DBMMlist : Messages : 1-30 of 106457

Messages: Show Message Summaries (Group by Topic) Sort by Date

#30 From: "Nik Gaukroger" <nikgaukroger@...>
Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:42 am
Subject: RE: DBMM nikgaukroger
Offline
Send Email

Mark,

Looking at your list I think that you are mixing up a successful general with a brilliant one - Phil's definition of the latter does not necessarily mean successful. Muwatallis is a good example of this, whilst he pulled off a brilliant strategic and tactical ambush at Qadesh he wasn't ultimately successful in the battle.

Nik

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Robins [mailto:marobins@...]
Sent: 16 December 2003 01:11
To: DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [DBMMlist] DBMM

Dear Phil,

I am due to run my playtest DBMM this Saturday of Seleucids verses Lysimachids and will keep you posted. In the meanwhile I attach my own advocacy for my suggested addition of various brilliant generals. I noted from the first draft that no Frenchmen were rated as brilliant nor any of the post-Roman Celtic leaders of the British Isles and this should be addressed. So to, I was sure, the omission of Arthur, El Cid and Saladin was surely an oversight. I know that I have blurred the lines a little by allowing strategic brilliance to figure just a little, but I think it would be beneficial to DBMM if a more diverse range of armies had access to brilliant generals, as long as care is taken not to devalue the coinage "brilliant" too much.

I have not sought to put pen to paper on the inert general list. In my view history was full of them and I would be most surprised if any list could not justify at least one inert general. DBMM should permit any list to have one inert general and let the courageous players who take him receive their own just deserts.

Best regards,

Mark Robins

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: DBMMlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Email Disclaimer

The information in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee and others authorised to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken in reliance on its contents is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify
Postmaster@...

The YMCA is a Christian charity committed to helping young people, particularly at times of need, regardless of gender,race,ability or faith.

Company No 73749

Charity No 212810

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (184)

#29 From: "Nik Gaukroger" <nikgaukroger@...>
Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:33 am
Subject: RE: DBMM report of Aztec v Toltec-Chichimec game using December 3rd draft nikgaukroger
Offline
Send Email

IMO flank marches are too prevalent in DBM compared with history, therefore, I'd be against anything that may make them more common as this would.

Nik

-----Original Message-----
From: bill.macgillivray [mailto:bill.macgillivray@...]
Sent: 15 December 2003 22:07
To: pc.barker@...
Cc: Adrian Webb
Subject: [DBMMlist] DBMM report of Aztec v Toltec-Chichimec game using December 3rd draft

However, given the stated rationale for determining PIP dice allocation before the battle, i.e. the better commander for the crucial task, should not this rationale extend to arrival dice. Surely if a flank march is crucial, the task of getting it onto the battlefield in time should be assigned to a more able general. If the flank march is to be commanded by the best general, to ensure prompt arrival, then the rest of the army will have to make do as best they can with fewer PIPs.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (9)

#28 From: "Michael Campbell" <campbellm@...>
Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 2:42 am
Subject: RE: DBMM report of Aztec v Toltec-Chichimec game using December 3rd draft mikekiwi2001
Offline
Send Email

> From: Simon Babbs [mailto:shbabbs@...]

> I rather like the determining factor being the sub-general.
> It seems to model the idea that the key point is whether the
> sub-general accepts orders. ANY C-in-C will issue orders!

Of course a general that doesn't accept orders is, by definition, an
ALLY general!!

There are still armies out there where you pay extra for a regular CinC
and get no benefit from him and that has always rankled with purists -
after all why would a CinC necessarily favour a "regular" general over
an irregular one?

It also has the bonus of simplifying things since regular and irregular
sub-generals can then cost 10 AP's each.

If a regular general on an elephant can be allowed for then presumably
so can a Regular CinC over-riding the orders of irregular subordinate
generals.



This email and its accompanying attachments is intended for the named recipient
only and may contain information that
is confidential and subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient please inform the sender and destroy
the message. If you have received this message in error you must not distribute
or copy this email or its attachments.

The Civil Aviation Authority accepts no responsibility for any changes made to
this message after transmission from the
Civil Aviation Authority. Before opening or using attachments, check them for
viruses and other effects.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (9)

#27 From: "Simon Babbs" <shbabbs@...>
Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:39 am
Subject: Re: DBMM report of Aztec v Toltec-Chichimec game using December 3rd draft simon_babbs
Offline
Send Email

Bill MacG. wrote:
"Another comment I would like to raise on the new PIP allocation rules concerns
the C-in-Cs ability to swap
with a nearby subgeneral. Should the determining factor be whether the
subgeneral is regular (as in the
present draft), or should it instead be whether the C-in-C is regular. There are
armies (e.g. Later Crusader)
with an irregular C-in-C but multiple regular subgenerals, and conversely there
are armies (e.g. Mixtec) with
a regular C-in-C but irregular subgenerals. In the latter case, a regular C-in-C
is a waste of time and Army
Points (other than being a regular element). Would it be easier for a tribal or
feudal army commander to
directly intervene in a regular force than for a better organised army command
to intervene and direct parts
of a tribal or feudal force?"

I rather like the determining factor being the sub-general. It seems to model
the idea that the key point is
whether the sub-general accepts orders. ANY C-in-C will issue orders!

Simon

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (9)

#26 From: "Simon Babbs" <shbabbs@...>
Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:32 am
Subject: Re: Not closing the list simon_babbs
Offline
Send Email

Michael's points are not in the least unreasonable. But I think Phil should be
consulted.

Simon

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Campbell" <campbellm@...>
To: <DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 2:33 PM
Subject: RE: [DBMMlist] Not closing the list


> > From: Jim Hauber [mailto:jshauber@...]
> >
> > Phil has asked that we keep this list open for posting of test
> > matches.
>
> Can you make the list more open then?  I suggest moderating membership
> until new members shown they are human (anti-spambot measure), but
> listing the group in the directory so people can find it?
>
> I know a couple of the people I've playtested with are keen to join up
> but were not on the initial mail out, ther's all sorts of rumours going
> around, and the rules are going to be on Phil's website soon so wil be
> public knowledge anyway.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (15)

#25 From: "Mark Robins" <marobins@...>
Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:10 am
Subject: DBMM cawdorthane
Offline
Send Email

Dear Phil,

I am due to run my playtest DBMM this Saturday of Seleucids verses Lysimachids and will keep you posted. In the meanwhile I attach my own advocacy for my suggested addition of various brilliant generals. I noted from the first draft that no Frenchmen were rated as brilliant nor any of the post-Roman Celtic leaders of the British Isles and this should be addressed. So to, I was sure, the omission of Arthur, El Cid and Saladin was surely an oversight. I know that I have blurred the lines a little by allowing strategic brilliance to figure just a little, but I think it would be beneficial to DBMM if a more diverse range of armies had access to brilliant generals, as long as care is taken not to devalue the coinage "brilliant" too much.

