|
Post by Haardrada on Aug 1, 2018 19:27:56 GMT
I'm suprised there are not examples of flanking movements over lakes..which are also considered to be waterways?
Or would the Battle on the Ice be in contention?
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Aug 1, 2018 14:49:45 GMT
Thanks for that link Haardrada...a very interesting read. But I’m not sure that it’s relevant as it describes a Muslim army entirely landing inside one of their own coastal cities while the Spanish are powerless to stop them having lost their fleet, then sallying forth against the emaciated diseased besiegers. And Gregorius, when Alexander crossed the river Hydaspes in 326 BC, and when Hannibal crossed the Rhone river in 218 BC, they both did so by sending a small concealed outflanking force miles up the river out of sight of the enemy. I can’t find any examples of where a small contingent of Batavians did an amphibious landing in the middle of a battle in full view of the defending Germanic tribesmen. And Macbeth, I’m glad you mentioned Jaffa in 1192:- When Richard the Lionheart began his withdrawal from the Holy Land in 1192 AD, Saladin laid siege and assaulted the coastal fortress of Jaffa, capturing all but the citadel. On the 27th of July Richard with a small force arrived by sea, and he immediately stormed ashore and defeated Saladin’s forces within the city. (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jaffa_(1192) )However:- With only 54 knights, a few hundred infantry, and 2,000 Genoese/Pisan crossbowmen, it was more like a large skirmish. And it was really a city assault from the sea, and not a full land battle out in the open. Lastly, he stormed ashore with his entire force, small as it was, and not just a part of it. None of the above can be reproduced with the current Littoral Landing rules. My search for an example of an outflanking manoeuvre by water in full view of a mobile army in the middle of a battle continues... ...but I suppose that if the Littoral detachment appeared not on the Waterway itself, but within 1 BW of a table edge that touches a Waterway, that would simulate a wide waterborne outflanking manoeuvre out of sight of the enemy (imagine if the Anzio landing in 1944 had advanced and suddenly appeared behind the German front line instead of just digging in and waiting...) Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients, and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
If you read more closely about the seige of Algiciras 1278-9..it was the remaining contense of a Maranid fleet that had destroyed,captured or driven off the Castilian fleet and then landed in the city under the land armies very noses and then defeated the emaciated remnants of 30,000 beseigers....does that not trump a flank attack?lol In game terms they've beaten the enemy fleet on the watetway...landed in a friendly defended BUA that was surrounded and beaten the enemy in a head on assult through the BUA.😁
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jul 31, 2018 18:42:34 GMT
Oh Timurilank, you’ve just reminded me that I’ve forgotten to mention coastal sieges. Yes, there are many references to assaulting a coastal city from both land and sea simultaneously, such as Tyre in 332 BC, Syracuse in 212 BC, Byzantine Constantinople several times, and many others. But I still can’t find any examples of anyone trying to use a small naval force to perform a wide outflanking move by water in full view of a mobile army in the middle of a battle. Anyway, the current DBA Littoral Landing rules do not cover simultaneous coastal assaults...you would need special rules to allow foot elements to be in deep water as they contact the city’s seaward walls, or better still use ships to represent them so they could recoil away from a failed assault. (Yet another of my thousand-and-one secret projects...proper siege rules for DBA... ...)Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients, and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
How about this action?The Maranid fleet defeated the Castilian fleet,landed the releiving army in full view of the besiegers..then attacked and routed the beseiging army! en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Algeciras_(1278–79)
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jul 30, 2018 20:42:21 GMT
