Fanaticus Forum  

Go Back   Fanaticus Forum > Rules > v2.2+

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 03-18-2014, 05:35 PM
david kuijt's Avatar
david kuijt david kuijt is offline
Propraetor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gaithersburg
Posts: 2,930
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavane View Post
I am also not sure about the Sub-Roman British Maneuver rating of 1. There is King Arthur of course (II/81c), but the Kingdom of Strathclyde was able to defeat attacks from Northumbria, Pictland, and Dalriada and survive from the time of the retreat of the Romans until the 1070's when it was absorbed into the Kingdom of Scotland. They had their strong defensive base on Dumbarton Rock, but they must also have been as adept as the Welsh (rating 3) at choosing the battlefield.

Of course this is the Dark Ages, and it is difficult to justify any rating. I am also giving emphasis to just one kingdom. Many of the others were in constant retreat from the Anglo-Saxon invaders and there is no evidence for or against pre-battle brilliance.
Pre-battle brilliance is not the only way draft ratings can be improved. Armies that are very mobile (and therefore difficult to force to battle in unfavorable terrain) get improvements. Huns, as one example. Armies that were known to fight from bad terrain with ambushes always get improvements -- because if their opponents had their way, they would have been forced to fight on flat good going, so clearly their opponents did NOT get their way on choice of the battlefield! That covers the Welsh and many similar ones -- Wallachians, Moldavians, and so on.

Nobody says "Those Angles and Jutes, they're sly and crafty, constantly ambushing us from marshes and swinging through the trees like monkeys" -- so the Angles and Jutes get no particular bennies to their "Not much sophistication" base of 1 maneuver rating. Whereas the Welsh (at least later in their history, in the early Middle Ages) did do some ambushing and did get some grumpy press by their opponents. Nobody says the Welsh were swinging through the trees like Monkeys, sadly, but negative press for ambushing by a bad going army is information that should end up in the Maneuver rating (and is, for the information we have at this point).

Also, as an aside, don't confuse "able to keep their Kingdom viable" or even "able to win battles" with Maneuver rating. Unrelated coordinate axes, given that economic and political factors have more to do with Kingdom viability in the long term than winning any battles.
__________________
DK

V2.2+ final version playsheet available at: http://www.wadbag.com/V2.2+/
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-18-2014, 10:30 PM
broadsword broadsword is offline
Prefect
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 794
Default

That's a great last point, by the way. I think Rome was better than anyone else at moving armies efficiently and effectively - a steady supply of average heavy infantry. They lost a lot of battles but won a lot of wars.

Battles are about valour and tactics. Wars are all money, willpower and equipment however. Absent occasional exceptions.
__________________
Disarm today! .... Dat arm tomorrow...
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-19-2014, 03:24 AM
Dangun Dangun is offline
Primus Pilus
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broadsword View Post
That's a great last point, by the way. I think Rome was better than anyone else at moving armies efficiently and effectively - a steady supply of average heavy infantry. They lost a lot of battles but won a lot of wars.

Battles are about valour and tactics. Wars are all money, willpower and equipment however. Absent occasional exceptions.
Yes.
Perhaps the most amazing thing about the Battle of Cannae was that it didn't matter.
__________________
Cheers

Dangun (Nicholas Spratt)
Hong Kong
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-16-2015, 08:28 PM
David Schlanger's Avatar
David Schlanger David Schlanger is offline
Praetor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Glenwood, MD
Posts: 1,016
Default

Just to tie up this thread...

We have now added the Flank March rules information. So you can try Invasion and Maneuver and Flank Marching together. Or just trying Invasion and Maneuver: http://www.wadbag.com/rules/manuever.html

Flank March is intended as a more historically relevant alternative to Littoral Landings. When used in conjunction with the Maneuver rules it can provide a commander with some very interesting decisions!

Give it a try, remove littoral landings from your games and replace them with these Flank March rules... we would love your feedback in this thread: http://www.fanaticus.org/discussion/...ad.php?t=17115

DS
__________________
Triumph!
****************
Washington Grand Company
http://www.wgcwar.com
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.