't happy with it for DBMM, his quote was he had used three sources for Sasanians ... Ammianus, Julian and Procopious, and he wasn't going to worry about later Arabic sources (such as the legislated troop equipment standards) - and unfortunately this ommitted the Syriac, Armenian and Greek (Parthian city) sources.

I am sure Phil wont let it through for DBA 3, so I wouldn't panic. My point of view is that the later roman, early byzantine mounted should be classified very similarly (they copied the Persians), and in a system that has gradings the line cavalry should be not quite as good (elan) as against the immortals and the gyvnaspar, units like Belisarian guards should be almost the same.

As an interesting aside you should look at various clothing sources that say that the style in later Eastern Roman sources was to copy Persian clothing styles, so the patches and edging seen on Byzantines is actually a Persian style.

Andreas Johansson
03-11-2011, 07:25 AM
I am sure Phil wont let it through for DBA 3, so I wouldn't panic. My point of view is that the later roman, early byzantine mounted should be classified very similarly (they copied the Persians), and in a system that has gradings the line cavalry should be not quite as good (elan) as against the immortals and the gyvnaspar, units like Belisarian guards should be almost the same.

In a more perfect world, there'd be something like DBR's "Sipahi" for cavalry that's heavier than prototypical Cv, yet not committed to the charge like prototypical Kn. But in the world we live in, where most such troops are Cv, I think making the bulk of the Sassanids into Kn would be unfortunate.

Oh well. Maybe Sue will change her mind, or Phil will veto the idea. Or maybe they won't. The sky looks structurally sound either way I guess ...

Doug
03-11-2011, 07:52 AM
In a more perfect world, there'd be something like DBR's "Sipahi" for cavalry that's heavier than prototypical Cv, yet not committed to the charge like prototypical Kn. But in the world we live in, where most such troops are Cv, I think making the bulk of the Sassanids into Kn would be unfortunate.

Oh well. Maybe Sue will change her mind, or Phil will veto the idea. Or maybe they won't. The sky looks structurally sound either way I guess ...

The evidence is very solid for even 6th century sasanian cavalry being 'cataphracts' - supported in rear ranks by heavily armoured archers, identical to the byzantines, but by most accounts, with a little bit more elan. Interestingly, in early versions of DBM, irregular Kn got a +1 tactical factor vs regular Kn for their 'enthusiasm'.

Really, I don't see any difference for later Western conroys being graded as Kn even when their back ranks are little better than sergeants as Cavalry.

Based upon the training schools of Persia (interestingly their trainers give us the term 'paladin') the best equipped were in the first ranks as extremely heavily equipped charging lancers supported by agnatic (family) lancers and archers in the rear ranks. The only real argument is the relative proportions of 'front-rank' vs ''supports' - and I would suggest that as the Byzantines modelled their mounted on the Persians, then this might be an indicator.

Andreas Johansson
03-11-2011, 09:21 AM
The evidence is very solid for even 6th century sasanian cavalry being 'cataphracts' - supported in rear ranks by heavily armoured archers, identical to the byzantines, but by most accounts, with a little bit more elan. Interestingly, in early versions of DBM, irregular Kn got a +1 tactical factor vs regular Kn for their 'enthusiasm'.
Identical to the Byzantines would seem an argument against Kn classification. (And integral archer support doesn't really suggest a charge first and ask questions later mindset in itself either.)
Really, I don't see any difference for later Western conroys being graded as Kn even when their back ranks are little better than sergeants as Cavalry.
Not quite sure what this means, but being good isn't a requirement to be Kn.
Based upon the training schools of Persia (interestingly their trainers give us the term 'paladin') the best equipped were in the first ranks as extremely heavily equipped charging lancers supported by agnatic (family) lancers and archers in the rear ranks. The only real argument is the relative proportions of 'front-rank' vs ''supports' - and I would suggest that as the Byzantines modelled their mounted on the Persians, then this might be an indicator.
Why would the proportion be an argument? The question should be, how did the formation as a whole behave.

And those Byzantines are Cv. If they were modelled on the Persians, one'd think that means the Persians too should be Cv.

Tony Aguilar
03-11-2011, 10:46 AM
I might be stating the obvious, but classifying them as Kn throws in some substantial differences...

