Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Is this right?

Expand Messages
  • a1jer
    A couple of things struck me as odd at Rollcall. The main issue that made me wonder if there was something we were missing in the rules, was where a block of
    Message 1 of 18 , Apr 17, 2017

      A couple of things struck me as odd at Rollcall.


      The main issue that made me wonder if there was something we were missing in the rules, was where a block of pike were fighting two blocks of blades, with a gap of two or three elements in the middle, held by a couple of ranks of piloi, and a further block of psiloi extending the line on the left.


      After several rounds of combat the pikes had pushed the blades back a long way, but made little progess against the redoubts of psiloi.


      This is the exact reverse of what happens in DBM, but more significantly, seems counterintuitive. I know that it can be said, "well now you know get your own psiloi on the job", but is it really like that? If so, why?


      Regards

      Jer


    • lawomicron
      Well, pikes don t get rear support against psiloi so the factors are 2 vs 3. Pikes in the blade bound are factor 5 against the blade 4 so have the same chance
      Message 2 of 18 , Apr 17, 2017
        Well, pikes don't get rear support against psiloi so the factors are 2 vs 3.

        Pikes in the blade bound are factor 5 against the blade 4 so have the same chance of pushing the blades back as they would of pushing the psiloi back. 

        In the pikes bound, they are +7 against the blades so much more chance of pushing them back and a much smaller chance of being pushed back compared to the combats with psiloi.

        In addition, if psiloi lose, they repulse or are spent instead of recoiling or being destroyed and the pike do not pursue a repulsed or spent opponent, whereas they do pursue a recoiling or destroyed blade.

        Hence it is not all that surprising if what you describe happens in a game. 

        Whether that is historically realistic I don't know. 


        Lawrence Greaves
         


        In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, <jeremy.morgan@...> wrote :

        A couple of things struck me as odd at Rollcall.


        The main issue that made me wonder if there was something we were missing in the rules, was where a block of pike were fighting two blocks of blades, with a gap of two or three elements in the middle, held by a couple of ranks of piloi, and a further block of psiloi extending the line on the left.


        After several rounds of combat the pikes had pushed the blades back a long way, but made little progess against the redoubts of psiloi.


        This is the exact reverse of what happens in DBM, but more significantly, seems counterintuitive. I know that it can be said, "well now you know get your own psiloi on the job", but is it really like that? If so, why?


        Regards

        Jer


      • peter.barritus
        I have to say I agree with Lawrence, although I take the point that Ps can sometimes seem just a little too effective at holding up opponents. But if nothing
        Message 3 of 18 , Apr 17, 2017
          I have to say I agree with Lawrence, although I take the point that Ps can sometimes seem just a little too effective at holding up opponents.

          But if nothing else in the example you give, once the blades are destroyed or recoiled past the Ps, the Ps are going to be overlapped, so the factors will be 3-1 against the Ps. I would have thought the Ps would be unlikely to last too long in such circumstances, being either spent or repulsed.

          I suppose the question would be, how would a refight of the Battle of Sphacteria between Spartan Sp (S)/(O) and Athenian Ps go in DBMM?

          Cheers

          Peter B


          ---In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, <jeremy.morgan@...> wrote :

          A couple of things struck me as odd at Rollcall.


          The main issue that made me wonder if there was something we were missing in the rules, was where a block of pike were fighting two blocks of blades, with a gap of two or three elements in the middle, held by a couple of ranks of piloi, and a further block of psiloi extending the line on the left.


          After several rounds of combat the pikes had pushed the blades back a long way, but made little progess against the redoubts of psiloi.


          This is the exact reverse of what happens in DBM, but more significantly, seems counterintuitive. I know that it can be said, "well now you know get your own psiloi on the job", but is it really like that? If so, why?


          Regards

          Jer


        • Andreas Johansson
          I think the thing is that Pk fight only at factor 3 v. psilo where blades and spears are 4. Makes them much easier to hold up with Ps, esp Ps (S). I can t
          Message 4 of 18 , Apr 17, 2017
            I think the thing is that Pk fight only at factor 3 v. psilo where blades and spears are 4. Makes them much easier to hold up with Ps, esp Ps (S).

