|
Post by wstevens on Oct 14, 2009 19:22:55 GMT
Please read and comment if necessary. Its best to get this in early so people can do so. This has changed a bit from the original one but here we go. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Oct 14, 2009 21:29:58 GMT
Firstly hopefully there won't be to much other terrain set up on this tables, additional woods, hills, etc will simply make it more difficult for the attacker to actually attack the garrison, so presumably other terrain will either be deployed near the edges of the table or kept to a minimum.
Second I'm assuming that the fences, walls, etc are going to 6” inches long each, if they are much longer with the rules as written it will be far to easy to completely wall in the garrison (even with 6” walls the defender is garanteed to get at least 30” of obstacles which is enough to cover half the garrison edge, with the possibility of having 66” which leaves only a single 6” entrance that is not blocked.
Third I'm thinking you may need to reduce the distance the attacker has to set up away from the garrison, as a 12” gap between the edge of the garrison and the attacker leaves you only a 3” deep strip to deploy in along the centre of the long edges of the table.
This is not actually very much space to set up in, and virtually forces the attacker to setup attacking from the short table edges.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Oct 14, 2009 21:40:56 GMT
This seems like a slightly excessive amount of leadership bonuses to the defender. An extra point of leadership, plus stubborn, plus a free battle standard re-roll, that's a lot.
If you thrown in defended obstacles it'll be pretty difficult to dislodge the defender unless you have some really fearsome units.
I'd be inclined to just hand out the stubborn bonus and be done with it, being able to pass your first break test automatically is very helpful, and coupled with some obstacles to defend the defender ought to do well enough in their first couple of fights, without boosting their leadership and giving them a re-roll to boot.
Question why alter the shooting rules for skirmishers in this one case? Why not simply state that all of the reserve force count as moving in the turn they come onto the table, even if they are just placed on the table edge. So a -1 penalty to all shooting, skirmishers or not?
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Oct 14, 2009 21:53:09 GMT
I'm actually wondering how unfair this scenario actually is on the defender? Obstacles are a big nuisance to formed infantry, you loose half your movement, you can't march move across them (which means a four rank unit of infantry should take at least 2 full turns to cross one), and if they're defended by any ranked unit they are nearly impossible to break through.
The defender gets a large number of leadership and break test benefits for free. Also gets a VP bonus for keeping something within the garrison area, while the attacker must clear the whole garrison out to get a bonus.
It actually feels fairly even to me, it might actually even be slightly slanted in favour of the defender as if the attacker is slowed down to much by the obstacles they could very easily be rear charged by the defenders reserve force.
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Oct 14, 2009 22:37:09 GMT
You actually say its unfair on the defender and then comment on how its unfair on the attacker. I wish you would make your mind up Stephen. All of these are positive comments and have merit. However the attacking side is a larger army - twice as large as the skirmish army. Yes we know that there is a reserve army but will they be deployed too far to be effective? As you know their "entrance" has to be marked down before the enemy's deployment. Defended obstacles took away ranks - I thought. Perhaps I'm mixing up another format here.
Yes the vp bonus for the so called ABS position in the centre of the camp is worth double the amount to the attackers - a good incentive. I am expecting the attacking side to run right over the defenders - if he or she has the right idea. Some of the skirmish force cannot cover all obstacle points - well certainly not mine!! On top these barracades etc can be smashed down by war machines and elephants. If someone didn't put them into their force, then this is tough.
Also remember that the rules will be the same when the roles are reversed. Remember that the width of an obstacle should not be compared to the width of let's say wooded terrain or rough ground. So taking two turns to cross over this would be a little over what I would expect. Consider troops running down the defending opposition after a failed break test - I don't believe there are such restrictions.
The leadership +1 is put there to give the defenders more staying power as is the stubborness. Maybe the reroll should be clearer - it should really be only used to re-roll one failed break test. Again this gives the defenders more staying power. Without these I doubt very much that a small band of skirmishing archers / javelin guys and the token small unit and one cavalry could actually hold there own against let's say a horde army of Chinese, Persians, or Gauls etc.. past two rounds. It would be over very quickly. I have play tested this already with and without the rerolls. To be fair the attackers did take a bit of time but were successful on both and the reserve army was rather ineffective, apart from one forced panic check. As I say it is impossible for the garrison army to cover all bases and a wise general would take note of that. Also note that skirmishers are very good here as they ignore all terrain movement restrictions.
