PDA

View Full Version : Cretan Archers as Auxilia


omnisjdi
09-04-2003, 05:10 PM
Hi Everyone.

Is it acceptable to base Cretan archers as auxilia?

Slainte
Jeff

hammurabi70
09-04-2003, 06:02 PM
Normally they are Psiloi. I am not sure I have ever heard of them as Auxilia and would not recommend doing so.

David Kuijt
09-04-2003, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by omnisjdi:

Is it acceptable to base Cretan archers as auxilia?
Nope.

Of course, you may do as you wish -- I've seen space dwarves based as Classical Indian 4Bd. People are probably going to be polite, and just ask you why you would want to do that, and it is unlikely they will say anything offensive to you. But will they think your element is a little odd? Yes. Auxilia is a troop class for close-fighting infantry; Cretan archers preferred to kill with their bows, not with their knives and teeny shields.

xeswop
09-04-2003, 08:47 PM
David has said many times that he has seen an element of Orcs or Dwarves in someone's Classical Indian army. I will donate a Bow element to that player. Next time you see that, David, let me know. I will try to have that extra element with me at Cold Wars and H'Con next year.

If a player is short of some figures and needs to fill in something as said, players will be polite. 3Bw and 3Ax are in fact "based" the same. Perhaps Jeff could make a Ps element with the archers with a piece of steel in the middle. If he needs to make an Ax element, use a third figure with a magnet on the bottom to fill in. It could also be some light Bow element if needed. Use it for a 3Wb as needed too. I have a number of Wb elements that have an archer in them.

I supose it could be called a 3Bd or 3Sp in a pinch. Afterall, 3Sp are Ax(X) in DBM.

Jeff, what army did you plan to use those bow Ax in?

omnisjdi
09-05-2003, 04:57 AM
I was thinking in terms of a hoplite army. I don't remember archers having a impact in any of the Pelopenesian War battles out side of the Battle of Sphactria (did I spell that right?). I talked to somebody locally and had a simmilar response to those posted. Not being familiar with DBM are there any listings for Bw units in the Greek or Macedonian army lists?

I wanted to avoid wasting a lot of Cretan archers.

Slainte
Jeff I.

imported_adsarf
09-05-2003, 08:22 AM
I have some Cretan archers based as Ax. This is because I have a very rigid idea about shields - anyone with a pelta (particularly a swanky bronze-faced one) must be aiming to get up close and personal with the enemy, it's far too small to be used as anything other than a buckler. If Cav can have bows without offending anyone, I really don't see the problem with Ax.

But then I don't use the standard number of figures on a base either, so I'm a self-confessed heretic.

DBX classifications are a bit of a mirage anyway - if you look at them too closely either you go crosseyed, or they disappear.

Andrew

omnisjdi
09-05-2003, 11:46 AM
That was along the lines of what I was thinking about. The Cretan archers were never a decisive group as bowmen. They probably got almost as close tho their oppenenys as the peltasts and javiline men did. Remember were talking about a weak short bow. Not the long bows, or crossbows from the midieval period.

Slainte
Jeff I

Richard III
09-05-2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by omnisjdi:
I was thinking in terms of a hoplite army.Although it can be argued that some troops classed in DBA 2 as Aux are chiefly missile-based (javelins), and also that assarf's comment about shields is a good one (Cretan archers were using shields in Classical Greece, as Xenophon reveals), the definition of Aux given in the V2 rulebook would, I think, preclude basing Cretans this way. As DK says, Aux are primarily a melee type, and the Cretans would still rely chiefly on missile fire.

I don't remember archers having a impact in any of the Pelopenesian War battles out side of the Battle of SphactriaArchers were useful for raids and other small engagements (this being the reason Thucydides gives for the Spartans creating a unit of archers) but we don't hear of them in the large battles. But then again, Sphakteria was a small engagment. The Athenian archers were also present at the engagement in Aitolia in 426, and archers, some of them Cretan, accompanied the Athenians to Sicily and fought at Syracusa (where they were certainly did not have any impact)

Not being familiar with DBM are there any listings for Bw units in the Greek or Macedonian army lists?In DBM (after years of lobbying!) the Later Greek Hoplites can have Cretan archers defined as Bw(I). Note that the Athenians can have a Bw element in DBA 2, but this would likely be the Athenian corps of 1,600 archers (these may in fact have been Skythians (not the horse-archers).