            I can't think of an example where a pike phalanx was held up in open ground by foot skirmishers, so this seems like a bug. The obvious fix would be letting Pk count some of their rear support against Ps.



            Virus-free. www.avg.com

            On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:27 AM, peter.barritus@... [DBMMlist] <DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


            I have to say I agree with Lawrence, although I take the point that Ps can sometimes seem just a little too effective at holding up opponents.

            But if nothing else in the example you give, once the blades are destroyed or recoiled past the Ps, the Ps are going to be overlapped, so the factors will be 3-1 against the Ps. I would have thought the Ps would be unlikely to last too long in such circumstances, being either spent or repulsed.

            I suppose the question would be, how would a refight of the Battle of Sphacteria between Spartan Sp (S)/(O) and Athenian Ps go in DBMM?

            Cheers

            Peter B


            ---In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, <jeremy.morgan@...> wrote :

            A couple of things struck me as odd at Rollcall.


            The main issue that made me wonder if there was something we were missing in the rules, was where a block of pike were fighting two blocks of blades, with a gap of two or three elements in the middle, held by a couple of ranks of piloi, and a further block of psiloi extending the line on the left.


            After several rounds of combat the pikes had pushed the blades back a long way, but made little progess against the redoubts of psiloi.


            This is the exact reverse of what happens in DBM, but more significantly, seems counterintuitive. I know that it can be said, "well now you know get your own psiloi on the job", but is it really like that? If so, why?


            Regards

            Jer







            --
            Andreas Johansson

            Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
          • John Edmundson
            The other thing is, it came as a significant improvement on the previous hover 1mm away, make them charge you, then suffer nothing worse than a flee result
            Message 5 of 18 , Apr 17, 2017
              The other thing is, it came as a significant improvement on the previous 'hover 1mm away, make them charge you, then suffer nothing worse than a flee result' scenario that previously existed. This needed the devising of cunning, strange and ahistorical responses to counter.

              Now at least the Ps can't do that and always face the risk of being spent, so removed and possibly later lost.

              Cheers,
              John


              On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 4:39 PM, "Andreas Johansson andreasj@... [DBMMlist]" <DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


               
              I think the thing is that Pk fight only at factor 3 v. psilo where blades and spears are 4. Makes them much easier to hold up with Ps, esp Ps (S).

              I can't think of an example where a pike phalanx was held up in open ground by foot skirmishers, so this seems like a bug. The obvious fix would be letting Pk count some of their rear support against Ps.



              Virus-free. www.avg.com

              On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:27 AM, peter.barritus@... [DBMMlist] <DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


              I have to say I agree with Lawrence, although I take the point that Ps can sometimes seem just a little too effective at holding up opponents.

              But if nothing else in the example you give, once the blades are destroyed or recoiled past the Ps, the Ps are going to be overlapped, so the factors will be 3-1 against the Ps. I would have thought the Ps would be unlikely to last too long in such circumstances, being either spent or repulsed.

              I suppose the question would be, how would a refight of the Battle of Sphacteria between Spartan Sp (S)/(O) and Athenian Ps go in DBMM?

              Cheers

              Peter B


              ---In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, <jeremy.morgan@...> wrote :

              A couple of things struck me as odd at Rollcall.

              The main issue that made me wonder if there was something we were missing in the rules, was where a block of pike were fighting two blocks of blades, with a gap of two or three elements in the middle, held by a couple of ranks of piloi, and a further block of psiloi extending the line on the left.

              After several rounds of combat the pikes had pushed the blades back a long way, but made little progess against the redoubts of psiloi.

              This is the exact reverse of what happens in DBM, but more significantly, seems counterintuitive. I know that it can be said, "well now you know get your own psiloi on the job", but is it really like that? If so, why?

              Regards
              Jer






              --
              Andreas Johansson

              Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?


