Slitherine

We need one of this, besides the First Battles.

This morning we played our second game. 800 points again, Francisco with a Thematic Byzantine and myself with a Lombard. We wished for a historical match and to try to use Cavalry.

The Byzantines had a small elite cataphract BG, two first class mixed cavalry (superior lance/bow), one of Koursors (superior bow cavalry), one of bow Light Horse, a small BG of foot archers, two BGs of skutatois (defensive spears with supporting bows) and two BGs of light foot.

The Lombards had three BGs of superior lance cavalry, two of average lancers, a small light horse BG, two of foot archers and two Italian Militias (poor defensive spearmen).

The terrain was all on the byzantine side of the board, a hill, brush and two broken areas, spread through the area.

The Lombards attack and have the initiative, choosing a flank march (led this time by a FG, to make sure they arrive) of the Light Horse and one of the average cavalries.

The Byzantines keep a light horse in the far Left flank, a Skutatoi anchored in terrain in the Left, the Light Foot in terrain (ambushing the hill and openly in Brush), another group of Sutatoi and one of first class cavalry in the center, the foot archers to seize one of the broken grounds, and in the Right wing, Koursors, the cataphracts and the other First class BG.

On the Left flank, as the most open area (seen as well by the strong Byzantine right wing), besides the flank march the Lombards deploy three cavalry BGs, one armoured and one protected, with another armoured cavalry behind giving rear support. The archer unit is ready to contest the terrain to the smaller Byzantine archer BG. An armoured lancer BG covers the whole of the centre. Protecting the camp and the Right wing, the other archer BG and the two spearmen.

Both armies, after our previous battle, go for four generals, IG, FG, 2xTG.

The lack of terrain lets the Byzantines count units and confirm that there is a flank march, but they assume it is the other flank.

Turn 1. The cavalry battlelines make double moves forward. The Lombard infantry stays put, except for the Archers running for the broken terrain. One Skutatoi BG and the light Horse prepare for a flank arrival. The byzantine archers seize the broken ground. AP: Lombard: 0; Byzantine: 0

Turn 2. The flank march arrives (a bit too early for the Lombards), with the light horse marching towards the rear of the Byzantine cavalry wing, the Followers in a single line approaching the Koursors covering the flank, and the two battle lines getting closer. The two archer groups get close and fragment each other. With a bit of luck (in a terrible turn for the Lombards) the Koursors turn 90?? and fragment the flanking followers with fire. The Byzantine light horse marches to menace the flank of the central Lombard cavalry BG. Lombard: 2, Byzantine: 1

Turn 3. The Lombards charge the front of the Byzantine cavalry, while the followers are finally broken by the Koursors fire, and rout out of the board. The armoured cavalry manages to annihilate the cataphracts (lost with just one base), while the first class Byzantines fragment the other Followers BG, becoming disrupted in the process. The Lombard archers break the Byzantines, and rally. The other Lombard cavalry is menaced between the Skutatoi, the other 1st class cavalry and the approaching light horse. The Lombard foot marches forward in support but never will get there fast enough. Lombard: 3, Byzantine: 4

Turn 4. Trusting in the second armoured cavalry BG that was giving rear support, the armoured cavalry that had beaten the cataphracts charges the Koursors, while the Light Horse charges their rear. The other armoured cavalry charges the Skutatoi and with some luck fragments them. The Lombard archers control the Broken ground and causes even more casualties on the broken byzantine archers. The Lombard followers break, and their breaking disrupts both close Lombard cavalries. In pursuit the byzantines crash on the Lombard armoured cavalry. The Koursors weather the first round of melee in 2 directions, but fragment the second round. The victorious Byzantine cavalry breaks also the cavalry crashed on. Lombard: 6, Byzantine: 7

Turn 5. The cavalry fight ends in two pursuits, one in each direction, when the Byzantine Koursors break. The Byzantine skutatoi also break, and the pursuit pushes the Lombard cavalry away from the menacing Byzantine forces. A turn mostly devoted to routs and pursuits. Lombard: 6, Byzantine 8

Turn 6. The Byzantine cavalry pushes the two broken Lombard cavalries out of the board, despite two succesful rallies. The Lombards keep using the fleeing skutatoi to get closer to the Byzantine camp. The Lombard archers march to cover the rear of the cavalry, although the Byzantine cavalry risks their fire. The other Lombard cavalries, after some failed attempts to stop the pursuit, finally reform, leaving the autobroken Koursors to flee. Lombard: 6; Byzantine: 8

Turn 7. The Lombard archers first fragment and then break the Byzantine cavalry. The different maneuvers towards both camps and to protect them become pointless. Lombard: 6; Byzantine: 10

We found some mistakes we had kept from the other game, and in general it was much better. Pursued broken units, even if rallied, have no future but to break again. As usual the doubts and comments will be posted during the week.

