|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jan 17, 2024 14:56:54 GMT
I was checking out a free copy of "The Armour of Rommel's Afrika Korps" on Kindle and in the introduction is stated that the DAK used Pz35(t) and Pz 38(t). I never read a single page after that since all is suspect if something so basic is in error. Does make one wonder, although I bet you got the book really cheap! Not every book is worth the price. It was a sample so it didn't get me to buy it or read any further.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jan 16, 2024 15:26:59 GMT
There is a reason it was free. Well TBH it is a "sample" through Kindle. Needless to say I didn't get the book.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jan 16, 2024 15:11:59 GMT
I was checking out a free copy of "The Armour of Rommel's Afrika Korps" on Kindle and in the introduction is stated that the DAK used Pz35(t) and Pz 38(t). I never read a single page after that since all is suspect if something so basic is in error.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Oct 18, 2023 13:20:54 GMT
I am glad Phil seems to be well still.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Aug 31, 2023 12:14:12 GMT
Am I alone in thinking this Global Warming isn't all what it is claimed to be? History is full of evidence of localized and widespread famine,climate change resulting in massed population movements,rivers freezing,catastrophic flooding,sea levels falling/rising and chains of earth quake/volcanic activity which has led to armies and wars we choose to emulate.....so how can the "scientists" (who don't all agree with each other),know the difference between natural cycles and the extent of human influence on the planet?The rivers Themes nor Tyne have never frozen in my lifetime, neither have Niagara falls....but History records this has happened.Most if the data these guys are making predictions from is under 200 years old,when the planet has been spinning round a star for billions of years....so ladies and gentlemen excuse me when I am not convinced by the term Global warming. The problem is that folks that are on a Crusade (regardless of what it is) are the most vocal.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Aug 22, 2023 14:54:29 GMT
Am I right in thinking that in 2.2 losing a combat, whilst being contacted in the flank, didn't result in the element being destroyed? This has no doubt been discussed before, but why was it added in 3.0? (I know I am going to be burnt as a heretic for this) do you think it slows the game down? You end up agonising over which move to make so as not to be caught frontally and in the flank. It sometimes feels counter intuitive "Right, I'm going to send those LH into the left flank in the hope they can slow it up enough to buy me some time in the center' as opposed to 'Right, if I send those LH into the left flank those Ps will surround it and it'll die.
Admittedly, I never played 2.2 so I don't know?
That WAS a part of DBA 2.2.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Aug 21, 2023 16:24:20 GMT
Forged in Battle have a cracking Dark Ages range too 😎 P Yeah, those Forged in Battle Anglo-Saxons look the business.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Aug 21, 2023 16:22:48 GMT
Pretty sure that our most losing army in our group was Mitch's Early Anglo-Saxons. Damn near all warband and may have had ONE win over a dozen games or more.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jul 10, 2023 18:00:22 GMT
Cheers Vodnik. A very useful source for DBA-RRR. CarlL CarlL : looking at the DBA-RRR QRS via the link, beware that this is, or seems to be, based on an adaption of “DBA v2.2+”, and at the bottom edge is marked DBA-RRR+…(and includes the troop type ‘Raiders’, which in v3 became 3Bd). This v2.2+ was a ‘half way house’ variant conjured up during the v3 development stage by some American gamers/rules developers (possibly the WADBAG group). It showed how they wanted v2.2 to evolve, so is neither totally 2.2 nor v3 related. Main point to note is that is is annotated in MU’s, ie ‘movement units’. These were invented to allow some units to move distances half way between solid foot and fast foot speeds eg. Can’t remember how far a MU was, but it might be 20mm (… or maybe an inch?)? It’s a lovely looking QRS, but I’d say - ‘use with caution’. That QRS sheet is not my doing nor did I do anything called RRR+. We did play 2.2+ way back before 3.0 was released and it was better than 2.2 but not 3.0 in our opinion. Always hated the name "Raiders" for 3Bd BTW.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on May 4, 2023 14:15:11 GMT
There is a discussion on Twitter at
the Unofficial Lee Clatworthy Parody Account - @lrclatworthy "If you had to pick one British person to swear allegiance to next Saturday, who would you pick?"
I inscribed "Phil Barker (author of _De Bellis Antiquitatis_)"
Easy one - Dave Allsop, figure sculptor extraordinaire.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Feb 10, 2023 13:09:46 GMT
Maybe kind of off topic, but nevertheless miniatures rules: GASLANDS by Mike Hutchinson. (Because it gives me the pleasure to play again with matchbox cars... ) I was super excited about this game a few years ago until I found out it has plenty of loose ends similar to other games. IT IS A FUN GAME THOUGH, just not something I want to be responsible to run. I decided to double down going back to WW2 skirmish games that I have more control over.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Feb 10, 2023 13:07:20 GMT
We are delighted to announce that Plastic Soldier Company has acquired Xyston Miniatures We have great plans for this excellent line and will be rolling out new releases in both Siocast and metal - stay tuned ! As we are VAT registered (Scotia Grendel was not) we will have to put up prices to include VAT BUT the good news is we will not be doing this until 1st March so take advantage of the old low prices now before the end of the month ! For the moment we will keep the existing Xyston website and webstore separate from Plastic Soldier Company. www.theplasticsoldiercompany.co.ukStrange. You would think that PSC would focus on increasing their production on the own stuff so we had more readily get them. Seems like they are always behind on production.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jan 10, 2023 17:55:30 GMT
Replying to Tony Aguilar, Face of Battle; It is interesting that the MODERN variant; and several of the scenario books, and even the American Codex for Face of Battle are all available on wargamevault, but not the original ww2 rules! NUTS and FINAL COMBAT look like unbelievably detailed ww2 skirmish games. I don't have the gray matter for it myself...... Core rules are available here: www.nobleknight.com/P/2147371604/Face-of-Battle-TheNot sure why they aren't available digitally though.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jan 3, 2023 12:34:48 GMT
Elements in bad going do not pursue (unless the bad going is marsh or gully). (Second sentence of the section headed Pursuit on page 12.) Ah, thanks for correcting me. Doubtless, I've been getting that wrong for years. We got it wrong for a while too until we caught it. I believe this was a change from 2.2 which is why we were getting it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Dec 31, 2022 12:08:58 GMT
After all this time playing DBA and re-reading rules I've come up with something I'd like to question. In Combat outcomes on page 11 "other mounted" and "fast foot" are recoiled on an equal score versus Solid foot....this I completely understand in good going and possibly rough going due to being able to maintain formation.But I would like to question why it also counts in Bad going?The "Solid" close formation would loose any advantage it has over any other formation in such circumstances if not finding it equally as difficult?Any superior drill or mass advantages would be countered by lesser cohesion you would think? Am I missing something or it just a simplification for rule purposes to count it as such so "Solid" can retain some combat advantage? I'm not knocking the rules, I'm just wondering if it was considered in the rule draft? I suspect it is a simplification.
|
|