            • a1jer
              The current DBM rule is that if enemy flee in your bound you can pursue up to your own movement distance, with any contiguous troops (even if a different
              Message 6 of 18 , Apr 18, 2017
                The current DBM rule is that if enemy flee in your bound you can pursue up to your own movement distance, with any contiguous troops (even if a different command), any skirmishers encountered on the way flee, any other troops are fought next bound.

                Also, pike get supporting ranks against psiloi.

                I would support these being imported into DBMM, the wording is OK as it stands I think.

                Regards
                Jer



                ---In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, <johnedmundson15@...> wrote :

                The other thing is, it came as a significant improvement on the previous 'hover 1mm away, make them charge you, then suffer nothing worse than a flee result' scenario that previously existed. This needed the devising of cunning, strange and ahistorical responses to counter.

                Now at least the Ps can't do that and always face the risk of being spent, so removed and possibly later lost.

                Cheers,
                John


                On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 4:39 PM, "Andreas Johansson andreasj@... [DBMMlist]" <DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                 
                I think the thing is that Pk fight only at factor 3 v. psilo where blades and spears are 4. Makes them much easier to hold up with Ps, esp Ps (S).

                I can't think of an example where a pike phalanx was held up in open ground by foot skirmishers, so this seems like a bug. The obvious fix would be letting Pk count some of their rear support against Ps.



                Virus-free. www.avg.com

                On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:27 AM, peter.barritus@... [DBMMlist] <DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                I have to say I agree with Lawrence, although I take the point that Ps can sometimes seem just a little too effective at holding up opponents.

                But if nothing else in the example you give, once the blades are destroyed or recoiled past the Ps, the Ps are going to be overlapped, so the factors will be 3-1 against the Ps. I would have thought the Ps would be unlikely to last too long in such circumstances, being either spent or repulsed.

                I suppose the question would be, how would a refight of the Battle of Sphacteria between Spartan Sp (S)/(O) and Athenian Ps go in DBMM?

                Cheers

                Peter B


                ---In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, <jeremy.morgan@...> wrote :

                A couple of things struck me as odd at Rollcall.

                The main issue that made me wonder if there was something we were missing in the rules, was where a block of pike were fighting two blocks of blades, with a gap of two or three elements in the middle, held by a couple of ranks of piloi, and a further block of psiloi extending the line on the left.

                After several rounds of combat the pikes had pushed the blades back a long way, but made little progess against the redoubts of psiloi.

                This is the exact reverse of what happens in DBM, but more significantly, seems counterintuitive. I know that it can be said, "well now you know get your own psiloi on the job", but is it really like that? If so, why?

                Regards
                Jer






                --
                Andreas Johansson

                Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?


              • adriancoombshoar
                I look at this like so- The skirmishers are pelting the Pikes with a steady dribble of whatever missile weapons they are carrying. the Pikes dare not break
                Message 7 of 18 , Apr 18, 2017

                  I look at this like so- The skirmishers are pelting the Pikes with a steady dribble of whatever missile weapons they are carrying. the Pikes dare not break formation to chase because if they do so they then become vulnerable to their ranks being interpenetrated and then the phalanx collapsing by multiple attacks which they cannot effectively deal with. The skirmishers are always able to outrun the Pikes anyway, hence the repulse action, or they run off and don't return which equates to the spent result.


                  There is all kinds of cheese involved with having the Ps flee, for example you could have the Ps in front of a line of Blades and the Ps could flee around them, dragging the Pike to almost certain doom if they are forced to pursue.

                • lawomicron
                  The counterintuitive feature of the DBM version is that packing more targets into the target area reduces the chance of a skirmisher s missile hitting any of
                  Message 8 of 18 , Apr 18, 2017
                    The counterintuitive feature of the DBM version is that packing more targets into the target area  reduces the chance of a skirmisher's missile hitting any of them. 

