Slitherine

Hello all:

Spike, here.

Actually, I was pleased to hear of this new project and the tid-bits of information that are posted here suggest an interesting ruleset. Admittedly, I have not read the ruleset and, therefore, am a bit of blind man inspecting the elephant, but nevertheless have a basic question.

As DBx evolved, I bemoaned the rise of the wall of crap armies and gradual weakening of mounted armies, especially the sportscar types (Early T'ang, Mongols, Mamluks, Ghaznavid, etc.). Several comments suggest that AoW steers away from WoC types by (a) reducing the filler in army lists and (b) increasing the difficulty of guarding low value troops. That sounds promising.

I presume that certain basic tenets maintain, however. Namely, mounted troops are more expensive than the corresponding infantry but move faster. In DBx, the value of mounted troops, especially Cv, was that their manueverability permitted them to engage flanks. This diminished as the rules encouraged more frontal engagement and reduced the benefit of flank contacts, etc. Unfortunately, this also lead to armies that were too small to compete.

So, in AOW, what benefits of maneuver might a smaller mounted army hope to obtain? Are any particular advantages to attacking a BG's flank? In my view, flanks in DBM 3.1 are probably too secure, but the dogfights of DBM 2.0, OTOH, made them too much of a focus. How does AoW balance these or otherwise avoid their pitfalls?

Spike

spikemesq wrote:So, in AOW, what benefits of maneuver might a smaller mounted army hope to obtain? Are any particular advantages to attacking a BG's flank? In my view, flanks in DBM 3.1 are probably too secure, but the dogfights of DBM 2.0, OTOH, made them too much of a focus. How does AoW balance these or otherwise avoid their pitfalls?

Welcome aboard, Spike. We're putting together a trained monkey battalion for AoW . . . .

As it turns out you have asked the same basic question that I was typing up. My version was going to be something along the lines of what happens in AoW when one BG hits another in the flank? In DBM you get the combination of inability to recoil + ZOD = bad juju for the poor flanked bastards. From what I have read so far in this forum, in AoW the consequences might not be as bad, as only the elements in actual contact will fight--there being no overlaps in the initial combat--and in subsequent rounds of fighting the defending unit gets to shift elements over to help.

Am I missing something?

Marc

Another post cites a rule that a BG can expand in melee. Perhaps it can only expand to the front, so a flank contact would be harder to correct against.

Spike

1) Unless it is non-skirmishers hit in the flank by skirmishers, the flank-charged battle group drops one cohesion level on contact.
2) In the impact phase the flank charger automatically fights on ++ Points of advantage. (No other POAs apply). This means that the charger needs 3's to hit, the victim needs 5's to hit. Thus the victim will usually lose and then must pass a cohesion test or drop a further 1 or 2 cohesion levels.
3) If the victim survives, then it can turn and fight normally against the chargers, albeit usually in a poor state of cohesion. If it is also fighting to its front, however, it fights in 2 directions in the melee with a Point of Disadvantage for doing so.

(Cohesion states are STEADY-DISRUPTED-FRAGMENTED-BROKEN)

In short, being charged in flank or rear by non-skimishers is usually fatal.
Being charged in flank or rear by skirmishers is usually fatal for skirmishers.
Being charged in flank or rear by skirmishers is survivable for non-skirmishers, (because skirmishers fight with only half normal dice vs non-skirmishers) but is usually fatal if also fighting against reasonably equal non-skirmishers to the front.

Troops can only charge a BG in the flank if they already have at least one base fully behind a line extending the target BG's front (and none in front of the target).

Thus flank charges are harder to achieve than in DBM, less deadly when the flank chargers are skirmishers, but at least as deadly when they are non-skirmishers.

In this case skirmishers mostly means light horse, as light foot are never permitted to charge non-skirmishers.

Thanks Richard. It sounds as though being flanked is suitably unpleasant. Your response raised a question, though. I have read about Points of Advantage in the list of fundamental principles (and in various posts). I have not heard of Points of Disadvantage until now. Please explain.

