|
Post by phippsy on Jan 15, 2017 18:14:25 GMT
If the flanking LH was facing in the same direction as the contacted LH in the same current position the Roman element would count as overlapped with a -1 on combat, but would not be lost on a recoil. Is this not the same type of situation? Clearly if the LH had closed the door and was in front left hand corner with the front LH corner of the Roman element (and facing in the current direction) then a Roman recoil = a lost element. By moving into contact the Roman element is making the most of non perfect placement by the Numidian elements, and should not be penalised by a shift in the flanking Numidians as well....?
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Jan 15, 2017 10:50:03 GMT
Essex already has an extensive list of all 3.0 armies at 15mm. On their web site.
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Jan 11, 2017 22:47:05 GMT
Out of interest, how did the re-fight compare to the actual battle?
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Jan 11, 2017 22:33:30 GMT
Lots to experiment with there. thanks all.
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Jan 7, 2017 17:46:45 GMT
Mark - ok thanks for that clarification. I suppose it is in the wording as written....Peter
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Jan 7, 2017 14:56:52 GMT
This may be easy. Figs 19c, 20a and 20b refer. If we have an2 element column of LH as May fight with +1 when supported, if that column is flanked in close combat as per 20a1 and 20b are both elements of LH lost on a recoil. The reason I ask is that in 20a1 and 20b the full side flank of the rear pike and rear Ax are contacted by the flanking Sp and Wb. With 2 LH elements the support element will only have the front part ie 10mm contacted, and the rest will stick out the back, with no flank contact. Would be similar with CV or Kn caught in column. Are both LH elements lost on a recoil or just the front one in combat as has the full flank contacted?
Thanks Phippsy
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Jan 5, 2017 12:26:08 GMT
Always provider of choice. Easy to pop into see them on Canvey Island on way to Southend sometimes for work visits. They do have a habit of mis counting sometimes. East Frank army recently only had 10 horde figures when should have been 14. Bit frustrating but do like the cleaness of the figures. Those East Franks Knights also had 3 shield types ie kite / round / later period feudal 12th century Heater style. Bit random, and out of period etc, but can be phased out with other additions.
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Jan 4, 2017 18:10:27 GMT
Ok just had a look. Good effect and robust.
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Jan 4, 2017 12:37:36 GMT
Much appreciated and some good tips there to implement in the next run for East Franks this week....peter
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Jan 4, 2017 9:28:25 GMT
Been exploring this further over Christmas. If I have say a mixed battle line, closing in on an opponents line, and I have in that line somewhere a 2 element column of LH, and I want to disappear off to a flank and get behind oppo line, but cannot do so between the lines, as I will start to be interfered by enemy TZ, how does the PIP spend work to send the column off behind my line to the flank? I assume that I spin both elements of the LH column around 180 degrees, using up some of the 4 BW move distance and then move them as seperate elements for the rest of the move = 2 PIPs. The two elements are now in column running behind my line to a flank. Can I then make a subsequent move or two moves as LH but as a group for each move, expending 1 PIP each group move, or 2 PIP each move as was moved as elements in the first move?
Thanks Phippsy.
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Jan 4, 2017 9:10:17 GMT
I tend to have basically flocked bases by applying a coat of water / PVA glue mix, and then sprinkling on the flock. This normally fixed well. However I am finding that with more frequent usage the finished figure bases start to look tatty as the flock gets rubbed off, particularly around the edges. Has anyone any advice on how best to 'fix' the surface so to flock remains. I have tried applying a watered down PVA coat but this tends to pull some of the original flock off. Any other methods recommended for textured base surface finishes?
Thanks Phippsy.
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Jan 2, 2017 12:24:31 GMT
Over Christmas I have been looking at that Solo DBA approach that Cromwell outlined. Well thought through, and with a few tweaks very easy to adopt for DBA 3.0.
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Jan 2, 2017 12:22:59 GMT
Is that the same as De Bellis Slolitarus? No. 'De Bellis Solitarius' was by Chad La Mons, and was designed for DBA 1.1. (I have a feeling that it is usable for later versions.) fanaticus.org/DBA/variants/vardbs.html'Solo DBA' was developed by a third party (myself) from 'De Bellis Solitarius'. The version on the old Fanaticus site is the one intended for 2.2. fanaticus.org/DBA/variants/SoloDBAVer2dot2.pdfThere is also an unfinished version for 2.2+ knocking around on my PC hard drive, and on the Yahoo group for Solo DBA. Richard Lee
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Dec 30, 2016 7:51:44 GMT
15mm East Franks for me, to complete a triangle battle set with my Early Poles and recently Completed Early Hungarians - hoping with all that mail armour around that should not take too long....but what is the rush anyway 😉
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Dec 29, 2016 18:36:45 GMT
Had a flick through the publication, and an interesting read. Rather formulaic, but the authors put a lot in going through all the army lists. They clearly have their own preferences around effectiveness - different people like different challenges in DBA from what I see. Some like me - like to try and find a way to win win with some of the least effective armies, that might be a little more complex, but that is the challenge. As it is with trying to win with an aggressive mono element type army such as the Vikings, against differing opponent combinations in non ideal terrain. There would be no fun if everyone fought with ideal effective armies that looked and felt the same.
|
|