RIII

[ September 05, 2003, 09:01: Message edited by: Richard III ]

Michael Fischer
09-05-2003, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by omnisjdi:
Not being familiar with DBM are there any listings for Bw units in the Greek or Macedonian army lists?II/5. Later Hoplite Greek 450 BC - 275 BC (235 BC if Siciliot or Italiot)
Cretan and other mercenary archers - Reg Ps (O) @ 2AP or Reg Bw (I) @ 3AP: 0-6

Basil Bulgar-Slayer
09-05-2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by adsarf:
I have some Cretan archers based as Ax. This is because I have a very rigid idea about shields - anyone with a pelta (particularly a swanky bronze-faced one) must be aiming to get up close and personal with the enemy, it's far too small to be used as anything other than a buckler. If Cav can have bows without offending anyone, I really don't see the problem with Ax.I like the way you think. :D

As a fellow heretic - and DBx sceptic/critic - I find that accepting the authors' views on classifications and the troops that fit those classifications can be problematic. The Cretans were considered fine troops throughout the area and sought by many armies. From my - limited - knowledge, it appears that they were quite willing to take on any contemporary troops that DBx commonly classes as Psiloi or Auxilia.

Richard III
09-05-2003, 12:35 PM
I agree that the DBA classifications are not perfect.

But Cretans were, at least in Classical Greece, primarily raiders and missile troops. See my post below.

RIII

Joe Mauloni
09-05-2003, 01:03 PM
That was along the lines of what I was thinking about. The Cretan archers were never a decisive group as bowmen. They probably got almost as close tho their oppenenys as the peltasts and javiline men did. That last fourty feet or so may be the difference. If you consider the classic auxilia examples of peltasts or Samnites, the willingness to close with the enemy under the right circumstances defines the difference between psiloi and auxilia. Archers, slingers, and light-weight javelin chuckers are going to be reluctant to come to grips except under extreme circumstances. Auxilia will jump you in a heartbeat in rough ground or if your forces are disordered.

omnisjdi
09-05-2003, 01:04 PM
Also the definaition for auxilia. Gee now I have to go and reread(ok read through) Xenophon's "Anaibas." Where to find the time for all the reading, painting, and playing?!? I suppose thats what I get for stirring up a controversial topic (more than I thought it was).

Any ideas for painting all these Cretan archers I have? I planed on a mixture of white, a very lt grey, and a tan.

By the way I've also had to go back and reread Polybius and Diodorus. When am I going to get to finish Wiliam James?

Slainte
Jeff I :D

Richard III
09-05-2003, 01:24 PM
In the Anabasis, the Xen-master describes some Cretans in ambush, "but their shields, which were made of bronze, would now and then gleam through the bushes."[Anabasis, 5.2.29.]

Note the Greek word used is peltai.

Greeks rarely wore white cloth - they were very fond of colours (remember, most of those white marble stautues wer painted in bright colours).

"Where to find the time for all the reading, painting, and playing?!?"

That's easy - just paint a book about playing!

RIII

David Kuijt
09-05-2003, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by omnisjdi:

Any ideas for painting all these Cretan archers I have? I planed on a mixture of white, a very lt grey, and a tan.
Black tunics are recommended by one of the Osprey Elites (either Greeks or Spartans, I forget which).

Richard III
09-05-2003, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by David Kuijt:
Black tunics are recommended by one of the Osprey Elites (either Greeks or Spartans, I forget which). Yes, 'Ancient Greeks' - but the author admits this is only due to the modern prediliction for black dress in Crete - but the same is true for much of Greece (amongst older people, especially women). I do not recommend using black.

