tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839601747923375105.post2580012564602742909..comments2024-03-28T01:22:13.683-03:00Comments on Battle Game of the Month: EUREKA!Ross Mac rmacfa@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04053555991679802013noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839601747923375105.post-86844587241661523122011-06-25T17:31:27.515-03:002011-06-25T17:31:27.515-03:00OK so I wasn't initially planning to go there ...OK so I wasn't initially planning to go there but it was a pretty obvious next step. The rules presented are focused a couple of wars during which 2 deep was the standard and so because troops look prettier in 2 ranks, I field 1 rank of toys per historic rank which grossly distorts the depth even without doubling it. If I field a native army with 6 or 8 ranks of spearmen, if I want to be consistent, I would have to maintain the same "depth per figure" of 1. This might look odd unless the units are huge. I will probably fudge that making some sort of claim that each rank is less effective in melee as none have firepower and they aren't well trained. Thus allowing me to field 1 native spearmen represent twice as many men as his regular counterpart.<br /><br />It did belatedly occur to me that the system could be back dated to ancients, but I haven't looked at it yet. The first observation which follows from above is that the depth distortion can be lowered minutely because the average 2 deep formation of miniatures will represent 6-8 ranks of real troops. Apart from the occasional Theban, 16 deep is as deep as I would expect to see and this would then be only 4 figures deep. This begs the question as to why everyone didn't form that deep but I usually count the 2nd rank of stands at 1/2 effect, something that got missed in my quick draft. An over deep formation will just have more bodies to keep throwing under the bus in a war of attrition. <br /><br />I haven't dealt with 2 units right behind the other yet either but unless I go to Napoleonic Europe, I may not need to.Ross Mac rmacfa@gmail.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04053555991679802013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839601747923375105.post-70200708080536841872011-06-25T17:16:04.484-03:002011-06-25T17:16:04.484-03:00Ross Mac,
An interesting set of ideas and concept...Ross Mac,<br /><br />An interesting set of ideas and concepts. I look forward to reading about their development and subsequent play-testing.<br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />BobRobert (Bob) Corderyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13109130990434792266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839601747923375105.post-12317020826200006002011-06-25T16:52:35.014-03:002011-06-25T16:52:35.014-03:00I should start off this comment with an apology, t...I should start off this comment with an apology, to be on the safe side. Stating the pathetically obvious has always been a strong part of my game - this is very occasionally useful, but usually just irritating.<br /><br />If you change the linear ground scale - say you double it - then if you have a linear style army - say all units are drawn up in lines 3 men deep - the number of fighting men in a hex will be, as you say, twice as many.<br /><br />If you are deploying an ancient army which used the big crowd as its tactical formation, then, since your hexes are twice as deep as well as twice as wide, you can pack 4 times as many actual men into a hex. You can even get a slight distortion here - if this ancient army has big crowds of men, only the front row of which can shoot (or sling stones, or whatever), then doubling the linear ground scale doubles the firepower, but it can increase the inertial (shock) mass by 4, which can change the balance between fire and melee.<br /><br />All right, all right - I know you had thought of this...<br /><br />TonyMSFoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14470241067504971068noreply@blogger.com