Warbands and Auxilia

[imported_Richard Lee]

This post was prompted by the recent proposed changes to warband in version 2.1 thread. Ivan Nastikov made a very good point. Many of the Roman Auxiliaries would have been Celts or Germans. This could imply that the convergence of auxilia and warband had a strong basis in historical reality.

I am in favour of the proposed changes to DBA (yes, I do have some auxilia based armies). I would be interested in peoples' thoughts about troops DBA classifies as auxila and warband.

My mental picture of warband in DBA (which may or may not be correct) is of the first rank or two being fit, strong, well-equiped, high-status individuals supported by rapidly decreasingly well-armed and effective individuals. This would fit in with the classical writers who say that they were deadly in the first charge but lacked staying power. (Hannibal's troops at Cannae may have had a high proportion of well-equiped veterans.) When the good stuff got tired (or dead) the residue had a lot less fight.

My mental picture of Roman Auxiliaries (again, which may or may not be correct) is that there would be a lot less variation in quality. The back ranks would be nearly as good as the front.

Troops such as Samnites are also graded as auxilia in DBA.

For a long time I have held the belief that the type of society governed the type of army. For a good hoplite army you need a lot of fairly well-off people of similar, high status. For a cavalry army you need a lot of people rich enough to own horses.

I also believe that part of the way troops behave is due to their internal organisation. Roman legionaries catagorised as blades and Celtic warband were both swordsmen. Classical authors wrote about the differences in battlefield behaviour.

What do people think about the historical differences between troops graded as "warband" and those graded as "auxilia"?

[George Gouveia]

Nice post Richard, I agree with your views on the composition of the units. I also feel that the Wb and Aux classifications work well for ancient warfare under DBA2.1. The Wb are not better in bad ground then they were before, as they should have been, however a 3-3 with a Qk against a Bd unit seems pretty harsh to me. Perhaps they should be at -1 in bad ground perhaps as in DBM WF(F) WB3 in DBA are at no penalty in bad ground but WB(o) and (S) WB4 in DBA are at -2 in the woods.

Auxilia will still work fine in Bad ground vs Wb, they are more diciplined so will not pursue and break ranks like the Wb units. They also move faster, Auxilia will still work well in bad ground, no need to worry.

As far as a straight up fight but units would be about equal to eachother in terms of fighting effectivess. The difference being the dicipline of each unit.

[Andrechin]

Originally posted by George Gouveia:

Auxilia will still work fine in Bad ground vs Wb, they are more diciplined so will not pursue and break ranks like the Wb units. They also move faster, Auxilia will still work well in bad ground, no need to worry.
I fully agree.

Before a monolithic Bd army could be effective also in bad going. Between a Bd and a Ax element, I would have chosen a Bd in most cases.

Since now it is dangerous for Bd to
enter into bad going against Wb, it will be extremely useful for a Bd army to have some Ax to contest bad going.

I guess this change not only boosts Wb, but also encourage the usage of Ax.

Attilio

[APHooper]

Originally posted by Richard Lee:

What do people think about the historical differences between troops graded as "warband" and those graded as "auxilia"? This is a simple enough question, but I've been pondering it for ten days without really coming to a conclusion. And I can't shake the impression that the classification of "irregular" infantry elements -- Hordes, Aux, Wb, and psiloi for sure, but sometimes including bows -- ought to be somewhat more fluid than it is. In DBM, you are regularly given the choice of organizing troops as psiloi or bows, and it seems to me that this could extend to the use of Aux, Wb and Hordes.

As an historic example, let us consider Thrace. Thracian Peltasts were so reknowned that they became the archetype of aggressive light infantry in the ancient world. Because of their high degree of motivation and experience, we classify them as Auxilia, which allows them to perform neat tricks like receiving psiloi suport against cavalry just like organized troops do.

But there are also numerous cases of Thracian peltasts behaving much more like psiloi -- operating in small groups to harass the enemy in difficult going, and never forming a line that can be flanked and pinned in place. And there are other examples where they massed shoulder to shoulder and went in at the charge. They broke some early Roman cohorts that way -- sounds very warbandy to me!

I guess my point is that whatever the relative strengths and abilities of these units are, they frequently represent the same troops operating under different tactical orders. And while one understands the desire to limit the options in DBA lists in order to keep the hobby affordable, it does seem as though some armies restricted to a mass of Aux or Warband would be a lot more fun and probably more accurate if they offered a freer choice of the "irregular" infantry types.

Now that both Warband and Aux ignore bad going, it is going to be much harder to choose between them if you have the option. Do you want the quick kill on blades, or the steady three inches movement per turn?

The tactical flexibility shown by auxilia seems to really be rather rare in the historical record; the German and Gallic troops in Roman service cited below appear to have behaved much more like disciplined Warbands than the freebooting light infantry that DBA auxilia represent. Although they used longer swords and lighter shields than the regular legions, they still attacked the enemy by closing with him and applying the killing impact of a massed line of troops. And that's just not what auxilia do in game terms. They are as dependent on flanking an enemy as light horse.

The Samnites are another example of Auxilia abuse. The Samnites appear to have frequently taken static hill top positions behind huge shields and relied on hurling large javelins, a lot like the pilum, to hold the enemy at bay. In their earliest days, they may have employed their sheild wall in the hoplite style, and their cavalry frequently decided their victories. None of these things suggest auxilia to me; My personal interpretation would be 10 elements of 3Sp or 3Wb and two of 3Cav, with the second an optional General's element that could be replaced by another 3Sp. I doubt anything can convince me that the Samnites should be able to tote those giant shields for 300p every turn, so I would lean heavily toward calling them spears. They could support a rank deep then, but we could assume that was from the weight of all those javelins hitting the attacker at close range. It would probably be more accurate to deny them the Warband's quick-kill capability against blades as well.

