|
|
Post by BrianNZ on Jan 3, 2017 8:15:13 GMT
All - if you have two littoral armies say Carthaginian and Syracuase, and the defender lands an element(s), and does not move it / them, can then the attacker who lands, land elements that ZOC the just landed defenders or with configurations where they can actually land in contact and straight into combat....which seems feasible. Do you mean that the Invader's landing force is placed behind the Defender's elements and thus still partly in the water ? This , if allowed, would mean that the Defender's elements turn to face and a combat is fought with the Invader's ( rather wet ) elements. |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jan 3, 2017 12:35:40 GMT
All - if you have two littoral armies say Carthaginian and Syracuase, and the defender lands an element(s), and does not move it / them, can then the attacker who lands, land elements that ZOC the just landed defenders or with configurations where they can actually land in contact and straight into combat....which seems feasible. Do you mean that the Invader's landing force is placed behind the Defender's elements and thus still in the partly in the water ? This , if allowed, would mean that the Defender's elements turn to face and a combat is fought with the Invader's ( rather wet ) elements. Nope...the water is 'Impassable terrain', so not a possibility. Note you don't have to 'land' (ie place your elements) with their backs against the waterway. I think the inference is- player one lands his troops with them placed eg 90 degrees to the waterway. Player two does something similar, in the TZ, and go from there (?). |
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Mar 18, 2017 14:59:36 GMT
Just to open this one up. I assume that one can actually implement at littoral landing straight into contact of legal front edge contact with enemy elements. Cannot see where in the rules it says you cannot do this? If so, then assume the free sideways shift to line up is allowed automatically if a group is in contact with the enemy group on landing.
This happened in a practice for PAWs Spring where the Egyptian Invader had a 'box' defence around their camp with the waterway on their baseline. The Makkan Defender just laded straight into contact with the right side of the box. After discussion could not find that this should not be allowed. Peter
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 18, 2017 15:04:13 GMT
Not only possible, I'd suggest highly desirable! Opposing fleets landing opposing contingents of marines. Sounds like a hell of a day at the beach!
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 18, 2017 15:13:10 GMT
Just to open this one up. I assume that one can actually implement at littoral landing straight into contact of legal front edge contact with enemy elements. Cannot see where in the rules it says you cannot do this? If so, then assume the free sideways shift to line up is allowed automatically if a group is in contact with the enemy group on landing. This happened in a practice for PAWs Spring where the Egyptian Invader had a 'box' defence around their camp with the waterway on their baseline. The Makkan Defender just laded straight into contact with the right side of the box. After discussion could not find that this should not be allowed. Peter
It may be allowed but it's still bloody idiotic to have littoral landing troops suddenly ‘teleporting’ from out of nowhere into contact!
Are troops making amphibious landings invisible and no-one can see them moving up from the beach until they stick a sword in your face?
I don’t care what the rules say or don’t say on this subject...I’ve still got my common sense.
One BW from the enemy for me, just like troops making an extra move off-road.
Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 18, 2017 15:48:33 GMT
Oh, so no such thing as a rival landing by vikings emerging out of the fog, to take the enemy by surprise, then. Great, good to know.
Stevie, you are free to make any rules you want. But your claim that this is "teleporting" is simply not supportable by history. I suggest you study the battles for Syracuse for starters. You do know galleys, riverine landers and longboats could be beached fairly quickly and quietly, and fog as well as poor visibility is a frequent occurrence on many waterways, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 18, 2017 17:59:38 GMT
troops taking an extra move along road can end up in contact with an opponent element.
"...only if this does not start or go within 1 BW of enemy __unless while moving along a road__ and is entirely by: . (c) Troops moving along a road if making a second or subsequent move. "
So I guess troops can move from Littoral landing directly into contact with enemy.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 20, 2017 16:06:27 GMT
Oh, so no such thing as a rival landing by vikings emerging out of the fog, to take the enemy by surprise, then. Great, good to know. Stevie, you are free to make any rules you want. But your claim that this is "teleporting" is simply not supportable by history. I suggest you study the battles for Syracuse for starters. You do know galleys, riverine landers and longboats could be beached fairly quickly and quietly, and fog as well as poor visibility is a frequent occurrence on many waterways, right? Ah, so every single amphibious landing in ancient and medieval history was during thick fog, and that’s why the troops are always invisible. Great, good to know. Just stop and think for a moment:- First the ships have to sail across the sea to reach the shore...this takes time, and the enemy doesn’t see them... Then the men and horses have to disembark from these ships... this takes time, and the enemy doesn’t see them... Once ashore, they have to form-up and get themselves organised...this takes time, and the enemy doesn’t see them... Lastly they have to leave the beach and march into contact with their opponents... and the enemy doesn’t see them... “Oi, who’s prodding me with that spear! Oh, where did you teleport in from? You were off-table just a second ago....”
