When the Hellenes were not only right across, but had got about a mile from the ravine, Mithridates also crossed with his forces. An order had been passed down the lines, what light infantry and what heavy infantry were to take part in the pursuit; and the cavalry were instructed to follow up the p...

Well, evidence of some kind would be preferable to pure speculation... Come on guys, surely this is based on something more than the unsupported 'common sense' notion that battlefield cavalry 'must' always catch infantry... If there is some actual evidence to support the idea that in this instance ...

It's certainly no odds to me but if I required a video of a wargame to understand the rules then I'd probably think they weren't really the rules for me...

I think there was a thread on this question some time ago. The conclusion was that the general in the front rank of the scythed chariots represents him urging the chariot drivers to hold on just a little bit longer before jumping off in to aim their chariots that much better. Seems reasonable enoug...

How much training do you think it takes to hammer a stake into the ground? Well there'd probably be a 'Health & Safety' certificate to pass first on handling the hammer. There might also be considerable dispute over skilled 'hammerers' having to perfom the duties of semi-skilled 'stakeholders' ...

I'd be happy for you to do it...as soon as you showed me an historical precedent.

I think it's useful to look at this situation from the Indian player's side. Having got two units in position on a single enemy, with one of them on the enemies flank, just what are you meant to do next? How do you spring the trap you have laid? My answer would be that your unit to the front should...

"so, and the obvious question... why do the late imperial romans get *18* elements of elite? " I think the choice of 18 may be meant to reflect a particular veteran legion. From the ground scale offered in appendix 1 (1 base = approximately 250 men) the 18 bases would represent around 4500...

I think I've already stated (possibly several times) that I believe a more realistic solution would be to allow the Companions to step forward to contact, in the same way as they would be allowed to do if the Indian cavalry (on the flank) had carried out a blocking intercept charge. In that way the ...

However, what strikes me is that this sort of thing could well become the sort of maneuver that 'ruthless' veterans pull on unsuspecting novices. On the one hand you can justify it as the sort of 'tough love' that such people need while they learn the ropes. On the other it could easily become the ...

Everyone who played DBM surely remembers leaving a base at an angle behind another base and recoiling to just touch it thue preventing the recoil and both elements being destroyed as a result. The angled element blocking a recoil is a game mechanism much like the intercept charge. I'm sorry but I d...

But as Simon has said the Indians wouldn't have been there had the rules allowed stepping forward,he moved to them Which is one of the main threads of the argument. By allowing or actively encouraging such a tactic I feel the rules are creating a 'credibility' problem. If the Indians had been force...

As a couple of new posts have been made I just thought I would reply. Regarding the tactical wisdom of allowing the Companions to stray into this position, I am not going to say anything other than that which both Dave (the original poster) and I have maintained throughout - neither of us have reque...

As camps cannot be garrisoned and only need to be contacted by enemy forces to be looted (needing a dice throw for fortified camps) why can't they simply be represented as an area on the rear edge of the table?

If you need to rely on such a change to win a game you are probably "missing the wood for the trees" as they say. Si From my own point of view I think the Companions were pretty much doomed in that situation come what may (as I stated in an earlier posting), so I certainly haven't been ar...

That said. My personal view is that: 1. Broken down movement is an exercise in false accuracy as alternate bounds themselves are an abstraction that conflicts with this concept. To me it only applies in simultanous movement rules - which are hard work to play, and we therefore avoided. 2. I am for ...

Wrong is a bit black and white - there seem to be several alternative ways to intepret the situation and what is really happening as others have put forward. Si I think that is one of the strengths or weaknesses (depends on your viewpoint!) of rules that have a high degree of abstraction, such as D...

BrianC wrote:Its on page 64, 2nd bullet in the top left.

Thanks for clearing that up. I read to P63 but thought the section had ended at the 'Tip' box so failed to turn the page...just can't get the staff these days!

Another thread raised here has made me look at Interception charges more closely. I admit that when reading through the rules I didn't pay that much attention to them. The question I have is simply, 'Can interception charges be themselves intercepted?'

...The interception ranges are quite short, and seem to reasonably limit the number of units one needs to worry about when contemplating a charge. Mark S I agree there isn't a problem with the distance of the actual interception 'zone' but if this is combined with the distance a unit can move to po...