Ultimately, I think there should be a lot more hordes. We classify too many units of "unskilled and unenthusiastic" foot as warbands or auxilia because we are reluctant to force 7-figure stands on the painter and collector.

[Kanishka]

Hmm...given that chucking volleys of javelins is part of the definition of Auxilia I'm not sure how Samnites fail to qualify.

Your use of hyperbole for their spears and shields doen't really help either - I've never seen any evidence that their spears weer particularly heavy - the Pila is thought to have been "invented" by the Etruscans not the Samnites - nor that their shields were particularly large or heavy.

Samnites were appaerntly better suited to operate in rough terrain than their Roman counterparts, who were definitley spears with a few blades thrown in (in DB* terms).

IMO the difference between Warband and Auxilia is best shown on the Iberian peninsular - where Scutarii come in 2 varieties - Celtiberian, and everyone else.

Celtiberian are graded as Wb, the others as Ax - but both are equipped in exactly the same manner - with the same swords, whields, javelins, sinew head-protection and lack of armour.

The difference is in their behaviour - nothing else. The Celts were considered more warlike, fierce, and there are plenty of accounts of them charging into their enemy in open battle.

The rest of the Spanish, while not timid, preferred softening the enemy up, skirmishing, ambushing, retiring when things were not going so well.

2 different behaviours by troops otherwise equipped exactly the same - therefore 2 different troop types.

[ July 09, 2003, 18:51: Message edited by: Kanishka ]

[imported_Delirium's Brother]

This is an interesting, well thought-out discussion,...and once again it seems to come down to playability v. historical accuracy; and, perhaps at points, questions about accurate classification within specific lists. On this last point, I think that one of the most lucid things that I've read here, and perhaps its the most lucid thing I've read on this board in a while, was written by APHopper: Ultimately, I think there should be a lot more hordes. We classify too many units of "unskilled and unenthusiastic" foot as warbands or auxilia because we are reluctant to force 7-figure stands on the painter and collector.I agree with this point, though perhaps not with the reason. Personally, I think that it had more to do with the fact that in the original versions Hd didn't exist. But in any case, I think the essential point actually deserves more discussion.

[ July 09, 2003, 14:51: Message edited by: Delirium's Brother ]

[Kanishka]

One of the gaps in DB*, IMO is that Auxilia is a rough-ground specialised troop type that has become a catch-all for nondescript tribal warriors that are probably better than horde.

In DBM there's probably room for a troop that has the same factors as Auxilia, including rear support, but which is compulsorily double based, doesn't kill psiloi and suffers -2 when fighting in RGo or Dgo.

[ July 09, 2003, 18:55: Message edited by: Kanishka ]

[Joe Mauloni]

In my opinion the warband unit type does not do a very good job of representing historical "barbarian horde" behaviour or effect.
I agree completely with the following. How good a job of simulating this does DBA do?
My mental picture of warband in DBA (which may or may not be correct) is of the first rank or two being fit, strong, well-equiped, high-status individuals supported by rapidly decreasingly well-armed and effective individuals. This would fit in with the classical writers who say that they were deadly in the first charge but lacked staying power. (Hannibal's troops at Cannae may have had a high proportion of well-equiped veterans.) When the good stuff got tired (or dead) the residue had a lot less fight. Removing the bad going penalty does nothing to correct this. The double move to contact does not really simulate this. The "quick-kill" provision is about the only feature (except for movement) that now distinguishes warband from auxilia, and I think of this as a game function rather than an historical trait.
Warband does not "feel" right to me in this game.


Ultimately, I think there should be a lot more hordes. We classify too many units of "unskilled and unenthusiastic" foot as warbands or auxilia because we are reluctant to force 7-figure stands on the painter and collector. Could you provide examples?

[jason e]

Maybe they should have more Hordes to be realistic, but who would want a Gallic or Gothic army with just a few Wb and then a half a dozen horde? It might look great on the table but how could it win?
Then wouldn't there be a call for a mounted troop type that would be equivalent to horde?

[ July 10, 2003, 00:05: Message edited by: jason e ]

[Kanishka]

Mounted troops bad enough to be hordes are......hordes actually!! smile.gif

There's one army gets hordes that are servants mounted on pack animals carrying sticks to try to fool people they're lancers (might be DBR Polish)!!

[GAZMAN]

The "quick-kill" provision is about the only feature (except for movement) that now distinguishes warband from auxilia There are quite a few more details that set them apart; the follow up and the rear rank support and being destroyed by Elephants and Scythed chariots if beaten.
I think there are enough differences to distinguish the troop types, after all the differences on the field (in a huge sweeping generalisation) are mainly due to the method of operation.
Warband - likely to charge (double move)
- Likely to keep charging (follow up)
- Likely to be dispersed by nasties hitting the massed ranks (DiB by El and SCh)
- more powerfull in a bug bunch (rear support)

Aux - Better trained and disciplined (better move, less likely to be dispersed by the EL/SCh thing)
- Better command and control (no follow up)
- no tattoos (bored with lists now)

Best regards
Da Man with da GAZ

[ July 10, 2003, 04:43: Message edited by: GAZMAN ]

[APHooper]

First point - the evidence I would cite for the size of the Samnite shield would be a wealth of anecdotal Roman sources, as well as the existence of the "Samnite" style of gladiator kit, which featured a very large, very ornately bossed oval shield. The size of the Samnite shield became proverbial by the time they were absorbed by Rome.

Second -- here's the description of Auxilia in 2.0: "AUXILIA, representing foot able to fight hand-to-hand, but emphasizing agility and flexibility rather than cohesion; such as Hellenistic peltasts or thuerophoroi, Thracians, Spanish scutarii, Early or Late Imperial Roman auxlia or Irish bonnachts. They were used to chase off or support psiloi, to take or hold difficult terrain, as a link between heavier foot and mounted troops, occasionally as a mobile reserve, and often as the main troop type of mountain people. Outclassed in open country by other close fighting foot and vulnerable to cavalry, they made up for this by increased mobility, flexibility and insensitivity to difficult terrain."