RIII

Joe Mauloni
09-05-2003, 01:32 PM
Any ideas for painting all these Cretan archers I have? Greeks rarely wore white cloth - they were very fond of colours (remember, most of those white marble stautues wer painted in bright colours) Don't forget to add some fancy borders, or a simple stripe if you paint like I do ;)
And as mercenaries on a long campaign, I would imagine a certain amount of bizarre variety would show up from time to time.
"Where to find the time for all the reading, painting, and playing?!?" Well ... not having a life has always worked for me :D

imported_adsarf
09-05-2003, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Joe Mauloni:
That last fourty feet or so may be the difference. If you consider the classic auxilia examples of peltasts or Samnites, the willingness to close with the enemy under the right circumstances defines the difference between psiloi and auxilia. This is my point about the shields. A buckler-type shield is pretty useless except in hand-to-hand combat. Its not big enough to catch arrows with and any javelin you can see coming you'd be much better advised to dodge than try to catch on a tiny little shield like that.

So anyone carrying a small buckler-type shield is at least contemplating getting stuck in if the circumstances are right.

A scutum (as carried by e.g. Samnites) is a rather different kettle of fish. I might start another thread on the topic if people are interested, but I'd better not rant on here.

Joe Mauloni
09-05-2003, 02:01 PM
A scutum (as carried by e.g. Samnites) is a rather different kettle of fish. I might start
another thread on the topic if people are interested, but I'd better not rant on here. Good idea. My opinions are set in stone. A very soft, malleable stone :D
I'm always willing to learn.
See ya there

Richard III
09-05-2003, 02:03 PM
I'm not sure whether you include a pelte in your 'buckler-type' shields, but I cannot agree with all that you say.

Many psiloi used small shields, or at least tied hides or cloth around their left arm, and some slingers, especially Rhodians, used small shields.

I think this shows that you cannot say: small shield = melee type troop. Psiloi and slingers might use a small shield just in case hand to hand combat became inevitable, not because they actively sought such combat.

Also, I think even small shields would be useful vs arrows and sling stones, though I agree with your comment about javelins.

Note also that 'LH' were the first mounted Greeks to use shields (peltai in Northern Greece and Magna Graecia) - this does not mean they sought melee with their heavier-armed cousins.

RIII

imported_adsarf
09-05-2003, 02:30 PM
Joe, RIII, I'll start a new topic.

Andrew

Kanishka
09-08-2003, 02:21 AM
In DBM some Cretan archers are graded as bowmen rather than psiloi - this also indicates moer willingness to fight hand-to-hand....or at least less ability to run away!!

Perhaps grading them as Bow is the answer you are looking for?

imported_adsarf
09-08-2003, 12:11 PM
This is the option that does least violence to typical wargames conventions. The trouble with this is that it makes them effective against cavalry, which they don't seem to have been. As Ax they are good for picking on psiloi, but you'd rather use your hoplites against hostile cavalry, which seems nearer the mark.

See Thyucidides Bk III Chapters 97-8 for an example of something like this. It seems to show that the archers were a form of skirmishers superior to the Aetolian psiloi.

Andrew

Kanishka
09-08-2003, 11:31 PM
Being Bw also makes them effective vs psiloi - they get to kill them at 200p and in hand to hand.

Being effective agaisnt Cav is a side effect - but then hoplites were not very effective vs cav - there are numerous instances where Hoplites pursuing a defeated army are held off by relatively small numbers of enemy cav, thus allowing the enemy to get away.

In DBM they get graded as inferior bow - which means they quite vulnerable to Cav - in DBA there isn't that option so yuo jsut have to wear it.

rudynelson
09-10-2003, 02:36 AM
My two cents as a person adding late comments. Sorry to repeat any views
Cretans and any mercenaries hired as missle (PS) troops are and should be PS. Troops intended to fight hand to hand would be armed with more than knifes or very short swords. As mercenaries they are hired for a specific function, skirmishing,(win or lose) and they are going to die in a charge for an employer. With the low level of normal education, motives have to regarded back down to Mazlow's basic level of 'Needs'. "Life and subsistance". Mercenaries hired to fight hand to hand such as Greek Hoplites, Spanish or Gauls were better armed and received a higher percentage of post-battle booty than missle mercs.

