In the grand scheme of things, this can't even be considered a hardship, but it is one more example of the change in daily life that response to the virus requires. My regular DBA 3.0 opponent (and friend) is 70+ years of age and took himself out of group/face-to-face gaming a couple weeks before the country started to embrace "social distancing." I was totally supportive; you may remember that I lost my mother to the "regular flu" a couple years ago. Just not worth taking any chances. . .
So what to do until we get "back to normal?" I might play around with De Bellis Solitarius, but I'm more likely to use the home time to catch up on completing the bases on some of the 54mm French and Indian War units I based over the last 2 years. . . like the French La Sarre troops I just finished.
One great aspect of the Muskets and Mohawks rules I play with is that they are designed to be played solitaire. It is not just an afterthought, but an integral part of the rules!
Last month's DBA 3.0 game was a Big Battle pike-fest, pitting two triple-sized II/16 Asiatic Early Successor armies against each other: II/16a Antigonus (me) and II/16d Eumenes (Bruce). Historical enemies, to boot. Both pike-heavy forces, the main difference was that Bruce/Eumenes had more elephants, and I/Antigonus had some light horse and 3 Pike Generals (Eumenes' Generals were Knights). Terrain ended up on the flanks with little impact on the game.
Eumenes:
Antigonos:
As the Pike blocks advanced, I sent my right-flank Light Horse out to skirmish, and fed Elephants and Pike toward my left flank to defend against Eumenes mounted push.
When the Pikes embraced the Antigonid Pike Generals provided a slight edge in the initial combats. Turned out Bruce had also PIP-starved the Elephants on Eumenes left flank by assigning them the low PIP dice, depriving it of a potent weapon.
These two factors kept the Antigonids ahead of the attrition race and eventually led to the Antigonid victory.
Eumenes "himself" fought off the Antigonid PIkes for a couple of bounds before being finally overwhelmed.
Be safe!
Bruce brought out a couple of 25mm Ancient armies, Successors and Gauls, since I don't have anything painted in this scale save my Undead. George brought Germans, and not having a lot of DBA experience, we decided to provide an opportunity for some by playing a one-on-one barbarian slug-fest, Bruce taking his Gauls against George's Germans. I observed. . . and coached a little.
George divided his Warbands into two groups, so one could take advantage of the patch of rough terrain, and waited for the Gallic onslaught. The wait was short; the Gallic Warbands, Cavalry and Light Chariots advanced.
While the rough did protect half the German army, the other half was overwhelmed and killed, the General the last to fall, totally surrounded by howling Gauls!
For Game Two - in the same afternoon - we decided to play a double size game, Gauls against Successors. Bruce took the Gauls and I played the Successors. I organized a larger, main command of Pike, Auxilia, a pair of Scythed Chariots and Psiloi, supported by a smaller mounted command of Knights and a pair of Auxilia to hold the rough ground on my left flank. I was facing mostly Warbands, Cavalry and Light Chariots. I wanted to get my Knights into his Warbands while using my Psiloi in front of my PIkes to blunt the attack of the rest of his Warbands to give the Pikes a bit more advantage.
The battle is tense for several turns after first contact. The Scythed Chariots cause a couple casualties, then are destroyed in turn. The Psiloi do blunt the Warband assault, but several elements of Pike fall prey to Gallic quick-kills, until the Pikes find the Gallic flank. On the Successor left flank, the Knights are more "successful" against their opposing Warbands. When the Gallic General and his Cavalry guard enter the fray in their support of the Warbands, he is killed in a general scrum from which he can't recoil. In the same turn, the Gallic horde reaches its break point. The Gauls are broken; the Successors win the day.
See ya!
Well, it took a while. . . partly because I don't plow through one book at a time. . . and partly because the Butterfly Brain gets distracted by all sorts of topics both historical and contemporary. . . and partly because An Invincible Beast is a bit of a dense read. I'm a big fan of Dr. Matthew's combination of research into primary sources with physical recreation, ballistics testing and re-enactment, but it is not exactly summer beach-reading.
