|
Kn v Sp
Apr 13, 2017 19:48:47 GMT
via mobile
Post by phippsy on Apr 13, 2017 19:48:47 GMT
Just finished a third game this week where Sp armies have defeated a mass Kn charge. Happened on Monday at Guildford where the Rus Sp defeated a non historic East Franks, and just happened twice to Early Lombard Kns being defeated by Anglo Danish Sp. Even thought the Kn might get the odd quick kill, once a Kn recoil happens and they have to fight at 2-4 or even 1-4 the odds really shift.
Out of interest to players tend to be comfortable either attacking Kn with a Sp line, or as a minimum, just waiting to receive the attack.
Peter
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Apr 13, 2017 19:35:00 GMT
Just had a situation where a Kn element killed a Sp and pursued forwards. This wound have put the front corner of the Kn element into 'contact' obliquely on the side of a Hd element. Red to the final para of P12 under Pursuing, refers to two scenarios, one where the pursuing elements front edge contacts enemy, or where it's front corner contacts an enemy front edge - in both cases the elements would line up immediately. It wound appear that the potential contact from the pursuit is not allowed, and therefore the Kn element should just stop short of the side edge of the enemy Hd element.
Is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Apr 9, 2017 9:44:46 GMT
Reference to fig 6a and page 9 first para under Interpenetration. Basically if a Ps is in front of any element it can interpenetrate to the rear and end lined up. Two clarifications,
1. Does the Ps have to be facing the element behind as in the Figure 6a? Or if it is facing in the same direction as the rear element, can it just move backwards, whilst still facing in the same direction as the rear element and move behind it?
2. If there is an enemy element in front of the Ps, and the Ps in the Threat Zone, could the Ps still move straight back out of the TZ and end up lined up behind the rear element. This is a bit like Fig 7b, but exchange Spear A for a Ps element. In this case Spear B would not block the movement of the Ps.
Thanks Peter
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Apr 9, 2017 9:35:51 GMT
For final clarity of TZ. If an element moves into a TZ of an enemy, with out moving into contact, at the end of the move that element must either be parallel to the enemy element front, or fully lined up. Is that correct. Fig 7a and 7b.
Is this the same for Groups? Fig 11 suggests that Ax Y and the WB Group can end up like this, even though the Group has either moved forwards into the TZ of Ax Y, or the Ax Y has moved into the TZ of Wb B and Wb C and stopped there at at an angle. Clarification please.
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Apr 8, 2017 8:29:29 GMT
Timurilank, these are great write ups. The Early Byzantines you are using list III/4a. Is that correct. Interest in understand why you went for the CV Kavallorioi rather than the LH. Did roll a die or select on some historical information? It appear that the CV performed really well v the Lombard and Ostrogoth Kn heavy armies.
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Apr 7, 2017 10:47:26 GMT
Martin, indeed, and also have Ostrogoths and Franks at the ready to do battle, might be able to offer out to others this time. In the diary...
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Apr 7, 2017 6:12:01 GMT
Really liked the sequence of battles. Just waiting for an Early Lombard army to arrive in Surrey. Thought the commentary on the hard pushed Lombard warriors in column were struggling in the hamlet - looks like they were even fighting from the roof tops as well...peter
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Apr 7, 2017 6:09:18 GMT
It appears that as the terrain increased and became more central to the battles that the effectiveness of the Ostrogoths also increased, particularly in the 'tavern brawl' scenario where cohesion of the more regular Byzantine forces was broken down. Of interest what size playing area are these battles being played out on? Looks a little larger than a 2ft x 2ft.
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Apr 5, 2017 13:03:42 GMT
Yes like this - also that I will not have to rely on other's generosity by borrowing an army as can at last supply one of these...peter
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Apr 1, 2017 18:40:19 GMT
Stevie thanks. Yes pass through. But not stop. Ok. With the combat just as long as and element is at leat partly in the terrain it fights as in that terrain, even though the front edge of the element is potentially fighting in good going.
For the hill question, the element was on a difficult hill, so is assumed to be in that going, but was not uphill for a combat factor as the front edges where lined up were on the flat and in normal good going.
Love the nuances.
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Apr 1, 2017 12:41:11 GMT
All, is it correct that if there is a gap between a friendly Element and say a wood, that if this gap is just over a base width that my LH element can pass through the gap for full move distance, even though on the turn the rear corner of the Element passes through the wood.
Does the same theory apply if I have a 2 LH column, and the second elements front edge actually passes through the wood. But is doing Follow my leader to the front edge of the first element in column that has missed entering the wood.
Whilst at it, and for clarity, if the LH column stops with the front edge of the first element of the column outside the wood, If contacted and in combat to front then the LH fights as in good going, but outcomes take into account that in bad going?
I had thought that if an element had any part of itself in terrain, ie the LH in a wood, then only 1 base width of movement is only allowed until the element is completely clear of the wood.
I had a correction on the uphill combat factor at PAWs last week, when in a combat I thought I was up hill of opponent, I was, but the front edges where combat was occurring was on the flat, therefore not considered up hill for combat. That was buried in the terrain section of the rules...
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Mar 25, 2017 22:19:52 GMT
Indeed. Thanks for the hospitality, and lots of close battles with fair play. The low combat factor armies made both for rapid outcome swings and sometimes cagey play, with rule book to hand. But all in good spirit.
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Mar 25, 2017 12:38:30 GMT
1 Mile away. Lots of traffic. Pompey at home? 1240
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Mar 22, 2017 21:56:54 GMT
Joe, good observation. The rules alow a rash owner of a littoral landing to really mess it up and be defeated quickly. It is a skill element of DBA, that means that an invader has to think through his approach and deployment...as well
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Mar 22, 2017 6:20:37 GMT
Maybe the thought process here is to turn the thread on its head. As the invader you will know what elements the defender has set aside with a littoral landing opportunity. That allows you to then configure and deploy your troops to best counter the landing. That has a better historical feel about it to me. If then the defender want to deploy directly into contact then it would be at very adverse terms ie against troops with higher combat factors and more of them. If I was some Psiloi in a boat, about to land, and saw a whole bunch of enemy cavalry near the proposed landing area, i would probably be advised to land somewhere else anyway. If an invader leaves vulnerable troops isolated in the reach of a littoral landing force, then they have what is coming to them. At the English Open at PAWs last Autumn my Vikings also came across an anti littoral landing camp. Minimum width but maximum length placed along the waterway blocking it up, and garrisoned with a spear element I think it was, that provided a real tactical challenge and deterrent to deploy too aggressively.
|
|