Double depth elements

[list_lurker]

<hopeful>

As i sit here looking at the Gallic list and my gallic army it occurs to me that I have far too much infantry and its all double based. What is the possibility of allowing HI to have a depth of 15mm or 30mm (ie counting as a single base in both cases)? You'd have suitably thick looking warband, and I could use all my figures ! without having a rebase /dremmel nightmare!

What are the problems ... turning 90 - now being 60mm deep and turning 2 wide rather than 1!! deeper flanks for someone else to charge? Can't really think of any positive (gamewise) issues


Simon

</hopeful>

[rbodleyscott]

I can't see us changing the rules thus, but as you say base depths are not critical and I doubt if many would object if you used them thus. Just how many DBM elements of Gallic foot do you have?

[list_lurker]

Well, I've got 100 odd - which seemed to be about right for DBM. But all the lists I do less than half of them ...

On the plus side the soldurii are dynamite now!

[list_lurker]

Just to keep up the momentum for my proposition ... is there anyone who doesn't think that 2 double depth elements looks better on the table top ?

[rbodleyscott]

Well, I've got 100 odd - which seemed to be about right for DBM. But all the lists I do less than half of them ...

How about at 1000 points?

[list_lurker]

They'd just be a big blob of butter for the legionaries to carve through before the flanks collapse!

[lawrenceg]

<hopeful>

As i sit here looking at the Gallic list and my gallic army it occurs to me that I have far too much infantry and its all double based. What is the possibility of allowing HI to have a depth of 15mm or 30mm (ie counting as a single base in both cases)? You'd have suitably thick looking warband, and I could use all my figures ! without having a rebase /dremmel nightmare!

What are the problems ... turning 90 - now being 60mm deep and turning 2 wide rather than 1!! deeper flanks for someone else to charge? Can't really think of any positive (gamewise) issues


Simon

</hopeful>

They would be able to step forward further. I don't think this is a huge issue.

I have wondered about my DBM Knight wedges. When I did use them, I treated them a normal 30 mm deep bases and pretended the second rank wasn't there. If I treated them as 60 mm deep, then they would be able to step forward an extra 20 mm. It would probably have some strange effects when turning 90 as well.

[list_lurker]

it would be nice to have explicit flexibility in the rules - but I think it'll fall on deaf ears

[shall]

Npo issue using DBE in the game- played as if 2 single bases.

Yes you need a few less warband as they ar not so bubbish in FOG - I can muster a 3500Pt Ancient British army now - any takers!!

Si

[list_lurker]

Npo issue using DBE in the game- played as if 2 single bases.

until it comes to casuality removal - are we going to see more markers?... what about those little hoops as seen in wargames books in the 80's?

[shall]

No need really - if uyou lose a base turn a double base backwards. Or just do a few single bases = you only need 1 per BG so split about 5 DBEs and you are there.

Si

[list_lurker]

if uyou lose a base turn a double base backwards

I think I prefer markers!!

Or just do a few single bases = you only need 1 per BG so split about 5 DBEs and you are there

The problem with this is if you field BGs > 2 elements deep ( to reduce % of 1/3 CTMs) . Assuming you remove casuality equally across the BG you will need 2 or maybe 3 per BG.

[shall]

Ah yes it does make even depth a necessity but this isn't that big a penalty in practice. 12 bases 4 deep is a good formation anyway

Si