|
|
Post by goldenhord on Feb 23, 2020 9:37:13 GMT
question guys:
I have an army with littoral terrain. I changed 3 elements with an ally which is not Littoral.
Do i have the right to put my ally on the boats to disembark them ?
The rules says (whose army's home terrain is LITTORAL) 8(3)
Do the ally belongs to the main army or not ?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 23, 2020 10:15:09 GMT
I would say no.
The allies (in my opinion) must themselves be littoral to be able to make an amphibious landing.
So only those individual elements that have a littoral home region (i.e. they have their own fleet
of ships) can make use of an impassable waterway.
Speaking of which...many ancient nations and states had large fleets, such as the Romans and the
Persians, but in Phil Barker’s eyes that does not make them ‘littoral’. He seems to base his decision
on how much a particular state or nation spent on maintaining a fleet.
So Athens and Carthage spent as much (or maybe even more) of their annual military budget on
their fleet, while Rome and Persia spent the bulk of their annual budget on their land army.
Thus Athens and Carthage are counted as littoral, while others (even though their fleet may well
be larger) are not.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 23, 2020 10:51:33 GMT
question guys: I have an army with littoral terrain. I changed 3 elements with an ally which is not Littoral. Do i have the right to put my ally on the boats to disembark them ? The rules says (whose army's home terrain is LITTORAL) 8(3) Do the ally belongs to the main army or not ? The ally can only land if it is itself from a littoral list .....so eg If Sub Roman Brits, who are Arable, have a Viking Ally, and place a waterway as part of their Arable terrain, then the ally may land, the ‘main’ SRB army may not. If African Vandals, who are littoral, have a Moorish ally (hilly) the Vandals may land but the Moorish ally may not. The landers have to be seafarers, basically. |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 23, 2020 10:57:55 GMT
I Speaking of which...many ancient nations and states had large fleets, such as the Romans and the Persians, but in Phil Barker’s eyes that does not make them ‘littoral’. He seems to base his decision on how much a particular state or nation spent on maintaining a fleet. So Athens and Carthage spent as much (or maybe even more) of their annual military budget on their fleet, while Rome and Persia spent the bulk of their annual budget on their land army. Thus Athens and Carthage are counted as littoral, while others (even though their fleet may well be larger) are not. The decision on whether an army was littoral or not in DBA was originally taken based on the number of ship elements in the DBM army lists. If an army had many ships it might be considered littoral, if it had few it would not.
By the way, the lists were not just Mr Barker‘s work. I believe others such as Duncan Head were actively involved in composing the lists, and the allocation of topographies (I may need be corrected but I believe this is the case). |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 23, 2020 11:21:27 GMT
Good points Martin. Very well then...the DBA army lists are based upon the DBM army lists... ...and the DBM army lists appear to be based on how much a state spent on maintaining a fleet.  I only mention it because some players want to know why the Normans, who sailed all over the Mediterranean, are not counted as ‘littoral’. There is a difference between having a large fleet of warships, and being prepared to fight sea-battles, than just using ships for mere transport purposes (and those that spent a large part of their annual military budget on their fleet are more likely to have a high degree of professional seamanship, and so be counted as ‘littoral’). |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Feb 23, 2020 11:53:54 GMT
I Speaking of which...many ancient nations and states had large fleets, such as the Romans and the Persians, but in Phil Barker’s eyes that does not make them ‘littoral’. He seems to base his decision on how much a particular state or nation spent on maintaining a fleet. So Athens and Carthage spent as much (or maybe even more) of their annual military budget on their fleet, while Rome and Persia spent the bulk of their annual budget on their land army. Thus Athens and Carthage are counted as littoral, while others (even though their fleet may well be larger) are not. The decision on whether an army was littoral or not in DBA was originally taken based on the number of ship elements in the DBM army lists. If an army had many ships it might be considered littoral, if it had few it would not.
By the way, the lists were not just Mr Barker‘s work. I believe others such as Duncan Head were actively involved in composing the lists, and the allocation of topographies (I may need be corrected but I believe this is the case). In that case why were the Western Normans (Southern Italy) not granted Littorial status from 1061AD from the beginning of the invasion of Sicily up until the fall of Palermo propper in 1072AD?The Guiscards were performing amphibious operations ten years before they took Palermo and already had a sizeable fleet when the took Palermo city in 1071AD?The Scicilian list begins in 1072AD. The original DBM lists allowed them 0-3 ships from 1041AD. |
|
|
|
Post by goldenhord on Feb 23, 2020 14:45:57 GMT
Thx guy, we will apply the rules, no landing allies if their own terrain is not littoral, no surprise available !
