Post by stevie on Aug 12, 2019 18:55:02 GMT
I hate the DBA 3.0 Littoral Landing rules. They are unrealistic, artificial, gamey, and have no basis
whatsoever in history. Yes, Caesar fought his way ashore in Briton in 55 BC, as did Suetonius Paulinus
when he invaded the island of Anglesey in 60 AD, and Richard the Lionheart when he retook Jaffa in
1192, not to mention the multiple amphibious landings in Europe and the Pacific during WW2.
But these were entire armies landing. Try as I might I can find no evidence, not a single solitary
example, in ancient, medieval, Napoleonic or modern warfare, of a small force trying to use the sea
to outflank the enemy during a battle in full view of their opponents.
And the reason why there are no examples of it is because it wouldn’t have worked in reality.
In DBA terms, the amphibious force would have to first travel across the waterway (which should take
an entire bound) in full sight of the enemy who would react to it, then be vulnerable as they disembarked
all the men and horses from the ships to form them up on the beach (which should also take a full bound...
...hell, it takes a full bound in DBA just to dismount!) with again the enemy reacting to it, and lastly once
organised they could begin to march inland and again the enemy would react to it.
But what do we have in DBA?...a group of 2 or 3 elements ‘teleporting’ from off the table to a place
anywhere they like on a waterway beach, and the opposition for some unknown reason are blind and
cannot react in any way whatsoever.
Oh, you might say, suppose there was a fog, and those on land couldn’t see the sea crossing or the landing?
What, every-single-time?! And if the land forces cannot see the ships, how can the ships see and know exactly
where the land forces are? Are we to believe that the ancients possessed stealthy/submersible ships, radar
to see through the fog, and 25th century “beam me down Scotty” teleportation technology as well!
I never knew the ancients were so clever...especially as they never even thought of stirrups for their horses!
Still, it’s in the rules, and we can’t change the rules can we.
But here is one method of neutralizing littoral landings and making them completely harmless.
Neutralizing Littoral Landings
If a waterway is 2 BW or more deep, have a group of 4 ‘wing troops’ (i.e. LH-LCm, Cv-LCh, Cm, Ax, Ps, Mtd-Inf)
lined-up touching the waterway with their rear-edge. Result, nowhere for the amphibious force to land in, so
they’ll have to deploy in their half of the table and not yours. You’ll need something in the centre to stop them
lapping around this blocking group...say a piece of hindering terrain (and as the invader, you get to choose
which end of the waterway you want). If there is no hindering terrain suitable, then use your main battleline
and threat zones to limit the movement of the amphibious landing force.
For example:-
| |
| |
Table | | ↑
Side |Waterway | ▄▄▄▄▄.... The arrows show the
Edge | |▐ direction of facing.
| |▐
| |▐ →
| 2 BW |▐ |Camp|
Invader’s Base Edge
Note that the two elements in red cannot be ‘hard flanked’...there Just isn’t enough room to
get those front corners touching. And 3 of the 4 elements in the blocking group can be any
troops you like, even Psiloi will do, as they won't be attacked.
Size Matters
If the defending littoral terrain placer is clever, they may try to use a 1 BW deep waterway.
This requires a bit more thought to thwart, as even ‘wing troops’ can’t actually touch the water.
So do this instead:-
| | ¦
| W | ¦
Table | a | ¦ ↑
Side | t | ¦ ▄▄▄▄▄.... Have the blocking group
Edge | e | ¦▐ facing towards the water.
| r | ←¦▐
| | ¦▐
|1BW|1BW¦▐ |Camp|
Invader’s Base Edge
You’ll need good ‘wing troops’ in the blocking group in case your littoral opponent lands with something
heavy (like Knights), but with 4 v 3 one of his elements will be overlapped, and all pinned by threat zones.
Conclusion
Faced with a dangerous landing area, most littoral players will forgo with the landing...just what you want.
And should you have few or no ‘wing troops’ in your army, then use the same deployment but farther from
the water’s edge. As his main force will take 1 bound to reach the battlefield centre line, and another bound
to cross it, that leaves you with 2 bounds to reposition your blocking group to form a single battleline.