1. They are slower than other Cv.
2. They now QK heavy foot.
3. They follow up their attack.
4. They now get QK-ed in the initial contact against Bw.

This makes them dramatically different from how they are in DBA 2.2 (and as I understand them to be in DBMM)

The new list is certainly interesting, and would probably cause more people to play this army in an Open Tourney, but I don't think that is/should be the intent of the change.

Rich Gause
03-11-2011, 02:20 PM
I purchased DBMM lists Bk 1 and 2 from On Military Matters.

Just ordered all 4 army list books from them. Thanks.

BigMadAl
03-25-2011, 04:42 PM
I think the Sassanids should be limited in their later period to perhaps 1 Kn General & 1 Kn; the rest of their heavy cavalry should be simply Cavalry. I'm OK with the earlier period army having more knights, tho.

I'm quite happy about the optional Hd for Sassanids, Khazars, & Sui Chinese. In general, I think that troop types which are not compulsory in the DBMM list shouldn't be compulsory in the DBA list, either, & certainly not 2+ elements.

Haardrada
04-10-2011, 02:21 PM
If they were to explain every change the new rule book would be heavy and expensive.

What I could add is concerning the Normans(book III/52).Is that should the Normans in Sicily not be considered as Littorial rather than Arable?

Mark Davies
04-10-2011, 03:22 PM
Out of interest, does anyone know why the Samanids (III/43c) lost their elephant, even as an option?

Andreas Johansson
04-10-2011, 03:33 PM
I don't know (Sue isn't in the habit of explaining her decisions), but probably because they apparently only ever fielded very small numbers of the critters. The DBMM list has 0-2 nellies for Samanids and Saffarids, mind, which by the stated scales (up to 16 beasts per DBMM element, up to 25 per DBA one) ought translate to an optional one in each of those lists.

Haardrada
04-10-2011, 04:18 PM
Out of interest, does anyone know why the Samanids (III/43c) lost their elephant, even as an option?

I noticed that too and have the army to paint.So I'll leave the Elly and hope it makes an appearance in the published lists.

Mark Davies
04-10-2011, 04:47 PM
Thanks. There are some nice models for them out there (though still able to be used for Ghaznavids) and it'd be a shame if these armies lost them.

Paul Potter
07-06-2011, 10:55 AM
II/69a Army of the Rise of Sassanid Persia 230AD-349AD: 1xKn (Gen), 3xKn, 1x (El or Cv), 2xLH, 2x (LH or Cv), 1x (LH or Ps or Ax), (2xLH or 2xBw or 2xHd)
Enemies: II/22c, II/22e, II/23a, II/23c, II/28b, II/28c, II/28d, II/37, II/46b, II/58, II/64b, II/69a, II/74a, II/78b, III/4a, III/4b
Allies= II/23b or II/28c or II/46b or II/58

II/69b Army of the Peak of Sassanid Persia 350AD-576AD : 1xKn (Gen), 3xKn, 1x (El or Cv), 2xCv, 1xLH, 1x (LH or Ps), 1x(LH or Ax), (2XLH or 2xBw or 2xHd)
Enemies: II/23a, II/23c, II/28c, II/28d, II/46b, II/46c, II/58, II/69b, II/78b, II/80a, II/80b, II/80d, II/82b, III/4a, III/4b, III/11b, III/16, III/17
Allies= II/28c or II/46b or II/58 or II/80b or II/80d or III/11b

II/69c Army of the Decline of Sassanid Persia 577AD-651AD : 1x(Kn or Cv)(Gen), 1xKn, 1x(El or Cv), 3xCv, 1xPs, 1xAx, 1x(Ax or Bd), (2xBw or 2xHd).
Enemies: II/23a, II/23c, II/28c, II/28d, II/


This is great. I am really Looking forward to redoing some sassanid armies. Does anyone know what the new Patrician Roman lists and the Early Visigoth list "c" will look like? -Paul

Martyn
07-06-2011, 11:46 AM
II/69a Army of the Rise of Sassanid Persia 230AD-349AD: 1xKn (Gen), 3xKn, 1x (El or Cv), 2xLH, 2x (LH or Cv), 1x (LH or Ps or Ax), (2xLH or 2xBw or 2xHd)
Enemies: II/22c, II/22e, II/23a, II/23c, II/28b, II/28c, II/28d, II/37, II/46b, II/58, II/64b, II/69a, II/74a, II/78b, III/4a, III/4b
Allies= II/23b or II/28c or II/46b or II/58

