Mike Bennett
Légat
Inscrit le: 11 Nov 2017
Messages: 594
Localisation: Carnforth, Lancashire, UK
|
 Posté le: Ven Jan 10, 2025 11:38 pm Sujet du message: |
 |
| Ramses II a écrit: | | Steve, I understand your point, though the chances of this happening are fairly remote. |
Even without specific rolls there is a 17% chance of a free choice. Also by using the single bend quite a few combinations would allow such a road.
Dernière édition par Mike Bennett le Sam Jan 11, 2025 3:02 pm; édité 1 fois |
|
SteveR
Signifer
Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2018
Messages: 381
|
| Posté le: Sam Jan 11, 2025 1:20 am Sujet du message: |
|
I don't know that this has been all that much of a problem to date.
I do think that Kevin earlier admitted to blocking off rather more of an opponent's base edge than I would be comfortable with though.
Gavin I appreciate your ability to come up with rather better words than I struggled with. Not sure when the perpendicular exit is required though. Look at this
123
456
a road running from the upper left of 1 to the lower right of 6 will intersect the base edge at a 45% angle. That seems to block a reasonable amount to me. Even from the lower left of 1 to the bottom right of 6 will be more acute but if I have my trigonometry right should be a little less than a 20 degree angle. That does not block too much.
If the road runs from 4 to 5, with a single bend, will also not block off too much.
So the real issue is a road running from 4 to 6
I like the perpendicular solution and will employ it when I play like I said. And if I face an opponent who tries this trick blocking off the base edge against me I'll just fix him with one of Tim Porter's Hard Stares until he does the Right Thing. |
|
Dickstick
Tribun
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2016
Messages: 725
Localisation: West Bromwich
|
| Posté le: Sam Jan 11, 2025 8:15 am Sujet du message: |
|
| Ramses II a écrit: | Steve, I understand your point, though the chances of this happening are fairly remote. However, perhaps we need “El Kreator†to modify the second bullet, possibly like this | Citation: | |  If a road runs along a table edge it must be placed entirely more than 2 UD from the edge except where it exits the table, where it must be perpendicular to the edge. |
|
Or let camp be built on a road entirely blocking it.
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo |
|
KevinD
Légat
Inscrit le: 23 Aoû 2021
Messages: 668
Localisation: Texas
|
| Posté le: Sam Jan 11, 2025 10:11 am Sujet du message: |
|
| SteveR a écrit: | I don't know that this has been all that much of a problem to date.
I do think that Kevin earlier admitted to blocking off rather more of an opponent's base edge than I would be comfortable with though.
Gavin I appreciate your ability to come up with rather better words than I struggled with. Not sure when the perpendicular exit is required though. Look at this
123
456
a road running from the upper left of 1 to the lower right of 6 will intersect the base edge at a 45% angle. That seems to block a reasonable amount to me. Even from the lower left of 1 to the bottom right of 6 will be more acute but if I have my trigonometry right should be a little less than a 20 degree angle. That does not block too much.
If the road runs from 4 to 5, with a single bend, will also not block off too much.
So the real issue is a road running from 4 to 6
I like the perpendicular solution and will employ it when I play like I said. And if I face an opponent who tries this trick blocking off the base edge against me I'll just fix him with one of Tim Porter's Hard Stares until he does the Right Thing. |
I do think allowing camps to be on roads (that are otherwise in good going) is not unreasonable. (It seems reasonably “historical†- though I would note that ADLG and indeed most wargaming camps seem awfully small compared to what I would expect for most historical armies - should an army with say 14 heavy units wide really be 7x wider than its camp? Note I don’t trust the dimensions most maps depict armies as being deployed on - see Invicta and Adrian Goldsworthy’s recreation of what the dimensions of the battle lines at Cannae really looked like - classical infantry battle lines were very long and thin though the mounted formations were very deep and also pretty wide. Also note that the frontage of camps of armies only increased as the square root of the size of the army so a huge army’s camp relative to the length of its battle line like at Cannae would be much shorter than a smaller medieval army’s camp’s frontage relative to the length of its battle line.)
The perpendicular requirement combined with a max of one bend in the road is undesirable as it limits the ability to place roads crossing rivers or to exit terrain features (especially villages) perpendicular to the edge of the feature where said terrain feature’s edges are not parallel to the long table edge or where you have a road running diagonally from one long table edge to the other (as both road ends can’t then exit perpendicular to the table edge).
BTW, as a recommendation, if you’re interested in seeing the dimensions of an actual classical army deployed for battle, Invicta and Adrian Goldsworthy’s Cannae video on YouTube is well worth watching. The relative width to depth of infantry and the very dispersed nature of cavalry (in both depth and width) are quite eye opening. (Ignore the clickbait title the YouTube forces on creators now.)
https://youtu.be/CXtbTqXXh0o?si=bm8br3EpN8shHVGe |
|
FAQ
Rechercher
Liste des Membres
Groupes d'utilisateurs
S'enregistrer
Profil
Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés
Connexion
