|
Post by kaptainkobold on Nov 4, 2023 4:16:34 GMT
The only reasoning that went into the structure of that list was that (i) I wanted an army with three magicians and (ii) I was limited in classifications by the available figures 0- shooters and warband seemed the obvious choices. There were no tactical considerations made regarding 'hiding' the army in woods to protect against aerials. Over the years it's proved a fun army to play and is one of my favourites.
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on Mar 19, 2018 4:48:37 GMT
Great game reports and glad to see the Swiss succeeded.I can suggest further terrain options that you may wish to consider if your not already aware of them... Firstly, maximize your hill size..its bad going and your Bd and Ps like it anyway. BUA...you noticed how protective hamlets are for your foot..edifices do the same as they too are bad going.😉 Forts however are a different entity.,on the plus side they cost nothing to your losses if given up or lost and can offer you a flank threat or strengthened deffence line.Their disadvantage is that they can offer the same to your opponent. Roads can narrow the terrain choice to only 2 of the board edges. Woods too can be advantagous if placed to narrow the battlefield as it can effect your opponents deployment and you can move through with ease to assault flanks...as you noted General control range can be an issue. In essence you have the Swiss spirit by not waiting arround and attacking but often it was more than a general charge.😉 Check out Swiss Military Tactics in battlefieldanomalies.comMaximising hill size works up to a point, but you risk not being able to place them if they end up in the same sector. This has happened in a couple of games, leaving the Swiss defending a billiard-table Whilst an edifice offers more bad going, which is OK for the Swiss foot, I find a hamlet more useful. The Swiss blades get to move through it as a group, and are not slowed, but the enemy knights can't instantly kill them whilst they are in it, and that's their biggest vulnerability. The only downside is that they lose their +1 vs enemy foot, but that's the case in the bad going as well. Whilst my reports *do* imply a general charge, I am a little more subtle than that, and have attacked with one wing whilst holding back or simply supporting with the other. But it's not an army which sits around waiting for the enemy to come to it
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on Mar 2, 2018 5:30:40 GMT
Looks like you've cracked how to use the Swiss from "Swiss Roll." I used wargamer's logic and reckoned that if 3Bd were good then 6Bd would be better and then 9 of them would be best. It seems to be working for me - the best tactic does seem to be to hurl them forward as quickly as possible, and hope for the best, but setting up overlaps and making sure you choose the order of combats helps. Being the defender helps even more They have had two outings, both documented on my blog hordesofthethings.blogspot.com.au/2018/02/swiss-roll.htmlhordesofthethings.blogspot.com.au/2018/03/seriously-more-swiss.htmlThe first does feature a couple of games with them in their Early Late Swiss incarnation, which proved fairly interesting - the mix of 6Bd and 4Pk made for a fun army. I have now acquired some *more* figures, so may be able to create everything I need for the Late Swiss 'b' list as well.
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on Feb 23, 2018 4:01:07 GMT
Stephen, for me the preferred option is matched pairs on Saturday and a campaign on Sunday. Cheers, I'd prefer it the other way around, but that's because I am involved in something else on the Saturday, and would be less interested in playing in a campaign than I am in playing in a matched-pair tournament.
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on Feb 22, 2018 22:05:37 GMT
Hey Kaptainkobold - love your Early Swiss. Nice AAR on the Stronghold (rebuilt) about their first defeat "Swiss Miss." LOL! Don't new armies always roll bad! I'm kind of humbled though as I've been following you for years on the Stronghold - even before the first one sank into the swamp. You have been an inspiration (you are to blame!) for all of my HOTT armies that have yet to see the light of day on the web. I still think your Alice in Wonderland army is one of the most creative pieces of modelling I have ever seen and hanker after your UNIT and Dalek armies. So I was surprised that I got to the Early Swiss a few months before you. I love the Early Swiss because they are so unusual, colourful and odd - even if they are a bit crap on the table top. What's next for you in BDA or HOTT? Paddy Aww thanks! Glad to know I've been an inspiration. My next step is to morph my generic medieval HOTT army into a couple of viable historical DBA opponents for the Swiss. I have the figures, and they're mostly painted, so it should be a matter of tidying them up, changing the livery where appropriate and then basing. The new elements will give it more options as a HOTT army as well, so a win all round Other than that I have no idea what my plans are; I've really lost all interest in painting, so I guess I'll mostly be gaming with what I have until I can be bothered to do something new. Even the Swiss were figures where 95% of the painting had already been done for me
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on Feb 21, 2018 5:54:13 GMT
Very nice. I acquired some free figures a couple of weeks ago, and used them to put together an early Swiss list (as well as the Late Swiss 'a' list). I haven't had chance to try them out in a game of DBA yet though; I suspect that, against historical opponents, they will either win big or die like dogs Here they are - the 9 x 6Bd, plus the 4 x 4Pk they get in the Late Swiss sub-list. Eight of the Blades have the flag of one of the eight original cantons of the Old Swiss Confederacy. The element without the flag is, of course, the general More HERE
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on Feb 21, 2018 5:48:42 GMT
Very nice. I acquired some free figures a couple of weeks ago, and used them to put together an early Swiss list (as well as the Late Swiss 'a' list). I haven't had chance to try them out in a game of DBA yet though; I suspect that, against historical opponents, they will either win big or die like dogs
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on Oct 5, 2017 3:53:53 GMT
Of course I did end the event on a high note vs Leigh Dunn (the ultimate winner) when one of my Fast Bd elements killed his general Cheers My second, and final, win of the day was through my blades killing a knight general on a draw. As you say, the odds aren't good.
