|
Post by stevie on Apr 28, 2021 8:29:09 GMT
Well Bob, HoTT 2.1 is unusual in that it uses two completely different measuring systems together. Some things are measured using BW like DBA (i.e. ZOC’s, shooting arcs of fire, recoiling, passable routes to Strongholds, etc), but other things like movement is determined by the arbitrary concept of ‘paces’... ...which then have to be mentally translated into something more useful such as inches or millimetres.
And then it all depends on the measuring system used. The old traditional system uses 100 paces = 1 inch/25mm (and replacement Hordes take ages to get into combat). The new DBA 3.0 system uses 100 paces = 1 BW (but then Aerial troops can zoom about pretty much as they like). 40mm bases on a 24”/600mm table: 100 paces = 1 inch (or alternatively 1 BW of 1½”/40mm) 60mm bases on a 36”/900mm table: 100 paces = 40mm (or alternatively 1 BW of 2½”/60mm)
Nonetheless, here is that Stronghold size-chart that you requested. “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.” (I’m assuming that “length and width” are NOT added together, but are treated separately, otherwise it would have said "length plus width"):- Base Frontage Using Inches or mm Using Base Widths 40mm (for 15mm figs) Min = 2” or 50mm Min = 2 BW, so 3” or 80mm 40mm (for 15mm figs) Max = 6” or 150mm Max = 6 BW, so 9½” or 240mm 60mm (for 25mm figs) Min = 3” or 80mm Min = 2 BW, so 5” or 120mm 60mm (for 25mm figs) Max = 9½” or 240mm Max = 6 BW, so 14½” or 360mm
(Remembering that a Stronghold must fit inside this imaginary rectangle, but could still have a curved perimeter to frustrate assaulter's from making group contact)
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 27, 2021 11:06:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 26, 2021 21:45:43 GMT
My washing machine also cooks my dinner. (I hope she never reads this, cos our sofa is really uncomfortable...)
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 26, 2021 18:11:12 GMT
Well, it looks good :-
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 26, 2021 13:49:54 GMT
I don’t know if people have seen this advert on TV, but on Friday the 7th of May at 7:30 PM the PBS America Channel (Freeview 84, Sky 174) will be showing the following program:-
“NOVA: Egyptian relief's dating from 3,600 years ago depict pharaohs and warriors riding into battle on horse-drawn chariots. Some historians claim that the chariot proved to be the revolutionary secret weapon behind Egypt's greatest era of conquest. In this documentary, a team of archaeologists, engineers, woodworkers and horse trainers build and test two highly accurate replicas of Egyptian royal chariots to determine if they could have marked a crucial turning point in ancient military history.”
Might be worth watching...
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 25, 2021 10:59:35 GMT
An excellent find, and well worth watching. Thanks for the link. 👍 I quite like Justin Swanton, as his articles are very well researched and he makes a lot of sense. (See fanaticus.boards.net/thread/2813/ancient-battle-formations-justin-swanton ) Trying to re-create Zama using the DBA rules I find two main problems:- 1) when Hannibal loses his elephants and the mounted on each wing (one of them being the general) the battle is over...before the foot has even got engaged! (One solution is to make the Elephants ‘expendable’, like SCh, and this is the approach taken by DBMM. Also, have the Carthaginian general with the veterans in the rear instead of being with the right wing Poeni Cavalry) 2) both Roman mounted wings should go haring-off on a wild uncontrolled pursuit of the defeated Carthaginian mounted, drawing them away from the battle for some time. (In DBA, Cv and LH don’t even pursue 1 BW! Ideally they should keep on pursuing until they touch a table-edge. And again, have Scipio with the reserve Triarii and not with the Roman Cavalry, or he will also go zooming off with them) These simple ‘special rules’ are necessary in order to reproduce this battle properly.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 21, 2021 11:23:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 21, 2021 10:59:50 GMT
(Oh, and in the example which prompted this discussion, the Romans were destroyed by the Britons anyway. The warband were across the field in no time, scurrying across hill and through wood, and the Romans legionaries were caught in a column desperately trying to reach the only open bit of field near the middle. The Auxilia protecting their flanks were certainly good to have-and more useful than more legionaries would have been-but the dice gods hated the Romans on that day. It was all over pretty quick.) Ha! That sounds just like the ambush at Teutoberger Wald in 9 AD. 👍 And yes, the English did upset the French notion of chivalry in the Hundred Years War, what with them ‘cheating’ by using Longbows...but we must remember that it was the French that ultimately won this war (something we Brits don’t like to admit). As for “The greatest military leaders of history had a clear vision and were in control of both strategy AND tactics. I'd guess the majority of generals were given orders from above and had to make the best of their situation, good or bad”...yes, that is very true. However, even the most brilliant of generals are still limited by their resources. No doubt Alexander would have loved to have some WWg and Elephants with him, but he didn’t have access to these, so although in control of both strategy AND tactics, he had to make the best use of what was available to him.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 20, 2021 16:02:42 GMT
Things are not as bad as they may seem Derek... I'm no expert, but it strikes me that an invader should have at the very least a vague idea of what sort of terrain he will be invading. ...here is a bit of number crunching showing the chances of being the invader/defender:- Aggression Being the Being the Difference Invader Re-roll Defender Converting these to a single die roll:- +2 = 26 out of 36 4 out of 36 6 out of 36 (1 chance in 6 of being the defender) +1 = 21 out of 36 5 out of 36 10 out of 36 (2 chances in 6 of being the defender) 0 = 15 out of 36 6 out of 36 15 out of 36 (3 chances in 6 of being the defender) -1 = 10 out of 36 5 out of 36 21 out of 36 (4 chances in 6 of being the defender) -2 = 6 out of 36 4 out of 36 26 out of 36 (5 chances in 6 of being the defender)This gives players at least some inkling as to who it will be choosing and placing the terrain. And a major part of being a good general is to plan ahead and bring the right troops with you. But as Martin has pointed out, this isn’t much help to those armies that have very few options, such as the II/12 Alexandrians, who must have at least 9 elements that only work well in good going. (Still, invaders do get to choose the table edges...limited if a Road is also present)
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 20, 2021 15:03:46 GMT
In HoTT ‘Shooters’ (what DBA calls ‘Bows’) have a combat factor of 3 against foot and 4 against mounted...essentially the same as DBA WWg. However, HoTT doesn’t have any ‘side-support’ for solid Bows.