                    FWIW, while the situation Jer described in the OP looks feasible on paper, I would say it is rare in practice and in my experience psiloi vs pike usually results in the removal of the psiloi from the table within a few bounds, with few losses to the pike unless they are I or F. With factors of 3 vs 2 it is the same as cavalry versus LH. Psiloi can pin pikes down or disrupt them for a limited time, but not indefinitely, therefore you have to think about when and where you are going to do it, which is IMO a good thing. 

                    Importing the DBM rule would have a number of other consequences for the interaction that don't exist in DBM because of other DBM/MM rules differences, so probably not a good idea.  




                    In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, <jeremy.morgan@...> wrote :

                    The current DBM rule is that if enemy flee in your bound you can pursue up to your own movement distance, with any contiguous troops (even if a different command), any skirmishers encountered on the way flee, any other troops are fought next bound.

                    Also, pike get supporting ranks against psiloi.

                    I would support these being imported into DBMM, the wording is OK as it stands I think.

                    Regards
                    Jer


                  • abennetts2003
                    Andreas wrote: I can t think of an example where a pike phalanx was held up in open ground by foot skirmishers, so this seems like a bug. I d disagree as,
                    Message 9 of 18 , Apr 18, 2017
                      Andreas wrote:
                      "I can't think of an example where a pike phalanx was held up in open ground by foot skirmishers, so this seems like a bug."

                      I'd disagree as, without quoting chapter and verse, I think it's clear from the historical record that close formation foot could not quickly drive off foot skirmishers without the support of their own cavalry and/or missle troops. However, provided they could maintain their discline and were not isolated or badly outnumbered, eventually the skirmishers would run out of missles and enthusiasm and then start to disperse.

                      Both DBM and DBMM attempt to model this interaction so it becomes a subjective decision as to which you prefer. Personally I'm happier with the DBMM approach.

                      Cheers

                      Andrew
                    • Andreas Johansson
                      Well, obviously I don t think that s clear. But even if you re right, that doesn t explain why Pk should be more vulnerable to be delayed by psiloi than Bd and
                      Message 10 of 18 , Apr 18, 2017
                        Well, obviously I don't think that's clear. But even if you're right, that doesn't explain why Pk should be more vulnerable to be delayed by psiloi than Bd and Sp are.

                        Note also that I said nothing about DBM.

                        --
                        Andreas Johansson

                        > On 18 Apr 2017, at 18:05, andrew.bennetts@... [DBMMlist] <DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                        >
                        > Andreas wrote:
                        > "I can't think of an example where a pike phalanx was held up in open ground by foot skirmishers, so this seems like a bug."
                        >
                        > I'd disagree as, without quoting chapter and verse, I think it's clear from the historical record that close formation foot could not quickly drive off foot skirmishers without the support of their own cavalry and/or missle troops. However, provided they could maintain their discline and were not isolated or badly outnumbered, eventually the skirmishers would run out of missles and enthusiasm and then start to disperse.
                        >
                        > Both DBM and DBMM attempt to model this interaction so it becomes a subjective decision as to which you prefer. Personally I'm happier with the DBMM approach.
                        >
                        > Cheers
                        >
                        > Andrew
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------
                        > Posted by: andrew.bennetts@...
                        > ------------------------------------
                        >
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------
                        >
                        > Yahoo Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • a1jer
                        I should add that it isn t, in isolation, the pike/psiloi interaction that I find so odd, it was the sight of the pike bundling back blades at a great rate,
                        Message 11 of 18 , Apr 18, 2017
                          I should add that it isn't, in isolation, the pike/psiloi interaction that I find so odd, it was the sight of the pike bundling back blades at a great rate, but pushing the psiloi back slowly. I didn't lose any pike to the psiloi (unlike the cavalry(O), who mowed them down in great number).
                          I can rationalise either in isolation, but when you see the same pike phalanx corrugated by pushing the enemy solid foot backwards at a great rate, and the psiloi at a much reduced rate, it looks wrong, and could not be explained to a newby convincingly.

                          Also "packing more targets into the target area  reduces the chance of a skirmisher's missile hitting any of them. " - are not skirmishers supposed to be taking aimed shots?