Does anyone see a reference to chucking javelins there? Kanishka, maybe you were thinking of psiloi, which feature the only use of the word "javelin" in the decription of a type of foot troops?

The Samnites showed NONE of the "mobility, flexibility or insensitivity to difficult terrain" cited in the description. They used difficult terrain to create strong defensive positions, but in the process they gave up any special ability to move and react that would seem attendent to auxilia status.

But as usual, Barker leaves himself a semantic escape hatch: "often as the main troop type of mountain people." This allows him to pad the lists with masses of 3Ax and 4Ax troops that really have none of the celerity or flexibility of the prototypes of auxilia listed, on the assumption that they "know the ground" they fight on. This is convenient, but I find it unsatisfying.

Ducks, what if Warband fled from a failed combat instead of recoiling? You could run them back into combat, but it would cost 2 pips again to do the double move. This would simulate the fact that they couldn't stand in hand-to-hand combat for more than a moment or two, but they could frequently reform at the edge of missile range and try to rush the line again.

Last night my Late Roman Auxilia were completely pimp-slapped by a bunch of Gothic psiloi, so I'm no fan of the troop type at the moment.

[Joe Mauloni]

Gazman: Too true. I spoke in haste (and some frustration). My bad.
Can anyone direct me to some historical justification for the warband bad going reprieve?

APHooper: what if Warband fled from a failed combat instead of recoiling? Interesting idea, and certainly worth playtesting. I was considering a bonus to combat factor if and only if a "group" of warbands double moved into contact. The bonus would be for one turn only. Thoughts anyone?

Second -- here's the description of Auxilia in 2.0: ... Hellenistic peltasts or thuerophoroi, Thracians, Spanish scutarii, Early or Late Imperial Roman auxlia or Irish bonnachts.
Does anyone see a reference to chucking javelins there? I'm afraid my "period" stops at Republican Rome and I don't have a clue what a bonnacht is, but isn't "javelin" pretty much implicit in the other listed troop types?

Interesting analysis on Samnites, but how else would you provide hill tribes with superior movement in bad going?

[Scottila]

Originally posted by Kanishka:
One of the gaps in DB*, IMO is that Auxilia is a rough-ground specialised troop type that has become a catch-all for nondescript tribal warriors that are probably better than horde.

In DBM there's probably room for a troop that has the same factors as Auxilia, including rear support, but which is compulsorily double based, doesn't kill psiloi and suffers -2 when fighting in RGo or Dgo. I had expected that was what PB was going to do w/ Sp3, but in the end they are just Sp w/ 1 less figure on the base.

As to historical justification for the Wb Bgo change, Wb was way too weak in Bgo. Wb did not represent formed bodies of troops in the sense of arrayed Sp, Pk, or Bd. They should not be as sensative to BGo as those troops
I thought that the very development of the troops represented by Aux in Roman armies was to be able to deal with Wb in bad terrain. As the system stood before, the Bd could do it just fine.

[ July 10, 2003, 19:59: Message edited by: Scottila ]

[Joe Mauloni]

As to historical justification for the Wb Bgo change, Wb was way too weak in Bgo. Wb did not represent formed bodies of troops in the sense of arrayed Sp, Pk, or Bd. They should
not be as sensative to BGo as those troops I question the assertion that warbands were not formed. I am not suggesting ordered ranks or lockstep marching but a warband probably had a higher density than a typical Roman formation. Psiloi and auxilia were tactically less dense as small groups and individuals skirmished and attempted to avoid contact. Warband sought to engage in close swordplay. This would imply a higher density particularly as rear ranks closed up and applied pressure to those in front. Rough ground, wooded areas and slopes would break up the mass as individuals would contact the enemy piecemeal. Not having to maintain orderly ranks would certainly allow warband to cross bad going more efficiently than a phalanx, but would that warband have the same impact that it would charging across open ground?

[Basil Bulgar-Slayer]

Originally posted by Ducks Bellorum:
I question the assertion that warbands were not formed. I am not suggesting ordered ranks or lockstep marching but a warband probably had a higher density than a typical Roman formation. Psiloi and auxilia were tactically less dense as small groups and individuals skirmished and attempted to avoid contact. Warband sought to engage in close swordplay. This would imply a higher density particularly as rear ranks closed up and applied pressure to those in front. Rough ground, wooded areas and slopes would break up the mass as individuals would contact the enemy piecemeal. Not having to maintain orderly ranks would certainly allow warband to cross bad going more efficiently than a phalanx, but would that warband have the same impact that it would charging across open ground? Actually, warbands typically did not engage in close-in swordplay. Their weapons and individualistic combat styles precluded dense formations. The "warbands" that did do this sort of thing are - in DBA terms - classed as Spears or Blades. As for those warbands that fought in deep formations, this was usually used against mounted enemies and was an attempt to use the compaction of the formation brought on by the mounted attack to stop the attack and allow a counter - it was not used to take the battle to the mounted enemy.

It should be noted that the Roman Legions usually out-number their foes on the line - probably to the tune of 3:2 or more. Trained to work in concert and closely, the Roman troops were an extremely flexible instrument.

[Scottila]

Originally posted by Ducks Bellorum:
Not having to maintain orderly ranks would certainly allow warband to cross bad going more efficiently than a phalanx... You answered your own question. I would contend not only a phalanx, but a shield wall or any other ORDERED body of troops. BGo disrupts order. Wb does not depend on it. That was the basis for the arguments against the BGo penalty all along.

[Joe Mauloni]

Scottila: Moving across is not the same as fighting within. I still stick by my conclusion that warband would be hampered fighting in bad going.

