Slitherine

Game 2, Sassanid??™s v Alexandrians 25mm 800 points.
Friday 8th Dec 06

Following the experiences of the first game, both of us revised our army lists. I took out what I considered to be the ineffective troops, the poor spearmen, the mob and the light infantry. I also reduced the size of the elephant unit, as it was too unwieldy. A quick email to Richard brought in what I hoped was some much needed good infantry in the shape of a Sabir Hunnic ally. Steve decided to leave Alexander and his superior pikemen behind, in order to up his unit count and hopefully better cover his flanks.

Sassanid list

4 x 4 BGs of Noble cavalry
1 x 4 BG of Cataphrates
1 x 2 BG of Elephants
2 x 4 BG of Light horse
1 x 6 BG of Hill tribesmen
2 x 4 BG of Sabir light horse
2 x 8 BG of Sabir foot warriors (impact foot)

1 x FC general
2 x TC generals
1 x TC Sabir general

Alexandrian list

2 x 4 BGs of Companions
1 x 6 BG of Paeonians
4 x 8 BG of Foot companions
2 x 6 BGs of Thracians
1 x 6 BG of Agrianians
1 x 6 BG of Cretans
2 x 8 BG of Ally Hoplites (Undrilled)

3 x FC generals

The Alexandrians won the invading dice throw.

Having dropped all but one BG of my rough terrain troops I chose Steppe terrain and 6 open spaces. Steve chose 4 pieces of terrain only to loose two with 6??™s on the placement dice. Both pieces fell on the same side third of the table, one in each players half.

A 6 ??“ 1 dice role decided the scouting roll. Once again the Sassanid 15 to 36 element count advantage had no effect.

The Sassanids began deploying with the 4 x BG??™s of light horse forward on their right. The line continued towards the left with the 2 x BG??™s of Sabir foot and a BG of Cataphrates. A small gap was followed with 3 x BG??™s of nobles. The Hillmen were behind these in a piece of rough. The elephants and other BG of nobles were behind the light horse on the right.
The Alexandrians had the 2 x BG??™s of Greeks on their right with the light horse behind. Then a column of the Light infantry and one BG of Thracians in/behind a piece of rough. Next came 2 x BG??™s of Companions and 4 x BG??™s of pikemen. The last Thracian unit was behind the last BG of pikemen on their open left flank.

Sorry there are no pictures this week, I forgot my camera. (Senior moment)

The game flowed much better this week and we only stopped a few times to check the rules. Not for problems like last week, but to check things we thought we knew the answer for.

I had learnt my lesson from last week and managed to get my Noble cavalry into lines so that I could evade when charged by foot. It some cases though this did take several CMT rolls.

Game summary.

On the Sassanid left the Greeks pushed forward and charged both the Noble BG??™s. These evaded without problem. The Greek attack halted when it reached the piece of rough terrain occupied by the Hillmen. It was only in the last move that the Nobles shooting managed to effect the Greeks formation.

In the centre the Companions had come forward and attacked the Cataphrates and one of the BG??™s of Sabir foot. This is where we were not sure what to do and in hindsight we think we went wrong. The Cataphrates routed the one BG??™s of Companions. However the other unit of Companions was fighting both the Cataphrates and the foot. This BG held after the melee phase and as it was not only fighting foot we did not ???break it off.??™ This left a situation were the 4 element wide BG of impact foot was in charge reach of a pike unit unable to do anything because in was in combat with cavalry at the other end. The situation was made worse by Steve??™s ability to throw 6??™s for the important cohesion tests for the Companions.

Because of the above situation the other BG of Sabir foot was attacked by 2 x BG??™s of pikemen and was loosing, but held on till the end of the game.

On the Sassanid right the light horse flanking move looked great, but due to ineffective shooting achieved very little. I did manage to get the unit of Nobles up the edge of the table and into combat with the Thracians, but was unable to rout them.

It was at this late stage of the game that we realised we had made a major mistake; we had been re-rolling our death throws. It was a bit of a scary moment, both of us realising at the same moment.

As Steve had lost one BG of Companions and had a fragment unit of Thracians, It ended a moderate victory to me. Both of us had rallied fragmented BG??™s in our last moves.

