|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 20, 2017 16:36:14 GMT
Finished re-basing my Ming today. Except for the Southern Tribes, I can field every option in the list.
Now they only need magnets under their bases (will do that tonight) and a few touch-ups and they are good to go.
I look forward to playing with that army, as they are such a hodge-podge. Plus, the two elements of artillery should be entertaining.
Also started working on the new Knight elements for my Teutonic Order. The old Ritterbrüder are going to be based as 6Kn, so I need another four elements of Knights. I am going for an element of Stralsund knights, and the rest will also be from different Hanse cities. This will make for a more or less believably army to crusade against the Stedinger ("Free Canton"), which I would like to get at some point.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 20, 2017 15:15:43 GMT
Great videos. Thank you!
I find the colour schemes that you use very inspirational.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 19, 2017 5:50:19 GMT
Units shoot after all PIPs are spent (i. e. after the PIP phase) and before close combat.
I find Artillery interesting and fun. Whether it is effective depends on many factors, terrain featuring prominently among them.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 18, 2017 5:47:59 GMT
I think you roll twice, once for each terrain feature.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 7, 2017 15:53:04 GMT
I too am fond of 3Ax and love their qualities but am only too aware of their disadvantages....using them effectively can be challenging and rewarding.😊 Exactly  Also, the Thracians are Aggression 1, which helps a lot. Against historical opponents, they tend to defend. And, as mentioned above, Ax is not that bad as a battle line in the open. Just do not expect them to win against Sp or Bd at equal terms. But if you can outflank your enemy, or have a longer battle line, and (most important) also pressure the enemy somewhere else, it can work out. If terrain allows, the Thracian LH are very handy for harrassing the enemies rear, ideally also taking his camp. |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 7, 2017 11:25:20 GMT
Joe, thank you. That is remarkably clear and makes for a very reasonably solution. I will play like that, unless proven wrong.
It was not clear to me from the rules that a group cannot be split by conforming. And since it seemed to me that when contacting groups with a group the attacker has to conform (the defender only conforming when this is not possible), I thought it well possible that the attacker could/must split the attacking group. Intuitively though, that felt wrong and I would have preferred to do it as suggested by Joe.
(This is, by the way, the biggest desideratum that I have for a next edition of DBA: An even better try at making the rules as intuitive as possible. Statements of intent, as found in some places in the DBA rules, are extremely helpful for that).
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 7, 2017 11:18:04 GMT
Thracians are quite a challenge ("weak" would be the pessimist term for that).
But they are fun and they look good. And very satisfying to win with ^^
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 7, 2017 0:06:24 GMT
Bob, thank you. I was aware of that rule.
But what if conforming is possible, but would mean that the attacking group would have to split? Is that covered by "part-element spacing"? What if it the gap is wider than a single element, but the attacking group still covers both groups that it attacks (which are more than 41mm apart)?
Tom, thank you. The contact and conforming thread has grown so unwieldy that I have given up on following that discussion. Sorry about that.
13d does not cover the case I am thinking of. In my example, the two enemy groups would not be kinked, would be lined up to the attacking group and would either be 39mm or less apart, or 41mm or more apart. Both would be contacted simultaneously. I am not sure whether this is covered.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 6, 2017 15:52:44 GMT
What happens if one group (e.g. in line) contacts two or more groups at the same time (multiple lines, multiple columns, a mix thereof)?
If the contacting group cannot conform to all those groups (because of spacing), who conforms to whom?
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 5, 2017 5:35:42 GMT
Have you any feedback on Thracians ?? Do you think 4Ax and Ps options are a "must have" ? My Thracians are all 3Ax. So no, 4Ax is not necessary. However, Thracians are tricky to win with and mine lose more than they win. They have too much Cv and LH to plaster the table with Bad Going, but the Ax is in a bad situation against heavy foot in the open. It is, of course, worse if the Thracians do not get to choose terrain. But 3Ax is fast and that often helps. One can try to isolate parts of the enemy army, get into that parts flank and destroy 4 elements before the enemy gets into a position to really deal out pain with his heavies. Also, the Thracians have enough LH to go for the enemy camp, if there is even the slightest possibility for that. Overall, a fun, underdog army. |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Oct 1, 2017 14:48:41 GMT
If you wanna play savage Calts, well, you can go for II/11 Gauls or II/53 Ancient British. Both armies are able to field a lot of fast infantry (3Wb) and mounted troops (Cv, Lch or LH). Manœuvrable and fun  The plan is to build enough elements to play them all. However, you have to choose whether you want more savage looking Celts, or the less spectacular variety. I go with a middle-of-the-road-approach, tending towards the more dramatic type of Celt. Will still use them for later Galatians too. |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 25, 2017 12:15:29 GMT
Thank you, Deon.
That is very impressive.
According to what pictures one can find on the web and what manufacturers recommend, Ligurians could indeed be depicted by "standard" Celts.
My celtic figures are probably a bit too savage looking (that is also a problem with using them for Dacians), being mostly at least half naked.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 23, 2017 10:54:12 GMT
For China, the replacement was both functional and economic. Competent cavalry, which could also be used as shock cavalry, proved to be much more effective than chariots. It still took about two hundred years for the chariot to totally disappear. But that might partially be a problem of terminology in texts and conservativism in pictoral depictions. With cavalry, each horse can carry a rider and that rider can use a weapon. With the Chinese chariot, the ration was four horses to one actual fighter (two fighters, but one for ranged and one for close combat, so effectively one fighter). Cavalry is four horses to four actual fighters (even though the versatility of the chariot crew might be higher).
The downside was that being effectivy cavalry is a lifestyle choice. Riding in a chariot is a lot easier. This might also be the reason that the chariot was still in use, even after cavalry came into use.
For the West, I do not know.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 22, 2017 14:03:43 GMT
That sounds all quite exciting.
I am now interested in HFG too...
Especially as the distances sound as if they would work great with 2mm.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 20, 2017 21:26:20 GMT
The weight of armour for mount and rider would quickly exhaust a horse if it made repeated charges, so not pursuing a recoiling opponent is a subtle way of dealing with fatigue. I would have thought that it also represents the slower charge in a tighter formation, less likely to develop into a great push forward. |
|