                          Regards
                          Jer






                          ---In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, <lawomicron@...> wrote :

                          The counterintuitive feature of the DBM version is that packing more targets into the target area  reduces the chance of a skirmisher's missile hitting any of them. 

                          FWIW, while the situation Jer described in the OP looks feasible on paper, I would say it is rare in practice and in my experience psiloi vs pike usually results in the removal of the psiloi from the table within a few bounds, with few losses to the pike unless they are I or F. With factors of 3 vs 2 it is the same as cavalry versus LH. Psiloi can pin pikes down or disrupt them for a limited time, but not indefinitely, therefore you have to think about when and where you are going to do it, which is IMO a good thing. 

                          Importing the DBM rule would have a number of other consequences for the interaction that don't exist in DBM because of other DBM/MM rules differences, so probably not a good idea.  




                          In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, <jeremy.morgan@...> wrote :

                          The current DBM rule is that if enemy flee in your bound you can pursue up to your own movement distance, with any contiguous troops (even if a different command), any skirmishers encountered on the way flee, any other troops are fought next bound.

                          Also, pike get supporting ranks against psiloi.

                          I would support these being imported into DBMM, the wording is OK as it stands I think.

                          Regards
                          Jer


                        • a1jer
                          Isn t quoting chapter and verse good practice? Actually I d disagree with you, I d say it s clear (in the classical period, citing Xenophon and Demosthenes)
                          Message 12 of 18 , Apr 18, 2017
                            Isn't quoting chapter and verse good practice?

                            Actually I'd disagree with you, I'd say it's clear (in the classical period, citing Xenophon and Demosthenes) that heavy foot could drive off foot skirmishers perfectly well. What they could not do (alone) is prevent them returning in pretty short order.

                            Regards
                            Jer






                            ---In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, <andrew.bennetts@...> wrote :

                            Andreas wrote:
                            "I can't think of an example where a pike phalanx was held up in open ground by foot skirmishers, so this seems like a bug."

                            I'd disagree as, without quoting chapter and verse, I think it's clear from the historical record that close formation foot could not quickly drive off foot skirmishers without the support of their own cavalry and/or missle troops. However, provided they could maintain their discline and were not isolated or badly outnumbered, eventually the skirmishers would run out of missles and enthusiasm and then start to disperse.

                            Both DBM and DBMM attempt to model this interaction so it becomes a subjective decision as to which you prefer. Personally I'm happier with the DBMM approach.

                            Cheers

                            Andrew
                             
                          • Andreas Johansson
                            Also packing more targets into the target area reduces the chance of a skirmisher s missile hitting any of them. - are not skirmishers supposed to be
                            Message 13 of 18 , Apr 18, 2017
                              "Also "packing more targets into the target area  reduces the chance of a skirmisher's missile hitting any of them. " - are not skirmishers supposed to be taking aimed shots?"

                              The definitions (in DBMM at least) don't say either way, just that they shoot individually (not in volleys), but even if they do, a deeper target formation has to increase the chance of hitting by converting some misses into "accidental" hit on rear ranks.

                              OTOH, a dense array of pike shafts is supposed to have offered some protection against missiles, so you can probably rationalize it either way :)

                              Another possible fix would be making Pk +4 against foot, and then deny them rear support for a 2nd rank (they'd still get for a 3rd and if applicable a 4th). This would toughen them up against shooting, which seems reasonable - they're not systematically worse armoured or shielded* than Sp or Bd, even aside from any protective effect of the pikes themselves. And yes, I realize this is wildly blue sky.


                              * Interestingly, the DBA 2.2 and 3.0 troop definitions say that less effective shields made Pikes more vulnerable to Bows and Psiloi than Spears, but the DBA 1.0 ones did not, nor do any iteration of the DBMM ones. Seems like Phil's changed his mind back and forth - but likely the persistence of the sentence in DBA 3.0 is just inertia. To me it seems that many troops we class as Bd or Sp might with cause envy a Hellenistic phalangite's bronze-faced shield, and while late medieval pikemen generally lack shields, so do most blades from that part of time and space.