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 23, 2020 18:06:59 GMT
The decision on whether an army was littoral or not in DBA was originally taken based on the number of ship elements in the DBM army lists. If an army had many ships it might be considered littoral, if it had few it would not. By the way, the lists were not just Mr Barker‘s work. I believe others such as Duncan Head were actively involved in composing the lists, and the allocation of topographies (I may need be corrected but I believe this is the case). In that case why were the Western Normans (Southern Italy) not granted Littorial status from 1061 AD from the beginning of the invasion of Sicily up until the fall of Palermo propper in 1072 AD? The Guiscards were performing amphibious operations ten years before they took Palermo and already had a sizeable fleet when the took Palermo city in 1071 AD ?The Scicilian list begins in 1072 AD. The original DBM lists allowed them 0-3 ships from 1041 AD. Perhaps because the Normans requisitioned lots of transport ships on a short-term basis. They certainly don’t seem to have indulged in sea-battles, nor are they known for being great sailors, unlike the Athenians, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, and such like. But you could have tripped me up by using the Irish and Picts as a counter argument... ...they too didn’t indulge in sea-battles, didn’t spend a lot of their resources on sea power, nor were they regarded as great sailors, yet in DBA they are still classed as ‘littoral'. So here is Stevie’s unofficial justification as to what makes someone ‘littoral’
For me, to be littoral requires being in one of the two following categories:- Either a) be hit-and-run coastal raiders (i.e. like the Irish, Picts, Vikings, and so on). Or b) spend a large part of their annual budget on maintaining warships.
Let’s put this to the test:-
Romans and Persians had large fleets, and indulged in sea-battles, but only spent a small amount of their annual budget on their navy, while the bulk was spent on their army. So they fail b) above and are not classed as ‘littoral’ in DBA. The Athenians, Phoenicians, and Carthaginians did spend a lot of their annual military budget on maintaining their fleet of warships (and on improving their port facilities), so DBA does count them as littoral, as are II/16b Demetrios and the II/20 Ptolemaic army. The Normans on the other hand did not indulge in small coastal raids (they were more into major invasions), nor did they they build a large fleet of warships to fight sea-battles. So they fail both a) and b) above, and therefore DBA does not count as littoral. And these simple guidelines can be applied to all the DBA armies to give rational reasons as to why it was decided if someone is to be littoral or not. Other than that, all I can say is “I didn’t write the army lists”. |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Feb 23, 2020 22:36:07 GMT
Unlike their European Cousins the Normans in Italy were up for a bit more than the occasional invasion. From 1041AD it is true that the Normans of the South used and disbanded transports when required, but from 1053AD the situation changed.After the Byzantines failed to link up with the Papal army before its defeat at Civitate the Byzantines withdrew their army from Italy and embarked on a stratagy of hit and run coastal raids while financially supporting loyal cities.
This in turn led the Guiscards to start acquiring a fleet when they commenced conquering Sicily 1061AD, especially after the abortive siege of Palermo 1064AD.By the time they besieged Bari in 1068AD they had a substantial fleet mainly due to the Apulians Greeks who were noted seafarers. They had enough ships to completely blockade the city.
The Byzantines finally sent a relief fleet of 20 ships which were defeated at sea by Roger Guiscard and a Norman Fleet which sunk 9 of the Byzantine ships and captured their commander, on news of this defeat the City of Bari surrendered 1071AD.... Ref. Normans of the South 1016-1130AD John Julius Norwich, pages 168-169 & 172.
By the way, the Byzantines may also be considered as Littorial in this period?
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 23, 2020 23:25:54 GMT
Unlike their European Cousins the Normans in Italy were up for a bit more than the occasional invasion. From 1041AD it is true that the Normans of the South used and disbanded transports when required, but from 1053AD the situation changed.After the Byzantines failed to link up with the Papal army before its defeat at Civitate the Byzantines withdrew their army from Italy and embarked on a stratagy of hit and run coastal raids while financially supporting loyal cities. This in turn led the Guiscards to start acquiring a fleet when they commenced conquering Sicily 1061AD, especially after the abortive siege of Palermo 1064AD.By the time they besieged Bari in 1068AD they had a substantial fleet mainly due to the Apulians Greeks who were noted seafarers. They had enough ships to completely blockade the city. The Byzantines finally sent a relief fleet of 20 ships which were defeated at sea by Roger Guiscard and a Norman Fleet which sunk 9 of the Byzantine ships and captured their commander, on news of this defeat the City of Bari surrendered 1071AD.... Ref. Normans of the South 1016-1130AD John Julius Norwich, pages 168-169 & 172. By the way, the Byzantines may also be considered as Littorial in this period? I would supplement the Nikephorian arable terrain with littoral based on the invasion of Crete (960) and the combined operations in Cilicia following the conquest of Crete. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Feb 23, 2020 23:38:46 GMT
Good discussion here. The issue of armies and allies landing from a waterway took much time to resolve. Here is a good example of the comments then.