II/69b Army of the Peak of Sassanid Persia 350AD-576AD : 1xKn (Gen), 3xKn, 1x (El or Cv), 2xCv, 1xLH, 1x (LH or Ps), 1x(LH or Ax), (2XLH or 2xBw or 2xHd)
Enemies: II/23a, II/23c, II/28c, II/28d, II/46b, II/46c, II/58, II/69b, II/78b, II/80a, II/80b, II/80d, II/82b, III/4a, III/4b, III/11b, III/16, III/17
Allies= II/28c or II/46b or II/58 or II/80b or II/80d or III/11b

II/69c Army of the Decline of Sassanid Persia 577AD-651AD : 1x(Kn or Cv)(Gen), 1xKn, 1x(El or Cv), 3xCv, 1xPs, 1xAx, 1x(Ax or Bd), (2xBw or 2xHd).
Enemies: II/23a, II/23c, II/28c, II/28d, II/


This is great. I am really Looking forward to redoing some sassanid armies. Does anyone know what the new Patrician Roman lists and the Early Visigoth list "c" will look like? -Paul

From the latest version of book Two:

II/65 TERVINGI & EARLY VISIGOTHIC 200 AD - 419 AD.
II/65a Early Visigothic Army 378 AD only: 1xWb (Gen), 2xKn, 1xLH, 7xWb, 1xPs. Enemy: II/78b

II/65b Tervingi or Early Visigothic Army 200-407AD: 1x (Kn or Wb (Gen)), 1xKn, 8xWb, 2xPs.
Enemies: II/26, II/58, II/64b, II/65b, II/66, II/67b, II/71, II/72d, II/78a, II/78b, II/80a, II/80d.
Allies: (II/52 and/or II/67b) or II/78a.

II/65c Alaric & successors 408-419AD: 1xKn (Gen), 2xKn, 1x(Kn or LH), 4xWb, (2xWb or 1xAx + 1xBd), 2xPs
Enemies: II/58, II/65c, II/66, II/67b, II/71, II/72d, II/78a, II/78b, II/80a, II/80d, II/81c.


II/82 PATRICIAN ROMAN 408 AD Ė 493 AD
II/82a Western Patrican Roman Army: 1x(Cv or Kn (Gen)), 1xCv, 2x(Cv or Kn or LH), 2xWb, 2x (Bd or Wb), 2x(Bd or Wb or Ax), 2x(Ps or Bw or LH).
Aggression : 0. Enemies: II/66, II/67b, II/71, II/72b, II/72c, II/72d, II/73, II/80a, II/80d, II/82a, II/83a, II/83b, II/84, III/2.
Allies: II/58 or (II/72d and/or II/82a) or II/80d or II/81c or II/83b

II/82b Eastern Patrician Roman Army: 1xKn (Gen), 1x(Kn or Cv), 2x (Cv or LH), 1xLH, 2x (Bd or Sp), 2x(Ax or Bw or Ps), 1x(Bw or Ps), 2xPs.
Aggression : 1. Enemies: II/67b, II/69b, II/69c, II/71, II/80a, II/80b, II/80d, II/83a, II/83b, II/84, III/1c. Allies: II/23a or II/67

Donít forget these are only proposed at present so may be subject to change.

Paul Potter
07-06-2011, 12:36 PM
Martyn, thank you very much. -Paul

Andreas Johansson
07-06-2011, 04:15 PM
It' s possible (probable?) that the published Western Patsy list will follow the DBMM one and have federates as Bd or Ax, and thus few if any Wb.

Ammianus
07-10-2011, 05:05 PM
Thanks for posting! Very informative, 2 of my fav armies.

