DBMM Forum
Armies => Book 1 => Topic started by: Barritus on June 07, 2009, 02:48:03 PM
-
If they haven't been raised already, someone might like to mention these on the DBMM list...
1. List 35 - Cypriot and Phoenician: This list covers Cyprus until 380BC. It says that Cypriots from 700BC can have Ionian Greek allies, with an additional note that this means Dark Age and Geometric Greek until 665BC, then Early Hoplite Greek. But the EHG list ends in 449BC. What does this mean for the period 448BC to 380BC? (a) You use EHG allies out of period, (b) you use LHG allies even though they're not mentioned, or (c) you can't use Ionian Greek allies after 448BC?
2. List 41 - Medes, Zikurtu, Andia or Parsua: The basic list allows a Commander-in-Chief and 0-1 sub-generals. All lists before 620BC also get 0-2 ally generals. Medes from 620BC also get 1-2 sub-generals and 0-1 allies. This suggests Zikurtu, Andia and Parsua from 620BC get only the option of a single sub-general in addition to their C-in-C. It also suggests the Medes from 620BC are allowed 1-3 sub-generals and 0-1 ally generals. Neither of these proposals sounds correct.
3. List 55 - Latin, Early Roman, Early Etruscan and Umbrian Italian: The main list allows generals before 400BC to be mounted in chariots, and provides costings for Commanders-in-Chief and ally generals. The Etruscans are allowed a sub-general, who is specified as being on a horse. There is no provision for him to be mounted on a chariot. Is this intended?
-
2. List 41 - Medes, Zikurtu, Andia or Parsua: The basic list allows a Commander-in-Chief and 0-1 sub-generals. All lists before 620BC also get 0-2 ally generals. Medes from 620BC also get 1-2 sub-generals and 0-1 allies. This suggests Zikurtu, Andia and Parsua from 620BC get only the option of a single sub-general in addition to their C-in-C. It also suggests the Medes from 620BC are allowed 1-3 sub-generals and 0-1 ally generals. Neither of these proposals sounds correct.
IIUC, Zikirtu, Andia, and Parsua had ceased to exist as independent states by 620, so how many generals they get in the later period is academic. (Yes, Phil apparently expects wargames to know how long obscure Old Iranian principatilities lasted.)
While the list could be more clearly presented, I am not sure why the Median Empire should not have 1-3 subs and 0-1 allies? The last draft had the 1-3 subs only - the optional ally was added to the published list, presumably in response to my plea that allygens should be allowed to the end of the list (the last Median king, Astyages, being betrayed to Cyrus by Harpagus (according to Herodotus) or "his [Astyages'] army" (according to a contemporary Babylonian tablet)). Three irregular subs is not unusual for reasonably integrated kingdoms, and is even allowed to a few mass migrations like the Sea Peoples!
-
Orcoteuthis said:
IIUC, Zikirtu, Andia, and Parsua had ceased to exist as independent states by 620, so how many generals they get in the later period is academic. (Yes, Phil apparently expects wargames to know how long obscure Old Iranian principatilities lasted.)
Well, this is the thing. If you look at the Latin, Early Roman, Early Etruscan and Umbrian Italian list (55), you'll see the notes specify until when the various states are covered by the list - the Etruscans until 600BC, the Romans until 578BC, and so on. Due to my complete lack of knowledge of Zikirtuan, Andian and Parsuan history, I assumed the lack of such information in list 41 indicated these states existed until the end date of the list. At the very least, I assume Parsua had to survive to 550BC in order to be the ancestor list of the Early Achaemenid Persian list.
To be honest, I doubt it'll be a major problem - it isn't likely to be a popular list. But it suggests a sloppiness that has me worried that other lists which look fine might not be.
While the list could be more clearly presented, I am not sure why the Median Empire should not have 1-3 subs and 0-1 allies? The last draft had the 1-3 subs only - the optional ally was added to the published list, presumably in response to my plea that allygens should be allowed to the end of the list (the last Median king, Astyages, being betrayed to Cyrus by Harpagus (according to Herodotus) or "his [Astyages'] army" (according to a contemporary Babylonian tablet)). Three irregular subs is not unusual for reasonably integrated kingdoms, and is even allowed to a few mass migrations like the Sea Peoples!
Fair enough - I hadn't realised three irregular subs were that common.
-
At the very least, I assume Parsua had to survive to 550BC in order to be the ancestor list of the Early Achaemenid Persian list.
