PDA

View Full Version : New to 3.0


dicemanrick
12-11-2011, 10:00 PM
Blades now follow up recoiling foot??

Seriously???

I don't have to play-test this to know it's bad.

This works in DBM/DBMM with "fast" blades and undisciplined irregulars or fanatics. Centurion Vorenus threw Pullo in the stockade for that! Roman blades or "Imitation" Legionaires are not the same as Vikings or Sea Peoples.
DBA does not differentiate between Regular and Irregular...ALL blades are the same.

There will be a lot of dead Romans versus those Gauls when they follow up and get double-overlapped AND quick-killed. All my Romans (and I can field any period in their history) will retire from DBA competition.

Perhaps make it optional??

O Tempora!, O Mores!.......:eek

kontos
12-11-2011, 10:17 PM
And that is all you can cite as deficient in these rules? ;)

larryessick
12-11-2011, 10:24 PM
Play it first. Gripe about it second.

Try to lose while you're at it. Should help the dice gods to decide who to favor.

Let us know how it turned out.

dicemanrick
12-12-2011, 12:26 AM
Play it first. Gripe about it second.

Try to lose while you're at it. Should help the dice gods to decide who to favor.

Let us know how it turned out.

Dice Gods?? You don't know how I am lucky with the dice?

I AM the Diceman!:D

I may try them Monday nite to see how bad they become...I'll report back.

Inari7
12-12-2011, 12:58 AM
"PURSUING An element of any of Knights, Scythed Chariots or Elephants that is fighting against mounted or foot, or of Pikes, Blades or Warband"

PIKE pursue........

What is PB smoking? I want some........


But then again I could be wrong, I never saw how pike fought in person, maybe PB has.

Alan Saunders
12-12-2011, 01:02 AM
PIKE pursue........

What is PB smoking? I want some........


But then again I could be wrong, I never saw how pike fought in person, maybe PB has.

It explains it under the troop descriptions. Whether you agree with it or not is yours to decide.

larryessick
12-12-2011, 01:13 AM
Dice Gods?? You don't know how I am lucky with the dice?

I AM the Diceman!:D.

So I've been told. ;)

Bobgnar
12-12-2011, 02:19 AM
Pursuing Blades was just added for some reason known mostly to some of the English Stalwarts. I do not think any of them are in Fanaticus but maybe Andreas, Doug or Dave understand this. It was more game driven than history related.

Now that Litters and standard-bearing carroccio count as Blades, I am interested in seeing them pursue :)

I do understand Pike pursuit, it is the Push of Pikes. As Phil says from his study of History, "When fighting against foot, they exploited success by following up exerting continuous pressure."

And for the record, Diceman has extensive playtest experience, but not with pursuing Bd as that is brand new as of Dec 5. I have high regard for his knowledge of the game and respect his opinions.

larryessick
12-12-2011, 02:34 AM
And for the record, Diceman has extensive playtest experience, but not with pursuing Bd as that is brand new as of Dec 5. I have high regard for his knowledge of the game and respect his opinions.

As do I. It was a tease not an insult. He recognized the difference.

For what it is worth, I've played pursuing blades and pike in DBM and it isn't nearly doom and gloom. It just takes getting accustomed to and adjusting your combat decisions for the more optimal choices.

I'm sure that is blindingly obvious to all concerned.

Inari7
12-12-2011, 03:07 AM
Well I should have also said that if Pike pursues, perhaps Spear should too.

Both type of formations are really into pushing the enemy around. Both are very reliant on the back ranks pushing their comrades forward.

I think an army that can use of pike effectively would also be more disciplined then say....... Warband......

But then again, who am I?

larryessick
12-12-2011, 03:16 AM
We recently had a bit of discussion on Romans vs Successors and blade vs pike.

One of the elements in that discussion includes the Successor pike pushing forward in battle and Roman strategy incorporated this in developing the tactics to defeat the phalanx.

The pike follow-up/pursuit is an appropriate and good thing.

I'm not so convinced regarding blade but am able to understand that there may be game reasons to include it. Having used pike in DBM and dealt with the effect of involuntary follow-up/pursuit I am fairly confident that once played it will become a nothing issue.

In fact, some players will strongly prefer it as it opens new ways to deal with a number of issues.

Alan Saunders
12-12-2011, 03:22 AM
Well I should have also said that if Pike pursues, perhaps Spear should too.

Both type of formations are really into pushing the enemy around. Both are very reliant on the back ranks pushing their comrades forward.

I think an army that can use of pike effectively would also be more disciplined then say....... Warband......

But then again, who am I?

I'm no expert, but I'm assuming the Pike 'pursuit' represents a momentum beyond that which troops classed as Spears had*. And it doesn't necessarily represent a lack of discipline; with regard to Warband and Pikes it's the rules using one mechanism to represent two different things that, at the scale of game being played, look the same.

*I seem to recall that in at least some versions of DBM, certain types of Spear did pursue, though. But it was through lack of discipline rather than momentum. There might be something to be said for DBA Spears pursuing other Spears, but frankly that's just a fiddly bit the rules can well do without.