                              On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 7:48 PM, jeremy.morgan@... [DBMMlist] <DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                              I should add that it isn't, in isolation, the pike/psiloi interaction that I find so odd, it was the sight of the pike bundling back blades at a great rate, but pushing the psiloi back slowly. I didn't lose any pike to the psiloi (unlike the cavalry(O), who mowed them down in great number).
                              I can rationalise either in isolation, but when you see the same pike phalanx corrugated by pushing the enemy solid foot backwards at a great rate, and the psiloi at a much reduced rate, it looks wrong, and could not be explained to a newby convincingly.

                              Also "packing more targets into the target area  reduces the chance of a skirmisher's missile hitting any of them. " - are not skirmishers supposed to be taking aimed shots?

                              Regards
                              Jer






                              ---In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, <lawomicron@...> wrote :

                              The counterintuitive feature of the DBM version is that packing more targets into the target area  reduces the chance of a skirmisher's missile hitting any of them. 

                              FWIW, while the situation Jer described in the OP looks feasible on paper, I would say it is rare in practice and in my experience psiloi vs pike usually results in the removal of the psiloi from the table within a few bounds, with few losses to the pike unless they are I or F. With factors of 3 vs 2 it is the same as cavalry versus LH. Psiloi can pin pikes down or disrupt them for a limited time, but not indefinitely, therefore you have to think about when and where you are going to do it, which is IMO a good thing. 

                              Importing the DBM rule would have a number of other consequences for the interaction that don't exist in DBM because of other DBM/MM rules differences, so probably not a good idea.  




                              In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, <jeremy.morgan@...> wrote :

                              The current DBM rule is that if enemy flee in your bound you can pursue up to your own movement distance, with any contiguous troops (even if a different command), any skirmishers encountered on the way flee, any other troops are fought next bound.

                              Also, pike get supporting ranks against psiloi.

                              I would support these being imported into DBMM, the wording is OK as it stands I think.

                              Regards
                              Jer







                              --
                              Andreas Johansson

                              Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
                            • abennetts2003
                              Hi Jer Yes, quoting chapter and verse is normally good practice but when travelling with only a mobile phone for Internet access not always convenient 😉 And
                              Message 14 of 18 , Apr 18, 2017
                                Hi Jer

                                Yes, quoting chapter and verse is normally good practice but when travelling with only a mobile phone for Internet access not always convenient 😉

                                And anyway, I don't think there is any great difference between us in our understandings of the history. As I said in my previous post, both DBM & DBMM both try to model the same thing, it's just becomes a subjective assessment of which you think does it better.

                                I prefer the DBMM approach, not least as, if you study (for example) the accounts of Caesar at Ruspina or the Spartans destroyed by Iphicrates, it seems to me that the opposing skirmishes did not actually retreat that far - only just enough to stay out of reach of the advancing heavy foot and then able to harass them again almost immediately once these stopped to redress their lines. Personally I find the comparatively short DBMM Repulse move a better representation of this than the rather longer DBM Flee move.

                                But it's all subjective and you of course differ.

                                What would be interesting is an account of close formation foot driving enemy skirmishers ahead of them as they relatively advance unchecked. Do you know of any? I don't but would very keen to learn of any if they existed.

                                Cheers

                                Andrew

                                ---In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, <jeremy.morgan@...> wrote :

                                Isn't quoting chapter and verse good practice?

                                Actually I'd disagree with you, I'd say it's clear (in the classical period, citing Xenophon and Demosthenes) that heavy foot could drive off foot skirmishers perfectly well. What they could not do (alone) is prevent them returning in pretty short order.

                                Regards
                                Jer




                              • Vince Cholewa
                                My gaming experience with Seleucids is psiloi are a nuisance to my phalanx. The psiloi seldom cause many casualties and over time, as some elements are
                                Message 15 of 18 , Apr 19, 2017
                                  My gaming experience with Seleucids is psiloi are a nuisance to my phalanx. The psiloi seldom cause many casualties and over time, as some elements are repulsed and others overlapped, the psiloi screen is broken down and spent. However, they can disrupt the phalanx a little and certainly cost me time. 

