PDA

View Full Version : Hordes


Mark Davies
12-26-2011, 06:24 PM
One of the things that makes DBA such a fun game for me is the scissors-paper-stone aspect. One element type that doesn't fit the model of each type having a use is the horde. And in DBA 3.0 it's become even more useless.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but perhaps it's an issue for the army lists. How many armies always fielded hordes? Surely they would be better as optional and worked into campaign games.

However, the idiosyncratic nature of the army lists is a topic for another thread, and again I don't see any improvement in DBA 3.0 …

El' Jocko
12-26-2011, 11:23 PM
One of the things that makes DBA such a fun game for me is the scissors-paper-stone aspect. One element type that doesn't fit the model of each type having a use is the horde. And in DBA 3.0 it's become even more useles.

Why do you think Hordes are more useless in DBA 3.0?

- Jack

Mark Davies
12-27-2011, 09:05 PM
Well, they're now factor 2 v. foot so can't even face single-ranked Wb at even odds! They're not QKed by shooting, but I doubt that balances out.

Filippo S.
12-28-2011, 04:15 AM
Well, they're now factor 2 v. foot so can't even face single-ranked Wb at even odds! They're not QKed by shooting, but I doubt that balances out.

I agree.:2up
It would be enough remove the QK from shooters.
Ciao

Andrechin
12-28-2011, 06:36 AM
I think the only way to make hordes at least partly useful is to convert all the "destroyed" results (both "if beaten" and "if doubled", but at least the "if beaten" ones) in a flee.

It will be hard for them to come back in the fight with the additional PIP to move, but at least the fact they are still there will not break the army and will delay somehow enemy's manoeuvre. So they will be a bit more useful.

Just my two cents.
Attilio

David Constable
12-28-2011, 08:24 AM
A simple alteration might be to treat hordes like SCh, then if they are killed, at least they do not count toward victory.

David Constable

Macbeth
12-28-2011, 08:26 AM
It doesn't help in the real rules, but in the closed system that is my campaign games I allow Hd to regenerate at 1 PIP per element during battles - if they are lost at the end of a game they stay lost.

In May I plan to run a tournament where Hd will provide rear support stay tuned for the 'Universal Soldier' event - May 2012


Cheers

Doug
12-28-2011, 10:13 AM
It doesn't help in the real rules, but in the closed system that is my campaign games I allow Hd to regenerate at 1 PIP per element during battles - if they are lost at the end of a game they stay lost.

In May I plan to run a tournament where Hd will provide rear support stay tuned for the 'Universal Soldier' event - May 2012


Cheers

Speaks another helpless victim of David's incessant tinkering (actually last year was fun with special double based rules... I ran Italian Communal with special rules for Pavisiers, sacred relics etc.. )

Rich Gause
12-28-2011, 10:34 AM
I think the only way to make hordes at least partly useful is to convert all the "destroyed" results (both "if beaten" and "if doubled", but at least the "if beaten" ones) in a flee.

It will be hard for them to come back in the fight with the additional PIP to move, but at least the fact they are still there will not break the army and will delay somehow enemy's manoeuvre. So they will be a bit more useful.

Just my two cents.
Attilio

I think that is an interesting idea. There are so many of them you can't kill them all and most just run away. I supposed they would still be destroyed by a flank contact? It would then be beaten by Kn, Wb, El = flee, anybody else no effect, doubled by anybody flee. I would also have them recoil if beaten by shooting.

Andrechin
12-28-2011, 12:52 PM
I think that is an interesting idea. There are so many of them you can't kill them all and most just run away. I supposed they would still be destroyed by a flank contact?

Yes, a flee starts with a recoil, and follows the normal recoil rules. I am proposing just to change the table of combat results, not the general rules.

Cheers,
Attilio

mdsanderson
12-28-2011, 03:12 PM
So you want to give Hordes more staying power than regular troops. Wont the REALISM POLICE be up in arms about this?

Mike Sanderson

Rich Gause
12-28-2011, 03:55 PM
So you want to give Hordes more staying power than regular troops. Wont the REALISM POLICE be up in arms about this?

Mike Sanderson

How can you have realism police in a game where each side has 12 elements no matter how big the historical army they are representing and where each element type all fight the same regardless of quality issues?

El' Jocko
12-28-2011, 04:12 PM
How can you have realism police in a game where each side has 12 elements no matter how big the historical army they are representing and where each element type all fight the same regardless of quality issues?

Nobody expects the Realism Police. (After all, their chief weapon is surprise!)

kontos
12-28-2011, 04:40 PM
I wish Horde were made a bit better and army lists included more of them instead of calling them Warband or Spear. To me, many "here's a stick and a shield" militia (of which there were many in many armies) should be more the norm and the rules should reflect these types better. I know it'll never happen but its fun to think about. :D

larryessick
12-28-2011, 04:47 PM
It is very hard to find examples where "horde" are the primary troops for particular armies. Either they are not really "horde" or they are only expected to swell numbers and not actually perform well if pressed to fight.

If they are not really "horde" then they ought not to be represented by Horde elements. If they are only expected to swell numbers and not actually perform well if pressed to fight they ought to be represented by Horde elements and do poorly.

I don't see the problem. Maybe someone can give examples where "horde" were the primary troops and expected to fight and perform well. But, I don't think that this actually exists.

mdsanderson
12-28-2011, 04:49 PM
If there are no REALISM POLICE then why is so much bickering about support elements, automatic follow-up, move distance, terrain, rear ranks in roman armies, effectiveness of elephants verses ***, war wagons, BUA, double stands and providing historic proof to support what ever your view of ancient history happens to be?
It is usually not about DBA being a abstract game where you, the player, has to overcome the obstacles placed in your path to victory. It is normally about a small group of people who believe that a limited amount of historical data says warfare in the ancient world was in all circumstance like this. "This" being different for each small group of experts.

Mike Sanderson

larryessick
12-28-2011, 05:25 PM
If there are no REALISM POLICE then why is so much bickering about support elements, automatic follow-up, move distance, terrain, rear ranks in roman armies, effectiveness of elephants verses ***, war wagons, BUA, double stands and providing historic proof to support what ever your view of ancient history happens to be?
It is usually not about DBA being a abstract game where you, the player, has to overcome the obstacles placed in your path to victory. It is normally about a small group of people who believe that a limited amount of historical data says warfare in the ancient world was in all circumstance like this. "This" being different for each small group of experts.

Irrespective of the rules set under discussion, there is always a legitimate dialog between those who view them as only a game and those that view them as a means for replicating history. It is something of a given that "replicating history" will be discussed to some extent as what history actually is depends on viewpoint. That each viewpoint is colored by experience, knowledge and opinion is part of the flavor in such discussions. Bringing divergent views together into something cohesive is part of the challenge.

It is a relevant question to ask why a particular rules set must be only one thing or the other. Why must DBA be only a game or only a tool for replicating history? Why can it not be both? Indeed, why should it not be both?

The protestations that it is only 12 elements or that gradations of skill and weaponry are all simplified do not justify ignoring that DBA is a game focused on ancient and medieval warfare. That it is a game does not justify ignoring those moments of agreement when historian and pseudo-historian alike find common ground regarding army compositions or troop interactions or any of the other topics being discussed.

If people want only to play a game and have no regard for historical interaction and, as we best understand it, accuracy then they could just as well play HotT or checkers or tiddlywinks.

But, if we are playing a game based on history then we have a right to expect that it will at least look and feel like history as best we understand it.

If realism police provide this then they are to be commended.