Jos?©

Thanks Jose. Sounds like a good game. Give us your overall impressions and rule issues when you can. Thanks for getting another game in so promptly.

Si

I suspect my own lack of experience with DBM is an advantage. Francisco has some ingrained ideas (such as deploying Light Horse alone, when in AoW you need at least two BGs to be a menace or even an obstacle) that hamper him a bit.

Rules problems:

In the rear charge section, pg 36, the reference is (possibly a bad copy/paste) to flank charges when indicating immunity to automatic disruption. By the way, what happens if the unit charged is already disrupted or worse? We supposed that nothing, but as written a Rules Lawyer could say that a Fragmented BG was rallied to Disrupted...

We had many problems with the pursuit rules, or rather the lack of guidelines. Routs are easier, with the reference to the clear Evasion rules, but in pursuit we do not even know if it is done by individual bases or the BG as a whole (which changes a lot the formation changes possible for the pursuer). As well, what happens when the only base in contact is eliminated in the interbound, before the Rout resolutions (according to the sequence of play)? Is the pursuer in contact, so forced to take a CMT or pursue, or is it no longer in pursuit? Does the router require a VMR? And does the pursuer stop when it gets in contact, or if it has movement left can some bases move to additional contacts?

I said the Rout was clear, but there is an exception, when a unit breaks when engaged both to front and rear (which in some cases may mean there is no recognizable front and rear). We asumed the "It is moved directly to the battle group's rear" was to the rear of the group before engagement. However think about a broken unit routing, escaping contact, rallying (so the rear is towards the pursuer) , charged again, broken by the cohesion roll. According to the rules, it would rout towards its rear moving around the enemy unit (an impassable unit according to the evade rules), and getting itself back into the battle zone...

We also wondered if a unit fighting in two directions counted as having a menaced flank for cohesion purposes. The unit in combat cannot charge, so nominally no, but it did not feel right. We also worried about the wording "position to charge". Would a Fragmented enemy (therefore unable to charge, at least till rallied) give the penalty? And a unit that has range but due to a partially intervening enemy would not actually reach (due to being in a single line, for instance) the enemy unit.

Comments:

The extra cost for drilled cavalry, specially for melee cavalry, seems excessive compared to its usefulness.

The disappeareance of units reduced to 1 base makes 2 base melee BGs terribly unattractive. Sort of an expendable that causes attrition loss. Maybe an exception could be done for elite and superior units that normally would survive one base loss.

Catastrophic cohesion loss, depending on the modifiers and generals, happens roughly 1 time in 6 cohesion rolls. That makes the game a bit of a see-saw, and makes rerolls a must for units at risk. For roughly the same reason we use now always four generals with the TGs always fighting in the front rank, but IGs joining often as well. The casualty rolls are too low, in our opinion, not having lost any general yet. A dependence on the hits number (roll 14-hits suffered, for instance) would make it a bit riskier.

We see a tendency in our army design towards superior (or elite) attack units and average shooting and holding units. Even with a general, average units are severely disadvantaged against a superior units with the same POAs. An average unit in a normal melee (-1 modifier from HP3B) will catastrophically fail 17% and fail 42%, over a 50% total chance of loss. With a general it becomes 8% catastrophe and 33% failure. However a superior will catastrophically fail 6% (2% with general) and fail 37% (26% with a general). Once downslope in the cohesion race, things can only get worse.

So the arms race now is to engage average units without a general with your superior general led units, if the POAs allow for a 50% or more chance of victory.

Jos?©

Bump for the questions above, and the third battle report.

Third battle for me, first for Juan. As we had the armies in the club, we decide on a Kadesh analogue, New Kingdom Egyptian vs. Hitite Empire. Chariots galore and simple infantry.