                                  My gaming experience with Thracians is psiloi are a nuisance to my opponent's phalanx. The psiloi seldom cause many casualties and over time, as some elements are repulsed and others overlapped, the psiloi screen is broken down and spent. However, they can disrupt the phalanx a little and certainly give me time. 

                                  I believe Napoleon had some things to say about time and its importance.

                                  My Seleucids have not yet encountered a Roman "ordre mixte" of blades and psiloi. I would have thought if they did and the blades are recoiled, then the psiloi are probably overlapped and become vulnerable to being spent and at least repulsed. That is, the psiloi are either removed from the table or moved further back than the blades. 

                                  Of course the dice might be (un)kind and change those results. I guess that is part of the fun of playing toy soldiers :-)

                                  Regards 
                                  Vince



                                  Sent from my iPhone

                                  On 19/04/2017, at 11:18 AM, andrew.bennetts@... [DBMMlist] <DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                                   

                                  Hi Jer


                                  Yes, quoting chapter and verse is normally good practice but when travelling with only a mobile phone for Internet access not always convenient 😉

                                  And anyway, I don't think there is any great difference between us in our understandings of the history. As I said in my previous post, both DBM & DBMM both try to model the same thing, it's just becomes a subjective assessment of which you think does it better.

                                  I prefer the DBMM approach, not least as, if you study (for example) the accounts of Caesar at Ruspina or the Spartans destroyed by Iphicrates, it seems to me that the opposing skirmishes did not actually retreat that far - only just enough to stay out of reach of the advancing heavy foot and then able to harass them again almost immediately once these stopped to redress their lines. Personally I find the comparatively short DBMM Repulse move a better representation of this than the rather longer DBM Flee move.

                                  But it's all subjective and you of course differ.

                                  What would be interesting is an account of close formation foot driving enemy skirmishers ahead of them as they relatively advance unchecked. Do you know of any? I don't but would very keen to learn of any if they existed.

                                  Cheers

                                  Andrew

                                  ---In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, <jeremy.morgan@...> wrote :

                                  Isn't quoting chapter and verse good practice?

                                  Actually I'd disagree with you, I'd say it's clear (in the classical period, citing Xenophon and Demosthenes) that heavy foot could drive off foot skirmishers perfectly well. What they could not do (alone) is prevent them returning in pretty short order.

                                  Regards
                                  Jer




                                • a1jer
                                  Hi Andrew (1) Why of course - Surely we are all reasonable men, evidence led, as well as possessed of great intelligence and (of course) physical beauty. It
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Apr 20, 2017
                                    Hi Andrew

                                    (1) Why "of course" - Surely we are all reasonable men, evidence led, as well as possessed of great intelligence and (of course) physical beauty. It is surely unusual that we would differ!*

                                    (2) Please note that I am _not_ advocating that heavy foot can advance unhindered be enemy psiloi in reasonable number, this doesn't happen in DBM either as the follow uo is only available to groups _all_ of whose H+H opponents have fled. My specific concern is that Pike seem to push back blades and auxilia _faster_ than they push back psiloi. They bundle back both, in both rule sets, but the order is inverted.

                                    Regards
                                    Jer
                                    * Except over views on the best beer, however, should you be able to come over coincident with ROLLCALL (the worlds finest dolly cometition in Cranfield) then I promise we would test this empirically, with every chance of at least agreeing that "this is a good one".




                                    ---In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, <andrew.bennetts@...> wrote :

                                    snip
                                    But it's all subjective and you of course differ.

                                    What would be interesting is an account of close formation foot driving enemy skirmishers ahead of them as they relatively advance unchecked. Do you know of any? I don't but would very keen to learn of any if they existed.


