|
Post by goragrad on Aug 25, 2017 10:14:13 GMT
Split deployment seems to have been decisive in the last battle.
Without knights the infantry is much more effective.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Aug 25, 2017 13:12:14 GMT
Split deployment seems to have been decisive in the last battle. Without knights the infantry is much more effective. By knights, you mean cavalry, yes the spear has no problem repelling cavalry and if their flanks are protected, they can advance with impunity against cavalry or light horse. Two more matches (Khawarij, Abbasid) and the Umayyad will finish their series. The next games will bring the Abbasid and their enemies to the table. Overall, each of the armies brings some subtle differences that offer interesting challenges. I am still undecided as to which is superior, 3Bw or 4Bw as both have done well in the games.
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Aug 26, 2017 11:11:57 GMT
Actually, no - I was referring to the view that spear are dead meat against KN. Haven't played enough to confirm this for myself, but see it expressed regularly in posts.
Against CV and LH on the other had without facing a quick kill they appear to hold their own if not actually have the advantage.
Am just about to put the finishing touches on my all option II/3 Classical Indians (except for the Bactrian SP) - elements are awaiting varnishing. That meant having both 4BW for the a option and 3BW for the b. Was looking forward to playing both to see which BW option was more effective.
Particularly as I am closing in on finishing up a I/23 Vedic Indian which will enable me to alternatively field a II/1 Republican using the HCH and 3BW of the Vedic while I finish up those elements for the Republicans. As these will be BBDBA sized armies one of the questions I am looking to answer is whether it will be worth the effort to complete the Republicans with both BW options - 18 3 or 4BW will be a bit of work, doing both will be rather more. If the 4BW don't provide a significant advantage over the 3BW they will probably be backburnered in favor of other armies (I do have the figures to do both).
So much for a quick (on topic) reply...
Back to the Umayyad, looking forward to the reports.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Aug 26, 2017 13:52:16 GMT
Actually, no - I was referring to the view that spear are dead meat against KN. Haven't played enough to confirm this for myself, but see it expressed regularly in posts. Against CV and LH on the other had without facing a quick kill they appear to hold their own if not actually have the advantage. Am just about to put the finishing touches on my all option II/3 Classical Indians (except for the Bactrian SP) - elements are awaiting varnishing. That meant having both 4BW for the a option and 3BW for the b. Was looking forward to playing both to see which BW option was more effective. Particularly as I am closing in on finishing up a I/23 Vedic Indian which will enable me to alternatively field a II/1 Republican using the HCH and 3BW of the Vedic while I finish up those elements for the Republicans. As these will be BBDBA sized armies one of the questions I am looking to answer is whether it will be worth the effort to complete the Republicans with both BW options - 18 3 or 4BW will be a bit of work, doing both will be rather more. If the 4BW don't provide a significant advantage over the 3BW they will probably be backburnered in favor of other armies (I do have the figures to do both). So much for a quick (on topic) reply... Back to the Umayyad, looking forward to the reports. Ah, Kn vs. Sp, that is a dicey situation. The next match is between the Umayyad and Khawarij. The latter field 5 x 3Kn and 5 x 3Wb and should prove an interesting challenge for the Caliphate. The question of which bow type is better, 3Bw vs. 4Bw, this is still an unanswered point for me. In the Black Banner series, all the Arab armies have one or the other with a small number having both. 4Bw do well on open ground supporting a line of spear; as ‘solid’ infantry they repel cavalry and ‘fast’ troops on even scores. But, they are out of their element when moving across bad going. 3Bw are perfect for that kind of terrain. Their archery is restricted to shooting from the edge, but they can quickly move to a new position when there are no longer any targets.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Aug 28, 2017 7:30:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Aug 29, 2017 10:07:47 GMT
So apparently KN vs CV and BD vs Sp do tend to prevail.
Although the camp guards appear to have cemented one of the wins.
Interesting AARs.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Aug 30, 2017 12:11:02 GMT
So apparently KN vs CV and BD vs Sp do tend to prevail. Although the camp guards appear to have cemented one of the wins. Interesting AARs. The light horse attempt on the enemy camp was an embarrassing episode; not unlike the Russian Navy steaming to meet their demise off Tsushima in May of 1905.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Aug 31, 2017 8:08:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Aug 31, 2017 11:26:29 GMT
Pity the Arabs came out ahead...
At any rate I am seeing a mix of 3 and 4Bw. Was that the hangup in the rough?
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Aug 31, 2017 12:21:11 GMT
Pity the Arabs came out ahead... At any rate I am seeing a mix of 3 and 4Bw. Was that the hangup in the rough? All three were tight games ending 4 – 3 for one side or the other. The solid bow of the Christian Nubian can enjoy the side support offered by the presence of Nubian blade. The single 3Bw is useful on the flank supporting the camel mounted spear, so the mix works well.
One shortcoming of the Christian Nubian is its limited number of mounted troops. Half of its mounted is Cm which maneuvers well over dune, but are left in the dust by enemy horse when moving at 3BW.
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Sept 1, 2017 9:44:47 GMT
Yes the fact that 3BW can move with KN or CM has lead me to group them with my KN in my Palmyran army. Gives them a way to keep the LH at a distance.
And the other consideration with CM is that they don't have the punch of KN or the ablility to flee rather than be destroyed against some foot.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 1, 2017 11:18:49 GMT
I really like what you do with your campaign. And the armies are gorgeous, especially with your great terrain in the background. The lesson to learn is that terrain is much more important than the details of painting individual figures. We have too much of a miniature close-up mindset. Also, the colours work very well.
Thank you for all the inspiration.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Sept 1, 2017 12:13:01 GMT
I really like what you do with your campaign. And the armies are gorgeous, especially with your great terrain in the background. The lesson to learn is that terrain is much more important than the details of painting individual figures. We have too much of a miniature close-up mindset. Also, the colours work very well. Thank you for all the inspiration. Thank you for the kind words.
Next week I shall present an overview of terrain features constructed for each of the DBA geographical categories. Some of the material has been covered earlier but is now scattered throughout the forum or no longer viewable (Photobucket) due to policy changes.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Sept 3, 2017 8:22:47 GMT
Under the Black Banner – Abbasid vs. Early Muslim North Africa. Historically, the Early Muslim North Africa took several decades to divest themselves of Abbasid control.
With the right terrain, this army can make effective use of its mobility to out maneuver the well balance forces of the Abbasid. dbagora.blogspot.nl/2017/09/historical-matches-abbasid-vs-early.html
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Sept 5, 2017 7:17:16 GMT
Interesting that the LH were able to cut up the BW in that third report. Pips or better use of terrain?
|
|