Hitites:

1 FG, 2 TG, 1 Syrio Canaanite Allied TG. I wanted four generals but was short on points. Man are chariots expensive.

6 Heavy Chariot, Drilled, Superior, Light Spear
6 Light Chariots, Drilled, Superior, Light Spear
4 Heavy Chariots, Undrilled, Superior, Bow
6 Light Chariots, Undrilled, Superior, Bow (Canaanite allied contingent)
12 Mfoot, Unprotected, Drilled, Average, Defensive Spearmen
8 Lfoot, Protected, Drilled, Average, Javelins, Light Spear
12 Mfoot, Protected, Undrilled, Average, Impact foot, Swordsmen
12 Mfoot, Unprotected, Undrilled, Average, Defensive spearmen (Canaanite allied contingent)
8 Mfoot, Unprotected, Undrilled, Average, Bow (Canaanite allied contingent)

Egyptians:

1 IG, 1 FG, 2TG. Juan liked the IGs effect in the last game we played, although his army suffered in points.

3x6 Light Chariots, Drilled, Superior, Bow
2x8 Mfoot, Unprotected, Drilled, Average, Bow
2x8 Hfoot, Protected, Drilled, Average, Light Spear, Swordsmen
1x4, 1x6 Lfoot, Unprotected, Drilled, Average, Bow
6 Lfoot, Protected, Drilled, Average, Javelins, Light Spear

The Egyptians attack and choose a Developed area. The Village falls on the Egyptian right side rear (my left), the vineyard on the Hitite right side rear. The rest of the terrain is retired or inconsequential, except for a big lake closing most of the right side flank.

The inspired general wins the scouting roll for the Egyptians. However he does not profit from it to avoid unfair pairings in combat, mostly due to the huge space taken by the chariots.

From my left to right, the Hitites deploy the Light Chariots light spear, a block of spears three deep covered by the light foot javelineers, a block of 12 Impact foot, the heavy chariots with bow, the heavy chariots with light spear as center reserve, the Canaanite light chariots with bows, the Canaanite medium foot with bows, and in the extreme right, in a vineyard, covering the baggage the canaanite 12 spears.

Opposing them on the Egyptian side, the 6 Light foot javelineers hidden in the Village. Then, avoiding the side exposed flank distance a BG of light chariots, an archers BG, a close combat infantry BG, 2 BGs of light chariots, one behind the other opposing the heavy chariots, then the other archer BG, the second close combat infantry BG and the small Light foot BG to cover the infantry flank. Opposed to the big spearmen block was only a light foot bows group, but enough considering their lack of protection and defensive nature.

The Egyptians, aware of their worse melee modifiers intend to use missile fire to weaken the hitite attack, so both sides were quite eager to get close.

With the lack of terrain the approach was almost in whole lines, with some shifts and contractions/expansions trying to get the right opponent directly in front.

The first three turns were quite fast, with mostly lateral dancing. The hitite reserve heavy chariots managed to get a place in the battle line, leaving some bases in the second rank. The Canaanite allies were the only ones to hang back a little, tying one of the archers and close combat infantry groups.

When the lines got close enough, the javelineers withstood the fire of the other archer group (which was all I needed from them), the light chariots had to divide their fire between both heavy chariot groups, getting a couple of CTs but they passed.

Once the lines got within charge distance the hitites passed four CTs (light chariots, light foot, heavy chariots and the other light chariots) to charge with five BGs.

The advantage in four of them was with the Hitites (Heavy chariots vs Light Chariots, Impact foot against close combat foot, Light chariots/light spear vs Light chariots/bow) and only the Defensive Spearmen against the bows were disadvantaged (no advantages, more dice for the bows). There were a few superpositions of bases (the light chariots caught 1 base of bows, the spearmen one of close combat infantry, the heavy chariots one of the other bows. All of this slowed the combat quite a bit, but by marking the units with the damage they inflicted rather than what they suffered helped to keep track of draws, wins and losses. We used dominoes to mark cohesion losses. With three generals tied up in combat initially per side there was not much of a chance for rallies.

