Slitherine

hi tim,

i like ur report and was examining ur battle against "priapic ostrogoth" at Britcon. Ur opponent putted a river and a road on the same side. The river was touching the side edge. Why did he do that? i Guess he wanted to avoid other terrains so he can have a clear path for his flank attack. So why didn't he put the river as far inside as possible?

your sincerelly

domblas wrote:hi tim,

i like ur report and was examining ur battle against "priapic ostrogoth" at Britcon. Ur opponent putted a river and a road on the same side. The river was touching the side edge. Why did he do that? i Guess he wanted to avoid other terrains so he can have a clear path for his flank attack. So why didn't he put the river as far inside as possible?

your sincerelly

You are right in that the river is used to clear away other terrain - but because you are doing this because you actually want a wide, open table it makes sense to put the river as close to the table edge as possible, as then it only reduces the width of the table by 3-4 inches.

Dear Mr M Axeman

I found the reports from your games interesting and educational. However, in the report for your first battle you state

'Well, there is a limit to how many MaA anyone can own isn't there?'

Are you suggesting that there is indeed a limit to how many toy soldiers that a person can own? Sorry, this is a wierd concept that I had never beofre considered, whats that all about then?

durrati wrote:Are you suggesting that there is indeed a limit to how many toy soldiers that a person can own? Sorry, this is a wierd concept that I had never beofre considered, whats that all about then?

Wives.

MikeK wrote:

durrati wrote:Are you suggesting that there is indeed a limit to how many toy soldiers that a person can own? Sorry, this is a wierd concept that I had never beofre considered, whats that all about then?

Wives.

Personally, I am of the opinion that one should confine one's self to a single wife.

Presumably one's own wife ?

LambertSimnel wrote: Personally, I am of the opinion that one should confine one's self to a single wife.

And a few girlfriends

philqw78 wrote:

LambertSimnel wrote: Personally, I am of the opinion that one should confine one's self to a single wife.

And a few girlfriends

Personally I think the wife concept is overrated. Just the girlfriends should do fine.

Are you suggesting that there is indeed a limit to how many toy soldiers that a person can own? Sorry, this is a wierd concept that I had never beofre considered, whats that all about then?

Whilst there may be no overall limit to how many you can own, there can be a point beyond which you may not be willing to paint a particular type if something more interesting comes along.

That is equally applicable to the ladies in my life !!

Hi Tim,

Nice AAR again but I as the owner of a Free Company Army in my opinion you can never own enough Men at Arms. Of course you may not use them all in a single game but they are handy just in case it is a bit like a Roman army with only the absolute minimum number of legionnaires.

Hannibal was so uncomplimentary about your army list make up - so what would he have picked?


Keith

BlackPrince wrote:Hi Tim,

Nice AAR again but I as the owner of a Free Company Army in my opinion you can never own enough Men at Arms. Of course you may not use them all in a single game but they are handy just in case it is a bit like a Roman army with only the absolute minimum number of legionnaires.

Hannibal was so uncomplimentary about your army list make up - so what would he have picked?


Keith

The list does look like an infantry shock army with decent mounted support and very good missile support. Is this a fair assessment?

BlackPrince wrote:Hi Tim,

Nice AAR again but I as the owner of a Free Company Army in my opinion you can never own enough Men at Arms. Of course you may not use them all in a single game but they are handy just in case it is a bit like a Roman army with only the absolute minimum number of legionnaires.

Hannibal was so uncomplimentary about your army list make up - so what would he have picked?

Keith

Better organisation and planning and a more charismatic leadership style capable of appealing to a range of allies and mercenaries would probably have allowed him to field around 1,100 points, and almost certainly to have included some elephants

More seriously though, more longbows, less crossbows, downgrade some (not all) of the MAA to armoured, and squeeze in a few more tiny units of LF to boost the army size up beyond 12.

Hi Tim,

I would and do myself max out the longbows I have been toying with the idea of make one of my Men at arms unit a six base unit and heavily armoured, at moment I use them as armoured and in fours.
From your competition experience is an army seriously disadvantaged if if it only has 10 to 12 BGs?

Keith

BlackPrince wrote: From your competition experience is an army seriously disadvantaged if if it only has 10 to 12 BGs?

Keith

Only if it has Tim in charge

Anyway where are the Warfare reports?

nikgaukroger wrote:Anyway where are the Warfare reports?

2 mostly done, 2 still to do.

I might post the first two anyway as a work in progress and update the photos with captions later ?

Please do Tim.

madaxeman wrote: I might post the first two anyway as a work in progress and update the photos with captions later ?

Why don't you let us add captions? I'm sure your super technology wicki could allow that. And at least we would not have to hear about how the elite, drilled, very expensive, overpriced, outstandingly brilliant, too slow, why do they have to be skilled swordsmen, this shouldn't be allowed its against nature, legionaries let the light horse get away again.