Great job with this videos Tony, specially while letting us know why you did some of this movements. This is really helpful. Thanks for sharing with us. Regards from Barcelona!
Thanks again for the battle and AAR. I see how a column can suck a single element defender out of its terrain. Not sure what that is supposed to represent in a historical context although I can see it as a game mechanism from the rule wording. I may have to ask Phil Barker in person if I see him at the UK CoW (Conference of Wargamers) this year.
The move to column at 21:55 was very neat. I did not at first understand what you had done, because it never occurred to me that one might want to move into column while entering combat.
nice video! i feel that in DBA 3.0 vs the 1.22 version the later achaemenid persians are overpowered! too many heavy units. how did they justify 2 Kn elements for the Persians?
I know your vid was made over 2 years ago but at 13:48 when the Spears were taking on the Pikes, I interpret the rules as the Spears add 1 for being supported on the flank by another Spear. Then the Pikes deduct 1 for being overlapped. In this instance, the Combat Outcome would be unchanged but on another occasion might have been crucial. Thoroughly enjoy your vids btw.
Tony Aguilar Thanks for responding so promptly. You have chosen your interpretation and l respect that but for any third party who follows this short thread, I submit that combat scores are cumulative and “rear support”, “flank support” and “tactical factors” are all totted up. In the scenario in question the “tactical factor” minus 1 “for each enemy element...overlapping” has been omitted from the Pike’s total. The Spears have been credited with the “flank support” factor of plus 1. They are not mutually exclusive but should both go into the calculation.
Tony Aguilar This is embarrassing. I looked at this; thought it through (and through) and still couldn’t see the wood for the trees until l pressed the “send” button. The instant l did, l realised my brain fog. Apologies for wasting your time. Love your work😀👍🏻
Great battle. It pains me to watch the Macedonians lose. If I’m not mistaken the early Macedonians have two knights and the light horse, Alexandrian Macedonians have one knight one cav and one light horse and the imperial Macedonians have two knights. Still doesn’t make sense to me.
on pg 28 figure 20a (example 2) you can line up on the rear supporting pike unit and still give combat bonus and both elements will be destroyed on recoil. so when (22:20) he could have closed his cavalry on the rear pike unit and not had to over lap both units for the exact same effect. The guy (mitch) off camera said it doesn't give -1. according to the example on pg 28 it states it does. In example 2, the flank contact on pike Y is treated as if on pike x AND PROVIDES A COMBAT FACTOR against pike X; therefore pike Y will not turn to face spear B. (continued) "In both examples, both pike elements will be destroyed if pike x is forced to recoil. Or am I missing something? IE is a "combat factor" not supposed to be a "tactical factor" which would be the -1 for overlapping.
Hmm, looks like we have gotten this wrong because the unit went into frontal combat with the rear unit. We try and get everything correct but unfortunately few things seem to get through.
Tony, considering this was the first time I noticed the appearance of the F bomb, what does it suggest as an alternative plan for you next time with a pike army? You used an anchored line with a mixed formation but with insufficient cavalry for the right. The pikes are presumably your killer units, so how do you get them to kill.
William Hupp I decided against editing out the F bomb as it was a hilariously ironic moment. I enjoy using pike armies a lot since it has the added challenge of having to give up frontage due to the doubled up elements. I think that other than rolling poorly in several combats, I would have been better served without the Art element in this match up. I don't worry about winning that much as I have won hundreds and lost hundreds of games. I think the fact that our group all pretty much split all our games adds to the enjoyment and removes any unnecessary competitiveness. Also I have found that whoever controls the flow/pace of the battle is generally the victor. I spent the whole time reacting to him in this battle so he definite had an edge.
To me this is like discussing formations in soccer or football. An interesting additonal diversion to the enjoyment of playing the game. Just curious if you think you had a deployment flaw in retrospect. And your rolling earned a bomb. If you bunch the pike, it seems like the other side can avoid it easier, but it might be easier to protect. Just speculating.
I don't understand why( although I understand it is the new rules ) the spear unit getting an +1 for an overlap and the other side getting an -1 for the same overlap. Seems like a double penalty. These rules have really changed from previous version.
Dan Higdon you can push back ONE element if it is an allowable type. Page 12: "If the recoiling element is not Elephants, friends facing in the same direction can be interpenetrated if allowed. If not, they push back far enough to make room unless they are Elephants or War Wagons. Pushed back elements cannot interpenetrate or push back others."
Hello, nice video. I have a question: at 10:48, the column of 2 persian LH contact alexander's LH on the flank, not with their whole front (they don't have the move, i guess)) but only with a corner. I believed that you can do a flank contact, only by being aligned front to flank and front corner to opposite front corner. Being in column means that the lone LH will align but only if the contact is initially valid, Am I right ? according to figure 10 of the purple book, this contact seems invalid to me. Do I miss anything?
