DBMM Forum
General Category => Tactics => Topic started by: Sven on June 08, 2007, 06:37:13 AM
-
How do these keep up with the changes?
I gather I'll have to be a bit more careful with them as they'll frequently be spent instead of just retreating.
Enemies can now march right up to them aswell, but on the other hand they now actually have some punch against enemy foot (especially LH(f) with support or LH(s)).
Im currently painting Skytians with options of going for Chinese barbarians (Hsiung-nu/ Hsiung-Pi).
Anyone with DBMM experience from these?
Thanks!
-
Light horse have become a lot more effective against foot.
The spent result usually replaces occasions where you would have been killed previously, so is a step in the right direction.
The big changes are that infantry rarely could any kind of back rank against you and you always have the option to pull out with a repulse if you don't win, so you rarely get stuck and end up with an infantry on the flank.
A big problem is that you can end up in a lot of groups which you don't have the PIPs to move back into contact, which is where Irr LH(S) have an advantage. Get lots of generals if you can.
Your biggest enemy is Bw, who will murder you frontally.
LH(S) can take down Cv(O) and will murder Cv(I).
LH(F) have real problems against other mounted though.
The marching issue is a problem - if you can take some Cv(O) as well do so as they will stop it and can still manouver.
Toby
-
Yes they now have some frontal punch and if I read correctly cannot be flanked by foot in my bound and retreat if they lose. So charge in kill a few and withdraw might work if lucky.
It will be interesting indeed to try DBMM :)
-
Light horse have become a lot more effective against foot.
The spent result usually replaces occasions where you would have been killed previously, so is a step in the right direction.
They were never killed by foot other than bows and Ps(O) previously - and these still do - so becoming spent is actually a limitation on them, not a benefit!
The big changes are that infantry rarely could any kind of back rank against you and you always have the option to pull out with a repulse if you don't win, so you rarely get stuck and end up with an infantry on the flank.
Yep -that's the case with Cav too now - much more useful.
-
For the purpose of combat results where LH flee from higher grade LH, what is the ranking? Is it S,O,F,I?
Bryan
-
For the purpose of combat results where LH flee from higher grade LH, what is the ranking? Is it S,O,F,I?
Bryan
Correct. It's annoying that this is nowhere spelled out.
-
I think that its why the order of them was changed in the definitions or in the point table or something - to make it obvious :)
Its sort of intuitive that F should be better than I though. O have to be better than F because its the interaction of Numidians and Parthians that this is modelling. S are always better than anyone else.
-
I don't think it's intuitive that O is higher than F, as you could be forgiven for thinking that O's greater combat resilience is offset by F's greater speed.
A new player wouldn't necessarily know what historical equivalents the interaction was modelled on. I think this assumption that readers KNOW these things, or can deduce it with careful thought, without it being stated in the rules, is a weakness.
-
A friendly Knight is the Light Horse's best friend - and vice versa. I'm going to love those Later Hungarians with the Kn/LH combo.
-
I was going to ask a similar question.
How should an Early Imperial Roman (EIR) army and a Light Cavalry army such as the Alans set about tackling each other?
I ask, because we have some historical evidence for the Romans in Arrian's Order of Battle against the Alans.
-
I was going to ask a similar question.
How should an Early Imperial Roman (EIR) army and a Light Cavalry army such as the Alans set about tackling each other?
I ask, because we have some historical evidence for the Romans in Arrian's Order of Battle against the Alans.
At this stage though the Alans used LH (graded as (S)) and Kn(F), so the order of battle suggests drawing up in multiple ranks with archers, and preferably artillery in support. What will happen is that the Alans need to wear down the legions using their LH to come in frontally (being Impetuous is helpful for this) and whittle them down till they can make a successful Kn charge. Has anyone tried using the feigned flight stratagem to lure the romans out?
As the Roman player, using localised counter-charges by Cv to try and drive off the LH, and using terrain effectively are the keys.
regards
-
The only times I have used feigned flight, the Romans had enough PIPs to be able to hold their line each time. The problem is that the foot never follow-up against the mounted, so its difficult to pull them out of position.
