|
Bows v LH
Sept 4, 2017 18:54:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by phippsy on Sept 4, 2017 18:54:32 GMT
On page 11 under Combat outcome, for the line under ...if it's total is half or less......where LH defined and states ....destroyed if in bad going, or by any mounted, Art shooting, Bows or Psiloi. If not flee.
Does this mean that bows shooting at LH cannot destroy them in a double, and only can in CC
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Jul 6, 2017 15:10:00 GMT
Good range of army types there from different cultures and environments. Something to suit all around a good theme.
|
|
|
CB and LB
Jul 3, 2017 23:38:55 GMT
via mobile
Post by phippsy on Jul 3, 2017 23:38:55 GMT
Keeping the current rules and all the positive elements around it are ideal indeed...thread just started from an interest really.
Thanks Peter
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Jul 2, 2017 17:18:03 GMT
Great thanks will check - Lots of rain around Caribbean currently, Bit more than normally the case, this time of year. But it is the tropics...
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Jul 2, 2017 17:16:15 GMT
When you say Yahoo site, do you mean the PAWS site? Thanks Peter Sorry Peter....I should have said 'on the Yahoo DBA group site' (not the PAWS one). Martin
ps- How was the trip? Hot n steamy ??!!
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Jun 30, 2017 21:38:02 GMT
When you say Yahoo site, do you mean the PAWS site?
Thanks Peter
|
|
|
CB and LB
Jun 29, 2017 0:57:05 GMT
via mobile
Post by phippsy on Jun 29, 2017 0:57:05 GMT
This has been puzzling me a little since starting DBA3.0, but just ran with it. Recently been reading whilst travelling the 1356 book by Richard Sharp Author - do not have to hand.
Anyway the point when you read this and other battle accounts are;
1. Crossbows outrange Longbows and 2. Once in range Longbows out shoot by volume fire effectiveness crossbows.
Why in DBA3.0 are they treated exactly the same? Why not have a 4BW range for CB, and they only fire like artillery every other bound, or some other differences?
Peter
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Jun 19, 2017 21:13:08 GMT
All, apologies but will have to miss this one, as away with work - Caribbean. Have a great day and looking forwards to results, photos and write ups. Peter
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Jun 9, 2017 11:56:01 GMT
Dangun: Easy answers here. The examples run throughout history...from Alexander's Hypaspists at Chaeronea, to Hannibal's infantry at Trebbia and Cannae, to Irish tactics versus invading Vikings, these all point to the capability of a lighter armed infantry to withdraw in the face of the enemy amd continue fighting and skirmishing (as long as their morale held). Phil has rated all these troops as Ax. One has great difficulty recreating these tactics, events, and battles with DBA as written now. I have tried... many times. Allowing lights to retreat a full base width and break contact helps with this issue and preserves Phil's view of these troop types as Ax. As to your question about Roman Auxiliary, you are simply wrong. Roman Allies were differently armed and used exclusively on flanks of the main Roman battle lines until perhaps the middle of the Punic wars. After that Roman Auxilia were armed much like the standard legionary. But this doesn't matter. DBA doesn't divide troop types by arms and armor, rather it divides them by psychology of the warriors involved. Vikings were probably not armed any differently than the Saxons they fought. Crusader Knights certainly were not better armed or armored than many of their Muslim opponents. Yet, DBA rates them all very differently. This is one of the basic assumptions of the game. Joe Collins Agree completey with your synopsis above Joe - and your other ideas that started this thread are well thought through, by someone who understands the game and historical links
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on May 26, 2017 21:15:58 GMT
In my first ever DBA 3 English Open event at PAWs my Vikings, littoral, came accros Martin I recollect with an anti littoral landing camp of dimensions 0.5 BW by 3.5BW I think it was. In the rule parameters, and messed up my possible landing locations when Placed on the waterway at the board side.
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Apr 27, 2017 18:02:10 GMT
Thanks both - interesting indeed and makes sense in that context. Peter
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Apr 26, 2017 20:24:51 GMT
In this list normal allies are noted as in other lists. I then noted that there are two entries that confused me these are ....or (0-2 of III/73a) or (0-2 of III/73b). For normal allies if you have one Ally then one takes exactly 3 elements, one of which is the general's element, one from the modal elements and ANOther. If two allies used then exactly 2 elements from each of the Ally List so one of the two is the general.
Why state then 0-2 for Papal Italian. If 0 is that no ally elements? If 1 then must be the general. I have not picked this up in other army lists, and is it just a quirk of this one?
Thanks
Peter
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Apr 23, 2017 7:24:17 GMT
Thanks for the response, appreciated and a nice approach for gameplay whilst keeping the aesthetics high.
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Apr 22, 2017 20:18:03 GMT
Hi, really interested in your 'ploughed' fields. They look really fantastic visually. Do you find they work OK with figures moving on them elevated or toppling off the edges, and the effect of the buildings or can they be removed to give space to the figures.
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Apr 13, 2017 20:25:30 GMT
Tony, thanks. I remember reading that post, but clearly not remembering it. Exactly the same situation. So illegal and has to stop just short.
Peter
|
|