|
|
Post by twrnz on Dec 8, 2017 19:15:29 GMT
Another great video.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deano on Dec 8, 2017 20:52:38 GMT
More great stuff, keep them coming.
|
|
|
|
Post by gregorius on Dec 9, 2017 5:08:55 GMT
Tony, I thoroughly enjoyed your two latest videos. It was nice to see that you are fallible by losing two games in a row  . Cheers, |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Dec 9, 2017 18:03:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Dec 9, 2017 19:13:28 GMT
Black dice work well on this side of the pond.
Nice video.
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Dec 9, 2017 20:36:43 GMT
Another great video Tony, thanks for taking the time to put it together.
It’s interesting to see you take a more relaxed approach to who moves when. In general once a stand is moved that defines the order, and PIP cost. Therefore deciding when a general moves, and his impact on command range, is important.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Dec 9, 2017 22:15:14 GMT
Another great video Tony, thanks for taking the time to put it together. It’s interesting to see you take a more relaxed approach to who moves when. In general once a stand is moved that defines the order, and PIP cost. Therefore deciding when a general moves, and his impact on command range, is important. I am afraid I do not follow what you are saying. I'm not sure our approach has changed. Sorry, but I am a bit lost as to what you mean. |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Dec 9, 2017 22:41:44 GMT
Another very good video Tony. I learned something new about overlaps on rear supporting elements. If I recall correctly, there was an instance in the game when a Roman Blade was in front to front contact with a German warband with a supporting warband to its rear. That supporting warband was in mutual side contact with another Roman Blade. I would have counted that as an overlap (-1) on the front warband but it looks like you didn't count it as such. A quick reread of the rules reminded me that it is front or side contacts on the supporting element (ie by an enemy's front edge) that have an adverse impact on the leading element.
Am I reading this right?
Cheers
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Dec 9, 2017 22:43:26 GMT
Hi Tony,
The situation is around 5 minutes 45 seconds. Locally I would generally expect a number of players to insist the German general moves first and then the command range is measured. Of course it is discussed and this the main thing. This additional detail is probably because a number of players here are veterans of DBM competitions. In my own non competitive games we are a little more relaxed, like the situation in the video.
I like your explanation around 11 minutes 14 seconds where you encourage the position to be marked. This is a really useful step and it’s easy to miss this. Explaining this and the threat zones is useful, especially for those players learning the rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Dec 9, 2017 23:07:56 GMT
Hi Tony, The situation is around 5 minutes 45 seconds. Locally I would generally expect a number of players to insist the German general moves first and then the command range is measured. Of course it is discussed and this the main thing. This additional detail is probably because a number of players here are veterans of DBM competitions. In my own non competitive games we are a little more relaxed, like the situation in the video. I like your explanation around 11 minutes 14 seconds where you encourage the position to be marked. This is a really useful step and it’s easy to miss this. Explaining this and the threat zones is useful, especially for those players learning the rules. Even though I play in a lot of tournaments, all my games are "friendly." Once you realize that you need an extra pip when out of command, it is just as easy to state that instead of moving ALL of the previously moved elements back and starting over again, you just can state that you decided to move the general first. It is not like you are doing anything illegal. Every game provides the opportunity to learn something new. Extra markers are essential to allowing different positioning without compromising the starting location of extra elements. I highly recommend having them around. |
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Dec 9, 2017 23:27:40 GMT
Agreed, there isn’t much point in gaming unless the games are friendly.
Yes, markers are in all our kit bags, but my point is you have highlighted this well in your game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Dec 9, 2017 23:28:47 GMT
Another very good video Tony. I learned something new about overlaps on rear supporting elements. If I recall correctly, there was an instance in the game when a Roman Blade was in front to front contact with a German warband with a supporting warband to its rear. That supporting warband was in mutual side contact with another Roman Blade. I would have counted that as an overlap (-1) on the front warband but it looks like you didn't count it as such. A quick reread of the rules reminded me that it is front or side contacts on the supporting element (ie by an enemy's front edge) that have an adverse impact on the leading element. Am I reading this right? Cheers Simon You may very well be correct, Simon. I have read the passage in the rules several times and can't confirm for sure or not. It is this lack of definitive clarity which I find very bothersome in the writing style of the rules.  Our interpretation may be influenced by other previous versions of DBA. This might be a good example of a question to pose in a new thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Dec 10, 2017 0:41:29 GMT
These are a lot of fun to watch, and full of neat situations and tricks.
Do you ever play with rivers or BUA?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Dec 11, 2017 17:42:56 GMT
Good report again chaps
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Dec 14, 2017 9:10:51 GMT
Tony,
I really liked the LAP vs Alexander (the hairdresser?) video. Great to see a classical match up from book 2.0. However, it has got me thinking. It worries me how often Alexander looses in DBA when pitted against any half decent opposition (rather than just Ax heavy armies.)
From my reading of history Philip II bequeathed Alexander the finest professional army in Classical antiquity with excellent solid pike and the finest cavalry in the world. However, it seems in DBA that Alexander's army is...well a bit pants! Sure the pike is solid - but that takes up 6 units. I have previously ranted about how the Hypaspists are not well represented by being 4Ax. However, it is Alexander's cavalry that I find unusually weak. Certainly not strong enough in DBA to do what they managed in Issus and Gaugamela.
One personal case in point. My son, and regular opponent, often uses Late Hoplite Thessalians and I'll pit them against Alexander. So far I'm 0-7 with that match up. The pike do mostly push the Thessalian Hoplites back - but with a 6 vs 5 (4 if no flank support) match up it is a pushing match and not a killing match, except for the Hypaspist suicide squad which always seem to die early. However, 4 Thessalian Cav overpower Alexander's Kn, Cav, LH combo and then the pike find it hard to push with Thessalian Cav in their rear in a pin and outflank manouvre....in fact the very tactics that Alexander was famous for.
So my question - is Alexander poorly served in DBA3.0? Was he better represented in DBA 2.2 or DBA 1.0?
Paddy
|
|
.