The Egyptian luck was quite bad, mostly by a 12 killing Ramses (the IG) and disrupting the reserve chariots. The Light chariots with Ramses remained steady but with a base loss and fighting two heavy chariots BGs things looked grim. There were few losses but most of the Egyptian line was disrupted. As expected the Hitite spearmen lost their combat, but weathered the CT.

In the following melee the Egyptian luck kept its bad streak and the TG with the other Light Chariots BG (extreme left) also died, helping break them. The base fighting the archers kept the Hitite chariots from an effective pursuit, but with the only unengaged general on the other side of the board their chances were few. The Egyptians weathered the turn with all the rest of the line disrupted, but now it was just a matter of time and increasing base losses.

The Egyptian turn saw a desperate charge by the Disrupted reserve light chariots (passing their CMT) to hope for a miracle and reducing overlaps, the archers getting more and more engaged in the melee with the heavy chariots (against their will) and the heavy foot slowly plodding forward against the Canaanite bow chariots.

The slow erosion of disrupted against steady increased and the turn ended with all the Egyptian light chariots broken, the heroic central ones through autobreak as they managed to pass all their CTs, as well as the Close combat infantry. Only the archers kept enough cohesion, but barely.

The Hitite bound fragmented both archer BGs to get a win, killing a third Egyptian general in what was a dreadful run of luck. To add insult to injury, just when the infantry got into position to charge the Canaanites they were disrupted through missile fire.

Lessons

A reserve is a good idea, even more so if it provides rear support, unless you would rather evade rather than stand and fight, as the Egyptian Light Chariots learnt against their will.

Large groups of light foot go well with unprotected medium foot against archers.

A slight advantage, with average luck, becomes a large advantage very quickly. A bad luck bound finished the Egyptians with only two Hitite bases lost, and not a single disruption. Some eleven Egyptian bases were directly lost in combat.

After using them in the previous games, IG is too expensive at 100 points.

General death would feel more right if the kill chance increased with hits. It was weird to see one survive a couple of 8 hit combats when another one died with the minimum two hits.

Light chariots seem too expensive, compared either to cavalry or to heavy chariots.

While usually close combat will be decided either by POA difference or by the number of dice, shooting is much more random as it relies on CTs to hurt the enemy, so do not be surprised if your shooting is ineffective.

Rules issues.

The battle was straightforward and we did not have much trouble.

The game took four hours, including taking out and putting away the armies, with the big combat bound taking almost one hour till all the factors and CTs were considered. Thirty minutes saw us deploy both terrain and units. The game was much more fun for me, though it felt a bit forced once it was clear that only a miracle would save the Egyptians.

Jos?©

Sorry about the slow reply. Simon (having the most time) is our main query answerer, but he is sunning himself in Spain this week. Perhaps you could call on him and ask him in person.

jre wrote:In the rear charge section, pg 36, the reference is (possibly a bad copy/paste) to flank charges when indicating immunity to automatic disruption. By the way, what happens if the unit charged is already disrupted or worse? We supposed that nothing, but as written a Rules Lawyer could say that a Fragmented BG was rallied to Disrupted...

Good points. The intention is that if it is steady it becomes disrupted, otherwise nothing happens.

We had many problems with the pursuit rules, or rather the lack of guidelines. Routs are easier, with the reference to the clear Evasion rules, but in pursuit we do not even know if it is done by individual bases or the BG as a whole (which changes a lot the formation changes possible for the pursuer).

Well that depends what you mean by "by individual bases". It would be by BG normally, except that (if I recall correctly, I don't have the rules to hand), if only some of the BGs opponents break they would pursue if they can do so while remaining in contact.

I suspect this needs further thought and tightening up by the team.

As well, what happens when the only base in contact is eliminated in the interbound, before the Rout resolutions (according to the sequence of play)?

According to the Removing Bases section in the glossary, you remove the furthest element from the pursuers. This seems odd but is to prevent the problem of automatically losing contact by removing the only base in contact.

And does the pursuer stop when it gets in contact, or if it has movement left can some bases move to additional contacts?

Further clarification required in the rules. We will work on it.

I said the Rout was clear, but there is an exception, when a unit breaks when engaged both to front and rear (which in some cases may mean there is no recognizable front and rear). We asumed the "It is moved directly to the battle group's rear" was to the rear of the group before engagement. However think about a broken unit routing, escaping contact, rallying (so the rear is towards the pursuer) , charged again, broken by the cohesion roll. According to the rules, it would rout towards its rear moving around the enemy unit (an impassable unit according to the evade rules), and getting itself back into the battle zone...