Doug
12-29-2011, 05:34 AM
It is a relevant question to ask why a particular rules set must be only one thing or the other. Why must DBA be only a game or only a tool for replicating history? Why can it not be both? Indeed, why should it not be both?.

I like to think DBA is the best compromise between realism and a game...

Richard Lee
12-29-2011, 06:29 AM
I think that even Hordes of the Things tries not to be too unrealistic for a set of fantasy wargaming rules.

To be honest, one of the things that I like about DBA is that not all armies are equally good. In the real world, armies were not equally effective.

Alan Saunders
12-29-2011, 06:38 AM
I think that even Hordes of the Things tries not to be too unrealistic for a set of fantasy wargaming rules.



It does a fair job at simulating its source material whilst providing a good game. Which is all you can ask for any set of wargames rules.

Andrechin
12-29-2011, 11:30 AM
I don't see the problem. Maybe someone can give examples where "horde" were the primary troops and expected to fight and perform well. But, I don't think that this actually exists.

Post mongol samurai army IV/59 has three options: 4xSp/Pk or 4xWb or 4xHd, matching three main kind of armies: regular samurai armies, Ikko-Ikki fanatics, town militia.

According to the DBMM list: "They (Ikko-Ikki armies) could be fought-off by improvised town militia reinforced by local samurai...", it means that the 4xHd could occasionally perform well against 4xWb, which is not possible with the current rules.

Attilio

Rich Gause
12-29-2011, 12:10 PM
If Hordes are going to be 2/2 I would think nothing should quick kill them; they should have to be doubled by everything to die. Combine that with a no recoil and you might have an interesting element, still sucky, but interesting.

larryessick
12-29-2011, 03:51 PM
Post mongol samurai army IV/59 has three options: 4xSp/Pk or 4xWb or 4xHd, matching three main kind of armies: regular samurai armies, Ikko-Ikki fanatics, town militia.

According to the DBMM list: "They (Ikko-Ikki armies) could be fought-off by improvised town militia reinforced by local samurai...", it means that the 4xHd could occasionally perform well against 4xWb, which is not possible with the current rules.

I hardly think DBMM army lists qualify as historical references. And, if that is the best we can do then I don't think it argues for making horde more survivable in every army list -- only for fielding the militia as Sp as that is one of the options. Sp seems more like "reinforced by local samurai" than Hd in any case.

BrianNZ
12-29-2011, 05:12 PM
I think that is an interesting idea. There are so many of them you can't kill them all and most just run away. I supposed they would still be destroyed by a flank contact? It would then be beaten by Kn, Wb, El = flee, anybody else no effect, doubled by anybody flee. I would also have them recoil if beaten by shooting.
Has anyone sent this most simple of 'fixes' to the Barkers?

larryessick
12-29-2011, 06:17 PM
Has anyone sent this most simple of 'fixes' to the Barkers?

The problem with fleeing is that the elements return to the battle. This doesn't seem to be the case for "horde" in ancient armies. When beaten they did flee -- but they kept on running. In DBA this is reflected in the element being destroyed.

broadsword
12-29-2011, 08:01 PM
Unless the Horde "returning" to battle is just fresh raw troops being committed. However, I don't like the idea of having too many elements that flee...

Macbeth
01-02-2012, 05:41 PM
Speaks another helpless victim of David's incessant tinkering (actually last year was fun with special double based rules... I ran Italian Communal with special rules for Pavisiers, sacred relics etc.. )

Doug,

you seem to have spoken but failed to speak :D

Is this a rounding condemnation or a powerful endorsement of the 'DBA With A Twist' Tournaments that I have been running in May for the past 9 years? (and where you have walked away with quite a bit of the silverware ;):p )

There has always been a minor Tweak in the rules at those tourneys

Universal Soldier will be no different

Cheers

Doug
01-02-2012, 09:55 PM
Doug,

you seem to have spoken but failed to speak :D

Is this a rounding condemnation or a powerful endorsement of the 'DBA With A Twist' Tournaments that I have been running in May for the past 9 years? (and where you have walked away with quite a bit of the silverware ;):p )

There has always been a minor Tweak in the rules at those tourneys

Universal Soldier will be no different

Cheers

I reckon they have all been fun, and provide a useful variety that lets us get away from the same old paradigms, by making different armies more interesting and viable... So the latter... :2up

And I have plenty of Hd in that same Communal Italian Army.... lets see.. Double Based Knight (6Kn), check...
Double based Pavisiers (8Bw), check...
Sacred Relic (WWg), check...
Contadini Infantry (Hd), check...

Lydia
01-03-2012, 07:54 AM
The +3 factor for Hd seems to be unique to DBA. In DBM they had a +2 factor. And DBM had Hd before they were added to DBA. So the change to a +2 factor in DBA 3.0 is hardly iconoclastic.

Despite being the proud owner of a number of Hd elements I don't like the idea of making improved Hd, as that takes DBA 3.0 away from the other DBx games (including DBA 2.2), which I don't think is desirable.

Regenerating Hd is a common Sci Fi and fantasy plot device, but recruiting troops would not fit into the DBA time scale, so I think that idea should remain in HoTT.

Their principal use in DBM and MM, bulking up the army to increase the number of units that must be destroyed to defeat it, does not carry over to DBA. In DBMM the Hd are generally optional and there are often ways of building an army without them. So I suggest that in order to make up for the reduced factor the DBA army lists be designed to avoid compulsary Hd wherever practicable.

Kingo
01-03-2012, 07:08 PM
I think Hd should keep their new factors in DBA 3, but be expendable like Sch and not count as elements towards victory.

Kingo

Macbeth
01-03-2012, 11:37 PM
Regenerating Hd is a common Sci Fi and fantasy plot device, but recruiting troops would not fit into the DBA time scale, so I think that idea should remain in HoTT.


As opposed to the creation of puppet administrations in BUAs after a single artillery barrage. ;):p

Cheers

Doug
01-04-2012, 02:32 AM
I hardly think DBMM army lists qualify as historical references. And, if that is the best we can do then I don't think it argues for making horde more survivable in every army list -- only for fielding the militia as Sp as that is one of the options. Sp seems more like "reinforced by local samurai" than Hd in any case.

In 99.9% of cases they are far superior as a single reference than Ospreys or any other commonly available references. I think you grossly underestimate the amount of work and discussion, often between recognised experts, that went into the formulation of many of these lists.

So for example, the Pre-Samurai Japanese TNE entry, by Duncan Head that identifies the new information that came to light, and the suggested approach.

http://tabulaenovaeexercituum.pbworks.com/w/page/14246761/Pre-Samurai%20Japanese

Further discussion material involving quite a few people on Samurai matters can be found on the DBMM list itself.

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/msearch?query=Samurai&submit=Search&charset=windows-1252

returns over 1150 results.

Luminaries involved include K.H. Ranitsch, Duncan Head, J. Graham-Leigh, etc, and you can even find a certain Larry Essick arguing with Spike about weather and Early Samurai...

Dangun
01-04-2012, 03:09 AM
In 99.9% of cases they are far superior as a single reference than Ospreys or any other commonly available references. I think you grossly underestimate the amount of work and discussion, often between recognised experts, that went into the formulation of many of these lists.


DBMM lists are absolutely not references of any kind. There MAY be a lot of work and discussion that goes into the lists, as is evident in the early Japanese example you gave. But it is almost impossible to verify or see the basis for the lists, because we are never given the discussion OR the sources.

For the lists to be given so specifically, but without justification, treats us like children.

