|
Post by menacussecundus on Mar 23, 2024 7:57:16 GMT
It's a fine bright morning dahn sarff, but the forecast for Sheffield is wet and windy. I'd stay indoors and roll some dice if I were you.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Mar 18, 2024 20:57:58 GMT
A query to Fanatici, an Alamanni general (Cv//4Wb) has a second warband element directly behind in contact forming a column. Dismounting, does the second element automatically close the distance to remain in column or must the adjustment cost a pip? How would you play this? I seem to recall that when v3 first came out this was discussed at some length (specifically relating to dismounting Mycenaean charioteers), and the ‘decision was ‘no, they end up separated’: just the front edges remain in place as you replace the LCh with the 4Bd, or in this case the Cv with the 4Wb. That is my recollection too.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Mar 8, 2024 15:37:26 GMT
Verleihnix = Unhygenix
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Mar 5, 2024 8:14:40 GMT
Some interesting reverse trash talk going on here. "You and whose army?" "Well certainly not the army I'm bringing. Hasn't a prayer."
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Mar 2, 2024 8:04:57 GMT
Though small, they shall this day perform mighty deeds.
Have a good day, chaps.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 28, 2024 11:09:55 GMT
…no chance that the LH destruction might be intentional/realistic? A deep swarm of LH who, in Close Combat, are doubled might accurately represent the front part of the element attempting to flee in severe disorder and they and possibly others being killed in the crush/mayhem which ensues [??]…perhaps. No, and why are we to assume they have to be in close combat and you are assuming a swarming maelstrom of LH archers are ordered in nice neat rows in the first place. To myself they now both form part of the same tactical unit (same as pike or Wb when in two ranks) so flee as one, hence why they are destroyed by mounted because they catch them. Rather than looking at historical justifications, might it not be an idea to look at this in terms of the mechanics of the game? If the worst result one can get against most foot troop types is a flee, using the LH in two ranks and getting a bonus for rear support is the obvious course of action. Unless they are contacted on the flank edge as well, the LH have a basic combat factor of 3 and are effectively invulnerable. Whereas at the moment the player has to choose between fighting at a basic factor of 2 and being able to flee or putting in a second rank and upping the combat factor, but risking being destroyed in the event that the outcome is flee. You've gotta ask yourself a question: "Do I feel lucky?"
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 27, 2024 13:04:08 GMT
I think we need to distinguish between where the rules as written need supplementing and where they might need changing. There seem to be plenty of examples of things in the rules that need supplementing. Having no definition of “uphill” for close combat is clearly an example. Players have to decide how to interpret this and it is good that a common definition has been reached. There are also, in my view, plenty of things in the rules that could advantageously be changed. To give one example among many, when two LH in column receive a “flee” result, both should flee rather than the front one being destroyed. But I think that the advantages of playing the rules as written, of having a single reference point that everyone can turn to, outweigh the advantages of changing them on particular points. Concerning the way in which gentle hills affect shooting and command distance, I think the rules are clear. Hills are required to have “a centre line crest”. You can’t shoot, and command distance is reduced, if the element you are measuring to is “entirely beyond” a crest. Up to now, I have found it helpful to think of hills in DBA as being shaped like cornish pasties. The crest line runs all the way from one end to the other, rising to a bulge in the middle and then falling. This has seemed to me a natural interpretation of “a centre line crest”. With hills shaped like this, the shooting rule as written certainly produces an anomaly. An element at one end of the hill can shoot, over the bulge, at an element at the other end, provided that both are on the same side of the crest line. But I think this is quite a rare case, and not worth changing the rules for. Maybe I’m reading the rules wrong, and they are not as clear as I think. Maybe they’re clear but the anomaly, for example in the case of conical hills, is bigger/more serious than I think and is one of the cases (which should presumably be rare if at all) that could justify moving away from the rules as written. In any case, interested to hear your view. Depends slightly which way the pasty is pointing, hodsopa. If the crest (?crust) is roughly parallel to the base edge troops can hide behind it. However, if it runs parallel to the side edges, one could get some improbable results, including Artillery being able to hit troops on flat ground (Good going) on the far side of the hill.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 26, 2024 20:52:06 GMT
menacusesecundus the link worked well (as Les1964 reported above). I do love a Blemmye army. One I do not possess but I fought one many times under DBA1, in 25mm. (Belonging to a now former SoA President, Phil Halewood. It had lots of shooting power and cavalry hitting power (as Kn, in DBA1, if my memory is working !!) And the photos are great as are the figures and the background / playing mat. Thanks for posting. CarlL Thank you carll. The mat is a cloth one from www.tinywargames.co.uk/
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 26, 2024 14:57:05 GMT
Just thinking in terms of consistency and completeness. We have a horse mounted version of pike and spear - the knight. We have a horse mounted version of blades - cavalry We have a horse mounted version of psiloi - light horse. We need a horse mounted version of auxilia and warband having their abilities to move through bad going - raider. It's also historically accurate as ghazis, hobelars, etc. were famous for moving through and striking from areas of rough terrain (deserts, mountains, bogs, forests, etc.) But did they move through them and then fight set piece battles elsewhere or did they fight in those areas? And, if the latter, was the battle field entirely desert, mountain, bog or forest - and therefore not a typical DBA board - or was it essentially good going with small patches of difficult stuff?
