|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 4, 2023 7:48:19 GMT
I agree with Jim (as I usually do)…The Battle of Jaffa in 1192 AD
is not a good example of a DBA style ‘amphibious landing’.
You would need 11 elements to land from the waterway,
while the single garrison element inside the Fortress-Castle
made a simultaneous sally.
The best you can do with the current rules is to land 3 elements
and have the other 9 inside the Fort…which is not allowed
(unless the BUA was represented by a large Hamlet.
That’ll work, but it looks nothing like the Battle of Jaffa)
But I also agree with Macbeth.
Yes, you only need one historical example for it to be in DBA.
So isn’t it a pity that the hundreds of examples of concealed
hidden ambushes throughout history have been completely
ignored by the current rules.
“Don’t look at the big picture” Phil Barker says, “just focus
on the detail in this tiny obscure corner”.
(And before someones suggests playing DBMM if you want such detail,
that’s like saying “if your car has a fault, then don’t bother trying to fix it,
just go and buy another different make of car”.
Well, I don’t want to buy another car…I just want my present one fixed…)
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 4, 2023 12:53:04 GMT
Gentlemen can we get past the idea that ther were not many examples of amphibious landing...there are several examples of littorial landings in Ancient & Medieval History if you look for them.😉
The Norman Conquest of Sicily...Messina 1061 an initial force landed over-night and surprised the Saracen army while the main army landed unopposed!
The arrival of the Muslim fleet at Seige of Alcgerciras 19-20th July 1279AD...the Muslim relief fleet arrived,suprised and destroyed the Spanish fleet then landed the army that then immediately exited the city gates and routed the besieging army.
Knutt Posse's amphibious attack on the Danish army at the Battle of Brunkeburg 1471.
There are certainly several more if you look for them.Don't forget waterways are also considered as larger rivers and lakes.🙂
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Apr 4, 2023 14:02:43 GMT
Gentlemen can we get past the idea that ther were not many examples of amphibious landing...there are several examples of littorial landings in Ancient & Medieval History if you look for them.😉 The Norman Conquest of Sicily...Messina 1061 an initial force landed over-night and surprised the Saracen army while the main army landed unopposed! The arrival of the Muslim fleet at Seige of Alcgerciras 19-20th July 1279AD...the Muslim relief fleet arrived,suprised and destroyed the Spanish fleet then landed the army that then immediately exited the city gates and routed the besieging army. Knutt Posse's amphibious attack on the Danish army at the Battle of Brunkeburg 1471. There are certainly several more if you look for them.Don't forget waterways are also considered as larger rivers and lakes.🙂 ..and I have a vague recollection that Pyrrhus used one during a battle somewhere on the Northwest coast of Sicily…. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 4, 2023 15:25:32 GMT
Well Martin, I have just re-checked my copy of “Pyrrhus of Epirus” by Jeff Champion, 2009
(who has written ‘numerous well-received articles for the Society of Ancients journal Slingshot’
according to the book cover), and he makes no mention of it.
But this is not surprising…almost all the ancient accounts of this period have been lost.
We don’t even know if there were any battles, or was it all just a matter of sieges.
But the question is irrelevant.
My main point is that as we scramble about searching for examples of DBA type landings,
which may or may not exist, there are hundreds…yes hundreds…of examples of concealed
hidden ambushes, so why aren't they in the rules?
As Macbeth stated, you only need one example for something to be in the rule-book.
Well, there is a multitude of well documented historical examples of ambushes.