It survived, but as a vassal of the Medes: "Parsuan vassal troops in a Median army are assumed to be the same as Medes". The Medes' fall to the Persians was less a case of one empire being conquered by another than of one group replacing another as the dominant one within a single empire.
I'm not sure if we ever hear of Persians fighting outside Median armies before Cyrus' revolt: if they occured they can probably be treated as just another imperial Median army on the logic that the troops are assumed to be identical anyway.
-
Small piece of errata. List 62 Lykian has an option to upgrade warriors to Lykian hoplites - Irr Sp(O) @ 3AP.
Irr Sp(O) are 4AP. I assume the costs are wrong and should be 4. Irr Sp(I) is a bit weak compared to the neighbours
-
Concensus on the Yahoo list seems to suggest Irr Sp(O) @4AP as "They where not effete"
-
Another Cypriot/Phoenician list erratum: The list doesn't allow for the regrading of the one permitted sub-general.
-
Thracians: Why oh why are the Thracians limited to *3* Horde (I)? They cost 1.5AP in total, leaving you with a useless 0.5AP. Given the wobbliness of troop numbers/scale in the DBMM period, what's wrong with letting them have 4 elements?
-
Speaking of Thracians, a lowland subbie converted to Irr Ax (S) should be 14AP.
-
Tullian Romans: I note that while Sp (I) can support Sp (O) in this list, no troops are listed as being able to support Sp (S). This is a problem as the only troops which can be Sp (S) in the list are the generals.
-
Paionian LH (O) sub-generals are costed at 15AP when they should be 14AP.
-
Possible erratum:
In list 1/6 Early Bedouin, an Amurru CinC can be Pk (I) from 2200 to 2000 BC. No other Pk are available in the list.
Is that as should be? Or am I missing something?
-
Another oddity: 1/49 Early Vietnamese have shieldless spearmen as Ps (I). They might make more sense as Ax (I), or perhaps Pk (F), depending on the length of the weapons.
-
List note oddity: the notes for 1/43 Kimmerian, Skythian, and Early Hu make mention of the Tung-hu and Dung-hu tribes. The later seems to be an orthographical conflation of the former and it's pinyin equivalent Donghu, not a separate tribe.
(Dung-hu is not a posssible word in Phil's favoured Wade-Giles transliteration. Conceivably it reflects some third transliteration scheme.)
-
3rd Dynasty of Ur: Which direction does the Amorite Wall face?
Later Amorite: Is Iasmah-Adad (Inert general) Assyrian? I'm guessing he is given the similarity of the name to the named Assyrian king in the list notes. It's only a minor thing, but there are slight aggression factor and terrain differences between the lists.
Kimmerian etc list: Tung-hu can have Cv (S) nobles, but there's no need to upgrade the generals, which seems odd.
Later Sargonid Assyrians: They have Saitic Egyptian allies available after 627BC, and again in 609BC. Is the second entry necessary? Or can you have two allied contingents (doubtful)?
-
3rd Dynasty of Ur: Which direction does the Amorite Wall face?
West, I believe.
Later Amorite: Is Iasmah-Adad (Inert general) Assyrian? I'm guessing he is given the similarity of the name to the named Assyrian king in the list notes. It's only a minor thing, but there are slight aggression factor and terrain differences between the lists.
Good question. He was the son of Shamshi-Adad, founder of the "Old Assyrian" empire, who installed him as king of Mari. At Shamshi-Adad's death, the kingship at Ashur went to Iasmah-Adad's brother Ishme-Dagan.
The Assyrian options cover, according to the list notes, Shamshi-Adad and his successors - does that mean successors at Ashur only, or also Iasmah-Adad's diadoch state at Mari? Your guess is as good as mine.
Speaking of Later Amorite, the notes mention both Aleppo and Yamhad as dynasties covered. They're the same: Aleppo is strictly the capital city, Yamhad the kingdom (but the later is often also refered to as "Aleppo").
-
3rd Dynasty of Ur: Which direction does the Amorite Wall face?
Preferably towards the enemy ;D
-
FWIW, Steve Rathgay thinks Iasmah-Adad shouldn't count as Assyrian.
-
- Sumerian: The list allows you to field Zagros Highlander allies. If you take them in 2250BC as part of the Great Revolt, can you treat them as Guti and upgrade the Ax (I) to Wb (F)?
-
I don't see anything that'd prevent you.
