No Elephants for the Romans? - Cynocephalae

[C. Popilius Snoopi]

Originally Posted by larryessick

So there is a longer Roman infantry line in either case, which I'd thought I'd discussed earlier in the thread.

I missed your focus on heavy infantry. Not sure I understand it either. I tend to make heavy use of my lighter troops.

All in all it is a fun discussion but ultimately moot as no change along these lines will be forthcoming in any DBx rules. Whether that is a good thing or not depends ultimately on whether one believes that DBA (or the other DBx rules) gives sufficient historical feel.

Very true, and given some of what you say in your next post, I suspect that has as much to do with the play style of your group as it does with the rules.

Back to your point that it is a 12 on 12 game. If I can get you to double rank 3 elements it is now a 12 on 9 game. The army with exposed flanks is the one with the 9 element frontage.

For me, the finesse here is in using terrain and screening troops to make sure your opponent can only bring part of his army to bear. Also, here's where it is useful to use your skirmishers to screen your flanks. This is much more historical and to my experience works pretty well.

Meanwhile, I will seek to win on a cavalry flank using all my mounted troops.

Winning with your cavalry sounds fairly authentic for Macedonian victories to me. The pike phalanx is somewhat mobile terrain.

That means I can, in point of fact, avoid engagement of the smaller line by using nasty angles to bring the fight to a halt. And, if PIPs are good I can keep that going for a very long time.

I guess it depends what you mean by bad angles. If you're talking about exploiting things that don't work simply because our little men are glued on bases with 90 degree angles, yes, that is a problem. If you instead mean using your skirmishers or light troops to line up a favorable contact, that would be tactics.

This is what you will see in competition. People abuse the game doing things that are not historically accurate because they work within the rules and prevent defeat.

If a change is needed to the system, that is where I would put it...to minimize people abusing the physical limitations of the game pieces (or board...I hate the edge of the world effect).

Ultimately, though, that is difficult in the extreme, and you can achieve pretty much the same result by simply playing people who prefer to play the game than look for and exploit the loopholes.

In the end it is a game, to be played for fun. For me, and it sounds like for you, this fun comes at least in large part from the ability to play a historical game. People who instead prefer to win (or not lose) by racing a tournament clock have different priorities. That is very difficult to fix if you play against them, but very easy to fix by simply playing only against people who share your priorities.

[Matt]

Interesting thread. I had a similar discussion here about 2 years ago. Those threads are here if interested:

http://www.fanaticus.org/discussion/...ghlight=Romans

http://www.fanaticus.org/discussion/...ghlight=blades

Larry, I essentially agree with your premise that pikes are not well represented historically, and I would like to believe there is some sort of better DBA model. I also think blades could be better modeled.

However, having said that, my limited experience with playing actual games has brought me to the conclusion that the system as is does produce fairly authentic results, vis-à-vis blade vs. pike battles, based on historical documentation, although historical tactics are generally not the method of achieving this.

The problem I find myself running into is over-engineering the system - too many modifications etc which slow down the process. One thing that I do believe is useful that is used in other systems but not in DBA, is army specific rules. An example would be the spear bonus for rear support when applied to the classical Greek world. In my understanding, only Thebes used deep spear formations, and only in the later Hoplite period, but in the system any Hoplite army could use it in any era. Something as simple as a note at the bottom of the Later Hoplite list stating that the Theban army can have one Sp element receive a +1 combat bonus from a second rank of spears would work. In this case I would also add a special rule of some sort to the Spartans. Many/most lists would not have any special rules.

Are there other examples of excessively deep spear formations out there? Maybe, I don't know. It seems to me that a section of special army rules would be useful. I understand that this of course could get out of hand, and for many this is seen as overcomplicating and not needed.

A few thoughts for now. Maybe a new thread in the house rules section should be set up to discuss this further?

[Macbeth]

Originally Posted by Matt

Something as simple as a note at the bottom of the Later Hoplite list stating that the Theban army can have one Sp element receive a +1 combat bonus from a second rank of spears would work. In this case I would also add a special rule of some sort to the Spartans. Many/most lists would not have any special rules.

List rules give me the shivers

For many years I used to delcare that I preferred the longer, more detailed game of WRG7th to DBA but was finding the time constraints with a wife and young children left me with not enough time for that type of game so was playing DBA.

I used to organise the WRG7th competition at Cancon in Canberra because I was almost the last man standing (wrt WRG7th) in the Australian Captial Territory and I didn't want to see the institution die. I worked through the transition to Warrior but played very few games. In my youth I wrote some very scathing letters about organisers that play in their own competitions (as it applied to volleyball) and so didn't play in the competitions I ran.

For what became the final Warrior competion I did play to make the numbers even and for the first time became exposed to the vast array of special rules for certain troops and lists that became bewildering. All it takes is for a contemporary commentator to have scratched on his wax tablet that "These wert the best for that time period" and Viola - special rules .

I also had an epiphany at that competition - I really did prefer DBA.

Given that the tidal wave that is FoG had just crashed over the Warrior and DBM crowd in Australia I decided that the 15mm Warrior Comp at Cancon could be quietly put to sleep.

Had I continued I would have made a local ruling that List Rules only count against Historical Opponents Then taken cover as the masses howled

Cheers

[larryessick]

When 7th was the only game I use to advocate to Scott Holder that many situations should be handled by list specific rules. I don't know how influential that was but I do know that Warrior has ended up with many. It is also substantially the same as and substantially different from 7th at the same time.

Paradoxical, that last bit but true nonetheless.

I do not think it is the best answer for DBA. To the contrary, I think it is a rather poor solution. The best answer is an overhaul to the combat factors and elimination of rear support entirely from the game.

Alas, none of that matters so it becomes all idle speculation.

[Macbeth]

Originally Posted by larryessick

When 7th was the only game I use to advocate to Scott Holder that many situations should be handled by list specific rules.

That explains the jagged edged tone to your posts

Whenever anyone here in Oz tried to advocate anything to any of the horsemen we were shot down in flames - if you recieved the same treatment that is

Originally Posted by larryessick

I don't know how influential that was but I do know that Warrior has ended up with many.

Many is an understatement - they were a little cautious with the first set of lists published (Bilblical, Dark Age) and then hit their straps with later books, to say nothing of the overarching list rules for certain types - Mongols, Normans, Dark Age Barbarian Foot, Roman Legions, Macedonian Companions and so on.

My tipping point was the special rules for Later Carthaginians IF Hannibal was the general -- woo boy they couldn't lose a trick

Originally Posted by larryessick

Alas, none of that matters so it becomes all idle speculation.

Too true - all the best Larry

Cheers

[larryessick]

Originally Posted by Macbeth

Whenever anyone here in Oz tried to advocate anything to any of the horsemen we were shot down in flames - if you recieved the same treatment that is

The only problem is Jon. He makes me look positively saintly.