Phoenician Ax/Sp

[Redwilde]

I'm starting to paint up a morphing Cypriot and Phoenician army. Here's a tactical question:

I/35d has 1 Sp Gen, 1 Cv, 6 Sp or Ax, 3 Ps, 1 Art or Sp.

For the Sp/Ax option what would be some good proportions of each to field?

Also, anyone know a source for small round shields with conical bosses? I'm converting some CB Later Carthoginian Phoenician spearmen for this army.

[Gregorius]

Hi Redwilde,

I don't have the rules with me, but going on your description of the list, you take either Sp or Ax, not a mix of the two.

[Macbeth]

Originally posted by Gregorius:
you take either Sp or Ax, not a mix of the two. Au Contrair Greg,

this list gives the boys as 6 x 4Sp or 4Ax so they can be taken as a mix. If the list was given as 6 x 4Sp or 6 x 4Ax then it would be one or the other.

Redwilde, this looks like a great army, Littoral, low agression, some Art and other fighting troops. So cool!

I would suggest 2 x 4Sp and 4 x 4Ax, You have a Sp general, so he makes 3 Sp that can be backed up by one of your Ps, making them a tough proposition for all mounted and Kn. Given the low Agression, a fair portion of Bad going for the Ax to lurk and a good solid centre of Sp backed by Ax and supported by long range Art fire, and you are on a winner.

Of course, barring my aberration at MOAB, you should take my tactical advice with care. I am usually the doormat down here in Oz.

Cheers
David

[imported_adsarf]

My advice would be completely different. I would aim for about 6 spear total. You already have plenty of Ps for fighting in bad going, even if you keep one back for supporting your spear. I doubt you could find enough to do for more than one or two Auxilia.

With too may Ax and no mounted to speak of this army would be neither fast moving nor hard-hitting, so you might as well pack up and go home if you lost the terrain roll. With plenty of spear it gets even slower, but it's tough and won't be a pushover in good going if you lose the terrain roll; with 3 Ps and one or two Ax you will stil have plenty of troops to dominate one or two key pieces of bad going.

But don't take my advice to seriously either. I hope I'm a step up from the doormat class, but I'm no expert either.

Andrew

[rudynelson]

This issue of to mix or not to mix or either is an often asked question. I have seen it done all three ways. But the NOT to mix seems to be the most common choice with Situational either being next.

Justification in most cases is dependent on the DBM Army List book that goes into more detail. In most cases the option is based on a tactical progression, as the country matures, its tactics change. Therefore an army can have AX in its early HY and later change to Sp. Rare but if both troop types are given for the same era, then a mix is allowed.

I have said it before but in order for a DBA Army to be built and fielded with the right troop types (such as the correct type of Ps), then a player must also own a copy of each of the four Army List books.

[Pthomas]

Redwilde,

My advice would be keep your options open. Base them all as 4Sp, but also create 6 spacer bases for Aux. If you use magnets and metal bases you can attach any number of spears to convert them to Ax and then have the option to match up effectively against any opponent either historical or that you might get matched against in an open tourney. You have enough Ps to support either your Sp or your Ax.

You also have to paint less figures!

[David Kuijt]

I'd go with 5xSp, 3xPs, 2xAx, Cv, Art. The Art is great if you are facing El, Bw, LH, or Wb that won't come out of bad going.

[Redwilde]

Originally posted by rudynelson:
Justification in most cases is dependent on the DBM Army List book that goes into more detail. In most cases the option is based on a tactical progression, as the country matures, its tactics change. Therefore an army can have AX in its early HY and later change to Sp. Rare but if both troop types are given for the same era, then a mix is allowed.

I have said it before but in order for a DBA Army to be built and fielded with the right troop types (such as the correct type of Ps), then a player must also own a copy of each of the four Army List books. Actually, compared to the DBM lists, the DBA lists are not as flexible. In DBA, I/35b has 6 Ax, I/35c has 6 Sp, and I/35d allows a mix. According to DBM justifications, the DBA c list should also allow a full mix.

But even though the DBM lists supports using a mix for the d list, I still happen to disagree with your basic thesis here.

I do own the four DBM books; however, your assesment the they are more 'correct' than DBA presumes that Phil's model of troop types is more accurate than other options. If Phil's model is somewhat broken, then more flexible interpretations of the lists are a reasonable correction.

Personally I think a more correct model would give more nuance to Ax. That would also give more complication, which is not good for DBA. So, flexible list interpration, despite whatever DBM might say, better suits my tastes.

In Phil's games, the definitive prototype for Ax are the Roman Auxilia: barbarian warbands who have been drilled to fight in close order. I think they are perfectly capable of doing both. Once they learn close order drill, they don't forget open order fighting.