So why have they all been expunged from DBA’s version of history?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Apr 4, 2023 16:09:02 GMT
Well Martin, I have just re-checked my copy of “Pyrrhus of Epirus” by Jeff Champion, 2009 (who has written ‘numerous well-received articles for the Society of Ancients journal Slingshot’ according to the book cover), and he makes no mention of it. But this is not surprising…almost all the ancient accounts of this period have been lost. We don’t even know if there were any battles, or was it all just a matter of sieges. But the question is irrelevant. My main point is that as we scramble about searching for examples of DBA type landings, which may or may not exist, there are hundreds…yes hundreds…of examples of concealed hidden ambushes, so why aren't they in the rules? As Macbeth stated, you only need one example for something to be in the rule-book. Well, there is a multitude of well documented historical examples of ambushes. So why have they all been expunged from DBA’s version of history? Cos it would be a f%@#ing nightmare working out the exact location of said ambush If you just said 3 elements can ambush from a terrain piece like lurkers they could be pretty powerful if they could also move later in the game |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Apr 4, 2023 19:44:33 GMT
Well Martin, I have just re-checked my copy of “Pyrrhus of Epirus” by Jeff Champion, 2009 (who has written ‘numerous well-received articles for the Society of Ancients journal Slingshot’ according to the book cover), and he makes no mention of it. But this is not surprising…almost all the ancient accounts of this period have been lost. We don’t even know if there were any battles, or was it all just a matter of sieges. But the question is irrelevant. My main point is that as we scramble about searching for examples of DBA type landings, which may or may not exist, there are hundreds…yes hundreds…of examples of concealed hidden ambushes, so why aren't they in the rules? As Macbeth stated, you only need one example for something to be in the rule-book. Well, there is a multitude of well documented historical examples of ambushes. So why have they all been expunged from DBA’s version of history? You want ambushes and surprise attacks? You want to outwit the enemy? To hide your troops in fog of war? Then you're ready for movements in the morning mist.My little addition to the usual deployment rules. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 4, 2023 20:52:24 GMT
Well Martin, I have just re-checked my copy of “Pyrrhus of Epirus” by Jeff Champion, 2009 (who has written ‘numerous well-received articles for the Society of Ancients journal Slingshot’ according to the book cover), and he makes no mention of it. But this is not surprising…almost all the ancient accounts of this period have been lost. We don’t even know if there were any battles, or was it all just a matter of sieges. But the question is irrelevant. My main point is that as we scramble about searching for examples of DBA type landings, which may or may not exist, there are hundreds…yes hundreds…of examples of concealed hidden ambushes, so why aren't they in the rules? As Macbeth stated, you only need one example for something to be in the rule-book. Well, there is a multitude of well documented historical examples of ambushes. So why have they all been expunged from DBA’s version of history? Cos it would be a f%@#ing nightmare working out the exact location of said ambush If you just said 3 elements can ambush from a terrain piece like lurkers they could be pretty powerful if they could also move later in the game Oh I don’t know…perhaps an adaptation of the HoTT ‘Lurker’ system could work- * only defenders can have ambushers, and only if they roll a '1' or '2' for aggression... * up to two Ps elements can either function as Ps, or as Lurkers, but not do both… * if destroyed, Ps-Lurkers cannot return later. Is it 100% realistic?…not entirely (but neither are Littoral Landings). But at least it’s better than trying to pretend that ambushes never-ever occurred. Another feature of reality that is missing is breaking-off combat if you are faster:- * this was allowed in DBA 2.2, and for 10 years nobody complained… * this is allowed in HoTT, and nobody complains… * this happened in certain historical battles, and the ancients never complained… …so why is it not allowed in DBA 3.0? Now don’t get me wrong…I do love DBA 3.0. But I’m also a realist, and know that some chunks of reality have been excluded. Hell, I’ve only got to read a history book to see that. Still, what is in DBA 3.0 works quite well.  |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 5, 2023 2:22:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Apr 5, 2023 6:21:59 GMT
We could do with some rules for marriage between enemies, bribes, crop failures, backstabbing between besties etc and outbreaks of plague and famine.
