|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 8, 2019 12:41:38 GMT
Adjust some of the Army List aggression factors. Reduce the II/32a Carthaginian aggression from 4 to 2 if Hannibal is present.
This concept is worth a discussion. Adjusting the aggression factor for various reasons does give that "campaign" feel. Maybe adjusting for other reasons (e.g. Scouting if you have an advantage in certain troop types for certain terrains)? Or maybe these adjustments alter terrain deployment? Yes stevie, there is something here methinks. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 5, 2019 23:57:01 GMT
Event cards? Very interesting. I look forward to their development. I have some rudimentary notes on a Strategic Situation table to add another challenge to the general. Something along the lines of roll two dice etc. It's just to add something that may force the player to come out and fight or to hinder army composition or deployment. Exactly as a campaign does.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 5, 2019 7:19:27 GMT
I don’t own a Norman army but was looking at exactly that question this morning and planning 3 armies. Norman, Anglo-Danish and III/40b Viking’s. 11 x 4 Bd and a Ps must be good for a scrap. I then looked at manufacturers and who I would go with. Ideally a single manufacturer for all 3 armies. I couldn’t decide......too much choice. Any recommendations? I decided I’d probably have to defer until the Forged in Battle ranges were released as looking at the Kickstarter pictures they would definitely be contenders. Hi paddy649. I'm with diades on this topic. I finished Splintered Light Anglo-Saxons/Anglo-Danes and Vikings. Very happy. Little Big Men shield transfers were also fantastic. I will try and get a picture up if limits will let me. You can do Normans but you can't do Welsh. I have an Essex Welsh army on its way. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 5, 2019 2:59:40 GMT
stevie keep on going!
I don't always agree with your point of view and I am not as dogmatic about taking the ancient writers verbatim (although Ctesias' description of the Persian Court would make an interesting boardgame).
But I enjoy reading your posts. If nothing else, I learn something by re-reading the ancient descriptions. But more importantly, it makes me think and imagine, which is after all, what this hobby is all about at least for me.
So soldier on lad! Just think, your affliction could be worse. Imagine if they hadn't burned down the library at Alexandria...
Cheers
Jim
PS You should only put a qualifying remark on your posts for the "recent threads" section if everybody else does likewise. There is no reason for you to be singled out.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 31, 2019 9:55:20 GMT
Isn’t the 3/4 restriction on a group of elements basis? For example, II/11 says general can be a 3/4 Wb, a second group of two elements can be 3/4 Wb, and the main group of six elements is a 3/4 Wb. So within each of those groups could you not have all of the units in a group be either a 3/Wb or 4/Wb, without affecting the 3Wb or 4/Wb choice for the other groups? That's how I play it. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 31, 2019 9:54:10 GMT
Like most people, I have played Arable as either BUA or 2 Plough. I agree with primuspilus that this seemed odd. I am happy that lkmjbc has identified PB's true intent and I look forward to the update on the FAQ.
I like stevie's wording but if we are going to rewrite the rule then I would go further and make Arable a compulsory BUA + 1 Plough. Firstly, it makes sense. Secondly, with the ability to deploy Hamlet as Rough Going or Ediface as Bad Going, it doesn't force anyone to use a City with it's ridiculous "Let's pause along the march to battle and besiege this City, sack it, set up a puppet government and then move on to the real thing" rules. Nor to deploy a Fort, which adds complexity but at least is more plausible.
Interested to see how this discussion progresses.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 30, 2019 8:14:43 GMT
This is a great example of why I like larger boards for spear armies. This is a very practical DBA deployment but it has little basis in history. I assume its the side effect of side-support replacing rear-support for Spears. As for a Pike Phalanx represented by a 3x2 block of elements, its very anorexic. When I get them painted up I'm doing the Hellenistic wars with 8Pk. Cheers Jim I actually disagree with that last one. 8Pk gives the Pike armies more width. I like the tradeoff between width and thickness. Something for them to cover, but I do agree that a side effect of the Side Support 4Sp means they always get to extend. The wider board is probably the solution to the shield wall problem. Fair enough. But 3x2Pk only covers 20% of the width of a 600mm board. A Polybian Roman army can cover 8BW with Blades. This doesn't seem to match the descriptions. A Pike phalanx 6BW covers 40%, which seems much more plausible historically and can still be enveloped by the Romans. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 30, 2019 5:43:02 GMT
Because of the 4/2 BW deployment restrictions with the 24" board (~15BW wide), a lot of infantry armies deploy something like this: Assume a spearwall type army. Assume no terrain. _____[ENEMY]____ PsSpSpSpSpSpSpPs __Sp________Sp__ __Sp________Sp__ This is a great example of why I like larger boards for spear armies. This is a very practical DBA deployment but it has little basis in history. I assume its the side effect of side-support replacing rear-support for Spears. As for a Pike Phalanx represented by a 3x2 block of elements, its very anorexic. When I get them painted up I'm doing the Hellenistic wars with 8Pk. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 29, 2019 10:23:27 GMT
That's stunning Jim. Love it. Did you do the woodcuts yourself? It wasn't too difficult. Base was 75 x 75cm 6mm MDF with Green Marine carpet cut to fit (use any surface really). Edges were 30x8mm timber measured directly from the board and a single 45 degree cut made with a cheap plastic box mitre. Then file and sandpaper to get the right fit. Finished with maple wood stain. 16mm nails used to secure the outside pieces. I placed them in the centre, 3BW from the centre, 4BW from the edge and 2BW from the edge to help with deployment. The central three are useful in the smaller sizes too. Not sure if I'll mark the inserts as I like the look and don't want to stuff it up. Finally, some upholstery pins to disguise the ugly nail. These and the stain hide many imperfections! All with hand tools. Access to a band saw and this would be easily achievable in a few hours Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 29, 2019 10:13:51 GMT
Looks like I need to buy my Gasgans and my West Sudanese at the same time...and maybe Tibetans...Avars look good...Early Germans...
