|
|
Post by paddy649 on Jan 3, 2018 22:25:29 GMT
Tony,
Thinking about those Carthaginians....I'm a big fan of the 2 Cav & 2 LH Carthaginian option with zero Elephants. Now I love Playing DBA with Elephants (and that is why I have Indian and Seleucids Armies).....but in my experience Hannibal pays better without them. It seems that Elephants mesh well with bow, pike, HCh, LCh or Cav but just add additional complications for the Carthaginians with their mix of troops.
Your thoughts?
Paddy
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jan 3, 2018 23:01:53 GMT
Tony, Thinking about those Carthaginians....I'm a big fan of the 2 Cav & 2 LH Carthaginian option with zero Elephants. Now I love Playing DBA with Elephants (and that is why I have Indian and Seleucids Armies).....but in my experience Hannibal pays better without them. It seems that Elephants mesh well with bow, pike, HCh, LCh or Cav but just add additional complications for the Carthaginians with their mix of troops. Your thoughts? Paddy I too prefer the Carthaginians without the elephant option.
Here is a two day battle between Rome and Carthage.
Day one: dbagora.blogspot.nl/2017/06/historical-match-up-rome-vs-carthage.html
Day two: dbagora.blogspot.nl/2017/06/rome-vs-carthage-second-day-of-battle.html
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jan 4, 2018 1:39:26 GMT
I have been tossing about the following thoughts re. Hannibal vs Polybian Rome. The primary issue is how do you simulate Roman doctrine, without a heck of a lot of rules?
The following are what I came up with for battles where Scipio Africanus is NOT the commanding general (proconsul).
1. The Polybian Roman army MUST take the 2x4Ax option for Italian Allies.
2. One of the Roman Bd elements MUST deploy as a camp (or BUA) garrison.
3. The remaining Bd elements MUST deploy in line abreast, in the centre, with the 2xSp Triarii forming a second rank, as if in a rear support position. Note with only 3xBd in the centre, the Triarii will be offset left or right side behind the Bd.
4. When Scipio Africanus leads the army, these restrictions are lifted
Now the battle of Cannae has a reasonable chance of occurring. Note these rules are for my campaign games. (The Bds & Triarii are always present, and are automatically replaced to reflect Rome's massive manpower reserves). Note the Roman will feel that he has no real sophisticated battle plan other than try to rush the Carthaginian centre before he loses the fight on the wings. He may throw up a good fight on the flanks, but he will struggle to keep the battle even.
We like it because we haven't added rules verbiage amd technical details, but rather just made the Polybian Roman player act like one...
As an extra hit we considered making Hannibal and Hasdrubal always be the defender, regardless of strategic moves. We are still unsure of this, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jan 31, 2018 13:11:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jan 31, 2018 17:49:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jan 31, 2018 19:51:31 GMT
Good first game, will watch the other later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Obadiah on Jan 31, 2018 22:58:38 GMT
Hey Tony.
Loving your videos. I would love to see some more on making terrain features.
Keep up the good work!
|
|
|
|
Post by gregorius on Feb 1, 2018 3:59:20 GMT
I'll check them out over the coming days.
Cheers,
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Feb 1, 2018 13:03:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Feb 1, 2018 22:22:45 GMT
Thanks a lot Tony!  |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 1, 2018 23:29:31 GMT
An interesting game. One aspect still bothers me and it is the second plough in Mitch’s deployment zone. Possibly it is caused by the angle of the camera, but the plough seems not to extend by any portion into another quadrant. This is the one in which the cataphract are positioned in. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Feb 1, 2018 23:40:53 GMT
It must be the camera angle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Obadiah on Feb 2, 2018 5:20:13 GMT
Tony when you look at the Knights/Blades combat the odds are quite interesting...
Assuming it is just one 4Bd v one Kn and no generals or terrain impacts the combat, and no flanks or overlaps etc. then...
Kn destroy 4Bd 42% of the time
Kn recoil 36% of the time
4Bd destroy Kn 22% of the time.
So the match up says 60/40 in favour of a outcome in favour of Bd, but if that 40% comes up...then say good night to those Bd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Feb 2, 2018 12:27:27 GMT
Tony when you look at the Knights/Blades combat the odds are quite interesting... Assuming it is just one 4Bd v one Kn and no generals or terrain impacts the combat, and no flanks or overlaps etc. then... Kn destroy 4Bd 42% of the time Kn recoil 36% of the time 4Bd destroy Kn 22% of the time. So the match up says 60/40 in favour of a outcome in favour of Bd, but if that 40% comes up...then say good night to those Bd. To quote a famous hero: "Never tell me the odds!"  Also, keep in mind is that when Kn WIN a combat the pursue, can get themselves into an overlap situation which can be dire since they already start at a +3. Another factor to consider, is the PERCEPTION of the player when all of this is taken into effect. For instance, I have heard many people discount the value of Bows vs. mounted. |
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Feb 2, 2018 13:10:05 GMT
Interesting Battle Tony. You are right it didn't seem like a 7-2 until the very last bound.
|
|
)