When I fought in the SCA, I specialised in leading open order troops through very rough terrain as a flanking force. Nevertheless, we could pull into a very tight shieldwall whenever needed. And when fighting in an open field battle with no rough ground, we could either skirmish or take our place right in the front ranks of the full army's shieldwall as needed. It wasn't a particularly difficult task for a bunch of weekend warriors (although our Barony did spend a lot of our fight practice time practicing small unit tactics, but many others only practiced individual combat). I can't imagine that it was difficult for Ancient warriors who had any amount of unit practice either (and unit practice is part of the baseline definition of Ax compared to WB).

[Redwilde]

Originally posted by Pthomas:
My advice would be keep your options open. Base them all as 4Sp, but also create 6 spacer bases for Aux. I'll be doing this anyway so I can field the b. and c. lists (and the a. list if I ever add a brace of LCh and a fourth Ps)

[Cremorn]

Originally posted by Redwilde:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rudynelson:
a player must also own a copy of each of the four Army List books. When I fought in the SCA, </font>[/QUOTE]Spotted this recently on DBMM:

"I work on the lists
between answering emails. When I have put all the changed terrain
definitions and material from the DBMM appendixes in, I shall place each
book as a file. At the moment I'm about 1/4 of the way through Bk 2, which
will be the first.
Phil"

Who's the SCA?

[Redwilde]

Originally posted by Cremorn:

Who's the SCA? Society for Creative Anachronism, a medieval recreational group that fights unrehearsed tournaments and battles full-contact with armour and rattan swords.

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by Cremorn:

Who's the SCA? Originally posted by Redwilde:
Society for Creative Anachronism, a medieval recreational group that fights unrehearsed tournaments and battles full-contact with armour and rattan swords. The SCA has 40,000 members across the US, Canada, Australia, Europe, and some other places (mostly with US service personnel). There are nearly 20 Kingdoms, regular wars and stuff; the largest (Pennsic) is a two-week camping event with battles that exceed 2500 armoured fighters at once. Interestingly, the noise from the field battle (the largest individual battle that week) can be heard for a mile or more, and that's with rattan weapons -- metal weapons would have been louder.

[rudynelson]

Since DBA and DBM are written by the same folks and the DBA lists are designed to match DBM in Book and Number, the narrative and descriptions in DBM would be expected to match DBA.

To argue otherwise does not give you a defensable position when trying to justify troop choices.

So you are saying that a Ps in the Dba lists can be bow even if in the DBM books the justification in troop types and description states that the army in question never used bows. A little poor logic process.

In addition as someone who custom composes many DBA armies, it would be remiss to give someone bow when they used jav or sling just because I did not have the right castings. Something that I would not consider when making the armies.

[Redwilde]

Originally posted by rudynelson:
Since DBA and DBM are written by the same folks and the DBA lists are designed to match DBM in Book and Number, the narrative and descriptions in DBM would be expected to match DBA.
...
So you are saying that a Ps in the Dba lists can be bow even if in the DBM books the justification in troop types and description states that the army in question never used bows.No, I'm not saying one should make up new troop types for armies. It seemed like you had been saying that when a DBA list gives a full mix and match option of choices, such as the "6x4Sp or 4Ax" of the I/35d list, that you thought it better to choose only one or the other, as influenced by descriptions in DBM. My preference is that even if DBM is more limited in some instances, if there's a greater flexibility in DBA, then I'd prefer to go with the flexibility. My preference is simply towards flexibility when its already allowed in the DBA list.

And actually in the case of the I/35 list, DBA is more restrictive than DBM. They do not match. In fact, when it comes to Phil's products, I'm afraid I tend to expect discrepencies :rolleyes:

In DBM I/35 1000-332 BCE has a basic core of 24-64 Ax. After 680, *any* of the Ax can be replaced with Sp. However, in DBA, I/35c 679-490 has a block of 6 Sp only, with no option for Ax. Only in I/35d 489-332 BCE is the full option of 6 Sp or Ax given.

[Sarduri II]

Quote;
"I specialised in leading open order troops through very rough terrain as a flanking force. Nevertheless, we could pull into a very tight shieldwall whenever needed. And when fighting in an open field battle with no rough ground, we could either skirmish or take our place right in the front ranks of the full army's shieldwall as needed."

Purely by way of an "off the wall suggestion" to better simulate the flexibility of Auxilia,
why not allow +1 back rank suport under much the same circumstances as Warband , repesenting not actualy greater "depth" but the unit(s) bunching up to achieve a greater "density"?

[ November 09, 2004, 06:24: Message edited by: Sarduri II ]