|
Post by davidconstable on May 28, 2017 16:00:39 GMT
Thought, could a hash or star be put in front of an army list that is a known opponent, but does not tally with the date. So Sea Peoples would add a hash or star in font of Rameses II list number, and Rameses II would add a hash or star in front of the Sea People list number.
It would work for Allia as well.
NOTE - I use a Mac with no hash on the keyboard, but it has a star. Minor but important point for different computer users.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 27, 2017 16:33:31 GMT
Thanks Stevie, dates are a mess, so fitting armies into context against opponents, where and when known becomes more important.
I still cannot find out why my father in WW2 got an "Italy Star", why, because he never left India/Burma. Oh well, geography was never my good point.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 27, 2017 7:47:45 GMT
Thanks for another interesting set of illustrations.
Curious as to the minimal number of colours used, was this deliberate or just what they had to hand I wonder?
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 26, 2017 10:16:44 GMT
Hi Stevie
The Roman army before circa 390BC is a mess, with weapons changes etc.
If the army was reformed after the defeat by the Gauls (for whatever reason) then Allia should be old list, not reorganised army list. Is it a case that I/59 should include a list or reference to Allia.
The use of the earlier list would make more sense (if the defeat led to army reorganisation).
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 24, 2017 11:08:00 GMT
I might have missed this, so sorry if I have.
Romans verses Gaul's at Allia 390/387/386BC, the Romans should use list I/59, not II/10, the lists assume this battle uses II/10.
I have always been told the change in army style resulted from the defeat at Allia, so the change date needs to be 385BC? I have not checked what happens with other opponents of II/10.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 15, 2017 5:01:38 GMT
The problem with any history, and I include up to WW2 and probably now, is that no source is reliable.
I have a good laugh when I watch historical programs (not films) on WW2, you watch 1943 Tiger tanks in Russia moving through France in 1940, film clips supplied by organizations that should know better.
Your sources are unreliable at best, and should be treated as such.
DBA3 needs a single reliable source that people can go to, that interprets the rules "as written", and where unintended consequences occur, gives a ruling accordingly. For example artillery closing the door from an overlap, it is not permitted to move into contact, however an overlap is in corner to corner contact, so closing the door on the flank is not moving into contact (it already is in contact) and maintains the overlap situation. This should not be allowed, it goes against the intention of the rules, but not the word.
If the situation is not sorted out, further fragmentation will occur.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 9, 2017 7:34:08 GMT
PB is a nice person, but once his mind is set, that is it, it takes a lot to change it.
He has taken over the years to doing a re-write of his rules, making them far more complicated. The original pre-DBA rules often got discussed in Slingshot, but these days with the diversity of rules, that could not happen.
I tend to think these days that wargamers want an instant pick up and use set of rules, I am of an age which saw the introduction of army lists (no joke), we had to do our research the hard way, NO fanaticus, Google, Wiki, or for that matter online historical texts.
Hopefully a more accurate list of opponents will come out of page 5, but I would not give you any odds better than one thousand to one against them being fully correct (and at those odds I could loose a lot of money), there will always be errors, sorry, unintended consequences, and for that matter disagrements.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 8, 2017 19:36:27 GMT
Hello Pete
Just to say I will not be going as Scott is not, apart from the fact that he is on call, it is also HOTT.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 8, 2017 7:44:06 GMT
There is no such thing as an error in DBA3, god says so, years ago (1968 on) they were semi-officially classified in British Army military wargames as "unintended consequences". PB is of that period, and did work for the people who came up with "uc".
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 8, 2017 7:30:15 GMT
As far as I am aware a Samurai CP general never moved, so would need to command over a long distance, that might be the reason the original idea was an immobile CP. Some others such as religious banners on wagons might fall under the same non-move type.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 6, 2017 19:23:49 GMT
That is a good idea David…unfortunately it does have one flaw. Poor quality auxiliary armies need bad going terrain or they get massacred by Bd, Sp, Pk and Kn in good going. And if they have a low aggression factor, and their opponent a high factor, the invader will have ‘terrain control’. For example, take the Romans (aggression 3) vs. the Ancient Spanish (aggression 0). The Romans are very likely to win the aggression role, and have the choice of being the attacker or defender. What is there to stop the Romans always choosing to be the defender, having ‘terrain control’, and always laying out the minimum and smallest possible terrain every time? The poor old guerilla style Spanish have just been robbed of the one thing they need to survive… …lots of bad going. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:- fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
Yes, see what you mean, the reverse of the horse archer situation.
OK, so what if the defender then attacker each place one piece of terrain till a total of six have been placed.
David Constable
P.S. - Sorry. Realised that does not work with the terrain choices available in DBA3. I have been thinking about the option of a piece called Non-terrain. The Non-terrain piece is laid like a normal area terrain piece, same size restriction, for terrain laying nothing except river and road can be laid upon it, it is removed before deployment. It allows a player to restrict the amount of terrain laid, or lay roads. It means at worst horse archers etc. will only meet three pieces of nasty terrain, and an army that relies on nasty terrain will get three pieces, at least two large.
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 6, 2017 13:49:39 GMT
Heretical terrain choice thought.
What about adding the die score to the aggression factor, the player with the highest score can choose if they are going to be the attacker or defender (re-role die on even scores), the defender then lays out the terrain using the terrain type of the lowest aggression factor army, if even then either.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 6, 2017 7:49:26 GMT
The multiple colours of wild camels shows the variation of colours, but from what I saw in Sinai area in 1970, that caused a problem occasionally, groups/tribes would come to a watering hole, most of their camels being a similar colour, but occasionally a mother would have a lighter/darker youngster, and reject it, so it would be swopped with another tribe.
The variation in group/tribe colours I saw over a couple of days was large.
Purely as an aside, most of the time the camels and horses of different groups/tribes got on, however none of them liked me in particular, but that stopped when I changed to Arab dress.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 6, 2017 7:27:55 GMT
Errors will always occur, so will items that form a problem. For DBX series we have, and need fanaticus.
Just do the best you can, and on the forum (not the Wiki) put corrections, people will understand, but above all, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, get it proof read by a twelve year old who plays DBA, not an English professor, and beware American English verses English English, change words you use if need be.
Good luck.
David Constable
P.S. - I put in not the Wiki because the Wiki gives problems using Windows 7, in fact I really do not know what I am going to do over computers, I am having to revert back to Windows 98 for work, because of security problems with 10, that is going to be a pain. The work will have to be moved around on CD.
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 4, 2017 6:12:49 GMT
Enjoy your beer. Mine is a glass of red wine. I will look at the medieval items tomorrow after I have my coffee and croissant. After tomorrow I shall miss the early morning ritual of bicycling to the baker for fresh croissants. Enjoy your wine, still go to your bakers, mine is on the corner, a 1min walk.
Mine is not a French breakfast (I am English), doughnuts, pineapple tarts, bacon twists and nice hot chocolate.
Can I say to you both, thanks, I had no idea it was as bad as it was.
David Constable
|
|