Mark Davies
07-30-2011, 05:29 PM
Looking at the proposed changes to the Marian Romans (II/49), I see that they have the option of three 3Cv now. I think this is more than the DBM list suggests is possible. Surely what was intended was:

((1xCv (Gen) + Bd) or (1xBd (Gen) + Cv)), 1x (Cv or LH), 7xBd, 1x (Ax or Ps or Wb), 1xPs

This allows the Marians to have a 4Bd general without penalty to the number of 3Cv they can have (allowing the Polybians to have a foot general in the same way might be good too). It's an issue with quite a few lists, where the choice of a foot general reduces the already limited amount of mounted they can take. I'm not sure it's warranted, and it may just be the way the lists have been written. For example the Syracusans (II/9) face this issue.

As far as the Marians are concerned, going from the DBM lists (I don't have the DBMM ones), they can't have as many 3Cv as the EIR, so this increase to give them the option of the same amount as the EIR seems unwarranted.

Redwilde
07-30-2011, 10:27 PM
Looking at the proposed changes to the Marian Romans (II/49), I see that they have the option of three 3Cv now. I think this is more than the DBM list suggests is possible. Surely what was intended was:

((1xCv (Gen) + Bd) or (1xBd (Gen) + Cv)), 1x (Cv or LH), 7xBd, 1x (Ax or Ps or Wb), 1xPs

Well, this makes me glad that I do my 15mm Romans with Old Glory. WIth the size of their figure packs, I'll have extra cavalry to go around if needed :p

LorenzoMele
08-10-2011, 11:30 AM
Identical to the Byzantines would seem an argument against Kn classification. (And integral archer support doesn't really suggest a charge first and ask questions later mindset in itself either.)

Not quite sure what this means, but being good isn't a requirement to be Kn.

Why would the proportion be an argument? The question should be, how did the formation as a whole behave.

And those Byzantines are Cv. If they were modelled on the Persians, one'd think that means the Persians too should be Cv.

Blame on you Doug, you should have worked on changes to Byzantine lists too :)

David Constable
08-10-2011, 12:27 PM
In reply to an earlier comment by AJ.

PB/SB might with the Byzantines be treating them as Kn because as far as I know the Byzantines split the element into two parts.
The horse archers rode out whilst using the lancers as a defence to retire behind.
Now if this is correct, then the lancers duty is to charge when appropriate, or act as the defencive screen.
That makes a 6Cv element possibly Kn, but using mixed horse archer and lancer figures.

Just a thought.

David Constable

winterbadger
08-10-2011, 12:32 PM
PB/SB might with the Byzantines be treating them as Kn because as far as I know the Byzantines split the element into two parts. The horse archers rode out whilst using the lancers as a defence to retire behind.

Now if this is correct, then the lancers duty is to charge when appropriate, or act as the defencive screen. That makes a 6Cv element possibly Kn, but using mixed horse archer and lancer figures.

If that's what the 6Cv element is representing, it sounds like it should be two separate elements, LH and Cv or Kn, not a single element.

jcpotn
08-10-2011, 02:25 PM
With the advent of DBA 3.0 I find it interesting that the new 3.0 approved lists will become the new norm, the standard or gospel as it were. So here is my proposed L. Carthaginian list from April 2001, rejected out of hand then by Phil much as my more recent ideas for a Horse Archer element type today.

The difference here is not that there has been new historical/archeolocical evidence but the interpretation of existing evidence at the time I proposed the alternative 10 years ago. In 2.2 my objection was the option for "3x3Wb or 2Ps".

DBA L. Carthaginian Suggestions from 2001
Later Carthaginians in Spain (II/32b)
Arable. Agression 2
∑ 1x3Cv (Gen)
∑ 2x2LH (Numidian) (Note: Minimum of 6 are required in DBM)
∑ 3x4SP (Libyan Sp) (Note: Minimum of 8 required in DBM. Could also be represented as Poeni Sp comprised of Carthaginian citizens in Spanish towns.0-8 in DBM
∑ 2x2Ps (Numidian Ps) (Note: Minimum of 6 required in DBM
∑ 2x3/4Ax (Spanish Scutarii or Carthaginian Ax from the towns. The Ax are too greatly under represented in the II/32 list; the DBM list provides up to 8 mercenary scutarii in addition to Iberian allies. A lot of Libyans were shipped to Spain to get them out of Africa and reduce their potential for uprising on Carthaginian home turf after the Mercenaries Revolt.)
∑ 1x3Cv or El (Spanish Cavalry or an elephant brought over on way to Italy.)(Note: Hamilcar brought 200 elephants to Spain.)
∑ 1xEl or 2Ps (Note: Ps representing Baleric Slingers)



