1
Rules Questions / Re: TZ and Artillery edge
« on: June 28, 2022, 09:24:18 AM »
Offhand, I'd say no. The Art's flank counts as a front edge only once it's been contacted.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1] 2
2
Book 4 / Re: Errata - Book 4 2nd edition
« on: May 17, 2022, 03:15:01 PM »
The Jurchen-Chin list has the Iron Pagodas optionally classified as "Reg Bd (X) @9AP". This is either an AP error (should be 8AP) or a the grade should (S) rather than (X).
3
Competitions / Re: Results of Stoertebeker Cup 2022
« on: May 17, 2022, 03:12:29 PM »
Nice reports, thanks 
4
Book 4 / Teutonic Order in the Thirteen Years War
« on: November 29, 2020, 10:40:49 AM »
I posted this to the DBMM groups.io list, and it was suggested there may be some utility in posting it here too, so it might be easier to find to find in the future. So with no further ado:
I'm reading a book about the Teutonic order in the Thirteen Years' War (the aptly titled Der Deutsche Orden im Dreizehnjährigen Krieg 1454-1466), and reflected, not for the first time, that the current list doesn't reflect this period well. Feeling like screaming into the wind, I put together a version that's more like I feel it should be:
The army was overwhelmingly composed of mercenaries, largely Germans and Bohemians; any actual knights of the order are assumed to be included in the C-in-C and sub-generals' elements. Ally-generals represent ill-paid mercenary leaders who might need convincing to fight. They count as of a different nationality even if German as they had no particular loyalty to the Ordensstaat. In the later years of the war increased reliance was put on peasant and urban levies, more because they were cheaper than mercenaries than because they were any good. Most of the secular nobility of Prussia went over to the Prussian League, but I've allowed for the possibility of enough of those who remained loyal to the order turning up with their followers to amount to a few elements and being sufficiently less professional than the mercenaries to count as irregular. If you feel they should be regular (as in the existing list) the list has no shortage of Reg Kn.
I'm not sure if the crossbowmen with pavises really deserve being classed as Bw (X), but the same sort of men are so classed in the Medieval German and Hussite lists. You're anyway free to take all as Bw (O) if you prefer.
The book has a reconstruction of a handgunner with a pavise, who presumably wasn't intending to skirmish; hence the Shot option.
Each element of WWg replaces one element of Reg foot and one section of TF. I'm not aware of any evidence of them being moved during battle, but as they're dedicated fighting wagons crewed in cases by actual Taborites, I've allowed the option.
The list looks rather like a regular version of Later Polish, which may not be inappropriate. While based on the Thirteen Years' War it's probably nearer the mark than the existing list for the entire post-Tannenberg period. Aggression is low because the war was largely fought in Prussia, but not zero because some incursions into Polish territory did occur. BUAf added because the absence in the current list is silly.
I'm reading a book about the Teutonic order in the Thirteen Years' War (the aptly titled Der Deutsche Orden im Dreizehnjährigen Krieg 1454-1466), and reflected, not for the first time, that the current list doesn't reflect this period well. Feeling like screaming into the wind, I put together a version that's more like I feel it should be:
| TEUTONIC ORDER 1454-1466 | |
| Cold. Ag 1. FS, Rv, Wd, BF, M, F, Rd, BUAf. | |
| E: 4/66, whatever list covers the Prussian League | |
| C-in-C Reg Kn (S) @ 35AP | 1 |
| Sub-general - Reg Kn (S) @ 35AP | 0-2 |
| Ally-general - Reg Kn (O) @ 22AP or Reg Cv (O) @ 18AP | 0-2 |
| Men-at-arms - Reg Kn (O) @ 12AP | 6-14 |
| Mounted crossbowmen - Reg Cv (O) @ 8AP | 9-18 |
| Prussian vassals - Irr Kn (O) @ 10AP | 0-4 |
| Halberdiers and similar - Reg Bd (O) @ 7AP | 0-6 |
| Foot crossbowmen - up to ½ with pavise, Reg Bw (X) @ 7AP, remainder Reg Bw (O) @ 3AP if double-based behind (X), otherwise @ 5AP | 0-12 |
| Handgunners - Reg Ps (S) @ 3AP or Reg Sh (I) @ 5AP | 0-4 |
| Light guns - Reg Art (I) @ 4AP | 0-2 |
| Heavy guns - Reg Art (S) @ 10AP | 0-2 |
| Wagenburg - TF @ 2AP | 0-12 |
| Reclassify Wagenburg and Reg foot as - Reg WWg (O) @ 10AP | 0-12 |
| Camp - Irr Bge (O) @ 2AP, or laden wagons - Irr Bge (I) @ 1AP | 0-2 per general |
| Warships - Irr Shp (O) @ 3AP [Bw] | 0-2 |
| Rivercraft - Irr Bts (O) @ 2AP [any foot] | 0-3 |
| Only from 1461: | |
| Peasant and urban levies - Irr Sp (I) @ 3AP, Irr Bw (I) @ 3AP, or Irr Hd (O) @ 1AP | 0-18 |
The army was overwhelmingly composed of mercenaries, largely Germans and Bohemians; any actual knights of the order are assumed to be included in the C-in-C and sub-generals' elements. Ally-generals represent ill-paid mercenary leaders who might need convincing to fight. They count as of a different nationality even if German as they had no particular loyalty to the Ordensstaat. In the later years of the war increased reliance was put on peasant and urban levies, more because they were cheaper than mercenaries than because they were any good. Most of the secular nobility of Prussia went over to the Prussian League, but I've allowed for the possibility of enough of those who remained loyal to the order turning up with their followers to amount to a few elements and being sufficiently less professional than the mercenaries to count as irregular. If you feel they should be regular (as in the existing list) the list has no shortage of Reg Kn.
I'm not sure if the crossbowmen with pavises really deserve being classed as Bw (X), but the same sort of men are so classed in the Medieval German and Hussite lists. You're anyway free to take all as Bw (O) if you prefer.
The book has a reconstruction of a handgunner with a pavise, who presumably wasn't intending to skirmish; hence the Shot option.
Each element of WWg replaces one element of Reg foot and one section of TF. I'm not aware of any evidence of them being moved during battle, but as they're dedicated fighting wagons crewed in cases by actual Taborites, I've allowed the option.
The list looks rather like a regular version of Later Polish, which may not be inappropriate. While based on the Thirteen Years' War it's probably nearer the mark than the existing list for the entire post-Tannenberg period. Aggression is low because the war was largely fought in Prussia, but not zero because some incursions into Polish territory did occur. BUAf added because the absence in the current list is silly.
5
Book 2 / Re: Late Romans and African Vandals
« on: November 29, 2020, 10:16:23 AM »
At Ad Decimum, the Vandal cavalry performs well, but are let down by their commander.
6
General Discussion / Re: Suggested rule changes for next edition
« on: December 29, 2019, 10:37:56 AM »
I don't have a firm opinion on Cm (S), but Cm (O) are definitely overcosted. There's no way they're in general more useful than Irr LH (O) who have the same factors, far better manoeuvrability, and less tendency to be destroyed by foot. Sure, they scare Cv and Kn a bit, but at 2:3 they're likely to lose anyway, and the dune trick is quite situational.
7
General Discussion / Re: Suggested rule changes for next edition
« on: November 25, 2019, 04:38:31 PM »
That's a lot of stuff, and I don't have a lot of time right now, but something that caught my attention on a quick scan:
This might be a problem not with the rules, but with camels - despite Cyrus' well-known trick against Croesus, people choosing to confront cavalry on camel-back appears to be quite rare. In the two other examples I'm aware of where horses' aversion for camels is reported to have been important to the course of a battle, the camel-men fought on foot, throwing javelins from behind a stationary line of camels.
There was a long thread (started by yours truly) about this over at the SoA forum recently.
Quote
why would anyone ever fight from a camel, except those classified as (S), against mounted, giv-en present factors?
This might be a problem not with the rules, but with camels - despite Cyrus' well-known trick against Croesus, people choosing to confront cavalry on camel-back appears to be quite rare. In the two other examples I'm aware of where horses' aversion for camels is reported to have been important to the course of a battle, the camel-men fought on foot, throwing javelins from behind a stationary line of camels.
There was a long thread (started by yours truly) about this over at the SoA forum recently.
8
Book 4 / Re: Medieval French
« on: November 20, 2019, 09:04:11 AM »QuoteIn some support of this, French infantry in the Armagnac list can be either voulgiers as Reg Bd (O) or brigans as Irr Sp (O).
If Brigans could be replaced by voulgiers, wouldn't it still say this?
Maybe; the Communals can be replaced by voulgiers in the MF list, yet don't appear here, so if brigans were treated analogously, they wouldn't appear here either.
It's certainly not a strong argument, but it seems to me it offers some support to the interpretation that only nominal Pavisiers can be replaced, not other troops with pavises.
9
Book 4 / Re: Medieval French
« on: November 14, 2019, 09:44:37 AM »
Only the ones explicitly called "Pavisiers" I'd assume.
ETA: In some support of this, French infantry in the Armagnac list can be either voulgiers as Reg Bd (O) or brigans as Irr Sp (O).
ETA: In some support of this, French infantry in the Armagnac list can be either voulgiers as Reg Bd (O) or brigans as Irr Sp (O).
10
Rules Questions / Re: Weather score 0 - fog and mist
« on: November 01, 2019, 06:45:58 PM »
I've always assumed that "other climates" means "climates other than Cold or Cool".
(If this is the intended meaning, a much better wording would have been "or any season if Warm or Tropical".)
No mist in Cold in any season does seem a little bit unlikely to be intended though.
(If this is the intended meaning, a much better wording would have been "or any season if Warm or Tropical".)
No mist in Cold in any season does seem a little bit unlikely to be intended though.
11
Book 4 / Re: Scots Common, Book 4, List 16
« on: October 26, 2019, 08:40:16 AM »I am quite sure the "Small Folk" are given 'False Reinforcement' status due to the effect they had towards the end of the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314. However, in the rules 'False Reinforcements' can only be used with Baggage O. Unfortunately, Scots Common are only given access to Baggage O from 1488AD. Therefore, surely Baggage O should be made available from or in 1314?Yes, bug.
Really, just about all armies should be allowed Bge (O).
12
General Discussion / Re: Suggested rule changes for next edition
« on: October 26, 2019, 08:36:36 AM »
Phil's been very quiet since about the publication of the Revised army lists, so I don't expect there's much chance of any suggestions being incorporated in a 2.2 or 3.0.
OTOH, if you don't send them in the chance is zero.
OTOH, if you don't send them in the chance is zero.
13
Rules Questions / Re: Irregular Cavalry (S)
« on: October 26, 2019, 08:33:43 AM »
I think the real reason Irr Cv (S) are clumsy is that Phil's mental model for them is Sassanid Persian armoured cavalry, and these, at least acc'd Phil's take on the relevant battle narratives, favoured a frontal style of combat without much manoeuvre. That they drag various steppe types etc with them is a bit of collateral damage.
I seem to recall reading that Irr Cv (I) became clumsy because many are classed so on account of poor horsemanship.
I seem to recall reading that Irr Cv (I) became clumsy because many are classed so on account of poor horsemanship.
14
Book 4 / Re: Errata - Book 4 2nd edition
« on: August 24, 2019, 10:39:56 AM »4/Anglo-Norman: Brabancon/Flemish mercenary Pk (I) can’t possibly be optional, as without them the command would be illegally small.The Pk (I) are effectively compulsory if you take the mercenary general, but the latter is himself optional. If you skip the general you're free to have no Brabancons/Flemish, or to have some commanded by English generals.
15
General Discussion / Re: Guides stratagem.
« on: August 24, 2019, 10:31:15 AM »
There are some very counterintuitive results from roads being good going, such as crossing a wood being sped up by a road perpendicular to the crossing, and it making a big difference if one of "approximately element width" is just over or just under 80 paces (when in actuality any actual ancient road would be very much narrower, the game width being a concession to modelling).
Unfortunately, basically the same clearly results from roads being turned into rough going by mud, so either Phil didn't consider the implications, or was happy to live with them.
So, regretfully, I'm finding myself convinced by your (Fon Tok Nak's) arguments. Regretfully, because unlike you I suspect it will lead to more rather than less counterintuitiveness on the table.
Unfortunately, basically the same clearly results from roads being turned into rough going by mud, so either Phil didn't consider the implications, or was happy to live with them.
So, regretfully, I'm finding myself convinced by your (Fon Tok Nak's) arguments. Regretfully, because unlike you I suspect it will lead to more rather than less counterintuitiveness on the table.
Pages: [1] 2