I have not sought to put pen to paper on the inert general list. In my view history was full of them and I would be most surprised if any list could not justify at least one inert general. DBMM should permit any list to have one inert general and let the courageous players who take him receive their own just deserts.

Best regards,

Mark Robins

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (184)

#24 From: "bill.macgillivray" <bill.macgillivray@...>
Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:06 pm
Subject: DBMM report of Aztec v Toltec-Chichimec game using December 3rd draft turenneuk
Offline
Send Email

Hi Phil,

Adrian and I had our first go at DBMM last Saturday (the 6^th) using the draft dated the 3rd. In order to organise something quickly, I provided Aztecs and their Toltec-Chichimec enemies (a combination we have used once or twice before under DBM). I produced two or three 400AP organisations for each side, and then Adrian chose on the day. He chose to use the Toltec-Chichimecs with a four-command organisation. The Aztecs I used also had a four-command organisation, and in both armies all generals were regular, with no ally generals.

The initial set up throws indicated that the Aztecs were invading in spring, starting at dawn, with a weather score of 2. (We missed that the determination of the weather score has changed, and the familiar DBM method was used. This was not the only change from DBM we missed at the time.) This presented our first problems (albeit one inherited from unchanged portions of DBM). We were not sure if “Fog in Cold if winter, mist in other climates except Dry or other seasons” meant that there was never any mist in a Dry climate, or only that there was no mist in winter for Dry, but mist in every climate (including Dry) for other seasons. We decided on the latter, so the battle started in a dawn mist. We then were not sure if this constituted a day-time mist or a night mist. Here we settled on it being a night mist during dawn, giving an initial visibility of 100 paces, which increased to 600 paces when, after two bounds, the mist lifted before sunrise.

The terrain system presented no headaches, due to our experience on DBR. However, the new terrain types will need something related to the existing DBM lists to define when an H(S) hill is a DH difficult hill, and when it is a RH rough hill; and also when a waterway should be a great lake. Incidentally, what is written as “great lake [GL]” on page 14 becomes merely “lake [L}” on page 15.

For his terrain selection, Adrian decided on two woods and three difficult hills (his compulsory type). The hills comprised one � FE wooded hill, one long thin straight 1� FE steep hill, and one equally long and thin (but slightly curved) gently-sloped hill with wooded slopes from one end to about � of the way along. I chose two pick two � FE and one 1 FE areas of brush (forgetting that I was limited to just two features of the same type), plus a road. Adrian allocated the 5 to his long edge, and I allocated 6 to my long edge. All the hills and all the rough ended up having to be placed nearest to my long edge, and the woods ended up one nearest each short edge. Despite this, Adrian was still able to place his curved ridge in such a position that he could hide a command behind it, and also deploy troops within the wooded end.

Incidentally, we have been debating for a while whether in DBR, and now in DBMM, the hidden command can be one to which baggage is assigned. Adrian feels that, because the baggage must be deployed beforehand and cannot be hidden, it would be impossible to hide the entire command and therefore the hidden command must not contain baggage.

Adrian initially deployed just two commands. Guessing that he would hide one command behind the curved ridge, I deployed one command containing all my warband troops on my side of the ridge to try and force my way over the clear part of the ridge quickly. As is my usual practice with the Aztecs, I place the two commands containing all my Horde(S) troops on flank marches. My final command, containing my C-in-C, a few psiloi, all eight baggage bought, and the vast majority of my (theoretically) elite suitwearer Blade(I). We then selected and recorded the allocation of PIP scores. Finally, as anticipated, Adrian placed his third command behind the ridge and in the wooded slopes: his fourth (unbeknown to me at the time) was on a flank march, rather than entirely in ambush.

We did have to decide if the dice used to determine arrival of a flank march should be allocated (for regular commanders) or if an independent dice should be used until the command arrives. On page 11 in the Generals section, it seems to say that the PIP dice are always allocated (for regulars), and on page 19 it also seems to start saying the same thing, but then it finally says that a regular general who is off of the battlefield dices independently as if irregular. For this reason we settled on independent dice until arrival, at which point the command used the appropriate dice in the allocation sequence.

However, given the stated rationale for determining PIP dice allocation before the battle, i.e. the better commander for the crucial task, should not this rationale extend to arrival dice. Surely if a flank march is crucial, the task of getting it onto the battlefield in time should be assigned to a more able general. If the flank march is to be commanded by the best general, to ensure prompt arrival, then the rest of the army will have to make do as best they can with fewer PIPs.

Another comment I would like to raise on the new PIP allocation rules concerns the C-in-Cs ability to swap with a nearby subgeneral. Should the determining factor be whether the subgeneral is regular (as in the present draft), or should it instead be whether the C-in-C is regular. There are armies (e.g. Later Crusader) with an irregular C-in-C but multiple regular subgenerals, and conversely there are armies (e.g. Mixtec) with a regular C-in-C but irregular subgenerals. In the latter case, a regular C-in-C is a waste of time and Army Points (other than being a regular element). Would it be easier for a tribal or feudal army commander to directly intervene in a regular force than for a better organised army command to intervene and direct parts of a tribal or feudal force?

One final point on the PIP allocation concerns the case of a single regular general. The final sentence of the fourth paragraph on page 11 is not as clear as one would like. It takes a few readings before you realise it only relates to the case of a single regular subgeneral with an irregular C-in-C, and has no meaning when the C-in-C is the only regular general. As worded it would also apply to a regular ally-general of an entirely irregular main army.

As it turned out, neither Aztec flank marching command scored high enough to arrive. However, the sole Toltec-Chichimec flank marching command did achieve the required score at about the fourth opportunity. It then transpired that that the Aztec flank marchers had one more element (21 to 20) and so drove the Toltec-Chichimecs back onto their own half of the table. If, as I see things, this is more a case of the smaller force turning back upon seeing a larger force, rather than a weaker force being beaten and physically pushed back by a stronger force, then should such a one element difference be sufficient. Maybe if the two flank marches are similarly sized (say, the larger must have at least 10 or 20% more elements than the smaller to arrive), then both should choose discretion over valour and turn back?

The other problem we had with flank marches, and one that would ultimately cost me the game, is that flank marching elements count as lost until they arrive. We both felt that this is too harsh, and could in theory lead to complete defeat at the end of the first bound without any combats occurring. If nothing else, it will discourage flank marches by “dull competition players”.

A better way might be to calculate victory and defeat only with reference to the on-table troops (including un-revealed ambushers), discounting any un-arrived flank marchers form the original army size. Consequently, a 100ME army, with 30ME still on a flank march would be defeated when 35� ME are lost or demoralised, rather than on a mere 20� ME losses as in the current draft.

