|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 4, 2023 3:34:25 GMT
Very nicely painted! You had me looking at Forged in Battle to make up some Early Slav but also Early Croatian and Serbian armies!
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 4, 2023 3:32:25 GMT
I must confess to disliking the DBA style of ‘amphibious landings’, as I can find not a single example of it ever happening historically… …not in the ancient period, the Napoleonic, nor the modern period. Yes, the are many examples of entire armies landing on beaches, such as Caesar’s landing in Briton, or the Roman invasion of Mona (Anglesey, North Wales) in 60 AD… …but no examples of a small contingent landing during a battle. Nonetheless, it’s in the rules, and we just have to live with it. I have come to justifying it as a form of ambush. Perhaps they crossed the waterway and disembarked at night, so come the morning their presence comes as a complete surprise to enemy. (Actually, it’s the only of form of ambush in DBA…in all other
cases, all the troops are deployed in plain sight for all to see)I too, dislike Littoral landings in DBA. Not only because as stevie and macbeth point out, they are either extremely rare or non-existant in history, (Jaffa seems debatable as the larger crusader force came from the sea) but they are also boring once you've seen them in action because they are so predictable: - the defender almost always puts a force on the waterway for a landing (why wouldn't you? it gives good flexibility) - if the invader is not littoral they deploy with some variation of refusing the flank adjacent to the waterway leading the defender to usually deploy around midway to stay in command since the flank is now safe - if the invader can use littoral landings they will almost always counter with their own force causing the defender to now deploy with a refused flank, often with their landing force near their baseline. Again the invader usually deploys around midway as the flank is now safe so it's not worth risking the command issues. Occasionally, you see it played different but it seems most experienced players tend to follow along in roughly this way. there is no surprise to this "surprise" landing. No real ambush. I've been toying with a way to include PB's DBMM stratagems and covert them into DBA but haven't found the right mechanism. But it could be a good way to help light infantry or light horse heavy armies gain some advantage. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 29, 2023 1:00:32 GMT
I find Xyston varies considerably. Some Greek slingers I bought for my Forged in Battle Illyrians and some female Skythians for a HOTT Amazon army are more traditional size and mix well with my other miniatures. However, a Hellenistic officer was just ridiculously tall! Maybe the new owners will standardise things somewhat.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 28, 2023 0:45:06 GMT
From my reading, Paionians were more Illyrian than Thracian, so I'll be using the Forged in battle Illyrian foot for the lighter troops.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 27, 2023 6:34:58 GMT
Stevie, in another thread said... "I brought the crappiest DBA army, I/63 Paionians..."Naturally, this comment has me pawing thru my unpainted Mikes Models* Macedonians to see if I can build and paint a I/63 Paionian army, so I too can have DBA's crappiest army. * Or, failing that, maybe an excuse to buy a new army. :-) The Paionians are on the list as I have some left over Forged in Battle Illyrians so just need some Xyston Paionian cavalry and Agrianians for the better infantry.  Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 27, 2023 6:33:07 GMT
After playing in the Steel Warriors event this weekend I know have more respect for seemingly weak armies. As to least popular I still cant see myself rushing yo buy Hawaians or Mound Builfers etc. Popular or Powerful that is the question. I have the Eureka Hawaiians and am seriously looking at the Eureka Mound builders! How can you resist an army with Stinkard units? Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 20, 2023 8:41:32 GMT
Here a bit of my new Space Battle HoTT terrain.  Not even scratch built. Just a billiard ball and a handful of lava stones... Lava stones! Brilliant! Just got my X-wing asteroid terrain sorted. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 16, 2023 0:41:06 GMT
If it helps, you can think about it as a decrease in "flank" firepower if the "front" is engaged as most troops are preoccupied with the main threat.
Or just the anxiety of more enemy in a threatening position whilst you're under attack in a slow moving vehicle.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 13, 2023 9:22:03 GMT
Hi sheffmark!
Left and right face were for effect. Agree that the troops would need to expand out, etc.
But about face (turning 180) puts you in the right position immediately.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 12, 2023 23:11:24 GMT
Going back to the original question, I can understand the PIP cost but cannot fathom the movement cost to simulate troops turning on the spot. Face left, face right, about face would be pretty intuitive for any soldiers during any age. The only real limitation should be the proximity of the enemy. You wouldn't turn your back unless you're running away.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 12, 2023 21:50:00 GMT
What a disturbing discussion! You've proved that the heavy blades in woods can "moon walk" into a legal flank contact from this position.
But in the more common position of front corner to front corner overlap they cannot close the door and flank the enemy as the moving corner has to move 1.4 BW!
Let's adopt that HOTT rule as soon as possible!
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 9, 2023 2:54:44 GMT
Use the model castle or similar as a BUA terrain feature instead, where the much larger base size (up to 9BW) is available? So model castles and the like are reserved for 'Castles and Forts' under BUAs. Similarly, a model city is used only as a 'City' BUA. A temple on a hill could be an 'Edifice', etc. Camps are then depicted purely as temporary structures, as suggested in the rules. (Tents, palisades, tethered animals, wagons, etc.)
Or slide the rear section of the oversized Camp model (castle, city, wall, etc.) off the back of the board, leaving the legal portion on the board? A few cms wouldn't bother me. But the two solutions you wrote above are the most practical and rule-abiding solutions. I understand PBs request that camps only have temporary structures for "realism" but nothing should stop people from using their imagination and modelling. If you can accept that the New Kingdom Egyptians may invade the Holy Roman Empire then they can bring along a pyramid or a sphinx or a burial tomb etc. Having said that, I like making camps so I will often try to have a home and away option. The away option can cover multiple armies. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 3, 2023 23:41:45 GMT
I think Triplex Acies is the proverbial square peg and DBA is the round hole.
The current DBA set up, with 6 Bd simulating the mix of hastatii and principes, doing the bulk of the fighting, with 2 Sp Triarii as reserve works as well as possible for 12 elements. Sure, Bd are combat 5 and Sp combat 4. But the triarii get side support from each other and from the Bd, making them combat 5 if used historically. They are also better against cavalry. Line replacement is too far down the command chain for a top down, fast play, 12 element game.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 3, 2023 23:32:16 GMT
It's hard to comment on every troop type's interaction with every other troop type. But like for like, if a line of say 3Ax meets an equal line of 4Ax then the recoil on equals is a huge advantage. Overlaps are crucial. The 4Ax destroys 3Ax 2/36 and recoils them 19/36. The 3Ax destroys 2/36 and recoils 4Ax 13/36. It's possible for 3Ax to win a straight up fight (which is good for the game) but less likely. They need to use their movement to outmanoeuvre the 4Ax before contact.
I see nothing wrong with this arrangement in theory. But pursuit makes things more complicated for Bd, Pk and Wb.
As for 3Kn/4Kn, the 3Kn aren't "fast". Rather it's the 4Kn that are slow.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 28, 2023 11:54:52 GMT
Welcome maccabeemike to Fanaticus!
Jim
|
|