I've tried it with LH(F) who are similar against the Bd to LH(S) if you double rank them, but I kept running out of PIPs to put them in with. The problem with them is that the Cv(O) would come out and murder them. With LH(S), there is a very good chance that they will murder the Cv(O), so its more risky. Charging the Kn(F) into deep and/or supported Bd is going to result in a lot of dead Kn - you need to keep the Kn to kill the roman Cv(O) or go for Bd who are only one deep. Otherwise they kill the front guy and pursue in to be double overlapped. Don't forget that LH can always opt not to follow-up and Kn don't have to follow up in the enemy bound except against other Kn.
The LH(S) will whittle down the Bd in the end, but it will be a slow process. the Art are a real pain, but if you get close enough to the Bd line they can't shoot overhead. Go for the the flanks, especially if they are anchored in rough terrain - LH can move through rough quite rapidly.
-
Feigned flight is actually more likely to keep your opponent static rather than chasing you (strange really) as the only choices are to halt or move impetuously. Whenever I have seen it used it normally does very little.
As to dealing with the LH(S) scrum I suppose the only thing you can do is to try to pull all of the LH into the scrum while hopefully having a few reserves yourself to flank them.
The order of battle against the Alans is for fighting the knights but to be honest any Alan commander with their head screwed on would be mad to throw Kn(F) into a deep Roman formation. The Kn are far better held as a reserve ideally facing the table edge so they don't go impetuous.
Yours synically
Hammy
-
To push my question further:
Arrian's order of battle against the Alans does indeed have reasonably deep Roman infantry formations supported by rear rank bowmen, but many of the infantry of Auxiliaries Ax(S) and possibly some client foot. Does this alter the tactics?
Also the Romans had some (~ ally) horse archers of their own.
Meanwhile, the Alans could in the army list could have some axemen and foot archers, as well as their charging cavalry.
This means that it is only "predominatly" heavy infantry v. "predominantly" light cavalry, with both sides having some other skills.
-
You still working on that ulcer mate? ;D
Probably but as the poster wanted to know how to use Alans vs Romans and vice versa under DBMM I felt that I should be honest ;)
The fact is that Kn(F) are no going to beat legionaries and far more likely to die costing the Alans 2 ME per base. The LH(S) are just as likely to hurt the legions as the knights and if they die they will only cost 1 ME.
Holding the knights by turning them to face the table edge may well be peculiar but there are a lot of peculiar things that the rules clearly allow.
Hammy
-
Out of interest, I was sort of using this as a mental test case for the rules and army lists.
The idea of initially make knights face away from the enemy strikes me as the sort of thing medieval kings might try out of desperation to control their unruly retainers, but is dangerously near rulesmanship. *** NO OFFENCE MEANT --- I ASKED FOR TACTICS AND GOT THEM! ***
The old DBM army list just about manages to give the Romans the force that Arrian had - if you assume his two sub strength legions amount to 32 elements, etc. The list may not cover Roman Cohors-Equitata-Sagittariorum very well, and I still believe thatthe cavalry of Cohors-Equitata deserve Cv(I) statuts, even if they had less snob value in their own time.
See http://members.tripod.com/~S_van_Dorst/Ancient_Warfare/Rome/Sources/ektaxis.html (http://members.tripod.com/~S_van_Dorst/Ancient_Warfare/Rome/Sources/ektaxis.html)
but note the reconstructed list of units near the bottom only covers regular Roman units.
-
Out of interest, I was sort of using this as a mental test case for the rules and army lists.
The idea of initially make knights face away from the enemy strikes me as the sort of thing medieval kings might try out of desperation to control their unruly retainers, but is dangerously near rulesmanship. *** NO OFFENCE MEANT --- I ASKED FOR TACTICS AND GOT THEM! ***
Unfortunately there are lots of opportunities for rulesmanship in DBMM. This is actually one of my big problems with the game. Most of the time the impetuous rules seem reasonable appart from the bit where if none of the bullets apply you don't move. I can only assume this is what Phil wanted though as it is clearly what is written.
If I play any game, wargame, boardgame whatever I will take full advantage of what the rules allow me to do. I am sorry, that is just the way I am built. If the rules let something happen and it is good for me then I will do it. The trouble is that most of the people I have seen playing DBMM are far to nice to actually play the rule, they want to play a game loosely based on the rules. That is fine if everyone agrees BUT all it takes is one shark to spoil the fun. As a result I suspect I am very unlikely to play any more DBMM tournament games.