Interestingly, when both the driven back Toltec-Chichimecs and the successful Aztec flank marchers first moved onto the table, they could potentially do so with more PIPs than they could normally expect, because their general still started the bound off table. This was potentially most useful for the Aztec command, which rolled a six for that bound, but who were otherwise scheduled to be assigned the lowest PIP dice.

As it happened, the Toltec-Chichimecs rolled a four, allowing the whole command to make two march moves for 100 paces each, and then continuing with the regulars alone for two more 100 pace march moves. This placed the rear edges of the command’s regular Bow(O) and Psiloi(O) elements more than 300 paces from the table edge (ensuring they would not flee from the arriving Aztecs), but left the command’s Warband(F) elements 200 paces behind. It also meant that (dispite their unexpected PIP bonus) the Aztecs could only make a single move onto the table due to the enemy’s proximity. The Warband(F) promptly fled 200 paces, and ended up rejoining their original group. Is it the intent that a fleeing group can end in the same formation as they start (if they all flee parallel to each other), unlike a spontaneously advancing group, that must reduce moves by 10 paces to avoid forming a group?

In the following Toltec-Chichimec bound, the Bows (and Psiloi) turned about and moved to within shooting range. The Warband were not controlled, and spontaneously advanced toward the Aztec Hordes. The shooting resulted in about three Horde elements (together with one Blade immediately behind) recoiling off of the table edge. It was not until after the game that we spotted that (like DBA but unlike DBM) hordes do not recoil. However, the ability of driven back flank marchers to turn around and recoil the successful flank marchers back off the table before they can advance fully onto the table is something I’ve seen before with DBM, and I’m not convinced that it is justified. Is there any way of preventing it, such as only recoiling to (but off) the table edge on the turn of arrival (but allowing non-supporting ranks to be forced off if behind the recoilers, and allowing stragglers to recoil off when they finally arrive)?

The other notable incident concerning the flank marchers occurred when some of the Aztec Horde(S) elements were not controlled and spontaneously advanced through the wood near that flank edge. Once the first element had completed its move, Adrian revealed that it had run into a Bow element in ambush.

The first thing we were unclear of was whether “it is not placed in position until … or at the end of a move in which it is seen by enemy” refers to the end of the individual element’s (or group’s) move, or until the end of the whole bound’s movement is complete. We settled on the individual element’s move, reasoning that the other case could result in half an army moving through an ambush before it is revealed behind them.

The next thing we had to decide was where to place the Horde element, as its complete move ended up in the middle of the bow element. How much of the move (if any) should be taken back?

We settled on moving the Horde back to where it was first in front edge contacted the Bow’s flank, but not allowing it to use any extra unused move allowance to slide into a corner-to-corner contact necessary for a close combat. The remaining Horde elements then advanced spontaneously toward the same Bow element, as this was now the closest enemy that they were aware of.

Elsewhere, opposing Psiloi fought each other along the difficult ridge. Because the losing Psiloi only recoiled in the difficult going, when the winners were able to follow up in their own bound, the same pairs of Psiloi fought two or three close combats in the same bound, until either one side was destroyed or the “bounding” side lost. Is it the intent that a single Psiloi can be recoiled, followed up and fought again and again in a single bound?

The Aztec Warband command climbed the ridge and took on opposing Bow(I). A front rank of Warband(S) supported by a second rank of Warband(F) was used, and the change in PIP requirements allowing a single PIP to be expended to move everything 100 paces forward, rather than all at full speed was a great advantage. Even a small ambush shooting from flank and later rear did not stop them (but did finally kill one Warband(F) element). We noticed that an element can press forward even if shot in the back (unlike DBR) but did not find this unduly unreasonable as part of a general advance.

Despite the early loss of an accompanying Blade(I), the command did well against the Bows. It was in these early shots of Toltec-Chichimec Bow(I) against the oncoming Aztec forces that we realised how significant the change to Inferior graded troops shooting has become. Because Inferior graded troops take a minus one if they lose or draw in all combats, including when shooting without reply, the Warbands were able to press forward far more often (winning natural draws), and the Inferior Blades no longer lost draws (taking the same minus one as the shooting bows).

The change to the grading effect of Superior troops in close combat also had significant effects. When Warband(S) beat Bow(I), the combination of plus one for the winning Warband and minus one for the losing Bow was often enough to transform a simple win into a destroying doubling score. In contrast, the lack of any plus one when losing meant that the Warband(S) suffered at the hands of enemy Blades, especially with the Blades turn quick kill. In this case, where any win would cause a quick kill by the Warband, the new superior bonus was useless. This all seems to go contrary to the theory (expounded in previous rule sets) that the best troops are not more destructive but do have better staying power. Having said this, giving those troop types which quick kill more often than not a Superior grading is probably not worth the cost in many cases now.

Having all the 2ME Superiors in the front rank meant that the ME losses in that command mounted up (despite them demoralising the main command they faced); the few Blades they encountered were able to pick off isolated small Warband groups, survive the initial contact (usually thanks to friendly overlaps), and then quick kill the front rank in the Blades’ bound.

The Toltec-Chichimec Bow(I) did surprisingly well against the Aztec Blade(I). With the aid of a second rank and uphill advantage (and the occasional overlap) they destroyed a number of Aztec Suitwearers, whereas the Suitwearers’ successes were much rarer.

We did find having to keep track of each general’s specific dice from PIP roll to each combat roll throughout each pair of bounds to be a chore. I fear it may lead to quarrels if one player requires or objects to the other re-rolling due to the wrong command’s dice being rolled and a different critical result ensuing. Would a simpler and just as effective solution be to use for combat rolls that dice rolling the lowest PIP score last time round.

The Aztec commands that did become demoralised actually did so having lost exactly the same number of elements as they would need to lose under the present version of DBM. In the warband command’s case this was partially because the losses were fairly evenly spread between 2ME Warband(S) and other 1ME or �ME troops. In contrast, the C-in-C’s command would have had to have lost every fighting element (assuming no baggage losses) to be demoralised. This command had 3 Psiloi, 1 General, 18 other Blade(I) suitwearers and all 8 baggage: total ME of the command was 36� (requiring 12� ME to be defeated), total ME of the fighting elements was 12�. I know some other people have been complaining about commands so loaded with baggage as to require all fighting elements to be killed (and this will be particularly acute with armies comprised principally of light troops), so might I suggest a limit of no more Baggage ME in a command than non-Baggage ME.

