|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Aug 3, 2023 10:32:34 GMT
Our discussions of flank attacks in columns led me to the question
why or when an army should deploy at all in a column. In DBA there
are only 4 reasons: 1. Movement along a road. 2. Movement through
BG. 3. Movement through a river. 4. Movement through a gap in terrain.
Well, one good reason is missing: speed.
Instead of moving slowly in order to maintain battle formation, to watch out
for the enemy or to keep contact with supporting units, those in a column may
move faster or even perform a forced march ("Gewaltmarsch").
So I designed these small additional house rules:
Movement
Any column may perform a second tactical move in GG and a third along a road.
Any column may change to battle line (and front contacting enemy units) at the cost of 2 PIPs.
Any suggestions?
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Aug 3, 2023 11:25:13 GMT
Troops moving along a road can already make a third move (if you have enough PIPs).
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 3, 2023 12:33:00 GMT
Our discussions of flank attacks in columns led me to the question why or when an army should deploy at all in a column. In DBA there are only 4 reasons: 1. Movement along a road. 2. Movement through BG. 3. Movement through a river. 4. Movement through a gap in terrain. Although not directly related to Brian’s suggestion, I can think of another reason for columns… … 5. To confuse the enemy. When my Warbands are defending, I frequently use columns to keep my opponent guessing. To do this I simply line-up all my Wb in a single rank in one long line, with Cv/LCh behind them. Once the invader has deployed, and I can see what’s what, I then decide whether to push the left or right wing, forming columns to double-rank my Wb for maximum punch. The gaps this leaves in my line are covered and plugged by the reserve mounted troops, who easily have the speed to advance in a straight line to link up with the columns and form groups. And if I don’t have enough PIP’s, then I just wait, hoping to get a better PIP roll next bound. This scares the hell out of enemy heavy foot, as they can’t suss out what I’m up to…  |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Aug 3, 2023 21:53:28 GMT
Although not directly related to Brian’s suggestion, I can think of another reason for columns… … 5. To confuse the enemy. ... This scares the hell out of enemy heavy foot, as they can’t suss out what I’m up to… Sounds really nice! Might also work as LH tactics. (I keep on training, but up to now my Golden Horde achieved not much against my Early Polish).  |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 4, 2023 1:05:11 GMT
Although not directly related to Brian’s suggestion, I can think of another reason for columns… … 5. To confuse the enemy. ... This scares the hell out of enemy heavy foot, as they can’t suss out what I’m up to… Sounds really nice! Might also work as LH tactics. (I keep on training, but up to now my Golden Horde achieved not much against my Early Polish). Meanwhile, at Roll Call in April this year, Huns came 1st (and 3rd and 6th) in a 30 player ADLG (Art De La Guerre) 15mm competition.
I like your column ideas in principle (for all armies). However, LH armies/tactics need more than this to work historically in DBA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Aug 4, 2023 10:21:51 GMT
Meanwhile, at Roll Call in April this year, Huns came 1st (and 3rd and 6th) in a 30 player ADLG (Art De La Guerre) 15mm competition.
I like your column ideas in principle (for all armies). However, LH armies/tactics need more than this to work historically in DBA. Hey, Huns 1st, great! But, wait, that's ADLG!  Which leads to the question if LH rules work historically at all in DBA? But, I know there is a whole big thread here about tactics. |
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Aug 4, 2023 13:06:09 GMT
...for the Huns the problem is DBA3. LH need a QC like in version 2,2 to be effective... ...the other question about ADG (Art de la Guerre); visit my HP under ADG to se what it is. I use both rules. ADG is a 2-houer game. There LH can shoot...
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 4, 2023 13:23:06 GMT
Hey, Huns 1st, great! But, wait, that's ADLG! Which leads to the question if LH rules work historically at all in DBA? But, I know there is a whole big thread here about tactics. Are LH horse archers (or heavier horse archers) able to effectively degrade and disorder enemy frontally in DBA? (Because that is what horse archers did, whether they were Parthians, Huns, Mongols or Turks, etc. They didn't rely on flank or rear attacks to be effective.)
No. It's denied to them. The effects of their shooting are not adequately factored into their melee CF, given distant shooting has been removed from their abilities in DBA/DBx.
They're no better or different than the same troops (other LH or Cv) who have zero horse archery capability. And that is a problem.
But I like your column ideas. 
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 4, 2023 13:51:29 GMT
...for the Huns the problem is DBA3. LH need a QC like in version 2,2 to be effective... ...the other question about ADG (Art de la Guerre); visit my HP under ADG to se what it is. I use both rules. ADG is a 2-houer game. There LH can shoot... Yes, looking back at the combat outcome table in v2.2 . . . LH certainly posed much more of a threat; admittedly, a 'gambler's threat', but a threat nonetheless.
I can only imagine that LH were hobbled in v3.0 because they were deemed too dangerous in v2.2.
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Aug 4, 2023 17:02:14 GMT
...DBA up to version 22 and DBM are coresponding. But DBA3 is coresponding to DBMM. Under DBMM did change so much. Fighting did not longer happen between oposing elements. Fighting did hnselet under DBMMappen between an attacer and a gefender. Also the QC of the LH was canselet under DBMM rules. For me that was the time to stop playing DBMM and start playimg ADG...
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 5, 2023 3:45:57 GMT
Sorry, I don't understand this bit: "Fighting did not longer happen between oposing elements. Fighting did hnselet under DBMMappen between an attacer and a gefender."
(It hasn't translated properly.)
?
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Aug 5, 2023 7:26:29 GMT
...OK then in other words: according to DBM rules; a Roman blade is in close combat against a Germanic warrior. The warrior has a QC if he is attacking as well as if he is defending. But using DBMM rules it is different. If the Roman is attacing the warrior has no QC but the Roman has. If the warrior is attacing he has a QC but not the Roman blade...
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 5, 2023 7:32:39 GMT
Oh right. Got it now. Thanks.
|
|
