Help support TMP


"ADG Seleukids vs Romans (in glorious 6mm!)" Topic


l'Art de la Guerre

13 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the ADLG (l'Art de la Guerre) Rules Board



71 hits since 11 Jan 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

HarryHotspurEsq05 Jan 2017 12:17 p.m. PST

picture

A quick battle report of my first game of the year.

link

Happy New Year all!

JMcCarroll05 Jan 2017 4:19 p.m. PST

Very nice indeed!

boy wundyr x Supporting Member of TMP06 Jan 2017 9:21 a.m. PST

Always love to see 6mm stuff.

madaxeman07 Jan 2017 5:15 p.m. PST

The base sizes work really well with the smaller figures

Marcus Brutus07 Jan 2017 6:06 p.m. PST

In my opinion your table is too big for the amount of figures you're playing with. Years ago I fell in love with 6mm Ancients. It was pictures like these with mass that got my gaming juices running.

rh6 by Eusebeia2002, on Flickr

rh3 by Eusebeia2002, on Flickr

So I painted a up my first Punic Roman Legion on 1:20 scale using 60 by 30 stands. I must say they looked amazing. The only problem was that I hated painting 6mm. The look was there but I found the whole process tedious. So I sold them but I still have a deep love for their effect when they are done on mass. ADLG doesn't seem to really give a good visual look to gaming from what I've seen so far on TMP but I do like the sound of the games themselves.

Roman1 by Eusebeia2002, on Flickr

Snowcat08 Jan 2017 12:43 a.m. PST

Marcus Brutus: "ADLG doesn't seem to really give a good visual look to gaming from what I've seen so far on TMP…"

Perhaps this has more to do with the older DBx style of basing used in AdG than the more visually attractive Impetus style basing.

Has anyone tinkered with the basing of AdG in 15mm & 28mm to be more like Impetus? I imagine this would require either a much larger table or smaller armies.

Cheers.

MichaelCollinsHimself Supporting Member of TMP08 Jan 2017 2:38 a.m. PST

I must say that the size of your table is just great; room for manoeuvre if it is an option.
You`ve not got anything wrong, but as for having tables that are too small – we`ve seen all that before in games with much larger scale figures !

Personal logo BigRedBat Sponsoring Member of TMP08 Jan 2017 6:12 a.m. PST

Lovely looking minis!

Marcus Brutus08 Jan 2017 6:33 a.m. PST

Michael, the idea of having room to manoeuvre in major battles seems a bit far fetched. Battles like Raphia, Magnesia, Zama, The Granicus, troops generally lined up as one continuous element. Even if we grant a slightly more subtle deployment having great gaps in the battle line is highly unlikely.

MichaelCollinsHimself Supporting Member of TMP08 Jan 2017 8:01 a.m. PST

Mark,
OK, so at Zama and Cannae there were no flanking/encircling movements ?
At the Granicus the Greek hoplites were only attacked frontally ?

Anyhow, did you notice that I said: "…room for manoeuvre if it is an option" ?

Marcus Brutus08 Jan 2017 12:05 p.m. PST

Hey Michael, take a look at a map of Zama. Admittedly, these kind of block maps oversimplify the actual deployments but the essence is that units would line up side by side. The Legion infantry would be essentially one long line of deployed heavy infantry. Having too much table top space allows players to do far more creative deployments than ancient battles were commonly noted for. Obviously as the battle proceeds units manoeuver, flanks crumble and battle lines adjust. But not to the degree that I see in Harry's game. As an aside, I haven't noticed other ADLG games of this size on such a large table.

1024px-Mohammad_adil_rais-battle_of_zama-1 by Eusebeia2002, on Flickr

MichaelCollinsHimself Supporting Member of TMP08 Jan 2017 12:47 p.m. PST

Regardless of the game design, I think that the way that players deploy their armies should be based upon what they think their strengths as armies are.
I`m not bothered by which ruleset is played here AdlG or some DBAesque variant. a game`s tactical rules should encourage the right forms and battle arrays and they are very much (well, they should be) influenced by the terrain that they are fought in.
Not representing terrain in order to encorage players to use historical tactics seems an odd way to go about things.

madaxeman09 Jan 2017 5:47 p.m. PST

Not sure if this was a standard battle and table size, but a "standard" ADLG tabletop is 30 base-widths wide and 20 deep. Non-skirmishers cannot deploy in the outermost 4 base widths either flank, so the starting table width for normal battle troops is 22 bases wide.

At that size the "standard" armies are typically between 22-28 or so units. Each base is a unit and nothing fights 2 units deep, meaning that with some reserves and skirmishers out front a normal army would probably have a frontage of 15+ units, or just over half the table width.

Chuck in some terrain (which tends to stick to the flanks a little more than the centre) and you start to narrow things down a little more. You also can start fairly close to each other, so an aggressive attacker will race across the table and be in your face if they really try to do so (and you oblige by deploying forwards!).

I find it a good balance of troop density and still leaving enough space to make manoeuvre interesting and worthwhile – but generally you find have to work a lot harder to win by manoeuvre rather than by a straight up swift attack, which again is probably about right…

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.