I think that the ME allocations need a lot of fine-tuning, although I’m more convinced of the (I)=�, (O)=1, (S)=2 split than I was with DBR. Taking Blades as an example, a dismounted Knight would hold more sway than a retinue Billman, the veteran Legionary would be less concerned about the loss of the raw recruit legion than vice-versa, and the difference even holds for Viking armies, with the Huscarls loss being more keenly felt by the Bondi. However, I think it doesn’t generally work with Meso-American Blade(I), but that might be best solved by grading them as Blade(O) – after all, their only opponents before the Spanish arrived were more of the same. I’m not convinced the split works for Regular Bows either, as Bows grading tends to be on equipment alone. (Why should Early Egyptian warrior caste Archers be rated for morale as the equals of their conscript Hordes, but English Retinue Archers rate as highly as the Men-at-Arms?) It should work for Irregular bows, where equipment and relative status tend to match, but I think that for Regulars, a standard 1ME for all grades might be better.

Our game ended when both the arrived flank march and the Warband command were demoralised on the same turn. Added to the non-arrived flank march, this counted as more than half the army. Although demoralised, the Warband command still seemed to be in good shape, and the army as a whole still looked pretty sound to both of us. Despite the Toltec-Chichimecs having already lost one command demoralised, they were not close to being defeated, and the score worked out as 25-0. I did not seem anything like a complete victory at all.

Hopefully, we will get another go at DBMM on the Saturday before Christmas, probably with Romans against Macedonians.

Finally, I’d like to ask a few questions about those troops that are still compulsorily double based.

Is it the intent that double based Cavalry and Knights(I) should get no benefit against enemy Cavalry (or Light Horse). This seems odd to me. I would have thought that the Byzantine users of such formations were as often as not fighting Cavalry based enemies.

Also, would (for example) the Early Swiss still have a compulsory double basing requirement, as Blades are not in the list of those troop types mentioned for compulsory double basing on page 12.

Bill MacGillivray

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (9)

#23 From: Jim Hauber <jshauber@...>
Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 9:30 pm
Subject: RE: Not closing the list jshauber
Offline
Send Email

I will take care of that this evening.

Jim
--- Michael Campbell <campbellm@...> wrote:
> > From: Jim Hauber [mailto:jshauber@...]
> >
> > Phil has asked that we keep this list open for
> posting of test
> > matches.
>
> Can you make the list more open then?  I suggest
> moderating membership
> until new members shown they are human (anti-spambot
> measure), but
> listing the group in the directory so people can
> find it?
>
> I know a couple of the people I've playtested with
> are keen to join up
> but were not on the initial mail out, ther's all
> sorts of rumours going
> around, and the rules are going to be on Phil's
> website soon so wil be
> public knowledge anyway.
>
>
>
> This email and its accompanying attachments is
> intended for the named recipient only and may
> contain information that
> is confidential and subject to legal privilege. If
> you are not the intended recipient please inform the
> sender and destroy
> the message. If you have received this message in
> error you must not distribute or copy this email or
> its attachments.
>
> The Civil Aviation Authority accepts no
> responsibility for any changes made to this message
> after transmission from the
> Civil Aviation Authority. Before opening or using
> attachments, check them for viruses and other
> effects.
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DBMMlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


=====
Le Grognard
"Le garde meurt et ne se rends pas"

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (15)

#22 From: "bill.macgillivray" <bill.macgillivray@...>
Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 9:14 pm
Subject: Re: Our 1st DBMM game part 2 turenneuk
Offline
Send Email

I think "I have more sons" is meant to be the final reply of the unreliable ally (not sub) general, ie "so kill the hostages - there are plenty more where they came from"

----- Original Message -----

From: clh4@...

To: DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: 14 December 2003 23:53

Subject: Re: [DBMMlist] Our 1st DBMM game part 2

In a message dated 12/13/2003 6:23:36 PM Central Standard Time, campbellm@... writes:

2/ Page 11 Unreliable generals = the last line of the 3rd bullet point
includes "I have more sons" - should this be "I have YOUR sons"?

Probably better your way, but I think that we are intended to infer that the unreliable subgeneral is a son of the general and that he is replaceable should he not commit to battle.

Chuck Hines

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)

#21 From: "Michael Campbell" <campbellm@...>
Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 8:33 pm
Subject: RE: Not closing the list mikekiwi2001
Offline
Send Email

> From: Jim Hauber [mailto:jshauber@...]
>
> Phil has asked that we keep this list open for posting of test
> matches.

Can you make the list more open then?  I suggest moderating membership
until new members shown they are human (anti-spambot measure), but
listing the group in the directory so people can find it?

I know a couple of the people I've playtested with are keen to join up
but were not on the initial mail out, ther's all sorts of rumours going
around, and the rules are going to be on Phil's website soon so wil be
public knowledge anyway.



This email and its accompanying attachments is intended for the named recipient
only and may contain information that
is confidential and subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient please inform the sender and destroy
the message. If you have received this message in error you must not distribute
or copy this email or its attachments.

The Civil Aviation Authority accepts no responsibility for any changes made to
this message after transmission from the
Civil Aviation Authority. Before opening or using attachments, check them for
viruses and other effects.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (15)

#20 From: "John Graham-Leigh" <jandagraham-leigh@...>
Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 3:01 pm
Subject: Re: Our 1st DBMM game part 2 jandagrahaml...
Offline
Send Email

--- In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, "Simon Babbs" <shbabbs@c...> wrote:
> <<< 2/ Page 11 Unreliable generals = the last line of the 3rd
bullet point
> includes "I have more sons" - should this be "I have YOUR sons"?
>>>
>
> I interpreted this as the unreliable ally general refusing to be
blackmailed by threats to kill his sons.
>
> Simon

Correct - it comes from Bosworth, where Richard III held Lord
Stanley's eldest son as a hostage.  The quote is Stanley's reputed
answer to Richard's final threatening message.

Cheers

John GL

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)

#19 From: <pc.barker@...>
Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:36 pm
Subject: Fw: Our 1st DBMM game (part 1) damnbarkeragain
Offline
Send Email

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Campbell" <mikecampbell@...>
To: "phil barker" <pc.barker@...>
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 11:37 PM
Subject: Our 1st DBMM game (part 1)