Basil: Actually, warbands typically did not engage in close-in swordplay. Their weapons and individualistic combat styles precluded dense formations. What else were they trying to do? ;)
I understood that the typical spacing for a Roman legionary was to allow adequate room to use his weapons, ie sword and pilum. Are you maintaining that warband spacing was in excess of five or so feet per man? I seem to recall a reference (I think from Caesar) about pila pinning together Celtic shields. I can't imagine a Celtic warrior fighting two or three Romans while his fellows (possibly blood relations, certainly clanmates) stood by applauding.
Convince me :D

[Chris Brantley]

Scottila: Moving across is not the same as fighting within. I still stick by my conclusion that warband would be hampered fighting in bad going. I agree whole-heartedly. I'm anxious to read Karl's forthcoming Slingshot article as I have high regard for his research, but must confess that everything I have ever read about assaults on Caesar's legions in Gaul, Galatian wedges, Celtiberian combat (post skirmishing), and other warband assaults is that it was a dense rush into contact launched with the intent of breaking the foe's formation. Boldest and best equipped soldiers at the front. If the line doesn't give, fall back, catch your breath and try again.

The same tactic was used by Vikings, Saxons and others during the era of the shield wall.

You can draw a comparison to Hoplite combat. If you believe Victor Hanson and other scholars of the period, the idea wasn't to stab or cut your way through the enemy's hoplite phalanx, but to push them back in a shield to shield shoving match until one sides morale/cohesion broke down. That's why units were deployed in depth, and why the Thebans beat the Spartans with deeper formations. If you push hard enough to cause your foe to break, they turn and run, exposing backs, which is where the casualties wrack up.

The point of these comparisons is that we're talking about hand-to-hand combat from the viewpoint of physics, rather than swordsmanship or accuracy of missile weapons. In the case of warband (or other troops), moving through rough terrain affects both density and speed of the attacking formation. That lessens the shock of impact. And reduces the potential for breakthrough.

So assuming a successful warband attack depends on physics as much or more than on skill with weapons to prevail, then shouldn't warband be punished (at least to some degree) when moving through bad going into close combat? To me, it seems like a no-brainer dictated by the laws of nature.

For that reason, I was a supporter of a modified -1 bad going penalty for warband. My rationale was that bad going would disrupt the impetus of the warband charge into combat, but perhaps not as much as it would affect a unit that relied on close order formation for its offensive power. Hence warband should suffer slightly less than Roman legionaries, for example, in bad going.

Or in other words, bad going may take away some of the warband impetus, but by breaking up the cohesion of the shield wall, it also allows the tribesman to engage the legionary in single combat rather than fighting as a team in the resulting scrum. Although still formidible at +5 down -2 (+3) against Warband at +3 down -1 (+2), the Roman legionary is now fighting a German or Gallic "giant" who has a individual height advantage, a longer sword or better thrusting spear, and enough room to use it because of the effect of the bad going on the Roman formation.

Which brings us to the issue of Warband vs. Auxilia. Unfortunately, Auxilia is a slippery term when citing historical examples, because of the wide variety of troops that fought as auxiliaries and that are classed as Aux by DBA. When you refer to certain historical Roman auxilia like Agricola's Batavians at Mons Grapius, you could easily classify them as Blades, rather than bad going troops, given their arms, equipment and fighting style. Other auxiliary were trained as skirmishers and/or were trained to fight on the flanks of the army and presumeably in bad going.

So exactly what is auxilia? Well, we have Barker's statement that they emphasize agility and flexibility, rather than cohesion. And that they were used to take and hold difficult terrain. And that they were outclassed by other foot in good going, but make up for this by increased mobility, flexibility and insensitivity to difficult terrain.

But does this square with Auxilia under DBA 2.1? Auxilia are still faster than Warband (300P to 200P), but not if you factor in a potential Warband second move into combat (400P total). They have no more flexibility than warband. And they are no better than warband in difficult terrain. They have no quick kill, where warband does. Aux can stand up better to Elephants and Scythed chariots than Warband, but if positioned in bad going that is typically a moot issue.

On balance, in my opinion, v2.1 Warband are now the preferred bad going troop type. And hence, the no-bad going penalty for Warband amendment forces Auxilia into an inferior status, perhaps even less useful than Psiloi who have second move capabilities and rear support capabilities. Not quite what Phil Barker described on page 4 of the rules.

But at -1 in bad going instead of no-penalty, Warband would still be subordinate to Auxilia as the preferred bad going troop.

[ July 12, 2003, 00:59: Message edited by: Chris Brantley ]

[derek]

Hullo
Warband and Auxilia present special problems in terms of combat factors because of the different historical tactics used by warband of various armies (all grouped into one category) and because of the diverse troop types (for example: Ancient Greek Peltasts & Ancient Spanish Scutarii, Imperial Roman Auxilia, Daylami and Catalan Amulghavars) all being grouped as catch-all Auxilia. I have obviously not played with the new rule amendments enough to come to a definitive opinion on the relative merits of warband and auxilia in bad going. As I have Ancient Brits, Gauls and Early German and Early Frank DBA-sized armies and I also have both Early Imperial Roman and Middle Imperial Roman DBA-sized armies I can try these with varying numbers of Warband or Auxilia. A possible downside of the amendments is that it may depend primarily on the terrain for a specific game. It will take a number of games before I reach any type of conclusion :confused:
Personally I favoured the solution Chris mooted in the poll: -1 in bad going
I am not unhappy with the alternative solution Phil has chosen. I am just not convinced that the combat factors of battle between warband and auxilia have now been rectified?
Now Very :confused:
Kind Regards
Derek

[ July 12, 2003, 07:33: Message edited by: derek ]

[RonG]

In my humble opinion, the Wb in bad going needs to be adjusted. 4Wb are the same as 4Sp, 4Bd, Pk and should have a deduction for bad going. 3Wb is fine the way it is now. They are loose formation. Close formation troops should be given the -2 for bad going terrain, but the question then arises. What about 3Bd and 3 Sp troops, should they not have the same advantage as 3Wb being on the same size base? Then there is a tactical advantage to having 3SP or Bd troops as well as 3Wb. It lends towards play balancing.