DBA 3.0 (Proposed)

II/32a Later Carthaginian Army 275-202 BC:

1 x General (on horseback (Cv) or on foot (Sp)),
1 x Poeni or Libyan cavalry (Cv),
1 x Numidian cavalry (LH),
2 x spearmen (Sp),
1 x mercenaries (Ax),
1 x skirmishers (Ps),
3 x mercenaries (Wb or Ax or Ps),
1 x elephants (El) or spearmen (Sp),
1 x elephants (El) or cavalry (LH)
Terrain Type: Littoral. Aggression: 3 Enemies: I/7c, I/36b, II/9, II/11, II/33, II39a, II/39b, II/39c, II/40. Allies: II/5h or
(II/8a and/or II/8b) or II/9 or II/39a or II/39c.


My proposed list was illegal for the the intervening 10 years, but now is closer to being Phil's view. A couple of differences still in numbers/types but the similarity is close enough. :eek Wb are not mandatory in the new proposed 3.0.

While I compared the 2.2 list to DBM list the comment notes I made were from my own research, not WRG.

So will 3.0 army lists be the only accepted choices for those who choose to play DBA 3.0 vs 2.2? :???

Jeff

David Constable
08-10-2011, 02:33 PM
If that's what the 6Cv element is representing, it sounds like it should be two separate elements, LH and Cv or Kn, not a single element.

As far as I know it is a hang over from DBM (please do not quote me though),
it is LH and Cv acting together as one, if correct 6Cv is a good representation.

David Constable

winterbadger
08-10-2011, 02:36 PM
As far as I know it is a hang over from DBM (please do not quote me though),
it is LH and Cv acting together as one, if correct 6Cv is a good representation.

David Constable

If it has to be represented as single element, I would agree that Cv seems to be the right compromise. Not sure about the huge base though--was this seen as an unwieldy arrangement that clogged tha battlefield and was difficult to maneuver? If so, then the large base seems right too. If not, then IMO it should not be a big base.

But I'm sure the decision will be guided by what the DBMM list is and therefore what the future DBMM player will need when he "graduates" from DBA. :rolleyes

kontos
08-10-2011, 03:07 PM
Personally I feel the Byzantine lists are being hosed after seeing all these Kn upgrades to the Sassanid lists. Even Sassanid Hd has been made optional I believe. You had better be a Belisarius or Narses to command the Early Byzantines.

winterbadger
08-10-2011, 03:46 PM
Personally I feel the Byzantine lists are being hosed after seeing all these Kn upgrades to the Sassanid lists. Even Sassanid Hd has been made optional I believe. You had better be a Belisarius or Narses to command the Early Byzantines.

Well, don't worry--you know that at the club at least you'll never see anything but my 2.2 Persians. :)

kontos
08-10-2011, 05:15 PM
Well, don't worry--you know that at the club at least you'll never see anything but my 2.2 Persians. :)

And I don't even have Byzantines...but I will...someday. ;)

Andreas Johansson
08-11-2011, 03:16 AM
Personally I feel the Byzantine lists are being hosed after seeing all these Kn upgrades to the Sassanid lists. Even Sassanid Hd has been made optional I believe. You had better be a Belisarius or Narses to command the Early Byzantines.

I've said this before, but, given Phil's frequently expressed views on the Sassanid army, I do doubt the Kn will remain in the published version.

However, should they do, DBMM-bashers can take joy in the departure from DBMM dependence they represent - it's one of the few cases where Sue has apparently deliberately made the 3.0 list less like the 'MM one than what the 2.2 was.

Andreas Johansson
08-11-2011, 03:28 AM
So will 3.0 army lists be the only accepted choices for those who choose to play DBA 3.0 vs 2.2? :???
Accepted by whom?

Doug
08-11-2011, 03:38 AM
Blame on you Doug, you should have worked on changes to Byzantine lists too :)

Well, I see the multi-armed Byzantine mounted as an attempt to copy the multi-armed Persian Asavaran. (the Byzantines were always quick to recruit Persians).

