|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Dec 14, 2017 13:57:00 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 I can only comment in DBA 2.2 and 3.0 as I have not played earlier versions. I think that in 3.0 they do better because of two factors. 1. The fact that they can use Pike rear rank support vs. Bw really changes the interaction between Alex and Classical Indian, who is one of his classical opponents. In DBA 2.2 Alex's army was susceptible to being shot to bits vs. the Classical Indians. 2. The new terrain layout/aggression is better much 3.0 for Alexander. The fact that the defender cannot put whatever terrain they want all the time AND they do not get two exchanges helps balance the situation against Ale's high aggression. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Dec 14, 2017 14:50:18 GMT
One thing to consider is making the general one of the Pk elements. What? Sacrilege, you say! Well, if you want to encourage historical use of the Companions, then don't make the army basically useless if the Companions get clipped. At Hydaspes, both Alex and the Companions got pretty well mauled and chewed up, yet still came away with the victory.
From the DBA perspective, it seems to me that the Phalanx really would act as the DBA general (the "anchor" or "centre of operations"), while Alexander spent the previous night drawing up the battle plans, but come game day, he charged right in, and was not heard from again till the battle was won!
My HotT Alexandrians had the Companions as a Hero, and the Pike as a general... They played great.
Suggest: Companions and Hypaspists are "elite": they get +1 to their close combat die rolls. The general is one of the Pk elements.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Dec 14, 2017 18:01:41 GMT
Hello Tony, I just watched your video "Alexandrian Macedonian vs. Later Achaemenid Persian DBA 3.0" www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0FAN1WhHfkand I can't follow the move of the LH group (at 10:50) and the conforming of your single LH element to it? Which part of the rules (page 9, Moving into contact with enemy) explains that situation? Excuse me - I'm german and 'barkish' is very hard sometimes. I thought it is necessary for the attacker to get into a position like Blade B in figure 9a of the rulebook? And after the movement phase, your single element would have to turn 90°? Cheers, Ronald. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Dec 14, 2017 18:19:27 GMT
Hello Tony, I just watched your video "Alexandrian Macedonian vs. Later Achaemenid Persian DBA 3.0" www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0FAN1WhHfkand I can't follow the move of the LH group (at 10:50) and the conforming of your single LH element to it? Which part of the rules (page 9, Moving into contact with enemy) explains that situation? Excuse me - I'm german and 'barkish' is very hard sometimes. I thought it is necessary for the attacker to get into a position like Blade B in figure 9a of the rulebook? And after the movement phase, your single element would have to turn 90°? Cheers, Ronald. I'm afraid I do not have access to my rule book now (at work) to follow your example. We (and all I have played in the Eastern US) play that single units conform to a group upon contact. There has been an on-going discussing both on and off (in the FAQ group) the boards about this right now no doubt prompted by my video. The purpose of my videos was just sharing our experiences not forcing anyone to play a certain way. I just wish we could all play by the same interpretation of the rules, as our group is not biased one way or the other. I think I may refrain from posting any more videos illustrating games until this all sorts out, as controversy is really cutting into my painting time. |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Dec 14, 2017 23:46:02 GMT
Hi Tony
I hope you dont refrain for too long
I really enjoy you and your chums reports
Happy gaming
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Dec 15, 2017 3:58:02 GMT
Regarding Roland's question about the light horse conforming. The rule seems quite clear in this situation.
"A single element contacted by a group conforms to it unless itself entirely in bad and/or rough going in which case the group conforms. "
As I see this situation, the column of light horse (group) contacted the single light horse, so the light horse had to conform to the group. Where is the problem? That I am missing
Tony, I think it's important for people to put on these visual opportunities for others to view how the game is played. The game is getting a lot more exposure with various issues coming up that people might not of thought of. Various things come up that help us come to agreement on what should be done. It's games that people are putting on YouTube that are going to create a standard of play. Please keep it up!
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Dec 15, 2017 4:06:40 GMT
I find Alex slightly weaker in 3.0. Forcing the Hypaspists as 4Ax is a negative. They aren't as effective against Psiloi as the Ps are now somewhat immune to overlap. They are slower than 3Ax, but still in extreme danger from pikes and blade. They +3 vs Cav is helpful, but doesn't offset the other weaknesses.
Alex himself is also weaker. While the expanded move distances are great...his vulnerability to blade is extreme. Simply charging a blade gives you a about a 1/6 chance of losing the game. Ensuring the charge is with one overlap helps ...but it is still a risky proposition.
The pikes are much more powerful now. Overall though...Big Gay Al and the Mac attack we're knocked down a notch by 3.0.
BTW...all my big tournament wins under 2.2 were with Alex...
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Dec 15, 2017 18:21:36 GMT
Like Baldie and Bob, I would be sad to see a pause in the excellent video series. Perhaps there should be a protocol that if anyone has anything to discuss about the way a game is played, then this is posed as a general question in a different thread, rather than it being seen as a direct challenge to Tony that he is expected to respond to.
