|
Post by Commiades on Sept 28, 2016 22:21:08 GMT
I look forward to seeing these rules. Campaigns are something that attract me to DBA.
|
|
|
Post by Commiades on Sept 24, 2016 22:16:15 GMT
I knew that III/40b ally was common, but I thought there was one list that could have a III/40a ally. On checking this morning I can't find it. Looks like I misread it previously. I'm planning on using them - two 4Bd and a 4Bw is a useful block of troops.
|
|
|
Post by Commiades on Sept 24, 2016 22:13:34 GMT
I take a couple of South Welsh 3Lb and the compulsory South Wales Gen (cav) to give a bit of firepower to my North Welsh - although, with the drain on pips, not sure it is worth it! Simon That's my plan too. On the flank the PIP cost is less.
|
|
|
Post by Commiades on Sept 24, 2016 1:57:05 GMT
Thumbs up from me! A good looking army and camp. Reminds me I still have to organize my bits and pieces into a usable army. Thanks, it's good to get the camp done at the same time. It's harder to get the energy to do a camp once the army is finished. Nice work Commiades. Cheers, Thanks. You should see them down in Conquest in November.
|
|
|
Post by Commiades on Sept 22, 2016 20:42:48 GMT
Thanks. The sunlight was a bit unforgiving in one direction, but phones have come a long way since I started my blog. The Spartans aren't a bad list at all, not like their monochrome earlier lists.
|
|
|
Post by Commiades on Sept 21, 2016 9:04:24 GMT
I had a couple of battles of DBA 3.0 using my Later Macedonians. They were a lot of fun, and it was refreshing to see this army much more competitive than it was under DBA 2.2: The battle reports are here: link
|
|
|
Post by Commiades on Sept 19, 2016 10:43:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Commiades on Sept 19, 2016 7:08:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Commiades on Sept 19, 2016 7:04:26 GMT
Thanks for the info. I'm mostly in 15mm so I'll check the usual 15mm sources. I'm inspired for some lost IX Legion campaigning. The Splintered Light ratmen are very nice.
|
|
|
Post by Commiades on Sept 11, 2016 5:52:19 GMT
Yes, Brian... This seems dodgy.... One could also land as a line with side to side contact... thus taking up 3 BW of frontage. I would prefer that contact be either front or rear... though the rules don't say that. I think you have the river question answered. Joe Collins I've used littoral landings in just that way a couple of times. In a recent battle I had three elements of Ptolemaic pirates land with one side edge in contact with the Nile and their side edges in contact with each other. They landed behind some Marian Romans and were able to ZoC one of them through doing this.
|
|
|
Post by Commiades on Sept 4, 2016 19:55:28 GMT
Registered yesterday. Now I've got a bit of painting ahead of me!
|
|
|
Post by Commiades on Aug 7, 2016 5:27:28 GMT
Been reading around the period of the end of the Roman Republic -- Allan Massie's Caesar and Robert Harris' Cicero series: Allan Massie & Robert Harris
|
|
|
Post by Commiades on Aug 6, 2016 21:50:00 GMT
In the DBA 3.0 rules for BBDBA it says the the C-in-C has to be the element type permitted in the list for the general, but subordinate generals can be any permitted troop type (excepting SCh and similar).
If I was to field double Later Carthaginian army, for example, along with an ally. I could take 6 Sp and make one a subordinate general. I could then have up to 4 Cv (only one of which would be the C-in-C).
That is straightforward, but what about a Syracusan army, where generals can be Cv or Sp. Can I take 12 Sp, one of which is the subordinate general and 4 Cv, one of which is the C-in-C? To do this I'd be taking option one on the list as 2 x Cv, but using only one as a general. This is the same logic as the Later Carthaginian example, except there is a choice involved.
|
|