Taking the Stevie list with note : It’s all a bit subjective of course, but it appears that these are the following guidelines as to who is and who isn’t a naval power:- * must maintain a war fleet, not just transport ships, on a long term basis... * must spend a sizeable amount of income on the fleet as opposed to army expenditure... * must have engaged in naval battles. By these criteria, the Normans do not qualify as Littoral. (Later Edit: hmmm...the II/54 Scots-Irish and the II/68 Picts were not noted for maintaining war fleets or engaging in sea battles... ...but they were noted coastal raiders and at home on the sea. Oh well, I did say it was all a bit subjective...) Could You add to the list : *must have raided by using the sea, either crossing or going round the coast. This needs to be an alternative to the Stevie list not an extra. That would cover coastal Picts and Vikings etc., but not Normans or Romans. Just a thought. David Constable I would be careful to discount the Romans as costal raiders as they had to deal with Irish and Picts raiding for centuries and are recorded raiding in Ireland.There were forts and harbours at Bowness on the Solway at the Western end of the Roman wall as well as both sides of the Severn estuary as well as on the rivers Ellen, Esk, Mite, Irt and Dee that are known of.😊 The Normans are a different example as they are still noted as pirates as late as 996 AD in Normandy and the Hautvilles (In Southern Italy) really extended and enlarged their fleet from 1061 AD to be able to blockade the Harbour at the seige of Bari and seize the port of Catania in 1071 AD as a prelude to the assult on Palermo....to quote Phil(or Richard) in the DBM army lists (Feb 1994 AD), book 3, page 49...."Since the invasion fleet did not remain to co-operate with his army in the face of the superior English fleet, William is not allowed supporting ships.The Norman invaders of Scicily, however, frequently had supporting naval contingents which fought several sea battles." Several other armies come to mind as naval powers Tamil (Chola) Indians,Sung and Ming Chinese for instance.
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jul 29, 2018 18:59:41 GMT
My (albeit vague) recollection is that when the topographies of DBA armies were decided it was based on the DBM army lists, and if THOSE were permitted 'x' number of ships then the DBA army was designated 'littoral'. Whether or not armies occasionally used landings didn't come into it.....so no Caesar in 55BC or whatever . African Vandals are a reverse case - yes they raided, but most of their fighting was very much on 'arable'. Thanks Martin,maybe the need or desire to find out was lacking.lol I have the original DBM lists and strangely Normans in Italy are allowed ships in 1041AD....for DBA purposes the amount must not have been enough.😁
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jul 29, 2018 15:18:26 GMT
Perhaps because they didn’t maintain a regular fleet and didn’t fight naval battles Haardrada, but just used their ships for nothing more than transport purposes. Mind you, what about the I/60c & II/7 Persians and the II/33 & II/49 Polybian and Marian Romans... ...they certainly did maintain regular fleets and fought sea battles, yet are classed as Arable. All I can say is “I didn’t write the rules”... Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients, and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
I didn't think the Normans would be a unique case lol...but The 1066 army is specific to that year and alaternatively, Robert and Roger Guiscard did amass a growing fleet from 1061 which gradually grew in size and capability beyond 1072. 😊 I thought maybe someone who was involved in the construction of 3.0 may shed some light on the subject.💡 😊
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jul 29, 2018 15:16:25 GMT
Perhaps because they didn’t maintain a regular fleet and didn’t fight naval battles Haardrada, but just used their ships for nothing more than transport purposes. Mind you, what about the I/60c & II/7 Persians and the II/33 & II/49 Polybian and Marian Romans... ...they certainly did maintain regular fleets and fought sea battles, yet are classed as Arable. All I can say is “I didn’t write the rules”... Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients, and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
I didn't think the Normans would be a unique case...but The 1066 army is specific to that year and alaternatively, Robert and Roger Guiscard DID amass a growing fleet from 1061 which gradually grew in size and capability beyond 1072. 😊
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jul 29, 2018 12:47:52 GMT
After watching Dan Snows documentary on Norman walks I had a question form in my mind.The Battle of Hastings was fought 6 miles approx.from the invasion camp at Pevensey and could be described as an amfibious operation so why no Littorial option for this in the rules?
Likewise, the Normans in Italy/Scicily from 1061(Massina)to the fall of Palermo 1972 increasingly used naval units in their leisurly campaigns being replaced by the IV/5a Scicilian list from 1072...so why do the Normans not qualify as fighting in Arable and Littorial?
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jul 29, 2018 8:57:16 GMT
I have been following this discussion with keen interest and it has thrown up some great ideas...so I'll add another one and you can decide if it is any good.lol
Before choosing board size and the initial dicing for attacker/defender note down how many terrain pieces each player intends to place and their prefered board size and then dice.This is not required if both players want to play on the same size board,otherwise it results in the attackers' choice of board size.