We need to sort this out too.

We also wondered if a unit fighting in two directions counted as having a menaced flank for cohesion purposes. The unit in combat cannot charge, so nominally no, but it did not feel right.

We decided that it should not count. The threat has become actual and will usually result in a lost combat and a CT, which is (in our opinion) enough penalty.

As a general matter of design philosophy, we are trying to avoid "double whammies" where the same adverse circumstance effectively gets counted twice.

We also worried about the wording "position to charge". Would a Fragmented enemy (therefore unable to charge, at least till rallied) give the penalty? And a unit that has range but due to a partially intervening enemy would not actually reach (due to being in a single line, for instance) the enemy unit.

I agree that this needs further clarification. I think in both these cases the flank should not count as threatened, but the wording needs tightening.

The extra cost for drilled cavalry, specially for melee cavalry, seems excessive compared to its usefulness.

It is only 1 point on a total cost of (in the usual case - armoured superior cavalry) 16 or 17. It is in fact surprisingly useful to be able to expand and contract more easily. Also if the cavalry are lancers, it increases their chance of passing CMTs not to charge/advance.

The disappeareance of units reduced to 1 base makes 2 base melee BGs terribly unattractive. Sort of an expendable that causes attrition loss. Maybe an exception could be done for elite and superior units that normally would survive one base loss.

We want elephants, artillery etc to be brittle. You could make a case for an exception in the case of elite/superiors. Will put it to the team. It would not be complicated - we could just take out the rule that makes you remove a BG reduced to one element. The Average ones would be auto-routed anyway.

Catastrophic cohesion loss, depending on the modifiers and generals, happens roughly 1 time in 6 cohesion rolls. That makes the game a bit of a see-saw, and makes rerolls a must for units at risk. For roughly the same reason we use now always four generals with the TGs always fighting in the front rank, but IGs joining often as well. The casualty rolls are too low, in our opinion, not having lost any general yet. A dependence on the hits number (roll 14-hits suffered, for instance) would make it a bit riskier.

Our latest update (not yet released to beta testers) only allows double drops in close combat if the BG suffered at least 2 more hits than it inflicted, and we are probably going to drop the score to double drop to 2. Of course there are no double drops from shooting either. We intend to allow double drops from seeing routs/generals routing, but they are extemely unlikely to happen to stady BGs as there are usually no negative modifiers, especially if the score to double drop is reduced to 2.

We see a tendency in our army design towards superior (or elite) attack units and average shooting and holding units.

That sounds rather historical.

After using them in the previous games, IG is too expensive at 100 points.

We have the points system under review. At some point Simon is going to poll all the beta testers re the points system.

General death would feel more right if the kill chance increased with hits. It was weird to see one survive a couple of 8 hit combats when another one died with the minimum two hits.

Logical perhaps, but loss of generals seems a chancy business in historical accounts, and could often occur when winning. Hence we decided to make it a fairly random risk. We have seen a lot of general die in our test games.

Light chariots seem too expensive, compared either to cavalry or to heavy chariots.

We will be polling the beta testers re the points system once we feel than most have got enough games under their belts.

The arguments in favour of light chariots costing not much less than heavy are
1) they move faster and are more manouvrable if undrilled
2) they can evade (huge advantage)

(the same argument as cavalry costing not much less than knights)

The relative cost vis a vis cavalry is related to the following issues
1) the chariots count as 2 dice per front rank base in melee - thus they could in theory match twice their number of cavalry
2) They have a melee POA thrown in as part of their base cost
3) They are worse in terrain (but who takes they cavalry into terrain anyway.)
4) They can only shoot 1 rank deep. (But note that cavalry shooting 2 ranks deep really only get 1.5 ranks)

Thanks for the reply. I was actually a little worried because Simon usually answers within a few hours. I doubt we can compete with the charm of the beaches, but he will be welcome to come visit us. Although I suppose his holidays are also holidays away from AoW.