That said, skimming the relevant section of Hamblin's Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC, I don't believe that historically speaking Greatly Revolting Sumerians should have Highlander allies at all.
-
List 60, Early Achaemenid Persian - more of a question than an erratum...
From 539BC to 500BC the army can include 0-1 Babylonian 4 horse chariots per 2 Chaldean foot. So far so good, as the Chaldeans were a Babylonian tribe.
Look at the entry for Chaldean foot, and it says they can be either Bw (I) or Ps (O). Also fine.
Then it says "[can support Assyrian Sp (I)]".
What? Since when would Chaldean Ps archers be supporting Assyrian Sp?
-
Being in that list, it's probably based on something Herodotos wrote ...
Do note that the Assyrians had been Chaldaean subjects for a couple generations down to 539 BC.
-
Being in that list, it's probably based on something Herodotos wrote ...
:-) Good point.
Do note that the Assyrians had been Chaldaean subjects for a couple generations down to 539 BC.
True, but it's a very specific combination.
My copy of Herodotus is on the floor behind me...
-
Early Hoplite Greek (list 52): Athenians after 511BC can have Thessalian allies, including a general and 3 to 9 LH.
Only problem is that commands must have at least 4 foot or mounted elements totalling 4ME in addition to the general.
The minimum therefore at least needs to be increased to 4.
(It's curious this option is even available during the Persian Wars when the Thessalians engaged in a bit of Medizing.)
-
Saitic Egyptian, list 53: the list starts in 664BC, and Greek mercenary hoplites are listed as being available from 665BC. Perhaps they should just be incorporated in the main list.
And given their Greek name, would it be possible for the Greek ally general [commanding only Greeks] to include trieres in his command? After all, they're specified as carrying Sp...
-
Saitic Egyptian, list 53:
And given their Greek name, would it be possible for the Greek ally general [commanding only Greeks] to include trieres in his command? After all, they're specified as carrying Sp...
Actually they are specified as carrying Hoplites or Oarsmen, both of which are Athenian. But are they classed as "Greeks" ,for purpose of being command by a Greek Mercenary ally-general? :-\
LES
-
Saitic Egyptian, list 53:
And given their Greek name, would it be possible for the Greek ally general [commanding only Greeks] to include trieres in his command? After all, they're specified as carrying Sp...
Actually they are specified as carrying Hoplites or Oarsmen, both of which are Athenian. But are they classed as "Greeks" ,for purpose of being command by a Greek Mercenary ally-general? :-\
LES
Sorry, I didn't mean the Athenian trieres. I meant the Egyptian trieres, as available after 610BC. If they're given a Greek name, can they be used by the mercenary Greek ally general?
-
Another one for the Saitics: can Greek mercenary Reg Sp (O) support Spartan mercenary Reg Sp (S). Spartan Sp (O) can, after all, support Spartan Sp (S) in the EHG and LHG lists, and I'm assuming the Sp (O) in Agesilaos's force would have been Spartan periokoi...
-
Sorry, I didn't mean the Athenian trieres. I meant the Egyptian trieres, as available after 610BC. If they're given a Greek name, can they be used by the mercenary Greek ally general?
My bad i missed that one. :-[ But you will still have the problem of the Egyptian Marines which are 1 per Gal.So i would say they have to go on any Egyptian Gallies brought.
LES
-
But you will still have the problem of the Egyptian Marines which are 1 per Gal.So i would say they have to go on any Egyptian Gallies brought.
LES
Ah. Game, Set, Match to Les. I missed that detail. Yes, there's no way a Greek general, who's limited to commanding only Greeks, could command Egyptian trieres with Egyptian marines.
-
Western Chou and Spring and Autumn Chinese: For the post 700BC version of the army, which infantry can the Ps support? The list says one troop type and the notes say another.
-
List 5, Early Susiana and Elam: The list provides 0-1 sub-general and 0-3 allies. From 2600BC to 1400BC the sub-general is upgraded in line with the C-in-C, while the ally-generals can optionally be upgraded. Then, after 1400BC, the C-in-C is upgraded, and the ally-generals can be upgraded, but there's no mention of the sub-general. Should the sub-general be able to be upgraded in line with the C-in-C after 1400BC?
List 11, Akkadian: The list allows you to choose Sumerian subject or unwilling allies throughout its extent. As the Akkadian list covers 2250BC, should it be possible for the Sumerian allies to include the Hd (O) emergency levies? Or would those troops only be available to armies actually revolting against the Akkadians?
