|
Post by timurilank on Sept 22, 2019 6:47:47 GMT
I'm looking forward to more/all of these. The 24AP armies have such a look of 'rightness' about them, and with your particular rules the battles seem to match. (Maybe try out Paddy's recent idea for LH PIPs with it...and if you do, Stevie's suggestions on pg2 of that thread appear good too)
On average, games have taken eight or nine turns to reach a decision with turns one to three are characterised as skirmish or probing operations. This is followed by the main body coming to grips in turns four to eight with both sides inflicting heavy casualties. It that is not the case, then the side with well-placed reserves will usually turn the battle. Aside from enlarging the game board, using the second general to extend command and control over the battle field has been the only rule change made.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Sept 22, 2019 7:31:18 GMT
At this early stage with your 24AP tests, do you have a preference between the 18AP games with standard PIPs and board vs the 24AP games with Sub-Gen + standard PIPs + wider board?
With your 18AP variants on the 12AP armies, are you taking normal quantities x 1.5 and rounding up (or down)? (My copy of DBA 3.0 is in transit from UK to AUS so I can't tell.)
Cheers
The earlier test with 18 elements a side were played on the standard game board of 20BW square. With the same deployment conditions, both sides had by default reserve formations formed with the extra troops.
The double size command did require a larger board (20BW x 30BW) to deploy. Despite the extra room, it was good practice to form not one but two reserve formations. Also, the solid battle line gave way to groups of three or four elements with space between for supporting troops to move through. Because games required twice the number of turns to reach a decision, the occasional pip score of ‘1’ was not a real setback.
Rounding up or down should be the decision of the player. I like historical games and would select that which would be most likely.
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 22, 2019 8:08:29 GMT
Do you prefer the 18AP games or 24AP games so far? Too early to tell yet?
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Sept 22, 2019 8:48:04 GMT
Do you prefer the 18AP games or 24AP games so far? Too early to tell yet? I prefer the double size command.
Not posted on my list, I am eager to try the Classical Indian vs. the Seleucid. I expect this will take 10 or 12 turns to reach a decision.
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 22, 2019 9:03:57 GMT
Do you prefer the 18AP games or 24AP games so far? Too early to tell yet? I prefer the double size command. Why?
(you knew I would ask...)
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Sept 22, 2019 10:10:12 GMT
Doubling the number of elements is easier than weighing the benefit of rounding up or down to build an 18 element army. In some cases army composition may require you to select one troop type over another, such as the Graeco-Bactrian with the option of an all mounted force or one with pike and elephant. Now both options can be fielded to build 24 elements. Board size is proportionally larger so cavalry armies perform better as the number of terrain pieces remains unchanged.
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 22, 2019 13:13:11 GMT
Aha. Good points. I like it. I like it. I like it.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Sept 24, 2019 7:10:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 24, 2019 10:07:59 GMT
OK, I have to ask... ( )
Did all those Parthian LH do anything other than just die?
Did you feel that the Parthians needed more PIPs for their significant numbers of LH to be more historically effective? Did you feel that they could or should have benefited from some other adjustments, such as greater deployment options? BTW, I'm currently purchasing enough figures to do Khitan-Liao for 24AP games in both all-mounted and combined arms formats.
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Sept 25, 2019 6:33:46 GMT
So an historical outcome with Sassan ascendant.
Interesting series.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Oct 1, 2019 8:13:28 GMT
The Seleucid vs. the Graeco-Bactrian During the reign of Seleucus II, the eastern provinces of Parthia and Bactria sought independence from the empire.
In 238 BC, Seleucus did mount an expedition to deal with the recalcitrant provinces.
All three tests used the enlarged command of 24 elements which played out quite well. A report with photos can be found at the blog. Also noted are the number of turns and time needed to reach a decision. dbagora.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-seleucid-vs-graeco-bactrian.html
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Oct 2, 2019 0:40:59 GMT
One thing I certainly enjoy about reading your blog posts, is that many of your battles involve periods of history that I know neither nothing of nor very little of, and off I go to read about all kinds of things.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Oct 2, 2019 6:14:53 GMT
One thing I certainly enjoy about reading your blog posts, is that many of your battles involve periods of history that I know neither nothing of nor very little of, and off I go to read about all kinds of things. nangwaya, I am glad you enjoy the posts. There are quite a number of battles planned in the test series, but I have an order coming that will bring me back to the dark ages, namely the 9th/10th century.
As soon as the Strathclyde and Feudal Spanish of Galicia are painted I will resume the Dark Age scenarios which I began in June 2018.
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Oct 2, 2019 9:52:28 GMT
...ich mag die Armeen & auch die schlachtfelder auf deinem Blog. Ich freue mich auf die Schotten von Strathclyde, besonders auf deren Darstellung...
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Oct 2, 2019 10:09:06 GMT
...ich mag die Armeen & auch die schlachtfelder auf deinem Blog. Ich freue mich auf die Schotten von Strathclyde, besonders auf deren Darstellung... Thank you Vodnik. I will do my best to get them done quickly.
|
|