|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Jan 3, 2024 18:16:39 GMT
My recent efforts in building fortifications and other BUA lead me to these questions: The DBA rules state on p.2 (Ground Scale and Distance Measurement) that 1 BW is "roughly equivalent" to "80 paces". O.k. But: Does this mean the everyday or ' american pace' of a single step which is about 30 inches or about 76 centimetre? Or is it rather the antique distance of the Roman Pace which comprises a double step with lifting and bringing down the same foot, which is the basis of the roman mile (a thousand roman paces)? The difference between those two is tremendous, the double! One BW could be either 60 m (200 ft) or even 120 m (400 ft)! Now when we think of the DBA firing range of Bows (3 BW) it is clear that single steps must be meant. So 3 BW firing range span a distance of about 180 m (590 ft), which is quite reasonably the best any archer could do. (The bigger range of 360 m or far over 1000 ft is far beyond any practicality.) Well, I was a little bit surprised at that, but, hey, that's quite nice for making such BUAs as towers, walls, temples etc. in scale (1:1.500).  Now, if we consider the two different ranges of 1 BW (60 m) = 40 mm or 60 mm, the picture is this: The smaller BW of 40 mm is 1:1500 which means 1 mm depicts 1,5 m while the bigger BW of 60mm means that 1 mm equals 1 m! So the bigger BW is perfect for depicting battles in realistic bird's view by building terrain in scale 1:1000 and by using miniatures of 2mm range. (Hey, wonderful new aspects of DBA and DBN) |
|
|
|
Post by carll on Jan 4, 2024 0:05:06 GMT
Brian Boru,
I have been labouring under the impression (for many decades!) that the WRG team, of which Phil, (and probably Sue), Barker were participants, used the Roman pace as their base measurement. But hey ho I haven't picked up any of my older copies (of their rules mainly) to check this!
CarlL
|
|
|
|
Post by mwise on Jan 4, 2024 1:25:25 GMT
Brian Boru, I have been labouring under the impression (for many decades!) that the WRG team, of which Phil, (and probably Sue), Barker were participants, used the Roman pace as their base measurement. But hey ho I haven't picked up any of my older copies (of their rules mainly) to check this! CarlL Hi Carl,
the original rules DBSA from 1989 used 1"=50p
Found here:
The DBA 1.0 rules in 1990 used 1"=100p for 15mm or smaller scales and 1"=50p for 25mm scale.
Regards
Mark W.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Jan 4, 2024 10:08:04 GMT
Brian Boru, I have been labouring under the impression (for many decades!) that the WRG team, of which Phil, (and probably Sue), Barker were participants, used the Roman pace as their base measurement. But hey ho I haven't picked up any of my older copies (of their rules mainly) to check this! CarlL So did I, CarlL, so did I. But the firing range is clearly in contradiction to this. Brian |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 4, 2024 14:59:56 GMT
Quite interesting Brian, particularly with scenario play in mind. If you take a dense heavy infantry element, say hoplites at 3ft per man frontage and 8 men deep, then each element is approximately 500 men at 60m and double that at 120m. This will help when trying to recreate battles. I do prefer the shorter distance as this makes more sense in my mind. Not only for the archers as you point out, but also for movement. I can't see armoured men charging into the enemy from over 200m away. About 100m seems more plausible.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Jan 14, 2024 14:32:33 GMT
Now I wonder how many of you use 2mm ranged armies?
And what BW (40 or 60mm or else) do you prefer for them?
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Jan 14, 2024 15:20:30 GMT
...Terrain is a bit problematic in DBA. Rivers or roads are no problem. But mountains or gorges are more difficult. What matters is where another type of terrain begins. But in a fight you have to be able to tell who is up hill. But without elements sliding down. In skirmish games, buildings are in scale with the miniatures. But in DBA you just need to know that there are buildings there...
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jan 14, 2024 15:47:51 GMT
Building scale has always been an issue...in the case of using 15mm figures it's wether to use 6mm,10mm or 15mm scale building to represent what you want and find visually comfortable.My opinion on this is that it's down to the individual or mutually agreed before gaming....as long as it complies to rules then there shouldn't be a problem.
The same with other terrain as players use different materials and have their own take on how things should look.
As for hills I've always found some form of representing of gradients similar to ordinance survey best represent hight position on a hill...the element that is closest to the center point of a hill or ridge is upslope...plus this type of hill has less chance of figures sliding off than a more curved representation.In the end it's down to what players are happy with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Feb 3, 2024 15:39:39 GMT
This week arrived my Macedonian and Persian armies from Irregular Miniatures in 2mm range (their beautiful army packs  ). And just now I started organising them in rather historical concepts/groups but also according to DBA proportions. It's puzzling work to put all these things together! Right now I consider to use the 40mm BW, but to build 24 or even 36 elements per side, so that the armies may be able to control a battlefield of up to 2000m or even more. (And 3000 horses certainly need some room.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by claudermilk on Feb 3, 2024 15:50:26 GMT
Interesting question, which I am already grappling with. Since I'm building up my terrains from nothing, BUA is one of the things I need to address.
I have the start for some, and am taking advantage of the fact I have a capable 3D printer. I've collected a number of gaming building models--almost universally scaled for 28mm and am looking at more (even some paid models). I've scaled copies of the files to 15mm, but when printing I've further reduced the size by 15%. The buildings have a smaller footprint, but still look reasonable against the 15mm figures. If need be, I can just print up more copies at smaller scaling. (Yes, I will post pictures in my Starting from Scratch thread later)
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Feb 3, 2024 17:13:16 GMT
6mm buildings for a 15mm game is my preference.
We are representing a BUA rather than re creating one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Feb 7, 2024 7:05:25 GMT
I think one has to accept a certain amount of abstraction if the whole thing is not to bog down or look overly strange. Our models and terrain pieces, and to a degree the rules themselves are representations of the eras we are portraying.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Feb 7, 2024 21:38:14 GMT
Now I wonder how many of you use 2mm ranged armies? And what BW (40 or 60mm or else) do you prefer for them?
I have some 2mm armies. They look great. I prefer them on 40mm bases.
The beauty of 2mm is that you can create a believable sense of mass, with troops and with terrain and buildings.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 8, 2024 8:08:55 GMT
Now I wonder how many of you use 2mm ranged armies? And what BW (40 or 60mm or else) do you prefer for them? I use 2mm armies for non-DBA games (Portable Wargame, Bob Cordery). I play ACW and ECW, both using armies on 30mm square bases, and played on a grid. I have doubled the units up (so 60mm base width) for One Hour Wargames (Neil Thomas) on a reduced ground scale, 1cm replaces 1 inch in the rules. Plans under way to acquire some 2mm WW2 stuff, as well. I have the samples, and like them a lot (Irregular Miniatures). + I have a heap of 2mm buildings/terrain awaiting their place in the painting queue. |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Feb 11, 2024 14:19:15 GMT
Among other children's toys I discoverd these famous buildings (Safari Ltd.) for use with 2mm Macedonians etc.  |
|
).
)