> I've written about our 1st game in 2 parts - firstly here I have described
> the game and attached a rough map.  In the next message I'll discuss our
> conclusions, etc.  Sorry the diagram's a bit rough - I'm not too good with
> paint!!
>
> I had circulated the rules to 3 other ppl in my local club and we got
> together yesterday for a 500AP multi-player game.  One of the guys' son
> turned up too, so we had 3 vs 2.  We fought on a 6' x 4' (1800mmx1200mm)
> table.  I played as a Roman.
>
> The terrain system generated a wide river running from the left corner of
> the Roman base to half way along the right hand short table edge - so most
> of the Roman setup area was behind it.  There were a couple of areas of
> rocky ground on the Roman side of the table - one was on the Roman side of
> the river in the centre, one on Seleucid side of the river on the left),
and
> a couple of bare gentle hills on the Seleucid side.
>
> The Seleucids had 3 large commands and the 3 players.
>
> The CinC commanded the right wing of Ax(S), Bw(I), El(S) and Cm(O) -
trying
> to have as many different troop types as possible to see what might
happen!
> This command had all the baggage - 6 elements.
>
> The central command had the massed pike - 16(O) and 4(S) including a pike
> (S) general, some psiloi and 2 Art(O)
>
> The left command had 8 or 9 Cataphracts including a general, some light
> horse and psiloi.
>
> The Romans had 4 commands - 2 of all infantry (Blades Sp(S) and Ps(S) on
the
> left, Bd, Ax(S), Ps(O) and baggage in the CinC's in the centre), 1 of
mixed
> blades, cavalry, light horse on the right.  An Aitolian ally of 10 light
> horse and 3 psiloi was flank marching on the left.
>
> PIP allocation was:
> Romans - high to the CinC, low to the left, middle to the right
> Seleucids - High to their left (opposite the Roman cavalry), low to the
> phalanx in the middle, middle to the CinC on their right
>
> The game started half an hour before dawn an a lovely Spring day in Syria,
> however the Romans set up close to the Seleucids and obtained no advantage
> from the 2 possible turns of movmeent before the Seleucids woke up - we
> should of at least done nothing to have 2 rolls for the flank march to
> arrive!
>
> The Roman CinC was close to the left flank, and swapped his PIPs with the
> sub-general there for several turns at hte beginning, not moving his own
> troops forward at all, and the Roman left quickly came to grips with the
> auxilia and light horse in front of them, destroying the infantry and
> chasing off the cavalry.
>
> The Seleucid left similarly advanced quickly across the river but
> unaccountably failed to attack the Roman line - the cataphracts entered
the
> rough going to cut out the overlap they would have suffered from there but
> were unwilling to actually close!!  This indecision cost the player
dearly,
> as this left close to the Roman blades who hd no such compunctions and
> charged the horse - swiftly destroying several elements including the
> general and crushing the command in 2 turns - the cataphract counterattack
> in their turn was too fragmented to inflict serious casualties, and
suffered
> some more kills from simple doubling.
>
> It was then in the centre that most of the "interesting" stuff happened -
> the Roman CinC had slowly advanced his Bd to the river, and then decided
to
> attack across it.  He had a few combats agaisnt the pike in the middle of
> the river, but htese were indecisive - then hte elephants arrived - with a
> higher factor and a quick kill these made very short work of the blades in
> front of them - the Roman CinC quickly finding his surviving 2 blades
> running backwards from the pachyderms as fast as they could go!!
>
> The pike phalanx advanced, but overlapped the rough going, so a couple of
> columns halted rather than enter it as the others continued.  The halted
> columns then turned to face the Romans coming along the river after
> defeating the cataphracts, but were then struck in the flank by auxilia
and
> psiloi that drove in the Seleucid psiloi screen and "suckered" the pikes
> into the rough going, causing some serious casualties.
>
> On the Roman left the CinC had stopped swapping PIPs with thise general
and
> the advance slowed to a crawl - however the Seleucid CinC was so far from
> his elephants that all his PIPs were spent keeping them moving, and the
> remaining light horse, camels, bows and auxilia were pretty much "caught
in
> the headlights" of the Roman infantry and picked off by being flanked or
hit
> in the rear - one camel did manage to quick-kill 2 elements of Triarii
Sp(S)
> however!
>
> But all these were insufficient to break the command, being mostly 0.5 ME
> elements - Lh, Bw(I), Ax(S).  Eventually the Roman flank march arrived,
> struck the Seleucid CinC's command in the rear and looted some of the
> baggage to win the game.
>
> Then it was time to figure out the VPs' - OOOUUUCCCCHH!!!!!  My brain
> hurts!!
>
> Unfortunately I lost the piece of paper that we did our calculations on -
> but I think it came out as a 19-6 victory to the Romans - the smallest
> losses that would have Broken the Romans were 1.5 ME's off the CinC, and 2
> ME's off the Aitolians, for 3.5 ME's rounded up to 4 and added to the 15
for
> winning.
>
>
> Mike Campbell,
> Lower Hutt, New Zealand
>
>

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#18 From: "Jim Hauber" <jshauber@...>
Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:10 pm
Subject: Not closing the list jshauber
Offline
Send Email

Phil has asked that we keep this list open for posting of test
matches.

Therefore my earlier comments don't apply about closing the list.

Jim Hauber

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (15)

#17 From: <pc.barker@...>
Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:57 pm
Subject: Fw: DBMM damnbarkeragain
Offline
Send Email

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael Tittensor

To: pc.barker@...

Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:42 AM

Subject: RE: DBMM

Hi Phil,

Ok playtest last night: 537AP Marian Romans vs Ancient British

9' BIG table, six players at the table.

Gentle hills on the left, woods in the centre and the far right closed to all comers by steep hills.

Romans have Numidian allies (to make up points and because they were figures we had in the box)

Romans set up Numidians in ambush in gentle hills on left. Turn 1 rush out and turn flank of Celtic light horse and chariots opposite.

Romans legions draw up 2 deep with auxiliaries in front.

Celts draw up with six deep Wb(F) in centre ("millions of 'em centurion") and cavalry on their flanks. Start rumbling forward.

Roman cavalry and light horse break celtic horse in hills before the celtic left flank cavalry can get over to cover the breakthrough.

Warbands hit auxiliaries who hold the line but are slowly pushed back. However, to get around an annoying wood the Roman right hand legion and auxiliaries were angled at a slant (not a deliberate kink just a line to get round the trees) which made it a little confusing how the warband would conform.

Having broken the celtic cavalry, the Romans on the left lapped round the warband's flank and smacked it very hard, breaking it.

On the right the warband had inflicted some serious damage to the legion and it was demoralised on the same turn.

At that point the barman rang the bell and it was decided to be a narrow Roman victory.

Sorry, we didn't get to do the marginal victory stuff. It is hard to work out after several beers and with a barman breathing down our neck.

Overall, it was an excellent game and all enjoyed.

Voted a significant improvement and enjoyed even by the two complete newbies to DBM and ancients.

Yes.

Happy.

Romans vs filthy barbarians now works.

One thing worth noting is that auxiliaries, now worth only 1/2ME when they die, are a godsend to a Roman legion.

Also, +20AP for a regular command is perhaps a tad expensive: maybe +15AP?

Mike

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (9)

#16 From: <pc.barker@...>
Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:23 pm
Subject: DBMM Update damnbarkeragain
Offline
Send Email

You will notice that there are now 2 DBMM newsgroups. My hope is that philosophy will mostly be discussed in DBMM, actual test games in DBMMlist. I could be wrong...

A new version will be sent out in a couple of days. I have now read everything sent me up to Friday. Having posted the Christmas cards and put up the decorations, I will continue reading.

