|
Post by barritus on Oct 2, 2023 13:00:50 GMT
Agreed Barritus (although two or three LH of ANY army suddenly appearing on a flank could simulate an ‘ambush’, such as Hannibal did at the River Trebia?)But there is one very minor adjustment to my previous posting, in red:- * Up to three LH may ‘Flank March’ (which uses the same mechanism as ‘Littoral Landings’). * All the LH appear as one Group, part of which must touch a table side-edge. (so that’s Waterways out…the water prevents you from touching a table side-edge) …er…and that’s it… ….I don’t think this ‘Flank Marching LH Force’ should be allowed to appear BEHIND the enemy, and easily threaten their Camp. Re Hannibal I take your point Stevie but he was an exceptional general. If we allow ANY army to place LH similarly then ambushes/flank marches will be occurring in games far too often compared to historical usage. I suppose I've tried to restrict the lists that can use them (eg are 'steppe' with a minimum of 3LH etc) precisely for that very reason. The only solution I can think of for other armies is to allow maybe a single LH element (I don't think such ambushes were particular large) for armies led by - to use a DBMM term - ' Brilliant generals'. That would allow Hannibal, Belasarius and such the option. Just speculation of course.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Oct 2, 2023 2:55:16 GMT
I really like this and think it has potential. However, I favour something far simpler:- * Up to three LH may ‘Flank March’ (which uses the same mechanism as ‘Littoral Landings’). * All the LH appear as one Group, part of which must touch a table-edge. (so that’s Waterways out…the water prevents you from touching a table-edge) …er…and that’s it… No need to overly complicate things with Terrain limitations, or messy scouting points. However, it’s no a sliver bullet for all the current LH problems. They will still need to ignore corner-to-corner overlaps like Psiloi, just to survive. They will still need some way to increase their PIP’s to enhance their mobility. And they will still need the ability to recoil up to 4 BW and break-off from combat. But having LH ‘Flank Marching’ is a damn sight more realistic than the fictitious ‘Amphibious Landings’, and the mechanism is already in DBA. It’s just being used in a different situation. Nice one Paddy. 👍 There's some good ideas on this thread including this one. Just one comment on it. Namely, I'd restrict it to armies whose home terrain is 'Steppe'and that it was for 3 LH (for 12 element DBA, or multiples thereof + a mandatory LH general - so for 36 element BBDBA a flank marching command would be 1 LH(Gen) + 9 LH). This would help out the horse-archer armies that most likely used it ( Mongols and their ilk) and often despite historical success don't have great army lists from a DBA perspective. Other armies that don't meet the 'steppe and 3LH' in their lists often have lists more ootimised to frontal combat with sizeable contingents of cavalry and/or suupporting foot (or even Elephants!) eg Timrids, Jurchen etc.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Aug 7, 2022 11:32:37 GMT
Ah. Thanks chaps, even tho' I lost the game its good to know you're right . B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Aug 7, 2022 7:47:54 GMT
Hi Hoping to get some clarification here. The other day some friends and I were playing a game of BBDBA. Eventually one of our sides commands became demoralised. This command contained a number of elephants. One of which was facing sideways (parallel to the back table edges) and was closer to the enemy back board edge than to its own. Furthermore if the elephant turned 90 degrees and did a flee move towards its own back table edge it would collide into the rear of an enemy element (Bow) before completing its flee move. So the question was: If we let that Elephant flee (ie didn't spend PIPs to hold it in place) what would happen? As usual people had differing views these being: 1. The elephant would flee to its immediate rear (without turning towards it own baseline). 2. The elephant would turn 90 degrees and flee towards it own rear board edge but would stop when contacting the enemy elephant (and fight it next turn - with a -2 CF for being demoralised). 3. The elephant would turn 90 degrees and flee towards it own rear board edge and both it and the enemy element contacted are destroyed as the Bow was impeding the Elephant from completing its flee move. We played it as option 2 tho personally I thought option 3 may have been the correct one (the fact that the Bw loss would have demoralised an enemy command had of course no bearing on my preference ). Cheers Barritus
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Aug 7, 2021 8:10:23 GMT
Another option to improve LH armies is too simply allow the LH elements to be chosen as Cv instead ( LH or Cv). PB's thoughts that most Mongols or Huns etc are LH (in DBA terms) is to be honest questionable. Certainly its not a universal view. Many nomad cavalry are likely dual purpose and theres no reason to believe they didn't fight as heavier cavalry using only a portion of their units to act as skirmishers at any one time (they would then come back to the main body - which like the supports of Napoleonic foot skirmishers were kept in a compact body - to be replaced by other skirmishers etc). Of course some mounted may have preferred massed skirmishing [in DBMM these are likely to be LH(F) as against those above which would be LH(S)].
Cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Aug 6, 2021 5:56:12 GMT
Has anyone played with a house rule where LH with Bws are allowed to shoot (range - 3BW; +2 v foot and +4 v mounted)? Just wondering how this would work and whether it may make certain armies, such as the Mongols, more historical and, potentially more playable? P. Paul, I've run 2 campaigns at MOAB where LH and Cv were permitted to use bow fire. These campaigns were based around Mongol Conquest armies one, and an Early Samurai one. I limited range to 2BW for each troop type and their shooting factors were the same as their CC ones. We were able to complete each campaign in a day's play. All participants considered both campaigns to be a great success. I hope that this helps. Cheers, That's an interesting idea gregorius. Tho to be fair I think you'd also have to consider giving some Ps (those with longer distance weapons eg bows, crossbows & slings) a shooty factor too as these seem to have been a bit of an antidote to mounted shooters (I'm trying to think of examples here but I think the March of the Ten Thousand in Xenephon(?) is a case in point - also Alexander may have used Cretans or such vs Scythians and I'm sure Later Romans vs various mounted armies etc). This makes some sense as LH especially liked to come to close range vs heavy foot but this became much more hazardous if the foot had supporting Ps (sheltering amongst the heavier foot) shooters which could hit the rider or disable their mounts - at which point you'd likely be dismounted and butchered in short order by the opposing foot. cheers B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jul 24, 2021 8:05:43 GMT
You are correct Barritus…at least, that’s what the rules say. Page 9, Tactical Move Distances, second paragraph:- “1 BW if the front-edge of any single element or group is in a non-paltry river for part of the move.”
Note however that is says “if the front-edge of any single element or group”. Well, a column is a group, and if a single element is not slowed when its front-edge starts clear of the water, then neither is a column-group slowed if the leading element is clear of the water…no matter if the tail of the column is still in the water or how many elements are in that column. In other words, if the leader’s front-edge starts clear of the water, both it and the whole column behind it are not slowed. Thanks stevie. Yes I know the group move bugbear. But isn't it obvious,,,the first element scouts the route, the second in a column lays the pontoon bridge and the last element crossing pulls it up .
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jul 24, 2021 8:01:03 GMT
Just downloaded it mwise via your link. Thanks mate. B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jul 24, 2021 4:28:46 GMT
Hi Stevie Having seen a pre-publish version I think these would be good for demo games where the geometric issues with DBA could be minimised (say to school children - I'm all for teaching them REAL history . Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to download the published version via the link above (not sure if anyone else has the same problem). cheers B. Oh - we're in lockdown btw.... LOL
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jul 24, 2021 4:17:26 GMT
Hi
I've never really used rivers in DBA 3.0 but a friend has been making some recently so I have been brushing up on the rules and have the following question;
An element crosses a non-paltry river (so only has a 1Bw move) and ends its move with its front edge at the rivers far bank. Next go does it only still move 1BW (as it exits the river)?
My thoughts are that it should (as the front edge is still 'in the river' at start of its movement phase) but I would just like to confirm that is correct.
cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jul 7, 2021 8:48:15 GMT
Thx all for the replies. However I'm still confused as to the correct outcome. It seems to me we have a number of competing issues.
1. El meeting others trample them. 2. 'If 2 Elephants meet, both are destroyed'. 3.'An element already in such contact[sic rear edge is contacting an element it can't pass thro or push back] is destroyed instead.
So in point 1 - El kills the El behind it. In point 2 - both El are destroyed. In point 3 - the recoiling element has no room to recoil as already touching the element behind (in my example that element is another El's base at right angles to the recoiling El so presumably can't push them back) so it dies as can't start its recoil.
From the above perhaps point 2 is correct after all (??) Given PB's perchant for the simple ( even if Barkerese sometimes gets in the way) perhaps it was put in to include situations like this???
Edit. Oh thx Stevie our last replies crossed as it were.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jul 7, 2021 6:04:04 GMT
Hi
Hoping someone can answer this.
The other day a friend and I played a game of DBA24. At one point there were two enemy El ( side by side in a line) coming towards me. I then managed a flank contact with a Cv on the left-most EL which then had to turn to face. In doing so its rear edge was now up against the righthand El's side edge.
My Cv then scored a 6-1 leading to the El having to recoil.
So....are both enemy elephants destroyed due to the recoil or as the recoiling El was touching the others base and had no room to start its recoil only it was destroyed?
I thought both were destroyed at the time but looking at it now I think only the reciler should have gone to the great savannah in the sky....
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jun 26, 2021 6:43:56 GMT
After going on a country walk, it struck me that not all woods are dense and nearly impenetrable. Some woodland is fairly open and much less of a hindrance. So, along with Rough Going Hills (see fanaticus.boards.net/thread/3007/rough-hills ), why not also have Rough Going Woods as well? Open Woods = Rough Going, otherwise they are the same as Bad Going Woods. Dense Woods = Bad Going, these are the current standard type of Wood in DBA. Let defenders choose which type of wood they want present, but Forest and Tropical Regions can only have Dense Woods. It’ll at least add a little more variety to our terrain choices. Perhaps the type of Woods could be determined when an element first tries to enter/move in it. Roll a D6 and take your chance. EVEN its Open Woods, ODD its Dense Woods.
|
|
|
3Pk???
Jun 7, 2021 6:11:10 GMT
Post by barritus on Jun 7, 2021 6:11:10 GMT
Some time back I proposed that most Fast troops get a -1 vs most mounted when in open going. This would make 3Pk less attractive.
Having said that if treating 3Pk in isolation (ie without considering the broader aspects of Fast foot) I would certainly agree that removing rear support for 3Pk is a good option - the idea that they charge around at speed in very deep formations (ie around 16 ranks as do slower Solid pike) whilst retaining some type of order is historical nonsense.
cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on May 10, 2021 13:24:38 GMT
Yes. I've never liked the fact that 4Kn don't pursue - a misreading of history I think. It would remove an exception in DBA too.
|
|