You could give DBA Lb and Cb a CF of 3 against foot but keep their side-support... ...remembering side-support only applies in close combat against foot in good going.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 19, 2021 16:35:03 GMT
Hmmm...an interesting idea Derek. However, in your example while still on the coast of Northern Gaul and not yet loaded into the invasion barges, how would the Romans know which troops they would need? In other words, how does a general know in advance which troops to bring with him?
Now it is true that at the Battle of Mons Graupius in 84 AD the Roman general Agricola kept his legionaries out of the engagement and placed them in reserve (perhaps because the Caledonians were on a Difficult Hill where his Blades would have been at a disadvantage against Warbands), so he sent his Imperial Auxilia against them instead. But he still had to march to reach that battlefield, and might have met the enemy in the open, so he brought his legionaries along ‘just in case’.
On the other hand, DBMM army II/12 Macedonians allows both Alex the Great and his dad Philip II to deploy some of their Phalangites with javelins (so 4Ax) instead of being armed with their usual sarissa (so Pikemen)...useful when facing say Thracians and Illyrians lurking in harsh terrain. Unfortunately the DBA army lists doesn't allow this. But it does seem a bit odd for a Macedonian commander to decide in advance whether to leave their pikes in camp and take up javelins before the general has even seen the type of battlefield he will be fighting over!
I think it would be better if those troops that can dismount before a battle, those that can dismount during a battle, and some special troops that were capable of being re-armed (such as the Phalangites mentioned above), were allowed to be deployed as their alternative types once the terrain has been placed but before either side has begun to deploy. That way the general can see the battlefield, and then plan on how they want to fight it.
Of course, not every element is capable of being re-armed or dismounted in this way... ...just limit it those few troops who historically did so in reality.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 19, 2021 8:48:38 GMT
I’m far from being an expert of this period or region, but wouldn’t IV/43c represent the Army of Bohemia? It can have 3 x LH, and they would be the Cumans? Interestingly, the DBMM Army List for IV/43 Later Hungarians allows the following:- Horse Archers - up to ½ Cumans, remainder Hungarians, Jazyges or Ruthenians - Irr LH (F) = 8-24. Sezekelers - Irr LH (S) or Tartars - Reg LH (S) = 5-20.
Dividing these DBMM maximums by 8 (see fanaticus.boards.net/post/36582/ ) gives roughly the proportions listed for the DBA IV/43c Later Hungarian army.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 18, 2021 17:53:30 GMT
III/62ab Sung Chinese...DBMM allows them to have WWg, but DBA 3.0 does not. II/12 Alexandrians...DBMM allows some Pk to be replaced by Ax, but DBA 3.0 does not. II/7 Later Achaemenid Persians...DBMM allows some 3Bows, but DBA 3.0 does not. (And some historical accounts say that Alexander faced an arrow storm at Issus in 333 BC) Plus there are many, many, other examples.
Now I know that DBA 3.0 is a dumbed-down version of DBMM (or DBMM is an over-complicated version of DBA...depending on your own personal point of view), but if these troops were used historically, as indicated by the DBMM Army Lists, and if DBMM is allowed to have this extra historical accuracy, then why are they being denied to us DBA players? Are we considered not to be clever enough?
Yes, DBA is simplified...but we are all grown-ups, and should be allowed to choose the amount of complexity we feel comfortable with. After all, they would just be options in the DBA Army Lists, so players can choose not to use them if they wish.
I have found that the following scaling-down method works quite well, if you first group all the troop types together to find their maximums.
First, work out the maximum number of DBMM Artillery, the maximum number of DBMM Psiloi, the maximum number of DBMM Auxiliaries, and so on, then:-
a) If DBMM says “0-1”, then you can’t have that element. (as there are too few to be represented in a 12 element army) b) Divide all other DBMM amounts by 8, rounding down. (but any amount divided to be less than 1 is counted as 1) ...and of course the same must be done with the DBMM minimum amounts as well, remembering that a DBA army can only have 12 elements in total.
This roughly appears to be the method used to create the DBA lists, as you can see by looking at the DBMM II/12 Alexandrian Army. Another good example is the DBMM II/45 Slave Revolts that allows 96 Hordes, which divided by 8 becomes 12 x Hd in DBA...ah, but they must also have at least 5 other element types in addition (either Ps/Ax/Cv/4Bd, plus the general’s element), so the maximum in DBA would be about 7 x Hd.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 18, 2021 17:36:39 GMT
Will do matey (I'm notorious for going off-topic ) I’ll bung it in the House Rule section instead..
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 18, 2021 10:54:39 GMT
|
|