In DBM while there were the odd holes in the rules everyone knew them and expected them so if you left an opportunity for a bit of 'clever' play by your opponent you really only had yourself to blame. Many of my DBM games included the comment "it would be rude not to" as you sneak a corner behind an exposed flank etc. At the moment DBMM does not seem to have reached anything like the maturity of DBM (and to be honest that is unsuprising considering how new the game is) but if I am playing someone and notice that they have left a massive opportunity for me if I use rule X and rule Y it is no fun for either me or my opponent.
As to does DBMM do a good job of simulating Alans against Romans IMO no, not even close. The type of game you get with Irr LH(S) enmasse is nothing like my understanding of the battles of the period. The Roman answer to massed LH (more foot archers) is actually a liability, the Roman order of battle against the Alans will work if the Alan player is dumb enough to charge their knights into a 4-6 combat where they lose 2 ME to the Roman 1 etc.
Hammy
-
My suspicion is that both DBMM and DBM before it were not written the way I would choose to write a set of rules.
After initial thought and some general definitions, I would have started with the Quick Reference Sheet and worked outward to the main rules.
I suspect both DBMM and DBM started with the thick text based rule book and then tried to summarise it down to the Quick Reference Chart.
I don't think either approach would have prevent the tactic of facing the knights in the wrong direction, but some of the details might have been streamlined to ease playability. BUT I have not played the rules in anger yet, so may be being unfair.
And I never was a "competition" wargamer. If in doubt, use common sense, physics and (gulp!) history to guide.
Back to the topic, I would view using my Early Imperial Roman (EIR) army against the Alans as a hard challenge to get to grips with, especially as my EIR army is western and so doesn't have any horse archers of its own. Using the Roman Regular's cohesion to prevent being snookered into rash pursuits seems fine, but I'd have to be damned careful to keep my Western-Roman-Sarmatian-Lancers from getting themselves chewed up out of enthusiasm. I've never had the pleasure of using Eastern Roman allies.
Meanwhile, if I were the Alans, I would probably fight a hit and run campaign combined with scorched Earth policy and counter-raids into Roman territory rather than fighting it out in a set piece battle. The Alans have got plenty of stuff to cut up any foolish Roman detachments that get separated from the main body. Also, I would expect the combination of Alan cavalry to beat the rather mundane Roman cavalry. But as I've said elsewhere I'm not a natural cavalry general, and this is based on expectations, not reading of the rules.
-
Back to the topic, I would view using my Early Imperial Roman (EIR) army against the Alans as a hard challenge to get to grips with, especially as my EIR army is western and so doesn't have any horse archers of its own. Using the Roman Regular's cohesion to prevent being snookered into rash pursuits seems fine, but I'd have to be damned careful to keep my Western-Roman-Sarmatian-Lancers from getting themselves chewed up out of enthusiasm. I've never had the pleasure of using Eastern Roman allies.
Meanwhile, if I were the Alans, I would probably fight a hit and run campaign combined with scorched Earth policy and counter-raids into Roman territory rather than fighting it out in a set piece battle. The Alans have got plenty of stuff to cut up any foolish Roman detachments that get separated from the main body. Also, I would expect the combination of Alan cavalry to beat the rather mundane Roman cavalry. But as I've said elsewhere I'm not a natural cavalry general, and this is based on expectations, not reading of the rules.
OK as the Romans your mounted are worse than the Alans, that is perfectly historical. If you try and engage the Alans in a battle with your cavalry against his you will probably lose all you cavalry and then be in real trouble. What you should do is hunker down and force him to attack you. Fortunatley the impetuous nature of the whole Alan army makes this a bit easier in DBMM and the fact that the horse archers have to come to grips with your foot to hurt them also gives you a better chance than may have historically been the case.
If the LH fight the Bd then the fight is IIRC at 3(S) vs 4(O). In the LH bound the Bd take a -1 so the chance of a double either way is the same. The overlap rules help the LH a bit as once they have recoiled a Bd they will get an overlap advantage but if the LH recoil they will not be dissadvantaged until it is their bound. In the Bd bound any LH that are still in contact could well end up in a bit of trouble though as their (S) is essentially worthless. I would expect that over a bit of time the legions will beat the LH.
If the Alan knights charge the legions then they are asking for a kicking. Auxilia are almost as bad for the knights so as a Roman player as long as you keep you cavalry well hidden until the Alans are commited against your infantry you should be fine. It is essentially impossible for the Alan player to be too clever as he will roll 1's on PIPs every so often and if he does then any troops in excess of 1 group per command are off to the races. There may be a bit of mileage in the Roman player suiciding the odd element of mounted just to mess up the Alan formation and force the LH to hurl themselves on the infantry.