David Kuijt
09-10-2003, 11:31 AM
If you want Cretan archers to be more effective, your best option is to play DBM and rate them as Ps(S).

Any game system that attempts to classify troop types into a small number of boxes will have problems with comparisons of troops within one box and with troops that are slightly better (or worse) than others in their box.

(And on the flip side, any game system that attempts to classify troop types into a large number of boxes will have problems caused by exceeding the amount of known information about historical troops!)

Note that your example of Cretans skirmishing (and getting the better of) Aetolian psiloi is one of buckler-defended mercenary archers shooting up a bunch of nearly-nekkid guys running around with javelins. In DBA, with a small number of boxes, they are both classified as Psiloi. In DBM, the javelin dudes are Ps(I), which suck; the Cretans are Ps(O) (I think).

If you reclassify Cretans as Aux, you are saying that they could fight equally with Thracians, Illyrians, and the like. Do you have any evidence to support that? I don't mean evidence that they were better than Ps(I), I mean evidence that they were regarded by contemporaries to be as good as other Auxilia-rated troops in the same period.

omnisjdi
09-10-2003, 12:55 PM
Hi.

It wasn't a matter of making my Cretan archers more effective game wise. I wanted to make them more cost effective. I didn't want to have a mass of painted Cretan archers in a box unbased, and unused.

I just had an idea for basing auxilia in general. Since we've established that the auxilia
act as a mid range between bow, psoli, blades, and/or spear. How about putting an archer, peltast and hoplite figure on a auxilia stand (to represent the multiple roles)?

Slainte
Jeff I

Paul A. Hannah
09-10-2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by omnisjdi:
I didn't want to have a mass of painted Cretan archers in a box unbased, and unused.
That may just come with the territory, over time. Having been in this hobby 20+ years now, and having seen numerous rules-systems come and go, I have lots of "orphaned" painted figures, many of them Cretan archers.

Since they show up in so many Hellenistic armies, perhaps consider using them as the start of a second or third new army. (BTW, nice choice for your Avatar Image. :D )

[ September 10, 2003, 10:21: Message edited by: Paul A. Hannah ]

David Kuijt
09-10-2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by omnisjdi:

It wasn't a matter of making my Cretan archers more effective game wise. I wanted to make them more cost effective. I didn't want to have a mass of painted Cretan archers in a box unbased, and unused.Ah, OK, I understand. I'm afraid, as Paul says, that the situation comes with the territory. I've got lots of orphan troops. You might want to try and sell them -- someone who plays DBM might buy a bunch.

imported_adsarf
09-10-2003, 08:30 PM
The Thucydides reference was my fault, it isn't particularly germane it just happened to be what I was reading on the train to work at the time, so it was available off the top of my head.

Xenophon is a better source. In the Anabasis Book III Chapter 3 he refers to the Cretans as 'light troops' and makes it clear that they weren't even able to *attempt* an archery duel with the Persians (Rhodian slingers were more effective at this) - so a rating as Bow seems inappropriate. I don't think he ever explicitly refers to 'Cretan Peltasts' but in Bk V Chapter 2 he certainly calls their shields 'peltas' which kind of implies the same thing.

As I discuss in the other thread, what is a Psiloi (by definition aiming to run away if threatened with hand-to-hand combat) planning to do with a bronze-faced buckler? He can't shield himself effectively whilst firing his bow without a much bigger shield (and examples of shooting a bow whilst carrying a shield are rare in any culture). I just argue that he carries the shield in order to make himself 'able to fight hand to hand' (although, naturally, he continues to 'emphasise agility and flexibility rather than cohesion'). It's not as radical as it seems.

Andrew

Joe Mauloni
09-10-2003, 08:57 PM
In Osprey's *Armies of the Greek and Persian Wars*, the Cretan archer is shown carrying a shield, a bow, a quiver, a small sword, and two javelins. I can't remember the source for the illo but the poor lad certainly looks unhappy ;)

omnisjdi
09-10-2003, 11:07 PM
Hi.