"On Pg 8 it states: "If any army or allied contingent's home topography is LITTORAL, it can reserve 0-3 elements instead of deploying them and instead place them as a 1 PIP group move in its 1st bound with the group touching any point on a waterway edge."
The current wording suggests an allied contingent which is itself littoral can be selected but allow troops from the players main army to be transported and landed. Is that the intent? I believe it provides to much flexibility."
After much back and forthing, Phil finally tried to make the rule clear. The army of the troops landed had to be Littoral. The main army or the allied army. If both are Littoral, can some of each land? I think so because it is not a PiP move to deploy(was so originally) but very PiP expensive to then move.
By the way, the original rule allowed any type to land, then comments that only foot should do so. I pointed out that some mostly mounted armies, such as Vandals, would be disadvantaged. Finally, only El, Art, and WWg were excluded. Almost chariots included but how did Achaians get chariots to Troy?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 24, 2020 4:34:42 GMT
Unlike their European Cousins the Normans in Italy were up for a bit more than the occasional invasion. From 1041AD it is true that the Normans of the South used and disbanded transports when required, but from 1053AD the situation changed.After the Byzantines failed to link up with the Papal army before its defeat at Civitate the Byzantines withdrew their army from Italy and embarked on a stratagy of hit and run coastal raids while financially supporting loyal cities. This in turn led the Guiscards to start acquiring a fleet when they commenced conquering Sicily 1061AD, especially after the abortive siege of Palermo 1064AD.By the time they besieged Bari in 1068AD they had a substantial fleet mainly due to the Apulians Greeks who were noted seafarers. They had enough ships to completely blockade the city. The Byzantines finally sent a relief fleet of 20 ships which were defeated at sea by Roger Guiscard and a Norman Fleet which sunk 9 of the Byzantine ships and captured their commander, on news of this defeat the City of Bari surrendered 1071AD.... Ref. Normans of the South 1016-1130AD John Julius Norwich, pages 168-169 & 172. By the way, the Byzantines may also be considered as Littorial in this period? Ha! You’ve got me there Haardrada. If the Normans sank ships, then they must have had warships (oared beaked galleys, as a converted cargo ship carrying lots of soldiers won’t be able to sink an enemy). And if they had warships, presumably from their Italian allies and vassals, then they may well qualify under “Stevie’s Guidelines As To What Makes An Army Littoral”. On the other hand... ...only 3 elements can make an amphibious landing, so would giving the Normans a littoral ally not do the job? I ask because army III/52 West Frankish & Norman (888 AD - 1072 AD) just happens to have III/33 Muslim Sicily (696 AD - 1160 AD) as an ally...and they are littoral. Not perfect, but better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick as they say in the classics. (i.e. Odysseus and the one-eyed Cyclops)  |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 24, 2020 9:39:00 GMT
The decision on whether an army was littoral or not in DBA was originally taken based on the number of ship elements in the DBM army lists. If an army had many ships it might be considered littoral, if it had few it would not.
By the way, the lists were not just Mr Barker‘s work. I believe others such as Duncan Head were actively involved in composing the lists, and the allocation of topographies (I may need be corrected but I believe this is the case). In that case why were the Western Normans (Southern Italy) not granted Littorial status from 1061AD from the beginning of the invasion of Sicily up until the fall of Palermo propper in 1072AD?The Guiscards were performing amphibious operations ten years before they took Palermo and already had a sizeable fleet when the took Palermo city in 1071AD?The Scicilian list begins in 1072AD. The original DBM lists allowed them 0-3 ships from 1041AD. Not my decision, as mentioned, but one of a list creator for DBM-DBA conversions. No idea whether 0-3 ships is enough to trigger littoral in that list creator’s opinion, or of the threshold was eg 4/5/6/7/8/9 ships...you could try asking on one of the Groups.io DBM/DBMM, and see if Duncan Head eg is available for comment. As for the Normans, I would suggest that the Normans in Sicily and the Normans in NW Europe should have been different sub-lists in the first place, and their topographies could have been different. However, they’re not. This ‘whether an army should be littoral or not’ issue has been debated to death in the past, and I won’t be joining in the conversation. It’s not going to reach any conclusion....we’ll end up debating why the littoral ones shouldn’t be, too .....can of worms. Have fun all... 😶 |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Feb 25, 2020 20:05:21 GMT
How many ships does each model represent in DBM/DBMM??
|
|
