|
|
Post by paulhannah on Jan 29, 2017 7:48:54 GMT
Thanks for this discussion. I had almost given up on trying to use a Mongol army outside of historical opponents in DBA. Bill One tactic for Mongol Conquest armies that DK had suggested back in DBA-2 days would seem even more useful in DBA-3. That is to take optional Artillery element and plop it in the Camp! It's the only Foot element, so the Camp is as good a place as any to put it, and, in "Purple", it now shoots farther and enjoys a stronger combat-factor in CC. I'm currently renovating my IV/35 Mongol Conquest army for DBA-3 right now, and building them a bigger camp, i.e. so I can physically place my Arty element in it. Hopefully, DK's advice is still sound. They'll be going up against those wacky Lithuanians next week. Yikes! |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 1, 2017 17:51:41 GMT
I think LH and Ps would have been better represented in their ambush and sweeping role if they could end subsequent moves in contact with enemy.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 1, 2017 19:33:59 GMT
I think LH and Ps would have been better represented in their ambush and sweeping role if they could end subsequent moves in contact with enemy. I am not so sure about that.
I rather enjoy the expression of dismay on an opponent's face as 'doom' is but one BW away. 
|
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Mar 9, 2017 5:56:09 GMT
Who here has found success with IV/18 Lithuanians? For all their amazing equestrian abilities to move and dismount (not in the same bound, I know), they've found little success here in the Pacific Northwest. Locally, their few successes have been when players dismounted them in place as fast as possible and operated simply as Fast Bows.
I'm generalizing, of course, but it seems those times in which the Lithuanians employed sweeping LH maneuvers first, they found themselves quickly pinned and unable to dismount. And swiftly defeated.
So, what has worked for others here with this unique army?
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Mar 9, 2017 8:25:47 GMT
In the Bakewell Tournament last year there were three Lithuanian entries out of 14 and they came second, fifth and eighth. The 5th had a Teutonic ally and the eighth had a Hussite one. This is probably not representative as the theme of the tournamant was armies with at least four elements of artillery and/or LH. I seem to recall that galloping around and depositing 3Bw all over was a popular ruse!
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Jun 29, 2017 9:30:55 GMT
Evolving this topic - if you are in a supported combat as LH ie increasing your combat factor from 2 to 3, and a combat goes against you with a flee outcome, does this mean that the element in combat is destroyed, or does it flee through the supporting element or do both elements flee? Thanks Peter Destroyed, so choose carfully what you match your double elements against.There was a thread on this on the old fanaticus and the conclusion reached there was to use doubled up Lh elements against elements that can double a single Lh element otherwise it was too risky. Note an overlap giving a -1 to the enemy element your facing does in a way count the same as doubling up and does not risk loosing the front Lh element to a flee result. Using the double Lh element plus an overlapping element can make a serious difference if timed correctly against the right enemy element.
Haardrada,
Sorry to ask, but I'm new to DBA3.0, having played DBA 1.0 "back in the day" and then got distracted by wife, kids, Napoleonics and WW2 but I'm now returning to DBA to play with my teenage son and am upgrading to 3.0, hence please excuse the stupid question.
I do not follow the logic behind a LH on a flee outcome being destroyed if supported in combat by a second element of LH pointing in the same direction (or opposite after the 180 degree turn) and I haven't yet got my "Barkereese" chip installed to work out how the various rules in the purple bible stack up to reach that conclusion. Could you possibly break down the rules that lead to that interpretation so I can better understand them.
It does seem to be a counter-intuitive interpretation....if a small body of LH wheeling in front of an enemy and shooting at or throwing javelins is forced to flee (either by being caught out, getting too close or feigning flight) then why not a bigger body, as simulated by the double rank and +1?
Thanks
Paddy |
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Jun 29, 2017 13:10:48 GMT
Hi Paddy
I think this is correct:
The front LH turns 180 degrees to start and try to flee (1st para Fleeing page 12)
It is contact with the second LH providing support, so cannot move.
It cannot interpenetrate the supporting LH as the only troops mounted troops can pass through are Ps (1st para Interpenetrating troops page 9)
Therefore it cannot move at all and so as per para 3 Fleeing page 12 it is destroyed.
I seem to remember under DBM fleeing troops first recoiled, which if it was the same under DBA would save the LH, as mounted recoilers can pass through any friends except pikes, horde or El.
Cheers
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jun 29, 2017 18:40:11 GMT
I have often wondered why Lh cannot recoil through Lh in Dba.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Jun 30, 2017 15:45:46 GMT
Destroyed, so choose carfully what you match your double elements against.There was a thread on this on the old fanaticus and the conclusion reached there was to use doubled up Lh elements against elements that can double a single Lh element otherwise it was too risky. Note an overlap giving a -1 to the enemy element your facing does in a way count the same as doubling up and does not risk loosing the front Lh element to a flee result. Using the double Lh element plus an overlapping element can make a serious difference if timed correctly against the right enemy element.
