That's not what your missus saidA good point, well made, Pretty Boy (that must be ironic).

Check out Tim Porters youtube entries for the real reason (it actually happened at Usk 2008...)
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
Having just finished the rather excellent The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265-146BC by Adrian Goldsworthy I started to wonder if the statis that often afflicted lines of troops in DBM is actually more historical than the "always moving" elements of FoG?rayfredjohn wrote:I can't believe I'm saying this but.........
One of the interesting things about FOG is that in Undrilled and drilled armies all BG's move all the time.
All in all, the buttock clenching moment of the PIP role was one of the better things in DBM.
Double Drop Dailami Duggins
"Bring out the Gimp"
While I definitely agree with Goldsworthy's model for ancient infantry combat, it is important to remember that he is talking about the battlelines withdrawing only a short distance from one another, not dozens or hundreds of yards. Also, under Goldsworthy's model the battlelines would all withdraw together, not piecemeal as in DBM element 'recoils.'madaxeman wrote:Having just finished the rather excellent The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265-146BC by Adrian Goldsworthy I started to wonder if the statis that often afflicted lines of troops in DBM is actually more historical than the "always moving" elements of FoG?rayfredjohn wrote:I can't believe I'm saying this but.........
One of the interesting things about FOG is that in Undrilled and drilled armies all BG's move all the time.
All in all, the buttock clenching moment of the PIP role was one of the better things in DBM.
Double Drop Dailami Duggins
"Bring out the Gimp"
(Goldsworthys theory of classical warfare is that it really consisted of repeated short intense bursts of fighting punctuated by longer gaps where the two lines withdrew, shouted at each other and caught their breath whilst psyching themselves up for another round of have-at-it.)
ars_belli wrote:
Besides, in my mind at least, such periodic withdrawals and regroupings would be taking place at a level of granularity well below the 'big battle' scale of FoG, just as would legionary line interchange, cavalry 'wedges,' and other small-unit tactics.
Heresy!!!Ghaznavid wrote:I've always been of the opinion, that aside of the impetuosity rules (which overshoot the target by a couple parsecs), DBM makes a decent set for most classical games. I'm less convinced for medievals and IMO it largely breaks down once you add horse archers into the equation. The abstraction of the horse archery and skirmishing into a 'melee' roll just does not work for me.
FoG might be bit the other way round, good for medievals and mounted in general, great in representing shooty armies and maybe a bit more off in representing battles mainly between foot sloggers. Possibly, as Scott and Nik already pointed out, because that is an area where FoG abstracts a bit more.
I guess it's virtually impossible to make a 'perfect' set for 3000+ years of warfare around the globe.
Personally, I think that 'foot slogger' battles in FoG tend to play out in very satisfactory and historical ways, at least with theGhaznavid wrote:FoG might be bit the other way round, good for medievals and mounted in general, great in representing shooty armies and maybe a bit more off in representing battles mainly between foot sloggers. Possibly, as Scott and Nik already pointed out, because that is an area where FoG abstracts a bit more.
I assume there was something else involved - catafracts are hardly going to be worried by LH even if the LH hit them in the flank. There is no cohesion loss and the LH still fight losing 1 die per 2, albeit at ++ for the impact phase but the catafracts have full dice. Usually ends up messy for the LH.timmy1 wrote:
In another game my Sassanid opponent got 2 LH BG on the flank of my Cats so that if I failed the CMT to avoid the impetious charge I was toast.
Err and LH can't intercept non skirmishers so if you charged they have to stand and watch.nikgaukroger wrote:I assume there was something else involved - catafracts are hardly going to be worried by LH even if the LH hit them in the flank. There is no cohesion loss and the LH still fight losing 1 die per 2, albeit at ++ for the impact phase but the catafracts have full dice. Usually ends up messy for the LH.timmy1 wrote:
In another game my Sassanid opponent got 2 LH BG on the flank of my Cats so that if I failed the CMT to avoid the impetious charge I was toast.
Haven't read the book yet but I'd be interested to know what evidence Goldsworthy bases his theory on. As far as Classical Greek warfare was concerned, I can't think of one example where opposing battle-lines took a breather and simultaneously withdrew. However, I do remember some academic suggesting on the basis of vase paintings that hoplite phalanxes stopped before impact and the front ranks then broke up to engage in single combats in between the lines. Wonder if it's him.madaxeman wrote:Having just finished the rather excellent The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265-146BC by Adrian Goldsworthy I started to wonder if the statis that often afflicted lines of troops in DBM is actually more historical than the "always moving" elements of FoG?rayfredjohn wrote:I can't believe I'm saying this but.........