Let me some up the recent posts on this thread. Cretan archers are not as effective as bows, but more effective than psoli. That would place them with in the range of being auxilia. Ok less effective than peltast, bur auxilia nevertheless.

Slainte
Jeff I.

Sarduri II
09-11-2003, 08:44 AM
. . How about putting an archer, peltast and hoplite figure on a auxilia stand (to represent the multiple roles)?
More or less exactly what I have with my Urartian Auxilia. A majority of (early Assyrian) javielin/shield types, with one or two archers and a few heavier spear types mixed in for variety, (we're talking irregular infantry here).

Personally I don't see the problem with fielding an Auxilia unit with Cretan "bowmen" on it. I'd probably do a couple of convertions to add some javelins or bucklers into hands, to help clarify the units status.

Regards the Cretans themselves, our primary period sources seem only to refer to them as "light troops", on the other hand we note that they are remarked apon for their professionalism and found hired into many disparate armies throughout the period. I can see no reason, other than longstanding convention, why they might not be thought of as "Auxilia".

[I've cleared out all my back issues when I last moved, but I have a memory of an article on this from an early '80 Slingshot {yellow cover?}, talking about Cretan javelinmen, and how the "all Cretans are archers" concept was overstated]

omnisjdi
09-11-2003, 12:15 PM
I get the feeling that ancient authors felt that auxilia were lt troops. Most authors refer to inf. and cav. They would also sub divide inf. into hoplites or inf, and lt inf.. Where were they placing auxilia? We'd call them medium or light infantry.

Slainte
Jeff I

Paul A. Hannah
09-11-2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by omnisjdi:
Where were they placing auxilia?Ancient hieroglyphs refer to auxilia as "LMI" --oh, wait-- that was WRG, 5th Edition. ;)

Joe Mauloni
09-11-2003, 12:28 PM
I get the feeling that ancient authors felt that auxilia were lt troops. Most authors refer to inf. and cav. They would also sub divide inf. into hoplites or inf, and lt inf.. Where were they placing auxilia? We'd call them medium or light infantry. The DBA term auxilia represents troop types that were probably light by ancient definition. In WRG 5th terms these are probably LMI/LHI. As far as I know "medium" infantry is not a term used by the ancients who seemed to classify more by equipment rather than formation.
Sarduri II seems right on track.

Kanishka
09-12-2003, 02:31 AM
Ancient Greeks rated "auxilia" as peltasts - seperate from both the light armed and hoplites.

Decius
09-12-2003, 10:48 AM
:cool: Good debate guys.

I have been thinking of scrapping Ax completely and making tribal spaniards, thracians, illyrians and the like Wb instead. These lads had an awesome first charge and were feared by civilized heavy foot. Playing them as Ax makes then next to useless in the line of battle. I know that these people occupied different roles in different armies, sometimes impeteous foot, sometimes skirmishers, sometimes solid and dependable like Hannibals Spaniards, and this is how i play them. With Ax a non existant category, Ps have been beefed up slightly and do not flee at the drop of a hat, enabling them to fight a delaying action as per DBA 1.1 I assume that an element of Legionaries and other heavy foot include their skirmishers as they are otherwise hard to represent in DBA eg a Republican Roman army should have as many Ps as Bl. Ps now represent the Cretans, peltasts and caetrati who gave a good account of themselves.

Just a few random thoughts but moving towards a simpler DBA for classical battles.

Joe Mauloni
09-12-2003, 03:06 PM
Decius:
I assume that an element of Legionaries and other heavy foot include their skirmishers as they are otherwise hard to represent in DBA eg a Republican Roman army should have as many Ps as Bl If I understand this you are making the skirmishers part of the blade stand? Neat idea.
Do you change the blade characteristics at all?

