DBA Units: Form & Function

[Aristonicus]

Daniel Duffy's article http://fanaticus.org/DBA/guides/formfunction.html
proposing a couple of new troop types (Axemen, Thanes) has got me thinking.
While I disagree with his classification of Huscarles as 'Axemen' (in my opinion they are still classic Blades) the 'Axemen' troop type can be used to sort out some anomalies. His definition - fight as spears v mounted and as warband v. foot suites more than just medieval halberdiers/billmen; for example Japanese Ashigaru, warrior monks and Chinese halberdiers. Perhaps it can cover all units classed as Aux (X) in DBM as well?

I don't think that he has justified his 'Thane' troop type well enough - I would have liked to have seen more historical examples.

Just my two cents.

[Joe Mauloni]

An interesting article. I'm not so sure that I agree with the efficiency of the halberd as a shield against cavalry, though.
Granted that the design function of the weapon made it useful against horsemen, I'm not aware of any time that the halberd was used in a tight defensive block to hold off mounted attack; perhaps because the pike was better at it and the two were often used together?
The justification for the Thane unit type seems well thought out, but I don't agree with the game representation. Rear support implies advantage from increased depth of ranks and I don't see this as being applicable to horsemen, especially Germanic or nomad horse. Perhaps allowing psiloi support might be an interesting period variant to experiment with?

[Aristonicus]

Re: Thanes
I also don't recall any instances of really deep formations of Barbarian cavalry - I agree that they should get rear support from Psiloi where historically justified (at the very least the Germans should - as well as 4th Century BC Greek Cavalry). Early German cavalry seem to be the prototype for this troop type, also Goths, Bedouin, Berber fanatics etc replacing Camelry. My only problem with it is relating it back to the army lists: who gets classed as "Barbarian" mounted warband - all cavalry armed primarily with heavy melee weapons (basically swords and axes - but not spears or lances he classes these as heavy shock weapons) as per his troop matrix? Or only those armies with warband as a main troop type?
Perhaps the question comes down to this - does DBX make a mistake in lumping all horsemen between Knight (all charging with lance all the time) and Light Cav (all skirmishing with javelin and bow all the time) as one troop type - Cavalry.

[Basil Bulgar-Slayer]

Originally posted by Aristonicus:
Perhaps the question comes down to this - does DBX make a mistake in lumping all horsemen between Knight (all charging with lance all the time) and Light Cav (all skirmishing with javelin and bow all the time) as one troop type - Cavalry. The answer is Yes.

If you look at the DBM army lists and do a little analysis, you'll see that before 1150AD there are two types of Knights predominant - Fast and Inferior. No attempt was made to distinguish between the Fast Knights that were superior to their peers (or inferior for that matter). This becomes particularly galling when considers the Norman era and the classification of Normans, Franks, Lombards, and so on being classed the same.

OTOH, the conroys of the Normans could not be classed as mounted Warbands. They practiced combat as a group and were much more disciplined then later Knights.

Make of this what you will.

[nick hux]

Originally posted by Basil Bulgar-Slayer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aristonicus:
Perhaps the question comes down to this - does DBX make a mistake in lumping all horsemen between Knight (all charging with lance all the time) and Light Cav (all skirmishing with javelin and bow all the time) as one troop type - Cavalry. The answer is Yes.

If you look at the DBM army lists and do a little analysis, you'll see that before 1150AD there are two types of Knights predominant - Fast and Inferior. No attempt was made to distinguish between the Fast Knights that were superior to their peers (or inferior for that matter). This becomes particularly galling when considers the Norman era and the classification of Normans, Franks, Lombards, and so on being classed the same.

OTOH, the conroys of the Normans could not be classed as mounted Warbands. They practiced combat as a group and were much more disciplined then later Knights.

Make of this what you will. </font>[/QUOTE]I think this is correct at the (detailed) level of DBM, but I don't really see a problem with this in DBA.

The question is not how well they fight, but how they fight. All of the types mentioned above as knights wanted to close into contact and this is good enough for DBA.

Nick

[Basil Bulgar-Slayer]

Originally posted by nick hux:
The question is not how well they fight, but how they fight. All of the types mentioned above as knights wanted to close into contact and this is good enough for DBA.Actually, it does make a difference if you also modify the represented troops. Try this: Those knights represented as Kn(F) or Kn(I) (The latter only before 1150.) use the speed and combat factors of Cavalry, but the combat outcomes of Knights.

Give it a go. I have a couple of times and rather enjoyed it. :D

[Garulfo]

Originally posted by Basil Bulgar-Slayer:
[...]
Actually, it does make a difference if you also modify the represented troops. Try this: Those knights represented as Kn(F) or Kn(I) (The latter only before 1150.) use the speed and combat factors of Cavalry, but the combat outcomes of Knights.

Give it a go. I have a couple of times and rather enjoyed it. :D [/QB]In a gameplay point of view, I think this would be a mistake to accept CV with KN outcomes.. It will disbalance the system. But this is IMHO only :rolleyes:

[ March 17, 2004, 18:35: Message edited by: Garulfo ]

[Ivan]

I agree. The thing is, most of the really important outcomes for Kn are against foot- Kn quick-kill most foot types.

Cavalry have the same combat factor versus foot as knights, but move 4" instead of 3", so Cv with Kn outcomes would be very powerful and dangerous against foot. It would be virtually as good against mounted as Cv, the only exceptions being vs things like LH and EL.

I think it would basically be superior to either Cv or Kn. Not invincible, but more powerful on balance than either, especially against most historical opponents for these, who have few LH and EL.