|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 10, 2017 12:24:29 GMT
You keep missing the point Dangun. You will be equally hardpressed to find an ancient general capable of peeling rear ranks away from a knockdown fight at will either. My first question to your hypothetical general is "what the hell are you doing throwing your LH into the meat grinder of the FOA???"...
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 10, 2017 11:57:58 GMT
If one is comfortable with bow range being 3 times the depth of a TZ, I fail to see the issue. The TZ is the "forward operational area".
The "gap" you require is one you have to actually think about a little. With the faster movement rates (which is why bow range has to be the length it now is) it is all part of the basic abstraction. If you allow reserves to deploy too close to the forward battle area, you risk them getting drawn into the fighting, or you risk command paralysis. Abstract. Simple. Elegant.
Elements are not little brick walls, remember...
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 10, 2017 3:58:24 GMT
Dangun, it is pretty much a given that competent commamders will keep reserves clear of potential engagement and breakthrough zones. As a former infantry commander myself, I can tell you there is a term for getting your reserves too close to frontline activity: it's called "commitment". Committing reserves prematurely is a beginner mistake.
Few wargames recognise that fighting units are comprised of men, and men are all too frequently rash, impatient, prone to veing goaded, and overly concerned with booty, proving themselves, and battlefield ambition. Yet others are filled with dread and paralysis at the sights, sounds and scent of battle.
Sorry, the X-ray TZ is bang on in my view...
Most wargamers I find have never slipped on the guts of their fallen comrades, heard the deafening din and shriek of battle, shat or pissed themselvs at the sheer horror of carnage. It is these who frequently think of combat units as robotic automata...
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 1, 2017 0:18:44 GMT
Wow Macbeth, I can't help but think of your poor Scots struggling on the bigger boards then! I agree that for every Cv heavy army that enjoys a bigger board, you get a foot heavy army that needs the smaller one....
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 24, 2017 3:56:05 GMT
...and to the best of my knowledge there is nothing in the rules to prevent you from having a gentlemen's agreement that waterways extend only 1-2 or 2.5 BW in from the board edge, which is a very simple and elegant way of dealing with this... Sometimes I think us wargamers are simply too dumb to be trusted with anything important...
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 22, 2017 11:42:38 GMT
Personally, if I wanted a hill to fight and die on over the "realism" of DBA, this wouldn't have been the one I would have chosen...
I am always amazed at folks' ability to rationalise some idiotic things in a wargame (like the Bd vs Bd perpetual motion machine) but in fits of almost religious fervour, not others...
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 20, 2017 23:31:00 GMT
Stevie, you built a straw man... I did not assert that every such landing was an "ambush", only that it was eminently plausible. No different than lurkers popping up (oh wait, teleporting) on a flank in rocky ground in HotT, for instance. And both DBA and HotT are "fantastical" games to a certain degree.
Your attempt to equate the D-DAY landings with a raid by vikings is perhaps not the best comparison I suggest. For starters, DBA is more properly viewed as an abstract representation of combat power through the use of rectangles with models on them, which allows us to wrap our heads around 12 elements each, and 4 dead is victory...
Also, like the faster movement rates or deploying as close to the enemy as possible, littoral landings are an option, not a requirement. I frequently avoid performing them due to the inherent levels of undiversifiable risks.
And DBA has always been a colossal abstraction, from the "don't tread on my rectangles" OCD tetris combat system, to the jet-propelled Psiloi and Light Horse. One accepts them, warts and all, mostly, or one is perpetually miserable...
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 18, 2017 15:48:33 GMT
Oh, so no such thing as a rival landing by vikings emerging out of the fog, to take the enemy by surprise, then. Great, good to know.
Stevie, you are free to make any rules you want. But your claim that this is "teleporting" is simply not supportable by history. I suggest you study the battles for Syracuse for starters. You do know galleys, riverine landers and longboats could be beached fairly quickly and quietly, and fog as well as poor visibility is a frequent occurrence on many waterways, right?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 18, 2017 15:04:13 GMT
Not only possible, I'd suggest highly desirable! Opposing fleets landing opposing contingents of marines. Sounds like a hell of a day at the beach!
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 7, 2017 12:30:17 GMT
Further to Joe's point, there is no requirement to deploy at minimal distance from the enemy, nor is there a requirement to move at full speed. Often, though it is tempting to unleash your line in a furious assault, the X-ray TZ forces you to ask if that is really the best thing to do...
Our battles last a decent time, and we find beginners often move everything at full speed, just because they can! It is against such recklessness that the battle ia over quickly. As it should be. Against a measured, calculating opponent, you don't find it as easy to lock them down. Psiloi really are great as a screen - and a delaying force...
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 7, 2017 1:28:20 GMT
OK so tell me...if a unit has two elements in it's TZ, but those two elements are one in front of the other but not touching, are both impacted by the TZ or just the front one? As I said in response to your comment about movement rates in another thread, this is one way of getting in your enemy's face to stop him running around and tolchocking you in the bollocks...😛
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 7, 2017 1:25:53 GMT
The only concern I have had has been that the movement rates seem very high. It makes everything seem very rushed sometimes. But that's just me being a bit picky. Technically, nothing stops you using the original movement rates with a bit of tweaking... It actually does work, and you slow things down somewhat. Of course then you need the "close the door" rule back in, though not in Bad or Rough going... And you'll find River, Bad and Rough Going moves painfully slow...and then you have to switch to a diffrent command range... A lot of work for precious little gain imho, though it does still function. Personally, I have not had an issue with move rates, but I know for some this is a sore point. Basically you need to get your troops in the enemy's face at the right moments and in the right spots, to stop him running all over the battlefield and kicking you really hard in the soft, dangly bits. You need the right combination of aggressiveness and patience.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 24, 2017 2:39:22 GMT
I thought pursuit stops in bad going other than marsh? So it works in one case, but not all...
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 21, 2017 0:47:38 GMT
So... Mr. Thomas.... Do you think you'd ever give the ancient period DBA rules the "Ice and Fire" treatment? It could be a fantastic update, and a huge leap forward in recruiting new players...
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 20, 2017 14:43:36 GMT
Given that there are some who claim the move rates as a major impediment to their perception and enjoyment of DBA v3, have any of you tried the 12-element game with a shorter movement rate? For instance using 3/4 of a BW (or some other) say as the single move unit? This of course needs to be the same for shooting. I'd be curious to get the views of the fanatici on this. What you are doing is changing the meaning of "BW" for purposes of movement, shooting and perhaps command range?
|
|