On page 399, Dr. Matthew summarizes (sorta):
Diodorus declared that 'Macedonian spears had conquered Asia and Europe.' The organization of of Hellenistic pike formations onto units and sub-units, combined with an elaborate and symmetrically distributed command structure, made the pike-phalanx a very ordered instrument of war - one that was mutually supporting, offensively and defensively strong, and adaptable to the varied tactical requirements of the ancient battlefield. Phalangite formations, for example, could be deployed to different depths, with the most common being that of sixteen ranks deep, but could also be arranged in deeper or shallower configurations depending upon the terrain, the size of the opposing force, the decisions of those in command and the situation of the day.
It seems that pike phalanxes were in a more open order than usually depicted, to make room for 5 ranks of deployed pikes, and the great length of the pikes were generally used to hold the opposing forces at bay.
This allowed the pike-phalanx to effectively pin an enemy formation in place as part of the standard tactic of pike-phalanx combat - that of the hammer and anvil. Across the entire Hellenistic Period this tactic of using the pike-phalanx in the center to hold an enemy formation (or part thereof) in position while other, more mobile troops swept around to strike from the flanks remained unchanged. This in itself demonstrates the integral part that the pike-phalanx played in the conflicts of this time period.
While the functionality of the phalangite remained little changed cross the Hellenistic Period, the tools and strategies of war constantly developed in attempts to overcome the advantages held by the pike-phalanx, particularly during the time of the Successors following the death of Alexander the Great in 323BC when pike-phalanx fought pike-phalanx and a decisive tactical advantage of some kind was required to secure victory. Consequently the sarissa (pike) itself became longer to outreach an enemy armed in similar fashion, and beasts such as elephants were more regularly employed to try and smash an opposing formation apart. Many of these tactical 'experiments' met with mixed results; the pike could only be increased in length until a point was reached where it was almost impossible to wield, and contingents of elephants could be countered with other elephants, a solid wall of pikes, missile troops or other measures. As a result, the phalangite, and the pike-phalanx, retained its position of supremacy on the battlefield.
Yet for all its advantages, the pike-phalanx did have its limitations. This was mainly the potential for gaps to open in the line - due in part to the phalanx being comprised of semi-independent units and sub-units. If such gaps could be exploited by a more mobile opponent, one who could get inside the rows of projecting pikes, this was when the pike-phalanx was most vulnerable as the long sarissa made the phalangite a very ineffective individual combatant, and larger units were incapable of turning to meet threats from the sides once their pikes had been lowered. It was the ability of the Roman legionaries to take advantage of this inherent weakness in the Hellenistic pike-phalanx which ultimately led to the formation's demise.
Sounds like DBA to me : )
If you want to know how the Romans defeated the pike-phalanx, or exactly how it was organized, or when and where it was first developed, and by who, you'll have to read the book.
I stumbled onto another book when looking up the author John Ferling, some of whose work about the Revolutionary War I have read - but I was not familiar with A Wilderness of Miseries, which is about the "warriors" of colonial America. Its sociological angle immediately drew me in. I AM "plowing" through this one!
I'll have some more F&IW terrain to show soon, as well as some thoughts on rules for the period I am considering.
See ya!
My Butterfly Brain is apparent in some of the books I've added to my reading list. I'm really looking forward to wading into Dr. Matthew's hefty book on the Macedonian pike phalanx. Also of "ancient" interest are new books on Rome and Syracusan tyrants, as well as a new set of fast-play wargame rules for classical naval battles from Osprey Publishing.
Here are a couple of new books on the French and Indian War. I highly recommend the new Osprey COMBAT - it directly inspired my recent Black Powder game of La Belle Famille.
Osprey just released a new Campaign book on the Gempei War, of course by Dr. Turnbull.
The recent wargaming "glossies" have relevant content, too. This one has a review of The Baron's Fistful of Lead rules by Lion and Dragon Rampant author Daniel Mersey, as well as a mention of his most excellent blog.
All have reviews of the new black-powder-era skirmish rules Sharp Practice 2 from Too Fat Lardies, which have a section devoted to the French and Indian War. The Norman Conquest issue features some Lion Rampant and Hail Caesar! articles to help scratch that Dark Ages itch.
See ya!