Decius
09-12-2003, 04:07 PM
Not really in 15mm scale unless you consider using square bases and 4 legionaries with 2 velites. More plausible in 6mm though. I just imagine that an element of Blade actually represents the Velites, Hastati, Principes and Triari operating in concert. My Republican army list core is 8 Bl plus 3 Cv to represent the Legions and Equites (there were almost always more Allied than Roman Cavalry and this is an attempt to show this). The extra element can be whatever is appropriate for the campaign eg an element of Gauls at the Trebbia or Syracusan Psiloi at Cannae (if my memory serves me correctly). This still leaves the option of deploying an element or two of Velites if appropriate to their tactical use in the campaign, such as in Spain.

BTW I allow the Romans one element of Triari to guard the camp as this was a common tactic in the war against Hannibal. Giving the Romans 2 Sp elements as part of a 12 element army really makes no sense to me as historical tactics cannot be used. Maybe with bigger armies, but not 12 elements.

As always striving towards simplicity, playability and 'realism'. Any suggestions always welcome.

David Crowell
09-12-2003, 08:19 PM
6mm figures especially on 25mm ground scale bases can model the roman triple line very effectively on each element.

Otherwise I just assume that the characteristics of all are subsumed uinto ageneric Bd element.

There are probably lots of things that don't show in DBA, like Celtic warriors leaping on and off their chariots to fight. In DBA they are simply LCh elements

imported_adsarf
09-13-2003, 12:26 PM
Decius

My thinking is very close to yours, I want to treat all scutum-bearing men (Spaniards, Gauls, Theurophoroi, whatever) as Blade, use the Ax category for skirmishers with shields and swords (like peltasts, velites, etc.) and keep the Ps category for slingers and other skirmishers who won't go near the enemy. So I abolish the Warband category not the auxilia but its for similar reasons, to give main battle-line troops in half a dozen cultures the abiity to fight in the line of battle. I think this arises from treating the type descriptions in the rules rigorously, and not interpreting them as loosely as the people who designed the army lists did.

I won't go into all the reasons why I hate warband, firtsly because its a dead horse kind of debate and secondly because I'm just about to go off on holiday. Suffice to say that the only troops in Polybius who act even vaguely like the 'Warband' category are the native roman legionnaries.

Andrew

omnisjdi
09-13-2003, 02:38 PM
I agree with you. Especially with concern to the warband. They should be either Aux. or Bd.

Slainte
Jeff I

Decius
09-15-2003, 10:34 AM
Andrew,

I must say I do like Wb, but they are the reason that Bl are +5 vs foot which works when they face each other but has otherwise skewed the game by giving them a false invulnerabilty against the like of Hoplites, Samnites and Spaniards. I would prefer a generic Ft element like Cv which cover a multitude of solid line infantry and use scenario specific modifiers as appropriate. (I am not interested in competition play).

FOOT, representing the majority of trained ancient close fighting infantry; such as Thureophoroi, Hoplites, Phalangites and Legionaries. They were steady against most horsemen and could stand up to most troops that relied on a fierce initial charge such as Gauls, Spaniards and Samnites.

Ft +4 (-2 in Bad Going)

Some ideas to represent differences as a simple +1 can make an element too invulnerable are to allow certain troop types a choice of dice rolls or a reroll.

Spartans vs other hoplites roll 2D6 use highest result.

Legionaries reroll if lower vs other Ft, Wb. (-1 in bad going)

Phalangites highest of 2 D6 vs thureophoroi, cannot provide overlap support in Bad Going.

So what I am saying is that Ax are now either Ft, Wb or Ps depending on historical use, and that Sp, Bl and Pk are Ft. Hannibal's Gauls and Spaniards, Wb and Ax in their own armies, seemed to operate as steady and dependable infantry at Cannae and are thus so played: weaker than the Legions, less deadly than before, but steadier.

[ September 15, 2003, 11:57: Message edited by: Decius ]

Joe Mauloni
09-15-2003, 03:15 PM
Decius: I am intrigued by your "Foot" concept. Do you allow rear support factors?

Decius
09-15-2003, 03:34 PM
Joe,

I haven't thought it through yet, but deeper foot seemed to have more staying power, which according to Adrian Goldsworthy is what won you battles.

