|
Post by felixs on Jun 8, 2017 9:39:44 GMT
Dear all,
having converted my Feudal Spanish to DBA, I am now able to do mirror matches (inter-feudal war) with them. Feudal Spanish consists of Kn, Ps, Sp and a LH or two. Terrain tends to be relatively dense, because of the high ammount of Ps. Open ground is usually not very wide and deployment of the heavy troops is often quite challenging. While it is simple to see what to do with the Kn (charge!) the Ps (support and skirmish), the LH (support, skirmish and threaten), the Sp give me a headache.
This gets worse once you have one sides general on foot as a Bd, which has very similar problems to Sp, arguable worse in this match-up.
Problem: The Spear seem nearly useless. In the open, they get slaughtered by Kn. In BG, they do not get their side-support bonus, and the -2 makes them vulnerable to Ps (as it should be, of course). So there is really nowhere to go. I have tried to build a line of three Sp at the center and Kn at the flanks, but odds are not good for the Sp. They need a double overlap on Kn to really threaten them, but that needs quite a bit of luck with the dice. Success ratio is quite bad, about 1:3 or so. Local distribution of numbers is of course important in any DBA game (and decisive in mirror matches). But the Sp are mostly too slow to not be out-manoeuvred by the Kn.
The result so far is, that one Sp guards the camp (very useful for that) and the other two Sp try to hide somewhere safe. Keeping them near the camp to maybe catch an overly rash Ps or LH usually seems like a good, if strange, idea.
Does anyone have good ideas of what to do about this?
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 7, 2017 21:55:32 GMT
Tom: I like that re-formulation of the rule. Much clearer.
If the shooting arc is interpreted as also including elements that only touch the sides, a shooting element could have a shooting arc five element widths wide... That would be quite extreme (or 200mm in 15mm scale...).
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 7, 2017 21:38:27 GMT
Excellent. Some of the rules need tydiying up and clarification, so DBA 3.1 would be great.
I would think that not only Fast Blades are too powerful, but Fast troops in general. Some kind of fix that would either make Solid elements more attractive or Fast ones less so would be good.
Maybe Fast elements could be recoiled by Solid elements on equal results? (But I fear that is not enough).
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 5, 2017 20:34:37 GMT
I don't understand Felixs' comment, that an element to the side of a threat zone cannot "close the door." I can only repeat what I wrote above: p. 2: "'Within' means 'at or closer than'. An element touching a TZ is "at" the TZ, which, according to the definition on p. 2, is "within". If that is so, an element that is overlapping an enemy TZ is touching that enemy element's TZ, thus is is within the TZ. For the shooting problem: I believe the rules intend elements to have a three-element-wide shooting corridor. Thus, shooting should be treated like TZs: Touching a side is /not/ within (even though that contradicts the rule on p. 2).
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 5, 2017 8:12:02 GMT
Thank you all for your very useful explanations and opinions.
Bob: As explained above, unfortunately "within" is defined in such a way that "closing the door" would not be possible.
(I do, of course, agree with everyone here on how it /should/ be played. )
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 4, 2017 20:29:37 GMT
The problem is p. 2 "'Within' means 'at or closer than'. Thus: "touching" is "at", which is "within".
If I understand Joe correctly, he suggests that in the "Threat Zone" part of the rules (p. 9) there should be not "within", but something else. That would be a logical solution. But, alas, it is not so in the rules as printed.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 4, 2017 18:50:12 GMT
There seems to be little in terms of picture sources. The Zanj should be quite dark. "Zanj" is more or less a very unfriendly term for "Negroe", arguably close to "Nigger". Of course, slaves of a lighter complexion might also be included in that term, since it is of course much more a socially constructed term than an analytical one. But the Arabs felt (and some still do) that "Zanj" were very dark. Medieval Arabic manuscripts (sometimes?) depict them as pitch-black (This page makes me believe so: originalpeople.org/zanj-negro-rebellion/). Point is: They should be quite a bit darker than what you would paint Arabs. I think the main question with all slave revolts is that of how much access to equipment the rebel ex-slaves would have. Obviously, time is the biggest factor here and the Zanj (for lack of a better term) went as far as establishing their own kingdom, so I would expect them to be moderately well-equipped. Archers and others not expecting to see close combat might choose light equipment for better movement, but close-combat troops would probably have found weapons and armour in the usual Arab style.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 4, 2017 18:25:30 GMT
Simon: To me that still seems unclear, because of the "or" in that sentence ("which is at least partly within or whose front edge enters an enemy TZ or touches its far edge")
Joe: Is that what you are referring to?
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 1, 2017 19:54:51 GMT
Esteemed Gentlefolks,
I am confused...
The rules on p. 2 say "'Within' means 'at or closer than'. Fine. Sounds like a reasonable rule. I like it.
Then, on p. 9 in the rules for the "Threat Zone", it is made clear, that "An element or group which is at least partly within" such a Threat Zone is due to certain restrictions. Again, that is all totally reasonable and unambigous.
But then, on p. 19 fig. 8, Light Horse B clearly must be considered to be inside the Threat Zone of Cavalry X if it is "touching the line", as it is stated.
Can anyone enlighten me on what all this means?
I agree with the interpretation in p. 19, fig. 8, because otherwise the so-called "closing the door maneuver" would be impossible due to Threat Zone problems. But where do the rules say so?
Thank you.
Felix
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 21, 2017 10:51:34 GMT
I have bought the Gale Force Nine "Streams". They are indeed perfect for DBA with 60cm square boards (another reason not to change board size....).
I might still be tempted to build something myself, as Timurilank's rivers look (even) better.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 20, 2017 12:09:28 GMT
Thank you very much. I was sure that that information had to be somwhere, but finding it can be hard sometimes...
Hope I am not cluttering the forums too much with all this.
|
|
|
Horde
May 20, 2017 12:08:42 GMT
Post by felixs on May 20, 2017 12:08:42 GMT
How well or badly do Hordes do against Psiloi? As I read it Psiloi could be a real pain for Hd as unless you can destroy them by flanking the Ps and forcing them to recoil,or get them to flee off table or into another element/terrain thay cannot pass through.,then Ps can keep them busy all day? Thoughts? Very indecisive. Hd cannot normally kill Ps, Ps can only kill Hd on a 1-6 dice result (4 vs. 8 score). Things are different if either side is supported and the other is not, Ps having a slight edge here, since overlaps do not count against them. In BG, things are bleak for the Hd. 1 vs 2 combat factors with the Hd dying on doubles is not good. The Ps would still only flee.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 20, 2017 8:39:04 GMT
Dear all,
p. 9 "Crossing a River" says: "Troops that enter a river must continue crossing at the same angel to its course (...)" p.9 "Crossing a River" then says: "paltry (...) can be passed through as if good going (...)"
I understand this as meaning that the river can be crossed at good going speed, but must still be crossed at the same angle it was entered. Is this how it is generally played?
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 20, 2017 8:32:40 GMT
The Mayans look stunning. Excellent choice of colours and patterns. Thank you very much.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 19, 2017 16:21:57 GMT
Finished rebasing and touching up my Spartans. Next will be the other Early Hoplite Greek (with the exception of the Thessalians, for whom I do not have appropriate miniatures).
|
|