Sorry about the skirmishing shooters - they by defintion do not have penalties for shooting when moving anyway, but can't march move and shoot. - hang on that's javelin guys only.
The distance works out fine. If you worked out your maths correctly you would find that from the centre point of the garrison is 9 inches all around - hence the lengths of 18inches. Therefore from this point (9 inches plus the 12 inch space) should leave you 7 inches of deployment - but all the way around. You are allowed to deploy ANYWHERE AROUND the garrison. As the defender has to deploy all his guys first - this gives a lot of advantage to the attacker.
So maybe you are correct about the defenders being at a disadvantage.
There should not be much terrain around the garrison just token woods or two and a hill. "Walling in the Garrison" will be dependent on what you roll for your allocation of obstacles.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Oct 14, 2009 23:13:06 GMT
I'm not sure how you are working out your distances here. The centre of the table is 24" away from the long edges. Taking 9" off that leaves 15" inches. Another 12" leaves just 3" remaining to deploy in. There will of course be more room than that in the corners.
On the short sides you have a lot more room. It's 36" from the centre, minus 9" and 12" leaves 15" to deploy in.
I wasn't trying to imply that the scenario is unbalanced, I actually think it ought to play out pretty closely. The obstacles will aid the defender a great deal, which ought to balance out the numbers quite a lot.
As far as the obstacles go I would be very surprised if any infantry unit gets over them in less than 2 turns. As the attacker it will take you two turns to reach an obstacle, and as you can't cross one if you march most units will probably have to pull up touching the obstacle. A 2" movement gets a couple of ranks across, with the rest of the unit crossing in the following turn.
|
|
|
Post by Andy"windy"Miller on Oct 15, 2009 8:45:16 GMT
Skirmishers and shooting. When playing the skirmish game it was explained to me that there was no -1 penalty to skirmishers shooting when they moved. They could not shoot at all after there full double move. I used this myself later in the 3 games, as did my opponents. It also came into effect once in the game against Darrell. He seemed surprised by this, which I didn't register at the time. I've gone back to the rule book and can not find anything that appears to exempt them from the penalty. Can I have some clarification? Is there a -1 penalty to skirmishers who move then shoot? Andy
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Oct 15, 2009 10:26:01 GMT
Andy,
The rule is that anything that moves takes a -1 penalty to shoot, this applies to everything, skirmishers, formed infantry, cavalry, elephants, chariots, etc.
The only exception are javelins which have their own rule which states that they ignore all penalties for moving and shooting and for long range, on the grounds that a bit of a run up is a benefit when chucking a javelin not a penalty.
As a lot of the ancients skirmishers are armed with javelin's this means that those units don't take a -1 penalty when moving and shooting, but it's down to the weapon, not the fact that the unit are skirmishers.
|
|
|
Post by Andy"windy"Miller on Oct 15, 2009 14:56:41 GMT
Thanks Stephen, That does confirm what I now think is correct Apologies to the one turn of archers who didn't stick to this when Darrell and I played. I'll "decimate" them later for there underhand tactics, I don't think it made much difference in the game and most of the other skirmish games were "tit for tat" on the misunderstanding. Andy
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Oct 15, 2009 19:43:54 GMT
Ah if you read the rules for elephants war wagons and chariots they are also exempt from the -1 to shoot if they move. Check the modifier table for this - its there! I may have got the archers and jav guys mixed up at the beginning but I'm sure I used the proper -1 for shooting against Colin. Didn't make much difference either way those Cretan archers couldn't hit a barn door in that game.
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Oct 15, 2009 20:00:07 GMT
About the distance away I did get my maths a bit lob sided on that one apologies. I was looking at 9 + 12 = 21 leaving just (as stephens says) 3 inches just at the front and the back. For some reason I was using 28 inches instead of 24 inches. Very silly and I apologize, back to skool 4 me... On reflection this doesn't leave you much room on those fronts and backs but still ample on the sides. So we will have to go back to 8 inches which will seriously cause the defenders a lot of problems if one part is not defended.