Victor
12-12-2011, 03:51 AM
We recently had a bit of discussion on Romans vs Successors and blade vs pike.

One of the elements in that discussion includes the Successor pike pushing forward in battle and Roman strategy incorporated this in developing the tactics to defeat the phalanx.

The pike follow-up/pursuit is an appropriate and good thing.

Yes, this is similar to what happened at Pydna. Plutarch wrote;

"the Macedonian phalanx was getting many clefts and intervals in it, as is natural when armies are large and the efforts of the combatants are diversified; portions of it were hard pressed, and other portions were dashing forward. Thereupon he came up swiftly, and dividing up his cohorts, ordered them to plunge quickly into the interstices and empty spaces in the enemy's line and thus come to close quarters, not fighting a single battle against them all, but many separate and successive battles."

Seems to describe (in DBA terms) the pike following up and getting flanked in parts by the Romans.

Si2
12-12-2011, 04:34 AM
Wasn't Cannae a classic example of blade following up..?
To their ultimate doom of course.
And against warband too.
Si2

Xavi
12-12-2011, 05:48 AM
I would say Cannae is a classic example of a PHALANX following up, not blades. the romans were acting like a classical phalanx there (raw recrits et al) not in triple acies.

If Bd and Pk pursue Sp should certainly do the same. second chaeronea and ALL the stories about the peloponessian war come to my mind here.

Xavi

Doug
12-12-2011, 08:50 AM
Pursuing Blades was just added for some reason known mostly to some of the English Stalwarts. I do not think any of them are in Fanaticus but maybe Andreas, Doug or Dave understand this. It was more game driven than history related.


Hi Bob (and Rick) - I am aware that there are numerous reports of Roman Bd getting into trouble because of their tendency to follow up very aggressively. (A serious suggestion was made in DBMM development, that they are best described as a very well armoured and specialised form of warband!) Dismounted Kn counting as Bd would also have a tendency to impetuous advance. Whether this leads to any list changes will be interesting.

From a game balance point of view, this may also represent the more flexible tactics and aggressive push as opposed to a shield wall of spearmen, and give spear more chance against pushing forward blade. I haven't tested it but it does seem to me to reduce the current advantages Bd have over all other foot, which can't be a bad thing. And before anyone mentions it, yes, some of the Spear armies should probably be following up as well, but minor differences aren't represented at the granularity level of DBA.

Xavi
12-12-2011, 09:03 AM
As said, spears also pursued big time. MOST of them did pursue other infantry (chaeronea, hastings, peloponesian battles, ...), not "a few" of them that require granularity. But hey. I quite dislike when blades seem to mean "romans", especially since romans would be better depicted as an Ax army.

Xavi

Doug
12-12-2011, 09:06 AM
As said, spears also pursued big time. MOST of them did pursue other infantry (chaeronea, hastings, peloponesian battles, ...), not "a few" of them that require granularity. But hey. I quite dislike when blades seem to mean "romans", especially since romans would be better depicted as an Ax army.

Xavi

Well if Romans aren't Blades - who should be ;-) by definition that's the Blade intended by Phil.

larryessick
12-12-2011, 10:54 AM
As said, spears also pursued big time. MOST of them did pursue other infantry (chaeronea, hastings, peloponesian battles, ...), not "a few" of them that require granularity. But hey. I quite dislike when blades seem to mean "romans", especially since romans would be better depicted as an Ax army.

I would be careful with Hastings as an example as it is not entirely clear whether the Normans were in rout or in feigned retreat but it is clear that the English broke ranks and pursued because they thought the Normans had been routed.

This might justify pursuit against break-off by mounted but certainly does not support follow-up. Particularly since Hastings is a classic example of spear standing firm against both mounted and foot attack. The battle itself was very much like a DB game in that the Normans attacked in multiple pulses and alternated troop types among foot, mounted and combined arms (and the foot itself between close combat and ranged combat types).

The hoplite examples are more to the point and were used 10+ years ago to justify making some hoplites irregular rather than regular and causing them to pursue and follow-up in DB games. This carried over into other rules as well, for example, in Warrior.

It is certainly worth discussing at greater length. However, before lobbying to include spear -- or using the lack of inclusion as a lobbying tool to remove blade from the list -- it would be better to actually play blade in this new role.

larryessick
12-12-2011, 11:08 AM
Well if Romans aren't Blades - who should be ;-) by definition that's the Blade intended by Phil.

This is true as far as I can tell.

The answer is that no other troops should be. They should instead be something else. Warband is not accurate for some (although it probably is for many). And, of course, there is the argument that Romans should be a type of (super) warband for which there is some good justification.

In the end the "some other guys" type that seems best reflected with combat factors the same as or nearly the same as DB blade winds up rolled into the blade grouping as the best fit.

Frankly, it is the Romans that are the odd bit as their system has very few parallels. Off the top of my head perhaps ancient Spanish who used a similar javelin/pilum type missile barrage followed by sword play or late medieval sword and buckler men might be close matches.