|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 22, 2017 11:42:38 GMT
Personally, if I wanted a hill to fight and die on over the "realism" of DBA, this wouldn't have been the one I would have chosen...
I am always amazed at folks' ability to rationalise some idiotic things in a wargame (like the Bd vs Bd perpetual motion machine) but in fits of almost religious fervour, not others...
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Mar 22, 2017 15:43:27 GMT
To me, the answer is in the playing...
I've never seen many Littoral landings... this includes 20 years or tournaments, club games, and historical re-fights. When they do happen, the landing player usually loses quite quickly. In the end, they really don't matter.
I do agree that Phil should have limited the initial deployment in more ways. When 3.1 is written, I will suggest this.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Mar 22, 2017 21:56:54 GMT
Joe, good observation. The rules alow a rash owner of a littoral landing to really mess it up and be defeated quickly. It is a skill element of DBA, that means that an invader has to think through his approach and deployment...as well
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Mar 23, 2017 0:34:06 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? Pity the poor bugger who gets a waterway on their base edge. Getting a waterway on your base edge is very difficult to organise - it has to be YOUR CHOICE as the invader.
Deployment P8 Para 1 Line 3 The invader then selects a base edge. If a road crosses the battlefield, one of the intersected sides must be chosen, otherwise any edge that is not opposite a waterway.
So the defender cannot be backed up to a waterway by marauding Vikings - and if the Vikings want to be close to their boats then it is entirely their choice to leave themselves open to a Norse Irish landing - or more likely to set a trap for the far less well armed and armoured Irish - inviting them to put 1/4 of their army closer to a Wallo4Bd than they are to their own supporting force 
Some time ago we had the discussion about the maximum dimensions of a waterway preventing deployment if placed on the base edge. I chose to use this in the following way at my first DBA Tournament 1) Place the max size waterway 2) Inform my opponent that it was max size and as such he a) could not place it be placed behind me b) would struggle to deploy his forces within the deployment zone if it was chosen as their base edge
Viola - a secure flank for my short frontaged Scots Common
Of course a Cv/LH/Ps/Ax army could place more elements on the flanks and circumvent this tactic
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Mar 24, 2017 0:05:04 GMT
Some time ago we had the discussion about the maximum dimensions of a waterway preventing deployment if placed on the base edge. I chose to use this in the following way at my first DBA Tournament 1) Place the max size waterway 2) Inform my opponent that it was max size and as such he a) could not place it be placed behind me b) would struggle to deploy his forces within the deployment zone if it was chosen as their base edge
Its good to know that 3.0 fully addressed the issue of over-sized waterways reducing deployment area and board size. That's only been a complaint on this forum for a little over a decade. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 24, 2017 3:56:05 GMT
...and to the best of my knowledge there is nothing in the rules to prevent you from having a gentlemen's agreement that waterways extend only 1-2 or 2.5 BW in from the board edge, which is a very simple and elegant way of dealing with this... Sometimes I think us wargamers are simply too dumb to be trusted with anything important...  |
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Mar 30, 2017 4:24:53 GMT
Some time ago we had the discussion about the maximum dimensions of a waterway preventing deployment if placed on the base edge. I chose to use this in the following way at my first DBA Tournament 1) Place the max size waterway 2) Inform my opponent that it was max size and as such he a) could not place it be placed behind me b) would struggle to deploy his forces within the deployment zone if it was chosen as their base edge
Its good to know that 3.0 fully addressed the issue of over-sized waterways reducing deployment area and board size. That's only been a complaint on this forum for a little over a decade. And for most of that decade - given that the deployment area was 600p from either the board edge OR the waterway edge if the waterway was on the base edge the complaint was unfounded.
Seriously Dangun - don't ever change, it is tough work making me look good but you excel (although not to the same extent as our good friend Pillager).
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Mar 30, 2017 4:29:10 GMT
...and to the best of my knowledge there is nothing in the rules to prevent you from having a gentlemen's agreement that waterways extend only 1-2 or 2.5 BW in from the board edge, which is a very simple and elegant way of dealing with this... Sometimes I think us wargamers are simply too dumb to be trusted with anything important... And this gentleman is all for it - I just won't bring my poor frontage starved Scots (Pre-Feudal or Common) to any fight under that agreement. This is merely a reflection on my playing ability. I cannot manage a win in DBA3 using an army that is required to half its frontage for combat. I have seen a colleague demolish opponents with clever use of local superiority and manoeuvre. That is beyond my skillset. Halfway through that kind of fight I am spread too thin, out of PIPs and overwhelmed.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 1, 2017 0:18:44 GMT
Wow Macbeth, I can't help but think of your poor Scots struggling on the bigger boards then! I agree that for every Cv heavy army that enjoys a bigger board, you get a foot heavy army that needs the smaller one....
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Apr 2, 2017 22:30:21 GMT
Wow Macbeth, I can't help but think of your poor Scots struggling on the bigger boards then! I agree that for every Cv heavy army that enjoys a bigger board, you get a foot heavy army that needs the smaller one....
That is indeed the cross I must bear 
Often when I hear someone extolling the virtues of the larger board I ask them to sell me the concept taking into account that I am a plodding infantry general with favourite armies like Pre Feudal Scots and Sung Chinese. It is amusing to watch the facial expressions
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on May 9, 2017 5:58:19 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. I've only just started playing DBA 3.0 properly, and actually had a double littoral landing in an early game - Picts vs Scots-Irish. The Picts landed light horse, who immediately moved to attack the Irish flank, failed to kill anything and then died to the chariots the Irish landed behind them. Part of the problem for the Picts was that the plan was to bring up elements from the main army to cover their attack, but the landing has to be made *before* PIPs are rolled and there weren't enough PIPs to do it. This left the light horse fighting alone. As we saw it, the landings do allow a lot of flexibility, but both sides can see any reserved troops and, since you know one of both sides can make a landing, you make your army deployments with that in mind. |
|
