Author Topic: Irregular armies  (Read 5489 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

bunwin63

  • Guest
Irregular armies
« on: March 16, 2007, 02:56:57 AM »
Are 2 command irregular armies any less viable now than under DBM?
I have an Arab Conquest army which I've run (in 2 whole games) relatively satisfactorily with 2 commands under 3.1. Is there anything with DBMM which would make you say FOR GOD'S SAKE MAN DON'T DO IT!!!!!!
Bryan

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: Irregular armies
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2007, 03:22:16 AM »
The main change is probably to do with lists rather than rules. Arab Conquest infantry seem destined to be classified as Irr Bd (I) rather than Wb (S). I don't know the reason for it, but I suspect it's to do with better knowledge of how they fought and the fact that the Battle of Yarmuk (against a Maurikian Byzantine army with a lot of Bd (I)) took all day to win.

As to whether that would affect your army, I don't know. Nothing has changed in how you assign PIP dice to irregular armies, and you can make Irr Bd (I) advance in a straight line as well as you can make Irr Wb (S) do so. However, where Wb (S) will spontaneously enter combat and fill gaps in the line, you'll have to pay PIPs to make the Bd (I) do this. On the up-side, the Bd have a higher combat factor, and about as many quick kill opportunities as the Wb.

If you used Khalid as a brilliant general, you could probably get away with two commands. He gives you the chance to double his PIPs in vital turns (such as when you want to get a line of Bd into contact who've been broken up by bowfire).

toby

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Irregular armies
« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2007, 09:03:58 AM »
The Bd(I) will be more resilient but the Wb(S) will be more efficient killing machines - they get a few more quick kills and they kill two deep, which the Bd(I) don't. Wb(S) can be pretty brittle in the enemy bound though - no rear rank and probably no S factor.

PIP starvation will be your main problem though, and problems if the enemy aren't deployed right in front of you.

That said, the opinion on TNE seems to be that Phil will insist on a Wb(S) option for Arab Conquest even though all the historical evidence points to them being Bd(I) or Bd(O).

DaveMather

  • Bd(O)
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
    • View Profile
Re: Irregular armies
« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2007, 05:22:36 PM »
Never been convinced about the merit of doing it in DBM 3.1 (danger is opponent just throws his whole army at the biggest command) but if you are comfortable doing it in dbm 3.1 then in DBMM as others have commented there are certainly no additional reasons not to do - In fact Army baggage may even give you enough of a boost such that you can survive for a smidgeon longer the loss of the larger command (if there is not much difference in the two of them in size).

Regards


David Mather



bunwin63

  • Guest
Re: Irregular armies
« Reply #4 on: March 16, 2007, 09:28:49 PM »
thanks guys. What's the deal with army lists, do we keep using DBM v2 lists until each is made obsolete by DBMM lists as they are published?
Bryan

DaveMather

  • Bd(O)
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
    • View Profile
Re: Irregular armies
« Reply #5 on: March 16, 2007, 11:43:14 PM »
Yep !

Hopefully the books will be finished by the end of this year (that's certainly Phil's stated aim) Book 3 first then Book 2 (based on comments on the DBMMlist site)

between then and now its a case of use the original books with the appendix in the rules and keep a very careful eye on whats happening on TNE http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Tabulae_Novae_Exercituum/ and the associated wiki site http://tabulaenovaeexercituum.pbwiki.com/- where the work has already started on Book 3 (although how much  Phil utiiises this will remain to be seen -at the end of the day he will have the final say)

Regards


David Mather