[ July 12, 2003, 07:28: Message edited by: Xanthippus ]

[Joe Mauloni]

Warband and Auxilia present special problems in terms of combat factors because of the different historical tactics used by warband of various armies (all grouped into one category) and because of the diverse troop types Absolutely true. The problem lies in DBA's intent of providing the simplest set of rules to accurately represent the flavor of ancient warfare. In this light, warband should be most representative of the commonly held imagery; howling hordes. The fierce rush to combat seeking to overwhelm the enemy through shock and impact as Chris indicated is the "first impression" and typical of most people's opinions of warband behaviour.
Differing levels of flexibility and effectiveness of particular types of warband belong to a game that has the space in the rule book to accomodate them. DBA should stick to the basics, broad brush unit definitions based on general perceptions.
End of sermon. Soapbox is now packed away.
(But my Brits are still sticking to the open) :D

[K.H.Ranitzsch]

Originally posted by Chris Brantley:
I'm anxious to read Karl's forthcoming Slingshot article as I have high regard for his research, [/QB]Thanks for the compliments smile.gif

The article is too long to post here. Drastically summarized, I tried to collect all the instances of Celts and Germans fighting Romans and Greeks in bad going. I looked at the results from an overall perspective rather than at the details of the fighting styles. This, I think, is the right approach for a game at the scale of DBA. That said, there are a number of anecdotes of individual fighting included.

The result, as far as I can see, is that the tribal warriors were roughly on a par with the Romans (whether Ax or Bd) in bad going. This applies even to the heavier 4WB types. Depending on circumstances, morale, leadership, etc. the fighting could go either way. And there are several instances were Romans were reluctant to enter bad going occupied by the enemy.

My suggestion to represent this was to eliminate both the terrain penalty and the quick-kill in bad going. This would have left Wb the equal of Ax and Bd and better than Sp in bad going.

Phil chose to keep the QK. I think this makes them too strong in bad going and told him so. But he said that nobody forces a Roman player to send his Bd into bad going :(

Greetings
Karl Heinz

[jason e]

Ax will still have good aspects v Wb because they have higher basic movement.
In bad going a line of Ax can back up (various distances), individual elm of Wb must follow, then Ax can get overlaps by determining the order of combat.
But still Wb are better now. I have a reason to paint a Celt and Barbarian army now. smile.gif

[ July 13, 2003, 12:33: Message edited by: jason e ]

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by jason e:

In bad going a line of Ax can back up (various distances), individual elm of Wb must follow, then Ax can get overlaps by determining the order of combat.That doesn't work in v2.0 -- if you withdraw from combat you must move at least 200p, which means that the Wb follow-up will not put them in combat again.

[jason e]

Thanks, David, you saved me some painting!

[Martian]

Originally posted by David Kuijt:
That doesn't work in v2.0 -- if you withdraw from combat you must move at least 200p, which means that the Wb follow-up will not put them in combat again. Not with the withdrawing unit that is!

There are still ways to draw those warbands to their glorius deaths!

Psiloi withdrawing through friends for example.

It just takes a bit more to set up now.

:D

[ July 13, 2003, 21:46: Message edited by: Martian ]

[GAZMAN]

In bad going a line of Ax can back up (various distances), individual elm of Wb must follow, then Ax can get overlaps by determining the order of combat.
Jason
do you mean 'recoil' here when you say back up??
That would make more sense.
GAZMAN

[Scottila]

Ducks: Moving across is not the same as fighting within (etc)...

Not the same but similar.

Chris B made an excellent post in support of your opinion that I think supports my position better. He boiled wb combat down to physics. Do the tribals have the impetus to break the roman (or other lowland rent-collector type) line or not. Again as Chris pointed out traveling through BGo may not hamper the wb, but it would probably slow their impetus somewhat. I will grant that point. However as he points out below the BGo will also impair the formed troops ability to form a coherent and mutually supportive line, so they are less able to fight off the slower charge (Chris does make this point in the QK section of his post).

It comes down to formation. BGo disrupts a formed body of troops - both in movement and in combat. Wb are NOT formed troops. A mass of naked and/or blue-painted and/or top-knotted screaming savages, more or less following the big guy(s) in front, in a headlong charge will not be effected by having to separate and coalesce as they run through the trees/rocks/etc… At the point of physical impact the Bd/Sp/Pk WILL be disadvantaged by the broken terrain. That's the fighting within part.

On a pure rules-technical level:
Wb do not get rear-rank in BGo call it the less impetus when charging across bad terrain factor.
Formed troops: Are -2 in BGo because they cannot make a properly formed mutually supporting line. The broken terrain would further hamper them at the point of impact by making it more difficult to regain order.

FWIW I supported the -1 rather than no BGo penalty for wb, but I am not particularly distressed by it. (frivolous) Perhaps it is Phil's attempt at providing element-type affirmative action. The full no penalty advantage can be viewed as a way to redress the past wrong of ver 1.22 which we still have to suffer through as DBAOL. (end frivolity)

[ July 14, 2003, 20:07: Message edited by: Scottila ]

[jason e]

GAZMAN
I think I forgot the rule!

do you mean 'recoil' here when you say back up??
That would make more sense.


[ July 14, 2003, 22:34: Message edited by: jason e ]

[orca]

One of the problems of trying to figure out WB /AUX differences is we have few coherent, authoritative, descriptive descriptions of how the different troops fought. I have found the descriptions of American Indians (Shawnee, Delaware, Iroquios, Huron, Wyandot and Miami) fighting in such battles as Point Pleasent, Braddocks Defeat, St Clairs Defeat, River Raisin, and Oriskany to be useful in comparing how WB would fight formed foot. From the Indians description of the battles, it seems 90% of the fighting was done by 10% of the indians, and the loss of just a few of these 'furious fighters' could cause a general withdraw. Culture does play a part - on the whole, American Indians were very sensative about taking casualties - far more than the Kelts. However, the nervousness of formed troops in bad going being attacked by warbands would seem to be similar.

