|
Post by stevie on May 8, 2021 8:05:50 GMT
Historical University papers or podcasts could be useful too perhaps? I just thought something like the resource section that used to exist on the old fanaticus, but not taking up space by being references to other sites using all forms of access to media which could help new and existing players find material on armies they wish to build or take an interest in. A resource thread seems a better option and inspiring films could become a sub-category of it. The search tool here leaves much to be desired. Could information be presented in such a way to make later searches less frustrating? Perhaps Stevie has a few suggestions? Ha!…not this time I’m afraid. There is just soooo much information to be had out there on the internet, and trying to compile it all together in one place would be a mammoth task that would result in some sort of new ‘Historical Wargamers Encyclopaedia’. Nonetheless, here are some of the sites I like to use:- Wikipedia ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page ): Always a good place to start that lists the original sources for reference. YouTube ( www.youtube.com/ ): This has many subjects that are both visually entertaining and informative. Google Books ( books.google.com/ ): Simply type in the name of the nation, historical character, or battle, and it will take you to the subject that you are curious about. If it says ‘preview’ you’ll only get a few pages from the original book, which might be enough, but what you really want are items that say ‘read’. These will give you the entire book for free. For example, type in ‘Herodotus’, ‘Caesar’, ‘Polybius’, or ‘Tacitus’ to find the complete works of these ancient authors (although some modern writers can also be useful, they get their information from these ancient scholars, and I like to go back to the original sources to avoid modern misconceptions and bias). There are many, many other sources of information that can be found by simply conducting Google searches, plus of course the excellent articles printed in the Society of Ancients Slingshot magazine ( www.soa.org.uk/joomla/ ). (By the way, there is already a place to list links to various information sites… …it’s in the Fanaticus DBA Wiki here: fanaticus-dba.fandom.com/wiki/Books_%26_Inspiration . But I could add all the links mentioned above to the “House Rule Index” if you like)
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 7, 2021 14:19:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 7, 2021 6:08:13 GMT
I’m inclined to agree with Chaotic. The rules say that only Area Terrain Features must have a 1 BW gap between them and (unless a BUA) a table edge, and a Waterway Beach is Good Going... ...although this does raise the question of just what is the point of having a Beach if other Area Terrain types can be placed on top of it? Interestingly HoTT 2.1 allows Seas and Lakes to have Islands, if they are no more than 1 BW from a shoreline. This 1 BW water channel is waded through and is treated exactly the same as a River. Dicing for the water channel’s conditions could simulate the current sea level... ...a roll of 1 or 2 indicates the tide is out while a 5 or 6 means the tide is in. An eroded Cliff (i.e. a Gentle Hill that has part of it replaced by an impassable vertical Cliff-face) look very realistic when touching a Waterway. See this:- static.wikia.nocookie.net/fanaticus-dba/images/d/d0/Randomly_Generated_Terrain_Chart.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20190826143945 (They are also good places to find fossils )
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 6, 2021 15:44:05 GMT
Just a reminder that Building Pharaoh’s Chariot is on telly tomorrow night. (See the first post in this thread for details) 💺 📺
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 5, 2021 21:46:25 GMT
Having only scant archaeological clues (and in many cases not even that) rather than hard written translated historical texts can be an advantage as well as a disadvantage. After all, without written evidence nobody can say whether it’s right or wrong can they. All we have left is our own imaginations...
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 3, 2021 9:14:43 GMT
I do tend to agree with you Hammurabi70. It does seem a bit odd that a large heavy wheeled vehicle like a Command Wagon can zip about and be as nimble as a unit of Blades (only costing 1 PIP to move), is practically invulnerable to Artillery or Elephants (unlike WWg), can be deployed and move in Bad Going (while WWg can’t), and can be pushed back by other recoiling troops (while again WWg can’t). Still (and you all know what’s coming next folks...yep)...”We didn’t write the rules”.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 2, 2021 11:56:34 GMT
And hello to you Richard4th. Command Elements (CP, Lit, CWg):-Troop description Page 4, paragraph 3. Only 1 PIP to move (unlike WWg) Page 8, paragraph 7. Can deploy & move in Bad Going Page 9, paragraph 2. Bd/Pk/Bows can recoil through them Page 9, paragraph 6. Has a single Threat Zone (unlike WWg) Page 9, paragraph 8. Can’t move into contact (like WWg) Page 9, last paragraph. Cannot shoot (unlike WWg) Page 10, paragraph 2. Combat factors (as if solid Bd) Page 10, last paragraph. Gives side-support (being solid Bd) Page 11, paragraph 2. Only destroyed on an equal score Page 11, equal scores (or if doubled by anyone). Never recoils (like WWg) Page 11, if they score less. Can be pushed back (unlike WWg) Page 12, paragraph 4. Does not pursue like Bd Page 12, paragraph 10. Counts as 2 elements if lost Page 12, last paragraphs (1 for the element + 1 for the general). As for tactical use, well, not being able to contact the enemy means they’re no good for attacking... ...but their Threat Zone is just as good as everyone else’s for pinning the enemy. I find that being so hard to kill, they are best used for holding a wing or the end of a battleline.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 2, 2021 9:50:48 GMT
Hmmm...I’m not sure there is a “shooting dead zone in the corners of a rectangular fort “ Haywire. (Although there is a TZ ‘dead area’ extending from the corners of a WWg...see Figures 7d & 7e)Page 10 “Distant Shooting” says:- “Measure range between the closest points of the shooting edge to the target edge.” And it also goes on to say:- “(The target edge) must be entirely within 1 BW of directly in front of part of the shooting edge.” (In other words, they have a 1 BW ‘arc of fire’...see Figure 15a, and replace the Bow with a BUA or Camp)Take Figure 7e for example. If an enemy were in one of the TZ dead zones, it could still be shot at, because the shooters have a 1 BW ‘arc of fire’ either side of the shooting edge. And the same thing will apply to Figure 7d. Anyway, it’s another good reason to have curved edges on your Cities, Forts and Camps.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 1, 2021 9:51:21 GMT
I doubt there are any volcanic mountains with perfectly straight edges...
