|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Nov 30, 2017 22:32:20 GMT
I included conical hills in one of my reality fits. They exist in the real world (as do a kinds of shapes) but yes they seem advantages except - they don't block the LOS lacking a blocking crest. We may have to live with the abstraction of ridge only hills.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Dec 1, 2017 14:35:19 GMT
I prefer crested hills, personally. If you ever look at a hill, especially even a "gentle" one, you will see that there are natural defensive lines, and natural axes of weakness, along which an attack could have a much greater chance of dislodging an enemy. Conical is not realistic except in a handful of cases, once you get down to the level of actually having to take up positions. The more time you have spent mountaineering, trail running and hiking in river valleys, glacier country and rolling farmland, with DBA firmly in your mind, the clearer this all gets...!  |
|
|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Dec 1, 2017 15:56:07 GMT
Well, if I were to think about my actual experience with hills in the real world (though, of course, lacking real-world experience with formation fighting), I would expect that you have to line up pretty much _on_ the ridge line of a hill to get much practical benefit - and then often only facing in one direction. DBA hills are in many ways more effective defensive positions than things I have encountered in real life. That doesn't bother me too much though, since I can just file that away as "there are probably other hills on the battlefield that we don't mark, but they are not aligned in relevant ways" and "even if the rules say I can defend this hill on two sides, in practice I'm only going to be attacked on one side most of the time, so there isn't an effective unfair benefit." |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Dec 1, 2017 20:30:51 GMT
Too true, Michael. Conical hills, being roughly circular as viewed from above, are not easy to find, and as you state, typically your defensive line is long enough that you need to orient along an axis, at the crest for maximal benefit.
I find the crest hills in DBA v3 to be a vast improvement over 2.2. Along with rivers. Not perfect, but way, way better.
|
|
|
|
"uphill"
Dec 3, 2017 23:59:08 GMT
via mobile
Post by primuspilus on Dec 3, 2017 23:59:08 GMT
Also don't forget you can also deploy a maximal size Gentle Hill or two as a "rise" and use it to hide from Bw and Art... Works great for Cv and LH-heavy armies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Dec 4, 2017 14:14:56 GMT
I use the ridge line and centre point as mentioned by Haardrada, but I am warming to Simon's idea
|
|
|
|
"uphill"
Dec 4, 2017 16:41:09 GMT
via mobile
Post by primuspilus on Dec 4, 2017 16:41:09 GMT
That idea works very well on hills with clear, explicit contours.
For continuous hills, I would have preferred using the uphill element's rear edge, and require it be uphill (closer to the crestline) of all points on the close combat opponent's front edge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Dec 4, 2017 22:42:40 GMT
That idea works very well on hills with clear, explicit contours. For continuous hills, I would have preferred using the uphill element's rear edge, and require it be uphill (closer to the crestline) of all points on the close combat opponent's front edge. I like this. I was initially confused by the rule as stated (in terms of front edges only), because if the front edges are in contact, how can one be "uphill" of the other? They are in the same place! This is what I get for studying maths, instead of learning common sense. |
|
|
|
"uphill"
Dec 4, 2017 23:57:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by primuspilus on Dec 4, 2017 23:57:16 GMT
Takes a math grad to know one...
|
|
