|
|
Post by ammianus on Aug 18, 2018 17:38:59 GMT
I'd say about half the time; particularly with my Late Roman Patricians.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Aug 21, 2018 21:10:06 GMT
What do you guys think about using allies with the II/12 Alexandrian Macedonian? My thoughts are that having two spear might be effective as a fighting force. So, the army would look something like ... <core> 1 x 3Kn/general (Alexander) 1 x 4Ax (hypaspists) 1 x LH (Thracians w/ javelins) 6 x 4Pk (phalangites) <Thessalian allies> 1 x Cv 2 x Sp Basically, this is trading away a 2nd 4Ax and Ps for two Sp at the cost of PIP efficiency. I think the 2 x Sp would be more effective than what is given up, but is it worth the price? I’m on holiday so can’t access the purple.....so please take these thoughts with a pinch of salt and check them. My thoughts about Alexandrian Army is that the 6 x Pk is too numerous and reduces the Army frontage too much so you are always overlapped. Then the Cav is insufficient to do damage and the Hypaspists as 4 Ax are too weak. So if you can loose the Hypaspists and 2 x Pk and replace then with 1 x Cav and 2 x Sp then in my view the Army would be stronger. Would this be possible? Paddy |
|
|
|
Post by j2klbs on Aug 23, 2018 22:32:31 GMT
Hi Paddy,
That's an interesting idea and very doable. I could totally eliminate 2 Pk and thereby lessen the problem with smaller frontage. Thanks for the suggestion.
I have to look at the rules, but I might even be able to get a total of 3 x 4Sp. I'll post an update with an alternate army design for thoughts and feedback.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Aug 23, 2018 23:49:54 GMT
so if i understood well the rules, even if there are in a same Group than Original Army Element, Allied Element must spend one more PIP to do something, right?
what is the other limitations or constraint for Allies? (apart to must have one element as their army General element)
interesting btw!
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 24, 2018 4:33:45 GMT
Note that an army that takes allies must use an element of the general's type from the ally but this now functions as just whatever type it is. It has no general advantages. No +1 for combat. The ally contingent "must include the general’s element of its army (which does not function as a general) and at least 1 element from the entry with the largest number of elements. If the army has 2 troop types with that number allowed, the player chooses which to use. Any third element is the player’s choice from elements yet unused. "
|
|
|
|
Post by j2klbs on Aug 24, 2018 6:08:03 GMT
With Paddy's suggestion of lowering Pk, I have the following:
<core>
1 x 3Kn/general (Alexander)
1 x 4Ax (hypaspists)
1 x LH (prodromoi)
4 x Pk (phalangites)
1 x Sp (Greek hoplites)
1 x Cv (Thessalian cavalry)
<Thessalian allies>
1 x Cv (Thessalian cavalry)
2 x Sp (Thessalian hoplites)
Elements removed: 2xPk, 1xPs
I was thinking of deployment being something like...
[Cv/A][Sp/A][Sp/A][Sp][Pk][Pk][Cv][3Kn*][LH]
[Pk][Pk]
special: [Ax] (get into bad going)
Thoughts: If I keep the center in good formation, that is a solid block that is hard to beat (Sp @ +5, Pk @ +6/+5). The biggest threats to the center are rear-supported Wb, Kn and SCh. I'm not overly worried about SCh since it's +5 vs. +3 and I win ties destroying the SCh. I am +5 vs. +3 for Kn but they insta-kill me and I need to double them. Wb are even more troublesome - I'm still +5/+6 vs. +4 but they insta-kill me while I need to double them. Maybe I can position/maneuver my Kn (preferred) or Cv to chase off the Wb, but the Kn I'm not sure what to do about.
Any suggestions or comments about this army or thoughts on how best to use them?
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Aug 24, 2018 7:13:17 GMT
My take on it is that Alexandrian Macedonian suffers from high aggression combined with insufficient bad going troops. In many games the opponent gets to place the terrain, and would be able to deny Alex the joy of a wide open battlefield.
It's certainly tough with the troops you've chosen, but when I look for an ally I go for something which can bring extra flex to the army's repertoire, such as bad going ability or littoral capability or extra mounted punch eg, to pay back something for the extra PIP requirement.
Whatever you choose it'll be fun.
In your diagram, the deployment makes perfect sense, especially as you get to use the ally as a single ‘chunk’ for one PIP on that wing. Also, guarding the general’s flanks, as you have, should help keep Alex alive.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by j2klbs on Aug 24, 2018 15:56:36 GMT
Thanks Martin!