Your tactics for the Alans seem very sensible but are almost impossible to acheive in DBMM as the LH are nutters who need to be kept under an iron fist. The moment you attack with a command you can essentially forget doing anything particularly clever with it ever again.
Hope this helps a little
Hammy
-
Thank you Hammy for the discussions - both on rulesmanship and on tactics.
Now all I've got to do is escape the wife and young baby, repaint and rebase my armies, and find some opponents....
-
Why post then if you don't like the rules and you don't play them and you seem to get upset about the whole thing? It's your opinion of the rule set not fact.
Possibly I post because I have time to answer questions. Possibly because I am an evil force sent to poison the minds of the DBMM faithful ???
I don't think that anything I have posted in this thread is untrue. I beleive that the advice to a Roman player not to get involved in a mounted on mounted fight is very sound. I also believe that the advice to the Alan player not to be tempted into throwing the knights into a losing fight is also sound. OK the sneaky way to hold the knights is perverse but it is allowed by the rules and therfore a viable way to play the game.
I don't think the advice I have given here is any different to the advice I have given freely to DBM players over the years either.
It's only a game after all and some of us are quite liking the game at this point, yes there are problems but it is only a game. I have no doubt that your preferred system will win the race for leading rule set. I am even placing an order for it, despite what I have heard (I love ancients rules :) ) I'm still willing to give it a go I hope I'm pleasantly surprised.
Everyone assumes that because I have publicly stated that I have issues with the final version of DBMM that I am a convert to the other rule system. That is curently far from the case. OK, I enjoy playing the other ancients rules more than I do DBMM but I have repeatedly stated that I am far from the best at these rules and that I am still considering my options. If I am unable to work out how to play the other rules well and end up with the opinion that for me they are essentially a luck fest then I may stop playing ancients entirely and sell up the 20,000 figures I have in the attic. If I work out how to get my opponents into the kind of messes I usually get myself into and feel I can develop as a player then I will no doubt play them more.
I have actually spent a lot more time recently on Flames of War than any other ruleset and for the first time in years have painted my own army rather than hovering up second hand lead. In the last month I have played 4 games of DBM, 3 of Flames of War, 1 of the other ancient rules and none of DBMM. Next month I expect to play more ancients but again no DBMM unless someone gives me a good reason.
FWIW I actually rather enjoyed the first DBMM competition I played in but as that was a year before publication and the rules changed significantly for the worse IMO after that point it is not that relevant to the rules as they are now.
One of the reasons I am not playing is so that I don't put people off by playing the rules rather than the game. I firmly believe that if two friends want a nice fun game of DBMM and are happy not to push the letter of the rules and to ignore the rules when they are plainly silly they will have a fun time. This seemed to be the case at Britcon where as an umpire my services were called on very rarely. On the other hand at Roll Call where I was the playing umpire and trying to stress test the rules I unearthed a heap of issues which I duly noted and reported back to the DBMM mailing list. I didn't do this to break the game I did it to make sure that issues were resolved.
If the DBMM community wants the game exactly as it is then fine but as the rules stand the first time a true tournament shark shows up they will have a feast.
Yours looking like I will be departing this forum too
Hammy
-
If the Alan knights charge the legions then they are asking for a kicking. Auxilia are almost as bad for the knights Hammy
I'm sorry Hammy I can not agree legions (Bd(O)) do not stand up to knights, having played 8+ games with my LIR they have yet to survive a knight attack, even with 2 ranks of Bd and Ps(O) supports they do not stand up to the knights. Once the knights make one hole its all over, its even more certain if the knights go in double ranked. Ax(S) are the same being one factor down to start but S makes them just the same.
Camels are the best thing to fight Knights with as they have a quick kill in both bounds and fight the Lh(S) with Cavalry. Bow are also very good against Knights and Lh(S).