Imagine... Oh I have some fast cav here I will march move them 16 inches - oh I'm over the unguarded wall just need another 9 inches to the centre - round 2 thanks very much game over if I hold it and make sure the pultry number of defenders are locked in combat.
This is why I feel that 12 inches is better - but I can see your point about the crammed up space (lack of it) to the back and front. The sides are ok. What do you think Stephen do you feel that I should relax to 10 inches to the back and front and leave 12 inches to the sides? How fair is this to the defenders if they are bum rushed all on one side if it was 8 inches away? I'm sure the small number of defenders wouldn't be able to cope. One which is locked in combat would soon be doing a panic test in the next round as the attackers "get over" an unmanned part of the wall and slam into the engaged defender's flank. Ensue panic test - au revoir if failed.
Defenders - of the Europa League - you are all very quiet - what do you think? Some input would be nice for me to make an overall decision on this.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Oct 15, 2009 22:26:40 GMT
Interestingly enough their appears to be a bit of a contradiction in the rules on this matter. (there's a surprise)
The following is a direct quote from the rules on Chariots.
This appears to imply that all the shooting modifiers that apply to cavalry apply to chariot crew.
However the actual To Hit Modifier's Text states the following:
Which states that the -1 penalty doesn't apply.
I have to admit I had missed this qualifier in the WAB rules, although I had picked up on the text in the chariot rules (and the similarly worded bit in the elephant section).
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Oct 15, 2009 22:41:49 GMT
The deployment zone thing is a bit of a tricky issue. I agree you don't want the attacker to be too close, really you don't want to be any closer than 12" as you say, but you also would like enough space for them to deploy a formed unit of infantry on any side.
What are the options.
We could make the garrison a slightly different shape, more oblong than square. So have it extend 12" towards the short edges of the table, but only 7" towards the long edges.
That would give the attacker 5" along the long edges and still have a full 12" along the sides, enough room to set up units on any side, without getting any closer than 12".
As for the VP's I was reading your scenario text as the attacker gets 200 VP's if they are holding the central garrison meaning that if the attacker has complete control of the garrison (i.e no defending units left in in it). Perhaps you were talking about only about capturing the central point of the garrison (i.e the centre of the table).
|
|
|
Post by Simon Robinson on Oct 16, 2009 10:31:10 GMT
Since the situation will be reversed when it is the Byzantines turn to defend as long as the scenarion rules are the same for both battles, I don't think "unfairness" to one side or the other matters.
Regarding the deployment zones - the last stand scenario uses an 18" square with an 8" gap. 12" would give more chance for defensive missile fire, but even at that range cavalry will still be a pain (particularly for those of us with none ourselves) . So basically I'm not fussed about the deployment zones - again as the roles are reversed it makes no difference to my mind.
regarding the destruction of obstacles if you wish I have the seige and conquest supplement which may will address these issues - and I can look up what that book has to say on the subject and let you know.
cheers
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Oct 16, 2009 19:03:45 GMT
Ah Simon - I was hoping you were going to reply with exactly what I was after - the destruction of stone walls etc.. I have made a rudimentary damage and toughness list for the momemnt based on the stuff in the WAB rule book. It would help if you could find the details and post up for stone walls, wooden fences (palisades), and thick hedge.
Steve - on reflection it really should be closest to the central point as we do in an open capture. Contesting units should have at least US 5. If the defenders have such a unit nearest the capture point then they gain the 100pts - if the attacker has one nearest they gain 200pts. Remember the attacker also has an army battle std to lose as well - anice target for reinforcements I might add!
If both opposing forces have equidistant units then the largest unit will gain the points. If they are both the same size then no points will be awarded to each side as a stalemate has been reached. However as VPs count - the winner will be assumed from these. Please note that table quarters do not count here.
Go with the WAB shooting modifier table as this is used by most people - so elephants, javelin skirmish and chariots do not have -1 to movement. I wish I had got some elephants and chariots!
Actually - sod it just go with the last stand measurements and what was originally down but with a twist. Do them 18 inches square and 8 inches + d3 inches away. I think that's fair enough - what do you say?
As we play mostly with 2ft square boards then I think its only right that the defender should secretly nominate which square and board side he will come on (especially at corners). Mind you other terrain should be placed on the board before the garrsion is built.
|
|