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 29, 2019 10:12:16 GMT
I hope you were well armoured with large shield to withstand the missiles!
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 29, 2019 10:06:33 GMT
Hi all. I just backed this book on making wargaming terrain by Mel Bose on Kickstarter Terrain Essentials KickstarterI've been watching Mel on his Youtube channel, The Terrain Tutor, for some time. Wonderful and elpful videos. Always learn something. I've also emailed Mel directly and he replied quickly with helpful advice. I suspect this book will be well worth the money, either for individuals or for clubs. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 28, 2019 9:44:44 GMT
I think the difference between Good and Bad going is important. Take the deployment situation, where there is a large Dunes piece on your flank. If you deploy your army in a line and two Camel elements extend into the Dunes. Then with 1 PIP the entire army can move forward. Completely within the rules. But if it were two Psiloi then it would take 2 PIPS. Again, completely within the rules. Now what happens in a similar situation but there are now 2 Psiloi on the flank of the two Camels but still within the Dunes? Can the army move forward for 1 PIP? What if the 2 Psiloi were the hinge joining the rest of the army to the troops in Dunes and the Camels extended the line into the Dunes? Jim Thanks Jim - very good point. I don’t have an answer to that. Which leaves us in a situation where we either: continue to allow Camels to combine with troops on GG and stop them combining with Ps, allow them to combine with Ps but add an extra restriction to stop them combining with troops in GG (ugly), come up with a new either/or type restriction (ugly) or allow the hinge type behaviour you mention (not pretty and would require historical justification which I haven’t got - yet). Does this place us in “least worst” territory? Now my head really hurts! My head always hurts when I open the "purple". I can live with the situation that Psiloi cannot easily co-ordinate with the Camels because of the height of the dunes and the speed of camels makes this difficult. As Oasis and Dunes are "blocking" terrain, it is a plausible solution. No idea about the historical accuracy. That way I can go and get an aspirin and get back to more terrain projects. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 27, 2019 21:09:33 GMT
I think that it is important to remember that the Psiloi are still in BAD GOING whilst the Camels are in GOOD GOING. It's not quite true that both elements are in the same terrain. Psiloi are penalised by being only able to form a Group with other Psiloi. Cheers Jim With respect Jim,I find it hard to beleive a unit of the nature of Ps being that they are in open order and forming a "cloud" rather than a rigid formation..be penalised by not being able to form a group with a troop type? If they were formed up like on the Potsdam parade ground or a more looser formation then fair enough...but the very nature of their mass allows them to move freely in all terrain...unhindered.So why is there a need to impose any restriction on them at all? A lot of troop types can move their entire movement allowance in Bad going. But they cannot form groups either with themselves or Psiloi. I'm assuming that PB is considering more than just movement with his restrictions. In this situation, maybe at the height of a man, the Dunes block LOS at the tactical level so co-ordination is not possible? After all, Dunes do limit command distance. I think the difference between Good and Bad going is important. Take the deployment situation, where there is a large Dunes piece on your flank. If you deploy your army in a line and two Camel elements extend into the Dunes. Then with 1 PIP the entire army can move forward. Completely within the rules. But if it were two Psiloi then it would take 2 PIPS. Again, completely within the rules. Now what happens in a similar situation but there are now 2 Psiloi on the flank of the two Camels but still within the Dunes? Can the army move forward for 1 PIP? What if the 2 Psiloi were the hinge joining the rest of the army to the troops in Dunes and the Camels extended the line into the Dunes? In my opinion, to solve this problem, it would take a major change, i.e. Psiloi consider all terrain Good going. This would be radical but would be clear for all situations with all troop types. However, I think this is too big a change. But I can certainly see the logic behind the points raised by you and paddy649. Like all things with this game, small fixes may have unintended consequences. So I'm with the literal interpreters of this rule currently. I hope medievalthomas gets his tournament data to help analyse these situations further. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 27, 2019 11:57:11 GMT
Love the videos Tony. And love your Waterway interpretation. So much so, that I re-fashioned mine and will be using your convention that touching the rocky beach is touching the Waterway.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
