|
Post by scottrussell on Aug 30, 2020 7:55:06 GMT
Only just seen this. Perhaps I don't understand the scenario, but unless that is the case, I'm afraid I disagree with the general sentiment that it makes no difference. The geometry of the game is disturbed if the 1 BW movement distance is different from the actual base width. As Stevie says, with the small difference you are talking about, it still allows "closing the door" as he describes, but for example if an element is recoiled and there is an element to its flank but not in contact, the recoil element might still be in that element's threat zone after recoil, whereas in the rules as written it would not be.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Aug 1, 2020 15:37:09 GMT
Having The Book to hand, IV/23 mentions that the levy infantry were unwilling or prone to desert, except for those accustomed to service against the Welsh. IV/3 (Anglo-Norman) has 1 x 3Ax (Welshry) whom it mentions were tenants of marcher lords, rather than independent Welsh, and also an option of 1 x 3Lb (South Welsh).
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Jul 20, 2020 18:01:00 GMT
When you think about it, the wording is rather strange. The two front edges meet at a line. Unless they are absolutely across the hill, however defined, such that all of the front edge is uphill of all of the opponent's front edge, then only an infinitesimally small part of the front edge is actually uphill of all of the opponent's and most of it in fact has part of the opponent's front edge uphill of it.
My presumption is that the rule is worded in that way to account for the fact that all of the front edge might not be on the hill at all, but part of it is, and that bit is uphill of all of the opponent's front edge.
So option 3.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Jul 19, 2020 20:31:05 GMT
My Tuareg have a rectangular yellow flag with a blue device on it. A vertical bar with a cross piece towards each end of the bar with the ends bent up so they end up at the same level as the top and bottom of the vertical bar. I think I googled "tuareg flags" and copied it from there. It bears no relation to the Moslem/Arabic flags of the period.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Jul 3, 2020 8:07:44 GMT
Baldie,
I know nothing about Lart and am sure they are a good set of rules, but I do wonder, from what you say, if they are based (subconsciously, I'm sure!), on DBA 2.2? Those changes have been brought in in 3.0. The so called "DBX" superfamily of war-games rules is quite large.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on May 31, 2020 17:27:10 GMT
Ronald,
Thanks. On looking back through the thread, I notice that the table of x and Y coordinates was produced by Arnaud, not Stevie. Arnaud is a university lecturer in, I am pretty sure, mathematics, so we might expect some precision! I think we were all just using our spare time to give an accurate answer to the question posed.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on May 30, 2020 7:57:20 GMT
Really folks... ask yourself if you are in the right hobby for you! Table-top Gaming is about playing with miniature soldiers in a kind of sandbox. And you are torturing your minds about 6.93 cm 😜❓ Where are you from Ronisan? Have you had restrictions placed on your social contact? Here in the UK we have had a fairly significant lockdown. We really do have plenty of time on our hands and not a whole lot to do! A morning of element bases, graph paper, and trig tables was most welcome. Seriously, though, the essence of the thread was whether it was possible to produce a significant sideways displacement when advancing as a group move. Until it was attempted, one might think it would be. Evidence as supplied by Stevie indicated that really it isn't. On the broader theme of your post, if you allow "a little bit" of leeway, you the need to decide where that leeway ends. And so the debate re-ignites. And finally, word is that Phil Barker did not initially treat DBA rules as particularly prescriptive and just sort of pushed the pieces around. I am sure this is fine amongst like minded individuals, but try to extend that philosophy outside what remains of your gaming circle after a few passive-aggressive weeks and you will probably find you will soon be looking for a different rule set! Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on May 21, 2020 10:50:06 GMT
I entirely agree. All we are doing is wheeling a line. My only reservation is that the differences, minimal though they seemed to be, appeared to be consistent. On reflection (over the last two hours or so), i suspect than my initial (15mmm base depth element) measurement was incorrect and therefore the subsequent 20mm base measurement were consistent because they were correct.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on May 21, 2020 8:49:22 GMT
My initial attempt:
Heavy infantry, 15 mm base depth, 2 BW move, max allowed pivot: Single element (for illustration only, obviously this could make a single element move in any direction) Forwards 3.4 cm, sideways 2.0 cm Two element group Forwards 3.9 cm, sideways 1.0 cm Three element group forwards 4.0 cm, sideways 0.4 cm
Open order infantry, 20mm base depth, 3 BW move, max pivot: Single element forwards 4.0 cm, sideways 4.3 cm Two element group forwards 5.6 cm, sideways 2.0 cm Three element group forwards 5.8 cm, sideways 1.4 cm
Some of the results seem a bit counterintuitive, but will become clear if you try it out on graph paper.. So for example the 20 mm base depth elements end up slightly further forwards after the first wheel because the diagonal dimension of the base is slightly greater.
So in summary the double wheel is perhaps just about worth it with a 2 element group but with larger groups the sideways displacement is negligible.
scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on May 17, 2020 10:34:17 GMT
Salutations ! Heard this today. I'm not sure if this makes sense in British English... Q: What's a Metric Cookie ? A: A gram cracker No, not in the slightest. But I like to think I'm a learning lad. Feel free to enlighten me! Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on May 16, 2020 10:37:17 GMT
Is it not a bit odd that mounted troops entering rough going keep going at the same speed, but those who start in it only flee slowly? Or are mounted all destroyed if not in good going and would flee if they were? (I don't have the rule book with me),
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on May 16, 2020 10:29:23 GMT
I dream of being able to get another packet of Corvus Belli Roman Heavy cav Perhaps this would be the "acid test"? am I correct in thinking Corvus Belli have stopped producing their ancients range in metal? I am pretty sure the majority of EIR armies from CB figures are less because they fitted in with any need for the army (tournament or campaign), and more because they were such lovely figures. How would the plastic version compare? Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on May 13, 2020 16:53:28 GMT
You can mount the 6Cv as a wedge if you offset the middle rank. So one lance at the front, three bows at the back and two lancers forming a middle rank taking advantage of the fact that horses are a sort of elongated oval shape. This may be a hang over from 6th ed too, where being in a wedge formation was a considerable advantage, but it does look quite good!
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on May 9, 2020 21:13:11 GMT
A ha.
Fair cop. 20f does seem to cover the situation pretty accurately. i hadn't seen that. It certainly makes more sense that the front element is destroyed.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on May 9, 2020 18:00:34 GMT
I'm with Baldie, in that the 4Bd dies. The final sentence of the 'Recoliing or being pushed back' section on p12 seals it for me - 'An element already in such contact with any of these cannot recoil and is destroyed instead'. Actually I was being a bit facetious. I am reasonably sure of my ground here. The blade is not in contact with "any of the above". The friends with which it is in contact (psiloi), it can push back. Basically because they are not elephants or war wagons. If the psiloi had a gap between them and the auxilia, they would move back until contact and then stop, as would the blade, but because they are already in contact with the auxilia, they are destroyed instead. If you are to suggest that they cannot be pushed back because they are already in contact (and so the blade cannot push them back and the blade are destroyed instead), then the clause describing what happens if a pushed back element is already in contact is redundant, because by your logic if they cannot be pushed back and therefore are not "a pushed back element" they cannot be destroyed as consequence. The clause i am relying on in my defence is in the third paragraph of the "Recoiling or being pushed back" section, also on p12. "If the recoiling element is not elephants, friends facing in the same direction can be interpenetrated if allowed (this does not apply here, see p9). If not, they are pushed back far enough to make room unless they are elephants or war wagons. Pushed back elements cannot interpenetrate or push back others". M'lud. Scott
|
|