Wouldn't it be a great resource, if there was an online ongoing accumulation of primary and academic sources for each list?

Lydia
01-04-2012, 04:41 AM
As opposed to the creation of puppet administrations in BUAs after a single artillery barrage. ;):p

Cheers

Don't get me started on BUAs or Carroccios unless you're an insomniac!

larryessick
01-04-2012, 10:44 AM
Luminaries involved include K.H. Ranitsch, Duncan Head, J. Graham-Leigh, etc, and you can even find a certain Larry Essick arguing with Spike about weather and Early Samurai...

I'm glad you put me with the "certain" and not the "luminaries." :2up

And, regardless of the discussion that went on with DBMM lists, they still do not qualify as any type of source material.

Rich Gause
01-04-2012, 11:06 AM
In 99.9% of cases they are far superior as a single reference than Ospreys or any other commonly available references. I think you grossly underestimate the amount of work and discussion, often between recognised experts, that went into the formulation of many of these lists.

So for example, the Pre-Samurai Japanese TNE entry, by Duncan Head that identifies the new information that came to light, and the suggested approach.

http://tabulaenovaeexercituum.pbworks.com/w/page/14246761/Pre-Samurai%20Japanese

Further discussion material involving quite a few people on Samurai matters can be found on the DBMM list itself.

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/msearch?query=Samurai&submit=Search&charset=windows-1252

returns over 1150 results.

Luminaries involved include K.H. Ranitsch, Duncan Head, J. Graham-Leigh, etc, and you can even find a certain Larry Essick arguing with Spike about weather and Early Samurai...

If the DBMM lists are so good, and I am not disagreeing that they are, why don't they just translate them into DBA lists following a mathematical formula? It is frustrating to look at the MM lists and see optional horde which becomes compulsorary in DBA or see psiloi or bow in the MM list turn into just psiloi in the DBA list etc...

david kuijt
01-04-2012, 11:15 AM
If the DBMM lists are so good, and I am not disagreeing that they are, why don't they just translate them into DBA lists following a mathematical formula? It is frustrating to look at the MM lists and see optional horde which becomes compulsorary in DBA or see psiloi or bow in the MM list turn into just psiloi in the DBA list etc...

There are inconsistencies in the translation of DBM lists into DBA lists in v2.2, but applying a mathematical formula wouldn't have fixed those, Rich. I agree that more consistency would have been nice, but there are a number of issues that make a blind math translation impossible. Total army size in the DBM lists, for one thing; differing treatment of allies and internal allies, and so on.

About the 3.0 lists we know nothing, as Phil is currently reworking them.

Rich Gause
01-04-2012, 01:31 PM
There are inconsistencies in the translation of DBM lists into DBA lists in v2.2, but applying a mathematical formula wouldn't have fixed those, Rich. I agree that more consistency would have been nice, but there are a number of issues that make a blind math translation impossible. Total army size in the DBM lists, for one thing; differing treatment of allies and internal allies, and so on.

About the 3.0 lists we know nothing, as Phil is currently reworking them.

A formula that works pretty well is minimums are (minumum number of elements in the dbmm list x their point value) divide by (4 x the point value of the most expensive element in the list) round down after the first element. Maximums are just straight divide dbmm maximum by 4 round up for the first element, down after that. Put the lists in a format similiar to the RRR rules instead of the current format. For cases where you have different quality types of the same DBMM element you combine them.

david kuijt
01-04-2012, 03:44 PM
A formula that works pretty well is minimums are (minumum number of elements in the dbmm list x their point value) divide by (4 x the point value of the most expensive element in the list) round down after the first element. Maximums are just straight divide dbmm maximum by 4 round up for the first element, down after that. Put the lists in a format similiar to the RRR rules instead of the current format. For cases where you have different quality types of the same DBMM element you combine them.

That completely abandons the existing model for describing the army lists, though.

And it still ignores the issue of maximum army size -- DBM lists have some lists that max out at 400 pts, some at 600+ pts. If you treat both of those in the same way, the army lists your algorithm generates will be distorted.

Plus the translation from DBM lists to DBA lists is not uniform across element types. Medieval French armies (with Kn(S)) are not smaller as DBA armies than Normans at Kn(F) or Medieval English Kn(I). Your algorithm would be completely broken for armies with large minimums of bulk filler troops -- Chichimec would have a minimum of 15 elements of Ps/Bw, and most likely the Tibetans would not be able to field 12 elements at all because of small maximums. About DBMM lists I know very little, but I would be surprised if the same issues don't arise.

I'm not saying your algorithm wouldn't get you to a reasonable ball-park on most army lists, if you want to change the way army lists are represented (use the DBM laundry list rather than the current DBA model). I'm just saying that a purely automated method, used without oversight by a knowledgeable human, will not work.

And personally, I don't want to abandon the current DBA method of representing army lists in favor of the DBM style laundry list, either.

Rich Gause
01-04-2012, 04:08 PM
I suppose I did neglect to add that anything that would put the army over 12 elements is ignored.....
I will have to check your math because the whole point of dividing the point cost of the MM minimums by 4 x the point cost of the most expensive element is to reduce the effect of large numbers of filler elements from the MM lists.

david kuijt
01-04-2012, 04:20 PM
I suppose I did neglect to add that anything that would put the army over 12 elements is ignored.....

That isn't a solution either, Rich. So the Chichimec end up with 12 elements of Ps/Bw -- no possibility for any other element type. The Anglo-Danes have a mandatory 3 elements of Bd, and a mandatory 10 elements of Spear -- which one will you ignore? Will you make it 3/9, or 2/10, or what? And your algorithm will end up giving you some armies with HUGE variety (only 1-2 elements required) and some armies with NO variety (Chichimec and Anglo-Danes, as two examples whose minimums are greater than or equal to 12 elements). That doesn't work.


I will have to check your math because the whole point of dividing the point cost of the MM minimums by 4 x the point cost of the most expensive element is to reduce the effect of large numbers of filler elements from the MM lists.

I think your algorithm is a perfectly reasonable seat of the pants approximation. It will probably work fairly well for 80% of the army lists (if you like laundry-list army lists). But completely automate the process? Not possible. Or if possible, it would be horrendously complex, and require extensive oversight by a real human while writing the algorithm, to ensure that bizarre results didn't turn up. And if you are having a real human (knowledgeable enough to spot bizarre results) during an extensive program testing phase, why not just have the same person go through the army lists once and not bother to write the program (algorithm) in the first place?

nick hux
01-04-2012, 04:42 PM
Another problem with a direct "translation" of the DBM/DBMM lists is that they generally aim to allow every "known" army fielded by the historical prototype - even if it is a totally atypical one-off. The DBA lists seem to go for a more typical composition, excluding exceptions. I think this better fits a fixed 12 element army. (Of course, even this is inconsistent in the 2.2 lists ;))

Nick

Tony Aguilar
01-04-2012, 05:23 PM
Another problem with a direct "translation" of the DBM/DBMM lists is that they generally aim to allow every "known" army fielded by the historical prototype - even if it is a totally atypical one-off. The DBA lists seem to go for a more typical composition, excluding exceptions. I think this better fits a fixed 12 element army. (Of course, even this is inconsistent in the 2.2 lists ;))

Nick

And it will most likely be inconsistent in the DBA 3.0 ones as well.

So how does one go and make "typical" compositions of armies when those (typical) parameters are not given in DBM/DBMM?

Should troop types that are 0-1 be excluded, or is there another minumum that shouldn't count?