In the mean time, one test report has misled me into making an unfortunate change which is now being reversed. So when some combat is not working out, make sure you state what CF was used, who got rear support in what bound and in what bound QK applied. Then we will all be singing from the same hymn sheet. You must expect that there WILL be changes until the rules settle down. They are still at an early stage of development.

I intend to eliminate one variable at a time.

Pk v Pk seems to require -1 per 3rd/4th rank in both sides' bounds. This will lead to heavy casualties in the first clash, then reducing as formations thin out.

Bd have to have CF 4 to interact properly with Wb/Sp.

Sp have to get rear support in every bound.

Wb may need rear support only in opponent's bound. However, in future Wb (S) are likely to be a lot rarer.

Should Bd have an option to pursue foot?

Effect of superior.

Only 3 troop types doubtfully have (S) substantially better protected than (O).

Bd - full vs partial armour, but the armour may not provide great protection against Bd weapons (for example MatA v Billmen.)

Gal - bigger galley more resistent to ramming, but oars just as vulnerable.

Bts - doubtful. Viking crews MIGHT be better armoured.

On the other hand, better skills, motivation (and to some extent arms/armour) make (S) more deadly.

Cv (S) v (O) - lance makes deadlier in CC. In Cv v Cv CC, horse armour makes little difference, but possibly more likely to charge home against Sp.

Kn (S) v Kn (O) - much better jousters.

I think there may be a case for (S) also +1 on equal.

The ploy of throwing Ps into contact in the hope enemy will press forward after them into contact with your main line doesn't work. PF is only in own bound.

Weather dicing. Having it depend on the difference between 1 dice thrown before terrain choice and 1 after deployment, means that at deployment you will have a good idea whether it is set fair or looking ominous. If the first dice is 3 or 4, bad weather is unlikely, if 1 or 6 anything might happen or not.

The way WW and L work is that if you have naval (maybe a threshold amount?), you get a WW. If you are an inland nation and want to rest your flank against a large lake (which few lists will have) you will have to be lucky to get it.

Phil Barker.

Rough going should not prevent rear support and might need downgrading to -1.

Ideas please.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (2)

#15 From: "Simon Babbs" <shbabbs@...>
Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 3:07 am
Subject: Re: Our 1st DBMM game part 2 simon_babbs
Offline
Send Email

<<< 2/ Page 11 Unreliable generals = the last line of the 3rd bullet point
includes "I have more sons" - should this be "I have YOUR sons"? >>>

I interpreted this as the unreliable ally general refusing to be blackmailed by
threats to kill his sons.

Simon

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)

#14 From: Jim Hauber <jshauber@...>
Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:49 am
Subject: Another List jshauber
Offline
Send Email

Gentleman,

It has been brought to my attention that Luke US has
also got a list going and that it has been up for a
bit.

I have spoken with him and am going to give him all of
our emails so that he can invite us into that list.

Seems to make more sense and since he is one of the
guys actively working on the revision, we will most
likely get more out of it.

I will keep this group active for another week to
allow everyone to make the transition before killing
it.

I apologize for the inconvience, but just found out
yesterday.

Jim Hauber
List Owner
Chitown

PS. The ChicagoDBMM list will remain active for us
locally and will be expanding as we bring others into
the group.

=====
Le Grognard
"Le garde meurt et ne se rends pas"

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)

#13 From: "Michael Campbell" <campbellm@...>
Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:41 am
Subject: RE: Our 1st DBMM game part 2 mikekiwi2001
Offline
Send Email

> From: Jim Hauber [mailto:jshauber@...]
>
> Something that has bothered me is the INERT General
> title, shouldn't that be INEPT General...

One of our players made the same comment - especially in regard of
Charles the Bold - he wasn't lacking in energy - just in competence!!



This email and its accompanying attachments is intended for the named recipient
only and may contain information that
is confidential and subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient please inform the sender and destroy
the message. If you have received this message in error you must not distribute
or copy this email or its attachments.

The Civil Aviation Authority accepts no responsibility for any changes made to
this message after transmission from the
Civil Aviation Authority. Before opening or using attachments, check them for
viruses and other effects.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)

#12 From: Jim Hauber <jshauber@...>
Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:38 am
Subject: Re: Our 1st DBMM game part 2 jshauber
Offline
Send Email

Something that has bothered me is the INERT General
title, shouldn't that be INEPT General...

Jim Hauber
--- clh4@... wrote:
> In a message dated 12/13/2003 6:23:36 PM Central
> Standard Time,
> campbellm@... writes:
> 2/ Page 11 Unreliable generals = the last line of
> the 3rd bullet point
> includes "I have more sons" - should this be "I have
> YOUR sons"?
> Probably better your way, but I think that we are
> intended to infer that the
> unreliable subgeneral is a son of the general and
> that he is replaceable
> should he not commit to battle.

=====
Le Grognard
"Le garde meurt et ne se rends pas"

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)

#11 From: clh4@...
Date: Sun Dec 14, 2003 6:53 pm
Subject: Re: Our 1st DBMM game part 2 clhines4
Offline
Send Email

In a message dated 12/13/2003 6:23:36 PM Central Standard Time, campbellm@... writes:

2/ Page 11 Unreliable generals = the last line of the 3rd bullet point
includes "I have more sons" - should this be "I have YOUR sons"?

Probably better your way, but I think that we are intended to infer that the unreliable subgeneral is a son of the general and that he is replaceable should he not commit to battle.

Chuck Hines

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)

#10 From: "Michael Campbell" <campbellm@...>
Date: Sun Dec 14, 2003 8:59 pm
Subject: RE: DBMM mikekiwi2001
Offline
Send Email

> From: Michael Campbell [mailto:CampbellM@...]
> It appears as if DBMM baggage counts for command size as well
> as army size?

> From: Michael Tittensor [mailto:michael.tittensor@...]
>
> Yup.
>
> I like this idea A LOT!
>
> A well fed army that has a good baggage train (e.g. Romans)
> will fight a lot harder than a bunch of half starved barbars:
> have a look at Caesar in Gaul for the importance GJC attached
> to his baggage train.

Oh yes indeed, and I wouldn't argue with it, but I do argue with the
matter of degree.

Making the baggage count for army size means you have to kill more
elements to demoralise the whole army, but I don't see any great reason
why it should make one command fight much harder than all the other
ones.

I know it's been in DBR - but I hadn't noticed it and have played all my
games without adding baggage to commands!! :)  In HFG baggage (Supply
bases, Laagers) add to the size of the army as a whole, but not to the
size of any command in particular.

BTW I'm cross posting this to the DBMM list since most of us should be
on it by now and it's easier to keep track of 1 e-mail address!!

