|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 25, 2017 19:40:20 GMT
One alternative we can all consider as well, is allowing a change of deployment/tactics from more loose and open order, to more dense, closed order? In this, we allow an element of otherwise HI to "dismount" at the start of a battle (or at deployment) into the 4Ax type. What this allows is the tactical flexibility to choose between survivability against HI in open ground, vs the movement and loose order advantage in bad ground.
As an example, could the Spanish and Gauls at Cannae not be classed as "Spear" at the start? This would render them able to stand somewhat against the legionary 4Bd, until the "Formation" (i.e. "shieldwall") gets broken up, and they slowly, on average give ground? Another example concerns the Macedonian campaign in Thrace and Illyria, where I believe the Phalanx (4Pk) "dismounted" into 4Ax to take the fight to the enemy in bad going hilly and ravine-scarred country?
I am not claiming this is the correct solution, just one that requires in my view minimal overhead. Dismounting to replace Kn, say, with Bd, or HCh with Sp (hoplites) is already a thing in DBA v3.0, and the Army Lists have already been flagged as needing tweaking. Is this a great way to "sell" a solution to both tournament and historical gamers? It seems eminently believable as a technique for reflecting actual capabilities?
Just my two cents worth. May not work, but I thought it was worth getting everyone's views on.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 22, 2017 12:18:21 GMT
I would humbly suggest that 4Ax are true Auxilia, ie something between legion and peltast, and 3Ax and 3Bw would be "light". Perhaps recast 4Ax as Medium Foot? Note then we have split Light Foot into two: slightly tougher guys with shields and stamina, and skittish boys who run away a lot?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 22, 2017 12:13:22 GMT
Would 4Ax be that much deadlier against Ps than 3Ax? Not saying they weren't, but just wondering.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 18, 2017 16:56:44 GMT
4Ax: +1 in CC in GGo vs Sp, Solid Bd or supported Pk.
Does this not accomplish the same thing but with a fraction of the overhead? Then allow 3Ax the option of 1BW recoil?
Stevie is correct: if survivability is what you are after for 4Ax, then 1BW recoil doesn't cut it on its own.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 12, 2017 12:01:48 GMT
Barritus...YES!!! May I respectfully suggest also reintroducing the breakoff rule for any element locked in CC if you don't want the full BW recoil? I am suggesting Ax and Bw of all stripes will be very frequent users. Also allows running Cv battles...
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 11, 2017 17:04:39 GMT
I agree fundamentally with the trajectory proposed by Stevie. As a primary point regarding 4Ax, it seems to me as if Ax should really be Light Infantry - javelin throwers, able to engage successfully in close combat in the right terrain. And then there are a slew of troop types that seem to require a different classification (MI) that fought toe to toe, but would ultimately slowly be ground back by HI. I am not certain 4Ax as written, or with the extra recoil, really adequately captures this sort of troop type. Spanish Scutarii, early pre-hoplites (Lydia), Republican Allied legions are all glaring examples for me.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on May 25, 2017 23:01:41 GMT
The bottom line is the 24" board works well, but some LH and Cv armies can be out of action at the outset against a LI-defender with terrain advantage. Meanwhile a HI-army is in similar dife straits on the bigger board against mobile opponents for the opposite kind of reasons.
Overall I think the board size you go with depends a lot on your various armies, but I personally find the 24" more compact and fun, even if it doesn't always work in all situations.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on May 20, 2017 19:28:59 GMT
Stevie, technically the chances of a +4 army being defender are slightly higher than 1/36. A 5-1 or a 6-2 split causes a reroll with a nonzero probability, and so on...
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on May 17, 2017 12:12:40 GMT
Bill, those look brilliant. What did you make them with? A great idea for club campaigns and tournaments, though they look like a bit of a logistical headache to be honest..
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on May 2, 2017 11:18:42 GMT
You only conform in good going, no?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on May 1, 2017 22:23:15 GMT
I wonder, would a Cavalry army invading a mountain region really have a high tactical/maneuver rating? Think of Mongols attacking Carpathia... I think to some extent any maneuver rating is contingent on being in a region that allows the army to shine? I suspect you need a different maneuver rating for different regions... And differing seasons, supply situations.... Tantalising idea!
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 14, 2017 21:27:12 GMT
TomT are you suggesting it is inappropriate for for example LH, Cv or open order foot to be X-ray TZed, if behind a similar element? Open order by definition seems ... Well.... Open? Hence TZ passes through, no?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 12, 2017 12:09:17 GMT
I think you will find that doesn't work as well. Probability of a 1 for Elites is only 1/36. Probability of a 6 for Poor is also 1/36. May not be what you are looking for?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 12, 2017 11:55:56 GMT
Tony: Second impulse was to allow for this reason: troops that would fight in the real world should fight in our toy solider world. Here the two elements would really clash outside the wood and fight as much as possible. This is clearly not relevant, because the Spear is only allowed to move 1BW. If you believe that the free slide is part of movement, the rule says the Spear can only move 1BW. How you imagine reality to play out is not relevant, especially if you have to ignore the rules to get to your imagination. Hi Dangun, I believe you mentioned an alternative quick play ancients game that you felt did a better job in many respects in many of the matters you seem to have an issue with in DBA v3. May I ask which game(s) you were referring to so I may know where you are coming from on many of the issues you are pointing out?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 11, 2017 11:16:40 GMT
Dangun, because unlike most of the wargamers I know, I have spent extensive time in a forward operational area. Units are not solid blobs. a "rear" unit or element does not represent, in the abstract world that is a DBA game, anything other than a military capability. The abstract representation we play recognises that military options decrease in proximity to the enemy. They decrease for any number of reasons...One of which is that the "front" as such has always (yes, even in ancient times) been a fluid thing, with any number of holes/gaps or irregularities in it... If you find enough holes, it stops being a front, and the enemy rout (and try to regroup next day if they can). Get close enough to one of the holes, or thins spots, and watch you and your unit take on someone else's problem.
I find DBA an excellent window into the psychology of command...
|
|