Haardrada,
Sorry to ask, but I'm new to DBA3.0, having played DBA 1.0 "back in the day" and then got distracted by wife, kids, Napoleonics and WW2 but I'm now returning to DBA to play with my teenage son and am upgrading to 3.0, hence please excuse the stupid question.
I do not follow the logic behind a LH on a flee outcome being destroyed if supported in combat by a second element of LH pointing in the same direction (or opposite after the 180 degree turn) and I haven't yet got my "Barkereese" chip installed to work out how the various rules in the purple bible stack up to reach that conclusion. Could you possibly break down the rules that lead to that interpretation so I can better understand them.
It does seem to be a counter-intuitive interpretation....if a small body of LH wheeling in front of an enemy and shooting at or throwing javelins is forced to flee (either by being caught out, getting too close or feigning flight) then why not a bigger body, as simulated by the double rank and +1?
Thanks
Paddy If i had to guess ( and it is no more than that ) i would suggest that this is more to do with play balance than any particular historical interpretation and that double ranked LH, with a factor of 3 and being impossible to kill, were just too powerful, perhaps against psiloi or warband. Scott |
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Jul 10, 2017 10:24:10 GMT
I have often wondered why Lh cannot recoil through Lh in Dba. The situation where this comes up, mostly, is when LH are fighting two deep and gaining a +1. It has been suggested that this requires some balance which could be correct. I wonder if the author was trying to model something else? In particular it comes up when mounted flee and can not actually move. Normally, this is a risk when LH are fighting two deep. In this situation the LH player has created the situation. However, if the element attempting to flee were cavalry and another mounted element were directly behind the front cavalry stand, a result of recoils or constrained deployment, the front cavalry would not be able to flee as it couldn't "move at all". This suggests to me that the author is trying to model that mounted can be brittle if they do not have room to operate. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jul 10, 2017 11:47:12 GMT
I have often wondered why Lh cannot recoil through Lh in Dba. Mounted units passing through one another is a very risky business as horses seeing their ‘friends’ moving in the opposite direction have a natural instinct to join them. Under ideal conditions and training this might be achieved at a ‘walk’, but less so at a faster gait.
Even with rigorous training this nowhere matches the noise and smell of battle and the odd one or two that become uncontrollable can create an unsteady situation. As a former horse owner you can expect to be unseated by your horse at least a few times; but in battle, that can be fatal.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Oct 7, 2017 9:17:02 GMT
1. Know the rules. Particularly about double or subsequent moves, group move in bad going, lack of overlap against psiloi, doubling up of light horse, multi move for light horse, combat factors near the edge of the board, vacuuming single elements into bad going by contact with a group in bad going, and combat outcomes against LH and psiloi. Can I return to this topic and ask for the following comments to be explained more fully for a newbie to 3.0: - Group move in bad going - Is this just Ps? - Doubling up of light horse - is this referring to the +1 for rear support? - Combat factors near the edge of the board - not sure I understand this. Nor the phantom overlap. What are they?
Thanks
Paddy |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Oct 7, 2017 10:48:51 GMT
1. Know the rules. Particularly about double or subsequent moves, group move in bad going, lack of overlap against psiloi, doubling up of light horse, multi move for light horse, combat factors near the edge of the board, vacuuming single elements into bad going by contact with a group in bad going, and combat outcomes against LH and psiloi. Can I return to this topic and ask for the following comments to be explained more fully for a newbie to 3.0: - Group move in bad going - Is this just Ps? - Doubling up of light horse - is this referring to the +1 for rear support? - Combat factors near the edge of the board - not sure I understand this. Nor the phantom overlap. What are they?
Thanks
Paddy
A group move in bad going.
Tactical Moves, page 8, paragraph 5
“A group move by road, or across bad (not rough) going must be in or into a column unless entirely by Psiloi.”
From Battlefield Terrain, page 6, paragraph 6
Bad going terrain is “difficult hills, woods, marsh and gully”; add “dunes and oasis are bad going except to elements of any type with camels.”
Therefore, correct for the psiloi and add camels in those two instances listed above.
“Doubling up” does seem to describe a friendly element of the same type lined-up directly behind them and facing the same direction and both are in good going and not ‘sharing a room’.
Phantom overlap.
See Diagrams, page 26, figure 17.
We have not seen this happen as we use the larger (80cm x 80cm) board.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Oct 7, 2017 11:36:18 GMT
Thanks Timurilank
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 7, 2017 19:08:00 GMT
Paddy649Can I suggest that you take a look at the link at the bottom of this page. You might find some things there that will help you with DBA 3.0.  
Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