Should be able to work something out, something like (S) status or a reroll if they lose. Any ideas? I would like to give the Romans an incentive to double up against Hannibal without making them gods.

derek
09-15-2003, 04:37 PM
Hullo
Now we are into the long running (& apparently never ending dispute) regarding the classification of, in no particular order:
1. Pike (& support)
2. Auxilia (& Psiloi support)
3. Blades (& Psiloi support)
4. Warband (& Quick Kill)
5. Light Horse (& distance shooting) and
6. Psiloi being able to hold up a battle line of heavy infantry !
and the interaction between them in different types of terrain !
There are no clear answers to these debates without fundamental changes to the classification of the different troop types !
Kind Regards
Derek

Joe Mauloni
09-15-2003, 08:15 PM
Decius: The simplest support factor would be similar to Sp, +1 vs other Ft, Ax, or Wb.
This would encourage doubling legion infantry (which would make the darn things look like a legion). Of the die roll variants, the use the highest of two seems most fair while still conveying a significant advantage. I tend to agree with adsarf on Wb though ...
I'll try playtesting and let you know what happens
Foot (Ft) +4/+2 -2 in Bgo (-1 for legion)
Wb loses the subsequent move and follow up (-1 in Bgo)
Roman velites and Spanish caetrati as Ax
Balearic slingers as Ps

derek: You're right, we've drifted rather far off course here. We're not griping about classification as much as exploring variant rules.
We should probably start a new topic.

omnisjdi
09-16-2003, 03:59 AM
Hi.

What really bothers me is the quick kill for warbland against blades in good going. I wouldn't have as much of a problem if blades received support from psoli against foot as well as cav.. That was their usage after all.

Slainte
Jeff I.

Decius
09-16-2003, 12:12 PM
Joe: I'll try the +1 a few times, may be the simplest and best way to do things. Formed foot were pretty impervious to ancient horsemen, so do not know if I'd use +2.

Lots of other ideas re a simpler Classical DBA to cover Greece and Rome at war (?DBS/DBC). I really must try and write a complete draft and get the Imperator to post it under Variant Rules. I am away for three weeks so may have some time to sit and write.

Derek: Howzit, no real axe to grind as not a competition player. Just using DBA as an engine to create a variant set of rules that fit my limited understanding of classical warfare. Started on DBA 1 way back in 1994. Looks like not even Phil can resist tweaking the rules from time to time! :rolleyes:

I suppose my suggestion to replace Bl, Sp, Pk and some Ax with Ft, and the rest of the Ax as Wb and Ps, would qualify as a reclassification of sorts.

Jeff: Any suggestions how to similate the alleged effects of the initial Gallic charge?

[ September 16, 2003, 09:16: Message edited by: Decius ]

omnisjdi
09-16-2003, 01:58 PM
If the alleged effect of the first chage is real let them have the quick kill on first contact only. After that the +3 against foot sounds about right for whats going on. I still wonder how to simulate the right drift for hoplites though. Against hoplites vs. hoplites strait ahead is no problem.

Slainte
Jeff I.

omnisjdi
09-16-2003, 02:00 PM
How about starting a new thread for this topic?

What did I start? :eek:

Slainte
Jeff I.

Joe Mauloni
09-16-2003, 02:54 PM
new topic started
omnisjdi; yes, it's all your fault :D

Decius
09-16-2003, 03:25 PM
Jeff,

Would be hard to keep records, maybe only give QK in own turn and allow 300p if moving into contact, 200p otherwise, no QK in BG.

The R drift would occur "naturally" in DBA between Hoplite armies as each tried to envelop the other flank. Put your generals on the R as was the case, reduce command radius to 600p and see what happens. No fancy rules needed!

omnisjdi
09-16-2003, 03:57 PM
How about this for record keeping. Place a token of somekind on the base of the wb. When it moves into contact you take the token off. Quick kill in own turn also a good idea.

Hoplite drift isn't really a problem with hp vs hp battles. Strait ahead movement simulates that. Its only a real problems against other folks. Just a nit pick issue really. :D

I believe it has more relevance with the shield hearasy debate.

Lets pick up this thread on the Wb vs Bl thread I've started.

Slainte
Jeff I