I’m sure that the Americans, British and Canadians would have loved to have such wonderful camouflage on D-Day! And why don’t we possess such marvellous stealthy ships today? Has the knowledge to build them been forgotten? Back in the old DBA 1 and 2 days there was a phrase about ‘cheesy tricks’. These were things that were totally illogical, unrealistic, had no bearing on reality, and defied simple common sense. But the rule lawyers back then would say “well there’s nothing in the rules that says I can’t do this”. So far I’ve not heard the phrase ‘cheesy tricks’ in relation to DBA 3.0. But having troops that make a littoral landing making contact with the enemy, in the same single bound, before their opponents can even react, is just that; a ‘cheesy trick’ that is illogical, unrealistic, has no bearing on reality, and defies simple common sense. And it’s only allowed because the sentence to prevent such a ridiculous manoeuvre is currently missing from the rules, just like the rule about not being able to deploy in a river is missing, and the rule about fleeing troops turning 180 being waived when shot in the rear is missing, plus several other missing rules. Fortunately, The FAQ Team have done an excellent job of filling in these missing rules for us. I have no doubts that that one day they’ll get around to fixing Littoral Landings so that they are unable to get within 1 BW of the enemy on the very same bound that they land, and before the enemy who been watching them coming has a chance to react. I just can’t wait that long so I’ve done it for myself.  Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 20, 2017 16:09:53 GMT
troops taking an extra move along road can end up in contact with an opponent element. "...only if this does not start or go within 1 BW of enemy __unless while moving along a road__ and is entirely by: . (c) Troops moving along a road if making a second or subsequent move. " So I guess troops can move from Littoral landing directly into contact with enemy. Well Bob, when you add one daft rule (troops making an extra move down a road can move into contact) with another daft rule (troops making a Littoral Landing can sail across the sea/disembark/get organised/and then march off at their full normal speed... and all this in a single turn, the same turn in which another element has to use its entire move just to slip off their horses and dismount!), then you are bound to get daft results. My only defense is to say I didn’t write the rules.  By saying that troops making an amphibious landing cannot end that bound within 1 BW of the enemy (even if on a road) effectively means that it will take them at least two bounds to get into contact...thus giving their opponents time to react to their presence, which is a bit more realistic. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Mar 20, 2017 20:57:44 GMT
I tried to talk Phil out of troops in march column moving down a Road and into contact - but no avail. You just have to house rule it.
Littorial landings sound pretty fuzzy too.
But for DBA 3.0 purposes we are stuck with the literal littorial rules.
I'll ponder what to do with D3H2 and fix the problem in Fire and Ice.
Thomas J. Thomas
Fame and Glory Games
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 20, 2017 23:31:00 GMT
Stevie, you built a straw man... I did not assert that every such landing was an "ambush", only that it was eminently plausible. No different than lurkers popping up (oh wait, teleporting) on a flank in rocky ground in HotT, for instance. And both DBA and HotT are "fantastical" games to a certain degree.
Your attempt to equate the D-DAY landings with a raid by vikings is perhaps not the best comparison I suggest. For starters, DBA is more properly viewed as an abstract representation of combat power through the use of rectangles with models on them, which allows us to wrap our heads around 12 elements each, and 4 dead is victory...
Also, like the faster movement rates or deploying as close to the enemy as possible, littoral landings are an option, not a requirement. I frequently avoid performing them due to the inherent levels of undiversifiable risks.
And DBA has always been a colossal abstraction, from the "don't tread on my rectangles" OCD tetris combat system, to the jet-propelled Psiloi and Light Horse. One accepts them, warts and all, mostly, or one is perpetually miserable...