Observations.

I am not sure whether it is the troop types we are using, but many of the impacts and melees we are having seem to end with one side only on +. Effectively meaning you both need 4??™s to hit and luck to break your opponent. We don??™t have a problem with this, as luck does play its part in DBM.

The game was much more enjoyable than last week. We had learnt enough of the basics to concentrate on tactics. This is best illustrated in our revised army compositions. We have arranged another game for next Friday and intend to change the Sassanids for an infantry army, to see how they slug it out.
This will be our last 25mm game for a short while, we are going to try out 15mm armies ready for Usk next year.

Follow up questions.

I know the whole generals issue is up for change at the moment, but a couple of things that come to mind.

1. Steve felt the IC not worth the points and exchanged it for more troop elements.
2. The general??™s elements got in the way several times during the game. Particularly when he was with a unit that was evading.
3. Why do allied generals cost less? I had no problems controlling the Sabir BG??™s.
4. Can Generals be deployed forward with skirmishers? The rules at present say only skirmishers can be deployed forward. If had I moved first I would have had to delay my light horse flanking attack for a move while my general caught up.

Other questions arising from the game.

1. Is there a distance at which units must halt from each other during normal movement? If there is none, then it will be possible for medium infantry to catch evading cavalry. Accepted it is a 6 ??“1 dice combination.
2. Is there a move whereby cavalry can increase the separation between themselves and an infantry unit? Or is this achieved by the cavalry evading when charged?
3. Does a BG of cavalry still break off from steady infantry in the inter-bound if not all its opponents are infantry?

Don M

I am not sure whether it is the troop types we are using, but many of the impacts and melees we are having seem to end with one side only on +. Effectively meaning you both need 4??™s to hit and luck to break your opponent. We don??™t have a problem with this, as luck does play its part in DBM.

Just to check in case something hasn't come across correct to yu Don, the only way you both need 4s is at evens.

If you are net +, they are net - and its 4s for the ones a + and 5s for the ones at net -, which is a fair edge. Then at ++ to -- it moves to 3s vs 5s and expecting twice the hits - or more if with quality re-rorolls.

I'll catch the rest tomorrow but wanted to mention that one just in case it had been missed. If instead you ment both sides on a + and therefore evens overall just ingore my ramblings...

Si

Thanks for the report, Don.

don mchugh wrote:I am not sure whether it is the troop types we are using, but many of the impacts and melees we are having seem to end with one side only on +.

I think there may be a fundamental misunderstanding here. If one side in close combat is on a net +, the other is always on a net -. If one side in close combat is on a net ++, the other is always on a net --.

This reciprocity is stated in the Glossary entry on POAs, but we will firm up the clarity by also stating it in the Impact combat and Melee combat sections.

Hence if one side is on +, it needs 4s to hit, but the other side is on - and needs 5s to hit. This apparently minor advantage produces a 3:1 chance of winning each round of combat if both sides have 6 dice and troop quality is equal. (Of course winning the combat may not achieve a great deal if the enemy passes his Cohesion Test).

donm wrote:Having dropped all but one BG of my rough terrain troops I chose Steppe terrain and 6 open spaces.

The invader chooses the territory type. The defender places the compulsory items.

In the centre the Companions had come forward and attacked the Cataphrates and one of the BG??™s of Sabir foot. This is where we were not sure what to do and in hindsight we think we went wrong. The Cataphrates routed the one BG??™s of Companions. However the other unit of Companions was fighting both the Cataphrates and the foot. This BG held after the melee phase and as it was not only fighting foot we did not ???break it off.??™

It should have broken off - because it was fighting steady foot. (The rule does not say "only steady foot" - but probably needs clarification).

1. Steve felt the IC not worth the points and exchanged it for more troop elements.

We are currently working on the lines of IC 80, FC 50, TC 35.

3. Why do allied generals cost less? I had no problems controlling the Sabir BG??™s.

The are not as good as normal generals because they can only influence the allied troops. Likewise, the generals of the main army cannot influence the allied troops. From play-test experience this is often a major handicap.

4. Can Generals be deployed forward with skirmishers? The rules at present say only skirmishers can be deployed forward.

This is an oversight. The intention is that the Generals can be deployed with any troops. (Maybe this should include ambushes).