[Joe Mauloni]

Scottila:There are two points that I'm sure we can agree on:
1. We ain't never gonna know the answer to this one, if there even is a single "correct" answer.
2. It's Phil Barker's game and he can change any rule he wants to.
I can't tell you that you're wrong because I don't know if you are. My opinions, like yours and everyone else's are based on the reading that I've done and the things I've experienced.
My opinions are based on translations Greek and Roman writers talking about Galatian, Celtiberian, Gallic and Germanic warbands. I'm sure you've read the same books I have. We just drew different conclusions.
I consider mass to be a formation. Phil Barker used to. You don't and he agrees with you.
You may be right.
Orca: I'm not sure that culture plays too large of a role. The information you provided sounds pretty accurate for most armed conflicts. Wouldn't Native American warband be more of an auxilia/psiloi model though?

[orca]

The behavior of American Indians in battle with european troops seems closely linked to how long they had associated with europeans. Tribes without much contact always seemed to be very 'warband' like - impetuous charging, lack of reaction to casualties, the ability to 'swamp' the formed troops despite firepower. It is my befief that as the size of tribes shrank due to the mass die off from epidemics, the tribes became very conservative when casualties were concerned - at this stage their bahavior would mirror that of Auxlia or even Psiloi - cut & run if things looked bad. Read about the initial contacts the Spaniards had in New Mexico, Florida and Georgia - they had a very hard time dealing with the tribes at first contact. Also, the experience of the english in King Phillips War showed that the natives were capable of conducting a very serious war. If the American Indians had had any resistance to measles & smallpox the colonization of amaerica would have had a very different ending.

[xeswop]

And don't forget the politics. Too many tribes sought Euro help to defeat local enemies only to be defeated themselves later by the same Euros.

[imported_Texus Maximus]

What about armies that are listed in v1.0 as "Warband" and in v2.0 as "Auxilia"?

I am building an Illyrian army and I noticed there is a huge difference in the two lists. In v1.0, the army has nine warband. In v2.0, it is nine auxilia. That is a significant difference.

Version 2.1 eliminates the bad going penalty for warband. Does this mean the v1.0 army list is more historically correct? I would think so.

[K.H.Ranitzsch]

The main difference that distinguishes Wb and Ax in the army lists is the aggressive tactics of Wb. Infantry prone to screaming loony charges is Wb by definition :D

Ax are more cautious loose formation infantry, with good terrain ability as a bonus.

Apparently the powers that be decided that evidence for Illyrian wild charges had been "sexed up" in the original lists ;)

Greetings
Karl Heinz

[GAZMAN]

Karl sums it up in the kind of braod sweeping generalised terms required by the DBA troop type definitions.
The Wb follow up shows that although they may have similar combat stats they react differently in action.
Historically there are few records detailed enough to pin point exactly how a troop type behaved, even on one occaision, let alone 'generally'. There are a lot of best guess's and assumptions made, sometimes new evidence or thinking can sway the army lists creators decision.
GAZMAN

[Wanax]

I've got to tell you guys that this debate over the difference between Ax and Wb is akin to determining the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin. IOW, what we are discussing here is set within the framework of inductive reasoning. Let me explain. first the definitions we work with are those set in place by an oracle, not a deity. They are loose definitions used to diferentiate between two styles of fighting that would most likely fit either in reality, and I feel certain that those peoples catagorized thusly would not recognize the definitions as applying to themselves. The rules are, by default, simply a means to create some division of method based upon a game theory, not a historical axium.

We are, therefore, constantly trying to determine a black and white differential where none exists in reality for the sake of our own understanding; even more that understanding is boiled down to the point of absolute differentiation in order to comply with the simplicity imparted and demanded by the rules system to which it is a part. Overall, this denotes inductive reasoning not deductive. We are not debating the actual tactics in terms of scientific evedense even at the very core, since our understanding is always based upon the subjective observations of men who were themselves basing their understanding upon their own social/cultural biases. What determines a persons actions are not the understanding of others. People do things a certain way based upon their own culture's methodologies, situations, and needs.

Leaving aside the fact that our sourse references are all skewed, let us look closely at how we catagorize the differences in fighting technique. Wb equals wild impetous win or loose all charge. Ax equal skirmishing until opportunity allows for advantagious HTH. If these are truely our base definitions, then we disable our inability to understand fully the implications of either style of fighting by creating a false division. A wild charge can be ascribed to even the more civilized armies just as skirmishing can be to wild barbaric peoples, and yet both also conducted the opposite within the same time period. So we sit here trying to determine what is Wb and what is Ax, when they are false divisions based upon a game mechanic need. That need is in no way related to the historical peoples they represent. Since we start with the answer, we only debate the question: inductive.

A better debate, IMO, would be one where we try to focus on the relationship between differing cultures at a given time on the battlefield. Clearly Gauls were not Ax in the game sense, yet they were Ax historically if one reads the sources closely. And yet they did conduct fierce wild charges into the enemy. How could it be that one people steeped in their own culture--a civilized yet barbaric peoples to Roman accounts--present two different fighting techniques? Simple answer is they were not different techniques, but two views of a larger more complex system of fighting that can more easily be described as "opportunity warfare". At any given time and place they adapted tactics based upon the situation--not unlike modern infantry tactics--and not upon a dogmatic deliniation.

where we can clearly understand that Macedonian pikemen performed a similar function repeatedly, as we can with hoplites, and a number of other well documented fighting methods, the same cannot be said for the majority of fighting styles. The advent of the Marian legionare was itself a collection of military understanding imparted to the Romans over years by those people they met and were in conflict with. What made Rome strong was this willingness to adapt and adopt successful military theories and tactics. Thus using Marians as an example, we cannot simple ascibe the idea of Bd to them without in many ways limiting their tactical versitility historically; a tactical versitility that eventually made them masters of all. This is in some ways compensated for by allowing Bd to operate within BG as defacto Ax, yet the limiting catagorization is still there with the inability of the legionares to adapt specific tactics at will for given situations. Here, with the Roman example we can clearly see the delima that also faces the Gauls. By ascribing a rigid tactical descriptor, we limit our ability to represent historical armies fully and accurately.