One of the interesting things about FOG is that in Undrilled and drilled armies all BG's move all the time.
All in all, the buttock clenching moment of the PIP role was one of the better things in DBM.
Double Drop Dailami Duggins
"Bring out the Gimp"
(Goldsworthys theory of classical warfare is that it really consisted of repeated short intense bursts of fighting punctuated by longer gaps where the two lines withdrew, shouted at each other and caught their breath whilst psyching themselves up for another round of have-at-it.)
tim
www.madaxeman.com
It is based in Keegan's "Face of Battle", Sabin's "Face of Roman Battle" and such like - analysis, as best can be done, of how fighting would work in ancient battles looking at psychology and, importantly, human endurance.jlopez wrote:
Haven't read the book yet but I'd be interested to know what evidence Goldsworthy bases his theory on.
Probably unlikely to for a couple of reasons. Hoplite clashes appear to have been over quite quickly and, possibly most importantly, it may well break the flow of the account which is, after all, a literary work to be admired for its quality of prose, etc. and not a historical account as we would want as gamers.
As far as Classical Greek warfare was concerned, I can't think of one example where opposing battle-lines took a breather and simultaneously withdrew.
Don't think so. IIRC Adrian's only piece on hoplite warfare was about osimos (is that the right spelling?).
However, I do remember some academic suggesting on the basis of vase paintings that hoplite phalanxes stopped before impact and the front ranks then broke up to engage in single combats in between the lines. Wonder if it's him.
Probably mentioned because it was intentional and carried out by the whole battle line. The "face of battle" approach is that it will happen whether or not it is planned but will happen at quite a local level depending on circumstances so that part of the battle line may well be fighting whilst other parts are at the hurling insults stage before getting back into the action.
Stepping back was usually the beginning of the end (think rugby scrum) and off the top of my head I can only think of Cannae and (allegedly according to some academics) Chaeronea as examples of it being used as an intentional tactic.
I'd agree the "single element recoil" doesn't need to be modelled. My point was more that that DBM's "all of both sides pips are being spent HERE where its dead exciting, so those two lines of infantry over there just stare at each other for ages and nothing decisive happens over there" was actually simulating a part of the battle where there was sustained but inconclusive fighting - just as much as a protrected push and shove between units in combat was doing.ars_belli wrote:
While I definitely agree with Goldsworthy's model for ancient infantry combat, it is important to remember that he is talking about the battlelines withdrawing only a short distance from one another, not dozens or hundreds of yards. Also, under Goldsworthy's model the battlelines would all withdraw together, not piecemeal as in DBM element 'recoils.' Besides, in my mind at least, such periodic withdrawals and regroupings would be taking place at a level of granularity well below the 'big battle' scale of FoG, just as would legionary line interchange, cavalry 'wedges,' and other small-unit tactics.
Which is probably why the rank replacement (?) system of the Romans worked so well. Didn't give the enemy front rank a chance to rest as new fighters stepped up to the mark. I'd be quite happy in a barbarian army cheering along from a few ranks back whilst the big guys at the front got their breath back. If they didn't get chance for a breather and got beaten up...... well I'd probably run away. Well if the guys at the front were harder than me what chance do i stand.[/quote]will happen at quite a local level depending on circumstances so that part of the battle line may well be fighting whilst other parts are at the hurling insults stage before getting back into the action.
philqw78 wrote:Which is probably why the rank replacement (?) system of the Romans worked so well. Didn't give the enemy front rank a chance to rest as new fighters stepped up to the mark. I'd be quite happy in a barbarian army cheering along from a few ranks back whilst the big guys at the front got their breath back. If they didn't get chance for a breather and got beaten up...... well I'd probably run away. Well if the guys at the front were harder than me what chance do i stand.will happen at quite a local level depending on circumstances so that part of the battle line may well be fighting whilst other parts are at the hurling insults stage before getting back into the action.
Tim,madaxeman wrote:I'd agree the "single element recoil" doesn't need to be modelled. My point was more that that DBM's "all of both sides pips are being spent HERE where its dead exciting, so those two lines of infantry over there just stare at each other for ages and nothing decisive happens over there" was actually simulating a part of the battle where there was sustained but inconclusive fighting - just as much as a protrected push and shove between units in combat was doing.
In FoG everyone gets stuck in (defensive spear aside) and stuff always happens within 3-4 turns. Its a game mechenic to make it a better game, which is fine, but its not necessarily good for simulations - hence my points on the "mega-game" thread where I suggested an infantry slog would not work as well as a big cavalry battle.