|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 18, 2022 14:56:46 GMT
I have Pz8 somewhere. I'm also looking at these: D-Day to BerlinBut whether by design, good fortune or genius, Phil Barker hit on a sweet spot with the combination of 12 elements and d6 for PIPs. It provides a great balance of decision points, resource management and tactical play together with speed and the "look" of a battle. That's why it's so adaptable (HOTT, DBN, HITT, HOTE, DBA-RRR, DBA-HX). If you work out the right organisational level for WW2 or Modern that gives ~12 elements then you're probably halfway there. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 18, 2022 14:46:55 GMT
Nice battle Jim. And I too dislike the current ‘cartoonish’ Littoral Landing rules. My main gripe is that they can land directly into contact (!). I’d much prefer them to land 1 BW away from the enemy, as if they were performing a subsequent move (which in effect
is what they are doing…sailing across the waterway is one move,
and disembarking in confusion and disorder is another move). Another idea I quite like is this:- “ The rear edge of at least 1 element of the group must touch the waterway.” See ancientwargaming.wordpress.com/new-zealand-dba-clarifications/ I too, would like to see a littoral landing ending 1 BW from the enemy. For me it's the absolute certainty of it. They always turn up, on time, like clockwork, as requested. There is simply no risk for an invading Littoral army in placing 25% of their army on boats if available (as it is against all other Littoral opponents). Surely stratagems were a risk/reward situation? Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 17, 2022 3:42:15 GMT
I've downloaded both and I even have unpainted 3mm WW2 minis in the lead pile. But never got around to playing. They'd probably give a similar feel to the Portable Wargame WW2 rules, I think.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 17, 2022 1:35:54 GMT
This was a very enjoyable battle with lots of decision points almost every turn. Using the hoplite armylists that have a number of light or different troops makes things interesting and teaches you quickly how to use these troops, particularly Psiloi, to advantage.
Cheers
Jim
PS But I may never use the naval landing rules again. Because they automatically land, they lead to predictable deployment and potentially dull games. There is no surprise, which I assume was the main reason you would ever contemplate risking one quarter of your army in foreign waters?
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 17, 2022 1:29:36 GMT
Here's an ahistorical battle between Brasidas and Agesileus using all the exotic troops each list offers. Here's the setup:  Brasidas is defending and as both armies are littoral, refuses his flank near the waterway rather than using a naval force, because clearly local knowledge of the coast is useless! (I dislike the naval landing rules very much!). His Thracian peltasts infest the marshlands. Agesileus plans to land his Paplagonians forward to take care of the Thracians with the support of his Mysians before the hoplites and cavalry meet. However, his phalanx is delayed by bad omens (PIP 1) leaving his Paphlagonians dangerously exposed with only the Mysians able to advance. Brasidas seizes the opportunity and splits his phalanx to crush the light troops.  After a scrambled melee in and around the marshes, with many an underdog prevailing against overwhelming odds, Brasidas fails to destroy the Paphlagonians and they eventually win the marshes against the Thracians but with losses (two elements Ax v three elements Ps). Now Brasidas is in danger as the King has arrived.  But the brilliant general scrambles and his remaining Thracians delay the phalanx protecting his flank until the rest of the hoplites arrive. However, Brasidas is distracted himself by some Mysian psiloi and the King's phalanx seems to be grinding away to a victory. Brasidas mutters a prayer to Zeus and the Father of the Gods obliges by scattering the Ionian cavalry, thus isolating the end of the King's phalanx, which is destroyed (some extreme dice rolling here). The king himself is in peril!  The battle is lost as the King retreats from the field!  |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 13, 2022 19:15:28 GMT
We have rules that allow Lb and Cb to have tweaks amongst Bows. I wonder if we can add the LH tweak for Horse Archers (HA) so that we don't overpower some armies without the historical record of the Mongols, Huns, etc (e.g. Thessalians)?
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 13, 2022 19:11:38 GMT
Looking forward to seeing the final product!