I also love this silly little game of ours and the enthusiastic way we all hate and love different parts of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Apr 5, 2023 7:30:46 GMT
We could do with some rules for marriage between enemies, bribes, crop failures, backstabbing between besties etc and outbreaks of plague and famine. I also love this silly little game of ours and the enthusiastic way we all hate and love different parts of it. Yep…we have to remember that’s it’s written as a game, not a simulation….otherwise we’d have a thousand tables to wade through for every move/shoot/combat…and I don’t think that’s what we signed up for 🙃 |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 5, 2023 10:37:12 GMT
Actually Martin, that wasn’t my question. DBA 2.2 is a game, but it has breaking-off if you can move faster. HoTT 2.1 is a game, and it too has breaking-off if you move faster. DBA 3.0 is a game, but it doesn’t allow voluntary breaking-off. Why? What makes DBA 3.0 different? What part of history has changed between DBA 2.0 and 3.0? Yes, DBA is a game…a game that has special rules for one-off obscure events that only happened once in all of history, like the II/9a Syracusans having Hordes disguised as Spears, the II/61b Hsien-pi dust-throwing women on oxen disguised as Knights, and the III/18 Bretons having Saxon Blades disguised as Hordes… …ah, but when it comes to something commonplace such as ambushes that occurred quite frequently, oh no, that’s going too far! But forming ambushes was a fundamental part of some ancient people’s fighting style, such as the Spanish Iberians and Lusitanians, the Samnites, and many other ‘weak’ armies. Denying them the ability to form an ambush is like denying Alexander the Great his Pikemen, or denying the Hundred Years War English their Longbowmen. DBA is a game… …but a game that includes ambushes is better than a game that pretends ambushes never happened…  |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Apr 5, 2023 14:15:00 GMT
Actually Martin, that wasn’t my question. DBA 2.2 is a game, but it has breaking-off if you can move faster. HoTT 2.1 is a game, and it too has breaking-off if you move faster. DBA 3.0 is a game, but it doesn’t allow voluntary breaking-off. Why? What makes DBA 3.0 different? What part of history has changed between DBA 2.0 and 3.0? Yes, DBA is a game…a game that has special rules for one-off obscure events that only happened once in all of history, like the II/9a Syracusans having Hordes disguised as Spears, the II/61b Hsien-pi dust-throwing women on oxen disguised as Knights, and the III/18 Bretons having Saxon Blades disguised as Hordes… …ah, but when it comes to something commonplace such as ambushes that occurred quite frequently, oh no, that’s going too far! But forming ambushes was a fundamental part of some ancient people’s fighting style, such as the Spanish Iberians and Lusitanians, the Samnites, and many other ‘weak’ armies. Denying them the ability to form an ambush is like denying Alexander the Great his Pikemen, or denying the Hundred Years War English their Longbowmen. DBA is a game… …but a game that includes ambushes is better than a game that pretends ambushes never happened… I get where you’re coming from, Stevie 👍🏼👍🏼, but for all the ‘extra’ details one probably needs to venture into DBM/DBMM territory. I think DBA was/is written with a finite aim of providing a game with some historical input…as against a game covering all aspects of history. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 5, 2023 15:07:25 GMT
Ha!…then let’s disallow all disguised troops…and Ps/SCh ignoring corner-to-corner overlaps… But I know that I’m fighting a losing battle here. Dems the rules, init. (And we wonder why some armies are crap)Still, there is always “House Rules”…  |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Apr 5, 2023 23:07:10 GMT
Ha!…then let’s disallow all disguised troops…and Ps/SCh ignoring corner-to-corner overlaps… But I know that I’m fighting a losing battle here. Dems the rules, init. (And we wonder why some armies are crap)Still, there is always “House Rules”… I think another look at helping LH might be in order...  |
|
|
|
Post by chaotic on Apr 5, 2023 23:11:06 GMT
Still, there is always “House Rules”… And there are lots of options. One such house rule is to amend "Littoral Landing" to read "Outflanking" and restrict this ability to the attacker. Only Littoral armies may outflank from a waterway if present, otherwise the outflanking force may be placed on either flank. This tends to balance the defender's terrain advantage and make high aggression armies more attractive. Since the attacker deploys second, the defender does not know if an outflanking force is on the way. |
|