Why do some armies have mantadory units that are 0-1, but other armies have more numerous ones that aren't even included as an option in their lists.

Not to mention the inconguency in which armies say "all such and such can dismount" and which ones actually get to do so in DBA 3.0.

There needs to be more accountability and less jingoism in the translation of lists.

david kuijt
01-04-2012, 05:34 PM
And it will most likely be inconsistent in the DBA 3.0 ones as well.

So how does one go and make "typical" compositions of armies when those (typical) parameters are not given in DBM/DBMM?

Should troop types that are 0-1 be excluded, or is there another minumum that shouldn't count?

Why do some armies have [....]

Not to mention the inconguency [....]

There needs to be more accountability and less jingoism in the translation of lists.

No question that the 2.2 lists had some problems, as I mentioned earlier, and as we have discussed before in other threads.

But as a computer scientist by training, I'm just saying that automated translation won't give a good result.

Tony Aguilar
01-04-2012, 05:39 PM
No question that the 2.2 lists had some problems, as I mentioned earlier, and as we have discussed before in other threads.

But as a computer scientist by training, I'm just saying that automated translation won't give a good result.

Correct automated won't (I have no idea or desire how to create such a thing), but there should be a formula/method/parameter/guidelines that are transparent.

Mark Davies
01-04-2012, 05:54 PM
Interesting that my attempt to keep the question of list design separate from what to do with hordes failed. In terms of consistency, I reckon a more consistent use of sublists would help. For instance, if the Marian Romans are allowed all the various allies and auxiliaries they had during that tumultuous period you get a very flexible list, but not all of them would be seen in the same army. For instance, how often did El appear in these armies, and with what other options? If more flexibility is to be given lists like the Marians, it should try to avoid ahistorical combinations of troop types.

Mark Davies
01-04-2012, 05:57 PM
If the DBMM lists are so good, and I am not disagreeing that they are, why don't they just translate them into DBA lists following a mathematical formula? It is frustrating to look at the MM lists and see optional horde which becomes compulsory in DBA or see psiloi or bow in the MM list turn into just psiloi in the DBA list etc...
I agree. Or all Bw in the case of the South Welsh; surely the same choice of Ps or Bw that is in the DBM list (and is probably in the DBMM list) makes sense for this army.

david kuijt
01-04-2012, 06:20 PM
Correct automated won't (I have no idea or desire how to create such a thing), but their should be a formula/method/parameter/guidelines that are transparent.

Ah, the young, so full of boundless optimism!

kontos
01-04-2012, 09:19 PM
Ah, the young, so full of boundless optimism!

Boundless optimism is not restricted to the young. Or is it senility or naivete in us seniors? :o

Doug
01-05-2012, 01:02 AM
DBMM lists are absolutely not references of any kind. There MAY be a lot of work and discussion that goes into the lists, as is evident in the early Japanese example you gave. But it is almost impossible to verify or see the basis for the lists, because we are never given the discussion OR the sources.

For the lists to be given so specifically, but without justification, treats us like children.

Wouldn't it be a great resource, if there was an online ongoing accumulation of primary and academic sources for each list?

Which would be fine, and most of these were identified in the lengthy and occasionally heated debate about primary source and classifications that went onduring their development. Most are there in the archive, plus there are other ones at TNE (as above).

To actually add the sources for each list would probably double the length of many entries. - I know my Bibliography for the Sasanian proposal ran to several pages.. (see below for the start of it.. )

It would be a huge piece of work. So it's not being treated like a child.

Primary
• Theophylact Simocatta ‘History’
• Al-Tabari ‘History’ V11 & 12
• Libanius ‘Oration ‘ XVIII
• Ammianus Marcellinus ‘History’ Bk XXIV Bk XIX Bk XXIII Bk XXV
• The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor Historika (fragments)
• Maurikios ‘Strategikon’
• Scriptores Historiae Augustae – Severus Alexander 55: 1 – 3 (ref to c. 231 – 3 AD)
• Chronicon ad 1234, 66 (203.20 – 205.7) (ref. To 573 AD)
• The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor Historika (fragments)
• Julian ‘Orationes’ (ref. to 3rd siege of Singara, 350 AD)
• Procopius ‘Persian Wars’, c.530AD, the battle of Daras.
• Heliodorus ‘Aetheopika’ (based on Heliodorus’ view of Persians at Siege of Nisibis)
• Agathias ‘The Histories’
• Baladhuri, Kitab Futuh al-Buldan
• Chronicle of Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite
• Zosimus
• Zachariah of Mytilene ‘Church History’ IX. 2 (92.25 – 93.27) (ref to 528AD)
• Chronicon Pascale (trans Michael Whitby, Liverpool University Press 1989, ISBN 0 85323 096 X)
• Ferdowsi, Shahnameh

Image – Firuzabad - Depictions of the Shahanshah as an armoured lancer. These horses are charging, their riders are impaling opponents on long kontos. The ‘overalls‘ are interpreted by several authorities as fabric coverings over leg armour. There
are similar representations at Naqsh-i Rustam. Tang-e Sarvak, late Parthian-early Sasanian shows scale trousers (in the shape of riding trousers).
See: http://www.livius.org/a/iran/firuzabad/firuzabad_relief1_3.jpg

In addition to the rock carvings, there are also 6th Century Spahbed seals depicting the Spahbed as a fully-equipped cataphract.
See: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/Sasanian/spahbed.htm
Secondary
Http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/ARTICLES/mccotter2.htm is another paper on the useful de re militari site which handily summarises Persian defensive use of mural artillery:
Nicolle, David, "Armies" (Montvert 1996).
Bivar, A. D. H., "Cavalry Equipment and Tactics on the Euphrates Frontier," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, v.26
Christiansen, Arthur, "L'Iran Sous Les Sassanides" (Copenhagen, 1944).
Dodgeon, M. H., and Lieu, S. N. C., "Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars (AD 226-363)"
Frye, R. N., "Heritage of Persia"(London, 1962).
Haldon, J. F., "Some Aspects of Byzantine Military Technology from the Sixth to the Tenth Centuries," Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, v.1 (1975), 11-48.
Harper, P. O., "Ox-Headed Mace in Pre-Islamic Iran,"Acta Iranica, v.24 (1977), p.248-265.
Inostrancev, C.A., "The Sasanian Military Theory," translated by Bagdanov, L., K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, v.7 (1926), 7-52.
Julian ‘Orationes’
Lukonin, V. G., "II," translated by Hogarth, J. (Cleveland, 1976).
Porada, Edith, "Art of Ancient Iran" (New York, 1965).
Rawlinson, George, "The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy" (Tehran, 1976).
Shahid, Irfan, "Iranian Factor in Byzantium During the Reign of Heraclius," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, v.26 (1972), 295-307.
Sinor, D., editor, "The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia" (Cambridge, 1990).
Treadgold, W., "Byzantium and Its Army"(Stanford, 1995).
Volbach, W. F., "Early Decorative Textiles" (Milan, 1969).
Yarshater, E., editor, "The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 3" (Cambridge, 1983).

Dangun
01-05-2012, 03:38 AM
Which would be fine, and most of these were identified in the lengthy and occasionally heated debate about primary source and classifications that went onduring their development. Most are there in the archive, plus there are other ones at TNE).

Doug, that was an excellent example, I am glad this type of stuff lies behind it all. The follow up questions are: 1) where is the archive? And 2) what does TNE mean?

I am of course more interested in what sources were used for older more obscure armies and particularly what the sources say about composition (often nothing).

Thanks again.

