Messages

1

Rules Questions / Re: Naval and disembarking

« on: January 16, 2022, 07:14:38 AM »

As I have two armies with significant numbers of naval elements, I have had similar ponderings.

In relation to generals, I think the question is one of command difficulty (p.27). If a general is on a naval vessel, is he 'on the battlefield'? I would say that he is. Even though his element is not on the table, his troops know where he is and can see his vessel. (Indeed, I have to have something that clearly identifies my general's vessel so that I know which one he is on!) For sure, the men on his vessel will know that he is with them.

Following from that, answering 'yes' to both questions 1 and 2 seems reasonable, especially 2.

I am not entirely sure that I understand question 3. Whether a naval element is regular or irregular is determined by the vessel's type, not how it's crew moves on land. A naval and its embarked element do not a group make, so I suspect this is a non-issue. (As an aside, some crews might be particularly adept at sailing but then poor at soldiering to the point that they only become available at all when the naval has already been taken, typically marines.)

The example of marines, while not proof, reinforces why the answers to questions 4 and 5 are 'no'. I don't know of a list that allows marines to be taken without the naval they crew. In some lists, the only troops that can go on the naval are marines - they must go together.

Finally, consider the parallel of mounted infantry and their mounts: would anybody allow mounted infantry to move on their mounts and then dismount and move again and not call that marching? Or anything mounted - for example, Kn move and dismount as BdS, then the BdS move. Was the BdS element part of the Kn move?

Anthony

2

Rules Questions / Re: Naval and disembarking

« on: January 11, 2022, 11:24:37 AM »

If a land element is on a naval element and the naval element moves, the land element is part of that move (it does not get left behind).

Without its land element embarked, a naval element cannot move, so although the rules do not say, the men from the land element are clearly needed/responsible for moving the naval element.

Consequently, the only way to move a naval element and then its land element in the same bound is by marching, i.e. the point of disembarkation must be further than 400 paces from all known enemy.

Anthony

3

Rules Questions / Re: Combat in Rivers

« on: December 20, 2021, 02:44:10 PM »

The meaning of 'overlapped' is explained in detail on p.35. The -1 bullet on p.37 is for when the conditions on p.35 are met. To apply that -1 without consideration of p.35 would mean allowing overlapping Art (for example) to inflict that -1. 

The rule you cite is there to clarify what happens if you are in combat on your front edge and another edge (i.e. you fight only what is in front, with a negative modifier).

Other way around. The rule (on p.35) clarifies what happens to your enemy when you are on his flank or rear - he suffers a -1 only if you are also on his front as in "an enemy element which is fighting to its front". An enemy element which is not fighting to its front does not suffer the -1 for you being on a flank.

I agree that this situation rarely comes up, but it is worth noting for combat with Expendables (in particular) and War Wagons (S) and (X).

Anthony

4

Rules Questions / Re: Combat in Rivers

« on: December 15, 2021, 07:31:42 AM »

I understand where Barritus is coming from on the point that the rules providing for specific cases can't be applied in other cases, although I'd prefer to say "don't try and apply rules out of context."

In this specific case, I would make the following observations:
   The river is not impassable, so the Lh can enter it.
   They are not trying to cross the river (a movement rule), but are being forced into it as a consequence of lining up (a close combat rule).
   They are not fighting Boats. (The 'no recoil against boats' gives boats a specific advantage against waders in the middle of a river. There is nothing to stop troops on the edge of a river recoiling into it or pursuing out of it. Again, the 45-135 degree thing does not apply because they are not trying to cross - they are subject to a combat outcome.)

Consequently, I would have the Lh line up and suffer a minus for being in rough or difficult going.

On the point about -1 for flank edge contact, Neil is correct and Lawrence is not. The -1 to enemy gives friends to the front a greater chance of winning the combat (2 elements attacking 1). If you are only on the flank of an enemy and that enemy does not turn, you do not still inflict the -1 (being now 1 to 1). In other words, you do not have a greater chance of winning the combat by being just on the flank, but if you do win, that win can become a quick kill, so there is still an advantage to a flank-only attack.

Anthony

5

Rules Questions / Re: Irregular Clumsiness

« on: June 07, 2021, 05:53:27 AM »

Yes and yes.

When the lead element wheels, this costs an extra PIP.

When other elements in column behind it wheel, the cost has already been paid.

So you are correct.

Note this cost is per move, so if the lead element wheels twice in one move (for example, left then right to effectively shift the column over), the extra PIP is only paid once.

If the lead element wheels twice in separate moves (for example, when marching), the extra PIP is paid twice - once in each move.

Anthony

6

Rules Questions / Re: The DBMM Commentary

« on: January 16, 2021, 05:02:32 PM »

https://groups.io/g/DBMMlist/files

The most recent version (v7) is dated 8 January 2018.

7

Rules Questions / Re: Ally General Sub-List

« on: January 10, 2021, 12:24:12 PM »

You are correct.

Essentially, a main list ally is of the same nation as the C-in-C and draws troops from the main list, while a sub-list ally is of a different nation and draws troops from the sub-list.

A main list ally must have at least 1/4 the minimum of all compulsory troops in his command, so the Gallic ally must have at least 1x Cv, 10x Wb and 1x PsI. He can also have more than the 1/3 limit of maximums that applies to foreign allies, and non-compulsory troops not available to foreign allies.   

A sub-list ally usually has different minimums and (generally) cannot have main list troops. Thus, the Paphlagonian ally only has to take 4x AxO (which is less than 1/4 of the 30 minimum in the main list), and the Paphlagonian AxO do not count towards that 30 (they are not Bithynians). The Paphlagonian also cannot have Kn, Ps or AxS otherwise available to main-list Bithynian generals.