I thought that an element contacted on the flank does not turn to face its attacker until the end of the movement phase, so it is not clear to me that the column move would have opened up the opportunity to close the door on the other LH in the same bound. Unless maybe there was room to have the column contact the back LH front-edge to front corner?
Hello, I completely agree with "eric p". I would have moved the persian LH into front edge contact with the side edge of the makedonian LH. "At the end of the bound", if there will be no contact to the makedonian LH front edge, they would have turned 90°!? We play it that way, because "Contactors conform using their tactical move ... (rulebook, page 9)." And the "contactor" here is the group of persian LH!
We play that conforming to a group by a single element happens immediately so there is no turn to face in this instance. We are just illustrating a series of games on this channel not forcing anyone to play a certain way. Feel free to play however you like.
Hello eric, maybe this (see my post from today at fanaticus.boards.net/thread/965/tony-aguilar-dba-stuff-youtube?page=5&scrollTo=9818) solves your problem. Cheers, Ronald
@@TonyAguilarFigure-atively there was a long pause for thought that might have benefited from editing, from the viewers point of view. I suppose I'd also just laid my hands on Chris Peers' "In Death Ground" rules, in which he makes the point that a high tempo of play can help do the job of simulating command & control limitations. That's one of the gripes I have with PIPs: that they limit the player but also lead to a sort of pondering that isn't characteristic of battlefield decision making. All that said, I think yours is a great channel and my opinions aren't really very weighty. Keep up the good work and thanj you.
@@johnrohde5510 editing (and all the time it involves) was quickly killing my interest in producing more videos. I have now gone to a different format for the time being where battles will only be live so these types of pauses may become more common. There is a fast forward button. Along with reducing my work load (which has increase dramatically in 2020) it allows the viewer to get an idea on how long games take even with experienced players.
Great job with this videos Tony, specially while letting us know why you did some of this movements. This is really helpful. Thanks for sharing with us. Regards from Barcelona!
Thanks again for the battle and AAR. I see how a column can suck a single element defender out of its terrain. Not sure what that is supposed to represent in a historical context although I can see it as a game mechanism from the rule wording. I may have to ask Phil Barker in person if I see him at the UK CoW (Conference of Wargamers) this year.
DBA seems to punish armies that have a short frontage as the overlaps and closing the door really seem to be decisive factors in killing elements.
The move to column at 21:55 was very neat. I did not at first understand what you had done, because it never occurred to me that one might want to move into column while entering combat.
instablaster.
wait this is in gainesville? dang i didn't know there was a club near me
Yep, Gainesville is the center of all things DBA. We play a lot. Drop me a line on Facebook if you want to join us.
sounds awesome - im still up in jax for the summer and have mostly 1/72 figures so ill have to see about expanding my collection
nice video! i feel that in DBA 3.0 vs the 1.22 version the later achaemenid persians are overpowered! too many heavy units. how did they justify 2 Kn elements for the Persians?
You will have to ask the author.
I know your vid was made over 2 years ago but at 13:48 when the Spears were taking on the Pikes, I interpret the rules as the Spears add 1 for being supported on the flank by another Spear. Then the Pikes deduct 1 for being overlapped.
In this instance, the Combat Outcome would be unchanged but on another occasion might have been crucial.
Thoroughly enjoy your vids btw.
Look at it again. Spears are normally a 4 supported +1 = 5. Pikes are 3+3 =6 -1 =5. That is what we did. 🤔
Tony Aguilar Thanks for responding so promptly. You have chosen your interpretation and l respect that but for any third party who follows this short thread, I submit that combat scores are cumulative and “rear support”, “flank support” and “tactical factors” are all totted up.
In the scenario in question the “tactical factor” minus 1 “for each enemy element...overlapping” has been omitted from the Pike’s total. The Spears have been credited with the “flank support” factor of plus 1. They are not mutually exclusive but should both go into the calculation.
Tony Aguilar This is embarrassing. I looked at this; thought it through (and through) and still couldn’t see the wood for the trees until l pressed the “send” button. The instant l did, l realised my brain fog. Apologies for wasting your time. Love your work😀👍🏻
Great battle. It pains me to watch the Macedonians lose. If I’m not mistaken the early Macedonians have two knights and the light horse, Alexandrian Macedonians have one knight one cav and one light horse and the imperial Macedonians have two knights. Still doesn’t make sense to me.
on pg 28 figure 20a (example 2) you can line up on the rear supporting pike unit and still give combat bonus and both elements will be destroyed on recoil. so when (22:20) he could have closed his cavalry on the rear pike unit and not had to over lap both units for the exact same effect. The guy (mitch) off camera said it doesn't give -1. according to the example on pg 28 it states it does. In example 2, the flank contact on pike Y is treated as if on pike x AND PROVIDES A COMBAT FACTOR against pike X; therefore pike Y will not turn to face spear B. (continued) "In both examples, both pike elements will be destroyed if pike x is forced to recoil. Or am I missing something? IE is a "combat factor" not supposed to be a "tactical factor" which would be the -1 for overlapping.