Doug
01-05-2012, 04:23 AM
Doug, that was an excellent example, I am glad this type of stuff lies behind it all. The follow up questions are: 1) where is the archive? And 2) what does TNE mean?

I am of course more interested in what sources were used for older more obscure armies and particularly what the sources say about composition (often nothing).

Thanks again.

Hi, TNE stands for Tabulae Novae Exercituum wiki which is here:

http://tabulaenovaeexercituum.pbworks.com/w/page/14246690/FrontPage

It is by no means comprehensive and has fallen somewhat into disuse with the publication of the army lists.

By 'Archive' I meant the massive number of posts on the DBMM List Yahoo Group, which if you search it, should find you information on every army that was discussed in detail.

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/messages

Dangun
01-05-2012, 09:41 AM
Hi, TNE stands for Tabulae Novae Exercituum wiki which is here:

http://tabulaenovaeexercituum.pbworks.com/w/page/14246690/FrontPage

It is by no means comprehensive and has fallen somewhat into disuse with the publication of the army lists.

By 'Archive' I meant the massive number of posts on the DBMM List Yahoo Group, which if you search it, should find you information on every army that was discussed in detail.

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/messages

Thanks Doug.
It does seem however, that the sources you provided for your list were unusually thorough when compared with the other stuff on TNE.

A centralized wiki-style depositary of such sources, would be very interesting.

Rich Gause
01-05-2012, 03:38 PM
That isn't a solution either, Rich. So the Chichimec end up with 12 elements of Ps/Bw -- no possibility for any other element type. The Anglo-Danes have a mandatory 3 elements of Bd, and a mandatory 10 elements of Spear -- which one will you ignore? Will you make it 3/9, or 2/10, or what? And your algorithm will end up giving you some armies with HUGE variety (only 1-2 elements required) and some armies with NO variety (Chichimec and Anglo-Danes, as two examples whose minimums are greater than or equal to 12 elements). That doesn't work.



I think your algorithm is a perfectly reasonable seat of the pants approximation. It will probably work fairly well for 80% of the army lists (if you like laundry-list army lists). But completely automate the process? Not possible. Or if possible, it would be horrendously complex, and require extensive oversight by a real human while writing the algorithm, to ensure that bizarre results didn't turn up. And if you are having a real human (knowledgeable enough to spot bizarre results) during an extensive program testing phase, why not just have the same person go through the army lists once and not bother to write the program (algorithm) in the first place?


You are right, the algorithm doesn't work when there are huge numbers of crap troops and no expensive troops in the army. But I found something that does seem to. Phil describes how to use the lists for DBA size games. He says DBA is equivalent to a 120 point DBMM army with one general with the minimums at 1/4 rounded down and maximums at 1/2. If you use the DBMM lists to buy a 120 point army with only the minimum of compulsorary troops and the max of other stuff you can buy then take the number of compulsoraries divided by the number of elements total you were able to buy multiply by 12 you get the relative number of compulsorary elements there should be in a 12 element DBA army. Then you just make the remaining choices fit what they could be based on what you could buy I did maximums divided by 4 instead of by 2 for what you could actually end up with in a DBA army as it seemed to fit better but I could be persuded otherwise. It seems to work for IV/19. Let me play with some others. For IV/19 I got:

a: Chinantec Bw Gen, 6x 3 Sp, 1 x 2Ps, 4x(Bw, 3Sp, or Ps)

b: Toltech /Chichimec Bd or Bw Gen, 1 Bd, 2 x(Bd or 3Wb, or 3 Bw, or 2 Ps), 1x(Bd or 3Bw, or 2PS). All Bd must be either 3Bd or 4Bd may not have both 3 and 4 Bd in the same army.

c: Tlaxcalan/Spanish after 1518 AD 1x3Kn Gen, 1x4Bd, 1x4Cbw,
Plus 9 from 4x4Bd, 1xArt, 2x3Sp, 3x2Ps, 1x WW, 1x3Wb

I did the Spannish/Tlaxcalan list DBA-RRR style because the standard DBA army lists are bad for armies with lots of choices. The RRR format is way easier to do and works better.

I will try some others later.

Rich Gause
01-05-2012, 06:42 PM
III/71 Anglo Danish(II/72 in DBMM)

a: 1016-1075 3-4Bd or 3Cv Gen, 3x4Sp, 1x 4Bd then 7 from:
7x4Sp, 3x4Bd, 3x7Hd, 4x2Ps.

b: only from 1042-1065 3-4Bd or 3Cv or 3Kn Gen, 3x4sp or 3Cv, 1xBd or Cv, then 7 from 7x3Cv, 7x4Sp, 3x4Bd, 3x7Hd, 4x2Ps.

David Schlanger
01-05-2012, 06:58 PM
III/71 Anglo Danish(II/72 in DBMM)

a: 1016-1075 3-4Bd or 3Cv Gen, 3x4Sp, 1x 4Bd then 7 from:
7x4Sp, 3x4Bd, 3x7Hd, 4x2Ps.

b: only from 1042-1065 3-4Bd or 3Cv or 3Kn Gen, 3x4sp or 3Cv, 1xBd or Cv, then 7 from 7x3Cv, 7x4Sp, 3x4Bd, 3x7Hd, 4x2Ps.

I guess we would probably lose the concept of an "all-options" army pack?

DS

Macbeth
01-05-2012, 07:37 PM
The algorithm should not be just some form of straight divisor. Something that weights the reductions in min/max by the points value might do better - to justify it, I would say that the small number of elite troops/expensive equipment would have a greater visual effect and a greater contribution to the outcome than masses of cheaper troops.

It would be an interesting exercise but given I don't own any DBMM lists and know that any model I come up with is unlikely to be accepted by the author of the rules I don't plan to devote the time

Cheers

Rich Gause
01-05-2012, 07:39 PM
I guess we would probably lose the concept of an "all-options" army pack?

DS

They would just cost a little more................. But nobody would twist your arm and make you have every option for an army. I find the all Cv option sort of silly myself but it is in the DBMM book and it did happen. I doubt if I would ever paint that much Saxon Cav but I don't have any objection to somebody who has them getting to play with his toys. You notice that the 2.2 DBA list is legal by this list as well so nobody would have to rebase anything or paint new elements; they just could if they wanted some variety.

Rich Gause
01-05-2012, 07:48 PM
The algorithm should not be just some form of straight divisor. Something that weights the reductions in min/max by the points value might do better - to justify it, I would say that the small number of elite troops/expensive equipment would have a greater visual effect and a greater contribution to the outcome than masses of cheaper troops.

It would be an interesting exercise but given I don't own any DBMM lists and know that any model I come up with is unlikely to be accepted by the author of the rules I don't plan to devote the time

Cheers

I'm going to do them anyway just because I think its a good idea. I have a feeling I can get them used at a lot of the HMGS South DBA events if nothing else.:silly Since they will be free to download on the internet anybody will be able to try them and if enough people like them they might get used elsewhere. I tried weighing the numbers by points values but with armies that have huge amounts of cheap compulsorary troops they wind up with too many to allow any of the optionals in a lot of cases. The 120 point army purchase with proportional reduction to 12 elements method seems the best formula so far IMO. The big question I'm not sure about is whether to follow the DBMM lists for number of variations or just make lists that correspond to the DBA breakpoints. I think I will do both.

Kingo
01-07-2012, 05:15 PM
I think Hd should keep their new factors in DBA 3, but be expendable like Sch and not count as elements towards victory.