This form of limitation is not fully compensated by random tactical factors, as the random factor is not a means of allowing adaptive tactics based upon terrain, time, mission, etc. Random factor denote, and should only denote, the fortunes of war. It cannot by the shear term "random" effectively represent adaptive formations or tactics.

Wanax

[K.H.Ranitzsch]

Originally posted by Wanax:
Wb equals wild impetous win or loose all charge. Ax equal skirmishing until opportunity allows for advantagious HTH. If these are truely our base definitions, then we disable our inability to understand fully the implications of either style of fighting by creating a false division. A wild charge can be ascribed to even the more civilized armies just as skirmishing can be to wild barbaric peoples, and yet both also conducted the opposite within the same time period. So we sit here trying to determine what is Wb and what is Ax, when they are false divisions based upon a game mechanic need. That need is in no way related to the historical peoples they represent.
...
Clearly Gauls were not Ax in the game sense, yet they were Ax historically if one reads the sources closely. And yet they did conduct fierce wild charges into the enemy. How could it be that one people steeped in their own culture--a civilized yet barbaric peoples to Roman accounts--present two different fighting techniques? Pretty much my thoughts, too. We should re-examine the unit types from the ground up. What are basic distinctions that would not be changed - at least not during a battle ? A slinger would not change to using a pike in the same encounter.

On the other hand, closing or loosening formation was well within the capability of most troops. It was be a tactical decision just as whether to charge or hold.

Such tactical decisions at the unit (=DBA element) level should logically be worked into the combat and movement mechanism, rather than be part of the troop definition.

IMO, we could probably dispense with the difference between Ax and Wb and just revise their tactical behaviour. In that context, the Sp and Bd definitions ought be re-examined, too.

Greetings
Karl Heinz

[Ares]

This is how I've come to see it - combat factors (at least in DBA) represent the overall likelihood of being able to effectively exploit varying circumstances, rather than set-in-stone definitions of fighting styles or tactics.

Eric

[Wanax]

Originally posted by Ares:
This is how I've come to see it - combat factors (at least in DBA) represent the overall likelihood of being able to effectively exploit varying circumstances, rather than set-in-stone definitions of fighting styles or tactics.
Eric And your point can be argued thusly, yet it does not allow for the variation between extremes. it marginalizes such drastic possiblities by defining very narrowly the band of possible operational tactics. A key example is that of the Hypaspist. What were they? At times they fought as pikemen, other times as Ax, and at other times as loose order spearmen, and again as Bd. They fought based upon need, and tactical factors of Pk in not way represent such variation. Pk in BG are meat, yet the Hypaspist on more than one occasion bested enemies in BG. They even stormed Tyre from boats and won. Clearly not represented in the Pk -2 BG with no rear rank vs Ax.

Wanax

[imported_adsarf]

Good post Wanax.

[imported_adsarf]

OK Wanax. Make that good posts (plural) since we seem to have cross-posted. DBA has to caricature - all wargames do - the new rules haven't changed that issue a bit. Is Wb too caricatured? It's a question of taste as well as how you read history.

To my reading the Wb category relies too heavily -in both the old and the new rules - on Greek/Roman topoi about 'Barbarians'. A more critical reading of the sources -as you say - shows subtle, sophisticated peoples that to us would seem just as 'civilised' as the Romans or Greeks (personally I'm less than impressed by the difference between 'barbaric' human sacrifice and 'civilized' gladiators, for instance.

[K.H.Ranitzsch]

Originally posted by Wanax:
A key example is that of the Hypaspist. What were they? At times they fought as pikemen, other times as Ax, and at other times as loose order spearmen, and again as Bd. They fought based upon need, and tactical factors of Pk in not way represent such variation. This illustrates my point about the difference between a unit's variable tactics within an encounter and changing the unit's role depending on the strategic situation.

As far as can be ascertained, the Hypaspists did not go mountaineering or storming breeches with pikes, but were issued lighter spears/javelins for the purpose. Conversely, as part of the phalanx, they picked up the heavy stuff. Such a decision would be made before the encounter. The unneccesary stuff would be left in camp. In DBA terms, it's an army list option, not an in-game tactic.

On the other hand, there are variations that are tactical choices made during the encounter. If we knew of a fight where the Hypaspists started as pikes and switched in mid-battle to using swords, we would have a case for converting Pk to Bd in mid-game, similar to troops dismounting. If this were a common occurence for all Pike troops, it would be an argument to revise the factors for Pk altogether.

Greetings
Karl Heinz

[Wanax]

Originally posted by K.H.Ranitzsch:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wanax:
A key example is that of the Hypaspist. What were they? This illustrates my point about the difference between a unit's variable tactics within an encounter and changing the unit's role depending on the strategic situation.

As far as can be ascertained, the Hypaspists did not go mountaineering or storming breeches with pikes, but were issued lighter spears/javelins for the purpose. Conversely, as part of the phalanx, they picked up the heavy stuff. Such a decision would be made before the encounter. The unneccesary stuff would be left in camp. In DBA terms, it's an army list option, not an in-game tactic.