Cheers
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Dec 15, 2017 21:26:14 GMT
Hello Tony, I just watched your video "Alexandrian Macedonian vs. Later Achaemenid Persian DBA 3.0" www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0FAN1WhHfkand I can't follow the move of the LH group (at 10:50) and the conforming of your single LH element to it? Which part of the rules (page 9, Moving into contact with enemy) explains that situation? Excuse me - I'm german and 'barkish' is very hard sometimes. I thought it is necessary for the attacker to get into a position like Blade B in figure 9a of the rulebook? And after the movement phase, your single element would have to turn 90°? Cheers, Ronald. I'm afraid I do not have access to my rule book now (at work) to follow your example. We (and all I have played in the Eastern US) play that single units conform to a group upon contact. There has been an on-going discussing both on and off (in the FAQ group) the boards about this right now no doubt prompted by my video. The purpose of my videos was just sharing our experiences not forcing anyone to play a certain way. I just wish we could all play by the same interpretation of the rules, as our group is not biased one way or the other. I think I may refrain from posting any more videos illustrating games until this all sorts out, as controversy is really cutting into my painting time. I will also echo the comments made by Simon, Bob and Baldie; please do continue with the video presentations. You have explained very well a number of situations, to the viewer’s benefit, which have a number of possible options. These have been extremely helpful to improve an understanding of the rules and demonstrate a willingness to ‘play the game’ between gentlemen. Do keep up the good work. |
|
|
|
Post by gregorius on Dec 15, 2017 23:12:05 GMT
Please keep on producing the videos Tony. I've thoroughly enjoyed each and every one. You certainly inspired Mark and myself to dip our toes into the pond.
Cheers,
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Dec 15, 2017 23:36:23 GMT
I will add my voice to the chorus. Please do continue making these videos as time permits. An informative dialogue combined with well presented armies and terrain ensure a positive experience for many players, especially ones starting out with DBA.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Dec 16, 2017 8:45:21 GMT
yes Tony! please continue these video, LOT of difficult cases are shown and more than that, your games are VERY fun and nice to watch!  and it's cool to see your armies too... perhaps you can zoom a little in the begining to be able to show more the beautiful paint! |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Dec 16, 2017 13:52:30 GMT
Hello Tony, I just watched your video "Alexandrian Macedonian vs. Later Achaemenid Persian DBA 3.0" www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0FAN1WhHfkand I can't follow the move of the LH group (at 10:50) and the conforming of your single LH element to it? Which part of the rules (page 9, Moving into contact with enemy) explains that situation? Excuse me - I'm german and 'barkish' is very hard sometimes. I thought it is necessary for the attacker to get into a position like Blade B in figure 9a of the rulebook? And after the movement phase, your single element would have to turn 90°? Cheers, Ronald. I'm afraid I do not have access to my rule book now (at work) to follow your example. We (and all I have played in the Eastern US) play that single units conform to a group upon contact. There has been an on-going discussing both on and off (in the FAQ group) the boards about this right now no doubt prompted by my video. The purpose of my videos was just sharing our experiences not forcing anyone to play a certain way. I just wish we could all play by the same interpretation of the rules, as our group is not biased one way or the other. I think I may refrain from posting any more videos illustrating games until this all sorts out, as controversy is really cutting into my painting time. Hello Tony, please keep up the good work of prducing such interesting DBA-videos! For me and my fellow foreign DBA-players they are an great inspiration and a perfect way to discuss the various situations It would be a pity stopping it. Cheers, Ronald. |
|
|
|
Post by Deano on Dec 16, 2017 21:00:06 GMT
yep, don't stop :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Dec 17, 2017 12:44:38 GMT
Hello Tony, I just watched your video "Alexandrian Macedonian vs. Later Achaemenid Persian DBA 3.0" www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0FAN1WhHfkand I can't follow the move of the LH group (at 10:50) and the conforming of your single LH element to it? Which part of the rules (page 9, Moving into contact with enemy) explains that situation? Excuse me - I'm german and 'barkish' is very hard sometimes. I thought it is necessary for the attacker to get into a position like Blade B in figure 9a of the rulebook? And after the movement phase, your single element would have to turn 90°? Cheers, Ronald. I'm afraid I do not have access to my rule book now (at work) to follow your example. We (and all I have played in the Eastern US) play that single units conform to a group upon contact. There has been an on-going discussing both on and off (in the FAQ group) the boards about this right now no doubt prompted by my video. The purpose of my videos was just sharing our experiences not forcing anyone to play a certain way. I just wish we could all play by the same interpretation of the rules, as our group is not biased one way or the other. I think I may refrain from posting any more videos illustrating games until this all sorts out, as controversy is really cutting into my painting time. Hello Tony, you are a master of DBA and I'm just an unworthy minion  Let's have a look at my diagram below: For me, I have to play it step by step (A1 - A3) to get it right. I think you just skipped step A2, because of your 'mastery' - isn't it?  Cheers, Ronald. Attachments:
|
|
)