Anthony

8

Book 2 / Re: Ancient Spanish- rubbish or simply misunderstood?

« on: January 03, 2021, 06:28:50 AM »

No sub-list has another sub-list as a possible ally, so Iberians cannot have Celtibarian allies, etc.

Follow Sertorius' example.

Comparing the Ancient Spanish aggression against that of historical opponents means they will usually be defending. Then the list has lots of terrain to hide in and lots of terrain troops, so I would try and get terrain across the table and sit in or behind it and wait for the enemy to come to me, aiming to attack them when they are in the terrain or coming through gaps.

Consequently, I'd also have Ambush and/or Concealed Command. I might even sit right back and have a Delayed Command if the table is quite open. (Mixing these tactics will also keep a regular opponent guessing.)

Also, if the plan is to sit back and wait for the enemy, an unreliable ally becomes less of an issue.

As to which sub-list to take, my personal preference would be AxS with all the BdF mercenaries, but PsS two deep also has advantages. The Ps can advance in line through terrain (and the BdF can also go impetuously through terrain).

Finally, I would use Cv in packets of two as march blockers rather than as offensive troops.

Anthony

9

General Discussion / Re: Irregular Bd (I) or Irregular Ax (S)?

« on: October 08, 2020, 06:22:04 AM »

I'd be thinking along the lines that Bd and Wb quick kill each other in their respective bounds, so the Bd being I generally doesn't matter much - getting the first hit becomes very important and the fight is over quickly.

Ax and Wb don't quick kill each other, so I would expect the fight to be more drawn out.

Also, Ax move more freely, but irreg Bd require two PIPs for anything other than straight ahead. There again, if upgraded to reg, it's easier to get out of the way or stop short or hard flank a Wb column and kill two at a time.

Consequently, I would do some tests/simulations first, then decide which I liked most and base accordingly.

Anthony

10

General Discussion / Re: Help with Seleucid list interpretation

« on: October 08, 2020, 05:56:21 AM »

Where in SE Asia are you? If in Thailand, Chris at Battlefield Bangkok can put you in touch with the local DBMM players.

Anthony

11

General Discussion / Re: Help interpreting lists

« on: October 03, 2020, 04:48:40 AM »

1. The use of replace and, later, regrade shows that one particular troop type is increasingly changing for another. So, after replacing 2-6 Kn with Cv then regrading half the remaining Kn with more Cv, you will end up with at least half+2 of the Kn as Cv.  Initially, the Anglo-Irish can have a maximum of 15 Kn (inc 3 gens), which becomes 13 +2 Cv (minimum), which becomes 6 + 8 or 9 Cv. In other words, to take 6 Kn at the later date, you must take at least 8 Cv (generals may be either and count towards the respective totals).

2. BgS are additional *as its army list permits*, so the rules are saying one must follow the conditions of the army list to get BgS.

Thus, in the Arab Conquest list, if you take the Prophet's black tent, that is over and above the 2 Bg per command. Note, it must be command baggage as it is a general. As a general, it counts as 4ME (not 3 or 7!), so there is no ME benefit for being BgS. However, as BgS, it adds in combat to adjacent elements.

If you take the women later, that is *not* over and above the normal allowance, so you will lose one BgO/F (and the command losing that baggage will get the 3ME from the women instead of the normal 1ME for the baggage replaced). However, the women must go in the army baggage command.

Lists often dictate where BgS can be. The women in the Arab Conquest list must go in the army baggage command as noted above. In the Zanj list, they must be command baggage. If the list does not stipulate, then you have a choice.

Anthony

12

Competitions / Re: Commentaries

« on: September 07, 2020, 05:38:39 AM »

https://groups.io/g/DBMMlist/files

You may have to join the DBMM io group. It's a forum just like this.

Anthony

13

Rules Questions / Re: Artillery shooting from a PF tower

« on: September 06, 2020, 06:29:29 PM »

Peter,

I have asked much the same thing.

Please see this thread at https://groups.io/g/DBMMlist.

https://groups.io/g/DBMMlist/topic/68758162#521

If you join that group and search for 'buaf on a hill' you will find a discussion of your point.

I think the consensus is that towers have blind spots whether this was intended or not. There are also some comments on if and how Art can pivot in a tower.

Personally, I think Art should not have a 360 arc of fire. I think it is already generous to allow fire in four directions when it is facing only one. However, I think it would be reasonable to allow it to *rotate* in a tower (for 2 or 3 PIPs) to shoot at something approaching at 45. At present within the rules, it is only possible to pivot forward, effectively preventing movement within most towers.

In short, I believe you have the rules right.

Anthony

14

Competitions / Re: Commentaries

« on: September 02, 2020, 02:45:08 PM »

DBMM (Ancient Wargames Rules) Facebook page in the 'Files' section.

15

Rules Questions / Re: Some thoughts on Inert generals

« on: August 31, 2020, 03:21:45 PM »

Impetuous (or not) is a characteristic of the troops rather than their commander, so changing that characteristic because of the commander doesn't seem to fit. I'd rather consider what the general can do/not do as a consequence of his characteristic. For example, rash cannot use PIPs to hold impetuous troops; cautious can hold impetuous troops for one PIP less.

However, Rameses II doesn't have impetuous troops to hold. Maybe a rash regular general should be called incompetent instead and lose the ability to allocate PIPs?

As for Calgalus, were his Caledonians not on a hill? That would make them easier to hold in the game and give Calgalus the appearance of being inert.

Overall, I like the idea of more characteristics for generals. Maybe there should be half a dozen different types/grades. It's also not necessary for a characteristic to have an AP cost/addition.

Anthony