Mike



This email and its accompanying attachments is intended for the named recipient
only and may contain information that
is confidential and subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient please inform the sender and destroy
the message. If you have received this message in error you must not distribute
or copy this email or its attachments.

The Civil Aviation Authority accepts no responsibility for any changes made to
this message after transmission from the
Civil Aviation Authority. Before opening or using attachments, check them for
viruses and other effects.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (184)

#9 From: DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun Dec 14, 2003 12:21 am
Subject: New file uploaded to DBMMlist DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com
Send Email

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the DBMMlist
group.

   File        : /DBMM game 1.jpg
   Uploaded by : mikekiwi2001 <campbellm@...>
   Description : Map of our 1st DBMM game

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/files/DBMM%20game%201.jpg

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

mikekiwi2001 <campbellm@...>

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (987)

#8 From: "mikekiwi2001" <campbellm@...>
Date: Sun Dec 14, 2003 12:21 am
Subject: Our 1st DBMM game part 2 mikekiwi2001
Offline
Send Email

Here with is part 2, with comments, observations, complaints and
suggestions.

1/ Page 23 Dicing for river fordability - this still mentions dicing
for the
river in each sector, but sectors are not defined any more - how is
this to
be done?  We only diced once and it ended up paltry.

2/ Page 11 Unreliable generals = the last line of the 3rd bullet point
includes "I have more sons" - should this be "I have YOUR sons"?

3/ Page 14, Terrain choosing and placement - does the distance the
1st piece
of terrain have to be from the edge apply to the whole piece, or any
part of
it?  Presumably it means any part since nothing can be entirely
within 50p
of a table edge if a 1 is rolled, but that's not clear from the
wording!!

4/ Page 17 deployment - there's no requirement for baggage to abut a
table
edge or waterway any more, unless it is fortified in which case the
fortfications have to start and end on a table edge.

5/ Page 21 Move distances - the "and/or" for adding 50p to moves for
Fast or
Spontaneously advancing troops caused a little confusion - we
feel "or"
would be sufficient here and is easier to understand.

6/ Troops struck in the rear but not flank or front do not turn to
face
unless they draw win the combat - so they get -1 for having enemy in
contact
with their rear edge, cannot recoil and cannot inflict any outcome on
their
opponents.

7/ Elephants are pretty damned nasty shock troops - high factors and
quick-kills on all heavy infantry types!

8/ We didn't get too many cases of the changes in ZOC affecting
anything
except for some bows fighting and being killed by spears and blades -
under
the old rules the bows would have been more quickly defeated as they
were
getting doubled but only losing 1 rank of elements when 2 deep.

9/ The new factors for (S) (ie adding when higher in close combat)
work well
and make (S) troops much more dangerous but also slightly more
vunerable
since they no longer add for losing - they REALLY slice through (I)
or (F)
troops since those get a -1 as well as the +1 for the (S) troops.

10/ Command radius is much shortened - we set up per DBM, but often
and
quickly found our generals too far away from their troops and having
to pay
+1 PIP - armies will have to be much more compact, and bodies of LH
swanning
off around flanks are much less likely to happen unless a complete
command.

11/ We were undecided whether the changes to regular PIP allocations
mean
that regular generals are still worth the extra points or not.  The
rigid
allocation of all PIPs for the whole game is quite inflexible but
means the
presence of the CinC becomes a focal point for action if he's
allocated the
highest PIPs!

In contrast an irregular general will get an average distribution of
PIPs -
sometimes 1, sometimes 6, usually about 3.5 - so the flexility lies
with the
irregulars now!

My personal view on this is that a general who can swap PIPs is
certainly
worth 20 pts, but it should be a regular CinC that can swap PIPs with
any
sub-general, not a regular sub-general with any CinC.  So Regular
CinC's
would be worth 20, but all subs only 10.

The current situation rewards an organisation of an irregular CinC and
regular sub-generals (the CinC can swap with either), but still gives
nothing to a Regular CinC with irregular sub-generals (the CinC cannot
swap).

12/ Page 11 Regular generals on elephants - what is the definitions
of "a
general of Regular troops"?  Does this mean if he has any regular
troops at
all?  Or that all of his troops must be regular?

Perhaps a better criteria would be for any general who is upgraded
from a
regular troop type to an elephant, or whose command is otherwise
entirely of
regular troops?

13/ Everywhere that something is spelled with an "ie" in it the
documents
has reproduced this as "ice" - eg "mediceval", and my favourite -
  "bodices
of monks"!! :)

14/ ME's - variable ME's are interesting and seemed to work well,
however
there's perhaps room for some variability.

Eg Warband (O) and (F) are 1 ME -which is probably fine for Ancient
Spanish
where the Wb(F) are highly regarded Celtiberrians and therest of hte
foot is
0.5ME - but possibly not fine for Later Carthaginians, where the
Celts are
supposed to be expendable yet count twice as much as the Spanish
Scutarii,
or on British and Gallic lists where they count the same as the noble
cavalry.

15/ Victory points - only 2 of us were game to try to figure this
out!  It
seems as complicated as the old 7th edition count ups were, but no
doubt we
can get used to it.

I don't see that it has any advantage over the current 0-10 - you can
still
get more for an uncompleted game than a win - conceivably someone
could get
25 points in a game where no-one wins, eg light or no casualties, and
the
highest margin is over 10 - that person then gets 25 points because
both
players essentially did nothing!!!

It has the disadvantage of being much more complicated.

Personally for cometition scoring I favour a 2-tiered system of
counting
wins, draws/uncompleted games and losses, ranking firstly by number
of wins,
2nd by number of draws/uncompleted games, and then using the 0-10 VP
system
to seperate ties.

So a player with 1 win and 3 losses ranks higher than a player with 4
draws/uncompleted games, regardless of VP's scored, but a player with
1 win
and 3 losses and 9 VP's ranks lower than a player with 1 win, 3
losses and
10 VP's.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)

#7 From: "mikekiwi2001" <campbellm@...>
Date: Sun Dec 14, 2003 12:20 am
Subject: Our 1st DBMM game part 1 mikekiwi2001
Offline
Send Email

I've written about our 1st game in 2 parts - firstly here I have
described
the game and attached a rough map.  In the next message I'll discuss
our
conclusions, etc.  Sorry the diagram's a bit rough - I'm not too good
with
paint!!

I had circulated the rules to 3 other ppl in my local club and we got
together yesterday for a 500AP multi-player game.  One of the guys'
son
turned up too, so we had 3 vs 2.  We fought on a 6' x 4'
(1800mmx1200mm)
table.  I played as a Roman.

The terrain system generated a wide river running from the left
corner of
the Roman base to half way along the right hand short table edge - so
most
of the Roman setup area was behind it.  There were a couple of areas
of
rocky ground on the Roman side of the table - one was on the Roman
side of
the river in the centre, one on Seleucid side of the river on the
left), and
a couple of bare gentle hills on the Seleucid side.