Marc

An expanded example from last nights game.

My BG of falxmen including a general in column is hit in the flank (actually in DBM this wouldn't have been too bad as I would have had recoils)
- I automatically drop to disrupted
The combat was 4 dice on 4 dice (I am disrupted so loose 1 dice in 3 so a total of 3 dice) , with me needing 5's and my opponent 3's, I loose by 2 hits and have to test needing a 7 but with a nett -2 on my roll (-1 big loss, -1 plenty of casualties, -1 disrupted, +1 general)
- I fail and drop to fragmented but had I rolled less than 4 I would have broken there and then
Now as I have only been hit by one enemy I am fighting in the right direction. My falxes come into play but the overall combat is even. There are 6 bases on each side eligible to fight so 6 dice each (but I am fragmented so loose 1 in 2), 6 dice vs 3 even with us bith needing 4's is a hard ask. I loos and test again needing a 7 with a nett -2 (-1 plenty of casualties, -2 fragmented, +1 general)
- I fail again and break.

One turn = dead BG

Had I been able to turn to face the combat would have been even with my superior troops gaining a slight edge because they reroll 1's

Life can be hard

Hammy

Thanks indeed, Richard. This is very helpful.

It looks like flank hits are severe but with the results more contained than in DBx (i.e., no ZoD-type gravy).

Perhaps the mighty T'ang shall ride again!

Spike

babyshark wrote:Thanks Richard. It sounds as though being flanked is suitably unpleasant. Your response raised a question, though. I have read about Points of Advantage in the list of fundamental principles (and in various posts). I have not heard of Points of Disadvantage until now. Please explain.

No difference, I just used it for the purposes of explanation because talking about a

minus Point of Advantage sounds a bit silly.

(Cohesion states are STEADY-DISRUPTED-FRAGMENTED-BROKEN)

How are these shown on the playing table? markers, figures, etc?

hazelbark wrote:(Cohesion states are STEADY-DISRUPTED-FRAGMENTED-BROKEN)

How are these shown on the playing table? markers, figures, etc?

We tried doing it by positioning the bases within the battle group, but it wasn't clear enough. We are currently testing using markers. The ideal would be appearance enhancing markers in the form of wounded figures or suchlike.

I really like the idea of encouraging players to visually enhance the game. so i like the idea of using wounded figures.
1 figure per level of cohesion perhaps?
It's the same as a marker and many would still use markers, I bet, but I, for one, would build the wounded figure bases.

Hi

I like the idea of wounded figure bases (I have these for Fire and Fury) but I'm just thinking of the number of armies I have, I'd like to have appropriate, in period, markers for them, that means quite a few....

regards

Stephen

Ashur dan, the same goes for baggage though though it can be more generic. So I don't think having to model a few more bases per army is a deal breaker. Finding appropriate casualty figures for all your armies might be tough though but if AoW takes off I'm sure scuptors will step up to the plate and make casualty minis.

bryan wrote:Ashur dan, the same goes for baggage though though it can be more generic. So I don't think having to model a few more bases per army is a deal breaker. Finding appropriate casualty figures for all your armies might be tough though but if AoW takes off I'm sure scuptors will step up to the plate and make casualty minis.

Hi

Yes I'm sure you are right, also dead Romans can be generic for many armies, whether Roman or not! Same with dead Egyptians for my NKE, Canaanites and Assyrians....

regards

Stephen

bryan wrote:1 figure per level of cohesion perhaps?
It's the same as a marker and many would still use markers, I bet, but I, for one, would build the wounded figure bases.

I've quickly built up about 2 dozen generic markers as an experiment and to see how they look/work. No wounded figures as yet. I've used odds-and-sods single figures which I've mounted on coins (suitably painted and flocked). A small coin = disrupted. A large coin = fragmented. A rout is self evident. They look better than counters, I think. In time I expect to collect a set of markers per army, which is also what I've done with baggage.