Slitherine

Bruce,

Go for it but with a - POA for 2nd melee round for mounted vs steady and see what you get. Your analyses are always useful Unless you have another great idea this is where the rationale you have would lead to in my view - ground we went over ourselves a while ago and thereby concluded there was no point and better in practice to force a break off but perhaps you will see something we did not.

We felt that giving the option this way was a bit pointless as its an option you would not want to take so we took the decision for you.

Also note that the above mechanism requires memory and one of the principles we have followed is to try to resist having any of this in the rules - even if relatively obvious ones.

Thanks for the help

Si

Hi Simon,

One way to keep me quiet is to keep me busy.

Because breaking off should happen, the sensible solution would be to look at the PoAs and as Richard points out that would be quite a scary prospect so close to release. I think we have to leave it. Maybe something for release 2?

Cheers,

Bruce.

I think it is best..... you can sleep at night comfortable at least that we did think about the POA- solution. In a way that plus an option to stay in is more "realistic" but it just seemed redundant in practice.

We'll keep it on the list of possibles, but to me it is a bit like doing small push backs - lots of effort for very little practical payback in game terms given the size of battle we are simulating.

Course you could always go for and all foot army for Britcon so you don't face the dilemma. Hoplites don't break off.

Si

<Shudder> A foot army! I think not! I don't think I've ever played a foot army in a singles competition. Lithuanian is the closest I've come I think. Gauls don't count as I had 27 cavalry elements in it. Just not my style!

Having said that, I've been playing Alexandrian Macedonian in FoG recently and I quite like it. But Don took it to Rollcall and I am looking for something brand new for BritCon.

bddbrown wrote:Having said that, I've been playing Alexandrian Macedonian in FoG recently and I quite like it. But Don took it to Rollcall and I am looking for something brand new for BritCon.

Try this:

Jewish Revolt

IC
3 x TC
5 x 8 Zealot Warriors MF, Superior, Undrilled, Protected, Impact Foot, Swordsmen
2 x 8 Zealot archers LF, Superior, Undrilled, Unprotected, Bow
1 x 8 Zealot slingers LF, Superior, Undrilled, Unprotected, Sling
1 x 6 Other archers LF, Average, Undrilled, Unprotected, Bow
1 x 8 Other archers LF, Average, Undrilled, Unprotected, Bow
3 x 8 Other rebels MF, Poor, Undrilled, Unprotected, Light Spear

799 points. 13 BGs.

In the words of John McRoe - "You cannot be serious!".

Besides where are the mounted?

bddbrown wrote:In the words of John McRoe - "You cannot be serious!".

Besides where are the mounted?

No mounted is a bonus: No need to worry about issues with breaking off.

Besides where are the mounted?

Can't you mount your generals on horses?

Don

donm wrote:

Besides where are the mounted?

Can't you mount your generals on horses?

Don

Not in that list, no.

Can't you mount your generals on horses?

Don



Not in that list, no.

What, no Josephus?

Where's the fun in that?

daveallen wrote:

Can't you mount your generals on horses?

Don



Not in that list, no.

What, no Josephus?

We had thought of him, but even in the DBM list he doesn't get a horse. Have you reason to think he should have one?

I like the idea of the mounted break-off and accept the logic: mounted troops rely on speed and shock. If they're in combat and the opposing infantry remain steady (no matter how favourable the theoretical odds are to the cavalry) then the natural instinct of the mounted would be to fall back because the charge has failed to disrupt the foot. On the other hand, if the foot started to waiver (no matter how unfavourable the theoretical odds are to the cavalry) they would tend to press on and try to force they way into the foot's formation.

I also think that, on occassions, something like this happened with foot vs foot combats when both sides manage to retained their cohesion and determination. However, how to represent this is a problem which probably isn't worth the effort. The battlefield behaviour of foot vs foot seems less consistent than the mtd vs foot behaviour being modelled, where there are numberous examples of mounted rallying back if they initially fail to disrupt foot.

Neil

What, no Josephus?



We had thought of him, but even in the DBM list he doesn't get a horse. Have you reason to think he should have one?

Sorry, the earlier part of the quote was missing

Besides where are the mounted?

In DBM Josephus gets some Cv(I) but I feel sure he would have had his own horse if he'd fought a field battle - a very fast one

daveallen wrote:In DBM Josephus gets some Cv(I) but I feel sure he would have had his own horse if he'd fought a field battle - a very fast one

I think he might be too busy begging for mercy to ride.

Having said that, I've been playing Alexandrian Macedonian in FoG recently and I quite like it. But Don took it to Rollcall and I am looking for something brand new for BritCon.

You can borrow my hissites if you like - they really don't break off and much more fun than you think

Si

Hi Simon,

Thanks but no thanks.

Cheers,

Bruce.

On the topic of using ambush markers for flank marches, any thoughts on whether we could try this out at BritCon or not?

bddbrown wrote:On the topic of using ambush markers for flank marches, any thoughts on whether we could try this out at BritCon or not?

As things stand, not. Please stick to the officially amended version of the rules for Britcon.

Of course, if we officially make that amendment beforehand....

Of course. My comment was really intended to spur on some debate on the matter and see if we could get it into the ammendments for BritCon. It seems like a perfect opportunity to try it out without any real risks.