Imperial Artisans > The Imperial Office

Companion Thread to Tilea's Troubles

(1/5) > >>

Padre:
I thought I ought to have a thread to allow discussion of matters relating to my Tilea campaign, as well as a place for me to put posts about the hobby aspect of it (in many forms).

Having just completed my first 'Play by e-mail' battle, where the Skaven assault the Brabanzon in the city of Ravola, I am now in the early stages of of starting the next battle: Duchess Maria's Undead are to attack Lord Alessio's Alliance army at the bridge of Pontremola.

The tabletop

Lord Alessio has the Tilean List 'Mercenary Command' skill "Strategist" which allows him to move two terrain pieces up to 6" in any direction. This skill doesn't make sense at the Bridge of Pontremola as he can't move the river or the bridge!  Also, the battlefield already appeared in an earlier battle so its layout is set (http://forum.oldhammer.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=38023#p38023) in which the following field of battle was fought over ...



And so I decided that Lord Alessio's skill would be represented by the player getting a say in the design of the fortified camp his army built at the bridge, which incorporated the river as a defensive feature (see a story about the camp's construction at http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php/topic,46787.msg1058253.html#msg1058253)

In terms of game play, first I sent three images to the player for camp layouts ...

Layout A

This layout features lots of earthwork and timber fortification, but not much room for maneouvre. The outer stone tower has been demolished to improve fields of fire. The whole of Alessio's side of the river is well fortified, with some room between defences and river for other troops.

The river, btw, in Spring, is in full flow, and will count as dangerous terrain even for infantry!

Layout B

This layout has a bit less fortification, some more maneouvre room. Both stone towers have been demolished, one having had a wooden bastion built over it suitable for a machine. The Bridge is well defended, the rest of the defences are further back from the river. This would allow missile  troops and engines to shoot over other troops heads BUT it would out them further back range-wise!

Layout C

Here there us more room for maneouvre, the bastions being a gun platform and for missile troops. Both stone towers are still intact, but there is more room to maneouvre around the bridge area.

I also listed the following possibilities

Possibility D - Even less defences, maybe just a big artillery bastion? Towers demolished or not.
Possibility E - Some other version described by the player with the river, bridge fixed, and towers either demolished or not.
Possibility F - March out and fight elsewhere in open ground. Some scenery. Your general gets to use his ability.

I told him to be aware that all troops could suffer if they attempt to cross the river. The river is in full spring flow. The enemy may lose a good few zombies in it.

I also stressed he should keep possibility F in mind if he doesn't want the defences and river to 'cramp his style' regarding tactics.

The player responded saying something between Layout B and C. So I came up with this, probably the final format ...

Final Layout




Not too much by the way of space-hogging defences. This layout is made to defend the bridge, giving deployment areas for troops, using river as defensive obstacle too whilst missile troops and engines can shoot over melee troops' heads!

The field of battle view shows both armies' deployment zones and the 24" field of fire from the main artillery bastion. One side of the bastion will struggle to see the other side of the field, but engines at the tip and on the bridge side get great views of the the centre and the bridge. Anything at the tip can see everything!

I also sent views of the towers with troops on to give a clear idea of the scale.

I hope Lord Alessio is happy!

GamesPoet:
Quite the effort with all of that! :icon_cool: :eusa_clap:

Noticed in the first picture there is some terrain in front of the bridge that doesn't show up on the final selection.  Does that mean the defenders have cleared it all, even leveling the hills?

Padre:
I moved the river up because the camp was built behind it, and so I knew most of the hills would not feature. Then I was so keen on getting the pics to the player regarding camp layout, I forgot to place the two that might still be on the field.

I will either put the two outside ones on the field, or using a kind of 'artistic licence' (as they will have zero effect on the game being so far back and in the deployment zone of a non missile army) leave them out.

I'll probably stick them on though! Thanks for reminding me GP!

I might put some of the small hedges back on too, alongside the road area. Very little in the undead army would suffer terrain tests going over it though! But I reckon Lord Alessio might just have removed them to prevent someone (something) sneaking around behind them!

GamesPoet:
True on the hedges.  Seems lot's of time and effort on building more fortifications, so would there have been time to take out whole hills?

Padre:
The rear line of hills aren't on the table any more as the area of battle has shifted and the river is further towards the middle. Only the two outer hills will go on the field. But considering they will make no tactical difference whatsoever, most likely, and their only contribution will be to tip up figures, I may not put them on!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version