|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 15, 2016 22:03:10 GMT
Well... Cigar Box Battles makes a nice one... www.cigarboxbattlestore.bigcartel.comor you can get pre-cut 2x2 foot pressboard at HomeDepot or Lowe's... All you need is some simple flocking and white glue... and you can make your own! Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 10, 2016 21:33:08 GMT
Does anyone know the history of this interpenetration rule? I would assume that it is for WOR battles... Has anyone ever had this happen? Finally, are there any sources that describe a bow vs bill encounter?
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 10, 2016 21:25:46 GMT
The first is allowing Ax and Ps to recoil either their base depth or width. That's an intriguing idea, and one that I hope to play around with some. I do wonder if it should be for any Fast elements though. I'm not versed enough in historical battle accounts to propose that change though. I would love to hear your experiences. I have been playtesting it for a few months. The effect is subtle, but positive for Punic wars. Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 9, 2016 18:16:44 GMT
Very optimistic Joe. Many years ago I used to introduce a military lecture for the lecturer, using a man and curvy young lady. The lecture was about not making assumptions. So I used an archaeological context, about a find with a mans skeleton, the remnants were parts of a rifle, helmet and boots, and a nylon camouflage bikini. A separate find was part of a page from a picture book of girls and guns. People where asked for what they would say about uniforms and equipment, the bikini always confused people, we knew men did not wear them. The man would then take a paper bag out of a pocket with a receipt and nylon bikini. David Constable Yes, I have just finished a lecture series from Dr. Garrett Fagan- "Great Battles of Ancient History". He is entertaining and the course is good...(though I disagree with some of his conclusions). He emphasizes the point of how little we really know about the Republican Romans. Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 9, 2016 17:02:00 GMT
Isn't a full base still in ZOC? 40mm. Cheers Daz Yes, still in the threat zone... but not in contact. This in essence greatly lengthens the survival time of Ax in contact with either Pk, or Blade. This helps allow for fights such as Cannae... where the Romans pursued themselves into a trap... as well as Irish vs Viking warfare where the Irish are incredibly over-matched. Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 8, 2016 16:39:15 GMT
All this bearing in mind that even with Romans at least 50% is guesswork. David Constable And you are being optimistic! I am beginning to wonder if we really know much of anything about how the Republican Romans actually fought. Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 8, 2016 16:37:36 GMT
Joe, I too agree with what Keith stated in his post regarding rule changes. I am especially surprised that after a long period of play testing (3 years?) there should be a need for any rule changes at all.
Considering your last rule suggestion I would like to make the following comment. “The third change, and the one I have least considered, is to reduce the movement of "Fast" Bd. Two BW in bad or rough going would help balance this troop type vs. other bad going troops. Much more thinking and play testing needs to be done with this one”.
The Celtiberians were known for their rapid attacks, surprise movement and retreats, a strategy that worked best in terrain that hindered an enemy’s mobility. The Romans named this style of combat, “concursare”. Titles of Dr. F. Queseda-Sanz papers can be found in the selected bibliography of Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars, new edition 2016 will shed more light on the fighting methods of the Iberians and Celtiberians.
The current movement rate through bad or rough going best reflects this.
Robert: A point well taken... as I did mention that this idea had been considered the least. I do however wonder as to the viability of the 4Ax troop type vs 3Bd. Viking vs Irish seems very lopsided...even in bad going. Of course the first change mentioned (allowing a full base width recoil... thus breaking contact) for Ax may have bearing on that conflict. Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 8, 2016 16:29:32 GMT
Excellent work Bob and Joe...
Terry will be pleased with that leg of the Good, the Bad and the Ugly tournament being played... That does mean that I need to be about painting one of the prizes!
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 2, 2016 16:46:33 GMT
However (as in the case of Ax and Ps being allowed to recoil a BW, and by the way, I'd add Bw to the list for similar reasons) I am all for house rules that better reflect the two principles I mentioned earlier. You will find for example that under v3, on the regulation board, EAP are thoroughly whipped. Something about the first 8Bw costing 2 elements toward defeat, plus the loss of the supporting 3Bw, oh and the requirement to shoot at a target in the TZ, which suddenly renders the Persian battleline thoroughly vulnerable to all manner of riff-raff.. My Achaemenid Persians have a perfect 50% win-lose record. (of course all six games now have been Persian vs Persian... so I guess that doesn't count!). Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 1, 2016 18:05:35 GMT
Two excellent posts. Especially well taken is David's question concerning how much we really know.