Still, that’s a small price to pay for rendering his landing harmless.
And as the invader, you deploy second...so all this may not be necessary if you simply count his elements.
Actually, being a littoral defender now becomes a disadvantage instead of an advantage. If your invading
opponent is also littoral, you can’t count his elements, so will have to deploy a blocking group just in case.
Disclaimer
Some people may not like it that I have just let the genie out of the bottle as it were, and demonstrated
to everybody that any and all littoral landings can easily be neutered in this way and made nearly useless.
Well tough.
Littoral landings, the way that DBA has troops ‘teleporting’ in from off the table, should never have been
included in the first place. And if you think that using unrealistic 25th century transporters is ok as it’s in
the rules,then you can’t complain if your opponent uses those very same rules to render them harmless
by using unrealistic deployments, and forces you to fight honestly and realistically, face-to-face.
The Real Historical Advantages Of Being Littoral
No, it wasn’t the ability to ‘teleport’ troops...it was the advantages that sea power gives to manoeuvrability.
Most coastal nations that spent a large amount of their annual yearly budget on building and maintaining
a fleet, and were prepared to fight major sea battles (such as the Greeks and Carthagainians), as opposed
to those that usually used their fleet for mere transport (such as the Persians, Romans and Normans), were
sea powers. And having a fleet of warships meant you could land almost anywhere along an undefended
coastline, as well as supply your army by sea instead of relying on conventional land supply sources.
This would give your army great manoeuvrability, and you would have the initiative to either arrive first
and pick the battlefield by the water (and thus choose to be the defender), or to march inland and seek-out
the approaching enemy (and thus be the attacker).
That’s how littoral should work in DBA...littorals get to freely decide, no matter what the aggression roll says.
Of course, if both sides are littoral, then it’s up to luck (i.e. the aggression roll) to see who is who.
But all this is really for the “House Rule” section of Fanaticus, and not here.
This “Strategy and Tactics” section is for using the existing rules, as written...no matter how daft they are.
Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
whatsoever in history. Yes, Caesar fought his way ashore in Briton in 55 BC, as did Suetonius Paulinus
when he invaded the island of Anglesey in 60 AD, and Richard the Lionheart when he retook Jaffa in
1192, not to mention the multiple amphibious landings in Europe and the Pacific during WW2.
But these were entire armies landing. Try as I might I can find no evidence, not a single solitary
example, in ancient, medieval, Napoleonic or modern warfare, of a small force trying to use the sea
to outflank the enemy during a battle in full view of their opponents.
And the reason why there are no examples of it is because it wouldn’t have worked in reality.
In DBA terms, the amphibious force would have to first travel across the waterway (which should take
an entire bound) in full sight of the enemy who would react to it, then be vulnerable as they disembarked
all the men and horses from the ships to form them up on the beach (which should also take a full bound...
...hell, it takes a full bound in DBA just to dismount!) with again the enemy reacting to it, and lastly once
organised they could begin to march inland and again the enemy would react to it.
But what do we have in DBA?...a group of 2 or 3 elements ‘teleporting’ from off the table to a place
anywhere they like on a waterway beach, and the opposition for some unknown reason are blind and
cannot react in any way whatsoever.
Oh, you might say, suppose there was a fog, and those on land couldn’t see the sea crossing or the landing?
What, every-single-time?! And if the land forces cannot see the ships, how can the ships see and know exactly
where the land forces are? Are we to believe that the ancients possessed stealthy/submersible ships, radar
to see through the fog, and 25th century “beam me down Scotty” teleportation technology as well!
I never knew the ancients were so clever...especially as they never even thought of stirrups for their horses!
Still, it’s in the rules, and we can’t change the rules can we.
But here is one method of neutralizing littoral landings and making them completely harmless.