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 24, 2024 15:41:17 GMT
Thanks, Les1964. This may or may not show the Nubian General's element and the two Fast warband I painted last year.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 24, 2024 10:58:27 GMT
I have no idea whether or not this will work. If it does, it should show (or at least link to) my latest army, II/55a Blemmye. flic.kr/p/2pzSVgDvery nice I have the exact same figures for this army in the ‘to do pile’ - was going to get rid of them but seeing how they paint up I’m tempted to keep them now. Thank you, Ken Gordon. I have described it elsewhere as an "accidental army". It wasn't one that I had ever considered getting until I discovered that a job lot of second hand figures I had bought included 16 Blemmye archers and 5 Blemmye cavalry which was about a third of the foot and almost half the mounted I would need for the army. (My thanks to martin for identifying them.) I'm pleased with how they've turned out and I'm just waiting until there is no risk of getting a 20mm resin Giant Tick as a free gift before I order the elephant figure to serve as the camp element.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 24, 2024 9:13:53 GMT
Good luck chaps. Watch out for the Nabataeans. (The pronunciation can be pretty tricky.)
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 23, 2024 22:24:56 GMT
I have no idea whether or not this will work. If it does, it should show (or at least link to) my latest army, II/55a Blemmye. flic.kr/p/2pzSVgDYep it worked . I use postimages.org/ to post pictures on this forum . I tried using postimages, but they wouldn't let me play. Perhaps I'll try again over the weekend.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 23, 2024 21:37:16 GMT
I have no idea whether or not this will work. If it does, it should show (or at least link to) my latest army, II/55a Blemmye. flic.kr/p/2pzSVgD
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 23, 2024 17:58:05 GMT
Jim - that would include almost any battle fought with Arab Ghazis in the first Islamic Jihad against the Byzantines and Sassanians. Irish hobelars where a valued addition to many medieval armies, especially during the 100 years war and War of the Roses. Moorish light horse and Spanish jinetes fought across the Spanish Reconquista. Numidian cavalry was standard part of Carthaginian and Roman armies. Macro question: DBA labels imply uniformity, but that was rarely the case. For example, elephant formations were almost always supported by accompanying light foot. Similarly, camelry units were also intermixed with light horse (Arab horses were the best in the world). So why not replace the camel designation with "raider"? Again, I think you are leaving out some of the detail dpd . How did the Ghazis fight when it came to set piece battles against the Byzntines and Sassanians? Successfully, obviously, but were they charging through the dunes/steep hills/thick forests in battle? Were hobelars really that widespread outside of Britain? And were they not largely replaced by mounted archers (Mtd-Bw in DBA)? Did the Moorish light horse and Spanish jinetes charge hell for leather through the mountains of Spain or did they stay mainly on the plain? Did the Numidian cavalry speed through the Alps and then sit and wait for the elephants to catch up or did they have the same difficulty as the rest of Hannibal's army? Similarly, I'm not quite sure what you are driving at with your macro question. Is it simply a change of name, so that 3 camel figures on a base are called "R", rather than Cm? Are you suggesting a mix of camel and horse figures on a base? (Which wouldn't. of course, require a change of name.) In short, what is it that you are trying to achieve?
|
|