I am currently considering 3 rule changes. Please note that there will be no new version of DBA in the near future. These are simply rules changes that I think should possibly be proposed in the future when circumstances warrant.
The first is allowing Ax and Ps to recoil either their base depth or width. This is a subtle change that helps Ax primarily in close combat vs Bd and Pk. It can be rationalized in multiple ways. It can help recreate the both the Punic Wars (Cannae of course) and also helps some with Irish vs Viking fights. Of all the ideas for a future version of DBA... this is the one I like best.
The second is allowing 4Bw rear either rear or side support. These are exclusive. My prompting for this is seeing the Agincourt diorama with the archers in the center deployed in front of the men at arms. The problem with this rule however is that we don't know that this was really the deployment. I am unsure that this is needed in DBA. Still, I think it worth considering.
The third change, and the one I have least considered, is to reduce the movement of "Fast" Bd. Two BW in bad or rough going would help balance this troop type vs other bad going troops. Much more thinking and play testing needs to be done with this one.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jul 30, 2016 23:06:30 GMT
If Mtd-X is not actually an element classification but simply a shorthand for any and all possible mounted infantry types such as Mtd-4bd, Mtd-4LB and so on then you and Joe Collins are right and flank support is allowed. However if, as I argued, Mtd-X is a unique classification differentiating it from normal infantry then, while 'remaining foot', it is neither fast or solid foot and so is ineligible for flank support. Perhaps it can be clarified in the next FAQ. Zygul: I think indeed that this may be an interesting topic to cover in the FAQ. Weirdly, I thought I remembered it coming up. I actually checked the FAQ to be sure it hadn't been answered. I thought that it had...That of course is not the case. We have always played Mounted infantry as the corresponding foot type... you obviously haven't.... This makes the question prime FAQ material. Joe Collins
|
|
|
Camps
Jul 25, 2016 18:22:05 GMT
Post by lkmjbc on Jul 25, 2016 18:22:05 GMT
Ergo, since camp is not an element of any kind but it is a structure, it goes anywhere along the back edge including in the corner. The central deployment area is for the deployment of troop types not for structures. The city or Fort or edifice or Hamlet is not an element either, but but they can go anywhere along the back edge too. All restrictions for the deployment area are for "troops." I am having difficulty following your reasoning, Bob. The "deployement area" has been defined already. It is 3BW from the centre line, and 4BW from a side edge, no? With an exception specifically stated for LH, Cv, Ax and Ps only. So it goes in the already pre-defined deployment area, no? 4BW... The early set (non-published... sorry guys) of diagrams show the deployment area as 4BW in from the edge. This is as the rules directly state. Primuspilus... I don't understand your second question. A camp may be deployed on a waterway or rear edge. Please note that the waterway must comprise the player's rear edge. This was clarified in the FAQ. (It prevents some weird setup configurations with long thin camp with arty deployed forward.) Does that answer your question? Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jul 20, 2016 14:34:01 GMT
I tend to err on the side of conservative interpretations (because they can always be done) and it looks like I had overlooked the fact that it looks like 8Cb and 8Bw can get side support from Solid Blades. Normally +4 vs. mounted and +3 vs. foot +1 for side support would make them +4/+4. Is this correct? Yes, that is correct. Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jul 18, 2016 16:38:43 GMT
Not disagreeing with your conclusion as such Bob, but do they not treat dunes and oasis differently? Scott An interesting point. There are some differences. Bob's point still stands though. In good going, the camels do support the horse and vice versa. This seems Phil's intention. Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jul 11, 2016 14:52:00 GMT
I was recently asked if mounted solid bow should get side support from solid blades. I could think of no reason that this should not be done. Can any one? Nope... they get side support. Joe Collins
|
|