Neutralizing Littoral Landings
If a waterway is 2 BW or more deep, have a group of 4 ‘wing troops’ (i.e. LH-LCm, Cv-LCh, Cm, Ax, Ps, Mtd-Inf)
lined-up touching the waterway with their rear-edge. Result, nowhere for the amphibious force to land in, so
they’ll have to deploy in their half of the table and not yours. You’ll need something in the centre to stop them
lapping around this blocking group...say a piece of hindering terrain (and as the invader, you get to choose
which end of the waterway you want). If there is no hindering terrain suitable, then use your main battleline
and threat zones to limit the movement of the amphibious landing force.
For example:-
| |
| |
Table | | ↑
Side |Waterway | ▄▄▄▄▄.... The arrows show the
Edge | |▐ direction of facing.
| |▐
| |▐ →
| 2 BW |▐ |Camp|
Invader’s Base Edge
Note that the two elements in red cannot be ‘hard flanked’...there Just isn’t enough room to
get those front corners touching. And 3 of the 4 elements in the blocking group can be any
troops you like, even Psiloi will do, as they won't be attacked.
Size Matters
If the defending littoral terrain placer is clever, they may try to use a 1 BW deep waterway.
This requires a bit more thought to thwart, as even ‘wing troops’ can’t actually touch the water.
So do this instead:-
| | ¦
| W | ¦
Table | a | ¦ ↑
Side | t | ¦ ▄▄▄▄▄.... Have the blocking group
Edge | e | ¦▐ facing towards the water.
| r | ←¦▐
| | ¦▐
|1BW|1BW¦▐ |Camp|
Invader’s Base Edge
You’ll need good ‘wing troops’ in the blocking group in case your littoral opponent lands with something
heavy (like Knights), but with 4 v 3 one of his elements will be overlapped, and all pinned by threat zones.
Conclusion
Faced with a dangerous landing area, most littoral players will forgo with the landing...just what you want.
And should you have few or no ‘wing troops’ in your army, then use the same deployment but farther from
the water’s edge. As his main force will take 1 bound to reach the battlefield centre line, and another bound
to cross it, that leaves you with 2 bounds to reposition your blocking group to form a single battleline.
Still, that’s a small price to pay for rendering his landing harmless.
And as the invader, you deploy second...so all this may not be necessary if you simply count his elements.
Actually, being a littoral defender now becomes a disadvantage instead of an advantage. If your invading
opponent is also littoral, you can’t count his elements, so will have to deploy a blocking group just in case.
Disclaimer
Some people may not like it that I have just let the genie out of the bottle as it were, and demonstrated
to everybody that any and all littoral landings can easily be neutered in this way and made nearly useless.
Well tough.
Littoral landings, the way that DBA has troops ‘teleporting’ in from off the table, should never have been
included in the first place. And if you think that using unrealistic 25th century transporters is ok as it’s in
the rules,then you can’t complain if your opponent uses those very same rules to render them harmless
by using unrealistic deployments, and forces you to fight honestly and realistically, face-to-face.
The Real Historical Advantages Of Being Littoral
No, it wasn’t the ability to ‘teleport’ troops...it was the advantages that sea power gives to manoeuvrability.
Most coastal nations that spent a large amount of their annual yearly budget on building and maintaining
a fleet, and were prepared to fight major sea battles (such as the Greeks and Carthagainians), as opposed
to those that usually used their fleet for mere transport (such as the Persians, Romans and Normans), were
sea powers. And having a fleet of warships meant you could land almost anywhere along an undefended
coastline, as well as supply your army by sea instead of relying on conventional land supply sources.
This would give your army great manoeuvrability, and you would have the initiative to either arrive first
and pick the battlefield by the water (and thus choose to be the defender), or to march inland and seek-out
the approaching enemy (and thus be the attacker).
That’s how littoral should work in DBA...littorals get to freely decide, no matter what the aggression roll says.
Of course, if both sides are littoral, then it’s up to luck (i.e. the aggression roll) to see who is who.
But all this is really for the “House Rule” section of Fanaticus, and not here.
This “Strategy and Tactics” section is for using the existing rules, as written...no matter how daft they are.
Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter