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.


Messages - toby

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17
1
General Discussion / Re: Is DBMM still played?
« on: January 23, 2015, 05:56:15 PM »
Oh yes.  Indeed Lorenzo's team championships in Milan go from strength to strength - I think he has 88 people attending this year.

It's a pity to hear that it has faded out in Spain.  Has something replaced it in period, or have people drifted to different periods?  I have to admit that Phil's anti-marketing strategy is pretty woeful at letting people know it still exists.

2
Book 3 / Re: Viking allies
« on: November 27, 2013, 10:03:53 AM »
Agree with Mick, although its mainly from common sense and custom.  You could try and argue that they should be able to command any troops like a normal sub-general, but then you could also argue that as sub-generals they shouldn't get access to their original list or something.  Needs to be tidied up if/when Book 3 is re-done, or possibly re-examined - I think it is probably based on rather too many historical romances or Hollywood films rather than actual records.

3
Book 3 / Re: Book 3 errata
« on: November 26, 2013, 10:11:17 AM »
Indeed.  Not sure whether this is another of the horrible typos that affect the whole of Book 3, or a real mistake and the line belongs in the Book 4 Post Mongol Russian list.

4
Rules Questions / Re: Fortifications and the deployment dice modifier
« on: November 26, 2013, 10:09:36 AM »
Lets keep the ad hominem attacks out of here....

5
Rules Questions / Re: Early Imperial Romans - Syrian Options?
« on: November 07, 2013, 02:11:20 PM »
I think Syria and Egypt were the only two eastern provinces to have legionary garrisons.  The others just had auxiliaries, who were there to stop raiding and maintain the peace.  Any major uprising or invasion would be dealt with by the Egyptian garrison (2 legions IIRC) or the Syrian garrison (3 legions IIRC). 

I was reading something somewhere about Pontius Pilate that he was Equestrian rather than a Senator, so couldn't command a big province like Syria, because only a Senator could command legions.  Don't know how accurate that is.  Egypt of course was a special case - the two legions there were the only legions that couldn't be commanded by senators, because of how important Egyptian grain was for Rome, and the risk that any Senator that commanded there would be tempted to rebel.  So they were commanded by long-service veterans - command of an Egyptian legion was the highest rank that a plebean could reach in the Roman army.

Anyway, since EIR armies must have legionaries, they must be from either Syria or Egypt in the east.  Unless you are doing a border skirmish in DBMM100 or something like that I guess, in which case you wouldn't have the legionaries, and you could be in Judea or Cappadocia or somewhere like that.

6
Book 1 / Re: Some Book 1 errata
« on: August 14, 2013, 11:32:41 AM »
Kusadasi is hardly Anatolia - it's on the Aegean. Go up onto the Anatolian plateau and there is snow on some mountains almost into summer. And its pretty cold at nights up there in summer as well. In winter it is very cold and snowy. Its about 3000 feet above sea level. And that is the Hittite homeland, not the Aegean coast.

7
Rules Questions / Re: Rear Support Factors
« on: February 21, 2013, 09:22:34 AM »
Yes - Warband can support other warband, unless specifically prohibited (for example in Early German some Wb(S) cannot be supported by Wb(O) of a different tribe).

The Ax(S) thing should only be Ax(S), but if Phil has forgotten to say 'same type and grade' then they can be supported by Ax(I) I guess. There won't be anything in the Commentary on this because there is no ambiguity - the Commentary is not an errata - if Phil wants to change the rule he needs to issue an official errata. We try to restrict ourselves to just areas of ambiguity and confusion (and there are enough of those).

I can't think of any exceptions to C. So yes, a formation of Pk/Pk/Ps would be factor 5 defending against Cv - 4 for the front rank and +1 for the Ps, even though the middle Pk doesn't fight.

8
General Discussion / Re: Cv(S)
« on: February 15, 2013, 11:25:00 PM »
Nope, I would say that your opinion is pretty widely shared. I would reckon that Irr Cv (S) are worth about the same as O. They  became clumsy because Phil reckons that Sassanid Asawaran didn't maneuver and just advanced in a block. All other S are just stuck because of that. The points value are certainly out of whack though.

9
Rules Questions / Re: recoiling
« on: February 02, 2013, 09:39:54 AM »
You shouldn't need to reverify every post, just on the first couple. I had to get a bit more stringent because we started to get some spam on here.

The -1 is for anyone preventing a recoil starting, not just enemy. And it must be on a rear edge, or on a rear corner only. Being in contact with the side edge and rear corner doesn't count.

Its down to Phil's rather imperfect understanding of geometry. He doesn't regard a corner as being part of the edges it connects. Euclid would be turning in his grave.

10
Rules Questions / Re: (F)-Troops routing
« on: January 30, 2013, 01:30:12 PM »
The section on the extra 40 paces for F troops doesn't say it excludes Rout moves, it just doesn't list them there.

So a Flee move for Kn(F) is 240p. A rout move distance isn't specified.

Later on it says that a Rout move is twice a flee move, so it's 480 paces.

I don't see a contradiction, unless you are trying to find one hard and are willing to read the first list as being exclusive.

It would be an idea in the next version to add it in to the list for completeness though, I agree.

The contrary example is a pursuit move. That also isn't in the list, and is defined elsewhere as being between at least a base depth and no more than a base width. Because it isn't mentioned in the list, and isn't based on a move that is in the list, it doesn't get 40 paces added on.

Toby

11
Book 4 / Re: Book 4 errata
« on: November 11, 2011, 07:04:34 PM »
Wars of the Roses English: What are the year limits for the various options? I figure [Y] would be 1455-1482, [L] would be 1455-1471, [R3] would be 1483-1485, [T] would be 1485, and [YP] would be 1487. [H] is specified as 1489-1515.

But this still leaves gaps. What army would the Duke of Buckingham use for his 1484 revolt against Richard III, and what army does Henry VII use at Stoke in 1487?

The reason I ask is that I just checked a list for a comp which was labelled Lancastrian 1500. Technically there are no list benefits available, but it might affect a competition draw.

I think [T]udor covers Stoke as well, so is 1485-1488 effectively. Buckingham would I guess be [L], which I think should go all the way up to 1484. Its a list where Phil assumes a lot of knowledge (you have to know that you can't have a crowned Lancastrian king in 1483 for example). It should also cater for options that might have been, like a Lancastrian army in 1483, even if no battle took place that year. It also seems to completely ignore English armies in France.

12
Spanish / Re: Character set issues
« on: September 20, 2011, 10:04:57 PM »
OK - I think I have now updated the database to UTF8, so it should show Ñ and ñ now.

13
Spanish / Character set issues
« on: September 05, 2011, 08:56:16 AM »
Apologies for the problem with displaying Spanish letters - I'm looking into why they aren't displaying properly and will let you know when I have resolved it.

Toby

14
Rules Questions / Re: Threat Zone Question - how far exactly?
« on: July 24, 2011, 09:15:10 AM »
To amend this for DBMM v2 - elements exactly at 80 paces are now in the threat zone.

15
General Discussion / Re: Sticky threads
« on: June 20, 2011, 09:56:13 AM »
Stuck it for you...

Hope the competition goes well.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17