Hmm, looks like we have gotten this wrong because the unit went into frontal combat with the rear unit. We try and get everything correct but unfortunately few things seem to get through.
Tony, considering this was the first time I noticed the appearance of the F bomb, what does it suggest as an alternative plan for you next time with a pike army? You used an anchored line with a mixed formation but with insufficient cavalry for the right. The pikes are presumably your killer units, so how do you get them to kill.
William Hupp I decided against editing out the F bomb as it was a hilariously ironic moment. I enjoy using pike armies a lot since it has the added challenge of having to give up frontage due to the doubled up elements. I think that other than rolling poorly in several combats, I would have been better served without the Art element in this match up. I don't worry about winning that much as I have won hundreds and lost hundreds of games. I think the fact that our group all pretty much split all our games adds to the enjoyment and removes any unnecessary competitiveness. Also I have found that whoever controls the flow/pace of the battle is generally the victor. I spent the whole time reacting to him in this battle so he definite had an edge.
To me this is like discussing formations in soccer or football. An interesting additonal diversion to the enjoyment of playing the game. Just curious if you think you had a deployment flaw in retrospect. And your rolling earned a bomb. If you bunch the pike, it seems like the other side can avoid it easier, but it might be easier to protect. Just speculating.
I really don't mind discussing stuff like this in person, but I tire on writing things in length with back-and-forths. :)
@@TonyAguilarFigure-atively Cool answer
I don't understand why( although I understand it is the new rules ) the spear unit getting an +1 for an overlap and the other side
getting an -1 for the same overlap. Seems like a double penalty. These rules have really changed from previous version.
I understood that a column of LH in DBA3 couldn't interpenetrate or push back the rear element, and so if it loses, the first element is destroyed?
Dan Higdon you can push back ONE element if it is an allowable type. Page 12: "If the recoiling element is not Elephants, friends facing in the same direction can be interpenetrated if allowed. If not, they push back far enough to make room unless they are Elephants or War Wagons. Pushed back elements cannot interpenetrate or push back others."
Thanks, Tony.
Hello, nice video. I have a question: at 10:48, the column of 2 persian LH contact alexander's LH on the flank, not with their whole front (they don't have the move, i guess)) but only with a corner. I believed that you can do a flank contact, only by being aligned front to flank and front corner to opposite front corner. Being in column means that the lone LH will align but only if the contact is initially valid, Am I right ? according to figure 10 of the purple book, this contact seems invalid to me. Do I miss anything?
Page 9: "A single element contacted by a group conforms to it..." That is what happened.
I thought that an element contacted on the flank does not turn to face its attacker until the end of the movement phase, so it is not clear to me that the column move would have opened up the opportunity to close the door on the other LH in the same bound. Unless maybe there was room to have the column contact the back LH front-edge to front corner?
Hello,
I completely agree with "eric p". I would have moved the persian LH into front edge contact with the side edge of the makedonian LH. "At the end of the bound", if there will be no contact to the makedonian LH front edge, they would have turned 90°!? We play it that way, because "Contactors conform using their tactical move ... (rulebook, page 9)." And the "contactor" here is the group of persian LH!
We play that conforming to a group by a single element happens immediately so there is no turn to face in this instance. We are just illustrating a series of games on this channel not forcing anyone to play a certain way. Feel free to play however you like.
Hello eric,
maybe this (see my post from today at fanaticus.boards.net/thread/965/tony-aguilar-dba-stuff-youtube?page=5&scrollTo=9818) solves your problem. Cheers, Ronald
dudes..love yr vids..but plse keep yr talk about the game..
Sounds like you are going to be disappointed from time to time then as this is a "social" game.
You could maybe have used a chess clock in this game ;)
Not sure what this means. Was the game too long/too short?
@@TonyAguilarFigure-atively there was a long pause for thought that might have benefited from editing, from the viewers point of view.
I suppose I'd also just laid my hands on Chris Peers' "In Death Ground" rules, in which he makes the point that a high tempo of play can help do the job of simulating command & control limitations.
That's one of the gripes I have with PIPs: that they limit the player but also lead to a sort of pondering that isn't characteristic of battlefield decision making.
All that said, I think yours is a great channel and my opinions aren't really very weighty.
Keep up the good work and thanj you.
@@johnrohde5510 editing (and all the time it involves) was quickly killing my interest in producing more videos. I have now gone to a different format for the time being where battles will only be live so these types of pauses may become more common. There is a fast forward button. Along with reducing my work load (which has increase dramatically in 2020) it allows the viewer to get an idea on how long games take even with experienced players.