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 30, 2021 10:10:32 GMT
I probably shouldn’t be posting political stuff here on Fanaticus, but I did find this extremely amusing:- www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp1FIbBEoWw (And I do apologize in advance for all the swearing...still, it is funny though)
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 29, 2021 17:42:12 GMT
I think the advantage Sp have over Bd is that they are better against mounted. Ok so they can't kill Cav but if you flee them (and with your higher factor you're more likely to do this) then, if it's your next bound, it does give you the chance to hard flank an element to either side. Ah Mark...I have a cure for that. Have some friends other than Psiloi behind your Cavalry. Their Threat Zones will prevent ‘hard flanking’, and Cv can recoil through any but Pk, El, or Hd. (I’m a great believer in having some reserves)One of the biggest problems for Cavalry fighting Spear is they might flee right off the table. But guess what...I have a cure for that as well. Have some friends other than Psiloi behind your Cavalry. Fleeing Cv will halt and not pass through them, AND their Threat Zones will prevent ‘hard flanking’. (Did I mention that I’m a great believer in having some reserves?)However, all this is pretty academic. Anyone who simply lines up their Cavalry and charges Spears frontally deserves to lose! The Cavalry special ability is their speed...so use that speed to outmanoeuvre the enemy. Otherwise, you’re asking then to fight with one hand (or foot!) tied behind their back.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 29, 2021 10:18:49 GMT
Martin is quite right...but remember, it doesn't have to be 600p square. “A Stronghold must fit inside an imaginary rectangle of 600p maximum length and width, and must itself be at least 200p in length and width.” You could have a Stronghold the maximum 600p in length, but the minimum 200p in width. This would fit in the imaginary rectangle...it doesn’t fill it, but it still fits inside it. For my War Of The Worlds Martians, their ‘Stronghold’ is a half-buried cylinder in a crater, 140mm/5½ inches/3½ BW long but only 80mm/3 inches/2 BW deep:- (What you see are three ‘Fighting Machines’ (magicians), four ‘Tripods’ (blades), and two ‘Harvesters’ (beasts), plus the cylinder in the crater with some red weed, crawling, crawling...)As Arthur C. Clark famously stated:- “A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. 🛸
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 28, 2021 21:27:58 GMT
I can only repeat what I said earlier Bob. I assume that “length and width” are NOT added together, but are treated separately, otherwise it would have said “length plus width”.
We can put this to the test:- A Stronghold must be at least 200p in length and width. IF the minimum size were length plus width, players could have a Stronghold a mere 100p/1 inch/25mm wide and 100p/1 inch/25mm deep... ...which seems a bit small considering that a 15mm figure element is only 1 BW/150p/1½ inches/40mm wide (in other words, the Stronghold would be smaller than the width of an element).
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 28, 2021 21:00:24 GMT
Menacussecundus: I like your number crunching...but I think you’ll find that CF 5 v CF 4-2 has 12 chances out of 36 of being doubled, and that is twice CF 5-2 v CF 4+1, which has 6 chances out of 36 (in other words, a double overlapped Spear has 12 chances of being killed, but a doubled overlapped Blade in the same situation has just 6 chances of dying). Bob: Sp can’t kill Cv, even with an overlap...the Cv just flee when doubled. But Blades on the other hand will kill Cavalry when they double them. I’d sooner kill ‘em than simply chase them off again and again and again. Paulisper: me too...the fast Bd speed (in all terrain) is a definite advantage. Thank you menacussecundus for that insight it does show Bd do have a clear edge. Given that are their any combinations of elements that could be intermixed with the Sp to allow them to still make use of the side bonus on one flank and other elements that could redress the balance vs the Bd? About the only thing I can think of Haardrada is a line of Bd-Sp-Sp-Bd. The Bd gives the Sp side-support, and at least the Sp won’t pursue.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 28, 2021 16:00:07 GMT
This is a tricky one...as everybody has their own preferences. Spear Advantages:-Doesn’t pursue (so getting themselves into double-overlap positions). Higher CF against mounted (but Cv and LH will just flee when doubled). Blade Advantages:-Does pursue most foot (saving PIP’s to maintain contact). Doesn’t need an adjacent Blade or Spear (no need for side-support). Better than Spears in rough or bad going (no side-support to lose). Can give side-support to adjacent solid Bows (Spears can’t). Can quick-kill Knights and Camels (on an equal score). Can destroy Cavalry with a doubled score (instead of them just fleeing). All in all, I’d sooner have a Blade than a Spear.
|
|