1. Is there a distance at which units must halt from each other during normal movement?

No

If there is none, then it will be possible for medium infantry to catch evading cavalry. Accepted it is a 6 ??“1 dice combination.

This is intentional.

2. Is there a move whereby cavalry can increase the separation between themselves and an infantry unit?

No. If you want full skirmishing flexibility you need to use specialised skirmishers.

Or is this achieved by the cavalry evading when charged?

Yes. Or turning 180 when the infantry are outside charge reach and moving off in the following turn.

3. Does a BG of cavalry still break off from steady infantry in the inter-bound if not all its opponents are steady infantry?

Yes

Thanks for the replies Richard. Here was me thinking we had the hang of the basic rules

I think there may be a fundamental misunderstanding here. If one side in close combat is on a net +, the other is always on a net -. If one side in close combat is on a net ++, the other is always on a net --.

This reciprocity is stated in the Glossary entry on POAs, but we will firm up the clarity by also stating it in the Impact combat and Melee combat sections.

Yes we completely missed this, as you say perhaps a note needs adding.

The invader chooses the territory type. The defender places the compulsory items

I think this a case of too much DBM mode.

Hopefully our next game will not include so many mistakes. I will say though, that it has not changed the promising view we have of the game as a whole.

Don M

Look forward to the next game Don. Richard seems to have covered all the points already as far as I can see. On average it seems to be around game 3-4 that the whole system really clicks into place.

Good reminder to us on the + / - effects that what seems clear to the writers is often not so clear to the readers. We should have made that really clear. Having said that diags are not in yet and those wit the examples will change things a fair bit.

Good to hear you are enjoying it.

Cheers

Si

Have spent most of the morning looking at possibilities for my first 15mm game. Steve and I are hoping to play several games in the week between Xmas and New Year in preperation for Usk. Steve has several Byzantine armies and we note that some have mixed cavalry units of lancers and bow.

1. Do these count as shock troops for tests?

2. Can they evade when in one rank?

3. How do you decide which element to remove? Working out seperately many give an advantage. ie 6 hits divided between two types gives two throws to save, were as 6 hits on one type removes a base.

Thanks in anticipation

Don M

Quote:
In the centre the Companions had come forward and attacked the Cataphrates and one of the BG??™s of Sabir foot. This is where we were not sure what to do and in hindsight we think we went wrong. The Cataphrates routed the one BG??™s of Companions. However the other unit of Companions was fighting both the Cataphrates and the foot. This BG held after the melee phase and as it was not only fighting foot we did not ???break it off.??™



It should have broken off - because it was fighting steady foot. (The rule does not say "only steady foot" - but probably needs clarification).

Richard,

Having sat and thought about this this morning, I rememebered that the one unit of Companions routed after the same melee phase as the other unit of Companions should have rallied back. If I understand it right we should have done the following,

Inter-bound

1. Rallied back the unit of Companions who are in contact with the foot.
2. Remove a base because the routers are in contact.
3. Moved the routing Companions a variable move.
4. Moved the pursuing Cataphrats a variable move.

The pursuit move could contact the ralling back Companions, dependant on the VMR dice.

Thanks

Don M

donm wrote: Inter-bound

1. Rallied back the unit of Companions who are in contact with the foot.
2. Remove a base because the routers are in contact.
3. Moved the routing Companions a variable move.
4. Moved the pursuing Cataphrats a variable move.

The pursuit move could contact the ralling back Companions, dependant on the VMR dice.

That is correct as far as the interbound phase is concerned, but the routed Companions should already (before the interbound phase)have made an immediate rout move at the end of the melee phase in which they routed. If the cataphracts were also in contact with the other Companions, they would only pursue the routed ones to the extent that they can do so without losing base contact with their bases that are still fighting.

If this means that they lose contact with the routers, then when it comes to the inter-bound, the other companions would break off and the cataphracts would not pursue.

In the normal course of events, routers make a rout move immediately they break, then another rout move in the interbound. Pursuers pursue twice likewise, provided that they did not lose contact in the initial pursuit move.

Whether troops ought to break off when fighting a mixture of mounted and foot remains to be seen - we need to consider it.