List 9, Early Syrian: The list allows you to choose Sumerian allies throughout its extent. As the Early Syrian list covers 2700BC, should it be possible for the Sumerian allies to be from Kish, and commanded by the Brilliant Agga of Kish?
-
List 15, Later Amorite: A portion of the sabum qallatum must be "Reg Ax (I) @ 2AP". Is that supposed to be regular at 3AP or irregular at 2AP? I assume the former given that Irr Ax (I) are available elsewhere, and that all other sabum qallatum are regular. But I don't know enough about the period.
-
List 25, Middle Assyrian and Early Neo-Assyrian. Irr Cm (X) are listed as 9AP, should be 7AP as per rulebook.
(Even that seems a high price to pay for troops that are slow, cost an extra PIP to move, are dead meat against any foot, and dubiously effective against most mounted - their only upside is QK'ing any elephants dumb enough to go near them. There's not even a lot of nellies around in the Ancient Near East.)
-
List 15, Later Amorite: A portion of the sabum qallatum must be "Reg Ax (I) @ 2AP". Is that supposed to be regular at 3AP or irregular at 2AP? I assume the former given that Irr Ax (I) are available elsewhere, and that all other sabum qallatum are regular. But I don't know enough about the period.
Given that they're differentiated from Reg Ax (O) sabum qallatum by lacking shields (rather than by anything to do with discipline or the like), I think it's safe to assume they're meant to be Reg Ax (I) @3AP.
-
In 1/23 Vedic Indian, generals in Irr Kn (I) chariots should cost 12 AP if ally, 17 AP otherwise.
-
List 24- Hittite Empire. This has Home Climate as 'Cool'. It should be 'Warm' as Anatolia rarely goes below the mid to high 50's F in the winter and snow only appears on the mountains (I recently went on holiday to Kusadasi which is in Anatolia, now part of modern Turkey. The locals waxed lyrical about their mild winter climate).
-
Kusadasi is hardly Anatolia - it's on the Aegean. Go up onto the Anatolian plateau and there is snow on some mountains almost into summer. And its pretty cold at nights up there in summer as well. In winter it is very cold and snowy. Its about 3000 feet above sea level. And that is the Hittite homeland, not the Aegean coast.
-
I was reliably informed that Hittite influence extended down the Agean coastline at least as far as Bodrum based on remains that have been found.
-
The Hittites probably reached the sea on the Aegean coast, and definitely in southern Anatolia and in Syria, but the heartland, which the climate classification is based on, was on the Plateau.
Same reason that Mongol Conquest is Cold despite their conquests stretching into every climate zone.
-
Another oddity: 1/49 Early Vietnamese have shieldless spearmen as Ps (I). They might make more sense as Ax (I), or perhaps Pk (F), depending on the length of the weapons.
Same short spears as everyone else. They could be Ax(I), but I sort of assumed (back in thev1 DBM list) that the lack of shields reflected a light skirmishing role.
-
Can you skirmish with a short stabbing spear? Or are these throwing spears?
Possibly relevantly, the Ps (I) spearmen in the Amazonian list were changed to Ax (I) in 'MM, apparently in response to this query of mine:
"Spearmen - Irr Ps (I) @ 1AP" - presumably either the name or the element type is wrong. If they've got throwing spears better call them javelinmen or something.
(That was in 2009 - time flies!)
-
They're pointy sticks on small bronze reliefs, that don't show combat scenes. Don't know if they were thrown or thrust, or both.
-
List 52, Early Hoplite Greek: For the Spartan army at Plataea in 479BC, you must field "Mixed (mostly Peloponnesian) allies". According to the notes, this contingent "...cannot include Thessalians, Thebans, Aitolians, Akarnanians, Argives, Italiots or Siciliots". No mention is made of Ionians. Does this mean the command could be selected as though Ionians, with Cv (O) and Irr Sp (I)?
It seems a bit odd, as I'm pretty sure there were no Ionians at Plataea.
-
List 52, Early Hoplite Greek: For the Spartan army at Plataea in 479BC, you must field "Mixed (mostly Peloponnesian) allies". According to the notes, this contingent "...cannot include Thessalians, Thebans, Aitolians, Akarnanians, Argives, Italiots or Siciliots". No mention is made of Ionians. Does this mean the command could be selected as though Ionians, with Cv (O) and Irr Sp (I)?
It seems a bit odd, as I'm pretty sure there were no Ionians at Plataea.
Looks like an omission.
-
I think so.