I have snipped all paragraphs that were clear.

rbodleyscott wrote:

We had many problems with the pursuit rules, or rather the lack of guidelines. Routs are easier, with the reference to the clear Evasion rules, but in pursuit we do not even know if it is done by individual bases or the BG as a whole (which changes a lot the formation changes possible for the pursuer).

Well that depends what you mean by "by individual bases". It would be by BG normally, except that (if I recall correctly, I don't have the rules to hand), if only some of the BGs opponents break they would pursue if they can do so while remaining in contact.

I suspect this needs further thought and tightening up by the team.

Indeed it was that particular example (some bases pursue while keeping BG cohesion) which confused us, as that would indicate that possibly in the case of pursuers catching the pursued, if the pursued was staggered (from routing as individual bases), whether the pursuer would keep formation (and advance less than what it could) or adjust itself to the staggered pursued formation.

We also worried about the wording "position to charge". Would a Fragmented enemy (therefore unable to charge, at least till rallied) give the penalty? And a unit that has range but due to a partially intervening enemy would not actually reach (due to being in a single line, for instance) the enemy unit.

I agree that this needs further clarification. I think in both these cases the flank should not count as threatened, but the wording needs tightening.

We understood it was written from a unit's perception point of view, so as the troopers cannot be sure of the cohesion status, just having the enemy there ("position") is enough to unnerve them. Changing that to "Able to charge the flank" would reduce the menace to those credible ones.

The extra cost for drilled cavalry, specially for melee cavalry, seems excessive compared to its usefulness.

It is only 1 point on a total cost of (in the usual case - armoured superior cavalry) 16 or 17. It is in fact surprisingly useful to be able to expand and contract more easily. Also if the cavalry are lancers, it increases their chance of passing CMTs not to charge/advance.

My bad. I jumped lines in the troop cost and read it as 2 for the armoured cavalry.

The disappeareance of units reduced to 1 base makes 2 base melee BGs terribly unattractive. Sort of an expendable that causes attrition loss. Maybe an exception could be done for elite and superior units that normally would survive one base loss.

We want elephants, artillery etc to be brittle. You could make a case for an exception in the case of elite/superiors. Will put it to the team. It would not be complicated - we could just take out the rule that makes you remove a BG reduced to one element. The Average ones would be auto-routed anyway.

It would help to make them behave as they should (in my perception), historically. In the case of the Byzantines they were intended as "can openers", to open a way through the enemies best troops to the general/center of the battle line. Now you hide them a bit and charge only with a clear POA advantage, as a loss and three hits (not unlikely fighting other lancers or defensive spearmen with bow support) in impact is a 50% chance of losing the unit, before their armour advantage starts to count in melee. They should have frightened my Lombard lancers, rather than make me think, hey, two easy attrition points.

We see a tendency in our army design towards superior (or elite) attack units and average shooting and holding units.

That sounds rather historical.

I agree, but it starts to differentiate armies you would not game with, which is a bit sad. Unavoidable I suppose, but still sad.

General death would feel more right if the kill chance increased with hits. It was weird to see one survive a couple of 8 hit combats when another one died with the minimum two hits.

Logical perhaps, but loss of generals seems a chancy business in historical accounts, and could often occur when winning. Hence we decided to make it a fairly random risk. We have seen a lot of general die in our test games.

We had not seen any, till the three last Sunday (I also rolled two 10s but my generals were on a roll and always won their combats that day). Using hits as a modifier would automatically make winners less susceptible than losers, although it would penalize generals with big groups with large frontages that will always suffer more hits. Not an easy solution, I know.

Light chariots seem too expensive, compared either to cavalry or to heavy chariots.

We will be polling the beta testers re the points system once we feel than most have got enough games under their belts.

The arguments in favour of light chariots costing not much less than heavy are
1) they move faster and are more manouvrable if undrilled
2) they can evade (huge advantage)

(the same argument as cavalry costing not much less than knights)

The relative cost vis a vis cavalry is related to the following issues
1) the chariots count as 2 dice per front rank base in melee - thus they could in theory match twice their number of cavalry
2) They have a melee POA thrown in as part of their base cost
3) They are worse in terrain (but who takes they cavalry into terrain anyway.)
4) They can only shoot 1 rank deep. (But note that cavalry shooting 2 ranks deep really only get 1.5 ranks)

I do not see the first advantage vs heavy chariots, unless undrilled light chariots use the undrilled cavalry column (something that would reduce the difference with cavalry as well).