                                  • lawomicron
                                    They are more likely to push back or eliminate blades (30/36) than psiloi (21/36) in the pikes bound (in both cases the chance of elimination is 6/36). They
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Apr 20, 2017
                                      They are more likely to push back or eliminate blades (30/36) than psiloi (21/36) in the pikes bound (in both cases the chance of elimination is 6/36).
                                      They have the same chance of pushing back both blades and psiloi in the blade/Ps bound (21/36) but the blades now have only a 2/36 chance of being eliminated.  

                                      However, when they get pushed back, the psiloi go back more than 5 times the distance that the blades do and although the numbers above ignore the effects of overlaps, prima facie Ps will also tend to evaporate faster than blades.

                                      However, the pikes pursue blades but they don't pursue psiloi. They can use PIPs to chase them, or the Psiloi can use PIPs to return to combat with the pikes (or to avoid returning if they are in the enemy TZ). 

                                      Over a sequence of bounds the overall position depends on the combat results, the numbers of elements and the choices of the players on where they will invest PIPs. I suspect in both M and MM the players' choices (for PIPs and free advances) would be different depending on whether the pike are fighting purely Ps, purely Bd or a mixture.  

                                      It is not correct to say that in general Pike bundle back blades and auxilia faster than psiloi. 

                                      Extrapolating from a single incident in one game is not  reliable. It certainly wouldn't justify increasing DBMM's complexity by adding another rule. 



                                      Lawrence Greaves




                                      In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, <jeremy.morgan@...> wrote :



                                      (2) Please note that I am _not_ advocating that heavy foot can advance unhindered be enemy psiloi in reasonable number, this doesn't happen in DBM either as the follow uo is only available to groups _all_ of whose H+H opponents have fled. My specific concern is that Pike seem to push back blades and auxilia _faster_ than they push back psiloi. They bundle back both, in both rule sets, but the order is inverted.

                                      Regards
                                      Jer
                                      *
                                    • John Edmundson
                                      On this, did anyone ever develop a successful DBMM simulator? I know people tried and that the maths is more complicated but it would be a useful wee tool if
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Apr 20, 2017
                                        On this, did anyone ever develop a successful DBMM simulator? I know people tried and that the maths is more complicated but it would be a useful wee tool if it existed.

                                        Cheers,
                                        John


                                        On Friday, April 21, 2017 12:43 PM, "lawomicron@... [DBMMlist]" <DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                                         
                                        They are more likely to push back or eliminate blades (30/36) than psiloi (21/36) in the pikes bound (in both cases the chance of elimination is 6/36).
                                        They have the same chance of pushing back both blades and psiloi in the blade/Ps bound (21/36) but the blades now have only a 2/36 chance of being eliminated.  

                                        However, when they get pushed back, the psiloi go back more than 5 times the distance that the blades do and although the numbers above ignore the effects of overlaps, prima facie Ps will also tend to evaporate faster than blades.

                                        However, the pikes pursue blades but they don't pursue psiloi. They can use PIPs to chase them, or the Psiloi can use PIPs to return to combat with the pikes (or to avoid returning if they are in the enemy TZ). 

                                        Over a sequence of bounds the overall position depends on the combat results, the numbers of elements and the choices of the players on where they will invest PIPs. I suspect in both M and MM the players' choices (for PIPs and free advances) would be different depending on whether the pike are fighting purely Ps, purely Bd or a mixture.  

                                        It is not correct to say that in general Pike bundle back blades and auxilia faster than psiloi. 

                                        Extrapolating from a single incident in one game is not  reliable. It certainly wouldn't justify increasing DBMM's complexity by adding another rule. 



                                        Lawrence Greaves




                                        In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, <jeremy.morgan@...> wrote :



                                        (2) Please note that I am _not_ advocating that heavy foot can advance unhindered be enemy psiloi in reasonable number, this doesn't happen in DBM either as the follow uo is only available to groups _all_ of whose H+H opponents have fled. My specific concern is that Pike seem to push back blades and auxilia _faster_ than they push back psiloi. They bundle back both, in both rule sets, but the order is inverted.

                                        Regards
                                        Jer
                                        *


                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.