Kingo

After yesterday's "turkey shoot" :eek, I think Hd should be 3 NOT 2, I still think they should be "expendables" :up

peleset
01-08-2012, 01:08 AM
If we are going to have the added complication of lost elements being worth anywhere between 0 and 2, why not have the loss of a horde count as half an element?

Doug
01-08-2012, 04:45 AM
If we are going to have the added complication of lost elements being worth anywhere between 0 and 2, why not have the loss of a horde count as half an element?

could be worthwhile, but it isn't really an 'added' complication, as it already exists in 2.2 (scythed chariots are 0, Generals are effectively anywhere between 1 and 4!.. )

Bob Santamaria
01-08-2012, 04:54 AM
could be worthwhile, but it isn't really an 'added' complication, as it already exists in 2.2 (scythed chariots are 0, Generals are effectively anywhere between 1 and 4!.. )

I am tired, but how can a general count as a loss of 4 elements?

Dangun
01-08-2012, 04:58 AM
I am tired, but how can a general count as a loss of 4 elements?

Lose the general, lose the game.

Doug
01-08-2012, 08:12 AM
Lose the general, lose the game.

That's what I was thinking. He starts the game as the equivalent of 4 elements.. as you lose other elements he becomes worth less.

Kingo
01-08-2012, 03:12 PM
If Hd remain as they are I will avoid them like the pox :D

Doug
01-14-2012, 07:20 PM
Hi Kingo, just had an email from Phil in which he tells me he has restored Hd to CF 3 in the next draft.. :up

I have to say, I am also really liking the look if the new lists - much more informative. The latest samples look excellent!

Alan Saunders
01-14-2012, 11:37 PM
I have to say, I am also really liking the look if the new lists

"... of the new lists ... " ;)

Doug
01-15-2012, 12:26 AM
"... of the new lists ... " ;)

The biter bit, nice auto-correct function on here.

Bob Santamaria
01-15-2012, 01:19 AM
Hi Kingo, just had an email from Phil in which he tells me he has restored Hd to CF 3 in the next draft.. :up

I have to say, I am also really liking the look if the new lists - much more informative. The latest samples look excellent!

But the Saminid Elephant may be a deal breaker for me!

Doug
01-15-2012, 02:33 AM
But the Saminid Elephant may be a deal breaker for me!

which list is it ?

peleset
01-15-2012, 03:17 AM
Is this an invitation to intercede for everyone who want their lovelies to get a run in the new lists? If so, how about an optional Skythian mercenary light horse for my I/44(b) Neo-Babylonian?:up

Doug
01-15-2012, 06:03 AM
Well, if you can adduce some real evidence why the lists should be different, then send it on, I will forward it to Phil... he has already made significant changes, based on new evidence. (Most of the changes so far from DBA have been in line with the new DBMM lists it should be noted).

Kingo
01-15-2012, 03:08 PM
Hi Kingo, just had an email from Phil in which he tells me he has restored Hd to CF 3 in the next draft.. :up

I have to say, I am also really liking the look if the new lists - much more informative. The latest samples look excellent!

Where are these "samples" ?:???

oooops! found them

Bob Santamaria
01-16-2012, 05:29 AM
which list is it ?

It is Khurasanian - I think list c. I was joking about it being a deal breaker, but I do have the army - it has an elephant in DBM 2.2 and at least one in DBMM (I bought the lists to check - that and a few other things)

I did notice it had lost the elephant in the last draft. Not sure of the reasoning.

Adrian

Doug
01-16-2012, 07:29 AM
It is Khurasanian - I think list c. I was joking about it being a deal breaker, but I do have the army - it has an elephant in DBM 2.2 and at least one in DBMM (I bought the lists to check - that and a few other things)

I did notice it had lost the elephant in the last draft. Not sure of the reasoning.

Adrian

Hi Adrian, I haven't seen a revised draft of Book 3 yet, so I will look out for it.

Macbeth
01-17-2012, 09:05 PM
But the Saminid Elephant may be a deal breaker for me!

For me it is the impending announcement that Pre Feudal Scot spearmen will be Ax and not 3Sp :(

The telling points are:
* there is no Ax(X) in DBMM they are Pk(F)
* Pk(F) are not mentioned in the DBA3 drafts I have seen (and no surprises - neither are the now defunct Ax(X) )
* Picts have changed from 3Sp to Ax in the latest draft of the book 2 lists.

Under the DBM to DBA2.x model Ax(X) which were Ax that behaved a little bit like Sp became 3Sp.

I assume that the DBMM to DBA3 model Pk(F) are Pk that behave a little bit like Ax and so become Ax.

My poor Scots will be too scared to venture out into the open and since they get so little control over their terrain they are unlikely to venture out anywhere :( except in my campaign games where they (along with all the others) will quickly become Norman fodder.

Still - that is just one of the many armies I have, it stands to reason that if so many of my favourites are worse off, then there must be some others that improve.

The journey of discovery will be most enjoyable

Cheers

snowcat
01-17-2012, 09:10 PM
There may be hope for you yet. Last night Phil posted this:

"...There HAVE been some category shifts. People who would have been Hd (F) or Hd (S) in DBMM are now classed as 5Wb and the old 3Sp (who would be Pk(F) in DBMM) are mostly Ax if they are rock-hoppers, otherwise
(like Welsh) Pk.

Phil"

Macbeth
01-17-2012, 09:17 PM
....otherwise (like Welsh) Pk.

You what??????:???:???

snowcat
01-17-2012, 09:35 PM
You what??????:???:???

Or maybe he's just messin-widya!

(though I suspect not...)

:D

Actually if the Welsh spearmen are classed as Pk, is that such a bad thing? Would they not fall somewhere in between Ashigaru with yari, and Scotts schiltrons - both of which are also likely to be Pk in 3.0?

Doug
01-17-2012, 10:13 PM
Or maybe he's just messin-widya!

(though I suspect not...)

:D

Actually if the Welsh spearmen are classed as Pk, is that such a bad thing? Would they not fall somewhere in between Ashigaru with yari, and Scotts schiltrons - both of which are also likely to be Pk in 3.0?

I would be interested to see whether Pre Feudal Spear and Welsh are treated differently. I would have thought they should be the same.

snowcat
01-17-2012, 10:29 PM
If the Pre-Feudal Scottish spearmen are largely shieldless, I'm betting they'll be Pk as well.

Macbeth
01-18-2012, 12:36 AM
I liked the Dark Age Celt/Brits of all stripes as Sp allowing them to go toe to toe with the Middle Saxon and Anglo Danes but giving ground to the Vikings

I was going to whine like crazy but ulitmately accept the concept of Ax for these conceding that they usually were driven off and kept to thier hilly locations descending to raid.

I just can't visualise them as Pk doubling up to two ranks and punching holes in the Saxon lines (okay they will probably get flanked and die horribly)

I have no argument other than I just don't see it that way (so I guess I'll just shut up and play)


Cheers

Doug
01-18-2012, 02:12 AM
I liked the Dark Age Celt/Brits of all stripes as Sp allowing them to go toe to toe with the Middle Saxon and Anglo Danes but giving ground to the Vikings

I was going to whine like crazy but ulitmately accept the concept of Ax for these conceding that they usually were driven off and kept to thier hilly locations descending to raid.

I just can't visualise them as Pk doubling up to two ranks and punching holes in the Saxon lines (okay they will probably get flanked and die horribly)

I have no argument other than I just don't see it that way (so I guess I'll just shut up and play)


Cheers

What historical battle accounts do we have and what do they say ? Is it the Gododdin?