Best Regards
Geoff
-
My Alan list would be:-
Alan 50 AD - 1500 AD (Pre 400 AD)
Player: Geoff Pearson
DBMM-Notes:
Army List Book: 2 2nd ED DBMM
Army List Number: 58
Home Climate: Cold Aggression Factor: 1
Terrain: Rv, GH, BF
Type Trng No. Description Pts
1st command
LH(S) Irr G 1 C-in-C 16.0
Kn(F) Irr 8 Nobles 72.0
Bg(O) Irr 2 Baggage 4.0
Army Baggage +4ME
Cmd Elts: 9 MEs: 24.0 Dis/Dem/Sh.Lvl: 6.5/8.5/12.5 Subtotal: 92.0
2nd command
LH(S) Irr G 1 Sub General 16.0
LH(S) Irr 18 Cavalry 108.0
Bg(O) Irr 2 Baggage 4.0
Army Baggage +4ME
Cmd Elts: 19 MEs: 26.0 Dis/Dem/Sh.Lvl: 7/9.5/13.5 Subtotal: 128.0
3rd command
LH(S) Irr G 1 Sub General 16.0
LH(S) Irr 17 Cavalry 102.0
Bg(O) Irr 2 Baggage 4.0
Army Baggage +4ME
Cmd Elts: 18 MEs: 25.0 Dis/Dem/Sh.Lvl: 6.5/8.5/13 Subtotal: 122.0
4th command
Kn(F) Irr G 1 Sub General 19.0
LH(S) Irr 4 Cavalry 24.0
Bg(O) Irr 2 Baggage 4.0
Army Baggage +4ME
Cmd Elts: 5 MEs: 12.0 Dis/DemSh.Lvl: 3.5/4.5/6.5 Subtotal: 47.0
Camp
TF Reg 8 Ditch and Palisade 10.0
Army Baggage +4ME
Cmd Elts: 8 MEs: 4.0 Dis/Dem/Sh.Lvl: 1.5/1.5/2.5 Subtotal: 10.0
Total APs: 399.0
Generals: 4
Army Elts: 51 MEs: 91.0 Defeat Lvl: 45.5
Note: G = General, A = Ally, C = Chariots, M = Mounted Infantry
Best Regards
Geoff
-
If the Alan knights charge the legions then they are asking for a kicking. Auxilia are almost as bad for the knights Hammy
I'm sorry Hammy I can not agree legions (Bd(O)) do not stand up to knights, having played 8+ games with my LIR they have yet to survive a knight attack, even with 2 ranks of Bd and Ps(O) supports they do not stand up to the knights. Once the knights make one hole its all over, its even more certain if the knights go in double ranked. Ax(S) are the same being one factor down to start but S makes them just the same.
How many of those games with LIR have been against Kn(F)? I have seen a lot at the club wher eyou have faced Kn(S) but they are a very different beast.
Hammy
-
If the Alan knights charge the legions then they are asking for a kicking. Auxilia are almost as bad for the knights Hammy
I'm sorry Hammy I can not agree legions (Bd(O)) do not stand up to knights, having played 8+ games with my LIR they have yet to survive a knight attack, even with 2 ranks of Bd and Ps(O) supports they do not stand up to the knights. Once the knights make one hole its all over, its even more certain if the knights go in double ranked. Ax(S) are the same being one factor down to start but S makes them just the same.
How many of those games with LIR have been against Kn(F)? I have seen a lot at the club wher eyou have faced Kn(S) but they are a very different beast.
Hammy
None were Kn(S) but then Kn(S) just win quicker.
I've faced Sassinids with Kn(X) then 2 Burgundian Ordonance Kn(O), 1 LIR Kn(F) and 1 Khotanese Kn(F), .
The factors are alot different from DBM the knight is one factor higher to start with and will not be over lapped in there move when they can quick kill. The higher factor of 4 make Knights a lot harder to double.
But then it should be hard for Bd's to stand up to Knight's except Kn(X)
Best Regards
Geoff
-
The factors are alot different from DBM the knight is one factor higher to start with and will not be over lapped in there move when they can quick kill. The higher factor of 4 make Knights a lot harder to double.
But then it should be hard for Bd's to stand up to Knight's except Kn(X)
I realise that the factors are significantly different. From memory in the knights bound the Bd are on 4 basic plus 1 for a second rank and another 1 for psiloi support. The knights are on 4 so need to roll up 3 to get a kill. The blades on the other hand need a 4-1, 5-1, 6-1 or 6-2 so slightly worse. If the Bd can engineer that the end elements of their line step forwards so they do provide overlaps with their edge or have the odd element of bow within the line of blades things are not good for the knights.
If the blade hold on impact they can charge in their bound and while they have no rear support they do count overlaps, aren't quick killed and the knights are on -1 if beaten. This can very quickly turn into a 4-2 combat which is not pretty for the knights.
Just my opinion
Hammy