|
Post by bob on Apr 28, 2021 19:37:53 GMT
If facing an enemy with lots of mounted, I would take the Spear at +4 vs Bd at +3.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 28, 2021 5:00:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 28, 2021 4:51:06 GMT
Help with stronghold size. I’ve been trying to explain strongholds to a friend of mine and I realize my math is not very good. Does anyone have a chart showing comparable strong hold sizes in inches, millimeters, paces and Base Width .
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 3, 2021 22:38:11 GMT
Eagle6, welcome to the DBA life. Much fun and discussion. Please consider the point made by Paul in his first comment. It reminds me of what a leading figure in the wargame life once wrote: “ Historical gamers see an elevated area as a tactical advantage but Ancient gamers see it as a +1. “ Perhaps the question to ask, is not what is the advantage of 4Bw over 8Bw but what looks better or which is historical, including in the army list. Phil writes, "Victory as well as realism under these rules is mos tlikely to be achieved by thinking of elements as bodies of real troops rather than playing pieces, and using them historically. "
Anyway, roll 6's and enjoy the game.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 23, 2021 6:19:56 GMT
Could some one who has followed and understood the issues here please post a summary? Thanks
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 18, 2021 4:17:09 GMT
Wondering if the North American Society of Ancient and Medieval Wargamers is still publishing the Spearpoint and sponsoring tournaments, at physical conventions whenever they occur. Did it in 2019? Thanks
|
|
|
Post by bob on Dec 12, 2020 2:03:15 GMT
Note that the diagram above is from the 2014 edition of HOTT. The similar but not exact diagram from the 2002 edition is here. I get a "not enough space" message if I try to post directly. What is the secret of two different diagrams.? link
|
|
|
Post by bob on Nov 16, 2020 1:18:16 GMT
I see no rule that prevents the Bd from recoiling into and pushing back the Cv. I am happy to be shown differently. Events occur as they happen. Fight B vs Cv or A vs Bd and take outcomes as they occur. No qualifiers here "...friends facing in the same direction can be interpenetrated if allowed (see p.9). If not, they are pushed back far enough to make room unless they are Elephants or War Wagons."
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 20, 2020 19:47:47 GMT
Great news for you guys down under. What did you have to do to break the quarantine. You must have a very big hall to fit 20 players :-). Do players need to wear masks?
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 19, 2020 19:56:50 GMT
The Romans lost.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 17, 2020 6:05:14 GMT
Thanks for the good comments. In the event, we agreed that the right Blade was an actual legal contact and so would turn into frontal contact with the log/SCh and the left blade would fit in beind. The Blades were on the original narrow bases so turned with no edge contact with the Horde to the right. The left Blade, however, went from doing nothing to now in flank edge overlap with the right Horde. The Sch beat the front Blade and so destroyed it, the back Blade was then hit by the pursuing SCh. It still gave overlap against the Horde which was easily doubled at +5 vs +1
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 12, 2020 22:49:11 GMT
Those who like the immediate turn rule might well go back to the Original DBA. That text was " An element not ready in frontal contact which is contacted to flank or rear turns to face." This was generally interpreted to mean "turn immediately."
Phil did not mean this, so in the 1995 changed rule to "An element not ready in frontal contact which is contacted to flank or rear turns to face at the end of the movement phase."
By 2 this was further modified to "Elements not in mutual front edge contact with an enemy element but contacted to flank or rear by an enemy front edge turn to face the first to so contact at the end of the movement phase, the contactor making room. "
and now we have
"Immediately after the movement phase, elements contacted to flank or rear by an enemy front edge turn to face the first enemy element to contact them unless they are already in full front edge contact with another enemy element or providing rear support. Any existing contacts are adjusted by moving the elements forward, back or the minimum distance sideways to maintain contact. "
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 12, 2020 4:07:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 10, 2020 22:50:39 GMT
Rather than put myself in the ancient warrior's shoes, I prefer to put my self into the rules:) Different warriors wear different shoes. The rules say that ""Recoiling or pushed back elements move straight back without turning. " The rules player knows that in his bound he will get a chance to respond.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 10, 2020 22:46:10 GMT
So, it is not a double decker camel sandwich, but rather a single decker, with a camel on the side. I did not get that from the written picture. Good catch by Stevie.
However, I do not follow his tactical advice. What does "attacking the Cm's rear to one side, but not engaged" mean?
LH ↓ LH Cm Cm ↑ LH LH
↓ LH LH but not touching the right camel. Cm Cm ↑ LH LH
Then we get. The left camel is in TZ of both upper and lower LH. That camel can attack either LH straight ahead or about face and attack upper. The right camel can turn to face upper right LH, but cannot attack either in flank.
LH LH Cm Cm ↑ LH LH
|
|