Macbeth
01-18-2012, 07:27 PM
I am guessing that the Gododdin would support the early Welsh list (mostly Wb)

What we need to look at are the sources for post 1100 when the Welsh split into North (Sp weilders) and South (Lb types)

So I'd best Mea Culpa my references to Welsh Pk vs Saxons as it won't happen.

They will still be up against Bd heavy Vikings and Scots Isles though

The Pk might be the right option against English Kn (spread out and be slightly better off in combat but QK) or bunch up and hold off the Kn but get flanked

I will need to see the book 3 lists (where most of my faves come from anyway) and see how said armies play.

Cheers

Pavane
01-18-2012, 07:44 PM
For me it is the impending announcement that Pre Feudal Scot spearmen will be Ax and not 3Sp :(
I asked Sue why there was no translation of Pk.F in the opening of the 3.0 draft rules presented at Fall In, like other troop types. She said that how they are translated from the DBMM army lists to DBA 3.0 will be done on a list by list basis by Phil.

Pavane
01-18-2012, 07:47 PM
What historical battle accounts do we have and what do they say ? Is it the Gododdin?
The Gododdin are Sub-Roman British, although the epic poem is written by the Welsh.

Doug
01-18-2012, 11:16 PM
The Gododdin are Sub-Roman British, although the epic poem is written by the Welsh.

And the difference between the two is.. ??? many years ago when I ploughed through 'The Age of Arthur' I developed the impression that the Welsh were just the evicted Britons.

Macbeth
01-19-2012, 01:10 AM
And the difference between the two is.. ???

That some 1400 years after being evicted a set of army lists was published that called one group Welsh and made them first Wb then Ax (the jury is still out on whether this Ax will translate to Sp or Pk or Ax) and the other group was called Sub Roman British and was translated to Sp. ;)

At some point when they were classified as two seperate armies I assume that seperate contemporary or near contemporary sources were used to determine how they would fight.

I have no doubt that 1400 years from now when 35th century wargames authors try and write rules for our own tribal wars where our picked warriors dressed up in outrageous colours and fought barehanded on a measured feild over an inflated pigskin that some will argue there is no differnce between Union, League, Football, Gridiorn and AFL whilst other authors will insist on making distinctions between a Brisbane Roar Striker, an Essendon Ruckman, a Brumbies Prop and a Green Bay Quarterback.

:rotfl

Cheers

Mark Davies
01-19-2012, 02:38 AM
And the difference between the two is.. ??? many years ago when I ploughed through 'The Age of Arthur' I developed the impression that the Welsh were just the evicted Britons.
The so-called Sub-Romans were sometimes called North Welsh, when the Welsh of Wales were West Welsh and the Cornish were South Welsh. The Welsh referred to the Northerners as Gwŷr y Gogledd, 'Men of the North' and some noble families traced their lineage to them.

Crocus
01-19-2012, 05:26 AM
The Gododdin poem lyricises the noble cavalry of the Lothian area and their ill-fated fight with the Angles near Catterick some miles to the south.

The blurring of the terms SRB and Welsh seems more convoluted the more I research it: wealh=slave in the Teutonic languages of the colonisers/invaders and descibes then defines the aborigines, but confusingly you have the British/Brythonic early kings of Wessex with composite Brit-Teut names with the suffix -wealh.

I am drawn again and again to just have a stab in the dark (age) and stick with my current, temporary take on the period for a campaign or two and then think again. With the multifarious and conflicting academic opinions on the era, not to mention the pseudo-histories, reimaginings and codswallop, I think channelling or tarot may be the way to fix the best lists. I find I must resist the pull of HoTT as the rules to deal with the Arthurian period and dignify my games with the whiff of DBA historicity! (sic!)

Isn't the use of Pk +3/+4 because the rather lovely Sp(L) troop type, detailed in the variant section, is not yet included in the upcoming rules?

Doug
01-19-2012, 06:26 PM
The so-called Sub-Romans were sometimes called North Welsh, when the Welsh of Wales were West Welsh and the Cornish were South Welsh. The Welsh referred to the Northerners as Gwŷr y Gogledd, 'Men of the North' and some noble families traced their lineage to them.

Surely West Welsh would be Irish ;-)

Rong
01-19-2012, 06:33 PM
Darn Crocus, you gave me a whole lot to think about with regards to your post. Bravo!:2up

Macbeth
01-19-2012, 09:05 PM
the use of Pk +3/+4 because the rather lovely Sp(L) troop type, detailed in the variant section, is not yet included in the upcoming rules?

Having seen the combat factors posted got me thinking :)

When I see the term Pk I immediately think of massed close deep formations of very long pointy sticks. I then find it hard to visualise the Welsh and Pre Feudal Scots as that type.

When Warrior was first written the authors likewise tried to grapple with the problem of Scots being somewhere between spear and pike

Their solution was to treat them as Pk but have their rear support limited to one rank (as opposed to 1 and 2x 1/2 ranks)

If the issue of Pk(F) is that they were rock hoppers that were able to bunch up and resist mounted better than normal Ax then perhaps this is the way

Pk(F) become 3Pk in DBA - they have the factors of Pk (+3/+4) but get no rear support (either from Pk or from Ps)

They can also be rock hoppers becuase in the bad going they are equal to Ax in fighting but less mobile, and equal to Bd in all ways. They have a superior factor to Ps but don't destroy them.

In historical terms the 3Pk are able to resist Kn and Wb but still vunlerable to a QK. They lack the punch to stand up to Bd and Sp unless they go into the rough.

I think that gives the Welsh, Picts and Pre Feudal Scots their appropriate durability against their traditional opponents.

Cheers

snowcat
01-19-2012, 09:14 PM
Quite like that. :up

snowcat
01-19-2012, 09:40 PM
With one caveat: not convinced 3Pk is apt for the early Picts (up to 500AD), where Ax (or even Wb at a stretch) seems a better fit. But I'm still digging away at this one. :)

Matt
01-20-2012, 01:27 AM
Having seen the combat factors posted got me thinking :)

When I see the term Pk I immediately think of massed close deep formations of very long pointy sticks. I then find it hard to visualise the Welsh and Pre Feudal Scots as that type.

When Warrior was first written the authors likewise tried to grapple with the problem of Scots being somewhere between spear and pike

Their solution was to treat them as Pk but have their rear support limited to one rank (as opposed to 1 and 2x 1/2 ranks)

If the issue of Pk(F) is that they were rock hoppers that were able to bunch up and resist mounted better than normal Ax then perhaps this is the way

Pk(F) become 3Pk in DBA - they have the factors of Pk (+3/+4) but get no rear support (either from Pk or from Ps)

They can also be rock hoppers becuase in the bad going they are equal to Ax in fighting but less mobile, and equal to Bd in all ways. They have a superior factor to Ps but don't destroy them.

In historical terms the 3Pk are able to resist Kn and Wb but still vunlerable to a QK. They lack the punch to stand up to Bd and Sp unless they go into the rough.

I think that gives the Welsh, Picts and Pre Feudal Scots their appropriate durability against their traditional opponents.

Cheers

I made a suggestion in a separate post about using a DBE to represent deep pike, such as Macedonians, Seleucids or Swiss, leaving single based Pk for use in situations like this. Pk second rank support would go away in this case.

There was a bit more to the suggestion, but this was the gist.

Would that be a sensible change, and work in this case?

JamesLDIII
01-21-2012, 11:54 PM
To be honest, one of the things that I like about DBA is that not all armies are equally good. In the real world, armies were not equally effective.

