IanC
Munifex
Posts: 16
|
Post by IanC on Aug 28, 2018 3:35:34 GMT
I think you're going a out it backwards. Superior troops were those that rolled sixes. Inferior troops were those that rolled ones.
Well trained blades, no matter how well trained, no matter the might of the nation they fought for, were still fodder if they rolled ones on the day, and were not supported by superior battle tactics.
|
|
IanC
Munifex
Posts: 16
|
Post by IanC on Aug 26, 2018 19:45:54 GMT
Can anyone recommend a US based painting service for ancient irregulars. I'd like to get a number of Spanish done. I've used Fernando in SriLanka a fair bit, and his paint jobs for regular troops is fantastic for the price. However, I'm not so sure I want to use him for irregular troops as he tends to copy perfectly but with no variety.
I think a gamer who paints well, but knows what bit is leather, what's metal etc. on the figure might be better. But I'd love to hear suggestions and recommendations.
|
|
IanC
Munifex
Posts: 16
|
Post by IanC on Jan 23, 2017 6:14:13 GMT
So, we want the rule to read.... ?
THREAT ZONE
The area 1 BW deep in front any edge of a War Wagon or the front edge of any other type of element or the area within 1 BW of any point of a camp, city or garrisoned fort is its Threat Zone (TZ). An element or group which is either (I) at least partly within or if not, (II) whose front edge enters an enemy TZ or if not (III) touches its far edge
can move only: (a) to line up its front edge with 1 such enemy generating the TZ, or (b) to advance into or towards contact with such an enemy. or (c ) if a single element, move straight back to its own rear for the entire move
TZs do not affect outcome moves
|
|
IanC
Munifex
Posts: 16
|
Post by IanC on Jan 22, 2017 22:21:04 GMT
Note that the threat zone rule does not allow for any precedents among the three conditions that can exist. 1. An element or group which is at least partly within or 2. whose front edge enters an enemy TZ or 3. touches its far edge can move only: The rule nowhere indicates that the element only response to the TZ that it started in. The rule says that it applies to an element that starts in OR enters OR touches a TZ. Once an element enters a TZ it can respond to the enemy whose TZ it entered, or the one that it started in. (a) to line up its front edge with one such enemy generating the TZ or (b) to advance into or towards contact with such an enemy or (c) if a single element, to move straight back to its own rear for the entire move. The original question neglected to mention the situation of the Roman cavalry moving into the TZ of the lower left facing light course. But that issue was there, so the topic has not changed, just expanded as is often the case in this forum. My copy of he rules say "touches its far edge". That appears to be important in this example, as at the start of the move, Cv A touches the edge of the TZ of LH Y. It does not however, touch its "far edge". So at the point it begins to move, Cv A enters the TZ of LH Y and is then in the TZ of all three unobstructed LH. It then can chose to advance to advance by single element move, any of LH W, Y or Z provided it has the movement, because, as you say there is no hierarchy as to which condition should be followed first. Is that correct?
|
|
IanC
Munifex
Posts: 16
|
Post by IanC on Jan 22, 2017 22:08:33 GMT
I did not expect the post to gather this much attention, and a couple of responders mentioned labels - so I have added them. Here is my current interpretation of the responses. Cv was locked in combat with LH Z from last turn. This turn Group LH W,X,Y (Carthaginians) advanced into contact with (Roman) Cv A Roman Cv A prevailed pushing back those in contact. In it's turn, Roman Cv A finds itself in the TZ if LH W and LH Z. It follows the requirements of page 9 Threat Zones.... THREAT ZONE
The area 1 BW deep in front any edge of a War Wagon or the front edge of any other type of element or the area within 1 BW of any point of a camp, city or garrisoned fort is its Threat Zone (TZ). An element or group which is at least partly within or whose front edge enters an enemy TZ or touches its far edge can move only:
(a) to line up its front edge with 1 such enemy generating the TZ, or (b) to advance into or towards contact with such an enemy. or (c ) if a single element, move straight back to its own rear for the entire move
TZs do not affect outcome moves
It could have single element moved into LH W, or into LH Z, as it was withing the TZ of both. It in fact chose to advance towards LH Z As it did so, it entered the TZ of LH Y, and could have then advanced into it by single element move, forcing it to conform. However, it chose to contact LH Z Cv A fights LH Z. LH Y is not an overlap as it is not in front corner to corner contact. However, if LH Z wins by any score, Cv A is destroyed as it has enemy in front contact with it flank. Do I have this correct?
|
|
IanC
Munifex
Posts: 16
|
Post by IanC on Jan 21, 2017 16:46:43 GMT
I'm looking to game the Battle of the Rhone River. This was a river assault in late summer 218BC with the Carthaginians taking 3 days to gather boats and build rafts. Some 30,000 infantry, 8,000 cavalry and 37 elephants crossed a 100 yard wide river on boats and rafts to assault the Gauls who were defending the far bank - must have looked quite spectacular. Horses swam behind rafts and cavalry mounted on landing. The assault was aided by an ambush the Carthaginians had sent up stream, crossed and attacked the defending Gauls in the rear as the main crossing landed.
I could just use the "Crossing a River" rules as written, and assume the elements are on rafts, but I wonder if a house rule for this game, using rafts, might not be fun. Any rule suggestions in using boats and rafts, in a river with a strong current?