I was sort of thinking the same thing about lack of bad-going troops. I was thinking I could shore that up by removing the non-allied Sp and replacing it with a second 4Ax. Having just one 4Ax means I'm likely giving up bad going, but having two elite hypaspists to take the bad going might just work.
Alexander's ally choices are limited (just Thessalians). But I'm curious, what is the advantage of taking a littoral ally?
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Aug 24, 2018 16:39:08 GMT
If an arable ‘core’ army fields a littoral ally, the player gets a few convenient options:-
If your opponent is not littoral, as an arable defender you can choose to place a waterway (allowed to arable armies) and send your littoral ally on a mission to outflank the enemy.
If your opponent is littoral, and you defend, you don’t have to risk placing a waterway for him to land from.
If your opponent is littoral, and you invade, you get to land second, which is a good way to neutralise his landing, or cause a little chaos if he has declined to do a landing.
eg a Viking ally pops up frequently in our Dark Ages games, as they are littoral and also tough (4Bd, maybe plus a 4Bw), and are listed as allies for a very large number of armies.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by j2klbs on Aug 24, 2018 18:01:18 GMT
That's interesting. I had read the rule stating that the "army's home terrain is LITTORAL" as this option to mean the main/core army. But you and the crib sheet by Stevie suggest it is the army list associated with the ally list. I can see that interpretation as well. I'm wondering if that is worthy of being mentioned in the FAQ. I continue to learn nuances of this game. Thanks all for your patience and comments.  |
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Aug 25, 2018 0:45:40 GMT
There have been a number of posts describing the benefits of an ally to strengthen a perceived weakness in an army. However, the rules for allies in the standard game are useful for representing historical allies, which sometimes weaken an army. These include hoplites armies drawing contingents from other city states. In particular removing hoplites stands to be replaced by allied hoplites. I have used the allied contingent rules in a few historical refights and find them useful addition.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Aug 25, 2018 8:14:38 GMT
There have been a number of posts describing the benefits of an ally to strengthen a perceived weakness in an army. However, the rules for allies in the standard game are useful for representing historical allies, which sometimes weaken an army. These include hoplites armies drawing contingents from other city states. In particular removing hoplites stands to be replaced by allied hoplites. I have used the allied contingent rules in a few historical refights and find them useful addition. Good point, Keith. A weaker ally is another ‘interesting conundrum’. Greeks with more Greeks is a good case in point. eg There were a few incongruous allies in the armies supplied by players at Tarrington Tourney Scramble event, where you only use your own army once, but force it upon others for five games. A bit of a ‘deal with that if you can’ scenario 😎. Can certainly change the dynamic. One player even provided a double ally army (Picts + Saxons + Irish), which was tough to use (eg 3 PIPs minimumum, if you want the whole lot to move). I thought it was a great challenge....and made you think long and hard about how to spend PIPs. |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Aug 25, 2018 8:27:15 GMT
I think maybe some provision for the enthusiasm/loyalty of allied contingents could provide extra interest to games?
Maybe not in the DBA 3.0 mainstream rules but could be considered as house rules or campaign rules
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Aug 25, 2018 9:38:47 GMT
I’ve found to my cost that a single PIP at a vital point can replicate the ally choosing to hold back at a crucial moment....allies are definitely a two-edged sword. Useful at times, but a PIP drain at others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Aug 25, 2018 11:08:11 GMT
I've found varying quality and variety in various allied contingents for different armies.Most often when choosing allies I'm looking for bad going troops if my army has few or none.Or I'm looking to strengthen the "killer" elements in a less powerful army.For example my Grenadine IV/38 army consists mostly of LH and 3Cb/Ps backed by a few Sp and Kn/Cav elements.But by adding the Berber ally you can vary the army so that it can field up to 6 LH,or double the Sp elements and or add more Kn or Cm..which obviously change the performance of the army.
Simularly,the Hindu Indian army can add more Ellies and/or Kn by choosing Rajput allies or take 3 × 4 Kn elements by adding Tibetans.
The allied contingents allowed to the Tamil army can privide up to 5 elephants to supliment the Bd and Bw elements to give a very powerful army that has seen tournament success this year...however, the pip scoring must have had a great deal of luck if only to move the army!
As mentioned the Viking III/40b list appears in several allied lists and with its littorial terrain option can add further deployment(do any dry armies with Cm have littorial allies?lol).
There are certainly more deployment/tactical options available to you with some armies,not only in troop types when choosing some allies.
|
|
)