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 21, 2017 17:56:12 GMT
And DBA has always been a colossal abstraction, from the "don't tread on my rectangles" OCD tetris combat system, to the jet-propelled Psiloi and Light Horse. One accepts them, warts and all, mostly, or one is perpetually miserable... Yes, you are right, DBA is an abstract game, as are all wargames. But that is no excuse for throwing reality out of the window. An abstract game that at least tries to simulate reality is far better than an abstract game that ignores it altogether. Of course, it all depends upon the player’s reason of why they want to play a wargame. Some people just want to move little metal toy soldiers across a table and are only interested in wining. And if they can find an exploit or loophole in the rules, no matter if it is counter intuitive or makes no sense, then so much the better (I have a friend who thinks like this. His favourite saying is “don’t give me all this historical reality crap, just show me how to win!”). Other people are more concerned with refighting or at least simulating ancient/medieval warfare and battles, and to them historical accuracy and realistic rules are important (fortunately most of my other wargame friends are in this category, as am I). Because I’ll be damned if after carefully picking all the correct figures and meticulously spending weeks and months painting them so that they look authentic, I then have to ignore all sense of historical accuracy just because the rules allow ridiculously unrealistic littoral landings! Especially when the faulty or missing part of the littoral landing rules is so easy to fix. Teleporting troops may be ok for HOTT, but not for DBA. As people will have probably noticed from the link below and the ongoing Historical Opponents thread, I am not the sort of person that will just shrug my shoulders and say oh well, we will just have to live with it. If something in DBA is wrong it needs to be fixed. And if no one else will fix it, then I’ll do it myself, with help from others of course. To that end, here is my proposal to fix the page 8 paragraph 3 Littoral Landing rules:- Add the following: “Troops that have made a littoral landing this bound may not start or go within 1 BW of an enemy, even on a road, unless the defender rolls a ‘weather dice’ and scores a 1 to indicate a light temporary sea fog that will be burned off by the early morning sun and dissipate before the beginning of the defender’s next bound.”
(The ‘weather dice’ is an idea by medievalthomas which replaces the current defenders first PIP roll of 1 affecting some terrain. A weather roll of 1 not only turns plough into rough, but the moisture from overnight rain, wet conditions, and muddy fields causes an early morning mist which can conceal an amphibious landing, allowing the disembarking troops to ignore the 1 BW restriction and move into direct contact with the enemy if they so wish. This light temporary mist is not the same as the dense heavy fog that persisted all day at the battle of Barnet in 1471.) It may not be the best solution…and someone may suggest a better idea…but until the FAQ Team give us an ‘official’ ruling it is better than the current situation. DBA is far too good a game system to let a simple broken littoral landing rule ruin it. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Mar 22, 2017 1:17:54 GMT
Oh, so no such thing as a rival landing by vikings emerging out of the fog, to take the enemy by surprise, then. Great, good to know. Stevie, you are free to make any rules you want. But your claim that this is "teleporting" is simply not supportable by history. I suggest you study the battles for Syracuse for starters. You do know galleys, riverine landers and longboats could be beached fairly quickly and quietly, and fog as well as poor visibility is a frequent occurrence on many waterways, right? Vikings in the fog is not a relevant example. Firstly, it is still not a historical example - its your imagination. But assuming you can dig up an actual example, this game isn't modelling a band of 60 vikings, pouring out of their ship. Three elements might be more than 30,000 soldiers unloaded from 100s of boats. Admittedly, your comparison with HOTT's lurkers suggests you're not playing for the history, which is fine - each to their own, but DBA is obviously written to facilitate historical simulation, albeit a highly abstracted one. I completely agree with Stevie on this. Its a ridiculous, ahistoric, comic-book rule. Pity the poor bugger who gets a waterway on their base edge. Oh, and defending one stupid rule, by pointing to another stupid rule, is not the way improvements get made. And at some risk of starting another distracting argument, litoral landings, set-up, and aggression ratings are all significantly better thought through IMHO, in another recently released rules set. |
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Mar 22, 2017 6:20:37 GMT
Maybe the thought process here is to turn the thread on its head. As the invader you will know what elements the defender has set aside with a littoral landing opportunity. That allows you to then configure and deploy your troops to best counter the landing. That has a better historical feel about it to me. If then the defender want to deploy directly into contact then it would be at very adverse terms ie against troops with higher combat factors and more of them. If I was some Psiloi in a boat, about to land, and saw a whole bunch of enemy cavalry near the proposed landing area, i would probably be advised to land somewhere else anyway. If an invader leaves vulnerable troops isolated in the reach of a littoral landing force, then they have what is coming to them. At the English Open at PAWs last Autumn my Vikings also came across an anti littoral landing camp. Minimum width but maximum length placed along the waterway blocking it up, and garrisoned with a spear element I think it was, that provided a real tactical challenge and deterrent to deploy too aggressively.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Mar 22, 2017 9:58:22 GMT
As I read the rules on Deployment (page 8) the defender (whose home terrain is Littorial)can place 2-3 elements he/she has held in reserve at the the start of their 1st bound in a single group along the waterway as long as one element is touching the waterway, before dicing for PIPs.Then as I understand it the defender completes their 1st bound.
If the attacker also has Littorial home terrain they can do likewise and possibly land at the same spot as the defender and attack him from behind.
To me this suggests if the defender knows that the attacker is able to do this and has not deployed all 12 of their elements already they are running the risk of their littorial landing being countered or that the attacker was intending to do a littorial landing in the first place.
|
|