On the other hand, there are variations that are tactical choices made during the encounter. If we knew of a fight where the Hypaspists started as pikes and switched in mid-battle to using swords, we would have a case for converting Pk to Bd in mid-game, similar to troops dismounting. If this were a common occurence for all Pike troops, it would be an argument to revise the factors for Pk altogether.
Greetings
Karl Heinz </font>[/QUOTE]Karl, the Hypaspist example was really to show that we still do not understand how they fought. We make assumptions that they were ever Pk, and/or that they reequiped, and/or that they differed in any way from the contemporary Therophoroi or hoplite. Many of our assumptions are based upon the contention that philangites were an evolution from hoplites, but there are no case or information from which to draw such a conslusion other than the length of the primary weapon and depth of the formation thereby.

I would contend that Hypaspist during a tactical operation would and did drop the pike and draw there swords. There are accounts of Pk formation opening up upon command, and it would be completely logical to also presume this type of training would be applicable to the eletes. As an example of Hypastpist, or any Philangite for that example, altering tactics during a battle I'd look to Granacus. here as the philangites entered the raging stream it would have been suicide to try and maintain a shoulder to shoulder formation with enemy arrows raining down and the swollen stream taking men's feet from under them. They had to have entered the stream in open order or in single file. I doubt single file as they would have been cut down individually while crossing the stream. Enough men with pikes had to make it accross the stream in order to cause the enemy horsemen to back off. Another instance is that in the hill fighting the men were faced by buring wagons rolled down a hill at them--something a Pike unit as we define it in dBA would not be able to avoid--yet the men open ranks enough to allow themselves to lay under their shields and let the wagon roll over limiting damage and disruption. There are a number of examples like these where we have to make a value call as to wheather it was planned prior or adaptive during the situation.

BTW, I'm less concern with the differentiation between Sp and Bd as I am with the entire concept of Cv instead of Lh and visa versa. Here is a topic that can never be resolved as the defining line is in no way conceived or apparent smile.gif

Wanax

[orca]

Anybody on this post remember the old designations in WGR 5th & 6th editions rules for Gauls? They were Irregular C LMI (light Medium Infantry) with Javelin and shield. And just about useless against Romans (Reg B HI HTW) in the open. Most of what we call Auxilia was also either Reg or Irr LMI with JLS and Sh - so it appears the discussion is coming around full circle. I MUCH prefer the Warband / Auxilia distinction in DBA over the earlier WGR 5&6th edition definitions. At least formed heavy foot cannot laugh at them (WB) anymore! In the writings left behind from the Romans & Greeks, they feared the intial charge of the Keltic foot, but if they lived through that they could handle the rest of the fight. Sounds alot like warband rather than AUX to me. Much of what is being said seems to devolve to an army level - some people think that what Phil called AUX really acted like a warband sometimes, and other time a troop listed as warband acted more like auxilia. Look at the army listing for Italian Hill Tribes (I/36) they can be either all Aux or all WB. Maybe some armies just need that option - I would support such a change for the Illyrians. But I will take the Gaullic WB over the old WGR LMI any day.

[orca]

About Macedonians - I read in Ian Heath's 'Armies and Enemies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars' that the Macedonian pikemen would, if the situation warrented, deploy with javelins instead of pike and fight as loose order infantry (AUX!). They did this when in bad terrian or storming cities. Since most of the origional Macedonian pikers started out as AUX, this was no hard thing to achieve. Maybe another army change is in order, with Macedonians able to deploy as either PK or AUX?

[Joe Mauloni]

Maybe the answer lies in something like this :http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/variants/kern.html
Seems like a pretty good way to handle several of these questions.

[Wanax]

Just to add few to the fire, I was reading last night about the Roman campaigns against Phillip V in Greece and against Gauls in the Po valley. In one battle, I'll get the reference if needed, the author states that when the Gauls moved to envelop the flank with their supperior numbers, the Praetor realized the enemy center was weakened. He therefore ordered the legionare in that sector to "form closed ranks and charge" into the center, which they did and "broke through" the enemy lines. Sounds like Wb instead of Bd to me smile.gif

also is an indication of what KH and I are saying about adaptive tactics, which the Romans proved superb at. Obviously the Romans did not deploy as close order foot all the time, but did at will change formation and tactical technique.

Wanax

[Pthomas]

Given the current changes in WB, I hardly think there is any need for two separate troop types. Just one which moves 2", or 4" with an additional PIP in good going and has a quick kill and also moves 3" in bad going and loses it's quick kill. It can be supported for +1 with a second rank of WB as is WB currently or by 1 psiloi/ per three front line troops as is Aux currently. Perhaps it takes +1 PIP to enter or leave bad going to represent formation changing.

[Martian]

Originally posted by orca:
About Macedonians - I read in Ian Heath's 'Armies and Enemies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars' that the Macedonian pikemen would, if the situation warrented, deploy with javelins instead of pike and fight as loose order infantry (AUX!). They did this when in bad terrian or storming cities. Since most of the origional Macedonian pikers started out as AUX, this was no hard thing to achieve. Maybe another army change is in order, with Macedonians able to deploy as either PK or AUX? Sounds like a good basis for a scenario game using a house rule.

4Pk//4Ax

Use the 'dismount' rules to permit your Pk to change to Ax as they enter bad going or within an EBW of a BUA or Camp.

Have fun!

Marty

[derek]

Hullo
Auxilia are far more flexible to use.
Warband present ongoing "command and control" problems, especially if you get low pips.
Furthermore their combat factors are relatively low. "Quick Kill" only comes into effect if you throw high. Great if you can get a line of Wb into a line of sp or bd and throw high three or four times in a row smile.gif
Game Over smile.gif
However in practice a wily opponent will use Lh & Ps to skirmish your flanks, or Cav and Aux to pick off elements.
Having written this I have three warband armies and they are fun to play with smile.gif
Kind Regards
Derek

[ July 18, 2003, 14:27: Message edited by: derek ]

[Kanishka]

Originally posted by Wanax:
He therefore ordered the legionare in that sector to "form closed ranks and charge" into the center, which they did and "broke through" the enemy lines. Sounds like Wb instead of Bd to me smile.gif Nah - any troops that require orders to charge can't be warbands by definition!! ;)