|
|
Post by fireymonkeyboy on Jul 11, 2018 14:26:27 GMT
Hi all,
I'm toying with the idea of rebasing the armies I have (based for Impetus) to a 40mm standard, partly to facilitate DBA, and partly to make it more flexible with other systems. How important is base depth? If I used a standard depth as well as frontage, would it significantly impact the game?
FMB
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jul 11, 2018 15:22:18 GMT
Not very.
A standard depth for foot certainly helps English HYW and other armies with mixes of Fast and Solid elements a small amount. On the other hand it makes visual ID much more difficult. I prefer to use the different depths, but use a standard recoil distance. This does the same thing.
I like the way different depths look.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 11, 2018 17:40:04 GMT
Agreed. Not much. Some rare(ish) instances in a scramble where that extra recoil distance puts you hard up against something that can't move.
But the irregularity does look nicer as the battlelines deteriorate in my opinion. Having said that, if you have a lot of rebasing to do (a possible punishment in purgatory for a dice-loading wargamer) then I'm sure you will have understanding from your fellow wargamers.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Jul 13, 2018 4:59:34 GMT
Fully respecting all of you who prefer the visuals of the 15mm depth... The optional, 20mm depth does allow for this look (below), as Eric Donaldson of Seattle achieved with his Seleucids. (15mm Essex)  The phalanx is "just" four Solid Pike elements, each mounted on a 40x20 base. So, the flexibility in basing, offered by V-3, is really terrific. |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jul 13, 2018 6:32:12 GMT
 VERY solid.....
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 13, 2018 9:59:06 GMT
Awesome look! Essex right? True 15mm. Even 20mm depth won't allow two ranks with some of the nominal "15mm" around today!
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Jul 13, 2018 16:45:09 GMT
As one who has suffered this problem just once to often I would take this slowly.
Look at the rules you are likely to use, then remember you can always use sabot bases.
You need to work out the MINIMUM base depths, this will probably be 15m for infantry, this can then be depend by your sabot base to 20mm, for example.
A spread sheet might help, listing types and base sizes.
Always remember you can change widths as well.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 14, 2018 10:02:25 GMT
One thing to watch out for if you have deeper bases is to make sure they can still recoil when attacking an enemy flank, as per the rules on page 11 paragraph 4 and page 12 paragraph 5. (For example, see fanaticus.boards.net/thread/1315/companion-wedges ) There is not much you can do about El, chariots, Mtd-Inf, 6Bd, 8Bw, and Art, WWg and Command Elements (i.e. CP/Lit/CWg), as all these must be on bases at least as deep as they are wide. But for other troops, I try to to have them on bases slightly less deep than a full base width...say 35mm deep instead of 40mm. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by fireymonkeyboy on Jul 14, 2018 14:23:06 GMT
Thanks for the advice and insight - looks like I have some pondering to do. Basic issue is I'm thinking about finally starting a bucket list project - Indo-Greeks, and would like to be able to play them in as many rules systems as possible, starting with DBA. The DBA 40mm width seems pretty standard (or at least a standard basis), but depth seems to vary widely.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jul 16, 2018 16:17:46 GMT
Oh the curse of base depth...well the good news is that it does not matter much and even less so in 3.0. Mounted can Recoil either a Base depth OR a Base Width so depth not important at all (deeper may cause more "no Recoils" but its minor esp if deeper saves a horse tail).
Foot - if only we had done the same for Foot Based depth OR 1/2 Base Width Recoil, so that Based depth would have less impact - but that would imply a consistent organized effort rather than the ad hoc sausage making that rule writing tends to. Foot must recoil a Base Depth which if you have some at 15mm some at 20mm is very tedious in 15mm (which I rarely play and this one reason). Bit easier to see in 25mm (its 20mm or 30mm). Different Recoil depths make not sense historically as retreating troops would align on the first solid formation they found.
All that said I'm trying to get 25mm players to accept 20mm depth for "Solid" and 30mm depth for Fast to make identification easier. For at home games I strongly recommend giving Foot the optional Recoil so the base depth you choose to use has less effect on game play.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Jul 18, 2018 9:28:47 GMT
Deeper bases for faster figures is what I have become used to over the years.
Scott Russell will tell you that he needed to keep an eye on me, I would occasionally move troops faster than I should have done because they were on deep bases.
David Constable
P.S. - You could add in re-basing. Airfix Romans and Ancient British from half-inch and three-quarter-inch widths to mm's (15mm and 20mm if I remember correctly).
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jul 18, 2018 19:38:59 GMT
Totally agree David - deeper depth for Fast troops is makes for a much more user friendly game - its standard in Knights & Knaves and hope to retro-fit for 20-28mm DBX.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by decebalus on Aug 8, 2018 9:30:35 GMT
We play with much deeper bases in 28mm. 6cm wide, but 5 cm deep for foot and 8cm deep for cavalry. It is a purely aesthetic thing, because double ranked infantry looks so much better. And the armies are still small enough, to be painted in a short time.
And yes, it makes a difference. Cavalry for example cannot flank after making a hole into a frontline. LH in second rank is not in the thread zone etc. But in the end, the game works wonderful and we have fun. And obviously people in our area like it, about ten new armies have been started. It has really given DBA in 28mm a little boost here.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Aug 8, 2018 10:42:05 GMT
Looking back to the original question, I think there will be no universal system or size for the next 20-30 years at least, and probably never until DBA type games using multiple figures on bases
die out with the players.
Last year at Worlds (Bruntingthorpe) while queuing to get in I was struck by the lack of youngsters, and the jump in ages. The youngsters were up to circa 12/13 with dad's, then a jump to maybe 25/26 plus, but mostly 35/40 plus.
So (with reservations) I am inclined to say look ONLY at the rules you are likely to play a lot, then work out your bases sizes.
David Constable
|
|
VERY solid.....
