Slitherine

<hopeful>

As i sit here looking at the Gallic list and my gallic army it occurs to me that I have far too much infantry and its all double based. What is the possibility of allowing HI to have a depth of 15mm or 30mm (ie counting as a single base in both cases)? You'd have suitably thick looking warband, and I could use all my figures ! without having a rebase /dremmel nightmare!

What are the problems ... turning 90 - now being 60mm deep and turning 2 wide rather than 1!! deeper flanks for someone else to charge? Can't really think of any positive (gamewise) issues


Simon

</hopeful>

I can't see us changing the rules thus, but as you say base depths are not critical and I doubt if many would object if you used them thus. Just how many DBM elements of Gallic foot do you have?

Well, I've got 100 odd - which seemed to be about right for DBM. But all the lists I do less than half of them ...

On the plus side the soldurii are dynamite now!

Just to keep up the momentum for my proposition ... is there anyone who doesn't think that 2 double depth elements looks better on the table top ?

list_lurker wrote:Well, I've got 100 odd - which seemed to be about right for DBM. But all the lists I do less than half of them ...

How about at 1000 points?

They'd just be a big blob of butter for the legionaries to carve through before the flanks collapse!

list_lurker wrote:<hopeful>

As i sit here looking at the Gallic list and my gallic army it occurs to me that I have far too much infantry and its all double based. What is the possibility of allowing HI to have a depth of 15mm or 30mm (ie counting as a single base in both cases)? You'd have suitably thick looking warband, and I could use all my figures ! without having a rebase /dremmel nightmare!

What are the problems ... turning 90 - now being 60mm deep and turning 2 wide rather than 1!! deeper flanks for someone else to charge? Can't really think of any positive (gamewise) issues


Simon

</hopeful>

They would be able to step forward further. I don't think this is a huge issue.

I have wondered about my DBM Knight wedges. When I did use them, I treated them a normal 30 mm deep bases and pretended the second rank wasn't there. If I treated them as 60 mm deep, then they would be able to step forward an extra 20 mm. It would probably have some strange effects when turning 90 as well.

it would be nice to have explicit flexibility in the rules - but I think it'll fall on deaf ears

Npo issue using DBE in the game- played as if 2 single bases.

Yes you need a few less warband as they ar not so bubbish in FOG - I can muster a 3500Pt Ancient British army now - any takers!!

Si

Npo issue using DBE in the game- played as if 2 single bases.

until it comes to casuality removal - are we going to see more markers?... what about those little hoops as seen in wargames books in the 80's?

No need really - if uyou lose a base turn a double base backwards. Or just do a few single bases = you only need 1 per BG so split about 5 DBEs and you are there.

Si

if uyou lose a base turn a double base backwards

I think I prefer markers!!

Or just do a few single bases = you only need 1 per BG so split about 5 DBEs and you are there

The problem with this is if you field BGs > 2 elements deep ( to reduce % of 1/3 CTMs) . Assuming you remove casuality equally across the BG you will need 2 or maybe 3 per BG.

Ah yes it does make even depth a necessity but this isn't that big a penalty in practice. 12 bases 4 deep is a good formation anyway

Si