|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jun 26, 2020 16:40:12 GMT
Polybian Rome and Later Carthage. Nuff said.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jun 26, 2020 12:37:45 GMT
We maybe use allies 1/10 of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jun 25, 2020 21:08:55 GMT
Having now read h rules, it always helps, and discussed it, and what's more encountered it in real play, I am now firmly of the opinion that the LCh is not able to recoil and is destroyed. I think that is Paulisper option 1. The Facebook discussion has ended up with rejecting option 1 and has moved to a broad acceptance of option 2, which I’m comfortable with 😄 P That is how we play.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jun 5, 2020 20:16:38 GMT
It is indoor/outdoor carpet with the back painted. Nice I like it. Will have to get some, thanks Tony The funny thing is we used the carpet side for many years until I decided to try my hand at airbrushing it and now only use the backside of them.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jun 5, 2020 17:56:44 GMT
Tony, what are you using for your playing surface? Looks heavier than felt when you were moving to a different terrain. It is indoor/outdoor carpet with the back painted.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jun 5, 2020 10:20:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jun 4, 2020 20:16:33 GMT
We play (after much discussion in our group) and have played in all our videos that if the elephant already has a unit in contact with its rear just the recoiling elephant dies because of this sentence: "An element already in such contact with any of these cannot recoil and is destroyed instead." The way we remember this is that only the recoiling elephant dies on a recoil if it "doesn't get a running start." Yes. That seems very clear and doesn't make any exceptions - for example by saying "an element other than ....." But then the preceding sentence "A recoiling or pushed back element whose rear edge or rear corner meets....." doesn't specifically exclude recoiling elephants either. So does a recoiling elephant (with a running start) squish any other elements it meets - as per the previous paragraph - or stop when it meets them? We play that they squish (unless it encounters other elephants - which they both die) if they have to enter the space taken up by the other unit. In other words if they are exactly 1BW when forced to recoil and they recoil 1BW, then nothing happens.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jun 4, 2020 19:27:03 GMT
The question from Bluestone28 has a clear cut answer. What if a recoiling elephant has the side of any other element (not elephant) in contact with its rear? (as would happen if an elephant were to close the door withing a gap for instance) I think that the FAQ covers this situation with: "Q: If my Elephants receive a recoil result and aren’t “flanked” or “reared” do they meet and destroy all elements in their recoil path? A: In most cases, yes. Elements in BUA and Camps are exceptions to this. Elements in these terrain features usually aren’t destroyed unless they are other Elephants" But, there were complex debates before 3.0 was published, so do people now agree that the recoiling elephant would indeed destroy the element in side to rear contact? We play (after much discussion in our group) and have played in all our videos that if the elephant already has a unit in contact with its rear just the recoiling elephant dies because of this sentence: "An element already in such contact with any of these cannot recoil and is destroyed instead." The way we remember this is that only the recoiling elephant dies on a recoil if it "doesn't get a running start."
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jun 3, 2020 11:41:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jun 1, 2020 12:14:41 GMT
Posted the video involving two battles with Mitch's new Trojans. This is the new format will be using. It is bare bones and unedited which is the compromise I have made in order to keep the videos coming. As to why it is filmed in 1080p, shown on Facebook in 720p but only 360p on Youtube is anyone's guess. I suspect this won't be an issue when I can just stream live from the phone directly onto Youtube which will only be possible until I get 70 or so more subscribers.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on May 18, 2020 14:47:08 GMT
If it were me, I'd go with combined pike and shot blocks; detached shot (Italian Wars standard, and ECW where hedge fighting is quite common), gendarmes, pistols of several classes perhaps including a pistol with intrinsic supporting shot, sipahi, light horse, ? mounted harquebusiers..... This will be unpopular due to rebasing of pike and shot units. Alternative was to have 3 elements in a column, 3 pike, 2 pike with one shot and 1 shot with two pike. Then you need extra elements for the army. People have already expressed distaste for this. Third alternative is to allow the pike to stand behind the shot as support. Thinking about it, you could have one pike support 3 shot, and adding a factor against mounted. Or, you could have 2 pike behind 2 or 3 shot adding extra factors against foot and horse (reflecting Imperial and Spanish tercios which had more supporting shot.) Note that even by 1544 it is attested that shot might be included in the front ranks of pike units (actually earlier, Bicocca (sp). Is shot vs. shot combat handled in an appropriate and fun way at this time? Shot is a 4 a against foot in both melee and shooting. This becomes a 6-1 dice 'rollathon,' which as mentioned earlier the pike should stay away from. At the given factors pike can't even reliable beat shot in hand to hand combat. The DBR condensed scale factors were also not correct, and should, IMO, have provided a negative factor for troops fighting against pike, but probably a +1 factor for the pike as well. Now the excuse for such a high close combat factor against foot for shot might be that this reflects close shooting from the shot. Except that this is a British Napoleonic capability, not a capability of shot firing by rotation at intervals wide enough to prevent mutual self-immolation. {exception, GA's volley fire at Breitenfeld and maybe Montrose Scots. But this is a one shot gimmick-since your shot will have a lot of trouble reloading after this kind of volley}. mike All good things to consider. You are right on the mark as far as representation of the units in one stand. This will not be a DBA 3.0 translation as my goal is to have a DBA-sized game like that but feel like you are playing the period.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on May 18, 2020 14:43:53 GMT
Looking forward to this. As you say you are in the very early stages. But I was wondering if any thought will be given to combined shot/pike elements. Yes, definitely going in that direction of combined units. More than likely that is how it is going to be handled and pure compatibility with DBA 3.0 is not the ultimate goal. I will be working on the early period stuff first as it is simpler. Lots of good info to consider in this thread but can't comment/read on any of this this at the time due to workload. I am sure it will be considered. There are several DBA type mechanics which are unlikely to be removed due to being a huge appeal for us (PIPS and opposing rolls) but everything else could be on the table.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on May 13, 2020 21:33:27 GMT
For the US NICT, I put in the rule that the Defender could decide between 24"X24" and 30"X30" (which had already become standard in US). Most seem to go for 30X30 so I recommend giving it a try in 15mm. With 24"X24" I'm less bothered by the swift movement (which I rather like) than the cramped deployment area. TomT You sure you don't mean the attacker decides? I have played in every NICT since 2006 and that is what we started doing in all the games we run and have been in. The defender has enough advantages already.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on May 13, 2020 19:33:18 GMT
A Renaissance version of DBA 3 should not just be "DBA 3 with modifiers" but a DBA 3 inspired game meant for the renaissance. DBA 3 is the most evolved set of rules by far from the DBx family IMO. I couldn't have said it better myself.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on May 13, 2020 19:21:00 GMT
"But then I realized after reading one Slingshot issue I think, that 12 elements means that the army is divided into twelfths and to view each element as not a specific number of men ( I know this concept is troubled by the stated 500 men per element) but a relevant portion of the army in a sort of ephemeral way"
That is how I have always viewed it. Some armies would just not have more than 3 or 4 elements otherwise.
|
|