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on Oct 5, 2017 3:51:57 GMT
Alan - agree that 'come as you are with a matched pair' is a good tournament approach as this means that competitors get to play with armies that they possibly haven't ever even considered before. I tend to collect match pairs anyway.....or rather for every army I have an "equal and opposite pile of unpainted lead!" For those that haven't played in one, a matched pair tournament requires each player to bring two opposing armies (with fixed lists). In a given round only one player's armies will be in use for a particular pair of players. The player who *doesn't* own the armies chooses which one they will actually use. This encourages players to bring a fairly equally matched pair. The draw should be set up such that over an even number of rounds each player will play half of their games with their own pair and half with other people's. It has the advantage that you might see armies that would not normally see the competitive light of day, as part of a pair they are actually OK against. In addition it tests the skill of the player a little more, as in a six-round event, say, the player will get to use their own armies in only three games, and may end up playing with unfamiliar troop combinations in other games. Obviously all games would be historical as well. On the downside, each player has to provide two armies, and be willing to let another person play with their toys. In addition you only get to pit your troops against one other opponent during the day, which may not appeal to some. I'm not sure how you'd run tournaments based on particular army-list books either, as there is potential for book overlap in the historical pairs. Maybe as long as one of the two armies is from the designated book or books, it's OK, so a Book 3/4 comp would allow a Book 1 army as an opponent of something from 3 or 4. It'll only ever fight that one foe. I've played in HOTT tournaments using this system, and we found that the variety of troop types in play was a little more interesting, with 'risky' choices in one army being balanced by similar choices in their designated opposition. One interesting side-effect is that if there is sufficient space and options for the larger or smaller boards, the figure-scale used becomes irrelevant, since a given 15mm armies will be fighting a fixed 15mm foes, aparticular 25mm army a 25mm foe and 6mm a similar tiny opponent.
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on Oct 4, 2017 1:25:05 GMT
Alan, I much enjoyed your MOAB AAR on the Stronghold Rebuilt....looks like you did take a knife to a gun fight...but that looked fun! I was confused at the comment "A feature of this competition was that you could used any of the variants in your chosen list, in each game. Including allies. So [your opponent] saw my army, and used the flexibility of his list to maximise the number of blade elements he had; he then dropped most of his archers, chose his own list as an ally, and had more blades." How does that work? Looks like this would open up the pre-game to "if you take the knights then I'll use extra archers, otherwise I'll use more blades" type strategies. I'd much prefer "come as you are" armies as this would prevent a pre-game arms race. Besides in this instance I don't think your opponent needed to be quite so gamey given that his army was in full plate mail and armed with lances and halberds while your Mound Builders wore paint and carried pointy sticks. Paddy I'd kind of seen that you could tweak the army in the tournament notes, but I hadn't realised how much flexibility this gave you if you chose the right list and had the available figures. Adding in the ally was a particularly cunning move. Of course the army I chose has one option (swap the Litter general for a 4BW), and no allies, so I was on a fixed list for the day; who's going to pass up having a litter? I have no idea how it works if both sides want to change their armies in response to the other; only one player I faced actually did it (although I had another who had a dismount option which they considered). I much prefer 'come as you are' and prefer even more 'come as you are with a matched pair', as that offers a more interesting variety of armies, plus the chance to play with armies you wouldn't normally use.
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on Oct 3, 2017 0:50:24 GMT
Surely the camels can be in good going and still be in an Oasis ie, they move and fight as if they are in good going, but have the shorter command distance.
Bob's breakdown is how I read the rules on command.
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on Oct 3, 2017 0:09:25 GMT
I have all my gear laid out on the lounge room floor ready to be packed for a crack of dawn run for Sydney tomorrow Tremble in fear before my Trojans (with Hittite Allies) and my even more fearsome Siamese See you tomorrow Cheers I'm sorry I never got to encounter your Siamese on the Sunday. My Mound Builders spent most of the day fighting a series of identikit European medieval armies, with only some Byzantines breaking the monotony. I could have done with the variety Alan
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on Oct 3, 2017 0:06:31 GMT
So you are saying that 4Kn suffer all of the effects appropriate for all KNIGHTS with the ADDITIONAL effect that they are recoiled by 3Kn as well? That's how I'd read it; step though each clause in order until one applies, then stop and implement that one. So the 'Recoil by Solid Foot' applies and you do that. Alan
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on May 19, 2017 0:10:39 GMT
It seems this thread has developed into a serious complaint about the DBA 3.0 terrain system. We worked hard on this aspect of the game and felt we had greatly improved the system - it seems from this feedback that we did not go far enough. I have no experience with the "Triumph" system but did use the 2.2+ system and found it far inferior to the DBA 3.0 system (the 2.2+ guys had left the DBA 3.0 playtest team prior to our upgrading the terrain system). I like the 3.0 system, although I never really played that much DBA 2.0 to appreciate the differences. I long ago adapted the DBA 3.0 system (or an early working version of it) for HOTT, and have used it regularly since. It gives far more interesting terrain set-ups than you'd get if the player gets to choose where the items are positioned.
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on May 19, 2017 0:07:54 GMT
We certainly have a different game culture here No one would certainly take the time to construct such a ‘gamey’ small piece I've just 3D printed a couple of forts to use for DBA (to increase my BUA options) and they're only about 1.5 BW a side. But there's no intent to be cheesey; that's just the size they came out as and, as forts, I wouldn't expect them to be much bigger. (I don't plan to physically populate them with an element; the garrison can be left off-table and assumed to be present, since it's physical position is 'in the fort').
|
|