|
Post by phippsy on Mar 18, 2017 14:59:36 GMT
Just to open this one up. I assume that one can actually implement at littoral landing straight into contact of legal front edge contact with enemy elements. Cannot see where in the rules it says you cannot do this? If so, then assume the free sideways shift to line up is allowed automatically if a group is in contact with the enemy group on landing. This happened in a practice for PAWs Spring where the Egyptian Invader had a 'box' defence around their camp with the waterway on their baseline. The Makkan Defender just laded straight into contact with the right side of the box. After discussion could not find that this should not be allowed. Peter
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Mar 12, 2017 18:37:17 GMT
OK - thanks for confirming Martin
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Mar 12, 2017 11:31:14 GMT
Just a quick development on this theme. Had a situation today where a blade element had a friendly Ps element lined up and in contact, but only a small part of the elements were touching. The blade unit was forced to recoil in combat. We assumed that the Ps was pushed back by the result. Can that be confirmed as correct? Thanks peter
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Mar 11, 2017 10:23:32 GMT
Yes - just checked, and you are quite correct. Those variations still give a wide range of terrain options and influence. Thanks. Peter
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Mar 11, 2017 9:23:51 GMT
My observations. For BBDBA I tend to go for the 30 x 15 option. And take 4 BW either side for heavy foot. This looks OK and seems sensible. One of the key reasons for this, is that if commands are heavy foot heavy then the width of the deployment zone is 30-8 = 22 wide. As calculated previously. So flank commands can still maintain sensible proportions of heavy foot if needed, and act in the way envisaged (thinking of blade and spear lines here) and not necessarily double ranked Pikes or Warband. If there was only 30 - 16 = 14 BW which is very constrained for heavy foot armies.
Terrain - I have not got the rules in front of me, but why is it if I recollect correctly that available terrain pieces are not doubled in BBDBA? (Ie the board area is doubled). But rather one additional compulsory and one additional optional (I think) are added? This seems to favour good going armies. My Spanish Lusitanians and North Slavs with Psiloi and 3AX dominant elements definitely would prefer more bad going to be available.
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Mar 9, 2017 22:27:03 GMT
Interesting?but for me, I just really appreciate the focus of DBA3.0 and the effort that was put in in evolving it. A great piece of work along with the Army Lists. Peter.
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Mar 8, 2017 18:56:37 GMT
Haardrada, I wonder if those 4 armies that you mention are maybe not used as a focus, 'because' they are heavy in Cv and therefore unpopular, or are generally less fashionable than other armies, or figure ranges and availability affects them.
What I have found with my interest in LH armies, is if you understand the strengths a weaknesses of what you command, then you can operate better, if you have that intellectual drive to do so. I am sure that if an interested Cv General invests time in thinking it through, he or she could probably evolve winning strategies against most opponents.
Of course roling 6's helps, and Cv armies do look good.
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Mar 8, 2017 18:41:14 GMT
I have been playing DBA now for about a year, and have steadily reached this realisation too. Particularly when defending and have to deploy first, there is no harm to deploy 'in researve' to give more space and time to respond to the invaders subsequent deployment.
On Monday I played a game as the basic Hun general (defending!) with 11 LH and 1 Cv, against an invading Late Roman Army. I deployed basically in a set back central block in the steppes of roughly a 6 x 2 deep formation. The Romans deployed relatively traditionally.
Granted I did throw 2 x 6 PIPs in first two rounds, but this allowed me to launch at some Roman Vulnerables ie PS and his own LH, to still grab some favourable gentle hill ridges, and avoid his CV General amd generally re deploy where required.
The other thing the extra space gives is the ability to wheel groups of 4 or 5 element wide groups, to realign them, without exposing flanks by getting too close to enemy.
Good article.
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Mar 8, 2017 18:30:10 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 phippsy on Mar 6, 2017 13:47:55 GMT
Interesting thread. Was thinking about most Cv heavy army I had used. And the Early Poles were top of the list with only 3 elements. Even that experience demonstrated that minimising terrain was important. When using LH for example one can actually get them through gaps between terrain and out in the open using say a 2 deep column and a double or treble move (also get the +1 combat for support). This burstbthrough factor is not there for Cv.
Open plains please, and target those Ps and Wb and LH where at all possible. Indeed if at all possible an overlap on one end v Ax or Bd is valuable for a 3v2 which really shifts the odds of a kill, but no need to worry at the other end if overlapped at 2v3 as the worst that can happen to the Cv is a flee. A flank contact as well even better.
If you can get a hole in a line somewhere then CV can really exploit this with the movement and go significant distance to pin or contact for rear supprt. Concentrate on the location to open up.
Always fun using Cv but a good brain challenge. Normally CV figures look good too.
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Feb 20, 2017 12:11:55 GMT
This means I believe that an Auxilia element, with a toe in a marsh (bad going) that losses and is not doubled by a Kn in frontal combat, actually recoils and the Kn has to pursue (only type if bad going this happens in), only to be faced by a 3-1 combat next bound. That has revised tactics for my N Slavs III/Ia v those Kn heavy East Franks = loads of marsh everywhere...
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Feb 20, 2017 10:24:09 GMT
Thank you all for those observations, and have found the line - an element only partly in GOOD going is treated as in the other going...always been there.
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Feb 19, 2017 21:39:39 GMT
Understanding is that if an element has a small corner in say in bad going, then the element moves as if in that going. Is it the same for combat? Say a Kn has a small piece of rear corner in bad going, but is engaged to its front, and the whole front base of the element is in good going, then does it fight as in good or bad going?
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Jan 31, 2017 19:03:17 GMT
Thanks for this and in the diary. After growing the 11thcentuary armies, definitely do not have any of these. Do PAWS have any house armies available? Thanks Peter
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Jan 30, 2017 20:54:49 GMT
Some interesting stats there. And puts the emphasis on trying to engineer an overlap at one end of a battle line and fighting at a near 30% chance of each losing, but bearing in mind the Kn recoil factor, that would then put the next originally in line not overlapped situation into an overlapped situation.
Even in an original non overlapped position in the middle of a line of Kn v a line of Bd, if the Bd can survive the first roll at 60% odd, then the adjacent combats are back at preferential to the Bd, if it goes the other way and the first blade loses, then the odds really shift against the blades when they are overlapped.
|
|