I so agree.

Any changes that make it easier for the Libyans to defeat the Romans, for example, are probably not good ones.

Mark Davies
01-24-2012, 04:30 AM
The blurring of the terms SRB and Welsh seems more convoluted the more I research it: wealh=slave in the Teutonic languages of the colonisers/invaders and descibes then defines the aborigines, but confusingly you have the British/Brythonic early kings of Wessex with composite Brit-Teut names with the suffix -wealh.

Surely West Welsh would be Irish ;-)
Well, the term Welsh seems to have been used by speakers of Germanic languages to refer to inhabitants of the Roman Empire (Walnut = Welsh nut, Walloons = French speakers in Belgium, Vlachs = Romanians), so the Irish would not have been called Welsh; not sure off the top of my head when the West Welsh term was used.

BTW the 'North Welsh' are supposed to have helped chase the Irish out if the Lleyn peninsula.

Martyn
01-24-2012, 06:35 AM
The blurring of the terms SRB and Welsh seems more convoluted the more I research it: wealh=slave in the Teutonic languages of the colonisers/invaders and descibes then defines the aborigines, but confusingly you have the British/Brythonic early kings of Wessex with composite Brit-Teut names with the suffix -wealh.


Well, the term Welsh seems to have been used by speakers of Germanic languages to refer to inhabitants of the Roman Empire (Walnut = Welsh nut, Walloons = French speakers in Belgium, Vlachs = Romanians), so the Irish would not have been called Welsh; not sure off the top of my head when the West Welsh term was used.

BTW the 'North Welsh' are supposed to have helped chase the Irish out if the Lleyn peninsula.

I understood that the term Wealas was translated as foreigner or Roman speaker and was therefore used by the Germanic invaders in reference to the native population. As the Germanic colonization spread the welsh were split into the West Welsh (Westwealas) of the South West peninsular and the North Welsh of what is now Wales.
Subsequently the isolation of the West Welsh was such that it was limited to the far west of the peninsular and so call Cornwealas (Corn – Peninsular, Wealas - foreigners)

The development of the ruling classes of Wessex is open to much debate.

I have always wanted to build a Cornish army for the dark ages but I am not happy that the SRB list would reflect the type of force that could be raised in the 800's. To my mind an early Welsh III/19(a) would be nearer the mark. Any thoughts?

Crocus
01-24-2012, 08:51 AM
In the muddy mirror of the Germanisation of Britain as well as race by genes and origin we must also consider the acculturation or adoption of the dominant, that is "Saxon", culture by the whining poms.

There would have been many in lowland, southeast Britain that were destitute and without hope in the years after the usurper Constantine's defeat on the continent. Without Roman military backup to maintain priviledge there must surely have been massive slave and peasant revolts as the underclass threw off the yoke of their bourgeois oppressors and took hold of the means of agricultural production, comrade. Where else might these people have gone except over to the Saxon side? These newcomers had the surely refreshing proto-democratic habits of the moot, the thing or the communal gathering of freemen to decide common policy, perhaps with recourse to judges rather than kings in the early 5th century.

Also we must remember that the Saxons were armed and knew important skills and technologies that had been forgotten by a populace used to simply buying ready made, mass produced pottery, metalwork and such from the surplus surrounding the Roman military machine. As the rich and their lackeys, gaspodin, had the monopoly on weapons the Germans were no doubt welcome and welcoming in the face of the reactionary death throes of the ruling elite as they tried to claw back what they had lost. I have this gut feeling that this is how it occurred in the southeast of Britain, where British culture had been largely eradicated by Romanisation.

It is interesting to note that in the later annexation and conquest on Devon and Cornwall the legal label of "wealha" (foreigner/slave) applied only to those Britons on and beyond the frontline: those already assimilated into Germanic culture presumably walking the walk and talking the talk - to all intents and purposes "German". Think of the successful Hun warlord, I forget the source (Ammianus Marcellinus?) who started out as a Roman official (?merchant), was captured and enslaved by the Huns, and then freed and promoted to a position of power having shown bravery and ability in battle. The story is presented as a veiled praise or critical reflection of his lost Roman lifestyle, depending on the reading of the piece, but his pleasure with the reduction in taxes, the new-found freedom and open way of barbarian/Hunnic life shines through. There would have been opportunities lie this for Britons willing to try something new.

Consider the wealthy supporters of Constantine after his death, or the adherents of Gerontius after his treachery finding themselves in a demilitarised and vulnerable post-Roman province: with the army gone who was there to protect their property? Not the surly unskilled indigenous peasantry, but the immigrants looking for a better life and willing to fight for a ring-giver who could deliver the luxury desired, in the short term at least.

I think it is probable that Magnus Maximus settled the Votadini in what became Gwynedd as part of his shoring up the borders of the diminished Roman area of Britain. I think that further deals were made with the celtic peoples betwen the walls and the Dumnonians too to insulate the Home Counties. Perhaps the beginning of foederated Germanic settlement stems from this time too.

I think Cornish 3Wb sounds great but with plenty of Ps too.

Sorry I've gone on a bit here.

Martyn
01-24-2012, 10:04 AM
Sorry I've gone on a bit here.

Not at all.

Not sure I agree with all your comments, but interesting none the less. The socio/political impact of the Germanic ‘invasion’ is a very muddy area. Every time I read up on this period there seems to be a different point of view dependant on the author and the latest fashion in interpretation.
Maybe we can share a pint or two at some point and discuss our Celtic heritage.:beer

Mark Davies
01-24-2012, 04:04 PM
Very interesting! With a tweak or two you might have got it on topic to a thread on hordes: proletarian mobs and so forth!:)

I think acculturation is the best model to explain the Saxon dominance, rather than the old-fashioned idea of ethnic cleansing that was in vogue until the 1940s. You offer some interesting arguments for why the Germanic culture held appeal in the SE; thanks.

Macbeth
01-24-2012, 08:16 PM
In the meantime I did post my little rant of the 3Sp <-> Pk(F) issue to the playtest group.

I think I have been the impetus for all Pk(F) to become Ax when they cross over to DBA.

Not what I had hoped and so as my North Welsh and Pre Feudal Scots now take on the title of "Nerfed" I will hold a breif funeral for Macbeth's army - one of my all time favourites right from the first list (WRG6th) unitl now.

There will be howls from the sideline stating all the good things this change bringa about. My comment is personal because my playing style does not lend itself to running large numbers of Ax so I will not be able to make this new army work for me.

Sad but that is the way it goes.

I should also point out that it is not how they are treated in the original sources that is important - these sources have not changed since the first army lists were written.

Rather it is the up to the minute latest research using these sources that has changed ;)

Cheers

Mark Davies
01-25-2012, 02:18 AM
In the meantime I did post my little rant of the 3Sp <-> Pk(F) issue to the playtest group.
Thanks. It seems more pressing than Mounted Infantry! I have to agree that neither the Northern Welsh nor the PFS seem to fit Ax, and if that's how they're classed, a lot of the contrast with the Irish is lost.

Although I had some part in promoting 3Sp, I've not used the house rules for them much. How do they play against Wb?

Martyn
01-25-2012, 10:02 AM
Very interesting! With a tweak or two you might have got it on topic to a thread on hordes: proletarian mobs and so forth!:)

I think you lost that battle about 7 pages ago. :silly

Mark Davies
01-25-2012, 06:19 PM
I think you lost that battle about 7 pages ago. :silly
Indeed! And I've not been good at staying on thread myself.