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 11, 2022 7:01:37 GMT
Look forward to following this project. Have been very tempted to do the same thing with Baccus.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 6, 2022 6:16:04 GMT
I'm probably in the minority but I don't mind the general principle as it's written. I've found that the "sticky" front edge of the TZ causes more headaches. I would rather that it was "magnetic" to only the front edge of the enemy element. So you are only in TZ if your front edge is in TZ. I think it's because in my mind's eye the troops are actually a very fine line within the footprint of the element and are usually at the front edge. By making it front edge only you are actually in striking distance and threatening the troops. This would eliminate the silly situation of a flanking element locking down two side by side elements. It would also eliminate the silly situation where a slow moving spear element "threatens" a cavalry element by overlapping its rear corner with its TZ, which gives the cavalry element the one option of escape to move directly to its rear towards the Spears! Surely the cavalry could just gallop away as they are facing? But if you are close enough to overlap the front edge then yes, you are limited in your choices. It would also help define side edge, rear edge, front and rear corners as distinct points/edges and not "front edge".
But I've already had my tweak so I'll have to let this one go before the tweak police catch up with me.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 5, 2022 15:34:20 GMT
Forgive me as I am naïve about this period. Were the Swiss defending their own land or in a defensive posture in the lands of others?
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 5, 2022 15:31:44 GMT
We ask a lot of the simple die roll to determine invader/defender. It doesn't allow for an invader to have a defensive posture, which is quite well supported historically, nor to outscout/out-think the defender and end up with favourable terrain. One ‘advantage’ the invader can employ is his choice of direction of play, giving the possibility of choosing defensive ground/flank protection should he wish to play in a defensive posture, or denying an enemy their favourite side…(unlike in v2.2 where dice were involved). True, Martin. But as you know, Roads can limit this advantage for the invader. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 5, 2022 10:09:56 GMT
As for tweaks, true rivers should be treated as waterways on the flank and streams should cross the battlefield.These slow movement as per RAW but simply provide either a +1 for the defender or a -1 to the attacker but otherwise allow combat to occur as per normal. It's the only way for Pikes (and Spears, to some extent) to cross at a reasonable chance of winning. Cheers Jim Yes. I think my "one tweak" would be to do something about rivers and I quite like this as an idea. Of course, one doesn't have to select a river when choosing terrain, whereas a Kn v Bd combat may be unavoidable (especially if playing Vikings v Vandals). Just for the record, I'm quite happy to keep the "Kn destroyed on a tie" outcome. But I really like my scratch built river and want to use it more!  Actually, your words are sadly a great reflection of the reality IMHO. Players simply don't choose rivers if they want a smooth flowing game. But lots of historical battle reports talk about rivers. C'est la guerre! Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 5, 2022 2:03:52 GMT
As for tweaks, true rivers should be treated as waterways on the flank and streams should cross the battlefield.These slow movement as per RAW but simply provide either a +1 for the defender or a -1 to the attacker but otherwise allow combat to occur as per normal. It's the only way for Pikes (and Spears, to some extent) to cross at a reasonable chance of winning.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 5, 2022 1:56:52 GMT
Likewise, make the Later Carthaginians have an aggression of 2, so it is the Romans that make the rash impetuous attacks at the River Trebia, Lake Trasimene and Cannae, with Hannibal choosing the terrain. (While we are at it, why-oh-why are the Carthaginians classed as ‘Littoral’ after First Punic War?
They lost their ships in this conflict, and it was Roman fleets that dominated the western Mediterranean!
They should be Arable with an aggression 2 after 241 BC)We ask a lot of the simple die roll to determine invader/defender. It doesn't allow for an invader to have a defensive posture, which is quite well supported historically, nor to outscout/out-think the defender and end up with favourable terrain. This would require a rethink of the rules rather than a tweak. Perhaps one tweak is to allow the defender the option to choose from either army's terrain? Back on point, maybe the "tweak" would be for army II/32a: Aggression 4 (unless Hannibal then aggression 2)? Then it's only a tweak and allows for the first Punic war, the Mercenary war, the Iberian expansion and the battles in Spain during the second Punic war. As for Littoral v Arable, I find this a strange choice in general, as many Littoral nations could and did fight at home but away from the shore. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 2, 2022 1:20:29 GMT
Thanks for the heads up!
Jim
|
|