This will be a Giant DBA scenario.
|
|
IanC
Munifex
Posts: 16
|
Post by IanC on Jan 17, 2017 23:53:43 GMT
Perhaps ‘ SCh’ is not only an abbreviation for ‘ Scythed Chariots’, it also stands for ‘ Swine Combustible Herd’.
|
|
IanC
Munifex
Posts: 16
|
Post by IanC on Jan 17, 2017 23:49:20 GMT
. It's difficult to visualize these little pictures. I think if you click on the pictures - you will get a larger view.
|
|
IanC
Munifex
Posts: 16
|
Post by IanC on Jan 17, 2017 22:37:51 GMT
Stevie, I love the Sch analogue - what a great idea. I'll work on that. Thank You (now I need a 4-squared flaming pig base - with 16 pigs on it... ) Hi Paul - nice to meet you here. I miss the old fanaticus site - it's still there but many links are broken. I am inspired by your great collection of armies, particularly your camps and especially the Alexandrian Light house. I wonder if we could have an "Eye Candy" folder where such photos can be added? Hopefully I will see you at Enfilade. Ian
|
|
IanC
Munifex
Posts: 16
|
Post by IanC on Jan 16, 2017 22:44:05 GMT
The bases are basically double the width and double the depth with 4 times the figures.
As to the TZ issue, the Roman Cv cannot turn to their left and hit the LH to their left, as they are in the TZ of the LH to their front limiting how they can move.
Can you quote the rule that prevents them crossing a TZ to hit another unit whose TZ they are also in. I canot find that.
Thanks Ian
|
|
IanC
Munifex
Posts: 16
|
Post by IanC on Jan 16, 2017 16:17:22 GMT
Thanks for the suggestions. I like the idea of dropping the Roman break points as the game progresses. That might encourage early aggression.
I'm not sure how I feel about even elements in historical Big Battle refights. The two armies were of similar numbers, but the Carthaginians had many more lights and counting Ps bases one for one with Bd bases seems to call for attention.
Over time, to get consistent results of LH seeing off Roman Cv fairly regularly or just being evenly matched as happened in this war, you need about 3:2 LH to Cv, which as it happens means the number of figures on the base are equal.
That's why I had more Carthaginian elements, the actual figure representations were close to equal at the numbers we used - but required more Carthaginian elements to get the numbers equal.
Ian
|
|
IanC
Munifex
Posts: 16
|
Post by IanC on Jan 15, 2017 20:55:47 GMT
This is a first play test of this scenario. The full scenario will be on a 12' board (this one was 7') and will include the Po river off to the right side and the small walled garrison colony of Placentia, where substantial Romans legionaries fought their way to after the battle. The Romans have 28 elements and the Carthaginians 36, but much more light infantry. Romans have 2 commands, the Carthaginians have 3, one of which must be the 2 LH and 2 Ps elements in the ambush to the left of the image (The Carthaginian right). To win, the Romans must cross the river and defeat the Carthaginians, the Carthaginians merely need to avoid the Roman victory condition. Special Rules. - Roman break point is 14 elements, the Carthaginian is 18
- On the loss of generals, the armies appoint new generals on the next but one turn forfeiting movement for all elements not in or within a TZ on the turn following the loss.
- Lost General elements count as 2 elements lost. Replacement Generals are for command and control only, no +1.
- Each Roman command that has crossed the river fights at a -1 until the command rolls a 6 for PIP
- The Roman cavalry must ignore the ambush and attack the Carthaginian cavalry.
Roman cavalry begin to cross The Trebia The Roman cavalry easily crossed the river and got stuck in. The Roman front line crossed and immediately rolled their lucky 6 therefore not getting the -1 penalty for freezing. The Roman cavalry were chewed up on both flanks and fled (destroyed). The Carthaginian Elephants deployed in the center, unlike the actual battle where they were deployed on the flank. The Romans got stuck in in the center, did quite a bit of damage, but ultimately hit the 14 element break point while the Carthaginians were coming close to theirs. The Carthaginian ambush was sprung, but ultimately not quite needed. Result was a fairly historical re fight. It lasted 2 hours at a very leisurely pace. Questions for consideration for next play test: - Should players be forced into the historical set up (where known) or should some re-positioning be allowed (as in this game we allowed the Elephant to be re positioned?
- When in this game the cavalry were destroyed, they just disappear, whereas in reality, "destroyed" is a process that entails them being chased away and ridden down, taking the enemy cavalry out of action for a few turns. Should we have destroyed cavalry flee off the table with additional element points for the Carthaginians if they chase them - or some other mechanism?
- If this game is played as a series of historical refights that follow on one from another, should we introduce a mechanism to allow the Romans to break off and flee or fight their way to Placentia?
Notes: Sprinkling snow flock of rubber game mats is messy - look for plan B
|
|
IanC
Munifex
Posts: 16
|
Post by IanC on Jan 15, 2017 16:40:41 GMT
I'm in Salem.
|
|
IanC
Munifex
Posts: 16
|
Post by IanC on Jan 15, 2017 5:23:53 GMT
In a game today, this situation came up. Carthaginian turn: The Roman Cv were locked locked in combat with a Numidian LH element. A Numidian LH group moved into contact with a flank contact. Combat: The Roman Cv prevailed in its close combat, and the Numidian LH in frontal combat and that to its flank, were pushed back. Roman Turn: The Roman Cv advanced to contact the Numidian LH whose threat zone it was in. Question. Is this move allowed? Figure 10 on page 20 suggests that this would not be allowed if the Numidian LH were trying to contact the Roman flank because it's not also in front corner to corner contact. But, is this allowed the other way round? If it is, we assume the Roman Cv is overlapped, but if it loses by more than 1/2, is it destroyed if this is not a legitimate flank contact? We assumed it was, but not sure we've interpreted this correctly. Thanks Ian
|
|
IanC
Munifex
Posts: 16
|
Post by IanC on Jan 14, 2017 18:29:41 GMT
Anyone using a house rule for incendiary pigs? I've just been using them as Psiloi with a +1 against elephants and -1 against anything else. Just wondering if anyone has other ideas?
|
|