In a perfect world I would have made them double ranked formations with a crust of heavily armoured supported by horse archers. Sort of (in DBM/MM terms) like a mounted Bw(X) category.

Given we have evidence for cataphract armour in use well into the 6th Century, I don't think there can be much argument against having some very heavily armoured men. The real question is what proportion of the Persian army they would have formed. The behaviour of the Immortals and court cavalry at Daras certainly suggest there were significant numbers acting as charging cavalry in the 5th century.

The argument always trotted out against heavily armoured charging Sasanian cavalry is Maurikios Strategikon, and this is very late 6th early 7th Century. As I have argued numerous times, I am not convinced that that our anonymous Maurikios ever saw a four quarter Sasanian army with the Royal army in support. Anyway, I am quite sure, that as Phil is currently going through the lists, the current Sasanian draft wont survive.

Doug
08-11-2011, 03:42 AM
Personally I feel the Byzantine lists are being hosed after seeing all these Kn upgrades to the Sassanid lists. Even Sassanid Hd has been made optional I believe. You had better be a Belisarius or Narses to command the Early Byzantines.

How true, and they lost historically until they got a Belisarius (much overrated IMHO) or Narses.. Generally speaking the Sasanians won more than they lost vs the E. Byzantines. Belisarius himself was beaten on more thna one occasion.

I am sure as a player you will supply the requisite skill to compensate for your troops deficiencies. ;)

Tony Aguilar
08-11-2011, 05:24 AM
You had better be a Belisarius or Narses to command the Early Byzantines.

I'd say the same thing about the Later Carthaginians. It would greatly help to have the surname of Barca to get them to work well for you.

Andreas Johansson
08-11-2011, 10:46 AM
The poster child for that effect is surely Mongol Conquest, particularly on a 24" board.

Haardrada
08-13-2011, 04:26 AM
<edit> I meant for the thread to be called II and III, not II and II :-

II/5 Spartan
Is there a Fanatic with the DBMM book II lists? Does it explain the increase in Ax? (I did see the explanation in the other post). It certainly adds bad-going interest. Brasidas' campaigning is a valid reason to add mountaineers, and I don't think Sparta ever fielded an army composed entirely of homoioi (spartans) anyway

On the whole, lots of interest added!

I quite agree, but I don't think the Spartans should have 13 elements!:up

vonBerlichingen
08-13-2011, 08:19 AM
Have they finally put the Hd into the II/45 Sicilian and Italian Slave Revolts lists? Their Hd would seem to have gotten omitted between DBM and DBA 2.2...

Martin Smith
08-13-2011, 12:38 PM
Have they finally put the Hd into the II/45 Sicilian and Italian Slave Revolts lists? Their Hd would seem to have gotten omitted between DBM and DBA 2.2...

Nope - lotsa Wb instead.
M

David Constable
08-13-2011, 05:14 PM
Have they finally put the Hd into the II/45 Sicilian and Italian Slave Revolts lists? Their Hd would seem to have gotten omitted between DBM and DBA 2.2...

5Wb might just be a better representation than Hd.
Possibly better at fighting and relying on movement and charging.

David Constable

SUMRULD
08-15-2011, 09:09 PM
Especially so, since the descriptions are of former slaves lusting for revenge on the Romans not one of poor slobs forced to fight.

David Constable
08-16-2011, 04:23 AM
Especially so, since the descriptions are of former slaves lusting for revenge on the Romans not one of poor slobs forced to fight.

Yes, hardly horde.

David Constable

Martin Smith
08-16-2011, 05:58 AM
Yes, hardly horde.

David Constable

The 5Wb was the DBA interpretation of DBM's Hd 'Superior' or 'Fast', I seem to recall, so who knows what's best?? Maybe we'll find changes to Hd (eg pursuit) rules in the new 3.0?....or not...
Martin

David Constable
08-16-2011, 11:42 AM
The 5Wb was the DBA interpretation of DBM's Hd 'Superior' or 'Fast', I seem to recall, so who knows what's best?? Maybe we'll find changes to Hd (eg pursuit) rules in the new 3.0?....or not...
Martin

Do not know about DBA3 Martin, but in DBA2.2 in effect you have a Wb with more figures than normal, but importantly none of the PIP restrictions of a Hd, actually a nice compromise.

David Constable