The problem of Light Chariots is that against historical enemies the fact that they ignore armour is not so valuable when others are at most protected (but chariots will be great against medieval armies). And in most of the armies that have them the chariots are the main strike force, so if your light chariots are facing heavy chariots that are only two points more expensive, you have a serious problem developing counter-tactics.

I know that part of the problem is developing a system that works well both for historical and ahistorical games. And chariots have a bigger impact against ahistorical enemies than against the historical troops, compared to their point cost.

The fact that they take a lot of place is usually a disadvantage as well, both in terms of formation and battle line, at least in our experience. We will see when we replay with the opposing lists.

Checking my notes I have found a couple of rule questions from last battle.

- A mounted BG that is in combat with a mounted and a foot BG (one base). If the foot remains steady, has the mounted BG to break-off in the interbound? That would give some cheese opportunities for mounted with good impact POA and poor melee options. And a reason to keep foot from joining a mounted fight, as it gives the deffending mounted a way out.

- If a BL in line formation makes a 90?? turn with advance within enemy projectile range but beyond charge range, showing the shooters the side, according to our reading of the rules, unless the targeted BG is the last in the line, they not only do not have any penalties but receive the benefit of rear support (if the same quality). It does not feel like the kind of maneuvers to be doing within 6 MUs of the enemy, yet it is green for drilled.

Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions.

Jos?©

jre wrote:

The arguments in favour of light chariots costing not much less than heavy are
1) they move faster and are more manouvrable if undrilled

I do not see the first advantage vs heavy chariots, unless undrilled light chariots use the undrilled cavalry column (something that would reduce the difference with cavalry as well).

They should do. It is an oversight (I think) that they don't. Will put it to the team.


Will answer your other queries later (remind me if I don't) I must do some more work now.

jre wrote:A mounted BG that is in combat with a mounted and a foot BG (one base). If the foot remains steady, has the mounted BG to break-off in the interbound?

Yes.

If a BL in line formation makes a 90?? turn with advance within enemy projectile range but beyond charge range, showing the shooters the side, according to our reading of the rules, unless the targeted BG is the last in the line, they not only do not have any penalties but receive the benefit of rear support (if the same quality). It does not feel like the kind of maneuvers to be doing within 6 MUs of the enemy, yet it is green for drilled.

Indeed. Well we will be introducing some more restrictions soon, no doubt.

rbodleyscott wrote:

jre wrote:A mounted BG that is in combat with a mounted and a foot BG (one base). If the foot remains steady, has the mounted BG to break-off in the interbound?

Yes.

So if I charge the flank of a mounted BG (engaged to the front or not) with foot I have just one bound to beat them up, because they will escape from the trap automatically in the interbound, and as the following bound is theirs they might (depending on size) expand to single line (for instance) and evade till rallied, or even charge the infantry that flanked them if they are still in good shape...

I could accept that for cavalry, but it does not feel right for knights or heavy chariots.

Jos?©

jre wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

jre wrote:A mounted BG that is in combat with a mounted and a foot BG (one base). If the foot remains steady, has the mounted BG to break-off in the interbound?

Yes.

So if I charge the flank of a mounted BG (engaged to the front or not) with foot I have just one bound to beat them up, because they will escape from the trap automatically in the interbound, and as the following bound is theirs they might (depending on size) expand to single line (for instance) and evade till rallied, or even charge the infantry that flanked them if they are still in good shape...

I could accept that for cavalry, but it does not feel right for knights or heavy chariots.

Jos?©

I will put it on our list for discussion.

H Jose,

In spain I may be but not totally out of AOW - thinking of a number of things and getting the occasional cance to catch things. Thanks to Richard/Terry/Iain/JDM for keeping the ffedback coming as we go. I'll pick up several items for the bug list when I get back on Friday.

On Chariot points its an interesting debate. The 2 dice they get per base is quite benficial. I wonder if we may need a bit more differentiation between Light Chariots and heavy Chariots in the mechanisms, or is it just a points issue? It an area high on the test list now - I can feel the hittites coming out for a game.....

Si

PS I am near Valencia - I expect a bit far away for a game....? I played Rafa in Alcoy once so maybe we can manage a game in Spain sometime.