|
Post by bluestone28 on Jan 9, 2018 22:47:23 GMT
very interesting texts thanks!
Thessalian revolt yes, in 323.. so after the Death of Alexander...
the problem is that in DBA 3, there is 2 armies with a period in common : II/12 -359>-319 (why -319 and not -321?) or maybe -319 was a typing error? (right one could be -329?) and II/15 -328> -321
btw, as Philippe II death was in -336, and Alexander reign and conquest began between -336 and -334 (destruction of Thebes in -335) why we don't have Philippe II army (-359>-336) and Alexander Army (-336>-321) ?
i suppose it is a "a thoughtful choice" (lead by the Macedonian army evolution?) but it didn't bring an easy understanding of this period!
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Jan 9, 2018 18:28:14 GMT
no it seem not (the book is very complete, all political/religious/alliance events until the Cheronee Battle... Very interesting book, maybe "dense" but it's worth reading! since Philippe II begining, i think there was no real battle against Thessalians a small "police expedition" in -358 after he helps Thessalian against Phocidians during the 3rd Sacred war.. (In the Thessalian territory but against Phocidians) and then he was elected Tagos by them.
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Jan 9, 2018 13:58:38 GMT
ok right, it's true that II/12 represent differents armies, with differents leaders and differents ennemies in a troubled period! perhaps the name "Alexander Macedonians" is not fair for Philippe II "work" but... thx for the idea of the "local" later Macedonians!
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Jan 8, 2018 23:34:20 GMT
i just read "Chéronée Battle" from Jean Nicolas Corvisier (Economica) and reading Phillipe II story, i doubt that II/5d (Thessaly) was an enemy to the II/12 army (Thessaly seem to be more an ally than an enemy, that is reported in the army list btw) and Phillipe II was elected as a Tagos (war chief more and less) by Thessalians and finaly "lead" Thessaly... what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Jan 8, 2018 18:15:28 GMT
great work! i prefer the second one, easier to understand.
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Jan 4, 2018 12:24:18 GMT
ok, it's clear, thanks a lot!
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Jan 4, 2018 11:51:55 GMT
ok i understand thanks!
but so, what about this type of rear (Wb, Pk, Lh) or lateral (Sp, solid Blades) support? i mean what the supporting element(s) do if the supported element recoil, flee or be destroyed? Nothing at all? or Recoil in case of rear support and do nothing in case of lateral support? (seem strange)
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Jan 4, 2018 11:13:54 GMT
ok thanks!
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Jan 3, 2018 22:23:50 GMT
the section of the rules is something like "Combat Result" just after the section "Shoot and Melee Result " tactical modifiers board :
the whole section said : (sorry quick trad, as i've got only the french rules) an element with a total inferior to his opponent must immediatly do a imposed move depending of its type and opponent type in melee or targeted. Elements who shoot without reciprocal shooting ignore unfavorable result. An element who added a back support or lateral support modifier will recoil if the supported element must recoil, flee or is destroyed.
so what is the exact sentence of the rules in english?
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Jan 3, 2018 18:27:19 GMT
and so, what about a column of 2 LH or 2 Wb or 2 Pk just with an ennemy on the front and with a recoil result? (no enemy on the flank or back)
in french rules, it was written that an element who bring support (back or lateral support) will recoil if the front element must recoil, flee or is destroyed.
"Un élément qui a ajouté un modificateur de soutien arrière ou latéral recule si l'élément soutenu recule, fuit ou est détruit" is it the same in English rules?
Also, does it mean that a lateral support element must recoil too, if main one recoil? so if there is 3 SP units, with 2 supporting the center one, the 3 recoil if the combat result is a recoil ? (of course if the recoil is possible)
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Jan 3, 2018 10:28:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Jan 1, 2018 10:10:41 GMT
Happy New Year from France to all DBA community! may the Comma (and Dice) be with you!
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Dec 27, 2017 22:28:31 GMT
i understand,
but as i've never played DBA 2.x but only DBA 3.0... perhaps dba 2.x was different, slower, less "dynamic" ? so maybe it could be different with DBA 3? (ok if everything will be "stuck in the middle" surely it's not a good idea, but... )
impressive that they found this level of balance (of course it was a loooong process that takes several years...) in fact, almost everytimes someone try to change a thing now in the rules, it create unbalance somewhere!
i really love this game, i just have a problem with the weight of "chance"... some games have plenty of dices to throw, so chance will be less important in the whole game, but here, chance could be the leader of the game (just look some Tony video, it sometimes show well the problem.)
but i understand that changing that change all the thing so...
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Dec 27, 2017 21:03:26 GMT
Hi! is someone has ever tried to use average dice (2 3 3 4 4 5) to replace d6 during combats and shoots (i think to keep d6 for PIPS) ? 'could be interesting, even if it will certainly increase game length... and there will be perhaps less "elimination on double" not sure it will bring more good things that bad things, but maybe it's worth testing? (what? i hear someone saying that a good general always get 6 with the dice? )
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Dec 24, 2017 10:16:41 GMT
and to be honest, in the dust & rage of the battle, the nearest ennemi is the logical choice no?
|
|