|
Forts
Aug 29, 2017 11:17:42 GMT
Post by goragrad on Aug 29, 2017 11:17:42 GMT
Nice looking fort, timurilank. Not sure how mine will turn out. Here is what the camp palisade looks like (a bit more flocking planned) so far - 1BWx2BW with space inside for up to a 30x40mm element. So for the fort my nephew was ready to start cutting more toothpicks but I have another idea. Got this a couple years ago at Valentine's - Shape is classic (remind anyone else of anything?). Immediately thought of a fortified camp but it measures 2.5x3.5 BW. Too big. On the other hand as a BUA I figure I'd go at least 3x4 and probably 4x4or5 BW to allow for a ditch. Am still debating how exactly to finish it, first thought would have 4 gates, not allowed in DBA, and even the frontier version had two. Gate at ground level, ramp up to gate, corner towers, etc. Am thinking I will keep an eye out for more of these next February - the chocolates are only so-so, but I think the box has potential for several varieties of fort. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Aug 29, 2017 10:07:47 GMT
So apparently KN vs CV and BD vs Sp do tend to prevail.
Although the camp guards appear to have cemented one of the wins.
Interesting AARs.
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Aug 28, 2017 5:17:11 GMT
Very nice!
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Aug 28, 2017 5:16:04 GMT
Personally, having just started actually painting and basing figures a couple of years ago, I have too many 15mm bases to not use them. And I still like to be able to tell the Solid from Fast without having to be told.
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Aug 28, 2017 5:11:09 GMT
As to the question - one shot -2.
|
|
|
Forts
Aug 26, 2017 11:50:10 GMT
Post by goragrad on Aug 26, 2017 11:50:10 GMT
As I mentioned in the Patricians vs Ostrogoths thread my nephew is keen on building a fort.
Aside from the gate requirement i see little else regarding their construction in the rulebook.
Do they fall under camp or general terrain size consideration?
And are there any other constraints?
Appreciate any assistance - don't want to put something together that won't be useful.
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Aug 26, 2017 11:29:56 GMT
I will note that my 10 year old nephew was not that keen on watching them - said he'd rather be playing than watching. Although he did like Tony's palisaded camp - spent the last couple of evenings making one. Now he wants to get even more ambitious do something more elaborate after I showed him a few more... Do him one in 1-1 scale in the garden I used to love big packing box forts, brass were ard to come by in the bitter north tha nose He and his sisters along with their friends have some sort of fort out back of the local high school already. We used to use the lumber pile out back until we dug a fort/hogan behind the lot in an unused at the time unused portion of a farmer's field. Took a backhoe and about an hour to demolish it when he decided to cultivate the field up to the fence...
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Aug 26, 2017 11:11:57 GMT
Actually, no - I was referring to the view that spear are dead meat against KN. Haven't played enough to confirm this for myself, but see it expressed regularly in posts.
Against CV and LH on the other had without facing a quick kill they appear to hold their own if not actually have the advantage.
Am just about to put the finishing touches on my all option II/3 Classical Indians (except for the Bactrian SP) - elements are awaiting varnishing. That meant having both 4BW for the a option and 3BW for the b. Was looking forward to playing both to see which BW option was more effective.
Particularly as I am closing in on finishing up a I/23 Vedic Indian which will enable me to alternatively field a II/1 Republican using the HCH and 3BW of the Vedic while I finish up those elements for the Republicans. As these will be BBDBA sized armies one of the questions I am looking to answer is whether it will be worth the effort to complete the Republicans with both BW options - 18 3 or 4BW will be a bit of work, doing both will be rather more. If the 4BW don't provide a significant advantage over the 3BW they will probably be backburnered in favor of other armies (I do have the figures to do both).
So much for a quick (on topic) reply...
Back to the Umayyad, looking forward to the reports.
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Aug 25, 2017 10:47:08 GMT
Very nice!!
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Aug 25, 2017 10:44:16 GMT
The phalanx was the norm.
Combined arm kampfgruppes of hoplites don't seem to have been a Greek option.
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Aug 25, 2017 10:40:32 GMT
Not having a lot games under my belt and only Normans and Ottonians at this point who can dismount, I have to say that RAW would seem to be the appropriate approach.
To date in the half dozen or so tourneys I've played in I don't recall anything else being specified, although not remembering every army entered it might not have come up.
If I manage to get to Tacticon I'll have to ask.
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Aug 25, 2017 10:22:48 GMT
Nice report.
One of the advantages to living in the Old World...
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Aug 25, 2017 10:14:13 GMT
Split deployment seems to have been decisive in the last battle.
Without knights the infantry is much more effective.
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Aug 24, 2017 11:35:49 GMT
I will note that my 10 year old nephew was not that keen on watching them - said he'd rather be playing than watching.
Although he did like Tony's palisaded camp - spent the last couple of evenings making one. Now he wants to get even more ambitious do something more elaborate after I showed him a few more...
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Aug 24, 2017 11:28:45 GMT
Agree, quite nice.
|
|