The difference in the aggression scores counts in that the attacker can claim chances to contest the placing of terrain by the defender.i.e.
Difference is 1-3= 1 chance. 4-6= 2 chances. 7-9= 3 chances.
How this works is that as the defender comes to place a piece of terrain the attacker can contest a number of pieces equal to the score.Both then dice and the highest has the option to place the terrain piece with a slight difference to the dice outcome...1-4 the player places the piece in that sector,on a 5 in another sector and on a 6 it is discarded...if not contested terrain is diced for as usual.If the attacker does not contest any or as many allowed of the terrain placements he looses his chances.
I may not have described it as best as I could, but the idea is that both sides are equally likely to choose the board size and influence the terrain placement before deciding which edge to choose to deploy.This could even result in the attacker even placing a road if they gain the right result.
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jul 28, 2018 8:08:08 GMT
Finally had a chance to pick up a paint brush...more work on my Grenadine Horse today and I'm impressed with how they are stating to look.
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jul 27, 2018 22:35:17 GMT
I think it started with old movies...El Cid,300 Spartans and Ivenhoe.Then I found the books Solo Wargaming by Donald Featherstone and the Airfix Ancient Wargaming in my local library and I was hooked!Mind I was already into ECW and one of our teachers had a board set up with a battle to play...next thing me and 4 other mates were giving up our Saturday mornings to fight/defend the King.
When Christmas came along I got my 1st metal figures...25mm Greenwood & Ball Spartans and the 5th Edition WRG Ancient rules...at age 11 what was a boy to do!lol
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jul 27, 2018 19:43:26 GMT
Hi Peter welcome to Tyneside.Unfortunatly DBA is very rare up here.There is a Wargames club I used to go to in Northshields which does multi-period gaming but not DBA as they were pretty negative to it...even prefering 6th Edition to DBM.lol
The closest gamers I found were in Stockton.I am very suprised as late as the year 2000 there were DBA competitions at the Gateshead shows which had a reasonable turn-out.Sadly,the Gateshead shows ended and DBA vanished.The Border Reiver convention is on 1st September at the Gateshead Stadium but I doubt if any DBA will be played.
I unfortunatly cant find free-time to game due to work commitments through the week and family time at weekends...even painting armies is limited to a few hours at weekends if I have the energy and motivation.lol
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jul 17, 2018 17:54:37 GMT
Parthians (II/44) won Day 1 (Books 1 & 2) at Cancon 2018. Out of curiously was what was the Parthian army composition?Was it a cataphract/LH mix or did it drag along some allies?
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jul 15, 2018 20:41:40 GMT
Hi,I was wondering if anyone has had any success in Tournaments with LH armies(other than tournaments making 6 or more LH elements as compulsory)?
If so what armies did you face if you can recall?
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jul 13, 2018 21:50:50 GMT
I have since the publication of 3.0 been careful to consider adding allies to my existing armies or including them in new armies.I also checked out the Big Battle assessments to see how the addition of an ally could change the rated performance of each individual army...I'm not particularly competitive...I just like fast and manouverable armies and any advice on using an army can't be a bad thing..eh? Another reason is to keep your opponent guessing as it widens the choice of elements you could field...mind he/she could do the same. But I also find the addition of an ally interesting...the Hsuing nu can have a Chinese ally with a Kn and 2 x 8cb adding more punch and firepower.The South Welsh can add English Kn allies,the Ghaznavids can add Rajput Kn or Ellies,My Hindu Indians can add Tibetan 4Kn,My Grenadines can add Islamic Berbers with additional Sp,Kn or Cm and my Timurids can add more Lh (mongols) or a 3rd Bw element by adding Black sheep Turks....or I can choose from the original lists. The addition of an ally can provide a pip drain,particularly when push backs,persuits and flee moves occur..so using an ally is not always a good idea. legacydirs.umiacs.umd.edu/~kuijt/BBDBA/ArmyAssessment.htmlAnyone have a copy of this saved?Just asking as the link is broken or it has been deleted?
|
|