The Seleucids had 3 large commands and the 3 players.

The CinC commanded the right wing of Ax(S), Bw(I), El(S) and Cm(O) -
trying
to have as many different troop types as possible to see what might
happen!
This command had all the baggage - 6 elements.

The central command had the massed pike - 16(O) and 4(S) including a
pike
(S) general, some psiloi and 2 Art(O)

The left command had 8 or 9 Cataphracts including a general, some
light
horse and psiloi.

The Romans had 4 commands - 2 of all infantry (Blades Sp(S) and Ps(S)
on the
left, Bd, Ax(S), Ps(O) and baggage in the CinC's in the centre), 1 of
mixed
blades, cavalry, light horse on the right.  An Aitolian ally of 10
light
horse and 3 psiloi was flank marching on the left.

PIP allocation was:
Romans - high to the CinC, low to the left, middle to the right
Seleucids - High to their left (opposite the Roman cavalry), low to
the
phalanx in the middle, middle to the CinC on their right

The game started half an hour before dawn an a lovely Spring day in
Syria,
however the Romans set up close to the Seleucids and obtained no
advantage
from the 2 possible turns of movmeent before the Seleucids woke up -
we
should of at least done nothing to have 2 rolls for the flank march to
arrive!

The Roman CinC was close to the left flank, and swapped his PIPs with
the
sub-general there for several turns at hte beginning, not moving his
own
troops forward at all, and the Roman left quickly came to grips with
the
auxilia and light horse in front of them, destroying the infantry and
chasing off the cavalry.

The Seleucid left similarly advanced quickly across the river but
unaccountably failed to attack the Roman line - the cataphracts
entered the
rough going to cut out the overlap they would have suffered from
there but
were unwilling to actually close!!  This indecision cost the player
dearly,
as this left close to the Roman blades who hd no such compunctions and
charged the horse - swiftly destroying several elements including the
general and crushing the command in 2 turns - the cataphract
counterattack
in their turn was too fragmented to inflict serious casualties, and
suffered
some more kills from simple doubling.

It was then in the centre that most of the "interesting" stuff
happened -
the Roman CinC had slowly advanced his Bd to the river, and then
decided to
attack across it.  He had a few combats agaisnt the pike in the
middle of
the river, but htese were indecisive - then hte elephants arrived -
with a
higher factor and a quick kill these made very short work of the
blades in
front of them - the Roman CinC quickly finding his surviving 2 blades
running backwards from the pachyderms as fast as they could go!!

The pike phalanx advanced, but overlapped the rough going, so a
couple of
columns halted rather than enter it as the others continued.  The
halted
columns then turned to face the Romans coming along the river after
defeating the cataphracts, but were then struck in the flank by
auxilia and
psiloi that drove in the Seleucid psiloi screen and "suckered" the
pikes
into the rough going, causing some serious casualties.

On the Roman left the CinC had stopped swapping PIPs with thise
general and
the advance slowed to a crawl - however the Seleucid CinC was so far
from
his elephants that all his PIPs were spent keeping them moving, and
the
remaining light horse, camels, bows and auxilia were pretty
much "caught in
the headlights" of the Roman infantry and picked off by being flanked
or hit
in the rear - one camel did manage to quick-kill 2 elements of
Triarii Sp(S)
however!

But all these were insufficient to break the command, being mostly
0.5 ME
elements - Lh, Bw(I), Ax(S).  Eventually the Roman flank march
arrived,
struck the Seleucid CinC's command in the rear and looted some of the
baggage to win the game.

Then it was time to figure out the VPs' - OOOUUUCCCCHH!!!!!  My brain
hurts!!

Unfortunately I lost the piece of paper that we did our calculations
on -
but I think it came out as a 19-6 victory to the Romans - the smallest
losses that would have Broken the Romans were 1.5 ME's off the CinC,
and 2
ME's off the Aitolians, for 3.5 ME's rounded up to 4 and added to the
15 for
winning.


Mike Campbell,
Lower Hutt, New Zealand

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#6 From: "Simon Babbs" <shbabbs@...>
Date: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:55 am
Subject: Re: Does this list replace ChicagoDBMM? <eom> simon_babbs
Offline
Send Email

Nah, I always suck my toes _before_ I type.

Simon

----- Original Message -----
From: <clh4@...>
To: <DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: [DBMMlist] Does this list replace ChicagoDBMM? <eom>


> In a message dated 12/12/2003 8:08:15 PM Central Standard Time,
> shbabbs@... writes:
> No.  The global group wouldn't want to read our practical plans
> Sorry! Didn't realize that this _was_ a global group...
>
> Hello all! It seems I've put my foot in my mouth on the very first post. That
> has to be some sort of record.
>
> Chuck
>

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (5)

#5 From: clh4@...
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 9:11 pm
Subject: Re: Does this list replace ChicagoDBMM? <eom> clhines4
Offline
Send Email

In a message dated 12/12/2003 8:08:15 PM Central Standard Time, shbabbs@... writes:

No. The global group wouldn't want to read our practical plans

Sorry! Didn't realize that this _was_ a global group...

Hello all! It seems I've put my foot in my mouth on the very first post. That has to be some sort of record.

Chuck

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (5)

#4 From: "Simon Babbs" <shbabbs@...>
Date: Sat Dec 13, 2003 12:44 am
Subject: Re: Does this list replace ChicagoDBMM? <eom> simon_babbs
Offline
Send Email

No.  The global group wouldn't want to read our practical plans.

Simon

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Hines" <clh4@...>
To: <DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:54 PM
Subject: [DBMMlist] Does this list replace ChicagoDBMM? <eom>


>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DBMMlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (5)

#3 From: "Simon Babbs" <shbabbs@...>
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:47 am
Subject: Thanks to Jim Hauber ... simon_babbs
Offline
Send Email

... for setting up this list.

Simon

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#2 From: Jim Hauber <jshauber@...>
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 5:00 am
Subject: Re: Does this list replace ChicagoDBMM? <eom> jshauber
Offline
Send Email

Nope,

This list has guys from around the world that are play
testing.  It just gives us all access to more input
from others.

Also, once the rules are out this list can be modified
to function like the DBMlist group is now.

The ChicagoDBMM list will still be for local use to
set up games and such that others won't be intersted
in wasting bandwidth on seeing.

Jim Hauber

=====
Le Grognard
"Le garde meurt et ne se rends pas"

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (5)

#1 From: "Chuck Hines" <clh4@...>
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 4:54 am
Subject: Does this list replace ChicagoDBMM? <eom> clhines4
Offline
Send Email

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (5)

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...

Messages

Yahoo! My Yahoo! Mail
	Sign In New User? Sign Up
		Games - Groups - Help

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...

Best of Y! Groups

Messages