|
Post by Roland on Jan 31, 2022 19:33:57 GMT
We've been playing a series of engagements with later Gallic army and Marian/Caesarian Romans. After each game we like to discuss what worked and didn't ( both within our tactical choices and the rules themselves).
After a couple of games, Saturday we discussed how Roman Bds behave and are toying with house ruling for our future games that (Roman)Bd, being drilled, should not have to pursue as a compulsory move when they win a CC.
Has anyone else played with a similar house rule before? Thoughts?
Cheers, Fred
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 1, 2022 9:05:38 GMT
We've been playing a series of engagements with later Gallic army and Marian/Caesarian Romans. After each game we like to discuss what worked and didn't ( both within our tactical choices and the rules themselves). After a couple of games, Saturday we discussed how Roman Bds behave and are toying with house ruling for our future games that (Roman)Bd, being drilled, should not have to pursue as a compulsory move when they win a CC. Has anyone else played with a similar house rule before? Thoughts? Cheers, Fred The compulsory pursuit should be viewed as a pip saving aspect of the game. Where are the auxiliaries and skirmishers in your games?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 1, 2022 12:42:00 GMT
Actually Roland, no pursuit for Blades is what happens in both HoTT and all the earlier versions of DBA.
The result is to make Blade v Blade combats nothing more than a fruitless shoving match, making breakthroughs in the centre very rare, meaning having a reserve is pointless since the front line almost never gets broken and there are no gaps to plug. Therefore the Romans are free to form-up in one long line, with no reserves, as if they were the same as a Greek Hoplite army (so much for historical battle formations!).
All this is an unfortunate side effect of Blades having such a high combat factor. Forcing Blades (and Pikes) to pursue helps reduce this effect, makes them more vulnerable, and makes having reserves more important.
It may not be strictly historically accurate, but it does produce historical effects, considering the limited, restricted and abstract DBA two-dice combat system.
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Feb 1, 2022 13:43:24 GMT
Actually Roland, no pursuit for Blades is what happens in both HoTT and all the earlier versions of DBA. Yes, but here we are at 3.0
This is meant as a house rule for our Gallic campaigns. This means its not Blades vs Blades but rather Blades vs Warbands While Blades get the edge on combat factor and frontage ( should the Gaul double up for +1). The QK aspect makes combats surprisingly dicey for the Romans. ( For the record, I tend to play the Gauls)
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Feb 1, 2022 13:50:17 GMT
The compulsory pursuit should be viewed as a pip saving aspect of the game. Where are the auxiliaries and skirmishers in your games? Typically either in RG/BG protecting flanks and holding off Cv or filling gaps in battle line caused by terrain features or as a quick reserve to exploit gaps in enemy line. * of course, as the Gaul, I so far get better mileage from my Psiloi. Most recent game I managed to tie up my brother's Bd general with good enough rolls that he had to pursue me for 3 turns, meanwhile my Cv moved to the flank extending my lines but forcing the Romans to lose the advantage of their wider frontage thus buying enough time for my Warbands to hold the hill and win the day!
Not sure I completely agree with the 'pip saving' interpretation. It breaks ones battle line. Yes you don't need pips to re-engage but you also lose command and control of your battle line and lose the precious corner overlaps.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 1, 2022 14:42:43 GMT
I too am a Rome v Gaul player… …Polybian Romans against early Cisalpine Gauls. (High aggression, 4Wb, and Chariots)Yes, the Gauls will have a shorter battleline if some of them are in column, but the Wb ‘quick kill’ makes the Romans keep a reserve, so they too will also have a shorter battleline…or have a very brittle centre with no-one to fill in the inevitable gaps. I find it roughly balanced (depending on luck!) with the 4Bd pursuing. Take away the Blade pursuit and you have a ‘super element’… …high combat factor troops with no following-up problems. This could seriously affect the balance in the favour of Rome. Still, I’m the last person to criticise some else’s ‘House Rules’. Let us know how you get on.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 2, 2022 10:19:16 GMT
The compulsory pursuit should be viewed as a pip saving aspect of the game. Where are the auxiliaries and skirmishers in your games? Typically either in RG/BG protecting flanks and holding off Cv or filling gaps in battle line caused by terrain features or as a quick reserve to exploit gaps in enemy line. * of course, as the Gaul, I so far get better mileage from my Psiloi. Most recent game I managed to tie up my brother's Bd general with good enough rolls that he had to pursue me for 3 turns, meanwhile my Cv moved to the flank extending my lines but forcing the Romans to lose the advantage of their wider frontage thus buying enough time for my Warbands to hold the hill and win the day!
Not sure I completely agree with the 'pip saving' interpretation. It breaks ones battle line. Yes you don't need pips to re-engage but you also lose command and control of your battle line and lose the precious corner overlaps. My Roman general remains mounted and is positioned with the reserve to plug any breach made by a Gallic column. Experiment with deployment, auxilia and psiloi can serve as an advance line supported by the legion. You are not obligated to position all your troops at the 3BW mark.
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Feb 2, 2022 14:01:40 GMT
Rarely ( unless terrain dictates the need to do so) do either of us deploy any further than required. Choking up on the battlefield _can_ get you there 'firstest with the the mostest' but it generally hamstrings ones ability develop one's battle line, maneuver or react to opponents maneuvers. Romans do enjoy deploying in several "maniples" and as the battle joins expanding the battle frontage to pressure the Gallic flanks. As the Gaul ( when I'm not rolling terribly and forced to be the attacker) I tend to use terrain to prevent that from occurring.
|
|